Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » The long game on unions has come to Illinois
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
The long game on unions has come to Illinois

Friday, Feb 6, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller

* The governor does have a clever retort…

After Gov. Bruce Rauner’s speech [in Mt. Vernon] on Thursday, where he called for improving the state’s business climate, several people began a loud chant, yelling in repetition “union buster” towards the governor as he exited.

During the brief speech inside the Holiday Inn, Rauner said people have been suggesting, based on recent policy statements, that he “hates unions.”

“I don’t hate unions,” he said. “Join a union. Don’t join a union. It’s all good with me.” […]

The governor said his grandfather was a “big union guy”, and he believes one “should be free to join one or not.”

“Why should you be forced to join a union?” he said. “Join if you want to. God bless you. That’s what America’s about – freedom to choose.”

* Indeed, the governor’s response has been poll-tested here by the Illinois Policy Institute…

The August, 2014 poll of 739 Illinoisans had a margin of error of ±3.6 percent.

And when you put it that way, of course people are gonna support the idea. Freedom to choose is, indeed, the American way. But that’s not what this issue is about. Instead, it’s about allowing people in union shops to get all the benefits of union representation without having to pay any dues to their representatives. And then, ultimately, to bankrupt the unions and drive down everyone’s wages.

* A 2013 article published by the Illinois Policy Institute’s site stresses the long-term nature of this fight, using Michigan’s success as an example of a hard-fought, decades-long battle…

An Olympic champion gets the gold by winning the race just before medals are handed out. But that doesn’t explain everything that put the right runner with the right training in the right race at the right moment. It takes tons of heart, gallons of sweat, hundreds of good decisions and many years. Similarly, Michigan’s story of Right to Work is one of endurance and persistence. […]

For Right to Work to move from impossible to inevitable in Illinois, reformers should focus first on the idea phase to create the environment for a future political phase. Starting with the political phase guarantees setbacks because lawmakers usually won’t stick their necks out for an idea the people won’t get behind. That’s why the Illinois Policy Institute is so critical. Like Mackinac, it understands the power of developing an idea in order to make it politically possible.

Not every impossible idea becomes reality, but strategies exist for transforming impossible ideas into reality. Illinois is becoming surrounded by states that are taking on unions to regain control of their fiscal destinies. Chances are it won’t take as long for the Illinois Policy Institute to make Illinois a Right-to-Work state as it took for Mackinac to win its victory.

       

151 Comments

  1. - Been There - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:08 am:

    Interesting that Rauner pointed out that under Carter the federal government doesn’t allow the unions to negotiate pay. But as you can see from the story linked below that means pay levels can be legislatively mandated. And lobbied for. It would be interesting if AFSME and SEIU couldn’t negotiate with the Gov office about wage levels but had to push legislation instead. BVR better watch what he wishes for.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/federal-employees-are-seeking-better-pay-and-benefits-from-congress/2015/02/05/efb94104-ad5f-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html?wpisrc=nl_fed&wpmm=1


  2. - Kristina - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:14 am:

    Unions bargain to be the exclusive representative, and then complain when they have to represent people who don’t want to be in the union. Workers in this situation are not free-riders, they are forced riders. So let’s discuss “members only” agreements (more likely in public sector). A colleague got this one right: “The answer is to give workers the ability to say, ‘No thanks”’ and unions the ability to say, ‘Good-bye.’”


  3. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:21 am:

    - they are forced riders. -

    No one in Illinois or the rest of the country is forced to take a job.

    I know you don’t have much actual work to do at IPI, but try not to spend too much time polluting the comments here with nonsense.


  4. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:22 am:

    Protesting Rauner is fine for the Unions…

    Changing the narrative versus the Executive Branch of Illinois government is a better tact.

    The minute Rauner finished his oath, the slow play to dismantle the Unions was in play.

    If the Unions, both sectors, want to be relavant and have the chance to wait this out, they need to change the discussion to what the wages mean to families and the economy, and “less protests, more behind the scenes.”

    Framing the discussion, now that 1/3 of Illinois government is out to take you out IS the priority, not making the signs and chanting the visual in framing their own retort.

    Reframing the discussion to get Rauner angered or frustrated will go farther than a cutesy sign.

    Otherwise, the slow decline will speed up to a roll that might be impossible to stop in the long game.

    Your move, Unions.


  5. - Bigtwich - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:22 am:

    The right to work movement is a parallel to the anti-vaccine movement in economic theory, the tragedy of the commons.


  6. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:25 am:

    Is it really surprising that a guy who has made as much money as Rauner wants to drive down wages for the middle class?

    Of course that’s his goal. It should have been clear to voters. I suspect they did and voted for him and for Democrats to the House and Senate to put the brakes on the Gov. They didn’t like Quinn, but they really didn’t embrace Rauner’s vision.


  7. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:26 am:

    Illinois has more than a handful of unions that do not mandate workers to join in a full membership fashion, HOWEVER, those workers are mandated to pay what is defined as “fairshare dues”, a lesser amount.

    Many of these fairshare workers proudly tout “why should I join a union and full pay dues when I get the same benefits for less money”? These are the people that want everything for nothing, the very same people that have gotten this State in the current condition it is in.


  8. - Peoria Guy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:28 am:

    It should be everybody’s right to join a union or not. That IS the American way. If unions are so helpful to workers, let them convince the workers of that.


  9. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:28 am:

    Let me add that even thought I didn’t vote for him, when it comes to negotiating a contract with a union, I would prefer Rauner to Quinn.

    Rauner doesn’t have the power as Gov. to abolish the union, but he can negotiate a better deal for the State than Quinn would be willing or able to negotiate.


  10. - Cheswick - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:29 am:

    === Is it really surprising that a guy who has made as much money as Rauner wants to drive down wages for the middle class? ===

    And that is what it’s all about.


  11. - Peoria Guy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:30 am:

    I do not think it is Rauner’s goal to “drive down wages for the middle class.” I think it is his goal to try and save this state from financial ruin. That will require sacrifice from everybody.


  12. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:30 am:

    “Unions bargain to be the exclusive representative, and then complain when they have to represent people who don’t want to be in the union. ”

    I don’t think they do; unions’ public statements certainly indicate that they’re perfectly happy to represent the whole of the middle class.

    “Workers in this situation are not free-riders, they are forced riders. ”

    No one made them take a job in a union shop.

    ““The answer is to give workers the ability to say, ‘No thanks”’ and unions the ability to say, ‘Good-bye.’””

    That’s not nearly as simple as you think. A business simply can’t have two sets of safety rules. It probably can’t have two sets of grievance procedures. It COULD have two sets of wages, or two sets of health benefits- but it’s probably more trouble than it’s worth to do so.

    And for that matter, no worker in their right mind is actually going to agree to forego the higher salaries and better benefits that the union gets. This is not, and never has been, about actually walking away from the union in total- its just been about trying to freeload on what the union does.


  13. - so... - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:31 am:

    ==Illinois has more than a handful of unions that do not mandate workers to join in a full membership fashion, HOWEVER, those workers are mandated to pay what is defined as “fairshare dues”, a lesser amount.

    Many of these fairshare workers proudly tout “why should I join a union and full pay dues when I get the same benefits for less money”? These are the people that want everything for nothing, the very same people that have gotten this State in the current condition it is in.==

    Fair share dues are not something some unions “allow” people to pay. They are a result of a Supreme Court case, which ruled that workers who receive they benefits of collective bargaining should be forced to pay the costs of said bargaining, but not for the additional political work for which union dues typically pay. Thus the “fair share dues.”

    Unfortunately, in Illinois, many unions set the “fair share” amount at extremely high levels. The Chicago Teachers Union, for example, says that the “fair share” portion of the dues is 100%.


  14. - Reality Check - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:32 am:

    Rauner, the IPI and everyone else on this phony bandwagon knows full well that the law already provides exactly what they pretend to want — choice. They know perfectly well that any worker is free to join the union, or not, under current law. They want to change that law to weaken the ability of workers to bargain and enforce good contracts, thus driving down wages - and as Rich points out, to silence the voices of those workers by sapping their unions of resources. But if they said that honestly and plainly, their poll results would turn out pretty different.


  15. - walker - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:32 am:

    Typical IPI-type poll question. It almost demands they answer “correctly.” Completely without context.

    Another would be “Would you like to pay higher or lower taxes?”

    The right question would be: “Do you think workers who are represented by a union should be required to pay union dues or an equivilent fee?”


  16. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:32 am:

    - save this state from financial ruin. That will require sacrifice from everybody. -

    Can you explain his plans to make the ultra-wealthy join in the sacrifice?


  17. - Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:32 am:

    I’m confused with all of this. Are there workers — state employees — that *don’t* want to be represented by a union?

    If that’s the case — then there should be two salary options: the union salary and the non-union salary. Workers should be free to say, “Okay, no union for me.”

    Then management should reply: “Fine. Then you get the non-union salary.”

    This is what confuses me. Who *doesn’t* want to join a union? Who are these people? Is it management that’s complaining about choice? Or the workers?

    Serious question. I don’t understand this issue. Union representation these days seems a good thing for workers. Maybe not so good for management — but that’s why unions were created in the first place — the give workers a voice. Now folks — workers — are saying, “I don’t care. I don’t want to be part of it.”

    Why? What’s the advantage to the worker for opting out?


  18. - Jocko - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:32 am:

    Like others have said, people need to be reminded what life was like before unions and understand that words like “Freedom”, “Empowerment” and “RtW” are designed to undermine union membership. People need to see there’s a difference between individual freedom and “getting a free ride” (at the cost of others).


  19. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:33 am:

    Peoria G,

    How does giving a worker at Caterpillar the benefits of the union without the burden of dues keep IL from financial ruin?

    Moreover, why do you think the government should dictate terms of a contract between labor and management? Are you some sort of Socialist, Peoria? Why do you have problems with freedom of contract?


  20. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:33 am:

    “Many of these fairshare workers proudly tout “why should I join a union and full pay dues when I get the same benefits for less money””

    But THAT is a defensible position. If you take advantage of union representation in contract negotiations (as everyone in the bargaining unit does), then you should pay for it. But you SHOULDN’T have to pay for the union’s political activities (to the extent that the two can be untangled, which I admit is limited) which you may or may not support. The fair share dues generally omit the money that goes into the PAC account.


  21. - Westward - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:33 am:

    Don’t use broad strokes with the term middle-class. One person’s view is different from others. I don’t define middle-class as someone making over 50k. And a lot folks banging the drum against Rauner are these people. I’ve said it numerous times on here before, I don’t agree with everything BR says. However, salary reform for numerous state employee titles need to be made. Administrative Assistants have no business making 60k. Period. Let’s get real world applications to job requirements if you think you should be paid so much…like say, oh, I don’t know, A COLLEGE DEGREE!


  22. - Gone, but not forgotten - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:34 am:

    As with State of Illinois employment, it is the same with the union. I was a ‘fair share’ AFSCME worker for over 20 years, and I never felt the union was a need for me. When it became a need, they did absolutely nothing to protect me from the harassment my employer was causing me. My only recourse was to retire, and think about all the years of ‘fair share’ contributions they stole from me for nothing. It all boiled down to I wasn’t the right person they wanted to bother to defend, or like so much of Illinois government, a deal was cut not to defend me.


  23. - Apocalypse Now - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:36 am:

    If unions are good, people will want to join. People should have the option of joining a union or not joining. Aren’t the Democrats always talking about choice?


  24. - wjmaggos - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:36 am:

    Right-to-work laws violate freedom of contract

    Please take a minute to read:
    http://fee.org/freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work


  25. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:36 am:

    “I think it is his goal to try and save this state from financial ruin. That will require sacrifice from everybody.”

    Right To Work For Less isn’t going to have an impact on any of the state’s financial issues, especially since he’s already set he doesn’t want to cut anyone’s wages.

    If everyone must sacrifice, let’s start with the people who might actually contribute to the solution.


  26. - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:37 am:

    ===several people began a loud chant, yelling in repetition “union buster” towards the governor as he exited.===

    That’s exactly what Rauner wants. Don’t give it to him.


  27. - Peoria Guy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:38 am:

    Gooner, I am the opposite of a socialist. I hate the welfare state. I dislike the government forcing employees to join a union when working for a particular employer. I hate it when a union worker has a portion of his dues go to a political candidate that he may not support. I hate it that the current make-up of the NLRB is so liberal and so inclined to rule against business.


  28. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:38 am:

    Bigtwich hits the nail on the head. There are people who say - I’m not going to get my kids vaccinated because they’ll be protected if everyone else gets their kids vaccinated. They are indeed ‘free riders’. If a union negotiates a better wage package but all the workers get the benefit, whether they are members or not and without having to pay fair share, those folks are also free riders.


  29. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:38 am:

    Apoc,

    Absolutely. Democrats do talk about choice. They believe that you have a choice to join a union.

    However, what they reject is the idea of getting the benefits of the union without paying. Join? Not join? Fine. But choices have consequences.


  30. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:39 am:

    “If unions are good, people will want to join. People should have the option of joining a union or not joining.”

    They have just that option now. Rauner is lying to you when he says that “forced unionization” thing. It does not exist.


  31. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:39 am:

    Peoria Guy,

    If you hate welfare, then why should workers get the benefits of union membership for free?

    Son, take some time. Give it some thought.


  32. - Sun - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:40 am:

    So workers not in the union still benefits from the collective bargaining? When did getting services for free become a tenant of the right wing?


  33. - Peoria Guy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:41 am:

    The “ultra-rich” are paying huge taxes to the state and to the Feds. I am not “ultra-rich” but I pay a ton of taxes and I strongly dislike those that pay very little taxes telling me I don’t pay “my fair share”. I pay those taxes because it is the law and the right thing to do. I am happy to do it. But don’t tell me about a “fair share” that I somehow am not paying.


  34. - Wordslinger - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:41 am:

    So what’s the goal here? Individual “liberty” or driving down wages?

    Driving down wages, of course, That’s a heckuva goal for a governor to have.

    I highly recommend reading the Moody’s economic forecast that Rich posted yesterday. The rating agencies rating committees are full of crooks, but their analysts are top notch.


  35. - Tommydanger - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:42 am:

    >>I think it is his goal to try and save this state from financial ruin. That will require sacrifice from everybody.


  36. - Peoria Guy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:42 am:

    Gooner, don’t call me freaking “son”. I am not your son. Show some respect.


  37. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:43 am:

    ” I dislike the government forcing employees to join a union when working for a particular employer.”

    But it’s no better for the government forcing businesses to be non-union shops.

    “I hate it when a union worker has a portion of his dues go to a political candidate that he may not support.”

    Fair share fees take care of that. Imperfectly, sure, but RTWFL isn’t going to solve that problem. If you want to talk about reforming Fair Share, we can.


  38. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:43 am:

    Actually Peoria, the poor pay a higher percentage of income as taxes than the rich.

    Yeah, the rich have it so tough and the poor have it so easy.


  39. - VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:44 am:

    Is education “good” for citizens, Governor?
    Is marriage “good” for citizens?
    Is belonging to a church “good”, Governor?

    All the above are questions about becoming a part of society through a voluntary act. Yet, we have seen our governments not only step aside from not exterminating these community organizations, we actually have a long history of governments encouraging memberships within these communities.

    Education is good for a citizen’s future. Being in a happy marriage is good for them too. Being active in a church gives citizens a great deal of personal and family support. Consequently, history has clearly shown us that when a society has a high percentage of happily married, highly educated and church attending citizenry, it also has a high quality of life. That is why governments have historically encouraged the voluntary participation of these institutions.

    Same with unions. Our state governments have encouraged unions because they help our society. Your experiences with them in your professional world has biased you. You fail to see them as little more than an added cost to a market product. Your private world view is actually rather ignorant beyond cost. You are not seeing unions for what they are, or what they provide beyond a negotiated wage.

    Your proposed policies will harm these good institutions. Your recent presentations project our fiscal calamities, not upon the men and women who have taken away or have neglected their fiduciary responsibilities to Illinois citizens serving our state, but upon the very people who have been victimized by the General Assembly’s callous disregard for everyone’s constitutional rights regarding pay and pensions.

    Your politics focuses on finding a solution to a problem caused by greed and neglect that wrecks one of our communities “good” institutions. Your drive towards economic solvency for our state means throwing away a vital social good and taking our state government from being respectful towards that institution to one opposing it’s ongoing sustainability and health.

    You wouldn’t do that to a church. You wouldn’t do that to our educational system. You wouldn’t do that to the institution of marriage. So why are you doing that to unions?

    If you cannot find a way of saving Illinois without wrecking one of our best societal institutions - you need to go back to flipping nursing homes. As governor, you are not to wreck what we have. You respect our tax bill enough to worry about how we pay for them, but you don’t respect our wages used to make those payments? Unions make that happen!

    This is Illinois. Be a governor of Illinois. We are a union state. Find policy solutions to our fiscal problems without wrecking our societal institutions along the way. That is your mission.


  40. - Del Clinkton - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:45 am:

    I’m not a member of the Chamber of Commerce, yet they are negotiating lower wages and benefits on my behalf.


  41. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:47 am:

    Doesn’t the CoC only do that through lobbying, though? Unless I’m mistaken, the CoC doesn’t pool its members’ money to hire representation in contract negotiations. I think that’s a real and important distinction (assuming it exists).


  42. - dupage dan - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:48 am:

    I remember when I “joined” my first union back in 1975. Boilermakers of the AFL-CIO. No one came to see me. No one gave me any informational material. No one sent me an invitation to a union meeting. The shop steward was openly hostile to the concerns of others. But what I did note was the automatic deduction of my union dues included in my paycheck stub.

    I have been a member of 3 other unions. It still astounds me that my dues are deducted by my employer. Astounding. Other incidents and activities thru the years have not made most of the unions look any better to me.

    I would say that I have witnessed employee protection via AFSCME representation when management has turned the ugly eye on an undeserving state employee.

    I never saw that either in the Boilermakers, Aerospace & Machinists or the Sheetmetal Workers unions. Our wages were low, support for job actions were absent and the unions couldn’t seem to care less about the rank and file.

    I know my dues have been used to support candidates for elected office who I personally would never vote for or for actions I disagree with. Not much I can do about that.

    My ambivalence is long and deep.


  43. - Del Clinkton - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:48 am:

    @peoria guy:

    You and Bruce are 100% correct about sacrifice.

    And since Bruce has millions more reasons to sacrifice than most, then he MUST sacrifice more!


  44. - Joe M - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:50 am:

    Tom Kaicich pointed out in an article what Moody’s has to say about Gov. Rauner’s Right to Work ideas:
    –
    In another section, Moody’s takes a look at “right to work” laws, a legislative initiative that Rauner has promoted as a local option, but not on a statewide basis. With right to work, employees in unionized workplaces can’t be forced to pay union dues, although they enjoy union benefits. Eventually, a union’s finances and influence erode.

    Right to work laws reduce union membership, Moody’s notes, but less clear is whether they actually contribute to economic growth.

    “Since laws that hurt unions shift the balance of power from employees to owners, they tend to erode wages and lead to a more uneven distribution of the gains of economic growth,” Moody’s said. “Consequently, even if the impact of right-to-work laws is positive in the short run, it can diminish over time because of the downward pressure on incomes.”
    –
    And if one goes to www.census.gov and goes into the Quick Facts on the states in the center of the page - and compares Illinois’ per capita earnings and household earnings, with those of the 24 right to work states, one finds that the rtw states do have considerably lower per capita and household earnings, with the exception of Virginia.


  45. - White Denim - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:50 am:

    “No one in Illinois … is forced to take a job.”

    Funny how that counter logic never seems to satisfy when talking about the minimum wage.


  46. - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:51 am:

    “Look for the union label
    when you are buying that coat, dress or blouse.

    Remember somewhere our union’s sewing,
    our wages going to feed the kids, and run the house.

    We work hard, but who’s complaining?
    Thanks to the I.L.G. we’re paying our way!

    So always look for the union label,
    it says we’re able to make it in the U.S.A.!”


  47. - CLJ - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:52 am:

    Choice is important for some workers. While in college, I had two separate private sector jobs that required me to join the local. These were both minimum wage jobs that, after dues, was actually below minimum wage. While I never had any intention of making those jobs my livelihood, thus the reason for being in college at the time, I never understood what the benefit of being in the union was for me as a worker since my pay was government mandated and they did little to nothing in representing me to management.

    I do understand that unions do play an important role representing higher skilled and higher paid workers on compensation and benefits with private sector employers. I also have no problem with unions lobbying government on employment law issues to protect workers when the private sector fails to act and infrastructure projects that create work opportunities.

    What I don’t understand is why the unions, including public sector unions, have not reformed themselves to be more relevant to their workers by offering benefits that make sense. They need to evovle to meet the needs of the workers such as job training and career advancement. Unions should be the ones advancing new technoligies and workforce innovation amongst their members to give them opportunities to earn more and advance professionally.


  48. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:53 am:

    BREAKING: Rauner Pro-choice


  49. - Wordslinger - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:55 am:

    Del, Todd Maisch was quoted the other day that the Illinois Chamber is not on board with Rauners right to work initiative.


  50. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:57 am:

    “Funny how that counter logic never seems to satisfy when talking about the minimum wage.”

    Because there is no counter logic. Taking a non-union job over a union job is a step down- you get less protection, less wages, etc. Taking a non-minimum wage job over a minimum wage job is a step up- higher pay! If you can find an employer willing to pay you X, you’ll probably find one willing to pay you X-1. The same doesn’t go for X+1.


  51. - Concerned - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:58 am:

    Unions are in place where the majority of workers voted the unions into place. Unions are then required to provide equal representation, not just negotiate one wage for those who voted for the Union and a lower wage for those who voted no.

    Those who don’t want to join the Union are free-riding on the efforts of the majority-voted for Union. There’s lost of stuff I vote against when I vote for particular candidates, but I don’t get to opt out of things enacted into law becuase I voted against the person who was elected.


  52. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:59 am:

    “What I don’t understand is why the unions, including public sector unions, have not reformed themselves to be more relevant to their workers by offering benefits that make sense.”

    I’m not sure that’s the case. I don’t really see this surge of people eager to break out of the unions. Even RTWFL doesn’t abolish union benefits, it just lets individuals off the hook of paying for them.


  53. - RNUG - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:59 am:

    == What’s the advantage to the worker for opting out? ==

    Short answer: saving a few bucks a month by only paying the “fair share” amount instead of the full union dues

    What should also be asked is what is the employee losing by not being a union member?

    The primary item being lost is the right to vote for the union leaders and their policies. Someone with actual union membership experience will have to add anything else that might be lost.

    The whole point of the “right to work” movement is to try to strip the unions of cash (dues) that are used to promote political activity.

    The whole “fair share” issue is something that has been fought over for at least thirty some years that I remember. There have been lawsuits around the country against setting “fair share” at 100%. If my memory is correct, there was one by some (Revenue?) state employees about thirty years ago over their fair share being the same as the union dues. It reached the point where the court ordered an audit of the union books to determine what portion of collected funds were being used for bargaining and what portion were being used for political activities. Rather than undergo the court audit, the union then immediately settled with the workers by refunding their full payments during the period in question and setting the fair share below the dues. FWIW, I seem to remember that settlement being the standard response in some of the stories I read at the time.


  54. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:01 am:

    I think it’d be interesting to examine a version of RTWFL that requires the non-union member of the BU to opt-out of union benefits, too. Obviously you couldn’t do that with certain safety regulations, but if you required them to negotiate their own wages, benefits, etc., if you removed the “freeloader” potion of RTWFL, I’d like to know what happens.


  55. - CharlieKratos - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:01 am:

    For better or for worse, if Rauner really wanted to harm the unions, he’d take the words “merit comp” to heart and actually base compensation on merit. It seems like that’s part of the message he’s trying to get across, but actions speak louder than words. Thus far, all he’s shown merit comp workers is that their jobs aren’t at all stable or secure, which is one big reason why some talented state workers refuse to take a merit comp position.


  56. - Wordslinger - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:03 am:

    DD, no one forced you to join a union. You chose to do so. You are a victim of yourself.


  57. - Joe Lehman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:03 am:

    I am the author of the IPI article excerpted above.

    You wrote, “… it’s about allowing people in union shops to get all the benefits of union representation without having to pay any dues to their representatives.”

    I believe that concern is a red herring. Unions actually benefit very much from monopoly representation of all workers, not just those who pay dues.

    Dramatic evidence of this came when Doug Pratt, then communications director of the Michigan Education Association, testified before the Michigan Legislature after that state passed its right-to-work law.

    Senator Arlan Meekhof questioned Mr. Pratt as follows: “Sometimes I’ve heard of people who want to leave the union [described as] as ‘freeloader.’ Is there contention by the MEA that you would wish to be relieved of representing those people who want to opt out of the union?”

    After a long pause, Mr. Pratt told the senators “no.”

    http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/19420

    That told me Mr. Pratt’s union finds value in maintaining monopoly representation of all workers, not just those who join his union. Perhaps the last thing the union wants is for the best teachers to negotiate higher pay for themselves than the union can get for them.

    Joe Lehman
    President
    Mackinac Center for Public Policy


  58. - Mason born - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:04 am:

    So a question. Is it possible to revoke or repeal the requirement that unions cover non-members? Would seem to eliminate the whole “free rider” concern. I am curious why it isn’t being proposed.

    I understand it has the potential to be too much hassle for employers to have one contract for union members and separate contracts for the other employees. It does seem like a reasonable compromise IMHO.


  59. - Del Clinkton - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:06 am:

    “Right to Work” is a marketin’ slogan….no different than “I’m Lovin’ It!”


  60. - Arizona Bob - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:07 am:

    This claim that those not choosing to join a union get the benefits of union negotiation is nonsense. When I taught at private school, there was a “salary schedule” that was set for teachers. I was in a high demand area, upper level math and physics, so I negotiated a better deal than the schedule would dictate. Had that schedule been negotiated by a union that I was forced to join, I would have lost substantial compensation. In engineering, perhaps one of the most respected professions in the US and consistently ranking higher than teachers in “trust” amongst the public in polling, I’ve been negotiating my salary for about four decades. Most of my employers had their “range schedules” and sometimes you do better or worse than that schedule.

    I suspect what will happen in the public sector if strikes are prohibited will be that employees will need to negotiate salaries and perhaps some benefits like vacation (that’s been negotiated wherever I’ve gone), but things like health insurance contributions will be uniform. There WILL be winners and losers in this, based upon demand for services and market value. The days of $120K for 180 day per year PE teachers and social study teachers will end, and it’s likely the STEM salaries will increase based upon market demand for their skills. This system will serve the students, taxpayers, and effective teachers better than the current “one size fits all” system. I see that as a good, and necessary, thing.


  61. - Peoria Guy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:07 am:

    Gooner, the vast majority of income taxes are paid by the top 10-12% of wage earners. The last stat I saw said it was something like 88% of income taxes were paid by the top 12% of wage earners. I am fine with the top 12% paying a little more, but they aren’t freeloaders. They pay the bulk if income taxes.


  62. - Politix - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:07 am:

    At the end of the day, “helping” us by making it so that we don’t have to be a part of the union IS union busting, as it only serves to cut into union coffers. And then he’s fighting on the other end, calling it unethical for the union to contribute to political campaigns. It’s a fairly transparent strategy that has nothing to do with giving people a choice.


  63. - Norseman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:09 am:

    Word is on it. This is about driving down wages and benefit costs to improve profits. Unions came into existence in response to the abuses of the robber barons of the past. They were successful in improving our standard of living. Now that we have our multiple TVs and cellphones, we’re too sedate and lazily buying into boogeymen stories to notice the robber barons of today are slowing eating away at our standard of living.

    As a parent, I always wanted what all parents want for their kids to have a better standard of living than they had. I’m sad to see this dream seems to be replaced by the mantra, “they should be happy they have a job.”


  64. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:16 am:

    “Unions actually benefit very much from monopoly representation of all workers, not just those who pay dues.”

    Of course they do, the entire concept of unionization falls apart without it. That’s why unionization offers employers certain anti-trust exemptions. But pointing that out is actually the red herring, it doesn’t disprove that RTWFL encourages free-loading at all.

    “Perhaps the last thing the union wants is for the best teachers to negotiate higher pay for themselves than the union can get for them.”

    Or perhaps the union is just worried about the guy that management decides is “the worst”. The most talented people are always going to be able to take care of themselves. My parents were both very good educators, and proud union members. They moved up the ranks, they got tenure, they got raises and promotions, the union didn’t stand in their way at all. It’s bizarre that you think so little of talented employees that you assume they can’t thrive in a union environment. And it’s positively mystifying that you base this conclusion off of a one-word answer.


  65. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:17 am:

    Peoria Guy,
    Yes, people who make more money pay more in income taxes.
    Son, it is amazing that you think taxes end there.
    Sales tax. Property tax. Use taxes. Tolls. All of those are basically flat fee, or based on consumption.
    As a percentage of income, the more pay a far higher percentage of that income as tax.

    By the way, Peoria, in Illinois the top income earners pay the same rate as the lowest income earners, and often less as percentage because accountants can move income around to avoid taxes. So your idea that the upper should pay a bit more is not consistent with Illinois law.


  66. - Demoralized - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:22 am:

    ==In engineering, perhaps one of the most respected professions in the US and consistently ranking higher than teachers in “trust” amongst the public in polling,==

    Yes Bob, we know you are smarter and better than everybody else. Thanks for making that known again.

    And, Yes Bob, we know you have disdain for teachers. Thanks also for letting us know that again too.


  67. - Grandson of Man - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:23 am:

    If people don’t want to join unions, they can do a very simple thing: don’t work for union businesses. If they work at union jobs, they can lobby their coworkers to vote out the union. Unions are certified by their members. In other words, don’t be L.A.Z.Y.

    VanillaMan, sometimes your comments are just brilliant and of the highest quality.

    We who are in unions and support them are also in this fight for the long haul, against very wealthy people who pretend to care about employee rights but in reality want to push down pay and benefits, and who want to break unions so the can have more economic and political dominance.


  68. - Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:24 am:

    Joe, you left something out from that story…

    ===Pratt said the “sanctity of contracts” was of the utmost importance to the MEA and that to be “fair” the union had to abide by the contracts exactly as they are written. ===


  69. - Arizona Bob - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:24 am:

    @Dem

    =Yes Bob, we know you are smarter and better than everybody else.=

    Not everyone, Dem. Just you!LOL


  70. - Griz - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:25 am:

    If the Union knew membership was an option based on performance, rather than law, they might try a little harder to retain the members. People would line up to pay dues because of the benefit of that membership.


  71. - Jocko - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:26 am:

    ==but they aren’t freeloaders. They pay the bulk of income taxes.==

    And they get a great return on their money, politicians take their calls, laws are written that directly benefit them, and sometimes, they elect one another to higher office.


  72. - Del Clinkton - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:27 am:

    @arizona:

    WHO would have forced you to join a union? Would this have been done at gunpoint? Would they have threatened your family (a la Jimmy Hoffa) if you hadnt? WHO, specifically FORCES someone to join a union.

    You in part are mixing 2 things together. The current school year and salary. The current school year is based on being an Agrarian Society. Kids dont go home to work on the family farm in summers anymore. The school year is a complete and separate argument. For the life of me, why Bruce is not pushing for year round school is beyond me.


  73. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:28 am:

    “If they work at union jobs, they can lobby their coworkers to vote out the union.”

    Man, that’s a really good point. If you don’t want your job to be a union one, you can band together with your fellow employees (ironically!) and make it so. If you want your job to not be a minimum wage one, your boss holds all the cards.


  74. - A guy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:29 am:

    When you generically say “unions”, it minimizes the real argument here. When you’ve seen one, you have not seen them all.

    There’s plenty of resentment from some unions toward others. They’re not all the same, and they won’t all react the same to new policies.


  75. - Belle - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:30 am:

    Union joining is a strange business.
    I worked for a government agency for several years and my experience was:
    Began working in non-union job;
    The union wanted to organize my level and I voted against it but was still ‘forced in”; and
    People who made far more money than I did were not in the unions BUT had union benefits without having to pay dues.
    My take on the situation is that some workers pay dues but everyone benefits from the negotiation of working with the unions.
    I left the government since I was tired of working with some of the entitled people. But, that is a different topic.
    My feeling about Rauner is that he is like many of the new 1%-ers and wants the Middle Class to make less money. The new 1%-ers do not seem to comprehend that the Middle Class is actually the Golden Goose of the economy.


  76. - Demoralized - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:32 am:

    ==This claim that those not choosing to join a union get the benefits of union negotiation is nonsense.==

    Actually, Bob, they do, at least where I work. Whether you are in the union, fair share, or not in the union, the benefits negotiated are the same for everyone. When one gets it everybody gets it. When something is lost, it’s lost for everyone. The union is doing the negotiating and the results of those negotiations apply to everyone.


  77. - The Dude Abides - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:33 am:

    The Unions need to do a better job in getting out their message. Maybe they need to hire a public relations firm. They have a lot of facts that support their arguments but the public doesn’t hear them as often as they need to.
    As the number of Union households have decreased in the country the gap between the middle class and the wealthy has increased dramatically.
    Before Unions came into being the working conditions for many Americans were pretty harsh. Do we want to return to those days? Those are just a couple of many things that the public needs to be reminded of.


  78. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:34 am:

    Yeah, those kids who never joined one of the unions fighting child-labor laws certainly haven’t seen any benefit!


  79. - RNUG - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:39 am:

    == … the results of those negotiations apply to everyone. ===

    Yes, but part of the reason the results apply to everyone is the choice by the employer (in this case the State) to just have one set of benefits per large group rather than try to administer multiple benefit standards. That is probably a rational cost decision in terms of both administration overhead and purchase of things like health insurance.


  80. - Springfield Ann - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:41 am:

    Are you sure that your union dues are going to political candidates? I am a member of the UPI (we are under the Illinois Federation of Teachers and our union dues do not pay for political candidates.. We have a separate fund for that is donations from members for that specifically. Union members need to be involved in their union if they want to make a difference in their union and working wages and conditions.


  81. - Joe M - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:43 am:

    I am not sure how this would work or apply to private company unions, but the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act that became law in Illinois in 1984 is a compromise at educational institutions, between the “right-to work” laws in effect in certain states, and true “union shop” rules at the workplace.

    At workplaces with true union shop rules, a worker must be a union member to work there, and pay dues to cover the cost of bargaining and
    implementing the contract that protects her on the job and provides benefits she would not otherwise enjoy.

    “Fair share” is a compromise, in that fair share bargaining unit members pay the equivalent of union dues without having to join the union; in return, they are covered as completely by the union contract as are union members. This
    means they enjoy the same benefits and , and can take advantage of the same grievance procedures and other protections.

    In other words, it only seems right that if workers are going to get the benefit of union wages and benefits that they pay their fair share.

    In Illinois, even in Gov Rauner’s proposed right to work zones, those workers who are not part of a union would still be benefiting from the overall higher wages and benefits that Illinois unions members receive. Rising water elevates all ships. So they should be paying some kind of fair share.

    The text of these educational fair share provisions can be found in (115 ILCS 5/) the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act.


  82. - Mouthy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:43 am:

    ===
    - Kristina - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 10:14 am:

    Unions bargain to be the exclusive representative, and then complain when they have to represent people who don’t want to be in the union. Workers in this situation are not free-riders, they are forced riders. So let’s discuss “members only” agreements (more likely in public sector). A colleague got this one right: “The answer is to give workers the ability to say, ‘No thanks”’ and unions the ability to say, ‘Good-bye.’”===

    Sure, sounds great, freeloading is the American way isn’t it. It only took me two posts to find this “gem”. What good ole’ Kristina conveniently fails to mention is the increased pay and benefits that the union has negotiated for their members. Why not be honest and say what you are really for, no union.


  83. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:47 am:

    “Are you sure that your union dues are going to political candidates?”

    Some certainly do, but yes, it depends on the union.


  84. - Grandson of Man - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:48 am:

    “If the Union knew membership was an option based on performance, rather than law, they might try a little harder to retain the members.”

    Again, those who don’t like unions can go work somewhere else. That should be easy to do, since the unionization rate is around 11%.

    Why are there union stripping efforts now at a time when wages are stagnant for a large segment of the workforce? We should be boosting worker protections, not tearing them down.

    The people who are funding the right to work efforts have alliances with one another and belong to organizations. The Kochs and their allies are getting ready to spend almost a billion dollars in the 2016 elections. They want to weaken workers’ organizations even as they have networks in place, and powerful alliances.


  85. - F. Vincent Vernuccio - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:50 am:

    “But that’s not what this issue is about. Instead, it’s about allowing people in union shops to get all the benefits of union representation without having to pay any dues to their representatives. And then, ultimately, to bankrupt the unions and drive down everyone’s wages.”

    Right-to-work only means that a union cannot get a worker fired for not paying them. It does not affect collective bargaining in any other way. Unfortunately, if a union has chosen to represent all employees at a worksite this means that workers must accept union representation whether they want it or not.

    In the private sector unions may have the option to negotiate “members-only agreements” where they only represent those who want it. Illinois has the power to allow public workers to represent themselves even if a union has what is known as “exclusive representation,” the monopoly most unions have representing workers in the workplace.

    Even though it is unfair that workers who do not want to associate with a union are forced to accept their representation, it is even more unfair for these workers to be forced to pay for it.

    Right-to-work allows workers the freedom to choose whether their union has earned their dues, and if the union has proved their worth to pay.


  86. - Mouthy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:53 am:

    ===- Joe Lehman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:03 am:

    I am the author of the IPI article excerpted above.

    You wrote, “… it’s about allowing people in union shops to get all the benefits of union representation without having to pay any dues to their representatives.”

    I believe that concern is a red herring. Unions actually benefit very much from monopoly representation of all workers, not just those who pay dues.===

    This gentleman left out the part where the person that leaves the union still pays their fair share for the benefits they get. That’s the kind of fact telling FOX News makes a fortune on…


  87. - Responsa - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:53 am:

    Most citizens see a very big difference between a union guy working in a dangerous foundry or a union woman working in a factory assembly line –and a union employee sitting in a government cubicle pushing paper or issuing paper. Had the unions been smart enough to contain themselves to providing their services for actual jobs that would benefit from hours and safety protections, like state snow removal truck drivers or federal feet on- the- street mail carriers (just as examples not meant to be inclusive) unions would continue to have the support of the public at large like they once did. It was when union officials began pushing into white collar jobs and into the classrooms that they lost the loyalty of much of the public.
    If I were one of the union members in the trades, I’d be pretty unhappy about that.


  88. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:55 am:

    “Unfortunately, if a union has chosen to represent all employees at a worksite”

    Unions don’t choose to do so, they’re required to represent everyone in the BU.

    “Even though it is unfair that workers who do not want to associate with a union are forced to accept their representation, it is even more unfair for these workers to be forced to pay for it.”

    Neither one of those things is unfair if the worker still gets the benefits of the union. Instead, it’s unfair for a worker to NOT contribute to the effort that gets him or her higher wages, safer work places, better health care, etc. If a worker can and does forego all of those benefits, then you may have a point. Until then, though, the “disassociation” thing is just canard. They’re only trying to disassociate from the bill.


  89. - Politix - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:56 am:

    I don’t know how I allowed myself to be so badly victimized and cheated for all of these years by my union. So thankful that our new Governor is watching over us like this. What a thoughtful man. /snark


  90. - 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:56 am:

    Shorter Rauner: “Let’s you and him fight.”

    This is a smokescreen. Don’t look at the magician’s eyes, watch his hands. Rauner’s strategy only works if we play along and take the bait.

    Thousands of words will be said about this, but at the end of the day, Rauner won’t have the votes to get an enterpize zone bill out of committee. This is all a distraction.


  91. - Mouthy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:00 pm:

    - F. Vincent Vernuccio - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:50 am:
    Nice spin on right to work. What it means, and any good union buster knows this, is that any employee that can not pay their fair share and reap the benefits will destroy the union. Why not be truthful about what you’re about?


  92. - Joe Lehman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:02 pm:

    Rich Miller,

    The Michigan Education Association’s commitment to “sanctity of contract” rings hollow when when examines their actual contracts and practices.

    We analyzed hundreds of their contracts and found hundreds of instances of the union (and the district) agreeing to illegal and unenforceable provisions. How sacred is a contract that can’t and won’t be enforced?
    http://www.mackinac.org/20448

    Don’t be surprised if someone develops model legislation relieving unions of the burden of representing those they call “freeloaders.” If the unions support the legislation, you can say I was wrong about the so-called freeloader problem. If they oppose it, as Mr. Pratt already suggested they would in legislative testimony, it will prove they’d rather control the wages of “freeloaders” than allow them to negotiate better deals than the union can get for them.

    Joe Lehman


  93. - Amalia - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:09 pm:

    ah, freedom of choice. they want it here, they don’t want it for my body.


  94. - Politix - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:10 pm:

    “…it will prove they’d rather control the wages of “freeloaders” than allow them to negotiate better deals than the union can get for them.”

    Consider that most state workers have no desire nor skills necessary to negotiate in this manner.


  95. - Wordslinger - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:11 pm:

    –allow them to negotiate better deals than the union can get for them–

    Say it ain’t so, Joe. That will drive up the cost of everything, what with those individuals negotiating their own blockbuster deals!

    I’m with you, Joe. We need unions to keep negotiating those lousy deals that hold down the cost of labor.

    You crack me up, Joe. Who do you think buys that nonsense?


  96. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:11 pm:

    “Don’t be surprised if someone develops model legislation relieving unions of the burden of representing those they call “freeloaders.””

    Why haven’t they already? If the concern really is to let employees get away from unions, then write legislation that lets them get away from unions, not just the fees. “Maybe later” isn’t very convincing.

    “you can say I was wrong about the so-called freeloader problem”

    We can say that right now, because the fact that unions need monopoly-of-representation to survive doesn’t change the fact that RTWFL allows freeloading. This entire line of discussion is the red herring.

    “If they oppose it, as Mr. Pratt already suggested they would in legislative testimony, it will prove”

    only that they oppose it. What you labelled as a guess at their motives before (complete with a “perhaps” in front of it) you’re now trying to pass off as a fact. But it remains a guess.


  97. - Keyser Soze - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:13 pm:

    Judging by the commentary this is going to be a lively legislative session. I don’t have a dog in this fight but I thought I would throw this into the mix. A very good friend, a licensed professional engineer, works in state government. He is a member of the Teamsters. Here is how he puts it. “I’m not a truck driver; I don’t want to be a Teamster. But, it’s the only way I’ll ever see a raise.” As he puts it, the deck was stacked under Blago-Quinn in a way that virtually co-opted staffers to join a union. Comments?


  98. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:14 pm:

    And also, if the point of RTWFL is to allow workers to negotiate better deals for themselves, then Rauner must be an absolute lunatic to link it to getting state finances under control. If workers are going to get paid more without union representation, than unions must be a good deal for management and taxpayers.


  99. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:14 pm:

    Joe,

    They contain illegal and unenforceable provisions?

    Joe, is this your first contract?

    Heck, I build unenforceable provisions into about half the contracts I draft. You build in breach so that your client can walk away. “Contractor must provide X, Y and Z” when I know there is no way the contractor can do it.

    If things were well, as they do 99% of the time, we ignore those provisions. If my client wants out, we “enforce” them.

    Welcome to the world of contracts. Nice outrage though.


  100. - Arizona Bob - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:15 pm:

    @Dem

    =The union is doing the negotiating and the results of those negotiations apply to everyone.=

    In that case, Dem, you’re going to have to grow a pair and negotiate a better deal for yourself, if you’re worth more than the rank and file. If you have a “right to work” and can negotiate on your own behalf, your employer has no obligation to force you to accept the other employees’ terms.

    This is what valuable employees do, at least the 85% of non-union workers in Illinois private sector. OF course, if you’re really not that valuable to your employer……

    I’ve done very well without a union, far better than I would have done by joining one. Good workers in public service could do this as well.

    Workers of Illinois unite! All you have to lose is your union chains! (to paraphrase Karl Marx)


  101. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:16 pm:

    Keyser-

    1) We have no way of knowing if what your friend says is true.

    2) If joining the union helps him get a raise then it sounds like joining the union is a good deal for him.


  102. - Obamas Puppy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:18 pm:

    Answering that IPI question is like asking “do you like apple pie?” Really, quoting and IPI poll? Ill put that right up with a FOX Obama poll on how he is handling the economy.


  103. - Skeptic - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:25 pm:

    “I never understood what the benefit of being in the union was for me as a worker” What were your work hours? How were shifts assigned? How many hours in a row were you allowed to work? How long was your lunch break? What about bathroom breaks? What about if your supervisor had a bone against you, what recourse did you have, etc.? You definitely benefitted from the union.


  104. - Pelonski - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:30 pm:

    Joe,

    The reason unions won’t support freeloader legislation is simple; the employer will first destroy the union before attacking wages. It goes like this,

    Step 1: allow people to leave the union and avoid paying dues
    Step 2: pay the employees who leave the same amount and treat them the same or better
    Step 3: Once the union is weakened enough, drive down wages and benefits

    Rauner is trying to initiate Step 1 and has offered to implement Step 2. Step 3 will come if he is successful.


  105. - Arizona Bob - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:30 pm:

    @Keyser

    =Here is how he [state engineer]puts it. “I’m not a truck driver; I don’t want to be a Teamster. But, it’s the only way I’ll ever see a raise.”=

    Keyser, I’ve been a professional engineer in Illinois for about 30 years, and I sympathize with your friend’s dilemma. The transportation consulting industry pays engineers far better than IDOT, and the state would lose most of them if they didn’t rig the game. The last time I checked, an engineer leaving state work for the private sector is banned from doing work for the state in a consulting firm for about 7 years. If the union was more about the employees’ good than lining their own packets, they’d negotiate this unfair rule away, but they’re willing to sell out the good of their members to force them to stay in a job that forces them to pay dues to them. As is often the case, unions and government conspire to shaft the employees.

    If employees were able to do the same work in the private sector without penalty, the state would NEED to give them raises to keep the good ones. THAT’s the reason your friend can’t get the raises he deserves, the killing of freedom, choice, and options thanks to the Teamsters in cahoots with the state.

    This is equivalent to state’s attorney not being able to practice before the court for seven years in private practice if they leave the State’s attorney’s office. I don’t believe the states attorney are forced to join a union. Who’s better served and has more freedom?


  106. - Noteabags - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:31 pm:

    Union dues cannot be used for political activities. AFSCME has the PEOPLE organization which employees can contribute. People Organized To Promote Legislative Equality. They are the only funds used for political activities.


  107. - Peoria Guy - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:36 pm:

    I have been part of decertifying a union. It was one of my proudest moments. It saved the employee’s jobs and got rid of a corrupt and self-serving union.


  108. - Todd - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:39 pm:

    Kristina, Joe M and Joe Lehman –

    You guys are utterly clueless about what you are talking about as you mix and match public sector unions with private sector unions and they are not interchangeable. So please see if you can follow along.

    Illinois local and state public sector unions are governed by the Illinois state law. Those of us in the private sector are governed by the Nataional Labor Relations Act. They are different.

    Under the NLRB, a union like my trade union must petition to represent ALL members of the bargaining unit. you CAN’T under federal law say we want to take only those who want to be members. It doesn’t work like that. As a matter of fact we filed a petition for just that sort of thing in Indiana and the NRLB rejected it.

    Under right to work, the Indiana law that you tpyes fought for, bars the union from having either a closed shop agreement — IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR and collecting ANY fees dues or assessments from the people they are forced to represent for FREE.

    Because under the NLRA you have to represent ALL members of the bargaining unit. and thos who choose not to join becuase of the state ban on closed shops, are then given a free ride because the same law also prohibits collecting any fees for any of the representative duties we are REQUIRED to preform under the NRLA or face a complaint/Borad charge of failure for fair representation.

    In some of shops the non-members who refuse to pay file more grienvences thatn the members due. They get out healthcare, our pension, our wages our grievance procedures, our time from agents and lawyers and pay nothing for it.

    The whole idea of only representing “members” bargaining unit only serve to undercut the entire collective bargaining process. If the non-member violates the contract, whats the recourse? you can’t dicipline him internally. If they choose to cut a side deal and work 12 hours for straight time what do you do?

    And the end result of members only bargaining units is no bargining unit. The legislation you talk about doesn’t survive in the real world. So you build up a nice little strawman to knock down.

    The issue with bargaining units is we don’t it is either agreed to by the company and they choose to go union, so now you are removing and interferring with my right of choice as a busniess man. If I want to run a union shop, you are now telling me I can’t. I can’t sign a contract with a exclusive representation and mandatory membership cluase. So now you, your organization and the state have come between me, the owner and my contractual reltionship with another party. How is that smaller government?

    Or there is an election and the employees choose the union. And its a majority rule. You don;t get to opt out of your state representative’s representation cause you don;t like them being anti-gun, pro-life, or what ever position they take. the majority voted for them and they represent you. Same in a union elelction. majority wins. So now you want to take you ball and bat and silk away and force other to pay for your benefits. The new welfare state where someoen else gets you yours from the sweat from someone else’s brow and you get to go file a greinvance when you think you’ve been wronged becuase God knows you would never just let the man short you your hours. Because the good hearted contractor would never do such a thing.


  109. - Pelonski - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:40 pm:

    If you want to see what Illinois public service looks like without union representation, you only need to look at the “merit” comp system. Now matter how good or bad you are at your job, your pay today is the same or less than it was 10 years ago. You have absolutely no ability to negotiate better pay based on your performance. If you are a strong performer, your best option if you would like to earn more money is to leave for the private sector. If you are a poor performer, your best option is to continue working for the state because you couldn’t do better in the private sector. Is that really what we want?

    (I by no means am suggesting that all merit comp employees are poor performers. Many strong performers stay despite the lower pay because they believe in what they do.)


  110. - former state employee - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:44 pm:

    In twelve years as a state employee not once did AFSCME ever mention working hard or taking pride in my work. It was all them and us and very negative. I went from being a member to paying my fair share for negotiations to finally leaving. I’m a Teamster now under a contract that gives management the right to manage. I’m not anti union but I am anti AFSCME. They need to be knocked down a notch and every employee should have to work to keep a job.


  111. - Juvenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:50 pm:

    If folks don’t want to belong to a union, they should hold an election to decertify the union.

    Welcome to democracy, baby.


  112. - Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 12:50 pm:

    What Todd said.


  113. - Griz - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:01 pm:

    Do the math. Number of teachers in each school district times 70.00 per month times 12. Most contracts negotiate every 2 or 3 years. Not bad for one week of negotiation every 3 years. BTW the bargaining team is comprised of the teachers themselves. Roll this number state wide for all unions.


  114. - PublicServant - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:02 pm:

    Waiting for either Joe Lahman, or Kristina to respond to Todd’s points. Not holding my breath.

    Point, set and match to Todd.


  115. - 3234 - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:02 pm:

    Let’s see… What is a union? A group of people gathered together for a common purpose. To improve their position in labor/management relations. To find common ground with similar groups in an effort to enhance their lot (or the lot of those they represent) in life. Typically they pay a fee, or dues, to, for instance lobby legislative leaders on their behalf. What, you might ask, are some examples of these groups? Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Municipal League and City Managers Association come to mind… Damn unions indeed.


  116. - Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:03 pm:

    === Not bad for one week of negotiation every 3 years===

    If it was just that, you’d be right. It ain’t just that.


  117. - steve schnorf - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:06 pm:

    Pelonski, that isn’t a deficiency of the merit comp system, it’s a criticism of the people in charge. Under Edgar and Ryan, the only time mc employees didn’t get a merit based COLA was if the unions didn’t get one, and that 1 year we picked up MC pension contributions at the same rate as we picked up the union employees. Again, it’s not the system’s fault, it’s who is in charge.


  118. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:09 pm:

    - Del Clinkton - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 11:27 am:

    I agree with most of what you stated but we should of have year round school. That is a very bad idea and I am happy that it never goes anywhere.


  119. - Del Clinkton - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:16 pm:

    @anonymous:

    Appreciate your point of view, thanx.


  120. - Sam Weinberg - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:16 pm:

    Do all the people citing “freedom of choice” also support the rights of those who aren’t in a union shop to simply declare themselves a member of a union and proceed accordingly? Of course not. Funny how that “freedom of choice” only runs one way.


  121. - Todd - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:17 pm:

    Look I don;t like the devide and conquer set, but private sector unions operate (pun intended) in a different world with different rules. What Wisconsin did and very different from what Indiana and Michigan did.

    And you can not interchange this notion. Fair share I beleive exists under state law. But it doesn;t in ANY right to work state and they union hating right wing types fight it every time it comes up.

    So mandatory membership is one issue. Fair share is another. Governemental unions/employees vs private sector is another.

    Ever notice how none of this seeks to talk about those unions who do a bad job representing their members or or those that maybe go the brindge to far? instead we are all lumped into the same catagory and either by design or shear ignorance it all looks like one big bucket of mud and no one on the ABC side, takes the time to talk about the law and or the facts on how we are different and one brush doesn’t work.


  122. - Pelonski - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:23 pm:

    Steve, I agree the merit comp system can work under a quality executive. The problem is that we tend not to elect those in Illinois. Will Rauner end up treating his merit comp employees fairly? I hope so, but we are always one election away from another bad executive, and given the state of Illinois government finances, there will be a strong incentive to keep payrolls down going forward. I’m skeptical that a true merit based compensation system will be coming anytime soon.


  123. - RNUG - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:37 pm:

    - steve schnorf - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:06 pm:

    I agree that it is the fault of the people in charge of the MC system. However, as a former MC, I have to say it never worked like it was designed after the first two or so years.

    Back in those days, you got to be in an MC title by working your way up to it, so that meant you were generally better than average. The second managers started actually handing out performance based pay, the raises skyrocketed and the State paniced, capping the amount of raise and, for the ranges that were allowed based on the evaluation, instituting a quota system on how many people could be in each range.

    The State has proved they can’t handle a performance based system.


  124. - -retired - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:52 pm:

    Your union negotiates hours you can be made to work, your wages and your working conditions. Before Union’s a work week was well over 40 hours..wages were whatever they wanted to pay you..working conditions if you remember history was locked up in a sweatshop. Do you think we got where we are today by the employer wanting to do right? Pick up a labor history book and see what your Grandparents were treated like in this country.


  125. - Skeptic - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 1:55 pm:

    “the merit comp system can work under a quality executive” Part of the problem though is that the executive is pretty far removed from the process, much like RNUG @ 1:37 said.


  126. - Bibe - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:12 pm:

    Dear Governor Rauner,
    I have the same choice in whether to be represented by a union as I have in who repreents me as Governor. A union has to have the support of a majority of employees to be formed and a majority of co-workers has the freedom to vote the union out. If someone should have ‘freedom’ not to pay fair share fees should they also have ‘freedom’ not to pay state taxes if they didn’t vote for you? If so, sign me up.


  127. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:13 pm:

    I think the RTWFL proponents have talked themselves into a trickbag here; if RTWFL is such a good deal for workers, then it’s going to cost the state more money, right in the middle of a financial crisis. If it’s going to keep costs down and help alleviate the financial crisis, then it’s necessarily going to have to be a bad deal for workers.


  128. - Norseman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:13 pm:

    === that isn’t a deficiency of the merit comp system, it’s a criticism of the people in charge. ===

    If it depends upon the people in charge, it’s a deficiency in the system in my book. Furloughs and no increases for MC employees for the last 8 years is a problem that has increased the movement of management staff to the union ranks. Quality MC staff have retired or moved to the private sector.


  129. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:14 pm:

    And that’s without getting into the fact that the “it’s good for workers” argument relies on pretty much every actor being incredibly capable at their jobs, incredibly skilled negotiators, incredibly rational economic actors, and incredibly generous, all at once.


  130. - VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:15 pm:

    Senator Arlan Meekhof questioned Mr. Pratt as follows: “Sometimes I’ve heard of people who want to leave the union [described as] as ‘freeloader.’ Is there contention by the MEA that you would wish to be relieved of representing those people who want to opt out of the union?”

    After a long pause, Mr. Pratt told the senators “no.”

    http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/19420

    That told me Mr. Pratt’s union finds value in maintaining monopoly representation of all workers, not just those who join his union. Perhaps the last thing the union wants is for the best teachers to negotiate higher pay for themselves than the union can get for them.

    His answer was no. Simply. Plain. No. You read an awful lot into that short two letter, one word answer.

    What you that was a negative - wasn’t it actually a positive? Unions don’t abandon workers. Union leadership is pro-worker, pro-family and pro-community. That “no” answer shows the world that even those workers not represented by the union are still important to it. Yet you don’t see both sides of that answer, didn’t you?

    What you revealed is only yourself, your bias and your ignorance.


  131. - Greg - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:21 pm:

    Todd, Kristina, Joe have the makings of an excellent panel discussion. Maybe Rich could MC? I still have everyone’s contact information for whomever wishes to organize.

    That said, Todd makes the key point. The organizations operate under different legal regimes — let us not forget the RLA (a very good regime for interest aggregation) — and that is going to determine everything from the nature of the relationship (partnership vs. antagonist) to the reach of the agreements.

    The issues surrounding the relative strengths or weaknesses of private sector unions is solving itself through market forces. Govt. attempts to tip the scales one direction toward labor isn’t in the long term interest of workers (see Detroit). Businesses seeking legislation to weaken (RTW) needlessly antagonize the opposition for what is inevitable, anyway. It’s why I avoided the issue at IPI. Why antagonize Todd over this when I can work with him on so much more — including business friendly issues and taxes? Especially when it’s such a small segment of the workforce. And I surmise that where they still exist they probably need to.

    Public sector and teachers unions are a different animal. And being able to donate to the campaign’s of the people you are negotiating with is corrupt on its face. Therein lies the problem (and know I’m not calling for limits on who can donate to whom).

    Just my two cents.


  132. - Don't Hayek Me Bro - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:36 pm:

    How is it “corrupt on it’s face” for public workers to donate to government officials? How come it is legitimate for Rauner to donate money to the PA Governor who awarded him contracts to invest pensions (with sizable commission and fees), or to pay Stu Levine to direct contracts his way, or IPI execs to donate campaign money to Bruce and then take jobs in his administration? Or how about Don Tracy donating 100k to Bruce and then getting placed at the top of the gaming board?!

    Why is it only corrupt when working people get involved in the democratic process?


  133. - Old and Tired - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:42 pm:

    What Kristina and every hack at IPI always fails to leave out is that anyone can remove a union from their position as exclusive bargaining rep. Just convince your co-workers of the merits of not having a union and get the union voted out.

    It’s also telling that IPI, Rauner et al, when advancing RTW legislation ever seek to also amend labor law to remove the union’s duty to fair representation. They like to talk this big game about “Workers should be able to say ‘No Union’ and Unions can say ‘Good-Bye’” but these groups never actually pursue any policies that would allow the union to say “good bye.”

    Why? Because they don’t give one iota about the workers. They know that RTW coupled with fair representation is a death sentence to unions. Unions are the biggest thorn in the side of IPI’s donors, ergo, their main goal is to destroy unions.


  134. - CapnCrunch - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 2:59 pm:

    “Now that we have our multiple TVs and cellphones, we’re too sedate and lazily buying into boogeymen stories to notice the robber barons of today are slowing eating away at our standard of living.”

    Did union labor build all those TVs and cellphones?


  135. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 3:34 pm:

    So it’s corrupt on it’s face, but you’re not calling for it to stop? Weird.


  136. - Old and Tired - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 3:37 pm:

    Old and Tired-

    IPI knows exactly what they’re doing. They talk about “freedom” for workers. What kind of bizarre conception of freedom leads one to advocate for policies that destroy a democratic institution that gives workers some semblance of voice in the workplace? IPI tries to advance the idea that one worker not wanting a union at work is some great breach of freedom; but if a majority of workers want a union they can’t have one, or at least one that is actually effective(though if a non-union worker was dissatisfied with some aspect of THEIR work- say pay or benefits- IPI would tell them to “go find a new job somewhere else”)

    It’s because Rauner and IPI see democracy as inherently flawed, or at best, a mild annoyance that is fine for national politics but shouldn’t be allowed to encroach into the place where most people spend their life’s energy: the workplace.


  137. - Arizona Bob - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 3:39 pm:

    @ Sam Weinberg

    =Do all the people citing “freedom of choice” also support the rights of those who aren’t in a union shop to simply declare themselves a member of a union and proceed accordingly?=

    THIS one surer does! In fact, I think the “sole bargaining agent” requirement in public schools is nonsense as well. The typical case is that the senior faculty running the school unions throw the younger members under the bus in order to get paid up to three times what their younger brethren do for the same course and student load, without producing any better quality of instruction. Having been a teacher, I think that educators with less than 10 years experience should be allowed to have their own union that will work for THEIR interests rather than those of the tyrannical senior majority. If staff aren’t allowed to negotiate on their own behalf, I believe separate bargaining units is the next best choice for workers.


  138. - Joe Lehman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 3:40 pm:

    Wordslinger,

    The total cost of public employee compensation is a legitimate point of policy debate and of great concern to taxpayers.

    However my statement about paying great teachers even more than their union negotiates for them is all about rewarding the best teachers highly, and providing the best education possible to school children. Surely we agree on the imperative of both of those.


  139. - Joe Lehman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 3:42 pm:

    Gooner,

    If someone at once negotiates illegal provisions into contracts while claiming to value sanctity of contract, one may doubt his commitment to either law, contract, or both. I hope that does not describe you.

    Joe Lehman


  140. - F. Vincent Vernuccio - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 3:43 pm:

    Old and Tired, Arsenal, Todd, and Mouthy would you support relieving unions of the burden of having to represent workers who do not want their representation?


  141. - Joe Lehman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 3:51 pm:

    Todd,

    I can’t speak for the other people you named, but I am indeed aware that private sector unions are covered by federal law and government unions by state law, in general.
    This report explains the differences well.
    http://www.mackinac.org/2286

    (However, there are provisions in federal labor law for”members-only unions,” but I’m not an expert on them and I wasn’t referring to them.
    See this chapter in our latest labor study: http://www.mackinac.org/20702)

    I used the Michigan Education Association testimony because I was talking about government unions, not private sector ones. I’m sorry that wasn’t more clear.

    PublicServant, I hope this answers your question about whether I would respond.

    Joe Lehman


  142. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 3:57 pm:

    Joe, if that’s your view, either you are painfully naive or you haven’t done your homework.

    “Building in breach” is a thing we do on purpose and as a matter of policy. When my client is in a superior negotiating position, we do it to give us flexibility if we later want to walk away. The other side doesn’t have to sign. They can tell me to pound sand.

    Admittedly, at times I’m more blunt and write in a “termination for convenience” clause. That does the same thing.

    Really, before you express outraged, talk to some people first about common practices. That’s simply the way things are done. You may as well be upset that it is cold in winter. But if you want to have credibility, get a basic understanding of the topic.


  143. - Joe Lehman - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:09 pm:

    Gooner,

    I agree that illegal, unenforceable contracts are often “simply the way things are done,” as you say.

    And I believe that is a tragedy for the teachers and other public servants trapped in such contracts that obscure and inhibit the exercise of their legal rights.

    Joe Lehman


  144. - Bright One - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:13 pm:

    The IPI using Mackinac as an analogy to make their case shows how out of touch they are with the universe. They have some good points but are obscured by ethereal concepts, conceits, mental m-nation and everything else. Get to the point.


  145. - Demoralized - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:14 pm:

    ==The total cost of public employee compensation is a legitimate point of policy debate and of great concern to taxpayers.==

    It’s not legitimate debate when you skew numbers to serve your agenda. Just sayin . . .


  146. - Arthur Andersen - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:18 pm:

    Gooner, are you in the used car biz or vinyl siding? Timeshares?

    It’s one thing to be a sleazeball, but another to try to justify it by calling it “common practice” or “the way things are done.”

    Pathetic.


  147. - Arsenal - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:45 pm:

    “However my statement about paying great teachers even more than their union negotiates for them is all about rewarding the best teachers highly, and providing the best education possible to school children. Surely we agree on the imperative of both of those.”

    I’m gonna go ahead and say I doubt your commitment to this. After all, RTWFL isn’t gonna change the tenure system, or the grievance system. It’s not even going to force any school to individually negotiate with any teacher. All it’s gonna do is let some teachers opt out of a fee. And I know, I know, you say that someone’s probably gonna write up a bill that does that “soon”, but c’mon, RTWFL ain’t a new idea. It’s telling that the promise is perpetually “coming soon”.


  148. - Greg - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:56 pm:

    Arsenal, I’m not a progressive who thinks you can wave a magic wand — i.e. Pass a bill — and suddenly all is right in the world. I don’t believe in unicorns either. I believe in transparency and calling out corruption when I see it. It protects the rights of people and gives voters the opportunity to judge.


  149. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:58 pm:

    Arthur Anderson, rather than insult me, why not just ask how things are done?

    You can insult me, but I deal with relatively large companies and they are represented by counsel. If they don’t like the contract, they can walk or insist we change a term. That’s the nature of business.

    If you don’t like the reality of contract negotiation, that’s your option but don’t blame me for doing what 1) is done as a matter of routine; and 2) what you would insist on if I worked for you.


  150. - Gooner - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 5:02 pm:

    Joe, who wants people to get the benefits of union without paying, is claiming that it reflect a tragedy for teachers?

    Sure, because it is such a tragedy to have teachers paid well.


  151. - todd - Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 5:05 pm:

    Your study is utter bull. What you do is take the Board’s authority to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, then theorize about members only units, and try to shoehorn in a court case to buttress your theory when the court case was about if the small bargaining unit was appropriate.

    No labor experts are agreeing that members only units are either within the Board’s purview, the NLRA or case law. As a matter of fact we took a unit we were organizing in Indiana and filed for a members only unit. The Board rejected it out of hand as not being appropriate and not within the case law. Your whole report is based upon a theory of Prof. Morris and his notion you can have non-majority bargaining units. And he gets there by trying to split bargaining units. It is completely appropriate for the operators of a construction company to be a separate unit than the laborers. And Prof. Morris tries to take this idea and then by citing section 7 rights of employees being upheld, that somehow this causes a sanction for non-majority units. It is BS. It is a theory that has been kicked around to push RTW and stop fair share.

    You and your ilk keep selling this snake oil as a way to confuse the issue and misdirect legislators in to thinking that unions have no duty to represent people who do not pay dues under RTW laws. It’s a bald faced lie. It never has been true and it never has worked, because Fair Share would be the end to right to work. Non-members would like it if their freeloading days came to an end when they had to pay for the representation they got.

    And No I don’t support the relieving of the duty unless it is accompanied by protection that if the two groups are treat disparately that it is a violation of law. That if the employer uses one unit of employees to under cut the terms. Wages and conditions of the other it is a violation of the law with real penalties oh say $50K each violation for each worker for each day.

    I worked as an organizer. We got a Gissle bargaining order on one of my campigns. Unlike you guys we worked on the street and checked cards, ran pickets, filed charges and went to court on complaints and won. We kow the difference between Section 7 and section 8 and what the rights are.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.
* Isabel’s afternoon roundup
* McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally abruptly aborts reelection bid without explanation
* Question of the day
* It’s just a bill
* Protect Illinois Hospitality – Vote No On House Bill 5345
* You gotta be kidding me
* Showcasing The Retailers Who Make Illinois Work
* Moody’s revises Illinois outlook from stable to positive (Updated)
* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* Live coverage
* *** UPDATED x1 - Equality Illinois 'alarmed' over possible Harris appointment *** Personal PAC warns Democratic committeepersons about Sen. Napoleon Harris
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller