* Interesting take…
The state webpage, titled “Change Union Membership Status,” begins as a notification that Wednesday’s Janus decision no longer obliges Illinois public workers to pay what’s known as “fair share” fees for the services such as collective bargaining that they receive from unions — the basic substance of the high court’s Janus decision.
But it soon goes on to explore the ramifications if an employee chooses to “opt-out of the union.” That crosses a line, according to unions and labor academics.
Calling the entire website “strikingly partisan,” Prof. Robert Bruno of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign said Thursday that it goes far beyond the high court’s ruling in the Janus decision.
“The most that the state should do, if it’s complying with the letter and the spirit of the court’s decision, is to simply notify employees that fair-share designation no longer exists,” Bruno said.
The Janus decision pertains to “fair share” fees for those who don’t belong to unions, Bruno pointed out. The state-funded website uses that as an entryway to address union members directly.
“Who are they talking to?” Bruno said. “Who is the audience? Well, the audience is not fair-share members. The audience for this is union members. Clearly, clearly the state should not be involved in a campaign to solicit union defections.”
* Sun-Times…
But the Illinois Central Management Services Department acknowledged state employees were confused on Thursday. The department said hundreds of employees went onto the website, believing they would have to take action to ensure the fees were no longer deducted. But under the new Supreme Court ruling, the state said they would automatically stop deducting the fees from non-unionized workers.
That apparently caused issues that could impact workers paychecks. But the department said it hoped the confusion would be settled by Monday.
About 75,000 state workers are represented by the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Council 31, with fewer than 10 percent of that number being non-union members still covered by collective bargaining, according to AFSCME Council 31 spokesman Anders Lindall.
* Meanwhile…
Afscme, which in 2015 privately estimated that half the workers it represents could be “on the fence” about whether to pay dues, said it’s trained 25,000 members who’ve helped conduct 800,000 face-to-face conversations with co-workers on the topic.
The American Federation of Teachers said that more than 500,000 of its members in the 10 states most affected by the ruling have recommitted to their union over the past six months, and that educators won’t be swayed by anti-union ads or canvassers funded by right-wing groups. […]
But while such groups as Nevada’s casino union have flourished in the absence of mandatory fees, the big picture for organized labor is bleak following the high court’s ruling. In states with “right-to-work” laws, where it’s illegal to require workers to fund unions that are required to represent them, employees are already half as likely to have union representation—or less.
Such laws, and the Supreme Court opinion, have significant electoral consequences. “Right-to-work” laws already reduce the Democratic Party’s share of a state’s presidential vote by 3.5 percent and cut turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a working paper published this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Those policies, often put in place by Republican-controlled state legislatures, help dampen union political participation—the ultimate goal of anti-union initiatives at all levels of government, labor supporters said.
* Chicago FOP…
The Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 7, would like to advise its members that the recent Supreme Court ruling Janus vs. AFSCME, will likely not have a significant impact upon the membership or finances of our Lodge.
The ruling, which stated that certain union-imposed fees are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment rights of union members, will likely not affect Lodge members because our members can only receive legal defense if the officer is a member of F.O.P.
The Supreme Court ruling means that government unions may no longer extract fees from members who do not want to pay them. The members will now choose whether they will financially support their union.
But because the Lodge provides so many crucial benefits to members, particularly legal representation, FOP President Kevin Graham stated that he does not believe many members will opt out of paying their union dues. Lodge members now pay $5 a check for the Legal Defense budget.
Discuss.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:29 am:
–But the Illinois Central Management Services Department acknowledged state employees were confused on Thursday.–
I’m sure that was the point of the exercise.
- Jimmy0 - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:29 am:
So wait the FOP can withhold services from non-dues paying members? I’m not sure why unions don’t opt to not represent freeloaders in their grievance cases since clearly it’s allowed.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:35 am:
===FOP can withhold services===
It’s not part of a contract. It’s a union membership benefit. Big dif.
- Centennial - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:36 am:
Yeah, I actually thought the opposite of what FOP is saying was true. I thought members could “opt out” of paying, but would still be legally entitled to receive any services the Union would have provided them because these “freeloaders” are still a part of the bargaining unit.
- Centennial - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:37 am:
Never mind. Rich clarified. That makes complete sense.
- dwnstuniondem - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:43 am:
I think that the FOP is making the most important point in this conversation. Membership services have taken a back seat to political discussion in some unions. Ultimately, with Fair Share, unions will have to provide value for dues. Fair Share states like Florida do not have “duty to represent” requirements. This is something that Illinois should consider, despite the fact that it flies in the face of the collective mentality that has been a part of the labor movement for a long time.
- Honeybear - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:44 am:
I believe it is the very definition of unfair labor practice
I bet good counselor Yokich is licking his chops at the red meat CMS just handed him.
But truthfully
I think this is part of the plan
Rauner is baiting us
I believe he is trying to goad us
To direct action
That creates an Afscme boogie man
For the right to fight
Toilets won’t do it
He’s got no achievements
Structural damage and debt
HB40
Blind/not blind trusts
Trust issues
To overcome
He needs a formidable enemy to fight
To rally the base.
What the Randian Free Market people
Overestimated
Was how much their base
Understands or cares
I believe they don’t
They can be overcome with waves of
Pissed off
Step and backpay denied
Threatened
Mobilized and militant
AFSCME’s
I heard Afscme is providing free toothpicks and floss for members to pick pieces of Rauners tookas
Out of their teeth.
- City Zen - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:45 am:
In anticipation of any ruling, shouldn’t CMS had a FAQ first with detailed instructions on what a verdict either way would mean? And why did a “change union membership status” website have to launch immediately after the decision, especially considering the month (and state fiscal year) is about to end?
Knowing a decision was coming sometime in June, the state should have planned for a July 1 rollout to begin with and have all their ducks in a row for that date.
- Rabid - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:50 am:
Ascme can offer things that are not in the contract too. My trade union has life insurance for your beneficiary that can be carried into retirement with reduced retirement membership
- Dog Whistle - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:52 am:
Gov wasted no time. Already issued an EO. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1809&GAID=14&DocTypeID=EO&LegId=113009&SessionID=91&GA=100
- Rocky - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:52 am:
If union membership drops below 50% can’t it be dissolved? and that’s what the gov want’s!
- Generic Drone - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:52 am:
Great. Work hard all your life just to support a corporate agenda government. Maybe we all should just go on public aid. Working man cant just get a leg up on the American dream.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 9:59 am:
I’ve been hearing so far half of our fair share members have signed over to full membership
- A Wise Man Once Said.... - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:01 am:
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
- Raccoon Mario - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:05 am:
Could unions have a voluntary fair share program for those who truly want to support the Union’s contract administration activities but not the political side of things? A person would sign paperwork stating they want to participate in it.
- Kevin Highland - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:08 am:
“Unions are still obligated to fairly represent all employees in collective bargaining, whether they are members of the union or not.”
Is there a difference between collective bargaining and representation during a grievance or disciplinary meeting?
- dude - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:09 am:
This is very simple minded I know, but I would love nothing more than to see a large percentage of previous fair share members become full members in the next few weeks and then observe How Rauner would spin/lie/deceive the story. Something tells me Madigan would be thrown into the message.
- Ryan - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:11 am:
I wonder how soon it will be until the “strong arming” begins…?
- Mike Cirrincione - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:14 am:
Union Dues are Constitutionally Protected speech. You’d be a fool not to join!
Good work Bruce and Mark.
- Texas Red - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:19 am:
“it’s trained 25,000 members who’ve helped conduct 800,000 face-to-face conversations with co-workers on the topic.
The State should look into when and how these conversations are taking place- they can’t take place on work time.
- walker - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:21 am:
Collective bargaining by a government employee union is now protected political speech by definition. Grievance or disciplinary representation for an individual is not. Not yet.
- A Jack - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:26 am:
@Racoon Mario. Certainly the ruling allows volunteer fair share. It’s the involuntary withholding of money for causes that were at odds with an individual fair share employee that was at the center of the argument.
Possibly the GA should enshrine a voluntary fair share into law to allow direct collection from payroll.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:32 am:
–The State should look into when and how these conversations are taking place—
Who would you like to conduct this investigation of 25,000 people across the state and their 800,000 conversations?
- Arthur Andersen - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:34 am:
Well, I just hope this misbegotten website doesn’t become known by its acronym.
- A Jack - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:34 am:
The ruling also left open other ways for a union or a state to avoid free riders. One possibility could be a required fee for grievances for non-members in future contracts.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:43 am:
–Well, I just hope this misbegotten website doesn’t become known by its acronym.–
BTIA(TM) strikes again.
- Pc - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:44 am:
“The State should look into when and how these conversations are taking place- they can’t take place on work time.”
Is it clear that such conversations are prohibited after Janus? They are now protected speech, so any restriction would have to satisfy higher scrutiny
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:47 am:
@Texas Red
They take place during lunch breaks and after work. AFSCME is not stupid.
- A Jack - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:54 am:
There is a provision in the AFSCME contract for voluntary union orientation for units without fair share. We are all without fair share units as of the date of the ruling.
Perhaps the union can use that provision to counter this website.
- Sue - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:56 am:
Kevin- NO-falls within duty to fairly represent
- Mr.Black - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 10:57 am:
From my understanding, the dues (full and fair share) were never used for political purposes. You could opt into PEOPLE to contribute additional funds, which were used for political purposes.
- Nick Name - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 11:01 am:
==Well, I just hope this misbegotten website doesn’t become known by its acronym.==
Change Union Membership Status, for those who are wondering.
- Nolan - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 11:19 am:
I don’t see how this website is doing anything other than informing employees of their rights. In fact, the employer (state in this case) would be wrong to not inform its employees of this type of major change. To not inform them would be the partisan move.
- A Parent - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 11:24 am:
Great catch wordslinger. Made my day.
- OneMan - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 11:44 am:
Out of curiosity, how much do union dues cost? Full vs Fairshare vs none?
- Harry - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 11:45 am:
I suspect that Team Rauner is assuming that many union members are such because they were being charged the Fair Share (78% of total dues for ASFSCME, per the SCOTUS decision), so full membership doesn’t cost that much more.
But if so, they should have laid all that out.
Personally, I think Rauner has a problem in that he created a lot of unreasonable expectations in his base, and the effects of Janus will play out over several years and not always predictably. That may explain the unseemly haste, here, but in the end he will get called out whenever he over-reaches and he needs to take some time and think (for a change).
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 11:48 am:
Rauner oppo writes itself. When someone is as unreasonable—and even hateful—as Rauner, it gives the foundation for better communication. It has been a built-in advantage in a very difficult time.
If Illinois had a different kind of Republican, one who respected opponents and understood the value of small victories and building support, we almost certainly would not be in this combative state. But we got a gog-eyed fiscal zealot who hates and wants to bust apart the system. Who would file a lawsuit and EO against his/her employees, and all public unions of America, on the first day of contract negotiations?
- foster brooks - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:05 pm:
it would be foolish for any union that properly represents a free rider during a grievance/disciplinary/arbitration hearing
- Wondering Wendy - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:41 pm:
Value for their services. If AFSCME gives good value for the cost people will join the union. From my conversations with some of our union members in Southern Illinois AFSCME was more about taking in money for their upper management than they were about advocating for their workers. People are willing to pay for something if they get something in return. Get busy AFSCME.
- Ike - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:03 pm:
Wondering - afscme has fought and won the pay steps and back pay that were illegally withheld from workers,prevented rauner from,forcing a strike, and increasing insurance costs to the point that they would be more expensive than the federal market place, but the union hasn’t given workers anything that’s worth their dues? Keep repeating your talking points because thinking is to hard for you.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 1:13 pm:
“it would be foolish for any union that properly represents a free rider during a grievance/disciplinary/arbitration hearing”
I disagree but definitely understand. Duty of fair representation and exclusive bargaining rights are very dear things right now. Losing exclusive representation could give the Rauners of America a way in to bribe workers and divide and conquer, and put them in a prime position to bust unions.
I’m in a million percent agreement with providing better service. That’s a primary purpose of unionism, serving workers and achieving results. It seems like a way to attract non payers to join the union. Being hostile begets negativity and rejection.
- Huh? - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:19 pm:
Why any State employee, working in a Rutan protected position isn’t in the applicable union is beyond me. Given the political climate, the union is their protection.
- Rabid - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 2:56 pm:
The union should never relinquish power, help them out
- Mama - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 3:13 pm:
- Wondering Wendy - Friday, Jun 29, 18 @ 12:41 pm: =
Wondering, you are blaming the wrong peeps. Rauner is the reason you have not received any raises in the past 4 years. The union has been fighting for you via the courts, but if you haven’t noticed, it means you have not been an active union member. Go to your union meetings to find out what they are doing for you while you are tuned-out.