56 Comments - JS Mill - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:28 pm: I am not anti union but just don’t see the need to ban right to work through a constitutional amendment. - Chicagonk - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:34 pm: How about an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that all future pension benefits need to be budgeted for and be funded at actuarially appropriate levels at the time they are granted? If this makes it to ballot and pensions are ignored again this year, we will see where the priorities like for Springfield. - Oak Parker - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:34 pm: In a Presidential year, turnout is driven by the Presidential race, even in non-competitive states like Illinois. With that being said, because of the Presidential race, the turnout will be more Democratic in 2020 than it will be in 2022, so if they want it to pass, you increase your odds by putting it on the ballot because Democrats will be out in force to vote against Trump - DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:36 pm: I was always told growing up only thing wrong with this country was FDR and unions. I guess I have evolved. Saw that Bezos makes ever 9 seconds the average annual salary of an Amazon worker. Strengthen union rights. But not this election. Would kill fair tax amendment. Would double no vote - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:36 pm: Voted “No” Not every single thing “needs a law” This type of amendment is designed, I guess, to protect us from ourselves? I’m not in favor of Right to Work or stripping labor from collective bargaining, but I can’t see how this type of move is smart to protecting any thing or any one. If someone, be it even a governor, can get right to work through the GA and get a signature too, that’s how the process works. Same as any process that labor either favors or opposes. As a political tool for the helping of the progressive tax? Heck that would be a boon, possibly, engaging labor to gin up the popularity of both amendments. Yep. Would be interesting. Me, I just don’t see, to the honest take of an amendment, I don’t see the constitutional protection needed. - Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:39 pm: yes add it, with the winds of corruption (including Tom Cullerton’s union issues) blowing strong. The CA would drive folks to the polls to vote against it. - ItsMillerTime - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:40 pm: Yes, Unions might have issues but they play a critical role in protecting the rights of workers. Just look at companies like Amazon to see what happens when Unions are no longer involved. Right to work is a trick meant to benefit companies at the expense of it’s employee’s. - PostBot 4592 - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:47 pm: Do constitutional amendments have to be single subject? Tie it to the diminishment language in the pension clause. Now everyone has a reason to support it. - Uncle Merkin - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:48 pm: Doing this would take the monkey off the back of every republican lawmaker to come, who may or may not care about the issue but will be subject to a litmus test while running. RTW laws don’t create jobs, they dont attract jobs. They draw revenue and political power away from unions, so let’s not pretend this is anything but a political attack that does inflict real collateral damage upon working people - union and non union. - City Zen - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:50 pm: Union dues cannot be diminished or impaired. Union dues on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate. - pool boy - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:53 pm: Not sure what this covers, but every house in my subdivision was built with non union labor. In fact, many of my union laborer buddies build houses part time and they don’t hire union carpenters, cement finishers, etc. because they do the work themselves. - Yosemite Sam - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:53 pm: Hard no, we can’t seem to figure out the pension problem and this seems like the Unions just looking out for Unions. - Former Candidate on the Ballot - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:56 pm: Voted No w/o any opinion on the CA being proposed I believe the Illinois constitution should not be used for ANY special interest group - Left, Right, Center, etc. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:57 pm: Resounding Yes We’re working to drive every single union voter to the polls for this and the Fair tax. Every Single Union Voter - Steve - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 2:57 pm: I voted no. It’s a horrible image for Illinois to cement into their constitution. If I was Indiana and Wisconsin: I’d get behind it to really hurt Illinois. - H-W - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:00 pm: I am of the mind that nothing is as simple as we wish to make it. A one-size fits all bill creates as many problems as it solves in a complex society. Such a bill also creates as much opposition as support. I do believe Unions should be allowed to operate as closed shops, but within reason. For small and medium sized employers (less than 100 employees), I oppose “right to work” legislation, because job applicants have reasonable choice and can make informed decisions when choosing to apply. They can join a union or seek employment elsewhere. However, for large employment settings, I oppose closed shops. I particularly oppose closed shops in the case of large, state-employment venues. When employment sectors or occupations or venues approach being psuedo-monopolies (e.g., State Universities in small communities, many of the Offices in Springfield and Chicago, Chicago Public Schools, etc.), that sector may contradict the wishes of a significant number of employees. Thus, I favor right-to-work regulations for large employers. Should that mean union members and non-union members may develop differing contracts? I say yes. Union bargained agreements should apply to union members, and non-members should be subject to separate negotiations when employed by the same large employer that houses a union. - Thomas Paine - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:00 pm: Six states have enabled right-to-work through their Constitution, so I am not opposed on structural or institutional grounds. Just seems to me working families have bigger fish to fry. Extend the pension clause to cover private sector pensions. Nullify mandatory arbitration clauses. Enshrine real property tax reform. - Professor - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:01 pm: No! Now, saying that: thank heavens for Illinois’ early trade unions in the early 1860s, thank heavens for the growth of unions in the latter 19th and early 20th century.The wage earning class was certainly subject to abused - but workers should have an individual choice, and a closed shop does not give them an individual choice. I support unions 100% but it should be the choice of the individual worker. Workers can strike and demand changes, (by the way Illinois at one time banned any type of collusion among workers - see the LaSalle Black Law of 1863) we have come a long way from that, organizing should, of course, not be banned but unionization should be a choice of the worker. - Rabid - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:01 pm: Yes this rubber stamps the Lincolnshire decision - Langhorne - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:02 pm: No CA for this is an overreach. And could easily work against Fair Tax. “See, the Dems can’t be trusted. No end to what they want.” Keep the fair tax clean. No distractions. - Anon For Now - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:03 pm: No. I think that just increases the chance/timing of a right to work case going before the U.S. Supreme Court and striking right to work down. Don’t see this going well long-term, to the detriment of everyone. - Sue - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:16 pm: Does it shock any of you yes voters that all of the Illinois neighbors with less favorable union environments are leaving Illinois in the dust in terms of annual growth, budget surpluses and increases in population along with rising real estate values. Yea- go ahead and make the State even more hostile to business - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:20 pm: Voted yes but have a reservation, like if a union earns less for workers than they could get without it. BLS data have consistently shown that unionized workers earn more than their non-union counterparts in something like 82% of all occupations. It is grossly unconstitutional to turn the entire public sector into second class citizens, like Janus did, where public workers can freeload in full-union states. Talk about job creation with RTWFL is just bunk. Minnesota, California and other full-union states have been doing well, as the economy grows and shrinks nationally. When we had a recession, multiple states must have lost jobs, when the country was hemorrhaging jobs. It’s a new decade, and we need to dispose of pro-RTWFL propaganda and see its real purpose, which is to weaken Democrats and give corporate right wingers and other like people the upper hand economically and politically. Let’s just be honest. - Pundent - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:22 pm: No. Amendments to the Constitution should be limited to issues that have the potential to impact all citizens. Anything less than that weakens the document. And unlike a progressive tax, this is also something that can be realized without a constitutional amendment. - Old Illini - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:25 pm: I support RTW and voted no. - Uncle Merkin - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:25 pm: Sue, your argument assumes that this is because of “right to work” laws, when there is a wealth of research that shows it is not an economic engine, and rather causes harm through decreased incomes. - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:39 pm: Just pointing out the opposite - Alabama is currently the only state in the country to enshrine right to work in its Constitution. I believe Illinois would be the first state constitutionally ban it. - Rutro - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:45 pm: Maybe not push this the same day your union gets an alderman’s brother a slap on the wrist for allegedly trying to steal a days pay ($50.00 an hour). - Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:49 pm: Yes. The Kochs and Uihleins and Rauner’s will never quit throwing $$ around. - City Zen - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 3:55 pm: ==where public workers can freeload in full-union states== Exclusive. Bargaining. Rights. - NoGifts - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 4:10 pm: Leave the constitution alone. - Chicago 20 - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 4:20 pm: There is no such thing as a “Right to Work”. All that “Right to Work” gives workers is the right not to pay a union for services rendered by not paying their fair share. - Sue - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 4:24 pm: Grandson- if you are in need of a part time job- Bernie could use you to write add text. As much as you complain about the right wing- you are the mirror image for left wing nut jobs - Jocko - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 4:41 pm: Voted ‘no’…for the same reason RTWFL shouldn’t be enshrined in AL. BTW - Any idea when Mark Janus (and the Liberty Justice Center) will start posting testimonials about the riches obtained by those individuals who’ve opted out of union membership? - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 4:42 pm: ===This type of amendment is designed, I guess, to protect us from ourselves?=== OW, I believe that is the intent of most rights enshrined in Constitutions. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 4:46 pm: I’ve always viewed Right to Work as the “right to pay our employees less.” That’s the mantra Rauner used for 4 years. People get paid too much money and we need Right to Work to fix that. That being said, I do not think this needs to be put in the Constitution. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 4:56 pm: === I believe that is the intent of most rights enshrined in Constitutions.=== Yep. That was my point. Also my point there’s nothing with this amendment to protect us from ourselves here. ===I can’t see how this type of move is smart to protecting any thing or any one.=== With respect. - Bruce (no not him) - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 5:05 pm: I voted No. We don’t need to put every thing we don’t like in the Constitution. Trust future legislators to do what they are hired to do. - Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 6:10 pm: Heck yes. Why shouldn’t the right to organize be constitutionally protected, especially given the constant attempts to stifle it all over the country? To h@ll with you naysaying RTW cheerleaders, I stand with workers, not the plutocrats. - leave it alone - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 6:14 pm: No. This is not necessary and not a good idea. Personally I’m a bit sick of particular unions thinking they can amend the constitution for their benefit only. First the transit amendment and now this. Please stop. - Beck797 - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 6:18 pm: I am for it because it would stop what Walker did in Wisconsin with Act 10. But at the same time, I think the federal courts would step in here. Unsettled case law reason… - Huh? - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 6:28 pm: Yes. If nothing else than to repudiate 1.4% again. - Captain Obvious - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 7:15 pm: Jocko - Here’s one: “Hi, Captain O here, and I couldn’t be happier with the extra $600 a year that I have to blow on pizza and beer because I don’t have to pay union dues anymore. Thanks Mark.” - Blue Dog Dem - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 7:26 pm: Down to 13.8%. Simple reason. Consumers have and always will determine the fate of unions. If you voted yes, you darn better buy and shop union. If not, your a hypocrite. Are you? - MG85 - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 8:13 pm: Yes. == I am not anti union but just don’t see the need to ban right to work through a constitutional amendment.== Ask those in Wisconsin what happened to their Unions when the wrong kind of government got into office. They effectively had the bargaining rights stripped from them. Political vicissitudes shouldn’t impact workers’ rights so harshly that they are stripped of their right to bargain collectively. The Constitution enshrines those rights that should be above just the whims of politicians. Plenty of Republican Union members vote for Democrats and vice versa in their best interest as workers. They shouldn’t have to vote for a Hobson’s choice between their ideological beliefs and their right to collectively bargain. Of course they do in every election, but I suggest that some things should be so well protected that both legislators and constituents must have a say. Collective bargaining is one of those things. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 8:41 pm: I voted No. I don’t see the need to muck up the State Constitution with this. Big business has its’ faults but so do unions. Unions have their place counteracting big business but the playing field doesn’t need to be permanently tilted one way or the other. If it was up to me, I would also negate the Citizens United and other SCOTUS decisions giving businesses the same status as individuals / citizens. And yes, I’m still a GOP leaning Independent / Libertarian but I believe the current environment is overly stacked in favor of business. - Southsider - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 9:53 pm: Yes…but hesitant until I see the language. - Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Jan 22, 20 @ 9:55 pm: - Consumers have and always will determine the fate of unions. - That’s complete nonsense that you repeat incessantly with no backup. Since the 70s union rights have been consistently under attack by lawmakers and courts bought by big business. Blaming it on consumers is some lazy fantasy you imagined in your less than average head. - Blue Dog Dem - Thursday, Jan 23, 20 @ 2:03 am: Blaming it on consumers is some lazy fantasy……so says the consumer who just clicked”add to my shopping cart” on his third Amazon purchase of the week. More than likely all bought items made in China. - Looking down the Road - Thursday, Jan 23, 20 @ 7:36 am: Yes. It will be a billboard item under “Business Friendly Illinois” Along with “Come and Pitch in on Unfunded …” - Pundent - Thursday, Jan 23, 20 @ 8:01 am: =More than likely all bought items made in China.= =The move is being led by International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, a large, well-funded building-trades group with considerable influence on both sides of the aisle in Springfield.= Buying engineers on Amazon from China now are we? - Dybalaton - Thursday, Jan 23, 20 @ 9:11 am: Of course not, the Constitution needs to be less restrictive. - Occasional Quipper - Thursday, Jan 23, 20 @ 10:02 am: Voted no. As others have already said, if Illinois want to make this a law then do that. But partisan politics has no place in the constitution. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Jan 23, 20 @ 12:24 pm: With right to work, people aline for or against it based on how they feel about unions. Instead they should focus on what right to work laws do. Right to work laws are big nanny state government laws overstepping it’s bounds by pushing organizations around and telling them they have to accept all members whether they pay or not. A constitutional amendment should protect ALL groups and organizations that have expenses and expect the members to pay dues, not just unions. That is what the law should state, the government can’t tell a group that members don’t have to pay, be it a synagogue, a quilting bee, YMCA, or a Chamber of Commerce, or a union, etc. This way the law would be just commonsense and neither pro or anti union. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Jan 23, 20 @ 12:31 pm: == Heck yes. Why shouldn’t the right to organize be constitutionally protected, especially given the constant attempts to stifle it all over the country?== Thankfully it already is. “Right to work” is about collecting dues. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Jan 29, 20 @ 7:16 am: == Grandson- you are the mirror image for left wing nut jobs.== What ever happened to “agree to disagree”? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.