Secret Squirrel is considering the heinous and most definitely illegal moves in Wisconsin and possibly to be followed in and by other states, with respect to what appears to be attempts at union breaking,union eliminating,union dismantelling,union busting, by and through passage of what amounts to be
illegal,internationally and Federally, legislation with the ends to eliminate, remove,revoke, rescind the RIGHT of the unions and their memberships to collective bargaining.It ranks indeed as a most heinous crime, similar in the horror of say, removing the right to the "Habeas Corpus" the ancient guaranteed common law writ.Indeed the headlines read.........
Wisconsin Assembly approves anti-union bill
The Republican-controlled chamber passes a bill that strips most government workers of their collective bargaining rights. State Senate Democrats are still absent, stalling thelegislation.
Here found at and in the L.A. Times, at
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wisconsin-assembly-20110226,0,1430375.story
Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Assembly early Friday approved a controversial bill to strip most government workers of their rights to collectively bargain, but the measure remains stalled because Democrats in the state Senate remain out of state to prevent a vote in that chamber.
The 51-17 vote came after 60 solid hours of debate; shortly after 1 a.m. Republicans abruptly cut off Democrats and quickly tallied enough votes for the measure to pass, then closed the roll. Twenty-eight Democrats, two Republicans and an independent were not able to cast their vote. Four Republicans opposed the measure.Outraged Democrats chanted, "Shame! Shame!" as Republicans silently marched out of the chamber, protected by police...................." and here ends the article quotes.
In short Democrats attempted to filibuster the attempt, but the Republicans cut short debate,forcing Democrats to leave to attempt to block or at least delay passage of the bill,a bill so repugnant that it is.Interestingly now, can other companies with unionized workers,also now not, in equity and equality,also reject collective bargaining? Interestingly this horse of a different color, should this not be applicable there and by them, it would be a violation against said
company,an inequity,an inequality, an inequity, which the law is in itself.The bill also requires that public employees make a 5.8 percent pension contribution and a 12.6 percent health insurance contribution.Health insurance can be legislated, but the pension increase as such must be by agreement,not dictated as we all have seen massive examples of pension fund abuses at all levels,most definitely detrimental to the workers, not even the pensions,as agreed in the bill, are reliable and absolutely guaranteed, but also can be lost to them at virtually any time.
Actually it's much more than union busting, it's a violation of acquired civil and human rights,and should in fact be taken up by Civil Liberties,taken to the Supreme Court as such a violation.What it amounts to besides being union busting(it is the equivalent,and an excess of of the Prohibition Amendment),it is in fact, an emergence of,quite bluntly and correctly,communism,a suppressive,repressive violation and removal of the rights of man.
The Cornell Sun goes in to much more detail, here quoted from
http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2011/02/22/professors-divided-over-changes-wisconsin-collective-bargaining
Professors Divided Over Changes To Wisconsin Collective Bargaining
February 22, 2011
By Matthew Rosenspire
SB-11, a budget repair bill introduced by Republican Governor Scott Walker on Feb. 15, will change collective bargaining laws for most public employees, upsetting many Wisconsin workers. The bill also requires that public employees make a 5.8 percent pension contribution and a 12.6 percent health insurance contribution.
Walker introduced the bill to try to establish a business climate suitable for private sector growth, according to a Feb. 15 press release. He hopes to create 250,000 new jobs by the end of his first term, according to the release.
“[The bill] makes the tough decisions necessary to move toward the goal of private sector job creation,” he stated.
Among the changes the bill will make to collective bargaining, unions will be limited to bargaining over base wages and will not be able to negotiate new raises beyond the rate of inflation without a statewide referendum.
In addition, the bill requires that unionized workers re-vote every year on whether to continue allowing their union to represent them.
Under the bill, employers would no longer deduct union members’ dues from their pay checks. Instead, members would file dues separately. Furthermore, non-members do not have to pay agency fees — their version of dues — to receive the same benefits as those who pay the union.
Prof. Patrick Wright, industrial and labor relations, said the bill is a necessary step toward balancing state budgets.
He stressed, however, that altering public sector benefits is not enough and encouraged state governments to address non-labor related costs as well.
The bill has stirred national uproar, with 30,000 protesters filling Madison, Wis., on Saturday.
“[The bill] is a politically motivated attack on workers,” said Prof. Rebecca Givan, industrial and labor relations.
She said many of the collective bargaining revisions are designed not to fix budget issues, but rather to break unions and keep them out of politics. Givan referred to annual representation elections, which she said detract funds from unions’ outside political work, as an example.Givan expressed concern that the elimination of dues deductions and mandatory agency fees — a key source of funding for union administration — in Wisconsin could inspire similar private sector legislation in Northern states. Prof. Nick Salvatore, industrial and labor relations, echoed Givan’s sentiment. He referred to a bill similar to SB-11 that the Ohio state legislature is currently considering.
“There has been a history in many states of negotiations, which have not considered the future [that] has been exacerbated by the financial crisis. Walker is using the unions as a scapegoat,” Salvatore said.
From a historical standpoint, however, Salvatore said he was more concerned with Walker’s reference to the National Guard in a speech addressing protests to the bill.“The National Guard has rarely been a neutral player in labor relations,” Salvatore said.Prof. Joseph McCartin, history, Georgetown University, who specializes in labor history, stated in an e-mail that he regards Walker’s discussion of National Guard as an unfortunate “bit of political theater.”
“Wisconsin has a painful labor history associated with state troops. In 1886, a group of state militiamen fired into an unarmed crowd of strikers in Milwaukee, killing several,” McCartin said. “Whether intended to or not, the governor’s action invoked this painful memory.”
McCartin said he sees the bill as part of a trend from bipartisan support for collective bargaining rights.In addition to protesters in Madison, an AFL-CIO press release stated that 50 solidarity events in 29 states are planned for the coming week.
And here ends the quotes from the article.........
Well now, let's pursue the matter somewhat farther as to it's actual implications,the major fact being that International law on the right to bargain collectively exists and applies in both private and public workplaces. The United States championed the International Labor Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, under which the US pledged "to promote and to realize ... fundamental rights" defined in the declaration, the
first of which is "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining."
The United States is also a party to and bound by its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees everyone the right to protect his or her interests through trade union activity. As the Human Rights Committee has made clear on multiple occasions, that includes collective bargaining. Denying the right to collective bargaining would violate this international treaty, Human Rights Watch said.Most major advanced democratic countries honor collective bargaining rights of public employees. For example, all EU countries allow public sector workers to bargain collectively.
In a 2008 case, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey's restrictions on public employee bargaining rights violated the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the province of British Columbia to restore collective bargaining agreements nullified by legislation.
By contrast, many undemocratic countries restrict or prohibit collective bargaining by public employees. For example, the Egyptian government has prohibited public sector collective bargaining. It allowed public employee unions to exist, but in name only, favoring government-controlled unions and quashing any attempt to bargain collectively.
Under federal law in the United States, public employees' right to organize is respected, compliant with international standards. However, federal law severely restricts subjects of bargaining in ways that run afoul of international standards - federal employees cannot bargain over economic issues such as pay and benefits, for example.At the US state level, many states respect the right to organize and bargain collectively and allow wide scope for subjects of bargaining, consistent with international standards. Other states, like North Carolina, prohibit collective bargaining altogether, in violation of international human rights norms.While some on the conservative Republican Right are wringing
their hands in anguish that teachers have actually stood up for their rights as workers, the U.S. Catholic bishops have thrown their moral weight behind the pro-union protesters in Wisconsin saying the "rights of workers do not abate in difficult economic times."
According to the AP, the chairman of the U.S. bishops' committee on domestic justice said "The debates over worker representation and collective bargaining are not simply matters of ideology or power, but involve principles of justice, participation and how workers can have a voice in the workplace and economy."
The bishops' support for unions came in the form of a public letter addressed to Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki, who had already said on Feb. 17 that "hard times do not nullify the moral obligation each of us has to respect the legitimate rights of workers."
Collective bargaining includes not only negotiations between the employers and unions but also includes the process of resolving labor-management conflicts. Thus, collective bargaining is, essentially, a recognized way of creating a system of industrial jurisprudence. It acts as a method of introducing civil rights in the industry, that is, the management should be conducted by rules rather than arbitrary decision making. It establishes rules which define and restrict the traditional authority exercised by the management.It restricts management’s freedom for arbitrary action against the employees. Moreover, unilateral actions by the employer are also discouraged.As of 1970 the International Labour Organization had adopted 130 Conventions, one of which was the right to organize and collective bargaining and the United States is an effective member,establishes amongst member nations the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949. The states are in direct violation of the ILO and moving contrary to this.
It is,there for necessary for the Federal government to move to re establish the legal and guaranteed status quo and see to it that the tenants of the ILO are adhered to among the United States' internal member states.Again there is legal conflict being instigated by the states,contrary to international law,rules, and agreements. The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.
Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.[4]Further more In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) covers most collective agreements in the private sector. This act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate, spy on, harass, or terminate the employment of workers because of their union membership or to retaliate against them for engaging in organizing campaigns or other "concerted activities" to form "company unions", or to refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union that represents their employees. Unions are also exempt from antitrust law in the hope that
members may collectively fix a higher price for their labor.So not only are the individual states in violation of international laws,rule,regulations, and agreements,but also in similar fashion, they are contrary to the laws,rules and regulations set forth in America itself.Quite clearly, by whatever manner, by Presidential Decree, by actions taken by The Supreme Court, by actions initiated legally by and through The American Civil Liberties,the supposedly guaranteed and enshrined rights of the people,the unions, to unrestricted and free
method of collective bargaining must be upheld, and states attempting to enforce the restrictions of the removal of collective bargaining rights of the people, must be forced to conform to both American and International laws, rules and regulations guaranteeing the right to collective bargaining.
