* This normally might not be much of a story. But with Gov. Pritzker trying to freeze the Motor Fuel Tax rate over labor’s opposition, Pritzker’s past opposition to putting this amendment on the ballot in 2020, plus the governor’s backing of some state central committee candidates that could be hostile to the Democratic Party of Illinois’ new chair Robin Kelly, and her attempt at a rebuild after Chairman Madigan’s exit, you can read more into it. Press release…
Last night, the State Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Illinois voted unanimously to endorse the Workers’ Rights Amendment ballot initiative, which will appear before voters this November. The Workers’ Rights Amendment will protect Illinois workers’ pathway to the middle class, ensuring that working people have access to stable family-sustaining jobs as well as safe and secure workplaces.
“The Democratic Party is the party of working people and we are proud to join labor and worker advocates in supporting the Workers’ Rights Amendment,” said Democratic Party of Illinois Chair Rep. Robin Kelly. “This amendment means enshrining worker protections into the Illinois Constitution, protecting workers from potential attacks on their livelihoods by anti-worker Republican legislators who have driven down wages, benefits, and workplace protections in other states. Passing the Workers’ Rights Amendment is a top priority for the Democratic Party of Illinois this November.”
“The Workers’ Rights Amendment means stronger protections for working people at a time when they need it most,” said Illinois AFL-CIO President and Vote Yes for Workers’ Rights Co-Chair Tim Drea. “All workers will benefit from these protections, ensuring that Illinois will never join the race to the bottom on wages and workplace safety protections. We applaud the Democratic Party of Illinois for joining us in this important fight, and we look forward to communicating with all voters about the importance of voting yes on the Workers’ Rights Amendment this fall.”
“As the pandemic has impacted working people, we need to make sure workers have the pay, resources, benefits, and protections they deserve,” said Chicago Federation of Labor President and Vote Yes for Workers’ Rights Co-Chair Bob Reiter. “The Workers’ Rights Amendment is a significant step toward ensuring Illinois workers will always have the freedom to join together to fight for better pay, safety at work, and access to the training they need. The labor movement welcomes the support of the Democratic Party of Illinois, and together we will pass this amendment in November.”
The Workers’ Rights Amendment would prevent Illinois from ever passing a state law or local ordinance “that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety.” This amendment would ensure that workers across the state have the freedom to collectively bargain so their voices are more powerful.
* Related…
* Austin Berg: Amendment on fall ballot would do more than ban right-to-work. It would protect insider deals: If voters approve the measure, backroom deals between politicians like Madigan and the government union bosses who fund those politicians’ campaigns would carry constitutional protections on a par with religious freedom and victims’ rights.
* Letters: Illinois Policy Institute knocks Madigan and unions, but it isn’t a sincere advocate for working class: So what of this amendment? Is it the “radical rewriting of the state constitution” that IPI claims? The amendment, which would protect workers’ rights to better pay, benefits and working conditions through union organizing, uses much of the same wording that is already in the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA is federal law, has been on the books for 87 years and has survived many court challenges. It’s is hardly “radical” at this point in time.
- Minnie Pearl Jam - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 8:34 am:
Smart move by DPI.
Less smart move: the Gov playing in DPI primaries. He has his own comeptitve general election, and will need every Dem vote.
- Steve - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 8:44 am:
If this passes , Illinois will have more challenges in getting certain types of industries to locate/expand here. It’s hard to compete with right to work states , when you aren’t a right to work state.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 8:44 am:
=== Smart move by DPI.===
After embarrassing itself with Kelly at the helm and both statehouse caucus leaders not buying into them, following the lead of the governor who they “taught a lesson”…
… the lesson might be to figure out how to work together instead of mending fences where it appears DPI likely needs labor more than labor, in this current snapshot, needs this “group”
===Less smart move: the Gov playing in DPI primaries.===
Why? What exactly does the governor fear in allegedly alienating folks who want to be seen rebuking him?
Run em all, let’s see who wins.
To the post, specifically,
This is a real opportunity for this group to acknowledge who they are and mend a fence where tearing it down was ego-driven, and in the end, what did this group win when the big move here is to curry favor from a group they should already have as their staunchest ally.
After the primary I’ll be interested to the relationship and with this on the ballot, how will DPI be seen as important to its passage.
- Sue - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 9:25 am:
If Illinois citizens have learned anything it should be constitutional amendments put forth by special interest groups have the potential to bite with unintended consequences. The smart move would be to vote this unnecessary amendment down. Unions in Illinois already have enough power and protections
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 9:37 am:
=== the potential to bite with unintended consequences.===
The consequences of protecting pensions was not unintended, it has done exactly what it was designed to do, as an example. You may not like the consequences when the constitution is upheld, but that’s why bring enshrined was important… in 1970.
===and protections===
Had Rauner found 60 and 30, that would be up for discussion.
Labor is done with luck (or bad luck for Rauner), since the protection sought might be a governor and legislature away from being lost.
- NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 9:40 am:
==constitutional amendments put forth by special interest groups have the potential to bite with unintended consequences.==
Including those that were made up by Pat Quinn. (See: Amendment, Cutback).
- Surge voter - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 9:50 am:
OW… your political analysis used to be more keen, more objective.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:00 am:
===used to be more keen, more objective.===
I find when I’m accused of first actually having any sort of political acumen, then “losing it”, then being called out for objectivity…
… it’s those whom may not like mirrors or looking in them for answers towards what’s being seen outside their own bubble.
I had a “discussion” here when Kelly was being selected and her ascension.
I was told directly it was to send a message to the governor, to flex a muscle, I was told it was indeed a battle with Durbin allies…
“How has that worked out?”
Objectively?
Well, I was told Kelly could do the job, and in the end it turns out Kelly is an admitted figurehead, along with those who see such things saying Kelly is a figurehead.
I didn’t say labor, the House Speaker, the Senate President aren’t buying this DPI group… they ALL said it.
Being objective means actually looking at what is the score and being willing to see it, and not what others would like it to be.
Labor can choose how they donate money, it’s not wrong to say DPI likely needs labor more than labor needs this DPI as constructed.
If you’d like to amplify where I need to put my eyes outside what I’ve read, heard, then please elaborate.
Thanks.
- NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:02 am:
Hopefully part of this relationship rebuild will include convincing AFSCME and other hesistant union members about the need for full vaccination (and boosters), and the need for mandatory COVID workplace vaccination for all state employees.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:34 am:
I don’t know if it really counts as rebuilding a relationship when this is something that the DPI simply had to do politically. I feel the same way about this concept as I would the statement “parent mends fences with children by picking them up from school.”
Labor is not a monolith. The Democratic Party can only be the party of labor if it is the party of labor and you can’t tell individual union members your the party of labor while suggesting that their rights cannot be or should not be enshrined in the Constitution and even the most supportive labor leaders would have a hard time convincing the rank and file otherwise.
===After embarrassing itself with Kelly at the helm and both statehouse caucus leaders not buying into them===
I enjoy the decentralization of power and positional authority within the statewide organizations that the Democrats utilize. In the short term it immediately prevented someone consolidating like Madigan and then perhaps being stupid enough to continue his blatantly illegal schemes and in the short term it makes it less likely for some one individual to have as much sway on Democratic Party politics in the state. It’s a good thing and the problems posed by Chairperson Kelly are not a permanent feature.
===convincing AFSCME and other hesistant union members===
Asking public employee unions to give their members reasons to revoke their membership after the Janus decision ended fair share should be enough of a non-starter that those kinds of demands simply should not be made and would not be expected from a pragmatic politician. Public employee unions represent their members they don’t control them and people that think that really need to take a step back from the political playing field in the state and realize it is much more complicated than people like to pretend it is when they’re plotting their illegal hiring schemes, kick backs, and methods for receiving and distributing bribes.
- Chicago 20 - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:37 am:
Right to work laws do not make a State “competitive”.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/11/right-to-work-laws-explained-debunked-demystified/?sh=2e5ff4a1480b
- John Lopez - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:38 am:
=== The amendment, which would protect workers’ rights to better pay, benefits and working conditions through union organizing, uses much of the same wording that is already in the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA is federal law, has been on the books for 87 years and has survived many court challenges. It’s hardly “radical” at this point in time. ===
If the 87 years-old National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was all that was on the table without changes, what the letter writer said would be accurate.
It’s what President Biden, the Democrats including DPI Chair Robin Kelly are trying to do by amending the NLRA that is radical.
As President Biden urged once again at the State of the Union on March 1, was for passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would radically amend the NLRA.
While the PRO Act has some common sense reforms, the implementation of a radical new worker classification provision under federal law under NLRA, along with reversing right-to-work laws across the country, are radical.
The unions in Illinois and their allies in the Illinois General Assembly, namely Senator Cristina Castro, want the state to implement radical new classification laws, to change how workers are classified for tax status from the current common law test used by the IRS, to the radical ABC test.
Don’t think some of the unions’ frustrations with the Democrats may be aimed at Washington, and the fact the PRO Act, after passing in the U.S. House over a year ago, remains stalled in the Senate due to 3 Democratic holdouts (Kyrsten Sinema, Mark Kelly, Mark Warner) who refuse to cosponsor the PRO Act in the Senate.
If the PRO Act would become law, there would be no need for Amendment One, since right-to-work states would be outlawed under the amended NLRA through the PRO Act. That is, under the assumption Amendment One only goal is to eliminate right-to-work from ever coming to Illinois.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:47 am:
=== I enjoy the decentralization of power and positional authority within the statewide organizations that the Democrats utilize. In the short term it immediately prevented someone consolidating like Madigan and then perhaps being stupid enough to continue his blatantly illegal schemes and in the short term it makes it less likely for some one individual to have as much sway on Democratic Party politics in the state.===
It’s great many words to try to make it “Madigan”, but in reality, “objectively”, Madigan merely used DPI and a mail indicia, not much more, it’s not like there was any consolidating of any power except in a mailing.
Further, being told Kelly’s ascension would be one thing, and all the detractors saying it was another, labor warning their own donations might lead to actual violations, Kelly’s own supporters in the end agreed the objections were real hurdles “after all”
So, it boiled down to, like I was “told” in comments and in discussions in comments, it was a flexing of a muscle, and a rejection of the governor and his wants.
“How’s that going?”
When the governor, speaker, president, and labor all rejected the new DPI and that formation idea, I’d say it wasn’t going all that great. Still, DPI needs labor more than labor needs DPI, and if this is growing pains, having an admitted figurehead as the leader, nothing changes until the figure as status of any leader changes too.
===It’s a good thing and the problems posed by Chairperson Kelly are not a permanent feature.===
It’ll likely still be problematic as long as both caucuses and a governor kinda isolate DPI to their own devices, even as they cheer the lessons taught.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:47 am:
===your political analysis used to be more keen, more objective===
Oswego Willy is not wrong in his analysis. Federal campaign law and other rules governing the behavior of a member of congress have specifically limited Robin Kelly’s abilities to effectively helm the Democratic Party of Illinois as she is not allowed any involvement in some very important decisions. I think this is a good thing for the future of the Democratic Party in the State of Illinois even if it wasn’t intentional. It is not a good thing if you want the state party chairperson to be able to direct fundraising and spending.
OW’s analysis is fundamentally correct. If the intention was to have an incredibly limited chairperson of the state party then that’s what they’ve achieved. If that was not their intention at the outset, and it certainly wasn’t their publicly stated intention, some people should be asked to pack up and go home and not be asked over to play politics again. OW also did a very good job of highlighting these potential issues very early on in the discussion.
I was against the idea of Kelly as a party chair because I simply do not believe that a sitting member of congress has time to be an effective party chair or state central committee member while also being an effective member of congress and that state central committee positions should be filled by party activists, not federal elected officials or executive branch elected officials or elected legislators.
But OW was right about the impact of United States House of Representatives Member Robin Kelly’s elected office and he was right early and that has nothing to do with being partisan.
- walker - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:47 am:
Locking in at the state level those rights which are already “settled law” at the Federal level, might have seemed redundant, until this current court.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 10:57 am:
===just sayin following someone else’s talking points===
I have NO idea what this means, likely you have no idea what it means either. It’s drive by silly.
What exactly is your beef, where are my words wrong.
Thanks.
Also, - Candy Dogood -, I do need to clarify, while standing by my words;
I think, reading your words, we are in agreement but going about it two different routes, the thought to “Madigan”, I felt it necessary to highlight how Madigan actually treated DPI as a marker to “what’s next”
Your continued exceptional commenting proves again and again your award winning work makes comments here better.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 11:00 am:
And I do appreciate your follow up comment too, “to my defense”, much appreciated.
Thanks
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 11:03 am:
Walker nails it. We need to legally fortress up for labor.
- Sue - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 11:30 am:
OW- the pension clause was NEVER intended to extend to retiree health care benefits yet the geniuses on the Supreme Court cited to the pension clause when ruling the benefits were a contractual promise. This is what I meant by unintended consequences
- Surge voter - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 11:53 am:
OW
Yes Candy is much better at making her points. But you two always agree.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 12:00 pm:
- Surge voter
So, in the end, you agree with me, anyway… if you agree with - Candy Dogood - here and we are in agreement too…
Well, I feel a whole lot better, lol
You’ve added quite a bit today.
- Surge voter - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 12:41 pm:
OW
not really. She’s just better at spin.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 12:47 pm:
- Surge voter -
(Sigh)
Everyone’s a critic.
You’ve yet to add a single thing to this post, you could ignore what I write, and let the adults talk. Thanks.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 2:01 pm:
@Sue:
It’s not such a giant leap to rule that retiree health insurance is covered by the Constitution if you think of it as part of a person’s pension, which is a legitimate argument to make.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 23, 22 @ 2:28 pm:
===…yet the geniuses on the Supreme Court cited to the pension clause when ruling the benefits were a contractual promise===
That pesky constitution… what was that ruling… was it a split decision?