In a stairwell in Van Hise Hall at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Jon Shelton displays messages from UW system employees urging UW's Board of Regents to authorize campuses to hold discussions with employees and their unions about salaries and working conditions. AFT's Autumn Pickett records Shelton as he discusses the campaign. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Universities of Wisconsin employees affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers are calling on the UW Board of Regents to formally authorize chancellors in the system to meet with employees and the union to discuss pay and working conditions.

On Friday, about two dozen AFT members and supporters gathered outside Van Hise hall on the UW-Madison campus, where they attempted to deliver a letter to Board of Regents President Amy Bogost. The letter urges Bogust to put on an upcoming regents meeting agenda employees’ request for a formal discussion process with university chancellors to address wages and working conditions.

The group was unable to get access to the floors where the Board of Regents offices are located in order to deliver the letter in person. They left copies of their letters with campus police officers, WORT radio reported. 

The UW system’s communications director did not respond Friday to a request for comment. 

UW employees lost all union rights under Act 10, the 2011 law that stripped most collective bargaining rights for public employees except for some law enforcement officers and firefighters. 

Most public employee groups retained the right to formal union representation with an annual certification process. But except for graduate student teaching assistants, for UW employees even the right to certify a union representative was wiped out, said Jon Shelton, incoming president of AFT-Wisconsin and a UW-Green Bay faculty member. 

“We have no avenue to talk about salaries and working conditions,” Shelton said.

AFT members are not seeking a formal collective bargaining relationship — something outlawed under Act 10 — but in its place, a formal structure of meetings where employees can air their concerns about their jobs, Shelton said. The AFT’s request includes a detailed proposal on what that structure would look like. 

For other public employee groups, the 2011 law limits collective bargaining to the subject of wages, and limits wage increases to the rate of inflation. To cover a wider range of workplace issues, some Wisconsin public employers and  unions have engaged in “meet and confer” relationships through which they discuss pay and working conditions more broadly. 

Act 10 permits meet and confer relationships so long as they are not collective bargaining, Shelton said. “Many tech college unions have it,” he said. “Many K-12 [school] unions have it.” 

Where meet and confer relationships are in place, “it improves everything,” Shelton said. “It improves outcomes for students. It improves the feelings of morale for workers, it improves workplace conditions and improves retention.” While not the same as collective bargaining it’s “like a conduit … for people, faculty and staff, to channel their voices.”

Shelton said chancellors at nine UW campuses have either ignored or rejected AFT groups’ requests to discuss meet and confer arrangements. 

The campaign to bring meet and confer relationships to some campuses has its roots in reductions in academic staff at UW Oshkosh and on other campuses a couple of years ago. 

“No one in our union is saying that nothing can ever be cut. We understand the reality of the situation,” Shelton said. “But chancellors are just sort of unilaterally making these decisions.” 

Without “a seat at the decision-making table, then our [campus] administrations are going to make decisions that are going to disadvantage our students,” he added.

“There’s really a feeling across the UW system that faculty, academic staff and university staff are all overworked, under-compensated and really need to have a voice,” Shelton said.

“Positions are not being filled very intentionally,” said Neil Kraus, a UW-River Falls professor and president of the AFT union on that campus, “and the UW system is basically implementing the Republicans’ higher ed agenda, which is to narrow the curricular offerings …  massively increase online education and buy as much tech as possible. Those things are contrary to the interests of our students and our communities.”

The return to the White House of President Donald Trump after the November 2024 election has also posed “pretty existential threats to public higher education,” Shelton said — such cuts to longstanding research grants that could slash university resources.

“If that happens, we all need to be working together to make sure that we’re preserving student learning outcomes and preserving our publicly important research,” Shelton said. “At a time like this, it’s never been more important that administration and faculty and staff, representing their unions, are on the same page and defending the public education system and making sure things are good for every worker.”

Nearly 200 AFT members from UW campuses across the state have written to individual regents, asking them to address their call for a meet-and-confer relationship, according to the union.

“The regents, up to this point, some of them haven’t been as willing to have conversations about this as we would like,” Shelton said.

The refusal by chancellors to engage the proposal has led him to believe there may be a broader policy directive “telling chancellors not to do this,” Shelton aid. Regents are ultimately responsible for running the UW system, he added, “and so we can most definitely ask them to pass a policy to basically obligate our chancellors to do it.” 

A liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court justice on Wednesday rejected a Republican request that she not hear a pending case that seeks to restore collective bargaining rights that tens of thousands of teachers, nurses and other state workers lost in 2011.

Her decision came at the same time the court, without comment, declined to hear the case as unions requested before it first goes through a lower appeals court.

Justice Janet Protasiewicz decided against recusing herself after Republican legislative leaders filed a motion saying she should not hear the case because she voiced opinions about the law during her 2023 campaign.

Her decision is a win for liberals who have fought for more than a decade to overturn the law known as Act 10, which effectively ended collective bargaining for most public unions.

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn withdrew from the case on Jan. 30. Hagedorn helped write the law when he was serving as then-Gov. Scott Walker’s chief legal counsel.

The court’s decision not to immediately hear the case means it is almost certain not to consider it until after the April 1 election. That election will determine whether liberals maintain their majority on the court. Even if the conservative wins, due to Hagedorn’s recusal, the court would be split 3-3 between liberal and conservative justices when considering the case.

Christina Brey, a spokesperson for the unions that brought the lawsuit, said they were disappointed in the delay but they remained confident.

Wisconsin’s anti-union law has been challenged for years

Seven unions representing teachers and other public workers in Wisconsin filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn the anti-union 2011 law, known as Act 10. The law had withstood numerous legal challenges before a Dane County circuit court judge in December found the bulk of it to be unconstitutional, setting up the appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The Act 10 law effectively ended collective bargaining for most public unions by allowing them to bargain solely over base wage increases no greater than inflation. It also disallowed the automatic withdrawal of union dues, required annual recertification votes for unions and forced public workers to pay more for health insurance and retirement benefits.

Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost in December ruled that the law violates equal protection guarantees in the Wisconsin Constitution by dividing public employees into “general” and “public safety” employees. Under the ruling, all public sector workers who lost their collective bargaining power would have it restored to what was in place before 2011.

The judge put the ruling on hold pending the appeal.

The union law divided Wisconsin and the country

The law’s introduction in 2011 spurred massive protests that stretched on for weeks. It made Wisconsin the center of a national fight over union rights, catapulted Walker onto the national stage, sparked an unsuccessful recall campaign and laid the groundwork for Walker’s failed 2016 presidential bid.

The law’s adoption led to a dramatic decrease in union membership across the state. The nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum said in a 2022 analysis that since 2000, Wisconsin had the largest decline in the proportion of its workforce that is unionized.

In 2015, the GOP-controlled Wisconsin Legislature approved a right-to-work law that limited the power of private-sector unions.

If the lawsuit is successful, all public sector workers who lost their collective bargaining power will have it restored. They would be treated the same as the police, firefighter and other public safety unions that remain exempt.

Divisions remain over the effectiveness of the law

Supporters of the law have said it gave local governments more control over workers and the powers they needed to cut costs. Repealing the law, which allowed schools and local governments to raise money through higher employee contributions for benefits, would bankrupt those entities, backers of Act 10 have argued.

Democratic opponents argue that the law has hurt schools and other government agencies by taking away the ability of employees to collectively bargain for their pay and working conditions.

Republicans wanted Protasiewicz not to hear the case

Protasiewicz is the court’s newest member and ran in 2023 as an opponent of the union law. Her victory gave liberals the majority on the court for the first time in 15 years. That majority is on the line again in the April 1 Supreme Court election to fill the seat of a retiring liberal justice.

Protasiewicz said during her campaign that she believes Act 10 is unconstitutional. She also told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that she would consider recusing herself from any case challenging the law. Protasiewicz participated in protests against it and signed the petition to recall Walker.

In her response to the Legislature’s request that she not hear the case, Protasiewicz said she could hear the case fairly.

“I am confident that I can, in fact and appearance, act in an impartial manner in this case,” she said.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Supreme Court justice rejects Republican call to step down in key union case is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice said Thursday he will not participate in a pending case that will determine whether tens of thousands of public sector workers regain collective bargaining rights that were taken away by a 2011 law.

Justice Brian Hagedorn drafted the law, known as Act 10, when he was chief legal counsel for then-Gov. Scott Walker. His decision to recuse himself from the case leaves the court with four liberal justices and two conservatives.

The Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this week asked that liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz not hear the case because before she joined the court she called the law unconstitutional, signed a petition to recall Walker during the fight over the law and marched on the Capitol in protest in 2011.

Hagedorn, in a brief two-page order, said the law commands that he not hear the case. Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday had called on him to step aside.

“The issues raised involve matters for which I provided legal counsel in both the initial crafting and later defense of Act 10, including in a case raising nearly identical claims under the federal constitution,” Hagedorn wrote.

Protasiewicz has not responded to the call that she step aside. Even if she did, the court would still have a 3-2 liberal majority.

She did not participate Thursday in an incremental ruling related to the case.

A Dane County circuit judge last month overturned the bulk of the law, saying it violates equal protection guarantees in the Wisconsin Constitution by dividing public employees into “general” and “public safety” employees. Under the ruling, all public sector workers who lost their collective bargaining power would have it restored to what was in place before 2011.

The judge put the ruling on hold pending the appeal. School worker unions that brought the lawsuit have asked the Supreme Court to take it directly, skipping the appeals court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to take the case.

Now, Hagedorn will not participate in that decision or any others related to the lawsuit.

Supporters of the law have said it provided local governments more control over workers and the powers they needed to cut costs. Repealing the law, which allowed schools and local governments to raise money through higher employee contributions for benefits, would bankrupt those entities, backers of Act 10 have argued.

Democratic opponents argue that the law has hurt schools and other government agencies by taking away the ability of employees to collectively bargain for their pay and working conditions.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn steps aside in pivotal union rights case is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature on Tuesday asked that a liberal state Supreme Court justice step aside in a pending case that seeks to overturn a 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most state workers.

If Justice Janet Protasiewicz agrees not to hear the case, the court would be deadlocked 3-3 between liberals and conservatives. The lawsuit has massive implications for union rights in the battleground state.

A Dane County Circuit Court judge last month overturned the bulk of the law, saying it violates equal protection guarantees in the Wisconsin Constitution by dividing public employees into “general” and “public safety” employees. Under the ruling, all public sector workers who lost their collective bargaining power would have it restored to what was in place before 2011.

The judge put the ruling on hold pending the appeal. School workers unions that brought the lawsuit have asked the Supreme Court to take it directly, skipping the appeals court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, controlled 4-3 by liberals, has not yet decided whether to take the case.

Republicans enacted the law in the face of massive protests 14 years ago that made Wisconsin the center of the national fight over union rights. The debate also catapulted then-Gov. Scott Walker onto the national stage, sparked an unsuccessful recall campaign and laid the groundwork for his failed 2016 presidential bid. The law’s adoption led to a dramatic decrease in union membership across the state.

Protasiewicz is the court’s newest member and ran in 2023 as an opponent of the union law, known as Act 10. Her victory gave liberals the majority on the court for the first time in 15 years. That majority is on the line again in the April 1 Supreme Court election to fill the seat of a retiring liberal justice.

Protasiewicz said during the campaign that she believes Act 10 is unconstitutional. She also told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that she would consider recusing herself from any case challenging the law. Protasiewicz participated in protests against it and signed the petition to recall Walker.

The Legislature’s top Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, said Tuesday that it would be “right and ethical” for her to step aside. The motion seeking her recusal references comments she made during the campaign about coming from a union background, her belief that the law was unconstitutional and her opposition to Walker.

“Recusal is warranted because of the appearance that she has prejudged the merits of this case,” Republicans argued in the motion.

Protasiewicz declined to comment when asked via email if she would recuse herself. The decision on whether to do so is entirely hers.

Jacob Karabell, attorney for the unions seeking to overturn the law, called the recusal request “meritless” and an attempt to delay a final ruling.

Protasiewicz is not the only justice on the court with a potential conflict.

Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn was Walker’s chief legal counsel and had a role in drafting Act 10. During his successful run for the court in 2019, Hagedorn would not promise to recuse himself if a case challenging Act 10 came before the court.

No motion has been filed with the court asking Hagedorn to step aside, but Democratic legislative leaders on Tuesday said he should. Hagedorn did not respond to an email seeking comment.

If both Protasiewicz and Hagedorn recused themselves, liberals would have a 3-2 advantage.

Supporters of the law have said it provided local governments more control over workers and the powers they needed to cut costs. Repealing the law, which allowed schools and local governments to raise money through higher employee contributions for benefits, would bankrupt those entities, backers of Act 10 have argued.

Democratic opponents argue that the law has hurt schools and other government agencies by taking away the ability of employees to collectively bargain for their pay and working conditions.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Republicans ask Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz to step aside in union case is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Act 10, which effectively ended collective bargaining for most Wisconsin public employee unions, has saved taxpayers billions of dollars.

The 2011 law could be reviewed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court because of a recent judge’s ruling.

The law achieved savings mainly by shifting costs for pension and health benefits for public employees to the employees.

The nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum found in 2020 that state and local governments saved $5 billion from 2011 to 2017 in pension costs alone.

PolitiFact Wisconsin reported in 2014 that public employers saved over $3 billion on pensions and health insurance.

Getting rid of Act 10’s pension, health insurance and salary limits would raise annual school district costs $1.6 billion and local government costs $480 million, the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty estimated in September.

However, the recent court ruling doesn’t invalidate Act 10’s higher employee contribution requirements, said attorney Jeffrey Mandell, who represents unions in the pending case.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Legislative Council: 2011 Wisconsin Act 10
• Dane County Circuit Court: Decision and order in Case No. 2023CV3152
• Wisconsin Policy Forum: Bridging the Pension Gap
• PolitiFact Wisconsin: Scott Walker says union reform law that brought massive protests has saved taxpayers $3 billion
• Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty: Back to the Past: The Fiscal Threat of Reversing Act 10 for Local Governments
• Wisconsin Watch: Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford try to overturn Act 10?
• Jeffrey Mandell: Email 12/11/24

Has Wisconsin’s Act 10 union law saved taxpayers billions of dollars? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford was among attorneys who sued seeking to overturn Act 10, a 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most Wisconsin public employee unions.

The law spurred mass protests for weeks in Madison.

At the time, Crawford said the law violated Wisconsin’s Constitution and was “aimed at crippling public employee unions.”

In 2014, the state Supreme Court upheld Act 10, calling collective bargaining “a creation of legislative grace and not constitutional obligation.”  

Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, Crawford’s conservative challenger in the April 1, 2025, election, made the claim about Crawford Dec. 1, 2024. Crawford is a Dane County judge.

On Dec. 2, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost struck down Act 10 in a lawsuit in which Crawford is not listed as an attorney. 

An appeal notice was filed the same day. Appeals are likely to reach the Supreme Court, which has a 4-3 liberal majority.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Circuit Court Access: Dane County Case Number 2011CV003774 Madison Teachers Inc et al vs. Scott Walker et al
• Associated Press: Protesters leave Wis. Capitol on judge’s orders
• PBS Wisconsin: Crawford, Prof. Esenberg on Collective Bargaining Lawsuit
• Wisconsin Supreme Court: Case 2012AP2067
• Associated Press: Wisconsin unions score win as Dane County judge strikes down Act 10
• Wisconsin Circuit Court Access: Dane County Case Number 2023CV003152 Abbotsford Education Association et al vs. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission et al

Did Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford try to overturn Act 10? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Wisconsin public worker and teachers unions scored a major legal victory Monday with a ruling that restores collective bargaining rights they lost under a 2011 state law that sparked weeks of protests and made the state the center of the national battle over union rights.

That law, known as Act 10, effectively ended the ability of most public employees to bargain for wage increases and other issues, and forced them to pay more for health insurance and retirement benefits.

Under the ruling by Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost, all public sector workers who lost their collective bargaining power would have it restored to what was in place prior to 2011. They would be treated the same as the police, firefighter and other public safety unions that were exempted under the law.

Republicans vowed to immediately appeal the ruling, which ultimately is likely to go before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That only amplifies the importance of the April election that will determine whether the court remains controlled 4-3 by liberal justices.

Former Gov. Scott Walker, who proposed the law that catapulted him onto the national political stage, decried the ruling in a post on the social media platform X as “brazen political activism.” He said it makes the state Supreme Court election “that much more important.”

Supporters of the law have said it provided local governments more control over workers and the powers they needed to cut costs. Repealing the law, which allowed schools and local governments to raise money through higher employee contributions for benefits, would bankrupt those entities, backers of Act 10 have argued.

Democratic opponents argue that the law has hurt schools and other government agencies by taking away the ability of employees to collectively bargain for their pay and working conditions.

The law was proposed by Walker and enacted by the Republican-controlled Legislature in spite of massive protests that went on for weeks and drew as many as 100,000 people to the Capitol. The law has withstood numerous legal challenges over the years, but this was the first brought since the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped to liberal control in 2023.

The seven unions and three union leaders that brought the lawsuit argued that the law should be struck down because it creates unconstitutional exemptions for firefighters and other public safety workers. Attorneys for the Legislature and state agencies countered that the exemptions are legal, have already been upheld by other courts, and that the case should be dismissed.

But Frost sided with the unions in July, saying the law violates equal protection guarantees in the Wisconsin Constitution by dividing public employees into “general” and “public safety” employees. He ruled that general employee unions, like those representing teachers, can not be treated differently from public safety unions that were exempt from the law.

His ruling Monday delineated the dozens of specific provisions in the law that must be struck.

Wisconsin Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said he looked forward to appealing the ruling.

“This lawsuit came more than a decade after Act 10 became law and after many courts rejected the same meritless legal challenges,” Vos said in a statement.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business lobbying organization, also decried the ruling. WMC President Kurt Bauer called Act 10 “a critical tool for policymakers and elected officials to balance budgets and find taxpayer savings.”

The Legislature said in court filings that arguments made in the current case were rejected in 2014 by the state Supreme Court. The only change since that ruling is the makeup of Wisconsin Supreme Court, attorneys for the Legislature argued.

The Act 10 law effectively ended collective bargaining for most public unions by allowing them to bargain solely over base wage increases no greater than inflation. It also disallowed the automatic withdrawal of union dues, required annual recertification votes for unions, and forced public workers to pay more for health insurance and retirement benefits.

The law was the signature legislative achievement of Walker, who was targeted for a recall election he won. Walker used his fights with unions to mount an unsuccessful presidential run in 2016.

Frost, the judge who issued Monday’s ruling, appeared to have signed the petition to recall Walker from office. None of the attorneys sought his removal from the case and he did not step down. Frost was appointed to the bench by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who signed the Walker recall petition.

The law has also led to a dramatic decrease in union membership across the state. The nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum said in a 2022 analysis that since 2000, Wisconsin had the largest decline in the proportion of its workforce that is unionized.

In 2015, the GOP-controlled Wisconsin Legislature approved a right-to-work law that limited the power of private-sector unions.

Public sector unions that brought the lawsuit are the Abbotsford Education Association; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Locals 47 and 1215; the Beaver Dam Education Association; SEIU Wisconsin; the Teaching Assistants’ Association Local 3220 and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 695.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletter to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin unions score win as Dane County judge strikes down Act 10 is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.