Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives

Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)

This just in… Rauner issues executive order allowing employees to stop paying “fair share” dues - Dues to be placed in escrow - 6500 workers impacted - Raw audio - AFSCME responds: “Blatantly illegal abuse of power” - Cullerton responds

Posted in:

• Illinois
• YouTube
• Updated Posts

* 3:36 pm - From a press release…

Governor Bruce Rauner today signed Executive Order 15-13 eliminating unfair share dues for state employees who do not wish to fund government union activities and positions with which they may disagree.

The governor’s actions come after an extensive legal review of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Harris v. Quinn. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act violated the First Amendment by forcing certain state employees to involuntarily pay fees to a labor union.

In light of that decision, the Rauner administration has concluded that the so-called “fair share” provisions of the current collective bargaining agreements, that are similar to those invalidated by the Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn, are also unconstitutional.

“Forced union dues are a critical cog in the corrupt bargain that is crushing taxpayers. Government union bargaining and government union political activity are inexorably linked,” Governor Rauner said. “An employee who is forced to pay unfair share dues is being forced to fund political activity with which they disagree. That is a clear violation of First Amendment rights – and something that, as governor, I am duty-bound to correct.”

The executive order allows state employees who wish not to support government unions’ activities to stop paying the forced fees. It has no impact on those employees who wish to remain paying members of the union and fund union activities out of their paychecks.

The full EO is here.

…Adding… Rauner said he has hired Dan Webb and Winston & Strawn to handle this issue on a pro bono basis. From the EO…

…Adding More… The governor’s office says there are 6,500 state employees who pay “fair share” dues. That’s significant, but a fairly small overall percentage.

…More… Twitters…

…And Some More… The rest of the press release…

· The federal government prohibited the forced collection of union dues in 1978 as part of the Civil Service Reform Act signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law passed the U.S. Senate 87-1 and the U.S. House of Representatives 365-8. Illinois Senator Charles Percy was one of the co-sponsors.

· 29 other states have laws that prohibit government entities from forcing public workers join or financially support labor organizations that they do not support.

· While Harris v. Quinn only decided the constitutional issue as it relates to a subset of Illinois state employees (home care workers), the Supreme Court’s majority opinion found that much of the landmark case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education was ”questionable on several grounds.”

· Notably, the Supreme Court said in Harris v. Quinn:

o “Abood failed to appreciate the conceptual difficulty of distinguishing in public-sector cases between union expenditures that are made for collective-bargaining purposes and those that are made to achieve political ends. In the private sector, the line is easier to see. Collective bargaining concerns the union’s dealings with the employer; political advocacy and lobbying are directed at the government. But in the public sector, both collective-bargaining and political advocacy and lobbying are directed at the government.”

o “Abood failed to appreciate the difference between the core union speech involuntarily subsidized by dissenting public-sector employees and the core union speech involuntarily funded by their counterparts in the private sector. In the public sector, core issues such as wages, pensions, and benefits are important political issues, but that is generally not so in the private sector. In the years since Abood, as state and local expenditures on employee wages and benefits have mushroomed, the importance of the difference between bargaining in the public and private sectors has been driven home.”

§ “Recent experience has borne out this concern. See DiSalvo, The Trouble with Public Sector Unions, National Affairs No. 5, p. 15 (2010) ( ‘In Illinois, for example, public-sector unions have helped create a situation in which the state’s pension funds report a liability of more than $100 billion, at least 50% of it unfunded’).”

o “A union’s status as exclusive bargaining agent and the right to collect an agency fee from non-members are not inextricably linked. For example, employees in some federal agencies may choose a union to serve as the exclusive bargaining agent for the unit, but no employee is required to join the union or to pay any union fee. Under federal law, in agencies in which unionization is permitted, ‘each employee shall have the right to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and each employee shall be protected in the exercise of such right.’”

…Adding… Raw audio…

Click to listen

…Adding Still More… AFSCME Council 31…

“Child protection workers, caregivers for veterans and the disabled, correctional officers and everyone else employed by state government has a right to a voice at work and in the democratic process through their union.

“Bruce Rauner’s scheme to strip the rights of state workers and weaken their unions by executive order is a blatantly illegal abuse of power.

“Perhaps as a private equity CEO Rauner was accustomed to ignoring legal and ethical standards, but Illinois is still a democracy and its laws have meaning.

“It is crystal clear by this action that the governor’s supposed concern for balancing the state budget is a paper-thin excuse that can’t hide his real agenda: Silencing working people and their unions who stand up for the middle class.

“Our union and all organized labor will stand together with those who believe in democracy to overturn Bruce Rauner’s illegal action and restore the integrity of the rule of law.”

…And More… Senate President John Cullerton responds…

“Our legal staff is reviewing the Governor’s executive order regarding fair share. At the same time, I look forward to hearing the Governor’s budget as we search for common ground to address our fiscal challenges.”

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:36 pm

Comments

1. He issues a lot of unenforceable EO’s. Gonna cost the state a lot of money on attorneys.

   Comment by chi Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:38 pm

2. Elections have consequences.

   Harris v. Quinn is the hook to hang his hat.

   Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:40 pm

3. The unions went all in against Rauner… now they are paying the price.

   This is simple politics.

   Comment by poker player Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:41 pm

4. What does the AFSCME contract say about this?>

   Comment by very old soil Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:42 pm

5. Another untruth from Rauner. By exising law, any expenditures for political or ideological purposes are excluded from the fair share fee. That is why fee payers pay a lesser amount, an amount sufficient to cover the union’s costs which they are obligated by law to provide to the fee payers.
   It looks like arrogance, falsehoods and lawlessness are the hallmarks of his administration.

   Comment by truthteller Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:42 pm

6. Surprised somebody at Winston wasn’t also named general counsel.

   Comment by vibes Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:42 pm

7. Okay then. No social agenda there.

   Dudes on crack.

   Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:43 pm

8. Harris v. Quinn specifically did not overturn Abood. So hanging your hat on that is just poor lawyering.

   Comment by Juice Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:43 pm

9. I should add that I was an unwilling union member and a “fair share”, But once in I think it is only “fair”.

   Comment by very old soil Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:44 pm

10. ===So hanging your hat on that is just poor lawyering.===

    Never said it was good, but that’s the avenue

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:45 pm

11. Utterly outrageous and done in horrible faith. How does Rauner do something like this legally? The union has to represent workers who file grievances, and workers benefit from union contracts.

    Plus, isn’t Harris v. Quinn limited to a particular class of workers, home healthcare workers who voted against union representation, and/or those who work outside of state facilities?

    There has to be legal recourse for unions.

    Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:46 pm

12. The supreme court made distinctions between home health care from family members and actual state employees.

    Comment by DuPage Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:47 pm

13. Let the battle begin…… I hope he (Rauner) losses this attempt to weaken the middle class!!

    Comment by General Zod Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:48 pm

14. They’ve opened fire on Fort Sumter!

    No legal basis for this across-the-board EO.

    Comment by walker Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:49 pm

15. Good move on Rauner’s part. Glad to see him stand up for the rights of the people.

    Comment by Sunshine Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:49 pm

16. That’s the first direct challenge to democratic leaders in the legislature. Will they respond to overturn the EO?

    Comment by Unspun Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:50 pm

17. The Fair Share terms were enacted to help unions because their are many employees who are content to enjoy the benefits which result from collective bargaining without paying anything for the bargaining agent.

    As was state above, “Fair Share” payers do not pay fees that equal the amount of union dues. Their payments are discounted to reflect only the value of collective bargaining, etc. No employee, union or “Fair Share” is obligated to pay for political activities — opt out provisions are available.

    Comment by Under Further Review Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:53 pm

18. ===Good move on Rauner’s part. Glad to see him stand up for the rights of the people.===

    lol.

    It’s only good if it sticks and if it sticks, the Unions here don’t caputalize on the direct shot at them.

    Too early to judge. It is what it is. Today.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:53 pm

19. It’s so wonderful that this administration is moving past business as usual by the “100 years of corruption crowd” by respecting the law, and not forcing illegal and unlawful actions to litigation.

    Comment by AC Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:54 pm

20. Wow, that’s about as smart of a legal analysis as when he claims he is going to change current employees retirement plans. That worked well for the Lege didn’t it.

    Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:56 pm

21. ===…Adding… Rauner said he has hired Dan Webb and Winston & Strawn to handle this issue on a pro bono basis

    Pro bono for a state government? That’s kind of stretching the meaning of the concept.

    Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:57 pm

22. Fair share fees are less than union dues to account for that very free speech issue; fair share fees are meant to cover salary negotiations, grievances, etc.

    Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:57 pm

23. Zounds! A shot across the bow.

    Comment by Keyser Soze Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 3:58 pm

24. I wonder what Atty General Madigan can/will do about this?

    Comment by Jeff Park Mom Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:00 pm

25. Bruce needs to hire a better legal opinion! Even a cursory read of the Harris Quinn ruling reveals that Bruce has no hook to hang his hat on. The EO is just plain wrong on so many levels.

    Bruce and crew are headed for a real battle in the weeks ahead and after dealing with them a bit the last two weeks I am convinced they have no idea what they are doing. Look at their consultants! Lame.

    I only wish I could be around to watch this fiasco unfold. I can’t but I’ll be following Capitol Fax for sure……

    Comment by Old and In the Way Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:00 pm

26. Let the assault on unions begin.

    This is Round 1 of many to come.

    Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:00 pm

27. I’m not saying all employees, but there is a large percentage that enjoy the protection unions give them. Like not being able to be fired for not performing their job, allowing them to drink and smoke pot on the job without worrying about lising their job if caught, and much more. They allow the lazy people to make large amounts of money for merely showing up for work. No consequences of any meaning are imposed upon them. If they are, a grievance is filed and the issue goes away!! Anybody wish to challenge that? There are those out there that understand exactly what I’m saying. I’ve only had 25 plus years seeing it go on.

    Comment by Thunder Bunny Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:01 pm

28. Does this mean those opting out will have a salary reduction to correspond to not have a negotioated union salary?

    Comment by Jim'e' Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:03 pm

29. “There are those out there that understand exactly what I’m saying.”

    Yeah, I’m one of them: it’s nonsense. What you’re saying is called nonsense.

    Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:03 pm

30. Unilaterally amending the provisions of a binding contract…let the next round of lawsuits begin.

    Comment by Courser Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:04 pm

31. This made me smile. I retired last year and watched how things were done under the five Governors before the current one. Even bleeding heart libs like me couldn’t believe how, under the last two Governors, CMS staff, including those responsible for negotiating union contracts, and senior administration officials let the pendulum swing way, way, way toward the side of labor. We watched our rank and file, and then, our managers get subsumed into union positions, till we had no one left to manage most of our offices and programs. Those few managers who remained had frozen salaries and impaired authority to do their jobs.

    If Rauner needs to show off a little with an EO that the legislature will probably throw aside, I will give him that slack. The pendulum still needs to swing and common sense needs to be restored.

    I don’t expect today’s action to stand for long, but I sure hope that management gets to manage again.

    Comment by Walter Reuther's Son Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:04 pm

32. Nope

    Comment by Thunder Bunny Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:04 pm

33. If you’re not paying to belong to the union you shouldn’t benefit from the union bargaining.

    Comment by Strobby Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:05 pm

34. Bargaining chip

    Comment by Poster Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:05 pm

35. ===They allow the lazy people to make large amounts of money for merely showing up for work. No consequences of any meaning are imposed upon them. If they are, a grievance is filed and the issue goes away!! Anybody wish to challenge that? There are those out there that understand exactly what I’m saying. I’ve only had 25 plus years seeing it go on.===

    Oh - Thunder Bunny -,

    Did you forget any stereotype or are ya just brubg generous and naming the ones that make you most bitter?

    I feel bad for you.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:05 pm

36. I wonder what Winston and Strawn’s elder statesman, Jim Thompson, who signed the bill legalizing fair share fees in 1983 and was very critical of Rauner’s approach to unions, thinks of this latest move.

    Comment by truthteller Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:05 pm

37. This is one of the reasons I like him. Why should someone who works for the state be forced to pay dues to a union he/she doesn’t politically agree with. I hope it spreads to private corporations too.

    Comment by Wagyank Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:07 pm

38. Wait, don’t EO’s have to be blessed by the GA? I seem to remember that coming up with Quin’s EO’s he did upon his exit.

    Comment by Jim'e' Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:07 pm

39. The unions take care of their own first, and sell us down the road. Call it discrimination if u will. I got a ten day suspension,the union member served three. for the same violation.
    Now I have a recourse. Thanks Bruce.

    Comment by TheRealWorld Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:07 pm

40. I’ve actually read Harris v. Quinn. There is ZERO in that decision which even hints that it can be applied to full-fledged, full-time public employees. Zero.

    Comment by too obvious Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:07 pm

41. I don’t hear any laughing… Gov’s likely to win. And this will be popular Statewide and among a surprising number of State workers too sick and tired of paying dues to support a Political Action Program they dislike, and Union Stewards who do little if anything in the workplace.

    Comment by Bill Baar Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:08 pm

42. Fair share is the amount determined to go to contract enforcement and negotiation — not political activity. He basically signed something to ban something that does not happen. Unfortuately, there are a lot of other clueless people out there and this scores points.

    Comment by ash Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:11 pm

43. I LOVE this!

    Comment by AuH2O Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:12 pm

44. “Why should someone who works for the state be forced to pay dues to a union he/she doesn’t politically agree with.”

    Because they get the benefit of union representation in contract negotiations. If you take a service but don’t pay for it, that’s called freeloading.

    Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:12 pm

45. The G.A. cannot undo an Executive Order unless of course they can pass a bill which is signed into law.

    Comment by Tom Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:12 pm

46. @ TheRealWord, that’s a pretty good argument to join a union!

    Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:13 pm

47. The political contribution part several are talking about is wrong. If an AFSCME member goes fair share, the amount they pay is only reduced by what their Local gets, Council 31 (Illinois chapter) and AFSCME international still get their cut to do with as they please. It hurts the Local, it doesn’t hurt Council 31 or International. Just needed to clarify that.

    Comment by Turnkey Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:13 pm

48. truthteller, Big Jim is all for the money. This became clear to me during the Blago years. As is done by most politicians, he may contrive some justification for changing positions.

    Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:13 pm

49. OMG!

    Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:14 pm

50. I’ve scrubbed the EO and the case law and I can’t find any legal or factual justification for the EO, except the allegation in the EO that unions establish the “fair share” in a unilateral way — in other words, that there is the possibility that the “fair share” taken from a paycheck actually supports political action. I suppose that lays the groundwork for discovery on the issue, IF (and this is a big if) sell-out Dan Webb can persuade the court not to dismiss the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment on the pleadings. And the notion that Dan Webb’s work on this is “pro bono” is laughable — what next? Let’s defend BP for its oil spills and call that “pro bono” as well.

    Comment by ChiTown Seven Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:14 pm

51. - I got a ten day suspension,the union member served three. for the same violation.
    Now I have a recourse. Thanks Bruce.

    From a proud union member, a couple thoughts…

    How about you don’t violate employer rules and you won’t suffer any discipline…

    Nothing you mentioned is any fault of the union, nor any comment on their efficacy or place. Perhaps you only deserved 3 days for your offense, and had you had a union fighting for you, you might have received equal justice.

    After all, that’s what unions fight for.

    Comment by MotherJones Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:14 pm

52. Interesting question on what the IL Atty General will do in this instance. She typically sides against state workers when State bosses violate state and federal laws.

    Comment by Qui Tam Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:14 pm

53. === And this will be popular Statewide and among a surprising number of State workers too sick and tired of paying dues to support a Political Action Program they dislike,===

    I do not think Fair Share and what is actually going on is what you think is going on.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:14 pm

54. I thought all the fair share languages are included in the signed contracts. How can an executive order change a signed contract?

    Comment by Makandadawg Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:15 pm

55. I’ve been a fair share member for a while simply because I didn’t believe in union leadership. This does the opposite of what he intended and forces me to go all in now.

    Comment by ash Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:15 pm

56. And the Harris v. Quinn lawsuit ruled that home healthcare workers had to pay nothing, to either the Local, Council 31, or International. That’s why Council and International were against it. They still get their cut if a member is fair-share, the Local is left empty-handed.

    Comment by Turnkey Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:16 pm

57. Interesting to see Dan Webb taking this on pro bono. The former managing partner of Winston & Strawn, Jim Thompson, gave stump speeches against efforts to weaken unions this way. Thompson was a friend of labor and won recognition from unions and union workers while maintaining a strong hold on the Republican values that many voters supported.
    This is a whole new kind of Governor.

    Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:16 pm

58. So I can keep my job and don’t have to pay agency fees. I like it. I like it a lot!

    Comment by Bob the Slob with a Cushy State Job Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:17 pm

59. Unions are an issue of free association between an employer and the union, which means just like they can force you to wear a uniform, they can force you to join it. And then it is between you and the union what they require of you to be a member. Employers make that bargain because the alternative is much worse for them - chaos at the workplace, boycotts, etc. There is a strong libertarian argument for unions presented here:

    http://fee.org/freeman/detail/whats-wrong-with-right-to-work

    Comment by wjmaggos Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:17 pm

60. Interesting question here: Since Rauner’s EO is a frontal assault on a state statute, doesn’t Lisa Madigan have to weigh in on this? After all, it’s her job to defend the validity of any statute (even when the challenge to a statute’s validity originates from another twig in the executive branch of government).

    Comment by ChiTown Seven Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:18 pm

61. Also, fair-share members are afforded the same rights to a grievance procedure at every level of the process. Sorry, just saw a lot of misinformation on the comments and wanted to clarify.

    Comment by Turnkey Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:18 pm

62. “Now I have a recourse.”

    Actually you don’t; nothing about this EO is going to change non-union disciplinary procedures. At best, in the long term this is going to destroy the union so that all employees face the same discipline as you, but that neither corrects the situation you identified nor makes your life appreciably better.

    Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:19 pm

63. Unless he has personally placed $$$$ into Madigan and Cullerton’s laps (we’ll never know) all this amounts to is fanning the ego fires…unlike his unscrupulous business dealings, Rauner will not be able to dictate from his own island. He’ll need the GA to get things done and pushing agendas that are not priorities without overall approval will not get him the numbers he needs. Short-term gains may produce long-term pains.

    Comment by Just saying... Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:20 pm

64. Why do you think he is only applying this EO to CMS employees? Why not all state employees? Are they closer aligned to home health workers for some reason? Hmm.

    Comment by Jake From Elwood Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:28 pm

65. Mind-boggling how false Rauners logic is. Unions have separate PACs for political contributions, and all contributions are completely voluntary. Even full dues paying Union members have ZERO if their dues go to campaign contributions.
    Don’t let Rauner and the IPI trolls on this thread confuse you. They are wrong legally and factually.

    Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:28 pm

66. === Wait, don’t EO’s have to be blessed by the GA? I seem to remember that coming up with Quin’s EO’s he did upon his exit. ===

    ARTICLE V
    “SECTION 11. GOVERNOR - AGENCY REORGANIZATION
    The Governor, by Executive Order, may reassign functions among or reorganize executive agencies which are directly responsible to him. If such a reassignment or reorganization would contravene a statute, the Executive Order shall be delivered to the General Assembly. …”

    I’ve been curious about this given some of the other orders he’s issued. Since the EO issued today doesn’t reassign duties although one may argue that it contravenes the law, I’m not sure the GA can undo the EO. I’ve seen some of his other orders listed on the GA calendar. While I believe some of these are legally suspect, I’m not sure the GA can deny without some reassign or reorg link.

    Maybe Old and in the Way can give us guidance. Obviously his legal skills surpass the Indiana attorney’s

    Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:28 pm

67. I have no problem with this if it is Fairly done. Remember, Rauner believes that they are 20% overpaid and they have health care coverage that is too generous. Therefore, “fair” means that the next executive order is to create a nonunion pay scale and benefits, and those that do not want to pay for union representation will be placed on these scales. That will be fair, and us union members really do not want them to benefit from our efforts anyway.

    Last thought is I hope they do not screw up at work, fall out of favor, or just simply have the wrong party win the next election. At that time they will then find their job gone and will not have to worry about fair share dues to cover those services fought for since they do not have the union protection anymore. If you do not believe this ask somebody who worked for the state in the 70’s. I have been told that was how it worked prior to the union for state employees.

    Comment by Primary Target Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:29 pm

68. Harris v. Quinn is a different beast than this issue. I had been feeling mildly optimistic about Governor Rauner, giving him a pass until I saw actual budget numbers. This sideshow gives me pause, however.

    Comment by Earnest Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:33 pm

69. Reading further, I see that it actually applies to all State employees under the control of the Executive Branch, but apparently not the other two branches. I guess it’s the old separation of powers at work. The question still stands why CMS was the poster child of this EO.

    Comment by Jake From Elwood Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:35 pm

70. Walter Reuther’s Son at 4:04 p.m. nailed this perfectly, at least from a common sense perspective.

    I’m not much interested in what commenters who aren’t lawyers or Supreme Court justices think about Harris v. Quinn or the EO. Rauner himself said that this issue will be decided by the Supreme Court, so he’s not saying it’s a slam dunk. He’s saying that he’s confident.

    Like him or not, he’s not afraid of a fight. Whether it proves a fight or a fool’s mission, I’m not sure any of us can say with any certainty.

    Comment by Fasten Your Seatbelts Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:36 pm

71. Apparently he’s got the FY16 budget all hammered out and has moved onto this next very, very critical issue.

    Comment by Politix Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:38 pm

72. This and his other antics play to his wealthy base and the government haters. However, I think he’s overreaching and will harm efforts to diminish the influence of AFSCME. I believed that Madigan would be willing to help Rauner take AFSCME down a peg or two, but Rauner’s broad front war on unions will be too much for Madigan to accept. It will also strengthen Cullerton’s backbone on the matter as well.

    Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:39 pm

73. Jake from Elmwood, the AFSCME master contract is technically between AFSCME and CMS as a representative of the State of Illinois as employer, which is why the focus in the EO is on CMS.

    Comment by Juice Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:39 pm

74. According to the Tribune the GA can vote to block this EO

    Comment by Jim'e' Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:40 pm

75. Here come rounds of unnecessary litigation!

    Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:40 pm

76. ===the GA can vote to block this EO===

    That’s possible. He’s probably “reassigned” a duty here, so they could.

    Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:42 pm

77. The “ing” is back!

    Comment by Poster Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:42 pm

78. === According to the Tribune the GA can vote to block this EO ===

    As I told my kids - DON’T TRUST EVERYTHING YOU READ IN THE PAPER. You need to analyze what’s been said by it and other entities and make an informed judgement. Based on the Trib’s track record, their credibility is very suspect.

    Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:44 pm

79. >> The unions went all in against Rauner… now they are paying the price. This is simple politics.

    Oh man, do I not buy this interpretation … Rauner was gunning for the public sector unions, no matter -what- they did.

    Comment by ZC Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:45 pm

80. I guess I wouldn’t want to take MJM and Cullerton on like this, considering the Budget Address is upcoming…

    But…the Governor wants fights. The Governor wants to be polarizing. In those veins, Rauner was successful today.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:45 pm

81. ==I got a ten day suspension,the union member served three. for the same violation.
    Now I have a recourse. Thanks Bruce. ==

    The “same violation” does not mean the details of the infraction were the same. I noticed that you were suspended, not fired.

    Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:45 pm

82. A real shot across the bow of organized labor.
    After the last two weeks there is NO hope that labor will ever play ball with Rauner.
    And talk about putting GOP legislators, especially those downstate, between a rock and a hard place. I think many of them at least have truces with organized labor in their districts. I can’t see that lasting once those GOPers have to start publicly supporting their Governor who is now labor’s Public Enemy #1.
    And this may also hurt Rauner’s chances of getting much cooperation on legislation from downstate Democratic legislators no matter how conservative the legislators may be. If there is one interest group that keeps downstate Dems in line it’s labor and I doubt labor will permit those Dems to be supportive of their sworn enemy.

    Comment by Enough Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:46 pm

83. truthteller - i believe Illinois is a soft-money state. The dues collected can be used to voice an ideological message, so long as it does not expressly advocate for a particular candidate(s). It’s compelled speech if the dues collected are used to purchase speech in the form of ads, flyers, etc.

    At least that’s how it works at the federal level.

    Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:49 pm

84. @ ZC- Yeah, the unions didn’t just go all in against Rauner for funsies. It’s not like they loved Pat Quinn.

    Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:50 pm

85. I guess we know why certain GOP members were “keeping their distance” from Rauner. He’s making them choose between him and their neighbors’ livelihoods. Awkward.

    Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:50 pm

86. Yeah, where are the accompanying releases from the SGOP & HGOP touting this as a great move with the refried quotes inserted by the individual members?

    Oh I’m sure they’re coming. Why?

    “Who” is going to stop it?

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:52 pm

87. This is step one. Another step will be to not automatically extend the AFSCME contract when it expires and terminate the State automatically deducting “fair share” or dues from employees’ pay.

    Comment by anon. Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:53 pm

88. I guess the support of an EO depends completely on the E and very little on the O.

    I remember some very different views a few weeks back.

    Comment by A guy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:53 pm

89. Why not just save the state a lot of money and eliminate the office of governor?

    Comment by William j Kelly Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:53 pm

90. ### ===the GA can vote to block this EO===

    That’s possible. He’s probably “reassigned” a duty here, so they could. ###

    I have more confidence in Cullerton and Madigan’s attorneys ability to make a creative link to “reassignment” than Indy’s prowess to convince otherwise.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arZdeg_fL-I

    Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:54 pm

91. I’m surprised it only affects 6500 employees. So only less than 15% of union employees don’t kick in for the union’s political stuff. Wow.

    Comment by Salty Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:56 pm

92. The PU’s stuck their hand into the Harris bee hive on their own, an unforced error.

    Past that? So.It.Begins.

    Comment by Toure's Latte Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:58 pm

93. I wonder how a roll call vote in the IL House and Senate to sustain or overturn the Executive Order would play out.

    Of course, the Speaker can count the votes before calling that vote.

    Comment by Bill White Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:58 pm

94. The war was well under way before today. Today he just brought out an artillery piece. In my local the less than 5 fair share members and union members could fill out a form to direct any political portion of their dues to non political donations. In the argument that union members get better representation than non union members I’ll just say by experience that both groups got the exact same representation. There are many factors that go into realm of just discipline. If the G.A. doesn’t step in money will dry up in a hurry. This is all a sideshow to distract from the fact the Gov doesn’t know how to deal with the revenue shortfall without doing something drastic. This doesn’t help..

    Comment by Mouthy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:59 pm

95. Regardless of your opinion on Fair Share, can anyone explain how Rauner’s actions today move Illinois any closer to an effective solution to our myriad of fiscal problems?

    I’d like to be mad but somehow this just makes me feel very sad and hopeless.

    Comment by Buster Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:59 pm

96. Glad to see Winston and Strawn is doing this pro bono.

    To make that claim real, they know they have to take themselves out of the running for any pinstripe patronage coming out of the governors office, right? Otherwise, it’s just a shell game.

    With the governor messing around like this on a social agenda, does anyone have any doubt some very severe layoffs are coming to state government once he gets real on his Constitutional duties?

    Better get yourself essential in a hurry.

    Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:00 pm

97. - A Guy -,

    Don’t paint too broad a brush. You will be painting outside the lines of some reality.

    Careful.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:00 pm

98. This guy is nuts. The EO is completely illogical and makes a mockery of his offer of cooperation in the SOTS. He has a mentAL obsession with unions. Geezer Louise….

    Comment by Joe Biden Was Here Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:01 pm

99. Maybe Rauner is trying to create a distraction from his budget problems, (the “we don’t need a 5% income tax” train wreck).

    Comment by DuPage Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:01 pm

100. You think the GA vote to overturn this EO is one of the 10 votes Rauner is demanding that GOP legislators vote with him on?

     Comment by chi Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:02 pm

101. === Hypothetical: If this EO does turn out to be illegal, wouldn’t that be “Abuse of Power” and hence grounds for impeachment? ===

     Let’s not start this now.

     Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:05 pm

102. I agree with Sunshine.

     Comment by Southern IL Voter Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:05 pm

103. ==eliminating unfair share dues for state employees who do not wish to fund government union activities and positions with which they may disagree.==

     What local right-to-work zone do these people occupy?

     Fair share does not cover government union activities or positions, another Rauner lie.

     Comment by Wensicia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:05 pm

104. I don’t expect much from Rauner. He just wants attention. His history is all corrupt pay to play. In the end he just wants cash and power for him and his friends. Not one ethical bone in this one percenter’s body.

     Comment by anonymous Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:08 pm

105. This is covered in the union contract…if the guv believes he can make changes at any time on issues covered by a contract then what do you think he will do with other things like the pension, health care and other benefits for employees and retirees.

     This strikes me as blatant “I am the king and I get to do what I want when I want and I will find some lawyer to help me”

     Comment by illlinifan Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:12 pm

106. Meh. Cullerton fired a shot across Rauner’s bow with minimum wage bill he passed. Rauner fired right back with this EO. Boys playing with their guns. Just keep your head down and watch the fireworks.

     Comment by Big Muddy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:15 pm

107. We all have much more of this to look forward to - should be a very interesting first year of his term.

     And with the staff, advisors and “consultants” he has surrounded himself with - be prepared for more of the same.

     Elections do have consequences, but he still has the GS, the AG and the Courts to deal with.

     Should be an interesting first ( maybe ONLY ) term.

     Comment by illini Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:15 pm

108. just because of typical Reagan Republican nonsense on unions and how money is used against them. buckle up boys and girls.

     Comment by Amalia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:20 pm

109. Big Muddy - its hard to watch the fireworks when our heads are down!

     Comment by southwest Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:21 pm

110. There’re 6500 people involved. Their fair share money’s going to go into escrow. Not everybody in the state thinks there should be a government union or that people should be forced to pay union dues in order to have and keep their jobs–especially jobs that only recently were declared to be union positions in the first place. Chill. This EO is not the end of the world or the end of public unionism. Let’s watch it work itself out.

     Comment by Responsa Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:25 pm

111. Surely Rauner’s advisors are aware of the current AFSCME contract language. The contract is pretty clear in saying the fair share dues “shall be deducted”. Maybe Governor Rauner is looking ahead to the upcoming contract negotiations and the likely legal battles to follow. What better way to weaken the opposition than to take away the fair share dues of 6500 employees put it in escrow for who knows how long?

     Comment by Sangamo Sam Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:26 pm

112. This is pretty wacky stuff. Under “IV. Savings Clause” he pre-emptively states that this is *not* a “reassignment or reorganization of any State Agency.” Thing is, unless I’m missing something, the only EO authority Governors are granted in the Constitution is for precisely that.

     So now the Governor can read case law and determine what does and does not violate the First Amendment and act accordingly? Looks like Baron Von Carhartt just declared himself King Carhartt.

     Comment by Sam Weinberg Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:29 pm

113. Pro bono - does Winston & Strawn donate money? If they contract with an agency under the Governor, doesn’t the Procurement Code ban campaign contributions? By the way, how much did George Ryan’s defense? $20 Million like in this link? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-07-19/business/0607190154_1_winston-strawn-illinois-governor-firm

     Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:30 pm

114. What is the response to this action by the state Republican Senators and Representatives?

     Comment by Buzzie Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:30 pm

115. It looks like we are in for a season of confrontation instead of cooperation.

     Comment by Enviro Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:30 pm

116. - Buzzie -,

     It ain’t buzzin’, it’s silence so far.

     Right now, Rauner is on his own. We’ll see how long he’s in that limb.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:32 pm

117. I’m not making any plans for June at this rate

     Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:36 pm

118. ==It looks like we are in for a season of confrontation instead of cooperation.==

     Or negotiation, maybe? I “give” on something you want– you “give” on something I want. We’re not used to it in this state, but that’s actually how politics usually operates and policy gets made in a normal two party system.

     Comment by Responsa Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:37 pm

119. Is this Rauner’s game going forward? Ignore contract law, the constitution, the legislative procedure, and issue orders until the courts stop him?

     Comment by Wensicia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:39 pm

120. This guy needs a serious thump to his melon! He is winding down the road of destruction. His actions chill me to the bone. Im not sure he makes it a full term or even a full year. WE THE HARD WORKIN PEOPLE NEED TO RECALL THIS TRYRANT. NOW!!!!!

     Comment by Total Recall Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:40 pm

121. OW I misspoke. I meant to say “Good move on Rauner’s part. Glad to see him stand up for the rights of the people.” Thanks for catching that!

     Comment by Sunshine Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:44 pm

122. This was the exact same thing Mitch Daniels did to start things off as governor of Indiana. Except in that state the right of collective bargaining among government employees was merely established via executive order to begin with. So Daniels was just reversing an executive order, not flouting public law or a state constitution.

     When so many Daniels people showed up in his administration and based on some of the things he said in the campaign, I was worried this would be one of his first moves.

     Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:44 pm

123. I agree with other commenters that say this move has little to do with the budget, or even Illinois state government. This is “red meat” designed to get national attention — it may not even matter to him if it stands up in court or not. If he starts showing up in Iowa…..

     Comment by kimocat Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:45 pm

124. And Illinois entry in is Scott Walker LookAlike Contest is…..

     Comment by Buster Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:45 pm

125. When you pay only fair share “Council 31″ afscme still gets there dues money only the local does not. And it isn’t the same representation for fair share people. Afscme will only represent you up to third level on a grievance, which you could do yourself if you wanted to. They will not rep you or even advance a grievance to 4th level for a fair share member. And they will tell you that they don’t trade off grievances but they do. afscme doesn’t want this because the free ride is over they might actually have to do a good job at representation or members will drop them. And no more supporting only the party that afscme wants.

     Comment by Rob Roy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:45 pm

126. Total Recall…

     Yeah, you go with that…

     Most people would say tyranny and telling someone they don’t have to do something generally do not go together…

     Comment by OneMan Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:45 pm

127. The sky isn’t falling yet.

     No one needs to be recalled or worse on one executive order to 6500 employees that will probably face judicial scrutiny after litigation begins.

     Remember campaigns…and governing?

     All this…is the difficult part.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:46 pm

128. There is no need to panic. The GA is securely in the hands of the Democrats. The governor will be held accountable when he steps over the line. The “Balance of Power” will prevail in the end.

     Comment by Enviro Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:47 pm

129. What is the over/under for when the first lawsuit is filed?

     Comment by Huh? Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:55 pm

130. The Dems are loving this…not because Rauner is digging his own grave (he may be), because he’s doing the work they know needs to be done - and have been too afrid to do.

     Comment by Dupage moderate Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 5:55 pm

131. Senate President John Cullerton responds…

     “Our legal staff is reviewing the Governor’s executive order regarding fair share…”

     We are still a nation of laws. The Democrats will now look better and better to the union members.

     Comment by Enviro Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:03 pm

132. Some people seem to think unions should lay down and take it, since “they” lost the election. That’s kind of silly. For one, this election was more of a referendum on the incompetence of Quinn, more than on the promises and competence of Rauner. And second…seriously, if the GOP had ran an Edgar-like candidate who promised to at least be neutral to the unions, AFSCME would have supported them I feel…trust me, there’s a lot of hate for Quinn in AFSCME.

     Comment by The Equalizer Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:10 pm

133. If Jimmy Carter, Paul Simon and 86 other US Senators supported this concept for the Federal Government why is this so controversial? FDR also did not believe in collective bargaining for Federal employees.

     Here is a quote:

     “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:10 pm

134. I’ll bet 40% +/- of union households that voted for Rauner in the last election aren’t going to vote for him in the next.

     Comment by AC Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:11 pm

135. Dupage.. I said when Madigan spiked the ball after the pension vote this summer… He used Bruce Rauner by name in his statement. He was second or third in the primary race at that time.. If Madigan plays chess… I guess this is part of a match made in heaven… Madigan is in legacy mode… He’s found a partner/goat.

     Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:11 pm

136. I believe that most Dems think that AFSME is more R thanD therefore don’t expect Madigan to ride his white horse in to rescue them without extracting some big support for the Ds

     Comment by Joe Blow Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:22 pm

137. It’s been a long day, so maybe I missed it. I am trying to figure out the 6,500 number. Does this only include CMS employees? Or is this aimed at those employees (that are in Agencies under CMS) whose titles were put in the Union the past few years?

     Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:26 pm

138. ===Some people seem to think unions should lay down and take it, since “they” lost the election. That’s kind of silly. For one, this election was more of a referendum on the incompetence of Quinn, more than on the promises and competence of Rauner.===

     I know I didn’t say tgey should lay down and take it, but elections have consequences, and here’s the rub; no matter how someone wins, you call the one with the most votes Senator, or Mayor, or even Governor.

     The election only ends when those needing to govern, actually do the governing.

     It doesn’t mean anything after the oath is complete.

     Rauner is governor. That’s all that happened today; Rauner’s vision of governing.

     By the way if you’re gonna go “if”, please include Dillard and ignore reality.

     That’s why elections have consequences. The rest is either gloating or sour grapes, depending where ya fall.

     Enough with victors and victims.

     That woukd help in governing too.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:28 pm

139. I always hugely resented the notion that state employees were forced to pay dues to a union that turned around and donated it back to its patrons in the Democrat party. That never seems right or just to me. This won’t help Rauner deal with the General Assembly, but at least it is step towards meaningful reform of a very corrupt system.

     Comment by Skirmisher Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:31 pm

140. I think Rauner’s gone off the deep end. This directly violates an existing contract, which is due to end and which he reportedly is refusing to negotiate. Rauner thinks he is the CEO of state government, not the mere Governor, chief official of one branch of the government. I’m sure shareholders and board members love this tough guy talk, but really, there’s nothing in common between government and business.

     Comment by DuPage Dave Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:33 pm

141. === to its patrons in the Democrat party.===

     It’s Democratic Party.

     Saying Democrat Party is parroting talking points to hide partisan failings of the GOP by building a straw man to be a victim to for convenience.

     My Party needs to be better than “Democrat Party”.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:36 pm

142. ==- Primary Target - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:29 pm:==
     Back in the ’70s the State was Merit Comp - no union at least in the agencies I worked for.

     Comment by Mama Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:38 pm

143. I would be shocked that the typical voter didn’t find what Rauner did anything but common sense. I am talking about the 25% or so independent voters. State employees get a union to negotiate with the state.. And dues used to persuade the very process. This is a rather popular move I bet with the average person…

     Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:40 pm

144. The pro bono legal work is clearly intended to sound like a deal to the taxpayers and bankrupt unions at the same time. WBBM just stated they would pro bono it all the way to USSC. I have a sincere question. Is offering pro bono work to the state ok? As a state employee, I can accept nothing of value. Isn’t the agenda clear? Or am I confused?

     Comment by W.S. Wolcott Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:42 pm

145. AC - I’ll bet 40% +/- of union households that voted for Rauner in the last election aren’t going to vote for him in the next.

     I’ll bet they do. If they voted for Rauner, unions were probably forced upon them and agree with his EO.

     Comment by Cardinal Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:45 pm

146. First, union dues are required to pay for contract negotiations. Association dues are separate and are NOT required. This executive order is right-to-work through a back door. SHAME! Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called right-to-work legislation fraud. The name itself is a misnomer. When has disenfranchisement ever proven to be”empowering”? We IL employees are not as myopic as the governor apparently wishes us to be.

     Comment by AudgeBrun Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:56 pm

147. - TheRealWorld - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:07 pm:

     The unions take care of their own first, and sell us down the road. Call it discrimination if u will. I got a ten day suspension,the union member served three. for the same violation.
     Now I have a recourse. Thanks Bruce.

     You are either not telling the truth or did something really bad to get that 10 days.

     I don’t believe you.

     Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:57 pm

148. This should be a rally cry to all Unions in Illinois not just AFSCME and Illinois State Employees. Think not, that if this is upheld that it won’t soon apply in the private sector as well. If you are a Union Member please follow the link to remind you of our roots, if you are against the Union ask yourself if this is what we want to see again. The first stone has been cast…
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKWfnO7fhQM

     Comment by New Guy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:59 pm

149. It is about time. I always hated paying fair share and that money used by unions to support political candidates. Finally a governor steps up and does the right thing!!!

     Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:00 pm

150. Doesn’t seem that devastating to the actual human employees as I read it. They are paying their fair share dues in either instance-into escrow or wherever they go now, to the union I assume. There will be a court case and The Wise Ones, whoever, will decide.

     No old folks in the street, and day-care-less children from this maneuver. It’s just that, a maneuver. And not a stupid one.

     Comment by Cassandra Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:04 pm

151. ===I always hated paying fair share and that money used by unions to support political candidates. Finally a governor steps up and does the right thing!!!===

     The only thing more ignorant than this statement, is the fact it’s an anonymous drive-by too.

     Embarrassing, but lucky no one will know you are clueless.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:04 pm

152. if I recall didn’t one BIG PQ supporting union Local 150 admit that over 40% of their membership vote Republican when they endorsed Dillard for those members ?? Rauner wins and now are they more loyal to the GOP than the union ? “victorious warriors win first and then got to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” Sun Tzu The Art of War Todd @ 5:36 is correct kiss June bye bye

     Comment by Railrat Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:09 pm

153. Rich… now’s the time to increase the cost of Cap Fax!!! You may want to tithe ten percent back to Rauner.

     Comment by 1776 Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:09 pm

154. As one who quit the FOP due to an officer being allowed to resign after a multi-thousand $ fraud with no arrest or restitution and with a wife who had to watch as her pension money went into Hoffa’s scams, I doubt the integrity of all unions. Teamsters, Laborers- do you want them to have your pension dollars? When the discovery process gets to the accounting used to detemine “fair share” the union will get nervous.

     Comment by J Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:12 pm

155. === It is about time. I always hated paying fair share and that money used by unions to support political candidates. Finally a governor steps up and does the right thing!!! ===

     Didn’t stop you from taking your pay raises. You just want to be a freeloader. I wish MCs had some group negotiating for them. As you whine about paying for an organization that got you raises, we received pay decreases in the form of furloughs and no increases for the last 8 years.

     Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:20 pm

156. Unless it is different than the private sector when a collective bargaining agreement is set to expire without a new successor agreement several things can happen. It can be extended by mutual agreement, it can be left to expire without an extension, and if legal under the CBA and laws that it is covered by there could be a strike or lockout. But if there is not an extension, strike, or lockout the expired CBA cannot be changed by the employer; the status quo must remain intact, so the employees would be working without a new contract, but it must remain unchanged. The only items under the expired that do not apply are the grievance/arbitration procedure. If the employer violates the status quo during the time there is no contract the employees would have the right to spontaneously walkout.

     Since the EO’s action violates the terms of the CBA one would assume the Union must file a grievance to resolve the matter. Since the Guv did what he did it is easy to imagine he won’t mind not following labor laws during negotiations either

     Comment by Nadia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:21 pm

157. In the private sector the courts ruled that while working without a contract employers had to continue dues deduction if it is in the CBA. I’m not sure that court case applies to the public sector. Again not sure the new Guv cares about labor law.

     Comment by Nadia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:25 pm

158. Rauner worried about unions but Mike Ruppe is still in charge at DCFS and calling the shots. He is a big person responsible for the mess there yet he is still collecting 100000 dollars per year. This person was appointed by Deb MCCarrell who is being rumored as the next director. What a joke she was in under Pat Quinn as well as Mike Ruppe and Anne Gold. Rauner get to work and make some changes at dcfs. U are keeping incompetene in at dcfs.

     Comment by Marcellus Wallace Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:33 pm

159. Great post, Nadia! Was thinking along the same lines about any current CBA and how those terms CANNOT be arbitrarily changed. Hope the unions file a grievance against the Dear Leader just to confound him and force him to publicly reject it.

     Also, as stated earlier by OW: Unions, the ball is now in your court. What are you prepared to do? Your memberships are waiting and watching.

     Comment by Now What? Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:43 pm

160. At least now we no longer need to wonder where Rauner stands in regards to unions, both public and private, since he wants localized right to work, or “employee empowerment zones.”

     I gave Rauner the benefit of the doubt, but that is over now.

     Whoever thinks that Rauner, the Kochs and the IPI truly care about the rights of middle-class working stiffs to not pay union dues for political reasons, I have a January tropical vacation in Chicago to sell them. It’s the angle they use to get support for their goal of crippling their opponents.

     “Martin Luther King”

     Speaking of middle-class working stiffs who fight for plutocrats, African Americans strongly oppose union stripping. No other conclusion can be drawn, based on their lack of support for Rauner and other union strippers. They don’t willingly bare their heads so that the Kochs can whack them, unlike those who support tax breaks for the wealthy, no universal healthcare, trickle down economics and union busting.

     Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 7:57 pm

161. “· The federal government prohibited the forced collection of union dues in 1978 as part of the Civil Service Reform Act.”
     Set up a Federally watched Civil Service program for state employees, then this Rauner deal is fair.

     Comment by Das Kapital Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:06 pm

162. @marcellus:

     Ruppe is not the acting director of DCFS. And the problems at that agency are the collective result of 12 years of budget cuts totaling around a quarter of a billion dollars.

     No one person is going to “save” DCFS. Ensuring safe, loving homes and brighter futures for all Illinois kids is the shared responsibility of every single Illinoisan, not just the 2700 people who work for DCFS, and certainly not just the next director, whoever he or she might be.

     As for who best to lead the agency…read Good to Great, and then reread it.

     Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:08 pm

163. Ingrates had the liberty to accept or refuse state employment during the hiring phase. Now, like a lazy welfare recipient, they whine that their gained benefit comes with a bill. I hope Madigan passes a law that says Fair Share employees will have salaries reduced and insurance costs increased!

     Comment by Das Kapital Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:11 pm

164. Das Kapital–you know your stuff! You are 100% correct! Thank you Rauner–first step..in something that was LONG overdue!!!

     Comment by anon Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:17 pm

165. Anon - amusing that it takes so little for you to wag your puny little tail. Not impressed. No courage. Just out for his wealthy friends and buddy Rahm who is no friend to real people.

     Comment by real anon Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:20 pm

166. Shoedoctor, do you really think Roosevelt, Simon, or even Carter would be on Rauner’s side on this issue? Roosevelt had nothing but contempt for guys like Rauner who were concerned only with lining their owned stuffed pockets.

     Comment by truthteller Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:22 pm

167. Unions who try to bypass the contractual grievance/arbitration procedure by going to the labor board or courts have been consistently had their cases sent back to the contractual procedure. I would wonder why the same wouldn’t happen in this situation.

     Even when a contract conflicts with State or Federal law the employer isn’t given the unilateral right to change or delet the conflicting language; the e parties have a duty to bargain. In this case the Guv believed the language conflicts with the law then he must bargain over the replacement language or the deletion of the language. If he doesn’t bargain then the Union can file a complaint at the Labor Board.

     The idea with bargaining and grievance/arbitration procedures is to avoid the courts and higher costs to both employers and bargaining agents.

     Comment by Nadia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:27 pm

168. If you bother to read, the courts have found that, for public employees, lobbying and negotiating are inextricably linked. A duh moment!

     Comment by Get A Clue Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:32 pm

169. As for the “requirement” that the union represent all employees, that is the choice of the union. They WANT that role and want it in the contract. There is no requirement, by law, that they do so. But it is hypocritical to demand the role and then complain of the obligation. You don’t want to represent non-members? Put it in the contract.

     Comment by Get A Clue Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:34 pm

170. Great move by Rauner in his campaign to be drafted as the GOP VP candidate in 2016.

     Any chance Sam McCann caucuses with Cullerton now?

     Comment by Tony Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:41 pm

171. So, the employees who do want their fair share dues going to the union, Rauner tells them no.

     Comment by Cheswick Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:42 pm

172. Who started this Bush-Rauner rumor and how do I stop it?

     Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:46 pm

173. ===Who started this Bush-Rauner rumor and how do I stop it?===

     Evelyn started it…

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:48 pm

174. Rauner cannot deliver Illinois for the GOP any more than Paul Ryan could deliver Wisconsin. You do not choose a VP candidate so that they can lose their home state.

     Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:49 pm

175. the GOVERNOR is a one trick pony. This is not Wisconsin

     Comment by -retired Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:52 pm

176. Sorry - YDD -…

     “Gore couldn’t deliver Tennessee for the Dems any more than Paul Ryan could deliver Wisconsin. You do not choose a POTUS Nominee so that they can lose their home state.”

     I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:52 pm

177. Okay willy, help me stop it…please.

     I will accept some responsibility for Rauner for POTUS. But Rauner as anyone’s #2? It ain’t how he rolls.

     Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:53 pm

178. Does this include teachers or just state employees?

     Comment by Mothballs1 Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:57 pm

179. Get a Clue, it is in the contract that stewards have to represent all workers to a certain level of the grievance process. I’d quote the article and section but I left the contract at the office.

     Comment by Fudo Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:57 pm

180. Scratch my comment. I just read the exec order. Sorry.

     Comment by Cheswick Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 8:58 pm

181. He is trying to weaken the union. Stay strong. I’m hearing he told his managmebtbteam to “throw everything you got at Em” in the negotiations. By his guy could care less about his employees

     Comment by Anon Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:02 pm

182. == - Primary Target - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 4:29 pm: I have been told that was how it worked prior to the union for state employees. ==

     Not really. The introduction of State Civil Service protection pre-dated union involvement. Depending on the position, Illinois has had Civil Service protection for some positions since 1902. Skipping over history, the Dept of Personnel took over that job in 1957. From 1957 until the union ascendency in the 1980’s, a lot of job titles were protected and some were at will.

     - Mama - Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 6:38 pm:

     Actually, in the 1970’s it was mostly Civil Service with some small clusters of union jobs and at will jobs; Merit Comp came along in the 1980’s at more or less the same time as the unions and as a counter-action of sorts.

     Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:04 pm

183. Who wanted that language in the contract, Fudo? If the unions are representing all employees it is because the unions wanted that language. I am sure Mr. Rauner would agree to strip it out.

     Comment by Get A Clue Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:04 pm

184. Yellow dog — picking VP candidate as a means of winning a state has kinda gone out of style. Biden, Palin, Cheney, Leiberman, Quayle were all strategic/thematic picks that had nothing to do with the tactical goal of winning their home states. Rauner could serve a similar purpose — and help shake loose lots of cash from his fellow oligarchs. And as far as Bruce not wanting to play second fiddle is concerned, bone of the best ways to become the GOP presidential nominee is to be the VP nominee first.

     Comment by Tony Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:10 pm

185. == Does this include teachers or just state employees? ==

     As I read it, the EO only covers employees in ‘State Agencies’ under the Govenor’s direct control. So I read it as covering the Illinois Office of Education but not covering a local school district.

     Not quite sure where the universities and community colleges fall since some of them are under boards appointed by the Govenor but don’t think so since they are not ’state agencies’.

     Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:15 pm

186. - YDD -,

     I’ve been trying, no one has taken me up on the help.

     I wsbt Rauber to succeed. I want him to succeed with My Party, not in spite of My Party or co-opting My Party, setting it back even farther.

     It isn’t going that way.

     I’m trying to help, if Rauner stays off the reservation, it will play out with lessons learned by all.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:22 pm

187. I am glad Rauner is representing the interests of taxpayers and the private sector. He clearly ran on reducing the cost of government and making our state more competitive for businesses. Public sector unions have had way too much influence in this state and we clearly can’t afford all of the promises politicians made to them. Unions should be furious with Madigan and Cullerton for presiding over this fiasco for the past 30 years and not Rauner.

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:23 pm

188. Another possible action could be that the Union filed a grievance over the EO action that they believe violates the CBA and since the action causes immediate financial and continuing harm the Union may consider going to court to get an injunction to temporarily stop the action until the grievance is settled at arbitration. I am not sure if filing would occur in State or Federal court, but the Federal court in East St Louis is very friendly towards workers.

     Comment by Nadia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:23 pm

189. Get A Clue -

     Heed thy name, please. Unions are required by law, not the contract, to represent the entire bargaining unit that they are certified for. Not just the dues payers, and not to the exclusion of fee payers or those who pay nothing.

     You are right. The union wants to represent everyone, and has a moral obligation to do so whether that person pays dues or not. But you are completely wrong in saying that they could just not represent them in the face of this EO.

     That’s why “right to work” legislation like this is so damning… it counts on the requirement of the union to represent everyone’s interest legally (and morally), and counts on the basest human nature of the freeloader to gut the union’s finances in the process.

     Comment by MotherJones Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:26 pm

190. Glad to see I wasn’t the only struck by the irony of Winston & Strawn defending this union attack since Big Jim brought unions into the State as major players.

     Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:30 pm

191. ===I am glad Rauner is representing the interests of taxpayers and the private sector.===

     Union workers are also taxpayers.

     Are you always this dim witted, or do these talking points resonate as facts for you because you dont know better?

     You’re not helping, honest.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:31 pm

192. ==”I’m trying to help, if Rauner stays off the reservation, it will play out with lessons learned by all.”== The Troll Oswego Willy

     LOL!! No one reading your BS from time to time thinks you’re legit, Willy. You’re no Republican and the “My Party” shtick is more than thin. You criticize only Republicans and all but bow to MJM and the Dems. #WillysADope

     Comment by Georg Sande Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:32 pm

193. Oswego Willy what is the percentage of state employees to taxpayers? If retired state workers get a 3% raise every year and the average family in Illinois has seen a decline in their wages but an increase in their taxes. Are you that dimwitted?

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:36 pm

194. Basic human instincts should tell most people that the best way to convince someone to join something is by treating them well. Taking an employee’s fair share and then treating them in a capricious and arbitrary manner will get a bargaining representative no where when trying to get a fee payer to full membership status. And as stated by others there is a legal obligation for bargaining agents to represent all members equally regardless of their status as fee payers or as full members of the Union.

     Comment by Nadia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:37 pm

195. - Georg Sande -

     If you are responding to me, you’re reading what I am writing.

     Dope.

     - Shoedoctor -

     ===Oswego Willy what is the percentage of state employees to taxpayers? ===

     “…what is the percentage of state employees that are taxpayers?”

     Better.

     And…probably 99.99%. You’re welcome.

     Please stop with the Fox News / Scott Walker talking points.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:41 pm

196. —Fair Share employees will have salaries reduced and insurance costs increased!— I didn’t think the law allows different compensation to two different classes of employees (union and non union) doing the same job.

     Comment by St. Louis Bob Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:45 pm

197. Ok you win Oswego Willy let’s just forget to the whole election thing and go back to the great way the state has been run for the past 12 years. Everything is just fine as long as you don’t read a newspaper or check your bank balance.

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:45 pm

198. I can hear a thousand keyboards typing the veto-proof bills that will limit the powers of this governor. Just when I thought there couldn’t be more of a crass, unintelligent governor as Rod…

     Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:47 pm

199. People here should read the EO before commenting.

     People claim that fair share employees don’t pay into political funds, but the EO makes the point that any collective bargaining public employee unions do is political in nature because the other party to the agreement is a public body with all sorts of political ramifications wrapped up in the results of that bargaining.

     Also, to claim that Rauner is simply dismissing a current contract is disregarding the EO stance that the contract is invalid due to violating the First Ammendendment.

     Comment by Creative Nickname Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:49 pm

200. - Shoedoctor -

     So state workers are taxpayers?

     Nothing to win there, it’s a fact.

     Bank balances? Id that another buzzy thingy that sounds swell?

     This is one EO, effecting 6500 workers. This ain’t the Magna Carta.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:50 pm

201. Oswego Willy of course they are taxpayers but a very small percentage of the total. Just admit protecting even the most outrageous abuses (double dipping etc.) is more important than the tax burden on the rest of the taxpayers and businesses of this state. What is the solution to the problem and how much will it cost to fix? If you don’t want to cut any spending anywhere the problem can’t be solved. Jimmy Carter was no Scott Walker and he agreed with me and that was before Fox News even existed.

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 9:56 pm

202. But - Shoedoctor -, you are applauding the protection pf the taxpayers, and those workers are taxpayers. Kinda blows a hole out of your hollow talking point.

     Let’s revist your Dopiness;

     ===I am glad Rauner is representing the interests of taxpayers and the private sector. He clearly ran on reducing the cost of government and making our state more competitive for businesses. Public sector unions have had way too much influence in this state and we clearly can’t afford all of the promises politicians made to them. Unions should be furious with Madigan and Cullerton for presiding over this fiasco for the past 30 years and not Rauner.===

     A cheerleading talking point after talking point wrapped with buzz words ain’t solving anything.

     You got called on your Raunerbot comment.

     It’s ridiculously simple. Get over it. lol

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:03 pm

203. If any portion of a contract is invalid due to conflict with State or Federal statute then the parties have to bargain over the language changes. Collective bargaining is just what it says collective, it involves two parties. It is not “selective” bargaining or unilateral bargaining, it is a legal relationship that includes a duty to bargain with the other party to the relationship.

     Comment by Nadia Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:07 pm

204. This has nothing to do with helping regular taxpayers. I’m a regular taxpayer and a public sector union member. This is about driving down wages and making the fat cats fatter.

     Comment by IAFF Mike Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:20 pm

205. Yes Willy Rauner is protecting all taxpayers public and private. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:20 pm

206. ===Yes Willy Rauner is protecting all taxpayers public and private. Why is it so hard for you to understand this?===

     You don’t see the ignorance of saying “protecting taxpayers” …from taxpayers?

     That’s talking point logic bereft of anything close to sound facts.

     Did you re-read that comment? The bullet points are disguised as sentences.

     This place ain’t your dad’s newspaper comment section. You think Raunerbot talking points is helping? Nope.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:26 pm

207. Willy you don’t see the ignorance of protecting the status quo. I get it, you disagrees with me and everone else who voted for Rauner but I will refrain from personal insults and calling you an MSNBC watcher.

     When a liberal loses an argument you can bet on personal insults and a Fox News reference. Never a comment on why the Federal goverment made these same reforms under a Democratic President and a super majority of the House and Senate. That would be too hard to explain. Much easier to just call me a Raunerbot.

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:34 pm

208. Shoedoc, what is the “cost” to whom, to the nearest $10 million is fine, of “egregious..double-dipping?” I’m serious here.

     Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:36 pm

209. They had the freedom to not pay deserved Union dues by turning down the job offer, but Nooooo, they said yes and now they whine. Looking a gift horse in the mouth.

     Comment by Das Kapital Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:41 pm

210. anyone surprised by rauner’s anti-union moves since inauguration day should consider that we’re in a class war. unless you’re also a billionaire he’s not going to be on your side.

     Comment by A Non-Mouse Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:42 pm

211. - Shoedoctor -,

     So…the workers ARE taxpayers?

     Raunerbots continually go to talking points that say nothing;

     Example?

     ======Rauner, representing the interests of taxpayers and the private sector…reducing the cost of government and making our state more competitive for businesses. Public sector unions have had way too much influence in this state…we clearly can’t afford all of the promises politicians made to them. Unions..,Madigan and Cullerton for presiding over this fiasco…for the past 30 years..,Rauner.===

     Look at your jibberish!

     Not one thought of your own.

     Do you think fit yourself, or do you wait to be told what to think? Before you answer, point to your own thought up there.

     I am a Republican, not a Raunerbot.

     There is a difference.

     How do I know that? Rauner needs $20 million to bully Republicans to vote Raunerite…or else.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:43 pm

212. I have no idea and neither does anyone else or we would not have an unfunded 100 billion dollar liability. Obviously changes need to be made but some people can’t accept it. A place to start would be to limit the 3% raise to the first 80-100K of annual benefit. It is insane we give this to the whole amount.

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:45 pm

213. So the EO is unconstitutional as it isn’t an agency reorganization. However, he can still tell his CMS director to put the money into escrow. The Governor doesn’t tell his many directors and staff what to do through EO. The EO was done for the press. Then unions file a grievance/injunction for “their” money. (How come there hasn’t been a link to the complaint that Winston has filed.)

     It is kind of a stretch for Gov. Rauner to have standing. He isn’t really harmed by giving employees’ money to the union. If an elected official believes one of their duties is unconstitutional, they don’t do the duty and then the person suffering the harm sues. One of the 6,500 employees who pay fair share obviously would have standing. As would AFSCME once they miss a fair share payment.

     I can see this going all the way to the USSC as there were a lot of negative dicta towards Abood in Quinn v. Harris. But it is kind of a long shot. However, I don’t see a lower court agreeing with Gov. Rauner. The case law is not on his side. The Supremes would have to overturn Abood which would be HUGE. Is he willing to take two years of losses (in term of PR) by the time it reaches the USSC? I actually think he is…

     However, as Rich wrote about earlier, Illinois is a union state. Approximately 85% of the union state employees contribute to AFSCME’s political stuff. They are currently paying more than they have to. I can see this move increasing that percentage, similar to Blago’s actions increasing the union’s rolls. At least initially, I don’t see that 85% going down.

     Comment by Former Public Employee Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:51 pm

214. And Shoedoctor, how is this move in the taxpayers interests? In detail? Because as far as I can tell, the Governor is going to want to get concessions out of the Union immediately, because regardless of whether fair share dues are collected or not, The contract guides both the salary structure and the health care benefit structure. All this did was give the union an excuse to dig in even more. Also, SB 1 got rid of the 3% automatic COLA, yet Rauner opposed it. His proposal would simply cost the taxpayers billions of dollars more. So again, explain how this is anything more than an ideological fight being picked by an out of touch cadre of billionaires?

     Comment by Juice Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:51 pm

215. clumsy!

     Comment by facts are stubborn things Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:55 pm

216. Willy, you’ve been in an funny back and forth with a troll. Actually, the troll is hilarious trying to convince you that this helps the non-public employee taxpayers. Given that this particular action only allows 6,500 state employees to avoid paying dues. How does this help millions of other taxpayers?

     Of course we know what Raunervich is doing. This is but one part of his strategy to eliminate public unions. What this shows me is that Raunervich is so weak minded and weak willed that the only way he can deal with the unions is to eliminate them. Negotiations is too complicated for this salesman.

     Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:56 pm

217. Willy just ignore my point.

     Why did the Federal Government decide collective bargaining for wages and benefits was a bad idea under a Democratic President with super majorities in he house and senate. Why did FDR believe that too? Could it be that union dues used to elect politicians does not work out so well for taxpayers? Let’s just talk about how everyone pays taxes, ignore the fiscally responsible democrats and just call people Raunerbots.

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:57 pm

218. Maybe it’s just me, but many of the comments here this evening read like Cold War era eastern bloc propaganda . Lots of exclamation points and first person storiess, but after reading them more than once their statements are just not believable .

     As far as this EO? Anyone who has followed the governor over the last 18 months or so should not be the least bit surprised. He has hinted about using EO’s to implement his agenda. The only thing that surprises me is the timing. We have serious budget problems left to be addressed(and this does nothing to help save in the near term), so spending so much effort going after the unions right now has to be to get him national exposure. It surely doesn’t make doing his job (governing) any easier with that (supposedly) veto-proof majority. If anything, it makes it more likely the GA might just go about running the government without the governor’s input .

     Comment by Roadiepig Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 10:59 pm

219. Hey Raunerbot, please explain how this move helps taxpayers at all. And Quinn/Madigan/Cullerton dealt with the 3% COLA that you have complained about multiple time which Rauner opposed, so how should that have been handled differently?

     Comment by Juice Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:00 pm

220. - Norseman -, you are the better me I’d hope to be at these times. Watching - Shoedoctor - talk him/herself into knots has been too fun, fun that I’m sorry. Youre a touchstone, Bud, as always.

     - Shoedoctor -,

     When you have a thought of your own…

     It’s been discussed, FDR and Carter, look up above, specifically to - Noresman - and - RNUG -, and also understand that the hook for the hat, Harris v. Quinn is not completely responsive to this EO.

     Wanting something to be, and something being legal and true are two different things.

     Again, this is an EO, effecting 6500 workers, that will face legal interpretation, not the Magna Carta. Failing to understand that AND the politics at play here is ignorant to all the factors, and the rationale…

     But stick with the talking points if it helps.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:12 pm

221. Rauner is Dan Walker on roids. Where is that recall petition !

     Comment by John Birch Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:12 pm

222. How does Rauner have the authority to decide that a private law firm will represent the State in any legal challenge to the executive order? Isn’t representation in court a power reserved under the state constitution and statutes to the Attorney General?

     Comment by anon Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:37 pm

223. I would not want to bet against Dan Webb and a 5-4 decision on the US Supreme Court Court that this actually is upheld

     Signed Dan Walker

     Comment by Shoedoctor Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:37 pm

224. This is altogether different from the “Harris” case. First off, the Governor under the Illinois State Constitution is tasked with enforcing the laws of state. One of those laws is the Illinois Labor Relations Act which explicitly allows for the collection of “Fair Share” dues by public employee unions. Since when can a Governor overturn or negate a statute by executive order?! In “Harris v. Quinn” the Governor was the defendant, which is appropriate in the context. Here the Governor is the plaintiff?! The Illinois Supreme Court should immediately overturn this Executive Order and, considering the blatant and unconstitutional abuse of power, the General Assembly should be considering articles of Impeachment against Governor Rauner.

     Comment by Majorkong Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:38 pm

225. Outstanding news…GO BRUCE GO!!!

     “Forced union dues are a critical cog in the corrupt bargain that is crushing taxpayers. Government union bargaining and government union political activity are inexorably linked,” Rauner told the Sun-Times. “An employee who is forced to pay unfair share dues is being forced to fund political activity with which they disagree. That is a clear violation of First Amendment rights –- and something that, as governor, I am duty-bound to correct.”

     Comment by Raunerbot Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:38 pm

226. This really what it is all about…totally agree.

     “Union money is the grease that keeps the Democrat Machine running smoothly in Illinois. It pays for most of the Democrat Legislators campaigns, including some of the “Republicans”…86% of Legislators in Illinois have received union money.

     This will be really interesting during the 2016 elections. Governor Bruce Rauner is now the clear cut leader, and force behind the resuscitated Illinois Republican Party. It should be noted that Bruce Rauner already has a $20,000,000 political kitty to help elect Republicans, who are more in tune with the taxpayers. At the same time, Democrats will be coming up empty at the money trough from which they drink.

     BTW…that “grease” has forced incompetent and corrupt politicians on Illinois taxpayers for years. There is no mystery why Illinois ranks at the bottom, or near the bottom, in just about every crucial category by which to measure the success of a well managed state.”

     Comment by Raunerbot Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:40 pm

227. The comments about Winston & Strawn’s representation are all good and raise interesting issues.
     Furthermore they are thought provoking and cause a return to the basic issue of authority . In particular, Questions are :

     1) Does the Governor even have authority to hire Outside Counsel ?

     2) Doesn’t Attorney General have to say OK to Outside Counsel involvement ?

     3) Has AG said OK ?

     4)How will the Pro Bono , Ethics , and other issues raised above be raised and adjudicated ?

     Got No Answers , Only Questions , maybe somebody knows ?

     Comment by x ace Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:44 pm

228. ” It should be noted that Bruce Rauner already has a $20,000,000 political kitty to help buy a Raunerite Caucus, or destroy GOP GA members who fail to be Raunerites, and replace Those GOP members with thise who are more in tune with Bruce’s demands.”

     Better

     Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 9, 15 @ 11:58 pm

229. You are exactly correct OW…the sooner the better. He has a standing army of supporters willing to help him in that regard.

     Comment by Raunerbot Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:02 am

230. Just checked Harris v. Quinn which also started with an Executive Order. Lisa Madigan appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court to represent Pat Quinn. The Governor can hire legal advisors but the AG has the constitutional and statutory authority over all litigation. The proper mechanism is an appointment of that private attorney as a Special Assistant Attorney General. Has Madigan done that?

     Comment by anon Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:03 am

231. @Yellow Dog Democrat –
     “No one person is going to “save” DCFS. Ensuring safe, loving homes and brighter futures for all Illinois kids is the shared responsibility of every single Illinoisan, not just the 2700 people who work for DCFS, and certainly not just the next director, whoever he or she might be.”

     YDD, I usually agree with you. However, this sounds nice and like the way it should be, but really isn’t. It reminds of Rauner’s EO saying to cut unnecessary spending.

     Our family tried to be part of the system and help out, but DCFS and agencies were more interested in $$ than kids. That program needs to be reworked significantly (and I suggest Ohio as a model).

     Comment by Stuff happens Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:11 am

232. The idea that Rauner is doing this to “protect free speech” is very LOL. He is trying to destroy his chosen political enemies. I suspect he fails to convince the courts. Rauner and his allies want to destroy all unions, not just public sector unions. I am pretty sure Madigan & Cullerton are well aware of this and will eventually move to protect there major funders.

     Comment by justthefacts Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:12 am

233. ===You are exactly correct OW…the sooner the better. He has a standing army of supporters willing to help him in that regard.===

     Destroy the autonomy of ILGOP GA?

     Speaks volumes…

     Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:33 am

234. ==- Raunerbot - Monday, Feb 9, 15==

     When posting about yourself Bruce, you should use the first person.

     Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:18 am

235. @Yellow Dog Democrat. If you think Ruppe is not running DCFS you have no clue as to what you are talking about. The interim director is another turn coat that has no clue as to what child welfare or child protection is. The mess at Dcfs is over the past 12 years there has not been an ounce of leadership at the agency. SPSA’s like Ruppe who have no idea how to lead, manage, or strategically plan have ran the agency into the ground. The problems start at the too with incompetence nd poor management. Read a book on leadership. This administration is based upon a dinosaur like managament theory and total lack of incompetence. Management requires a certain set of skills and none of these people in the top pyramid at dcfs have it. They blame direct line staff for everything while offering nothing in return.

     Comment by Time to invite new staff to the barbecue Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:45 am

236. @barbeque.

     Amen to that. The vibe at the entire agency is that this Mike Ruppe led administration is the worst it’s ever been. Another guy put in another lead position that has no skills or ability. Not to mention, he then put all his friends in place and like minded incompetent people. Governor Rauner needs to address the top administration there and move these people on. And do not bring back Deb McCarrell, she is just another clueless talking point that lives to spend the state dime.

     Comment by Time to invite new staff to the barbecue Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:50 am

237. @yellow dog democrat

     You may want to read more than just the book, Good to Great. You may actually want to apply it to DCFS administration. Application skills are what’s best, and there is nothing good let alone great about the upper DCFS administration. To apply that book to this administration, it would have to be called Crappy to Average. Re-read the book you quote and actually apply it to that administration. Leadership sets the tone for the entire agency especially a large one and its null and void at DCFS. I agree with the comments above, good change is necessary at DCFS and it starts at the top.

     Comment by The One Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:06 am

238. ShoeDoc: they said that Bcoz they have the Civil Service. Let IL state employees run under a federally administered system free from Political influence.
     Until then, All Power to the Workers!

     Comment by Das Kapital Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:00 am

239. NO ONE in America is FORCED to join a union, not one person. We are free to choose to work in a non-Union shop or a union shop. Once youv’e accepted the job offer, LIVE with what you knew before you started working.
     I know not one person who wishes they did not have Union protection and plenty who wish they did.

     Comment by Das Kapital Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:05 am

240. An incredibly inspired and necessary move! Illinois needs to be man-handled and brought into a right-to-work frame of mind! Bravo, Governor Rauner, bravo!!!

     Comment by Black Ivy Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:18 am

241. “NO ONE in America is FORCED to join a union, not one person. We are free to choose to work in a non-Union shop or a union shop. Once youv’e accepted the job offer, LIVE with what you knew before you started working.
     I know not one person who wishes they did not have Union protection and plenty who wish they did.”

     Correct about freedom to not join a union.

     Also, again, those who are in a union but complain about its political culture are too lazy to change it. They should try to become union board members and change the culture democratically, instead of stripping something that its members ratified.

     The argument that eliminating fair share dues to the benefit of taxpayers is a red herring. Fair share dues have nothing to do with political representation. Political decisions by union members are made democratically, by full share members, via conferences. Many decisions unions make are democratic, unlike what Rauner did, which undermines democracy.

     Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:38 am

242. Black Ivy

     Do you ever have anything useful to say or are you the designated Rauner cheerleader?

     Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:49 am

243. I agree with GoM. People in the country can’t opt out of governance because someone in a party they don’t support won office. Union members are part of a democratic process…they are free to campaign to change the union’s positions and actions. Workers also have the freedom to decertify their union, though again that’s subject to a democratic process.

     Comment by Earnest Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:53 am

244. @GRandson

     =“NO ONE in America is FORCED to join a union, not one person. We are free to choose to work in a non-Union shop or a union shop.=

     So, if you don’t want to join a union, your civil rights for fair access to public sector employment is going to be violated?

     Remember Shakman? It ruled that the public’s rights were being violated by allowing political patronage to be the determining factor in hiring, therefore shortchanging the public in possibly excluding those workers who might provide better service to the public. The same logic applies here. One could make the case than many high quality workers are being excluded from public service jobs because of the political decision to exclude them due to state or local requirements to pay into a union to whom they did not agree nor respect, and fund them through regulatory requirements.

     Both political patronage and mandatory union dues payment require an employee to pay for services they’d rather not have, campaign work and contributions for the patronage worker and union dues for the forced union worker. Same thing. BOTH exclude many fine employees who may better serve the public who don’t care to contribute to politics or the union mob that extorts their money and forces them to accept what bargains they make with government, rather what the employee can negotiate on their own behalf.

     Forced union dues payments are bad for the public AND the better workers whose value may exceed that negotiated by a “one size fits all” union that rewards the poor worker the same as the high quality ones.

     Having better quality workers is in the public interest. Clearly, forced union dues payment is not.

     Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 7:59 am

245. ===ase than many high quality workers are being excluded from public service jobs because of the political decision to exclude them due to state or local requirements to pay into a union to whom they did not agree nor respect, and fund them through regulatory requirements.===

     Example?

     ===Both political patronage and mandatory union dues payment require an employee to pay for services they’d rather not have, campaign work and contributions for the patronage worker and union dues for the forced union worker===

     The movies arebt going to campaigns. Please learn.

     Your leaps and conclusions are based on things that only in your head make sense, or phrases and buzz words Raunerbots seem to be attracted to like moths to a flame.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:06 am

246. Bob:

     I thought you were all about freedom of choice. It is a fact that nobody has to take a particular job. If somebody doesn’t want to pay union dues then don’t take a union job. It’s really that simple. How exactly does that violate any rights? Only in your mind Bob. Only in your mind.

     I’ve been offered jobs before. Didn’t take them because they didn’t pay what I wanted. Did that violate my rights? Nope. I simply didn’t take the job. People are free to do so in this case if they don’t like unions.

     Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:11 am

247. Yikes, whatever you think about this EO (and I’m not a fan), don’t underplay its legal chances at the Supreme Court.

     It’s true that in _Harris v Quinn_ the Supreme Court didn’t rule on public sector unions in general. But the majority opinion by Justice Alito is invitational enough - “If you sent us that case, we’ll think about that, too.”

     Comment by ZC Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:18 am

248. I’m not sure what relevance conditions at DCFS have to the Rauner EO under discussion.

     It is apparently the case, however, that DCFS has, it’s 8th or 9th director since 2003, depending on how you count various interim appointments. With that kind of churn at the top, problems are inevitable. Rauner has known for over three months now that he needs to find a director for the agency. Increasingly, he is responsible for the dysfunction.

     Perhaps DCFS should be a priority for Ms. Arduin. If she can get DCFS resources redirected from a dysfunctional and bloated bureaucracy to the kids, that would be a win for all, except the warring bureaucrats of course.

     Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:34 am

249. Will Rauner have a firewall that prevents disclosure (his knowledge) of which state employees “opt out” or continue to pay fair share?
     After demanding a list of employees that receive union pay, this is a fair question. This speaks to one of the main reason unions exist–employers can leverage the fact that employees HAVE a job against them–clearly Rauner is doing just that. If I were an at-will employee, I’d be afraid to not opt out of fair share.

     Comment by out of touch Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:37 am

250. ==We are free to choose to work in a non-Union shop or a union shop. ==

     Union shop is an old term from industrial and trade labor unions. Do average Illinoisans believe that employees “serving” the public in a government job that involves mainly desk work should be exclusively a “union shop”? I don’t think they do.

     Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:39 am

251. Take a look at Huffington Post banner headline on their morning web site post.

     As for me, I feel there is no place for unions in Public Sector. So, it continues.

     Comment by Sunshine Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:41 am

252. Seems to me the question of whether the AG should represent the state is more theoretical than anything else. Let’s assume that Lisa Madigan is supposed to at least get first crack. Does she want it? I suspect not. If she’s smart, and she is, this is one where she would be well advised to sit on the sidelines and watch. This could go either way, and there’s no upside to LM ticking off unions by acting as counsel on this matter.

     Comment by Lisa Won't Argue Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:51 am

253. My only question is if the public unions has so much outsized political might that they’re able to control the state legislature, why did they never think to make the legislature pay their pension obligations? I’m glad we have a man like Bruce Rauner to end the influence of money on politics once and for all.

     Comment by Carhart Representative Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 8:52 am

254. “So, if you don’t want to join a union, your civil rights for fair access to public sector employment is going to be violated?”

     Nope. If you don’t want to join the union, you don’t have to. But if you still avail yourself of union benefits, you don’t get to pretend you’re a political prisoner just to get out of paying the bill.

     Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:05 am

255. “…I’m glad we have a man like Bruce Rauner to end the influence of money on politics once and for all.”

     Ummm…wind up merchant or twit? I can’t tell.

     Comment by Kippax Blue Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:10 am

256. “Given that this particular action only allows 6,500 state employees to avoid paying dues.”

     And it doesn’t even do that, it just puts the dues in a different account.

     Is anyone really super-confident that the state won’t try to find a way to sweep that account?

     Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:10 am

257. The GO, and other agencies for that matter, retain outside counsel (at a reduced State rate, not usually pro bono) all the time. That’s not unusual. The AG’s role would be representing the State at the actual proceedings, in coordination with outside counsel. It would be the AG’s choice whether to allow outside counsel to actually physically represent the State at a litigation proceeding.

     Although that is all based on my understanding of the law. Since nowadays it appears that a Gov can unilaterally alter a material term to a contract and override a statute… apparently the world has shifted.

     All snark aside, my two cents, Webb wouldn’t take this case if he didn’t think he could win. He’s the MJM of trial lawyers. Methodical and over-prepared. I hope trade and public sector unions rally together on this one. If they don’t, I fear the true middle-class in Illinois is going to wake up 5 years from today and not know what hit it.

     Comment by Centennial Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:13 am

258. “Governor Bruce Rauner is now the clear cut leader”

     Is he? We’ve got Republicans publicly parting ways with him on RTW, not showing up at his events in their district…and this is during the ostensible honeymoon!

     “At the same time, Democrats will be coming up empty at the money trough from which they drink.”

     What is that based on?

     Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:14 am

259. We have fair share members first thing this morning looking for someone to give their green cards to.

     Comment by Just an observation Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:35 am

260. Bruce made $25,000.00 an hour last year.

     Yet there are mustard slappers at the local sub shoppe who are defending the notion of making even less money for themselves.

     Amazing.

     Comment by Del Clinkton Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:38 am

261. It will be interesting to see how the Democratic leadership in this State responds to the governor’s action. I think it is obvious from the actions of leaders such as Madigan and Nekritiz that these leaders do not support the workers and Middle Class of this State

     Comment by Earl Shumaker Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:49 am

262. @earl:

     A guy who made $25,000.00 an hour last year is proposing legislation to give someone who makes $8.25 an hour a raise of .25 an hour for 7 years.

     Clear support of the middle class there.

     How stupid of us in the middle class to NOT recognize how benevolent he is.

     Comment by Del Clinkton Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 9:55 am

263. To answer the question posed to Oswego Willy state employees are about 4% of the population. Now a question I have for Oswego Willy: if state employees “are taxpayers as well” and in equal standing with private sector workers, can you tell us another group of taxpayers who chanted “raise the taxes” in downtown Springfield?

     Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:20 am

264. Robert, do you think your question is some sort of brain teaser?

     A number of church groups, civic groups and community organizations supported the tax increase and/or a new progressive tax structure.

     Pay attention and do some basic reading before you bother people with silly questions.

     Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:32 am

265. Love the “savings clause” in the EO, which recognizes the Illinois Constitution’s limits on EOs only to say hey, the statute it conflicts with is void. I thought it was up to the courts to determine that! Read *Harris* and it’s clear that it doesn’t extend to “full-fledged public employees.” SCOTUS is worried about having precedents that are about expanding the First Amendment rights of public employees when it’s contracting them everywhere else. It’s a shame about the need for consistency in law. Why not just have rich and powerful people like Bruce do whatever the hell they want with the rest of us?

     Comment by John Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:34 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)

Last 10 posts:

• Uber’s Local Partnership = Stress-Free Travel For Paratransit Riders (11-21)
• Report: IDOC's prison drug test found to be 'wrong 91 percent of the time' (11-21)
• SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Session update (Updated x2) (11-21)
• Illinois Supreme Court rules state SLAPP law doesn't automatically protect traditional journalism (Updated) (11-21)
• ‘This is how I reward my good soldiers’: Madigan ally testifies he was rewarded with do-nothing consulting contract (11-21)
• Illinois Supreme Court rules that Jussie Smollett's second prosecution 'is a due process violation, and we therefore reverse defendant’s conviction' (11-21)
• Dignity In Pay (HB 793): It Is Time To Ensure Fair Pay For Illinoisans With Disabilities (11-21)
• It’s just a bill (Updated) (11-21)
• Open thread (11-21)
• Isabel’s morning briefing (11-21)

more Posts (Archives)

WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.

powered by WordPress.