It seems more like you’re just kind of gloating. “I said Proposition 10 was constitutional and the court found it constitutional, so suck it, people who disagree with me. I was right and you were wrong.”
I have no desire - nor interest, frankly - to see or not see a debate proposition here.
Further, I’d take your defensiveness in the second paragraph - a subtle attack upon my moderation - to indicate your own acknowledgement that your OP had little in the way of debate intended and was, instead, merely an attempt to get a rise out of other posters. That can’t be the case, of course, as I hold you in too high a regard to believe that you would behave in such a way.
In short, as with so many others, your desire to score political points has led you to project a disagreement or opposition to those who don’t agree with you in all things. Instead, I merely take issue with your behavior and am willing to call you on it. If that is sufficient to make you defensive or feel like you must project an adversarial relationship upon such, I encourage you to examine the motivations driving you to feel that way. It is my believe that you’ll be better for it.
Introspection is, of course, nearly always of value, so I absolutely welcome and appreciate your kind invitation.
Having thus embarked anew on a voyage of self discovery, I would continue to say: I still contend that Wisconsin’s Act 10 is constitutional, contrary to the claims advanced by the various unions challenging it’s constitutionality.
And I offer for debate that proposition. I would suggest that if no one today still feels that Act 10 is unconstitutional, this proposition has now become unremarkable and this thread can sink into decline by the simple lack of response to the debate proposition.
And of course if anyone still feels, or wonders, if Act 10’s constitutionality is questionable, this is an excellent time to advance any arguments in support of that claim.
Apparently I had a problem with the bill because it exempted the unions which supported Walker.
That’s true.
But as it happened, those were the public safety unions, and regardless of whether or not they supported Walker, drawing a distinction between first responder-type jobs and other civil service jobs is a distinction that can certainly be rationally defended.
If you mean “would survive rational basis review”, I agree. If you are using the term rationally in its lay sense, I fail to see any relevant distinction.
Yes – since this law doesn’t have a disparate impact on protected classes, rational basis review would be the correct standard to assess its Equal Protection impact.
Right?
Is there some other theory of infirm constitutionality in play that would use another standard?
Just to check Bricker, you are only claiming that the bill is constitutionally sound. Not that any future attempt to overturn it would be constitutionally unsound, correct? There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state/local government from collective bargaining with unions.
Also, why were public safety workers singled out as a special class. Besides the fact that Walker and Republicans don’t have the sack to take on police and fire unions? Yes their jobs are different, and their contracts should reflect that, but give me one good reason why they are not covered by the Wisconsin law like other public workers.
No. I didn’t say I had a constitutional problem with it. I am merely pointing out that it’s clearly a quid pro quo.
Because their jobs are different and their contracts should reflect that.
Regards,
Shodan
Their contracts do. Why does the law have to be different for them?
Right, I said that. But that doesn’t explain why they get a special privilege in negotiating those contracts that other public workers do not have.
Yes, it does explain it. Police and firefighters are emergency, first-responders, as Bricker points out. Teachers and other public employees are not. So the different circumstances of their respective jobs are reflected in their contracts. This has nothing to do with whether or not they support the governor - their contracts had similar clauses when a Democrat was governor.
Regards,
Shodan
Of course. There’s no constitutional imperative in play here on either side; the initiative is neither prohibited or mandated by the constitution.
First responders are in a special class of jobs.
But even before Walker, public safety unions’ contracts had different collective bargaining provisions than other public employees. Were those provisions, negotiated under Democratic auspices, also quid pro quo?
What were those differences?
OK, but why are first responders singled out for protection against this law? Because they are brave and true, and wear shiny badges? If you believe that the Wisconsin law is a good thing, why shouldn’t it apply to first responders? Any public job could be in a special class - teachers don’t work the same number of days as most public workers, so why aren’t they protected?
Are you telling me that Walker could not have made the law apply to first responders? Are first responders collective bargaining rights constitutionally protected? Or that, as usual, the republicans chose to protect a certain group while taking away the rights of the masses?
And to clarify, again, I appreciate and understand that first responders contracts need to be different from most other public workers. That does not answer the question as to why they get a special privilege in how those contracts are negotiated.
Which part of “because they’re first responders” is not clear?
Regards,
Shodan
Wis. Laws 1971, ch. 247, creating Wis. STAT. § 111.77, providing a special arbitration procedure only for police and firefighters, with results binding against the municipality, is one example.