Posted on 03/30/2012 8:14:59 PM PDT by Libloather
Federal judge strikes down parts of Wis. union law
By SCOTT BAUER | Associated Press – 2 hrs 14 mins ago
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal judge upheld most of Wisconsin's contentious law curbing collective bargaining rights on Friday, but he sided with unions by overturning two portions of the law that were costly and impeded on a major funding source for the groups.
One banned public workers from allowing union dues to be automatically withdrawn from their paychecks, while the other required expensive annual elections where all members, not just those voting, would have to support staying organized. Still, the ruling keeps in place the majority of the law championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
**SNIP**
U.S. District Judge William Conley rejected that argument. Conley said the governor had a legitimate concern when he decided to exempt police, prison guards, firefighters and most other law enforcement officers since a strike by those workers would put the public at risk.
The judge also said he wasn't swayed by the fact that the exempted workers supported Walker during his run for governor in 2010, while those covered under the law opposed him.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
In other news, the judge struck down only 2 “minor” parts of the “knife in the back” law. Unions will now be allowed to stab you in the back, and twist the knife, but the “majority” of the law which regulates the knifes color and length of the blade remain intact.
Some victory...
/s
So does this mean that members can elect to have the dues taken directly out of their check.
OR..
Does this mean dues will be taken from members checks regardless of what the member whats..
It means we’ll have a fair amount of confusion from now until the appeal goes to the next court.
Though why union members are going to want to pay 800 dollars so they can negotiate raises only to keep up with inflation is a question.
The judge is an Ubama appointment, so he’s just another corrupt, lying scumbag.
On to the next court, please.
That is what he seems like to me. These are not minor parts of the law. They are its bone and muscle.
...sided with unions by overturning two portions of the law that were costly and impeded on a major funding source for the groups. One banned public workers from allowing union dues to be automatically withdrawn from their paychecks, while the other required expensive annual elections where all members, not just those voting, would have to support staying organized.
The judge left in the barring of forced dues, which I considered the most important part of the law.
Actually, they are pretty minor parts. Under the law, public union employees were banned from designating part of their paychecks be taken for union dues. Now they may opt to have parts of their paychecks so designated. How many public union employees do you figure will “take advantage” of this? (okay, the thugs will be out in force trying to intimidate employees, but that tactic will present backlashes and problems of its own.)
The other provision is something about elections. Minor.
These things are considered so minor the state may not bother appealing. In fact, the scumbag union lawyers are considering appealing because they hardly got jack squat.
These “federal judges” are a bunch of dirtbags. They’ll always give the commies whatever they want. What a bunch of lowlife bass turds.
“So does this mean that members can elect to have the dues taken directly out of their check?
OR..
Does this mean dues will be taken from members checks regardless of what the member wants?”
Answer: The first.
Who owns Wisconsin?... the UNIONS -OR- the People?..
Note: the police, firefighters, teachers, and all Local, State and Federal givernment employees are UNION... plus service workers, teamsters, plumbers, and others..
ONLY states with “right to work” laws have FREEDOM.. ALL others DO NOT..
Right? He said that the workers may elect automatic deduction,not that the union could automatically deduct?
Huge difference and a fair ruling.
The other provision is something about elections. Minor
I disagree. The law forced recertification yearly. As it stands, once established, the union doesn’t have to ever again be chosen by the workers and if it is, the rules for an election are arduous. And if an election happens, the results are simply tabulated from those participating, not from all of the membership.
The unions hated the recertification law, for obvious reasons.
That is better than forced.. Personally since I fund the state. I see no reason to be the collector for the union though.
Wiscosnin Judge Strikes Down Parts of Act 10 ping
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
Thank you for the clarification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.