Dane County judge keeps Wisconsin right-to-work union ruling in place

By Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel

4/25/2016

Madison - A Dane County judge declined Monday to put on hold his ruling that found unconstitutional a Wisconsin law barring unions and businesses from reaching labor deals requiring workers to pay union fees.

Attention now turns to the Court of Appeals as judges there consider whether to restore the measure advocates call the state's right-to-work law.

GOP Gov. Scott Walker and Republicans in the Legislature last year approved the law, becoming the 25th state to bar labor contracts that require workers to pay union fees. Since then, West Virginia has passed a similar law, bringing the number of right-to-work states to 26.

Supporters argue no one should be forced to pay union fees if they don't want to belong to a labor group. Unions contend such contracts should be allowed because federal law requires them to represent all employees in a work unit — meaning that they all benefit from the protections and higher wages unions provide.

Unions sued soon after the law was passed, and this month Dane County Circuit Judge C. William Foust ruled the law violated the state constitution because it took something of value from unions without compensating them.

Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel asked Foust to stay his ruling while he pursues an appeal. Foust declined to do that Monday, standing by his original ruling.

"The decision perhaps boils down to something as simple as there is no free lunch, there is no right to be a free rider," Foust said.

"It's not about a right to work. And it's not about a right to join or not join a union. It's about whether or not a nonmember has an obligation to pay for the services they receive or whether an entity can be required to provide services at no charge to someone."

After the hearing, Schimel issued a statement saying he would ask the District 3 Court of Appeals in Wausau to stay Foust's ruling while it considers whether the right-to-work law is constitutional. If successful, that would put the law back in place for the time being.

The case is expected to ultimately be decided by the state Supreme Court, which is controlled 5-2 by conservatives.