Judge voids Wisc. law

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Judge voids Wisconsin collective bargaining law
Associated Press Scott Bauer And Todd Richmond, Associated Press – Thu May 26, 5:41 pm ET
MADISON, Wis. – The fight over stripping collective bargaining rights from Wisconsin's public workers will move into the state Supreme Court, and possibly back into the Legislature, after a judge ruled Thursday to strike down the law that passed despite massive protests that paralyzed the Capitol.

Republican backers of Gov. Scott Walker's proposal said they were confident the state Supreme Court would overturn the judge's ruling that the law is void because lawmakers broke open meetings statutes during the approval process. She had temporarily blocked the law shortly after it passed in March.

The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments in the case on June 6. Republicans who control the Legislature also could pass the measure a second time to avoid the open meeting violations.

Still, Democrats and union leaders who helped organize protests against the measure that grew to as large as 85,000 people praised the victory, even if it could be fleeting.

"It tells legislators `You can't be arrogant,'" said Marty Beil, executive director of the state's largest public employee union. "You have to do it in the light of day. You can't take stuff away from people in a backroom deal."

Mary Bell, president of the state's largest teachers' union, said she hoped the judge's ruling would lead to lawmakers reconsidering passing the law again.

"It is not in the best interest of students, schools or Wisconsin's future to take the voices of educators out of our classrooms," Bell said in a statement. "We've seen how this issue has polarized our state."

The last time the Legislature took up the issue, tens of thousands of protesters, including many teachers, descended on Madison in a futile attempt to persuade lawmakers to reject the proposal. The protests lasted for weeks and made Wisconsin the center of a national debate on union rights. Meanwhile, all 14 Democratic senators fled to Illinois to prevent a 20-member quorum to pass the bill. Senate Republicans eventually called a special committee meeting with roughly two hours' notice so it could amend the bill to take out spending items to avoid the quorum requirement.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi noted in her ruling Thursday that the open meetings law typically calls for 24-hours' notice of meetings, or, in cases with just cause, two hours. Sumi said nothing justified such short notice and declared the law void.

"Our form of government depends on citizens' trust and confidence in the process by which our elected officials make laws, at all levels of government," she wrote.

The Legislature's budget committee's Republican co-chairs reacted by labeling Sumi an "activist" judge. Sumi was appointed to the bench by former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson.

Walker pushed for the law as a way to help balance the state budget that was projected to be $3.6 billion short when he introduced the proposal in February. Walker was counting on the savings to help blunt the impact of more than $1 billion in aid cuts to schools and local governments he's calling for in his budget, which could be ready to be debated in the Senate and Assembly in mid-June.

Walker's spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor would have no comment. Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he would discuss his options with the state's attorneys, but whether there's an attempt to pass the bill again in the Legislature will depend largely on what the Supreme Court does.

Wisconsin Department of Justice executive assistant Steve Means said Sumi's ruling was disappointing and that he was confident the Supreme Court would overturn the decision. The Justice Department argued that the lower court judge had no authority to block enactment of a bill passed by the Legislature.

Ismael Ozanne, the Dane County district attorney who argued for striking down the law, said he was now focused on preparing for the Supreme Court arguments.

On Wednesday, the day before the ruling, the Justice Department sent Sumi a letter urging her to consider recusing because she appears biased against the Republicans. The agency pointed to a brief she filed with the Supreme Court outlining her belief that she has the authority to void a law if the open meetings law was violated during its passage, saying she shouldn't have set out her position before she issued a decision.

A message left at Sumi's chambers Thursday wasn't immediately returned.

The collective bargaining law called for public workers at all levels, from janitors at the state Capitol to local librarians, to contribute more to their pension and health care costs, resulting in savings to the state of $300 million through mid-2013. The law also strips them of their right to collectively bargain any work conditions except wages. Police and firefighters are exempt.

___

Associated Press writer Jason Smathers contributed to this report.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
My take on this is, it was never about the budget, it was about stripping the unions of the collective bargaining in an attempt to bust the unions.

From the last paragraph of the article:
The collective bargaining law called for public workers at all levels, from janitors at the state Capitol to local librarians, to contribute more to their pension and health care costs, resulting in savings to the state of $300 million through mid-2013. The law also strips them of their right to collectively bargain any work conditions except wages. Police and firefighters are exempt.

The Governor argued that collective bargaining was a budget issue. The workers went into the negotiations with good faith and agreed to pay more into their pension and health care costs, saving the state $300 million. Then the Governor turns around and adds the measure to strip the unions of collectively bargaining, after both sides agreed on the negotiated cuts and to pay more to their pensions and health care.

Since the Democrats had left Wisconsin the Republicans could not vote on the "Budget Repair" bill because the Democrats were not present. You have to have 20 senators out of 33(quoram) to be present to have a vote on budgetary matters. So the Governor stripped the bargaining rights out of the budget bill and made it a stand alone issue in which you only need a simple majority.

And such is politics.

The bottom line, you take away collective bargaining (which will in the end bust the unions), you take away a lot of campaign contributions to the democratic candidates. The Republicans will then have an unfair advantage with most, if not all of their contributions coming from corportations.

How do you win an election? You out spend your opponent, Walker and the Republicans know this, and its smart on their part to attempt this, but in the end it will not work out for them(in my opinion).

If the Governor would've campaigned and been honest of his intentions during the elections, he would've never been elected.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
As you said....it is politics....and when the Dems get an advantage I am sure they'll flaunt it as well....right?
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
As you said....it is politics....and when the Dems get an advantage I am sure they'll flaunt it as well....right?

Absolutely. I don't agree with it, but that is the state of politics. The problem is money, plain and simple. But that's a whole 'nother topic.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Absolutely. I don't agree with it, but that is the state of politics. The problem is money, plain and simple. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

It is good you can be neutral as in "the state of politics arena"

some are not quite so ummmm bending/flexible....as you are quite aware....;)
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There was a major need for unions at one time. There may be a reason for them in private industry but they are nothing more than a business in themselves now.

There is no place for unions in public service. There is no adversarial position. The tax payer has an absolute right to decide who they want to pay for service and how much they can afford to pay.

There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining.

Even that flaming socialist FDR knew this.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There is no Constitutional right to collective bargaining.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says :

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.

Let's focus on these sentence fragments :

Congress shall make no law respecting ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When a group of people peaceably assemble, they can formalize their assembly and call it a union. They can then petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Collective bargaining is not mentioned, but the Founders were well aware of craft guilds.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Originally Posted by witness23

If the Governor would've campaigned and been honest of his intentions during the elections, he would've never been elected.

Yea we would always epect a politician to be honest...:rolleyes:

But I'd think it is just as important if not more for a JUDGE to be honest....

From the article:

On Wednesday, the day before the ruling, the Justice Department sent Sumi a letter urging her to consider recusing because she appears biased against the Republicans. The agency pointed to a brief she filed with the Supreme Court outlining her belief that she has the authority to void a law if the open meetings law was violated during its passage, saying she shouldn't have set out her position before she issued a decision.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"Congress shall make no law respecting ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No one is stopping them from speaking. Just making demands on the tax payer.

There is no entitlement to public employment. There is every right for tax payers to hire who they chose and pay what the decide too.

It is not a private industry. It is not the governments money to spend. Neither the government or unions have a right to others money. A public employee strike is little different than extortion.

As in: "Give me more of YOUR money or I will let your house burn down, let your kid lay on the road when hit by that car or let that mugger mug you"
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
And recall election?


There is an attempt but not likely it will succeed. The problem is if you remove Snyder, then what? Jenny ran the state into the ground. Major changes need made. Who is going to do it? Who has the guts to stand up and say enough is enough?

Business is pulling out, not many new ones are coming in. Young people are leaving the state for greener pastures.

There is no money left and the unions want raises.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
But I'd think it is just as important if not more for a JUDGE to be honest....

From the article:
On Wednesday, the day before the ruling, the Justice Department sent Sumi a letter urging her to consider recusing because she appears biased against the Republicans. The agency pointed to a brief she filed with the Supreme Court outlining her belief that she has the authority to void a law if the open meetings law was violated during its passage, saying she shouldn't have set out her position before she issued a decision.
Apprears to be and being biased, are two different things. The Republicans violated the open meetings law, plain and simple. Judge Sumi made the mistake of making her position known before she issued her ruling. Now the Supreme Court will have to decide.

On Thursday, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled that Republican legislators violated Wisconsin's open meetings law by calling the meeting at such short notice.

She noted the open meetings law typically calls for 24-hours' notice or, in cases with just cause, two hours. Sumi said nothing justified less than 24 hours for the special committee and declared the law void. She had already put the law on hold while she considered the case.

Republicans passed it without them present, using a hastily called meeting to put the bill in the form needed to do that. The calling of that meeting with less than two hours' notice is what led to the lawsuit.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
There is no money left and the unions want raises.

I am not familiar with the goings' on in Michigan. I can only speak for Wisconsin and Ohio since they are very similar, except, Walker left police and fire out of his bill and Kasich included them in his.

Who, what, where and when have unions asked for raises? Maybe in Michigan but I find that hard to believe, but this is definately not the case in Ohio. Where have they asked for raises?
 
Top