Believe me, a right-to-work law is one of his priorities. 2016, 2018 however long it take to flip the Illinois house/senate. With Chicago a large percentage of the state, this may not be easily doable. But that’s his goal.
It maybe the goal for Rauner, but in Illinois the State legislature is controlled by people who represent the unions first and foremost. Sure, it’s going to be hard to compete with surrounding states which have right to work laws but… Illinois doesn’t really care. How many factories are coming to Chicago ? Chicago gets non- union white collar jobs that unions aren’t going to organize. Things could be worse, what if Indiana or Wisconsin puts their state income rate lower than Illinois’ top rate?
I love how they willfully and openly ignore the economic studies showing lower wages and higher poverty in “right to work for less” states.
“Business friendly” is beginning to just mean “how many rights and how much power and money does your state take away from the non-rich”? Under this definition, Alabama circa 1850 was mighty business friendly.
And I’ll say it again. Since when do we aspire to Iowa and Indiana? They are not good places to live, work and raise a family, compared to Illinois.
I guess they mean that since he hasn’t formally introduced a state-wide RTWFL bill, it’s not his priority. But by that token, then, his only priority is his Magical Beans budget…which he has to introduce anyway. So what is he there for, exactly?
And in other news…
Shock Office in D.C. In Need of Update
95th District Fills Vacancy with Seasoned Veteran
Unseasonably Warm Winter Weather This Past Week
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Feb 24, 15 @ 10:34 am:
Rauner has already begun his attack on unions with a particularly-timed EO and lawsuit. He made sure to kick labor in the jimmies right as labor sat down and tried to work with its new boss.
“I heard they are going try to pass RTW in Wisconsin, possibly today or in the next few days.”
We know who’s sad right now in Illinois. I seriously doubt that right to work will pass in Illinois. There are key voices in this state who oppose right to work, either directly or indirectly. Greg Hinz recently did an article supporting unions. I’ve seen other journalists and editorials that are critical of Rauner and his policies on unions.
Many are not gullible enough to believe that the super-wealthy and their politicians care about the First Anendment rights of working stiffs in regards to union membership. Their true motive is to break unions and control as much of government and the economy as possible.
I have confidence also that we won’t allow ourselves to be blackmailed into stripping unions so that jobs come to Illinois. Jobs were plentiful at times that union membership was much higher–overall in America.
Rhetoric is normal and people say all kinds of things. Reality is Right to works is a red herring, we need pension reform, and workers comp. reform. I’m sure the unions know this.
Government unions never were a great idea, other unions also know this. It’s time Illinois politician’s look around them and get Illinois into the game. We are the laughing stock of the Mid-west. The majority of my family moved to Indiana. And the rest of them are thinking of moving any place but here.
Have a miss by the editorial board and get scoped
by a foreign paper on a local on the same day.
- Tired of nonsense - Tuesday, Feb 24, 15 @ 1:54 pm:
By all means, yes. Let’s force workers to contribute money to a private political club, against their will, just so they can work. I wonder what those opposing right to work would say if this was a Red state and the union supported republicans.
I haven’t read the trib since it began to cost $129 per year. There are plenty of free news sources and nothing essential in the trib, for me. Besides, I don’t like their management–never have. I feel sorry for working journalists. Fewer and fewer gold watches and unbought publishers.
Yes, I’ve read it. NJ decision doesn’t directly affect Illinois, plus it’s pretty much a first level decision that will be / is being appeal to their Supreme Court. I agree the parallels are interesting: police powers argument, constitutional protection, diminishment, millionaire’s tax, contract law based decision.
That tells you the people behind all this, on both sides, are using the same playbook in the various states.
I’m willing to bet seven justices and/or their clerks read it today.