Pennsylvania unions push misleading labor amendment modeled after Illinois’ Amendment 1
Pennsylvania’s House Bill 950 is worded exactly like Illinois’ Amendment 1. Illinois labor leaders recently claimed Illinois’ amendment is the “blueprint” for other states, such as Pennsylvania.
Illinois has long been a bastion of union power, with unions nationwide taking their cues from what goes on in Illinois.
The Pennsylvania amendment won’t be on the ballot until 2025 – if it makes it that far. It first has to clear both chambers of the Pennsylvania General Assembly in consecutive sessions.
In the meantime, voters will likely be bombarded with false messages from unions trying to trick them into thinking the amendment will protect workers. But as in Illinois, collective bargaining in Pennsylvania already is protected by federal and state law. The amendment is not necessary.
Here are three facts voters in Pennsylvania should consider from the Illinois experience.
The amendment cannot apply to private-sector employees
The language in the amendment appears to apply to all “employees” – both in the private and public sectors.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already made it explicitly clear the NLRA precludes states such as Illinois from providing rights or regulating unionization in the private sector: “States may not regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits.”
Because the federal government already regulates collective bargaining in the private sector, states cannot do so through state laws or amendments. Even the Illinois amendment’s sponsor in the Illinois Senate said the amendment could not apply to the private sector.
The only part of the amendment that could apply in the private sector is the last provision, which bans laws that would allow private-sector union workers to decide for themselves whether to join or pay a union. But that provision is a restriction on – not a right granted to – private-sector union workers, and it bucks the trend of the majority of states.
The amendment will drive up the cost of government, necessitating higher taxes
While the amendment cannot apply to private-sector unions, it does provide extensive power to government union leaders. They will be able to demand new contract provisions that will drive up the cost of government.
But the amendment’s language broadens the demands government unions can make beyond wages and benefits to include undefined new subjects such as “economic welfare.” That could mean virtually anything. During a debate before the passage of Amendment 1 in Illinois, professor and Amendment 1 proponent Elizabeth Tandy Shermer admitted, “We actually don’t know what’s going to be in these union contracts. We don’t know at all.”
Those increased demands mean government contracts will cost even more money than in the past. Not to mention the more subjects there are to negotiate, the longer the negotiations will take – and the higher the cost for attorneys to simply get the contract finalized.
And that means taxpayers would be stuck in an endless loop of higher government costs and rising taxes under the amendment.
The amendment allows government unions to override state and local laws
The language of the amendment gives government union leaders the extraordinary power to override laws through provisions in their collective bargaining agreements.
The amendment doesn’t just guarantee a right to bargain over typical labor issues such as wages and benefits. Instead, it adds the generic terms “safety at work” and “economic welfare” to the mix of negotiable subjects – making the issues that can be negotiated virtually unlimited.
The language of the amendment also prohibits lawmakers from passing a law interfering with, negating or diminishing its reach. That means lawmakers will never be able to limit what unions can demand in negotiations. They will never be able to restrict when government unions go on strike to get those demands met.
What’s more, the contracts created under the amendment will carry the weight of the constitution, allowing government unions to override state laws.
A review of Illinois’ state statutes revealed the amendment would allow government unions to override more than 350 provisions related to schools, children and other residents.
When a similar amendment was attempted by unions in Michigan in 2012, then-Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette penned a memorandum explaining the amendment would overrule more than 170 existing Michigan laws.
After failing to pass the amendment in Michigan in 2012, unions waited 10 years before trying again. Now that they’ve passed it in Illinois, they aren’t sitting back for another decade.