Wisconsin judge strikes down collective bargaining law

Supporters of a recall effort against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker sing a union solidarity song outside the State Capitol Building as the poll numbers came in on Tuesday, June 5, 2012. / John Hart,AP/Wisconsin State Journal

(AP) MADISON, Wis. - A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down nearly all of the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.

Walker's administration immediately vowed to appeal, while unions, which have vigorously fought the law, declared victory. But what the ruling meant for existing public contracts was murky: Unions claimed the ruling meant they could negotiate again, but Walker could seek to keep the law in effect while the legal drama plays out.

The law, Walker's crowning achievement that made him a national conservative star, took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.

Scott Walker wins Wisconsin recall election
Judge blocks Wisconsin union collective bargaining law

Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void. He said the law violated the constitutional rights of free speech and association.

The ruling applies to all local public workers affected by the law, including teachers and city and county government employees, but not those who work for the state. They were not a party to the lawsuit, which was brought by a Madison teachers union and a Milwaukee public workers union.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker speaks at a news conference inside the Wisconsin State Capitol February 21, 2011 in Madison, Wisconsin.

/ Getty Images/Eric Thayer

Walker issued a statement accusing the judge of being a "liberal activist" who "wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process."

Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck said DOJ believes the law is constitutional.

Lester Pines, an attorney for Madison Teachers Inc., said the ruling means all local governments, including school districts, are now required to bargain with employees covered by unions, just as they did before the law passed. Pines predicted the case would ultimately be resolved by the state Supreme Court.

"What's going to happen in the interim is unknown," he said.

The proposal was introduced shortly after Walker took office in February last year. It resulted in a firestorm of opposition and led to huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled the state to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law's passage from the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The law required public workers to pay more for their health insurance and pension benefits at the same time it took away their ability to collectively bargain over those issues. Walker argued the changes were needed to help state and local governments save money at a time Wisconsin faced a $3 billion budget shortfall.

"This is a huge victory for Wisconsin workers and a huge victory for free speech," said Democratic Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca. "This decision will help re-establish the balance between employees and their employers."

Anger over the law's passage led to an effort to recall Walker from office. More than 930,000 signatures were collected triggering the June recall election. Walker won and became the first governor in U.S. history to survive a recall.

[DJ_Zman]

So now teachers and govement workers get constitutional rights of free speech. Where dose it say that a union has a right to make a place a union shop in the constitutional rights. and not hire non-union workers. seems to me that by its self is not constitutional. maybe someone needs to challange that.

Also since we are on this kick of constitutional rights of free speech, how about MY constitutional rights to bare arms. least time i checked it dont say we need a back ground check or permits. and the rights cant be taken away. (so is that next.) I sure hope the NRA see's my post.

[WeHappyFew]

Collective bargaining is the human right of any worker. This is not an academic argument. One doesn't even have to look to history but at the exploitation of the worker in countries where there are little or no labor laws nor recognized organized labor.

Stop looking enviously at those who took the time ,expense and effort to protect their employment status and remuneration just because you got shafted whilst flying the flag for bosses who, over the years, slowly diminished your compensation.

[Lindag20]

Mortar: You might want to look into how the public sector job wages are REALLY determined some time. Hint: Wage and Salary Commission. It was fun watching you make an A$$ of yourself claiming the "will of the people" set wages though. Ta-ta.

[Lindag20]

by Mortarman_1SG29 September 15, 2012 3:13 PM EDT
Linda, I am not satisfied with a low wage doofus coming to my house to put out the fire. Thus, I may think that I want to pay them 420 an hour. But the firefighters want $30 an hour. Well, if the majority of the people in my area want $20 an hour, then THAT IS THE WAY IT WILL BE.

Now, if that means that I get a lower quality fire fighter, then that's what I get. And that is fine. The voters made that assessment and decided how much they were willing to spend and what level of fire fighter they will get.

It is the Peoples' choice.
------------------------
So YOU have a Master's in Public Administration and you're pumping out this sort of nonsense about how public sector wages are determined? SALARY Commissions are put into place to set wages in order attract and RETAIN qualified personnel for a position, NOT voters. Most public sector jobs require highly skilled and/or well educated people. Voters are cheapskates and don't for the most part have a clue about an appropriate salary for their help.

[WeHappyFew]

The will of the people? Women's suffrage movement was unionized. Black suffrage was unionized. No unions, no vote. No vote, no voice.

[Lindag20]

by rscherf1 September 15, 2012 3:02 PM EDT
All those tax increases without any negotiations from the citizens. After we voted those politicians out of office, did those taxes go down? Did the new politicians that were elected say hey maybe we should take a pay cut so that won't happen to us so we can get mort to vote for us again? But anyway, what does that have to do with what we were talking about, which was politicians trying to do away with public sector unions right to bargain?
--------------------
It's like this. According to Mortar's constitution public workers don't have the right to organize and collectively bargain.

[harv823]

Take that, Walker! You lost!

[rscherf1]

Mort, this is planet Earth. Don't know what one you think you are on but tell me when was the last time a politician, in any party, running for any office, said they were going to cut thier salary, benefits, pension, and perks they receive from the taxpayers and will now leave it up to the voters to what they will receive in salary, benefits, pension, and perks? And beings that you are not to keen on this fact that it is the current politians that set the salaries for the next politician that take thier place, I just thought you should be educated on that fact.

[Lindag20]

Mortar doesn't like to be educated. He thinks HE'S the one that educates.

[rscherf1]

But mort, answer the question.

[rscherf1]

This is true but now the question is, are the politicians going to pay ANYTHING towards thier benefits and pensions that they now receieve for free at the taxpayers expense beings the public union workers have to now pay more for thiers, or are they going to just increase thier own salaries, benefits and pensions when they want to with no negotiations that the public sector unions are required to do? Again I ask if politicions say that public sector unions are bad for the taxpayers, then what are they?

[Lindag20]

I've ALWAYS seen that whenever "cuts" are needed it's almost invariably the ones at the bottom of the ladder that get to bear the brung of the cuts. They cut the clerks, trash collectors, teachers, firefighters, etc. and KEEP the administrators.

[Lindag20]

oops: meant "bruntof the cuts".

[rscherf1]

Mortarman, I agree with you when you say 'we get the government we demand', but at the end of the day, even if we vote the current politicians out, the new politicians that are put in place, still get to raise thier salary and benefits they seem necessary at thier own will and not like the public unions, that because of a judges decision, still have to negotiate for thier salary and benefits. Remember that politicians want to put restraints on public unions but not any on themselves. Do you think this is fair to the taxpayers that both the politicains and public sector unions work for?

[retmw1]

You can vote the politicians out, but the damage has already been done, they're raises and benefits are already in effect. How about the school boards that approve big raises for themselves and the administraters. If the schools are broke then nobody gets a raises, same with the cities, county's states and federal government.

[Lindag20]

by Mortarman_1SG29 September 15, 2012 1:26 PM EDT
We put restraints (or dont) on politicians. We are their bosses. Thus, they are paid what we allow them to be paid.
------------------------
If that is true why does Congress, state legislatures, etc. get to SET their salaries and benefits? The people don't get to vote on their salaries and benefits.

[nearl451]

Mort.

You fallen off the CBS blogging wagon.

I guess, it's welcome back.

[royalstar05]

HA HA Walker you scumbag POS.