Court Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law As Unconstitutional

[silvershadow]

Source: Talking Points Memo

BySCOTT BAUERPublishedAPRIL 8, 2016, 5:38 PM EDT

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin court has struck down the state's right-to-work law championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, calling it unconstitutional.

A Dane County Circuit Court judge issued the ruling Friday in a lawsuit filed by local unions. Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel promised to appeal the order, saying: "We are confident the law will be upheld on appeal."

The Wisconsin AFL-CIO, Machinists Local Lodge 1061 in Milwaukee and United Steelworkers District 2 in Menasha filed the lawsuit last year.

The groups argued that the law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property because it required unions to extend benefits to workers who don't pay dues.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/scott-walker-right-to-work-law-unconstitutional

---

Here is a story from ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-strikes-wisconsin-work-law-38261502

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. Wont this now go to the SC in that state where a seat was stolen in election fraud?

[silvershadow]

6. Probably so. Hopefully it will continue on up the chain, though. nt

[elljay]

28. There may not be anywhere for it to go

If the state Supreme Court finds it constitutional'under the Wisconsin state constitution, which they no doubt will, being wholly-owned Koch subsidiaries, that may be the final decision. The federal courts cannot hear the case unless there is a federal issue raised. This is why local elections are important!

[Scuba]

37. "A" seat??? How about the majority of the seats. It would be very difficult to overstate ...

... the level of corruption in Wisconsin politics, including the rigging of the State Supreme Court.

[Cal Carpenter]

2. Uhhh... really?

That is excellent news! I wish the article had more details/analysis (like the likelihood of an appeal succeeding, etc).

This is a big deal. I hope unions in other states with these bullshit RW laws follow suit. (pun intended)

[silvershadow]

4. Yeah, I'm hoping to see more from other sources about this. nt

[Gothmog]

3. This is great news

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Absolutely! I still say some state legislator should draft legislation ...

called the Workplace Freedom to Negotiate Act.

It would allow any worker of a unionized workplace to opt out of paying union dues ... should they do so, they lose the union bargained for terms and conditions and protections, freeing them to negotiate individually with their employer for their wages and benefits, employment status (term of contract or at-will), work days and hours, etc.

I'm sure all this free rider wanna-bes will soon find the amount of their dues is more than fair as the find themselves working for as little as their employee is willing to pay ... strikes of one are not very effective.

[WhiteTara]

5. Look to this being overturned at the state Supreme Court level

with Bradley now on the court. She is a terrible blow to the citizens of Wisconsin.

[silvershadow]

7. Most assuredly. My hope is it will move up the chain. nt

[WhiteTara]

8. Why?

[silvershadow]

9. I am opposed to right to work laws. nt

[WhiteTara]

10. If it works up the chain to the state Supreme Court

it will be overturned and right to work (for less) will again become law.

[silvershadow]

11. It has to make a stop on the way, which it surely will. All I was saying is that when it does

get ruled on unfavorably (no doubt) from the Wisconsin Supremes, then we need to appeal it...unless you'd rather make it law of the land?

[WhiteTara]

14. 4-4SCOTUS

allows lower court rulings to stand. Of course, I don't want it to be the law of the land.

[silvershadow]

16. Nor do I, though I wasn't expecting it to get to SCOTUS before the 9th Justice is

affirmed...perhaps I am thinking wrong, though?

[WhiteTara]

17. I think if we don't win back the Senate we can look

forward to many more years of gridlock no matter the name of the Democratic president.

[silvershadow]

19. I am pretty sure we won't have to wait that long for the affirmation. There MUST be

a legal way around their obstinance and dereliction of duty...? Surely there must.

[WhiteTara]

20. I'm sure Harry Reid is working on it

but the Turtle is a nasty little man who is filled with hatred for our President.

[silvershadow]

21. He is a vile dinosaur, that's for sure. nt

[turbinetree]

12. Yep....................the state now has a confirmed Kochite on the court...........................

, she got her money from exactly where to run for this position:


https://ballotpedia.org/Rebecca_Bradley


"Wisconsin Alliance for Reform," Front Group aligned with Club for Growth and the Koch Foundation-------------'Dark Money'

And then you have the National Right for Less and there partner the non-union Associated Builders and Contractors and $400,000.00 dollars





Honk-----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[bobthedrummer]

39. So are Gableman, and the "strangling judge" Prosser...et al still it is a victory _K&R

former Local 232 member and UFCW informational picket Captain (Copp's campaign), my father was a lifelong Teamster member.

[WhiteTara]

40. Yes, but I fear it is not long lived. nt

[murielm99]

43. Maybe they would not have had this "terrible blow"

if Sanders followers were more educated. While many of them turned out to vote for their sainted leader, they failed to vote for important down ticket candidates, like Kloppenburg.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/07/this_is_the_problem_with_bernies_revolution_how_one_down_ticket_election_in_wisconsin_shows_the_flaw_in_his_political_movement/

[WhiteTara]

44. I wish Bernie had educated them about the needs of the state

because he has such a large following. I keep thinking he could highlight down ticket candidates by having them introduce him rather than movie stars. Of course that is the old way of establishment Democrats.

[murielm99]

45. It's "establishment" to introduce

people who are running for office? How does that make sense?

[WhiteTara]

46. Democrats helping Democrats

maybe I'm just used to California party politics where the "rock stars" are from the political arena.

[SoapBox]

13. Right to work = you have no Rights.

This is excellent news.

[Matthew28]

15. Just goes to show that the so called constitutional conservatives

Really don't give a damn about the constitution and are just anti-worker! Great news!

[Omaha Steve]

18. Right to work for less facts

http://www.aflcio.org/Legislation-and-Politics/State-Legislative-Battles/Ongoing-State-Legislative-Attacks/Right-to-Work

States with Right to Work Laws Have:
1
Lower Wages and Incomes
The average worker in states with right to work laws makes $5,971 (12.2 percent) less annually than workers in states without right to when all other factors are removed than workers in other states.
2
Median household income in states with these laws is $6,568 (11.8 percent) less than in other states ($49,220 vs. $55,788).
3
In states with right to work laws, 25.9 percent of jobs are in low-wage occupations, compared with 18.0 percent of jobs in other states.
4
Lower Rates of Health Insurance Coverage
People under the age of 65 in states with right to work laws are more likely to be uninsured (16.3 percent, compared with 12.4 percent in free-bargaining states).
5
They’re less likely to have job-based health insurance than people in other states (53.9 percent, compared with 57.1 percent)
6 and pay a larger share of their health insurance premiums (29.9 percent compared with 26.1 percent).
7
Only 46.8 percent of private-sector employers in states with these laws offer insurance coverage to their employees, compared with 52.6 percent in other states. That difference is even more pronounced among small employers (with fewer than 50 workers)—only 30.3 percent offer workers health insurance, compared with 38.8 percent of small employers in other states.
8
Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates
Poverty rates are higher in states with right to work laws (14.8 percent overall and 20.2 percent for children), compared with poverty rates of 13.1 percent overall and 18.3 percent for children in states without these laws.
9
The infant mortality rate is 14.2 percent higher in states with these laws.
10
Less Investment in Education
States with right to work laws spend 31.3 percent less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than other states.
11
Higher Workplace Fatalities
The rate of workplace deaths is 54.4 percent higher in states with these laws, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
12
1 With the exception of the infant mortality rate and low-wage jobs data, the state data included here do not include data from Indiana and Michigan. These states are not included in the 2012 and 2013 data because they passed right to work laws in 2012; the impact of right to work policies on their economies would not have been fully experienced in 2012 and 2013. They have been excluded from the free-bargaining states versus right to work state analysis for the 2012 and 2013 data.
2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages, Average Annual Pay for 2013, accessed 12/9/14.
3 U.S. Census Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2013.
4 CFED, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, Low Wage Jobs, 2011.
5 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Insurance Coverage of Nonelderly 0-64, 2012.
6 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, 2012.
7 CFED, Asset and Opportunity Scorecard, Employee Share of Premium, 2012.
8 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Percent of Private Sector Establishments That Offer Health Insurance to Employees, by Firm Size, 2012.
9 U.S. Census Bureau, POV46: Poverty Status by State: 2013 Below 100% and 50% of Poverty -- People Under 18 Years of Age, WEIGHTED PERSON COUNT.
10 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Infant Mortality Rate (Deaths per 1,000 Live Births), 2007-2009.
11 National Education Association, Rankings & Estimates–Rankings of the States 2013 and Estimates of School Statistics 2014, H-11. Current Expenditures for Public K-12 Schools per Student in Fall Enrollment, 2012-2013, March 2014.
12 AFL-CIO, Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, April 2014.

[Major Hogwash]

32. Our right to organize and form a union was infringed upon 30 years ago in Idaho.

When the state legislature passed the "Right To Work" law here, many union leaders called it "The Right To Work For Less" law.
And they were right.

Now almost all of the unions are just a memory.
The only one left is the teacher's union, which only has a 7% membership of all the teachers statewide.
It's sad that so many people vote against their own best self-interests, year after year, decade after decade.

[phazed0]

22. Scott Walker = Butthurt. nt

[Greybnk48]

23. My thread about this was locked.

Not a fucking clue why.

[silvershadow]

24. was it a dupe? Don't know...

[Omaha Steve]

29. It was a dupe by just a few minutes

I got stuck with the job of locking it. I put no duplicates in bold in the lock reply. I guess I didn't make it clear.

OS

[Jack Rabbit]

25. It sounds like Wisconsin has had an awfully good week

[center]

[/center]

[Hotler]

26. If you don't like unions and don't want to pay union dues....

don't go to work in a union shop. Go work some place else where you are willing to let your employer walk all over you.

[silvershadow]

27. Exactly. If I and my colleagues bust our nuts to get union representing (which often takes years),

then anyone applying for a job that pays wages and benefits and working conditions we all busted ass to gain, then that person should abide. In fact, there should be signs at all union shops stating such, and there should be laws in place- right to work for a union laws, which state as much.

[turbinetree]

31. AS a UNION member..................................as all union members and supporters...........

my attitude is ..........................GET THE FREE LOADER OFF MY BACK................................SCABS







Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[silvershadow]

33. Yep. I forgot to mention that I call them "squatters". I have known a few Republicans in my day

that squatted in that good union factory job, all the while voting Republican while they were cutting jobs and moving them. One had to move to a different factory, but was still within driving distance, in order to finish his career, but he was lucky-most of the guys had to move hundreds of miles away, usually south, and uproot their families. This guy,though, he takes cake. Typical ignorant tea-bagger, bigot on top of it, but I digress. Squatter, who bad-mouths the union all the time, but he sure sucked up the good pay and bennies for an entire career to retirement. He makes me smh.

[turbinetree]

38. Couldn't agree more........................

they forget that when you work for "anything" within a majority of 50+1 rule, there is a reason, why they / we have a union.
I really don't understand how some one in a union thinks that voting for a republican or a DINO is going to help them, there bottom line is greed------------------they want to divide and conquer----------------it's the same old National Right to Work Committee tactic, and if people would really look at how, what and why right to work for less was, if they have any decency, they would be outraged ----------------all they have to do is just think, if the shoe was on the other foot.

And as a person that worked within a union, it was really hard, to convince someone that a majority of one collective voice is better than a minority of one voice, of you against the rich and powerful, they are not there for you.................

http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/12/the-racist-roots-of-right-to-work-laws.html

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/the-ugly-racial-history-of-right-to-work

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-are-right-to-work-laws

I remember standing on a picket line, and the pilots were told by a right wing judge (go figure) that if they did not crossed the line they would be held in contempt, my attitude, hold me in contempt, I will not cross the line to endanger my life, possessions, just because some company hack filed papers-----------------I have principles, people died so that I could have those principles and to protect my 50+1 majority and that collective voice.

I can still remember watching supervisors struggling and changing a hydraulic valve on a wing flap, hydraulic fluid spewing on the ground, (that's when you could go into and out of the airport without going through some screening agent), and some person walking around the plane kicking the tires, like it was some truck---------------and when I got a microphone shoved in my face I said what I saw------------------------


I still want to get the FREELOADER OFF MY BACK............................


Honk----------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[passiveporcupine]

34. I always wondered how they could legally get away with this

The groups argued that the law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property because it required unions to extend benefits to workers who don't pay dues.

I hope they don't lose this on appeal. This fix has to start somewhere, and then move to other states that are right-to-work. If they did this, the workers would soon tire of not getting as much, and I bet they'd all end up signing up with the union. Unions help with job security too, and job security is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

I have ho problem with a company hiring non-union workers, but they cannot get the same pay and bennies as what the union fought for. But how do you tell a business what they can or can't pay their workers?

ON second thought, forget that. When unemployment is high, the company will get plenty who will work for less, and through attrition, eventually the union members will be replaced by non-union, lower wage employees. So nope, if a business goes union, it should affect everyone in the union positions.

[Beartracks]

35. Maybe the USPS should try something like this?

With the requirement to future-fund 75 years of pensions,* couldn't it be argued that the US Postal Service is being unconstitutionally forced to extend benefits to people it hasn't even hired yet?


* I might have that wrong...

=========================

[silvershadow]

36. You might be, but I like the way you think!

[Mustellus]

41. This could work, you know.....

Have the Unions only negotiate for Union members....

... and let the freeloaders negotiate one - on - one for their own pay and benefits.

If being a Union member has no value added, no problem. But the right's argument is that the Union provides benefits, and that the freeloaders should get them for free.

[Dont call me Shirley]

42. 4-4 USSC decision would let that stand!

[branford]

47. It's VERY unlikely such a challenge will ever come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Like the other constitutional challenges to WI's labor laws, the last stop will almost certainly be the state supreme court. This court was hostile to labor before, and it's recently become even more conservative.

Further, these types of issues have already been addressed by the SCOTUS,and right-to-work laws have been upheld, largely because the alternative would be that unions wouldn't be the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit, and this would ultimately weaken union power.

[Dont call me Shirley]

48. One never knows when the tide of extremism will turn.

[branford]

49. I wouldn't rest your hopes on SCOTUS on this issue.

Right to work laws are currently definitely constitutional, and tampering with the jurisprudence can actually weaken union bargaining power in states where the laws do not exist.

Also, don't forget that there are intermediate appeals courts in WI where unions have also fared far more poorly than Dane County. If the rtw law is upheld by these higher courts, a very likely scenario, a 4-4 split on SCOTUS will uphold the law, not maintain the current trial court decision.

Simply, the only really way to reverse the trend in anti-union legislation is at the ballot box.

[Dont call me Shirley]

50. And a truthful 4th Estate.

[branford]

51. We cannot control the press.

That's a dangerous battle you don't really want to fight, and there are more than ample venues for our message.

However, we can certainly get out the vote and choose viable and compelling candidates, as well as demonstrate to the voters the benefits of the union membership and influence.

[Dont call me Shirley]

53. Ok, how about a little Fairness Doctrine then? And some optimism? Without that despair flourishes.

[branford]

54. The Fairness Doctrine is a First Amendment mess that will never return,

particularly in the internet age.

Most importantly, I believe we are perfectly capable of electing pro-union representatives into higher officer and getting voters and workers to appreciate the value of unions.

I will not, however, maintain totally unrealistic expectations about the courts saving us from doing the electoral heavy lifting, particularly when as I lawyer with a labor background I know the state of the relevant jurisprudence, nor will I abandon other liberal and progressive values like freedom of speech for partisan gain.

General optimism and complaining about the media are not viable strategies and there are no easy shortcuts. Democrats and unions need to do the hard work of winning hearts and minds and demonstrating to the voting public how we are better off with strong union protections.

[Dont call me Shirley]

55. I agree whole heartedly we must win over the hearts and minds of voters to elect pro-union,

pro-people, progressive candidates to office, local and school board included. But we do not and will not have the msm as an ally, only as "the enemy" since their owners are those who have created the War on Labor.

The courts are only a temporary bandaid to hold together the gaping wound in the system. The real fix is in the economic system. Implementing Unions, democratic workplaces, worker owned cooperatives and strongly enforced labor laws would be realistic goals.

Optimism must be a strategy because optimism creates momentum. Momentum is what this movement needs even if it is angry optimistic momentum.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I experience in debate. I agree with all your positions, except for the optimism argument, I'm an eternal optimist. Thank you for your life's work, brandord.

[branford]

56. I'm optimistic that we can accomplish the hard work of convincing voters

of the vast advantages of union membership and labor protections.

In the internet age, we don't need the mainstream media to get our message across, although not all media is always the enemy. However, if we always treat the media as adversaries, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Republicans haven't learned this lesson, and I hope we do.

While I may strongly oppose their ideas, conservative and anti-union folks have a constitutional right to try to convince voters of the merit of their ideas. That's a fundamental aspect of a liberal democracy. The alternative to this free speech and other similar rights are an illiberal society which we as progressives would sorely regret.

It's also unpopular, generally imprudent and mostly unlawful to force people into unions against their will or as a condition of employment (e.g., closed union shops in government employment). Right to Work laws, no matter how bad as a matter of policy, have been regularly upheld by our highest courts across the nation, including SCOTUS. This is why the decision of the local trial court in Dane County referenced in the OP will likely be reversed before it reaches the WI Supreme Court, no less SCOTUS, and any celebrations will almost certainly be very short lived. In fact, I believe Dane County judges so routinely strike down Walker's laws and are promptly reversed that's it's become expected.

[Dont call me Shirley]

57. Not all media are our adversary, but the billionaire owned Main Stream Media, which is a large

chunk of the media in the US, has designated Labor as the enemy. The Internet has been the saving grace of Progressivism and Labor. Without the internet Progressives would not be getting the messages of fairness in economics, safe working environments and equality in education.

If you choose to work at a place which is unionized, you should honor that commitment. An employer can force you to work longer hours, overtime without OT pay or pay women less than men for the same work. People are forced to do things against their will at work all the time. So being forced to join a union because you chose a union job is not okay? I don't get it, why can an employer force you to do things beyond your will, but joining a union because it's a union shop is not ok?

Right To Work laws only protect the employer not the employee. They may look on the surface as if they are protecting the employee but they are only robbing the employee of a fair wage and safe working conditions.

Were the Courts correct about the Citizens United case? I think they were wrong. They are wrong about rtw being constitutionally valid.

[branford]

58. I don't believe you fully understand general employment and labor law.

An employer cannot force you to do anything. Conversely, an employer is not obligated to keep you as an employee. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, this arrangement works just fine.

Most importantly, we have a body of laws, federal, state and local, concerning workplace conditions, anti-discrimination, requirements for payment for hours worked, etc., that are in effect regardless of the an employer's or employee's union status. These laws must comport with the Constitution. Many of these laws were the result of union advocacy long ago, but the contemporary labor movement must survive on its merits today, not on past victories.

An elected union requires collectively bargaining which normally results in an explicit contract both as to the terms and conditions of employment and compensation. Breaches by employees and employers are subject to an agreed grievance procedure or civil and criminal action, as may be appropriate. Most employees absent unions are at will, without the additional layer of contract protections. However, without this uniformity, some employees are at a distinct competitive and financial advantage (and disadvantage) for many reasons, some good some bad, including greater industrious, ingenuity, competence and loyalty to nepotism and consensual sexual relationships. Some factors cannot be considered as a matter of law, including race, religion, sex and other explicitly protected categories than may slightly differ based on location.

Closed shops, i.e., a requirement a employee join a union (a private organization) as a condition of employment, have been illegal for many years particularly in the public sector. In non-right to work states, non-union employees can be required to pay "agency fees" which represent the reasonable costs to represent the employee (a requirement of the union as the exclusive bargaining agent), but such amounts are demonstrably less than dues. Forcing an employee to join a private organization as a condition of employment, no less an organization involved in politics or for a government employer, has serious First Amendment and other constitutional concerns. This will not change any time soon in the USA regardless of whether SCOTUS becomes more liberal.

While we may believe it's best if employees organize, join unions and collectively bargain, it still must be the free and voluntary decision of individuals, and like most things in real life, there are indeed downsides for some people and history has proven that unions, like their corporate partners, are not above illegality, incompetence, favoritism, collusion, etc. We must endeavor to convince voters and workers of the value of unionization and ensure that unions themselves are efficient, effective law-abiding, and equally represent all their members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop#United_States

[Dont call me Shirley]

59. On the job, if you want to keep your job, you do what the boss says. I got fired because I wouldn't

have sex with the boss.

[branford]

60. A demand for sex as part of employment is unlawful in every state and city in the country,

and depending on the circumstances, might even be a criminal matter. Union membership would be immaterial.

Although I obviously don't know the details, this is something you could have discussed with appropriate legal counsel.

[Dont call me Shirley]

61. But what I'm saying is that employers do illegal stuff all the time and get away with it. Including

supporting and advancing "Right To Work" Laws which I find immoral at the least and illegal due to their pushing by ALEC (whom I find a very illegal operation).

I was 18 when that happened a very long time ago. I didn't know about labor laws or rights then, very naive. I wish I would have known then.

[scscholar]

52. Exactly, you have no right to work.

By forcing reasonable association requirements for jobs, we enforce freedom.

[Zira]

62. Awesome! Great news!