Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a Statehouse and campaign roundup
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** State of the state word cloud
Posted in:
* Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist…
“While Pat Quinn’s Illinois continues to tax and spend itself into oblivion at the behest of union bosses, Mitch Daniels’ Indiana stands as an example for the entire Midwest.
Norquist was mainly talking about Gov. Daniels’ signature yesterday on that state’s new “right to work” legislation.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 3:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a Statehouse and campaign roundup
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** State of the state word cloud
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Oh gosh, Rich, considering the source, what is there to discuss?
be well,
bob roman
Comment by Robert M Roman Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 4:30 am
Please.
We all know Indiana is run by crazies, why do we have to keep talking about it???
Comment by Kimbo Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 5:38 am
Grover Norquist thinks America started going downhill with Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives. Gee, I thought we had been doing swell since then, by any measure.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 5:50 am
Grover Norquist…..a character on the evil version of sesame street. no, wait, that sounds like a knock to sesame street…..
Comment by amalia Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:01 am
Until Americans know who funds Norquist, his views should be disregarded.
Comment by phocion Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:01 am
well, we have an opportunity to see whether the promises have legs. indiana is supposed to take off, rapidly outpace economic growth in the rest of the region and the country. we’ll know soon enough if the promised economic explosion occurs…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:24 am
Whoever funds Norquist, the “crazies” running Indiana, and the “right to work” concept all notwithstanding, Indiana is obviously doing something right as compared to Illinois. That’s a simple and obvious fact. We should be learning from our neighbors to the east instead of denigrating Mr. Norquist. Not to say Indiana doesn’t have its own set of problems and issues, but on the whole, they are coping much better than Illinois. Come to think of it, most other states are coping much better than Illinois. The basic concept that Illinois seems totally unable to grasp is that a budget cannot spend more in the long term than it takes in. So simple a concept, yet the General Assembly has spent years avoiding and denying it.
I had opportunity to have a discussion with a state senator, now deceased, about 12 years ago. He was fully aware then our present circumstances were coming, though he thought them much more imminent at the time. He recognized and was very concerned about the harsh realities a budget reckoning would entail. The disturbing part of the conversation was that many in the General Assembly, including Speaker Madigan, knew exactly what the budget situation was coming to, yet refused to acknowledge it or to take any corrective action. He knew he was terminal, and was distressed by what he felt his senatorial legacy would be.
It comes down to the old saw about the people getting the government they deserve. We elect and re-elect people who serve only themselves and the cadre of interests that fund them. Until voters make effort to become educated and involved in their own governement, we’re going to continue to be governed by those cadres that have no real interest in the welfare of the state or its people. If we can’t do it for ourselves, we should do it for our children and grandchildren. Like the old senator, my concern is the legacy we are perpetuating is nothing to be proud of, and indicative of a weak and selfish people. Our children and grandchildren should inherit a better government than we did, not worse. If they don’t, then we have failed as parents and a people. That is also a simple and obvious fact.
Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:42 am
Wasn’t his last public comment a threat to have Senate Republicans impeach the president over taxes?
Interesting that the wave of right-to-work laws is sweeping through swing states during a presidential election season. Do Indiana Republicans want to risk what happened next door in Ohio?
Comment by Boone Logan Square Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:46 am
Yes, Norquist is proud of his minion, so what?
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:53 am
Well, we now live in a land where unions are supposed to be bad, corporations are good, and in fact people too. If the country keeps going in this direction I fear for our future.
Comment by Corporations are people too! Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:55 am
And Indiana’s legislature is pushing to teach creationism in their schools, so, you know, I take what the Hoosiers are doing with a grain of salt. On paper, Indiana doesn’t look all that different from Illinois, but it fundamentally is different.
Comment by Gregor Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:56 am
Lets talk about what right to work is– the ability to force unions into representing people for free.
The law contains two components, 1 is a ban on union security clauses. This is an agreement within the contract that aftern a certain time, a employee in the bargaining unit will become a member. 2 the union may not require dues, fees or other payments as a condition of employment.
The second part has the effect of trying to choke off the revenues of a union.
If you have a bargaining unit of say 10 people. And 4 choose not to be members under this law, the union is still obligated to bargain for them. Seek benefits for them. And represent them in grieveances and such.
So say in our case, a non-member complains that his dozer was run when he was told to stay home. A business agent answers the complaint goes to the job and has other operators confirm it did happen.
He now goes to the employer and says he needs to pay the guy. The emloyer says no, so he files a greviance.
There is a pre-greviance hearing and if no settlement a full board grevance hearing. If the full board deadlocks, then it goes to arbitration, which means our lawyers are now involved and that procees can take some time. Just the court reporter generally costs $1000.
Another case might be where a non-member gets his statement on benefits, they get all the same benefits as full members do, the contractor has not paid in any of the benies. So again, we have to send out a agent. Contractor maybe short on cash and we have to either work out a payment plan, collectons or even a strike.
Butmif the contractor goes belly up, then union has to make good on those benefits ut of its own pocket, despite the individual is not a member and has paid no dues or costs asociated with any of these actions.
And if we dont represent them, then they file a duty of fair representation charge with the labor board and we get jammed up.
If some one doesn’t like how fees/dues are spent, the supreme court in Beck said that members can object to those monies not used in representation or contract talks.
So if the union is giving a lot of money to nancy pelosi, and you don’t like it, you can demand a reduction in dues and the union has to calculate that and return it.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 7:03 am
I wish we had the governor that Grover Norquist describes, rather than the one we have. I suppose he hasn’t heard of the multiple lawsuits being waged by AFSCME against the administration. I guess when you look at the world with a narrow partisan view, it’s impossible to separate fantasy from reality.
Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 7:21 am
Grover Norquist, the Wayne Wheeler of the 21st century.
Comment by Way Way Down Here Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 7:26 am
The south is rising … north.
Comment by vole Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 7:38 am
== Until Americans know who funds Norquist, his views should be disregarded ==
Agreed! (ad hominem attack aside, of course)
Comment by Kimbo Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 7:58 am
Should be freedom of choice that is what this country is founded on
Comment by Mike an Ike Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:14 am
A parasite will slowly kill it’s host. A feeding frenzy of parasites will kill their victim even faster.
Comment by Bag Lady Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:18 am
…Until Americans know who funds Norquist, his views should be disregarded…
Just how does Congress disregard an unelected Wheeler who holds a signed, no tax increase pledge from 238 in the House and 41 in the Senate?
Twelve of them Illinois types…
Comment by countryboy Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:23 am
We thought it meant Grover had a thing for trolls with bad rugs
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:24 am
I care as much about Norquist’s views as I do about who Trump is going to back in the Republican presidential primary. Yawn……zzzzz.
Comment by Kerfuffle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:33 am
===tax and spend itself into oblivion at the behest of union bosses…===
What is refreshing… is the use of this new phrase.
I am going on a limb here…
This phrase may be used again because it is so new and not a tired political cliche’
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:34 am
To judge by these comments, the Illinois Policy Institute minions must not clock in til later. Or they’re just worn out from all that bingo.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:38 am
===tax and spend itself into oblivion at the behest of union bosses…===
I would argue that Illinois is more than willing to spend itself into oblivion for a host of reasons, it does not require the ‘behest of union bosses’
That’s a bit like blaming the last century for the Cubs on a goat.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:46 am
The tax relief and spending the governor proposed yesterday are very good ideas, but only in coordination with cuts in the state budget that deal with pension reform in particular. The problem with people like Norquist is that they would prefer government not spend a dime on anything. The problem with the move on crowd and other far out lefties is that they have never seen a cut they like. What happend to the moderate middle? We need it back from out state and country badly.
Comment by Niles Township Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:58 am
Quinn had plent to say yesterday. Quite frankly he told many just what they wanted to hear.
Now as for me, I would like him to say just how he intends to pay for all of his lofty goals
Comment by Informer Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:06 am
I’m wondering what would have happened if Mr. Norquist had posted that quote in a comment thread here on cap fax - he’d probably have been mocked or ignored for such a drive-by slogan…
Gov. Daniels isn’t exactly Norquist’s typical pure example for blindly always opposing all tax hikes:
“A consumption tax on a product you’d just as soon have less of doesn’t violate the rules I learned under Ronald Reagan” - Mitch Daniels, talking about a cigarette tax hike.
Comment by Robert Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:13 am
If you put labor laws & regulations on a spectrum: with Alabama and some of the most aggressive “right to work” states at a 10 and some of the most union-controlled states as a 1 - IL would probably be 3. I think that our labor and pension laws are too heavily tipped towards union wishes, but we don’t need that guy to tell us that.
Also, JBT’s quote about dessert before veggies is ironic to me. Isn’t she the cheesecake lady?
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:19 am
I would trade Indiana’s balance sheet for our balance sheet anyday.
Comment by WashingtonIrving Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:20 am
This intellectually challenged discussion appears to focus on the messenger rather than his message about our intellectually challenged governor.
Comment by capncrunch Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:36 am
@Todd, 7:03
“Lets talk about what right to work is– the ability to force unions into representing people for free.”
That is not accurate. Union members can send their dues to the unions directly. If the union members feel the union provides them something of value, members will send the dues to them directly, much like my membership to a gym or any other organization I belong. The fear/argument is that many (most) won’t send in their dues directly and get something for nothing.
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:38 am
GRrrRRR…Grover Norquist…ArrRgggHH…Koch Brothers.
Balanced budgets are hard. Status Quo is easy.
Comment by Minion Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:43 am
Let’s see how the legislators who signed Norquist’s tax pledge do in the November election before deciding if Norquist’s opinion is worth anything.
Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:46 am
–“A consumption tax on a product you’d just as soon have less of doesn’t violate the rules I learned under Ronald Reagan” - Mitch Daniels, talking about a cigarette tax hike. –
Despite what the revisionists say, Reagan often raised taxes, as both governor and president. He was much more pragmatic and moderate then the right-wingers would have you believe.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2154/reagans-forgotten-tax-record
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 9:48 am
Maybe Indiana’s balance sheet better off, but will the people of Indiana be better off? Lower wages, lower benefits, etc. It’s continues to be a depressing race to the bottom.
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:09 am
===That is not accurate. Union members can send their dues to the unions directly.===
Yeah, and let’s make taxes, service charges and Capitol Fax subscriptions voluntary as well. Great idea.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:10 am
===he’d probably have been mocked or ignored for such a drive-by slogan…===
Depending on my mood, I might’ve deleted it. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:11 am
Did Grover actually say that live, or was it their robotic press release machine, which hasn’t been updated in 25 years?
Comment by mark walker Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:12 am
@Todd
Excellent explanation of how non-members can freeload off of member contributions. It eliminates the fair share component for non-members.
I would also like to point out that in my union, AFT/IFT, political dues are collected separately from basic union dues and the union must get signed permission from members agreeing to and stating the amount allowed to be deducted, which is done once yearly.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:17 am
Sometimes I despair when reading Capitol Fax. Then I remember that a majority of the people reading the Blog and commenting are likely current/former state employess and members of the exclusive union club and that it is hardly representative of the state’s population or their view points.
Comment by Back to Reality Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:26 am
BtR, slamming my commenters with an ill-informed broad brush is a good way to get yourself deleted.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:27 am
The only Grover I trust is blue and tries to fly.
Comment by OurMagician Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:31 am
Hmmm… I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of members of Congress pledging their allegiance to an unelected, unaccountable individual with secret funding provided by unknown backers?
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:35 am
I don’t even know how that comment is considered a slam Rich? I didn’t say there was anything wrong with state employees or union members, only that they aren’t representative of the state population, nor necessarily their view points.
We are all entitled to our own opinion and the Blog captures a group of opinions in the political circle; opinons of those who are more aware of what they have to gain or lose as a result of public policy.
I would consider a “slam” to be “Illinois Policy Institute minions” if I cared one iota about the organization.
Either way, no sarcasm meant, I did not mean to offend anyone by noting that you are or were a state employee and a member of a union.
Comment by Back to Reality Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:43 am
@TwoFeetThick 10:35
“Hmmm… I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of members of Congress pledging their allegiance to an unelected, unaccountable individual with secret funding provided by unknown backers?”
You’re talking about Grover and Americans for Tax Reform or the union leadership? What would the founding fathers say about union leadership? I have no issues with the union rank-and-file, but I do have an issue with union leadership, who are often ungodly wages on the backs of their members, perks galore, and sweet pension boosts on the backs of taxpayers, like me.
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:50 am
oops, meant to write: “who are often paid ungodly wages”.
I regret the omission.
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:51 am
Knome you’re wrong. Go read the law two components just as i described
One guy or up to 49% can opt out, pay nothing but demand services and reap all the benefit
Some also seem to cunfuse us in private sector unions ans how we manage things with public sector unions
The state has nothing to do with my pension plan we are governed by ERISA our trustees would be in jail if they acted like the state
Comment by Todd Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 10:58 am
My point is this: being in a union is beloning to an organization. That organization represents its members at the negotiating table. Membership should not be complusory. If the unions are so great, why do they need to require dues or “fair share” compensation? They should do a better job at recruiting members and if those who benefit without joining, so be it.
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:03 am
Uh, yes, Knome, I was talking about unions. Right. Those bastions of corruption that want nothing more than to destroy our country by fighting to provide people with living wages and safe working conditions. The horror. I gotta get me some of that “sweet pension boosts”.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:04 am
Why should non-members benefit from union negotiated wages, benefits and workplace protections? Let them negotiate their own contracts and see how well it works out for them.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:08 am
TwoFeetThick
Have you read the news at all in the last 18 months? Work a day as a substitute teacher, get a pension. Work a back-hoe twenty years ago, get 85% of your union pay in retirement. Also, you’re saying unions are immune from corruption? Where are you from?
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:08 am
Knome Sane, the unions are obligated under law to represent their entire bargaining units. I don’t dig parasites. Pay for your service.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:12 am
==I would trade Indiana’s balance sheet for our balance sheet anyday.==
So would I, but they have had higher taxes than Illinois for years. Illinois dug itself a hole, in part, by having a flat tax and collecting less revenue while providing similar services.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:13 am
The problem is the problem isn’t really the ‘work a day as a sub’ folks or the ‘don’t really work for the state but participate in the pension system’ or even to a lessor extent ‘I do a ton of jobs the last couple of years so I get a huge pension’ folks.
I think virtually everyone from the most ardent state union member to the most anti-union person out there agrees those are things that need to be dealt with.
The thing is however, I don’t really begrudge my former HS teachers getting a pension. It was part of the deal. I think you get some of the abuses out, get the SD and local government to have more skin in the game and the state to step up a little more I think you will make everyone happier…
As for Right To Work, I guess I am a Thompson Republican. I seem to recall when I was a kid there was a push for that and he said ‘no way….’ and invited the union protesters over to the mansion for beer.
Right to work does not get the GOP one more vote in this state. I also don’t suspect it will lead to one more employer in this state.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:17 am
Rich, I understand what you’re saying.
I will sit down now and play nice.
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:17 am
==If the union members feel the union provides them something of value, members will send the dues to them directly, much like my membership to a gym or any other organization I belong. The fear/argument is that many (most) won’t send in their dues directly and get something for nothing.==
Try going to the gym for a workout if you haven’t paid your dues. If their is a collective bargaining agreement, the union must represent all members of the bargaining unit even if they have not paid dues to the union. That’s a good deal; why pay dues when the representation is a legal mandate?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:20 am
Robert….I think CaptFaxers would rip Grover just because he uses that obviously fake name to try to seem cool…
and….
Maybe Indiana’s balance sheet better off, but will the people of Indiana be better off? Lower wages, lower benefits, etc. It’s continues to be a depressing race to the bottom…..
IN also encourages you to marry your first cousins and cope with 2 time zones for a state that looks like the outline of a doublewide that had been rear ended.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:43 am
There was a time when unions fought for better pay for all, safer working conditions and stable work week. Now the federal government or the state ensures those rights and workers are thankful for the sacrifices that were made.
Unions now bargain for a select group of people and have not only shed the plight of the average worker, but have alienated them from their club. If we all were able to join a union would our wages and benefits increase or decrease? Would unemployment skyrocket or fall?
Unions are now completely political. They bargain like any other special interest (including big business) to garner favor towards their select group.
And when it happens in the public sector it creates an issue with those who do not benefit and have to pay, such as the taxpayers working in the private sector. That is, unless you count Illinois state bureaucracy, debt, the current state of public education, the pension problem and the crowding out of state services that used to be easily funded as a benefit, then this should make sense.
If Illinois was a small business, company or corporation then guess who would be out of a job? I guess that’s the benefit of unionization in the public sector, unlimited fiscal years in the red due to mismanagement, inflated wages and benefits, all offset on the backs of future Americans. I hope it was worth it!
Comment by Norquist > Trumka Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 11:57 am
There was a time when unions fought for better pay for all, safer working conditions and stable work week. Now the federal government or the state ensures those rights and workers are thankful for the sacrifices that were made.
Unions now bargain for a select group of people and have not only shed the plight of the average worker, but have alienated them from their club. If we all were able to join a union would our wages and benefits increase or decrease? Would unemployment skyrocket or fall?
Unions are now completely political. They bargain like any other special interest (including big business) to garner favor towards their select group.
And when it happens in the public sector it creates an issue with those who do not benefit and have to pay, such as the taxpayers working in the private sector. That is, unless you count Illinois state bureaucracy, debt, the current state of public education, the pension problem and the crowding out of state services that used to be easily funded as a benefit, then this should make sense.
If Illinois was a small business, company or corporation then guess who would be out of a job? I guess that’s the benefit of unionization in the public sector, unlimited fiscal years in the red due to mismanagement funds, inflated wages and benefits, all offset on the backs of future Americans. I hope it was worth it!
Comment by Norquist > Trumka Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:00 pm
I’m a Republican, long-standing, and I deliver my vote for the party’s candidates unless they are just crazy (see Alan Keyes). If I want to live in a right-to-work state, with lower wages, lower test scores, lower standards of living, worse schools, and in some cases, lower taxes, I’ll move there.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:06 pm
G>T wrote: ==There was a time when unions fought for better pay for all, safer working conditions and stable work week.== and then ==Unions are now completely political. They bargain like any other special interest (including big business) to garner favor towards their select group.==
So the unions were political and that was OK, but now they are political and that’s not OK???
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:10 pm
@Norquist > Trumka - Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:00 pm:
You can say that again.
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:15 pm
I think even in RTW states employees have “Beck Rights”. “Beck Rights” refer to rights declared in a U.S. Supreme Court case, Communications Workers of America v. Beck. Under Beck, an employee should be able to limit his or her payment to the union to his or her share of the costs of representation. The principle behind Beck is that workers should not be forced to pay for union lobbying or political work unrelated to the employer/employee relationship.
So this anti- RTW argument seems to be simply about dues money that goes to non-work related activities.
Comment by Today Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 12:43 pm
I have 2 thoughts on this:
1. Indiana’s leaders can do what they want. If they truly believe that repealing a state law that requires employers to collect union dues is bad public policy, so be it. Time will tell whether it helps or hurts their employers. I don’t know why Gov. Quinn feels the need to criticize this, as he did yesterday. Different strokes for different folks. Let it be, Governor.
2. It appears that this entire argument is about union’s wanting a state law that requires employees to pay - and employers to collect - charges for services that some may not value or want. It’s not that the union couldn’t take other steps to get the funds, it’s just more efficient to require the employers to serve as their collection agent. Unions have been, and can be, persuasive, but they can’t persuade members to pay dues?
Comment by Foxfire Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:02 pm
@ Today, you have that backward.
All workers have the right to limit payments to the cost of representation. In RTW states they need pay nothing; not even the cost of representation. However, the unions, as collective bargaining agents, must still negotiate on their behalf and represent them in disputes with managements. Thus, RTW is seen as a setup to get rid of unions because it is difficult to work for folks who do not need to pay you.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:18 pm
==It appears that this entire argument is about union’s wanting a state law that requires employees to pay - and employers to collect - charges for services that some may not value or want.==
It’s kind of like insurance, no one wants it until they need it. It takes a lot of time and effort to craft a contract and to represent workers in conflict with management. Their are plenty of folks who think they could do without such representation, but they run to the steward when they get called into the managers office and expect the same strong advocacy as everyone else.
==It’s not that the union couldn’t take other steps to get the funds, it’s just more efficient to require the employers to serve as their collection agent. Unions have been, and can be, persuasive, but they can’t persuade members to pay dues?==
It’s kind of hard to persuade some people to pay for something when they can have the same thing for free. That’s why the YMCA requires membership as do any number of service organizations. The difference is that the representation is mandated by law, the Y doesn’t have to let you in if you did not pay for membership. Big difference.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:27 pm
I didn’t open the link, but to me Norquist is just spouting the same old stuff. Illinois was gutsy to raise taxes as a necessary part of addressing a massive deficit and backlog of unpaid bills. Cuts alone are inhumane because they cause a lot of harm to people who arent’t soleley responsible for the crisis.
I had the good fortune to try to help such a person the other day at work, someone who said she just became homeless, lost her baby and had no food. I say good fortune because it’s great to be there for someone like her. People like her shouldn’t have to take the whole load on their shoulders, and that’s what Norquist and the signers of his no tax pledge want.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:35 pm
Foxfire
==I don’t know why Gov. Quinn feels the need to criticize this ==
Have you missed the gratuitous criticism Daniels has been heaping on Quinn? Or didn’t that bother you?
Comment by reformer Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 1:54 pm
@PCK
“The difference is that the representation is mandated by law”
What law? Federal law? State law? Isn’t that the risk of being part of an organization? Unions are not an extension of state government. Illinois law gives them a wide berth on how they operate and interface with the state negotiators. I think the YMCA reference is weak. This debate is really about unions using state law to compel membership and employer dues collection. That’s it.
Comment by Knome Sane Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:00 pm
@reformer
I saw it, but why dignify it with a response.
“Don’t argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Focus on making IL better, not on convincing folks that we are better.
Comment by Foxfire Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:25 pm
==What law? Federal law?==
U.S. Code: TITLE 5, PART III, Subpart F, CHAPTER 71, SUBCHAPTER II, § 7114, (a)(1)
§ 7114. Representation rights and duties
(a) (1) A labor organization which has been accorded exclusive recognition is the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit it represents and is entitled to act for, and negotiate collective bargaining agreements covering, all employees in the unit. 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.
Note the last sentence.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:35 pm
==This debate is really about unions using state law to compel membership and employer dues collection.==
Since the law compels representation, it does not seem unreasonable to compel workers to compensate the union for the cost of representation.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:43 pm
Geez, Knome Sane, give it a rest. Are you in a union and bitter about it? Why are you arguing that people should receive benefits without paying for them? If you don’t want to pay into a union, go work somewhere else. You know, exercise your personal freedom.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:48 pm
Sheesh!
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 2:56 pm
With some people, there’s no point in trying to explain.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 3:00 pm
I kind of miss you guys…. I should “drive by” more often…
W/regard to Grover’s comments. In five years we should know whether or not this is a successful endeavor or not. You can compare states w/Indiana and Illinois or Indiana and other states. As a rust belt state, my theory is, that culture and tradition of unionism in the mid-west will be a variable. Comparing rtw in states w/a union tradition versus a rtw w/out a union tradition might be fodder for economists and poll sic, types too.
As far as 501c3’s and c4’s telling us who gives them money. That’s crap. The first thing it tells me is your argument against it weak. Foundations that give to c3’s report who they give money to, so it can be looked up. For Koch there is a Soros. In a pluralistic society that’s a good thing. Political expenditures and c4’s have a few more rules regarding disclosure. In my experience, only the ignorant throw that one out there…
With regard to Todd’s comments about unions being forced to represent non-members… Having now spent time in an unionized environment I can tell you that there is representation and then there is a quality representation. Union officials will go to the matt for some and do the minimum for others. Could be the worker is a lay about or a trouble making employee. Others who volunteer for extra union work may find a higher percentage of claims paid and they definitely get the help they need (but they’re by nature also the one’s less likely to need help). I find it hard to believe those who work in these environments and are now faced w/the choice of continuing to pay or not to pay union dues don’t know that. I’m sure there will subtle hints of that as decision time comes around.
Finally, I imagine that the free loaders (again personal experience) and trouble makers will be overlapping groups. This will be an opportunity for unions to separate some of the wheat from the chaff making the both the companies and unions better off.
PS: I never thought I’d hear pro-union advocates use the Beck decision as a defense for anything… Clever… And ironic.
Comment by Greg Blankenship Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 3:09 pm
@Today: read your own comment again. you have it backwards — or you left out a word by mistake.
Comment by mark walker Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 3:35 pm
Kettle, thanks, you are right, beck rights only apply to the workers in non-right-to-work states. Unions in RTW states will have to create a product and service that would compel workers to join.
Comment by Today Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 3:49 pm
Becoming a RTW state didn’t work out well for Oklahoma.
Comment by tired of politics Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 4:29 pm
I just read some good news. Chicago is getting the North American headquarters of a German manufacturer of elevators and other stuff, ThyssenKrupp, who has 180,000 employees in more than 80 countries. We’re getting 100 jobs.
Mayor Emanuel says the company picked Chicago because of the “transportation, infrastructure and the best worforce in the world.” The company says that it hasn’t asked for economic incentives, and that each incentive is a “short term thing.”
It’s nice to see that a company as successful as this one apparently value infrastructure and education at least as much as taxes and right to work laws.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 4:56 pm
Gregg — good to know your still keeping an eye on things.
We have a bargaining unit is Iowa. The non-members file more greviances than the members do. And we have to make an effort to give good represenatation for both members and non-members.
Beyond, the DFR claim/board charge we will draw, we can’t let the employer try and use the non-members to degrade the working conditions and terms of the contract.
If a non-member could prove we laid down on represenatation, we would draw a charge and find ourselves under a Board order or mandate.
And YES Beck allows people to pay onlyfor those things associated with represenatation.
However, Fair Share is the term where unions are ALLOWED to collect those fees or costs addressed in Beck. RTW prohibits collecting those costs incurred.
And if you lookign to the “members” only or “minority” union here is a perfect example of the feds dictating the bargaining unit:
http://www.laborrelationstoday.com/uploads/file/v355127_doc.pdf
Comment by Todd Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 6:01 pm
Todd,
There is quite a bit distance between good representation and an effort versus going to the matt for someone. Is the Iowa union an outlier or typical?
As a first Amendment nut I’m against federal involvement in saying whether a group of people can share an association or not. That’s in any venue.
Comment by Greg Blankenship Thursday, Feb 2, 12 @ 8:03 pm
Why did Indiana go this way, since Mitch’s p.r. machine has already told us that the state is a Utopia for new business?
I guess that’s why Chrysler just announced 1,800 non-UAW jobs in Belvidere, IN.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 3, 12 @ 7:43 am