It is possible that only one element of Act 10 is 'un-Constitutional.'
That's good news for taxpayers, folks.
...There is no constitutional requirement that the state government bargain with public employee unions at all. However, once the state government decides to bargain, it may not do so under rules that penalize membership in particular unions. By arguing that Act 10 applies different treatment to public safety unions than it does to more general public employee unions, the plaintiffs have raised legitimate constitutional claims that often have been decided by the courts on very fact-specific grounds. In this regard, Judge Colas’ ruling is neither exceptional nor unprecedented.
No matter the foofoodust pushed out by the Walker Administration, exempting "safety" employees was a mistake. Most actual Conservatives said so when the deal went down.
OK. So Act 11 will further reduce taxpayer liabilities by including public-safety employees.
BadaBing, BadaBang, BadaBoom.
I thought it was Act 10 v.2
ReplyDelete"OK. So Act 11 will further reduce taxpayer liabilities by including public-safety employees."
ReplyDeleteSo all along ACT 10 was unconstitutional. Thanks Dad29 for stating the obvious.
Didn't say that; it was the opinion of a circuit-court judge. A lawprof happens to agree.
ReplyDeleteThe argument has merit. So?