On Air Now

Upcoming Shows

Program Schedule »

Listen

Listen Live Now » 1330 AM Sheboygan, WI

Weather

Current Conditions(Sheboygan,WI 53081)

More Weather »
57° Feels Like: 57°
Wind: SW 0 mph Past 24 hrs - Precip: 0”
Current Radar for Zip

Tonight

Clear 49°

Tomorrow

Sunny 71°

Wed Night

Partly Cloudy 50°

Alerts

Collective bargaining law published, lawsuit filed

by

MADISON, WI (WTAQ) - Attorneys for the state said a lawsuit by employee unions against the new limits on collective bargaining is, “baseless” and “imagined.”

The government asked Federal Judge William Conley of Madison Tuesday to throw out the unions’ lawsuit, which seeks to drop the bargaining limits.

Secretary of State Doug La Follette had the law published Tuesday, and it’s set to take effect Wednesday.

The unions said the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment right to freely associate. But in replying to the lawsuit Tuesday, the state called the claim “imagined.” It said the unions made a “baseless” claim by saying the measure unconstitutionally discriminates against certain classes of public employees.

The bargaining limits do not apply to fire and police unions. They also don’t apply emergency response teams either, after Governor Scott Walker approved that exemption when he signed the new state budget on Sunday.

Lawyers from Michael Best and Friedrich filed the state’s response. They said the unions’ lawsuit was flawed, because it mentions the “right” to collectively bargain when the groups should legally call it a “privilege.”

Also, the state said the unions have no grounds for relief, because their potential harm is, “greatly outweighed by the harm to the state, municipalities, and the people of Wisconsin.”

The state denied the unions’ claim that the new law is political payback, since the Milwaukee police and fire unions supported Governor Scott Walker in last year’s election.

The state’s response said it was “absurd” that the law was meant to punish unions that supported Walker’s opponent Tom Barrett. No date has been set for arguments in the case.

Comments