• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional

imyoda said:
Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional - ABC News
Court Rules Wisconsin Right-to-Work Law Is Unconstitutional

…Court Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law as Unconstitutional …


“A Wisconsin court has struck down the state's right-to-work law championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, calling it unconstitutional.
Wisconsin's right-to-work law, championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker as he was mounting his run for president, was struck down Friday as violating the state constitution…………

“A Dane County Circuit Court judge issued the ruling Friday in a lawsuit filed by local unions. Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel promised to appeal the order, saying: "We are confident the law will be upheld on appeal."
Attorney General Brad Schimel promised to appeal the decision and said he was confident it would not stand, noting that no similar law has been struck down in any other state. Schimel, also a Republican, has not decided whether to seek an immediate suspension of the ruling while the appeal is pending, spokesman Johnny Koremenos said.”……….
………The Wisconsin AFL-CIO, Machinists Local Lodge 1061 in Milwaukee and United Steelworkers District 2 in Menasha filed the lawsuit last year…
The groups argued that the law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property because it required unions to extend benefits to workers who don't pay dues………
ALSO SEE:
Court Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law As Unconstitutional

Thank goodness for our court system…….
Click to expand...

This needs to be played up big. This is the kind of news that will spur non union people into action for union membership and it guarantees the right of a closed shop and better bargaining power. The article does not say however, which part of the state constitution was violated

Good news, thanks for posting.
 
What if...? said:
They could get a job where there isn't a union.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

If you're a teacher by training and profession, as an example, how many non unionized teaching positions do you think there are?

Liberals love any collective and can't understand why an independent, competent person would choose not to be part of a collective.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Seriously, if you've never heard an employee complain about paying union dues and the activities of the unions they're forced to belong to, you've never worked in a unionized environment. The suggestion it's an extreme right wing thing is what useful idiots believe.
Click to expand...

I have In fact worked in a union shop.
 
CanadaJohn said:
If you're a teacher by training and profession, as an example, how many non unionized teaching positions do you think there are?

Liberals love any collective and can't understand why an independent, competent person would choose not to be part of a collective.
Click to expand...

Why is "collective", like a country, a good thing and "collective", like a union a bad thing?

My union is different than most, so we don't see a lot of the problems we see in others. International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees. We make about twice what the private company folks we work with do. Plus benefits. I am happy to pay my 5%.

Are private schools unionized? I'd bet many aren't. So there's that.
 
What if...? said:
Why is "collective", like a country, a good thing and "collective", like a union a bad thing?

My union is different than most, so we don't see a lot of the problems we see in others. International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees. We make about twice what the private company folks we work with do. Plus benefits. I am happy to pay my 5%.

Are private schools unionized? I'd bet many aren't. So there's that.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any countries, other than North Korea, where the citizens are considered all the same, regardless of talent, capability, proficiency, etc. Countries aren't collectives in any way similar to a union.

Teaching was but one example. The vast majority of teaching positions are unionized.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not aware of any countries, other than North Korea, where the citizens are considered all the same, regardless of talent, capability, proficiency, etc. Countries aren't collectives in any way similar to a union.

Teaching was but one example. The vast majority of teaching positions are unionized.
Click to expand...

Then those teachers should start a private school if they don't want to be in a union.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but so does the same position applied to the unemployed and under employed.

"Move where the jobs are."

"Start a business of your own then."

And a bunch of variations, none of which apply "upwards", apparently.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Quite a bit.
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of teaching positions in Massachusetts are unionized positions. But I appreciate that those who don't support free choice in education wouldn't support free choice for those who provide it either.

I'd also be willing to bet that many of the more competent teachers are in private school settings where they get away from the unions and their support of mediocracy.
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not aware of any countries, other than North Korea, where the citizens are considered all the same, regardless of talent, capability, proficiency, etc. Countries aren't collectives in any way similar to a union.

Teaching was but one example. The vast majority of teaching positions are unionized.
Click to expand...

And on the "all the same" part of your post.

We hear all the time that the only thing keeping people down is their failure to properly educate themselves or some variation.

The presumption is everybody CAN. So that presumes everyone is the same. Equally able.
 
What if...? said:
And on the "all the same" part of your post.

We hear all the time that the only thing keeping people down is their failure to properly educate themselves or some variation.

The presumption is everybody CAN. So that presumes everyone is the same. Equally able.
Click to expand...

Haven't a clue what your comments here have to do with anything related to the thread topic or unions, in general.
 
What if...? said:
Then those teachers should start a private school if they don't want to be in a union.
Click to expand...

Many do - many of the finest teachers and education administrators start private schools to get away from the unionized and bureaucratic environment. Many parents wish they could send their children with them. The left, however, demands that the average person not have the same opportunities those with money, such as liberal elites, enjoy. It's why the left and education unions are adamantly opposed to voucher systems.
 
Mycroft said:
Hmmm...a union has an agreement between "its members" and a "business". A union's agreement should NOT apply to anyone working at that business if that person is not a member of the union...and that non-member shouldn't owe the union a dime for services he does not enjoy.

Now...if the union enters an agreement with the employer that EVERYONE who works there...whether a union member or not...gets union agreement benefits, then the employer should be required to only hire people who decide to become union members.

If the employer hires someone who is not a union member, then that would be a contractual issue between the union and the employer. The non-union employee has nothing to do with that. He has his own agreement with the employer.

In other words...like anything else, everyone in the mix makes their agreement with other parties and nobody should be bound to an agreement they didn't make. That means a person who is hired by a business...who has not agreed to become a union member...should not have to pay for services they do not agree to. The fact that an employer...who has some agreement with a certain group of the employees...hires a non-union member and gives that person all the benefits a union member would get is an issue between the union and the business.

If, as is the case here, a court decides that someone who is not a party to a contract between two other entities must become a party of that contract...if the contract makes no stipulation of that fact...then the court is wrong. The court is making an injustice happen. The judge should be tossed out of court on his ear because he is failing the people.
Click to expand...

Your process is very convoluted there.

We're talking about either a closed shop, or as in the right to work states, an open shop. Now either one of those concerns themselves with designated occupations. IN some instances, a local can cover several in one contract, or one or to in another, or just one.

In closed shops, the employer has one of two choices, again depending upon the contract: they may hire either from the union only, or from the street, but in a closed shop, that employee must join the union. In an open / right to work shop, they don't have to join the union.

In the right to work shop, a business agent must represent the non union employee as a matter of contractual interest. The judge in WI however ruled that, said non union employee, is stealing representation by not paying for it. It's like said employee going to the company lawyer and saying that said lawyer has to represent him in his divorce for free because they both work for the company. A job related issue wouldn't work because of conflict of interest, but I'm sure the illustration shows you what the problem is. Moreover, the judge ruled base on the WI state constitution, and we have to see what clause that decision was actually based on: if anybody knows, it'd be great to see it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of teaching positions in Massachusetts are unionized positions. But I appreciate that those who don't support free choice in education wouldn't support free choice for those who provide it either.

I'd also be willing to bet that many of the more competent teachers are in private school settings where they get away from the unions and their support of mediocracy.
Click to expand...

MA has many charters and private schools that are nonunion while all traditional public schools are unionized. There is a vast amount of teachers who cannot get into a public school position here and get their experience via charter/private school in order to try to enhance their resume to get a teaching position in a public school (wealthy districts being the most desirable). My guess..... much better pay and benefits.

Edit to add: Our public schools are the best in the US..... far surpassing places like Texas that forbid teachers to collective bargaining rights. Go figure!
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
If a worker wants that union representation, fine. They can pay for it.

But if a person doesn't want that "protection", then the law should not allow them to be extorted into paying for it.
Click to expand...

So, the non union employee is on his own then in all work situations and with bad managers.
 
jet57 said:
Your process is very convoluted there.

We're talking about either a closed shop, or as in the right to work states, an open shop. Now either one of those concerns themselves with designated occupations. IN some instances, a local can cover several in one contract, or one or to in another, or just one.

In closed shops, the employer has one of two choices, again depending upon the contract: they may hire either from the union only, or from the street, but in a closed shop, that employee must join the union. In an open / right to work shop, they don't have to join the union.
Click to expand...

I understand all this...and that's why I say it depends on what sort of contractual condition the employer and the union have agreed upon.

In the right to work shop, a business agent must represent the non union employee as a matter of contractual interest.
Click to expand...

Who says? Is there some law that says a "business agent" must represent a non-union employee? Or...is that something the unions dreamed up to their own advantage?

The judge in WI however ruled that, said non union employee, is stealing representation by not paying for it. It's like said employee going to the company lawyer and saying that said lawyer has to represent him in his divorce for free because they both work for the company. A job related issue wouldn't work because of conflict of interest, but I'm sure the illustration shows you what the problem is. Moreover, the judge ruled base on the WI state constitution, and we have to see what clause that decision was actually based on: if anybody knows, it'd be great to see it.
Click to expand...

If there isn't a law that demands that a business agent must represent non-union employees...but the State has passed a law that non-union members do not have to pay union dues...then the union and the judge do not have a leg to stand on. They are both just trying to feather the union's nest at the expense of a worker's right to make their own decisions.
 
jet57 said:
So, the non union employee is on his own then in all work situations and with bad managers.
Click to expand...

Sure...if he so chooses.

Sounds to me like you are trotting out that typical liberal/extortionist line: "We are only doing this for your own good and because you are not capable of taking care of yourself...so pay up or else."
 
CanadaJohn said:
Many do - many of the finest teachers and education administrators start private schools to get away from the unionized and bureaucratic environment. Many parents wish they could send their children with them. The left, however, demands that the average person not have the same opportunities those with money, such as liberal elites, enjoy. It's why the left and education unions are adamantly opposed to voucher systems.
Click to expand...

I strongly doubt that, private school teachers make less then public school teachers.

The vouchers are opposed because the only reason they are even suggested is because extreme right wingers hate the government and would rather just eliminate public financing of education altogether, but that will never fly. So instead they suggest turning over education to private entities so they can make profit off of education. No voucher proposal I have seen ever requires private schools to take in children from broken homes or developmentally disabled children either. It's a solution in search of a problem
 
Mycroft said:
If a worker wants that union representation, fine. They can pay for it.

But if a person doesn't want that "protection", then the law should not allow them to be extorted into paying for it.
Click to expand...

It is not extortion, you can choose to not work at a union shop
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The union forces no one to pay dues, you choose to work at a represented workplace .

Really I know of no one at union shops who complains about dues except for extreme right wing republicans.or their useful idiots
Click to expand...

not totally true.

i am part of a union, and if i choose to not be part of the union then i must pay what is known as a service charge, which is almost the same as the dues themselves.

i work in the commercial aviation field
 
Mycroft said:
I pity workers who are extorted by unions.
Click to expand...

almost makes one question why that employee even volunteered to work in a union shop

maybe it was the superior pay
the better working conditions, perhaps
possibly that they could not be fired without justification

but still, why would the person solicit a job at a unionized shop knowing they were subject to such 'extortion' as paying dues for all of those upgrades
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The union forces no one to pay dues, you choose to work at a represented workplace .

Really I know of no one at union shops who complains about dues except for extreme right wing republicans.or their useful idiots
Click to expand...

plenty of people have complained hence all the lawsuits and why some unions such as the AFLCIO have had to
pay massive damages back to people.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Many do - many of the finest teachers and education administrators start private schools to get away from the unionized and bureaucratic environment. Many parents wish they could send their children with them. The left, however, demands that the average person not have the same opportunities those with money, such as liberal elites, enjoy. It's why the left and education unions are adamantly opposed to voucher systems.
Click to expand...

Our Governor Kasich has made vouchers available for years in Ohio for every student, not just the elite. My grandson took advantage of that perk in high school, and thrived in his new environment, mainly because he was finally being challenged to do his best! I wonder how many other students are just bored, which is why they drop out of school as soon as they can. Thankfully, he was not a statistic, and now has a very well paying job he enjoys doing - even though he is on call 24-7 because of the math needed to do the job he holds. :thumbs:
 
justabubba said:
almost makes one question why that employee even volunteered to work in a union shop

maybe it was the superior pay
the better working conditions, perhaps
possibly that they could not be fired without justification

but still, why would the person solicit a job at a unionized shop knowing they were subject to such 'extortion' as paying dues for all of those upgrades
Click to expand...

If a person declines to be part of a union...but is hired by an employer...why should that person get union benefits? I don't think they should and, by the same token, they should not be required to pay the union for something they didn't agree to.

Now...if the employer hires them and gives them the same pay and benefits that the union employees get, then that sounds like a beef between the union and the employer. The non-union employee is not a party to that conflict.

But...it seems the union is being allowed by the judge to extract money out of the non-union employee whether he agrees to it or not. The judge is enabling the union extortion practices. I'm thinking the judge should be an accessory to a crime and should go to jail.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The union forces no one to pay dues, you choose to work at a represented workplace .

Really I know of no one at union shops who complains about dues except for extreme right wing republicans.or their useful idiots
Click to expand...

Incorrect. My wife workplace was not required to be represented, i.e. worker could choose to join or not. Then they got a law passed that forced her on it. This was not a case of she joined a place where this practice was established, in which case, for all that I despise large unions, would have to agree with you. This has and is happening in many places. My wife is not a Republican but still does not typically like who the union selects for its support, among many other decisions.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It is not extortion, you can choose to not work at a union shop
Click to expand...

LOL!!

That's like telling that mom and pop shop owner that he cannot complain about being extorted by the thug demanding money from him for his "protection" because the shop owner can alway close down his shop and move.

That reasoning doesn't work because we have laws against extortion. (except in the case of unions in WI, apparently...at least one judge says it's okay for unions to engage in extortion)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom