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.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 3 minutes

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.

Around Madison, supporters of UW Health nurses seeking union representation have posted yard signs expressing their position. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

A campaign for union representation by nurses working for UW Health reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court Wednesday with an argument over whether state law grants them collective bargaining rights or has definitively taken those rights away.

Tamara Packard, the lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), argued that the employees of UW Hospital and Clinics Authority — the corporation that operates as UW Health — have union rights under the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act.

“The language that’s in the statute now incorporates all employers except those that are excluded,” Packard said — and the hospital system authority is not one of those.

An attorney for the hospital authority asserted that the UW Health employees’ union rights were explicitly removed as part of the 2011 law known as Act 10, however.

Act 10, enacted early in Scott Walker’s first term as governor, stripped public employees — except for most police and firefighters — of all but the most rudimentary union rights.

But it also made changes related to the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Authority — a corporate entity that was spun off in 1996 from the University of Wisconsin under 1995 Act 27. The law created a public authority with connections to the state but getting no direct state funding.

Act 27 specified that the hospital system authority was an employer under the Peace Act and included a guarantee of union rights for the hospital system’s employees, who were represented at the time. But Act 10 undid both of those provisions, said James Goldschmidt, of Quarles & Brady, representing UW Health.

The law repealed legal language “expressly stating that the authority is a covered employer,” Goldschmidt said, along with  language “expressly obligating the authority to engage in collective bargaining.” And it repealed all references to the hospital authority in the Peace Act, along with all references to the Peace Act in the law creating the authority.

“Repeal, repeal, repeal,” Goldschmidt said. “You cannot read this act [Act 10] that the Legislature enacted without seeing those changes. Those are part and parcel of the law itself.”

Widespread assumption

For 11 years after Act 10’s passage, virtually everyone involved — union and hospital officials alike — assumed that the law barred collective bargaining for UW Health employees. When nurses employed by the hospital system announced in December 2019 that they wanted to be represented again by SEIU, they framed their demand as a request for voluntary engagement with hospital system management to discuss wages and working conditions.

In 2021, that changed, starting with a legal opinion — also written by Packard, an attorney for the Madison law firm of Pines Bach — that Act 10 didn’t bar collective bargaining at UW Health. A subsequent opinion by state Attorney General Josh Kaul said that UW Health might fall under the Peace Act, but sidestepped a firm declaration on that point.

In September 2022, as nurses demanding union recognition were on the verge of a three-day strike, SEIU and UW Health officials reached an agreement brokered by Gov. Tony Evers that included a joint petition to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC).

In the petition, the union argued that the hospital should be considered an employer under the Peace Act, while UW Health argued that Act 10 barred collective bargaining at the hospital system. WERC sided with UW Health, and Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost subsequently affirmed the employment commission’s conclusion.

That was the ruling before the Supreme Court Wednesday.

Justice Brian Hagedorn noted — as UW Health’s lawyers did in their brief on the case — that in a federal court challenge to Act 10 more than a decade ago, SEIU had itself stated the union lost bargaining rights at UW Health.

Packard acknowledged as much, but said the union’s position now was “based on, largely, the law that has developed in the last 13 years.”

Defining an ‘employer’

The argument centered on wording in the Employment Peace Act defining an employer, and whether Act 10’s provisions applying to the UW Hospital and Clinics Authority clearly excluded the hospital system from that definition.

Packard said that the Peace Act defines a “person” in the corporate sense as an “employer” with workers who have a right to collective bargaining.

The Court has previously affirmed that UW Hospital and Clinics Authority is a “person” in another legal context. For that reason, Packard said, “the plain language” of the law requires treating the hospital authority as an employer under the Peace Act.

Act 10 repealed language in Act 27 explicitly declaring that the hospital system is a Peace Act employer. But that didn’t change how the act defines an employer, she said.

The Legislature explicitly excluded public employees and unions from the Peace Act’s definition of an employer. “The Legislature . . . if it meant to, could have included the hospital and clinics authority in that list of exceptions, and it did not,” Packard said.

Goldschmidt countered that the Peace Act’s definition of person “does not include a special entity, like the [hospital and clinics] authority, which is a legislatively created public body.”

When Act 27 was passed, the Legislature defined the new hospital and clinics authority as an employer subject to the Peace Act because “it was neither fish nor fowl — it was neither fully public nor fully private,” Goldschmidt said. Act 10 took away the Peace Act’s coverage, he reiterated.

Justice Rebecca Dallet questioned treating the hospital authority as a distinctly different entity, however.

“It’s a private corporation,” Dallet said, and has been treated as one in unrelated court decisions. When the Legislature passed Act 10, she said, “regardless of what they were repealing . . . the words on the page still say ‘employer’ and that a corporation is an employer.”

Packard argued that the language in the Peace Act is unambiguous, making no exception for UW Health as an employer. She called that a sufficient reason to declare the act covers the hospital and clinics authority without delving into the history of the law.

Two of the Court’s three-member conservative wing took exception to that argument.

Statutory history “is part of the way we make sense of the text,” said Hagedorn. “It seems that your argument is entirely premised on sort of a myopic focus on text and ignoring the statutory history context.”

Justice Rebecca Bradley agreed. “Act 27 was quite explicit in including the [hospital] authority in the definition of employer,” she told Packard. “Act 10 repealed that language. You can’t win unless you ask us to disregard that statutory history. That’s enacted law.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn questions an attorney during oral arguments in January 2025. (Screenshot/WisEye)

A Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who helped write Act 10 recused himself Thursday as the high court signaled it was preparing to take up a legal challenge to the 2011 law limiting public employees’ collective bargaining rights.

After a Dane County judge struck down Act 10 in December, the plaintiffs — a teachers union — filed a motion with the state Supreme Court to bypass the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and take up the case directly. 

On Thursday, the Court issued an order related to that motion, granting a request from Republican leaders of the state Legislature to intervene and file a response to the bypass request. The Court set a Feb. 5 deadline for the response. 

Along with Thursday’s order, Justice Brian Hagedorn issued an order recusing himself from taking part in the case. Hagedorn previously served as legal counsel to Republican Gov. Scott Walker and helped draft the bill that became Act 10, then defended it against a federal court challenge. 

In December, a Dane County judge ruled that parts of the law are unconstitutional because it treats similar types of state employees differently. The law retained collective bargaining rights for police officers, but excluded the state Capitol Police officers, conservation wardens and correctional officers. 

“Act 10 as written by the Legislature specifically and narrowly defines ‘public safety employee,’” Judge Jacob Frost wrote. “It is that definition which is unconstitutional.”

In his recusal order Thursday, Hagedorn acknowledged his role in shaping and defending the law. 

“Members of the judiciary take a solemn oath to be independent and impartial,” Hagedorn wrote. “Our duty is to call it straight in every case, with neither partiality nor prejudice toward anyone. The law must guide our decisions — not politics, tribalism, or personal policy views.” 

“After reviewing the filings and the various ethical rules I am sworn to uphold, I have concluded that the law requires me to recuse from this case,” he continued. “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 also noted that many of the legal arguments in the current challenge are similar to those made in the 2011 federal case. 

Justice Janet Protasiewicz, who had previously said she may recuse herself from an Act 10 case because she participated in protests against the legislation as it was pending, did not participate in the decision to accept the case, but she did not release an order saying she’d recuse herself. 

Both Hagedorn and Protasiewicz had faced calls for recusal in the case. Protasiewicz had also faced threats of impeachment from Republican legislators in a previous case about the state’s legislative maps. 

In his order, Hagedorn warned about the politicization of the recusal process.

“In my view, recusal on this court should be rare — done only when the law requires it,” he wrote. “Going beyond that can create problems. We have seen how recusal can be weaponized by parties seeking a litigation advantage.”

In response to the Court’s order Thursday on the Legislature’s petition to intervene, Justice Rebecca Bradley and Chief Justice Annette Ziegler dissented. 

They, along with Hagedorn, have also dissented in several Supreme Court decisions to bypass lower courts and take up cases after the court’s majority flipped in 2023 from four conservative justices to four liberal ones.

Bradley, writing Thursday’s dissent, pointed out that the state Legislature had asked for a two-week extension to respond to the bypass petition, and was instead given three business days. 

“There is absolutely no reason to deny the Legislature’s request, unless three members of this court wish to fast track yet another politically charged case for the purpose of overturning settled law on an issue already decided by this court eleven years ago,” Bradley wrote.

The dispute over Act 10 is set to play a major role in this April’s Supreme Court election between Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, who was state attorney general during Walker’s second term.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 2 minutes

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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

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.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

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.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

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.