Centrehalf
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 719
Public sector unions and collective bargaining is a topic I've been interested in for awhile. My state is beginning to have this same debate, in fact we have a ballot initiative to vote on this November on this very topic. The outcome in Michigan won't really matter, it's going to end up in court no matter what. Many states are going to be taking on this topic over the next few years, which makes what happens in Wisconsin important to us all. The article points out that there isn't a lot of law on this issue, what happens here will effect all of us later on down the road.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...ision-produces-twist-in-Wisconsin-union-fight
When I first heard about this I was wondering what the judge took exception to. Now that I know I can understand. I don't entirely buy his argument but I can see how this is something he would want to kick up to a higher court.
It seems to me that the freedom of association argument is going to play a major role in this whole debate. I'm not going to entirely discount that argument, I just have a lot less sympathy for people who choose to enter the public sector and then bitch and moan about their compensation.
My main problem with what I've seen from public unions ,at least in Michigan, is that I think they disenfranchise voters.
Anyone have any thoughts or is this something no one cares about?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...ision-produces-twist-in-Wisconsin-union-fight
This month, Dane County Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and federal constitutional rights of workers to free speech, free association, and equal representation under the law. Judge Colas also ruled that the law violates a special “home rule” charter of the state constitution that allows city workers in Milwaukee to determine their pension contributions rather than the state...
...Central to Colas’s decision is how he perceived Act 10 to treat two sets of public-sector workers differently: Although Act 10 addresses educators and public-safety workers, it has no effect on nonunionized workers, such as municipal clerks or courtroom employees.
When I first heard about this I was wondering what the judge took exception to. Now that I know I can understand. I don't entirely buy his argument but I can see how this is something he would want to kick up to a higher court.
It seems to me that the freedom of association argument is going to play a major role in this whole debate. I'm not going to entirely discount that argument, I just have a lot less sympathy for people who choose to enter the public sector and then bitch and moan about their compensation.
My main problem with what I've seen from public unions ,at least in Michigan, is that I think they disenfranchise voters.
Anyone have any thoughts or is this something no one cares about?