68 Comments - card - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:27 pm: Speaker Chris Rauner - ;) - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:29 pm: My thought…pretty simple…let them go. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:30 pm: Good on them, and good luck. Doesn’t matter if the employer is the Democratic Party, Boeing or someone else, when it comes to decent compensation and fair treatment. What’s good for the goose, so to speak. - Demoralized - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:31 pm: I know that legislative staffers are paid horribly compared to other state workers (yes I know they they work for the General Assembly but you can compare what they do to some state employee work). Maybe look at making the compensation better. That seems to be what’s driving this. Plus, it looks kinda bad for Speaker Welch to be making this effort more difficult. - Demoralized - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:32 pm: ==My thought…pretty simple…let them go.== Well aren’t you Mr. Union Buster. Sheesh. - Candy Dogood - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:32 pm: I wish them the best of luck in their pursuit and am disappointed that the Speaker would not voluntarily recognize the union. The Speaker’s office should set the tone for the state by paying employees for the time they work. Especially since they’re not going to be able to rely on getting no work lobbying contracts or other jobs as a part of a bribery scheme. - MisterJayEm - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:32 pm: “Thoughts?” Unions are good and good for you. – MrJM - :* - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:35 pm: —-My thought…pretty simple…let them go.—- That’s illegal, first of all. They can unionize if they want to. Anyone would with their wages and those kind of hours - Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:37 pm: What a difference between the current crop of staffers and those from a generation ago. Should be a very interesting case in light of the Constitutional Amendment that passed last year. - vern - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:40 pm: I’m supportive of a GA employees union, but this effort seems to be happening in the worst possible way. They need a change in state law. A small proposed bargaining unit making personal attacks on the speaker is a terrible way to accomplish that. They should go for as broad a unit as possible, and give the Speaker the opportunity to get to yes. They also could’ve waited until after session ended. That would have temporarily cost them some leverage, but that leverage would come back next year after they had time to build goodwill with Welch’s members and other unions. I just don’t understand the choice to be maximally combative right out of the gate. - Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:41 pm: === Anyone would with their wages and those kind of hours === Unless you felt that your work product and performance would ultimately bear better opportunities for you than if you unionized. - ;) - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:41 pm: Then see them court. - Demoralized - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:43 pm: ==Then see them court.== Apparently Bruce Rauner has some time to comment here on Capitol Fax. - Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:45 pm: “the Speaker would not voluntarily recognize the union because that would deny an opportunity for a democratic election” Agree 100% with the speaker. - /s - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:45 pm: It’s an interesting sign of the times on a few fronts. Firstly, support for unions is especially high, especially amongst young folks who dominate staff. Secondly, there was a time when staffers were willing to put up with a lot because they knew or hoped they’d (likely) eventually go on to secure pretty cushy gigs elsewhere after they put their time in (see Rich’s column from yesterday). Those days are seemingly on their way out if not already over. Bluntly, the Dems at both the state and national level have a tendency of running on workers’ rights - and then not putting the money where their mouth is when it comes to the treatment of their own staffs. In my opinion, this is a reckoning that’s long overdue. - Politistage - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:46 pm: “They need a chance in state law.” That is up for debate. With the passage of the constitutional amendment, it could supersede state law. Simply put, the Dem party can’t spend all this time and energy helping out and supporting unions and then not let there staff unionize. Highly hypocritical. Also, James Hartmann’s response is totally BS. Very Madigan answer. - Marty Funkhouser - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:46 pm: Legislative staff pay long has been an embarrassment. I’m sure they put up with it given who was in charge previously and the potentially lucrative lobbying career that could await them after leaving the House Democrats. Hopefully that’s changing. - CornAl DoGooder - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:47 pm: Unionizing political roles like this is more complicated than other government employees. See the difficulties with unionizing Congressional offices, or the mess with staff unionization in the California state legislature right now. Good luck to ILSA, this is going to take way more than a WBEZ article shaming the Speaker to get this done. - Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 3:50 pm: === I’m sure they put up with it given who was in charge previously and the potentially lucrative lobbying career that could await them after leaving the House Democrats. === Not sure that the previous Speaker has anything to do with this. I would think that some of these staffers would potentially have lucrative lobbying opportunities after they leave staff. - Reality - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:00 pm: =Not sure that the previous Speaker has anything to do with this= It was understood that if you put in your time on House staff under Madigan and Mapes leadership, you would be given prestigious jobs and contracts. That was a big selling point as to why suffering through the hours, low-pay and treatment endure while on staff was worth it. But they aren’t around to take care of their staffers post-staff nor dictate who gives who contracts anymore. It’s a free for all. For better and for worse. - Panther Pride - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:02 pm: 100% they should unionize. Leadership has been too slow to address the real, persistent, and valid concerns staff have had over salaries, time off, wild hours, and other protections. With the Workers’ Rights Amendment, any question of their ability to unionize should be answered. Plus, as noted in the post, these issues are major reasons why there’s so much staff turnover, especially in critical departments like LRB. Springfield needs good staff to function well and that doesn’t come with what’s in place currently. Like MrJM said, unions are good and good for you. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:02 pm: The right to organize is going to be tested, I wish them luck, but realize I’m not picking sides with that luck, I’m hoping for labor peace, union or not. To dismiss this, talk of “court”, that’s not understanding what “good faith” actually is and why folks unionize. - ;) - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:02 pm: Hartmann’s an excellent attorney and class act. His answer is entirely appropriate too, not bs. I feel bad that James is stuck with these folks…for the time being. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:03 pm: Trolls are gonna troll, even if they sound like Rauner :) - Arsenal - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:03 pm: Poor excuse from Hartman. Let the kids cook. - Friendly Bob Adams - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:09 pm: Interesting statement: “a separate election isn’t required as a majority of would-be members are in support”. How would they know this without an election? You can’t speak for any larger group of workers without giving them input, typically through an election. - Henry - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:11 pm: I know many will not agree but as an old staffer it was about the opportunity, relationships, etc not just the money. Staff was a stepping stone. 35 years later I am still in the building. - Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:12 pm: For the most part, it seems like the biggest issue, by far, is the issue of staff salaries. Since staffers are FLSA Exempt, they would not be entitled to any overtime or compensatory time for the long hours that are worked. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:13 pm: I’m generally supportive of unions, but I have mixed feelings about political staff from unionizing. You know what you’re getting into when you seek employment there. There are downsides, but there are upsides as well. If you succeed, you can move up or out to decent jobs. If you’re not so hot, they get rid of you by passing you off to other jobs. - Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:13 pm: === I know many will not agree but as an old staffer it was about the opportunity, relationships, etc not just the money. Staff was a stepping stone. 35 years later I am still in the building. === You hit the nail on the head Henry. - TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:14 pm: Support. Unquestionably. “The board said it cannot approve of the union’s filings because of a caveat in state law that says the board doesn’t cover General Assembly employees.” I see a few paths to recognition. 1) Address this directly in court with the ILRB, as the constitutional amendment to provide collective bargaining to ALL employees in the state overrides any state law to the contrary. Similar to how the constitution overrides those local flag burning laws. The ILRB might have some other specific legal analysis they can cite, but the example they provided is not sufficient to justify their denial. 2) Expand your membership to a similar union-friendly state, without the roadblock of having to argue against the ILRB in court. Once the union is recognized in one state, it can be recognized in IL. Gaining that recognition in another state does an end-run around the roadblocks with ILRB. – I can see why Welch wants to stay as distant as possible from this situation as it works out. At this point though I wouldn’t put his distance and decision to not get involved as a sign that he opposes the actions being taken by the employees. - Jonah - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:18 pm: === I know many will not agree but as an old staffer it was about the opportunity, relationships, etc not just the money. Staff was a stepping stone. 35 years later I am still in the building. === Yes, there are great opportunities to build connections and relationships. But opportunities don’t pay your rent in 2023. - Former Staffer - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:19 pm: Employees for elected officials have always been treated differently than other state government employees who may be under civil service or a collective bargaining agreement, and for good reason. Those elected officials are allowed to hire and fire staff based on political considerations, whereas that’s not the case with other state government employees. The industry poses different pros and cons as well. Many legislative staffers aspire to become a lobbyist or something more. These positions aren’t supposed to be too long-term. You’re supposed to work long hours at low pay for the chance to hone your skills and expand your network. I feel that this is coming out now with the last month of the legislative session so as to put pressure on Speaker Welch. What if the House Dem staff goes on strike next week? Will that logjam the House’s business? And how about a staffer that puts his boss in that kind of light. What is Speaker supposed to do now? Do nothing? That would set a dangerous precedent. Should Welch lock-out the employees? Terminate them and replace them with scabs? I believe he could under current law. He could find fresh college graduates or political operatives to take those jobs. It’s a very tough situation, and I think the employees are at a significant disadvantage. - Just Me 2 - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:19 pm: Hannibal - just think about that for a moment. You’re saying that staff time is a stepping stone for something greater. Okay. I get that. But I would prefer a General Assembly that has smart staff that are driven by doing great work, not finding the easiest way on to the next thing. - TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:19 pm: –it was about the opportunity, relationships, etc not just the money– Which one of things other than money, do landlords and grocery stores accept as payment? - Been There - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:20 pm: ==== I would think that some of these staffers would potentially have lucrative lobbying opportunities after they leave staff.==== I would emphasize the word “some”. Plenty of staffers will never do anything political or governmental after they leave those jobs. That being said the hours worked are something that is tough to fix. Especially since it doesn’t last all year round. But the money part is a blip in the state budget. Give them raises. Same with a bunch of the constitutional officer staffs. - Demoralized - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:21 pm: ==I feel bad that James is stuck with these folks== Yes, what absolutely horrible people these people are trying to stick up for themselves. How dare they, right? Remind me never to work for anyone like you. - BigLou - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:24 pm: I think I brought this issue up when the right to unionize was on the ballot because the way it was written was pretty loose about letting anyone with similar positions unionize and someone thought I was being ridiculous. So, my initial concern and current concern are if someone loses an election but their staffer is now in a union is that staffer going to play nice with whoever beat the person that hired them? Will they be loyal and work diligently for the new person? If they are in the union they cant be let go by the new person. - Anon - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:25 pm: === I know many will not agree but as an old staffer it was about the opportunity, relationships, etc not just the money. Staff was a stepping stone. 35 years later I am still in the building. === Totally agree. And as someone who is also still in the building, I won’t be recommending these folks for work in the future. - Panther Pride - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:26 pm: ==I know many will not agree but as an old staffer== Henry, I’ll be one of those. Connections are absolutely critical in our business, but that’s not the all-important factor if you can’t also pay your bills are get saddled with debt to make those relationships. ==35 years later== Just for some context, a starting salary of $20,000 in 1988 is the equivalent of $51,000 today. I obviously don’t know what your starting salary was, but if it was anywhere near $20k, current staff are being shorted nearly $10k to make an equivalent starting salary. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:28 pm: ===And as someone who is also still in the building, I won’t be recommending these folks for work in the future.=== Again, not taking sides, my hope is labor peace in whatever form that is, but to target these folks is *EXACTLY* why one of the reasons labor unions exist… retaliation. If you decide not to hire a union member, “ok”, but realize too, Staff talks. It’s a can of worms - Incandenza - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:28 pm: This confrontation could have been easily avoided had staff complaints been taken into consideration and compensation improved. From what I gather, this has been a long time coming. - Demoralized - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:31 pm: ==I won’t be recommending these folks for work in the future== Just out of curiousity are you a Republican or Democrat? - City Zen - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:40 pm: ==slowed down in part by caveats in the state’s labor laws== The Workers Rights Amendment might have something to say about that. It is amusing that many pro-labor organizations tend to slow down the organizing process when they’re the ones being organized. - Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:43 pm: Quoted: === I know many will not agree but as an old staffer it was about the opportunity, relationships, etc not just the money. Staff was a stepping stone. 35 years later I am still in the building. === Totally agree. And as someone who is also still in the building, I won’t be recommending these folks for work in the future.=== end quotes. And this right here folks, is how bad working conditions are perpetuated, with dishonest quid pro quos that have nothing actually backing them but your trust. You treat these people as temporary and disposable, you pay them a pittance because they have no power, and somewhere in the mists of time, there used to be a social contract and they were getting knowledge and contacts and networking opportunities as a side benefit of 18-hour days fetching food and drink orders and doing constituent outreach or filing boring paperwork or any of a dozen other tasks that would pay minimum wage or better, anywhere outside of the capitol dome, and these underlings should just be grateful for this wondrous opportunity blah, blah blah… but here, they’re essentially the same as undocumented migrant workers. Everybody needs them to do their scutwork, but nobody wants to pay them a realistic wage for the time and energy they put in. That old-fashioned social contract? Almost nobody honors that today. These workers are seen as having a mayfly two-year lifespan and out, like interns. And if the workers don’t just keep their mouths shut and smile and take it, they are under threat of not just firing, but being blackballed from any further advancement in their career. Where have I heard of this kind of thing before… i’m trying to jog my memory…? Oh my lord, how surprising they might want to unionize. I’d expect such cold heartedness on the GOP side, but Dems acting like robber barons of old, suppressing labor, that just makes me sick to hear. Do better. - Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:48 pm: === Hannibal - just think about that for a moment. You’re saying that staff time is a stepping stone for something greater. Okay. I get that. But I would prefer a General Assembly that has smart staff that are driven by doing great work, not finding the easiest way on to the next thing. === I am not sure I understand your comment. Nobody said that being on staff is easy or a guaranteed way to move on to the next thing. There have been plenty of staffers over the years that smart, immensely productive and eventually moved on to the next stages of their careers. - Hannibal Lecter - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:51 pm: === but here, they’re essentially the same as undocumented migrant workers. === Seriously? - Politistage - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 4:58 pm: To correct the record, these ARENT political jobs. They can’t be for clear ethical reasons. Political jobs are only campaign related. Second, who the heck cares if they are stepping stone type jobs, you still shouldn’t have to work a second job or struggle to pay your bills. That’s ridiculous. Also, just because a job was one way for decades doesn’t mean people should be treated the same. They low pay and poor benefits shouldn’t be accepted at any job, much less the people who help create the laws. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 5:00 pm: Panther if you’re not earning a sustainable wage, I would suggest asking to be moved to an agency. It’s not simply about the money. Staff jobs gave me the sense of doing something meaningful. It also gave me experiences of a lifetime. Staff is not generally a long-term job. Most depart at a youthful age. I only know a couple of contemporaries who stuck around for long career. - SaulGoodman - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 5:02 pm: ** Totally agree. And as someone who is also still in the building, I won’t be recommending these folks for work in the future.** Wow. - Politistage - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 5:07 pm: Norseman, that is the same line of thinking to say artists shouldn’t be paid because the experience was valuable. That line of thinking is slowly, but surely, dying out. A job can be meaningful and paid adequately with fair benefits. It shouldn’t be one or the other. You wonder why so many industries are seeing a staff shortage issue? - MyTwoCents - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 5:16 pm: $43,000 starting salary isn’t a horrible wage, but there should be adequate compensation for the long and basically unpaid hours. But it seems like if the Speaker had addressed some of those issues this could have been avoided. The personnel issues everybody is facing in 2023 is the perfect opportunity to advocate for increased funding for the General Assembly in order to retain staff. - Henry - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 5:48 pm: Thank you for your well thought out comments. I can not disagree with you current compensation does not pay the bills. The $14,500 that I started with didn’t pay the bills. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 6:58 pm: === there should be adequate compensation for the long and basically unpaid hours. === They are on salary. No overtime. They know that going in. Besides, after the end of session things slow down. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 7:00 pm: I’m jealous Henry, that’s $2,500 more than my starting. - Leslie K - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 7:15 pm: Salaried work is salaried work–no OT. But that doesn’t justify offering a basic salary that doesn’t allow someone working those long hours, with highly valued skills, to pay the rent and buy groceries. There has to be a balance. And if you work 14 hr days, even if for only a few months, you can’t work a second job. Also, the work at LRB, for instance, is different than the work in Tech Review, Issues, Research (I might be showing my age if those names are different now). Tech and Issues are something of a scramble and maybe are a bit more like an internship. But LRB, Research (the budget…) need the consistency that a living wage can provide. - Langhorne - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 7:31 pm: Similar to Henry, I started with a commission for $13,500 yr., partisan staff $15,000 per year. During session, blew past 40 hours, usually sometime Wednesday. One session day I was passing through the glass doors from Stratton, and some kid was going out at the same time. He looked at me and asked, are you powerful? “I said no, but I am occasionally influential.” Staffers do the job for the satisfaction (and thrill) of working on things that matter. It is a credential, and shared experience. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 7:34 pm: Politistage, Artists and oranges. I’m sure the leaders can deal with any staffing shortage. - don the legend - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 7:54 pm: Which union would they join? - Norseman - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 7:58 pm: Been There, I take it that you’ve not been there. All of the colleagues I worked with took jobs in lobbying, government or politics. Staff I got to know after I left did the same. - Spice Girls Gen - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 8:20 pm: Well… not everyone is expected to just work for good boy points and thrills. Speaker’s Chief of Staff is pulling in more than $15k/month. It’s published in the “salary database” on the comptroller’s website (agency: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (C)). - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 10:55 pm: Color me shocked that no labor unions have issued statements in support of the organizers. Equally shocking is the fact that no HD members have publicly come out in favor of the effort. Hmmm… wonder why? Unions nationally have pushed for card check whereby if 50 percent plus one workers signed a card, they wouldn’t need a vote. Employers opposed it noting that a private election was needed. Glad to see the Speaker agreeing with the private sector over labor. - low level - Tuesday, May 2, 23 @ 11:02 pm: ==What a difference between the current crop of staffers and those from a generation ago== My thoughts exactly. I am beyond belief old now I guess. - Norseman - Wednesday, May 3, 23 @ 12:26 am: === Color me shocked that no labor unions have issued statements in support of the organizers. === Who does the union go to when they need legislation or help in opposing legislation? - Oldtimer - Wednesday, May 3, 23 @ 6:06 am: Anyone remember when the four leaders at the time, MJM, Rock, Philip, and Daniels, squashed the attempt by the print shop to unionize? If the staff(s) are allowed to unionize, what would prevent them turning down OT and simply leaving at 4:30 on a session day? - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 3, 23 @ 6:28 am: === If the staff(s) are allowed to unionize, what would prevent them turning down OT and simply leaving at 4:30 on a session day?=== If it is important to management, it will be a topic of negotiation and put into the CBA with terms acceptable to both sides. - Stuck in Celliniland - Wednesday, May 3, 23 @ 11:26 am: ==If the staff(s) are allowed to unionize, what would prevent them turning down OT and simply leaving at 4:30 on a session day?== Similarly, say “the heck with it, I’m not coming in Memorial Day weekend.” Perhaps bring up in negotations that all GA sessions must end by 4:30PM the Friday before Memorial Day, or it’s supermajority time–and that the GA will be barred from meeting on Memorial Day or other state and federal holidays. - Attitude - Friday, May 5, 23 @ 3:52 pm: Senate Democrats should take notes. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.