State Employees Union vs. State of Wis.

[Deleted]

No confict of interest here I suppose? I think crystal clear that there is.

Hearing on Access to Capitol
Event Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011 - 2:15pm

Event Contact Name: Public hearing on access to the Capitol

Taking place at:
Dane County Courthouse
215 S Hamilton Street
Madison, WI 53703

Phone: [phone]

From Defend Wisconsin:

As per a motion filed as part of the case of Wisconsin State Employees Union et al. vs. State of Wisconsin et al.(Dane County Case Number 2011CV00099), Judge Daniel Moeser of the Dane
County Circuit issued a temporary restraining order this morning which
reads as follows:

Ex Parte temporary restraining order. Resp. shall open the Wisconsin Capitol to members of the public during business hours and at times when governmental matters, such as hearings, listening sessions and court arguments are being conducted. This ex parte restraing order is in effect until the assigned trial court is able to schedule a hearing on the matter. If resp. wishes to have a hearing with respect to this order one will be scheduled as soon as possible before this court, the duty judge, if the assigned trial court is unable to hear the matter promptly. Pet. shall immediately serve a copy of this order on resp.

[Deleted]

No arguments? Good, I rest my case.

[Loopdilou]

I'm really not sure what you're getting at.. Who has the conflict of interest?

[Deleted]

Yeah. i read this earlier but couldn't understand your point either?

[Deleted]

Ok you got me. This did not make my point. Point only being State unions a conflict of interest all on their own. An attorney I will never be.

[henryclay]

A link in order to gain background information would be helpful.

I have not seen any news today, but it sounds like somebody did, or said they would, lock down the caiptol building/s, following which somebody sued the state, and as an answer to the suit a judge said don't lock nothing down.

The ex-parte part means that there was only one side being represented when the judge issued the order. That side was apparently the union side.

But a link sure would be a help here.

[Deleted]

Yes, they locked down the capital.'

X-mas, i think you thought the case in the OP was about something other than it is? ... its just about whether or not people should have access to the capital...

[Loopdilou]

Walker has had the Capitol locked down a couple of days so the "people" sued and got it reopened. (I believe)

[privateinvestor]

When you discuss collective bargaining is seems those who are misinformed are missing an important factoid that has been pointed out continuously here ad nauseum ...Public and Private Sectors Unions and Workers are not the same..Wisconsin wants to end collective bargaining for Public Sectors in the state for their workers who already have civil service protections. So do they have to keep collective bargaining and extend Public Sector workers benefits or raise costs for taxpayers..

Anyone who would argue that the Public and Private Sector collective bargaining is the same has not been paying attention to what is happening with state and local budgets lately IMHO

Collective Bargaining for the Public Sector has been responsible for the rising costs of public employer pensions and benefits and this issue should not be silenced by the Unions or misquoted by Liberal and Opportunist politicians and their advocates or misinformed posters here.

[ugonow]

Wisconsin wants to end collective bargaining for Public Sectors in the state for their workers who already have civil service protections.

Civil service protections are only given to state employees. I believe that would be state police,etc. I think teachers are local school district employees,not state employees,therefor do not have civil service protections.... I could be wrong though........ edit- Poltifact says teachers in Wi. do not have civil service protections and points out the difference between collective bargaining rights and civil service protections---wseu-sepac.org/news/news_20110218_mjs_politifact_walker_lyingaboutcollectivebargaining.pdf----

[privateinvestor]

Mar 8, 2011 9:12:39 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Wisconsin wants to end collective bargaining for Public Sectors in the state for their workers who already have civil service protections.

Civil service protections are only given to state employees. I believe that would be state police,etc. I think teachers are local school district employees,not state employees,therefor do not have civil service protections.... I could be wrong though........

Yea but don't the Teachers Unions receive their pay and benefits from the states who control the state budgets for all state workers??

I think you might be refering to all hiring and/or layoffs for teachers that is usually done in the local school districts based on their budgets for education they receive from the states..

[ugonow]

Civil service protections

The protections are put into state law by the Legislature, or into a local ordinance by a city council, or village or town board, said public-sector employer attorney Andrew Phillips. He is general counsel for the Wisconsin Counties Association and his Mequon firm also represents municipalities and school districts.

Currently, state employees are covered by civil service, but most local government employees don’t have it and no public school employees do, Phillips said.

Phillips said civil service protections, among other things, specify employee rights to things such as vacation and overtime; prohibit termination for reasons other than just cause; and create procedures for employees to file grievances and to have those complaints heard.

What they don’t provide, he said, is any right for employees to bargain with their employers over those issues and others. The terms are set by the employer.

Collective bargaining rights

Two sections of state law -- one for state workers and one for local government and public school employees -- give public employees the right in Wisconsin to collectively bargain.

The law issues a mandate to both the employer (the government) and the collective bargaining unit (employees represented by a union).

The two sides must "meet and confer at reasonable times, in good faith, with the intention of reaching an agreement" on wages, hours, fringe benefits and conditions of employment.

In other words, the workers -- through their union -- have a say in those areas. They do not have such a say under civil service rules.

So, what would change if Walker’s budget-repair bill is adopted by the Republican-controlled Legislature?

With an amendment approved by the Joint Finance Committee, the bill would require local governments that don’t have a civil service system to establish one, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

[privateinvestor]

OK thanx for reply #11....it seems as if Wisconsin is a work in progress for the Public Sector in order to establish civil service protections at the local level..and then do away with Collective Bargaining at the state level, I think??

I do know however there is NO way that collective bargaining rights would be repealed by any Democratically Controlled State Legislature. Jerry Brown would be lynched if he tried to do that in California..

But the basic premise remains the same and that is the Public and Private Sectors are NOT the same and as Charley Sheen would say.."Well Duh!"... ;D