Tweet
As Swopa pointed out, a US district court judge overturned two provisions of Act 10, Scott Walker’s anti-union law in Wisconsin. The judge, Obama appointee William M. Conley, did not touch the provision most associated with the law, which removes all collective bargaining rights except circumscribed increases in pay for most public employees. However, Conley did strike down the measure that forced unions to annually re-certify with an “absolute” majority of all workers, and the “automatic dues” ban, which stopped union dues from being taken out of worker paychecks. Conley said in his opinion that the exemption for public safety workers from the rules (remember that these unions mostly supported Walker’s election back in 2010) made it so that the state was picking and choosing among workers to punish, violating equal protection laws.
This being a federal lawsuit, it sidesteps the brick wall that is the Wisconsin Supreme Court. However, the Walker Administration can appeal the ruling, first to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and then, if necessary, to the Supreme Court. So there are plenty of opportunities for this to get overturned. And anyway, the main thrust of the law, stripping collective bargaining rights, stays intact. This is the provision that, over time, should be expected to wear down public employee unions in Wisconsin and ultimately end them. If they don’t have to re-certify annually, that helps slow that process; but over time, workers will wonder about the union’s purpose if they cannot collectively bargain for their rights.
In the short term, however, this returns to the fore the primary motivating factor for the Wisconsin recalls, which were just triggered yesterday. The primary elections will be on May 8, with the general election on June 5. So this ruling will be well on the minds of voters and could play a role in the elections.
We learned quite a bit more about those elections yesterday. First, the four state Senate races will feature “fake” primary opponents for the Democratic challengers. Basically, recalls work like regular elections in Wisconsin, only if there aren’t multiple candidates in either party, the primary election is waived and we go immediately to the general election. Democrats lined up their challengers a long time ago, so there weren’t going to be primaries on their side, which meant the recall general elections wouldn’t line up with the general election for Scott Walker’s recall (there will be a contested Democratic primary for Governor). So Republicans will enter “fake” opponents to keep the timing, so that all the elections happen with a primary on May 8 and a general election on June 5. This also gives the targeted Republican state senators, all of whom voted for the anti-union law, more time to raise money before the election. One of those four senators, Pam Galloway, actually resigned her seat in the state Senate, so a replacement, State Rep. Jerry Petrowski, will run. Petrowski also voted for Walker’s anti-union law.
As for that gubernatorial primary, another high-profile candidate jumped into the race:
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who lost to Scott Walker in Wisconsin’s 2010 gubernatorial race by 125,000 votes, wants another shot at governor.
On Friday afternoon, Barrett announced he would seek the Democratic nomination in Wisconsin’s recall race. Barrett faces former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, a union favorite; state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout; and Secretary of State Doug LaFollette. Barrett said in a statement that Gov. Walker has “divided our state like never before and presided over a Wisconsin economy that last year lost more jobs than any state in the country.”
He continued: “He ‘dropped the bomb,’ as he said, and ended 50 years of labor peace and worker protections—something he never said he’d do during the 2010 campaign. I know, because I was there. As governor, I will fight to restore collective bargaining rights, because it’s the right thing to do, and it’s necessary to heal Wisconsin.”
That last bit is important. Unions have been upset with Barrett for his handling of the city budget and public school system, using Walker’s anti-union law to reduce union pensions in Milwaukee. This put him at odds with his own city attorney and really incensed public employee unions. Barrett contends he was merely following the law in the state.
Kathleen Falk has lined up union support from the Wisconsin Education Association Council and the local chapter of AFSCME. It seems inconceivable that an election predicated on an assault on unions would not end up with the union-backed challenger winning the primary. But Barrett has higher name recognition from the 2010 race and has a lead in the high single digits in most primary polling. In the general election, Barrett and Falk run neck-and-neck with Walker. No doubt Barrett will say he will overturn the collective bargaining provisions as Governor, as will Falk. But this sets up a pretty divisive primary that could damage the ultimate victor in the general election.
Oddly enough, Barrett has an election next week, for Mayor of Milwaukee. He’s widely expected to win. His announcement of his gubernatorial candidacy is here.
11 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I don’t agree with what Walker did, or maybe how he did it. I doubt he made it clear to the people of Wisconsin what his plans were when he ran for office — or made sure that the people heard him if he did say it. But I’m also worried that unchecked union power will lead to a lot of Californias, ie., bankrupt states that cannot function properly. That includes big layoffs, dysfunctional city governments, and so on. The way unions work their members only care about getting for themselves: they don’t care if taxpayers can afford their lavish benefits or not. Private sector unions are one thing, but there’s an argument to be made that public sector unions, state and local, need to be checked.
Look a bit closer, and you might see Wisconsin in a race to the bottom since this law passed.
There is nothing neutral or modest about it, as in reform. Rather it’s a juggernaut which Walker was wise enough not to campaign upon in any detail; otherwise, he never would have been elected. Had the public understood what was afoot, it wouldn’t have been just gov’t employees voting against him either.
Yesterday’s overturning of the mandatory annual recertification makes especially good sense. It should be up to the membership to challenge the union leadership if they have gripes, rather than the state telling the membership to proactively recertify every year or else their union simply evaporates. Still, yesterday’s decision was aimed at equal treatment issues rather than union certification policy, itself.
Yesterday was good, but there’s a long way further to go with this.
Why do you think Unions bankrupted California?
It was Prop 13 (the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation). The State has to run its budget in real time values, but collects it’s revenues based upon 1975 values. Perhaps you believe that union employees ought to earn 1975 wages? As I remember $4.40/hr.
“Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
The proposition decreased property taxes by assessing property values at their 1975 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for (a) change in ownership or (b) completion of new construction.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29
I looked it up. Federal minimum wage in 1975 was $2.10/hr.
Book Salon up with Tim Weiner’s Enemies: A History of the FBI hosted by Mike German
That’s a good point.
But I think the perfect storm out there would also include a perverse I&R process — provides direct ballot access to the state’s constitution as well as to general legislation, and funding can be directed by that method (and, I believe, prohibited as well). Add in the supermajority requirement to get major stuff done in the legislature, and no wonder it’s all a mess.
Yet, as you indicate, unions should not be blamed for all that. Maybe not for any of it.
Can someone explain to me how with the complexities of campaign regulations, how it is possible and legal for Republicans to openly distort and sabotage the Dem primary with fake candidates?
Yet 3rd parties aren’t even in the equation?
Bennet is being pushed by Rahm Emmanuel who showed up to campaign for him and was protested by the unions.
They were Egypted.
Straw candidates aren’t a new phenomenon. Mass has had them from time to time, most recently Tim Cahill had a hand in helping Deval Patrick defeat Charlie Baker. The outcome was welcome though the method was a tad ripe.
Both parties do this. Sometimes it’s within a party, sometimes across the lines. It’s up to the public to notice and object to the process if they don’t like it. A remedy might be automatic runoffs to be held between the top two vote getters.
This is a somewhat different situation. The straw candidates are there specifically to disrupt the timing of the elections. In the absence of multiple candidates in each party’s primary, the general election would take place more immediately. So it’s a particularly bizarre circumstance unique to Wisconsin recalls.
Noted here. Thank you, DD!