* Republican attorney general candidate Erika Harold…
“The Janus decision strikes a constitutional balance, respecting a person’s choice to join a public sector union while ensuring those who choose not to join are not compelled in violation of the First Amendment to pay fees to support speech and advocacy they do not feel benefits them and with which they disagree.”
* Worth noting…
* But Greg Hinz claims the Janus decision isn’t about “free speech” at all, it’s about partisan politics…
Plaintiff Mark Janus was just a patsy. This case was all about politics, about giving one political party and its ideology and its beliefs about who ought to pay how much in taxes a leg up on the other. As Trump tweeted, “Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!”
Indeed. As the four liberal dissenters on the court wrote, “When the vicious cycle (of union members dropping their membership) finally ends, chances are that the union will effectively lack the resources to effectively perform.” Either as a bargaining agent, or in the political sphere. Take that, Mike Madigan and you evil Democrats! That’s what’s really going on.
Now, in the abstract, I understand the notion that someone like Janus, a child specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services, shouldn’t be forced to pay partial dues to the American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees. Even though Janus is exempted from paying the share of dues that go toward partisan political activity by AFCME, the court majority held that even contributing to what the union tries to accomplish at the bargaining table might offend his views. Like, for instance, seeking insurance coverage for female union members who want an abortion. Or extra hiring consideration for African-Americans or Latinos. The majority didn’t really say.
But it hinted at one of the sentiments underlying its opinion, writing, “Public sector union membership has surpassed that in the private sector and that ascendancy corresponds with a parallel increase in public spending.” Translation: Rauner is right that unions force up spending and taxes. So we’re gonna give him some help.
* And Aviva Bowen of both the IFT and Kwame Raoul’s campaign agreed with Hinz in her response to Erika Harold’s comment…
Spare me. This case was about politics, not speech. Bruce Rauner and Donald Trump bragged about that yesterday. No one was ever forced to pay fees to support political candidates, and nothing in Janus changed that.
This case was a brazen attempt to further rig the economy and weaken the collective voice of the middle class. And it’s why, more than ever, we need a strong Attorney General like Kwame Raoul who will fight back and defend workers’ rights.
*** UPDATE *** Springfield’s Catholic Bishop…
- low level - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:04 am:
Looking in my crystal ball…
I see a Gov Pritzker.
Pritzker appoints a director who might appoint a manager that Mr Janus and others have issues with.
They want to file a grievance…
Oops.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:05 am:
===“The Janus decision strikes a constitutional balance, respecting a person’s choice to join a public sector union while ensuring those who choose not to join are not compelled in violation of the First Amendment to pay fees to support speech and advocacy they do not feel benefits them and with which they disagree.”===
I thought Erika Harold was supposed to be a lawyer, and she can’t even get this right? And she wants to be the state AG? Sheesh.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:05 am:
–Plaintiff Mark Janus was just a patsy.–
Woof, “just a patsy?” That’s a blast from the past.
Hinz does a decent enough job here at pointing out the obvious lying about the supposed free speech motivation, but the above phrase is a rather curious and unfortunate borrowing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afw258XOdGU
- Texas Red - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:17 am:
We always did feel the same
We just saw it from a different point
Of view
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:18 am:
Of course it’s about politics. Rauner and his union-busting allies care for employee speech when their primary purpose is to weaken employees to their own benefit? Puh-lease.
Is Bruce gonna put his hard hat costume on again and say he’s pro-bidness because he’s pro-worker?
- Wow - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:18 am:
Unions will now file suit to say they have zero obligation to negotiate on non members behalf. Free speech is a 2 way street. When the Janus types realize how much it costs to file a grievance things will change.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:25 am:
To the update- Sounds like the good Bishop is speaking politically. How does that jibe with the churches tax exempt status?
- Clauditisoretuo - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:27 am:
Bishop Paprocki should get back to his exorcisms and leave the politics to the politicians.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:27 am:
Seriously, the Holy Goalie chimes in on this about abortion? That’s wee bit of a stretch.
I guess he’s just exorcising his freedom of speech.
- Been There - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:28 am:
====child specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services====
Won’t be easy and probably couldn’t happen without a dem governor but i could see attempts at more specific line items in the budget with new job categories. And “child specialist” non union gets less than “child specialist” AFSCME. Of course that would be the start of a new round of court cases. But as we all know there have been many creative items put into the budgets over the years.
- Barrington - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:29 am:
Agree with wow at 11:18.
Unions will not support anyone not in Union in grievances or negotiations. Problems with that? Sue the union. Unions can also provide a minimum support for grievances, negotiate special positions, or any number of techniques that I can only speculate about.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:30 am:
While Rauner’s reasoning for initiating the suit may have come down to partisan politics, painting the majority’s decision as a solely political decision is an oversimplification and laughable. While Dems may be upset with the reasoning and looking for any way to discredit it, the fact is that the Court found this to violate the First Amendment. I guess Obergefell, Windsor, Lawrence, and Loving were also just simply political decisions by the court and not truly related to equal protection or due process.
- DarkHorse - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:33 am:
While I’m not a lawyer (like Harold) and didn’t attend Harvard (like Harold), does an extension of her reasoning mean those of us who didn’t vote for/choose continued American adventurism in the Middle East can withhold our tax dollars because our side didn’t win?
As a purely campaign matter, she’s be better off not commenting on this things because they only serve to rile up Democrats against her.
- Aimtomisbehave - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:33 am:
And the Holy Goalie steps in to show why I don’t attend a Catholic Church anymore.
Between him and Pfleger in Chicago - can we just start taxing the Church already?
- Honeybear - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:35 am:
The good bishop needs to acquaint himself with Pope Francis’ thoughts on union.
Go ahead google Pope Francis and union
It’s pretty clear Bishop Paprocki is at odds with Holy Father
But we already knew that.
- Northsider (the original) - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:36 am:
I foresee hiring decisions made on the basis of whether a job applicant is a union member or not.
- low level - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:37 am:
at least Father Pfleger doesnt subscribe to the “Jesus was a Republican” theory as Bishop Paprocki does…
(Note the deliberate highlighting of the relative ranks of said religious individuals…)
- TaylorvilleTornado - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:39 am:
I surprised Paprocki hasn’t had another exorcism to attempt to rid the state of unions.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:41 am:
Bishop Paprocki,
1. Way to give the big middle finger to both AFSCME members in your own flock, and to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which filed an amicus brief in support of AFSCME.
2. Way to lie: “No longer will public sector employees be required pay dues to support unions that promote abortion and other political issues with which they disagree.” It is a violation of federal law to fund political activity with union dues. You’re an attorney, so you know this. Why the lie?
- Anon - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:43 am:
Maybe Paprocki believes the tithing will go up since all his state workers parishioners may have a couple of extra bucks available. We shall see.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:44 am:
“…that promote abortion…”
Rauner signed HB40…
Are you more concerned about promoting abortion or signed legislation allowing for the paying of abortion?
Confusing…
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:46 am:
I don’t have a lot of respect for a guy (the Bishop) who’s been one of the leading hatemongers in Springfield.
- Barrington - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:46 am:
Knew an employee who complained bitterly about being in the union. But in the end it saved them for being fired as they were near the top of the list for Seniority. Although this was an excellent employee, they would have been fired as they were on the wrong side of the new board.
- Ole General - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:47 am:
Honeybear,
Since you a dedicated follower of Christ, I’ll be awaiting your analysis on the SC justice choice.
Especially in light of Psalm 139
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:48 am:
Of course the decision was political. Read the opinion and you see politics all over it. Though they may try not to, the Supreme Court makes political decisions all the time.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:49 am:
Somebody did a really really poor job of marketing.
i thought this was about free riders.
if I remember right no one forces you to make union political donations just sort of pay for the service you use. Most people would probably agree with that. But all I hear is forcing to pay for union politicking.
- City Zen - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:51 am:
==Unions will now file suit to say they have zero obligation to negotiate on non members behalf.==
Are you sure unions will want to give up their exclusive bargaining rights?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:53 am:
==Are you sure unions will want to give up their exclusive bargaining rights?==
You hit the ball out of the park. That’s the catch.
- City Zen - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 11:53 am:
==And “child specialist” non union gets less than “child specialist” AFSCME.==
And when the non-union child specialist is female or minority and the AFSCME child specialist is male or caucasian, then what?
- d.p.gumby - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:06 pm:
I have a sincerely held religious belief against union busting by Catholic Bishops
- Barrington - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:13 pm:
There seems to be a mistaken belief that unions take on each grievance and negotiation that presents themselves. And that there is equal treatment and attention to each issue. Nothing can be further from the truth. There has and always will be politics, personal friendships, money, etc. Now even more.
- Anon - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:13 pm:
I am confused does the opinion state the unions have to negotiate for non union members
- The Way I See It - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:22 pm:
If bargaining for wages and benefits is core First Amendment activity, I would think all those laws limiting the scope of bargaining might be in trouble. Our friends in Wisconsin and the authors of the Turnaround Agenda may want to take note.
- Ebenezer - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:29 pm:
I think Bill Scher nailed it: Unions are to progressives what the coal industry is to the right. Nostalgia.
Uncritical support for public sector unions gets in the way of making government work. Consider the effect of collective bargaining agreements on investigations of police shootings and the resistance of teachers unions to any meaningful performance evaluation.
Its time for progressives to find tactics that are effective in the current century.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:30 pm:
Okay representation,
Alito does state that the union has a duty to represent
He also openly invites legal challenge to this.
This is a trap for the next step in de-unionization
Bringing down exclusive representation
I as a steward have a duty to represent up to level three non members.
I will absolutely, unfailingly
And to the best of my ability do that.
why?
1) I can be bigger and have personal integrity to defend those who call on me. Because a good defense may lead to a new member or rejoining member.
2) and most importantly, to not represent under the law is to commit an unfair labor practice.
3) it won’t be long before this happens because of a hot headed steward (hopefully not me, help me God)
4) at that point another scotus case goes up to take down exclusive representation. Then we will have multiple unions competing.( Shhhh sit down and listen free market doofus)
They will compete by outdoing each other with militancy.
5) another case goes up to quell the massive labor war abolishing public sector unions.
Get the game?
Thus I have to swallow it and do my best
Just maybe I’ll be a better person for it
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:30 pm:
===painting the majority’s decision as a solely political decision is an oversimplification and laughable.===
Then explained what changed in the 41 years since Abood other than “Public sector union membership has surpassed that in the private sector and that ascendancy corresponds with a parallel increase in public spending.”
- Wondering Wendy - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:33 pm:
I am so tired of the whiners…..AFSCME has made it very clear to our membership that they DO NOT advocate for individual workers. They advocate for the CONTRACT. That’s their excuse when they won’t fire bad workers. Also, the Federal Employee Union
(AFGE) has never required workers to join their union, and it is still a union that makes a difference for its members. Also, federal unions MAY NOT endorse any political candidate. If AFSME would get out of the political arena you might have more members who WANT to join the union.
- Ed Higher - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:39 pm:
I don’t understand the view that says “I don’t need a union — I’ll negotiate for myself!” The leverage of most government employees is minuscule. Don’t like the way things are? Go fish.
- Honeybadger - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:48 pm:
Hey Bishop Paprocki, you should be more concerned about why your flock is fleeing the Catholic Church. It is because of men like you who have no sense of what is really going on in the world around you, especially in your own church.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:49 pm:
Wondering Wendy you wondered way off into the weeds. Come back to the light. I’ll start from the top
These are ligitimate concerns and complaints
Being debated and discussed
Don’t read the posts if you are tired of it
“Our membership”? Who are you talking about?
I’m advocating for two individual workers in my office today and one in another town tomorrow. Totally wrong
The union doesn’t fire workers. Management does and can if they follow the negotiated procedure as found in Article II&IX
Afscme doesn’t require people to join either doofus. It’s the same as AFGE in that respect. And yes Fed unions may not endorse. That’s the only thing you got correct. But I am thankful that Janus has separated the wheat from the chaff. We go through a huge democratic endorsing process to determine who we endorse. My region endorsed two Republican candidates, one of them instead of the democrat in the primary. I was personally involved in those deliberations.
We endorse and support those candidates who will advocate for our interests.
As my Regional Director told me
No permenant enemies
No permenant friends
Only permenant interests
- Ike - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:56 pm:
Wondering - you are not and were never forced to join the Afscme union. Being fair share meant that you didn’t join the union. The fair share dues was the union to represent all workers in a “fair” manner, ie not have free loaders. I am not sure if people like you are just stupid or willfully ignorant.
- Wallinger Dickus - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:59 pm:
Gotta love Paprocki. Hasn’t paid a cent for his tax-free food and shelter but he loves to swing his weight around in service of taxpayers. Oops. I mean, well, you know. Right through the five hole, sir.
- Steward As Well.... - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 1:02 pm:
Of course everyone will get representation. And to what extent will depend upon that steward. But it is and will always be about protecting and serving the contract.
Council is already on record with this issue. Those that pay nothing will receive everything support wise from the union that union members do. 31 is not about to give up their exclusivity rights to the job titles that they have.
If those not paying anything were tossed out of the union it would give management the power to pay them anything. “Sweet heart” deals which would be an attempt to erode the union even more and cause outrage and defections out of the remaining union members. Nope…. not going to happen.
- Ignorant Ignorantious - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 1:06 pm:
@Wondering Wendy
=That’s their excuse when they won’t fire bad workers=
What are you talking about????
- Deadbeat Conservative - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 1:11 pm:
=Bishop Paprocki,
1. Way to give the big middle finger to both AFSCME members in your own flock, and to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which filed an amicus brief in support of AFSCME.
2. Way to lie: “No longer will public sector employees be required pay dues to support unions that promote abortion and other political issues with which they disagree.” It is a violation of federal law to fund political activity with union dues. You’re an attorney, so you know this. Why the lie? =
Answer: He’s been commiting this obvious sin for a while, like Rauner, he can’t seem to help himself.
Also it appears that he fancies himself a plutocrat politician. - Time for the “religious” tax exemption to go for church’s political activities.
- Curmudgeon - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 1:28 pm:
Just to put a $$$ perspective on Janus’ paycheck, I calculated that he will gain about $560 PER YEAR in Fair Share payments no longer deducted from his paycheck.
But, thanks to AFSCME’s successful suit against Rauner for halting annual step increases, I figure he might be GAINING as much as $6,360 per year for suspended Steps 7 & 8 increases, or if he was already at Step 8, possibly $1,200 per year in suspended Longevity increases.
- Roman - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 1:51 pm:
The Bishop is a heretic to his own faith.
From Rerum Novarum, the Catholic Church’s official doctrine on social justice:
“…The most important of all are workingmen’s unions…It is gratifying to know that there are actually in existence not a few associations of this nature, consisting either of workmen alone, or of workmen and employers together, but it were greatly to be desired that they should become more numerous and more efficient…the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected.”
- m - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 1:59 pm:
=31 is not about to give up their exclusivity rights to the job titles that they have.
If those not paying anything were tossed out of the union it would give management the power to pay them anything. “Sweet heart” deals which would be an attempt to erode the union even more and cause outrage and defections out of the remaining union members. Nope…. not going to happen. =
It’s good to see a union person who understands this concept. People should read this before rambling about the free-loaders. Keeping exclusive representation is more important than the lost dues from Janus.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:12 pm:
AFSCME doesn’t get involved with abortion. It advocates for worker-related issues and supports candidates of both parties (admittedly mostly Democrats) who support concerns of membership, such as wages, benefits and working conditions.
Ending fair share fees is like voter suppression with those bogus voter ID laws. To political and financial backers of humongous means, they’re meant to weaken or cripple political opposition. Trump admitted this yesterday with his loose Twitter fingers. I could see why he wouldn’t want to be interviewed by Mueller, or why Kim Jong-un would want a photo with him (an American President) on a global stage, to gain massive status and legitimacy.
- Chris Widger - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:19 pm:
==AFSCME doesn’t get involved with abortion==
Are you sure? On their website right now is a resolution from an AFSCME convention in 2014 resolving that their delegates oppose legislation that restricts a woman’s reproductive rights. AFSCME got blasted back in 2003 for co-sponsoring a pro-abortion march and having their officials appear in a press conference announcing the march. According to the suspiciously named “Family Policy Institute of Washington,” AFSCME donated $2,481,000 between 2012 and 2014 to organizations supportive of abortion, including direct donations to Planned Parenthood. This isn’t to say they shouldn’t get involved with abortion access (in my opinion, they should). But they clearly do.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:27 pm:
===support unions that promote abortion===
The Bishop is aware of who signed HB40 into law isn’t he?
- Chris Widger - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:29 pm:
==The Bishop is aware of who signed HB40 into law isn’t he?==
He has on more than one occasion blasted HB40. Why would criticizing the unions for generally supporting abortion foreclose him criticizing other people who have advanced women’s rights?
- Bumblin stumblin rumblin - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:36 pm:
Ya’ll need Jesus
- A Jack - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:46 pm:
I can see the large public unions consolidating in order to pool resources. At that point exclusive representation becomes less of an issue.
And I would just love to see the news headlines if a nonunion person gets a sweetheart deal at taxpayer expense.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 2:55 pm:
===Why would criticizing the unions for generally supporting abortion foreclose him criticizing other people who have advanced women’s rights?===
That seems more like “political free speech” while the Bishop feels it’s a “religious discussion”, HB40.
Ya see “tha” difference now?
So… Rauner signing HB40… religion.
AFSCME … political free speech.
Huh?
- Stumpy's bunker - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 3:09 pm:
So, Bishop Paprocki joins Bruce Rauner and Donald Trump onstage in a surreal, neoliberal version of the Snoopy Happy Dance.
Strange bedfellows, anyone?
- Jibba - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 3:15 pm:
It would certainly be interesting to see an analysis of increased tax revenues if religious organizations were not tax exempt. But beware what you wish for. Unrestrained political speech and spending from churches might be more powerful than any liberal would want to deal with.
- Generic Drone - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 3:50 pm:
Personally, i dont see the Janus decision as much more than a hic up for unions. Unions will have to actively enguage its mambers and will have to work at maintaining membership levels. I believe they can do this if they want to survive.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 5:40 pm:
==That’s their excuse when they won’t fire bad workers.==
AFSCME fires workers? I thought management fired workers.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 7:27 pm:
Yeah, this happened, after the big exorcism show from Cecil B. Paprocki.
http://illinoistimes.com/article-10900-tied-up-at-the-moment.html
Step aside, Thomas.
What now? I’ll tell you what now. I’m going to get a couple Uihlein-begging IPI weirdos with a dark-money PAC to go medieval on America.
You hear me Democrat, boy? I’m going to go all Warren Harding on you.
Your Springfield privileges are revoked. You get gone, or you be gone.
- Anon - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 8:09 pm:
Hey AFSCME members, why not put a couple dollars per month into the AFSCME People program. It’ll help cover costs of the inevitable lawsuits. Solidarity, brothers and sisters.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 8:22 pm:
In this new age, duty of fair representation and especially exclusive representation seem to be most valuable. It’s better for the unions to have exclusive representation and the ability to protect all. Losing that would give a big opening for Rauner to get in and start bribin’ and dividin’ and conquerin’.
This is about serving coworkers, no matter their affiliation, and being agents of good—service at worksites, protection from Rauner and the billionaire-funded anti-union people, and willingness to make reasonable concessions, in support of taxpayers.
- Rabid - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 6:17 am:
Playing the abortion card to end fair share from an abortionist
- Rabid - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 7:04 am:
Using religion to fight government collectivist, no separation of church and state