112 Comments - foster brooks - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:47 am: It doesn’t matter what the unions negotiate on pension issues. If its unconstitutional all it takes is one person to sue - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:49 am: I see three choices: 1) He’s just trying to draw the attention of the Koch brothers to Illinois 2) He’s trying to come across as extreme so he can compromise later 3) He really believes this in which case…good luck! - The Captain - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:49 am: By the end of session (whenever that is) his approval ratings won’t be dull, he’ll either be reviled or loved. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:54 am: “To What End?” You ask? He looks in the mirror and sees a president. Not all that different than way, way too many politicians. - slow down - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:55 am: My sense is that he’s emboldened by his victory and intends to push the envelope wherever and however he can. Of course, once he actually has to deal with the legislature, it will be a whole new world for the CEO governor. - Reader - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:55 am: Why not just change the law regarding unions, non-members, and employers? 1) Unions should not be forced to provide services to non-members. 2) Non-members should have to negotiate their own wages and benefits with their employers. Its really not that complicated. White collar business that have a partially unionized workforce (usually the admin and clerical workers) already deal with this. - W.S. Wolcott - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:55 am: Didn’t see this anywhere else, but maybe I missed it. Contract negotiations started today. Great timing for “theater.” - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:56 am: He’s flooding the zone for contract negotiations. Put RTWFL on the legislative agenda so the unions have to lobby against it. Put this in federal court so they’re fighting it there. And when contract negotiations come, the unions already have two other plates spinning in the air, so they can’t devote their full attention/energy to that. I think the only problem with the strategy is that Rauner’s attention will be divided, too (but less so), and in the short term, unions will be able to fundraise off of this, so they might not lose too many resources. But it remains cunning. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:57 am: ==This is so over-the-top it makes me think it’s a negotiating stance== That is a good guess, with the court determining just how strong a stance it is. If they say this EO is unconstitutional, Gov Rauner gains no leverage and has poised the well during negotiations. If the they say this EO is constitutional, Gov Rauner gains a chit to trade. Even then, the jury is out regarding just how valuable a chit that will be. How many more public employee union members would opt out of paying dues? Most of them appear to realize that union operations cost money and back their union. - Casual Observer - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:01 am: What if all 6,500 fair share members choose to continue paying their fair share? Will anyone take note? - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:02 am: He has to go all out for the Griffs and the Uiehleins of the world who bankrolled him. Consider poor Griff. Grew up in Florida, went to Harvard and came to Illinois and made $4.5 billion. Just think how he could have improved his lot in life if dem bad old unions hadn’t held him back. Uiehlein, meh, inherited his cash. He didn’t make his fortune on bubble wrap, he and his family have been drawing down the once great Schlitz empire for a while now. - the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:03 am: The use of the phrase “unfair share payments” is a cheap rhetorical stunt by a Governor many thought would be above such ideological plots. - small town frank - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:03 am: The end game is the million dollar questiion, do you believe this is just a politically savvy move in order to gain negotiation leverage or is he truly of the mindset that unions must be destroyed. The risk he runs is that this becomes nothing more than a pyrrhic victory. - Mama - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:04 am: It is my understanding that Rauner managed and made money from the State Employees Retirement Fund(s). If it was not for the unions there would be no retirement fund. And now he wants to “bite the hand that feeds him”? - Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:06 am: If Republicans think minimum wage is high enough, and it seems they do, isn’t it the goal of business (read Republicans), to get wages as low as possible, in both the public and private sector? Whatever the governor’s motives behind this, he’s being a good Republican poster boy, even if he loses the fight. I think Anonymous 10:54 has it figured out. As preposterous as it seems to most of us, the kind of ego we saw during the campaign thinks the White House is achievable. - Concerned - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:06 am: Rauner’s stance is beyond circular. He says the fee (less than Union dues) necessariy supports political speech by the Unions because the Unions are bargaining with the State (Alito’s argument that collective bargaining with the State IS political speech). Rauner says employees shouldn’t be “forced” to pay that fee becuase it violates their First Amendmnet right not to engage in certain speech. Rauner says many employees don’t support the fair-fee funded “speech” becuae they disagree with that speech. But the speech Rauner complains of is negotiating and persuasion by the Union to get the State to pay higher wages, better benefits, etc. What State employee doesn’t want better pay, better benefits, and better working conditions? Riddle me that, Rauner. - sleepysol - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:07 am: To answer the comment at the bottom of the post, the next step in pension talk is going to make all future pension a deferred payment plan not backed by the state. Less stress on the state’s finances. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:07 am: ” How many more public employee union members would opt out of paying dues?” Excellent question. Commenters here yesterday said that in response to this they were going to go from “Fair share” to “Full membership”. So it’s not certain that all 6,500 will freeload. Nor is it certain that the unions can’t make up that shortfall from outside fundraising, at least in the short term. - Mama - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:08 am: The comment Rich posted from the a subscriber is spot on - this is all about AFSCME’s contract negotiations. Its all about trying to get the employees to agree to lower pensions and health insurance benefits via a new contract. - Stuff Happens - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:11 am: When can I start opting out of my income taxes because I disagree with how they’re used? - walker - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:14 am: Rauner really believes this stuff, because he simply doesn’t know any better. That is clear because many of his statements are factually wrong. He is a rookie in this whole labor law and practices arena, who seems comfortable with being led by partisans with a larger agenda. Better to buy into the rhetoric of his biggest outside funders, who also bankroll national campaigns, than to do any independent research and thinking. - anonymoose - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:14 am: Winston and Strawn, pro bono, drag this through the court system. Big law firm, could have tons of lawyers working on this - tons of pressure and pleadings/filings? Union resources needed to deal with law suit. Union resources needed for contract negotiations. And when the resources are needed by the union the most, stop the flow of dues money to pay for union resources. Elements/strategy of a hostile takeover, anyone? - Das Kapital - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:14 am: The real reason for this is the Guvnah wants to cut off an IL Dems revenue source. 6,500 employees, $50 a month is $3 million between the Teamsters and 2 other unions. That money is used for staff rep, travel, etc. If the Republicans can force layoffs within the Unions themselves, the 1st phase of his worker-minimization plan will be a success. - Dr X - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:17 am: I have seen little discussion of the order and the IL Constitutional provision that governs orders. How is this a reassignment or reorganization? Has Rauner given any explanation of this? Do Constitutions matter? - Mama - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:17 am: - Stuff Happens - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:11 am: == Rauner may be your man since he wants to cut taxes. - Norseman - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:19 am: I don’t see the negotiating position view. Rauner is seeing blood and like all sharks he’s on a feeding frenzy. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:20 am: It may be more simple. Rauner does not like any dissension. He seems to dislike anyone who questions his actions: he has the prominently displayed $20 million to help control the GA, he is pushing to be given the authority to appoint judges, and he clearly does not like unions. In each of these areas, his decisions can be questioned. This fight is part of a larger effort to silence any group who is in a position to make him stop and justify his proposals. - Responsa - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:22 am: Heh. I’m voting theater and contract negotiation strategy. Despite all the hysteria on these boards this ain’t what most people are talking about on the train ride or in the break rooms, or in the grocery check out lines of Illinois this morning as far as I can tell. - ZC - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:22 am: This is Rauner’s version of the pension law that passed last year. Yes, it -might- get struck down as unconstitutional… But, from Rauner’s perspective, why not take the shot? I think at this point we set aside any “bargaining chip” theories, it’s becoming clearer that this is what he sincerely just believes about unions in the public sector. It’s not an uncommon opinion for a man from Rauner’s background. So he’d never get this through the legislature and frankly his odds of getting the Supremes to agree with him are higher (significantly higher) than the pension plan’s odds were, so … why not take the shot, from Rauner’s perspective? I don’t see this yet as all that complicated, or multi faceted. - Louis G Atsaves - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:23 am: To what end? That is an excellent question that few are attempting to answer. For over two years now Rauner has been speaking of fixing state government, “shaking up” Springfield, reorganizing and reforming. The current union contracts and structures probably will impede any serious efforts in that regard absent union cooperation. Cooperate or fight to the death? More “Game of Thrones” drama to follow. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:23 am: ==Excellent question.== Gracias @Arsenal. Even if successful, the odds are slim this gambit will lead to a flood of members opting out or bleed the unions much during negotiations. - Frenchie Mendoza - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:25 am: The end goal is a strike during which all workers striking will be fired. At this point, Rauner’s motive is obvious. He’ll push the union to strike and then issue an executive order saying all workers not returning to their jobs will be fired. That’s the goal. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:25 am: ==or is he truly of the mindset that unions must be destroyed== This is my other thought: Unions are one of Rauner’s blind spots. He hates them so much, he has made their destruction his top priority. This move appears to involve an EO that goes beyond his constitutional authority, side-stepping the AG, and unilaterally negating part of a contract. Any, or all, of those could come back and smack him in the face (figuratively). - Stuff Happens - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:29 am: @Mama “Rauner may be your man since he wants to cut taxes.” I actually want to pay more taxes, but I want the monies to go towards pensions, not Arduin Associates, Inc. - Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:29 am: So who will keep the state running once Rauner has fired everyone? - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:30 am: ==why not take the shot? == It could backfire. Why not be more stealthy and try to pluck the unions off when they aren’t paying attention? This move puts everyone on notice and allows the unions to cry “foul!” He’s taking a big chance here, if he loses in court, his future efforts will more easily be shot down. On the other hand, he might be willing to burn case after case through the courts to tap the union’s funds out defending against frivolous law suits. What benefit to Winston & Strawn? More corporate work. - langhorne - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:30 am: i am not a lawyer, but this EO is sure convoluted in its reasoning. –6,500 employees are being forced…etc. who are they? how do we know they object? if they do, then it seems they should be the ones to bring a lawsuit. –collective bargaining “inextricably” combines politics with policy, to the great detriment of all of illinois through the likelihood of really dire consequences, like empty pension funds, etc. AND the unions give money to politicians, corrupting them both, but not when my rich friends do it. –these employees are being denied their freedom of speech, (i thought they were abusing that right, maybe its both), so king bruce has a duty to come to the rescue–supreme executive authority, fedl supremacy, blah, blah –therefore, it is decreed that CMS shall not follow the law, or enforce the law, because, ya know, i said so. saves a lot of time messing with the GA to pass something. you know how that goes. –by my reading, the king cited three sections of the Ill Constitution, but not the section that mentions EOs. we also dont need to bother with the AGs duties, I got dan to do this for free. –if bruce can succeed in contravening the law with a decree bec he says he is protecting one of the provisions of the bill of rights, what cant he do? the bill of rights covers a lot of important stuff. –IL supreme court decision: go away. you dont have standing. we are not going to explain further, or grade your paper. we are not your tutors. - RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:31 am: == So who will keep the state running once Rauner has fired everyone? == Don’t worry, he has the sole source outsourcing contracts in his coat pocket … - Frenchie Mendoza - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:32 am: Actually, now that I think about it, Rauner’s endgame is tp have workers cross a picket line. Doesn’t matter if his EO ordering workers back is legal or not. It’s probably back. But most state workers — given the choice between striking and being told to “go back to work or else” — will be forced to cross the picket line and go back to work. This is enough to cause significant chaos — and enough to make any strike pretty much worthless. - Frenchie Mendoza - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:33 am: Meant to say, “Doesn’t matter if his EO ordering workers back is legal or not. It’s probably not.” - bored now - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:38 am: === Or? === rauner fits in with the other republican governors (eg, walker, brownback, etc) determined to break unions. i dunno, but he’s acting like it… - RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:38 am: Seriously… I see this as a multiple level play by Rauner: (1) the order drains away money from the unions (2) pays back his wealthy national supporters (3) increases pressure on contract negotiations (4) possibly goads unions into an ill-advised walkout or strike - Liberty - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:40 am: I don’t see these as winning issues for Illinois Republicans in the future. I’ve been arguing with my tea party friends that all Rauner will accomplish in office is to start a war with workers. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:41 am: Rauner’s end game is to shut down the big money donors of the Democratic Party, while he and his wealthy friends fund their chosen candidates. He wants to eliminate future opposition by cutting off their money supply. - Old Timer - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:42 am: What do Teamsters have to say? - Amalia - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:44 am: Meanwhile, the President will be coming to Chicago to declare the Pullman places a National Historic Landmark, perhaps moving to National Park. and it’s not just about the buildings. it’s about the service of black people, the strike, the meaning in our culture about what happened at that place. talk about bringing the discussion to the national level! - Try-4-Truth - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:44 am: Here’s how I see it. Rauner hasn’t been governor for even a month yet, and this is his first major move. No budget specifics, no organizational changes, no nothing. He didn’t “reach out” to the other side, he sent a mortar shell directly at them. I said it on this blog before the election, I believe this guy is dangerous. He doesn’t want a balanced budget, he wants to break the opposition. He doesn’t want quality services at reasonable tax rates. He wants low taxes for the 1% and low wages for the rest of us. This is ideological and a terrible way to start his administration. I’ve got an idea. Let’s pretend that Magic Fairies run the state and all they need for their paychecks were loving thoughts, no money. So the state payroll is $0.00. Does that solve the budget crisis? I’ll hang up and wait for my answer. - ZC - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:47 am: >> It could backfire. Why not be more stealthy and try to pluck the unions off when they aren’t paying attention? This move puts everyone on notice and allows the unions to cry “foul!” He’s taking a big chance here, if he loses in court, his future efforts will more easily be shot down. All true. But I was talking about what I think _Rauner_ truly thinks, not necessarily what his best strategy ought to be. Sure it’s risky. But Rauner, clearly (whatever else is in debate about him) sees himself as a Big Man. And Big Men Go Big, or Go Home. My hunch is if you want to sell your policy pitch to Rauner, describe it as high-risk, high-reward, and your odds of him approving it just went up at least 10%. (Donna Arduin has probably mastered this boardroom pitch). It would be significant if it comes off. Maybe not the end of public sector unions, but as alluded - this is the whole country we’re now talking about here. Every state in the U.S. - California, New York, Massachusetts, etc. The impact would not be inconsequential. - Joe Biden Was Here - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:47 am: Sometimes there’s a method to madness and sometimes there’s not. On this issue the guy has lost his marbles. - UIC Guy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:48 am: Maybe this is all just trying to distract us from the fact that he has no solution to the State’s real problems. (Because the only solution involves raising taxes, and that’s against his religion or something.) I guess we’ll find out more next week. But it wouldn’t surprise me if he claims that RTW(FL), and maybe some other stuff that the GA will never go for, would solve all our problems, so that when he doesn’t get what he asks for it is—guess what?—Someone Else’s Fault. - W.S. Wolcott - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:51 am: Just wait til the union hating employees start filing loads of grievances and demanding arbitration. Then threaten lawsuits when the union balks. - RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:53 am: Following - Frenchie Mendoza’s - thought … Looking forward to a possible walkout or strike, I’m not sure how an agency or the entire State could continue to function. There used to be contingency plans for such an event but said plans relied heavily on (at that time) non-union PSA and SPSA staff. Now that most PSA’s are in the union, I seriously doubt there are enough non-union staff to even keep the doors open, let alone the wheels of government turning. So if enough people won’t cross a picket line, I believe we’re looking at a shutdown. That may be exactly what Rauner is looking for, another chance to portray unions as greedy and against the best interests of the State. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:53 am: Is this issue really all that different? I really don’t care about this issue and think there are bigger issues to be dealing with, but I don’t view them as the same at all. Also, I believe labor and contract laws are probably pretty different. I’m sure someone who is a lot smarter than I can say it better, but I believe there is a difference between being a public servant working for the government and being a bunch of bigots wanting to make your own rules on receiving a contract. That’s just me. Regarding the issue at hand, I don’t have any problems with unions, but I don’t think the State (us) should make people join a union to work on a job that is paid for by taxpayers. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s fair to make the union provide services to that employee who doesn’t pay for those services. Again, our state has bigger issues and we should really be concentrating on those. - Arizona Bob - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:58 am: Interesting. I didn’t know that unions will spend money on staff and legal fees to support individual non-union members they “represent” in grievance disputes. Are there any facts to show that this is the case? Some say that being able to negotiate on their own behalf would somehow be detrimental to the interests of the workers. Any evidence to back that up? If you compare professional services in things like engineering between unionized public employees and non-union, there’s no way the public employees are better served by the Teamsters than by themselves. All the compensation info shows that, such as the salary data from the AAES. I would assume the same goes for accountants and attorneys. The ones who seem to do better under the public union system seem to be limited to barbers, janitors, some clerical workers, and trades. And don’t forget those sloths who just show up and go through the motions for 7.5 hrs per day. Quite simply, the more productive, well educated, and skilled you are, the less value unions give. It’s time for unions to EARN their members support through services given, and justify some of those obscene salaries and benefits the union bosses make. Having to show value to their membership, and justify the salries for bosses the rank and file are paying, must scare the beejesus out of them… - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:05 pm: ==justify some of those obscene salaries and benefits the union bosses make== Do you think Rauner’s riches are obscene? The head of the IPI’s salary? Is that obscene? Just curious if you’re equal opportunity or just a union hater. - Poster - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:05 pm: Are union dues deducted pre-tax? If so, this is a play for increased revenue. - Mama - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:11 pm: This is what Rauner said back in April. This appears to be his plan for current for pensions. “I am the one candidate in this race who does not want to change the deal for existing retirees or existing accrued benefits,” he said. “What I want to do is create a second pension plan, in addition to the existing pension plan, and that should be a defined contribution, 401K-style plan.” Later, when asked to clarify, Rauner said that pension benefits would not change at all for current retirees. They would keep the 3 percent compounded cost of living raises that were taken away in the pension reform bill. The same would hold true for current workers. They would keep all benefits accrued up to this point in their pension, including, apparently, the yearly 3 percent compounded cost of living raise on that portion of their income in retirement. But current workers, under Rauner’s plan, would eventually have their pensions frozen and switch over to a 401K-type plan. Rauner did not explain how the pension system would be able to meet its obligations under his plan without newer, younger workers paying into it. He needs a signed contract with the state employees to seal his pension/insurance plan. - ChiTown Seven - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:16 pm: One way to respond to Rauner’s complaint is with a motion to dismiss because Rauner does not have standing to bring the lawsuit. That would raise a pretty question of law. Typically, court’s require that those who bring lawsuits demonstrate that the action that they are challenging somehow causes them injury or harm. Rauner might not like the current fair-share practice, but his pleadings do not show that he has been harmed by them. His lawyers try to skirt the issue by asserting that Rauner has standing because he is tasked with enforcing a contract that he argues is illegal because it adversely affects the 1st amendment rights of others. Certainly, those “others” have theoretical standing to challenge the current fair-share approach, but I don’t see how that applies to Rauner — especially because the courts have long held that no one has standing to assert the 1st amendment rights of others. - RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:23 pm: - Mama - Rauner has bought into a minority opinion on the pensions that has never been proven in court. Based on previous IL SC rulings, Rauner can’t change things for existing employees. Unions don’t represent their members when it comes to pensions; that is an individual right. - Heff - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:24 pm: If Rauner really hates unions so much, why doesn’t he just pull a move from the playbook of ex Indiana Gov Mitch Daniels and decertify collective bargaining. Daniels did that his first day in office by executive order and never looked back. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:28 pm: “Some say that being able to negotiate on their own behalf would somehow be detrimental to the interests of the workers.” No one says that, but many people *do* recognize the fact that you’ve missed- that workers negotiate on their own behalf *through* the union. - Arizona Bob - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:36 pm: @Arsenal =No one says that, but many people *do* recognize the fact that you’ve missed- that workers negotiate on their own behalf *through* the union= Ummm, you either negotiate for your own benefit on your own behalf, or your interests may not be even considered in the negotiations you’re forced to accept and pay for. Case in point, young teachers. A salary schedule based upon course and student load, giving equal pay for equal work, is clearly in their best interests, yet the unions consistently set up salary schedules based upon number of classes taken and longevity. This is CLEARLY against their interest in negotiations, yet they have to pay for the privilege of being betrayed by their union. That’s simply not fair. Freeing them to negotiate on their own behalf is about the only justice they can get. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:38 pm: I think just the fact that he’s playing offense is enough to explain the EO. That might not reflect all his reasoning behind this particular move at this particular point in time, but IMHO it’s sufficient. You can play D, but that pretty much allows the people on the other side of the ball to organize and call the next play. Play O and the other side is reacting to you, not controlling you. - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:39 pm: RNUG, Isn’t it true that the theory of “keeping your existing pension and 3% COLA” to a certain date, and getting a split “part existing pension and 3% COLA plus lower pension, lower COLA” upon payout, has never been tested in court, and may require a new lawsuit to determine its viability if enacted? - anon - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:40 pm: If he can break the union, watch out for drastic changes in health care. Then the workers get what the employer is willing to offer. Can you say lowest level ACA coverage anyone? - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:42 pm: Negotiating on your own behalf works best if you are a good negotiator, and/or you have a service or talent that is high on the demand side and low on the supply side. Preferably both. Even people who have a needed talent sometimes are poor negotiators. Not that unions are either, always. That is all. - chi - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:46 pm: =I don’t think the State (us) should make people join a union to work on a job that is paid for by taxpayers= The union is only there in the first place because it was democratically elected by the workers in the bargaining unit. It can be removed by an election too. I don’t think my tax money should be used to pay Donna Arduin $120,000. But Rauner was democratically elected, so I’m stuck. I can leave the state (just as a government employee can get another job), but if I stay (and you can bet I’m not leaving before Rauner does), I have to pay the bill for the services performed. Same principle applies. - Frenchie Mendoza - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:49 pm: Can’t a union member file a countersuit saying that the absence of those fair share dues impacts my union rights? - metro east transplant - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:52 pm: What I’m curious about is will the public be given accurate numbers, heck any numbers, of those who chose to withdraw from paying the fair share amount? To the point of who will run the state if all the workers are fired due to a strike…..there are LOTS of consultants out here who would be more than happy to pick up the work. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:54 pm: “Ummm, you either negotiate for your own benefit on your own behalf, or your interests may not be even considered in the negotiations you’re forced to accept and pay for.” And you can negotiate for your own benefit on your own behalf in a union. - AC - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:56 pm: Rauner is certainly getting a lot of attention for his latest action. I keep getting Google news alerts from across the country related to his executive order. It doesn’t matter if (or more likely when) this fails, he will have a higher profile as a result. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:56 pm: “A salary schedule based upon course and student load, giving equal pay for equal work, is clearly in their best interests” Then the young teacher can lobby his or her fellow union members to get it. - Western Ave. Doug - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:06 pm: - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:38 pm: “I think just the fact that he’s playing offense is enough to explain the EO.” Right, Exactly Right! Well said Mr. Schnorf. - Rod - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:07 pm: Casual Observer asks what happens if fair share payees want to keep paying into the unions? Their money is being put in escrow pending the decision of the federal court on this issue and will not go to the unions unless a court issues an injunctive order as far as I can tell. As for Governor Rauner’s end game, its what he has said it is. It’s to lower the bargaining power of the unions and to get union members to opt out of union bargaining units. If one reads the lawsuit that Rich linked to fair share employees are paying around 96% of the dues that full union members are, if they have to pay nothing well then that is money in these employees pockets at least in short run. So Governor Rauner’s end game is to count on the general anti-union atmosphere in our country to achieve a lowering of the average wage for state employees. In Wisconsin employees massively abandoned their unions even though they could have maintained memberships on a private level and carried out informal agreements and guerrilla warfare using work slow downs and other tactics with various public entities. In the first year after PA 10 went into effect, membership in Wisconsin’s public unions fell from 50 percent to 37 percent. They are even lower now. This is the end game for Governor Rauner. - Filmmaker Professor - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:31 pm: I don’t like the fact that AT&T, my internet provider, contributes millions of dollars to political causes that I oppose. Isn’t that also a violation of my First Amendment rights? How is this different than Rauner’s claim? You will say that I’m free not to do business with that company. But aren’t employees who don’t want a union free to work somewhere that is union free? - Filmmaker Professor - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:32 pm: sorry about my lapses in punctuation above. - RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:36 pm: == Isn’t it true that the theory of “keeping your existing pension and 3% COLA” to a certain date, and getting a split “part existing pension and 3% COLA plus lower pension, lower COLA” upon payout, has never been tested in court, and may require a new lawsuit to determine its viability if enacted? == Yes, that exact issue has never been tested in court in Illinois. However, all the IL SC cases to date have been consistent that (paraphrasing some) the pension rules in place at time of hiring plus enhancements granted by the Genral Assembly are the pension contract and no diminishment is allowed. From what I read in some of the key pension decisions, I think there is no wiggle room for the Sidley opinion that Rauner appears determined to try at some point. - Mouthy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:42 pm: The end game. fire the current employees, outsource, lower wage and pension costs. Glad I’m retired. - illlinifan - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:51 pm: here is what unions can do….caseworkers with IDHS can earn $85000 a year. Regional managers and heads of offices not in the union earn $20000 a year less than the caseworkers and not get a pay raise for eight years because they are MC. Even if we think salaries are too high for state employees, the key is who will go to bat to ensure the salaries paid are fair and keep up with inflation. I don’t trust equity venture people to look out for anyone but themselves. - Unions go home - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:59 pm: Filmmaker Professor. I think you miss the point of the argument. I am an afscme represented employee. I am a lifelong citizen of Illinois. Neither I nor anyone else currently employed at my agency ever voted for union representation. Yet, we are continually hit up for a forced contribution to the Democratic (socialist) party through their wholly owned subsidiary the afscme union. By state law, governor’s office employees cannot make a direct contribution to any candidate for governor, yet I was forced to contribute to a $13 million afscme contribution to a candidate I opposed. I don’t call this fair, and please don’t tell me to seek other employment. Few people entering state employment have any idea as to the extent of these problems. In fact many have no idea they are hiring into a union environment at all. - Jimbo - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:04 pm: If governor Rauner has staff that pay union dues,fair share or otherwise, he has standing to file suit. He could have recruited better talent or better compensated employees without it. That’s if he filed as a private citizen. If he filed as Gov and Lisa didn’t give the go ahead, he’s likely to be brought before the lege to explain why he shouldn’t be impeached. His answer, “Evelyn” - Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:07 pm: ==Neither I nor anyone else currently employed at my agency ever voted for union representation.== You did at one point. ==In fact many have no idea they are hiring into a union environment at all.== Then they are morons. All that info is available up front. ==Democratic (socialist) party== And that’s the ballgame for a dopey comment. - low level - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:11 pm: The law already provides for this, UGHome. Look up the definition of a “FAIR” share employee and a “FULL” share employee in a public employee union. Once you have educated yourself, then get back to the class. - Buzzie - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:06 pm: And why are people hyper-ventilating at this time? Nothing of substance has been heard from Madigan and Cullerton on this topic. Plus, nothing yet has been heard from the Republican senators and representatives; probably too busy buying Advil to ease those migraine headaches now that they, after all these years, have to make some meaningful votes. - Norseman - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:07 pm: Unions go home, so you rejected your salary increases that were negotiatiated by this terrible socialist organization? And, poor guy they kept you from donating to the John Birch Society. - Skeptic - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:40 pm: “all the workers are fired due to a strike…..there are LOTS of consultants out who would pick up the work.” There’s a word for those kind of people: Scabs. And it ain’t a nice word either. - Skeptic - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:58 pm: “then issue an executive order saying all workers not returning to their jobs will be fired.” I’m no lawyer, but I’m not so sure he can do that either, at least not right away. We aren’t PATCO. And if he doesn’t bargain in good faith, I believe there are recourses for that too. - Bulldog58 - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:12 pm: “If Rauner really hates unions so much, why doesn’t he just pull a move from the playbook of ex Indiana Gov Mitch Daniels and decertify collective bargaining. Daniels did that his first day in office by executive order and never looked back.” Collective bargaining is guaranteed by the Illinois Constitution. - Skirmisher - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:55 pm: I have decidedly mixed feelings about the benefits of public employee unions. However….I am completely baffled by what seems to me to be a not so important sideshow. Illinois is not in financial trouble over what it pays to its relatively few employees, directly or through benefits. We are in big trouble because we try to provide way too many services with an inadequate revenue stream. Cutting salaries, etc. won’t begin to solve the money problem. So why waste all of this precious political capital on a secondary issue? - Stuff Happens - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:55 pm: National Nurses United isn’t impressed. http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/nurses-condemn-illinois-governors-anti-worker-executive-order - Stuff Happens - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:59 pm: I agree with RNUG. He’s aiming for a shutdown, and he’s been itching for it since he mentioned it a couple of times on the campaign trail. - Neglected stepchild - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:06 pm: Ever hear of the First Amendment, Rich? Does it apply only when it suits your purposes? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:09 pm: ===Does it apply only when it suits your purposes?=== Ha ha ha ha ha ha, that’s hilarious. Try again Justice Marshall. Here’s some free speech for you: you’re a dope. - CapFax reader - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:17 pm: Endgame? Madigan has that reputation, Rauner will have to earn it…but Arsenal@10:56am and RNUG@11:38am may be right. But on the issue of a potential “STRIKE”–AFSCME current contract Article 33, “No Strike or Lockout”…”During the term of this Agreement there shall be no strikes, work stoppages or slow downs. No officer or representative of the Union shall authorize, institute, instigate, aid or condone any such activities.” …but does Rauner’s EO already break the contract, this opening the door to a strike? Two consecutive governors violating the contract? RNUG@11:31 LOL! Zing! You’re my favorite commenter! - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:19 pm: A First Amendment violation? Did Congress pass some law up in your grill, NS? You might want to give that First Amendment a read before playing victim. - Metro East Transplant - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:31 pm: “There’s a word for those kind of people: Scabs. And it ain’t a nice word either.” You must have never worked on the inside of ANY state agency. There are consultants who work for every state agency right now. My point was to the reference of how any agency would run IF striking employees were fired. My assumption is that consultant contracts will increase until they figure out the situation. So consultants “assisting” the state now is ok. Would you rather shut down all state agency’s? Or have consultants pick up the work in the interim? I was in no way shape or form implying that consultants “replace” union members on a permanent basis. Before you go off on me for being anti union……my husband is a union member. We are a proud Union family. - AnonymousOne - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:53 pm: Skirmisher, you are so right. Our only problem in this state is revenue. As has been stated so many times here, we cannot cut our way into prosperity. Attention needs to be focused on generating more income and that might just turn heads toward the likes of people like Rauner and IPI donors and other high income people. Anything but that! So if we demonize public workers and have private/public workers ripping each others’ throats out over their pathetic little salaries (as compared to those mentioned above), the heat is off. But there will never be any way around the revenue problem. It has to be addressed. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:12 pm: ==AZ Bob: I didn’t know that unions will spend money on staff and legal fees to support individual non-union members they “represent” in grievance disputes. Are there any facts to show that this is the case?== Did not see this before. It is required by Federal Law: “An exclusive representative is responsible for representing the interests of all employees in the unit it represents without discrimination and without regard to labor organization membership.” http://www.flra.gov/statute_7114 - DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:36 pm: I’m a non-union manager and don’t have much respect for AFSCME, but I will say this: when a worker files a grievance with union representation, management has no way of knowing if the worker pays dues or fair share. So Az Bob, you’re wrong again. - Mi 1 - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:21 pm: Gut the union. Then he can freeze step raises and cut whatever he wants to. Unfortunately the cuts will most hurt the front line lowest paid employees rather than the Executives or Directors. - AnonymousOne - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:06 pm: =Gut the union= Our state will be flooded with instant money for all if this simple task is completed. Fiscal problems solved. Gee, maybe if we can cut salaries of public employees by eliminating unions, we can eliminate the state tax and everyone gets a refund. Yeah, some people have messed up thinking here. - lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:19 pm: How will new contract be negotiated on this issue? I suppose this EO could be stayed by court. Somebody is playing 3D chess. May not be the unions. - Finally Out (and very glad to be) - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:13 pm: Bulldog @4:12 “If Rauner really hates unions so much….” Rauner doesn’t hate unions, he has told us that over and over and over. /snark - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:30 pm: I waited. “To what end?” “My answer is I don’t have the first dang clue. Maybe Rauner is an eager beaver and likes to knock things out early. And maybe he has many friends wanting an agenda done by the end of May. I’m an educated man, but I’m afraid I can’t speak intelligently about the beginning salvos of Bruce V. Rauner.” To the Post, Rauner is pushing until the blowback makes him have to respond. - steve schnorf - is probably the most accurate, and his explanation puts in clear perspective what is the plan, without really going about answering for or TO the plan… Until I see the legislative agenda, the cobbling of votes to pass it, and getting a budget thru too, - steve schnorf - gives the cleanest, most crisp, and simplistic answer that makes sense, so I’ll be on that train, with a good sprinkle of other’s ideas…as they evolve. Glad I waited. - Bemused - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:07 pm: Who plays a better game of Chess, Bruce or Mike? As others have said, the game is on! - RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:22 pm: I’m not sure chess is the proper analogy. Rauner right now reminds me of someone running wild with a bulldozer, just knocking things over indiscriminately. In the past, Madigan has reminded me of a sniper who lays in wait and then carefully takes a shot designed to inflict maximum damage with minimal effort. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:26 pm: - RNUG -, That is very well said. Rauner wants you to KNOW he is taking you on, and goes at it 110 mph in your face. MJM takes you out, then you find out that it happend… - Mama - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:41 pm: His lawyers asserting that Rauner has standing because he is tasked with enforcing a contract that he argues is illegal because it adversely affects the 1st amendment rights of others. It is not asking that the statute which provides employees may be bound by a lawful fair share agreement be declared unconstitutional, but that the contract the state entered into be declared unconstitutional. - Mama - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:50 pm: The win here for Rauner is the escrow of union dues- he is locking up funds for bargaining right before and during contract negotiations. His game is to flood the zone for contract negotiations by dividing the union resources. Another one of his divide and conquer game plans - football anyone? - Arizona Bob - Wednesday, Feb 11, 15 @ 8:36 am: @DuPage dave =I’m a non-union manager and don’t have much respect for AFSCME, but I will say this: when a worker files a grievance with union representation, management has no way of knowing if the worker pays dues or fair share. So Az Bob, you’re wrong again.= I asked if those not paying union dues are represented by the union in grievances. You said you don’t know if they are or not. You obviously can’t make the case that they are represented by the union in grievances, so what’s your point? Also, I didn’t claim they weren’t represented, I only asked if there was an example anyone had where they were. You couldn’t provide it. You may think I’m wrong for asking the question, but at least I know how to read. - Arizona Bob - Wednesday, Feb 11, 15 @ 8:39 am: @Arsenal =And you can negotiate for your own benefit on your own behalf in a union= Actually, you can’t. You have no power to “strike” AGAINST the union if they don’t meet your demands. You’re forced to live with what the tyranny of the majority wants. Having the power to leave the union as an individual is the only thing you can use as leverage, and you’ll have it if this EO flies. - Skeptic - Wednesday, Feb 11, 15 @ 8:46 am: Metro East Transplant - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 5:31 pm: Of course I know there are consultants at the State, and have been and always will be. Consultants and contractors can be the right answer in many situations. But your comment was about how the consultants would be happy to take over the former Union jobs after all the Union members get fired. That’s a whole different ballgame. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.