Here is the addendum to the Court's ruling that A.J. Marokai Blue mentioned:
Further at issue to the court is the Northeast's "Practical Labor Policy Act" which, according to the Union Representative, prompted the strike in question.
Article VI, Clause 10 States:
Persons in employment shall have the right to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining, with such exceptions as the Senate may provide for by Law on the grounds of vital national interest.The Court believes that this would clearly infer at least some level of constitutional protection for striking, as "organizing for the purposes of collective bargaining" is an empty statement without the ability to organize and use their power to bargain for benefits the workers in question view as necessary.
It is because of this Clause that we find much of the Practical Labor Policy Act unconstitutional. For example,
Clause 3 of the Practical Labor Policy Act clearly is an effort to intimidate workers from striking or work stoppages, and it effectively boxes the union in question into a position to where they can't strike, or they will be crippled financially, it basically reverses the point of striking to begin with, since it changes unions striking to force the business/region to cave to their demands to the region/business being able to hold out and cripple the
union instead.
This is, for lack of a kinder term, ass-backwards, and eerily reminiscent of an attitude plucked from the 19th century. The Northeast Region is too fearful to simply outlaw striking completely, preferring to try and find ways to
punish people for exercising their right to organize and strike. It goes without saying that any government cannot cleverly evade issues of constitutionality by punishing someone for exercising their rights as opposed to outright banning something.
We strike down this clause as unconstitutional.
We take a balanced line on this clause.
The point of a strike is to put pressure on the employer to gain concessions. The union depends on this power as their last-resort measure when all other options fail. It puts considerable pressure, however, not only on the employer, but also the employees.
The ability to immediately replace employees with cheaper labor not only does considerable harm to the strikers, but it most importantly effectively neuters the point of striking to begin with. What power do unions have to strike, if it came to such, if those workers could just be immediately removed from employment?
We find such a policy in direct contradiction with Article VI, Clause 10.
However, this ruling does not grant the ability for endless striking. Some level of pragmatism is necessary for the security of the government and the economy of the Republic of Atlasia. On one hand, we must protect the right to use their striking power to force concessions as it is their constitutional right, yet on the other, consideration must be given to national security.
We also believe this is entirely within the boundaries of Article VI, Clause 10, that, while protecting organizing and collective bargaining, includes the statement: "
with such exceptions as the Senate may provide for by Law on the grounds of vital national interest."
We therefore would suggest that the Senate of Atlasia determine a reasonable "time limit" for striking, which would put a ceiling on the amount a strike can go on, so that it would preserve the power a union has in striking, but also protect the economic and national security.
(Different distinctions could be given to the size of the union or business in question, but it must be a reasonable limit that balances both of these concerns and stands the test of future possible legal challenges.)
In any case, however, we strike down Clause 4 of the Practical Labor Policy Act as unconstitutional.
Purple State, representative of the Union of Northeast Public Service Employees, stated this in regard to Clause 5:
"
..Section 5 creates an environment for a "free rider" dilemma to emerge, in which there is no incentive to join a union if one benefits equally from the union's activities without paying the costs of dues. However, this inevitably undermines the relative bargaining power of the union, thus reducing the benefits gained from unionization. Lower benefits produce fewer and fewer that wish to pay the costs, further undermining the ability of the union to bargain effectively.
If I am reading Section 5 correctly, you are specifically enshrining a vicious cycle which will inevitably infringe upon the right of workers to organize for the purposes of collective bargaining, albeit indirectly."
We could not agree more.
Such a clause is a backhanded way, like much of the Act in question, of skirting Article VI, Clause 10 of the Constitution, and it cannot stand.
Unions exist to lobby and act (through various means) for greater benefits and improved workplace safety standards. Members of unions are, in theory, expected to work together for their greater good, and employees who do not join a union do not have those perks. This is a simple concept and the clear observable point of unionization in the first place.
Without the ability for unions to provide a unique set of benefits, there is no incentive to join a union in the first place. In Article VI, Clause 10 of the Constitution, it is important to remember "
..for the purpose of collective bargaining." Removing that ability, or in the Northeast's case, making it irrelevant, is an infringement on a union's unique power.
We therefore strike Clause 5 of the Practical Labor Policy Act as unconstitutional.
In concert with the final clause of the Practical Labor Policy Act, all clauses that have not been specifically mentioned in this ruling shall stand.
Opinion joined by J. Opebo and J. Marokai Blue
