* Capitol News Illinois…
“It’s in the Constitution. We have a right to organize,” [Brady Burden, a staffer in the speaker’s office who is part of the organizing committee of the Illinois Legislative Staff Association] said. “The only issue that we need, is that the speaker recognize the union.”
[Michael LeRoy, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and the School of Labor and Employment Relations], however, said the Worker’s Rights Amendment is actually vague on that issue because it’s written in prospective terms, referring to future enactments by the state or local governments.
He said that although the first sentence of the amendment says employees have a fundamental right to organize, the next sentence says, “No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes” collective bargaining rights.
“They use the term ‘shall be.’ That’s future tense,” he said. “It doesn’t reach back. It doesn’t say any law that has been enacted that interferes with collective bargaining is hereby nullified. It doesn’t say that.”
LeRoy said the purpose of the amendment was to prevent the enactment of so-called “right-to-work” laws at either the state or local level. Those are laws that say employers cannot require someone to be a member of a union as a condition of employment.
* Professor LeRoy’s analysis, however, skims over the very first sentence of the constitutional amendment…
Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at work.
You can’t just disregard that text.
*** UPDATE *** Illinois Legislative Staff Association…
Following their Labor Day weekend statement urging Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch to acknowledge and engage with them, the Illinois Legislative Staff Association (ILSA) issued the following statement:
“We are the Organizing Committee of the Illinois Legislative Staff Association. Two weeks ago, as workers across Illinois began their Labor Day weekend, we issued a statement calling on House Speaker Welch to ‘practice what he preaches’ by coming to the table. We want him to meet with us about our concerns, a timeline for recognition of our union, and the negotiation of a contract. We waited a full calendar week following the Speaker’s return from his trip overseas to ensure that he and his aides had sufficient time to review our concerns and issue a full response. Despite this, we are still waiting for any communication or even an indication that they are willing to come out of hiding and confront reality.
Today is the 290th day since we first collected signed cards from more than 50% of our bargaining unit and asked the Speaker to voluntarily recognize our union. It is also the 136th day since we announced ourselves in the press. That announcement came after five months of attempting to handle this issue internally. Despite that, Speaker Welch continues to pretend we do not exist.
Gov. Pritzker has gone on the record to say that he supports our right to organize. And yet, Speaker Welch has refused to make any public remarks regarding our union.
Not only that, the Speaker and his senior aides have insisted that we ‘follow the established process’ when they know full well that there is no established process for legislative employees. This is not just our opinion; this is the opinion of the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB). In the ILRB ruling from over five and a half months ago, they stated their Board has no jurisdiction over legislative employees barring a ruling over the application of the Workers Rights Amendment from the Courts or through legislative action, powers which the ILRB does not possess.
Following this, we asked the Speaker and his aides repeatedly to lay out a path to recognition. In response, we received disingenuous evasions or were ignored outright. This is despite the Speaker having the right to voluntarily recognize our union at any time without needing a framework.
The Speaker and his aides have erroneously implied that we are demanding voluntary recognition because we are unwilling to hold an election. In reality, we have said repeatedly that we would welcome one, including explicitly in our Labor Day weekend statement. Over the last nine and a half months, we have suggested to the Speaker’s aides that an election be arranged, only to be brushed off. They have yet to explain this behavior on the record.
Once again, whenever the Speaker is prepared to come to the table, we are ready to meet with him. If he wants an election, let’s arrange it. If he wants to use another process, let’s sit down and establish that process. ILSA is ready and has been ready since we first brought our organizing efforts to his attention on November 29th. Our goal has been and will continue to be to collaborate in good faith in
order to move forward.
It is Speaker Welch and his aides who are refusing to allow that to happen.
It appears fruitless to continue waiting for the Speaker and his aides to do the right thing on their own. That’s why ILSA now intends to adopt a more proactive posture. From now, until we hear from the Speaker, we will seek to make our case more clearly and emphatically. Speaker Welch can continue to delay and hope that attrition will solve his problems before he is forced to address them. However, as we have said before, we are not going away.
We demand that the Speaker and his aides meet with us and meaningfully address our many concerns. They must cooperate with us to establish a process and timeline for the recognition of our union and the negotiation of a contract. Until this happens, we will continue to promote transparency regarding our working conditions. We will highlight the insulting manner in which Speaker Welch and his aides continue to treat his staff, as well as our constitutional right to organize.
The people of Illinois deserve a Speaker of the House who lives up to his principles every bit as much as his staff deserves pay and working conditions that are sustainable, fair, and non-exploitative.
ILSA will not stop until the Speaker’s office chooses to meet these standards.”
- City Zen - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:45 am:
Bingo, Rich. That first sentence says it all. Any law, whether existing or proposed, that conflicts with that first sentence is unconstitutional. And courts consider the use of “shall” as both current and future tense. This is indeed quite a stretch.
Strange that labor groups wrote this amendment yet don’t seem to fully comprehend it. Even stranger, they are applying the same loose workarounds as groups trying to find a workaround to the pension clause.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:48 am:
Merely observing, it’s as though Welch wants the next step, legal action to his not recognizing and then the courts can decide the status of these workers, and the idea to organize.
If they would like to organize, do so.
It might come down to a court ruling?
- ILLINI123 - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:48 am:
It also skims over the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which says, in part: “…no state shall make **or enforce** any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States… nor deny to any person under its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Make, OR ENFORCE.
- Google Is Your Friend - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:51 am:
Not a surprise the professor would skip the first sentence in the amendment as he says later in the article that relying on the constitution for a legal argument is not convincing. LOL.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:51 am:
- City Zen -
As an advocate of chaos and not of labor I do hope you remember your words and “constitutionally” when trying to do gymnastics to whatever pension thought you have on a given day.
It will be an interesting argument in a court and ruling to the petition, if it goes that route.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:56 am:
- ILLINI123 -
Explain the necessity of the 19th Amendment?
Why did that need to be enshrined not just be a passed law?
Just a thought, bringing it back to the post and Illinois…
The state’s constitution to this and the possibility of a carve out is what I’d like to see addressed to labor. I dunno how it would face going forward through all state courts up to the ILSC, but those legal rulings a subsequent appeals would be important far beyond that partisan caucus
- Oldtimer - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:56 am:
Was this question asked during the debate on the Amendment? Any legislative intent offered?
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:57 am:
To me the Speaker and Governor
Are being perfidious
Simply perfidious
They both supported the WRA
Yet when this group wants to organize
They stall and stonewall
It’s perfidy and duplicitous
Management gonna management
Recognize them
Immediately
Union leadership is not who you have to worry about.
It’s the rank and file
The union voter that you have to worry about
I guarantee we’re watching how democratic leadership handles this.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:57 am:
===nor deny to any person under its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ===
Equal protection is key.
- annoning - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:58 am:
This is silly. The amendment didn’t nullify the statute or make it immediately “unconstitutional”, but because there is now a fundamental right in the IL constitution, the workers can challenge the law based on it not being narrowly tailored. I’m sure the GA could prohibit legislative staff from joining existing unions that engage in political activity, but banning organizing outright… eh, let’s see what the courts say
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 10:59 am:
Legislative staffers can and should press the issue. A boss is a boss, no matter who it is. Nothing should stop these workers from being represented by a union but themselves, if they vote against it. Especially not hypocritical “unions for thee but not for me” politicians.
- NotRich - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 11:01 am:
Amalgamated Union of Mushrooms & Staff
- ILLINI123 - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 11:02 am:
—OSWEGO
19 should not have been required, nor should an ERA be required. But we live in a society infested with patriarchy, where old men have to be explicitly and repeatedly told that women are people, and equal means equal.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 11:14 am:
===But===
Yeah. No.
It was wholly necessary. Context? Roe then Dobbs.
It wasn’t a reminder, it was that the 14th was never going to guarantee much of what people need in protecting. Enshrined rights are the safety, not a reminder.
To the post, and my point,
The constitution here, that first line is everything to the argument, I’ve said, go organize, I do want to see the legal, if it goes to the courts, to this cutout specifically
- Homebody - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 11:23 am:
The English language is dumb. So many major cases turn on “shall” versus “must” versus “may.” Legislators and attorneys need to be very specific with what they mean when drafting important documents, statutes, rules, amendments, contracts, etc.
- Arsenal - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 11:35 am:
We should also note that even if existing state statutes prohibit GA staffers from organizing, and even if those laws are still good law in light of the WRA, the GA can modify those existing statutes. Some might even say that it’s the GA’s purpose.
So, if the argument is “sorry, guys, but my hands are tied”…they’re not.
- Socially DIstant Watcher - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 11:36 am:
If the US Supreme Court can ignore that “militia” mumbo jumbo in the Second Amendment, why assume the Illinois Supreme Court can’t conclude that this amendment wasn’t intended to rewrite the separation of powers and legislative provisions of the Illinois Constitution?
- Bigtwich - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 11:46 am:
The Professor’s analysis is supported by the EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
“The new section will guarantee workers the fundamental right to organize and to bargain
collectively and to negotiate safety conditions, wages, hours, working conditions, and economic welfare. The amendment prohibits the passage of any new law within the State that restricts or prohibits workers from engaging in collective bargaining with their employer over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, like safety protocols or training.”
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 11:46 am:
Doesn’t the General Assembly exempt itself from a lot of laws that apply elsewhere? Is that the issue here?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 12:01 pm:
===The Professor’s analysis is supported by===
As is mine.
Sheesh. Slow down and read.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 12:02 pm:
===Doesn’t the General Assembly exempt itself from a lot of laws that apply elsewhere?===
Some, yes, like the Open Meetings Act. But they have claimed constitutional protections for all those.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 1:17 pm:
“we first collected signed cards from more than 50% of our bargaining unit”
Ballgame. Workers have spoken, and they want a union. How about just recognizing it and not committing self-inflicted political harm? It’s not just Democratic voters who support unions.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 1:20 pm:
To the update.
===However, as we have said before, we are not going away.===
Go to court. After 290 days, go to court.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 1:37 pm:
Will they strike during Veto?
- H-W - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 2:05 pm:
If the ILRB said recognition comes through the legislature or the court, and the legislative leader refuses to act, surely the legislators writ large can take this up. And if not, surely the courts will rule in favor of the union if the legislature will not act.
Perhaps I am missing something?
Recognition, followed by negotiation is not some impenetrable barrier. It is not even a high hurdle. It is simple an intermediate hurdle that will be confronted as the union move forward. And they will win the race whether or not legislators choose to participate.
- Rabid - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 2:23 pm:
Senior aids get called out by junior aids
- duck duck goose - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 2:24 pm:
During the referendum process, we were told repeatedly by the proponents that the amendment was there only to protect existing rights–not to create new ones.
Now that the amendment has passed, it would seem that the talking points have…evolved.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 3:47 pm:
===Will they strike during Veto?===
Will any legislators cross the picket line?
- The 5th Deputy Governor - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 3:48 pm:
=== we were told repeatedly by the proponents that the amendment was there only to protect existing rights–not to create new ones. ===
No new rights were created, now as for expanded coverage …
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 3:51 pm:
===Will any legislators cross the picket line?===
That’s next level truth to this.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 4:08 pm:
===Will any legislators cross the picket line?===
DUN DUN DUUUNN!
Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 15, 23 @ 4:12 pm:
===Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.===
You win, lol