Since mid-February, protests have consumed the grounds of the Wisconsin state capitol building. Those opposing freshman governor Scott Walker’s anti-union bill have swarmed the rotunda, lawns, and even hallways surrounding the meeting rooms and offices where this legislation has developed.

Unfortunately for the protesters, the bill was passed yesterday evening in a “lightning session” of the state Senate. Democrats were out of the state, attempting to prevent passage of the bill, so only pro-Walker Republicans were present for the vote. It passed 18-1, with one moderate, pro-compromise Republican voting against it.

The bill denies the public workers’ union–and especially teachers, in Wisconsin the right to collectively bargain. Collective bargaining is basically negotiation between an employer and a trade union. The bill does more than just undercut collective bargaining, however. On top of reducing the unions ability to bargain for greater benefits, the bill is also designed to deprive the unions of collecting dues from its members, therefore reducing its ability to lobby and organize its members, and it forces the unions members to vote the union back into existence every year.

As Ezra Klein of the Washington Post put it, “Wisconsin’s unions can’t deliver value to their members, they’re deprived of the resources to change the rules so they can start delivering value to their members again, and because of that, their members eventually give in to employer pressure and shut the union down in one of the annual certification elections.”

One may wonder Walker’s motivation behind ramming this bill through the state legislature despite overwhelming public denunciation. Walker claims that the stripping of most state employees rights to collective bargaining is designed to reduce the state deficit by roughly $137 million, thereby alleviating its debt.

“Governor Walker claims it’s important to destroy unions in order to balance the budget, but that’s simply false. The unions had already agreed to Walker’s financial demands, but he wanted to go further,” said HHS history teacher Mark Tueting. “After the ‘Citizens United’ court case, which ruled that you can’t limit corporate campaign contributions, of the major campaign contributors, the vast majority donate to the Republicans. Only two of the top ten major contributors contribute to the Democratic party, and one of those is the public employees union.”

The unions claim they are not really to blame for the deficit, and eradicating collective bargaining really won’t do a whole lot fiscally. After coming into office, Walker and his fellow Republicans in the state legislature passed a series of tax breaks that further inflated the deficit. All things considered, Democrats believe Walker pushed this bill through for political reasons. He knew that by crippling the public workers’ union he could effectively get rid of one of the few major contributors to the Democratic party, thereby helping his parties chances in future elections.

“What’s being done in Wisconsin has been done everywhere to a smaller extent. I make less than I did in 2008, and the state claims the ‘adjustments’ to the pay scale were not cuts, because they raised the benefits for teachers,” Tueting said. Tueting lives and works in Virginia as a U.S. and World History teacher, but spent part of his life in Wisconsin, where his family is from. He is against the anti-union bill.

The way Governor Walker passed the bill is especially infuriating to many Democrats. In order to vote on a fiscal bill, which Walker initially claimed the anti-union bill was, there have to be a certain number of senators present for a quorum, or gathering of a certain amount of people to debate the merits of a bill. In order to prevent the discussion, and therefore the eventual passage, of the bill, 14 Democratic senators left the state. In order to get around the quorum, Walker stripped the bill of all fiscal provisions, essentially admitting the bill was a political one. He then passed the bill while all the Democrats were out of the state.

“[The passing] was in accordance with the way things work,” Tueting said. “I don’t think it was right. It was cheap and slimy. But sometimes we need to do things that are cheap and slimy in order to get a bill passed. Just look at Obama’s bill. He had to include 5,000 little provisions in it in order to pass it through the Senate.”

Government teacher Kris Vass disagrees with the bill on Constitutional grounds.

“I feel like we should have the right to collectively bargain based on the First Amendment. Unions are protected by the freedom of assembly, and bargaining is protected by the freedom of petition,” Vass said.

While Vass believes the protesters, many of whom were teachers, had the right and obligation to protest the bill, others, like Tueting, think it was the wrong move.

“If the teachers leave, the students get screwed. Only a few students can really succeed without any guidance from teachers,” Tueting said.

However, both Tueting and Vass agree that the Democrats made a poor decision by leaving the state.

“I don’t agree with the Democrats leaving. It was a political stunt designed to prevent a vote, and that’s just wrong,” Vass said.

Now that the bill is almost law, Tueting is turning an eye towards the future. And his vision is not very optimistic.

“I don’t really see a future in education,” Tueting said. “Teachers don’t make a lot of money as it is. And it’s only going to get worse, because bills like this and cable stations like Fox News are now demonizing teachers, saying they’re lazy and live extravagant lifestyles, in an attempt to hurt Democrats. It’s going to effect the polls, and teachers salaries are going to suffer, pushing people away from the profession.”

The Wisconsin Democrats can protest all they want, but what is done is done. The bill will soon be signed into law  by Governor Walker, and the public workers’ union will probably suffer. But, according to Vass, there is hope yet for the Democrats.

“If you want to change something, if you want to repeal the bill, elect someone into office next term who agrees with you.”