Pat Raes, a Meriter hospital nurse and president of SEIU Wisconsin, addresses union nurses and their supporters at a rally April 8, 2025. On Tuesday the union announced it would strike starting May 27. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

Nurses at Madison’s Meriter hospital plan to walk off the job for five days starting Tuesday, May 27, after negotiations on a new union contract ended Monday night without an agreement.

The hospital management and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Wisconsin, which represents about 950 nurses at the hospital, are divided over pay, security provisions and whether the hospital should commit to specific ratios of how many patients are under a nurse’s care.

If the strike goes forward, it is scheduled to last for five days, with union members returning on Sunday, June 1.

Update: In a statement Tuesday, Meriter said there was a bargaining session scheduled for Monday, May 26, the day before the strike is scheduled to start. An SEIU Wisconsin spokesperson said Wednesday that the union never agreed to that session, and that a bargaining date has been scheduled for Thursday, May 29.

In order to allow hospitals to secure temporary replacement staff or move patients, federal law requires hospital workers to give at least 10 days notice before striking, which SEIU Wisconsin gave May 9. The union also opted for a fixed duration for the walkout.

“We don’t take going on strike lightly, but we truly feel in order to make the changes that are necessary we’re willing to fight to make things safe for our patients,” said Pat Raes, a long-time Meriter nurse and also president of SEIU Wisconsin, in an interview May 14.

“We’ve called a five-day strike because our goal isn’t to walk away from the table — it’s to make UnityPoint Meriter finally hear the voices of nurses,” Raes said Tuesday. “This timeline reflects the urgency of our demands while giving the hospital every opportunity to return to negotiations in good faith.”

She said the five-day window was chosen to match the standard five-day contract used by health care staffing agencies, such as would be called to cover the striking nurses, “to send a strong, clear message without unnecessary disruption to patient care. We hope Meriter uses these five days to come back with real solutions.”

The hospital, UnityPoint Health-Meriter, is one of 17 regional hospitals in the large, Iowa-centered nonprofit health care chain, UnityPoint Health.   

“We’ve been in a union environment for decades and know that a strike could happen. We always work very, very hard to avoid that,” said Sherry Casali, market chief nursing officer for the hospital, in a statement released to the press Tuesday. “I think both parties would prefer not to have a strike.”

The hospital statement said Meriter’s management was disappointed there were not more talks prior to Monday. “Meriter leadership will remain available throughout this week to return to the table and we encourage SEIU to do the same,” the statement said.

In past years, the union and the hospital have worked with federal mediators during contract talks. This year federal mediation wasn’t available after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March gutting the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), nursesan independent federal agency.

Although that order was blocked by a federal judge May 6, the union and hospital turned instead to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission.

Defined patient-nurse ratios have been a longtime goal for union nurses. California and Massachusetts both have state laws setting certain minimum ratios, according to  NurseJournal.org. A limited number of other states require hospitals to publish their nurse-to-staff ratios.

“The more patients you take care of once you get above that ratio puts every patient that you’re taking care of at higher risk for complications and higher risk for mortality,” Raes said.

The statement the hospital issued Tuesday acknowledged that “both parties agree on the importance of safe and effective staffing,” but said that mandated ratios “limit flexibility” and could make it more difficult “to adjust to patient needs and staff availability in real time.”

The hospital statement said the facility relies on its charge nurses, who “are key to staffing and have clear avenues to discuss any patient care needs throughout each shift.”

There are limits to flexibility, however, according to the members of the nursing staff. Flexibility “sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t,” said Amanda Husk, a postpartum nurse. “We just know there’s always a base need for nurses to make sure patients are safe.”

Husk said ensuring that the ratio of nurses is always sufficient “also prevents burnout and turnover of nurses. That’s a big deal.”

Raes said nurses also wanted stronger security measures — including metal detectors — in light of violent incidents at hospitals across the country that have led to injuries or deaths of health care workers.

The hospital’s statement said its security staff regularly updates security measures and plans additional unspecified changes this summer.

On pay, Raes said that while nurses in their first 12 years have had significant raises, those at the upper end of the scale for pay and longevity don’t see their pay keeping up.

The shift to a 401(k) retirement plan from a standard pension has diminished the incentive for more experienced nurses to stick around, said Raes, while the original pension plan encouraged longevity on the job.

Meriter’s statement said the hospital’s most recent pay offer would keep its nurses “some of the best-paid nurses in Wisconsin” as well as in Madison. 

This report was updated Wednesday with new information about when upcoming bargaining is to take place. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Prisoners sit at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on April 4, 2025, in Tecoluca, San Vicente, El Salvador. The Trump administration deported 238 alleged members of Venezuelan criminal organizations to the prison. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Thursday struck down President Donald Trump’s use of a wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals, but limited the scope to the Southern District of Texas.

Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., whom Trump appointed in 2017, wrote in a 36-page order that the administration’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act was unlawful, especially during a time when the U.S. is not at war.

“Allowing the President to unilaterally define the conditions when he may invoke the (Alien Enemies Act), and then summarily declare that those conditions exist, would remove all limitations to the Executive Branch’s authority under the (Alien Enemies Act), and would strip the courts of their traditional role of interpreting Congressional statutes to determine whether a government official has exceeded the statute’s scope,” he wrote.

“The law does not support such a position.”

Rodriguez Jr. rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the presence of members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua in the U.S. constituted an “invasion” under which the wartime law could be invoked.

Prior to Trump’s invocation of the act in March against Venezuelan nationals 14 and older suspected of gang ties, the only times the U.S. had used the Alien Enemies Act were during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.

Scope limited but significant

Thursday’s ruling only applies in the Southern District of Texas, but could impact several cases before federal judges across the country challenging the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been at the forefront of the cases regarding the law, also has lawsuits pending in federal courts in Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, D.C.

Though the ruling is limited geographically, it applies to an important district for the issue. The original flights carrying men deported under Trump’s use of the law departed from Harlingen, Texas, within the judicial district. The government is also detaining more potential deportees in the district.

The U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s order that barred the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport any Venezuelan nationals — but the justices said unanimously that the Venezuelans must be afforded due process.

In April, Rodriguez Jr. temporarily halted the use of the Alien Enemies Act over concerns that anyone who is erroneously deported under the wartime law potentially cannot be returned to the United States. He cited the high-profile case of a Maryland man being sent to a prison in El Salvador by mistake.

The U.S. Justice Department, which is representing the administration in the case, did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court election next spring already had high stakes, with majority control on the line. But a judge’s ruling this week restoring collective bargaining rights to roughly 200,000 teachers and other public workers in the state further intensifies the contest.

The liberal-controlled court has already delivered a major win to Democrats by striking down Republican-drawn legislative maps. Pending cases backed by liberals seek to protect abortion access in the state and kneecap Republican attempts to oust the state’s nonpartisan elections leader.

Now, the court could be poised to notch another seismic win for Democrats, public teachers and government workers by restoring the collective bargaining rights they lost 13 years ago in a fight that decimated unions, sparked massive protests and emboldened Republicans who later restricted rights for private-sector unions.

Liberals gained the majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the first time in 15 years following a 2023 election that had deep involvement from the Republican and Democratic parties, broke turnout records and shattered the national record for spending on a court race.

Abortion took center stage in that race. Now, it appears that union rights could be a major issue in the 2025 contest to replace a retiring liberal justice.

“You can make the argument that this race is more important than the race for the Legislature or the governor,” said Rick Esenberg, president of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said Wednesday. “I don’t think you can understate the importance of this race to the voters, no matter which side of the political divide you are on.”

The April 1 election will pit Brad Schimel, a Republican judge who supports President-elect Donald Trump and served as Wisconsin’s attorney general from 2015 until 2019, against Susan Crawford, a liberal judge whose former law firm represented teachers in a lawsuit that sought to overturn the anti-collective bargaining law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, then controlled by conservatives, upheld the law known as Act 10 in 2014.

Crawford’s past attempt to overturn Act 10 raises questions about whether she could rule objectively on it, Schimel said in a statement to The Associated Press. His campaign on Monday branded Crawford as a “radical” and said she would be a “pawn” of the Democratic Party if elected.

Schimel, when he was attorney general, said he would defend Act 10 and opposed having its restrictions applied to police and firefighter unions, which were exempt from the law.

Treating public safety workers differently from others makes the law unconstitutional, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost ruled Monday. He sided with teachers and restored collective bargaining rights, a decision affecting about 200,000 workers in the state, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum.

The Republican-controlled Legislature promptly appealed.

Crawford’s former law firm is not involved in the current case.

Crawford didn’t directly address a question from the AP about whether she would recuse herself from any case involving Act 10. But her campaign spokesperson, Sam Roecker, said Crawford “will make a decision at that time about whether she can be fair and impartial, based on the particular facts and parties.”

Roecker said Schimel’s immediate condemnation of the court’s ruling Monday “shows he has already prejudged this case.” Schimel didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether he would recuse himself from any case involving Act 10.

The appeal of Monday’s ruling striking down Act 10 would typically first be heard by a state appeals court — a process that could take months. But the public workers who sued could ask the state Supreme Court to take the case directly, which would make it possible for a ruling before the new justice is seated in August.

Crawford has been endorsed by the state teachers union, which was gutted after Act 10 became law, as well as the Wisconsin Democratic Party and all four of the current liberal justices on the court. In addition to suing to overturn the anti-union law, Crawford also previously represented Planned Parenthood in a case to expand Wisconsin abortion access.

Christina Brey, spokesperson for the statewide teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, said she couldn’t speculate about whether Crawford would hear a case challenging Act 10.

Brey said Crawford won the union’s endorsement because “we believe she is going to be the most dedicated and most impartial, constitution-believing judge to put on the Supreme Court.”

Schimel is endorsed by Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, all five of the state’s Republican congressmen, the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, and a host of law enforcement agencies and officials, including 50 county sheriffs.

If Crawford wins, liberal control of the court would be locked up until at least 2028, the next time a liberal justice is up for election.

Candidates have until Jan. 1 to enter the April 1 race. The winner will serve a 10-year term.

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.

Union rights take center stage in high-stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court race 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.

In the Perspectives guest blog series, Farm Foundation invites participants from among the varied Farm Foundation programs to share their unique viewpoint on a topic relevant to a Farm Foundation focus area. Michelle Klieger is a 2024 Farm Foundation Young Agri-Food Leader and president of Stratagerm Consulting. In this blog she discusses the European Union’s new deforestation regulations.

---

The European Union aims to raise the global bar with new Deforestation Regulations. Effective since June of 2023, the regulations ban imported goods that stand to profit off of deforestation practices. By devaluing and even penalizing these practices, the EU hopes to create a  commodity trade standard that will reverse the effects of deforestation. They predict 177,920 acres of forests, or one quarter of Rhode Island, will be saved in 2025, and are optimistic that these steps will reduce air pollution.

Soy, palm oil, beef, coffee, and cocoa trades are expected to experience a significant impact due to these new requirements. Brazil, Argentina, Malaysia, Indonesia, Canada and parts of Africa are on edge as they consider trading options. Some argue this is the beginning of a new era, while others see it as a reorganization of supply chains.

Complexities of EU Regulations

For companies working to meet regulations, the process is complex. While individual companies must produce data to receive deforestation- free certification, entire supply chains must be vetted. Each industry faces unique obstacles.  Soy, for example, goes from farm production, and is then transported to processing facilities, then moved onto crushers, then to product manufacturers, and finally to retailers. If at any point in the process operations have made use of deforested land, the trading company could be banned from exporting goods to EU countries. Palm oil batches typically mix fruit from many sources at once. Many of these companies can only trace a product after it has been processed and would need to develop brand new traceability methods to meet requirements.

Meeting the new regulations requires an investment in technology and manpower. In order to make products fully traceable many companies are purchasing GPS technology that allows them to accurately map and consistently monitor their farms. Similarly, if products must be tracked and segregated from planting all the way to a grocery store shelf, digital tracking technology will also be needed. Guaranteeing deforestation-free methods must include in person inspections done by real people traveling from farm to farm to see operations up close. 

It’s a time consuming process to build out this framework, but one that many companies deem both valuable to the global environment and financially lucrative in the long run. Decisions involve farmers, transportation companies, processing plants and manufacturers, but they also must include government policy, technology and in some cases legal crossroads. There is no overnight shift, but rather a development of practices.

A Supply Chain Split

Already many companies are rerouting supplies to other buyers and avoiding EU regulations altogether. The trend prompts speculation that the new requirements will not raise the bar, but simply split or change the flow of supply chains. Brazil could turn to China as a new soy buyer and Indonesia could potentially trade palm oil to Africa. We’ve seen substitute shifts like these in the past with the U.S.-China trade war and sanctions on Russian energy. It may prove simpler and more cost effective to change buyers rather than invest in meeting new EU regulations. Many of these companies have little ability to enforce downline or upline adherence to regulation and they fear penalties.

Interestingly, in 2020 Brazil produced ⅓ of the world’s soy, but only 13% of crops account for 95% of the deforestation that occurred that year. The other 87% appear to have been produced on grassland and savannah areas.  The scenario is true elsewhere and begs the question; will this create a new environmental imbalance that puts stress on other ecosystems? Companies looking to meet regulations could potentially exploit approved farming areas by over farming them. 

Demand For a Different Type of Supply

Will it be harder to secure buyers or much used commodities? For the EU, value is placed not just on the product, but how it is sourced. The decision will impact both consumers and European agriculture. 

European countries are braced to experience a decreased supply of things like chocolate and coffee. But, exactly how increased operating costs will be absorbed remains uncertain. Typically consumer prices reflect production cost increases, but in this situation one or more points along a supply chain may need to take ownership of costs to ensure tradability. The result, at least in the initial stages, would be lower profit margins for most of these companies and possibly higher purchase prices for consumers.

Several European countries are seeking reduced regulations and maintain that the current requirements are virtually impossible for small and medium sized farms to accommodate. They also argue that these regulations negatively impact many of the current sustainability processes farmers are working to implement for the sake of biodiversity, crop and grazing rotations. Farmers worry that they will not be able to produce the soy meal needed to feed their own livestock and that the EU will become too reliant on exports which would negatively affect the European ag sector.

Good News For U.S. Producers

The EU is not alone. Other countries have similar environmentally focused goals and policy in the works to support these goals. The United States has seen a growing consumer demand for traceability, prompting many businesses to begin the process of leveraging technology and better communication up and down supply chains to help customers make informed decisions.

The Forest Act of 2023 was birthed out of the same desire to stabilize regions of the world that have suffered from illegal deforestation and offer opportunities for many industries and individual businesses to clean up their processes. If it goes into effect, the Forest Act would be very similar to the EU’s Deforestation Regulation; banning products that have been produced on illegally deforested land and penalizing unmet requirements.

Many American operations are positioned to receive deforestation-free certification. Several top soy producers are predicted to meet regulations and be granted access to the EU markets. A welcome relief to farmers who have faced narrowing markets in recent years. 

Exactly how competitive this “new” market will be, only time will tell.  Traceability efforts take time. Unless trade lines were already working toward deforestation-free goals, it will take years for many of these supply chains to implement methods that meet EU regulations.  In the meantime, it’s highly likely that global trade negotiations will be impacted and supply chains will shift in response to the environmental standard.

---

A version of this blog originally appeared on the Stratagerm Consulting website. It is reposted with permission.

The post Perspective: European Union’s Deforestation-Free Product Regulation appeared first on Farm Foundation.