Federal Court Upholds Act 10

Opponents of Act 10 - the budget repair bill - were dealt a blow Wednesday when U.S. District Court Judge William Conley determined the law does not create separate classes of employees.

The lawsuit, brought by two different union groups, contends that Act 10 violates public employees' First Amendment rights and treats represented employees different than unrepresented employees. 

But Conley disagreed, writing in his decision, "The implicit assumption ... that the First Amendment gives employees an unfettered right to bargain collectively -- is, at best, questionable."

More, he cautioned that employees exercising their constitutional rights does not then compel the employer to listen.

In its argument to the court, the Walker Administration pointed out that, "When a public employer negotiates with its employees on an individual basis, it can easily manage the overall budget impact of wage increases by offsetting higher wage increases for well-performing employees with lower wage increases for other employees."

Conley agreed, writing that the state successfully argued that there are reasons for treating employees differently, "The court is satisfied that differential treatment of represented employees as compared to unrepresented employees with respect to bargaining over wages and conditions of employment passes rational basis review."

Attorney Kate Lounsbury represents the union, and she told The Wisconsin State Journal she is reviewing the decision with her clients but, obviously, thinks Conley got it wrong.

A statement from Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen applauded the decision because Conley followed the law.

Another challenge to Act 10 is pending before the state Supreme Court after a Dane County judge last year found parts of the law unconstitutional, but there is not a timeline for when a decision is expected.