Right. In any case, the providers in question don't have a "right to strike" today (except insofar as they can individually choose to participate in these subsidized programs or not - and I don't see any attempt in this proposal to change that - such an attempt would possibly be construed as unconstitutional anyways) so I don't see how specifically the "no authorization to strike" provision makes things worse. Without this language, a court might hold that this law (if enacted) creates an authorization for the providers (collectively) to strike. I still don't like this proposal - I just don't think that the "no authorization to strike" clause removes any right or privilege that the providers have now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-07 09:09 pm (UTC)