Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Next Post: Keeping Illinois Nuclear Plants Open: Good For Our Communities & Illinois
Posted in:
* I tried posting this story yesterday on my phone and couldn’t get it to work right. Sorry about that. Let’s first go to the AP…
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner’s lawsuit over forced fees paid by non-union state workers may proceed, but without the governor participating, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman decreed that the Republican, who has tried to limit labor unions’ political influence in his short tenure, does not have sufficient interest in the matter to seek a federal opinion that so-called “fair-share” fees are unconstitutional.
And he declared Rauner cannot collect the fair-share fees and keep them in a separate account—away from the unions—until the matter is settled.But the judge decided that three non-union Illinois workers who were added to the suit later may press the case. Mark Janus of the Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Marie Quigley of the Department of Public Health and the Transportation Department’s Brian Trygg are better positioned to show “injury” from being forced to pay the fees, but they must prove as legal action moves forward that federal intervention is justified.
Rauner was “greatly encouraged” by the decision, a spokeswoman said.
* Tribune…
In his ruling, Gettleman said Rauner lacked standing to challenge public unions in his official capacity because he had “no personal interest at stake.”
“In effect, he seeks to represent the non-member employees subject to the fair share provisions of the collective bargaining agreements,” Gettleman said of Rauner and non-union workers. “He has no standing to do so. They must do it on their own.”
In an attempt to move forward with his original lawsuit, Rauner amended it to include three non-union employees who oppose making the fair share payments. But Gettleman said Rauner lacked the authority to add the workers to his lawsuit without court permission.
Gettleman acknowledged the workers had standing to file suit to challenge the payments and agreed “in the interest of judicial economy” to allow their complaint to proceed separately. He ordered attorneys for the state’s public employee unions to respond to the suit by June 10.
* Illinois AFL-CIO react…
A federal lawsuit brought by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner against 25 labor unions representing state employees has been dismissed by the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois—the latest in a string of setbacks for the governor’s efforts to strip the rights of all workers to have strong union representation.
“We’re gratified that the court has rejected Governor Rauner’s latest ploy to weaken the unions that represent police officers, child protection workers, nurses and all who serve our state,” Illinois AFL-CIO president Michael T. Carrigan said. “This should be a strong signal to the governor that it’s time he treats public service workers with respect.”
Rauner filed the suit in February, at the same time he issued an executive order refusing to comply with federal and state laws that provide for fair share agreements, under which union-represented employees who choose not to join the union instead pay a proportional fair share of the cost of union representation.
Today, Judge Robert W. Gettleman granted motions by the unions and Attorney General Lisa Madigan, dismissing Rauner’s complaint for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction.
Judge Gettleman also denied Rauner’s request to place fair share fees in escrow.
He allowed three individual state employee plaintiffs to pursue the case in their own right.
* The full ruling is here. From the judge’s conclusion…
For the reasons explained above, the Employees’ motion to file their complaint in intervention (Doc. 91) is granted and the complaint will be treated as the operative complaint in this action. The Unions’ and Madigan’s motions to dismiss the original complaint (Docs. 40, 51) are granted. The Governor’s motion to confirm the first amended complaint (Doc. 97) and motion to dismiss defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot (Doc. 99) are denied. The first amended complaint (Doc. 102) is dismissed. The Governor’s motion to place fair share fees in escrow (Doc. 83) is denied as moot. The remaining defendants are ordered to respond to the new operative complaint on or before June 10, 2015.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 8:56 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** LIVE *** Session coverage
Next Post: Keeping Illinois Nuclear Plants Open: Good For Our Communities & Illinois
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Gettelman’s background section in the ruling describes some real Keystone Kop lawyerin’ on the governor’s behalf.
Very strange for a First Amendment warrior of his status and position. Definitely not the A-Team at work.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:06 am
I think it will be difficult to show how they were “harmed”. You got representation, you didn’t lose your job, you weren’t forced to take your job. Wouldn’t a loss in court for the three contribute to the case for fairshare? Legal folks?
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:06 am
Does anyone know who will be paying the legal fees of the three mentioned state employees? I imagine their lawsuit will be quite expensive.
Comment by Joe M Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:07 am
@Joe M you’ll be shocked to learn they’re represented by a DC-based anti-union group tied to the Kochs. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Right_to_Work_Legal_Defense_Foundation
Comment by Reality Check Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:11 am
Yes, the case is going forward with the three shills (check their history opposing the unions) who were brought in to try to legitimize the suit … and it turns out, legally, that was a smart move. So Rauner has managed to get a case into Federal court, which is what he (and the rest of the ruling elite) wanted.
But, and it’s a big BUT, the judge didn’t really buy into the initial complaint. The remaining plaintiffs are going to have to put on a better case than has been shown to date. Of course the plaintiffs will have the benefit of some heavyweight lawyers paid for by others.
As Rich and others have noted, this case has much wider ramifications than just Illinois.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:14 am
I don’t think this is a huge loss for the Governor, though the shoddy legal theory is little embarrassing. Still, the ballgame is overruling Abood. I doubt he cares much about how that happens.
(The problem is, Abood may not get overruled, or if it does, it might be after Rauner leaves office. But still.)
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:14 am
==I think it will be difficult to show how they were “harmed”. You got representation, you didn’t lose your job, you weren’t forced to take your job.==
The point of the suit is they don’t WANT the union to speak for them. What the union feels is their best interest they may not necessarily agree with. I know that say though concert for many with the union groupthink mentality, but not everyone agrees with their contract terms. They didn’t choose to work for AFSCME, the chose to work for the State.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:15 am
Joe M
not a full answer but see 6:24 comment here
https://capitolfax.com/2015/05/19/your-daily-right-to-work-roundup-14/
Comment by zonz Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:17 am
The only way to take this is as a big victory for the right-to-work forces. Now the case is into federal court and likely will be heard by the Supremes.
Comment by Quiet Sage Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:21 am
I do have an issue with my local IEA. I don’t think all teachers should be paid the same rate. Science, Math, and Special Education teachers should be paid more than PE, Music, and Art teachers. The latter are important and I want to see those programs in the schools but the former should be paid more than the latter. However, the good that IEA does outweighs the bad so I wouldn’t join such a suit.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:24 am
=The point of the suit is they don’t WANT the union to speak for them.=
Obviously the Unions want to hang on too the fair share money. I get it and don’t blame them. By law they have to represent these people. It seems unlikely that this case will prevail, but if it does will unions be forced to represent people that do not pay fair share? I would hope not. That would likely be the resulting change. I think the “anti-fair-share” crowd thinks they would benefit from this suit. I don;t think they see this situation very clearly. If the union no longer represents them they will be on their own eventually and, if history proves anything, that is not a good position to be in if you are labor.
= the case is going forward with the three shills=
With great respect, I am not sure it is fair to call them shills. They are obviously anti-union and have a lengthy track record on that subject. Zealots or true-believers would be more apt. Even dupes would be better. I think they, like so many in the middle class, have been co-opted in the fight against their economic interests by the economic elites. You probably know things about them I do not and it is a minor point. I feel bad for them because they don’t get how they are actually hurting themselves (potentially) with this battle hence, dupes.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:25 am
Drip
Comment by sss Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:26 am
“Rauner loses”, I expect to see that in a lot of headlines in the near future. His turnaround agenda is going to go down like a row of dominos.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:26 am
uh, QS, that is premature and overstated in the extreme. As yet we don’t even know how Madigan will respond to the employees’ complaint.
_______________________________________
- Quiet Sage - Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:21 am:
The only way to take this is as a big victory for the right-to-work forces. Now the case is into federal court and likely will be heard by the Supremes.
Comment by zonz Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:28 am
Did they choose to work for the State knowing they would be represented by AFSCME??
Comment by Tobor Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:28 am
Dupes is good, or maybe The Three Stooges, in the sense that that’s how RTW is using them. Maybe by the time this reaches SCOTUS there will be a new member on the bench. There are years of trips to the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and back to go. BVR should be gone by then.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:31 am
QS - this was a preliminary ruling on standing. Rauner’s lawyers filed something so procedurally frivolous they couldn’t even get him to court. The three at least have standing to assert a claim. Judge Gettleman hasnt found they have a meritorious claim — and won’t.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:33 am
[This commenter has been banned for life.]
Comment by BlameBruceRauner Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:34 am
In any event keep an eye on this CA case
+http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association-justice-alito%E2%80%99s-invitation-accepted
+http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17595/friedrichs_v_california_teachers_association
+http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association/
+
Comment by zonz Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:35 am
The Supremes already have a petition for cert on a similar suit out of California. Press reports say a decision on whether to grant could come any day.
Justice Alito helpfully outlined a game plan for overturning “Abood” in “Harris vs. Quinn.”
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:36 am
The goal is to get this question thru the Federal Courts to a final resolution by the Supremes(?)
They need to make a better case, these “three”, but they can try to make a case all the same.
The Governor, “Mister” Bruce Rauner is excited, although the “Governor” Bruce Rauner is removed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:38 am
So, will these RTW shills be the first let go, when budgets dictate layoffs?
Comment by Dr X Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:38 am
== With great respect, I am not sure it is fair to call them shills. They are obviously anti-union and have a lengthy track record on that subject. Zealots or true-believers would be more apt. Even dupes would be better. ==
Agree. If Rich had a edit function, I would change it to one of your suggestions. The word I used is just what came to mind.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:40 am
Marie Quigley made $53,000 in 2008. In 2014 she made $79,000. I guess that’s all because of her own efforts and her own productivity.
Comment by Down Under Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:43 am
oops, link for article with AFSCME quotes:
http://www.theday.com/article/20150418/NWS01/150419354
Comment by zonz Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:46 am
AFSCME hater’s don’t want there afscme pensions? Remove them from the program.no representation required
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:47 am
Anonymous @ 9:47: Pensions aren’t an AFSCME benefit.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:48 am
The court also ruled Rauner didn’t have the authority to withhold fair share dues.
Going forward, I think the three individuals will have a hard time proving harm as political contributions are separate. It doesn’t matter if they’re state workers or not.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:52 am
When the judge compares the salary of these 3 traitors in 2008 to what they make now, he will tell them to shut up and go pay their “fair” share.
Comment by Working Stiff Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:53 am
The issue is not whether they want the unions “to speak for them.”
Their fair share dues are funding collective bargaining, and they get to vote on whether or not to accept any union negotiated contract, correct? As well as the ability to pursue decertification?
It seems to me due process is preserved.
At issue here is that the NLRB allows and requires unions to collectively bargain for everyone in the unit, and represent them in grievances, which is why unions are authorized to collect fair share.
I suspect that anyone who wants to opt out of the union while also forfeiting their union benefits and protections would be welcomed to not pay any union dues whatsoever.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:54 am
You have to be a union member to vote on negotiated contracts.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:56 am
Juvenal: No, fair-share members have no vote in contract ratification.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:56 am
Referencing Down Under @ 9:43, can their step increases or other benefits of AFSCME membership be used as a counter argument to their claims of harm?
Comment by Stuck on the 3rd Floor Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:57 am
The point is that the case can now be appealed up in the federal courts on its substance. If the Supreme Court is about to grant cert. in a similar California fair share case, the Illinois case may have lost its importance (or may not have, if the Supreme Court decides to issue two rulings on the topic).
Comment by Quiet Sage Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:59 am
Wen, in Harris, Justice Alito took a long walk around the barn to advance a unique theory that all union expenditures are inherently political speech.
He’s clearly hot to toss Abood.
Comment by Wordslinger Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:00 am
Juvenal points out a significant factor for their impending failure.
Another poster mentioned their pension, which is not provided by AFSCME, but the pension fight is being supported by AFSCME. Again, whether or not they want union support it is definitely a benefit to them.
The net effect of allowing people to decline to pay fair share could actually be a benefit to unions. If the unions were released from their responsibility to bargain and represent non-union, non-fair share employees I think events would unfold, very quickly, that reinforce the value of belonging to a union and the protection it provides. Just a hunch, but I would put money on it.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:02 am
Rauner is in this for the long haul. While he may be out of the suit now, he views it as being on offense and firing the first shot. The objective of the suit is still alive and that is to go after public sector fair share. Some of the Union’s need to step back and see the big picture. There is an all out assault on them on many different fronts. While it may be fun to engage in this ping pong ball like back and forth with resolutions over RTW, that is a distraction to what is coming in the next month or two when government agencies shut down and Rauner sticks to his anti-union agenda in exchange for tax increases.
Democrats are going to have to choose, Labor or social welfare programs. Elections have consequences, and the time labor fooled around in Dec of 2013 thru Feb 2014 is coming back to haunt.
Comment by ABC Lawyer Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:02 am
Just playing devil’s advocate here, but in reference to Juvenal’s query:
Then wouldn’t AFSCME perhaps just drop the three instead of further fighting them in court? If this case continues, is the AFL-CIO and AFSCME honestly going to fight a court battle over the rights of THREE workers? I could under stand 3,000 or even 300. But three?! What does that prove? I suppose there’s something to be said for “standing on principle”, but is standing to the tune of millions in court fees really a smart idea? Posters on this site ding Governor Rauner for digging in his heels on his key issues, so shouldn’t the AFL-CIO and AFSCME get the same figurative five across the eyes for going to the mat over three people?
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:04 am
==Another poster mentioned their pension, which is not provided by AFSCME, but the pension fight is being supported by AFSCME==
What if their belief is that the pension system is harmful to the State, and would rather the argument of switching to a 401k win out? That is in essence them paying AFSCME to support an inherently political position that they do not agree with, no?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:06 am
The suit is a looser because it is based on free speech but we have no free speech at work. The first amendment applies to the government not your employer.
Comment by Liberty Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:08 am
Reminder: there will be NO WAY to compete financially with these guys* and their pals.
Instead, think back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
_________________________________
* Net worth of EACH brother, David & Charles Koch:
2010 net worth = $17.5 Billion
2015 net worth = $42.6 Billion
LINKS:
net worth of David & Charles Koch
***2010***
David➜
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_David-Koch_QMFE.html
Charles➜
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Charles-Koch_Z9KL.html
***2015***
David➜
http://www.forbes.com/profile/david-koch/?list=forbes-400
Charles➜
http://www.forbes.com/profile/charles-koch/?list=forbes-400
Comment by zonz Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:09 am
If these lawsuits get close to court decisions, maybe Union should let the handful of plaintiffs opt out of payment and thus moot the cases
Comment by Anonlaw Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:10 am
==Now the case is into federal court and likely will be heard by the Supremes.==
Predictions of outcomes of court cases is very risky, but I can confidently say that the US Supreme Court will never take this case.
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:10 am
===Democrats are going to have to choose, Labor or social welfare programs===
That choice has already been made.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:11 am
Rauner basically loses, but is “highly encouraged” that three individuals may proceed independently, funded by the Kochs.
RTW is a loser in Illinois, so the goal was always joining in a Federal case.
This has always been about Rauner playing on a national team.
Comment by walker Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:11 am
=What if their belief is that the pension system is harmful to the State, and would rather the argument of switching to a 401k win out? That is in essence them paying AFSCME to support an inherently political position that they do not agree with, no?=
I think it is a clearly economic decision and not a political one. If they believe the pension is hurting the state then they are very clearly ignorant of the truth. The DEBT is hurting the state. The pension creates no harm and, in fact, provides economic prosperity for the state.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:12 am
===Obviously the Unions want to hang on too the fair share money. I get it and don’t blame them. By law they have to represent these people.===
We say “by law” as if the unions were somehow forced into this arrangement against their will. But the fact is that is exactly how they wrote it. The primary author of that collective bargaining legislation were the AFL-CIO with a helping hand from the IEA:
http://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=jcba
This is how the unions wrote the law…to have exclusive representation of all workers. No other unions are allowed to negotiate on behalf of people in the bargaining unit. You cannot represent yourself. You cannot hire your own agent. This is exactly how they wanted it.
I find it a strange argument that it’s only fair a union receives some money for providing legally imposed services to non-members when the unions wrote the law requiring themselves to represent those non-members.
Comment by nixit71 Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:12 am
==The suit is a looser because it is based on free speech but we have no free speech at work. The first amendment applies to the government not your employer.==
There are many things wrong with this statement, but I’ll just point out the obvious: in this case, the employer IS the government
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:13 am
==I think it is a clearly economic decision and not a political one.==
Whether you think they’re opinion would be correct or not doesn’t matter. If X believes Y’s position is harmful to the State, and doesn’t agree with Y lobbying and fighting for that position at the Statehouse, that is a political disagreement. Forcing X to pay Y to support Y’s position is a First Amendment issue.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:20 am
“Rauner is in this for the long haul.”
Rauner and the ALEC types are in this for the long run. Missouri, for example, recently defeated a RTW bill, and now there’s another bill on the governor’s desk.
I saw a headline recently, I believe, in which there is a push to end fair share fees for public workers.
“Union’s need to step back and see the big picture.”
They see it clearly, which is why there is a push to sign up fair share fee payers as full union members. So far it’s been working out pretty well.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:22 am
So is the guy who says he’s against frivolous lawsuits still going to force taxpayers to pay for his frivolous lawsuit?
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:28 am
@ Team Sleep: “Then wouldn’t AFSCME perhaps just drop the three instead of further fighting them in court?”
A union cannot just arbitrarily toss people from the union. Once a position has been certified as being part of the collective bargaining unit, a petition to remove it from the bargaining unit must be filed with the Illinois Labor Relations Board, which rules on the petition after both sides — management and the union — argue their case.
Even after Quinn’s bill a few years ago to remove a slew of positions (mostly the PSA1s) from collective bargaining units, each position the Quinn administration wanted to remove had to be petitioned and argued individually before the Labor Relations Board.
Comment by State employee Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:36 am
==We say “by law” as if the unions were somehow forced into this arrangement against their will.==
No, we say it as if it’s a fact, because it is. Doesn’t really matter if the unions like the law or not (and frankly, their desire to work for the whole of the working class, whether or not they maximize their contributions, speaks well of them). It is the law (and as such, had to go through a legislature and a chief executive, so acting like the law is solely the unions’ creation is disingenuous at best). It does not change the fact that if you take union benefits but refuse to contribute to the effort necessary to secure those benefits, you’re freeloading. Again, that the unions want to GIVE you those benefits, even if you’re not a member, speaks well of them.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:40 am
Two thoughts. AFSCME cannot excuse these three from fair share fees without logically expecting most fair share folks from demanding the same. Which is in point of fact a win for the three.
I personally see the only fix for this coming from the NLRB. With the rise in RTW and 25 states having it. IMHO it is time to change the requirements to represent all employees. At which point most of this issue disappears RTW ceases to be a drain on union coffers and if you really want to represent yourself with your boss have fun.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:43 am
@ Anonymous 9:24:
“Science, Math, and Special Education teachers should be paid more than PE, Music, and Art teachers.”
Why?
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:44 am
== It is the law==
Statute does not take precedent over Constitutional rights. If the law has the effect of forcing a person to support a political position they don’t agree with, such law should be ruled unconstitutional.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:45 am
As a side note it was extremely shortsided of Rauner to put his name on this. I’m surprised he didn’t hire xyz law firm to file on behalf of these three or any others who volunteered.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:48 am
Completely appropriate decision.
Of course Rauner wants this at SCOTUS - the anti-union groups are trying to get a case there from any state possible. It’ll just have to play out over time as to who gets a case there first. It’ll take years.
Comment by Archiesmom Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:50 am
==Statute does not take precedent over Constitutional rights.==
No Constitutional rights are at issue here.
==If the law has the effect of forcing a person to support a political position they don’t agree with==
It doesn’t.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:51 am
==No Constitutional rights are at issue here.
==
Funny, the Court seems to think so when the say they have jurisdiction over the Employees claim
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:55 am
@10:43 =the only fix for this coming from the NLRB=
These are public employees, not under the jurisdiction of the NLRB. The NLRB covers the private sector.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:55 am
DuPage
Thanks for the correction. I had meant the whole RTW fight in general should have been clearer.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:58 am
== Then wouldn’t AFSCME perhaps just drop the three instead of further fighting them in court? ==
This is about busting ALL unions, not just AFSCME here in Illinois. It’s all about the long game …
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 10:59 am
Too - but now wouldn’t it be the AFL-CIO and AFSCME who foot the bill against the three plaintiffs?
State Employee - I get that, but if there’s a mechanism like the one you noted to “relieve” such employees then perhaps AFSCME should pursue it.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:01 am
What happens to the “fair share” money that was already taken from some employees’ paychecks? Should be fun for the payroll departments to sort out that mess. I guess they will appreciate going back to using only one set of “books” instead of two as Rauner instructed.
Comment by ABC123 Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:11 am
=Whether you think they’re opinion would be correct or not doesn’t matter=
I guess I can apply that same logic to your response. Tell me exactly how this is not about money. You cannot because it is about money. Free Speech is not stifled, in any way. The Union, like the wealthy and corporations, has the right to Free Speech, as do the anti-union people. They are not funding union speech or political activity, they are funding a required service. Regardless of who wrote the law it is still a law.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:12 am
=Statute does not take precedent over Constitutional rights. If the law has the effect of forcing a person to support a political position they don’t agree with, such law should be ruled unconstitutional.=
Except that, in the case in question, it does not.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:14 am
==, they are funding a required service. ==
That “required service” is inherently political.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:18 am
RTW advocates know that if these three plaintiffs win their suit, and don’t have to pay fees, lots of full share and fair share members will quit paying knowing they’ll still get their raises and their other union-conferred benefits. The unions will have to keep representing them until they run out of money and disappear.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:29 am
RNUG - I agree, but is that a worthy (and calculated) risk? My guessumption would be that most unionized state workers would not follow those three. Seriously - for about $50 or so a month you get blanket union protection under the CBA. That is what I would call a good deal. Even if AFSCME lost 500 to 1,000 “fair share” members, that is less than 5% of the total amount of workers they represent at the state level. A punch in the gut for sure but not a kidney blow, either.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:36 am
==Funny, the Court seems to think so when the say they have jurisdiction over the Employees claim==
No, the Court thinks there’s a question worth asking here. It hasn’t said anyone’s Constitutional right has been violated.
And if it does, it will be wrong.
==That “required service” is inherently political.==
Only in the sense that EVERYTHING is political.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:43 am
==Only in the sense that EVERYTHING is political.==
When you’re lobbying for the way State money is allocated (which is what public employee unions do when the collectively bargain with politicians), it absolutely is.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:46 am
“It’s all about the long game.”
It has to be that way for unions also. I recently read an article about how Republican voters are going to the “Great Beyond” at a faster rate than others, simply because they are older. Unions have to educate the younger demographic groups, which are and will be less “white.”
As some pointed out, private unions may have to do a better job in accepting African-Americans (and others).
Public unions have done well with African-Americans, as many are public employees. As we know, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in the service of AFSCME and union rights in general. It is that spirit and courage that must be summoned in this long fight. Unionized government workers must be reminded of the sacrifices made for their benefit.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:46 am
==No, the Court thinks there’s a question worth asking here.==
Um, that’s what it means when there is Constitutional right “at issue”
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 11:48 am
=That “required service” is inherently political.=
On what basis or is your argument simply trying to be contrary? Bargaining is not political, neither is representing someone in a job related issue like discipline or dismissal. They are services.
I bargain against the union and sit on the other side of the table from them when we are dealing with issues like discipline or dismissal.
Those are not political activities and to say that clearly indicates that either you don’t understand or you simply refuse to accept. Other activities, like supporting candidates or campaigning, and lobbying are clearly in the realm of politics.
In my opinion it is as unreasonable to require non members to support union political activity and it is equally as unreasonable to deny the union support for bargaining etc. from which an employee directly benefits.
I don’t always agree with the union and I do not like some of the things they do or say. But, I still respect and understand the role that they serve. In some ways they are protecting our school board from themselves.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 12:02 pm
“State Employee - I get that, but if there’s a mechanism like the one you noted to “relieve” such employees then perhaps AFSCME should pursue it.”
Team Sleep, I don’t think that’s possible. A union is required to represent a person in a collective bargaining position. The individual can go fair share of he or she wants, but they still get union representation.
And trust me, no union is going to want to remove a position from the bargaining unit, no matter how onerous the employee who currently fills that position. It would work against a union to do that.
Comment by State employee Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 12:12 pm
Was going to respond to the Anonymous @ 11:46, but JS beat me (and with a better response).
Given that the distinction between fair share fees and full dues exists, could AFSCME kibosh the entire suit by opening up their books and proving that only an amount up to full dues collected went to political speech?
(Not that they ever will, but it would seem to be the easiest route to proving these three weren’t forced to back policies they don’t approve of.)
Comment by Stuck on the 3rd Floor Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 12:16 pm
Bruce Rauner, June 12, 2014: “I’ve been successful at everything I’ve ever done.”
Welcome to failure governor.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 12:29 pm
@abc123 “Should be fun for the payroll departments to sort out that mess.”
They already have.
Comment by Rufus Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 12:35 pm
=That “required service” is inherently political.= Ok then, tell Exelon you’re suing them so you don’t have to pay your electric bill and see how far you get.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 2:16 pm
==Ok then, tell Exelon you’re suing them so you don’t have to pay your electric bill and see how far you get.==
If you don’t want electricity, you don’t have to pay
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 2:27 pm
=== If you don’t want electricity, you don’t have to pay===
And if you don’t want to work in a union shop, go get another job.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 2:29 pm
==Um, that’s what it means when there is Constitutional right “at issue”==
Okay, I’ll amend my original statement so that you can finally follow along: no Constitutional right is VIOLATED here, so that Constitutional rights trump statutes is immaterial.
==When you’re lobbying for the way State money is allocated (which is what public employee unions do when the collectively bargain with politicians), it absolutely is.==
Again, only in the sense that “everything is political”. And everything *is* political! That’s true! But it’s not useful from a public policy standpoint.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 2:35 pm
“When you’re lobbying for the way State money is allocated” Ok then, sue your school district. That way you can send your kid to school and not have to pay the taxes. See how far that gets you. Honestly, your arguments are ridiculous.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 2:44 pm
== Honestly, your arguments are ridiculous.==
I guess the Courts will decide that
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 3:13 pm
==: no Constitutional right is VIOLATED here==
That’s your opinion, I have mine, and the Courts will have the binding one.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 3:24 pm
Anonymous: Been tracking your argument that union activities on behalf of government employees are inherently “political,” and therefore any fee-paying to them can be construed as supporting “political speech.”
Question: Are you saying therefore that the national political movement to outlaw mandatory fees to all unions, including those in the private sector, is not justified?
Or are you saying that all union activities are inherently “political?”
By that standard, aren’t all management activities also “inherently political?”
Comment by walker Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 4:19 pm
===Democrats are going to have to choose, Labor or social welfare programs===
“That choice has already been made.”
Rich, what did the Dems decide (labor or welfare)?
Comment by Mama Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:24 pm
And have you seen the cuts rauner has proposed to the AFSCME IDOC contract?? I’m gonna have to start sleeping with my doctor AND mowing his lawn-cause I won’ t be able to afford the insurance.
It is such a disappointment our gov.hates his employees.
Comment by Property of IDOC Wednesday, May 20, 15 @ 9:40 pm