From: rsrchsoc@ionet.net (John Wilde) To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] Right to work Trial Baloon Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:08:10 -0700
Except for one small problem. Government worker unions may be invalid. Period.
If all of you remember after the IRS abuse hearings in 1996 and 1997 there was a lot of hoopla over the 1998 Reform Act that would have made it easier to fire IRS agents who abuse their authority. After 3 years people wondered why only 1 agent had been fired. A recent examination of the Treasury Workers Union collective bargaining agreements permits the "Commissioner to mitigate" any punishment that a Treasury worker would otherwise face for abuses of authority.
Because this "mitigation clause" was already in the contract at the time the reform law was passed, the new law "could not impair the Commissioner's obligation to honor the contract with the union. The Commissioner's recent statement in testimony before Congress shows the problem with the Union Contract. He said something to the effect "You don't understand, I have to assure the employees under my management that they will have a job tomorrow."
In essence, because of the Union contract, IRS employees are being given carte blanche to circumvent constitutional protections without fear of being punished.
I would venture to say that the Union Contracts with the State and Local Governments has some of the same protections. A careful study would probably reveal that is part of a reason why there is this requirement to file an administrative tort claim before filing suit against the agency. And even if you do prevail in the suit, for the more agregious acts, the gummint worker is not fired, merely reassigned.
Because Union contracts with gummint workers creates to much of an opening to protect those workers even when they engage in conduct that contitutes a know violation of rights, I would seek to ban any "union" contracts with government workers period. They already have a contract. The State and U.S. Constitutions. In that rhelm you can also bar the use of "judicial immunity, qualified immunity and absolute immunity, and the State's sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment."
Union contracts with private business and its workers we can't do much about. We probably can't ban them, only regulate them to the extent that is already being done. So think about. Those words about "not being radical enough" and taking the most extreme position. I say it is time to ban gummint worker unions, period.
g'day John Wilde
Kent Van Cleave wrote:
> I'd say this is a good amendment ... but not a particularly useful > one. The philosophical distinctions required of voters in order to > make sense of why this is even proposed will be significant. Most > probably won't quite get it. And the desired result, even if obtained, > will have only a marginal effect on how business is conducted in AZ. > > What's going on here? There's a reasonable concern that legislation > will limit the ability of workers to organize for mutual benefit. > There's also a concern that state support of labor organizations will > violate the rights of workers to negotiate their own personal > contracts with employers. > > What to do? > > Current law limits the power of labor organizations to dictate what > people who DON'T belong to their unions may do. This is a good thing. > It's not optimum, but it's not likely to create bad scenarios. > > Consider the forces in play. Labor forces want to organize, > consolidate, etc. Individuals want to work for decent pay. If there is > no way for workers to force employers to employ them (via labor laws), > then employers can hire whoever they think will produce the best > results for them. Sorta natural, eh? > > But when agreements between "representatives" of workers and employers > conflict with the desires of particular workers, there's a problem. > > Frankly, I think other issues are more productive for the libertarian > activist. > > Kent > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Orville R. Weyrich_Jr. > To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:16 PM > Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Right to work Trial Baloon > > > The AZ Constitution as currently written says: > > ARTICLE XXV > > RIGHT TO WORK > > Right to work or employment without membership in labor organization > > No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain > employment > because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the > State or > any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or > association of > any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes > any > person from employment or continuation of employment because of > non-membership in a labor organization. > > =========== > > I would like to remove the government force aspects of the above, > and > allow private entities to contract as they wish. However, I do want > to > retain restrictions on closed shop unions of GOVERNMENT workers -- > the > government wields too much force to be subjected to closed shop > unions > pulling the strings. > > I propose to change to the following -- please comment: > > No person shall be denied BY FORCE OF LAW OR USE OF FORCE the > opportunity > to obtain or retain employment because of MEMBERSHIP OR > non-membership in > a labor organization, nor shall the State or any subdivision thereof > [note > deletion of private entities] enter into any agreement, written or > oral, > which excludes any person from employment or continuation of > employment > because of MEMBERSHIP OR non-membership in a labor organization. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Orville R. Weyrich, Jr PhD. mailto:liberty@AmeriRoots.com > > Candidate, District 8 AZ State Senate > http://www.VoteOrville.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Community Web Page: > http://groups.yahoo.com/community/lpaz-discuss > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Community Web Page: > http://groups.yahoo.com/community/lpaz-discuss > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Community Web Page: http://groups.yahoo.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/