Of course I am for the right to bargain collectively and protect workers rights and safety. That's the hook of this amendment, and my first impulse was to vote yes, of course ... even though the right to form unions is already largely protected.
It's the second part of the initiative that threw me off, however: the part where the legislature is barred (forever) from making any laws that would affect these rights.
We've been here before, with a similar clause attached to a pension provision enacted in the state's constitution back in the 1970s. And it proved to be a big problem back during the recession, because the State Supreme Court had to nix an agreement made between the government and the unions because it was prohibited by this added article. Other blue states (California and Massachusetts, in particular) were able to negotiate some changes with the unions regarding pensions that allowed the states to ameliorate their financial positions and proceed with other important programs. Here in Illinois, however, and Chicago in particular, the inability to have such flexible negotiations led to the necessity for massive budget cuts in other areas that really hurt people who need services and help the most: in mental health facilities, public hospitals, and other programs. It hurt people, and we're still recovering.
No one knows what will happen in the future that might require adjustments. And I don't think a constitution should ever prohibit the legislature from at least making its legislative proposals ... proposals that can be shot down by the courts on the basis of more general principles.
On this basis alone, I am voting no. I just don't think a constitution should ever prohibit a legislature from acting in perpetuity. If the first paragraph alone were to be added to the constitution, I'd vote yes. The second part is a grab and a lock, and that, for me, deserves a no vote.