I have not decided but I have a question. I don’t know if I’m explaining this right but under the proposed amendment, can the chiefs of staff for all state reps and senators form a union? Can all those political jobs in the SOS office form a union? Is it written in a way that people that can say they all have similar jobs feel they need to unionize because their positions are at risk due to non-job related issues (elections) so once they form a union they can’t be let go?
I am not anti-union or worker, but I am management and from my perspective there are significant worker protections in Illinois. Some of the most extensive in the country.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:36 pm:
Yes.
While the rights might be legislative currently, an amendment prevents those rights from being taken away legislatively.
In our new world of using the courts as a weapon of the minority, it is more important than ever to not rely on legislation exclusively for what we have decided should be our rights.
Voted yes, only thing on the ballot that required some deliberation (followed ABA recommendations on judges). Catanzara alone was enough to make me question my vote.
I am voting “Yes,” because of the following language in the Amendment:
No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.
I can imagine a time in the future when such language might be proposed, and want any such efforts to be required to go beyond executive orders, or partisan efforts by politicians in the legislature.
Voted early. Voted against it. Think the government unions already have enough power. Under the current environment, it’s already extremely hard to push back against the government employee unions.
- West Side the Best Side - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:12 pm:
Even if I hadn’t decided to vote Yes right away, the fact the Trib, WSJ and Herald are against it would have cinched it for me. Also voting Yes on the Cook County Forest Preserve rate increase.
The amendment would also reverse the decision against AFSCME making it illegal to force/require people working in union positions to become members of the union…right? If so, I’m a yes. If you don’t want to be in a union, let someone else have the job.
No law shall be passed 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,…
Someone please tell me what “…other terms and conditions…” means. To me that is an all-encompassing statement that will be enshrined in our state constitution. Way to broad for me personally.
Voted yes - unions built the middle class in this country, and the deference to business and the billionaires has largely destroyed it. I want it back, and protected.
I voted Yes. If this passes, collective bargaining will continue in the same manner that it is conducted today. This simply prohibits a future Rauner from trying to take away workers rights. It does nothing more. Anyone who has ever negotiated a collective bargaining agreement knows that management always has the upper hand and always will. It’s easy to sit there and say no (management). It is extrememly difficult to convince a group of people to put their paycheck on the line and hit the sidewalk (union). This amendment doesn’t change that dynamic.
- “ I am not anti-union or worker, but I am management and from my perspective there are significant worker protections in Illinois. Some of the most extensive in the country.”
=Wisconsin also had significant worker protections until 2015.=
Illinois isn’t Wisconsin.
When we enter any dispute, the position of the ILRB starts in favor of the employee.
I don’t gripe about the state of the labor rules or complain that I have to bargain most everything with our union. Those are the rules and our teachers are good and reasonable people.
But, I do believe that the worker protections in Illinois are more than appropriate.
You don’t have to believe it or agree,but I do know first hand what my experiences have been. I encourage you to vote your conscience.
- Osborne Smith III - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:51 pm:
I voted early and this was an easy “Yes” vote for me.
The one question I have about this being on the ballot. Who proposed it? Name the person who thought of it, wrote it, promoted it and got it on the ballot. Name the person, not the group.
As a former local president, this is a no-brainer–I voted yes.
- Bourbon Street - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:35 pm:
I voted “yes”—this was an easy vote for me. I come from a blue collar background. I was a member of a private sector union and later on in life was a member of a public sector union.
Voted no.
We can’t afford to drive more businesses out of Illinois. We already have the highest unemployment rate and -2.5% economic growth in Illinois for the first 3 quarters of 2022
-@Constitutional Watcher: Terms and conditions cover sick pay, vacation time, holidays, maternity/paternity leave, health insurance, etc—
They why not list these items instead of how the amendment is worded. And what do you mean by “etc.”? You seem to be supporting the issue I have with the vague wording of the amendment.
Yes. One constant in my life is ultra-rich (starting with the Coors, et. al., that Reagan talked out of a 3rd party through Griffin / Uihlein) find people like John Tillman who recruits minions to repackage pre-New Deal attempts to destroy unions.
- Original Rambler - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 8:18 pm:
Leaning no. Current law offers sufficient protections. Open to having my mind changed though.
=Constitutional Amendments serve public sector unions only. Voted no.=
This statement is incorrect. While Federal law generally preempts state law with respect to private sector collective bargaining. The NLRA allows state law to prohibit union security agreements. A state passing this prohibition is what we all know as “right-to-work”.
To put it simply, the second sentence of the CA protect private sector unions from future “right to work” laws. If you want to keep Illinois from ever becoming a “right to work” state….vote yes with me.
Voting yes. We need to ensure that our rights are protected. We might have a democratic majority in the legislature now but it’s not guaranteed and our rights aren’t guaranteed (we saw this with rauner)
I voted yes. I’m a woman. Thought for years my rights were constitutionally protected and would stay that way. *sigh* it only takes one administration…
- Lurker - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:48 pm:
No I have not. Finding true, impartial assessments has been hard. I may just skip it.
- BigLou - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:56 pm:
I have not decided but I have a question. I don’t know if I’m explaining this right but under the proposed amendment, can the chiefs of staff for all state reps and senators form a union? Can all those political jobs in the SOS office form a union? Is it written in a way that people that can say they all have similar jobs feel they need to unionize because their positions are at risk due to non-job related issues (elections) so once they form a union they can’t be let go?
- Benjamin - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:56 pm:
Yes. Voted for it.
- JMJ - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:59 pm:
Voting yes, need to IPI/Billionaire proof worker rights in this state
- Curious citizen - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:00 pm:
I voted for it because I want higher property taxes. /s
I truly believe that the ability for workers to bargain collectively is a basic right and needs to be spelled out.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:05 pm:
Early voted and followed the editorial boards of the Daily Herald, Chicago Tribune, and The Wall Street Journal in voting NO.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:07 pm:
Not sure on this one. I will need to read the text. But in general I’m in support of the right of workers to organize.
- Chicago 20 - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:08 pm:
I’m voting yes.
Workers rights are basic human rights.
- AnonymousFool - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:13 pm:
Voted yes, because anything that makes Billionaires pay more is good in my book.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:18 pm:
I am going to vote “no”.
I am not anti-union or worker, but I am management and from my perspective there are significant worker protections in Illinois. Some of the most extensive in the country.
- Amalia - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:23 pm:
Voting Yes. A basic statement to support unions gets me every time.
- ANNON'IN - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:23 pm:
Voted “Yes” The Rauner years were enough to tell me that the Billionaires light touch should be rejected for ever
- Rachel - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:32 pm:
Voted yes. This is an easy one.
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:36 pm:
Yes.
While the rights might be legislative currently, an amendment prevents those rights from being taken away legislatively.
In our new world of using the courts as a weapon of the minority, it is more important than ever to not rely on legislation exclusively for what we have decided should be our rights.
- Benniefly2 - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:39 pm:
I am a dues paying union member who has already voted yes on the amendment.
- SIUEalum - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:46 pm:
Voted yes, only thing on the ballot that required some deliberation (followed ABA recommendations on judges). Catanzara alone was enough to make me question my vote.
- NotRich - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:47 pm:
I already voted. NO.. I think it’s overkill
- H-W - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:48 pm:
I am voting “Yes,” because of the following language in the Amendment:
No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.
I can imagine a time in the future when such language might be proposed, and want any such efforts to be required to go beyond executive orders, or partisan efforts by politicians in the legislature.
- RNUG - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:58 pm:
Voted early. Voted against it. Think the government unions already have enough power. Under the current environment, it’s already extremely hard to push back against the government employee unions.
- very old soil - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:09 pm:
I will vote “Yes”
- West Side the Best Side - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:12 pm:
Even if I hadn’t decided to vote Yes right away, the fact the Trib, WSJ and Herald are against it would have cinched it for me. Also voting Yes on the Cook County Forest Preserve rate increase.
- cermak_rd - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:13 pm:
Voting yes. Majorities don’t last forever and I’d rather CfG-proof our labor rights.
- Politix - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:25 pm:
The amendment would also reverse the decision against AFSCME making it illegal to force/require people working in union positions to become members of the union…right? If so, I’m a yes. If you don’t want to be in a union, let someone else have the job.
- twowaystreet - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:26 pm:
Leaning yes, but still haven’t fully commitment. I don’t think either side has made a compelling argument.
- Constitutional Watcher - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:27 pm:
From the wording:
No law shall be passed 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,…
Someone please tell me what “…other terms and conditions…” means. To me that is an all-encompassing statement that will be enshrined in our state constitution. Way to broad for me personally.
I will be voting no.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:34 pm:
Voted yes, this was a no brainer for me.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:37 pm:
Voted yes - unions built the middle class in this country, and the deference to business and the billionaires has largely destroyed it. I want it back, and protected.
- Justin - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:39 pm:
Voted by mail, and voted YES to put a lid on IPI’s toxic anti-union agenda.
- Huh? - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:49 pm:
Sheba and I voted early and voted yes.
There are too many threats against unions that it ought to be a constitutional right to bargain.
Strong unions were the backbone of the middle class.
- CD - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:50 pm:
I voted Yes. If this passes, collective bargaining will continue in the same manner that it is conducted today. This simply prohibits a future Rauner from trying to take away workers rights. It does nothing more. Anyone who has ever negotiated a collective bargaining agreement knows that management always has the upper hand and always will. It’s easy to sit there and say no (management). It is extrememly difficult to convince a group of people to put their paycheck on the line and hit the sidewalk (union). This amendment doesn’t change that dynamic.
- DHS Drone - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:01 pm:
Voted yes. Can’t take rights for granted in this country. Stronger protections we can get for certain things, the better.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:03 pm:
As stated on the ballot, the failure to vote this ballot may be the equivalent of a negative vote.
- Chicago 20 - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:07 pm:
- “ I am not anti-union or worker, but I am management and from my perspective there are significant worker protections in Illinois. Some of the most extensive in the country.”
Wisconsin also had significant worker protections until 2015.
https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/10/workers-lost-ground-on-wages-in-wake-of-wisconsins-anti-labor-laws/#
- Captain Obvious - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:15 pm:
No for me. It is completely necessary. The protections for unions in existing law are adequate.
- Now What? - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:19 pm:
Will be voting YES to avoid becoming Wisconsin. Memorializing the language and protections is most important to me.
- danray - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:20 pm:
I will be voting YES on November 8. The more protection for workers from the robber/baron class is a good thing.
- Politix - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:34 pm:
@Constitutional Watcher: Terms and conditions cover sick pay, vacation time, holidays, maternity/paternity leave, health insurance, etc.
- Guzzlepot - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:37 pm:
I voted yes. More union members will solve a host of problems.
- Kane County Critic - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:40 pm:
I’m voting no. The public sector unions already have enough power. Anyone who says otherwise has clearly not been paying attention.
- PublicServant - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:46 pm:
Voted Yes…There’s more Bruce Rauner’s out there, and being in the constitution saved pensions from the thieves previously.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:46 pm:
Power to the people.
Voted yes.
- New Day - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:49 pm:
Still undecided. Public sector unions are over-represented. Still not clear how it protects private sector organizing, if at all.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:50 pm:
=Wisconsin also had significant worker protections until 2015.=
Illinois isn’t Wisconsin.
When we enter any dispute, the position of the ILRB starts in favor of the employee.
I don’t gripe about the state of the labor rules or complain that I have to bargain most everything with our union. Those are the rules and our teachers are good and reasonable people.
But, I do believe that the worker protections in Illinois are more than appropriate.
You don’t have to believe it or agree,but I do know first hand what my experiences have been. I encourage you to vote your conscience.
- Osborne Smith III - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:51 pm:
I voted early and this was an easy “Yes” vote for me.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:01 pm:
The one question I have about this being on the ballot. Who proposed it? Name the person who thought of it, wrote it, promoted it and got it on the ballot. Name the person, not the group.
- Consider This - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:11 pm:
Constitutional Amendments serve public sector unions only. Voted no.
- Moved East - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:23 pm:
I will be voting no. I am all for expanded right for private unions, but I do not believe that public sector workers should be able to organize.
- G'Kar - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:25 pm:
As a former local president, this is a no-brainer–I voted yes.
- Bourbon Street - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:35 pm:
I voted “yes”—this was an easy vote for me. I come from a blue collar background. I was a member of a private sector union and later on in life was a member of a public sector union.
- Jpf - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:50 pm:
Voted no.
We can’t afford to drive more businesses out of Illinois. We already have the highest unemployment rate and -2.5% economic growth in Illinois for the first 3 quarters of 2022
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:53 pm:
Voted yes. As what feels like one of the few government workers that doesn’t have a union (and is consequently routinely exploited), this is easy.
- Nagidam - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:57 pm:
@politix
-@Constitutional Watcher: Terms and conditions cover sick pay, vacation time, holidays, maternity/paternity leave, health insurance, etc—
They why not list these items instead of how the amendment is worded. And what do you mean by “etc.”? You seem to be supporting the issue I have with the vague wording of the amendment.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 7:10 pm:
Yes. One constant in my life is ultra-rich (starting with the Coors, et. al., that Reagan talked out of a 3rd party through Griffin / Uihlein) find people like John Tillman who recruits minions to repackage pre-New Deal attempts to destroy unions.
- Original Rambler - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 8:18 pm:
Leaning no. Current law offers sufficient protections. Open to having my mind changed though.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 8:52 pm:
=Constitutional Amendments serve public sector unions only. Voted no.=
This statement is incorrect. While Federal law generally preempts state law with respect to private sector collective bargaining. The NLRA allows state law to prohibit union security agreements. A state passing this prohibition is what we all know as “right-to-work”.
To put it simply, the second sentence of the CA protect private sector unions from future “right to work” laws. If you want to keep Illinois from ever becoming a “right to work” state….vote yes with me.
- Yes - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 10:53 pm:
I’ll vote yes tomorrow. Easy call. If IPI is hard against it’s got to be good.
- AU - Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 10:58 pm:
Voting yes. We need to ensure that our rights are protected. We might have a democratic majority in the legislature now but it’s not guaranteed and our rights aren’t guaranteed (we saw this with rauner)
- Peanut Gallery - Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 8:32 am:
I voted yes. I’m a woman. Thought for years my rights were constitutionally protected and would stay that way. *sigh* it only takes one administration…