Wisconsin collective bargaining law result

Amelia

Rookie
Feb 14, 2011
21,830
5,453
0
Packerland!
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #2
P.s.,

Those two parts which were struck down being gone will make things nicer for the unions. The recertification requirement of the law was harsh and it's good that it's gone. And people should be allowed to direct deposit their union dues, as long as it is their choice to do so. So that's cool.

However most of the law is intact.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
Walkers downfall will be the poor economic performance in his state as a result of his policies.



You mean the current sluggish economic performance of the state as a result of a year of constant protests at the state capitol?



Well, hopefully we will turn around in spite of the concerted attempts of unions to scare business away.



Time will tell.
 
So shouldn't the entire law go like many on the right say about Obamacare if one part is struck down?

Ohh but Obamacare is something the right does not like so different rules :D
 
For those who don't want their brains scrambled trying to comprehend this ruling, I will break it down.

Wisconsin passed a law which took away collective bargaining rights for public employee unions. You may recall the big fight over that which has led to an upcoming recall election of Governor Walker.

The law allows "public safety" employees to continue to collectively bargain as before.

So the first point of contention by the plaintiffs was this new creation of a separate "public safety" employee category. They contended these were those public employees who had supported Walker in his election, and that is why he made a carve-out for them.

The court ruled that "public safety" is easily understood and defined and that it is rational to define them separately from the guy who sweeps the floor at your local public school. They also pointed out that while the "public safety" category included supporters of Walker, it also contained state employees who did not.



The second point of contention was that "general employee" unions were required to recertify every year and needed a majority vote in favor of unionizing each time. While general employee unions had most of their collective bargaining rights removed, they could still bargain over base pay. They could not bargain over any other benefits like pay bonuses and such.

The court ruled that there was no valid reason provided by the state for annual recertification, and so this requirement was nullified.

The final point of contention was that the law removed compulsory union dues, and also disallowed automatic pay allotments for dues. The court reinstated both of these.


The removal of collective bargaining rights for general employees that is the central part of the law was not challenged and so remains in force.
 
Last edited:
So shouldn't the entire law go like many on the right say about Obamacare if one part is struck down?

Ohh but Obamacare is something the right does not like so different rules :D

You should bone up on "severability".
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
So shouldn't the entire law go like many on the right say about Obamacare if one part is struck down?

Ohh but Obamacare is something the right does not like so different rules :D




lol - this was a highly severable part of the law. Not a linchpin. For reals. :thup:
 
P.s.,

Those two parts which were struck down being gone will make things nicer for the unions. The recertification requirement of the law was harsh and it's good that it's gone. And people should be allowed to direct deposit their union dues, as long as it is their choice to do so. So that's cool.

However most of the law is intact.

Compulsory dues paying is abhorrent. And that was also reinstated.
 
I chuckle to myself when I see how well the reforms ar working. Schools are better off? Sure they are. In my town alone the school has to cut 1.5 million this year and another 1.5 million next year. I have one kid left in the house. His class sizes are set to rise up to near 40 in some. I for one will be at the next school board meeting demanding his classes be no bigger than 25. Thats a travesty. I know of other districts who will be cutting drastically as well. I know you cant have major cuts and good schools. Thats what the people want, lesser education. They shall get their wish.
 
For those who don't want their brains scrambled trying to comprehend this ruling, I will break it down.

Wisconsin passed a law which took away collective bargaining rights for public employee unions. You may recall the big fight over that which has led to an upcoming recall election of Governor Walker.

The law allows "public safety" employees to continue to collectively bargain as before.

So the first point of contention by the plaintiffs was this new creation of a separate "public safety" employee category. They contended these were those public employees who had supported Walker in his election, and that is why he made a carve-out for them.

The court ruled that "public safety" is easily understood and defined and that it is rational to define them separately from the guy who sweeps the floor at your local public school. They also pointed out that while the "public safety" category included supporters of Walker, it also contained state employees who did not.



The second point of contention was that "general employee" unions were required to recertify every year and needed a majority vote in favor of unionizing each time. While general employee unions had most of their collective bargaining rights removed, they could still bargain over base pay. They could not bargain over any other benefits like pay bonuses and such.

The court ruled that there was no valid reason provided by the state for annual recertification, and so this requirement was nullified.

The final point of contention was that the law removed compulsory union dues, and also disallowed automatic pay allotments for dues. The court reinstated both of these.


The removal of collective bargaining rights for general employees that is the central part of the law was not challenged and so remains in force.






Thanks for providing a summary. Quick question: what do you mean by "compulsory union dues" being reinstated? I thought that what was restored was the right of union members to choose to have their dues taken off the top?

What the state had before forced people to pay money to unions even if they weren't members of the union. That wasn't restored, was it?

I read most of the decision but confess I didn't read all the way to the end. Guess I better go do that now.
 
So shouldn't the entire law go like many on the right say about Obamacare if one part is struck down?

Ohh but Obamacare is something the right does not like so different rules :D

You should bone up on "severability".

Several parts of Obamacare scould survive alone.
The preexisting conditions part for instance.

Even the Left admits that without the insurance mandate, the cost of health insurance would skyrocket precisely because of the risk pool containing no one but people with pre-existing conditions. Everyone else would stop buying insurance until they needed it, and then the insurance companies would have to give it to them.

So with or without severability, ObamaCare is dead in the water without the mandate.


Wisconsin's bill does not sink or swim on union certification or compulsory dues. Those affect the state budget not one whit.

It would only sink or swim on the removal of collective bargaining rights, and that was not contested.
 
So shouldn't the entire law go like many on the right say about Obamacare if one part is struck down?

Ohh but Obamacare is something the right does not like so different rules :D

You should bone up on "severability".

Several parts of Obamacare scould survive alone.
The preexisting conditions part for instance.



Um .... no. Exactly the opposite. The mandate was needed especially for that. If people could wait until they are diagnosed with an expensive illness before they make any payments into the system, companies would go broke left and right.
 
P.s.,

Those two parts which were struck down being gone will make things nicer for the unions. The recertification requirement of the law was harsh and it's good that it's gone. And people should be allowed to direct deposit their union dues, as long as it is their choice to do so. So that's cool.

However most of the law is intact.

Compulsory dues paying is abhorrent. And that was also reinstated.




I'm still looking for a confirmation of that. I thought the dues withdrawal decision only affected those who voluntarily joined the unions.
 
So the rates will skyrocket anyway and in about 20 years medical care be sucking up about half of our GDP

This implies our choices are either ObamaCare or the status quo.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.
 
So shouldn't the entire law go like many on the right say about Obamacare if one part is struck down?

Ohh but Obamacare is something the right does not like so different rules :D

moron... the mandate in Obamacare is what PAYS for 90% of the law. Kill it, and the law cannot survive.

In this case, the two parts struck down stand completely apart for the rest.

Apples and oranges. I suspect even you know that.
 
I wasn't even aware that the law in 'Wisconsin had been subjected to a court challenge, although I suppose that was predictable. Regardless, the main line of attack on it was not that it was unconstitutional, but that it is abhorrent, unfair, and should never have been passed. So apparently most of it passes constitutional muster. That merely means it must be struck down by the people, instead of by the courts -- as was always the reasonable expectation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top