http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/wisconsins-recall-elections/2011/08/09/gIQAKnb44I_gallery.html#photo=1
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/handicapping-wisconsin-recall-elections
What's really at stake? Here's some of what I said about that question in April:
That the current controversy originates in Wisconsin may be a measure of the threat this anti-union assault poses to Big Labor. “The early 20th century was… notable for the emergence of progressive politics championed by Robert M. La Follette. Between 1901 and 1914, Progressive Republicans in Wisconsin created the nation's first comprehensive statewide primary election system, the first effective workplace injury compensation law, and the first state income tax, making taxation proportional to actual earnings. The progressive Wisconsin Idea also promoted the statewide expansion of the University of Wisconsin through the UW-Extension system at this time. Later, UW economics professors John R. Commons and Harold Groves helped Wisconsin create the first unemployment compensation program in the United States in 1932.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin]
Reference to your main volumes of Termination of Employment will tell you that Wisconsin remains --- in the statute and case books, at least --- an apparently progressive jurisdiction. Noteworthy are the following:
• All contracts entered by state agencies obligate the public contractor to refrain from discrimination, including on the basis of sexual preference, and to engage in affirmative action. “Sexual orientation” is broadly defined to include homosexuality and bisexuality. [T.O.E. at 53-7 (12/20/10)]
• Genetic testing for indicators of physical or mental impairment, susceptibility to illness, existing diseases, or genetic damage is prohibited for employment purposes. [T.O.E. at 53-24]
• State, municipal, and private (to the extent they are not covered by the NLRA) employees may not be discharged or disciplined for union activity, other concerted activities, or participating as a litigant or witness in an Employment Relations Commission proceeding. [T.O.E. at 53-35]
• A whistleblower law prohibits retaliation against state employees who report information they reasonably believe reflects a violation of federal or state law; mismanagement or abuse of power in state government; a substantial waste of public funds, or a public health and safety threat. [T.O.E. at 53-37]
• Last year, in a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that an at-will employee does not forfeit accrued benefits, if the employer fired the worker expressly to deprive him of those benefits. Although Wisconsin courts have been reluctant to infuse all employment relationships with an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, that’s exactly how the successful plaintiff postured her complaint in this case. [Phillips v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 324 Wis. 2d 151, 781 N.W. 2d 540 (2010).]
• In yet another recent decision, the Court of Appeals recognized the possibility of a cause of action for negligent hiring. [Maypark v. Securities Sec. Services USA, Inc., 2009 WL 2750994 (Wis. Ct. App.).]
• And in a third new case, the court concluded that, where public school teachers were allowed to make limited personal use of their school computers and email accounts, their email correspondence was private and not subject to the state’s Public Records Law. [Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District, 786 N.W. 2d 177 (Wis. App. 2010).]
Bottom line, Wisconsin hardly seems to fit the profile of a state that would move to withdraw public employees’ collective bargaining rights. Put another way, if it can happen in Wisconsin, it can happen almost anywhere in the U.S. Little wonder, then, that AFSCME and other public-employee unions, such as the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, are rabidly rising in opposition and protest across the country, as this Bulletin goes to press.
The Ohio case. Once upon a time, the Buckeye state was as heavily unionized as any in what by the 1980s was called “The Rust Belt.” While Detroit was ruled by the United Autoworkers, Cleveland and Youngstown were fiefdoms of the Steelworkers, and Akron’s rubber and glass industries were also fully organized. Today, Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River --- once celebrated in a song for being so polluted that it caught fire --- is the site of clubs, bars and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, instead of steel mills.
On March 3rd, the Ohio legislature passed a massive revision of the state’s public-sector collective bargaining act. The chief changes are described as follows:
• S.B. 5 places significant restrictions on the subjects that can be brought to the bargaining table for public employees. Specifically, bargaining will not be permitted about health insurance benefits, employer assistance towards the employee share of pension contributions, privatization of public services, staffing levels, and certain other management rights.
• S.B. 5 prohibits strikes by all public employees. Previously, Ohio collective bargaining law prohibited strikes only by police officers, firefighters, and other specified employees whose jobs have a direct impact on public safety. S.B. 5 makes it illegal for all public employees to strike and imposes extraordinary penalties if public employees do strike. Striking employees can be terminated, and can be subjected to substantial financial penalties.
• S.B. 5 establishes a new procedure for dispute resolution in bargaining. Under existing law, if contract negotiations reach a stalemate, the parties typically first have a hearing before a neutral "fact-finder." The fact-finder issues recommendations for resolving the dispute, but either the union or the employer can reject those recommendations. In the case of police, firefighters, and other specified safety employees who are prohibited from striking, the dispute then goes to a hearing before another neutral person whose decision is binding. The theory is that since those employees do not have the leverage of the threat of a strike, there has to be a neutral person to break the deadlock in the bargaining. S.B. 5 eliminates the binding arbitration step and prohibits all employees from striking. In cases where bargaining reaches a stalemate, the fact-finding proceeding will be followed first. If either party rejects the fact-finder's report, the employer's last best offer and the union's last best offer will be presented to the legislative body (i.e., City Council in the case of a municipality) which will conduct a public hearing and then vote to accept either the last best offer of the union or the last best offer of the employer.
[Mike Underwood, “Ohio Senate Passes Massive Reform to Public Sector Collective Bargaining Law,” Employer Law Report, Mar. 3, 2011, accessed at http://www.employerlawreport.com/2011/03/articles/labor-relations/ohio-senate-passes-massive-reform-to-public-sector-collective-bargaining-law/]
The Even Bigger Picture. Substantial as the stakes may be for Big Labor, they are even higher for Mr. Obama and his party. This is all because of a January 2010 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) in which a majority of the Supremes held:
(1) the government may not, under the First Amendment, suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity, overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 110 S.Ct. 1391, 108 L.Ed.2d 652; and,
(2) the federal statute barring independent corporate expenditures for electioneering communications violated First Amendment, overruling McConnell v. Federal Election Com'n, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491.
While the GOP enjoys the support of numerous corporations, which were freed from restraints on the levels of financial support they can funnel to Republican candidates, the Democrats have far fewer such super-supporters. Big Labor is, as always, the biggest of the big donors on the Democratic side of the political divide. Thus, destruction of the powerful public-sector unions, which are the backbone of Big Labor, would be a blow not only to their millions of members, but to the Democratic Party, as well.
Source: http://west.thomson.com/termination-of-employment/10278/17414737/productdetail?
No comments:
Post a Comment