The Governor's attack on the right to strike was itself, uh, struck down. How about that?! After all the gloating the Righties did after he survived his recall. So the bottom line is that both the Ohio and Wisconsin anti union laws have been beaten-Ohio's SB 5 got recalled.
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
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/wisconsin-collective-bargaining-law_n_1885601.html
So what was wrong with the law? Nothing too serious: it simply violated both the state and federal constitution
"Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void."
"In his 27-page ruling, the judge said sections of the law "single out and encumber the rights of those employees who choose union membership and representation solely because of that association and therefore infringe upon the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."
"Colas also said the law violates the equal protection clause by creating separate classes of workers who are treated differently and unequally."
Walker's reaction was to call Judge Colas a liberal. Now there's a novel argument. Not many Right wing Republicans say that:
"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."
Not how he doesn't bother to couch his argument in the constitution or law simply making speculations of the judge failing an ideological test. Where we go here is unclear. As quoted above, there will be an appeal and no doubt Walker will try to hold the law in place in the mean time. Still what happens to contracts now is in doubt:
"The ruling throws into question changes that have been made in pay, benefits and other work rules in place across the state for city, county and school district workers."
"Walker's law, passed in March 2011, only allowed for collective bargaining on wage increases no greater than the rate of inflation. All other issues, including workplace safety, vacation, health benefits, could no longer be bargained for."
"The ruling means that local government and schools now must once again bargain over those issues, said Lester Pines, an attorney for Madison Teachers Inc. that brought the case."
"We're back to where we were before the law was enacted," he said.
"Ultimately the law is going to the state Supreme Court it appears. But for now, going back to before the law started is a great place to go. At this point the legacy of these dogmatic anti union laws is looking a lot worse. Even before this, it was clear that even though Walker survived, many Governors saw it as a cautionary tale and chose not to push for more changes like this. After all, even though Walker himself survived, he was on a recall ballot, and he lost a 5 seat state senate majority in the bargain. Then in Ohio the voters recalled the law."
So it's looking less like a victory today. In the future it's quite likely that we will see fewer rather than more Governors want to go down this road. Sometimes the system works. Now if that Pennsylvania Supreme Court can put that voter id law in an unmarked grave, we'll really be on our way.
"As we have said from day one, Scott Walker's attempt to silence the union men and women of Wisconsin's public sector was an immoral, unjust and illegal power grab," said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO."
"The Democratic minority leader in the state Assembly called the ruling a huge victory for workers and free speech."
"This decision will help re-establish the balance between employees and their employers," said Rep. Peter Barca.
"Republican Rep. Robin Vos, a staunch supporter of the law and the presumptive next speaker of the Assembly, called the ruling an example of the "arrogance of the judiciary."
"I'm confident it's a single judge out of step with the mainstream," Vos said. He said the law is working "and we'll continue to implement it."
Note that Vos as well seems to defining the issue of a question of ideology of the judge rather than what the law actually says.
No comments:
Post a Comment