Constitutional amendment; right to work (first reference). (HJ536)

Introduced By

Del. Dickie Bell (R-Staunton) with support from co-patrons Del. Ben Cline (R-Amherst), Del. Rick Morris (R-Carrollton), and Del. Tony Wilt (R-Harrisonburg)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Constitutional amendment (first resolution); right to work. Provides that any agreement or combination between any employer and any labor union or labor organization whereby persons not members of such union or organization are denied the right to work for the employer, or whereby such membership is made a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer, or whereby any such union or organization acquires an employment monopoly in any enterprise, is against public policy and constitutes an illegal combination or conspiracy. Read the Bill »

Status

02/12/2013: passed committee

History

  • 07/24/2012 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13100075D
  • 07/24/2012 Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
  • 11/29/2012 Left in Privileges and Elections
  • 01/11/2013 Assigned P & E sub: Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee
  • 01/21/2013 Subcommittee recommends reporting (5-Y 0-N)
  • 01/25/2013 Reported from Privileges and Elections with amendment (17-Y 5-N) (see vote tally)
  • 01/29/2013 Taken up
  • 01/29/2013 Committee amendment agreed to
  • 01/29/2013 Engrossed by House as amended HJ536E
  • 01/29/2013 Printed as engrossed 13100075D-E
  • 01/29/2013 Agreed to by House (69-Y 30-N)
  • 01/29/2013 VOTE: ADOPTION (69-Y 30-N) (see vote tally)
  • 01/31/2013 Reading waived
  • 01/31/2013 Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
  • 02/12/2013 Reported from Privileges and Elections (8-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/14/2013 Reading waived (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
  • 02/15/2013 Read third time
  • 02/15/2013 Rejected by Senate (18-Y 22-N) (see vote tally)

Comments

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Note that this is already the law of the land, as per § 40.1-58. That's just part of Title 40.1, Chapter 4, which collectively limits the power of unions substantially. This has been on the books for many decades, unchanged in that time. Why it should go into our constitution, I can't imagine. I don't know what problem is solved by doing so.

MARSHA MAINES writes:

Perhaps it was simply a TEST to see WHO would support it? Especially since I just named the VA STATE BAR as a Defendant in a RICO (state removal) against Bank of America.
VA STATE BAR MEMBERS are PAID by BoA in BANK SHARES.
It's in VSB Members BEST INTERESTS to commit THEFT of Real Estate TITLES by their ADMINISTRATIVE actions - even when BoA only owns SERVICING RIGHTS to non-existent Countrywide NOTES that were Bifurcated from the DEEDS - rendering the DERIVATIVES - null, void, and worthless.