January 4, 2012 in Business, Idaho

Federal judge rejects Idaho anti-union laws

Betsy Z. Russell The Spokesman-Review

Tags:anti-union lawsidaho legislaturelabor

BOISE – A federal judge has invalidated two anti-union laws pushed through by Idaho GOP lawmakers last session, saying they violate federal law.

The two measures, SB 1007 and 1006, were expansions of Idaho’s right-to-work law. One banned “job targeting programs” that use union dues to subsidize members’ wages as a way to help contractors win bids. The other banned “project labor agreements” through which contractors sign agreements with unionized workers while bidding on public works projects.

The measures were pushed amid legislative grousing over loud picketing at some Idaho projects by the Carpenters Union.

“We fought pretty hard on this,” said John Littel, regional political director for the Carpenters Union. “We were pretty surprised about how much momentum there was to really, I think, try to take a bite out of the unions, and specifically the carpenters.”

U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Winmill in July issued an injunction to block SB 1007 from taking effect. Late last month, he granted summary judgment motions from the Idaho Building and Construction Trades Council and the Southwest Idaho Building and Construction Trades Council, both AFL-CIO, to invalidate the laws.

The state raised several procedural issues, which the judge rejected. The Inland Pacific Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors and the National Right to Work Legal Foundation both filed briefs in support of the new laws.

The Inland ABC already has filed notice of an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying the organization should have been allowed to intervene as a full party in the case.

The judge said the various programs targeted by the bills weren’t, as the ABC argued, “a form of compulsory unionism.” Wrote Winmill, “Nothing about a job targeting program … makes union membership compulsory.”

Littel said, “We’re gratified that the judge recognized that both project labor agreements and market recovery programs are protected activities under the National Labor Relations Act, and regardless of what a legislator thinks or feels about a union’s right to exist or not, these are protected activities.”

Both bills were sponsored by Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene, who acknowledged that there was “a lot of talk about” legal issues with the bills but said, “I thought that we were OK.”

Goedde said, “We had instances where the carpenters union from Portland was disrupting work, and I think that was the real emphasis behind the effort.” He said the issue was brought to him by former state lawmaker Dean Haagenson, of Coeur d’Alene – who also founded a large construction company in Coeur d’Alene – with the Inland ABC.

The state hasn’t said whether it plans to appeal the decision.

13 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

Dazzeetrader11 on January 04 at 11:25 a.m.
Well, the companies will now hire around the unions. Doesn’t mean much…just more overreach by a Federal Statute being applied to a local issue…..expected with the Obama regime and an appointed judge.
cryssT on January 04 at 11:44 a.m.
It’s wrong to legislate against Unions. If Idaho is truly a ‘right to work’ state then Unions won’t thrive. Next thing Idaho will legislate against is who you can marry (interracial).
liberal_in_right_wing_land on January 04 at 11:51 a.m.
So when a judge makes a ruling the republicans hate its an overreach, but when they rule in their favor, they are following the constitution, right Dazzee?
WHS on January 04 at 12:29 p.m.
Does it really matter what dizzee thinks liberal? Seriously, I could have predicted what she would have said. And of course, her response is completely contrary to her stated beliefs…
WHS
slamdunk on January 04 at 12:34 p.m.
The union busting repubs have tried and tried to squash labor so they can pay low wages. Good show!!!!!
The_Seer on January 04 at 12:38 p.m.
I hate to say “I told you so” but in this instance I love to say “I told you so.”
The same thing will happen in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and other states that have deemed destroying organized labor and the middle class is more important than job creation.
Doozy must have been hitting the booze pretty hard. The judge in this case was confirmed by a GOP controlled senate without debate and a voice vote. You don’t get to lodge complaints seventeen years later.
WHS on January 04 at 2:28 p.m.
I just love how the radical republican teabaggers want to deregulate everything for businesses, but its ok to regulate the working man. Seriouosly, as dickadams says, we are only worth what the corporations will pay us… However, when WE band together to increase our value, now all of a sudden we are in the wrong. Well which is it? Seriously, this is how stupid the teabaggers and the conservatives have become. They somehow think that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want, and then somehow think that people won’t organize. They really don’t read much history do they… What a bunch of maroons.
WHS
johnclarke on January 04 at 2:30 p.m.
I thing could stand some tighter regulation of crazy people getting access to the internet. Oh, and guns.
johnclarke on January 04 at 4:11 p.m.
think.
misjustice on January 04 at 4:35 p.m.
Yup, folks are learnin’. Just like Ohio…only different, a more better “some people say” kinda good goin’ on there. WisconSIN is next!
; )
mikeln on January 04 at 4:57 p.m.
The balls these facist must have to think people are going to take this much longer. What could make people think they have the right to slave labor. Maybe because we are already thier economic slaves?
dataxman on January 04 at 5:22 p.m.
whs- if a private company’s employees want to unionize then more power to them. It is public sector unions that are the problem. Heck - even FDR knew that they were a bad idea
The_Seer on January 04 at 8:12 p.m.
datatax: The protection to organize is not limited to private sector employees. Period. Just because Reagan said so doesn’t make it so.