Proposed Constitutional Amendment is another con job.

by Rob Roper

When Vermonters vote this November (or, more accurately when Vermonters vote at some point between September 24^th and November 3^rd during our ludicrous election-month-and-a-half) we will have to decide whether or not to pass yet another constitutional amendment, this one called Proposition 3, or “The Right to Collectively Bargain.” Just going to say up front, vote NO on this because it’s another bait and switch, nice name that doesn’t actually describe what the real impact of the amendment will be.

The “right to collectively bargain” already exists in Vermont. It exists everywhere. The First Amendment cites the right to peaceably assemble, a.k.a. freedom of association. The uber-powerful Vermont NEA (Teachers’ Union) and Vermont State Employees Association are testament to Vermont’s union-friendliness. So why do we need a Constitutional Amendment? Here’s what Prop 3 says:

That employees have a right to organize or join a labor organization for the purpose of collectively bargaining with their employer through an exclusive representative of their choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions and to protect their economic welfare and safety in the workplace. Therefore, no law shall be adopted that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to collectively bargain with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety, or that prohibits the application or execution of an agreement between an employer and a labor organization representing the employer’s employees that requires membership in the labor organization as a condition of employment. [Emphasis added].

Okay. If this is just about the Right to Collectively Bargain, the first sentence says it all. It’s redundant with current policy and the US Constitution, but if you must “do something,” why not leave it there? Because it’s the second sentence where the sneaky happens, specifically the phrase “…no law shall be adopted that interferes, negates, or diminishes….” Like a law that allows one to individually bargain with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions?

Like, say, Right to Work, which allows employees to opt out of paying dues to a union they don’t want to join? Or The Workers’ Choice Act, which would allow individuals to negotiate contracts directly with employers? What about protecting the secret ballot for union elections in the face of union calls for “Card Check,” which basically allows union thugs to pressure people in-person to sign a binding petition saying they want to form a union instead of voting yes or no in private? “So, do yous want to join the union or keep your thumbs? I thought so! Sign here.” Would a law banning so-called Card Check “diminish” the right of people to collectively bargain? It’s a vague term that fer sure opens a huge opening for an activist judge. And this, I gather, is the entire point behind this amendment.

No, Prop 3 is not about solidifying one’s right to join a labor union; it’s about taking away the rights of anyone who doesn’t want to join a labor union. And that’s not fair or just.

It’s not only immoral, it’s economically and demographically stupid. Vermont politicians say over and over again that we need to attract young workers. Well, there are 26 Right-to-Work states in the U.S. today. Over the last decade and a half, those states gained an estimated 7.2 million residents – with working aged populations playing a large role in that gain — while the non-right-to-work states such as Vermont lost 7.1 million people. Looking at the statistic another way regarding our declining K-12 population, the under the under-18 population in non-right-to-work states fell 2.2% over a decade, while it grew 10.2% in right-to-work states. What results do we want in Vermont?

Granted there are a lot of factors that play a part in where more people are choosing to move to, such as lower taxes, more job opportunities, a more affordable cost of living…. But policies like Right to Work are a consistent part of the policy package that is attracting younger working people. So, if we truly wanted more workers in Vermont, our politicians never would have pushed Prop 3 in the first place, and instead would be doing the opposite — passing laws to make Vermont the 27^th Right-to-Work state and/or a state version of the Workers’ Choice Act. Instead, they are pushing a constitutional amendment guaranteeing Vermont can never join the economically prosperous family of Right to Work states. Are they evil or just dumb? You decide with your vote on Prop 3.

And, seriously, as a Vermont voters and taxpayers do we really want to reward the VTNEA with even more power after it used its substantial influence to shut down our schools during COVID for far longer that was necessary causing major disruption for families and doing untold damage to our children? Do we want to give more power to those is driving up our property taxes to unaffordable levels while delivering declining student outcomes? Or the State Employees who are still fighting a return to office request half a decade after the pandemic was over? Count me as a NO vote on Prop 3. I’m not falling for it.