The story later details that unions won’t actually be outlawed, but will face new restrictions on what they can ask for at the bargaining table, how they must conduct their internal affairs, etc. Basically, it seems to be trying to make being in a union or running a union both difficult and with no visible benefit; IMO it’s trying to make unions go away without actually banning them. Kinda like trying to keep people from using the sidewalk by saying “well you can walk there as long as you wear purple stilts and walk backwards and only make turns to the left”. Pretty soon no one is using the sidewalks because it’s a PITA and the effort vs. the reward ratio is too high.
Anyway, I have 2 questions about this bill.
Is it constitutionally sound? It seems to me that it places a lot of difficult and burdensome restrictions on a union and it’s membership which may conflict with federal law and possibly with our right to freely associate. In the case of teachers’ unions and other government service employees unions and what they can and cannot try and secure at the bargaining table, I question whether or not that is an attempt to limit people’s right to seek redress for grievances from the government as well.
Is this bill a good idea? It’s being talked about by supporters as a good thing because it will expenses, but it may very well do so at the cost of hundreds or thousands of teachers, police, firefighters, etc. leaving the state, which will collapse tax revenues so much that the “savings” become a moot point.
What do you think?