Judge voids controversial Wisconsin union law

[BDBoop]

Judge voids controversial Wisconsin union law | Reuters

(Reuters) - A Wisconsin judge on Thursday voided a controversial Republican-backed law restricting the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions.

Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi said Republican lawmakers violated the state's open meetings law in rushing the legislation through during massive protests at the state Capitol earlier this year.

The Wisconsin proposal, championed by Republican Governor Scott Walker, eliminates most collective bargaining rights for public sector unions and requires them to pay more for pensions and health coverage.

The law has been on hold pending the legal challenge.

 

[Whovian]

they plan to vote it again as part of the budget... also, it's going up the ladder in the court system. So, the fat lady has not even entered the building yet, let alone sung.

 

[tessaesque]

So it was only rejected on the basis of how the voting was done? Interesting....

 

[Whovian]

So it was only rejected on the basis of how the voting was done? Interesting....

and there is still a question of whether the state open Meetings Law trumps the legislatures own rules and regulations. That is probably how they will proceed as the case goes up the ladder.

 

[BDBoop]

How very interesting.

Sumi, who was appointed by former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson, ruled that the evidence was "clear and convincing" that Republicans failed to comply with the law in a hastily called meeting in March to push through legislation containing the collective bargaining changes.

"The legislators were understandably frustrated by the stalemate existing on March 9, but that does not justify jettisoning compliance with the open meetings law in an attempt to move the budget repair bill to final action," Sumi wrote.

"Moreover, if there is any doubt as to the committee's awareness of its violation, one need only read the short transcript of the committee's March 9 proceedings."

Sumi said the legislators had the opportunity to correct their violation without admitting error, but failed to do so.

 

[tessaesque]

and there is still a question of whether the state open Meetings Law trumps the legislatures own rules and regulations. That is probably how they will proceed as the case goes up the ladder.

Ya know...I still have so little respect for those that left the state. That isn't how you handle a problem, ya know? I don't care what your issue is, what side you're on, you don't leave an argument like that when people are expecting you to represent them. Hiding in another state is a cowardly way to handle the issue.

 

[tessaesque]

From the compliance guide for the WI Open Meetings Law:

The State of Wisconsin recognizes the importance of having a public informed about governmental
affairs. The state’s open meetings law declares that:
In recognition of the fact that a representative government of the American type is
dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public
is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is
compatible with the conduct of governmental business.
Wis. Stat. § 19.81(1). 2
In order to advance this policy, the open meetings law requires that “all meetings of all state and local
governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be
open to all citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law.” Wis. Stat. § 19.81(2). There is thus
a presumption that meetings of governmental bodies must be held in open session. State ex rel. Newspapers v.
Showers, 135 Wis. 2d 77, 97, 398 N.W.2d 154 (1987). Although there are some exemptions allowing closed
sessions in specified circumstances, they are to be invoked sparingly and only where necessary to protect the
public interest. The policy of the open meetings law dictates that governmental bodies convene in closed session
only where holding an open session would be incompatible with the conduct of governmental affairs. “Mere
government inconvenience is . . . no bar to the requirements of the law.” State ex rel. Lynch v. Conta,
71 Wis. 2d 662, 678, 239 N.W.2d 313 (1976).

I'm curious as to whether the safety of the legislature or the inability to work affectively under a raucous audience would in anyway justify removing citizens from the proceedings?

 

[pbrauer]

and there is still a question of whether the state open Meetings Law trumps the legislatures own rules and regulations. That is probably how they will proceed as the case goes up the ladder.

The Wisconsin legislature could have scheduled a revote taking into account the Open Meetings Law, but they didn't for some reason... :doh

 

[tessaesque]

Also interesting, those in the act of collective bargaining are exempt from public meeting laws

b. Bodies meeting for collective bargaining.
The definition of “governmental body” explicitly excludes bodies that are formed for or meeting for the
purpose of collective bargaining with municipal or state employees under Wis. Stat. ch. 111. A body formed
exclusively for the purpose of collective bargaining is not subject to the open meetings law. Wis. Stat. § 19.82(1).
A body formed for other purposes, in addition to collective bargaining, is not subject to the open meetings law
when conducting collective bargaining. Wis. Stat. § 19.82(1). The Attorney General has, however, advised
multi-purpose bodies to comply with the open meetings law, including the requirements for convening in closed
session, when meeting for the purpose of forming negotiating strategies to be used in collective bargaining.
66 Op. Att’y Gen. 93, 96-97 (1977). The collective bargaining exclusion does not permit any body to consider
the final ratification or approval of a collective bargaining agreement in closed session. Wis. Stat. § 19.85(3).

 

[justabubba]

Ya know...I still have so little respect for those that left the state. That isn't how you handle a problem, ya know? I don't care what your issue is, what side you're on, you don't leave an argument like that when people are expecting you to represent them. Hiding in another state is a cowardly way to handle the issue.

it was a strategy ... that appears to have worked
i think the republicans were cowards for refusing to negotiate a better contract and instead used their power to effect an illegal statute prohibiting public union rights

 

[pbrauer]

Ya know...I still have so little respect for those that left the state. That isn't how you handle a problem, ya know? I don't care what your issue is, what side you're on, you don't leave an argument like that when people are expecting you to represent them. Hiding in another state is a cowardly way to handle the issue.

In his time in the Illinois's legislature Abraham Lincoln did almost the same thing.

 

[Whovian]

it was a strategy ... that appears to have worked
i think the republicans were cowards for refusing to negotiate a better contract and instead used their power to effect an illegal statute prohibiting public union rights

so, they ones that stayed and did their jobs are cowards, and the ones who ran away to avoid diung their jobs are heroes.

interesting.

 

[Whovian]

The Wisconsin legislature could have scheduled a revote taking into account the Open Meetings Law, but they didn't for some reason... :doh

could have, but did not believe they needed to, as they have their own rules.

The Dems were chicken ****s for running away when they realized they'd lose the vote.

 

[tessaesque]

it was a strategy ... that appears to have worked
i think the republicans were cowards for refusing to negotiate a better contract and instead used their power to effect an illegal statute prohibiting public union rights

There is no such thing as a "union right". There are legal actions permitted to them through law, and those actions can be prohibited the same way.

 

[haymarket]

Repealing the 20th century is not as easy as some thought it would be.

Thanks BD for that bit of breaking news. It brightened my day.

 

[justabubba]

so, they ones that stayed and did their jobs are cowards, and the ones who ran away to avoid diung their jobs are heroes.

interesting.

the ones who left the state prevailed
they prevented a wrong from proceeding
their strategy worked


... at least thus far

 

[justabubba]

could have, but did not believe they needed to, as they have their own rules.

The Dems were chicken ****s for running away when they realized they'd lose the vote.

by running away, they did not lose
they eventually won, as cited by the OP

 

[justabubba]

There is no such thing as a "union right". There are legal actions permitted to them through law, and those actions can be prohibited the same way.

there are all kinds of union rights
that you are ignorant of them does not mean they do not exist

 

[tessaesque]

there are all kinds of union rights
that you are ignorant of them does not mean they do not exist

Any privilege a union has is granted through law, not through constitutionally enumerated rights.

 

[haymarket]

Any privilege a union has is granted through law, not through constitutionally enumerated rights.

kind of like having kids?

 

[Ikari]

There is no such thing as a "union right". There are legal actions permitted to them through law, and those actions can be prohibited the same way.

There is such thing as right to contract, and freedom of association however.

 

[ARealConservative]

Repealing the 20th century is not as easy as some thought it would be.

Thanks BD for that bit of breaking news. It brightened my day.

slavery was a real bare to eliminate too.

 

[tessaesque]

There is such thing as right to contract, and freedom of association however.

But no "right" to collective bargaining, merely laws granting the privilege..which means a law can remove that privilege.

 

[ARealConservative]

There is such thing as right to contract, and freedom of association however.

unless you are the employer, where the practice of this same right in the same basic way is labeled collusion and anti-competitive.

 

[Ikari]

But no "right" to collective bargaining, merely laws granting the privilege..which means a law can remove that privilege.

It's born from contract and association, however. A person owns the fruits of their labor. There is no problem with exercising contract rights to argue for better compensation on your labor. Of course the company can decline as well and you have to work it out if you really want to work at the place. As such, the ability to associate with others of your profession and aggregate your bargaining power to best argue for better compensation on your labor is also fine.