• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional - ABC News
Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional

…Court Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law as Unconstitutional …


“A Wisconsin court has struck down the state's right-to-work law championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, calling it unconstitutional.
Wisconsin's right-to-work law, championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker as he was mounting his run for president, was struck down Friday as violating the state constitution…………

“A Dane County Circuit Court judge issued the ruling Friday in a lawsuit filed by local unions. Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel promised to appeal the order, saying: "We are confident the law will be upheld on appeal."
Attorney General Brad Schimel promised to appeal the decision and said he was confident it would not stand, noting that no similar law has been struck down in any other state. Schimel, also a Republican, has not decided whether to seek an immediate suspension of the ruling while the appeal is pending, spokesman Johnny Koremenos said.”……….
………The Wisconsin AFL-CIO, Machinists Local Lodge 1061 in Milwaukee and United Steelworkers District 2 in Menasha filed the lawsuit last year…
The groups argued that the law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property because it required unions to extend benefits to workers who don't pay dues………
ALSO SEE:
Court Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law As Unconstitutional

Thank goodness for our court system…….
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
76,960
Reaction score
31,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I wonder if WI law actually "requires" unions to provide services to non-members, as the unions contend? Or is that just some kind of spin the unions have cooked up to get the law to enable them to get money from people who want nothing to do with them? Neither article you linked, imyoda, says anything about that. They just say that the unions are contending that.

Myself...I don't think the union should be able to force people to pay them dues and I don't think any agreement the unions make with employers should apply to non-members.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional - ABC News
Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional

…Court Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law as Unconstitutional …


“A Wisconsin court has struck down the state's right-to-work law championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, calling it unconstitutional.
Wisconsin's right-to-work law, championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker as he was mounting his run for president, was struck down Friday as violating the state constitution…………

“A Dane County Circuit Court judge issued the ruling Friday in a lawsuit filed by local unions. Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel promised to appeal the order, saying: "We are confident the law will be upheld on appeal."
Attorney General Brad Schimel promised to appeal the decision and said he was confident it would not stand, noting that no similar law has been struck down in any other state. Schimel, also a Republican, has not decided whether to seek an immediate suspension of the ruling while the appeal is pending, spokesman Johnny Koremenos said.”……….
………The Wisconsin AFL-CIO, Machinists Local Lodge 1061 in Milwaukee and United Steelworkers District 2 in Menasha filed the lawsuit last year…
The groups argued that the law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property because it required unions to extend benefits to workers who don't pay dues………
ALSO SEE:
Court Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law As Unconstitutional

Thank goodness for our court system…….

An activist judge made a ruling that runs counter to every other decision handed down on laws just like this and you think that's a good thing?? "Right-to-work" laws are a good thing. No private organization should be able to force anyone to pay them without their permission. But my guess is that you're a union cheerleader who fails to see that unions should have gone the way of the dinosaur long ago, that they are corrupt from their start and have done more harm than good. They wield unelected power, they buy and sell politicians, they use extortion to get what they want, they drive up the cost of living and make the poorest people in this country pay for their bloated paychecks and retirement plans. Unions could be a good thing, if you took the money and power out of the equation and made them more along the lines of trade organizations.
Now start blathering about how all the good unions have done (far out-weighed by the bad), babble on about how if the unions weren't around we'd all be slaves to corporations (untrue, people have negotiated wages on their own and will continue to do so), about how they stand up for middle-class America (they stand up for maintaining their power and money and use the middle-class as a tool to that end). ...
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,652
Reaction score
21,953
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
An activist judge made a ruling that runs counter to every other decision handed down on laws just like this and you think that's a good thing?? "Right-to-work" laws are a good thing. No private organization should be able to force anyone to pay them without their permission. But my guess is that you're a union cheerleader who fails to see that unions should have gone the way of the dinosaur long ago, that they are corrupt from their start and have done more harm than good. They wield unelected power, they buy and sell politicians, they use extortion to get what they want, they drive up the cost of living and make the poorest people in this country pay for their bloated paychecks and retirement plans. Unions could be a good thing, if you took the money and power out of the equation and made them more along the lines of trade organizations.
Now start blathering about how all the good unions have done (far out-weighed by the bad), babble on about how if the unions weren't around we'd all be slaves to corporations (untrue, people have negotiated wages on their own and will continue to do so), about how they stand up for middle-class America (they stand up for maintaining their power and money and use the middle-class as a tool to that end). ...

That's a pretty harsh and revisionist view of the history of unionization. Now I'll admit that like many movements to do social good, after they succeed they can become warped and twisted by power politics. Unions are no exception.

Still, their development came from the very real abuses of robber baron businessmen who thought only of the bottom line and considered workers easily replaceable parts in their money making machines. That mentality has not changed, it has become worse with the evolution of impersonal corporations.

Union value and importance has lessened in the eyes of average citizens for two reasons.

1. It is no longer a sellers market. Despite all this constant hype we hear about employment improvement, that's all it is...hype! There are too many people and too few jobs. People don't want another hurdle like unions making it tougher to get a job.

2. Unions are fairly corrupt and inflexible. Once established they protect mediocracy. Good workers are forbidden to excel for fear they will make median and poor workers look bad. Seniority rather than capability is the standard for promotions. And the leaders make sure they take good care of themselves and their friends through cronyism.

Still, unions remain important because of the power of collective bargaining. Bargaining as a group, rather than on a individual basis gives employees more power. Unless you are a golden boy with skills unmatched, then an employer has all the power when it comes to negotiations. If we could get honest unions who truly serve employees while not damaging the business, then things would be just fine.
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
29,354
Reaction score
8,901
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I wonder if WI law actually "requires" unions to provide services to non-members, as the unions contend? Or is that just some kind of spin the unions have cooked up to get the law to enable them to get money from people who want nothing to do with them? Neither article you linked, imyoda, says anything about that. They just say that the unions are contending that.

Myself...I don't think the union should be able to force people to pay them dues and I don't think any agreement the unions make with employers should apply to non-members.

The union forces no one to pay dues, you choose to work at a represented workplace .

Really I know of no one at union shops who complains about dues except for extreme right wing republicans.or their useful idiots
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
29,354
Reaction score
8,901
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
An activist judge made a ruling that runs counter to every other decision handed down on laws just like this and you think that's a good thing?? "Right-to-work" laws are a good thing. No private organization should be able to force anyone to pay them without their permission. But my guess is that you're a union cheerleader who fails to see that unions should have gone the way of the dinosaur long ago, that they are corrupt from their start and have done more harm than good. They wield unelected power, they buy and sell politicians, they use extortion to get what they want, they drive up the cost of living and make the poorest people in this country pay for their bloated paychecks and retirement plans. Unions could be a good thing, if you took the money and power out of the equation and made them more along the lines of trade organizations.
Now start blathering about how all the good unions have done (far out-weighed by the bad), babble on about how if the unions weren't around we'd all be slaves to corporations (untrue, people have negotiated wages on their own and will continue to do so), about how they stand up for middle-class America (they stand up for maintaining their power and money and use the middle-class as a tool to that end). ...

I will focus on your first sentence, it may not be an activist ruling. Rulings from courts in other jurisdictions have no binding precedent on the Wisconsin courts. Especially if the court is adjudicating Wisconsin law, and not federal law. You live in Oregon for example, The Oregon Supreme Court has in the past a pill that you have a legal right to openly carry a weapon, own a switchblade, that pornography and obscenity are constitutionally protected speech, that the police cannot search a trashcan without a warrant, etc.

There rulings our counter to federal courts on identical issues, but there is a legal doctrine called an independent grounds ruling, which allows courts in states, to adjudicate their state constitution and state law differently than federal courts or courts in other states may rule. As long as a Wisconsin court, is ruling on Wisconsin law in a manner that only Binds Wisconsin state officers, they may make a ruling that is far different then chords in other states or the federal court system
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That's a pretty harsh and revisionist view of the history of unionization. Now I'll admit that like many movements to do social good, after they succeed they can become warped and twisted by power politics. Unions are no exception.

Still, their development came from the very real abuses of robber baron businessmen who thought only of the bottom line and considered workers easily replaceable parts in their money making machines. That mentality has not changed, it has become worse with the evolution of impersonal corporations.

Union value and importance has lessened in the eyes of average citizens for two reasons.

1. It is no longer a sellers market. Despite all this constant hype we hear about employment improvement, that's all it is...hype! There are too many people and too few jobs. People don't want another hurdle like unions making it tougher to get a job.

2. Unions are fairly corrupt and inflexible. Once established they protect mediocracy. Good workers are forbidden to excel for fear they will make median and poor workers look bad. Seniority rather than capability is the standard for promotions. And the leaders make sure they take good care of themselves and their friends through cronyism.

Still, unions remain important because of the power of collective bargaining. Bargaining as a group, rather than on a individual basis gives employees more power. Unless you are a golden boy with skills unmatched, then an employer has all the power when it comes to negotiations. If we could get honest unions who truly serve employees while not damaging the business, then things would be just fine

Unions STARTED corrupt and just got worse as time went on. They've been organized crime stooges since their inception.
The problem with collective bargaining is it's core strength is extortion by way of strikes.
I agree that we need unions to be better, then they'd be a good thing, instead of a burden to our society. But there's only one way to do that and that's to tear them down and rebuild them from the ground up. Take away the money, the political influence and the extortion and replace them with a trade guild model that sets standards for job skills and safety, provides training and job placement assistance, is voice to help the workers and management resolve issues, instead of being a source of many of those issues.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I will focus on your first sentence, it may not be an activist ruling. Rulings from courts in other jurisdictions have no binding precedent on the Wisconsin courts. Especially if the court is adjudicating Wisconsin law, and not federal law. You live in Oregon for example, The Oregon Supreme Court has in the past a pill that you have a legal right to openly carry a weapon, own a switchblade, that pornography and obscenity are constitutionally protected speech, that the police cannot search a trashcan without a warrant, etc.

There rulings our counter to federal courts on identical issues, but there is a legal doctrine called an independent grounds ruling, which allows courts in states, to adjudicate their state constitution and state law differently than federal courts or courts in other states may rule. As long as a Wisconsin court, is ruling on Wisconsin law in a manner that only Binds Wisconsin state officers, they may make a ruling that is far different then chords in other states or the federal court system

This will get appealed to a Circuit Court where the ruling will be overturned. Everybody involved knows that....
 

EMNofSeattle

No Shame!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
29,354
Reaction score
8,901
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This will get appealed to a Circuit Court where the ruling will be overturned. Everybody involved knows that....

And that overturning, will get repealed once the Democrats retake the Wisconsin legislature
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Why can't liberals just drop this stupid crap? Do they think it actually makes them look good that they support forcing people into an association? They want to work, so they find someone that will hire them. They did not go out looking for work to join a union and there is no good reason it should be part of the contract. Why hold onto ideas that are clearly wrong?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Why can't liberals just drop this stupid crap? Do they think it actually makes them look good that they support forcing people into an association? They want to work, so they find someone that will hire them. They did not go out looking for work to join a union and there is no good reason it should be part of the contract. Why hold onto ideas that are clearly wrong?

Neo-Liberals are very much like Socialists in that they believe that forcing citizens is good, if the reasons are Neo-Liberal or Socialist.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,561
Reaction score
8,052
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Still, unions remain important because of the power of collective bargaining. Bargaining as a group, rather than on a individual basis gives employees more power. Unless you are a golden boy with skills unmatched, then an employer has all the power when it comes to negotiations. If we could get honest unions who truly serve employees while not damaging the business, then things would be just fine.

Employees as a whole yes but as your #2 points out that too only helps the lesser workers as the top workers have much better bargaining power on thier own. You don't have to be a golden boy to have leverage every manager knows the value of a good consistent worker.
 

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,651
Reaction score
4,631
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wonder if WI law actually "requires" unions to provide services to non-members, as the unions contend? Or is that just some kind of spin the unions have cooked up to get the law to enable them to get money from people who want nothing to do with them? Neither article you linked, imyoda, says anything about that. They just say that the unions are contending that.

Myself...I don't think the union should be able to force people to pay them dues and I don't think any agreement the unions make with employers should apply to non-members.

Heres how that works if you work in a union shop and refuse to pay dues under right to work, the union still negotiates salaries and benefits for you and will represent you in oasha cases disciplinary is iffy whether they are forced to defend you or not for free whether you contribute dues or not.

Under agency shop bills if you refuse to pay dues you still are required by law to pay 85% of the dues for the services rendered.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
76,960
Reaction score
31,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The union forces no one to pay dues, you choose to work at a represented workplace .

Hmmm...a union has an agreement between "its members" and a "business". A union's agreement should NOT apply to anyone working at that business if that person is not a member of the union...and that non-member shouldn't owe the union a dime for services he does not enjoy.

Now...if the union enters an agreement with the employer that EVERYONE who works there...whether a union member or not...gets union agreement benefits, then the employer should be required to only hire people who decide to become union members.

If the employer hires someone who is not a union member, then that would be a contractual issue between the union and the employer. The non-union employee has nothing to do with that. He has his own agreement with the employer.

In other words...like anything else, everyone in the mix makes their agreement with other parties and nobody should be bound to an agreement they didn't make. That means a person who is hired by a business...who has not agreed to become a union member...should not have to pay for services they do not agree to. The fact that an employer...who has some agreement with a certain group of the employees...hires a non-union member and gives that person all the benefits a union member would get is an issue between the union and the business.

If, as is the case here, a court decides that someone who is not a party to a contract between two other entities must become a party of that contract...if the contract makes no stipulation of that fact...then the court is wrong. The court is making an injustice happen. The judge should be tossed out of court on his ear because he is failing the people.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
76,960
Reaction score
31,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Heres how that works if you work in a union shop and refuse to pay dues under right to work, the union still negotiates salaries and benefits for you...

To me, that sounds suspiciously like some guy coming into a mom and pop store and telling pop that, since the guy is out on the street and stopping thugs from coming in and robbing the store, pop owes the guy money...whether pop asked the guy for this "protection" or not.

There's a word for that, isn't there??? Extortion??


The solution is that the union negotiates salaries and benefits for its members...not for any other employee who does not agree to become a member. Then the union wouldn't be engaging in extortion.
 

Lovebug

Let go and let God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
24,414
Reaction score
10,372
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I pity right to work states.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,764
Reaction score
20,448
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The union forces no one to pay dues, you choose to work at a represented workplace .

Really I know of no one at union shops who complains about dues except for extreme right wing republicans.or their useful idiots

Seriously, if you've never heard an employee complain about paying union dues and the activities of the unions they're forced to belong to, you've never worked in a unionized environment. The suggestion it's an extreme right wing thing is what useful idiots believe.
 

Lovebug

Let go and let God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
24,414
Reaction score
10,372
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I pity workers who are extorted by unions.

Working in a job without being forced to have any representation may seem desirable at first. When you look deeper, you may notice that people are still lining up for union jobs, one that protects workers rights and safety and pays a decent wage.
 

Lovebug

Let go and let God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
24,414
Reaction score
10,372
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Seriously, if you've never heard an employee complain about paying union dues and the activities of the unions they're forced to belong to, you've never worked in a unionized environment. The suggestion it's an extreme right wing thing is what useful idiots believe.

I have heard workers complain about working conditions and inadequate pay more often.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
76,960
Reaction score
31,132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Working in a job without being forced to have any representation may seem desirable at first. When you look deeper, you may notice that people are still lining up for union jobs, one that protects workers rights and safety and pays a decent wage.

If a worker wants that union representation, fine. They can pay for it.

But if a person doesn't want that "protection", then the law should not allow them to be extorted into paying for it.
 

Lovebug

Let go and let God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
24,414
Reaction score
10,372
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
If a worker wants that union representation, fine. They can pay for it.

But if a person doesn't want that "protection", then the law should not allow them to be extorted into paying for it.

That is fine, but if they opt out (and many do), they should work at different pay and benefits than those who are union. Goes both ways.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,764
Reaction score
20,448
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have heard workers complain about working conditions and inadequate pay more often.

I'm retired, but I did work in education for over 30 years and I constantly heard from teachers and other unionized workers who frequently complained about union officials lavish spending, their support for fellow teachers and others who were incompetent and a disgrace to their profession, and union support, with member dues, of political parties that they did not support and/or political issues/activities outside of their own jurisdiction and sometimes outside of their own country.

If you agree that the average voter is sick and tired of the corruption and cronyism in political parties, the average unionized worker is equally sick and tired of the same thing in union leadership.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
76,168
Reaction score
60,391
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i tend to doubt that these union busting bills will be ultimately be thrown out in court. ****, the whole country would currently be "right to work" :)roll:) had Scalia not passed away unexpectedly. it sucks, but that's how i see it. workers are going to have to not only unionize, but also start voting in their own best interest. our idiotic two party teamsport system makes that damned difficult, though.
 
Top Bottom