Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
On Friday, a state court judge in Wisconsin struck down virtually all of Scott Walker's collective bargaining reform as a violation of both the US and Wisconsin constitutions. Happy Constitution Day, indeed!
The decision is a thinly veiled piece of judicial activism by Judge Juan Colas, who was appointed by the former Democratic Governor, Jim Doyle. How exactly does the reform infringe the "associational and speech rights" of municipal union members? Well, it prohibits municipal unions from collectively bargaining on non-wage benefits (they can still bargain on wages); it prohibits unions from forcing non-union members to pay part of the union's expenses (for the privilege of being represented by a union they want no part of), and it prohibits unions from automatically deducting union dues from payrolls. Got that? It's a violation of free speech to make the union ask its members for their dues.
I confess, I had to read Judge Colas' opinion several times to discover his rationale. It appears to be this single sentence on page 15: "Although the statutes do not prohibit speech or associational activities, the statutes do impose burdens on employees' exercise of those rights when they do so for the purpose of recognition of their association as an exclusive bargaining agent."
What a gloriously convoluted sentence! The reality is: the law dethrones municipal unions in Wisconsin from their former status as all-powerful closed shops, and finally gives employees the freedom to join, or not, municipal unions. Judge Colas casts this not as a burden on the unions, but on employees' right to associate for the purpose of forming a "closed shop" By this logic, every "right to work" law in the country violates the First Amendment.
This decision (and another recent one by an Obama-appointed federal court overturning parts of Act 10) are desperate rearguard actions by Democratic partisans. Under Walker's reforms, more than half of the Wisconsin members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union have dropped out. So have a third of the American Federation of Teachers members in the state. All those dutiful employees who have been forced to subsidize Democratic campaigns are heading for tthe exits.
The idea that Walker has violated workers' rights by giving them a real choice as to whether to join a union is preposterous. I predict this will ultimately be reversed on appeal.
The case is Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Sep '11
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
I confess, I had to read Judge Colas' opinion several times to discover his rationale. It appears to be this single sentence on page 15: "Although the statutes do not prohibit speech or associational activities, the statutes do impose burdens on employees' exercise of those rights when they do so for the purpose of recognition of their association as an exclusive bargaining agent."
I've read that sentence a few times now. I don't understand what it means.
Feb '11
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
Walker should take a cue from Obama, ignore the judge. Keep enforcing the law.
Edited on September 17, 2012 at 4:35pmSep '12
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
This is the analysis I've been waiting for since the decision was handed down on Friday. My original suspicion was that it was a desperate attempt to restore the status quo for the unions... as usual for the left not particularly grounded in any actual law but a special strain of wish fulfillment. Nice to see my suspicion was correct.
Sep '10
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
So, if someone I do not wish to associate with takes money out of my paycheck so they can speak on my behalf, even though I disagree with what they have to say, any complaint I make would show an utter disregard for the Constitution?
Nov '10
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
We conservatives often have trouble articulating this stuff. I wonder why. Perhaps we allow the focus to be taken off the core issue. How about we start with the following questions.
Do you believe in the principle of free association?
Do you believe it is critical that our society protect and preserve this principle?
Do you believe that freedom not to associate (i.e., not be forced to participate in an organization against one's will) follows from this principle?
I don't see how a reasonable person could say no to any of these questions.
Here in Canada it is parsed a bit differently (at least in Manitoba): One is not forced to take out membership in the union. But whether you do or not, full membership dues are taken from your salary under force of law.
I took out membership simply to have a voice in how my $$ are used.
My union is a member of the most powerful big labour lobby in Canada, the CLC. The CLC donates a "poll tax" of $.02 per member of member unions to the Canada's official socialist party, the NDP -- illegal contributions, but done anyway to spite the law.
Jan '11
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
From game theory, if not the law ...
Unions are a strategy to a mixed-motive game. A union is an "internal" agreement between workers on how to seek an "external" agreement with employers. There are, in essence, two agreements in play.
When a union takes dues to support a political party, they aren't advancing common interests. They're violating the internal agreement. Judge Colas' ruling suggests, however, that members never have the right to question if the union has lost its integrity.
That's game theory, at least. The law is a little different.
Nov '10
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
If forced dues collection really is a hill the unions want to die on, I say bring it on. It's easy to be pro-union when you can obscure the difference between union and worker; it's a lot harder when half the members have already rushed for the door and you're trying to use the law to slam it in their face. It's even harder when your victory comes via the branch of government that half the country already sees as arrogant and prone to overreach anway.
Nov '10
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
@Flagg Taylor in Comment #1 (Sorry, I can't quote on an iPhone): The law places an "undue burden" on unions by forcing them to ask permission before taking people's money.
Dec '10
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
I'm sure the left can find some way to get this transfered to the 9th Circuit so they can get a "fair" hearing.
May '10
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
Should bite the dust pretty quickly at the Wisc Supreme Court. I suspect that the actions was filed only for PR purposes in the GOTV effort in November.
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
I hope you're right. Of course, I'm not surprised that the action was filed but the millimeter-deep analysis of Judge Colas is dreary reminder of the lengths to which liberal judges will go.
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
R. Craigen:
Do you believe that freedomnotto associate (i.e., not be forced to participate in an organization against one's will) follows from this principle?
I don't see how a reasonable person could say no to any of these questions. · 6 hours ago
Me neither, but that's why we're conservatives. Here in the US, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation states that compulsory unionism puts $4.5 billion in the coffers of unions, a large chunk of which gets funneled into political campaigns. This is the lifeblood of the Democratic Party. No wonder they see labor reform as an existential threat.
Sep '10
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
The "Although the statutes do not prohibit speech or associational activities" setup makes it seem like they are saying, "Well sure, it isn't 'technically' unconstitutional, but it really should be, and I am a judge so . . ."
Sep '12
Re: Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Because It Makes It Harder to Force Workers Into Unions
I thought this had already been hashed out in the Wisconsin SC. Isn't that what all the elections of Justices leading up to? #confused