"We reject the plaintiffs' argument that several provisions of Act 10, which delineate the rights, obligations and procedures of collective bargaining, somehow infringe upon general employees' constitutional right to freedom of association," Justice Michael Gableman wrote for the majority in a 90-page decision. "No matter the limitations or 'burdens' a legislative enactment places on the collective bargaining process, collective bargaining remains a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation. The First Amendment cannot be used as a vehicle to expand the parameters of a benefit that it does not itself protect."...ADDED: Here's the PDF of the opinion.
In her dissent, [Justice Ann Walsh] Bradley wrote that the majority opinion sidestepped the actual issues in the matter and reframed the argument, focusing on whether there is a constitutional right to bargain collectively instead of whether Act 10 infringes on the freedom of association rights of public employees to organize....
"By making membership unduly expensive," Bradley wrote, "these Act 10 provisions collectively infringe on the associational right to organize. There is no doubt that these provisions act to discourage membership."
July 31, 2014
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds Act 10 — the legislation that sparked huge protests back in 2011.
"In a 5-2 decision, the court said that public workers in Wisconsin do not have a constitutional right to bargain collectively."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
What is Walker now, 11-0?
A 5-2 decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for a conservative, Republican initiated law and in support of a position that Walker drove is the equivalent of a unanimous decision from any less biased, corrupt court.
Was there any judicial choking involved?
If I were a judge on that court, I would write a concurring opinion that agreed with everything except the incorrect usage of the word 'parameters.'
This appears to be the last stage of a war, namely shooting the wounded. The unions seem to be resigned to democracy at last.
I have tried and failed to find links to the written decisions.
Anyway: public unions are an offense to the public. See FDR.
But maybe those who choose to organize can't afford a can of Coke, as Bradley seems to suggest.
I don't know. Can we sue ourselves and strike against ourselves?
"I have tried and failed to find links to the written decisions."
The PDF of the opinion is visible on the linked page. Click to enlarge it.
"We reject the plaintiffs' argument that several provisions of Act 10, which delineate the rights, obligations and procedures of collective bargaining, somehow infringe upon general employees' constitutional right to freedom of association," Justice Michael Gableman wrote for the majority in a 90-page decision. "No matter the limitations or 'burdens' a legislative enactment places on the collective bargaining process, collective bargaining remains a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation. The First Amendment cannot be used as a vehicle to expand the parameters of a benefit that it does not itself protect."...
In her dissent, [Justice Ann Walsh] Bradley wrote that the majority opinion sidestepped the actual issues in the matter and reframed the argument, focusing on whether there is a constitutional right to bargain collectively instead of whether Act 10 infringes on the freedom of association rights of public employees to organize....
"By making membership unduly expensive," Bradley wrote, "these Act 10 provisions collectively infringe on the associational right to organize. There is no doubt that these provisions act to discourage membership."
The dissent is silly. Freedom to associate is also freedom to not associate. Act 10 as I understand it doesn't make joining a union any more difficult but instead makes it easier to opt out of joining.
As the majority ruled correctly collective bargaining is a statutory right and not a constitutional right otherwise the employer would be well within his constitutional rights to ignore the union and refuse to bargain with it or hire union members.
Ah. Got it. Stupidly presented, web-wise, but it's there nonetheless. Thanks for the pointer, Professor.
cubanbob,
The dissent is silly. Freedom to associate is also freedom to not associate. Act 10 as I understand it doesn't make joining a union any more difficult but instead makes it easier to opt out of joining.
Exactly so. You have the same right to join a union as you always did; it's just that now it's optional, so the union has actually to be worth your while (and your dues).
This is "making membership unduly expensive" only if you think union membership was already unduly expensive, but coerced. Apparently the unions themselves think so.
"The First Amendment cannot be used as a vehicle to expand the parameters of a benefit that it does not itself protect."
how did this person ever get to be a judge, and can we make sure it happens again (and again)?
Yup, it's time for this again
"By making membership unduly expensive," Bradley wrote, "these Act 10 provisions collectively infringe on the associational right to organize. There is no doubt that these provisions act to discourage membership."
Another example of the liberal mantra: "There is no freedom until everything is free" with the corollary: "Unless you give me money, you are taking away my freedom"
they can organize all they want, but no one has to listen, they have no authority, and they can no longer steal the wages of hard working people.
Gist of dissent: The Collective Government Workers are supposed to rule Wisconsin, aren't they? And that Constitution thingee needs to become a living one again.
""By making membership unduly expensive," Bradley wrote, "these Act 10 provisions collectively infringe on the associational right to organize. There is no doubt that these provisions act to discourage membership."
Oh, fooey. Government employees can organize and associate all they want.
It's just that now no one's obligated to negotiate with (or even listen to) their organizations and associations.
Isn't this like claiming that it's a violation of your free speech rights if I'm not compelled to listen to you?
Oh boy, garage is gonna blow a gasket. Between this the photo ID law.
Please garage, take care of yourself. We want you around as an object of derision for years to come!
Bravo. Well done Governor Walker. Come and run for Governor in Missouri please.
Bradley's argument is honestly one of the dumbest things I have heard a public official say. Nothing will ever beat the Congressman who was concerned islands would tip over if you stationed too many troops on them... but Bradley is special in her own way.
So when did the court switch from 4-3 to 5-2?
Oh, and what the majority of Act 10 does is take away the power of government employers to force workers to give money to the unions.
I missed the part of the First Amendment that granted State and Local governments that"right".
"now no one's obligated to negotiate with (or even listen to) their organizations and associations."
Not obligated is an understatement. It is forbidden by state law for an employer to negotiate with or even listen to the public sector unions on practically everything.
Also, the "making membership unduly expensive" is about the hefty fees the unions must pay to the state every year in order to re-certify, plus the unusual election rules they are now forced to follow. (Walker would not be governor of Wisconsin if the governor's race was required to follow the same rules as unions are)
No surprise at all that the Republican Supreme Court upheld this signature Republican law. The Republican labor unions (Firefighters and Police) are still safe as long as they keep writing those fat checks to the GOP, but up next will be the elimination of most private sector unions in the state. There is no doubt Walker intends to follow through on that promise.
madisonfella said...
Also, the "making membership unduly expensive" is about the hefty fees the unions must pay to the state every year in order to re-certify, plus the unusual election rules they are now forced to follow. (Walker would not be governor of Wisconsin if the governor's race was required to follow the same rules as unions are)
Really? He beat the recall in 2012. What would justify your claim that he would have lost in 2013, or 2011?
Look, it's real simple: there's no reason why current workers should be bound by the union vote of previous workers. And there's no reason why a minority of workers should be able to force a union on the majority. A union that provides actual value to the workers wouldn't have any problem with the Act 10 rules.
Perhaps the dissent could be interpreted to require the unions to offer free membership so as to not unduly burden state workers' right to freely associate.
"What would justify your claim that he would have lost in 2013, or 2011?"
He did not receive a majority of all the eligible voters in either of those elections. If he had to follow the same election rules that have been imposed upon the unions then he would not be Governor today.
"A union that provides actual value to the workers wouldn't have any problem with the Act 10 rules."
ACT 10 makes it illegal for a public sector union to provide much, if anything, of "actual value" to the workers they represent.
You really have no idea what this law you're supporting encompasses, do you?
madisonfella said...
"What would justify your claim that he would have lost in 2013, or 2011?"
He did not receive a majority of all the eligible voters in either of those elections.
Well, madisonfella, since none of the democrats did either, under that situation we'd be left with no government officials at all.
Sounds like paradise. How do I sign up for it?
Now, here in the real world, let's take a look at those rules:
In union elections, you're facing a question: Do I want to be represented by a union? If less than 50% of the workers want the union, why in the world should it be forced on everyone else?
In gov. elections, the question "will there be a governor" has already been answered, yes there will. SO now what's left is the question "who will be governor?"
And of the people who care, more than 50% have said every time that they wanted Scott Walker.
So, other than comparing apples and eggs, get try there.
madisonfella said...
madisonfella said...
"A union that provides actual value to the workers wouldn't have any problem with the Act 10 rules."
ACT 10 makes it illegal for a public sector union to provide much, if anything, of "actual value" to the workers they represent.
Bullshit. Or, rather, if true, then what you're saying is that there's never any valid reason for a union.
The union can combine the voluntary efforts of the members into things they can get as a group, but can't get as individuals. What an Act 10 union can no longer do is stick gun to to people's heads, or get the employer to stick a gun to people's heads, and force them to do what the union bosses want.
Simple example: You want a large group that can lobby politicians more effectively than you can, alone? Join a union, get it to lobby politicians for your ideals.
Hey, look, the unions are doing that lobbying, and people are leaving in droves. I guess the union members did NOT want their money taken from then and spent lobbying politicians according to the union bosses' politics.
The government unions spent the last 20+ years shaking down taxpayers (overpriced health insurance plans), pushing left wing politics, and fighting to protect the worthless among the employees. So, now that they can, all the competent people, and all the non-flaming left-wingers, are leaving the unions. Welcome to justice.
Oh, and madisonfella, IIUC the unions have a good deal of influence over WHEN the retention election happens. If all they need is 50% of those who vote, they have every incentive to time the vote so that only their fervent supporters make it to the polls. With the 50% of employees requirement, they have a strong incentive to make sure the voting is at a time and place where everyone can vote.
IOW, the circumstances are significantly different from a normal election, therefore the rules are, too.
gregq asked...
So when did the court switch from 4-3 to 5-2?
Answerign my own question: Justice N. Patrick Crooks, last re-elected in 2006, was the "swinger". Ann, has he been moving right over the last year, or was just a matter of "come on, don't be stupid"?
Post a Comment