A Wisconsin Circuit Court's ruling involving public sector bargaining rights has intensified the stakes for the state's Supreme Court election in 2025.
The judge ruled Act 10 is unconstitutional because it treats different groups of public employees unequally. The controversial 13-year-old law strictly limits public sector bargaining rights in Wisconsin.
Michael Childers is a professor of labor education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
He said the law also took the state back more than fifty years, as Wisconsin was a pioneer in the fight for workers' legal rights.
"It was the first state in the nation that formerly allowed for public sector bargaining," said Childers, "and then became the first to basically greatly curtail bargaining rights for all but police and fire in the state."
Act 10 would be struck down pending a final decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which currently has a liberal majority.
The Republican-controlled legislature that appealed the recent decision is hoping to drag out the case, but the public workers who challenged the law hope the court rules before a new justice is seated next year.
Wisconsin's public sector laws of 1959 and 1962 are regarded as turning points in American politics and the legal rights of workers.
Childers said Wisconsin's union participation was always higher than the national average until the passage of Act 10 in 2011, which fundamentally changed the ability of public sector workers in Wisconsin to have influence over their workplace.
"They had rights similar to what most workers in the private sector in the United States enjoyed, which is the ability to bargain over hours, wages, and all other conditions of work," said Childers, "so this would be reinstated pending this decision."
Childers said Wisconsin experienced the largest decline of union membership in the U.S. over the past decade.
If Act 10 is struck down, it could open the door for a resurgence of union engagement across the state.
get more stories like this via email
Indiana lawmakers are considering a bill to allow state funds to invest in Bitcoin.
House Bill 1322 moved forward to the full House for debate.
Rep. Jake Teshka, R-South Bend, authored the bill, which would allow public employee and teacher retirement funds to invest in certain Bitcoin exchange-traded funds.
"Really, what we're asking is just for folks to come and tell us how blockchain technology could benefit state government and state government processes," Teshka explained. "At this point, there is no mandate in here for any agency to participate."
The bill also calls for a study on how blockchain technology could improve state operations. Supporters said it could lower costs, improve security and create efficiencies. Lawmakers backing the bill argued Bitcoin offers long-term potential despite market fluctuations. Opponents have raised concerns about financial risks, saying Bitcoin is unpredictable.
Teshka noted Bitcoin has outperformed traditional assets over time. He admitted it is volatile but called it a strong investment option.
Rep. Chris Campbell, D-Lafayette, called it a major risk for retirees. She questioned how lawmakers could ensure it was a safe investment for state funds.
"When I asked online about cryptocurrency investments, it seemed like they were really discouraged," Campbell observed. "Crypto is volatile and carries substantial risk. There's a lot of scamming associated with it."
Teshka said the state would carefully study the risks before making any decisions. He called Bitcoin the future of finance but stressed Indiana would proceed cautiously. The bill awaits debate in the House.
get more stories like this via email
Lawmakers in Michigan have introduced a package of bills designed to lower costs and expand health care access.
Senate Bill 3 would create a Prescription Drug Affordability Board, made up of experts in economics, health care, supply chain management and academia, with no ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Its aim would be to cut costs and protect people's health and finances, by keeping prescription drug prices fair and transparent.
Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield, cosponsored the legislation.
"When I talk to people across my district -- and I spend a lot of time going door-to-door talking to people, asking them what's important to them, what kind of issues are they facing -- 'being able to afford health care' is the most common question I get," Shink reported.
As far back as 2017, it is estimated about one-third of Michigan residents ages 19-64 stopped taking their medications as prescribed because of cost concerns. The new legislation is in the Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection Committee.
Research shows more than 100 brand-name drugs won't have a money-saving generic available any time soon, and for some, not even for another five years. Prescription drug spending in the U.S. has already topped $603 billion, rising 16% between 2016 and 2021.
Shink argued the proposal would help hold pharmaceutical companies accountable.
"Sometimes the drug companies are just charging too much because they can," Shink asserted. "This board is going to take a look at drug prices, find the outliers and then help resolve the situation."
If the legislation is passed, Michigan would become the seventh state to tackle rising prescription drug costs with a Prescription Drug Affordability Board. Companion bills would ensure doctors and insurance companies abide by the board's decisions.
get more stories like this via email
A January survey of Montanans showed a large majority support workers' rights, even as several bills that could affect them move through the state Legislature.
The bipartisan firm Red America, Blue America Research asked about 500 Montanans their thoughts on labor and found 72% think unions help, rather than hurt, Montana's economy.
John Davis, founding partner of the polling firm, said support was even stronger across more specific questions.
"When we had asked a question about changing laws that would weaken employment protection -- so examples being safe work environments, wages, benefits -- 80% of respondents said they do not support efforts to reduce those protections," Davis reported.
Among respondents, 91% said Montana's workers should be able to join a union if they choose to and 87% said they would be less likely to support a legislator who voted to weaken workers' rights.
The survey also found most respondents were unaware lawmakers are currently considering legislation around allowing highly automated, driverless vehicles to operate on public roads in Montana.
"Driving is a major function of a significant percent of the American workforce," Davis pointed out. "So if that were to change, this would have a direct impact on people's livelihoods."
Of those who responded to the survey, 76% said they would not be comfortable sharing the road with driverless delivery vans.
Jason Small, executive secretary of the Montana AFL-CIO, said the status of union rights is an indicator of all workers' rights in the state.
"When the unions are in there, protecting workers' rights, it's not just the unions themselves they're protecting," Small emphasized. "We are the gold standard and we set the wages and the packages for everybody else. So, if we start to fail, the rest of the workers also begin failing."
get more stories like this via email