33 Comments - Tom Cros - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 3:54 pm: They should also be allowed to campaign for Republican house candidates? - Langhorne - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:01 pm: Separate bargaining unit for each caucus staff? What about commission staff? - Hannibal Lecter - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:02 pm: I predict this law will pass the House and fail in the Senate. - Hannibal Lecter - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:03 pm: What I mean by “fail in the Senate” is that it won’t be called for a vote. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:10 pm: ===What I mean by “fail in the Senate” is that it won’t be called for a vote.=== It would not be a great look if it gets through the House after all the hoop jumping to then stall in the Senate. This type of bill is one that *might* be “don’t run it unless it can get through both chambers”… These aren’t mere lobbyists that are going to feel “bummed” or take a “half win” - NotRich - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:11 pm: Whoever wrote that list believes in the Easter bunny - Oswego Willy - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:15 pm: To “allow” a legislative staff ability to collectively bargain is a big enough win that allows future steps. I dunno what can it will be won after, that’s up to the bargaining unit and management, but right now this bill is the response Welch is giving to “recognize us” - JJJJJJJJJJ - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:16 pm: @Not Rich It says “which of these provisional asks would you like to see implemented.” It was not a list of demands. Nice attempt at trying to paint this org as unreasonable. Try again next time. - How Could Jerry Not Say Hello? - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:16 pm: I admire the heck out of these fellas, and I support them 100%. When I was on legislative staff many moons ago, we were like Henry Hill - we all just stood still and took it. They’re doing something about it, and history will remember them for it. - on point - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:21 pm: JJJJJ, you can’t cut/paste correctly and seem to miss the full sentence. It reads, “Which provisional asks would you like to see implemented in the workplace PRIOR to ILSA entering into a collective bargaining contract?” Meaning we have demands before we even bargain. This is the most ridiculous, childish stunt. What in the world? - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:23 pm: ===Meaning we have demands before we even bargain.=== It would be kinda foolish to walk into negotiations without at least an outline of what you want, Just sayin - Oswego Willy - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:27 pm: ===at least an outline of what you want=== It’s been my first thought to this, my only thought to this. “What do you want?” They are making a point, which is a point well taken, we have a right to organize. Fine. Ok. Now, what do you want? Going even further back, was the threat to organize enough to get their demands? “Apparently” not, or was it first the goal to get to a point that they are recognized as union? Same questions I’ve had back to its beginning, for me. - Norseman - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:27 pm: I know, I know ask high and hope for middle. Still quite a list. Sitting here with M & M’s (don’t like popcorn) watching the show. - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:32 pm: ===Still quite a list=== Yes. It most certainly is. But, hey, didn’t the UAW initially demand defined benefit pensions for all? Plus this… “The union has also demanded a 32-hour workweek (with pay for 40 hours); the right to strike over plant closures during the course of the next contract; and, in the event that an automaker does close a plant, provisions that would force the company to continue paying workers indefinitely to do community service.” So, I mean, that’s how these things tend to go. - Principal Skinner - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:33 pm: To me that last ask of “Training for staff is structured, comprehensive, and detailed–including for district staff,” stands out the most. This was the well oiled Madigan Machine not that long ago. Now staff feels they are being thrown to the wolves. Or not being trained in a competent manner. Yikes - Hannibal Lecter - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:34 pm: “The union has also demanded a 32-hour workweek (with pay for 40 hours); the right to strike over plant closures during the course of the next contract; and, in the event that an automaker does close a plant, provisions that would force the company to continue paying workers indefinitely to do community service.” Holy cow! Rich, I hadn’t seen that so thanks for posting. That’s wild! - Anyone Remember - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:34 pm: “Staff to member ratio.” Be “vwey vwey afwaid” … in 1995 a LOT of Congressional staff lost jobs. A “ratio” would mandate layoffs when control changed. - on point - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:35 pm: ==It would be kinda foolish to walk into negotiations without at least an outline of what you want, Just sayin== There is a difference between telling the employer we won’t bargain until you give us X and we want to bargain X. The survey implies they won’t sit at the bargaining table until they get something, and that’s in line with the quotes from the Times article. - Hannibal Lecter - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:36 pm: === This was the well oiled Madigan Machine not that long ago. === There are very few people still on staff that were there when Madigan was still Speaker. - Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:37 pm: === The survey implies they won’t sit at the bargaining table until they get something=== They can say that all they want. It’s still a negotiation process. - Thoughts - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 4:42 pm: If I’m the Senate staff, I would be encouraging my House counterparts to keep pursuing this and get all of changes. The House will have zero power and House staffers will never get the good post-State jobs. The Senate will become the place for serious people and the place to learn and grow. The House will be a joke. - Flapdoodle - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 5:03 pm: Was a union member and steward years ago. What the ILSA is doing is perfectly standard practice ahead of negotiations, asking potential members what they think the major “wants” and issues are so leadership can formulate a bargaining strategy that reflects membership opinion. Which is what unions are supposed to do. - 100 miles west - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 5:22 pm: former dem staffer these folks have lost the plot they don’t even have to work campaigns on off time, we wanted to, unionizing legislative staff is as silly as unionizing clergy or the marines - Capitol Observer - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 5:54 pm: One would think these folks would be trying to build support for a legal pathway to get what they want. Instead, they seem to be a bit arrogant in their approach and ridiculous in their demands. Good luck with this tactic ILSA. - Orange twist - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 6:00 pm: I reject the sentiment expressed by some here that having bad working conditions is virtuous and that improving them will somehow be worse for an organization. - on point - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 6:15 pm: == I reject the sentiment expressed by some here that having bad working conditions is virtuous and that improving them will somehow be worse for an organization. == Expecting legislative staffers to work the same hours as members on about 60 session days a year and no more than 37.5 a week the other weeks, in an office in the Capitol and not remotely, isn’t exactly “bad working conditions” - Candy Dogood - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 7:04 pm: ===unionizing legislative staff is as silly as unionizing clergy or the marines=== Without meaning to be this a strong argument for unionization. Legislative staff shouldn’t be required to he zealots to the point of working unpaid hours for unfair pay. Legislative staff shouldn’t be expected to perform as shock troops expected to lay their life down for their employer. Next you’re going to suggest that a few years on Legislative staff is a great way to get a no show job in a corporate office. - Who else - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 7:58 pm: A lot of these “asks” are just normal job things. I’ve never understood why house staff are treated so differently (and worse) than Senate staff, other than because Madigan enjoyed a good lesson on subjugation. That guy is a relic of the past, and so is all the crap staff are expected to put up with for the glory of basking in the glow of state reps. To be very clear, the light coming off reps isn’t that bright. - Cappy - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 8:10 pm: - 100 miles west - “they don’t even have to work campaigns on off time, we wanted to” No, we were “voluntold” to go on campaign. And if a staffer didn’t, the unspoken consequence was their state contract didn’t get renewed. If junior staff now has a real choice and they aren’t volunteering to LOA, that tells me that more about how Welchs political arm operates than the entitlement you’re insinuating. - Anyone Remember - Monday, Oct 16, 23 @ 10:41 pm: “… in an office in the Capitol … .” Most of them are horrible. Try again. - walker - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 7:37 am: This will be a learning experience for all involved. - low level - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 11:40 am: I get everything they are saying, esp about their pay. Welch should simply increase it on his own. As an ex staffer, I just dont think this is the way to go. Admittedly, I’m old and had old school bosses. I respected them for that. - Capitol Observer - Tuesday, Oct 17, 23 @ 5:16 pm: Speaker Welch has not only increased staff pay every year since he’s been Speaker, most of the things on this list are already being done. Based on that, something tells me there is more going on here. How many of these staff members have other political motives? Is this just a bad attempt to try and embarrass the Speaker? They can’t say they have bad working conditions and they can’t say they are poorly paid when those positions have all seen increases under Welch. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.