At some point this year (we still don't know when), we will receive a decision in our lawsuit that was just heard in December by the Iowa Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the new collective bargaining law. If you weren't able to join us in the courtroom (and even if you were), we think you'll enjoy hearing the arguments that were made via the recording recently published on the Iowa Courts YouTube channel.
Note: the audio is slightly ahead of the video in this recording provided by the Iowa Supreme Court. While we do find all 37 minutes worth watching, if you are just skimming through, here are a few clips you might find interesting:
- 2:21 and 9:10 - Our attorney, Mark Hedberg's, overview of our basis for challenging the law
- 4:24 - Justice Appel: The statute has been drafted so that no AFSCME public safety officers have the full collective bargaining [rights]
- 14:18 - Justice Waterman: Why is the fear of striking as a justification for carving out certain "Public Safety Employees" illegitimate?
- 17:20 - The State's attorney's overview of their defense of the gutting of the collective bargaining law
- 17:48 - Justice Appel: How did it happen...with 100% effectiveness all AFSCME employees are excluded?
- 20:05 - State's justification of excluding Campus Police from "Public Safety Employees"
- 24:16 - Justice Wiggins: It seems like they picked the 30% to exclude AFSCME somehow...the old saying is even a blind hog gets an acorn once in a while and AFSCME didn't get any acorns in this thing.
- 26:53 - Justice Appel pointing out the discrepancy between the State's arguments and the legislators' intent while debating HF291
- 29:40 - Justice Waterman: Why aren't [correctional officers] included as Public Safety Employees, given the risk that they face?
- 30:35 - Justice Appel: What would happen if you had a strike of correctional employees, I wonder?
- 32:35 - Mark Hedberg's rebuttal: An answer to the question of why corrections officers aren't covered, it's because they're represented by AFSCME. That's the only distinction.
Here is a link to ISEA's oral arguments in their lawsuit, which was heard immediately following ours. As always, we will keep you informed as soon as we have any new developments in this case.
