I can hook Ezoner and anyone else up with a home schoolin' lady down the street who has an extra double-wide out back. She will teach yer kids for 100 bucks a week -payable in Walmart gift cards, and/or child labor in their home business.

I can't say what business it is they have there, but you will all agree that teaching a trade and entrepenuership is a Patriotic virtue. (hint-tiny fingers are adept at stitchin together tri-cornered hats and little American flags -can't have those Chinese cornering the market).

She figures she can fit about 30 more or so kids. Probably could do more, if they didn't have 15 cats. Don't worry, the kids will get some good Patriot values. They play Glenn Beck and Limbaugh's shows on the airways all day long.

Oh yeah, and I hope you don't mind your kids getting taught a little Old Testament while they are there.

No free lunches, so don't even ask. (not that you would want them to have free lunch there, as self-reliant libertarians...and with all them cats).

Do not worry, they do believe in discipline there. Kids won't get away with what they do at those public schools. Know ribbons handed out for their crappy drawings etc.

They need to promote this home school more -perhaps the CRG can tell them how to print up some fliers. It's really a great and underutilized resource at ZERO cost to the taxpayers, that is until we start getting voucher cash -cha-ching.

Maine, you need to condense your posts. Do you really think anyone reads past the first sentnce?

brotherkoch, no need to worry about poor maine's fingers being typed tot he bone. It's all copy and paste.

"The government is the representative of the people"

That's where you are wrong.

The government is the representative of the people who contribute large sums of money to the politicians.

There, fixed it for you.

4bears
Sep 15, 2012 at 11:24 p.m.
can you explain to me why all you right wing fascists defend the uber rich while YOU continue to pay for everything?

I don't understand this statement. Is it fascist to force us to pay for healthcare? Or allow us to decide?
Is it fascist to ban soft drinks larger then 16oz or fascist to say "you decide" you are in charge of your choice of size of drink?

Is is Constitutional to force an employee to give their money to organizations they don't believe in or Constitutional to give them freedom of choice to opt out.

Who's uber rich? George Clooney, Oprah?
George Soros? John Kerry? Nancy Pelosi?
who?

maine2010 take another big sip of the koolaid.... I guarantee you that the average state worker doesn't make 14 dollars more than the private sector.... now you will counter with benefits included... and what it boils down to is that is it unreasonable for someone to make an "average salary" with some decent benefits? what is the cost of living in New York? how would that translate to a WI wage? oh that's right.. you don't deal with that....

fedup, can you explain to me why all you right wing fascists defend the uber rich while YOU continue to pay for everything?

Maine Maine Maine. All Scotty asked was that you dislike the Null and Void on Facebook . You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing here.. , That is the must patriotic display of typing i have ever seen.

It's pretty amazing all of the lies you right wing nut jobs throw around about public sector unions being the main cause for the states fiscal problems. Wisconsin is the ONLY state in the nation that has a 100% funded state retirement system! I would attribute that to the fact we haven't allowed right wing politicians to get their grubby, greedy hands on the money. Tommy Thompson was successful one time in getting his greasy mits on that money but was sued and had to pay it back! That is the exact reason most every state in the nation is broke, because the state government hooligans were able to tap into that retirement money and waste it on other projects, which most likely lined the pockets of crooked politicians!

Jasper you don't have a union at Burger King? Don't hate the rest of those that do!

When the State Supreme Court throws this out. I think new legislation should be introduced to remove school taxes from property owners and give people the right to choose which type of school system they want their children to attend. This would in essence end any control by the public school system as they would be in a much more competitive enviorment for those dollars.

To taxpayers have any rights? Do they have the right to strike and NOT pay their property taxes until their property taxes are lowered by the same percentage as their wages were cut? At the very least, those whose wages were slashed during this Great Recession should not have received property tax increases. It would take many pages to list all of the benefits and rights of public sector workers, but the taxpayers, who are footing the bill, do not have a single right as far as the taxes they are forced to pay!

Maine2010, I've decided to wait for the movie.

The government is the representative of the people. The state union represents a group of people who work for the government that represents the people. Therefore, if the majority of people in the State of Wisconsin elect representatives to remove the Union control from the state such as Act 10. The will of the people who voted for these policy changes should be enacted if set forth by the legislation in a bill and passed into law.

There is nowhere in the state constitution that says the unions must represent state workers.

Part X - The Problem with Public Sector Unions: Public-sector unions thus distort the labor market, weaken public finances, and diminish the responsiveness of government and the quality of public services. Many of the concerns that initially led policymakers to oppose collective bargaining by government employees have, over the years, been vindicated. "At some point," New Jersey governor Chris Christie said in a February speech to his state's mayors, "there has to be parity between what is happening in the real world and what is happening in the public-sector world."
After all, even without collective bargaining, government workers would still benefit from far-reaching protections under existing civil-service statutes — more protections than most private-sector workers enjoy. And they would retain their full rights as citizens to petition the government for changes in policy. Public-sector workers' ability to unionize is hardly sacrosanct; it is by no means a fundamental civil or constitutional right. It has been permitted by most states and localities for only about half a century, and, so far, it is not clear that this experiment has served the public interest.

Part VIIII - The Problem with Public Sector Unions: Yet as skilled as the unions may be in drawing on taxpayer dollars, many observers argue that their greater influence is felt in the quality of the government services taxpayers receive in return. In his book The Warping of Government Work, Harvard public-policy scholar John Donahue explains how public-employee unions have reduced government efficiency and responsiveness. With poor prospects in the ultra-competitive private sector, government work is increasingly desirable for those with limited skills; at the opposite end of the spectrum, the wage compression imposed by unions and civil-service rules makes government employment less attractive to those whose abilities are in high demand. Consequently, there is a "brain drain" at the top end of the government work force, as many of the country's most talented people opt for jobs in the private sector where they can be richly rewarded for their skills (and avoid the intricate work rules, and glacial advancement through big bureaucracies, that are part and parcel of government work).
Thus, as New York University professor Paul Light argues, government employment "caters more to the security-craver than the risk-taker." And because government employs more of the former and fewer of the latter, it is less flexible, less responsive, and less innovative. It is also more expensive: Northeastern University economist Barry Bluestone has shown that, between 2000 and 2008, the price of state and local public services has increased by 41% nationally, compared with 27% for private services.
Finally, insofar as government collective-bargaining agreements touch on a wide range of economic decisions, public-sector unions have extraordinary influence over government policies. In the classic model of democratic accountability, citizens vote in competitive elections for candidates offering distinct policy agendas; once in office, the winners implement their programs through public agencies. But when public-employee unions bargain collectively with the government, elected officials partially cede control of public agencies to unelected labor leaders. Many policy choices are then settled in the course of negotiations between office holders and unions, rather than originating with the people's duly elected representatives. Over the long term, these negotiated work rules can drive public policy in directions that neither elected officials nor voters desire. And once enacted, these policies can prove very hard to reverse, even through elections: A new mayor or governor — no matter how hard-charging a reformer — will often find his hands tied by the iron-clad agreements unions managed to extract from his predecessors.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sectio...

Here is the court ruling. Don't worry Patriots - we will interpret it for you.

Part VIII - The Problem with Public Sector Unions: Unfortunately, the hit pension funds took recently in the stock market has exposed the massive underfunding that results from states' and municipalities' not paying for the public services they consume. In Illinois, for example, public-sector unions have helped create a situation in which the state's pension funds report a liability of more than $100 billion, at least 50% of it unfunded. Yet many analysts believe the figure is much higher; without a steep economic recovery, the Prairie State is looking at insolvency. Indeed, Northwestern University finance professor Joshua Rauh puts the date of collapse at 2018; he also predicts that six other states — Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Oklahoma — will see their pension funds dry up before the end of fiscal year 2020. What's more, according to the Pew Center on the States, 18 states face long-term pension liabilities in excess of $10 billion. In the case of California, like that of Illinois, the unfunded pension liability exceeds $50 billion. In fact, Pew estimates that, when retiree health-care costs are added to pension obligations, the unfunded liabilities of the states total an astounding $1 trillion.
The skyrocketing costs of public employees' pensions now present a huge challenge to state and local governments. If allowed to persist, such massive obligations will inevitably force a fundamental re-ordering of government priorities. After all, if government must spend more on pensions, it cannot spend more on schools, roads, and relief for the poor — in other words, the basic functions people expect their governments to perform. But because many states' pension commitments are constitutionally guaranteed, there is no easy way out of this financial sink hole. Recent court decisions indicate that pension obligations will have to be fulfilled even if governments declare bankruptcy — because while federal law allows bankruptcy judges to change pension and health-care packages in the private sector, it forbids such changes in public employees' agreements.

Part VII - The Problem with Public Sector Unions: In New York State, county police officers were paid an average salary of $121,000 a year in 2006. In that same year, according to the Boston Globe, 225 of the 2,338 Massachusetts State Police officers made more than the $140,535 annual salary earned by the state's governor. Four state troopers received more than $200,000, and 123 others were paid more than $150,000. When all jobs are considered, state and local public-sector workers today earn, on average, $14 more per hour in total compensation (wages and benefits) than their private-sector counterparts. The New York Times has reported that public-sector wages and benefits over the past decade have grown twice as fast as those in the private sector.
In California, for example, state workers often retire at 55 years of age with pensions that exceed what they were paid during most of their working years. In New York City, firefighters and police officers may retire after 20 years of service at half pay — which means that, at a time when life expectancy is nearly 80 years, New York City is paying benefits to 10,000 retired cops who are less than 50 years old. Those benefits quickly add up: In 2006, the annual pension benefit for a new retiree averaged just under $73,000 (and the full amount is exempt from state and local taxes). How, one might ask, were policymakers ever convinced to agree to such generous terms? As it turns out, many lawmakers found that increasing pensions was very good politics. They placated unions with future pension commitments, and then turned around, borrowed the money appropriated for the pensions, and spent it paying for public services in the here and now. Politicians liked this scheme because they could satisfy the unions, provide generous public services without raising taxes to pay for them, and even sometimes get around balanced-budget requirements.

Part VI - The Problem with Public Sector Unions: A further important advantage that public-sector unions have over their private-sector counterparts is their relative freedom from market forces. In the private sector, the wage demands of union workers cannot exceed a certain threshold: If they do, they can render their employers uncompetitive, threatening workers' long-term job security. In the public sector, though, government is the monopoly provider of many services, eliminating any market pressures that might keep unions' demands in check. Moreover, unlike in the private sector, contract negotiations in the public sector are usually not highly adversarial; most government-agency mangers have little personal stake in such negotiations. Unlike executives accountable to shareholders and corporate boards, government managers generally get paid the same — and have the same likelihood of keeping their jobs — regardless of whether their operations are run efficiently. They therefore rarely play hardball with unions like business owners and managers do; there is little history of "union busting" in government.
Additionally, the rise and fall of businesses in the private sector means that unions must constantly engage in organizing efforts, reaching out to employees of newly created companies. In government agencies, on the other hand, once a union organizes workers, they usually remain organized — because the government doesn't go out of business. Public-employee unions can thus maintain membership levels with much less effort than can private-sector unions. Finally, public-sector unions enjoy a privileged position in relation not only to their private-sector counterparts but also to other interest groups. Public-sector unions have automatic access to politicians through the collective-bargaining process, while other interest groups must fight for such entrée. Government unions can also more easily mobilize their members for electoral participation than other interest groups can — since they are able to apply pressure at the workplace and, in many cases, can even arrange for time off and other benefits to make members' political activism easier. Furthermore, most interest groups must devote a great deal of time and effort to fundraising; public-sector unions, on the other hand, enjoy a steady, reliable revenue stream, as union dues are deducted directly from members' paychecks (often by government, which drastically reduces the unions' administrative costs).
Taken together, the intrinsic advantages that public-sector unions enjoy over private-sector advocacy groups (including private-sector unions) have given organized government laborers enormous power over government at the local, state, and federal levels; to shape public finances and fiscal policy; and to influence the very spirit of our democracy. The results, unfortunately, have not always been pretty.

Part V - The Problem with Public Sector Unions: By contrast, as economist Richard Freeman has written, "public sector unions can be viewed as using their political power to raise demand for public services, as well as using their bargaining power to fight for higher wages." The millions spent by public-employee unions on ballot measures in states like California and Oregon, for instance, almost always support the options that would lead to higher taxes and more government spending. The California Teachers Association, for example, spent $57 million in 2005 to defeat referenda that would have reduced union power and checked government growth. And the political influence of such massive spending is of course only amplified by the get-out-the-vote efforts of the unions and their members. This power of government-workers' unions to increase (and then sustain) levels of employment through the political process helps explain why, for instance, the city of Buffalo, New York, had the same number of public workers in 2006 as it did in 1950 — despite having lost half of its population (and thus a significant amount of the demand for public services).

For a case study in how public-sector unions manipulate both supply and demand, consider the example of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Throughout the 1980s and '90s, the CCPOA lobbied the state government to increase California's prison facilities — since more prisons would obviously mean more jobs for corrections officers. And between 1980 and 2000, the Golden State constructed 22 new prisons for adults (before 1980, California had only 12 such facilities). The CCPOA also pushed for the 1994 "three strikes" sentencing law, which imposed stiff penalties on repeat offenders. The prison population exploded — and, as intended, the new prisoners required more guards. The CCPOA has been no less successful in increasing members' compensation: In 2006, the average union member made $70,000 a year, and more than $100,000 with overtime. Corrections officers can also retire with 90% of their salaries as early as age 50. Today, an amazing 11% of the state budget — more than what is spent on higher education — goes to the penal system.[Correction appended] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger now proposes privatizing portions of the prison system to escape the unions' grip — though his proposal has so far met with predictable (union supported) political opposition.

Can any of you right-wing teabaggers please explain why you hate public unions but have no problem with non-union public employees that can just give themselves generous raises and benefits whenever they want? Does that raise your taxes? Or is it because your savior king walker hasn't told you to hate them yet?

Part IV - The Problem with Public Sector Unions: When it comes to advancing their interests, public-sector unions have significant advantages over traditional unions. For one thing, using the political process, they can exert far greater influence over their members' employers — that is, government — than private-sector unions can. Through their extensive political activity, these government-workers' unions help elect the very politicians who will act as "management" in their contract negotiations — in effect handpicking those who will sit across the bargaining table from them, in a way that workers in a private corporation (like, say, American Airlines or the Washington Post Company) cannot. Such power led Victor Gotbaum, the leader of District Council 37 of the AFSCME in New York City, to brag in 1975: "We have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss."
Since public-sector unions began to develop in earnest, their importance in political campaigns has grown by leaps and bounds. Starting from almost nothing in the 1960s, government-workers' unions now far exceed private-sector unions in political contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, from 1989 to 2004, the AFSCME was the biggest spender in America, giving nearly $40 million to candidates in federal elections (98.5% of it to Democrats). It is important to stress that this was spending on federal elections; the union represents mostly state and local workers. But given the magnitude of federal contributions to state budgets, the AFSCME is heavily involved in electioneering to shape Washington's spending in ways that protect public workers and the supply of government services. And so over that 15-year period, the AFSCME was willing and able to outspend any other organization in the country.
The political influence of public-sector unions is probably greatest, however, in low-turnout elections to school boards and state and local offices, and in votes to decide ballot initiatives and referenda. For example, two of the top five biggest spenders in Wisconsin's 2003 and 2004 state elections were the Wisconsin Education Association Council and the AFSCME-affiliated Wisconsin PEOPLE Conference. Only the state Republican Party and two other political action committees — those belonging to the National Association of Realtors and SBC / Ameritech — spent more. The same is true in state after state, as unions work to exert control over the very governments that employs their members. This political dimension of public-sector unionism also changes the substantive priorities and demands of the unions themselves. Although private-sector unions in the United States have engaged in leftist "social activism," they have mostly concentrated their efforts on securing the best wages, benefits, pensions, and working conditions for their members: "pure and simple unionism," as longtime American Federation of Labor president Samuel Gompers used to call it.

Thank You Judge Juan Colas !

Part III - The Problem with Public Sector Unions: Courts across the nation also generally held that collective bargaining by government workers should be forbidden on the legal grounds of sovereign immunity and unconstitutional delegation of government powers. In 1943, a New York Supreme Court judge held: To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.
The very nature of many public services — such as policing the streets and putting out fires — gives government a monopoly or near monopoly; striking public employees could therefore hold the public hostage. As long-time New York Times labor reporter A. H. Raskin wrote in 1968: "The community cannot tolerate the notion that it is defenseless at the hands of organized workers to whom it has entrusted responsibility for essential services." Another common objection to collective bargaining with public-employee unions was that it would mean taking some of the decision-making authority over government functions away from the people's elected representatives and transferring it to union officials, with whom the public had vested no such authority. In this view, democracy would be compromised when elected officials began sharing with union leaders the power to determine government employees' wages, benefits, and working conditions. Furthermore, collectively bargained work rules could alter what public servants did day to day in ways not condoned by either elected officials or the voting public.
Collective-bargaining laws gave government workers powerful incentives to join unions. Between 1960 and 1980, the portion of full-time unionized public employees jumped from 10% to 36% of the public-sector work force. The AFSCME grew from 99,000 members in 1955 to just under 1 million members in 1980. Over the same period, the American Federation of Teachers grew from 40,000 to more than half a million members. Today, its membership stands at more than 1.5 million — which makes the AFT larger than the largest exclusively private-sector union, the United Food and Commercial Workers (1.3 million members). But even the AFT is dwarfed by the largest labor union in the United States: the National Education Association, which claims 3.2 million members.

Part II - The Trouble with Public Sector Unions: As private-sector unions have withered, public-sector unions have grown dramatically. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, in 2009, for the first time ever, more public-sector employees (7.9 million) than private-sector employees (7.4 million) belonged to unions. Today, unionized workers are more likely to be teachers, librarians, trash collectors, policemen, or firefighters than they are to be carpenters, electricians, plumbers, auto workers, or coal miners.
In today's public sector, good pay, generous benefits, and job security make possible a stable middle-class existence for nearly everyone from janitors to jailors. In the private economy, meanwhile, cutthroat competition, increased income inequality, and layoffs squeeze the middle class. This discrepancy indicates how poorly the middle class has fared in recent decades in the private economy, which is home to 80% of American jobs. But it also highlights the increased benefits of government work, and shines a spotlight on the gains public-sector unions have secured for their members. Perhaps this success helps explain why, on average, 39% of state- and local-government employees belong to unions. (Differences in state and local laws of course mean that the percentage varies from state to state; New York tops the chart with roughly 70% of state employees in unions, while many Southern right-to-work states hover in the single digits.)
The emergence of powerful public-sector unions was by no means inevitable. Prior to the 1950s, as labor lawyer Ida Klaus remarked in 1965, "the subject of labor relations in public employment could not have meant less to more people, both in and out of government." To the extent that people thought about it, most politicians, labor leaders, economists, and judges opposed collective bargaining in the public sector. Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: "Meticulous attention," the president insisted in 1937, "should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government....The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." The reason? F.D.R. believed that "[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable." Roosevelt was hardly alone in holding these views, even among the champions of organized labor. Indeed, the first president of the AFL-CIO, George Meany, believed it was "impossible to bargain collectively with the government."

Walker should submit legislation to let taxpayer not pay property taxes to school districts.

This would free most families from being slaves to corrupt Judges / Unions in Madison and allow them to spend 1000's of dollars yearly on schools of their choice.

Sports would be put to a club level where if you're kid wanted to play a sport you would pay for this out of pocket. This would easily cut school expenses by more than 50%. No new football fields and new field houses for high school etc.

The Trouble with Public Sector Unions (National Affairs/Fall 2010)by D. Disalvo
When Chris Christie became New Jersey's governor in January, he wasted no time in identifying the chief perpetrators of his state's fiscal catastrophe. Facing a nearly $11 billion budget gap — as well as voters fed up with the sky-high taxes imposed on them to finance the state government's profligacy — Christie moved swiftly to take on the unions representing New Jersey's roughly 400,000 public employees. On his first day in office, the governor signed an executive order preventing state-workers' unions from making political contributions — subjecting them to the same limits that had long applied to corporations. More recently, he has waged a protracted battle against state teachers' unions, which are seeking pay increases and free lifetime health care for their members. Recognizing the burden that such benefits would place on New Jersey's long-term finances, Christie has sought instead to impose a one-year wage freeze, to change pension rules to limit future benefits, and to require that teachers contribute a tiny fraction of their salaries to cover the costs of their health insurance — measures that, for private-sector workers, would be mostly uncontroversial.

The firestorm that these proposals have sparked demonstrates the political clout of state-workers' unions. Christie's executive order met with vicious condemnation from union leaders and the politicians aligned with them; his fight with the public-school teachers prompted the New Jersey Education Association to spend $6 million (drawn from members' dues) on anti-Christie attack ads over a two-month period. Clearly, the lesson for reform-minded politicians has been: Confront public-sector unions at your peril. New Jersey has drawn national attention as a case study, but the same scenario is playing out in state capitals from coast to coast. New York, Michigan, California, Washington, and many other states also find themselves heavily indebted, with public-sector unions at the root of their problems. In exchange, taxpayers in these states are rewarded with larger and more expensive, yet less effective, government, and with elected officials who are afraid to cross the politically powerful unions. As the Wall Street Journal put it recently, public-sector unions "may be the single biggest problem...for the U.S. economy and small democratic governance." They may also be the biggest challenge facing state and local officials — a challenge that, unless economic conditions dramatically improve, will dominate the politics of the decade to come.

This Liberal from Madison knows his decision as a Dane Co. Judge will be overturned by the State Supreme court. This is just a way for the Unions and Liberal lawyers to waste more tax dollars which will create more debt at the state level which they hope will reflect poorly on Walker.

and apparently sleeperd is leader of the flock.

concernedwi, " All easy to remember, but aren't backed up by facts or logic." is exactly their plan. Dumb it down for the dummies, repeat the lies over and over and the sheep will follow.

Those who think this ruling will just be thrown out should read it (if you can read and comprehend that is).

You should see someone about all the anger you're carrying around. It isn't healthy.

Oi. I have to write more checks. Harder to sneak them to judges than to my boy scouts...

By the way, let us have some more dislikes of the null and void on Facebook.

Hahahahahaha. The Constitutuon has spoken

CONGRATS TO JOAN and ALL OTHERS - I am very happy for those that favor the opinion of the Judge - well done my friends.

What a wonderful day!!! Yeah for us. : )

Joan,
.
Maybe everybody does have a right to be in an union... however, does every union have a right to collectively bargain in every employment environment?
.
Do other also have the right not to pay dues?
.
You also said: "A big "duh" to everyone and of course this was struck down..."
.
Why oh why Joan.. Has it taken a well over year for this to happen?....... This possible loophole? If it was apparent it would have been challenged at once... It was not.

Man With A Brain,
.
Respectfully disagree,
.
Public sector unions have done anything but bargain in good faith. More often than not in Madison and Milwaukee the unions went a year to 18 months without a contract because they knew gov. Doyle would cave (and he did).
.
The unions were stiff necked and refused to make even temporary (locked in) consessions to get through the hard times of the last 7 or 8 years.
.
They caused the perfect storm of Scott Walker. If the unions would not deal with their friend and advocate (Gov. Doyle) what chance did Walker have to get anyplace.
.
NONE of the unions were willing to make consessions until AFTER he put forward his plan. Too little too late.
.
Union's only hope is to be more sensitive to real economic needs of the people who sign their checks.
.
They would have lost a little money but kept their collective bargaining if they had worked with Gov. Doyle.. Now they reap the whirlwind.

Oh and I have read the Judge's decision and have a copy in my possession for my friends in the public sector to read and enjoy for now.

Why doesn't the ultra-right get a clue. The public sector workers are not the problem. They have bargained in good faith to keep costs of government low, and in return asked for decent wages and benifits. The one percenter's wish is to end all public jobs. Walker being a "public servant" his whole political career is the most ignorant person on this or any related subject. Public sector workers are not going away, at least not with out a fight, and if anyone thinks the 2011 protests were bad, just wait until the state supreme court rules in favor of Walker. This state will erupt the likes not scene in over 100 years.

Scotty says to remember to dislike the null and void on Facebook.

Hahahahahahahaha. Also friend then defriend this liberal activist judge

Let's just wait and see what our state supreme court has to say about this before we get all excited. I'm quite confident that they will have a different persective on the issue :) There is a huge benefit to this happening now. Conservatives have to be reminded that they cannot be complacent. They need to show up in November the same way they showed up for Walker's recall election in order to continue to set our government on the right course.....

Hmmm where does this judge donate his money....

http://www.wisdc.org/index.php?module=wi...

RetiredAirForce said, "The reality is there is no wording in the state or US constitution about unions."

What requirement of specific wording is there for a court to make a finding? There's also no wording about money being freedom of speech. Funny that.

vnvet7071
Sep 15, 2012 at 10:46 to what purpose does a post like yours serve? Does it help you feel better about yourself?

That is why the left hates the Constitution because it limits what the Government can do. Less Government, more personal freedom.
There is nothing Constitutional about forcing a wonderful person who wants to dedicate their career to teaching young minds into a union. As we've seen now unions are only in it for greed and political gains. Not for educators, not for children.

poobah, As you well know Act 10 is Constitutional that is gives the employee the freedom to elect out of the union. What is Constitutional about forcing an employee into a union. That is why over 1/2 opted out. They were Constitutional given the "right" to freedom of choice.
If you still want to join the union join it. But with Act 10, you don't have to. And that is what the Constitution stands for.

"this particular judge found there were rights being infringed upon that were conveyed by the constitutions of Wisconsin and the United States"
-
Yes "found". The reality is there is no wording in the state or US constitution about unions. This is more than likely why this person is only been a county judge...

billnewbie said, "The Legislature gave public employees the "right" to unionize, and it can take it away as well."

I agree with that in the context of state statutes. But what that statement fails to acknowledge is that this particular judge found there were rights being infringed upon that were conveyed by the constitutions of Wisconsin and the United States. Those are rights the state legislature can not take away.

That's correct, FUTP, you're making progress. You now hopefully understsnd why your concern over the status of union representation (and not collective bargaining) was errant.

The Legislature gave public employees the "right" to unionize, and it can take it away as well. Judge Colas is yet another Dane County judge that seems to think he has the power to veto the Legislature.

So, how many times do the Dane County judges have to be told they can't do that until they get the message? How many judges are there in Dane county?

RetiredAirForce, many public employees are not federal government workers. The statement you took exception to is correct, with the exception of certain federal employees. Calling it a false statement is not accurate and is an unfair characterization, as for many public and private employees unionization is indeed a right.

There are obviously (again "duh!") security issues surrounding the FBI, military, CIA, etc... which would not include them under union. That's just common sense that you wouldn't want division within the ranks when there could be security ramifications (a strike occurs).

FUTP, it's clear that union representation is a right in the state of Wisconsin. You can nitpick about which document provides that right, but the material fact is that union representation is a right in the state of Wisconsin.

Typical false information put forth by the left wing, "People have the right to be in a union, regardless of whether its a public or private institution."

If that were true the US military, FBI, CIA, State Department, NSA, White House staff, Congressional staff, Senate staff, and many other federal workers could unionize....but the fact is not all can, because of federal laws. Ignoring facts doesn't change them...

I guess I'll ask you one more time, FUTP, do you feel the Constitution is the only vehicle for conveying rights? Thanks for the link, but I have a few copies of the Constitution.

Feduptaxpayer - Yeah, they learned that tactic from the republican goons in Madison when they passed their hidden agendas in the house while the democrats were out! Who are you kidding FUTP?

FUTP, are you suggesting that the only vehicle for conveying rights is the Constitution?

CNN.com has done a wonderful job of outlining the issues here. First of all anyone with a law background at all knew this was coming. People have the right to be in a union, regardless of whether its a public or private institution. Come on - nobody really believed that the public sphere was different - that was the lamest argument that only competes with it was okay to have slavery because that's the way the south wanted it.

Second, it stifles freedom of speech due to the lack of being able to be in that association - the union.

A big "duh" to everyone and of course this was struck down because you would have know your law to understand how crazy this was to do in the first place.

Looks like someone else has some homework now, doesn't it?

Section 111.04 of the Wisconsin state statutes. [ https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statute... ]

111.04 Rights of employees. Employees shall have the right of self-organization and the right to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; and such employees shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities.

Anything else I can help you with, FUTP?

So the story that is near the top of CNN's list doesn't get a headline in the State of Wisconsin's Janesville paper? Could it because the gazette has been kissing Ryan's republican "expletive" for the last month?

Should those whose wages have been slashed by globalization be forced to pay the same high property tax rates as those who are protected by special interest groups (unions) or should they pay a reduced rate in order to achieve tax fairness? Since property tax delinquencies are increasing and causing the foreclosure crisis to intensify, this issue needs to be addressed:

At a time when property tax delinquencies are rising and property tax revenues are falling in many parts of the U.S., it is particularly important to consider the potential impact that property tax administration has on reducing delinquency. This study investigates the relationship between the number of annual payment installments and the property tax delinquency rate using multivariate regression techniques and five years of data from Wisconsin municipalities (May 2012 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).
A startling reminder from the Tax Foundation in Washington D.C. Considering property taxes as a percentage of property value, Wisconsin has the fourth-highest property taxes on owner-occupied homes in the nation. Using Census Bureau data, the Tax Foundation calculated the median real estate taxes as a percent of median home value for all 50 states. The U.S. average median is 0.96 percent ($1,897 in taxes on $197,600 in home value). Wisconsin’s percentage is 1.71. Only Texas, New Jersey and Nebraska rank higher. The key to reducing property taxes is to control spending. Wisconsin property owners certainly have paid more than their fair share.
Here's what the Milwaukee-WI Journal Sentinel examination found: Only a few states rely more than Wisconsin on the big one-two punch of property and personal income taxes. Despite the average government spending, that's an unpopular load for taxpayers and a risky strategy for funding bedrock services. The state's unusual insistence on taxing all types of property at equal rates puts a larger share of the tax burden on middle-class homeowners. The result: Taxes on industrial property owners rank in the bottom half and sometimes the bottom third nationally. In contrast, residential taxes are still easily top 10, and residential owners pay more than two-thirds of all property tax collections, up from half in 1970.

It sure is funny how Obama catches so much flack for his travels but the Wisconsin "right" seems to have zero issues when Scott Walker does it? I just love my tax dollars helping Scott Walker travel all over the United States of America like the fiscal conservative he is!

poobah - You can't reason with stupid!

Bowlgal said, "There is no point in having this 2 year old debate."

Conservatives are now ready to ignore the Constitution they claim to so love. They equate a legal ruling that finds a law unconstitutional with a "2 year old debate" and claim that there's "no point" in such legal process. You have to love the hypocrisy.

Blowgal - - You said, "patroitism is a devotion to one's country. I guess we just need to know which country you are devoted to."

Maybe you should learn how to spell patriotism before you try and define it!

Mouse (brotherkoch) whoever you try to post as this hour
- patroitism is a devotion to one's country. I guess we just need to know which country you are devoted to.

There is no point in having this 2 year old debate. The people have spoken. This is typical union tactics if they don't get the outcome they like the first time they try to wear you down by coming and coming at you. Not this time leftist. The average percentage of opt-outs is usually 30%. The unions got hit hard when 52% opted out and Walker won by an even bigger margin then the first time. Wise up people. We reject your liberalism and your left wing submit forced compliance. This will only stay until the Wisconsin Supreme court rules or November when the Republicans win majority back. It's pointless for you. This judgement is meaningless.

So Jasper does flying to Kosovo to meet with troops a week before they return show a conservative governer as being frugal?

Liberal: Generous in amount; ample: to spend freely.

Conservative: To save or conserve being frugal, etc.

Self explanatory. It's in the dictionary.

Patriots, Scotty says don't forget to dislike the null and void on Facebook.

Hey DickT. Get a real job and quit spending my hard earned tax dollars.

I'll laugh myself to sleep at night when you idiots all lose your jobs because they are shipped over seas! You'll never get the fact that the GOP is out for the super rich and could care less about you or your family if you are considered middle class or poor. You'll be the first ones crying over your spilt milk and looking for a government handout when you lose everything.

What happens to the left when we elect majority Republicans again in November? I do believe they just handed Wisconsin back to majority in our house and gave Romney a win in the toss up column.

It all becomes crystal clear why Judges Ann and Shirley tried getting Prosser out after the first Act 10 which we all thought was finished and re-elected Walker for it. In true George Soros good soldier fashion, when the people have spoken and the liberals don’t like it, appoint as many liberal judges to bend the will of the people and the true meaning of the Constitution. And in typical liberal good soldier fashion when the action is of partisan deed, pass it late on a Friday.

Private industry workers and business owners are the new slaves and the state unions are the masters.

Romney just won Wisconsin. Thanks Libs.

Great decision from the Judge - eventually ALL OF THIS will be sorted out and the EXTREME AGENDA of WALKER & friends will be shown for what it is - "DIVIDE AND CONQUER" - An attack on the middle class. The teachers are NOT the bad guys. They are the ones teaching your kids, but being targeted by Walker.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/16970...

http://progressive.org/scott_walker_divi...

I see much more bashing/hate talk on here from conservatives than liberals. You all seem to suffer from the old mentality, "If I can't have it, then neither can you!" Get over it already. If the private sector is so terrible, then feel free to apply for a public sector job! Oh that's right, the pay is pitiful and the benefits are mediocre at best and the hours suck so that's why you stay put in the private sector! Have a great time working in China if Romney gets elected!

All landings are controlled crashes, unlike uncontrolled liberal hate.

RetiredAirForce - When will your plane crash already?

thatwaseasy - You stated: Just like Chicago. We don't care how many of you get fired. This is about union power and greed. The head of the teachers union in WI, makes $463,000 dollars salary and about $150,000 in benefits a year. So what? If that bothers you so much, then it should bother you that Tommy Thompson made millions of dollars as a shyster lobbyist in D.C., but I'm guessing that doesn't bother you one bit! What is the difference, you tell me? There is greed on BOTH sides of the isle and if you think there isn't then you are either naive, or turning a blind eye!

Pure hilarity. The circus is back in town with the same tired arguments. How dare the state have the same rules on public workers that the federal government does.

I know this won't deter many Patriots from making things up on your own. However, because it is the weekend, we can't create many facts for Patriots to say here until Monday.

SO, as for now, Scott Walker simply asks you to "Dislike" the Null and Void on Facebook.

Well guys, Here is some info on Lester Pines, the lawyer who brought this case up.
http://wicourtscorrupt.com/corruption-re...
BTW, this lawyer just got Doyle's son out of a OWI. Par for the course I guess

usaret, we're still in debt; never left being in debt. Look up GAAP; Scotties favorite way of balancing the books, except when it isn't.

"At least Patriots were smart enough to revert to the old standby
"liberal activist judge". - Yup. Can I get a "union puppet masters"? Anyone? Buehler? FUTP?????

Just remember that Rock County voted for Barrett. The minority tries to cry and whine on here, but the majority loves this ruling.

What else is new...liberals have spent the last two years filing lawsuits and wasting money...same as in the recalls.
They only want to go backwards.

I love how conservatives like to bash judges and label them "activist" when the judge overturns a law they like yet they have no problem when a judge overturns a law they don't like. Never hear them call the judge "activist" then.

Does that mean that the State goes back to being in Debt?

thatwaseasy remembers the good old days, of the Ole South. Where the will of the people (with a nod to states rights) justified much more oppressive laws than even Scotty has put forth. Only to be struck down by constitution.

Kind of funny how Patriots started spouting off this case "supreme court already ruled Act 10 legal" blah blah blah. GoodAmerican and Theansweris42 tried to help them out, but the Patriots wouldn't listen. At least Patriots were smart enough to revert to the old standby
"liberal activist judge".

Curious to see how President Sodemann sleeps these next few weeks, months! Nighty Night!

That's ok though. Since he is so full of _ _ it, he will have no problem getting a job. Perhaps he could sell toilet paper for the Koch Bros.

Conquer and Divide! Looks like Scottie is about to get the old Divide and take it in the ARSE! LOL! Karma my friends

Scott Walker has put out a statement on this ruling....On Facebook?

In other news on Facebook, Justin Beiber says his performance on America's Got Talent finale last night was "RADICAL, THE AWESOMEST!"

Patriots, Tea Partiers, Tricornered hat-wearers, Scott Walker, and Fellow Countrymen, and assorted Nuts, The CONSTITUTION HAS SPOKEN.

And as tea partiers, are sworn blood oath is to uphold and glorify this sacred Constitution as put forth by Deity - our Founding Fathers.

So until I buy more judges, THE CONSTITUTION HAS SPOKEN!

Like this decision, but am not holding my breath through the courts. Better if the Gov lost in the next election.

Wait until November. These whiners will really be in full throat!!

What the _ _ _ _ ? lol

Interesting to see how the SCOTUS might rule on this one now that Roberts is a leftie:)

I'm interested in seeing how this affects local government, this is typically the time of year when budgets are prepared and I doubt any of them have planned for this. Could get crazy.

"Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled Friday that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void."

If true, the State Supreme Court won't have the final say on this one.

"Liberal Activist Judge" One thing the GOP is really good at is catch phrases. Drill Baby, Drill. It's working. Liberal Activist Judge. All easy to remember, but aren't backed up by facts or logic.

SCHNIBBLE - AT 7:07 - Well written and GREAT POINT. THANK YOU.

GREAT DECISION - GREAT JUDGE & IT WILL NOT BE OVERTURNED!!!! Walker is next ---- The FBI JOHN DOE investigation is going to get to him sooner or later.

http://www.walkerinvestigation.com/

Oh the righties are squeeling like a stuck pig now, aren't they?

It's amazing how little most average people actually know about or understand the law. You all need to read stubby's post again v e r y s l o w l y. Stubby gets it.

And Judge Colas is one of the more respected judges in Dane County by both sides. He's been in the AG's office and understands the law quite thouroghly.

This liberal activist foolish judge just single handedly handed Wisconsin to Romney.

Fired back up and ready to go! 2010! Prosser! Walker twice! Romney/Ryan!!

Just like Chicago. We don't care how many of you get fired. This is about union power and greed.

The head of the teachers union in WI, makes $463,000 dollars salary and about $150,000 in benefits a year.

Actually federal employee unions do have collective bargaining, however for many the subjects are limited. Postal employee have full collective bargaining including the right to go to arbitration to resolve the terms of the contract.

The union offered concession AFTER their back was too the wall. Then they told the Milwaukee teachers "we don't care how many of you get fired" in budget cuts you're not to use ACT 65 which would allow them to re-open contracts.

"We are reviewing judge Colas' opinion and have already begun to flag legal errors made by the judge."

A federal judge has already concluded the limitations on the scope of collective bargaining and the prohibition on fair share agreements are constitutional.

This liberal activist foolish judge just single handedly handed Wisconsin to Romney.

It didn't take very long for the lefties to get the first removal (Good American) and personally attack opposition.
Your party is floundering and the end of your reign is drawning near.

Considering the timing, it's really surprising the Dane County judge appointed by Doyle did this. There is zero doubt that the WI state supreme court--elected by the WI citizens-- will uphold Act 10. All this will do is rile up the conservative base that came out in droves to support Walker in the recall election. This base has been somewhat complacent and burnt out since the recall election, hopefully Romney/Ryan can capitalize on this error in judgment and the energy it should create.......

Juan Colas is one of seventeen Dane County Circuit Court Judges. Pretty low on the law totem pole.
His ruling is trivial (and bordering meaningless) when it is about Wisconsin or Federal Constitutional Law.

Not at all Good American - I'm highly grateful for the Supreme Court on the local level and Federal level to overturn activist judge's rulings. Mooshoo I am a women (LibertyBelle) and if you didn't have such a disrepect and war on women you'd be a better man.

"the law is the law"

I really don't know if you don't understand how our system of Government works in the United States of America; particularly in regards to the Constitution and the seperation of powers. Or if you understand it, but don't agree with it.

thatwaseasy, did you read the ruling?

Collective Bargaining as we have discussed over and over again and with two recalls to prove it is not a right. The US federal unions do not have collective bargaining. I don't know why I'm still amazed at the left's stupidity. It has to be the news shows they watch that omit factual stories that they disagree with.

Good point, the Best Supreme Court is where this will go again if it even makes it past appeals for the foolishness if it. I don't know what else you call a liberal leftist judge that knows this law has been upheld in the highest court and makes his pitiful ruling in the late Friday hours "activist". A person of sound judgement dismisses challenges by other groups as the law is the law voted on not once but TWICE (recalls) by the good people of Wisconsin and upheld once already in the highest court....activist. Foolish activist.

Unless, as someone pointed out already, it violates the US Constuition. Then it doesn't matter what Wisconsin Judges have been bought.

GOOD NEWS

I say thank you liberal activist judge! You just handed Wisconsin to Romney and look crazy in the process. Notice the ruling coming in the wee hours of Friday afternoon when all the Democrats (Obama) pass judgement and use executive orders for the least amount of press.
He knows. It's a stall of the misguided who can't except rejection.

Sorry. TheAnsweris42 already addressed it I say.

I may be wrong, but I think the State Supreme Court ruled on the passage of Act 10 and not the actual constitutionality of the law itself. I remember being some glitch with the process of how it was passed. Something with Open Meetings laws.

Act 10 was already upheld in the Wisconsin Supreme court and their is no collective bargaining on the Federal level.

GoodAmerican, are you sure about this line: "The court ruled only that the open meetings rule had not been violated"

When I read the ruling I was under the impression that they did not rule that it was not violated. Instead they ruled that there was a seperation of powers so the court could not hold the Legislature to the law. I remember thinking this was ridiculous because they did not limit this in anyway. Basically, the legislature is above the law when it comes to passing law.

The previous State Surpreme Court ruling was regarding an Open Meetings LAW. This ruling was about the CONSTITUTION of WI (and also the US Constitution).

I'm not an legal expert, but I've read the ruling and that is how it appears to me.

Does this mean GM is coming back to Janesville?

Actually, this is rather interesting. By stating that the law violates the US constitution (I'm assuming the equal protection clause, but I haven't read the ruling, so I don't really know), this ruling moves Act 10 from a state to a federal case. That would, in effect, trump the state supreme court ruling. It does muddy the water, though, on all the bargaining units that have had "handbooks" imposed upon their working conditions as a result of Act 10. Are those now suspended? Do the workers have the right to go in and bargain working conditions again? Sounds like state and local agencies should play nice with their unions...just in case.

Act 10 upheld in the Supreme Court

ThatDeadGuy and Bowlgal... the State Supreme Court ruling was about Open Meeting Laws. The State Supreme Court ruled that the State Legislature does not need to abide by Open Meetings Laws because there is a seperation of powers.

Also, here is the WI State website that explains what Circuit Courts are. http://www.wicourts.gov/courts/circuit/i...

Thanks

Holy Cow! - this liberal activist foolish judge just single handedly handed Wisconsin to Romney. How insane does the left look now as the Supreme Court ruled on this already by another group's lawsuit. I'm laughing my ... off

Peoples Republic of Madison judges.....gotta love em.

What universe is this judge from? Act 10 is already a Supreme Court ruling. The left is getting nuttier with every passing day. I swear they must know interally that they are in serious trouble in November.

The State Supreme Court has already upheld Act 10. Just another Dane Co. judge out of touch with the real world. The law will be upheld and hopefuly this judge will be censured so this type of ruling from Dane Co. judges will stop.

Dane county judge-what ekse would he rule?

So all the balloons and singing were for nothing.
Thought so.
Go home now.