Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Good morning!
Next Post: Rauner thankfully rejects failed Kansas model
Posted in:
* From the Quinn campaign…
As Bruce Rauner continues to conceal his long-held opposition to raising the minimum wage, new audio released today shows him vowing that he “always” has, and “always will” oppose raising the minimum wage “in and of itself.”
Here’s the quote exactly:
“I have said consistently, consistently, and I always have and I always will that I am against raising the minimum wage in and of itself. If that’s the only change we make, I am adamantly against it. That’s been true and that will be true.”
The quote was made in the context of the Republican primary, when Rauner was establishing his right-wing bonafides by saying that he was “adamantly, adamantly against” raising the Illinois minimum wage, and even went so far to propose lowering the Illinois minimum wage. Proof also emerged that Rauner advocated eliminating the minimum wage earlier this year.
The new audio shows Rauner’s fiercely-held opposition to raising the minimum wage will continue in perpetuity. No evidence exists to suggest that Rauner has ever sincerely supported raising the minimum wage.
* OK, the full, raw audio, from this past January on Roe Conn’s now-defunct WLS AM show is here…
* During that exchange, at about the 7:20-mark, Conn asks Rauner why he didn’t “couple the notion” of increasing the minimum wage with his proposed business reforms the previous year when he said he was “adamantly, adamantly against raising the minimum wage.” Rauner’s full response…
“Ok, that’s a fair question. The answer is, you know what, every time we’re talking about an issue, it has ramifications broadly. And there’s a lot of scenarios that, that we can talk about as, as well. I’m not even including… Let’s, let’s not try… The other business reforms that we really need in Illinois. And where’s the, where’s the tradeoff in, in there? Politics is about tradeoffs.
“I have said consistently, consistently, and I always have and I always will, I am against raising the minimum wage in and of itself. If that’s the only change we make, I am adamantly against it. That’s been true and that will be true.
“In a context, in a broader context, of, of other changes, I support it. That’s not inconsistent at all. And maybe I should, I could, I could take 20 minutes every time I give a speech, but you know what, not, not, not every topic in every speech that we touch on every possible scenario. That’s just not how it works.”
In context, he’s saying what he has been saying for months. But he said what he said.
…Adding… The Rauner campaign points to this comment at the 1:23 mark…
“I am not in favor of reducing the minimum wage in Illinois. That is not what I am trying to say. I mischaracterized it’s my fault my mistake. I believe we should either move the Illinois wage to the national minimum wage and raise the national minimum wage in that context. And or, or if that can’t be done if that national minimum wage is not going to raise I think it will be and I support that. But if it’s not raised at the national level I do support and I can support increasing Illinois minimum wage. But only only in the context of a comprehensive pro business reform package including workers comp reform tax reform and tort reform. If we do that pro business reform in that context I would support and do support raising Illinois minimum wage.”
* And since he flipped-flopped-flipped on the minimum wage, why is he still sticking by his adamant support for “right to work”?…
Rauner told The Associated Press in a recent interview that the [”right to work”] zones would be a way to give local entities autonomy and help jumpstart economically-depressed areas. Rauner said an example of his plan could let municipalities or counties decide on whether to make paying union fees voluntary for unionized workers. And it would allow struggling areas, such as Chicago neighborhoods or downtown Decatur, the ability to lower corporate income tax rates to lure new businesses, something that appears to take a program that Illinois already offers a step further.
“Create opportunities where our state is really suffering the most. Create opportunities of more flexibility where they can innovate and really create environments that are very attractive to business,” the wealthy businessman told AP in the recent interview. “What I’d love to do is travel, on my nickel, recruiting companies to come to those zones and … create some true economic growth in some of the most impoverished neighborhoods.”
The zones would “allow local communities to decide whether workers must join a union in order to get a job,” according to Rauner’s website. He told AP such zones would give counties and cities control.
But unions and Quinn blasted the idea - which has already been contentious between unions and Republican governors elsewhere - as hurting workers and unions.
Bad move. Really bad move. 50,000 workers joined the union rolls last year in Illinois. Subscribers know more, but I just don’t get the addition on this one.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 12:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Good morning!
Next Post: Rauner thankfully rejects failed Kansas model
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I hope to see a TV commercial from Quinn soon, something like:
“Bruce Rauner made $60 million dollars last year while not even working, and he’s against ever raising the minimum wage.”
Of course not in my words, but in the concise words done by political and ad professionals.
As far as right to work, that’s race to the bottom stuff. It’s labor that is keeping economic growth weaker–stagnant wages. There needs to be more unionization, to bring the membership percentage up. The unionization rate is something like 11% and hasn’t been in this low territory since the Great Depression.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 6:42 am
Bruce Rauner has said and done SO many different unwise things–starting with attacking the unions in the primary–but also his excessive overreaching with his endless stream of shameless, obvious lying, especially including his ridiculous, laughable allegations that Pat Quinn is a corrupt Outfit criminal mastermind, and the serious difficulties that arise from trying to take a moderate line and walk that tightrope without alienating the right wing of the Republican party (which has a Libertarian place to go), and the constant toll on his credibility BECAUSE of his incessant lying, that he really didn’t need a politically expert executioner backed by a party united by fear of Bruce Rauner to be his opponent, a foe with a killer instinct and a devastatingly effective, well-planned campaign, but that’s what he got.
Rauner has made so many bad moves and he has so many other problems that not too many hours after the polls close on election night the refrain will soon become, “… everyone said it was going to be a close election–boy, were they wrong!
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 7:15 am
Rauner baiting the union bear has become his shorthand shtick to gin up donors and activate the base. Should he win the race, he will use them as his excuse for every failure, every problem. His first year of office will likely be full of angry press conferences, but not much action, because the Legislature doesn’t share the same loathing of the union and it’s support.
And since there was a reference to it….
Gonna miss Roe’s show; it was the only listenable part of WLS’ broadcast day. I think WLS expects Dahl to be more conservative, in keeping with the overall political “tone” of the station. Which is ironic if you know Dahl’s history. I would not want to be the temporary fill-in jock holding down the fort there; you can feel the polite but icy hostility to him from the news and traffic reporters Roe left behind. WLS is so starved for younger listeners, Dahl’s podcast audience network must have seemed attractive.
Comment by Newsclown Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 7:33 am
Suggested tag line for the ad:
Hey, it’s his money! But it’s YOUR vote.
Comment by Concerned Observer Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 7:54 am
Holy crap, Rauner’s full response was some well-tossed word salad. Maybe the Quinnsters pulled the middle graf because that was the only part anyone would be able to parse.
Comment by Adlai Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:00 am
It’s hard to see how “right to work zones” could work. It’s like being half-pregnant. Illinois isn’t yet interested in being a competitive state. Sorry Rauner, Pat Quinn has the special privilege vote in the labor market locked down.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:23 am
Quinn’s tactics are interesting.
Initially, the new tape seems to say what Rauner’s been saying for a while, which is that a raise to the minimum wage must be tied to other reforms.
As such, the new tape is consistent with his evolved (assuming for a second that any of his backers believe in evolution, but I digress) position on the wage.
The new tape alone probably serves to give Rauner evidence of some recent consistency.
I suspect, however, that Team Quinn may realize the tape is consistent. It doesn’t break any new ground. However, it gets people talking about the issue for a day or two.
When people talk about the issue, Quinn wins. The merits of the tape do not matter. What matters is that Rauner has to discuss it again.
Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:38 am
“Illinois isn’t yet interested in being a competitive state.”
If Illinois can’t be “a competitive state” without selling out its workers’ ability to legitimately bargain for their services, it’s never going to be one.
Comment by Adlai Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:39 am
Rauner is consistently, consistently been back pedaling, and that’s not good to the credibility.
Attention Unions and Union members;
Bruce Rauner is for a right to work state and like Scott Walker, Rauner would live to take away collective bargaining.
Food for thought….
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:45 am
Steve, aren’t you late for talking point school?
Fifth largest GDP means Illinois beats 45 of 50 states. That’s competitive in any league.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:47 am
===Pat Quinn has the special privilege vote in the labor market locked down.===
You might be surprised, when given a rational option, how many Union members vote Republican.
There are some Unions more conservative than you think…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:48 am
=Illinois isn’t yet interested in being a competitive state.=
Why isn’t Illinois ready to be super competitive and eliminate the minimum wage, workers comp, child labor laws, collective bargaining rights, wage laws, IDOL, vacation days, sick leave, etc.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:49 am
I give Rauner great credit for being sincere about his utter hatred for public sector unions and his disdain for construction trades via these right-to-work zones. He really would be a Scott Walker kind of governor. It’s abhorrent and vile that someone making $60 million a year begrudges a union electrician $60,000, but he and his fellow Ayn Rand disciples, like top donor billionaire Ken Griffin, have it all, and it’s not enough.
Comment by Willie Stark Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 8:50 am
Rich - can you post the Quinn radio spot I heard yesterday on WBBM regarding the Rauner threatening of an executive after firing her for not laying off workers to maximize profits? I felt it was much more detailed and informative than the TV spot. Thanx
Comment by 2 Cents... Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:06 am
This minimum wage stuff has been devastating to Rauner in the polling. The RCP average now has Quinn ahead by an average of 2.8 percent. That seems about right given all of the polls over the past month. Quinn might as well keep hammering Rauner on this to increase that lead to 3 or 4 percent. Rauner truly has run a poor campaign over the past few months. The Mike Ditka commercial during the Bears game was awkward and a sign that he doesn’t really know what he should be doing/saying now. The Blago connection stuff is old and not going to work. Very low-information voters who might believe that don’t bother to vote in off year elections.
Comment by Ando Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:06 am
OW is correct about some Unions being conservative. The Unions may advertise their recommendations and make contributions to specific candidates,but it is still up to the individuals. I read Second City Cop blog from time to time and CPD members are all about voting GOP and are pro-NRA.
I hope we can all admit that the Union members are not brain-less. They are individuals who have opinions.
Comment by Belle Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:11 am
What we really need to do is get rid of the “prevailing wage” law, which is a joke. All government entities have to pay what amounts to union scale on all of their projects. If you don’t it is a criminal offense. You can only get out of this by doing a survey to prove that the prevailing wage rates are wrong, but the survey is limited to what other governmental units are paying which are all required to pay prevailing wage so it is circular. Plus you have to pay for the study. This drives up the cost of local government which is borne by the taxpayers. Do the flag wavers on the highway projects really deserve $25/hr?
Comment by McHenry Mike Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:30 am
The problem for Rauner is that he demonized unions in the primary to the point where it would be easy for even conservative members to make this a one-issue decision
Comment by Nonplussed Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:31 am
Every time I think Rauner might have some interesting (so far hidden) skills to bring to this job, his statements on wages and unions push me back into firm opposition. Those economic ideas only work in some mythical world.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:33 am
===Do the flag wavers on the highway projects really deserve $25/hr?===
Is that $25/hr before or after cars possibly hitting them?
Are the flag wavers “expendable”
You couldn’t pay me $25/hour to have the only thing between me an a car be a flag.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:34 am
=Do the flag wavers on the highway projects really deserve $25/hr?=
Yes, they do. They risk their lives, and they do more than just “flag waiving”.
Besides the fact that you’re just grabbing what you think of as the low-hanging fruit.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:34 am
OK, I will be the one to point out that $52,000 a year for basically unskilled labor is sort of steep.
However, as Chi said, that’s the low hanging fruit. The fact that flag wavers are overpaid is no more proof that the Prevailing Wage Act is failure than the fact that Richard Sherman gives up the occasional touchdown is proof that Sherman is a failure.
Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:44 am
Mike - would you prefer there were no flag wavers at all? that way more works will get hit and more car crashes? what price do you put on that job then? jeesh
Comment by PoolGuy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 9:47 am
===The fact that flag wavers are overpaid===
Most ignorant statement on this post.
What is a flag waver worth when they dobg come home?
Would you do it, - Gooner -, considering it’s overpaid for the work, and you may not come home, due to others?
Dope
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:01 am
Oswego,
Know what is dopey? Calling anybody who disagrees with you a dope. Your name calling is childish. Name calling? Hey Oswego, let us know when you graduate from third grade. We can host a great party for you.
In any case, I am amused by the logic. According to our friend from Oswego, any dangerous job is worth $50,000 a year.
If unskilled labor with some danger is worth $52,000, I wonder what he thinks we should pay for skilled labor.
Oswego does not sound like a dope. He sounds like another person who has never had to meet a real payroll.
Oswego, I suspect recess is over. Scamper back to class, or you may get detention and a note home to your mommy.
Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:23 am
===In any case, I am amused by the logic. According to our friend from Oswego, any dangerous job is worth $50,000 a year.===
So…people aren’t paid for the danger a job may entail? lol
===Oswego does not sound like a dope. He sounds like another person who has never had to meet a real payroll.===
“I want to to stand in the middle of a highway, but I’m going to pay you what I think your life is worth to my bottom line…”
You must think highly of people.
What would someone have to pay you - Gooner - to do that job?
Your life worth $52K to maybe come home?
If not, you proved my point.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:28 am
I fail to see how Rauner’s right to work zones would allow counties to give tax breaks. The employees pay the dues, not the employer. Is he suggesting that if I don’t have to pay the dues that my wages could be cut by 0.4% (the amount of my dues) and that huge amount might equate to a tax break? His numbers once again don’t add up. Unless he is trying to trash collective bargaining, which I am sure is his intent.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 10:44 am
I’m fascinated by Oswego’s leap of logic.
Me: $52,000 a year is too much for unskilled labor.
OW: G argues that danger is not a factor in wages.
I think we are missing a few connections to get from my statement to your statement.
No Oswego, I never said danger was not a factor. I said nothing remotely similarly. What I said was that $52,000 a year is too much for that job.
Now you also raise another point:
What would you have to pay me for that job? Well, here’s the thing — I have a job. I am what is known as a skilled worker. I am not merely skilled. In fact, I’m no expert in classifications of the work force, but I believe I would be characterized a “professional.” As a person who has a job, to get me to take that one which would require me to be on my feet and work outside, among other things, you would need to pay me significantly more than my current job. So, since you asked, you would have to pay me far more than $52,000. I also like my job and I live relatively comfortably. As such, in answer to your question, I am not aware of any dollar figure that you could pay me to do that job.
However, whether or not I would work for that amount is irrelevant. It extremely unlikely that I would ever be a candidate for that job. It is like asking me how much you would have to pay me for other dangerous work, such as play punt coverage for the Bears. It is not going to happen, and as such, my salary requirements are irrelevant.
By the way, you also couldn’t pay me enough to be a farmer, a nuclear engineer, a plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer, or Manager of the Chicago Fire. Even if I had the qualifications for those positions (which I may or may not have), you couldn’t pay me enough. OK, maybe the Manager thing. But I doubt it.
So again, for those jobs, my personal salary requirements would be irrelevant.
Oswego, before calling names, you really may want to take some time off and study the basics of logic. You seem to have difficulties with some pretty simple concepts.
When you get to fourth grade next year, that might start covering those things. Good luck!
Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:11 am
=== So, since you asked, you would have to pay me far more than $52,000. ===
Do. Not. Feed. Trolls.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:25 am
Let’s all move along, please. Get back to the subject at hand.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 11:25 am
How about “right to investment zones” investment bankers etc can not charge fees for investing other people’s money if they live in one of these zones. They still have to do the work, but they can only get paid IF the investor wants too. This would deal with investment firms double charging on trades, over charging and dominating the market with the same fee schedules. It would stimulate the economy and help retirees.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Oct 14, 14 @ 2:30 pm
It’s interesting to always here two sides to the debate when it comes to the minimum wage, especially from the economics side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAb0a8ko09U
Comment by Christopher Everspark Monday, Oct 20, 14 @ 5:10 pm