Pennsylvania’s new state House Democratic majority began considering a measure on Tuesday to enshrine forced unionism in the state Constitution.
The House of Representatives Labor and Industry Committee took testimony on legislation identical to an Illinois constitutional amendment that Prairie State voters narrowly approved last November. The Pennsylvania amendment proposed by State Representative Elizabeth Fiedler (D-Philadelphia) would forbid lawmakers to enact a right-to-work law banning contracts that demand union-dues payments even from nonmembers.
Fiedler’s proposal would also give public-sector collective-bargaining agreements primacy over state labor statutes. The amendment stipulates, “No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment and work place safety….”
Fiedler (pictured above), a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, could not attend the hearing, though committee Chair Jason Dawkins (D-Philadelphia) read aloud the written remarks she submitted.
“Workers are under tremendous pressure to work more quickly, to be more efficient, to stretch their paychecks ever farther to cover the rising costs of housing, food and childcare,” she wrote. “Workers are often pressured to do their jobs in unsafe working conditions for much less money than their labor is actually worth and to deal with unprecedented work schedules. Workers and their families deserve better; they deserve fair pay, safe working conditions, healthcare and predictable work schedules that allow workers time outside of work to spend with their family and their community.”
Her principal cosponsor State Representative Nick Pisciottano (D-West Mifflin), a committee member, posited that the amendment’s purpose is to “recognize the rights of workers and acknowledge their importance to our economy….”
Dawkins, who noted at the outset that his committee would have the hearing room for one hour, allotted amendment supporters 43 minutes to testify and take questions from lawmakers. Only one opponent, Commonwealth Foundation senior fellow David R. Osborne, got just 76 seconds to summarize his four pages of written comments against the bill.
The chairman first welcomed remarks from Jimmy Greene and described the former Starbucks worker as having been “fired for union organizing.” Coverage sympathetic to Greene by Pittsburgh Union Progress, as well as Greene’s own hearing comments, indicated the firing resulted from a “scheduling dispute,” something he insisted Starbucks used as a pretense to dismiss him.
Green, whose union is working to reinstate him, said his former workplace only agreed to needed safety improvements after staff unionized.
“Together, we are fighting for improvements to our workplace, including health and safety, wages and pay,” he said. “High-quality healthcare, fair schedule[s] and expanded time off. We’re also fighting for the right to organize and stronger protections of our rights. We need the legislature to do the same — not just defend union rights but expand them.”
Also testifying were Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President Angela Ferritto, Central Pennsylvania Building and Construction Trades President Joe Gusler, and Association of Pennsylvania State College & University Faculties (APSCUF) President Ken Mash.
Yet, except in the case of APSCUF, the Fiedler bill would not affect current policy regarding the organizations represented at Tuesday’s hearing. That’s because Pennsylvania law already fails to protect workers from contract provisions requiring that they pay union dues whether they want to join such an organization. The National Labor Relations Act strictly inhibits private-sector employers from resisting organization efforts.
“Private-sector unions and employees would have little to gain from [the proposed amendment], and I’d suggest that they would be far better served if this committee were to focus on growing our economy and making Pennsylvania more attractive to out-of-state businesses,” Osborne stated in his written testimony.
When it comes to public-sector workers, however, Osborne expects the effect of Fiedler’s measure could be profound because it would allow government-employee contract provisions to override state law.
“In fact, whether it was intentional or not, this language effectively ‘constitutionalizes’ nearly everything public-sector unions do,” he wrote. “Think: If the government can’t lift a finger to even ‘diminish’ the right to organize or bargain, then every organizing campaign, strike, or collective bargaining agreement trumps any state law, and unions never lose another battle. Union executives will be more powerful than any lawmaker or elected body.”
Osborne anticipates “a flood” of union lawsuits arguing that state statutes compromise union officials’ ability to bargain on behalf of public-sector workers. “Unending strikes,” he added, could also be a consequence.
To become part of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Fiedler’s measure will need to pass both houses of the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions and then gain majority approval from Pennsylvania voters. Her bill faces long odds in the GOP-controlled Senate.
– – –
Bradley Vasoli is managing editor of The Pennsylvania Daily Star. Follow Brad on Twitter at @BVasoli. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Elizabeth Fiedler” by Elizabeth Fiedler. Background Photo “Capitol” by Schindlerdigital. CC BY-SA 4.0.
