Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

"Unions file suit to halt collective bargaining legislation"

The Constitution says we have a “right” to be able to collectively bargain against taxpayers — and that state lawmakers have no right to infringe upon this unalienable right. Also, the Constitution says it is wrong to do anything that might “weaken” the draw of public-sector union membership.

And if it doesn’t say that? Well, that’s because it’s totally old and it sucks.

QED.

15 Replies to “"Unions file suit to halt collective bargaining legislation"”

  1. cranky-d says:

    They want to continue to get their cut of what will eventually be nothing if they get their way. The fact that they lack a firm grasp of the obvious makes me wonder how they can even do their jobs now. Perhaps they should be replaced.

  2. Mikey NTH says:

    The Black Knight lives in Wisconsin?

  3. Bob Reed says:

    I must have missed the part where it says collective bargaining is a “right”. Unless, you know, commerce clause and all…

    Seriously thought, I think that even the Taft-Hartley act maintains that management can cut different deals with different groups. And, like, haven’t there been different contracts throught the many states over the years anyway? What makes this a federal case in the first place?

    Seems to me like this might be stalling in order to keep the issue alive, and thereby “energize the base” for the upcoming recall elections.

  4. bh says:

    Is it just me or are the legal arguments actually getting more laughable?

    They should maybe work on that a bit. Otherwise it’s just too transparent that they’re only looking for the correct judge. The sort of judge who would be willing to become a laughingstock and progressive hero at the exact same time. Like Sumi. Problem is, those decisions tend to get overturned. And create precedent. In a federal case, they’ll do nothing for their own local Wisconsin cause but run a good chance of hurting others in other states.

    I guess I mean to say, “Genius!”

  5. bh says:

    Or, what Mikey said.

  6. Darleen says:

    management can cut different deals with different groups.

    There are at least 4 different unions representing different classifications of workers in my county … One for Nurses, one for Sworn Personnel, one for Firefighters and one for general workers (the last one I belong to) We all have different contracts.

    So this suit has got to be just a Hail Mary pass hoping to hit a sympathetic “judge” at the Fed level.

  7. mojo says:

    The constitution don’t say that and the “right” don’t exist.
    /Wilford Brimley

  8. When one of my kids has a tantrum like that it’s because, they’re wrong, they know they’re wrong, they want to do it anyway and they think it’s JUST NOT FAIR!

    It’s my job to put them in a time out.

  9. deadrody says:

    Yeah, good luck with that, fellas. I wonder how it could be that plenty of states do not allow ANY collective bargaining for public employees AS DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    Pretty hard to argue that Wisconsin rolling back collective bargaining that MOST public employees don’t have is “unconstitutional”.

    But then, who here actually expects an Obama appointee to follow the law ?

  10. deadrody says:

    And this is another case where “loser pays” tort reform would be a fine, fine way to go.

    Lose your ability to extract blood money from union members AND have to repay the over-priced government for defending themselves. Win-win

  11. sdferr says:

    I certainly don’t know the ins and outs of the laws they’re leaning on here but it sounds on the surface as though they make a claim that the Wisc. government can’t differentiate betwixt these unionists over here (those excluded from bargaining by the law) and those over there (those not excluded by the law). “You must treat us equally!” they seem to say.

    It would (wouldn’t it?) be funny were the court to rule in partial agreement with the claim, “Yeah, those others unionists excluded over there should be included in the law, so they can’t bargain against the people either.”!

  12. cranky-d says:

    If that’s the case, sdferr, I recommend that the WI government extend the law to all public employee unions. That way they need not wait for a ruling.

  13. […] to Protein Wisdom homepage « “Unions file suit to halt collective bargaining legislation”  |  Home  |   June 16, 2011 Simple Question. […]

  14. geoffb says:

    Notice this:

    The unions are asking the federal court to prevent the Walker administration from implementing the legislaton, either on a temporary or permanent basis. And they are asking the court to find the legislation unconstitutional.
    […]
    The suit does not seek to stop the pension and health requirements requirements imposed by Walker’s bill.

    “Public sector unions have made it clear from day one that Wisconsin workers would do their part to share in the sacrifice and keep our state moving forward. The lawsuit only seeks to preserve the basic right to bargain and freely associate,” a statement from the AFL-CIO said.

    They are not fighting the parts that effect the pay of their members but only the parts that effect the power of the Union bosses and their ability to collect money and pass it along to the Democrats. Because they care for the workers no doubt.

  15. zino3 says:

    You bozos!

    The constitution was written with communist unions in mind.

    How stupid can we be?

Comments are closed.