> Can someone steelman this judges reasoning here for me? I just can’t see it. This seems like insanity to me in at at will state. I assume the judge believes

> Can someone steelman this judges reasoning here for me? I just can’t see it. This seems like insanity to me in at at will state. I assume the judge believes that legislature's intent when making Wisconsin an at-will state was that this state of affairs would never protect individual employees and always be used to protect the interests of employers. I imagine he's right about that, too, although it's a disgusting thought and the employees will eventually prevail.