Collective bargaining questions for IB and AZ

[srellim234]

In light of everything that has been argued recently about collective bargaining I have a few legal questions. I am counting on people involved in or studying the law like IB and AZ to clear them up for me.

I don't quote Wikipedia too often but it had the easiest explanations of what has led me to the questions. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

"Collective bargaining is a process of negotiations between employers and the representatives of a unit of employees aimed at reaching agreements which regulate working conditions. Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs..."

and

"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.[3] 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]"

Question 1: By definition aren't the very politicians in state legislatures who are trying to eliminate collective bargaining guilty of collective bargaining themselves and leaving it in place for themselves? After all, they are a group, they negotiate their wages and benefits with their employer by use of employee representatives (committee members) and they vote on their pay and benefits. It strikes me as very hypocritical of those legislators.

Question 2: Are we in effect violating international law or treaty when we allow states to deny collective bargaining to certain segments of our population? We have signed on to those articles.

Thanks ahead of time for whatever help you can give me in helping me understand this, IB and AZ.

For anyone else: Not trying to insult you or cut you. I just didn't want this to deteriorate into an ideological argument before the legal answers. I'm sure we will have the ideological discussion after we get the legal answers.

[themadscientist]

I find it very curious that they have targeted collective bargaining. I think collective bargaining is a good thing. The way it can be used to manipulate employers is not, but that is why I support the right to work. A union and membership in it is a product and a closed shop removes market forces that would influence membership and thus ensure a union operates in the best interests of its members. Gaining rapacious concessions ultimately is a bad thing as the host is killed. The attack on the unions is not coming from an objective desire to restore balance, but rather cut their legs out from under them. The focus on this specific aspect of union activity is quite transparent and it concerns me.

[AZhitman]

Real simple answer: I do not profess to know enough about the topic to speak intelligently on it... Isaac has a much more comprehensive grasp on the topic than I do.

[IBCoupe]

Not sure that I do, but I'll look into it. I'm going to check on the international law thing first, 'cause I think that'll be easier to answer.

[IBCoupe]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Because the UN has to balance it's goals with national sovereignty in everything it does, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like much of what the UN can do, is pretty toothless:

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

It's not illegal to strip public employees of their bargaining rights, because the main law we'd turn to is the National Labor Relations Act, and it explicitly states that it does not apply to governments. That doesn't stop States from bargaining collectively (I believe most do), but the legal protections for those employees will have to come from the State legislatures, and what they giveth, they can taketh away.

[IBCoupe]

As for question 1, I think it's notable that they vote for their own pay raises, because they have to come from law. Even unions don't get to do that. Unless legislative pay raises are put to referendum, I don't know that there's a parallel on which to slap hypocrisy, but it certainly doesn't look good.

[srellim234]

Thank you for your honesty, AZ, and the answers, IB. I was trying to wrap my head around this and really didn't understand the legal aspects of it. Your help is greatly appreciated.

to both of you.

[AZhitman]

Here's what I *do* know...

No raises for state employees for the past 5 years.... no COLA, no merit increases, and a pretty widespread hiring freeze.

No amount of organization of workers will change that.

I'm wearing 3 hats nowadays, plus I don't have an admin assistant that's worth a s***.... Unfortunately, despite my strong work ethic and moral compass, I'm rapidly adopting the "it'll get done when it gets done" mentality. It's simply not economically feasible for me to "go the extra mile".


.....and that was probably WAAAAY off-topic.

[IBCoupe]

I wish I had connections for you, Greg. Everybody in Phoenix that I know is either retired or in worse shape than you.

[AZhitman]

I'm certainly not complaining... I knew a long time ago that the only way I'd ever accomplish my goals was to start and build a business.

"Connections" are great when you're 20. At 40, you'd better have all that established, or it's a bleak outlook.

The upside to all that is that I bring a TON more to the table than they're paying for, so I get some leeway as far as schedule flexibility, executive decision making, and direction for our agency. I'm way more fortunate than I deserve.