Protests In Wisconsin

[AGDee]

Since I can't sleep anyway, I started looking up some things about collective bargaining and found this excellent FAQ. http://clear.uhwo.hawaii.edu/CB-FAQ.html#Q1

Frankly, I don't see how what they've done is legal. The National Labor Relations Act seems pretty clear to me. The only "gotcha" could be the line at the end.. that it applies to members of unions in the private sector and members of unions that represent both public and private employees. It looks like AFSCME is the *the* public employee union for federal, state and city employees. So... they take ONE private employee group in and they become a union that represents both, right? I know, probably not that simple, but it seems they can get around this somehow.

[Ghostwriter]

^^^I think you are correct in that the wording is "public" versus "private". My understanding is that the public sector does not have the same options under Unionization as the private sector. This is not particular to our times and has been the case as with the Air Traffic Controllers etc. The public sector is allowed options to bargain at the behest of the states. There are several states that absolutely do not allow collective bargaining on the part of the public unions. My state being one.

General Statute (GS) 95-98, the North Carolina law prohibiting collective bargaining for public workers

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Since I can't sleep anyway, I started looking up some things about collective bargaining and found this excellent FAQ. http://clear.uhwo.hawaii.edu/CB-FAQ.html#Q1

Frankly, I don't see how what they've done is legal. The National Labor Relations Act seems pretty clear to me. The only "gotcha" could be the line at the end.. that it applies to members of unions in the private sector and members of unions that represent both public and private employees. It looks like AFSCME is the *the* public employee union for federal, state and city employees. So... they take ONE private employee group in and they become a union that represents both, right? I know, probably not that simple, but it seems they can get around this somehow.

There is some other piece that was referenced, that suggested there's a federal prohibition on removing union rights from the point at which some law was passed. I believe it referenced employees who would be covered under Depts of Transportation. Something about losing federal money if they removed union rights that had existed when that law was passed. I'll look into it and see if I can find the reference.

ETA:
Found it referenced from the HuffPo

Under an obscure provision of federal labor law, states risk losing federal funds should they eliminate "collective bargaining rights" that existed at the time when federal assistance was first granted. The provision, known as "protective arrangements" or "Section 13C arrangements," is meant as a means of cushioning union (and even some non-union) members who, while working on local projects, are affected by federal grants....

Moreover, in an a nearly unnoticed report filed by the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the non-partisan budget scorekeeper, the stakes are laid fairly bare.

"According to information from the U.S. Department of Labor, the proposed changes in collective bargaining rights included under SS SB 11 could impact the ability of unionized transit systems in the state to receive existing federal transit aid, unless actions are taken to protect the collective bargaining rights of their employees," the memo reads. "If the federal Department of Labor makes the determination that the changes under SS SB 11 affect the continuation of collective bargaining rights, and protections of transit employee's wages, working conditions, pension benefits, seniority, vacation, sick and personal leave, travel passes, and other conditions of employment, the Federal Transit Authority could not provide federal transit funding under there provisions." (See the full document below.)

Source

This said, the Assembly exempted transit unions at some point but I'm not 100% sure that it passed there or if it was included in the senate's bill.