Ruling stokes contract fire
Photo
Madison Teachers Inc. past president Peggy Coyne, facing center left, and others cheer during a teachers rally at the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison, Wis., Friday, Sept. 14, 2012. Current MTI president Kerry Motoviloff announced that a Dane County judge struck down Wisconsin Act 10 as unconstitutional. Coyne said she was a named plaintiff in the lawsuit.
MADISON — Wisconsin school and government employee unions Monday were considering whether to seek new contract talks after a state court threw out a controversial law that restricts public workers' collective bargaining rights.
At least one major union representing about 4,700 teachers in Madison said it will demand new contract negotiations, while others said they were weighing their options.
A Dane County judge ruled Friday that the law, passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011, violates the school and local employees' constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal representation. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he will ask a court on Tuesday to put the ruling on hold while he prepares an appeal.
The law, championed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker to address budget problems, has been the focal point of a broader clash between conservatives and unions over worker rights.
The ruling came in one of a number of lawsuits that are expected to determine the legality of curtailing employees' collective bargaining.
The law limits bargaining on wage increases to the rate of inflation. Other issues, such as workplace safety, vacation and health benefits, were excluded from collective bargaining.
Unions covered by contracts reached under the new law are considering whether to demand negotiations now that the law has been struck down. But the prospects for new action may remain unclear for some time as the appeals courts consider how to handle the legal challenges and lower court decisions.
"There are hundreds of questions about what this means for local school districts at this time and I don't think anybody has the answers," said Miles Turner, executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators. "This is going to take some time."
John Matthews, the Madison teachers union's executive director, said the district should begin talks immediately on a two-year contract that would take effect starting July 1, 2013.
"There is time now where it's legal for the school district to bargain with us," Matthews said. His union represents about 4,700 employees in the Madison district, the state's second largest with about 27,000 students.
The district's superintendent, Jane Belmore, said the board of education will discuss the issue Monday night.
The state's largest teachers' union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, advised its local affiliates to act in its members best interests.
In Janesville, Dave Parr, president of the Janesville Education Association, said he would request that the district and teachers begin bargaining on a new contract if the appeals court does not put the ruling on hold.
The Janesville teachers contract runs out June 30, 2013, and officials plan to impose higher costs on employees for health insurance, among other changes in benefits and working conditions.
Van Hollen, who derided the ruling as "woefully legally deficient," said he had not decided whether he will ask the state's conservative-leaning Supreme Court to take the case directly, rather than have it go to the appeals court first.
Legal experts said they expect higher courts to stay the Dane County ruling.
"I would be shocked if it was not granted so that all these bargaining units don't have to deal with the fallout while it's in litigation," said Janine Geske, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who is now a law professor at Marquette University.
Paul Secunda, a labor law professor at Marquette, said beginning collective bargaining now would create "mass confusion."
The Dane County ruling said that capping union workers' raises but not those of their nonunion counterparts was unconstitutional.
The suit, filed by the Madison teachers union, applied to local and school employees, but not those employed by the state or the UW System.
THREE LAWSUITS PENDING IN WISCONSIN UNION FIGHT
A state court ruling that threw out major parts of the new Wisconsin law restricting collective bargaining came in one of three lawsuits challenging the 2011 law.
Here is a summary of each:
-- Madison Teachers Inc. and Public Employees Local 61 vs. Walker: This case, filed in Dane County Circuit Court in August 2011, argued in part that the law was unconstitutional because it capped union workers' raises but not those of their nonunion counterparts.
Judge Juan Colas agreed on Friday, saying that was a violation of the constitutional rights to free speech, free association and equal representation.
The judge also ruled that the law violated the "home rule" clause of the state constitution by setting the contribution for Milwaukee city employees to the city pension system rather than leaving it to the city and workers.
The ruling means the law is not in effect for school and local government workers, while it remains in effect for state workers and employees of the UW System.
-- AFL-CIO and AFSCME vs. Walker: An AFL-CIO chapter representing about 240 Madison city workers and an AFSCME chapter representing about 2,440 Dane County workers filed a federal lawsuit in July 2011 alleging that the law violated their constitutional rights to freely assemble, free speech and equal protection.
They argued that the restrictions hurt public sector unions' ability to express their collective viewpoints. They said the law also makes it difficult for people to associate with public unions and express mutual concerns.
The chapters also note that the restrictions don't apply to public safety workers' unions, allowing different treatment under the law and "creating unnecessary conflict among the employees and divisions within and among public sector labor organizations."
Attorneys representing Gov. Scott Walker and the commission members have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. They argue collective bargaining is a state-granted privilege, not a constitutional right, and the unions failed to present any evidence that they can no longer assemble or petition the government as one.
The unions' equal protection claims also fail, they argued, because Wisconsin's history is full of examples of the state treating unions differently. The state exempted public safety workers from the changes in order to avoid work stoppages that might endanger citizens, they added.
Both sides are waiting for a ruling on the dismissal motion.
-- Seven public unions, including the teachers' union and the largest statewide public sector union, vs. Walker: A coalition of seven large unions filed a federal lawsuit in Madison in June 2011 challenging the constitutionality of the law.
U.S. District Judge William Conley in March overturned a part of the law requiring that unions hold elections each year for members to retain their official status. The judge also said the law illegally halted the automatic withdrawal of union dues.
The crux of the lawsuit's arguments — that the law violated the constitution's equal protection clause by exempting firefighters and police officers, was rejected by the judge who said Walker had a legitimate concern when making that distinction.
The majority of the law remained untouched.
Arguments before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals are scheduled for Monday, Sept. 24.
Organizations that filed the lawsuit include councils of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the Wisconsin State Employees Union and the Service Employees International Union-Health Care Wisconsin.
—Associated Press
Sep 21, 2012 at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Prof -- you are missing some points -- 1) the propaganda within the union against he company and/or employer will have influence. One can certainly argue both sides, but I would assume most only hear or over hear one side. 2) there is significant peer pressure to fall in-line and vote the same -- I have personally seen this from other members and even leadership. 3) Peer pressure in the form of not being selected or singled out for propotions and advancement, extra hours etc... There are other ways of pressuring someone (which is why the unions wanted card check so they could easily see how one voted.
So while you can list laws , regulations, and rules. The reality is far from the intent.
Now - lets talk about the relationship between public unions and government -- at least dems. They are co-dependent upon each other for pay and benefits. Unions support dems in hopes and sometime direct statements vowing for support. This in my opinion is corruption or corrupts the relationship between public unions and the political process.
Sep 20, 2012 at 6:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
really gramar...thats all you have....gramar...its a blog not a business letter...give me a break...and the insults okay...what do you do? Oh wait I doubt you have a job...probably the same guy that interviewed today and came in in a t-shirt and ripped jeans...NICE...well collect your check my friend...don't worry Obama will provide
Sep 20, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
What Did Judge Colas Really Do?
http://www.vonbriesen.com/resourcelibrar...
Sep 20, 2012 at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
What a coincidence!
Roberta Gassman has been appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training in the U.S Department of Labor (DOL). She was a former Doyle appointee at Wisconsin DWD. Her husband, Lester Pines, is the attorney hired by MTI to fight Act 10, and was successful last week in getting Act 10 temporarily suspended.
Sep 20, 2012 at 1:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ezoner--I got tangled up in some of your comment, but one thing I want to make clear: While unions obviously can and do use their influence politically, the funding for that--by law--is completely separate from the regular dues, and can NOT be forced on either members or fair share payers. Let's say union dues is $100/year. If my union wants to become politically active, it must either SEPARATELY raise money beyond dues to pay for that political activity, or, establish that $5 of regular dues is going toward politcal action, and thus allow my regular union dues to be reduced to $95/year if I do NOT want to support political activity. Every year, for example, the WI State Bar sends me a bill for my Bar dues. But, there is a line that allows me to deduct an amount (different each year) if I don't want to support the Bar's political activities. In short, you can't be compelled to pay for political activity by your union.
Sep 19, 2012 at 9:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Holy crap redder...on Sept. 19th you were on the computer posting to various blogs from 12:44 to 5:11pm...a time which you claim you were at work! They you take a break (drive home & eat dinner) and resume your posting to blogs up to 7:59pm. Just because you own the buisness..does it give you the right to waste company time??? No wonder you aren't successful enough to pay your employees better!
Sep 19, 2012 at 9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Onelifetolive, Rock County voted for Barrett! So you must be part of the minority in this county.
Sep 19, 2012 at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
and your right it would be unconstitutional to say union membership is a condition of employment....but we just wont hire you if you dont join...you act as if the unions are sacred organizations....not true they bully membership and hold business to a stand still....HERE...i'll give you a perfect example..GENERAL (OBAMA) MOTORS....is that close enough to what union run goverment does for you
Sep 19, 2012 at 7:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
GOOD....no kidding, thats like saying i want to work in a womans locker room...sure sounds great and I would love the job but I don't have the equipment....or I want to be a dentist...too bad I dont know how...of course its a problem...how can you work at say a catholic school...but be of jewish decent...that arguement doesn't hunt and is plain silly
Sep 19, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
ANSWER QUITE A FEW BUT MINE WORK 12 HOUR DAYS AND PUT IN 60 HOUR WORK WEEKS AS WELL
Sep 19, 2012 at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
redder complains that teachers work less and get paid more than his employees. Wonder how many of his employees have Bachelors and Masters Degrees and regularly are involved in continuing education?
Sep 19, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think this issue needs to be treated as the GREAT PRESIDENT REGAN...did the air traffic controlers strike....bye bye...there are great teachers who are looking for work...start over...younger better suited for todays learning enviroment...current...go get em young ones
Sep 19, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
as for joining a union...so one has to find work elsewhere...if they do not want to join your "UNION"....hmmmm sounds like the commies are comming to me....if a person is qualified to do the job, it is his or her right to work there, not the unions choice to tell them they can not. That would be discrimination, and i am sure, has some real legal issues that need be challenged...the problem....unions have all the money so fighting them would be out of the question if your an individual
Sep 19, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
"goodgrief"...sorry about the grammar but I am at work and typeing on this blog does not really have alot of importance to me....I asssume your a liberal by the twisting and turning you like to do on word play..."IS"...is still the word is....yes play away however you still prove nothing by offering anything...like much of the democratic party...I suppose blame game politics is your responce...thats fine if you live in a cave....look at Chicago, 19% raise turned down...are you kidding me...I would like to offer that to my employees, but can not. A fair wage is determined by the market and not the Unions. Yes I support Walker and his choices, I do not support liberal whiners, that quite honestly are getting by not following the same rules that most of us have to live by...thats my only point. I gave an example...purely an example and my numbers are not accurate in my own caase because its none of your business what I pay or dont they were for illistration. putting my dirty laundry on a blog would be stupid...again my point is this, and thank you for the Miller comp., I don't really care what they make...its their business, however the constant whineing in the media is BS. Get a contract you can live with and live with it. Thats it pure and simple...and you could do better by not having a Union. Most of those involved hate the fact that you simply wont sit and talk about what you need, you offer no comparables to defend your possition, you just want more for more sake...that is simply not right.
Sep 19, 2012 at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Prof -- I do not want to join, I do not want you to take my money for which I have no agreement nor contract with you -- and if you feel that you would not be fired -- get the worst assignments, etc... you are obviously living in a land that nost are not. The union uses it influence, its force, and coersion to force people to pay dues and join. It is a forced association that neither of us would have a problem proving in a court of law. The problem is with those unions that in THEIR opinions are having a positive impact when there are potential employees that disagree. Also -- assume I did join but were a Republican -- I am now forced to see a portion of my dues -- contributed to a political party which I may diagree with. My point is that unions use force, power and coersion to get what THEY want, not what is always best.
Sep 19, 2012 at 3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Professor, excellent assessment I think you really hit the nail as to why there is animosity within unions and from non union people. Good work my friend
Sep 19, 2012 at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eagle--The BIGGEST thing that person would face--right or wrong--is the horrible treatment s/he would receive from his/her colleagues after the strike. I can't imagine a worse atmosphere for working. Think of it: If the strike was successful, people would be angry that they put their jobs/livelihood on the line, but the other guy didn't, and now THEY get the benefits won by the strikers, for no risk. On the other hand, if the strike was unsuccessful, I imagine there would be lots of anger over feeling betrayed, or maybe that 'if only a few more walked, it WOULD have been successful....' Either way, CRAPPY! But, it's always a personal choice--even for members--whether or not to cross a strike line.
Sep 19, 2012 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
You simply can not put a good arguement to this. Now if you want to make it like corparate America, where we can have reviews of the efforts performed and make it a performance pay plan, with reasonable health care costs and a 401k retirement option then we have something to talk about....Give me any exaple other than a goverment worker who does not pay ou of their pockets for health care...or it figured into their payplan. Believe me, this I am well versed at, as I am an employer, as well as just did a health care review, and believe me I know what it costs. My family alone pays over 1200 a month for health insurance and thats with a 2000 deductable per individual and 10k per family out of pocket and a deductable for scripts...AND that was the least expensive option. So to argue that teachers, who work less than my emlpoyees (hourly) and make less than teachers with not near the retirement package that the pay into are more valued that a teacher...I say BS.
So young man or woman...before you cast stones you might want to wake up and realize whom you are speaking to before your liberal heart gets your butt writeing checks it can not cash
Sep 19, 2012 at 3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
You simply can not put a good arguement to this. Now if you want to make it like corparate America, where we can have reviews of the efforts performed and make it a performance pay plan, with reasonable health care costs and a 401k retirement option then we have something to talk about....Give me any exaple other than a goverment worker who does not pay ou of their pockets for health care...or it figured into their payplan. Believe me, this I am well versed at, as I am an employer, as well as just did a health care review, and believe me I know what it costs. My family alone pays over 1200 a month for health insurance and thats with a 2000 deductable per individual and 10k per family out of pocket and a deductable for scripts...AND that was the least expensive option. So to argue that teachers, who work less than my emlpoyees (hourly) and make less than teachers with not near the retirement package that the pay into are more valued that a teacher...I say BS.
So young man or woman...before you cast stones you might want to wake up and realize whom you are speaking to before your liberal heart gets your butt writeing checks it can not cash
Sep 19, 2012 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
redder you forgot ability to retire at age 55 and work for another district and eventually double dip pensions.
Sep 19, 2012 at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
goodwhatever....you are completely wrong...I am not angry...i simply do not care...and now I care even less, for teachers, They are paid a very fair wage, and quite honestly are crying about nothing...UNIONS ARE NEEDED...my aching butt....Unions were created for unfair, ansafe and basically criminal working conditions teacher have none of that and quite honestly over paid and under worked...tell me any ithe job you can work 9 months a year and earn 60k or better and pay nothing for benefits PLUS get paid retirement...it doen't exsist anywhere but in the teacher union...and it is not about the quality of education but about the quality of their pay checks...now we are all entitled to a decent living but this is at the expence of the tax payer...and the crooked Union...Walker had it right and still does.
Sep 19, 2012 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Professor I agree with your assessment however when it comes to being a member of a union or not, if a union goes on strike and a paying non-member decides to not back that strike what then?
Sep 19, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Get a life and go to work...for pete sake....eonough is enough....teachers whom I have always supported are serioously loosing favor. I am so tired of hearing this garbage...FIRE THEM ALL AND START OVER
Sep 19, 2012 at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ez--that's simply not true--if I'm understanding you right. There has never been a requirement to join a union, only to pay fair share dues if you choose not to join. Fair share dues can be any amount up to (but not more than) member dues. The reason for that is that people who don't join the union still benefit from what the union negotiates for everyone in the bargaining unit. You may not join a union, but you will get the same raise; you may not join a union, but you will still get that extra personal day the union negotiated. But, there has NEVER been a requirement to join or be fired. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.
Sep 19, 2012 at 11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gandy -- an association would mean you have a choice... there is no choice -- you either join or your fired. Simple.... So if you are saying that you would allow those that do not want unions representation to be able to leave the union and not have their pay deducted for union dues... then fine. But if you wish to force -- coerce people to join... then no. Unions should be banned in public jobs. They are at that point unconstitutional.
Sep 19, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.
Sep 19, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
luvu--Probably the same place where it talks about our rights to privacy. Oh wait; the U.S. Constitution makes NO mention of that right--at all; and yet, the courts have ruled over and over that we have one. This isn't about a constitutional right to collective bargaining. It's about preserving other constitutional rights. And, to other posters: I just love it when you suggest that it is somehow sacrilegious that workers would be so brazen as to want to have a say in wages, benefits and conditions of employment. And we can always count on at least one with the sophomoric 'well if I can't have it, neither can you.' Yeah. THAT will help us all.
Sep 19, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
gandalf.......who is saying that workers choosing to be in a union can't associate?
Sep 19, 2012 at 9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
An order of cheese should go with all this whine.
Sep 19, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The Dane County ruling said that capping union workers' raises but not those of their nonunion counterparts was unconstitutional."
But it was OK when the union workers were getting wage and benefit increases that far outpaced their nonunion counterparts?
Would someone please show me where in the Constitution it says anything about unions?
Sep 19, 2012 at 7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
One of the main problems that Walker will have in ALL higher Courts is trying to justify our Constitutions equal protection clause - It is unfair that Walker has exempted Firefighters and police from the same rules he is asking ALL others to comply with. You cannot and should not treat unions differently - the work stoppage reason is a lame and a silly reason. Walker's "DIVIDE AND CONQUER" statement is what it's all about - as he said you pit union worker against union worker - all part of the plan to turn WI into a RED state.
"Scott Walker's Plan To Break Unions Is DIVIDE AND CONQUER"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/11...
Sep 19, 2012 at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
GOOD AMERICAN - The facts & info. you posted are true. I understand what you are saying and agree with you. I would also add (as I have MANY times) AGT 10 is unconstitutional! People unable to see that are probably the same people that believe all of the FALSE statements that Ryan made in his VP speech. They will never change until it directly affects theri individual rights. Walker has demonized the teachers which fits his style of overreaching with his extreme agenda. The lemmings will follow Walker off a cliff because they believe his distorted views. Just like what eventually happened to Richard Nixon -->The SAME will hold true with Walker. As John Dean (served as White House Counsel to President Richard Nixon - 1970 - 1973, Wategate time)recently said "IF I LIVED IN WISCONSIN, I WOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS MAN, WHOM I FIND MORE NIXONIAN THAN EVEN RICHARD NIXON HIMSELF." Time for people here to read his book "Conservatives Without Conscience" - which looks at the troubling new Republican leadership. Just like Walkergate - the FBI John Doe Investigation will eventually play out in the Courts and virtue will win over evil because money and power mean nothing.
"Walker More Nixonian Than Nixon, says John Dean"
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/ma...
http://www.walkerinvestigation.com/
Sep 19, 2012 at 12:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
One idiotic Madison Judge is not going to change a thing. Madison is a liberal bubble in a state of conservative people. This ruling will not stand. More foot stomping by a bunch of childish adults will come and go. We gave Gov Walker a chance by electing him twice.
I'm getting tired of these sore losers. In Nov, our conservative voices will be heard. Peace.
Sep 18, 2012 at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Rush to the bargaining table! Hurry! Before the decision is thrown out with the rest of the garbage! (Even the unions know that decision hasn't got much life to it)
Sep 18, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow my husband hasn't got a raise in two years last week they gave him .50 his Insurance per pay check weekly $140.00 and these damn teachers just want more and more. They tell the kids at school we don't have the supply's because of the budget cuts well then send home a list that is required per class that is what they used to do those who can afford it will supply those who can't will have to hope someone shares. I am so sick of this crap, you live within your means like the rest of us. Or you don't get it peer and simple. Fed up tax payer, and no matter who is elected in November I don't see it getting any better.
Sep 18, 2012 at 7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sep 18, 2012 at 6:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
GoodAmerican - The world isnt a constant... no union can keep it one either.
Striking, sick, fake doctors excuse... all the same. If their attitude reflects their work ethic why would anyone in their right mind want to keep these teachers around? We are slipping so bad as a nation in the education department.. look at what we have teaching.
Also... on a side note, the insurance companies have gotten out of hand and pretty much run everything now. since its all mandated and standard to have insurance, they all set the price... who picks it up should not be a debate with wages....fire the insurance company and find another one, theres one on every street corner now.
Sep 18, 2012 at 5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Does this mean GM is coming back to Janesville?
Sep 18, 2012 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here we go again, are we going to hear those horrible horns around the Capitol? Why doesn't everyone wait to see how our country is headed after the Presidential Election?
Sep 18, 2012 at 5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
More dumb comments--go figure.
Sep 18, 2012 at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
No they call in sick.
Sep 18, 2012 at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
WI public employees can not strike--learn before you post.
Sep 18, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
I like how they call them "bargaining rights" when in reality its ether they get what they want, or they are striking. How is that bargaining? And they wonder why everyone is turning against unions? duh?
Sep 18, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here we go again, this should be entertaining if nothing else, insanity generally is.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.