GOP Rallies Against Right-to-Strike Rule

Assembly Republican Leader Pat Nolan of Glendale is marshaling his GOP Caucus behind a proposed constitutional amendment in hopes of overturning last week’s California Supreme Court decision granting state and local government workers the right to strike.

The effort, to be announced later this week, is expected to draw heavy opposition from Democrats who control both houses of the Legislature. But it appears to have the backing of Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, who criticized the court for acting “without any kind of legal basis.”

Should the legislative efforts fail, GOP supporters believe the battle will galvanize public opinion and lay the groundwork for a ballot initiative.

Nolan is withholding any public comment until the proposal is unveiled Thursday.

1.4 Million Employees

An estimated 1.4 million public employees in California are directly affected by the 6-1 decision of the court, which held that government workers’ right to strike “represents a basic civil liberty.” The ruling was hailed by labor leaders but decried by government officials and Republican leaders who maintain that bans on public employee strikes are justified because of the essential nature of government services.

In addition to overturning the decision, the proposal being drafted by Assembly Republicans would attempt to head off unauthorized or “wildcat” strikes by allowing public agencies to fire workers after five days of unexcused absence.

Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. With the Democrats in control, few give the effort much chance of passage.

But Senate GOP Caucus Chairman John Seymour of Anaheim said the effort is worthwhile regardless of the outcome because it is likely to trigger an initiative that has a good chance of succeeding at the polls. “We believe the majority of citizens out there believe that public employees do not have the right to strike,” he said.

Deukmejian told reporters last week that while he has no intention of personally launching an initiative campaign or sponsoring legislation to overturn the court ruling, he strongly indicated that he would support either move.

“I would certainly be supportive of a proposal of that type,” Deukmejian said. “This was another example where the Supreme Court was legislating. . . . They just came in with a ruling that had no legal basis behind it.”

John Henning, executive secretary of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, said he views the Republican efforts as “part of a continuing struggle of the labor movement when it tries to protect workers’ rights.” Organized labor will oppose the measure with a high profile campaign, he said, adding that Democrats in the Legislature will be expected to back labor’s efforts.

Sympathy Expected

“I would assume Democrats would be sympathetic to our view unless they want to turn their backs on the labor movement in California,” Henning said. “That would be something very unwise on their behalf.”

The Democratic leadership, however, has been noticeably quiet on the subject. Assembly Speaker Willie Brown of San Francisco has refrained from any public statements.

The issue is particularly troublesome to the Democrats, who traditionally have supported organized labor but who have reason to worry about openly defending decisions of a court that is under attack from conservatives for its rulings on death penalty cases and other controversial matters.

Opponents of Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and three other liberal justices who are facing a confirmation vote in next year’s general election can be expected to add the right-to-strike issue to a list of grievances. Associate Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, the court’s newest member and Deukmejian’s only appointee, wrote the sole dissenting opinion on the ruling.