Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional

[ludin]

i don't understand how a judge can just upset already established precedent. more so how that judge can continue to be a judge after
this type of garbage.

this is why so many repeated cases end up at the SCOTUS because you have judges that just ignore already established precedent.

 

[justabubba]

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.

but that cannot be allowed to happen

if employers could pay non-union workers different compensation, they would
and it would be higher than union rates

at least until there were 50% plus one employee who would vote to de-certify the union

then the employer would return to paying the lowest wages possible

it would become a union-busting mechanism overnight

there is an easy solution for those who do not want to pay union dues. make sure you do not apply for work at a union shop:
mission accomplished! [*posted while wearing a bomber jacket* could not afford the banner and the aircraft carrier to pull off the complete dubya effect]

 

[What if...?]

Many do - many of the finest teachers and education administrators start private schools to get away from the unionized and bureaucratic environment. Many parents wish they could send their children with them. The left, however, demands that the average person not have the same opportunities those with money, such as liberal elites, enjoy. It's why the left and education unions are adamantly opposed to voucher systems.

That and people who want to pick which facts are actually facts.

 

[What if...?]

Haven't a clue what your comments here have to do with anything related to the thread topic or unions, in general.

Your post started with dismissing north Korea as acting like "everyone is the same".

Every argument against living/minimum wages is based on the assumption that everybody is equally ABLED and would be fine if they just applied themselves, got training etc.

 

[SDET]

It's a good thing the Republican candidate got elected to the Supreme court this week.

 

[imyoda]

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). ...

Is that the best you can do?

Post your feelings opinions........assume facts not proved or supported ?

Get back to us when you have more substance to share.......

 

[imyoda]

This needs to be played up big. This is the kind of news that will spur non union people into action for union membership and it guarantees the right of a closed shop and better bargaining power. The article does not say however, which part of the state constitution was violated

Good news, thanks for posting.

For many years I employed union workers.............. And I found the Union good to deal with......... provided well-trained journeymen........ and were a great asset to help solve/fix/address personnel issues/problems...............

 

[jet57]

For many years I employed union workers.............. And I found the Union good to deal with......... provided well-trained journeymen........ and were a great asset to help solve/fix/address personnel issues/problems...............

Unions do very very well with reasonable people. A union will protect a good and reasonable employer from bad apples and will often give such employers breaks in a lot of areas. I'm glad that you had good experiences. In my tenure I worked for both good and bad employers, and their relationships with the local was like night and day.

 

[lpast]

Wait...what law requires everyone who takes a job there has to become a union member?

Or, is it a condition of the contract the union and the employer agree to? If that's the case, then the employer has no business hiring anybody who is not already a union member. Maybe the union...instead of bothering the worker...should be taking the employer to court for breech of contract.

Nope you do not have to join the union but you have to pay a portion of the dues for services rendered. If you dont join the union in a union shop then you enjoy the benefits of the union while everyone else pays for you. Like negotiations for pay and benefits and safety.

 

[lpast]

So...your only answer to the guy being extorted is: "Too bad, dude. You don't want to pay up then move out of town."

There are laws against extortion, you know...and there are reasons extortion is against the law. Unfortunately, in WI, there is a judge who thumbs his nose at the law.

You have a problem with reading comprehension

 

[lpast]

It is still the act of forcing employees to join and pay dues to an organization they want nothing to do with?

No its NOT, you know going in theres a union with union dues. If you dont want to make more money with better benefits and safer conditions for the same work then go to work in a related job thats non union and make less. No one forces anyone to take a job in an established union shop.

The republican party carries the water of the rich and corporate america. To kill unions is a benefit to the rich and corps that want to pay americans chinese wages and replace them with illegal mexicans that never complain about pay or conditions. They donate mega bucks to republicans to push that goal. Like sleezy skanks like Scott Walker and Pig Piggy in New Jersey. Notice how both crashed and burned in their presidential bids, if you dont think their screwing the working class had anything to do with that I dont know what to tell you.

 

[Mycroft]

Nope you do not have to join the union but you have to pay a portion of the dues for services rendered. If you dont join the union in a union shop then you enjoy the benefits of the union while everyone else pays for you. Like negotiations for pay and benefits and safety.

Does any non-union employee have a choice? Can they choose to NOT get the pay, benefits, etc...that a union employee gets?

If not, then that is extortion.

You have a problem with reading comprehension

LOL!!

Sounds to me like you have the inability to present your position reasonably and logically. Probably because there is nothing reasonable or logical about your position.

No its NOT, you know going in theres a union with union dues. If you dont want to make more money with better benefits and safer conditions for the same work then go to work in a related job thats non union and make less. No one forces anyone to take a job in an established union shop.

And just like the street thug's target...the mom and pop shop owner...that non-union employee is being required to pay for something they didn't want and didn't ask for. Something the union did on their own.

As I said before, the union has an agreement with the employer...not with any future employees. If the employer is hiring non-union people...and if the union doesn't like that...the union should deal with that issue with the employer. Not make the employee pay for something he didn't ask for.

The republican party carries the water of the rich and corporate america. To kill unions is a benefit to the rich and corps that want to pay americans chinese wages and replace them with illegal mexicans that never complain about pay or conditions. They donate mega bucks to republicans to push that goal. Like sleezy skanks like Scott Walker and Pig Piggy in New Jersey. Notice how both crashed and burned in their presidential bids, if you dont think their screwing the working class had anything to do with that I dont know what to tell you.

This issue has nothing to do with Republicans or killing unions. It has everything to do with preventing unions from extorting money from helpless victims. Too bad for the justice system in WI, though...they have a judge who doesn't care about the victims. They have a judge who only cares that the unions get all the money they can out of the public.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I strongly doubt that, private school teachers make less then public school teachers.

The vouchers are opposed because the only reason they are even suggested is because extreme right wingers hate the government and would rather just eliminate public financing of education altogether, but that will never fly. So instead they suggest turning over education to private entities so they can make profit off of education. No voucher proposal I have seen ever requires private schools to take in children from broken homes or developmentally disabled children either. It's a solution in search of a problem

Sure - it was the extreme right wingers in DC a few years back who complained when Obama moved to eliminate that city's voucher system that saw poor black children getting to opt into some of the better schools in the system. Obama wasn't trying to protect incompetent teachers and their union bosses, who just happened to help fund his election wins - no sir. And all those black children and their parents were staunch right wing extremists too, right?

The people who oppose vouchers are the same people who want to continue to keep poor people, many of them blacks, suppressed and dependent upon social handouts and what better way to do it than to require poor black children to continue to attend failed schools staffed by incompetent teachers, protected by their unions and the Democrats who are beholden to them.

 

[minnie616]

...

The people who oppose vouchers are the same people who want to continue to keep poor people, many of them blacks, suppressed and dependent upon social handouts and what better way to do it than to require poor black children to continue to attend failed schools staffed by incompetent teachers, protected by their unions and the Democrats who are beholden to them.

If private schools want vouchers, they need to accept and educate all types students regardless of race, IQ, religion or learning disabilities.
Public schools are required to accept all those students who live in their district.

 

[CanadaJohn]

If private schools want vouchers, they need to accept and educate all types students regardless of race, IQ, religion or learning disabilities.
Public schools are required to accept all those students who live in their district.

Good morning Minnie,

Nice deflection/red herring. Who said anything about private schools wanting vouchers. I was talking about taxpayers being allowed to direct their child's education funding to whichever school they choose. Who said that was or had to be a private school? And let's be clear - it isn't private schools demanding voucher systems - it's parents who are stuck living in depressed neighbourhoods where the worst of the worst of teachers are placed in the public systems providing inferior education and no hope to children of the poor.

I'm surprised your concern is more for unionized teachers than it is for disadvantaged children - but then, liberals and Democrats have always used and exploited the poor to subsidize their support of unions who fund their elections.

 

[minnie616]

Good morning Minnie,

Nice deflection/red herring. Who said anything about private schools wanting vouchers. I was talking about taxpayers being allowed to direct their child's education funding to whichever school they choose. Who said that was or had to be a private school? And let's be clear - it isn't private schools demanding voucher systems - it's parents who are stuck living in depressed neighbourhoods where the worst of the worst of teachers are placed in the public systems providing inferior education and no hope to children of the poor.

I'm surprised your concern is more for unionized teachers than it is for disadvantaged children - but then, liberals and Democrats have always used and exploited the poor to subsidize their support of unions who fund their elections.

Good morning to you too.

The public tax funding is for public schools.
All taxpayers including those without children contribute to educate childrenin the US.

Currently private schools can reject students who have learning disablities, emotional disabilities, or physical disability etc. Public shools must accept and make accomondations for the vast majority of these educatable students. Most public schools in the US allow some out of district students based on availability and use a lottery type system to fill those spaces.

 

[jimbo]

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.

Wrong. The union makes theit deal with the employer, the non union employee makes their deal with the employer. Neither has any right to decide the negotiating skills and desirability of the other.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

"Go where the jobs are" is a pretty common refrain in threads about minimum wage etc.

So why doesn't it apply in this case?

Because no prospective employee anywhere in the United States should be forced to join a labor union as a condition of employment. It goes against the concept of democracy.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

No it isnt the presently employed individuals of the company vote if they want the union or they do not. If they choose to accept the union then everyone Hired after that has a choice take the job and join the union or dont take the job. No one is forced

The employees voting "no" are still being forced against their will to join an organization they simply want no part of. As a liberal, How would you feel if you were told, you must become a member of the "National Rifle Association", or the Pro-life movement?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

No its NOT, you know going in theres a union with union dues. If you dont want to make more money with better benefits and safer conditions for the same work then go to work in a related job thats non union and make less. No one forces anyone to take a job in an established union shop.

The republican party carries the water of the rich and corporate america. To kill unions is a benefit to the rich and corps that want to pay americans chinese wages and replace them with illegal mexicans that never complain about pay or conditions. They donate mega bucks to republicans to push that goal. Like sleezy skanks like Scott Walker and Pig Piggy in New Jersey. Notice how both crashed and burned in their presidential bids, if you dont think their screwing the working class had anything to do with that I dont know what to tell you.

That is complete baloney. Just the labor laws alone prevent the majority of employer abuses you are ranting about. And it is the democrats and republican moderates who are attempting to load workplaces with illegal aliens who will work for minimum pay. As for Walker alledgely crashing and burning in his race for president.....son, there were 17 candidates running and Walker simply did not have the funding to keep pace. And the corporate funding that you are ranting on about has gone to moderates like Jeb Bush, Rubio, and Kasich. And nobody is suggesting the killings of labor unions. The movement is simply to limit the fascist level of power that Labor Unions have held for decades.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Sure - it was the extreme right wingers in DC a few years back who complained when Obama moved to eliminate that city's voucher system that saw poor black children getting to opt into some of the better schools in the system. Obama wasn't trying to protect incompetent teachers and their union bosses, who just happened to help fund his election wins - no sir. And all those black children and their parents were staunch right wing extremists too, right?

The people who oppose vouchers are the same people who want to continue to keep poor people, many of them blacks, suppressed and dependent upon social handouts and what better way to do it than to require poor black children to continue to attend failed schools staffed by incompetent teachers, protected by their unions and the Democrats who are beholden to them.

Exactly right. African American families for instance broadly support the voucher system that broadens the choice of schools their children can attend. However the democrats are rabidly against the voucher system for the sake of the Teacher's Unions. They would rather keep the kids pigeon holed in inner city schools which are typically crime infested.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

If private schools want vouchers, they need to accept and educate all types students regardless of race, IQ, religion or learning disabilities.
Public schools are required to accept all those students who live in their district.

And they do. Their only requirement besides tuition is that the kids behave themselves, do not commit crimes on or near school grounds, or otherwise disrupt those who want to learn.

 

[minnie616]

The employees voting "no" are still being forced against their will to join an organization they simply want no part of. ..

Looks like it will be that way for years since when the Supreme Court reviewed the case it was 4 to 4. So the ruling to allow unions to collect fees still stays.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Good morning to you too.

The public tax funding is for public schools.
All taxpayers including those without children contribute to educate childrenin the US.

Currently private schools can reject students who have learning disablities, emotional disabilities, or physical disability etc. Public shools must accept and make accomondations for the vast majority of these educatable students. Most public schools in the US allow some out of district students based on availability and use a lottery type system to fill those spaces.

So what you are saying is that only the elite families should have a choice of where they send their kids to school. The poor families should just suck it up and accept sending their kids to inner city schools in substandard buildings and often substandard teachers, graffiti all over the walls, drug dealing and in many cases, knife or gun fights.

 

[minnie616]

And they do. Their only requirement besides tuition is that the kids behave themselves, do not commit crimes on or near school grounds, or otherwise disrupt those who want to learn.

Catholic schools don't accept students who are not Catholic.
Many many private schools do not take students who are dyslexic or who speech or other learning disabilities.

If you wish to discuss this further there is already a thread regarding this subject.


Forum
Political forums
General Political Discussion Why the opposition to School Vouchers?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...l-vouchers.html?highlight=School+disabilities