Now, New Jersey Governer Chris Christie speaks out, saying that while he believes in fair and reasonable bargaining, he sees it as a state by state decision whether to uphold collective bargaining rights. He asserts that these rights are granted by lawmakers and can be overturned - they "didn't come down from tablets at the top of a mountain" or our Constitution for that matter, so states can take them away if they want to.
Sounds like a federalism issue. Do the states have the final say on collective bargaining rights, or are they bound by the federal government to honor them?
2 comments:
If these rights are granted by elected lawmakers- aka the Governer in this case- then NJ's Governer is correct in asserting that these rights can be oveturned. However if collective bargaining propisms are not present in the Constitution, then it seems to me to be an issue purely left to the states.
I do think that unions should still be allowed to ask for improvements to their salary, however based on the way things are going it doesnt seem like teachers and other public servants will retain these rights.
In my opinion, just because something is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it doesn't mean that it automatically becomes an issue that needs to be handled by the states. Some things are just better handled by the federal government. In this specific case, I think it's pretty clear that the states are bound by the federal government to honor collective bargaining rights. The National Labor Relations Act, which is a United States federal law, protects the rights of labor unions to engage in collective bargaining rights, and according to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, "the Laws of the United States... shall be the supreme law of the land." Thus, as I see it, the states have no right to take away collective bargaining rights. I don't see on what grounds the governor is saying it's okay to abolish these rights.
Post a Comment