but with your arguement everyone would need to be paid the same.. spereate but equal applies to people not to govt employe groups
my argument does not require “pay” to be the “same” as “pay” was not set to be “the same” by the law that was defeated on appeal
what would need to be “the same” (to all state employee unions), under that law were ONLY the specific standards being set by the law
instead, those standards that were being set by the law were being attempted, by the law, to apply to only part of the class ‘state unionized public employees’ and not the whole class
“spereate but equal applies to people not to govt employe groups”
by your logic members of govt employee groups are not “people”, but by law they are
second; “separate but equal” is not the issue, “equal protection” is
and even when recognizing “equal protection” as applying to “people”, it is clearly understood that the law often makes categories (classes) of people to differentiate who specifically a certain law applies to - “minor children”, “married persons”, “medical provider”, “minister of religion” - etc., etc.; whereby what constitutionality requires, for the sake of “equal protection” is that all persons in the class are accorded equal treatement
but the law in question does not set equal treatment (equal in the application of just those standards the law was setting) for all state unionized government emplyees, only some
politically there was a lot of rationale for doing that, though in retrospect possibly harder bargaining with the specific unions at issue is the tactic that was on better legal ground