"Wisconsin Judge Blocks New Anti-Collective Bargaining Law"
By gladys46
@gladys46 (1205)
United States
March 18, 2011 12:05pm CST
Breaking at Politico (.com) ... an AP report:
A Wisconsin judge has temporarily blocked the state's new law ending collective bargaining for most public employees, the AP reports. The order was issued by Judge Maryann Sumi after the state's Democratic DA Ismael Ozanne filed a lawsuit saying the Republicans who passed the law broke Wisconsin's open meetings law.
"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)," wrote the judge.
At the moment, Republicans are remaining quiet. "It's an ongoing legal issue, and we can't comment on it." Said Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald.
.....
Would you agree that YES, it is a LEGAL matter?
1 person likes this
6 responses
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
18 Mar 11
I'm curious to know how many judges got involved in the past when Democrat politicians got in bed with unions and gave them more "rights" (be serious about it - it's leverage and add-ons, not "rights") and more money and allowed tenure to be abused. Was it a LEGAL matter then?
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
18 Mar 11
Well, it is my understanding that concessions were made by the union ... salary freezes, more out-of-pocket towards pensions and health benefits! Weren't those the issues that went to budget balancing?
Actually, matersfish ... It would behove any good business owner to be sure his/her workers are "happy workers" ... I mean, I wouldn't rob my own employees and then expect that those same employees would return to work and perform productively ... would you? It just seems so counter-productive to me!
Anyway, we shall wait to see what the LAW says about the ways and means used to enact this new law.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
18 Mar 11
That's the entire problem - public service is not a business.
If it were a business, the teachers would long be out of there and replaced. Call it anti-teachers if you wish; I prefer to think of it has pro-student.
Kids have been failing as incredible rates, while all tenured teachers keep their jobs and benefits.
It would behoove a good business owner to make sure his products were of the highest quality.
If we were talking about defective lightbulbs, much of the workforce would have long been replaced.
So you seem to want it both ways. You want the union workers to have full bargaining powers and full job security.
Well, that's not even close to being a good business. So the "business" analogy doesn't fly there.
It's strictly a partistan issue; and to that end, you will defend it through anything because R's are up against D's.
If it was anything about "good business," union reform would be a must to put out a better product instead of having "happy workers." You approach it as a right to be employed by the state.
1 person likes this
![](/Content/images/ajax-loader.gif)
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
18 Mar 11
As I understand the rule being challenged is not the open meeting law but the rules the Senate made to comply with the law. Do we want a local judge to determine the rules of the government? For example a School board may hold a Public Meeting (meeting held in the public) and not allow people to speak. They may hold a public hearing where you must register to speak or they may hold a public meeting and allow all to have time to speak. Should a judge have the right to say that you have to allow anyone who wants to speak be given an unlimited amount of time? Should a judge determine how elected bodies govern themselves?
Is this just a Union Delaying action for them to settle more contracts?
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
18 Mar 11
Don't know about all that ... republicans are reportedly saying that this is just a "bump" in the road for them. If this rule is found within Wisconsin's legislative order why shouldn't it be adhered to?
We can know and remember that Sup.Ct. justices went beyond what was presented to them in that Citizens United case just to give corporations personhood. I suppose judges do determine how elected bodies govern.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
19 Mar 11
First of all the Supreme Court did not enter new ground with granting personhood to Corporations. in in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad the court ruled that Corps. were entitled to the rights of a person in courts.
The question in this case is was the Senate in regular session or special session. It shouldn't take the judge over a week to make that decision. I still say this is a stalling tactic and the judge is being used.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Mar 11
She's nothing but a shill for the unions. Bought and paid for like a slave at auction.
The Wisconsin Open Meetings law (which she cites) clearly reads..
"(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting."
Since the Wisconsin State Constitution grants the state legislature the authority to make the rules by which it operates, the Senate is the ones that get to decide when the 2 hours rule applies.
In other words, the little anal fissure doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
The coward also left for vacation right after making the "ruling". I wonder if she went to Illinois. ;~D
What the state Assembly and Senate should do now is simply vote on the bill again, the pass it along to Gov. Walker, who would then sign it.
This would make the judge's act of judicial activism a useless gesture.
![](/Content/images/ajax-loader.gif)
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Mar 11
What legal opinion when it clearly goes against the wording of the law, and the state constitution?
Good afternoon to you too.
![](/Content/images/ajax-loader.gif)
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
18 Mar 11
This matter was looked into before the Republicans ever voted. Because they were already in session, they didn't have to announce being in session.
I'm not surprised, though. Union bosses know that losing will be devastating to them.
Unions don't belong in the government. We should have never allowed that to happen. They're lucky that the only things being proposed are to get rid of collective bargaining about benefits and pensions.
The real reason, though, that unions are up in arms is that all of the states that are fighting this way are doing so to get rid of the notion that public employees HAVE to be in unions. They should have the right to not be in unions if they so desire.
And, the unions HATE that states no longer want to collect member dues for them.
It's never been about the kids and it's hardly about the union members.
@artistry (4151)
• United States
19 Mar 11
.....Hi gladys hope you are feeling okay. My first post just disappeared, whether
I did it or otherwise, here I go again. It's amazing that they put those people through all of that garbage. All they had to do was to give them two hours notice for an emergency session, they rammed it through with one hour and fifty-five minutes. Five minutes and they crapped it up. Love it. They didn't need the Dems, used only Republican votes. Got their ducks all in order, yes? No, there was a turkey in the line and he chuckled. I love it. I hope the judge's order becomes permanent, she said that the opponents may win in this case and I don't see why not. The rule was violated. Plain and simple. We'll see what happens. Next year Governor Walker should start putting out resumes because I think they are coming for him. Cheers
![](/Content/images/loading.gif)