129 Comments - jazzy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:04 am: Amen - Macbeth - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:04 am: Ironically, many working people voted for Rauner. Go figure. One of the weirder paradoxes of the GOP’s mysterious rise in blue states. - AC - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:05 am: Rauner reminds me of the Martians in Mars Attacks yelling “we come in peace” while zapping people with ray guns. Unfortunately, dealing with the reality of Rauner isn’t that funny. - The Equalizer - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:07 am: He wants an “Open for Business” sign too, like Wisconsin. Poor guy. - AnonymousOne - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:09 am: Everyone except Rauner makes too much money. He needs more. So do his bazillionaire friends. They want to buy the world. People do have the right to accept or reject a job by the way. I think Rauner won’t acknowledge that there are many people who find that joining a union is their only hope against the tyranny of people like him. Isn’t union membership up in the state? And with this kind of talk, it’ll climb even further. So much for “people” hating unions. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:10 am: It will be the “Unions” that derail Rauner, but it’s going to be Rauner who will bring it upon himself; in the court room, in the General Assembly, and in tearing down the ILGOP, and the GOP Caucuses Rauner bought and paid for. Rauner speaking this narrative will be his own worst enemy, and will be the not the target taking arrows, but the arrows shot at the ILGOP, GOP Candidates, and the non-Union agenda that many could have rallied around. Rauner is/will damage the 2016 cycle going this way. The silence is deafening…expect for a lonely lil owl, who can’t praise enough, what as a mayor, he was against. - Sam Weinberg - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:10 am: “Let me be clear: I am not anti-union. I do believe you should be able to join a union or not join a union. You should have the freedom to choose.” When is somebody in the press going to ask him whether he likewise supports removing the rather onerous requirements placed on those seeking to exercise their “freedom to choose” to be represented by a union? His answer would say it all. - Say It Ain't So!! - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:13 am: A smart Governor promotes his State and points out it’s advantages. He should be saying “in Illinois, we pay our employees a living wage, we attract the best employees, the brightest individuals to provide the best quality services you can get. If you want Indiana or Wisconsin quality, go there, but if you want the best, come to Illinois!” But then again, that wouldn’t drive down wages to help out him and his 1% buddies, so you will never get that from Wannabe King Rauner. - Gone, but not forgotten - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:15 am: I think the Governor should focus on getting unions out of State government, rather than businesses. It is true, state workers are being paid too much and this is due to the unions. The membership/fair share is out of control in government. Whoever heard of managers, bureau chiefs, supervisors and attorneys being in a union in the private sector? As far as the managers, supervisors and bureau chiefs, how can they evaluate and discipline employees when they are all in the union? They can’t. Ergo, it’s the wild west out there with overtime abuse, time stealing, etc. because they’re all playing the same game. - Arizona Bob - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:15 am: C’mon, Rich. Right now Illinois has about the most pro-union rules in the nation, and private sector unions are unionized at what, about 15% of the work force? This isn’t so much about leveling the playing field in the private sector. Employers are dealing with that by leaving or minimizing growth in Illinois. This is more about the bad idea of allowing public workers to unionize. Even FDR was against it for the reasons that there’s no limiting factor on the rise of employee cost because there is no “profit” or bankruptcy if compensation rises too high, and the fact that the unions can cheaply buy politicians who’ll empower them against the best interests of the constituents. What do you get when compensation and benefits exceed the government’s ability to pay? Illinois, and the financial disaster the government there has created. - Illinoisvoter - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:16 am: Can we talk about the Golem in the room, that great protector of unsweat wealth. ALEC. Why are they behind this now of all times? Is it because many of the advantages of off shoring manufacturing had more to do with dirty energy and less with third world wages and now with abundant natural gas massive change is happening in our economy fast. - Honeybear - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:17 am: Perfidy - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:18 am: Based on union statements that private sector workers make more than public workers doing the same jobs, this is all part of Rauner’s plan to give public workers a raise. Right after they are laid off. /s - Langhorne - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:21 am: “If we’re losing jobs and companies are leaving and going to more flexible states, let me ask you which is worse for us, to have some jobs that have maybe slightly lower wages or having no jobs,” Rauner said. “I want you to be able to choose and have that option.” There is his goal, in his words, “slightly lower wages” (wink, wink). It’s the FY 15 budget, stupid. Sit down w the tops for a reality check on “all or nothing”. Not staff, leaders. How many days til an agreement? - Obamas Puppy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:23 am: Amen Rich, all of this while Corporate profits are soaring, income inequality is at record levels, and the stock market is climbing. Boy must be tough to be a billionaire these days because all these workers are paying fair share dues for the service of someone to bargain a contract. How do they survive? - jazzy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:24 am: Az Bob please provide site for FDR viewpoint. - Because I Said So.... - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:25 am: Bruce doesn’t have a social agenda….Hypocrite! - Jocko - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:26 am: ==forced to pay (un)fair share dues is being forced to fund political activity with which they disagree.== Unless they’re not (being forced), because they don’t (fund political activity). - Say It Ain't So!! - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:28 am: If Wannabe King Rauner wants the average worker to settle for “slightly lower wages” won’t that result in lower income tax revenues? If so, the logical replacement would be to raise the tax rates for those individuals that haven’t had there wages slightly reduced, such as those making over a million dollars a year. - Politix - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:28 am: ==The silence is deafening…expect for a lonely lil owl, who can’t praise enough, what as a mayor, he was against.== Who? Thanks…I’ll see myself out… - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:29 am: “schtick is starting to wear on me” I’m glad Rich and other prominent Illinois voices are clear-eyed about the intent and identity of those who push right to work laws and ending fair share fees. The video of Gov. Scott Walker meeting billionaire donor Diane Hendricks says it all. She wants Wisconsin to be a red state with right to work. He said he can bring it about by first going after public unions with a divide and conquer strategy. He followed through yesterday with enacting right to work. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:29 am: “Even FDR was against it” That is, at best, half true- http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/ -and even that half is based on FDR’s belief that “bargaining” was impossible in a public context, a fact that we now know isn’t true. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:31 am: “Chicago is lost…” What a drama queen. Gee, the home page of Gov. Rauner’s DCEO is just absolutely brimming with positive news about the Chicago and Illinois economy. Maybe he should give it a read. As to the “First Amendment” position, the guy is a con man. He and his supporters know it’s all about the money. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:31 am: @ Arizona Bob Corporations buy politicians also, a great example of it is in Arizona. Remember the school funding and pension lawsuits in your state? Your argument doesn’t hold water nor does it fill the potholes you keep on leaving behind. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:31 am: Truth is, that if the Unions weren’t around, the Politicians & their votes would be cheaper!! - Say It Ain't So!! - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:34 am: “Truth is, that if the Unions weren’t around, the Politicians & their votes would be cheaper!!” Truth is, that if Corporations weren’t around, the Politicians & their votes would be cheaper!! - Muscular - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:36 am: As Governor Rauner illustrated in his State of the State address, job growth in Illinois has lagged behind neighboring states, such as Indiana and Iowa, with less restrictive labor laws. Illinois residents have embraced Bruce Rauner’s reforms because they would rather have more people working at lower wages than fewer jobs that pay more. - Night Rider - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:37 am: Spot on, Rich. Let’s call a spade a spade, Governor Rauner. - PolPal56 - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:37 am: Wannabe King Bruce is certainly making it easy for the Democrats and the Unions to embrace one another again. Ol’ Brucie may heal our state in unexpected ways… - Langhorne - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:38 am: BR: Freezing property taxes won’t hurt schools, bec the state will increase funding. It would take a helluva lot just to offset the loss due to a freeze, much less increase funding, and do nothing about funding inequality. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:38 am: “Illinois residents have embraced Bruce Rauner’s reforms” C’mon, you don’t get to just make your own reality like that. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:39 am: ===Illinois residents have embraced Bruce Rauner’s reforms because they would rather have more people working at lower wages than fewer jobs that pay more.=== So, you willing to take a pay cut, say 10%, so jobs will…grow? So to grow jobs, you need to tell the work force…”you make too much.” Wow. (Well done, - politix -) - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:41 am: “So, you willing to take a pay cut, say 10%, so jobs will…grow?” That’s a pretty good point, OW. I would say, I’d gladly have my taxes go back up to 5% to avoid layoffs. But if I represented the majority of Illinois voters, November would have gone much differently… - Kankakee Jimmy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:43 am: It’s not so much “business owners don’t make enough” as it is our need to remain competitive with our neighboring states in order to retain businesses already located in Illinois. It just so happens that some ancillary effects of competitiveness measures might reduce median wages, but I’d sure as heck bet that absolute and overall employment would increase, which nobody discusses. More jobs with marginally less pay provides more economic benefits than less jobs with marginally more pay. - Anonin' - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:45 am: Has anyone phoned over to Effingham County to see if IDOT can deliver and erect some of those welcome to Scabland signs they been paintin’ in the shop? So far we have not heard a single mayor or county board president steppin’ up to grab the Scabland signs. BTW did anyone else noticed that apparently he found al his Gs, put on a tie and sat in Chicago for the WSJ cheerleadin’ session? - Sheila Simon's Banjo - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:45 am: The glaring hole in your logic is that, even if the intent WERE to “drive down wages and benefits,” the policy couldn’t do that on its own. And you’d be hard pressed to explain why members would voluntarily relinquish their membership to voluntarily diminish their own wages and benefits. In other words: if unions are all good, all the time, why would ANY member choose to give up their representation? (Let alone, enough members to dismantle the union altogether?) Seems to me that the underlying concern is that momentum is not on your side. Otherwise, why even worry about it? - Concerned - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:46 am: Kankakee Jimmy, would you mind sharing the econometric model that substantiates your assertion? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:46 am: === It just so happens that some ancillary effects of competitiveness measures might reduce median wages, but I’d sure as heck bet that absolute and overall employment would increase, which nobody discusses. More jobs with marginally less pay provides more economic benefits than less jobs with marginally more pay.=== Really? Can you back that up with a cite/example? Thanks. - Et Tu Brute? - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:48 am: Illinios has always been a labor state, and its state-wide orientation has been a shade of blue in the last 20 years. Rauner will likely not change that. To modify the behaviors of someone who percieves himself a populist, one must tarnish his self image of invincibility. Its going to be fun to watch the last two years of Shaking up Springfield and bringing back Illinois. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:49 am: President Roosevelt, at the initiation of the NLRA warned of the presence of unions in the government sector. There is no constraint on the other side of the table where the politicians sit to do anything more than deliver more benefits and pass the tab to the tax payer. Today the ‘working class’ does not match the level of benefits of the State of Illinois employees and yet must pay the bill. There is no balance. - Langhorne - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:50 am: Munger should give us a timeline on when specific agencies will run out of personal services money. - DuPage - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:54 am: I read that Minnesota raised taxes and businesses are doing better then in Wisconsin which lowered taxes. - Mister M - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:57 am: Rich, I agree. Also, except for the part about state workers being overpaid (compared to private sector equivalents), I agree with Gone, but not forgotten. With all of the guv’s focus and rhetoric against unions, one might conclude that he is more about emulating Wisc. gov. Walker than solving real problems. It’s about time that folks realize that “right-to-work” has a ring of being for “the folks” but it really means “no rights to work”, and that is anything but. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:57 am: Then again, if it is true that private sector workers make more than public workers doing the same jobs in Illinois, how long until the mass departures from public employment begin? At what point does your patience run out as a public worker and you move to the private sector if you can? Add that to the stress over your pension, your benefits, your salary and even your job itself and it may be time to move on if you can no matter how much you love our state. - UIC Guy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:57 am: @SSB, 10:45 What you miss is that if paying union dues or a replacement charge (’Fair Share’) becomes wholly optional then there’s a free rider problem. If everyone else is in the union then I can opt out with no cost to me: I’m still in a union shop with wages and benefits to match. If enough people reason this way, each of them perfectly correct as far as his/her own self-interest is concerned, then suddenly none of us are in a union shop. Adding or subtracting a single person is almost never going to make the difference. So there’s a co-ordination problem, which is solved if people can be compelled to join a union (or pay Fair Share dues) once a majority has voted for it. Without that power to compel it cannot be solved, and unless enough people are willing to act against their own immediate and short-term interest the union is one. It’s elementary game theory. - low level - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:58 am: Bozo Bruce at it again. It’s wearing so thin that when the buckets are set up for the grand prize game and the kid is chosen, he / she runs off the stage crying. - Ljt75 - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:00 am: @Anonymous I think you keep on mixing up Roosevelt with Hoover. - Sheila Simon's Banjo - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:00 am: UIC - Nothing in the law prevents a union from exclusively representing its members. They represent nonmembers of their own free will. - Sycophancy Pants - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:01 am: I wish Mike Madigan would walk into the Capitol Rotunda on a crowded session day and flatulate into a microphone. Then the more realistic among us could watch in amusement as you sycophants express childlike wonder at the mysterious flatulence, but in the end reach no conclusion as to why he did it except to say with much humility that no one can really know the meaning of said flatulence but it must be good for us because it was loosed upon the world by The Speaker. /rant - anon - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:01 am: I guess Captain Obvious is just trying to solve the crapfest handed him, unlike his predecessors the last 12 years. Someone has to take charge, right???? - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:04 am: “In other words: if unions are all good, all the time, why would ANY member choose to give up their representation?” The whole point of RTWFL is to let people get the benefits of unionization without paying for it. That eventually starves the union of resources (even if the union provides for you, you don’t have to pay it, so why would you?), which eventually makes the quality of the union’s provisions drop. “They represent nonmembers of their own free will.” I don’t think that’s so… - Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:05 am: == This is all about driving down wages and benefits in both the public and private sectors.== That is exactly the goal. And people cheer about this (as long as it doesn’t affect them). As I said, the Governor is advocating for a race to the bottom when it comes to benefits and wages. Low wages and crappy benefits are his answer to Illinois’ “competitiveness.” - tobor - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:05 am: Then more jobs with no pay would be better than…. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:06 am: “I guess Captain Obvious is just trying to solve the crapfest handed him” Trying but failing, and he doesn’t get a pass on that failure. His bad ideas don’t become good ideas just ’cause they’re the latest in a line of bad ideas. - AnonymousOne - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:06 am: I wonder if he was put on earth to inflame and antagonize people (while actually accomplishing nothing). Way to build up our great state, governor! Just annoy everyone and get everyone at each others’ throats! I wonder when he’s going to get down to doing his job. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:06 am: ==Employers are dealing with that by leaving or minimizing growth in Illinois.== Tell that to Caterpillar, who whined and moaned about the business climate only to stay and expand their headquarters. Just cause you say it Bob doesn’t make it true. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:08 am: Goodness, how did you guys come to accept the false dichotomy between “good jobs, but only a few of them ” and “crummy jobs, but lots of them”? Whoever told you those were your only choices lied to you. - Sheila Simon's Banjo - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:09 am: “I don’t think that’s so..” It is absolutely so. Nothing in the law - nothing - prevents unions for bargaining for their members and their members only. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:15 am: Sheila Don’t take a freaking job that involves joining a union if you don’t want to join a union. Don’t whine about having to pay union dues if you took that job. Deal with it, don’t take the job, or quit and find another job where you don’t have to join a union. Enough with the complaints about being “forced” to do something. Nobody and I mean NOBODY is being forced to do ANYTHING. Period. End of story. Game over. - Reality Check - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:16 am: @Banjo, acquaint yourself with the duty of fair representation in federal and state labor law. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:17 am: The FDR fiction is tired old nonsense that’s been trotted out by honesty-challenged trolls like AB forever. It’s based on a letter that he sent to a public employee union official (congratulating him on the anniversary of the union’s founding). In the letter, he states his support for public employee unions, but implies he’s against the right to strike by them. There’s a page on the FDR library website devoted to debunking the lie. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:17 am: ===Nothing in the law - nothing - prevents unions for bargaining for their members and their members only.=== You are absolutely wrong about that. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:18 am: “It is absolutely so.” Still don’t think so, but you saying “absolutely” helps. As I recall, unions represent the entire CBU, even the ones who voted against the union (and cannot, obviously, be forced to join). This is actually a bit of a sop to the employer, as taking everyone who works in a certain position and bifurcating their employment terms- pay, benefits, safety rules, grievance policies, etc.- based on unionization would obviously be a logistical nightmare. - low level - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:18 am: Or Ford, or the CME, or Boeing, etc etc etc - Kankakee Jimmy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:19 am: While it’s difficult to isolate the benefits of right-to-work legislation because those states are more likely to also have a slew of business-friendly policies, it’s important to view Governor Rauner’s proposals in the entire context of his reform package, in relation to the business environment of our neighboring states and states that are on the receiving end of Illinois out-migration. Here are two studies I’ll reference that conclude right-to-work legislation has no discernible negative effect on wage rates and that it has positive effects on manufacturing employment and activity: http://econweb.umd.edu/~davis/eventpapers/ozbeklikright.pdf http://www.econ.umn.edu/~holmes/papers/sr205.pdf Just to prevent us from arguing the particulars of this study or that study, I’ll second the comments put forward by Sheila Simon’s Banjo, particularly “And you’d be hard pressed to explain why members would voluntarily relinquish their membership to voluntarily diminish their own wages and benefits.” - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:21 am: @Wordslinger Also, parsing out FDR’s feelings on any individual issue is a mug’s game. His opinion changed entirely based on who he was talking to, and his only real conviction seemed to be “I ought to ease people’s suffering a little, if only so that they vote for me again.” - CharlieKratos - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:21 am: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/unions.html - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:24 am: ===C’mon, Rich. Right now Illinois has about the most pro-union rules in the nation, and private sector unions are unionized at what, about 15% of the work force? Try Minnesota it’s more unionized in state government. Also 3.7% unemployment and an economy beating Illinois and Wisconsin to take the two extremes. - low level - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:24 am: It’s very telling at this point - he ran for governor because he hates unions. It had nothing to do with concern about state finances or being a moderate or anything else. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:25 am: ” it’s important to view Governor Rauner’s proposals in the entire context of his reform package” Which, of course, is impossible to do, because RTWFL zones is the only thing he’s discussed at any length. “I’ll second the comments put forward by Sheila Simon’s Banjo, particularly “And you’d be hard pressed to explain why members would voluntarily relinquish their membership to voluntarily diminish their own wages and benefits.”” And you’ll get the same answer- because they don’t realize they’re doing that, because RTWFL plays a long game. At first, they get all the benefits of the union without paying for it, but that eventually chokes off the union, which reduces those benefits. - john - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:27 am: Sheila: Nothing in the law - nothing - prevents unions for bargaining for their members and their members only. Rich is correct. You are wrong. Read the law. http://www.flra.gov/exclusive_representation “The labor organization is the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit it represents and is entitled to act for and negotiate collective bargaining agreements covering all employees in the unit.” “An exclusive representative is responsible for representing the interests of all employees in the unit it represents without discrimination and without regard to labor organization membership.” - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:27 am: “Just to prevent us from arguing the particulars of this study or that study” Also, that’s a neat trick. “Here’s my evidence, but I want to prevent us from actually examining my evidence or introducing any counter-evidence.” - Juice - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:32 am: Also, heaven forbid we actually let facts get in the way of the argument, but Sheila Simon bajo’s comment about the union representing non-members on their own free will is 100% false. It’s called the duty of fair representation, and has been part of federal labor law since the 1940s. And when people talk about jobs fleeing to RTW states, can we talk about what the labor participation rate is in in some of those places. Of the 25 RTW states, only 10 of them have higher labor participation rates, and one of them is Wisconsin, which has been RTW for all of a day. So if all these jobs are fleeing there, they seem to be failing to entice people to enter the work force. Or possibly, since wages are significantly less, people have decided it isn’t worth it and just sit it out. - Anon - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:34 am: @Arsenal at 11:21 Isn’t that the conviction of every democrat and politician ever? haha - Skeptic - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:37 am: “Illinois has lagged behind neighboring states” Correlation does not prove causation. Perhaps Illinois has lagged behind neighboring states because the industries in Illinois have lagged behind the industries in neighboring states. - Sheila Simon's Banjo - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:37 am: Rich Miller @ 11:17: “You are absolutely wrong about that.” Could you please cite the statute which mandates that unions represent nonmembers, or which forces unions into exclusive representatition status? - anon - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:38 am: I would like to see state workers in Sangamon County try and find private sector work that comes close to their current wage and benefits. Some may, with certain skills, but the vast majority wouldn’t come close. - My FiNgErS HuRt - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:43 am: Rich - You must understand, the Gov loves the homonyms. Take for example the word “employ”. You are under the impression the Governor is employing the working citizens of our state to make businesses make more (no pun intended). But in reality, the Gov is employing specific agenda items to make businesses employ more people! Toodeloo! - The Dude Abides - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:46 am: Rich nailed it. It’s all about decreasing wages and benefits for both public and private workers and nothing else. This will also reduce tax receipts at a time when we need to increase tax revenue. When middle class tax receipts fall off Rauner won’t go along with increasing taxes on the wealthy because he will say that it’s a job killer. Instead he’ll go for a services tax, which is a regressive tax that will disproportionally hit the middle class. This guy is bad news for middle class people. - SAP - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:48 am: Is that Captain Obvious or Captain Oblivious? - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:50 am: john @ 11:27: “You are wrong. Read the law.” The NLRA allows* unions to be the exclusive representative of all of a companies employees. It does not require* them to. And SCOTUS has ruled more than once that the NLRA allows unions to represent their members and their members only. Unions choose to bargain as exclusive representatives and they thereby choose to bargain for nonmembers. If they didn’t want to, they could simply disclaim their exclusive representation status. Don’t take my word for it. Try Google. Or just, ya know, “Read the law.” - BlameBruceRauner - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:51 am: The Carhart King wants to rule IL. He should look into an EO to utilize the prisoners of the state to do “contract work” performed by the unions. I actually think there are plenty of thing prisoners should be doing for the state, planting gardens, controlling invasive species, picking up trash etc. But Bruce might be able to get them to renovate the Mansion! Talk about savings, he wont even have to pay for the renovations himself…. I cant come up with any justification on how busting the unions helps our state. People need to have good high paying jobs, period. The so called “job creators” don’t want unions so their profits will be bigger and grow faster. Without unions wages in IL would regress and the 80% of people whom believe they are middle class will actually be more like 40%. - Sheila Simon's Banjo - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:52 am: Sorry, I’m the Anon at 11:50. - walker - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:55 am: Anti-Union message is for the national audience and funders. Anti-dues is only for Illinois crowds. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:59 am: Rauner talks about the First Amendment, yet he wants to eliminate the voice of working people. His goal, government by oligarchy. - Juice - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:00 pm: You are correct Sheila Simon’s Banjo. A union can stop representing non-member employees if they simply stopped representing all employees. But I think that would kind of defeat the purpose of what the union was elected to do. - Earnest - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:00 pm: Agree 100% with Rich. It amazes me how people will vote against their own best interests. I remember a very hot classroom in summer school, taking US History so we’d have room in our schedule to take college prep math in the fall, playing euchre on every break. Our teacher would write out the day’s lesson on the blackboards, filling them all. We would have cramps by the end of the week from writing so much. To make a short story long, I can still remember the words he repeated again and again and again: economic factions create political parties. Whatever other dressing is on the issue, it all comes down from that. This isn’t meant to be a pro- or anti-union statement. - Ghost - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:06 pm: Rauner will return us to the days of the jungle and make us compeitive with chinese sweatshops so that owners can buy 12 mansions around the world instead of 8 - Honeybear - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:10 pm: Sheila Simon’s Banjo You are correct AND totally wrong at the same time. There is nothing in state law.(that I know of) The obligation to represent all is found in the Agreement (contract) between AFSCME and the State of Illinois. Sec I, Articles 1,3,4. So no the union must bargain for all those employees who hold Rutan job classifications. Every single one. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:16 pm: As a retired state employee that was in management for many years and dealt with many union representatives in the course of those years, I can say unions are needed/necessary. I disagreed with many of their positions, but without a check, I would not have been as good as I was, overall. Bad managers make unions stronger, as well as a host of other reasons. Weak, indecisive, spineless managers who refuse to hold the union to the contract are part of the problem. - Ramsin - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:17 pm: What Sheila is disingenuously describing is “minority unionism.” It is technically correct that a union needn’t undergo a representation election that makes itself the exclusive bargaining representative for the entire unit, but it is so discouraged by the NLRB (and the Supreme Court) as to be basically unworkable. An employer is also not required to bargain with a minority union, as it is with an elected majority union. A “minority union” that doesn’t undergo a representation election cannot represent its members in any way that impacts other works in a workplace. In fact, an employer may end up breaking the law if s/he bargains with a minority union on any issue that impacts non-represented workers–such as workplace conditions (often the most important issue for workers, particularly in high-burnout jobs). Not only this, but even if a minority union successfully gets an employer to bargain with it, the non-members are *still* going to free ride on the union, because the employer is not going to be able to realistically have a bifurcated workplace with different rules, discipline procedures, and pay scales. So, nice try Sheila, but, nope. - AnonymousOne - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:21 pm: ==This guy is bad news for middle class people== Frighteningly so. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:22 pm: The governor is quickly losing Rich Miller. This is not a good thing for the governor. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:23 pm: ===While it’s difficult to isolate the benefits of right-to-work legislation because those states are more likely to also have a slew of business-friendly policies, it’s important to view Governor Rauner’s proposals in the entire context of his reform package, in relation to the business environment of our neighboring states and states that are on the receiving end of Illinois out-migration.=== Lots of words to say, “Welp, I can’t, really, but here’s a cool study.” ====== It just so happens that some ancillary effects of competitiveness measures might reduce median wages, but I’d sure as heck bet that absolute and overall employment would increase, which nobody discusses. More jobs with marginally less pay provides more economic benefits than less jobs with marginally more pay.=== Yeah, using your own words in the first grab, I bet against ya. Just sayin’ - RNUG - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:29 pm: In November, based on a vague campaign, Illinois citizens voted for a perceived competent businessman to clean up Illinois’ debt problems with no information on how it would get done other than the income tax would not be raised. It didn’t hurt that the other choice was Quinn who was seen as bumbling and incompetent. What we apparently got, based on actions to date, was a egotistical ideologue bent on destroying the unions and what is left of the working class in this state regardless of the collateral damage. The only question left now is: Would the State be better off with Bruce or Evelyn? - Jorge - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:35 pm: Well said Mr. Miller. - Roadiepig - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:37 pm: RNUG- Amen to your first paragraph. Your question at the end? Never thought that a one term city council member who wasn’t really allowed to campaign for her “boss” (for whatever reason) would be a better choice for governor, but every day it’s beginning to look that way. If his real goal is to be a national politician, maybe we will find out sooner than later? - Roadiepig - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:39 pm: - Sycophancy Pants - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:01 am:- Way to stay on topic. Surprised your “insightful” comment is still on the board. - Enviro - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:43 pm: FDR was not in favor of federal employee unions going on strike, but he was not against government employees joining unions. fdhttp://archive.federaltimes.com/article/20120923/ADOP06/309230003/Correcting-misinformation-FDR-8217-s-union-vier not against public employee unions “I have to correct the misinformation about the 1937 letter from President Franklin Roosevelt to then-National Federation of Federal Employees National President Luther Steward, a letter that many claim demonstrates Roosevelt’s disfavor of public-sector unionism.” “In the letter, Roosevelt says: “Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs. The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry.” - Emily Booth - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:46 pm: Rauner & Rahm. Look where Rahm’s ideology got him. He couldn’t even carry his ward. Meanwhile, the CTU was going door to door. This is how it’s done. - Enviro - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:46 pm: I haven’t seen any evidence that FDR was against state employees joining unions. - Enviro - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 12:58 pm: Check out: Correcting misinformation on FDR’s union views - foster brooks - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:05 pm: The richest 1% control 50% of the worlds wealth The message is that rising inequality is dangerous. It’s bad for growth and it’s bad for governance. We see a concentration of wealth capturing power and leaving ordinary people voiceless and their interests uncared for.” I’m not sure how rauner the does this right to work with a straight face.made 60 mil last year in retirement and owns 9 luxurious homes. - Illinoisvoter - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:26 pm: Confused by the rhetoric. Are the public sector unions just collateral fun to the destruction of private sector collective bargaining or are they the target to maintain the low taxes on wealth in this state? - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:30 pm: It’s a heckuva thing when a new governor devotes the first weeks of his new administration experimenting with the variety of ways he can screw working stiffs out of their money. Right to work, pension “reform’,” fair share dues….. It’s all the same thing and he campaigned on none of it. Seriously, at this stage of your life, that’s what called you to public service? That’s how you choose to “give back” for your success? - Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:35 pm: Word Didn’t you get the memo that the wealthy are an oppressed group? He was called to public service to do all he can to help out the wealthy and there’s no better way to help them out than by making sure that the working stiff takes as little of the rich guy’s money as possible. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:39 pm: Employment flexibility is turning around on your drinking buddy,and tapping in on voter anger,that unions are rotten to the core. - chi - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:40 pm: From the NLRA: 29 USCA 159 (a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining… Note the word “Shall”. - chi - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:42 pm: Also note, the ILRA (Illinois version applicable to public employees) also requires the union to be the exclusive representative for ALL employees in the bargaining unit. - chi - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 1:43 pm: Also note, this provision was put in at the behest of management, who did not want to have to bargain with more than one representative (union). - Filmmaker Professor - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 2:02 pm: Well said Rich. Well said. - Arizona Bob - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 2:06 pm: @ Word =It’s based on a letter that he sent to a public employee union official (congratulating him on the anniversary of the union’s founding). In the letter, he states his support for public employee unions, but implies he’s against the right to strike by them= And I agree with that position, Word, do you? In Texas, for example, you can join a teacher’s union if you wish. what you CAN’T do, however, is go on strike. If you do, they pull your teachers certification. Can we agree that, as FDR said, public employees should be prohibited from striking, and mandatory joining of a union against your will should be ended? If the union provides enough value for the dues, they should have no problem keeping controlling membership up. The insinuation that public employees are so selfish and unfair is both demeaning and insulting to them. I believe, when outside union mobthink, they will ac fairly and responsibly to pay for services rendered, if any, especially regarding grievances and safety. Do YOU think that much less of the workers character than I do? I suspect that’s the case…. - chi - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 2:18 pm: =Can we agree that, as FDR said, public employees should be prohibited from striking, and mandatory joining of a union against your will should be ended? If the union provides enough value for the dues, they should have no problem keeping controlling membership up.= Maybe the news hasn’t reached Arizona, but almost everyone in Illinois has been disabused of the notion that anyone is forced to join a union. And there is nothing particular about public employees that make them less susceptible to tragedy of the commons (economic theory) than anyone else. If people get something for free, many will not choose to voluntarily pay for it. This is why every business charges for their services. Do you, AZ Bob, really think so little of the consumer that you would charge them for things? The insinuation that consumers wouldn’t pay for things out of the goodness of their heart is demeaning and insulting. It’s not like capitalism is founded on the principle of paying for goods and services. You must think less of the character of consumers than I do. If the product is good enough, people will pay for it because they want to pay for it. - not so simple - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 2:27 pm: It’s not about wages or driving up the profits to companies. It’s about politics and political donations. Unions give money to Dems and that must be stopped post haste. If you kill fair share and then impose RTWFL, then unions have less or no money to give to candidates. It’s not, I was making $20/hr and now making $19/hr. It’s the millions donated to candidates. That is what they want to eliminate. don’t get distracted by the rhetoric - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 2:31 pm: ===, I was making $20/hr and now making $19/hr. It’s the millions donated to candidates. That is what they want to eliminate. don’t get distracted by the rhetoric=== Rauner wants you to make less. I’m not saying it, Rauner is. I don’t think you are grasping whats going on.. You’re welcome - chi - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 2:40 pm: It’s two birds with one stone, frankly. It’s less money for Dem candidates and it’s less money for the non-wealthy. It’s a wealth transfer to the rich and indirectly to the GOP. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 2:54 pm: ==mandatory joining of a union against your will should be ended== You don’t have to join any union you don’t want to join. Don’t take a job that requires union membership if you don’t want to be a union. Problem solved. ==Do YOU think that much less of the workers character than I do? == Given your comments on public employee wages, benefits, pensions, etc. I’m not sure anybody can think less of workers than you do. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 2:54 pm: Strike that, your comments on TEACHERS. Want to be fair here. - not so simple - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 3:06 pm: OW. Just as I told you, “don’t be distracted by the rhetoric” you point to the rhetoric. It’s the unions political power not negotiating power he wants to destroy. Who will fund democrats if the unions are diminished? Who will stop him from creating a donkey majority if no one funds the other party. It’s not money, it’s power and if you or anyone else thinks otherwise you will lose. - Kippax Blue - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 3:07 pm: ==The only question left now is: Would the State be better off with Bruce or Evelyn?== Is it possible Evelyn just might pass and choose to do the job she was hired to do? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 3:25 pm: - not so simple -, I thought it was about going from $20 to $19? Raunerbots are talking donkeys. By the way, you let us know when to trust Bruce Rauner’s word; what’s rhetoric, what isn’t, lol You may want to take a nap, or get better talking points. Try “On Wisconsin…” Or something else, at least those are fun. - Enviro - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 3:42 pm: Illinoisvoter @ 1:26 pm: Confused by the rhetoric. Are the public sector unions just collateral fun to the destruction of private sector collective bargaining or are they the target to maintain the low taxes on wealth in this state? I think the answer is yes to both questions. - HappyToaster - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 3:56 pm: So by this logic, why stop at being labor competitive with Indiana? Why not Mississippi or Mexico or Guatemala or Bangladesh? - low level - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 4:48 pm: Admit it: Rauner hates unions. Just say it and we can move on. - Arsenal - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 5:13 pm: “mandatory joining of a union against your will should be ended?” Did you think you were clever framing the question this way? “Mandatory joining of a union” doesn’t exist, so it doesn’t need to be ended. “I believe, when outside union mobthink” The insinuation that public employees are so easily hoodwinked is both demeaning and insulting to them. “Do YOU think that much less of the workers character than I do?” There is no way I possibly could. - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 7:07 pm: AB, you’re spinning yourself silly. Your original statement was that FDR was against public employees being able to unionize. When that was shown to be completely wrong, you abandoned it and started chasing some other rabbit. You start with conclusions. Then you make up a backstory to rationalize how you got there. It’s thoroughly dishonest. - Illinois wake up - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 10:13 pm: Illinois is in this position because of people like bruce and ppl abusing that position. Look at many of our past so called leaders. Many are locked up, because they wanted to do what was best for themselves. We wonder why the middle class is shrinking. It isn’t about the unions it’s about our politicians cleaning up their own acts 1st. The only wages and benefits that should be cut are those who are representing the illinois people due to their performance. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:22 pm: I want to tell workers to come to Illinois because we have the type of citizens that if all else fails and you wind up truly destitute, we’ll pay for your dental care. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 10, 15 @ 11:35 pm: Pro bono Bruce embracing his mandate needs to be put to bed. You applied for a prevailing wage job ,just like any other state contract holder. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.