47 Comments - Rabid - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 11:56 am: Being elected is not a registered business - Politix - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:02 pm: Pritzker has taken the best position. Let people go through the process and if they win, they win. I really want to know what precipitated this. - Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:04 pm: Several components to this: 1. Legal - Based on the Worker’s Rights Amendment, it is likely that these employees have the right to organize and form a union. 2. Political - With all of the support that the Governor and the Speaker put behind the Worker’s Rights Amendment, it would certainly be a bad look to publicly argue that these workers should not be recognized as their own bargaining unit. Also, there is a political component for organized labor. What political impact does this have on the labor agenda if umbrella groups such as the CFL or AFL-CIO or individual unions such as Local 150 come out in support of the staff workers? Policy - Having Speaker’s Staff unionized is a horrible policy. Staff workers are supposed to be aligned with legislators to help get their agendas passed and to promote legislators in their districts. They are at-will employees. I do not know what exactly they want to bargain for, but most of those things will not be good for management. - Aero - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:07 pm: ==And also a question about whether the other people who work in state government for the legislature want to be part of a union, because, again, nobody’s preventing anybody from having a union, no one’s also saying you have to be unionized.== Careful, Governor. Sounds like a right-to-work talking point. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:10 pm: It would be helpful to know which positions are included in the unit (House Dem staff, all House staff, all GA staff, are admin assistants included, etc.) and what percent have signed cards (if that is the route they are taking). If the Speaker is resisting, what is he doing? Management sometimes argues over defining the bargaining unit as a stalling tactic, but it is also a legitimate concern for both workers and management. Perhaps this information is out there, but I have not seen it in news reports. I assume those trying to organize read this blog; I hope they can shed some more light. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:16 pm: To my comments to yesterday and applying them here to this quote, I find myself aligned with Pritzker’s own thoughts and my comments. Where I differ, I suppose, is looking at the nature of partisan staffs designed and aligned along the partisan. Will slots then be “union preferences” as the counterpart with HGOP still not unionized? That and those discussions also align the thinking we both seemingly share. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:19 pm: Wait wait wait…what does it matter “what they’re demanding”? That’s irrelevant It super bugs me that that was your immediate response. With political gymnastics you avoided saying you support them but affirmed their ability to organize. To me it seems like lip service. I maybe just a regular union member But I would rather hear a resounding yes from him. Not “I don’t know the specifics of what they’re demanding” Cripes Maybe you should suggest that the Speaker throw the 20 a nice pizza party, that usually quells dissenting voices from “demanding” S/ - Milly94 - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:26 pm: Since so many of the people debating this topic this week feel partisan staff shouldn’t be allowed to unionize, what is your suggestion? The staff deserve much better pay, benefits and the ability to work remotely when lawmakers aren’t in Springfield for session. Some of the staff do more work than their lawmakers who are clueless about what committees they are supposed to be in or the specific bills up for votes. The idea of serving for decades without questioning authority is over. Clearly, some of you are still lost in the old days of telling workers to keep their heads in the sand and not ask for anything better. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:35 pm: ===Some of the staff do more work than their lawmakers who are clueless about what committees they are supposed to be in or the specific bills up for votes.=== That’s the voters fault and the “privilege” of being elected. It’s like carrying a golf bag for a truly awful member of a country club, and the looper can outplay the member. Welp, the member is the player, the caddy is just that. ===The idea of serving for decades without questioning authority is over. Clearly, some of you are still lost in the old days of telling workers to keep their heads in the sand and not ask for anything better.=== At what point do workers in this instance work “at the pleasure of the caucus”? Here’s kinda a better phrasing than I had yesterday; ===there does need to be a point at which the organizers get their workers together to determine what it is that they want.=== If the goal first is to organize, then do so, but what end game is wanted? Hours? Money? Vacation? Remote work? The partisan part, for me, if politics don’t align in a position designed to serve partisan politics, will now that disagreement be something more vocal where union protection could allow? Clarifying some things could help. Again, if they want to organize, do so. - Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:36 pm: === Wait wait wait…what does it matter “what they’re demanding”? That’s irrelevant === Wrong. It matters very much what they are demanding. Are they requesting to bargain on their status as at-will employees? Can only be terminated for just cause? Promotional framework? Working hours? There are a lot of items that are generally bargained by collective bargaining units that would be inappropriate for House Dem caucus staff. It’s one thing if you are front line workers at a DMV. It’s another thing if you are tasked with assisting elected officials work through their policy items, political issues or constituent outreach. I am not a big fan of placing a white collar workforce into the blue collar employment framework. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:41 pm: @Honeybear I believe this is an unintended consequence of the Workers Rights Amendment and the General Assembly will have to deal with it. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about it. That being said these people have no business being a part of a union. There are certain positions where union membership is not appropriate (mine is one) and these positions in my opinion should not be part of a union. - Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:46 pm: === The staff deserve much better pay, benefits and the ability to work remotely when lawmakers aren’t in Springfield for session. === 1. They may deserve better pay. Ask for it. You don’t need a union to do that. Especially if you are an exceptionally talented individual that stands out from the rest of the group. 2. Benefits are usually the same for all state employees. What benefits are available to other employees that staff members don’t already have? They already have access to health insurance, pension, etc. 3. Ability to work remotely - No government employee has a right to work remotely. If the Speaker wants to implement remote work within his office he can, but even with a union in place he can say no remote work. The landscape of staff today is much different from what is was just a decade ago. I understand that most current staff does not perform work on the political side and now they are siloed into specific areas. This job is not a lifetime job. Most people use it to hone their skills and then move on to more rewarding endeavors. - Socially DIstant watcher - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:48 pm: There are plenty of workers who can’t organize. Management, for example. Elected officials, for another. People who act on behalf of elected officials? Probably not. If they want a raise or paid time off or comp time or whatever, that can be worked out. But if they want anything like job security or an expectation of continued employment? That seems incompatible with the nature of their jobs. Legislators don’t have that and neither should their staffs. - Sue - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 12:50 pm: Managers /supervisors and confidential administrators are typically excluded from a union. I can’t see that the work these individuals perform should exclude them. Once again the same people who foist a union on everyone else CAN’T with a straight face argue their staff can’t belong to a union- lots of highly technical workers performing critical functions have union reoresentation - Honeybear - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:00 pm: HL- with respect I totally disagree. The Workers Rights Amendment is very clear on this point It doesn’t matter what you do or demanding, if you are a worker/employee and not management you have the right to organize and form a union. It’s clear language Now the details and how it all works out in the end is anyone’s guess. That’s what bargaining is for. But the Workers Rights Amendment passes and so management no longer gets to say whether they should be able to form a union. Workers now have the right to organize Management needs to realize this. The doors are off the gate. - Poli-fact - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:06 pm: ===== 2. Benefits are usually the same for all state employees. What benefits are available to other employees that staff members don’t already have? They already have access to health insurance, pension, etc.===== They don’t have the same benefits as other state agencies. Leave policies between the House and Senate versus other state agencies are different. Vacation and sick time are the same formula, but less maternity/paternity leave, less bereavement leave, less organ donation leave, etc. ==== This job is not a lifetime job. Most people use it to hone their skills and then move on to more rewarding endeavors.==== It doesn’t have to be. What if people like those jobs? There are people that have been in those jobs for years and they should be able to make a living wage. Why do you want to incentivize people to use that job as a stepping stone? You lose all that institutional knowledge every time someone leaves. Whether or not someone wants to use that job for a stepping stone is irrelevant to the bigger point. The job should still have adequate pay, adequate benefits, and a robust HR structure. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:09 pm: ===CAN’T with a straight face argue=== - Sue -, I don’t even know what they want. Organize? Ok. Now what? Your disingenuous look at this is a want to see division and look at what IPI and others say are “dangers” with collective bargaining and wage considerations and benefits. - Red headed step child - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:10 pm: ==And also a question about whether the other people who work in state government for the legislature want to be part of a union, because, again, nobody’s preventing anybody from having a union, no one’s also saying you have to be unionized.== Careful, Governor. Sounds like a right-to-work talking point. Or he was referring to the Janus ruling? - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:14 pm: ===It doesn’t have to be. What if people like those jobs? There are people that have been in those jobs for years and they should be able to make a living wage. Why do you want to incentivize people to use that job as a stepping stone? You lose all that institutional knowledge every time someone leaves.=== Is there an argument that codifying these jobs with union protections outside the political turnovers… does that mean it’s now institutionalized that staff will be running the chamber because those workers never leave? It’s why I despise term limits in this window; Lobbyists and career staff gain more power as they never leave. Now, it doesn’t mean it will work that way, but union protections that allow longer careers, in a partisan framing… If they want to organize, do so. What exactly are the wants, pointedly specific. - Google Is Your Friend - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:21 pm: 1) A lot of managers and supervisors were in unions in Illinois state government. https://www.journalstandard.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/08/30/lawmakers-approved-keeping-some-workers/36574283007/ 2) Some of the questions here can be answered by helpfully clicking the link in the post that says, ” Background is here.” Reading before commenting, some of you need to try it! - Steve - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:21 pm: I understand the Speaker’s concern even if he looks like a hypocrite. Government at the Speakers’ level might not work so well with a unionized workforce. But, Illinois is a union state so I fully expect it might happen. No doubt this will change the relationship between elected representatives and staff. - Poli-fact - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:24 pm: ===== Is there an argument that codifying these jobs with union protections outside the political turnovers… does that mean it’s now institutionalized that staff will be running the chamber because those workers never leave?==== I hate to burst your bubble, but that already is happening, with or without a union. Legislators need the staff to do their jobs effectively and the knowledge staff provides informs the legislators decisions. Whether a staffer has been there for 1 year or 10 years, they already inform and influence the decisions legislators make. - Milly94 - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:28 pm: Unionizing shouldn’t change the relationship between lawmakers and staff. If you were in the statehouse this spring, you may have seen many House Democrats wearing pins supporting the effort to unionize. Although, some of the members hid their pins so they wouldn’t get ridiculed by Welch’s leadership team. Several states have allowed legislative staff to unionize and the most liberal state in the Midwest is afraid to do it? That’s just wrong. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:29 pm: ===I hate to burst your bubble=== Yeah. No. John Amdor alone is showing that happening with every update on seniority and the leaving of institutional knowledge. Solidifying the workforce that will make it impossible at times to make a change is the argument. Good try. ===Legislators need the staff to do their jobs effectively and the knowledge staff provides informs the legislators decisions. Whether a staffer has been there for 1 year or 10 years, they already inform and influence the decisions legislators make.=== And? The question remains if Theresa demand for security outside of the “at the pleasure of the caucus” type of thought. What are they demanding to that? There’s discussion to higher pay, remote work, “what else” - Retired School Board Member - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:30 pm: Here is the organizing process: 1. Either get recognized or go to an election. 2. Once the unit is recognized or has won an election, it is then, and only then, that discussions about demands start. Either workers have the right to organize or they don’t. What the workers put forth in CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS has literally nothing to do with their right to organize. The right to organize is not conditional on what the workers want and to suggest that it is is ridiculous. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:31 pm: This is silly on its face. It can’t be both. ===Unionizing shouldn’t change the relationship between lawmakers and staff. If you were in the statehouse this spring, you may have seen many House Democrats wearing pins supporting the effort to unionize. Although, some of the members hid their pins so they wouldn’t get ridicule=== You can’t say there’s no difference, and yet a hiding of the pins to avoid ridicule. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:32 pm: ===The right to organize is not conditional on what the workers want and to suggest that it is is ridiculous. === Agreed. Let’s move along. - Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:34 pm: === It doesn’t have to be. What if people like those jobs? === How many people that are currently on staff were there five years ago? I only know of three people on staff that were there from that time and they are all in management. Its a grueling job. It is oftentimes unpleasant. But its a job that needs to get done to promote the caucus. There were a number of staff members that would stay 10 years or more, but not too much more than that. At a certain point you hit a wall and there are no opportunities for upward mobility - unless you go into management. To be perfectly honest, the current crop isn’t at the level of where they were 5-10 years ago. Not saying there isn’t talent, but they just don’t have the experience level yet. And there is a lot that staff misses by not working on the political side. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:35 pm: ===The right to organize is not conditional on what the workers want and to suggest that it is is ridiculous.=== (Sigh) Since I’ve continually stated they should organize, this is ridiculous to then wonder aloud what exactly do they want… I mean, isn’t a reason to organize to get demands met? They work in a partisan political playpen. Leverage to wants to win means at some point having clear demands, no? - Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:35 pm: === Unionizing shouldn’t change the relationship between lawmakers and staff. === It will. It is inherent in the process. - Ex Staff - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:51 pm: One of the natural consequences of starting the salaries at 40k a year is that the type of person who applies for this job is someone out of college. They’re not doing it to be a part of the Madigan machine, or really any machine, anymore. The Speaker’s Office should accept that their staff is going to be reflective of what the Democratic Party would look like if it were made up of Gen Z recent college graduates. To the people in this thread who say “partisan staff shouldn’t unionize.” Did you know that the DNC is unionized? Biden’s campaign is unionized? DC Congressional Staff is (increasingly) unionized? (Look up the Congressional Workers Union. They just held an election and, guess what, the workers unionized.) Also, to the “in my day it was harder crowd.” It’s true these kids don’t have to work campaigns anymore and it’s an easy job out of session. But during session, they’re often in the capital from 8 AM until midnight, sometimes later. For weeks at a time. And they get no overtime. At the end of session, the office just dumps some vacation days on them–but there’s no formula. They want a transparent formula. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 1:59 pm: ===They want=== … what exactly? Governor Pritzker? ===to determine what it is that they want=== It’s still seemingly unclear of the actual wants. If the want to organize, they should do so. That part is beyond anymore discussion. The discussion to wants isn’t as clear? - Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:08 pm: === They’re not doing it to be a part of the Madigan machine, or really any machine, anymore. The Speaker’s Office should accept that their staff is going to be reflective of what the Democratic Party would look like if it were made up of Gen Z recent college graduates. === Nobody ever joined staff to be a part of a “machine”. That is just a silly comment. And your second point is part of the problem. The staffers have to realize its not about them - its about the legislators and how they can help the legislators do their jobs better. Its not about catering to Gen Z and what they want. Most voters out there do not come from Gen Z. === To the people in this thread who say “partisan staff shouldn’t unionize.” Did you know that the DNC is unionized? Biden’s campaign is unionized? DC Congressional Staff is (increasingly) unionized? (Look up the Congressional Workers Union. They just held an election and, guess what, the workers unionized.) === Historically Speaker’s staff was head and shoulders better than DCCC staff or other federal political staff. I don’t know if this is a comparison you want to make. === It’s true these kids don’t have to work campaigns anymore and it’s an easy job out of session. But during session, they’re often in the capital from 8 AM until midnight, sometimes later. For weeks at a time. === That has always been the case because that is the job. You can’t say you want to leave at five when the GA is in session because your job is to support the GA when they are in session. Also, the employees are not entitled to overtime because they are exempt under the FLSA. This whole “they work for hours they are not paid” argument is silly. They get paid a salary. They get paid the same whether they are working 8am to midnight or playing minesweeper (I know I am dating myself with that one) when there is much less to do when session is not going on. - low level - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:15 pm: Couldnt the Speaker solve a lot of these problems by simply paying his staff more? A lot of what Im reading is that HDem salary is not only not a liveable wage but also not in keeping w other caucuses? Therefore pay them more - ILLINI123 - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:17 pm: @Oswego In order to form a negotiating committee, there first needs to *be* a union. Which can’t happen until the Speaker either permits a union election or voluntarily recognizes the bargaining unit. That’s the bone of contention. They are stuck in limbo because the Speaker is refusing to acknowledge them and state law prohibits the ILRB from recognizing them. If the Speaker wants them to “go through the process”, then there needs to *be a process* — and for legislative employees, as of now, there isn’t… because the GA passed a law saying that its own employees **cannot use the same process as everyone else**. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:20 pm: ===They are stuck in limbo=== Correct. And have been for months. Had they walked out the last week of scheduled session, though… - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:25 pm: - ILLINI123 - ===Organizers filed for certification with the Illinois Labor Relations Board in January, but were denied March 29. 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. Such denials may force organizers to challenge the lack of union recognition in court.=== Rich has it best, however… ===Had they walked out the last week of scheduled session, though…=== - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:26 pm: Also, “cite” https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2023-05-02/illinois-house-speaker-an-ally-to-organized-labor-faces-a-push-from-his-own-employees-to-unioni - Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:35 pm: === Had they walked out the last week of scheduled session, though… === If they did that they all should have been fired. It would be like a quarterback holding out during the week of the Super Bowl. - low level - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:46 pm: Had they walked out they might have lost some key allies in Dem constituencies. The staffers know that would have been a step too far. Very savvy of them. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:47 pm: Had they walked out they could’ve likely forced a conclusion. How you gonna do a budget without an approp staff? - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:49 pm: ===savvy=== Fighting for union rights at times is for the bold. They are seemingly still at where they were after the ruling against them. They need a bit more “savvy” about now. - Hannibal Lecter - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:52 pm: === Had they walked out they could’ve likely forced a conclusion. How you gonna do a budget without an approp staff? === It would have been a conclusion that would not have worked out for them. I suppose the House would have had to rely on information provided by Senate staff or the Governor’s budget office. Would not have been ideal. Which is why they should be fired if they did that. It would have hurt the people they are being paid to help. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 2:59 pm: ===It would have hurt the people they are being paid to help. === lol That’s what strikes do. Also, that’s some kinda antebellumish thinking there. - Henry - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 3:38 pm: ==Having Speaker’s Staff unionized is a horrible policy== So is creating an HR system that posts and fills jobs without political considerations. It is a partisan staff. They need to be democrats. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 4:24 pm: ==So is creating an HR system that posts and fills jobs without political considerations== They could negotiate a contract that still allows that. I’m guessing a contract with this group would be pretty unique. - SaulGoodman - Wednesday, Sep 6, 23 @ 10:09 pm: **It is a partisan staff. They need to be democrats.** I’ve known numerous leg staff for both parties that would disagree with you on this. Especially on the HGOP side. Plenty of HGOP staff have been Democrats. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.