* AP…
A Supreme Court with a reconstituted conservative majority is taking on a new case, which originated in Illinois, with the potential to financially cripple Democratic-leaning labor unions that represent government workers. The justices deadlocked 4-4 in a similar case last year.
The high court agreed Thursday to again consider a free-speech challenge from workers who object to paying money to unions they don’t support.
The court could decide to overturn a 40-year-old Supreme Court ruling that allows public sector unions to collect fees from non-members to cover the costs of negotiating contracts for all employees.
The latest appeal is from a state employee in Illinois. It was filed at the Supreme Court just two months after Justice Neil Gorsuch filled the high court seat that had been vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
* Bloomberg…
Union leaders say that collecting what they call “fair-share fees” ensures that workers can push for higher wages and better job conditions. If the fees weren’t mandatory, workers could become free riders, benefiting from union representation without paying for it, according to a branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees that represents Janus and other Illinois workers.
“Abood acknowledged that certain labor-relations interests justify the small intrusion on employees’ First Amendment interests that fair-share payments represent,” the union argued.
Janus works as a child-support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare Services. He was one of three employees who took over a lawsuit originally filed by Illinois’s Republican governor, Bruce Rauner.
* Press release…
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s announcement today that it is granting a writ of certiorari in Janus v. AFSCME, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement:
“With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Janus case, we are now one step closer to freeing over 5 million public sector teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other employees from the injustice of being forced to subsidize a union as a condition of working for their own government.
“As the Court noted in the National Right to Work Foundation’s landmark Knox v. SEIU victory, compelled speech under the guise of forced union dues is an ‘anomaly’ under the First Amendment. We are hopeful that by the end of this Supreme Court term, the High Court will finally end this anomaly and fully protect the First Amendment rights of public sector workers against an injustice that has existed for over half a century.”
National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, along with attorneys with the Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center, are providing free legal representation to plaintiff Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Service.
Jacob Huebert, director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, issued the following statement:
“We are pleased the Supreme Court has agreed to take up this case and revisit a 40-year-old precedent that has allowed governments to violate the First Amendment rights of millions of workers. People shouldn’t be forced to surrender their First Amendment right to decide for themselves what organizations they support just because they decide to work for the state, their local government or a public school.
“Right now, public sector employees in Illinois and many other states aren’t given a choice: They’re automatically forced to give their money to a union. Janus v. AFSCME presents an opportunity to restore fairness and First Amendment rights to millions of American workers by giving them the right to choose whether to support a union with their money.”
The case will likely be argued in early 2018 with a decision issued before the Court adjourns at the end of its term in June.
More information, including legal briefs in the case, can be found at www.nrtw.org/janus.
* Rauner administration press release…
Today the United States Supreme Court took an important first step toward ending the unconstitutional practice of dipping into the paychecks of hardworking State employees and forcing them to pay into the union coffers, even if they are not members of the union.
“No person should be forced to give up a portion of their pay each month to fund public sector union activity against their will,” said Governor Bruce Rauner. “It’s a fundamental violation of their First Amendment right to free speech and association. I am hopeful the Court will see it that way in the end.”
The Court has questioned this practice twice in the past five years. Most recently in June of 2016, when it split 4-4, following the death of Justice Scalia. By granting certiorari in Janus v. AFSCME today, the Court is again indicating that it’s concerned about the constitutional implications of forcing non-union members to fund union activities.
Governor Rauner’s Administration has been a leader in protecting the free speech and free association rights of State employees since taking office. These efforts began with Executive Order 2015-13, which directed state agencies to comply with the First Amendment and formed the initial impetus for the Janus case. While the Administration is no longer a party to the litigation, it is pleased to know the Supreme Court has recognized the issues warrant careful consideration. The Court has agreed to resolve this question by the time its current session ends, next June.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:26 am:
Good thing McConnell stole a supreme Court seat for you, Rauner.
- City Zen - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:28 am:
And another step is taken towards the inevitable AFSCME-SEIU merger.
- Texas Red - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:29 am:
SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4 (Scalia died just before this) on Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a very similar cases. With Gorsuch on the bench AFSCME/SEIU should be counting the days till a June ruling puts and end to mandatory “agency fees”.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:29 am:
Multimillionaires like Rauner and conservative billionaires wouldn’t be investing as much effort and money into busting public unions for the enrichment of government employees. This is done to bust up the left, by making workers and their unions poorer. Look at Rauner’s AFSCME contract proposals–huge cuts and loss of protections for state workers, and huge opportunities for enrichment of corporate CEO’s through privatization. We should at least acknowledge this.
- Perrid - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:31 am:
And they’ll probably win with Gorsuch. I’d be fine (or closer to fine) with it if they didn’t get ANY of the benefits of being in the union. Negotiate your own salary, health insurance, pension, schedule, working conditions, etc.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:31 am:
Look at what he issues press releases about, and when he is silent. That tells you what his social agenda is.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:31 am:
Rauner wasted nearly 3 years, destroying illinois, hurting social services and higher education when all Rauner needed was some patience.
Like a spoiled 6 or 7 year old, patience just isn’t possible.
What a waste this Rauner term as governor when in reality Rauner can get what he wants with a SCOTUS ruling.
All that permanent and purposeful Rauner damage seems when more malice and pointed, make Bruce the happiest he’s ever been.
How so very sad.
When you think about what a ruling that Rauner would cheer, and the way Rauner ran Illinois in the ground when Rauner just couldn’t wait for this case… how cold is the heart of Rauner?
- Retired Educator - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:34 am:
“Right to Work” for less. People who choose a profession they know is union, should not be surprised to find out they have to pay union dues. Here is an idea–Choose a profession where you make less but get to keep a few extra dollars a paycheck. I think you will find you were better off with being able to negotiate with in numbers. If you are relying on employers to do the right thing, you are naive. They are there for their bottom line, and their stockholders.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:34 am:
That’s the case Rauner tried to glom on to but his crack lawyering team missed the obvious point that he didn’t have standing.
- Dr. M - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:35 am:
RIP fair share fee
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:36 am:
IPI just posted a piece on Janus w/ video. Seems like a good dude. https://www.illinoispolicy.org/story/meet-the-man-who-could-end-forced-union-fees-for-government-workers/
- Jocko - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:36 am:
==public sector employees in Illinois and many other states aren’t given a choice==
Mark Mix, Jacob Huebert, and Bruce…standing up for the little guy./s
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:37 am:
Scalia dying gave public unions one last shot to survive and it was lost when Trump was sworn in.
Yet somehow union rights didn’t get mentioned at all in the 2016 election. Amazing really.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:40 am:
“Negotiate your own salary, health insurance, pension, schedule, working conditions, etc.”
Exactly right. Fair share fees: all the benefits of being in a union, at half the cost. If people don’t want to pay fair share, then cut their salaries by at least a third and drop them from the state health care plans.
When you can file a lawsuit to get out of paying a paltry sum to enjoy all compensation that union members get, then the complaint that your free speech rights are being violated is manifestly not true.
- Macbeth - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:42 am:
Rauner’s entire 4 years is, was, and has always been predicated on the outcome of this single decision.
This is the only — only — thing Rauner cares about. This is why he ran for governor.
He must be thrilled.
- Phenomynous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:42 am:
-People who choose a profession they know is union, should not be surprised to find out they have to pay union dues.-
I never understood this. Why should obtaining gainful employment require union membership? Why does a union have a monopoly on certain types of employment within government?
- AC - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:44 am:
It will be interesting to see if states rights are taken into consideration on this issue.
- Dee Lay - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:46 am:
Death knell for public unions within two contract cycles if the employer wants to crush them.
- Norseman - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:47 am:
Time for a reassessment by AFSCME and other public sector unions on how they get funding. Fair share is on the brink of death.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:48 am:
Unions in the private workforce are fine. I have issue with public employee unions and the incestuous relationship they have with politicians.
- We'll See - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:49 am:
It’s interesting how Gov has fought so hard to help the fair-share members while laying out the case for employees to belong to a strong union.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:51 am:
- the incestuous relationship they have with politicians. -
As opposed to the strictly above board relationship big businesses have with the politicians that regulate them?
- Ghost - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:52 am:
I just hope the court makes itnclesr the employer can treat the non union employees however it pleases and makes it clear they are not covered by the contract
- Iggy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:55 am:
Nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey hey hey, Good bye…
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:57 am:
“I never understood this. Why should obtaining gainful employment require union membership? Why does a union have a monopoly on certain types of employment within government?”
It’s freeloading. How much of their wealth and labor are anti-union people willing to give away? I’d love to see Rauner and his supporters give their hard work and benefits away for nothing.
But please, let’s at least be honest and say what this is really about–busting up the left. The super-rich who are backing this don’t care about the rights of working stiffs. They want to make it easier to make workers poorer, which is what happens when unions are weaker.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:59 am:
I wonder how much this individual has benefited from union negotiated salary increases? Perhaps if he was so offended by the requirement that he pay dues he should give back that money that he received as a result of what the union did for him.
When an individual takes a job that requires union membership, they do so knowing that. The argument that someone’s rights are being violated is ludicrous to me as no one is forced to take a particular job. There are plenty of jobs that exist that do not require union membership.
This isn’t about free speech. It’s about destroying unions. And in the Governor’s case it’s about being able to lower wages and charge increased premiums for healthcare. Sticking it to government workers on wages and benefits is the real goal of destroying unions.
- anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:05 am:
The big question: When fair share is deemed to be unconstitutional by the current SCOTUS, will guidelines be attached to the decision that relieve unions from representing or bargaining for non-union employees?
- Are Ya kiddin' Me? - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:06 am:
Union haters careful what you wish for here… this could actually end up helping union membership, when those who don’t want to pay their “fair share” have to pay for their own lawyers to represent them in disciplinary hearings and other actions. Many disciplinary actions don’t go forward due to the fact that Agencies don’t want the hassle of dealing with union lawyers for minuscule infractions. If a agency knows an employee is not a union member (with the union lawyers protection)you can bet they are going to get written up for ANY infraction.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:07 am:
– incestuous relations they have with politicians–
Yeah, Businessman Bruce was just a goo-goo promoter of democracy when he was dropping millions on politicians of both parties while he was trolling for the government contracts that made his fortune.
Coincidence, not pay-to-play.
- Jocko - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:08 am:
==the injustice of being forced to subsidize a union==
At best, Mark Janus and Rebecca Friedrichs are naïve, but I suspect they hold themselves in such high regard (in relation to their co-workers) that their ends justify the means.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:09 am:
I guess I’ve never understood how people cheer the thought that others should make less, and they should not.
Never understood that. Still don’t understand that.
“That’ll show ‘em” seems to show that it’s not about what this case could be about, or is about, or the merits, or even the makeup of the court hearing the case.
It’s about looking at another person and feeling joy and glee and excitement at the opportunity to diminish what people earn.
Oh, we’re all taxpayers, so let’s nip that in the bud early.
The happiness at the mere possibility that someone could make less and that is something you cheer… whew.
Fair share is possibly going down, that’s what this case is about, but the glee isn’t for the fair share possibly going away, it’s the taking down of Labor, then prevailing wage, then maybe collective bargaining?
Rauner destroyed a state for fair share?
Nope.
Rauner wants Labor ruined. This case could be that end. That’s what excites Bruce Rauner.
- Lamont - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:11 am:
I don’t get these fair share deniers like Janus. According to the ledger, he makes $70k a year as a Child Support Specialist 1. Doesn’t he realize that if not for unions, he’d be making half that amount with less benefits (take a look at how much Florida pays its state employees). Does he believe he makes too much money? Gotta love these folks who ignorantly vote against their own interests. Unions, for the most part (they’re not perfect), are the last protectors of the middle class. Without them, we’d be another India—massive poverty for most while the top 1% amass all the wealth.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:11 am:
“I have issue with public employee unions and the incestuous relationship they have with politicians.”
But it’s okay Governor Rauner and his two billionaire funders to bankroll and own an entire state political party? At least be fair about this.
- Whatever - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:11 am:
So many people seem so convinced that the SC will hold that it is unconstitutional to make employees pay for receiving union representation, but will still hold that they must receive representation paid for by others. I suggest that if they do hold fair share is unconstitutional, they will hold that a person who doesn’t want to pay fair share will have to drop out of the union. When the next collective bargaining agreement says that union members have to be paid more than nonunion members in the same job, and nonunion members get laid off first and promoted last, we’ll see how many of the plaintiffs sincerely want out of the union as opposed to wanting a free ride.
- DRauner - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:11 am:
I’m excited about my new duck confit paired with grilled peaches, risotto blend and Chardonnay from our estate in Sonoma.
Will you be joining us OW?
- Nobody - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:12 am:
The problem I have is that the unions donate to the same politicans that they are negotiating a contract with and many of the donations are not supported by all of their members.
- Our Princess is in Another Castle - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:13 am:
The only way I could see this working is if those who don’t pay dues become at-will employees.
- Crispycritter - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:14 am:
Wonder how much Rauner paid Junus?
- Joe M - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:17 am:
My “free speech” was violated by making me pay tax dollars for wars I don’t support. Can I opt out of paying those taxes? Or better yet, get my tax money back from past wars?
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:19 am:
To the “regulars” here lamenting a review of the Constitutionality of mandatory withdrawal of wages for unions workers do not wish to be associated with … sorry you’re struggling with that pesky “other” reviewing branch of government sometimes called the Judiciary.
Illinois’ time of being run, into the ground, by the un-elected but uber-special-special-interests of public sector unions –fueled by tax money!– appears to be over, which means regular taxpayers maybe/hopefully can be at the head of the table for once … rather than the past decades where public unions and their surrogates, the Dems, resided.
Rejoice.
- Texas Red - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:19 am:
@ Are Ya kiddin’ Me?
“Union haters careful what you wish for here… this could actually end up helping union membership”
This statement is so cool-aide drinking delusional, I just choked on my coffee. Here is a more likely outcome based on real word stats from WI ..
“Statewide, union membership has fallen from about 15 percent of workers to 8 percent, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics counts. Public employee unions were hit hard by well-publicized losses in both memberships and dues in the last few years.”.
As Rich likes to say read the entire article.
https://goo.gl/vDTYXm
- BuckinIrish - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:20 am:
I hope that those people that choose not to pay dues don’t see an ounce of help from the unions. Let them wither in the wind till they come crawling back with their tail between their legs.
AFSCME also brought this on themselves a little. They way they let themselves be portrayed in public makes people think its a bunch of nuts running the show. (I don’t know if that’s actually true, it’s just the way it seems)
- City Zen - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:22 am:
==“I have issue with public employee unions and the incestuous relationship they have with politicians.”
But it’s okay Governor Rauner and his two billionaire funders to bankroll and own an entire state political party? At least be fair about this.==
2 Wrongs = 1 Right
#unionmath
- Skeptic - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:23 am:
“The only way I could see this working is if those who don’t pay dues become at-will employees.” So instead of a perceived conflict of interest by a Union donating to a politician’s campaign fund, you have a real conflict of interest from individuals donating to a politician’s campaign fund in order to keep their job. That’s an improvement?
- Phenomynous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:26 am:
Joe M,
I didn’t know that AFCSME/SEIU were governmental entities that have the authority to tax and compel payment?
- don the legend - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:28 am:
===I never understood this. Why should obtaining gainful employment require union membership? Why does a union have a monopoly on certain types of employment within government? ===
Because there was an election by the employees to join a union. They can also have an election to withdraw from union representation. The employees decide. Get it?
- younion - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:28 am:
Since Rauner was elected, the number of fair share members has decreased significantly and more employees made the choice to become full members of the union. Unions aren’t sitting around waiting for this to happen. Interal actions have already started.
A decision that forces unions to more actively engage their members will not be the death of unions. This is not, and won’t ever be, Wisconsin.
- Nick - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:37 am:
I think everyone should step back and let the current afsme contract dispute sink in. If there was no afscme where do you think these employees would be right now? Rauner would have implemented new health care plan.costing the employees hundreds if not thousands of dollars And that’s just on health care. What would stop him from implementing a pay cut. Or reducing vacation and sick benefits. The union is the only thing saving those employees So some may cheer that they get to keep a small amount of money from not paying union dues. But what might it cost you in the long run
- I said it - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:38 am:
Bad day for the public sector unions.
- Joe M - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:38 am:
I realize that AFSCME/SEIU do not have the authority to tax. I was relating that in reality there are many aspects of life and policy that the minority has to go along with the majority. If the majority wants to fund a war in Afghanistan, then my taxes have to then also go to funding that war, even if I am against that war.
If the majority in a workplace wants to be represented by a union - and that union is required to represent even those who do not want to be part of a union - then everybody should pay either dues or fair share for that union representation.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:38 am:
I will remind folks, when our governor attempted to illegally escrow fair share funds, most fair share employees decided being a member was worth the money. The unions should start recruiting f/s employees into membership.
- City Zen - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:40 am:
==Because there was an election by the employees to join a union.==
How did that not-yet union member vote?
==They can also have an election to withdraw from union representation.==
Because the process to de-certify, either the individual or the union, is far more onerous. Even successful de-certification elections are heavily litigated by the unions.
==The employees decide.==
They are employees of the state, not the union.
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:42 am:
Fair share seems like a reasonable policy.
I am not a fan of government unions. Mainly because the government creates monopolies by law and the unions exploit that monopoly.
In the state workforce, the union had a positive role in stopping arbitrary and unfounded management action. They also protected people who needed to go.8
- IRLJ - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:42 am:
Big win for Rauner in his existential war against people. This is grim, though not unexpected, news.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:43 am:
= I suggest that if they do hold fair share is unconstitutional, they will hold that a person who doesn’t want to pay fair share will have to drop out of the union.=
Gee, if only we had 28 states with Right To Work to give us a hint on this?
- cdog - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:43 am:
I definitely agree that this is about busting up the left by upsetting their cash flow.
I am in favor of it. The left’s never-ending contradictions seem infinite and no one should be forced to support that nonsense.
The left’s agenda is offensive to working people, and they don’t even realize it. They want a borderless country with unlimited immigration of low-skill workers. What kind of wage pressure is that? Deflationary. (The left appears to lack any traits of circumspection on this.)
I hope Janus prevails. Cut some of the juice from these jokers.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:48 am:
“Illinois’ time of being run, into the ground, by the un-elected but uber-special-special-interests of public sector unions”
Rauner has likely caused more harm to Illinois, per capita, in almost three years than public unions and their supporters have for the same time period, at any time. The state couldn’t take much more of Rauner’s destruction, which is why enough Republicans bucked him and voted for an income tax hike and budget.
- WheatonWillie - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:49 am:
@OswegoWilly Looks like you’re taking this personally. Need to talk about it?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:53 am:
Oh - WheatonWillie -
Having “Willie” as your “name” is just blind luck I guess too, lol
Nope.
If you can’t read what I wrote or it hits too close to home for you, the premise that it’s quite sad people cheer and want people to make less to feel better about themselves… maybe you should look internally instead of worrying about me.
- WheatonWillie - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:57 am:
I wasn’t aware that you owned the rights to Willy/Willie. Either way, no need to be so mad. It’s fine that it is affecting you personally. Get it all off your chest. It’ll be cathartic.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:57 am:
=People who choose a profession they know is union, should not be surprised to find out they have to pay union dues.-
I never understood this. Why should obtaining gainful employment require union membership? Why does a union have a monopoly on certain types of employment within government?=
Currently unions are compelled by law to bargain on behalf of all employees. It is not their choice. So even in an environment where some employees are union and some are not, the union must work on behalf of everyone. That is why there is “fair share” to compensate unions for the work they do on behalf of all employees (when a union is present)
In the bidness’ world, Verizon does not have to provide you with services that Sprint is paid for. If Verizon is doing something for you and you are a Sprint customer, Verizon will be paid.
Fair share is the same concept and it makes sense. I am management, not union, I bargain with the union and am frustrated at times with them but there are advantages for me as well.
If the USSC strikes down “fair share” expect further action from unions to compel changes in labor laws that force them to bargain on behalf of non-members. They will win too. The long game actually favors them. More people will join unions when they lose the services of the union and find out that being an at will employee without the union bargaining for you isn’t all that it is cracked up to be. Their “speech” will not be as loud and wages will drop.
- Nick - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:58 am:
I don’t get the unions are fine for private sector but not for public sector crowd. They obviously have never worked in the public sector. Public sector employees are not held with much regard as private sector It’s a highly political atmosphere where if not protected by a union you could be fired at will or transferred at will to open up jobs for political favors Every four years a new administration comes in and then re shuffle the deck again
- JB13 - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:00 am:
Seemed to me there were plenty of people round these parts fairly giddy at the prospect of diminishing my take-home pay recently…
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:01 am:
===I wasn’t aware that you owned the rights to Willy/Willie===
Oh, I don’t. It’s just comical that in all my years on this planet, I’ve seen more “Willie” names here than even in fiction writing.
It’s like you being upset and wanting others to make less to feel better about yourself. You think you’re cute, but it’s cute by half because it’s small minded, like cheering that people, not you make less, and it’s “good”
Notice I’ve let my comment speak for itself.
Notice you won’t go after the comment, but go after me.
I do.
- WheatonWillie - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:05 am:
Boy, you really are upset. I simply pointed out that this seems to affect you personally and gave you a generous offer to talk about it. I’m sorry that this gets you upset, but, as you allude, there’s no need for you to go after me. If you don’t want to talk, just say so. I’m just concerned about you!
- City Zen - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:06 am:
==Currently unions are compelled by law to bargain on behalf of all employees. It is not their choice.==
The reason the union must represent all employees is because only that one union gets a seat at the negotiation table. Since the union gets the right of sole representation and all the benefits that come with having that monopoly on representation, they also have a responsibility to represent everyone.
The unions are more than happy to support those “free loaders” to maintain their monopoly.
- OldIllini - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:06 am:
I have been contributing regularly to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, so today’s development is welcome.
Part of the problem here is indicated by Nobody’s comment == … the unions donate to the same politicans that they are negotiating a contract with and many of the donations are not supported by all of their members. ==
The unions have brought this on themselves by not being bi-partisan. Republican union members are being forced to finance the other side.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:08 am:
===The unions have brought this on themselves by not being bi-partisan===
The reason this case is happening is because Labor hasn’t in the recent past supported Illinois Republicans.
I dunno, I wouldn’t put that in a legal brief in support of Janus, lol
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:12 am:
==How did that not-yet union member vote?==
By taking a union job they voted yes.
==Illinois’ time of being run, into the ground, by the un-elected but uber-special-special-interests of public sector unions==
Yes, all of Illinois’ problems are because of unions. The General Assemblies and Goveror’s of the past couldn’t have possibly had anything to do with it.
==regular taxpayers==
What exactly is a “regular” taxpayer?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:14 am:
==Republican union members are being forced ==
Nobody is being forced to do anything. Again, if you don’t want to be a member of a union then don’t take a union job. This forced argument is absolute nonsense.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:16 am:
==regular taxpayers==
Agreed.
Who are these irregular taxpayers and why do you need to feel better about yourself by trying to reduce others’ wages?
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:20 am:
=I don’t get the unions are fine for private sector but not for public sector crowd. They obviously have never worked in the public sector.=
Good one. Have you ever considered some us have worked in public unions and that’s why we know they’re a complete joke? I’ll never forget when I learned painting one door on an old, unused government building was a 2-man, 2-day job. The Teamsters set me straight.
- WheatonWillie - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:20 am:
No need for you to come at me, WIlly. I only showed concern for you since it appears this affects you. Don’t sink to that level. If you don’t want to talk about it, just say so.
- City Zen - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:23 am:
==By taking a union job they voted yes.==
That strange dependency on union membership for a govt job when the union does not provide the education, certification, or training to perform that govt job.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:25 am:
- WheatonWillie -
I’ve said my piece to you.
Good Luck.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:26 am:
“Good one. Have you ever considered some us have worked in public unions and that’s why we know they’re a complete joke? I’ll never forget when I learned painting one door on an old, unused government building was a 2-man, 2-day job. The Teamsters set me straight.”
So you’re stereotyping all public employee unions based on one experience. There are plenty of public employees with oversized workloads as well. Every day public employees successfully do their jobs and often go above and beyond the call of duty.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:30 am:
I’m not saying that isn’t the case. Sometimes some posters here at like public employment is some secret club. I imagine everyone who posts here at least personally knows one state worker. I know many. The biggest complaint of their jobs is boredom.
- Pelonski - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:36 am:
I’m all for the concept of unions, but not for being forced to join a specific one to the exclusion of all others. The unions have made the process of changing representation so onerous that it almost never happens. This leads to poor service for union members from the union leadership. I’m not a fan of the Supreme Court potentially overturning Abood, but maybe it will at least make unions more attentive to their members.
- Downstate43 - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:49 am:
== I wonder how much this individual has benefited from union negotiated salary increases? ==
Chicken/egg. That individual has no way of knowing because they don’t have the option to negotiate themselves. That’s kind of the crux of the argument on the other side - people who don’t want to support the union don’t have a choice. Maybe it’s not in their best interest, but why not give them the option? I guess I still believe in free-will and not a mad rush towards nanny-ism, but I digress.
== The only way I could see this working is if those who don’t pay dues become at-will employees. ==
That would make the most sense - essentially right to work for those that opt out of membership. Why are union people so afraid of this? If unions are doing great work, then that should convince people to be members. Otherwise, let people choose for themselves.
Choice is great, except when you make a choice I don’t agree with.
- Dr X - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:51 am:
I see the future….Pritzker wins…..Janus fired….runs to union…..door closes in face.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 11:51 am:
If individuals don’t want to join a union when they’re hired then they shouldn’t benefit at all from having the union in their workplace. I’m sure employers would love to pay them less and offer fewer benefits to people like that.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:12 pm:
Robert, I’ll let you on a secret: Boredom is one of the many complaints among workers in the private sector, too. Hard as it is to believe, they complain about their jobs even when free of the totalitarian yoke you describe of public sector unions.
What that has to do with the case before the Supremes, I guess that’s your secret.
- City Zen - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:18 pm:
==I see the future….Pritzker wins…..Janus fired….runs to union…..door closes in face.==
Prequel:
…Dr X enrolls in employment law class…falls asleep…
- Whatever - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:20 pm:
Downstate43 @ 11:49 ==That individual has no way of knowing because they don’t have the option to negotiate themselves.==
Sure he does. All he needs to do is ask the merit comp employees in his agency what pay raises they have gotten over the last 15 years.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:23 pm:
CDog, you like saying “the left” a lot. How exciting it must be up on the ramparts with the Fox crew and Kass.
And if it’s possible to understand your post, it seems your definition of “the left” includes unions and those who allegedly want “unlimited immigration of low-wage workers.”
How do you handle the cognitive dissonance of that positiion? Jack Daniels and long naps?
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:27 pm:
=The unions are more than happy to support those “free loaders” to maintain their monopoly.=
You chose to call people free loaders not me.
Take the word union out of the equation and insert lawyer or repairman. Typically anyone who performs a service receives compensation.
Not my fault if some here cannot get past the word union without having a full on hissy fit.
Me, I don’t care about union v. non-union. I want a governor who supports fair compensation for everyone instead of only those who fail at every attempt at an election or are his handpicked superstars.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:31 pm:
Does it need to be pointed out to anyone that, historically, destroying independent unions is straight out of the totalitarian playbook? It was among the first orders of business in Moscow, Rome and Berlin, back in the day.
- City Zen - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:37 pm:
==Take the word union out of the equation and insert lawyer or repairman.==
Is that why I see all those Peter Francis Geraci commercials? So only one repairman can represent a geographical area? Kinda lost on this comparison. However you want to say it, the union has a monopoly.
As to your “union v. non-union”, I concur 100%. Hire qualified people and treat them with respect, regardless of political views. Apparently, that message hasn’t made it past the superstars.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:38 pm:
Wow, Wordslinger. You convinced me. I’m on your side now. LOL.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:49 pm:
=However you want to say it, the union has a monopoly.=
They do have a monopoly. But unions have been decertified by their members and associations have changed. Their is a legal mechanism in place for that. And it occurs. May be not a lot, and unions fight hard to prevent it, but it happens.
More than one union represents schools in our county much less region, so you lose me there. Not sure about your point, was this about the market place? There is not such thing as a free market. Never has been. Ask a farmer or our ultimate capitalists in finance. My point was that whether it is a union or any other entity, they get paid for their services. Nobody has an infinite set of choices on anything, their choice was where they decided to make a living.
- City Zen - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
==More than one union represents schools in our county much less region==
As with mine, but it is based on position (teachers are IEA, janitors are SEIU). But can STEM teachers join their own separate union and demand higher wages than their co-workers because their talents are in higher demand? Not under current rules.
- Molly Maguire - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
WeepingWillie–you are trolling sir. Stop it.
- WheatonWillie - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:15 pm:
Referring to me as “WeepingWillie” is trolling and it’s not very nice.
All I did was express concern for OW. Sorry if you want to create some alternative narrative.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:16 pm:
Don’t feed the troll.
- WheatonWillie - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:22 pm:
Say the troll.
Sorry I showed concern for you, OW. I’ll make sure not to do that again in the future.
- cdog - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:22 pm:
Word, what do you find cognitively dissonant about my argument–
The left/dem/progressive movement, which is significantly supported unions, has fundamental platform positions like open borders, that are contradictory to the health of the American labor force.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:35 pm:
cdog:
When you start throwing out terms like “the left” your argument loses all credibility.
- Liberty - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:35 pm:
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Roberts negotiate a middle ground on this one… Republicans are fools for continuing to support CEOs over workers.
- cdog - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:40 pm:
Demoralized, how would “the left” prefer to be recognized?
I don’t like to trigger people, making them so uncomfortable that can’t process my argument and have a decent discussion.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:46 pm:
==this is about busting up the left ==
Who exactly is “the left?” I suppose maybe we start there before addressing your other ridiculous points.
- cdog - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:50 pm:
Demoralized,
I think we’ll just let the whole thing rest there. lol.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:54 pm:
Ok. But I’d still like to know who this monolithic “left” is that we have to bust up, who are offensive, and who apparently don’t want any borders. We’ve made quite a stretch to this monolithic being from this AFSCME conversation.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:56 pm:
“The left/dem/progressive movement, which is significantly supported unions, has fundamental platform positions like open borders, that are contradictory to the health of the American labor force.”
The right, in state after state, is passing RtW, which weakens the power of organized labor and drives down wages. See per capita and household incomes by state, and something like 17 of the bottom 25 states are RtW.
No matter how we fall politically on this issue, let’s at least acknowledge that multimillionaires and billionaires are not funding and pushing anti-union efforts to benefit employees. They are doing this to try to tilt the economic and political playing fields permanently in their own favor. If employees wanted to get rid of unions they would have done it themselves a long time ago.
- Responsa - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 2:11 pm:
I wish there were something new or different that I or any one else could say about this intractable policy debate over public sector unions. But I think pretty much everything to be said has been said a thousand times already and because of the tone and anger nobody ever convinces anybody else to even open their ears let alone change their view.
- Obamas Puppy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 2:41 pm:
Bruce Rauner Mr. Pro Union, what a fraud and hopefully short-termer.
- Longsummer - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 3:51 pm:
Greed gets them all in the end. Good bye unions. Now maybe the Democrats can get off their cans and actually be the party that helps all people instead of the party run by unions.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 4:16 pm:
–Demoralized-:
Who exactly is “the left?”–
–CDog-
I think we’ll just let the whole thing rest there. lol.
–
You quit, because you can’t answer the basic question that’s the foundation of all your yammering?
Your house is built on the sand, like they taught us in Sunday school. And you know what happened to those guys.
- New Here - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 5:13 pm:
I see many posters talking about union dues being used to support political parties. In my experience as a union member, dues are not used in this manner. Other voluntary contributions from union members go into a political fund that supports the candidates the union supports. In fact, I think it is illegal to use union dues for political purposes.
- Nick - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 5:27 pm:
New hire. You are correct. It is infuriating to constantly hear everyone continue to pass on false information. The truth doesn’t fit the union bashing narrative so theey continue to spew false information to make their argument appear to be reasonable
- JS Mill - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 6:04 pm:
@CZ- There is no STEM union. Most of our STEM teachers have regular licensure anyway. Currently all teachers are in high demand which is a huge turnabout from just 3 years ago.
The legislation allows for only one union per bargaining group if my understanding is correct. Hangs that and then we will see.
- Andy S. - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:07 pm:
If, as expected, the Supreme Court overturns fair share, can I quit paying my condo association dues if I object to my homeowner association’s policies? There is no conceptual difference between the two cases.
- Generic Drone - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:40 pm:
Ah ha ha ha ha. Rauner called state employees hard working. He must have been talking bout those fair share ones. Rite?
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:52 pm:
= can I quit paying my condo association dues if I object to my homeowner association’s policies?=
No, you signed a contract. This is more like forcing gun owners to pay dues to the NRA or business owners being forced to pay fair share to the The Commerce Club. Blatantly political organizations that supposedly benefit you through their actions.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:54 pm:
*Chamber of Commerce
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 29, 17 @ 8:37 am:
==This is more like forcing gun owners to pay dues to the NRA or business owners being forced to pay fair share to the The Commerce Club==
It isn’t anything of the sort. You keep making those ridiculous comparisons.
What is so hard, Robert, to understand that you do not have to take a job that is represented by a bargaining unit? The notion that these dues are forced is ludicrous. Has anyone ever forced you to take a job? No? Well there you go. You’ve got all the freedom in the world to associated with whatever employer you want. If you don’t like the conditions of employment then you don’t take that job.
- Robert the 1st - Friday, Sep 29, 17 @ 8:56 am:
That’s not how Constitutional rights work. Nobody is forced to eat at certain Southern diners, but we still outlawed segregation.
- Robert the 1st - Friday, Sep 29, 17 @ 9:00 am:
Don’t take my word for it. Let’s see how the USSC rules this go around.