Another Reason Act 10 is Unconstitutional: It Bans VOLUNTARY Payment of Union Dues with Direct Withdrawal

Printer-friendly version

If you are a government employee in Wisconsin you can have a part of each of your paycheck taken out and sent to an organization of your choosing.  In fact, the state of Wisconsin has a special system set-up where you can choose from hundreds of organizations to give.  You simply enter the code and the amount, and... voila... the state will automatically take care of sending a part of your paycheck to the organization you want to get money.

Let's say, for example, you wanted to give to the National Right to Life, just enter in "3019" and the amount you want deducted on the paychek withdrawal form and the state takes care of the rest.  To be fair, you can give to Planned Parenthood as well. Restless Leg Syndrome Foundaton?  Check. Bible Believers Fellowship? Check. Even PETA is on there.

There is, however, one category of organizations that you cannot give through this system:  your labor union.  That's right, the union-busting Act 10, specifically (and unconstituionally) said that of all the hundreds you can give-to with automatic withdrawal, you can't give to your union.

Walker's attorneys recently argued in a brief in the on-going court battle that the reason why public sector labor unions could be discriminated against is because, unlike other organizations, Act 10 so weakens the union that there is nothing for the union to do on behalf of workers or anyone else and, therefore, cannot argue that they provide a public benefit:

Collective bargaining representatives for general employees have a substantially reduced role following Act 10.  Significantly, the bargaining representatives no longer meet and conferwith management to negotiate issues pertaining  to working conditions or related employment policies.  In this reduced role, the bargaining representatives’ value to government employers is significantly reduced.  Furthermore, in light of the bargaining representatives’ reduced role,together with annual certification elections,  government employers face the prospect ofadditional administrative burdens in administering a shifting dues checkoff system.  The Legislature could rationally have  concluded that the reduction of  the bargaining representatives’ value to government employers, together with the increased administrative burdens, sufficiently outweighs any limited public benefit that dues checkoff might have previously provided.

This is, of course, absurd.  If you can give National Right to Life-- an organization that spends most of its resources promoting the Republican Party-- you should be able to give to a union-- an organization that spends most of its resources fighting for workers rights.  

And that is one of many reasons the poorly written Act 10 will be found unconsitutional and thrown-out.