HAWAII ANSWERS FRIEDRICHS
Politico: …Legislation proposed in the Hawaii House of Representatives would establish a public employee collective bargaining fund to cover some collective bargaining expenses. The legislation is a response to the pending Supreme Court decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which will likely hold mandatory non-member fair share fees unconstitutional.
The Hawaiian proposal would require the state to disburse funds to an exclusive bargaining representative pursuant to a contract between a union and the state's department of budget and finance. The union "need not represent employees who do not pay reasonable costs of representation,” suggesting the state is open to some form of minority unionization on the European model. (NLRB precedent till now has required unions to win a majority within a bargaining unit and then to represent all its members, regardless of whether they join the union.)
Vinnie Vernuccio, the labor director at the conservative Mackinac Center, who alerted Morning Shift to the legislation, said the establishment of a state fund might make public-sector unions quasi-state agencies, or might violate state gift laws. But he said his organization might still support the minority union provision. “If they’re saying nonmembers can represent themselves, I think that’s something bipartisan that both the left and the right should get behind.”….
Read … POLITICO
HB1886: Text, Status
Background:
From Inside the Supreme Court, the Key Exchanges on a Case Pitting Unions vs. First Amendment
Friedrichs v CTA: Will Supreme Court End Mandatory Union Membership for Government Employees Nationwide?
|