34 Comments - Staff Union Now - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:15 pm: Yes. And as proof that this is necessary, look no further than the fact that legislative staff are exempted from nearly every labor law protection in the entire compiled statutes. Who passed those laws? The people abusing staff. If staff can’t collectively bargain, this will always be a problem. There’s literally no other option, no other process to follow, by the legislators’ own design. - The Carpenter - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:16 pm: I voted yes, its long past due. Staff on both sides of aisle at the executive and legislative level endure so much. On a good day they’re largely overworked and underpaid, and we are seeing now what can happen on a bad day. Important to note though that collective bargaining won’t solve the problem entirely and may even be used to sweep more systemic issues under the rug. Who knew what, and when is something thats being asked a lot this month. Maybe its time to expand the “who” and the “when?” Years ago I knew statehouse lobbyists, staff, legislators and their partners who had heard rumors of what was happening and yet nothing was done or reported. Maybe it’s time for introspection from more of us/you. - DuPage Saint - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:27 pm: I voted yes. It seems at this point it is needed for their protection Another thing I have never been in favor of any legislative body exempting themselves from from the laws they inflict on the general public and business - JS Mill - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:31 pm: Given the Democratic parties progressive positions on labor, there is no legitimate reason to oppose unionization of legislative staff. - Bagger Vance - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:35 pm: I voted Yes. As an alternative or enhancement of unionization, we should create “shall” language that requires management in the general assembly to immediately report sexual harrassment/hostile workplace complaints to the Legislative Inspector General, with the option to withhold the name of the whistleblower that brought them the information if that person so requests. Obviously they need to report the name of the victim(s) if known, but the victim then atleast has plausible deniability. I would also require lobbyists to make a report. Kudos to the woman who came forward regarding Benton, but she probably was not the first. No lobbyist should be in the position of worrying about losing their lobbying job for chosing to report sexual harassment. Every lobbyist should be able to say “I was required by law to make a report.” I agree with Kifowit that structural changes are needed. But the goal should not merely be to create a better grievance process, but to create an environment that is downright hostile to harassment the way bleach is hostile to germs. Lawmakers should know if they step out of line, consequences are automatic. Finally, I think it is fair for Democrats to wonder aloud why Jim Durkin could have a “Zero Tolerance Policy” but their caucus apparently does not. A “zero tolerance policy” would have stripped Benton of his committees, his legislative staff, re-election support, and probably demanded his resignation. - The 5th Deputy Governor - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:39 pm: This is just another reason why. The state constitution should cover any efforts to organize whether this happened or not. Now, given this disaster, Dem caucus would be wise to promote a collective bargaining relationship (this time around)… - purple people eater - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:42 pm: I worked in a legislative district office from 1997-2011. I was regularly reminded that the legislature had effectively exempted their district office from most labor law protections, I got told as a contractor I effectively had no rights, not even Workers Comp. I was stupid, I was loyal, and in 2012, at a new job, a week after my Mother died, I was asked where my petitions were. I threw the former Rep out of my new office. It felt right… - Retired School Board Member - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:42 pm: When it comes to the issue of legislative staff being able to collectively bargain, the hypocrisy of the House Dems is beyond the pale.(I will admit that I am uninformed about the positions of the Senate Dems) Their campaigns are funded by organized labor, but they actively deny their staff the right to collectively bargain. It is an abuse of power that defies description. The House Dems have proven to check every box of the worst boss checklist. At the minimum, the legislative staff need the protection of a collective bargaining agreement. The fact that the legislators enacted legislation to deprive these Illinois workers the rights that other workers in Illinois have is quite frankly, disgusting and most definitely contrary to the principles of the Democratic Party. - Pundent - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:45 pm: Voted yes. But I would have voted that way before the issues with came to light. My view on collective bargaining is simple. If you don’t like collective bargaining create an environment employees see no benefit in it. - District Staff - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:49 pm: Everyone always talks about Legislative Staff but District Staff is left out on their own. We need protection too. - Simon - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 12:52 pm: == …nor do I believe any adjustment in policies or the law will bring about the meaningful change == And then she goes on to propose a new law. Would any kind of law or collective bargaining process stopped Chris Welch from creeping on a staffer via social media? We don’t need a new set of rules. We need to hold people accountable for violating the letter or spirit of existing laws and policies. In this case, that means picking a new Speaker. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:00 pm: ===Would any kind of law or collective bargaining process stopped=== I mean, you could say that about any sort of law or union process. That doesn’t negate the debate about unionizing. I really don’t like arguments of that nature, btw. - Blazzzer - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:02 pm: How is this supposed to work in practice? What happens when leadership changes parties? Could unionized staff sabotage the new leadership’s policy goals? Could a situation arise where there is a bill that the union wants to use as leverage to gain something in the collective bargaining process and so the union refuses to draft the legislation or strikes to shut down the operation of state government until their demands are met? Are legislative staff covered under the Illinois Human Rights Act? If not, adding basic employment protections under that Act for legislative staff would seem to be a more surgical approach to addressing the specifics raised in this situation. - Just Me 2 - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:09 pm: I’m not always a fan of unions because they often care more about collecting as many dues as possible instead of true representation, or in the case of CTU using the union money for political causes, but without even the threat of unions employers have much less incentive to be good to their employees. The GA is a perfect example of assuming staff will get rich later so it’s okay to take advantage of them now. - Pundent - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:10 pm: =Could a situation arise where there is a bill that the union wants to use as leverage to gain something in the collective bargaining process and so the union refuses to draft the legislation or strikes to shut down the operation of state government until their demands are met?= Let’s all take a moment to marvel at this truly magnificent straw man argument. - Norseman - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:23 pm: No. Abuse if staff is inappropriate by legislators and supervisors and must be sanctioned. However, I have and still do oppose there unionizing. - TheNorthRemembers - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:23 pm: While we’re actually talking about the absolute dumpster fire of a Speaker’s office: INVESTIGATE WHAT THEY DID TO BRADY BURDEN - Stephanie Kollmann - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:28 pm: Yes, because it’s right but also because I have never come across a decent argument against it (and plenty that should be too embarrassing to make). - Downstate - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:41 pm: Rather than unionization, how about heavier penalties on elected representatives for their misdeeds? Allow the campaign fund to be tagged by winning victims. Just a thought. - Simon - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:46 pm: == you could say that about any sort of law or union process == That’s fair. My point is a lot of time new laws are introduced to address old problems and they often succeed in little more than offering the illusion that something is being accomplished. Being diligent about holding people accountable for breaking existing rules is more effective. We could increase the legal penalties for murder, but it will do nothing to draw down the violent crime rate in Chicago. However, pouring resources into improving the Chicago Police Department’s lousy solve rate of existing murder laws would better deter crime and stop the revenge killings that multiply the body count. Just as holding Welch accountable for obviously poor conduct will accomplish more than a new set of rules. - Oldtimer - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 1:54 pm: Voted yes but be aware that there could be significant OT costs as there are times during session that staff working 60-80 hours a week is not uncommon. If implemented, inevitably scope of the unionization will be a big issue. Do you also bring in staff at the Director’s level, legislative assistants, district office staff, and legislative support agency staff? - Remember the Alamo II - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 2:01 pm: I vote no because staff has to be aligned politically and policy-wise with the legislators they serve. Unionization flied in the face of that. Unions generally provide no additional protection against illegal discrimination than the current law provides so I do not see that as a reason to push unionization. - Remember the Alamo II - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 2:03 pm: === could be significant OT costs as there are times during session that staff working 60-80 hours a week is not uncommon. === Only if the employer agrees to such changes. My understanding is that staff is FLSA exempt and that wouldn’t change if the staff is unionized (unless the employer agrees to such changes during bargaining). - Dotnonymous x - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 2:41 pm: Voted Yes, because…“Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower - JB13 - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 2:45 pm: I voted yes because it would be amazing to have the final three days of a legislative session shut down by a CTU style “labor action.” Bonus points if they all walk off the job at 3 a.m. on May 29 - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 2:49 pm: ===Bonus points if they all walk off the job at 3 a.m. on May 29=== No way would that be allowed in a contract. - Candy Dogood - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 2:53 pm: Yes. Legislative staffers often accept working conditions that are illegal for the typical public sector or private sector worker. Individual legislators and legislative leaders have shown time and time again that they are not capable of creating a work environment that does not take advantage of workers. - Proud Sucker - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 3:41 pm: “Collective bargaining is about more than wages and benefits. It creates independent grievance procedures, clear workplace standards, due process, and a protected pathway for employees to report misconduct without fear of retaliation.” THIS x100 I am in management and I agree with this. The union shops in which I have worked have had less interpersonal strife than those without a bargaining unit. Whenever there is a question, I reach into the bottom draw of my desk for the printed copy of the agreement. - Yooper in Diaspora - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 4:07 pm: Does anyone know if the legislative staff in any other states are unionized? - Leslie K - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 4:52 pm: ==However, pouring resources into improving the Chicago Police Department’s lousy solve rate of existing murder laws would better deter crime and stop the revenge killings that multiply the body count.== I’m almost hesitant to even give this a response, but what the heck are you even trying to say? CBS News’ reframing of clearance rates was ridiculous. It was never the 30% or whatever they claimed. - Juvenal - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 5:10 pm: All the arguments against staff being unionized are kind of blown up by the fact Congressional staff started unionizing 4 years ago. - Walker - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 6:11 pm: I’m for union organizing for these folks. I am skeptical though that it will automatically do much to solve the issues of sexual harassment. Has unionization solved that problem in the trades, in fire and police, among mineworkers and longshoreman? I know efforts are being made by our unions, but more effective solutions occur with better focused leadership, and more women in powerful positions. - From the Middle - Thursday, Jul 23, 26 @ 10:25 pm: The legislature (and governors) are all about passing union, discrimination, and civil rights laws applicable to all businesses but exempting themselves. How about a constitutional amendment to prohibit such exemptions. At least make all the legislators vote on this idea to expose the hypocrisy. We could call it the public goose and the private gander amendment. - Allknowingmasterofraccoondom - Friday, Jul 24, 26 @ 11:44 am: Never mind, I read it wrong. Ugh. I think their staffs should absolutely have the right to unionize…. TrackBack URI Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.