During oral arguments in San Francisco, a majority of the justices seemed sympathetic to claims by city labor unions that it was illegal for then-Mayor Jerry Sanders to place the pension measure on the ballot without labor negotiations.
The justices seemed skeptical of claims by attorneys for the city and for Proposition B proponents that Sanders was not obligated to meet with the unions because he was supporting the measure as a private citizen, not as the mayor.
If the justices rule that the cutbacks were illegally placed on the ballot, the city could be forced to overturn them and possibly be required to spend millions creating retroactive pensions for about 4,000 workers hired since 2012.
Does the US supremes believe that individual and groups can have access to the ballot box restricted? In this case states rights may allow. If true, then the supreme, ruling against San Diego throws the ball back into the state legislature,
In my town, Fresno, the unions had the ballot and are allowed to initiate a referendum on city contracts, but the elected officials have that right restricted? Cities, and counties, will demand and get a legislative solution, otherwise way too many cities simply stop hiring.
What is the federal conflict?
Rights reserved for the individual, free speech and assembly. These supercede right of state legislatures. This is something even Sotomayor would be upset with.
When the state supremes decide the california 'rule', then they are likely to call it a valid, understood oral agreement, and that will command action by state legislature, simply due to the sudden shock to future spending.
The cal supremes would like to walk away here, there are no good outcomes except dumping back on the legislature. We are stuck with legislative law that gave unions extraordinary powers, going back to Reagan. The cities will slam shut awaiting legislative sorting. The economy will go through its limit cycle, sorting labor.
No comments:
Post a Comment