The Right To Work is Unconstitutional in Wisconsin

[presence]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-to-work-scott-walker-unions-unconstitutional

Wisconsin right-to-work law struck down by court as unconstitutional

Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues

Associated Press
Friday 8 April 2016 19.09 EDT Last modified on Friday 8 April 2016 20.28 EDT

Wisconsin’s so-called “right-to-work” law, championed by Republican governor Scott Walker as he was mounting his run for president, was struck down on Friday as violating the state constitution.

Wisconsin’s attorney general, Brad Schimel, also a Republican, promised to appeal against the decision and said he was confident it would not stand. Schimel has not made a decision on whether to seek an immediate suspension of the ruling while the appeal is pending, spokesman Johnny Koremenos said.

“We are confident Wisconsin’s freedom-to-work law is constitutional and will ultimately be upheld,” Walker wrote on Twitter.

Three unions filed the lawsuit last year shortly after Walker signed the bill into law. So-called right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues. Twenty-four other states have such laws.

The unions argued that Wisconsin’s law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property since unions now must extend benefits to workers who don’t pay dues. Dane County circuit judge William Foust agreed.

Continued...

 

[Danke]

"The unions argued that Wisconsin’s law was an unconstitutional seizure of union property since unions now must extend benefits to workers who don’t pay dues. Dane County circuit judge William Foust agreed."

"He said the law amounts to an unconstitutional governmental taking of union funds without compensation, since under the law unions must represent people who don’t pay dues. That presents an existential threat to unions, Foust wrote."


I can agree with this.

 

[TheCount]

First line sums it up:

Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements

 

[presence]

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2015/im_2015_04.pdf

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/acts/1

under the law unions must represent people who don’t pay dues

I'm not sure I understand that. Can someone cite that statement from the Act?

 

[AZJoe]

First line sums it up: Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements
[/COLOR]

That is not the first line. You changed the meaning by leaving out the most important part of the sentence.
The actual quote is: "Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues."

 

[presence]

[h=2]Judge strikes down Wisconsin right-to-work law[/h] WBAY - ‎4 hours ago‎
Today, the courts put a needed check on Scott Walker's attacks on working families by ruling that Wisconsin's Right to Work law is in violation of our state constitution… Right to Work goes against the Wisconsin principles of fairness and democracy ...




[h=2]Update: Court strikes down Wisconsin right-to-work law[/h] fox6now.com - ‎4 hours ago‎
MADISON — 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 ...





[h=2]Wisconsin judge voids Walker-backed right-to-work law[/h] Politico - ‎3 hours ago‎
In yet another election-year blow to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a judge threw out a state right-to-work law that played no small role in his rise as an anti-union crusader. Judge C. William Foust ruled today for two unions that challenged the 2015 ...





[h=2]Wisconsin Judge Strikes Down Scott Walker's Right-To-Work Law As Unconstitutional[/h] Huffington Post - ‎2 hours ago‎
MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down the state's right-to-work law, saying the measure is unconstitutional by banning unions from charging fees to non-union workers for certain services, court papers showed. Dane County Judge ...



[h=2]Court rules Wisconsin right-to-work law is unconstitutional[/h] TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press - ‎1 hour ago‎
MADISON, Wis. — A Dane County judge on Friday struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, finding it violated the state constitution. Attorney General Brad Schimel said he would appeal and felt confident it would ultimately be upheld, noting every ...



[h=2]Judge strikes down Wisconsin's right-to-work law[/h] Hot Air - ‎3 hours ago‎
Attorney General Brad Schimel has announced plans to appeal the ruling and issued a statement saying, “We are extremely disappointed that the Dane County Circuit Court struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, but we are confident the law will be ...





[h=2]Dane County judge strikes down Wisconsin's right-to-work law[/h] Watchdog.org - ‎3 hours ago‎
Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Foust on Friday struck down Wisconsin's year-old right-to-work law, asserting that labor unions have a property right to employees' wages. That argument has been rejected by multiple courts and right-to-work ...





[h=2]Dane County judge strikes down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, state vows legal fight[/h] The Daily Cardinal - ‎2 hours ago‎
In a staggering decision Friday, a Dane County judge threw out Wisconsin's year-old right-to-work law, saying it violated Wisconsin's constitution. In the first known instance of a right-to-work law being struck down by a court, Dane County Circuit ...





[h=2]Court: Right-to-work law unconstitutional (UPDATE)[/h] Daily Reporter - ‎4 hours ago‎
Mary Will (left) with Local 68, and Corey Smith, with Local 113, chant “Union Strong'” during a rally inside the Wisconsin state Capitol as the state Assembly debates the right-to-work bill in Madison on March 5, 2015. (AP File Photo/Wisconsin State ...



[h=2]Judge strikes down right-to-work law[/h] Channel3000.com - WISC-TV3 - ‎2 hours ago‎
Foust wrote in the order that Wisconsin's year-old right-to-work law created a "free-rider problem," which is "the ability of non-members to refuse to pay for services unions are compelled to provide by law." The Wisconsin AFL-CIO, Machinists Local ...





Dane County judge strikes down Right-to-Work law
WKOW - ‎4 hours ago‎
MADISON (WKOW) --- Wisconsin is no longer a Right-to-Work state, after a Dane County Judge struck down the law that prevents private sector unions from requiring workers to join or pay dues as a condition of employment. Judge William Foust agreed with ...





[h=2]Dane County judge strikes down Wisconsin Right-to-Work law[/h] Wisconsin Radio Network - ‎4 hours ago‎
The decision released Friday comes out of a lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin AFL-CIO and other unions, which argued the law signed in March of 2015 amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property. Right-to-work laws prohibit companies from making union ...





[h=2]Madison judge strikes down state's right-to-work law[/h] BizTimes.com (Milwaukee) - ‎4 hours ago‎
However, that didn't stop a lone Dane County Circuit Court judge from ruling against Wisconsin's Right to Work law on extremely questionable grounds. According to the Court's dubious reasoning, the State of Wisconsin cannot protect employees from union ...



[h=2]Dane County Judge: Wisconsin's “Right to Work” law unconstitutional[/h] The National Law Review - ‎3 hours ago‎
In a decision issued April 8, 2016, Dane County Circuit Court Judge William Foust ruled that Wisconsin's “Right to Work” law violates the Wisconsin Constitution because it takes union property without just compensation (i.e., it is an unlawful taking ...





[h=2]Court Strikes Down Wisconsin's Right-to-Work Law[/h] WUWM - ‎4 hours ago‎
The law lets workers decide whether or not to pay union dues. Several unions sued the state after Gov. Walker signed right-to-work into law about a year ago. They insist it unconstitutionally seizes union property by requiring unions to extend benefits ...



[h=2]Judge rules state's right-to-work law is unconstitutional[/h] Wisconsin Gazette - ‎2 hours ago‎
A judge struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, which prohibits businesses and unions from making agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues. Three unions filed a suit challenging the law shortly after Gov.



[h=2]Wis. Judge Strikes Down Right-to-Work Law[/h] Courthouse News Service - ‎1 hour ago‎
Though Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel was quick to point out Friday that no such challenge has survived in any other state, Frederick Perillo of Milwaukee-based The Previant Law Firm argued at the March 2015 hearing that Wisconsin is different ...





[h=2]Judge throws out right-to-work law[/h] WISN Milwaukee - ‎4 hours ago‎
"We are extremely disappointed that the Dane County Circuit Court struck down Wisconsin's right-to-work law, but we are confident the law will be held up in appeal," said Schimel in a statement. Gov. Scott Walker championed the law. More than half of ...





[h=2]Unions Get a Big Win as Judge Tosses Out Scott Walker's Unconstitutional Anti-Union Law[/h] PoliticusUSA - ‎2 hours ago‎
After long last, unions got a big win today in Wisconsin as Judge C. William Foust tossed out Governor Scott Walker's “right to work” for less law, saying it violated the Wisconsin constitution. This definitely puts a dent in the anti-union cred of ...

 

[presence]

That is not the first line. You changed the meaning by leaving out the most important part of the sentence.
The actual quote is: "Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues."

yes but his point is... its an agreement.

Why should one association not be able to forge an agreement with a company regardless of what some other 3rd party wishes?

In December 2012, libertarian writer J.D. Tuccille, in Reason magazine, wrote: "I consider the restrictions right-to-work laws impose on bargaining between unions and businesses to violate freedom of contract and association. ... I'm disappointed that the state has, once again, inserted itself into the marketplace to place its thumb on the scale in the never-ending game of playing business and labor off against one another. ... This is not to say that unions are always good. It means that, when the state isn't involved, they're private organizations that can offer value to their members."[SUP][25][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Every Conservative victory gets struck down by courts.

 

[TheCount]

That is not the first line. You changed the meaning by leaving out the most important part of the sentence.
The actual quote is: "Right-to-work laws prohibit businesses and unions from reaching agreements that require all workers, not just union members, to pay union dues."

I'm not sure what you're going for here. If that is an agreement that the employer has made, then the workers have the option to not work for that employer.

 

[AZJoe]

yes but his point is... its an agreement. Why should one association not be able to forge an agreement with a company regardless of what some other 3rd party wishes?

That's a great point for voluntary agreements. However collective bargaining agreements are not voluntary due to government interference in the first place.

Yes workers should have the right to form collective union. Yes an employer should be able to forge voluntary agreement. However collective bargaining should not be compulsory for the employer either. An employer should also have the right not to choose to enter collective bargaining. This is where the hand of government has interfered to prevent free voluntary choice.

The National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 (aka Wagner Act) created the National Labor Relations Board, which conducts elections that force employers to engage in collective bargaining with labor unions if the Board certifies that a majority of workers voted for the union. The NLRB makes collective bargaining mandatory for the employer when a majority of workers vote for it. Thus they are forced into collective bargaining whether they wish to or not.

Further the NLRA makes it illegal for the employer to deal separately with workers who don't want to be represented by the union.

Additionally, the NLRA forces employers to to bargain under coercion by imposing a threat of litigation and damages if they don't bargain in "good faith."

Forced collective bargaining, under threat of coercion, and under restriction making it illegal for an employer to bargain with employees separately even when they do not wish to be represented by the union - is by no means a voluntary agreement. It is aggressive use of force back by the violence of government. It is completely incompatible with the concepts of free choice, free, civil liberties and the libertarian non-aggression principal.

 

[AZJoe]

I'm not sure what you're going for here. If that is an agreement that the employer has made, then the workers have the option to not work for that employer.

"If that is the agreement the employer has made" then there is no need for the NLRA. The fact the NLRA exists reveals the employer is not necessarily making the agreement, but rather is coerced into it by the NLRA. The NLRA forces an employer into collective bargaining, denies the the right to bargain with non-union employees separately, and forces them to bargain in what the government determines to be "good faith" under threat of coercion.

 

[TheCount]

Still not sure where you're going with this. Bad legislation is needed because other bad legislation exists? The NLRA restricts an employer's rights, so we need further restrictions to both the employee and the employer's rights to balance that out?

 

[nobody's_hero]

Still not sure where you're going with this. Bad legislation is needed because other bad legislation exists? The NLRA restricts an employer's rights, so we need further restrictions to both the employee and the employer's rights to balance that out?

It's quite simple.

I want to work for X employer, but I hate unions because they're archaic relics from an era of mobsters and are essentially just fat-cat middlemen who don't give me much in return for mandatory dues and run around endorsing democrat candidates (that I also hate.)

However, the employer, who would like to hire me, is bound by NLRA legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

See? NLRA restricts both the rights of me, the employee, as well as rights of the employer. I don't want to deal with the middleman. He can F'k off for all I care.

Ideally, yes, just repeal NLRA. But since that's not likely to ever happen, republican states have to enact laws such as Right-to-Work laws.

These Right-to-Work laws don't restrict the rights of unions to exist whatsoever, it just causes them have to actually do something to demonstrate their worth to potential new hires, rather than just demand dues for f'king breathing air.

 

[Weston White]

So called "fair-share" union members neither are any longer entitled to union participation as are other members, yet are expected to pay a very slightly reduced fee.

If unions are really worth their salt, then their members would happily pay for their aid and safety. How though is it not unconstitutional--and much more so--to compel unwilling individuals to pay for "services" they are uninterested in on the theory they are subjectively benefiting as a result just because they has sought work with an employer on a hook to comply with federal and state law? And where did the federal government acquire the power to mandate such laws as applicable to intrastate businesses?

 

[AZJoe]

Still not sure where you're going with this. Bad legislation is needed because other bad legislation exists? The NLRA restricts an employer's rights, so we need further restrictions to both the employee and the employer's rights to balance that out?

Not sure how you conclude it is bad legislation when a State takes the initiative to partially dilute the effects of bad federal legislation, and partially defuse the union monopoly status granted and enforced by the power of the federal government. It is very unfortunate that the federal government distorted the marketplace in the first place, making it necessary to finds ways to neutralize those federal dictates. However it is a positive for freedom for a State to neutralize bad federal laws.

The unions cry that they must have their monopoly protection enforced by the violence of government to force dues from consumers who do not wish to purchase union services.

As nobody's_hero acutely points out, by losing its monopoly protection the union is not restricted from selling its services at all. Rather the union now must proffer services that the consumer finds desirable enough to purchase and at a price the consumer employee is willing to pay, just like any other entity selling its services.

Unions existed prior to the NLRA granting monopoly status because there was a perceived benefit. They can exist without monopoly protection, and if a particular union cannot, then like any obsolete product in the marketplace it shouldn’t. However there are plenty of services innovative unions can offer - in addition to collective bargaining, health insurance, legal representation, life insurance, travel insurance, roadside assistance, transportation, education, investment, finance, training, housing discounts, any manner of assistance, discounts on any measure of products or services, and on and on. Further a union can make itself desirable for employers to actively seek a union. A union in demand with workers can implement quality control standards for membership (just as a highly rated university can set high standards for enrollment) - education and training and skills levels, as well as standards of work ethics such as a pledge to be on time, no no-shows, highest quality standards of work, etc. A quality certification standard. Thereby creating a demand for employer's to seek out union employees, and at the same time increases the demand from workers to want be part of that union and and get that union certification standard. The possibilities and creative ideas are endless, and far too many to list or for one person to even think up. This is the blessing of the free market - everyone benefits. By making market transactions voluntary, all parties must benefit the others to benefit themselves.

But so long as the federal monopoly protection exists, there is very little incentive for unions to progress and innovate and advance. It stifles productivity. It stifles progress. It stifles creativity.

 

[presence]

The NLRB makes collective bargaining mandatory for the employer when a majority of workers vote for it. Thus they are forced into collective bargaining whether they wish to or not.

always that moral hazard created by .gov regulation that needs another .gov regulation to keep it in check

State intervention inevitably fails due to the inherent flaws as highlighted by Austrian political economy. Interventionism distorts prices, disrupts the competitive discovery process, and is socially harmful. Disintervention is posed as a solution, yet typical disintervention is often a centrally planned solution to the problems inherent to central planning.

[]


Interventionism is distortive, disruptive, and potentially socially destructive because it attempts to defy the criticisms and possibilities of centralized planning according to the market process view of the dynamic market. Yet disintervention faces the same problems. When disintervening, political actors with necessarily limited information and knowledge must somehow decide, not only what to liberalize, but how and when. It is perhaps these latter considerations which are the truly crucial elements for successful disintervention. "Crude" disinterventionism enacted without understanding the complex interactions that occur between an intervention, other interventions, and the dynamic market process may very well lead to cascading negative unintended consequences.

- Kyle O’Donnell

[h=1]Thread: Planning the End of Planning: Disintervention and the Knowledge Problem[/h]

 

[Zippyjuan]

As was pointed out, if one does not wish to pay any union fees one is free to choose another job. If you don't like the conditions of employment, choose another employer. (noting that most "high paying jobs" people complain are disappearing were union jobs at some point).

 

[Weston White]

As was pointed out, if one does not wish to pay any union fees one is free to choose another job. If you don't like the conditions of employment, choose another employer. (noting that most "high paying jobs" people complain are disappearing were union jobs at some point).

What an ignorant retort.


ETA:

If it is constitutional to compel it then it by deductive reasoning it must be constitutional to restrain it.

 

[TheCount]

However, the employer, who would like to hire me, is bound by NLRA legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

The employer is in not bound in any such way by the NLRA. If the employer chooses to enter into a contract with a union, that's a different matter.

These Right-to-Work laws don't restrict the rights of unions to exist whatsoever, it just causes them have to actually do something to demonstrate their worth to potential new hires, rather than just demand dues for f'king breathing air.

As mentioned in the article, the law required the union to provide union services to non-member employees. That's certainly designed to prevent their existence. Would you open a bakery if a law said that you had to give away bread regardless of whether your customer paid?

 

[TheCount]

What an ignorant retort.


ETA:

If it is constitutional to compel it then it by deductive reasoning it must be constitutional to restrain it.

It is constitutional for a private business owner to compel membership as a condition of employment.

It is not constitutional for the government to compel or restrain membership.


The difference is who is doing the compelling.