FEDERAL JUDGE: "State Legislatures Do NOT Have Authority To Limit Collective Bargaining Rights"

[kpete]

SUN APR 03, 2011 AT 10:56 AM EDT
Federal Judge Ruling: State Legislatures Do Not Have Authority To Limit Collective Bargaining Rights
byRhodaA

A Chicago Federal Judge has ruled that state legislatures do not have the authority to limit collective bargaining rights granted by Federal law.

.....................

The suit was filed by the Teamsters Local 727 against The Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority.

The Illinois judge in this case, Ronald Guzman, held that:

a) collective bargaining rights cannot be overturned by governmental edict;
b) the National Labor Relations Act preempts the Legislature from dictating terms for unions.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/03/963023/-Federal-Judge-Ruling:-State-Legislatures-Do-Not-Have-Authority-To-Limit-Collective-Bargaining-Rights
http://www.loislawschool.com/prp/result.htp?BookList=P%40eLsoKQglg7V0oe1elAavk3MQ9kYvcmsXrXVLoxYQsNiEN4Po1IKmrOUMoWjdUqZNCxnaMg528nSEpZfQYJCpWBvLeBrJyI1jAKP6oUg%3D&ErrPage=%2Fdoors.htp&LOGAUTO=&PageName=Search+Loislaw&content=%2Fprp%2Fresult.htp&fdGB=triable&srcquery=

..........................

Judge: No Interference in Collective Bargaining

In a ruling that has far-reaching implications for Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Maine, Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri, a federal judge threw out labor law reforms at Chicago’s McCormick Place that the Illinois state legislature enacted in 2010 following supplication from the convention industry.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman affirms that collective bargaining rights cannot be overturned by governmental edict. Guzman told the Legislature “it had no business trying to interfere with collective bargaining” according to Marvin Gittler, an attorney representing Local 727 of the Teamsters.

..............


http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-chicago/judge-re-mcpier-no-interference-collective-bargaining

[MichiganVote]

1. K&R

[derby378]

2. My feelings on this ruling can be summarized as...

http://rog.thoughtbludgeon.com/mp3/tracker2.asp?trackURL=RoG_Hardcore_Produktionz-18_Minutes_of_HARDCORE.mp3

[liberal life]

42. cannot compete with those smilies so I will join you!

what he said



http://fucorporatemedia.com/

[calimary]

50. Yes indeed! What he said!

Fuck you "states rights" assholes! Take your pathetic "Don't Tredd on Me" signs and other stupid spelling abominations and your damn Stars 'n' Bars flags and your RACISM - repeat - RACISM, THINLY-DISGUISED RACISM at that, and Go Get Bent.

Of course I have no such optimism for any favorable rulings on this from the roberts/scalia/alito/thomas court. But then again, remember that this chief justice is so stupid he couldn't even get the Presidential Oath of Office straight - and he had some TWO MONTHS to practice - for the biggest and most historic Presidential Inauguration in History. NO ONE can EVER convince me that john roberts has two brain cells to rub together.

[olegramps]

75. Roberts is an Opus Dei freak.

[meow2u3]

83. So are Scalia, Alito, and Thomas

The only conservative Justice who isn't an Opus Dei cultist is Kennedy.

[olegramps]

89. People don't realize that Opus Dei has infiltrated the top escelons of government

[geckosfeet]

52. I agree. X gazillion.

[Faygo Kid]

3. Whoa. Hello.

The Kochs and Fox aren't going to like this.

[ThomCat]

12. I'd call that a Wonderful side effect.

:woohoo:

It would be even better if we could watch their tantrums over this. :P

[Kber]

4. Wow. Does this just apply to private industry, or does it cover

public employees as well?

[Zynx]

5. I think that this deals with private industry because public employees were never covered by federal

laws.

[shraby]

7. This should be clear enough:

a) collective bargaining rights cannot be overturned by governmental edict;
b) the National Labor Relations Act preempts the Legislature from dictating terms for unions.

He doesn't name any difference in public and private bargaining rights..they belong to all union members.

[DBoon]

10. I think the NLRA specifically excludes public employees

so it may not cover them, but this ruling is definitely a big plus for private sector unions

[highplainsdem]

23. Yes, it does. See my reply below, #21, which has a link and quote.

[AngryAmish]

87. I think the Defendant was McPier, a governmental agency

It is a state law creature.

I have to look this up, tho

[jberryhill]

92. The MPEA is a "market purchaser" of services, even thought a state agency

Hence, the activities of the MPEA relative to the engagement of contractors for services falls into the "market participant exception" of the NLRA as it relates to state employment.

When the state is the direct employer of persons engaged in the provision of state services, the NLRA does not apply.

When the state is purchasing services from contractors in the same manner as any private purchaser of those services, the NLRA does apply.

In this case the judge found that the MPEA's purchase of services from union contractors functioned as would any other facility manager in the purchase of such services, and thus the state fell within the "market participant exception".

The decision is located here:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.244135/gov.uscourts.ilnd.244135.91.0.pdf

[AngryAmish]

97. well, there you go.

thanks

[PotatoChip]

19. I've never understood the justification

by wingers for distinguishing between public and private unions. WTF does it matter? A union is a union and they came about for good reason.

I really hope this ruling will help us w/our battle w/LePage here in Maine as well as for the other states going through the same thing.

[ejpoeta]

22. easy..... splits people. hey, they've got it why should they when i don't have it.

works both ways.

[jberryhill]

98. The justification is...

Whether valid or not, the proposition is that private companies are based on a profit imperative, and that governments by definition have a public interest mission. Hence, the reasoning is that government does not require the same regulation of employer/employee relations because government is not driven by the same set of incentives and disincentives.

What I love about the "government should be run like a business" crowd is that, by and large, there are few businesses that run on a democratic model.

[freshwest]

45. So this leaves it where?

[Yo_Mama]

56. Just private industry

The laws he is referring to do not cover government workers.

[jberryhill]

93. It applies to private industry, and to circumstances where the government is a "market participant"

To grasp that distinction consider the following situation.

Government X runs a police department. It directly hires police and runs the department. The NLRA does not apply to labor/management relations between the government and the police. The state can determine whether or not the police can engage in collective bargaining.

The police building develops a hole in the roof. The police department hires a roofing contracting company to fix a hole in the roof. The state CANNOT determine whether or not the roofers can engage in collective bargaining with the roofing contracting company.

That is the difference here. The MPEA runs a convention facility, and while it is a state entity, there are private providers of convention services, and private purchasers of services to run conventions. In that context, the government is acting as a private market participant in the procurement of those services, and cannot dictate conditions between the contracting companies and their workers.

That's what happened here.

[justabob]

6. how does this ruling affect the states where collective bargaining is not allowed?

on edit.... Does this mean that Texas can no longer say we don't do unions?

[shraby]

11. I would think that if they had collective bargaining in their

unions, then that was taken away by state law, it would have to return to the status it was before the state legislatures got involved and took that right away.

[justabob]

13. ok, that is why I asked

SO this means very little for us here.... not that I am not happy for the ruling.

[backscatter712]

39. My guess is that we'd have to wait for this ruling to wind its way through the appeals process.

But if this precedent stands, that would mean that other states laws against collective bargaining would be overturned.

[Tansy_Gold]

41. Yes, probably, but it has to do with the US District courts

This ruling only applies to those juridictions (and I have no idea what they are but it should be easy enough to look up) covered by this particular district. If a judge in another district rules differently, say covering Texas or Florida or something, the cases would most likely be appealed to higher, ultimately to the Supreme Court.

At least that's the way I understand it, and I could be wrong.


TG, TT

[tcaudilllg]

62. Federal law is national, not regional.

It would appear that all state laws referring to private bargaining rights have been nullified, across the entire country.

One federal judge's opinion (that's what it's called) speaks for the entire country, if allowed to stand.

[jberryhill]

68. Ummm... No

It is not at all unusual for entire federal circuits to be in conflict.

That is one of the factors that is considered in whether the Supreme Court takes up a case.

US District court judges do not have national jurisdiction. The result, which you seem not to believe, is precisely that "federal law" may be interpreted and applied differently in different jurisdictions within the federal court system.

[Tansy_Gold]

79. thank you for the confirmation, jberryhill. n/t

[tcaudilllg]

99. I don't accept it. n/t

[Selatius]

105. That is how the federal court system operates, though.

The district court's ruling only applies to areas within that jurisdiction and not all other federal district court jurisdictions. It has been that way for over 200 years.

[WillyT]

8. K & R !!!

:kick:

[mulsh]

9. those damn laws keep getting in the way.

Fed law trumps state law. I think I learned that in grammar school.

Also,per the examiner article unions had made wage and work rule concessions prior to the legislature passing this law.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. I'd been wondering how these laws...........

fit with Constitutional issues. In discussion, I'd been likening it to the right of association which the Federal Courts have ruled is inherent in the right of free speech. It's good to see that at least one Federal judge agrees with that sentiment.

Doesn't if have to go to the Federal appeals court before it gets to SCOTUS though? The appeals court has to rule and THEN the Supremes step in if they want to.

[tavalon]

15. Eat that, you fascist fuckers!

Thank god for someone on a bench with a useful brain.

[Webster Green]

16. Any chance this will wind up with Fat Tony and his thugs overturning it?

Our corrupt Supreme Court will likely have the final say, no?

[kimsarah]

67. Good point

Our high court might get final say, and dig up an obsolete ruling just as in Citizens United. Corporations are people, and states are certified union-busters.

[progressoid]

78. That's kind of a depressing thought.

[lunatica]

17. I hope this creates a twist in the gut for them

They need a karmic adjustment

[malaise]

18. It's beginning to look a lot like

Christmas -I'm lovin' it. :applause:

[fascisthunter]

20. ooops... the GOP screwed up! Have fun election time

haha

[highplainsdem]

21. I'm sorry, but the National Labor Relations Act does NOT apply to public sector employees. Link:

http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/employeerightsposter11x17_final.pdf

EMPLOYEE RIGHTS
UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

-snip-

The National Labor Relations Act covers most private-sector employers. Excluded from coverage under the NLRA are public-sector employees, agricultural and domestic workers, independent contractors, workers employed by a parent or spouse, employees of air and rail carriers covered by the Railway Labor Act, and supervisors (although supervisors that have been discriminated against for refusing to violate the NLRA may be covered).

Emphasis added.

I wish the NLRA did cover public sector employees, but it doesn't.

This new ruling will still help union workers in the private sector and protect them from right-wing state legislatures trying to impinge on their rights.

But it won't help public sector employees and their unions.

[highplainsdem]

24. I'm trying to find a copy of the judge's ruling to see if it's based on anything besides the NLRA.

If it is based on something else as well, the ruling might apply to public sector workers, too. But if it's based only on the NLRA, it doesn't.

[Oilwellian]

29. You can find it at link OP provided

You just have to pay for the copy.

Loislaw

[highplainsdem]

31. That's just the first paragraph and it would cost $48 to read the entire ruling.

I'll keep looking for a free copy.

[pnwmom]

44. The article linked to by the OP addresses that question:

"While the NLRA covered US employees in private employment, the law protecting collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors has developed since 1935 to cover all workers 'without distinction.'"

I agree that I would like to see a lot more details on that -- but I'm hopeful.

[jberryhill]

94. Let me be the first to dash your hopes

The decision here turned on the fact that, in relation to management of a convention facility, the state was acting as a "market participant" in the purchase of contracting services. This is a narrow exception to the general rule that the NLRA doesn't apply to state workers.

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.244135/gov.uscourts.ilnd.244135.91.0.pdf

For example, the state directly employs teachers to work in the state's schools. Those are exempt state employees. If the state hires a contracting company to fix the plumbing in the school, those are non-exempt private employees of the contractor, who was engaged in the same manner that any private organization would participate in the market for such services.

[October]

38. I read this TODAY re: NLRA

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-chicago/judge-re-mcpier-no-interference-collective-bargaining


<snip>

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzman affirms that collective bargaining rights cannot be overturned by governmental edict. Guzman told the Legislature “it had no business trying to interfere with collective bargaining” according to Marvin Gittler, an attorney representing Local 727 of the Teamsters.

Guzman held that the National Labor Relations Act preempts the Legislature from dictating terms for unions working at McCormick Place. This ruling is similar to the finding of The International Commission for Labor Rights, which has said, in part: The ICLR identified the right of "freedom of association" as a fundamental right and affirmed that the right to collective bargaining is an essential element of freedom of association. These rights, which have been recognized worldwide, provide a brake on unchecked corporate or state power.

[Tansy_Gold]

40. Can you explain the difference between private sector and

public sector as that distinguishes the employer/employee relationship in this particular case, because it appears to me that the MPEA is some kind of public/private hybrid:


http://www.mpea.com/

The Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (MPEA) is a municipal corporation created by the Illinois General Assembly. Its Board of Directors is appointed by the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of Chicago.

MPEA owns and manages the McCormick Place complex and seeks to promote and operate conventions, fairs and expositions in the Chicago area, in an effort to strengthen the local economy. Historic Navy Pier is also owned and managed by MPEA and the Authority is charged with carrying out the recreational, commercial and cultural redevelopment and operation of Navy Pier, which has become Chicago's most popular visitor attraction.

MPEA is also active in the community, and oversees a variety of programs that positively impact the thousands whose jobs are tied to McCormick Place and Navy Pier, as well as the millions who visit both venues each year. Take a look at our contributions and then plan to visit acclaimed McCormick Place and multi-faceted Navy Pier in the near future.



Tansy Gold

[Occulus]

81. The NLRA *does* cover postal employees, though.

And we're considered federal employees.

[jberryhill]

95. Because the USPS is a competitive market provider of delivery services

And, therefore, the USPS cannot deal itself an advantage that UPS and Fedex can't.

[LiberalFighter]

82. Maybe it won't help public sector now but I think it will in my life time.

[themadstork]

25. Nice to see someone standing up for the NLRA and the rule of law. n/t

[highplainsdem]

26. Here's an article about why the lawsuit was filed by the Teamsters and Carpenters:

http://www.carpentersunion.org/site/epage/104859_837.htm

[Oilwellian]

27. Well, there is this in the Examiner article

While the NLRA covered US employees in private employment, the law protecting collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors has developed since 1935 to cover all workers "without distinction."

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-chicago/judge-re-mcpier-no-interference-collective-bargaining

It seems the judge's ruling was based on our first amendment right to freely associate. Add that to the legal rulings that have created precedents since 1935, protecting both public and private sectors, we may see an actual strengthening of the NLRA. :D

[highplainsdem]

28. I hope the ruling can be interpreted that way. I'm still trying to find the text.

Couldn't find it on the District Court's website, and it hasn't shown up in any news articles or other web pages I've found with keyword searches.

I noticed on DKos that other people were pointing out this doesn't apply to public sector employees, but no one seems to have the actual ruling.

[UTUSN]

30. K&R #64 !!!!!!!!!!!!!1 n/t

[joeybee12]

32. Interestingly, no one in the MSM brought this up...

a friend did note this to me while the mess in Wisconsin was happening...anyway, in Wisconsin, Ohio, et al, the battle has just begun.

[kestrel91316]

33. Har de har har har. FUCK WALKER and his goons in WI. LOL

[Jkid]

34. Governor Walker, congratulations for wasting your time!

[Starry Messenger]

35. k&r

[Octafish]

36. There it is, then.

Recall the pugs, still, of course.

[former9thward]

37. This ruling has nothing to do with the Wisconsin, Ohio, etc. situation.

This is about PRIVATE sector workers who come under the National Labor Relations Act. Public sector workers do not come under the NLRB and are not affected by this ruling at all.

[tcaudilllg]

63. Pressure on this point can blow the whole thing wide open though.

"freedom of association" is used to defend the rights of corporations... but it refers to ANY organization. Unions are no different from churches in this regard.

[FraDon]

43. k&r • About fracking time !

I've been waiting for this since the story first broke.

Can the South Carolina legislature re-instate slavery?
.

[OxQQme]

46. I may be mistaken, but

I have friends who are the shovels and hammers who work for private contractors on government jobs.
The prevailing wage package is significantly higher than the same job on non-g jobs.
Working on a job-by-job basis, some years fat wallet.
Some not so much.
Are these workers then public or private?
And how would this ruling affect them?

[Tansy_Gold]

47. Those workers are private sector

They are not employees of a governmental department or agency.

That's why I asked the question upthread: The entity involved in this particular case, the Metropolitical Pier and Exposition Authority, appears to be some kind of hybrid/amalgamation of both public and private sectors. So if the union members involved are actually employees of the MPEA, that distinction between public sector and private sector, whether it's been blurred or not, and case law between the establishment of the NLRA and 2011 become crucial to implementing the decision.

There could be a whole lot more to this than appears on the surface. And I do mean A WHOLE LOT more.



TG, TT

[jberryhill]

91. When the state is a market purchaser of services, NLRA applies

When the state is the direct employer, the NLRA doesn't apply.

[laconicsax]

48. Suck it, Walker!

K&R

[Major Hogwash]

49. The National Labor Relations Act does not exist in the minds of tea party Governors

They said, "So, sue me."
We said "We will."

[Kingofalldems]

K and R for the idiot freepers and teabaggers--Koch's water boys

[Kingofalldems]

51. dupe

[watajob]

53. And it was one of us...

..."crooked" Teamsters that got this done! :D

[Ikonoklast]

54. If people can come together and form a corporation, people can also come together to bargain

with that legal entity, whether as another corporation doing business with it, or a labor union representing employees to management.

Why should states be allowed to let one exist and disallow another? Why should states be allowed to favor one form of organization over another?

Either both legal entities are allowed under the law, or neither.


Take that to the Supreme Court, and see if they only will allow one side of that equation to exist.

It could be the death knell for corporations if it went that far.

[danbeee46]

55. Public vs. Private

As several others have said, the NLRA does not apply to public sector workers. Collective bargaining rights for state employees are granted (or not) by the respective state legislatures. In my own state of New York, state workers did not have the right to collectively bargain until 1967-68 when our Taylor Law was passed. Prior to that time, collective bargaining for them was voluntary on the part of employee unions and public employers. So, if the judge's decision relied solely on the NLRA, then it will only apply to private sector employees.

[Tansy_Gold]

57. Two points

1. The article in the OP points out that other court decisions since NLRA was established in 1935 HAVE INCLUDED public employee unions in NLRA coverage.

2. No one has answered my question as to whether the employees of the MPEA -- a "municipal corporation" (huh?) with a board appointed by the governor of Illinois -- are public or private sector.




TG

[danbeee46]

60. Links re: public employees are not covered by the NLRA

"1. The article in the OP points out that other court decisions since NLRA was established in 1935 HAVE INCLUDED public employee unions in NLRA coverage."

He did say that but provided no citations, references or links to that information.
I have spoken with attorneys who dispute that and confirm that the right for collectively bargain for public employees is governed by each state.
Now, they could be wrong, but I would have to see the specific decisions to which the OP was referring. On the contrary, if you go to:
http://www.nlrb.gov/faq/nlrb , the official site of the National Labor Relations Board, it specifically states that:

"The Act does not cover federal, state or local government workers, with the exception of employees of the U.S. Postal Service. The Federal Labor
Relations Authority has jurisdiction over federal employees. The organizing and collective bargaining rights of state and local employees are determined
by state laws enforced by individual state agencies."

and

"The NLRB does not have jurisdiction over federal, state or local government workers, with the exception of employees of the U.S. Postal Service.
The Federal Labor Relations Authority has jurisdiction over federal employees. The organizing and collective bargaining rights of state and local employees
are determined by state laws enforced by individual state agencies."

[Tansy_Gold]

61. Again --

No one seems to have paid any attention whatsoever to my initial questions which were --

If the MPEA is a "municipal corporation" with a board appointed by the governor, are its employees private or public sector? It seems to me this ought to be crucial to the decision.

And second -- I'm sure the author of an article in a conservative newspaper is not going to make the comment about case law over the past 75 years having modified the intent/coverage of the NLRA without good reason. So. .. . . what is the scoop on that? Have subsequent court decisions modified the intent and coverage of the NLRA beyond what it originally said?

I know what the NLRA says. I know it says it doesn't cover public sector employees. (USPS employees might kind fall into that same private/public limbo as MPEA employees.) I also know the author of the article suggests otherwise. I know that no one seems to have answered the question about which category the union employees of MPEA fall into or what the deal is with post-1935 decisions about NLRA coverage. There's just a lot of repeating of the same insufficient facts over and over and over.


That's not what I asked.


Tansy Gold

Tansy Gold

[jberryhill]

69. There can be state chartered corporations that are treated as private

The bottom line is "who signs the paycheck", to cut through a lot of complexity for you.

[Tansy_Gold]

80. As far as I know, most or all corporations are chartered by the states

Delaware's corporate laws made the state very attractive for incorporation, for example. I'm not sure I know of any "federally chartered" corporations. they're all incorporated/chartered by the individual states.

So the question remains: What is this "municipal corporation" that is the MPEA? I'm asking a very specific question, specific to this case and specific to this "corporation." I'm sure there is someone -- treasurer, CFO, whatever -- whose signature appears on the paychecks, but that's not what I'm looking for. Not the name of the person or their official title. I want to know whether MPEA is a public sector employer, a private sector employer, a hybrid, none of the above, or what.

There's been a lot of repetition of the statement that the NLRA does not apply to public sector unions. People are quoting both the OP article and the DoL's website. Fine. We know that.

It's also been pointed out that the OP article includes the additional information that case law has altered the way the NLRA has been/can be/is applied. We don't have confirming evidence on that issue yet. So we don't know FOR SURE if the author of the article was making things up or if there is sufficient case law over the past 76 years to alter NOT THE WORDING but the application of the NLRA. That's what I'm looking for.

If in fact the MPEA is considered a public sector employer or even some kind of public/private hybrid, then the NLRA wording regarding any distinction between public sector employees and private sector employees and their unions is essentially null and void by this judge's opinion, and that DOES affect the public sector employees -- teachers, police, firefighters, janitors in city hall -- in those states covered by this ruling, which I believe includes Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, etc.

Again, not to belabor a point, but my concern is with the actual nature of the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority as to whether it is a public sector employer, a private sector employer, or some combination of both. .. ...or something else entirely.



Tansy Gold

[jberryhill]

86. It's very simple

If you go to the website of the district court in question, you may find that they post PDFs of recent decisions. If not, I'll grab it from PACER later today and provide you a link (when I'm off my iPhone).

Relying on press reports of court decisions is, most often and based on long experience, unwise. That also goes for press releases by advocacy groups.

The reason why your question is not being specifically addressed is that it is unlikely the persons in question are public employees under the NLRA. How can we know this with relative confidence? Because a basic defect loosens would have caused the case to be thrown out on preliminary motions long before reaching this decision.

By "state chartered" I mean business organizations which are in some sense subject to state governance, but which are not state agencies. Yes, all corporations are chartered in some state. That's trivially correct. But there is a different sense of the term. For example, a state university might have X number of trustee slots appointed by the government, but in all other respects runs its own affairs

[jberryhill]

90. Here's your answer - "market participant exception" of the NLRA

And my general surmise above is correct.

First, here is a link to the decision itself:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.244135/gov.uscourts.ilnd.244135.91.0.pdf

To help you cut through the gobbledygook, here is a thumbnail summary:

The court is indeed addressing the question of whether, as applied to this situation of the MPEA and the unions, the state-connected MPEA falls within the "market participant exception" of the NLRA. Apparently, when the state is contracting directly with workers for public services the state is exempt from the NLRA (i.e. teachers, firefighters, agency employees). But where the state is a "market participant" in the purchase of services, the state is not exempt.

Here, the exposition management company is a state organization, but insofar as its activities are the commercial solicitation, promotion and management of events at the conventions center, it functions as would any other private organization doing the same thing. Therefore, the judge concludes that the situation qualifies under the market participant exception to the general rule that states are exempt from the NLRA, and the judge rules that the NLRA applies.

Google: nlra "market participant exception" - if you want to find out more about this narrow category, not consistently defined in the various circuits, under which this decision was made.

As you might surmise, it would not apply to, for example, police services, as the government is not a competitive purchaser of police services among various purchasers of such services from police departments.

[midnight]

58. Judge makes this so clear, but the Republicans will

most likely make this statement into something very different..

[Populist_Prole]

59. That's what I'm talkin' about!

Guess the Kochs didn't buy every official.

[obxhead]

64. Forgive the spelling...

Boom shaka lacka!!!

(sound of the shattering backboard as that slam dunk hits!)

[AllTooEasy]

65. Doesn't Collective Bargaining fall under Freedom of Assembly?

I thought so, but I'm a lawyer. Anybody know?

[Firebrand Gary]

66. Wahooo

I love it.

[indimuse]

70. KNR! n/t

[liberal N proud]

71. YES!

[tclambert]

72. It's government interfering!

. . . with government interference into other government interference. You see, the states are trying to interfere with contract negotiations, and the federal court interfered with their interference, on the grounds that it interferes with previous government interference in the shape of the Fair Labor Relations Act.

But if Republicans argue that government shouldn't interfere at all, tell them that means the laws should allow public employee unions to go on strike. Many are not, including teachers in Michigan.

[krawhitham]

73. k&r

[Pryderi]

74. SCOTUS will change this decision - just watch.

[tcaudilllg]

100. I'm hoping so. Next step will be petition to impeach.

And when that fails, we should get together and try to pass an amendment removing Scalia et al from office by decree.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

102. I love that idea!

Scalia has been there TOO LONG and done WAY too much damage already.

[RoccoR5955]

76. They have to first repeal the FIRST AMENDMENT

if they want to end collective bargaining by Public Service unions.
The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If you want there to be no collective bargaining, you have to repeal the right of people to peaceably assemble AND the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Plain and simple. These stupid fascist laws, enacted in corporatist states, shall not stand Constitutional muster.

[TBF]

77. Recommended! nt

[fascisthunter]

84. could this end up at the Supreme Court somehow?

[jberryhill]

96. It can, but it won't, because the OP distorts the scope of the decision

[tcaudilllg]

101. You are wrong, jbhill

You just want to deceive us.

[jberryhill]

104. Lol, yeah... that's why I posted a link to the .pdf of the actual decision itself

Curses, outed again!

[highplainsdem]

106. Thanks for posting that link!

[blackspade]

85. Awesome!

Any ruling that supports union rights in my book is a good thing!

:woohoo:

[lonestarnot]

88. So how much tax payer dough did Walker waste on his riling up effort?

Snort!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

103. PINCH me..............

:wow: This must be a dream... A DREAM COME TRUE!!!
:woohoo: