MADISON — Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen issued the following statement in response to today’s decision by United States District Court Judge William M. Conley in Laborers Local 236, et al. v. Walker, et al., case no. 11-CV-462-WMC (W. D. Wis.), dismissing constitutional challenges to 2011 Wis. Act 10, also known as the “Budget Repair Bill:”
“This case proves, once again, that Act 10 is constitutional in all respects and that the challenges to the law are baseless. I appreciate decisions like this that follow the law, and I look forward to bringing the remaining state court challenges before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where we expect Act 10 to be upheld once again.”
Statement by Wisconsin State AFL-CIO President Phil Neuenfeldt on Act 10 ruling
September 11, 2013
This is a disappointing ruling for all workers in the state of Wisconsin. In America, workers have the right to join a union and with one stroke of his pen Gov. Walker decimated that right. Act 10 always has and always will infringe upon a worker's right to collective bargaining and democracy in the workplace. Gov. Walker’s divide and conquer strategy is stagnating wages for all workers, furthering the income gap between the rich and the poor and swelling our state’s jobs deficit. Gov. Walker was elected to create jobs; instead he attacked workers’ rights and Wisconsin’s middle class.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- A federal judge has ruled Republican Gov. Scott Walker's controversial law stripping most public workers of nearly all their union rights is constitutional.
U.S. District Judge William Conley's decision Wednesday comes in a lawsuit Madison and Dane County workers filed in July 2011 alleging the law violated their constitutional right to freely assemble and equal protection because it imposes wage limits on union employees but none on non-union workers.
Conley wrote the law still allows workers to assemble and lets them speak; it simply doesn't allow employers to listen. As for the equal protection argument, the judge said the government can treat represented and non-represented employees differently.
Katy Lounsbury, one of the workers' attorneys, disagreed with the ruling but said she'd have to consult with her clients about an appeal.