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…….
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 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.
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
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....
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?
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.
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 .
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...
I pity right to work states.
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
I pity workers who are extorted by unions.
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.
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.
I have heard workers complain about working conditions and inadequate pay more often.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?