Hypothetical Question re: CA Public Workers Unions

self | 1 July 09 | Natural Law

[Natural Law]

The state constitution of California gives a great deal of power directly to the people via the initiative process.

Question: Does anyone know the legality or constitutionality of a potential ballot initiative that would prohibit the state government from recognizing, certifying and otherwise dealing or negotiating with Public Workers Unions?

[Eva]

The courts have ruled that cities cannot be forced to honor union contracts if they dont' have the money to pay them.

The SEIU lost several similar cases in WA state this year. If there is no money, there is no contract. The idea was that the Democrats would sign all these contracts and then have the courts order a tax increase to fund them, but it didn't work out that way.

[Oldexpat]

We could pass an initiative limiting public employees retirement payouts and also limiting payout of sick days etc. Those formula’s need reform. Better yet an initiative could terminate all defined benefit plans and subsitute defined contribution plans..like most business’s have done. This would greatly limit the state and local govt pension liabilities.

[Publius6961]

The SEIU lost several similar cases in WA state this year. If there is no money, there is no contract. The idea was that the Democrats would sign all these contracts and then have the courts order a tax increase to fund them, but it didn't work out that way.

It's a symbiotic criminal relationship and it has worked for a long time: institutional political nepotism. You vote for me, I make sure we pass the taxes necessary to pay you more than your work is worth and we both win!

...screw the real taxpayer...

[jimfree]

The populist provisions of the CA constitution are very powerful. Would love to see it pursued!

[LALALAW]

For a start, CA should try what failed in Colorado. I bet the dynamic is ripe for something like this to pass in CA. If the unions are forced to get their members to write a check, they will soon become ineffective-or so the theory goes.

The Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions, or Amendment 49 would have prohibited public employers in Colorado—which would include state government agencies, city and county governments, and public school districts—from using payroll deductions to benefit private organizations. The initiative language still would have allowed state and local governments to take regular payroll deductions for charitable contributions, so the measure would primarily affect labor unions. The measure, formerly initiative 53, was officially certified for the ballot as Amendment 49 on July 24, 2008.

[telebob]

My memory is fuzzy on this one but I believe that the USSC ruled in the 60’s sometime that public employees have the right to organize and be represented by unions. That includes cops and firefighters as well as normal workers.

I don’t think CA can just void that decision.

[Wuli]

That’s a fight we do not need to make in order to tame them.

Instead, we can use legislation to establish that CA state government wages and benefits are not set by any form of bargaining; but instead are set by law;

a law that would require identification of a private sector equivalent for each government job and that requires each government job’s salary and benefits be limited to NO GREATER THAN the median level (smack in the middle) found among all such similar jobs in the private sector in the state.

It would include things like “years of experience” in the private sector data, with varying wage and benefit levels distinguished by years in that job, and those variations could be applied in conjunction with the years of experience of the government job holder.

“Consultants” require a whole ‘nother set of rules, to be allowed and yet so that use of consultants is not an abuse.