Breaking: Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstates Walker’s collective bargaining law

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state’s open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices – Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks – concurred in part and dissented in part…

Legislative leaders had said they would have inserted the limits on collective bargaining into the state budget late Tuesday if the court hadn’t acted by then. But the high court ruled just before that budget debate was to begin…

In its decision, the state’s high court concluded that “choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts.”
jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html
 
gilliam said:
The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state’s open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices – Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks – concurred in part and dissented in part…

Legislative leaders had said they would have inserted the limits on collective bargaining into the state budget late Tuesday if the court hadn’t acted by then. But the high court ruled just before that budget debate was to begin…

In its decision, the state’s high court concluded that “choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts.”
jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html
Click to expand...
And there you have it.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I do! The states shouldn’t be held hostage to monopolistic labor unions when attempting to balance its budgets.
Click to expand...
We differ, it seems. I come from a line of hard working people - railroad workers and coal miners who would have no one in their corner against rapacious owners and bosses were it not for the unions. I am foursquare, in every way, for unions, both in the private and public sectors. You, I think, said that your family roots are in farming, and so your family would have had different experiences that did not require unions. I have no problem with that.
 
gilliam said:
The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state’s open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices – Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks – concurred in part and dissented in part…

Legislative leaders had said they would have inserted the limits on collective bargaining into the state budget late Tuesday if the court hadn’t acted by then. But the high court ruled just before that budget debate was to begin…

In its decision, the state’s high court concluded that “choices about what laws represent wise public policy for the state of Wisconsin are not within the constitutional purview of the courts.”
jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
We differ, it seems. I come from a line of hard working people - railroad workers and coal miners who would have no one in their corner against rapacious owners and bosses were it not for the unions. I am foursquare, in every way, for unions, both in the private and public sectors. You, I think, said that your family roots are in farming, and so your family would have had different experiences that did not require unions. I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...
In all cases? Have you seen Waiting for Superman? If not, please watch it and let us all know if you think the teachers’ unions are in the right when they oppose reform of our failing schools.

I don’t oppose unions completely, but in some cases they are hurting our economy and our country.
 
rlg94086 said:
In all cases? Have you seen Waiting for Superman? If not, please watch it and let us all know if you think the teachers’ unions are in the right when they oppose reform of our failing schools.

I don’t oppose unions completely, but in some cases they are hurting our economy and our country.
Click to expand...
I recommend that documentary too.
 
rlg94086 said:
In all cases? Have you seen Waiting for Superman? If not, please watch it and let us all know if you think the teachers’ unions are in the right when they oppose reform of our failing schools.

I don’t oppose unions completely, but in some cases they are hurting our economy and our country.
Click to expand...
When I said that I am foursquare for unions, it should be understood that neither I nor other union supporters support unions where there is criminality involved in their operations.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
When I said that I am foursquare for unions, it should be understood that neither I nor other union supporters support unions where there is criminality involved in their operations.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about “criminality?”
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
When I said that I am foursquare for unions, it should be understood that neither I nor other union supporters support unions where there is criminality involved in their operations.
Click to expand...
I think good workers should be fairly represented. I’ve worked in a warehouse where I worked my tail end off loading trailers that have been sitting in 110 degree heat all day while my co-worker got paid the same and could barely put down the bottle long enough to come to work. I don’t think he should be represented at all until he can prove he wants to work.

From the outside looking in though, it seems unions want anyone with a heartbeat.

I think unions should be the ones regulated, companies not so much. I’d rather my employer be less regulated and offered incentives to pay more than work for a union.

Around here though, pay rates have risen out of desperation for the best workers. During this recession I’ve read articles in the local paper talking about how hard it was for local business’s to find hard working employees. Lot’s of deadbeats running around mooching off the system, but no good workers looking because they all have jobs.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
"…in some cases they are hurting our economy and our country." That sounds criminal to me.
Click to expand...
That sounds like backpedaling to me. “Criminality involved in their operations” from a post by a lawyer certainly doesn’t sound figurative to me.

It is “criminal,” but not in a legal sense. Their support of tenure to the detriment of our students supports failure, fills our prisons and perpetuates poverty conditions.

The fight against Boeing in South Carolina is “criminal,” though not in a legal sense, as it is preventing much needed jobs in the area and slowing the production plans of one of our largest manufacturers.

These two examples alone are enough to keep most people from being “foursquare, in every way, for unions.”
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
We differ, it seems. I come from a line of hard working people - railroad workers and coal miners who would have no one in their corner against rapacious owners and bosses were it not for the unions. I am foursquare, in every way, for unions, both in the private and public sectors. You, I think, said that your family roots are in farming, and so your family would have had different experiences that did not require unions. I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...
Amen Rich. I’m with you and working people. That the state of WI has to bust unions in order to balance the budget is a canard and well worn territory on these forums. Rehashing them is a waste of time. Gov. Walker is against working people. Period. I’ll probably get banned for this but Walker and his minions worship at the alter of Lassez-Faire capitalism and Ayn Rand. I worship at the alter of Jesus Christ. They cannot be reconciled. Love you guys. I’m gonna miss this forum.
 
Let’s not rewrite history here. The misuse of power has been the sin of both large corporations and unions. Neither side is without sin here.
 
gilliam said:
Let’s not rewrite history here. The misuse of power has been the sin of both large corporations and unions. Neither side is without sin here.
Click to expand...
Yep. Labor issues are rarely black-and-white IMO.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
When I said that I am foursquare for unions, it should be understood that neither I nor other union supporters support unions where there is criminality involved in their operations.
Click to expand...
In case your interested, Rich.

My father was a member of Seafarers International Union (SIU) back in the 60’s. He was one of Paul Hall’s white cap men. It was the best union he ever belonged to.

If all the other AFL-CIO Unions had adopted SIU’s model, many of the present problems concerning labor relations and industry would not exist today (especially concerning retirement and benefits). On thing my father liked was the fact that SIU’s members received their retirements directly from their union and not from the companies they worked for. The other thing was that SIU members could demand their wages were paid in gold.

I don’t know what Paul Hall would think about what was going on today in the AFL-CIO, but I don’t think he’d like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top