http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled "...that the Legislature did not violate the Wisconsin Constitution by the process it used". The Wisconsin Supreme Court added that "concluded that Sumi exceeded her jurisdiction, "invaded" the Legislature's constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and implementation of the collective bargaining law".
Remember folks that collective bargaining is not a right it is a contract between, in this case, the State and the union that represents State employees. As with any collective bargaining agreement they are subject to change. What was lost in this court challenge was the question if the Legislature violated the open meeting law not if the Legislature had the power to make changes to the collective bargaining agreement. Am I the only that sees the hypocrisy here in the hissing fit that Unions and the Left raised over the Legislation that removed a number of provision from the collective bargaining process?
All to often we hear about the "fat cats" getting richer or the demonizing of businesses, like Target, for contributing money to a pro-business outfit to support pro-business candidates. Yet there is nothing wrong with Unions from using their dues to support Pro-Union candidates which if elected will be sitting across the negotiation table at collective bargaining time; I am sure the elected official that received money will have the taxpayer's best interest in mind!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm confused. Are you saying that workers don't have the right to use their collective power to demand fair wages, benefits, safe working conditions, etc? If so, I'd question that based upon numerous Supreme court decisions in support of collective bargaining rights. These rulings, taken in total, give a clear indication that the supreme court feels that employees most certainly do have that right regardless of if it's contracted or not.
ReplyDeleteSo, given that, I'd ask you to clarify. Are you saying that workers don't have the right to collective bargaining?
Also, while not completely related, something worth noting here. This abject hatred by the GOP of unions is not doing the working class (ie. middle class) any favors.
The middle class has seen it's share of the national income fall dramatically in the last 10 years.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110614/bs_yblog_thelookout/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low
If you believe that this nations economic recovery is just one more tax cut for the rich away - I've got some ocean front property in Montana to sell you.
I'm all for tax cuts. But if you want to generate economic growth, cut taxes on the middle class. That will be the single greatest factor to increase demand in the marketplace because the middle class will spend it immediately. The current economic issues are largely a result of a demand deficit, not that taxes are too high on the rich.
I know that doesn't sound very libertarian, but the fact is, the super rich (top 1%) are not facing economic hardship right now while the middle class are. If you want to make a difference to the citizens of this nation, start with where the pain is, not at the top and hope it will trickle down someday. Because history has shown, supply side economics (trickle down economics) doesn't work when demand doesn't exist for that supply. All it does is increase that top 1%'s wealth as they invest where demand does exist - like China.
Truman
ReplyDeleteYes, Collective Bargaining is not a right. Now that being said, Americans have the right to freedom of association. In Atkins v. City of Charlotte the Supreme Court ruled that "All citizens have the right to associate in groups to advocate their special interests to the government. It is something entirely different to grant any one interest group special status and access to the decision making process."
I do not disagree that workers have the right to unionize and bargain for better working conditions, wages, benefits, etc. At the same time it does not preclude the Government from removing aspects of these from the bargaining table. Also, the new law will allow government workers to make the choice of whether or not they want to join the Union. Thus ending the close shop mindset in Wisconsin. Shouldn't state employees have a choice to join or not join instead of joining being a condition of employment?
But if I am off base, please cite a Supreme Court case that applies.Now, based on a report by Pete Williams of NBC, the 1935 National Labor Relations Act passed by Congress gave legal rights to unionize and bargain collectively to private employees "but that law left to individual states the decision of whether to give the same right to their public employees."
I don't disagree with you that the Middle Class has been squeezed for far to long as well as exploited at the ballot box by both sides of the aisle. The super rich will never be impacted like Liberals want to see take place as they have the means to "hide" money. All this will do is deter those that aspire to improve our lot in life and live a better one for our children. But I don't want to distract from the topic at hand.
If Unions want to continue to have a seat at the bargaining table for public employees then their campaign contributions need to stop. When we are dealing with public funds and taxpayer money to pay the wages, benefits and pensions of public employees we blur the line of ethical behavior when the Union backed candidate wins office then sits across from the Union during collective bargaining.
"I do not disagree that workers have the right to unionize and bargain for better working conditions, wages, benefits, etc."
ReplyDeleteSo then, you support collective bargaining, because this is the definition of it....right?
"At the same time it does not preclude the Government from removing aspects of these from the bargaining table."
So you don't support collective bargaining as a right but you support workers right to collectively bargain? Do you see why I'm confused? In 2 sentences, you completely contradicted yourself.
I am not contradicting myself; rather I am clarifying my point. I agree with the National Labor Relations Act where it made it legal for private Unions ability to engage in collective bargaining. The same legislation, as I mentioned above, left the handling of the public unions to the States.
ReplyDeleteSince Unions give money to candidates and some of those are elected into position that will be sitting across the table during the collective bargaining agreement, that is why I do not agree with collective bargaining or public unions being allowed. Don't you see how the Union can place benefits, wages, and pension in place when they control both sides of the table?
Yes, but the GOP has not been trying to stop campaign donations from public unions as you state above. They've been union busting, which explicitly different than removing campaign contribution abilities.
ReplyDeleteBut this begs the question. So public unions can't contribute to campaigns by your logic because they sit across the table from their negotiation partners.
But corporations can and do. Halliburton sits across from politicians or political appointees all the time to negotiate government contracts. And in fact, corporations can contribute UNLIMITED amounts to campaigns based upon free speech rights. (A flawed SCOTUS decision IMO)
Why is it ok for corporations to have freedom of speech in their contributions but not for unions?
How is this in any way equitable for the citizens of this country - of which Unions represent a large contingent?
It seems like a very distinct double standard since the GOP campaigns heavily against curtailing corporate contributions.
Explain to me how this is a reasonable argument?
Truman
ReplyDeleteHow has the GOP been Union busting? I don't think that public employees should be able to Unionize especially if the Union contributes money to candidates.
It's not restricting a freedom of speech. I am okay with private Unions donated money to candidates. I draw the line on public unions because of the potential breech of ethics and lack of taxpayer representation at the negotiation table.
Personally, which is slightly off the topic here, I'd like to see major reform when electing officials.
"How has the GOP been Union busting?"
ReplyDeleteStripping people of their collective bargaining rights is, by definition, union busting. There's no other word for it.
"I don't think that public employees should be able to Unionize especially if the Union contributes money to candidates."
A reasonable argument, IF corporations weren't able to contribute to candidates either. The argument falls on it's face when you don't argue against that issue as well. Your argument is that unions are contributing to the very people they'll be negotiating with - a conflict. I don't disagree.
But this is similarly true of corporations, who contribute to politicians as well - AND negotiate with them.
Yet you don't see the GOP complaining about this. Why is that? Could it be their main benefactors are corporations while the Democrats are unions?
And tax payers are represented at the negotiating table - by their elected officials. The union does not elect the official - the citizens do. Again, how is this any different from corporations donating? Why are you and the GOP not against that?
This is entirely political, not financial. And I find that disturbing since its effectively stripping american citizens of their right to collectively bargain.
Truman
ReplyDeleteNothing is being stripped away from the Unions ability to collectively bargain in Wisconsin. Granted certain aspect of current agreement are being altered to give the State and it's municipalities more room to meet budget demands for the rest of the state.
The contributions angle this thread is taking is getting off topic and is something we can definitely address going forward because I do agree on many aspects with you.
I still have not heard from you one Supreme Court case that states that public unionization is a right. I did some searches on their website and still have not found one as the National Labor Law I mentioned prior has dealt with the issue of public vs. private unions. The ironic twist in all this is that the Union and the State of Wisconsin both agree and acknowledge that in order to keep the pensions afloat and medical coverage that those public workers must kick in more. Also lost in this debate is that the legislation allows for people to work for the State of Wisconsin and not be subject to the Union. Since their is only one Government for Wisconsin that seems entirely fair to have as one should not be forced to join a Union as condition of employment.
Really, the law doesn't strip unions of collective bargaining rights?
ReplyDeleteExplain this quote then:
"As written, the legislation strips away the collective bargaining power of non-law-enforcement public workers on everything except wages."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0526/Wisconsin-judge-invalidates-law-curbing-unions-but-fight-isn-t-over-yet
As to unions not having the right in public vs. private enterprise to collectively bargain - again, how can you say that one citizen has rights that another does not? So if I choose a profession that makes me a public employee (teacher) I have less rights than someone who is in the private sector? That seems contrary to the rulings I've read - none of which stipulate that the rulings are private sector only.
And people join unions willingly. I have never met a union employee who felt that they were being punished for being part of the union. In fact, it's ironic that the wisconsin union issue is so prominent when their former republican governor (T. Thompson) was a VERY pro-union governor and was supported by unions like the Teamsters, etc.
Seems an odd direction to go in a state that has a long history of unions and workers rights. Especially when the unions conceded all the financial demands of the governor.
So this brings us back full circle to the question - why strip them of collective bargaining rights?
Truman
ReplyDeleteYou are confusing a right and agreement. Based on the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, as I stated previously, left the decision to the States on what can and cannot be negotiated during collective bargaining agreements. Now, I have not found anything to say that the State does or does not have unilateral power to alter the agreement. My guess is that during the contract period they cannot without agreement with the other side but when the contract is collective bargained again they may be able to.
You still have stated that Supreme Court has ruled on this in favor of Union; yet I have not seen you cite one case nor have I found one myself. My guess is that there is not one because, based on the law, the Supreme Court would have not jurisdiction to be able to hear the case.
That being said, based on the law mentioned above it is the State that determines the "right" thus if they can decide that means they can take away the "right" much in the notion of prohibition. First we could drink, then we couldn't, and now we can.
"State that determines the "right".....they can take away the "right".....much in the notion of prohibition. First we could drink, then we couldn't, and now we can."
ReplyDeleteYou are aware that prohibition was the result of a national movement that culminated in the passage of the 18th amendment in 1919 along with the Volstead act to enforce the 18th amendment. And that the "right" was reinstated when the amendment was repealed in 1933 in an effort to generate tax revenues for the government.
It was not, nor ever could be related to anything "states" related unless you are using some odd interpretation of that "state" verbiage.
As to a lack of federal jurisdiction on collective bargaining rights. Here's a few decisions that refuse that. I am not posting them in support of any position here, just pointing out that SCOTUS has jurisdiction on these types of decisions. These decisions cover both public and private unions so there's no stipulation there either with regards to jurisdiction.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999)
TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998)
MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS
14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT
BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996)
LOCKE V. KARASS
These and many others are available on Cornell Universities law library website.
Where I think viper was headed with the prohibition example was that laws can and have been changed. Thus if the state of Wisconsin wishes to remove aspects from the collective bargaining agreement they are backed by the provisions laid in the 1935 labor act that gave the states the power to decide the legal jargon of collective bargaining rights.
ReplyDeleteNow do any of your Cornell law library entries deal with state public unions?
Yes Anon, I am using the comparison as just that. As you accurately stated too, the 1935 National Labor Act allows for the States to set the criteria to which items can and cannot be collectively bargained for.
ReplyDeleteI too am waiting for a public Supreme Court case that dealt with State employees. Perhaps there is not one.
You keep asking for SCOTUS decisions on public unions that deal with the National Labor Relations act. You are aware that the National Labor Relations act only deals with private unions right? It has no bearing on public unions and in fact, specifically calls out the following unions as exempt from the law - railway, agricultural, domestic, federal state local government and independent contractors.
ReplyDeleteUnder this law, states have the right to regulate some portions of collective bargaining for PRIVATE enterprise in an effort to minimize the impact of strikes, etc on the economy. (Airlines are an example) It in no way limits the rights of public workers to collective bargaining or gives jurisdiction over public unions solely to the state as Viper claimed. So again, SCOTUS would have jurisdiction on the case in Wisconsin, which is further evidenced by the fact that the Wisconsin law has been appealed to the federal courts. This act, in and of itself, proves that the federal courts and SCOTUS ultimately have jurisdiction or they would have rejected the appeal for that reason.
So back to your point. Why would I try to find a SCOTUS ruling on the National Labor Relations act dealing with public unions when it has no bearing on public unions?
So of course there aren't SCOTUS decisions, how could there be?
The Act dealt with private unions and left the dealings to public unions to the states. Thus if that is the case that the States are in charge of dealing the parameters with the public unions then the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have no jurisdiction; unless of course we are allowing the Judicial branch write the laws. As the US Constitution does not set joining or forming a Union a right.
ReplyDeleteNo, the law specifically states that it has NO BEARING on public unions by excluding them. It says nothing about leaving their management to states, you are implying that through it's exclusion. Exclusion does not imply "law by proxy". That verbiage would require a second law be passed limiting juristictional oversight to the states. And that law would likely have to come from the federal level in order for them to remove themselves from jurisdiction. This again confirms that they have jurisdictional oversight since they would have to relieve themselves of it by law. I see no law doing so which means that the feds still have final jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, this is further buttressed by the fact that the Wisconsin law has been appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - a federal court. So unless you have a law degree and can tell me why they accepted the case when they have no jurisdiction, I'll go with their interpretation over yours or mine.
What I find confusing in all of this is when you became anti-middle class and anti-citizen? History has proven, that unions are the leading cause of the massive prosperity that the middle class in america benefited from for the last 100 years. This political witch hunt to kill off a political contributor to a GOP rival only benefits corporations - not citizens.
When did you decide put corporations before people? When did corporations have more rights then citizens in your eyes? Since when have the corporations of america looked out for the best interests of this country?
Truth is, they don't. That's not their mandate from their shareholders - it never will be. So why do you and your like insist on empowering them to be better than citizens?
sorry, I meant political competitor to the GOP, not contributor
ReplyDeleteViper, have you looked to see under what grounds the federal case was brought?
ReplyDeleteYour broad claim that there is no right is off base in this analysis.
ReplyDeleteWI has no ground to argue a right does not exist. By carving out exceptions, thereby granting the rights, to the fire and police unions they have created the right.
The next step is to look at the 14th amendment which is clearly applicable. The amendment requires equal protection under the law. We need to see if the law treats similarly situated people the same. Obviously, if the law applies to some but not others it does not treat them the same.
Of course, a thorough fact based analysis doesn't end there. There are different standards of review in an EPC case. This is where I'd like to see the filings to see what is being argued. However, after a brief search I was unable to. If anyone else has been able to locate the briefs, if they have been filed, I'd like to see them.
My guess is that this case would fall under the reasonably related standard. The law is constitutional if it is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.
Here, the interest in is balancing the state budget, right? Certainly a legitimate interest.
Is the law reasonably related to that interest? My guess is that this is where the arguments will be. Given that the unions were willing to give all financial concessions asked, thereby helping to balance the budget, the portion of the bill limiting any further rights to collectively bargain seem to me to no longer relate to the interest.
Now, it's extremely rare that a law is found unconstitutional under this standard. That's why I'm curious if any other arguments are brought to raise the standard and class.
The case is more about equal protection (and I believe they argue 1st Amendment) than a flat out right to form a union. Equal protection applies to the states and there is no judicial writing of laws.
Let's focus on what actually matters
Anyone else having trouble with the National Labor Relations Board website or any website that gives a link direct to the actual Act?
ReplyDeleteTruman
ReplyDeleteWhere did you hear that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken up the case? I am not seeing anything listed out on Google or Bing.
I am not anti-middle class nor anti-citizen. The trouble is that the Middle Class have become drones and will follow anyone that takes away the responsibility of being a good citizen of the United States of America. We no longer need to save our money - i.e. SSN - We no longer need to be prepared for our later years of life - i.e. Medicare and Medicaid. Soon we will no longer be responsibile for our health - Health Care Mandate.
Unions have their uses in the private sector but not in the public sector. I don't see it a witch hunt either. If we are going to allow Unions to contribute un-check amounts of money then why cannot a Corporation? Without a pro-business environment we will continue to see more and more of our jobs leaving the United States for areas of the globe with pro-business policies. Don't confuse this with the fact that some regulation is needed to keep the unethical sorts in check.
As a shareholder of many companies, granted not enough to sway the tide with just my voting block, I am allowed to participate in the direction of the corporation by voting on the Board of Directors. If a number of small investors come together they can influence the path of the Corporation.
Was Pete Williams wrong then?
ReplyDelete