Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Wisconsin Judge Puts Hold on Law Limiting Union Bargaining

2 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Hold everything. That Wisconsin law limiting the collective bargaining rights of public workers -- the one that brought tens of thousands of protesters to the Capitol in Madison -- has been blocked from taking effect by a county judge.

Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday barring the Wisconsin secretary of state from publishing the law -- which would allow it to go into effect, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Sumi said she wanted time to consider a legal challenge, arguing that a legislative committee violated the state's open meetings law when it pushed the bill though on a Republican Party-line vote last week.

"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the [law]," she said.

The ruling marked a setback for Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who sought the legislation curtailing public employee collective bargaining rights. Walker, who signed the bill last Friday, also wants state workers to make larger contributions to their pension and health care funds. Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the state would appeal Sumi's decision, the Milwaukee newspaper said.

But Democratic State Rep. Peter Barca said, "We felt from the beginning this was a violation of the open meetings law. And now we go on from here." Democrats argued that majority Republicans -- in their haste to pass the bill -- failed to give adequate public notice of a Senate committee hearing that amended the legislation and quickly scheduled it for a vote in the full state Senate.

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

129 Comments

Filter by:
Mark D. Zika

Idiot, the current real estate market collapse and subsequent bank failure were the work of Barney Frank and Mr Dodd who insisited people who could not afford mortgages be given them with a government guarantee from Freddie and Fannie. Then Senator Obama voted for this act three times and praised it mightily because he thought it was going to help his community action organization ACORN. FYI the president does not enact law in the REPUBLIC of the United States-Genius.

March 21 2011 at 5:57 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Mark D. Zika's comment
ivotedabsentee

If all of the homes involved in the real estate market collapse, those in foreclosure, were all owed by those who could not get the loans without a government guarantee, I might agree with you on Frank and Dodd's involvement.

An analysis of the homes mortgages in trouble would reveal a fair number of those mortgages were for speculation homes and second )vacation) homes.

March 22 2011 at 8:29 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Gar

What in the world are we comming to. This has nothing to do with republicans or democrats, it is political power.I don't belive there is anything wrong with orginized labor, but it requires responsibility in both parties, labor and management. So many people belive that there is a free lunch and someone else should pay for it. Get real people, labor is the hired help, nothing else. You are paid what you are worth or you would be paid more. Someone has to own the comkpany and make a profit even with all the other problems involved. If you think you are worth more, work harder, be more productive than your neighbor, and be an asset to your employer. If you are that good, the competitor will hire you at more value and the wages go up. Get real people, you can't steal from your employer until he go's broke and them blame them for your loss. Think about it.

March 21 2011 at 1:39 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Gar's comment
creeperxx

Really, you really think that hard work now gets you better pay and good benefits , you are so blind.
I am in favor of hard work, but employers are now taking full advantage of the economic climate and not giving good wages and benefits. Labor more then ever needs to organize.

March 21 2011 at 3:12 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to creeperxx's comment
nckestle

Totally agree with you -- I've lived through the sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties workforce. I made as a receptionist in 1992, $13.00 per hour! One is lucky to be able to get this and have a college degree, in some instances. Now, 2011, the employers take such advantage of their workers and now so much is failing the working poor. Thanks to the GOP - who profess to creating more jobs and better economy and look at the mess they are making with their proposed cuts in the budgets. Hopefully, it backfires on them for 2012. Yes, we still need the labor unions fighting for our Rights.

March 23 2011 at 1:18 AM Report abuse rate up rate down
vancecline

The Wisconsin law was about unions of government employees NOT about unions in the private sector.. And rightfully so. Tax payers pay ALL things government, and that means they damn sure do have the right to a say about how tax dollars are spent. Also, folks that claim Republican roots for all things evil tend to forget that the Democrats have been in control for decades, INCLUDING the last two years of the Bush era. Polls can be made to say anything depending on how the question is worded (asked). Get a life, and not on my tax dollars..

March 21 2011 at 1:22 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Mark & Kathy

Do you really think the republicans care about the working middle class? They only care about big corporations, big oil companies, big banks etc. Look to see where the money for the republican party campaigns comes from. Follow the money trail it never lies. Ask yourself which party gave us social security ( which we pay for by the way) medicare & medicaid which our seniors desperately need, civil rights legislation, womens rights etc? Read your history instead of listening to fox. The republicans are playing the poor tea party folks for a bunch of fools. They will never change their stripes and when they're done with their union busting they will be coming after the rest of the poor working middle class people. Listen to what they want to do "privatize social security, raise the retirement age to 72 or 75, turn medicare and medicaid into a voucher program, eliminate benefits for our vets" They're not even hiding it, they say it right out loud for all of us to hear. When the middle class is gone there will only be the rich bankers, corporate big shots, wall street brokers, real estate magnates and oil tycoons and the working poor with no pensions, no unions, no healthcare insurance and no social security. Don't worry though we can all work at Walmart or McDonals until we're 75, standing on our feet for 8 hours a day for 9.00 an hour. Good Luck with that retirement dream.

March 21 2011 at 12:51 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
inasctg56

reply to tnickerson08: What you suggest is that no one would pay union dues unless or until they needed the union to help them. Doesn't work that way. Just like auto or health insurance - you can't decide to purchase it after you have an accident or health issue. There are a lot of union members who complain until the company does something that effects them and then they all expect the union's help.

March 20 2011 at 9:03 PM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply
larryvnyrd

I'll give up my union card when you pry it from my cold dead hand!

March 20 2011 at 5:38 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
brian

whats the matter with these people having to be like the working class people who have to put in there own money to a pension if they can even get in one or contribute to a 401k like the average joe or try to pay for there own health insurance like every other working class person has to instead of the government having to put it in for them its time for people to get off there lazy rear ends and start working for a living instead of waiting for the government to take of them

March 20 2011 at 5:32 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to brian's comment
Jeff R

Brian - you "talk" as if public sector workers do not "put their own money into a pension" or "contribute to a 401k like the average joe", but they do. My now retried wife contributed well over 50% of her state pension, the balance coming from the investments made by the pension plan with her contributions during the varying time the plan held her contributions (32 years for her first contribution down to days for her last). I have a quasi public sector job and I contribute 100% to my 403(b) (same as a 401k, but the section of the law pertaining to non-profit and public education employees) and have NO employer funded retirement plan of any kind. BTW we live in California.

I believe that, not withstanding the lies being told about them by the so-called "conservatives" (who are not the least bit conservative, but judging by their results seem to be trying to re-establish an aristocracy in this country), that the overwhelming majority of public sector workers, union and non-union, make significant contributions to their own retirement. The retirement plans that unionized public sector employees were also the norm for unionized employees 40 years ago (my privately employed father, mother, and grand-father all got excellent union retirement plans when they retired), before "conservatives" began screwing working people out of what they'd earned and handing the money over to the very rich.

Private-sector workers were simply too lazy or cowardly to defend their benefits when Ronald and the Reaganettes began striping them of their union rights and now that they are forced to work under the rather dubious benevolence of their employers, they find they are jealous of those who somehow managed to stand up for and retain their union bargaining rights. Judging from their own statements it is absolutely clear that private sector employees are jealous and that rather than work to get back the decent retirement programs they allowed to be taken from them, they're going to try to tear down the other folks who managed to hang onto theirs.

Since when did real Americans think it was good to tear down others? American are supposed to build themselves up.

March 21 2011 at 6:56 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Al P.

What's right is right. This governor is a bully and should be repealled . The people put a Republican in office and see what they got. They deserve every thing he throws at them. Since when does a Republican support the middle class?. Everything they do supports the wealthy and big coorporations. Just take a look at the historical record, this isn't opinion it's fact. Wake up people this isn't about unions, it's all about representation. Who is representing the interests of the majority and who is representing speical interests. If you can't see it, your blind.

March 20 2011 at 5:27 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Al P.'s comment
vicbar88

Yes what's right is right therefore the Governor did the right thing. Bargaining rights are not rights that every citizen have access to therefore they discriminate. And they only serve to escalate, inflate, and exaggerate the actual costs of doing business. Either do the job at the rate offered or get replaced by someone who will just like the rest of us. and you are right about something else - it really is obvious who supports the special interests like Unions, and lobbyists, and foreign interests (illegal immigration), who was it that bailed out all of the crooks that really caused this mess but has done absolutely nothing to help the people? And just because something might be a majority doesn't mean that it is right or just as we have recently seen in our last two major elections.

March 21 2011 at 7:54 AM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to vicbar88's comment
MindyH

Let us not forget that the bailout started, no strings attached mind you, under Burh Jr.

March 21 2011 at 10:44 AM Report abuse -2 rate up rate down
tnickerson08

The media keeps calling this "limiting union bargining rights" but what are they? 1) that employee's can opt-out of the union; if the unions have the right to association then shouldn't the employee's have the right to dis-associate? 2) the State will no longer collect union dues from the employee's paychecks. I guess the union is worried about them opting-out if they see how much money they are paying the union month after month?

March 20 2011 at 5:24 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to tnickerson08's comment
ivotedabsentee

1 - If the stte is union shop state, until the union is decertified as the bargaining agent for the employee group, the contract remains and that also means in a union shop operation, union membership is still a requirement as part of terms of employment.

2 - Even if the employer no longer pays the union dues as a an allotment from the employee's pay, the issues of the union mmebership still remain. If the employee do not pay the union dues, they are no longer a member of the union. If they are not a member of the union, they are violating the terms of the employment contract and can no longer be employed.

March 20 2011 at 5:36 PM Report abuse -7 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to ivotedabsentee's comment
Hi Guy

Except as to the RR Union (Rail Road workers, International Airport Workers, and some Bus workers) there is no union in the USA in which is required by law a person must join to be employed. It is also against Federal law for a state or local gov't to sign a contract in which it makes it necessary by law to become a union member. Even in the above mentioned RR Union, after the first two years of employment a member can demand that union dues no longer be removed from his paycheck and can cancel his union membership without any reprisals. Plus, he still gets the same government benefits as when he was a union member and also gets any raises that a member in his position would get.

Unions are something that was greatly needed in the past when business owners could act as dictators and despots over their employees without fear of local, state or federal government intervention. Now unions are still needed in some industries/job types to protect the employees, but no union has the right to force a person to join it or not work in their chosen field. Federal and most states laws protect a persons choice.

March 20 2011 at 11:44 PM Report abuse rate up rate down
ivotedabsentee

In the non-right-to-work states, if there is a bargaining unit for the employees, there exists a union shop situation, and yes, it is correct, a new employee does not have to be a member of the union to be employed. Most states allow a 30 day period for the employee to join the union or the employee can pay a fee normally equal to the union dues, essentially so the non-member employee is not getting a free ride on the benefits obtained by the union.

See Taft-Hartley act:

Section 8(a)(3) of the Taft-Hartley Act specifically outlawed the closed shop but did allow a collectively bargained agreement for a union shop, provided certain safeguards were met. Under the union shop proviso, a union and an employer could agree that employees must join the union within thirty days of employment in order to retain their jobs. Section 8(a)(3) stated, in relevant part,

It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—… (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, that nothing in this subchapter, or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization …to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement … if such labor organization is the representative of the employees…. Provided further, that no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for nonmembership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.



I cannot find anything to verify the two years employment clock for railroad employees, and perhaps they are indeed permitted to withdraw from union membership, but it does appear even those railroad employees would still have to pay the equal of dues.

If you have good citations for the two year clock, please share with us.

Some very intertesting reading on the railroad labor unions at:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=487&invol=735

"As Senator Taft, one of the authors of the 1947 legislation, explained, "the argument . . . against abolishing the closed shop . . . is that if there is not a closed shop those not in the union will get a free ride, that the union does the work, gets the wages raised, then the man who does not pay dues rides along freely without any expense to himself."

March 21 2011 at 11:51 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down
joedenver61

Just like there are bad teachers whose priorities are themselves and not the student, there are judges who follow the same rule

March 20 2011 at 3:07 PM Report abuse +7 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to joedenver61's comment
MindyH

Most politicians operate that way also.

March 21 2011 at 11:14 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>