Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Next Post: SDems upset GOPs by advancing partial FY 15 fix
Posted in:
* The attorney general doesn’t usually issue an opinion on a proposal unless she is specifically asked. So, I’ve been wondering when somebody was gonna do this. From a press release…
In the ongoing fight to protect working families from overreaching anti-employee initiatives, State Senator Gary Forby (D-Benton) sent a letter to Attorney General Lisa Madigan to inquire about the constitutionality of right-to-work zones.
Across the country, right-to-work laws have crippled unions’ ability to protect workers’ rights. Studies of other states concluded that right-to-work laws drive down wages and benefits and do not improve a state’s business climate or create jobs.
Governor Rauner wants to experiment with their anti-worker policies at the state level.
“Right-to-work zones are the opening shot to roll back the protections we take for granted,” Forby said. “I want to know if the Governor’s proposal is constitutional because it doesn’t seem legal.”
Workers living in right-to-work states earn about $1,500 less per year than workers in states without these laws.
“Our economy is finally getting back on its feet,” Forby said. “Right-to-work zones mean a pay cut to the middle class, which goes against what the people in Illinois voted for last November.”
* Forby has 3 specific questions for AG Madigan. Click the image for the complete letter…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Next Post: SDems upset GOPs by advancing partial FY 15 fix
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good for Forby! And he’s exactly right to boot. Let’s shine some sunlight on this extremist governor’s class warfare proposals.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:11 am
Lets say Madigan issues an opinion adverse to Rauner (probably going to happen). Can Rauner use that opinion as standing to seek Federal court permission to establish the zones? From what I understand, the Kentucky ones are citing permission under Federal law, not State law.
Comment by TGS Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:15 am
Good letter, even though he said “respectively” instead of “respectfully” and “back ground” instead of “background.” I really hope she doesn’t ignore his letter.
Comment by Central Scrutinizer Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:16 am
It’s a nice press pop for Forby, but what he’s asking for may not generate the answer he’s looking for. Once the AG goes down this road, there will be competing testimony from all sides.
It may not achieve what he’s hoping for here.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:18 am
No matter the opinion, as stool to blunt the idea, or even an assist to advance it…
There just aren’t the votes to make this plan pass. Today.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:21 am
- competing testimony from all sides. -
The AG is an attorney, not a judge; testimony won’t be involved.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:33 am
I love how Gary’s staff had to been over backwards to avoid the phrase right-to-work. Twenty years ago there would have been no public official in Southern Illinois who would have supported it. Today, I’m not so sure. The UMWA which dominated the area remains only for retired miners. Their rivals PMWA officially closed up shop a decade ago. Their last mine operating is now a state fish and wildlife area. Having grown up around union coal mining relatives, but not agreeing with them, I’m still shocked at the anti-union sentiment I run into from blue collar types who are tired of the physical threats, property damage and harassment still practiced by trade union officials.
In the 1920s gangsters made money with booze during Prohibition. In the 1930s, according to the Kefauver hearings held here in Illinois, they added to their pile by taking over the unions. (It’s amazing how many gangsters were plumbers and pipefitters). It’s the trouble people have of distingushing between the violent extortion tactives of each that has destroyed the public support for their activities.
Of course, labor officials driving luxury cars to and fro didn’t help either.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:39 am
Are unions for everyone?
Should everyone be in a union if they can?
Are unions good for our economy?
Are unions good for our society?
YES-YES-YES, and HELL YES!
The anti-union movement is focused only on what unions cost in wages. They completely ignore what unions provide for those costs. The anti-union movement is filled with people who are not allowed in a union and are tired of not being protected or served.
With unemployment as high as it is, and with unemployment as high as it is among young people, there are fewer people who know what unions do. Thanks to politics, we have guys running for office trying to tap into the frustration of getting screwed by pointing at people who aren’t, and claiming they are to blame.
Its absolutely sick. Would Rauner go after citizens who attend church because studies prove that folks who attend church cost non-church goers more in infrastructure costs and maintenance on Sunday mornings?
What about those fraternities, Governor? How about claiming that they are secret societies that discriminate against citizens?
Unions are good for societies. Any governor who thinks otherwise is ignorant of what unions do. Rauner’s arguments as to why we should begin the process of killing off unions fail to take into account the damage our society will undergo without unions.
So expand the argument. This isn’t about protect union workers - it is about protecting our freaking right to be a part of a societal organization that serves everyone, union or non.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:40 am
Meh, see bill, vote down bill. Easy enough.
Competing testimony? I wonder what that means — like different opinions? I think you get those no matter what on every issue.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:41 am
===Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:33 am:
- competing testimony from all sides. -
The AG is an attorney, not a judge; testimony won’t be involved.====
Research will be involved.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:49 am
Forby’s little sideshow. The main act begins with a bill.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:55 am
Just curious, but because he brought up that workers make $1500 less in right to work states in his argument, I’d like to know how much union fees are usually?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:59 am
===The main act begins with a bill. ===
Maybe not. The main act could begin if a home rule unit passes an ordinance.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 9:59 am
The court action will be for counties to vote right-to-work laws without any bill from the legislature. That’s what they are trying to do in KY.
Comment by a drop in Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 10:05 am
- Research will be involved. -
Oh, so testimony was a typo?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 10:11 am
I too would like to see the AG’s opinion on “employee empowerment zones,” which are actually employee weakness zones. Madigan would not break the law by withholding fair share fees, thus I expect her to also defend the law in regards to right to work.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 10:26 am
This would be lawful for govt jobs; as govt employees can only be in unions as a creation of il law in the first place; probably unlawful as to private jobs and also illegal to not pay prevailing wage for municpal and city governments. However the law could be passed bu the state and place the authority for these zones ultimately with a State agency; with the requirement that the city/municipality makes the request. The state would have the authority to do this.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 10:29 am
=== Maybe not. The main act could begin if a home rule unit passes an ordinance. ===
Have you heard if any has even discussed the issue? I haven’t, but that and a dollar or two will get you a cup of coffee.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 10:46 am
If unions were so good, more people would be joining them. When you have a bad product or service, people stop buying it.
Comment by Apocalypse Now Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 10:48 am
=== a drop in - Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 10:05 am:
The court action will be for counties to vote right-to-work laws without any bill from the legislature. That’s what they are trying to do in KY.===
It will be a town, not a county. If memory serves (I’m sure Sling will check if it does), there’s only one Home Rule County in Illinois; Cook. And it ain’t gonna happen there.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:01 am
====Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 10:11 am:
- Research will be involved. -
Oh, so testimony was a typo?===
If that blows your skirt up, fine. For you testimony only happens in court with a judge. Can’t get you there from here, so let’s call it research and let you refer to it as a typo. No skin off my nose.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:04 am
iirc, AG Madigan said she could not issue an opinion on the pension proposal due to the possibility she may eventually have to defend the governor on that.
As someone who was pushing for her to issue an opinion back then, what is different now?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:12 am
===As someone who was pushing for her to issue an opinion back then, what is different now?===
Ask Lisa.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:14 am
If Rauner believes in right-to-work so strongly, why doesn’t he work to pass a bill? I think the right-to-work zones are a chicken bleep way to get someone else to do your dirty work. He is pushing it as local choice but he does not believe in that unless it is convenient.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:16 am
A guy: the push in KY is for counties as they believe state and/or federal law doesn’t apply on the county level. Not saying that makes sense but that’s their take on it. It will go to court, of course.
Comment by a drop in Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:24 am
I believe the current push is to get this before the Supremes and have them declare laws against right-to-work unconstitutional. With the current makeup of the count, this is possible.
Comment by a drop in Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:31 am
==Ask Lisa==
You are right, PS, because it appears to be arbitrary. We would have to ask her, as it is unclear why such a contradiction would occur.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:33 am
This bill won’t prevent anyone from forming a union, it will simply give employees a freedom of choice. It makes unions more accountable to the membership; if you don’t like the way a union is run, you leave, perhaps to form another union.
Don’t try selling that BS that unions can be reformed so that the membership can get rid of bad of poor leadership. Bridge embankments, stadiums and holes in the Nevada desert are filled with folks who believed that.
It’s time to liberate the workers based on referenda in local elections. Just look for a spike in knee injuries when there’s a campaign to pass this kind of initiative…
Comment by Arizona Bob Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:35 am
- Bridge embankments, stadiums and holes in the Nevada desert are filled with folks who believed that. -
What is it with you right wingers being such cowards? Union leaders get replaced all the time.
Go take a nap if you aren’t too scared of the monster under the bed.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:56 am
==It’s time to liberate the workers ==
Who needs liberated? When you take a job you presumably know what the requirements are and sometimes one of the requirements is to join a union. If you don’t want to join that union then guess what? You don’t have to take that job. I’m pretty certain that members of unions who claim they don’t want to be members and be “forced” to pay dues happily take the benefits and wages negotiated for them by that union.
We already have freedom. It’s the freedom to not take a job.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 3:33 pm
“If unions were so good, more people would be joining them. When you have a bad product or service, people stop buying it.”
Why is union membership lower in states that have lower median incomes and higher in states with higher median incomes?
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 4:46 pm
There is NO STRONG ARMING from the unions! Dues are about 50. To 60. Per month! GET OVER IT, downstate!
Comment by Mitch59 Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 5:12 pm
Guy, you don’t even try to inform yourself.
What’s your point?
You start with ignorant conclusions, fhen attempt to fill fhem in with made-up- justification on the backside.
What do you get out of that?
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 6:30 pm
@ Arizona Bob
And your line of reasoning is why there are so many potholes to begin with. You couldn’t pay people enough where your at to fill them. “Oceanfront Property in Arizona” by George Strait comes to mind…
Comment by Ljt75 Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:00 pm
@ Demoralized
I agree with you. I am still trying to find the physical threats workers and companies on a daily basis face from the union bosses who are “too scared” to come foward.
Comment by Ljt75 Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 11:04 pm
=== Wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 4, 15 @ 6:30 pm:
Guy, you don’t even try to inform yourself.
What’s your point?
You start with ignorant conclusions, fhen attempt to fill fhem in with made-up- justification on the backside.
What do you get out of that?====
Let’s see here. It starts with an ordinance. It can only be forwarded in a home-rule government body. There’s only one county in Illinois with home-rule status, and that’s Cook. So, that means it will have to start in a home rule municipality. That’s the conclusion. Is this moving too fast for you?
Comment by A guy Thursday, Mar 5, 15 @ 8:18 am