Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law Struck Down

[8537]

what part of i don't need more facts do you not understand?

WHY is it unconstitutional??????? NOTE the question marks. i don't need a repeat of the decision, tell me why.

can you do that?

Q: Why is it unconstitutional?

A: Because it restricts the rights of state employees in an unconstitutional fashion. That's why. Namely, it removes their ability to bargain for any topics other than CoL.

I'm not sure how many different ways you want me to explain that. The explanation is virtually self-evident.

You keep getting the question because you're not answering it. We all know what you said. The question is why is restricting the privilege of state employees to bargain for anything other than their COLA unconstitutional?

Because it's an undue restriction of association and speech.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

And that makes it unconstitutional how?

By removing rights of association and impeding rights of free speech. You can read all about it here: Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Ruling

Collective bargaining is not free speech. If that were the case every single one of us would be collectively bargaining with our employers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW What grounds make the law unconstitutional?

Why don't you read the ruling.

 

[8537]

And that makes it unconstitutional how?

By removing rights of association and impeding rights of free speech. You can read all about it here: Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Ruling

Collective bargaining is not free speech. If that were the case every single one of us would be collectively bargaining with our employers.

You should take up your concerns with the author of the ruling....

and yes, every single one of us should have the right to collectively bargain with our employer.

 

[Yurt]

BTW What grounds make the law unconstitutional?

Why don't you read the ruling.

have you read the ruling?

 

[Yurt]

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

what part of i don't need more facts do you not understand?

WHY is it unconstitutional??????? NOTE the question marks. i don't need a repeat of the decision, tell me why.

can you do that?

Q: Why is it unconstitutional?

A: Because it restricts the rights of state employees in an unconstitutional fashion. That's why. Namely, it removes their ability to bargain for any topics other than CoL.

I'm not sure how many different ways you want me to explain that. The explanation is virtually self-evident.

as taz bro pointed out....this doesn't answer my question.

apparently the topic is above your head

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW What grounds make the law unconstitutional?

Why don't you read the ruling.

have you read the ruling?

No. But I'm not the one pining to know what the grounds for unconstitutionality were.

 

[Ernie S.]

Great news!!!!! A big loss for NaziCons and a great win for American labor!

Potentially a huge loss for the taxpayers and students of Wisconsin. Even Roosevelt thought government employees should not have collective bargaining.

In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:

"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."

 

[JakeStarkey]

You simply don't understand the constitution, Yurt.

how does your cite back up your claim that it is unconstitutional? if i wanted more facts, i would have asked for more facts.

It was ruled unconstitutional because it restricted the right of state employees to bargain on any topics outside of CoL adjustments.

And that makes it unconstitutional how?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ernie S.'s attitudes toward FDR has always been to oppose FDR policies, thus . . .

Great news!!!!! A big loss for NaziCons and a great win for American labor!

Potentially a huge loss for the taxpayers and students of Wisconsin. Even Roosevelt thought government employees should not have collective bargaining.

In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:

"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."

 

[Ernie S.]

In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."

Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally.

Wisconsin Collective Bargaining Law Struck Down By County Judge

Pretty weak reasoning, it seems to me. Public sector unions can associate with whoever they want and say whatever comes into their silly little heads, They just can't hold cities and states hostage.

 

[LilOlLady]

Scott Walker's Anti-Union Law Struck Down As Unconstitutional

A Dane County judge has ruled that the anti-collective bargaining law championed by Governor Scott Walker—legislation that would ultimately lead to the failed effort to recall the controversial Wisconsin governor—is unconstitutional under both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.Scott Walker's Anti-Union Law Struck Down As Unconstitutional - Forbes

 

[Ernie S.]

Ernie S.'s attitudes toward FDR has always been to oppose FDR policies, thus . . .

Great news!!!!! A big loss for NaziCons and a great win for American labor!

Potentially a huge loss for the taxpayers and students of Wisconsin. Even Roosevelt thought government employees should not have collective bargaining.

In a little-known letter he wrote to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, Roosevelt reasoned:

"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...

"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable."

You have links to me opposing FDR's policies?

Immaterial though. He is the Patron Saint of unions in this country and a Liberal icon. What he said here makes perfect sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

C'mon, Ernie S., you are chasing your tail. You approve him on one hand concerning unions, then smack him on the other hand.

How can you agree with what "he said [make] perfect sense" when you don't agree with him as "the Patron Saint on unions in this country and a Liberal icon."

 

[Bfgrn]

wish i could read the ruling, because it sounds like bullshit. they can still collectively bargain. so i fail to see how any law or constitution has been violated.

In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."

 

[Synthaholic]

Lol, TM made another thread... If she does not run off and start another 12 therads on the internet somewhere she will fill this one with how much she hates Republicans seeing as that is the only reason she ever starts threads. Hell, in less than 3 pages TM will derail and end up trolling her own thread.

Typical low information wingnut: can't even get the most basic of facts correct.

I started the thread, not truthmatters.

 

[Synthaholic]

Yeah, republicans thwarted once again by that pesky First Amendment.

ZACT-lee.

Walker is in the hip pocket of the Koch's. He's anti-American scum, more than willing to sell his soul for votes.

can you explain how the law violates the first amendment?

if walker is anti american...why is wisconsin doing so well under his leadership? ooops.

There is no correlation between being pro-American and doing well. Dubya was pro-American and shit the bed, leaving this country in a $14 trillion hole, and counting.

And one would think that a supposedly pro-American wingnut would know that 'American' is ALWAYS capitalized. This shows that you are a phony.

 

[Synthaholic]

Squeal, Walker, you filthy pig.

I swear, he always looks stoned.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

 

[8537]

what part of i don't need more facts do you not understand?

WHY is it unconstitutional??????? NOTE the question marks. i don't need a repeat of the decision, tell me why.

can you do that?

Q: Why is it unconstitutional?

A: Because it restricts the rights of state employees in an unconstitutional fashion. That's why. Namely, it removes their ability to bargain for any topics other than CoL.

I'm not sure how many different ways you want me to explain that. The explanation is virtually self-evident.

as taz bro pointed out....this doesn't answer my question.

apparently the topic is above your head

I gave you a direct link to the ruling. How much more clear of an explanation do you need? Is it that hard to click and read?

 

[Immanuel]

Lol, TM made another thread... If she does not run off and start another 12 therads on the internet somewhere she will fill this one with how much she hates Republicans seeing as that is the only reason she ever starts threads. Hell, in less than 3 pages TM will derail and end up trolling her own thread.

Typical low information wingnut: can't even get the most basic of facts correct.

I started the thread, not truthmatters.

Um, yes and no about you starting the thread. TDM started a thread that got merged into this one, just for your information.

I suppose she will be whining about having another thread "deleted" if she hasn't already.

Immie