The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:
The court side with state officials in upholding limitations on what can be bargained, but found the two other provisions violated the union members' First Amendment rights, considering that the same rules did not apply to unions for public safety workers such as police and firefighters.
"So long as the State of Wisconsin continues to afford ordinary certification and dues deductions to mandatory public safety unions with sweeping bargaining rights, there is no rational basis to deny those rights to voluntary general unions with severely restricted bargaining rights," wrote U.S. District Judge William M. Conley....
The state's justification for allowing greater bargaining by public safety workers - avoidance of strikes - does not stand up as a rational basis for requiring other public worker unions to annually recertify by absolute majority, and denying them automatic dues deductions, the court said....
ADDED: Here's a
PDF of the opinion. First, the court upholds the collective bargaining restrictions:
There is no dispute that a state may bar its public employees from engaging in any form of collective bargaining. The only question is whether a state may restrict the collective bargaining rights to one category of public unions while allowing full rights to another category. The answer to that question is surely “yes,” provided the classifications do not involve a suspect class and a rational basis exists for a state’s line drawing. Here, there is no suspect class involved and plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence that exempting public safety employees from the new, expansive restrictions on collective bargaining bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest in avoiding strikes of those employees...
While the court concludes that the carving out of public safety employees under the Act is rationally-related to a legitimate government interest in avoiding disruptions by those employees, at least facially, it cannot wholly discount evidence that the line-drawing between public safety employees and general employees was influenced (or perhaps even dictated) by whether the unions representing these employees supported Governor Walker’s gubernatorial campaign....
This is not an ordinary case in any number of respects, but it is ordinary in the sense that political favoritism is no grounds for heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause. Indeed, cases finding the true reason for legislation is pure animus directed at a particular group -- which cannot form the basis of a legitimate government interest -- typically involve powerless groups, like “hippies” in or gay and lesbian citizens of Colorado in Romer. Act 10 may cripple unions representing general employees, but these unions and its members are certainly not a powerless class.
Even assuming the lack of an adequate rationale for distinguishing between public safety and general employee unions, the Equal Protection Clause does not require that a state institute changes wholesale. As discussed, the State of Wisconsin could have eliminated all rights of public employees to unionize. That it chose to implement changes piecemeal, for one class of public unions at this time, while neglecting others, is not a constitutional violation. “The prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause goes no further than invidious discrimination.” Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., 348 U.S. 483, 489 (1955).
But the line between public safety employees and other public employs is not supported by a rational basis when it comes to the different treatment with respect to annual recertification:
[T]he court finds this onerous recertification provision would typically pass the admittedly low bar of rational basis review, but for defendants’ failure to articulate and this court’s inability to posit, how an annual, absolute majority vote by a wholly-voluntary union could rationally advance a reasonable purpose...
As for and the withholding union dues, the court said there was no rational basis for treating this 2 different groups of state workers differently.Because unions
speak for workers, the court thought that the state's failure to collect dues for the unions presented a First Amendment free-speech issue where the 2 different classes of unions were treated differently.
Act 10 expressly exempts public safety employees from the prohibition, representing “a governmental ‘attempt to give one side of a debatable public question an advantage in expressing its views to the people.’”
The court thought that the governor and legislature were essentially subsidizing the speech that favored them and making it harder for voices on the other side to collect the money that they could use against them. The court saw "apparent, if not actual, favoritism and entanglement in partisan politics by discriminating in favor of fundraising efforts on behalf of public safety unions over general employee unions."
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
Is that one of the judges that signed the recall petition ?
Just asking.
Remind me again, how did judges get the power to strike down legislation on the grounds that, in the judges opinion, it was not rational?
Fridays are never dull in Wisconsin it seems lately.
GAB certifies recalls
Portions of Act 10 struck
Republicans announce fake Democrats in all six recall elections
Tom Barrett announces his bid for governor
No rational basis?
That's really and amazing finding for a judge.
What he means is, "No rational basis based on my assumptions, predilections and bias."
I predict reversal.
Wow, the unions have a right to have dues removed from their members paycheck? Is that not an amazing concept?
Rational basis is supposed to be an extremely low hurdle for a government. All it means (in my understanding) is that there exists SOME (not necessarily good) justification for the law.
This will be overturned on appeal.
members'paychecks, even.
Not really understanding what aspect of the First Amendment was violated here.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Anyone? Bueller?
Garage, you forgot Kelly Reinfleish's motion to move her trial to Columbia County was denied.
Will it make her talk?
@Maguro--He's an Obama appointee. A demonstrated inability to understand the Constitution--along with a willingness to make shit up--is a feature, not a bug.
Forward!
Garage, you forgot Kelly Reinfleish's motion to move her trial to Columbia County was denied
Yea I missed that one. This is very interesting as well. Amazing how the same figures appear over and over.
It's Roman law.
Spring certainly has come early to Wisconsin, things are heating up. Mark Block, once again.
The unions can speak and petition the government all they want, but the First Amendment does not compel the government to enter into collective bargaining agreements on anything. The First Amendment only says: "government may not do this," it does not say, "goverment must do that."
But what do you expect from an Obama appointee?
"Obama appointee".
Wow, real original.
@gm, You're making even less sense than usual.
Cops carry guns and are the ones called to quell union unrest.
Sounds like a rational basis to me.
I'm with Maguro.
How does having somebody take money out of your pocket, putting it in someone else's, and knowing they're going to keep it in their pocket constitute Free Speech?
Or is this one of those religious mandate things again?
Leslyn, my suspicion is that it was the Equal Protection argument. I'm not a lawyer, just a hunch.
Katy Meter Lounsbury, one of the lawyers arguing this case is a personal friend of mine and I am honored to say she represented me at one time.
Congratulations Katy!!
This just means that all civil servants need to be treated equally and their unions abolished. The integrity of public servants cannot be tied to fiscal incentives or special privileges greater than the people they serve. Their capacity to bypass the representative process and exploit the taxpayers directly needs to be ended. The present arrangement only serves to sponsor corruption of authoritarian interests.
The irony is that the same people who mock "corporations are people" will applaud the idea that unions (i.e., corporations) can have rights. :)
Anyway, hopefully this will provide the impetus to strip those powers from police and firefighters' unions too.
Revenent, good luck with that. Ohio?
"GAB certifies recalls
Portions of Act 10 struck"
Please throw me in that briar patch ! Democrats will rue the day they took on Walker. I suppose I should say public employee unions but what's the difference?
I've linked to the opinion now and added some key excerpts.
The parts of Act 10 that were struck down had to do with the difficult annual recertification and ending withholding of union dues in employee paychecks.
The court thought there was no rational basis for treating the public safety employees different from other public employees.
The restrictions on collective bargaining -- which I believe were the most object to provisions -- were upheld.
"(In other words, he's no dummy.)"
Neither was Mussolini. Just sayin'
So what's next? Can this go to a higher court on issues other than procedural?
However, Conley found that the two other changes - annual recertification and a ban on automatic dues deduction - violated the First Amendment rights of the affected workers.
Making union dues compulsory doesn't violate the First Amendment and free association rights of the affected workers, but making the dues voluntary does?
"The court would be remiss not to at least note the likely burden the annual recertification process imposes on the members' speech and association rights," he wrote.
Seems to me annual recertification would increase the free speech and free association rights of individual workers vis-a-vis the union.
====the Fitzgerald's daddy was appointed State Patrol commissioner. Daddy Fitzgerald thereafter directed the State Patrol to do the notorious (and illegal) stalking of Democrats' homes.=====
You are probably referring to the legal enforcement of an order resulting from the Fleeing fourteen staggering down to nightclubs in Illinois. Real winners not staying to negotiate but subverting the majority's vote.
----
Pressure ratcheted up on absent Senate Democrats on Thursday, as they were found in contempt by GOP senators and Gov. Scott Walker said he will start sending layoff notices to state workers Friday if the standoff over his budget-repair bill isn't resolved.
Along with the finding of contempt came an order that law enforcement detain Democrats and bring them to the Senate chambers
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117325998.html
You libs cant write two paragraphs without resorting to the Big Lie
Leslyn, I knew there would come a day when Citizens United would include unions freedom of speech. If a corporation is a person, what is a union? Again they want it both ways, can't have it both ways.
OK - I'm not understanding this...So does this mean that the unions that chose to not re-certify are in effect "certified" and can negotiate on behalf of their members immediately? Or do they still need to re-certify, but by the same process (is there one?) used by the so-called Public Safety unions?
Is the composition of the union membership affected? Specifically, I believe membership became voluntary when Act 10 went into effect. Does the striking of the payroll deduction "stuff" mean that only voluntary members will have dues auto-deducted? Or will all employees for whom the union could argue it is representing in the collective bargaining process be forced to pay dues via auto-deduction?
Public Unions: "Great news! We can have your dues automatically deducted from your paychecks again!"
Public Union Worker: "Zzzzzzzzz"
Public Unions: "Hey wake up! It's almost time for your break! And again, we can have your dues automatically deducted from your paychecks again!"
Public Union Worker: "So we don't have to pay into our pension now"?
Public Unions: "Uh, no. You sill have to do that. We can have your dues automatically deducted from your paychecks again!"
Public Union Worker: "But we don't have to pay for a part of healthcare, right?"?
Public Unions: "Uh...no still gotta do that too"
Public Union Worker: "Well, you're going to get us a big ole raise to cover that now?"
Public Unions: "Sorry, we can only get you cost of living...if we're lucky."
Public Union Worker: "Well, we can negotiate other provisions so we can shift stack again?"
Public Unions: "Uh, again, sorry."
Public Union Worker: "So nothing has really changed for us. What's so great about this"?
Public Unions" "Well, we know what a pain it is to write out a check every month for your dues, because you haven't been doing it. So now we can have it come right out of your paycheck! You just need to sign this form."
Public Union Worker: "Zzzzzzzzz"
"No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The rights of a union, being an association of members, are derivative of the rights of its members. And those members have diverse interests, they are not of a single mind on all things. For that reason, a union has a duty to not discriminate, but to act for and advocate for any given member.
Again, any equal protection rights the union has are derivative of the personal equal protection rights of its members. As such, it cannot discriminate against the equal protection rights of any of its members.
A union certainly cannot discriminate against the equal protection interests of a majority of its members. On its face, though, the annual recertification requirement protects these rights of individual members who may no longer wish to be unionized, without compelling them to go through the onerous process of seeking decertification.
Far in excess of a rational basis, protecting the rights of these employees/union members is an important, if not compelling, government interest. Indeed, the court had before it three such members who wanted the law upheld, but the court refused to let them intervene.
With respect to the dues, certainly a union may engage in various speech activities in addition to their primary function of collective bargaining agents. And those activities cost money, for which they may assess dues.
But the union's right to assess dues to fund their speech does not extend to compelling government to act as dues collector through wage withholding. There is no First Amendment requirement whatsoever that government seize a portion of the wages that are lawfully due the employee and give it over to a third party, such as the union.
If the unions wish to fund their speech through dues, they are perfectly free to mandate that members pay the dues themselves.
leslyn -- the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association and its members seeking to intervene as plaintiffs were redundant to the plaintiff unions.
The three seeking to intervene as defendants, though, were adverse to the unions and had unique personal interests that the state did not share and could not adequately represent and advocate.
Apparently this is the wisp of smoke upon which the court bases its ruling that, even though government has no obligation to act as dues collector through wage withholding (and thereby also provide a subsidy to the speech), the failure to withhold violates the First Amendment -- a perceived favoritism of some unions over others, even though the actual text of the law is completely neutral.
The fact that none of the public employee unions falling into the general category endorsed Walker in the 2010 election and that all of the unions that endorsed Walker fall within the public safety category certainly suggests that unions representing general employees have different viewpoints than those of the unions representing public safety employees. Moreover, Supreme Court jurisprudence and the evidence of record strongly suggests that the exemption of those unions from Act 10’s prohibition on automatic dues deductions enhances the ability of unions representing public safety employees to continue to support this Governor and his party. (p.30) . . .
Absent evidence of viewpoint discrimination, perhaps it is enough that the State of Wisconsin merely chose a dividing line between two classes of unions and applied it evenhandedly, but the court has difficulty with that result where the only apparent reason for discriminating between the entities is their different viewpoints. . . . this court cannot uphold the State of Wisconsin’s apparent, if not actual, favoritism and entanglement in partisan politics by discriminating in favor of fundraising efforts on behalf of public safety unions over general employee unions. (p. 36)
Appearances and suggestions. Not evidence. Not the text of the law. Nothing but appearances and suggestions -- something doesn't smell right to the judge. And that is enough for him.
Not law, but nothing more than a feeling, an impression.
nighty-night
Is the judge's claim that only unions that supported Walker received favourable treatment correct? I thought only the Milwaukee Police Association, Milwaukee Professional Firefighters Association, West Allis Police Association and the Wisconsin State Troopers supported him while the actual list of unions covered under the "Public Safety" designation was much larger?
FWIW in partial answer to my first set of questions: Act 10 does away with "fair-trade" dues collection from non-union members. Since this was not affected by the judge's ruling, only members in good standing will presumably have their dues automatically deducted.
If political favoritism is grounds for heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection clause, Public Employee Unions would be outlawed.
Well, then its time to pass a law banning dues deduction from all PE union members paychecks.
@leslyn:
"Non-union member" was my attempt to capture the group of employees who under the pre-Act 10 law did not want to be part of the union and did not sign the union card yet were forced to pay union dues anyway. The unions argued that since they were in effect representing these employees during the collective bargaining process, the union should receive dues from them. As a result dues were automatically deducted from your paycheck when you were hired into a position represented by a particular union regardless of whether you signed the union card. However if you wanted to make use of union resources, e.g. to file a grievance against another union member, for representation at a pre-disciplinary hearing, etc. they made you sign the card first.
My current understanding is that Act 10 made union membership voluntary. Classes of positions within the State are no longer assumed to be automatically represented (except the Public Safety ones.) If you chose to be a member your dues can be automatically deducted from your paycheck by May 31st. If you chose to not be represented, the union can't argue that they are in effect representing you anyway (and won't be able to automatically deduct dues for you).
If this is correct, then the only employees affected by this part of the decision are only those who chose to remain union members but had to arrange for payment of union dues themselves. In effect, this changes very little except that the State will now provide and pay for the Union's dues collection process.
I should add that my experience has been with the State personnel system. I know nothing of the local/municipal ones...
@leslyn
I assumed that the reason Act 10 reached down to municipal employees was because pre-existing law did so as well. Do you know if this is in fact true? Or is this something "new".
@leslyn
I did try to read both decisions. Not being a lawyer, I quickly fell asleep which is why I'm turning to people with a stronger legal background to help me understand this...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा