Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
So a Progressive judge thinks that a union has a property right to my money, although I maintain that the union acts contrary to my values and interests. Charming.
Wisconsin has a constitution that denies a person the right to work? That's an interesting proposition.
It's unconstutional if two parties can't join forces to gain rights against a third party that they don't possess individually.
How does a county judge strike down a State law?
Rent control?Nope, not a taking.Union demanding dues from the unwilling?Unconstitutional taking.The hypocrisy of the left is truly breath-taking.
Retiring judge indulging in wish fulfillment.
Did anyone get to the reason?The judge ruled that the right-to-work law deprived the union of property without due process.Let that sink in.The union owns a chunk of the worker's wage, according to the judge. And not allowing the union to confiscate that chunk is a taking.
ZOMG the judge has decided that the right to fleece workers is the property of the union, of which it may not be deprived. There just might be a 13th amendment issue here.
We need judicial loser pays.
When the commie-pinko libs win at the legislative level, it's settled law. When they lose in the legislative arena, it's time to go judge shopping.
And in other news, Justice Roberts thinks it's ok to tax people who don't buy a product the federal government wishes them to buy.The state is self-aware and it believes it owns you.Leviathan must be destroyed.
Let's follow Solomon's solution and cut the baby in half:Let the unions negotiate salary and benefits that only apply to union members. Non union members are on their own. No "free riders."Let the employers hire a mix of union and non-union labor as they see fit.Wait, say the lefties... nobody would ever hire the union guys at a higher price for the same work!Yes. That's correct.
It is a bit unfair that unions have to negotiate on behalf of workers who don't want to join the union. This is a flaw in federal labor law. If workers don't want to join the union then they should individually negotiate their compensation.
I'm inclined to agree with the Atty General.I didn't realize that Foust was retiring. I'm feeling older now.
This is why we can't have nice things...
The Dane County judge really had no choice. Any other decision and his neighbors would toilet-paper his house, key his car, and have his kids beat up at school. He knows how liberals are, especially union-loving liberals.
I agree with many of the commenters above. It seems bizarre that the unions would have a legal interest in the dues monies for workers who don't want to contribute to the union. Which is why, given the election last week, that I suspect that this ruling will be reversed by the WI Supreme Court (or, is there an intermediate level appeals court that could reverse it first?)
The Atty General's name always makes me think of Laverne & Shirley.
Reading the article (after commenting) answered my questions. Yes, there is an intermediate level of review, and there is apparently a decent chance that the AG will appeal the decision there, given the effects of the ruling. Oh, and the Republicans apparently have a 5-2 Justice advantage at the state Supreme Court, so, I fully expect this to ultimately be reversed.
"nobody would ever hire the union guys at a higher price for the same work!Yes. That's correct."No comment yet on how that illustrates the "Women make only 77 cents to mens dollar income" fallacy. Why would any employer hire a man when a woman would do the same job for less ?
Birkel wrote:"And in other news, Justice Roberts thinks it's ok to tax people who don't buy a product the federal government wishes them to buy."16th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."The 16th amendment is pretty much a blank check. Congress can take as much of your income as it wants for any reason it wants.
Althouse makes Madison and Dane County out to be this liberal hot bed. I believe this is being dishonest and not representative of Madison or Dane County.The real fab libs of Madison leave immediately upon graduation from high school or college because they find Madison and Wisconsin boring, white and somewhat ignorant. They are also in seek of more fabulousness.I never go to State Street when I return home but when I did I found it incredibly depressing to see the people's faces on the street so enamored by the mundane. And don't get me started with Jazzman's men clothing shop-shameful and hideous and reminiscent of the 80's Chess King store, yet Badger's find it compelling and interesting...sigh. The ties and shoes are a crime, not to mention the unacceptable sweaters with a shameful variety of colors-sweaters for men should be only one color not multi-colored!. And yet, it passes as a high staple of fashion in Madison.It really isn't. Sorry Madison and Dane County don't know real liberal. Madison is a few blocks of something comparable to a large city and the rest of the city is 90% people driving their cars to strip malls and restaurants in strip malls-definitely not fab or liberal. Then they return to their house in a nondescript subdivison where all the homes look the same and costs $300,000 or huge identical apartment complexes where you can get a 2 bedroom for $1200-pathetic. And Dane County consists of a bunch of tiny towns with supper clubs, townie bars (which are not hip) and fish fries and fatties.Come to Cambridge and Northampton to find real fab lib places. Northampton is in western mass yet is able to support a Kiehl's and Dr. Hauschka store which make a profit! Now that is liberal.No wonder Biddy, the former dyke chancellor is now in Amherst!I am proud to say i am from Madison though and not Mobile.tits.
The Chess King had world class Naugahyde jackets.
Well Titus wins the snotty Scotty award for this thread. But then he probably knows a few "fab limbs" and I don't.
It's very hard for those who haven't studied the Wisconsin constitution, and its associated interpreting precedent, to guess about whether a state-constitution based challenge will or won't win. Sometimes state constitutions contain things wildly beyond, and sometimes oddly oblique to, federal constitutional jurisprudence.I can't comment on the merits or the odds, then. But certainly the Walker administration has had a pretty good track record by the time these things have been finally resolved.
Terry:Is that word 'income' doing any work?
Unbelievable, or almost unbelievable.Try to imagine another situation where any liberal judge would rule that imposing a cost (via regulation) on a business or organization is an unconstitutional taking. Oh, it is an unfunded mandate, is it? Geez this must be the very first one!
Titus is absolutely right about men's sweaters. Damn skiers and Bill Cosby.
I think the unemployed people who want to work should show up for a job for which they are otherwise qualified, and when the company who hasn't hired them tries to run them off, they can sue saying they have a right to work *there.* Let's push this right to work concept.In fact, I think there should be a wide open ebay type market or exchange where I can bid to do a fatcat's job at a lower salary. The fatcats never get laid off because they are the circle of people who make the decisions about others. They protect each other. Put their asses into the free market. RFP each job every fiscal year. Auction it off to the lowest bidder.Goodbye overpaid CEOs.
It is a bit unfair that unions have to negotiate on behalf of workers who don't want to join the union. This is a flaw in federal labor law. If workers don't want to join the union then they should individually negotiate their compensation.The unions do not want this. The whole point in forcing people to join the union to get a job is precisely so non-union workers cannot negotiate their own deals and price union workers out of a job.
@mccullough said...It is a bit unfair that unions have to negotiate on behalf of workers who don't want to join the union. This is a flaw in federal labor law. If workers don't want to join the union then they should individually negotiate their compensation.Right-to-Work is a provision under Taft-Hartley which removes compulsory union membership and prevents firing for refusal to pay union dues. The contract is first between the employer and employee and the union serves to secure a contract for those who want their help. Union representation drops every year as education takes its toll on the old head-banger employee socialist organizations. The Wisconsin law does not prohibit unions from collecting dues, it simply removes the task from the duties of the government payroll department.
Birkel wrote:"Is that word 'income' doing any work?"Congress decides what is and what is not income.
"the unacceptable sweaters with a shameful variety of colors-sweaters for men should be only one color not multi-colored!"It's great to have rules, but doesn't that make you want to look for the most excellent men's sweater that's not one color?Would this be okay?
As I understood it, representing all the workers is a contractual choice the unions make and they could just drop that clause from their contract and then they wouldn't have to do anything for the non-union workers. But claiming to represent everyone seems to help them in the negotiations, so they insist on it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Mobster to unsuspecting civilian: "I saw your car needed a wash, so I had that done for you. Looks nice, doesn't it? Hey, just a small favor for you, so I know you'll want to make a little donation. Won't you?"Union to unsuspecting worker: "We saw that your terms of employment could use a wash, so we did that for you. Now you make more than you could ever have bargained for on your own. Pretty shiny package, huh? So we know you'll want to make a little donation. Won't you?"
Terry:True and irrelevant.
who-knew said...Correct me if I'm wrong.Your union has the duty to represent all employees - whether members of the union or not-fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.Note that the unions want this, because they don't want their members to lose jobs to someone willing to work for less, or to lose wages because more competent members leave the union to negotiate based on merit.
Does this really matter? It'll make its way to the Wiscinsin Supreme Court, which holds a 5-2, conservative majority. Right to Work will be found constitutional 5-2. For a while anyway, Dane County judges are now a mere speed bump.
A Madison judge is of course duty bound by liberal bona fides to rule according to his conscience = Democrat ideology.
Non union members are on their own. No "free riders."Let the employers hire a mix of union and non-union labor as they see fit.Wait, say the lefties... nobody would ever hire the union guys at a higher price for the same work!The main reason I would never join a union is because I am convinced I am worth more than the union demands, not less. Unions protect incompetence. I am not incompetent.
Ann,That looks rather like someone shining a black light on my cat's barf.
The Cracker Emcee said...Titus is absolutely right about men's sweaters. Damn skiers and Bill Cosby.**************I dunno....the pricey Orvis menswear catalogs that keep coming to my door have patterned/multi-colored sweaters alongside their $130 casual wear shirts and $800 bomber jackets.Could it be that the preference for solid color sweaters is a "beer pocketbook" sort of thing, making a virtue from necessity?
This is what happen when Scientific Progressives are allowed to become judges.
And in other news, Justice Roberts thinks it's ok to tax people who don't buy a product the federal government wishes them to buy.Not just Roberts- Breyer, Ginsberg, and the mediocrities known as Sotomayer and Kagan.
If workers don't want to join the union then they should individually negotiate their compensation.I do all the time. It's never been a problem.
This rather reminds me of the squeegee men in NYC. "I just washed your window. Now you owe me money".
Post a Comment