Last week, we reported that a union representing faculty members in colleges and universities in Pennsylvania had objected to a new state law that bans smoking on campuses throughout the state. It seemed odd, to the say the least, that a union would object to a law that protects students and faculty from the health hazards of tar of nicotine in their lungs.
Now another union has added its voice to an already ridiculous situation. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has issued an echo of the earlier objection. It objects to the law because no collective bargaining preceded the enactment of the smoking ban.
Of course, the universities and colleges are rightly adhering to a state law, because the law in fact supersedes the union contract. Union leaders, however, perversely believe that there should have been collective bargaining before the state passed the smoking ban. In this case, of course, the law enacted by legislators is to the benefit of more than 100,000 students and 12,000 faculty members.
When unions object to a law that benefits its members simply because the law had bypassed collective bargaining indicates that unions would rather maintain their power than protect the health of individuals.
