28 Comments - Chris - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:38 pm: “Ironically, after these members saw what the governor was attempting to do they decided to become full-share members.” Good result. Seriously. Not for Brucey, of course. And I say that while opposed to most public-employee unionization. - Wensicia - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:40 pm: ==Our local now has 100 percent full membership, something I’ve never seen before at our facility.== Heh… - Western Ave. Doug - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:41 pm: Then AFSCME should be pro right to work. New members will be joining in droves. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:42 pm: Yep. Rauner has stated workers make too much money and by lowering the wages of all, more workers will be hired. What is a group, let’s say an organization really, whose purpose is to help…workers…keep what they already have…and look out for them in the future…if someone, say a governor…thinks lowering wages is good? “Can you point me to the B.A. or Shop Stewart?” Illinois isn’t Wisconsin, Indiana, or any state Rauner loves to “tout”. The blowback in Illinois is; Organize and Mobilize. Elections have consequences… Decisions can have unintended consequences. - Arsenal - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:49 pm: It’s interesting to me that unions are unanimously against RTWFL, and even appear to be able to recruit new members off of it. If it were really a better deal for workers, you would expect some of them to support it. - The obvious - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:52 pm: The implication is that the workers saw the light and joined the union. More likely the workers felt the local pressure and joined the union. This will be the real battle ahead and probably the media will cover it. Wonder which side the media will be favor:) - WhyMe - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:57 pm: I believe that he will break the union. Come July 1st the union contract will expire and without a contract, the union will strike. Ala Reagan, he will hire replacements until the union breaks. (Most employees will not be able to hold out more than a couple of weeks.) JMHO - Skeptic - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 1:57 pm: “More likely the workers felt the local pressure and joined the union” Facts to back up your supposition? - IPIlie - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:03 pm: What should be “the obvious” is that corporations own the media now and that “liberal media” line is not only tired, but inaccurate. An employee who chose not to join the union did so because they didn’t care what anyone else thought. That isn’t changing. What’s changed is the open public attacks from the Bruce. The guy is shouting from every mountaintop that he wants to cut salaries and benefits. An individual can’t push back against something like that, but a group can. It’s obvious that these employees don’t want to take this lying down. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:05 pm: ===Come July 1st the union contract will expire and without a contract, the union will strike. Ala Reagan, he will hire replacements until the union breaks. (Most employees will not be able to hold out more than a couple of weeks.) JMHO=== You need to get back to us after you hit the search key to understand the Air Traffic Controllers situation. Yikes. - Pelonski - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:10 pm: I actually know of several fairshare employees who were really ticked off at the executive order. They aren’t union members because they don’t like AFSCME’s politics, but they also understand that AFSCME has protected them from what has happened to merit comp employees. They are perfectly willing to pay fairshare and feel like Rauner should have asked them whether they wanted to remain fairshare instead of just assuming that they didn’t. - Arsenal - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:11 pm: I wish AFSCME would front some of those employees, Pelonski. But they’ve already lost to Rauner twice, I don’t expect them to be very good at this. - Need-to-know - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:11 pm: How likely is the scenario WhyMe posits–unilateral post-strike union-busting by Rauner? Is this suggestion just an anti-union scare tactic, or is it a genuine possibility? Is this situation in any way analogous to the one with PATCO in the early ’80s? It seems pretty clear at this point that Rauner would have no compunction about doing so if it were within his reach–but is it? Appreciate any insight from those with expertise/experience in this area. - MrJM - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:13 pm: “Remember when I said it was ‘them-against-us’?” “Yeah, you weren’t kidding — sign me up.” – MrJM - Ginhouse Tommy - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:14 pm: While I agree with Rauner in wondering how payrolls could go up while head count is way down, he never should have openly challenged the unions. There were other ways of going about it. He is about as subtle as a force 5 hurricane and the trouble is he won’t shut up. I can’t think of another Governor who was in the news everyday like this guy. I know some of the readers will correct me on that but I think to stop the speeches because it achieves nothing and start to work with the GA if it is at all possible. - G'Kar - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:19 pm: Well, Rauner did say he was fine with people joining unions, so he should be happy with this result . - downstate commissioner - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:22 pm: My wife was a fair-share union member when she was teaching; if she was still in there, I would recommend that she become a full member. As long as there was no political benefit to belonging, it was fine. But Rauner’s attacks on all unions changes the situation a whole bunch… - Pelonski - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:28 pm: Arsenal, I agree, AFSCME has done a poor job in this regards. AFSCME covered employees do a lot of good for the people of Illinois, but AFSCME has let its opponents portray them as only caring about their pension and benefits. Their only hope to get a reasonable contract out of Rauner is to get the public on their side like the Chicago teachers were able to do. - Norseman - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:34 pm: I love the Raunerbot spin. Including the idiot assertion that the union is pressuring fair share to become full members. Pelonski’s experience on target. - Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:39 pm: Fair share was designed to protect you from union politics. Rauner then went ahead and politicized fair share. Rauner’s action make no sense. What he should have done is asked the fair share folks to actively urge their individual unions to refund and refuse their fair share fees. I suspect this tactic might have actually generated *more* fair share members — and an overall louder voice about the issue of the fees. But fair share has nothing to do with it — and Rauner knows it. This is all about hobbling the unions. Fair shares are only the weak mopes caught in the middle. - Skeptic - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:43 pm: “any way analogous to the one with PATCO in the early ’80s?” 1) No. Reagan fired PATCO because they were legally banned from striking (like postal workers and first responders.) He said get back to work or be fired. 2) No. I doubt there will be a strike on any union’s part. Far more likely (IMHO) is that the contract will expire and Rauner (will at least attempt to) call for a lock-out. That leaves the Union members wanting to go back to work and not being able to. 3) I don’t think (again, IMHO) Reagan’s goal was to bust the union, even though that was the eventual outcome. - The Colossus of Roads - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:55 pm: Unions have to represent fair share employees just as well as they do full members. If they don’t they can get in trouble with the NLRB. - State employee - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 2:55 pm: Ouch. - Arsenal - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:05 pm: “AFSCME has let its opponents portray them as only caring about their pension and benefits” I agree with you, though on this point I’d say- so what? The whole point of a democracy is that it gives everyone a chance to defend their *own* interests. Yes, our elected officials should do more, but a citizen’s group? Why shouldn’t it fight for its members? And how is that any different than anyone campaigning for tax cuts? - Norseman - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:26 pm: Skeptic, I haven’t taken the time to bone up on labor law and AFSCME contract, but why would Rauner lock out the employees? I thought I read a comment saying that a contract impasse would allow the to make unilateral changes as long as they comply with the law. Wouldn’t Rauner love to have that choice? - Pelonski - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 3:49 pm: AFSCME should fight for its members, but its ultimate power comes from the services it provides to the citizens of Illinois. If the citizens don’t value those services or don’t understand AFSCME members’ roles in providing those services, it is easy to come up with support to cut state employee pay and benefits. Taxes are actually a good analogy. No one likes paying taxes. If your plan to raise taxes is simply to say “it is the right thing to do”, you aren’t going to get very far. Instead, you have to show the voters the benefits of raising those taxes. - Need-to-know - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 4:20 pm: Skeptic, thanks. - Skeptic - Friday, Mar 13, 15 @ 4:24 pm: Norseman: Your knowledge is probably better than mine, my point was more that the unions would be on the outside looking in rather than outside and deliberately staying outside. Or to put it another way, the unions would say “Look we’re *trying* to get an agreement, we’re ready and willing to work, now let’s talk” rather than “We’re not going to work until you meet our demands.” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.