Wisconsin: Largest state unions won't seek recertification by Thursday deadline

Madison - By the end of Thursday, the major state employee unions covering tens of thousands of workers will have effectively lost their official status.

Top leaders for those unions say they won't seek to meet the high hurdle for keeping that current status laid out in Gov. Scott Walker's union bargaining law. With a deadline set for the close of business Thursday, so far only four smaller state unions have said they'll seek to keep their status by winning a difficult recertification election.

Marty Beil, executive director of the 23,000-member Wisconsin State Employees Union representing largely blue-collar workers, said none of the units in his union will seek a vote on recertifying.

"We looked at the law and we find the law at best an exercise in wasted resources," Beil said. "We've chosen to use our resources to organize our members and advocate for our members."

So only, only three smaller unions representing building trades workers, prosecutors and other attorneys have filed with the state seeking to keep their official status. A fourth union representing a small number of state research employees is also expected to file.

In March, Walker signed legislation ending all union bargaining for public employees except for bargaining over wages. But union employees still can't bargain for raises larger than the rate of inflation unless approved by voters in a referendum.

The legislation also requires that unions go through yearly recertification votes to keep their official status rather than keep that status indefinitely after an initial vote as unions had done in the past. Unions can still exist without that official status, but government employers, such as schools and the state, don't have to recognize them or bargain with them.

To win the recertification election, unions must get 51% of the vote of all the members of their bargaining unit, not just the ones who take the time to cast ballots - a much higher bar than state elected officials have to clear to win their offices.

Bryan Kennedy, president of the American Federation of Teachers-Wisconsin, said so far only a small local state union within his larger umbrella group is seeking a recertification election. AFT-Wisconsin and its member unions as of June represented about 17,500 largely white-collar government workers.

Kennedy said that one of his member unions has workers in 700 locations around the state and would need to spend large amounts of time and money to win a recertification vote.

"You go through all that and all you get to do is bargain (for limited raises)," Kennedy said.

State unions have to file a petition seeking a recertification election and pay a fee to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission by 4:30 p.m. Thursday or they will be decertified, agency chairman James Scott said.

The actual decertification won't happen, however, until it's requested by either the employer or a citizen, Scott said. That's in part because the agency doesn't have a master list of all the public employee unions in the state, he said.

"We're not going to know if they don't file unless somebody tells us," Scott said.

You can’t imagine the feeling here in WI. We got one monkey off our back. We were double wammied. It’s such a relief. WI is a good state, we were saddled with the liberal label, but we were weren’t liberal. The fringe ruled this state, and they’re lashing out because we finally kicked their butts out of power.

Oh, I can DEFINITELY imagine!

The fringe - liberal flatlanders that have infiltrated our state for the past 50 years did the same thing here. But after 40 years, we threw them out and took back all 3 houses...there is a great gnashing of teeth

But our new governor doesn't speak PC, and he's taking no prisoners. CONSERVATIVE to the core.

A self-made man (was on the streets at age 11...got through college, worked his way up to manager of our biggest 'chain' store, got elected as Mayor to a deep blue town - TWICE - and now gov.

One of his first altercations was with the NAACP who came to town with the express purpose of getting him n line. They 'invited' him to dinner.

He said, "sorry, my calendar is full that day"

They called him a racist.

He told them: "Kiss my A*s." (The papers reported it as "Kiss my BUTT - but it was "a*s. I don't remember hearing that they've made another visit.)

(If they'd checked, they would have seen his family photo of him, his wife and their children. OH my, one of the them is, oh my goodness, black! He had semi-adopted a young Jamaican teen, put him through high school, college and he's now getting his doctorate..)

Yup. Maine. It's finally back in the hands of the natives.

The Commie union bosses can keep playing their games in court with their flying monkey lawyers, but the red sons of bitches are going to get what they deserve real soon.

That son of a bitch Warren in US Vs. Brown threw out the provision in Taft Hartley that required union leadership to sign affidavits that they were not communists.

As a result, union leadership is comprised of nothing but.

We are getting ready to hit the CPUSA and the communist American labor movement so hard that they wont have time to crawl back under the rocks they came out from.

No worker in the US should be held hostage to unions period, compulsory union dues are unconstitutional under the first and 14th amendments, and the unions need to be stripped of their ability to steal money from workers paychecks on a national level.

If the workers love unions so much they will be happy to voluntarily send them dues.

Criminalize Government employee unions, blatantly illegal mechanisms for raping taxpayers by bribing leftist politicians with money and votes in exchange for unsustainable compensation and benefits.

There’s nothing patently illegal about a POTUS issuing an executive order immediately ending withholding of union dues nationwide, and ordering the National Labor Relations Board to get a Federal Court Order enforcing the Presidents decision

Lets fight it out in the courts, and lets make it a campaign issue, with the promise to end compulsory withholding of union dues one of the first acts of the new GOP Administration.

Its stupid to allow the left (Communists) to use the same mechanism the IRS uses to fund themselves.

U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. BROWN, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) 381 U.S. 437

UNITED STATES v. BROWN. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 399.

Argued March 29, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Respondent was convicted under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years wilfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments. Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.

(a) The Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 3, was intended to implement the separation of powers among the three branches of the Government by guarding against the legislative exercise of judicial power. Pp. 441-446.

(b) The Bill of Attainder Clause is to be liberally construed in the light of its purpose to prevent legislative punishment of designated persons or groups. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 . Pp. 447-449.

(c) In designating Communist Party members as those persons who cannot hold union office, Congress has exceeded its Commerce Clause power to enact generally applicable legislation disqualifying from positions affecting interstate commerce persons who may use such positions to cause political strikes. Pp. 449-452.

(d) Section 504 is distinguishable from such conflict-of-interest statutes as 32 of the Banking Act, where Congress was legislating with respect to general characteristics rather than with respect to the members of a specific group. Pp. 453-455.

(e) The designation of Communist Party membership cannot be justified as an alternative, “shorthand” expression for the characteristics which render men likely to incite political strikes. Pp. 455-456.

(f) A statute which inflicts its deprivation upon named or described persons or groups constitutes a bill of attainder whether its aim is retributive, punishing past acts, or preventive, discouraging future conduct. In American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 , where the Court upheld 9 (h) of the National [381 U.S. 437, 438] Labor Relations Act, the predecessor of 504, the Court erroneously assumed that only a law visiting retribution for past acts could constitute a bill of attainder, and misread the statute involved in United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 , which it sought to distinguish from 9 (h), as being in that category. Pp. 456-460.

(g) The legislative specification of those to whom the enacted sanction is to apply invalidates a provision as a bill of attainder whether the individuals are designated by name as in Lovett or by description as here. Pp. 461-462.

334 F.2d 488, affirmed.

Solicitor General Cox argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Yeagley, Nathan Lewin, Kevin T. Maroney and George B. Searls.

Richard Gladstein argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Norman Leonard.

Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California et al., and by Victor Rabinowitz and Leonard B. Boudin for the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we review for the first time a conviction under 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or (except in clerical or custodial positions) as an employee of a labor union. 1 Section 504, the purpose of which is to protect [381 U.S. 437, 439] the national economy by minimizing the danger of political strikes, 2 was enacted to replace 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, which conditioned a union’s access to the National Labor Relations Board upon the filing of affidavits by all of the union’s officers attesting that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. 3 [381 U.S. 437, 440]

Respondent has been a working longshoreman on the San Francisco docks, and an open and avowed Communist, for more than a quarter of a century. He was elected to the Executive Board of Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union for consecutive one-year terms in 1959, 1960, and 1961. On May 24, 1961, respondent was charged in a one-count indictment returned in the Northern District of California with “knowingly and wilfully serv[ing] as a member of an executive board of a labor organization . . . while a member of the Communist Party, in wilful violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 504.” It was neither charged nor proven that respondent at any time advocated or suggested illegal activity by the union, or proposed a political strike. 4 The jury found respondent guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded with instructions to set aside the conviction and dismiss the indictment, holding that 504 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. 334 F.2d 488. We granted certiorari, 379 U.S. 899 .

Respondent urges - in addition to the grounds relied on by the court below - that the statute under which he was convicted is a bill of attainder, and therefore violates Art. I, 9, of the Constitution. 5 We agree that 504 is void as a bill of attainder and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on that basis. We therefore find it unnecessary to consider the First and Fifth Amendment arguments. [381 U.S. 437, 441]

I have been chastised, scolded, laughed at, etc., because I took some umbrage about the Hugh and series words in another message. I see this type of “funny?” usage of alternate words as a form of sarcasm on many other forums. What bothers me can be demonstrated in the following. I am not the principal of the story, I just got it in an e-mail. But this is what is happening to our language. As I say I am not the I in the following nor the other person on the telephone.

I was recently in Miami and decided to learn the Spanish language, so I could understand the check-outs at McDonalds.

My next move is to learn Indian, so I can understand my doctors and the person that answers the phone when I have a warranty or computer related problem.

Yep, by the time I read this, I was able to understand the the subject line.

“TENJOOBERRYMUDS”...

In order to continue getting-by in America (our home land...or any English speaking country), we all need to learn the NEW English language! Practice by reading the following conversation until you are able to understand the term

“TENJOOBERRYMUDS”.

With a little patience, you’ll be able to fit right in and understand.

Now, here goes...

The following is a telephone exchange between maybe you as a hotel guest and room-service somewhere in the good old U S A today.......

Room Service : “Morrin. Roon sirbees.”

Guest : “Sorry, I thought I dialed room-service.”

Room Service: “ Rye . Roon sirbees...morrin! Joowish to oddor sunteen???”

Guest: “Uh..... Yes, I’d like to order bacon and eggs..”

Room Service: “Ow July den?”

Guest: “.....What??”

Room Service: “Ow July den?!?... Pryed, boyud, poochd?”

Guest: “Oh, the eggs! How do I like them? Sorry.. Scrambled, please.”

Room Service: “Ow July dee baykem? Crease?”

Guest: “Crisp will be fine.”

Room Service: “Hokay. An Sahn toes?”

Guest: “What?”

Room Service: “An toes. July Sahn toes?”

Guest: “I... Don’t think so.”

RoomService: “No? Judo wan sahn toes???”

Guest: “I feel really bad about this, but I don’t know what ‘judo wan sahn toes’ means.”

RoomService: “Toes! Toes!...Why Joo don Juan toes? Ow bow Anglish moppin we bodder?”

Guest: “Oh, English muffin!!! I’ve got it! You were saying ‘toast’... Fine...Yes, an English muffin will be fine.”

RoomService: “We bodder?”

Guest: “No, just put the bodder on the side.”

RoomService: “Wad?!?”

Guest: “I mean butter... Just put the butter on the side.”

RoomService: “Copy?”

Guest: “Excuse me?”

RoomService: “Copy...tea..meel?”

Guest: “Yes. Coffee, please... And that’s everything.”

RoomService: “One Minnie. Scramah egg, crease baykem, Anglish moppin, we bodder on sigh and copy .... Rye ??”

Guest: “Whatever you say..”

RoomService: “Tenjooberrymuds.”

Guest: “You’re welcome”

Remember I said “By the time you read through this YOU WILL UNDERSTAND

‘TENJOOBERRYMUDS’ “.......and

you do, don’t you!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.