In light of the recent Recall Walker movement, Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-union stance is increasingly under fire. A law was passed in 2011 eliminating the collective bargaining rights of public workers, with the exception of police and firefighters, and forced them to contribute to their own health care and pension. It became clear the Walker administration’s objective was to eliminate the threat of unions by depriving them of any power to collectively bargain whatsoever. This reality has fueled opposition to Walker and has served as a pivotal catalyst for recall election efforts.
Restrictions on unions impose obvious limitations on freedom of association rights. By undermining the activities of unions, the Walker administration is infringing on workers’ rights to associate themselves with an organization. More significantly, it counters the core principles that unions embrace, namely the importance of workers having a voice in their working conditions. But where do the restrictions end?
According to the Wausau Daily Herald, roughly 75 protestors gathered outside Lincoln Hills School in Irma, Wis., to protest an incident in which a youth counselor was sent home without pay for wearing a T-shirt with a union logo. The longtime employee had reportedly never been told that union clothing could not be worn at work during the 30 years that he had worked at the school, nor was there a written policy about graphics on clothing.
This incident raises some serious concerns in regard to freedom of expression and what can arguably be deemed censorship. Although reasonable time, place and manner limitations are appropriate in work environments, any such restriction must be content-neutral and cannot be discriminatory toward viewpoints. In this case, the issue was not the fact that the T-shirt displayed a logo, but rather that it displayed a union logo. By banning only clothing promoting unions, the officials at Lincoln Hills School were clearly targeting a pro-union viewpoint, and by doing so, they were infringing on the employee’s freedom of expression.
Beyond the freedom of expression issue, this incident also raises concerns about censorship. By imposing viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on something as basic as clothing, the officials at Lincoln Hills sent a clear message that even something as seemingly insignificant as a union logo poses enough of a danger that it must be banned. Based on reports in the Wausau Daily Herald, there is no evidence that a disturbance preceded the incident, thus reinforcing the shirt itself was not presenting a threat to the functioning of the school or the overall school environment.
Although the Wausau Daily Herald reported the Wisconsin Department of Corrections is undertaking an investigation of the incident, it is critical to bear in mind that even the most isolated incident of censorship should not be taken lightly. Restrictions on an individual’s First Amendment rights must be justified by a substantial interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression. In this case, it is apparent the choice to ban clothing promoting unions is no coincidence, but rather the reflection of a pro-Walker viewpoint.
Political undertones are undoubtedly to blame for this incident, and the controversy surrounding Walker’s anti-union legislation is certainly warranted. However, this incident brings to light a critical question. At what point does government action infringe upon its citizens’ right to free speech and expression? Censoring any trace of union support, whether in the form of clothing or any other form of expression, would be a clear attempt to smother the embers of thought before they can ignite into flames of action. This is not the democratic way, but rather a suppression of ideas – ideas that contribute to the free flow of public discourse in a liberal democracy. Although seemingly small and isolated, let this incident be a reminder of the potential danger of hindering the freedom of open discourse.
Hannah Sleznikow ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.
