Governor Rauner yesterday delivered remarks explaining how reforming collective bargaining is a bi-partisan idea and would save taxpayers billions. In fact, many Democrats, including the House Speaker and House Majority Leader as well as the Senate President and Senate Majority Leader, have voted in recent years to limit and remove collective bargaining requirements in an effort to save taxpayers money.
“Twice in the last four years, Illinois Democrats voted to reform collective bargaining, but now they are hiding behind it to try to force spending higher and raise taxes on the people of Illinois,” Rauner spokesman Lance Trover said. “The notion that collective bargaining is sacrosanct to the Democratic Party is nothing more than political gamesmanship to protect the status quo and hurt taxpayers.”
SB 1 (Pension Reform of 2013)
Senate Democrats voting aye:
Biss, Cunningham, Harmon, Hunter, Jones, Landek, Martinez, McGuire, Morrison, Mulroe, Munoz, Raoul, Sandoval, Silverstein, Stadelman, Steans, Van Pelt, Mr. President
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/98/senate/09800SB0001_12032013_005000R.pdf
House Democrats voting aye:
Acevedo, Andrade, Arroyo, Bradley, Burke, D., Burke, K., Cassidy, Chapa LaVia, Conroy, Crespo, Currie, D’Amico, Davis, M., Drury, Dunkin, Evans, Feigenholtz, Fine, Flowers, Gabel, Harris, G., Hernandez, Hurley, Jones, Kifowit, Lang, Manley, McAsey, Mitchell, Moylan, Mussman, Nekritz, Sente, Soto, Tabares, Thapedi, Turner, Verschoore, Walsh, Welch, Williams, Willis, Yingling, Zalewski, Mr. Speaker
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/98/house/09800SB0001_12032013_006000R.pdf
SB 7 (Labor Reform of 2011)
Senate Democrats voting aye:
Biss (House), Clayborne, Collins, Cunningham (House), Delgado, Forby, Haine, Harmon, Holmes, Hunter, Hutchinson, Jones, Koehler, Landek, Lightford, Martinez, Mulroe, Munoz, Noland, Raoul, Sandoval, Steans, Sullivan, Trotter, Mr. President
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/97/senate/09700SB0007_04152011_059000T.pdf
House Democrats voting aye:
Acevedo, Arroyo, Beiser, Bradley, Burke, D., Burke, K., Chapa LaVia, Crespo, Currie, D’Amico, Davis, W., DeLuca, Dunkin, Feigenholtz, Flowers, Ford, Franks, Gabel, Gordon, Harris, G., Hernandez, Jackson, Jones, Lang, Lilly, Mautino, Mayfield, McAsey, Mussman, Nekritz, Phelps, Rita, Sente, Soto, Thapedi, Turner, Verschoore, Williams, Zalewski, Mr. Speaker
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/97/house/09700SB0007_05122011_002000T.pdf
That’s all well and good. However, the governor has proposed some awfully radical legislation…
Prohibited subjects of bargaining.
(a) A public employer and a labor organization may not bargain over, and no collective bargaining agreement entered into, renewed, or extended on or after the effective date of
this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly may include,
provisions related to the following prohibited subjects of collective bargaining:
(1) Employee pensions, including the impact or
implementation of changes to employee pensions, including
the Employee Consideration Pension Transition Program as
set forth in Section 30 of the Personnel Code.
(2) Wages, including any form of compensation including salaries, overtime compensation, vacations,
holidays, and any fringe benefits, including the impact or
implementation of changes to the same; except nothing in
this Section 7.6 will prohibit the employer from electing
to bargain collectively over employer-provided health insurance.
(3) Hours of work, including work schedules, shift
schedules, overtime hours, compensatory time, and lunch periods, including the impact or implementation of changes
to the same.
(4) Matters of employee tenure, including the impact of
employee tenure or time in service on the employer’s
exercise of authority including, but not limited to, any
consideration the employer must give to the tenure of
employees adversely affected by the employer’s exercise of management’s right to conduct a layoff.
Sorry to repeat myself, but no way are they gonna vote for that, governor. No way are even all that many Republicans gonna vote for it, either.
- Concerned - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 1:57 pm:
So Rauner’s Crew’s theory is that because some Dems voted to do things Unions did not like means that those same number (or more, now) Dems would also vote to kill Unions? What are they smoking in that frat house?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 1:58 pm:
“Dear Rauner Crew,
Old votes and history is important. Very important.
What even more important?
Showing you have 60 and 30, or today 71 and 36.
If you had it, you’d tout you have votes today, instead of pointing to votes of yesteryear.
Today. You don’t have the votes.
Signed,
Captain Obvious”
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:02 pm:
The fact that MJM has made union rights and collective bargaining the defining issue in the battle with the Gov certainly was never intended to suggest he wasn’t on the opposite side more often than not with previous administrations. That’s been said time and again on this blog.
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:04 pm:
Think about what you’re writing. There has been hits here and there delivered to AFSCME. As I’ve said before, I think they could’ve came to agreement with Madigan on additional tweaks. However, Rauner wants to go all the way and kill unions. It’s not happening. Now Rauner has fostered an environment that tweaks will be harder to come by. Great job there businessman.
- pool boy - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:09 pm:
What’s next, company scrip, company housing and company stores ?
- PublicServant - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:09 pm:
Thanks for juxtaposing what Rauner’s demands actually are, and not just printing Trover’s false equivalences. If more media would do that, Rauner couldn’t hide behind his rhetoric anymore.
- Jack Stephens - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:09 pm:
What is his obsession with Unions?
- D. Schwarz - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:09 pm:
You’re right, Rich, it is awfully radical. And to add a little more texture to the obvious: lot’s of Democrats, broadly speaking, are moderate on collective bargaining/workers’ rights issues. It doesn’t mean they’re “anti-union” which they’d have to be to support Rauner’s proposals.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:10 pm:
Dear Bruce,
Thank you for all your help and for the reminder that, if not for you, democrats would have paid dearly for their pension theft vote. Instead, democrats now enjoy more union support than maybe ever before.
Sincerely,
ILDEMS
- Liberty - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:10 pm:
So he is not demonizing the other side now but still isn’t willing to compromise.
- Sir Reel - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:10 pm:
What’s left to bargain over? Break room decor?
Even if Rauner were able to make significant cuts in wages, increases in hours, etc., the State budget would still be unbalanced. State employee wages don’t amount to much in a $35 billion budget.
I wonder where his kill unions mindset comes from?
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:11 pm:
This was a very poor effort by the Sham-wows to come up with collective bargaining bills. There were better examples, but perhaps those bills didn’t fit the argument they were weakly making.
- Jack Stephens - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:12 pm:
@sir reel:
Also,whether the coffee creamer is powdered or actual half and half.
- Yeah Right - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:14 pm:
I like the “in order to save the tax payers money” part. In reality, it’s so they can spend it elsewhere, on the projects they like better. Lets not pretend the politicians are really trying to save the tax payer anything.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:14 pm:
Nobody seemed to think the changes forced on AFSCME by the Speaker in pension reform were ‘tweaks’. I’d point to the State Fair of a couple years ago as proof. I’d also remind everyone that Cullerton’s bill on pension reform was acceptable to the union, but not to the Speaker. Legal opinion said the Speaker’s bill was unconstitutional, and the Supremes have now agreed with that assessment. Who was the ‘radical’ in the pension reform scenario? There was no concern for the AFSCME worker in those days, but now the politics have changed and so has the Speaker’s position.
- D. Schwarz - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:15 pm:
Why does Rauner want to weaken unions? Because organized Labor has the resources to advance policies that level the playing field for workers and employers, raise wages for all, and support candidates that support Labor’s policy initiatives. If Rauner can weaken unions, weaken their voice in the capitol, he weakens the Democratic party, and the corporate-profit narrative rules the day without opposition.
- Under Influenced - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:15 pm:
For some reason, I just can’t get this square peg to fit in that round hole…
- Politix - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:15 pm:
He’s still trying to court public opinion for his anti-union agenda. Amusing.
- PolPal56 - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:16 pm:
I want to point out that FORMER Senator Jacobs also voted for SB1 - and in large part that is why he is no longer Senator Jacobs. His replacement should note that.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:16 pm:
Have the governor’s peeps ever taken a hard count on GOP votes for this stuff?
- Jack Stephens - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:16 pm:
Unless of course the Cows are Union Cows and then that is not negotiable and the fault of the Speaker and his cronies.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:18 pm:
===Have the governor’s peeps ever taken a hard count on GOP votes for this stuff?===
Have the governor’s peeps ever put their proposal in bill form?
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:19 pm:
Fake Governor says many things left to bargain over, “Office chair with wheels or no wheels, chair with arm rest or no arm rest, LED lighting in office or soft incandescent light, orange vests for road workers or pink. I could go on and on, no questions please”.
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:20 pm:
=== What is his obsession with Unions? ===
They make it harder for him to do anything he wants.
- Joe M - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:31 pm:
=== What is his obsession with Unions? ===
And in the private sector, he feels they are a hindrance to larger profits for companies and corporations and their management. Everything for people like him is thought of in dollars and cents.
- nadia - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:32 pm:
Norseman - that says it all!
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:38 pm:
Lincoln Lad, evidently you didn’t read the Capitol Fax when pension reduction was debated. There was a huge outcry over SB 1. In addition to sticking it to AFSCME, it affected all state employees and retirees.
However, your example falls flat when you look at the length of time it took to gain passage of this legislation which, while onerous, was less expansive than earlier proposals. It was also panned for not going far enough. The takeaway for you should be that Madigan is not going to roll over for Rauner because less radical proposals have been approved.
P.S. The only reason that the union came to an agreement was the fear of an unknown ruling. Now that ruling has been issued, there will not be an agreement on further pension reduction bills.
- Skeptic - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
Skeptic at 2:32pm is not me. Please choose another nickname.
- A Jack - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
So what the Governor is saying here is that the GA does NOT have a corrupt bargain with unions because the GA does not always do what the unions want. Thank you Governor for showing us the giant hole in your argument.
That said saying these bills are an attempt to limit collective bargaining is quite a reach by the Governor and is possibly showing desperation.
Well let him stew a bit more.
- shanks84 - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
“The notion that collective bargaining is sacrosanct to the Democratic Party is nothing more than political gamesmanship to protect the status quo and hurt taxpayers.” No…it’s to protect the state employee from politicians like Rauner.
- Sam Weinberg - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:51 pm:
Right on, A Jack.
I am equally perplexed by this line of thinking, which contradicts what the Governor has been saying since 2013 (except, of course, during the general election campaign).
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:51 pm:
“Hi Rich-
Here’s some of the busy work Gov. Rauner feels will again disguise that Gov. Rauner can’t count to 71 and 36 and hasn’t the support to pass his Union-Crippling agenda.
Thanks!
ck”
- Woodstock worker - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:54 pm:
Inigo Montoya: Gov. Rauner, you keep using that word “reform.” I do not think it means what you think it means…
- Jack Stephens - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:55 pm:
- shanks84 - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:49 pm:
“The notion that Corporate Welfare and Undunded Mandates for the Top 1% are sacrosanct to the Republican Party; and are not to be considered political gamesmanship to protect the status quo or hurt the wealthy.” - Republican Somewhere
- walker - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:55 pm:
Is everything always either black or white with these guys?
Does agreeing on a bit in the past mean that it’s bad dealing to not go all the way now?
Again, does praising current Dems for their votes during previous administrations make the current administration look better or worse
- Gobblers Knob - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:56 pm:
Showing how often Demos seem to be willing to break from the ranks on issues seems to fly in the face of the old mantra of Madigan and the legislators he controls. New tactic?
- A Jack - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
And need I remind anyone that Rauner ran on YEARS of corrupt bargains in the GA, not on some vague prediction that a corrupt bargain wiould start with this GA. He is falling all over himself with this new statement.
It certainly looks like he is reaching for straws.
- Charlie Wheeler - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:58 pm:
Points of Information re SB 7 (PA 97-0008)
Approved 54-0 in the Senate, April 15, 2011; 112-1-1 in the House, May 12, 2011.
Noted the AP in a June 13, 2011, bill signing story:
“The bill, which took effect immediately, largely had the support of unions and advocacy groups, putting it in stark contrast to Republican-led efforts in other states, including Wisconsin and Ohio, to strip teachers and other public employees of collective bargaining rights and weaken the teachers unions, which typically support the Democrats.
“We didn’t do it the way some other states, even in our region have sought to do, where they exclude people or demonize groups of people,” said Quinn, who is a Democrat.”
Noted The State Journal-Register in a June 14, 2011, editorial:
“The bill signed by Quinn to much fanfare in Chicago on Monday was the product of months of negotiation that involved the state’s teachers unions, education reform groups and lawmakers from both parties. State Sen. Kimberly Lightford, D-Maywood, led the talks.”
Charlie Wheeler
- Skeptic - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:01 pm:
“Is everything always either black or white with these guys?” I’ve heard much about “purity”, so maybe?
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:03 pm:
Key point: All of those things were accomplished without Rauner.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:06 pm:
Now that the pension rights trump all other spending it looks like raises and health insurance are where they will try to make up the difference. These are not constitutionally required
- Ghost - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:09 pm:
the ultimate question though is, how is this billions in “savings” a good thing. tehnically thats billions of dollars not bein spent in the il economy. so how is illinois better if we remove billions in spending from our economy? cuttng worker and retiree income means leas spending in all the manu businesses who derive income from that spending. millionaires adding wealth to their stock portfomios brings no money to our economy.
- Daniel Plainview - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:10 pm:
Is the stress getting to these jokers?
For months the Dems were just puppets of the all powerful union thugs, yet suddenly they’re being obstinate just because?
Do they workshop this stuff, or even read what they write?
- xxtofer - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:16 pm:
@Sir Reel - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:10 pm:
What’s left to bargain over? Break room decor?
— No, I believe that is a management right.
- AC - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:19 pm:
But Rauner said the unions always supported Democrats who always gave unions everything they wanted. /s
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:21 pm:
@Daniel Plainview
Don’t forget the percentage of the ILGOP party owned by Rauner. Then concentrate on who the thug actually is, you know the person calling on everyone for “shared sacrifices”
- Captain Illini - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:35 pm:
I think what’s happening - from what I just learned today - is that the heat is gonna get much hotter in the next few days due to scores of mayors really mad about MFT and local sales tax reimbursements. He’s just trying to hide the fact by using his stale arguments against the legislature so he can pass blame when the flaming letters start hitting mailboxes. Change is afoot, and it ain’t pretty.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:41 pm:
Revisionist history doesn’t make it so. Cullerton’s negotiated pension reform acceptable to the union, and I presume acceptable to the Supremes through the element of consideration it contained. The Speaker wouldn’t call Cullerton’s bill and introduced his own. His bill was rightfully called unconstitutional at the time, and subsequently by the Court. Through the ‘radical’ decision to forego do-able reform, we have NO pension reform, and we elected a new Governor. I don’t agree with that new Governor’s stance on a lot of things, but there is one man whose hubris and inflexibility has contributed more to our problems than the guy who just showed up.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:45 pm:
- Lincoln Lad -,
I’d “Fire Madigan”, but that’s just me…
- Mason born - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:48 pm:
Lincoln Lad
The Supremes made it clear in the SB1 ruling that Cullerton’s bill was just as toast.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:50 pm:
-Oswego Willy -
Or just blame Pat Quinn, and pretend to be the defender of union rights. Nobody watches that close, and you can ‘deal with a Governor Rauner, no problem’.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:53 pm:
- Lincoln Lad -,
There’s always options when avoiding governing by the governor is the goal
- Mason born - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:54 pm:
Something is afout this reaks of a desperate 4th and long attempt. The problem for the governor is he has a Cutler like ability to toss interceptions. It may just be my gut but they seem nervous like something big is coming they don’t think they can push off onto MJM. I wouldn’t be surprised if a small town mayor told them pay the utility bill or we shut off the prison. Something along those lines something that will get statewide and/or nationwide media attention. 2000 inmates suing for inhumane punishment due to no showers or running toilets would do it.
- Mason born - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:55 pm:
Afout = afoot
- History Prof - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 3:57 pm:
- Jack Stephens - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:09 pm: “What is his obsession with Unions?”
Great question. My personal take is that it is the only way for a wealthy Republican to avoid accepting responsibility for the economic collapse of the middle class in this country. Otherwise Rauner himself would have to take some of the blame. I COUlDN’T be because people like him have rigged the system to skew income toward the top. So it MUST be some problem with the groundlings. Oh yes: they have too much bargaining power; THEY are the problem.
Rauner is a manifestation of the fact that Reaganism (low taxes and deregulation) have completely failed.
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 4:00 pm:
Lincoln Lad, revisionist? You talk about a shotgun compromise that you “presume acceptable to the Supremes through the element of consideration it contained.” Cullerton’s bill wasn’t acceptable to me and the unions can’t negotiate away my rights. Have your read the Supreme Court’s opinion? What is the basis for your presumption other than you want it to be so? More importantly, what is the point anyway? Are we supposed to believe that since Madigan has stuck it to AFSCME before at whatever level of harshness, he should be ashamed of himself for not agreeing to Rauner’s union busting proposals. Are you trying to convince the public that if anybody other than Rauner offered up the union busting provision Madigan would wholeheartedly support it. C’mon man! Get real. This whole line of argument is nothing more than chaff trying to distract from the real issue.
Revisionist? I’m sure RNUG would be happy to fill you in on reality.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 4:05 pm:
- Norseman -, well done.
- Jack Stephens - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 4:11 pm:
@history:
I agree completely. Yet I also wonder if he there might be another cause for this obsession….out side of politics that could be the cause.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 4:12 pm:
Thanks Norseman, well stated.
- Wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 4:43 pm:
mason, you might be on to something.
Likely candidates for small towns that can’t carry a state facility indefinitely without payment for services? Critical vendors?
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 4:44 pm:
Kudos to Charlie Wheeler for the context information. The takeaway was that there was a negotiation with all parties. As we know our current governor is not into negotiating with lobbyists or interest groups. (Remember that lobbyists are forbidden to talk to agencies without special dispensation.)
Noting the above context information and considering other historical agreements, I would hope Rauner’s folks would take the wise counsel of Charlie Wheeler, Rich and others and start bringing business and union folks to the table to negotiate a compromise version of some of the “turnaround” agenda. This may be unproductive given the bad blood that has occurred so far. But they should try it. At a minimum, it would show some effort on the part of the gov. Alas, I daydream too much. I know that Rauner and his folks fear leaks from negotiations sessions and don’t want to give weight to some of the involved parties. Sigh.
- burbanite - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 5:08 pm:
Who is feeding the vets?
- Finally Out (and very glad to be) - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 5:10 pm:
@Sir Reel - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 2:10 pm:
“What’s left to bargain over? Break room decor?”
Not to worry, there won’t be any break rooms.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 5:15 pm:
Norseman, nailed it! Well said.
Although Charlie is right as always that “all parties were at the table” for the 2011 bill talks, there are more than a few folks in the teaching ranks who strongly disagreed with the bill. That hurt carried over and got worse when the “Coalition” started negotiating pension cuts with Cullerton without the retirees’ input.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 5:27 pm:
Thank you Charlie Wheeler for adding your perspective to this.
I know I can’t get enough Institutional Knowledge.
Good stuff.
- RNUG - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 5:53 pm:
I’m not sure I would count the SB-1 vote. A lot of the people voting for it didn’t figure it would survive the court challenge but they decided a “Hail Mary” attempt was better than doing nothing.
- RNUG - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 5:55 pm:
-Norseman-
I’ll my “well done” also …
- Mason born - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 6:22 pm:
Wordslinger
The facility I worked at years ago consumed roughly 1/2 of the water produced In the supplying municipality. with the While acility acounting for 1/3 of the population. Add in the sewer charges for the water coming back and it’s a big note for a smaller municipality. I won’t name the town since I have no idea if they’ve reached that point but the ratio of population is pretty normal for the downstate institutions.
Ameren provided power and gas so they can tote a note easier.
Next probably the non correction industries food vendors although most of them have some political connections (shocking I know) making it unlikely for them to go to far.
I’d say water sewer most likely. State law prohibits water and sewer districts from cutting into each others territory so if city a cuts them off city b won’t be able to rescue the state. That and laying water lines is expensive very expensive for that size main. At some point the math is going to override other considerations if the State is a large consumer and continues to consume without paying the cost to provide the water still has to be paid. Even if a mayor is in agreement with Rauner eventually the cost will outstrip the ability of the rest of the customer base. Small customer base quicker the point is reached.
- Mason born - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 6:43 pm:
Wordslinger
My quess would be any community where the Prison or other high volume state user used a 1/3 or more of production. We have Genesseo talking about shutting off the state for a much smalelr volume user. It costs a considerable amount to treat, store, and distribute water especially if it is a surface supply as many southern IL systems are. At some point the state consuming large quantities wihtout paying will outstrip the communities ability to cover the cost. Samller community the faster this should happen. Another concern are systems that buy finished water from other systems. If the parent supply isn’t willing to float the cost of floating the state that will hit tipping point quickly.
Next are probably food vendors and those who provide raw materials to correctional industruies.
A question i’ve been wondering is if the inmates are still being paid. Commissary (soda, chips, snacks, electronics, etc.) is paid for by the inmates purchases of course if they aren’t getting paid? Inmates without comissary get really upset.
- Old and Tired - Thursday, Oct 8, 15 @ 7:12 pm:
So, Rauner, are Democrats “in thrall” to unions like you’re always saying, or are they generally antagonistic?
What is this trying to accomplish anyways? Does Rauner think this will actually break the budget logjam?
Speaking of budgets and SB1, where is Rauner’s budget?