Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The governor’s lawsuit
Next Post: To what end?
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** As a commenter points out, the Illinois Policy Institute director John Tillman made $261,764 in salary and another $23,915 in benefits three years ago.
Frankly, I don’t really care how much Tillman makes. I make a decent buck myself, but, hey, I’m in the private sector.
The IEA is a huge organization, while Tillman’s is quite small, so using generally accepted market principles it would stand to reason that IEA President Cinda Klickna would make more than Tillman. But that isn’t the case, unless Tillman has taken a recent pay cut. So, I’m not sure where his beef is. Also, check out his overhead. Whew.
* The Illinois Policy Institute has long bashed public employee unions and has pushed for “right to work” legislation. Yesterday, the group unveiled a new report…
“The anatomy of influence: Government unions in Illinois” takes a close look at unions’ political spending and the influence afforded to government unions as a result. This analysis offers an unprecedented review of the political donations to the current Illinois General Assembly, as well as top recipients of union political giving since 2002. It also highlights how profitable the business of forced unionization can be for those who run the unions by listing a sampling of the highest-compensated employees for the state’s major government unions: the Illinois Education Association; Illinois Federation of Teachers; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31; and Service Employees International Union.
This book also reports how unions spend the money collected from mandatory dues, according to the unions’ own filings with the federal government. In the state’s largest teachers union, the Illinois Education Association or IEA, only 26 cents out of every $1 in union dues is actually spent on the union’s stated reason for existence: representation of workers. The rest of the union’s dues and fees revenue went mainly toward overhead, administration and political activities. Other unions also fail to spend the majority of dues money on actual representation – which is supposed to be unions’ key function. At both the IEA and the Illinois Federation of Teachers or IFT, the top 20 highest-paid employees all are paid salaries of more than $100,000 annually. Cinda Klickna, head of the IEA, pulls in $235,404 annually.
In addition to salaries, money spent on politics makes up another big chunk of union spending. The Illinois Policy Institute reviewed campaign-finance reports from 2002 to 2014 and found the five major government unions in Illinois spent a combined $46 million in political campaigns in that time. That number offers just a glimpse of union political spending, as it does not include donations by local chapters of government unions.
While the vast majority of government-union political spending goes to Democrats, the review of campaign spending since 2002 showed that Republicans received nearly 17 percent of the unions’ campaign spending during that time. Former Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, sat atop the heap, with $11.1 million in union donations, including nearly $8 million from the Service Employees International Union.
* Now that Gov. Rauner has opened the “debate” over right to work, the Institute will attempt to muddy up the unions by using their own financial disclosures. For instance…
In 2014, the IEA spent $692,203 on hotels and $213,118 on consultants.
The union often sends staff into the field to assist locals, and there’s plenty more cherry picking. The IFT…
• Representation takes up about 60 cents of every $1 of IFT union dues, with 22 cents spent on administration, 12 cents spent on overhead and 6 cents spent on political activities.
• In 2013, the union spent $348,958 on hotels, $104,886 on consultants and $195,854 on attorneys.
* AFSCME…
• AFSCME spent 51 cents of every $1 in union dues on representation, 28 cents on overhead, 13 cents on administration and 5 cents on political activities.
• In 2013, the union spent $463,943 on hotels, $107,059 on consultants and $654,295 on attorneys.
• In 2013, AFSCME reported spending $31,972 at its “holiday party” for staff and directors. The spending included hotels rooms and other party expenses.
* SEIU…
• The main SEIU locals combined spent 60 cents of every $1 on representation, 23 cents on overhead, 9 cents on political activities and 6 cents on administration.
• In 2013, SEIU Healthcare spent $533,218 on hotels, $330,637 on restaurants and catering, $345,030 on airlines, $312,687 on rental cars
and $838,417 on consultants.• SEIU Healthcare spent $49,619 on its “membership” Christmas party in December 2013. Among other Christmas party expenses, catering cost $34,556 and the tab at Binny’s Beverage, a liquor store, amounted to $6,063, lower than the $6,859 tab for its party the year before.
• SEIU Healthcare spent $7,523 for floral arrangers at an event in 2013. The year before, it spent $6,859 on Christmas decorations for the office.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The governor’s lawsuit
Next Post: To what end?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rich, how come no one is pointing out the timing of this EO coincides with the first day of AFSCME bargaining? Rumor is that AFSCME and CMS were at the bargaining table yesterday when news of the EO broke, and even management was flabbergasted.
Also, it’s telling that IPI issued this report immediately after the EO came out. This is clearly a coordination of efforts between the governor and IPI (fun fact: IPI, unlike the unions, doesn’t have to reveal its donors).
Comment by Old and Tired Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:08 am
I trust IPI will also list its expenses to show that they don’t use their money in a similar fashion… maybe I shouldn’t hold my breathe on this one.
Comment by Good for the Goose Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:08 am
I’m trying to figure out why the wages of union leadership matter.
Yes, they are paid well. Negotiating contracts tends to be lucrative.
Is that really worthy of a section of the report?
Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:10 am
What’s their definition of representation? You need to have an office. And political expenditures would fall under that category for me.
And who cares what they think. Its up to the union membership to vote for their reps. If they don’t like it they can step up and get involved themselves.
And what about IPI’s financials? Why don’t they show how the unions stack up against how they run their organization. I don’t know, maybe they would do well but my guess is their percentages would be similar to the unions.
Comment by Been There Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:11 am
“But do we back Dilllard?” Said the Unions way, way, way too late.
Wonder how many of the former IPI Staff worked on that?
Just thinking out loud.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:11 am
Is there coordination between IPI and Rauner? Given Rauner’s donation history to them and the IPI staff that now work for Rauner, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Comment by Bull Moose Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:14 am
Am I the only one who thinks 5% on political activities is much lower than expected?
Comment by Will Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:14 am
IPI’s numbers are about as accurate as the US DOJ IG’s $16 muffin.
Comment by Smitty Irving Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:15 am
Differentiate ‘Overhead’ and ‘Administration’ costs. 41% is reasonable?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:15 am
==Since 2002, Illinois’ five major government unions have spent more than $46 million on direct political contributions alone.==
Three rich dudes contributed this much in the last year alone.
Rauner/IPI MATH: 13 years in dues from tens of thousands of members is a MORE corrupting influence than what three people can contributed in one year.
Comment by Jimmy CrackCorn Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:15 am
===Is there coordination between IPI and Rauner?===
lol
You had to ask that?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:16 am
Does an IPI “book” come with a free set of Crayolas.
How does the money they pledged to the Rauner inauguration fit into the “independent education and research” mission?
Or are they just another “special interest?”
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:17 am
It would be nice to see a comparison w/similar entities in the other large states. For apples to apples I guess would have to be on a per member basis… And then adjust for COL in places like CA and NY. It would one an idea whether or not these guys were living high on the hog…
Comment by Greg Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:17 am
A) I don’t trust their numbers.
B) If the complaint is that there are overhead costs associated with running an organization, I would be interested to hear the overhead costs of any one of Rauner’s many business ventures.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:18 am
Pretty much impossible to take anything that IPI says as fact or truth. If this was coming from the Civic Fed, that’d be a different story. But considering the source here is IPI, can’t believe a single word of it.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:19 am
Are state workers required to donate to IPI as a condition of employment? Are my tax dollars paying the salaries of IPI staff? If not, why should I care who donates to them? I’m trying to read as much as I can from both sides of the union issue. Are the facts provided by IPI wrong? If so, tell me so I can decide what to believe.
Comment by southwest Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:23 am
This is really a bargaining tactic for the next CBA. I would bet that the automatic dues deduction provision gets eliminated. Then AFSCME and SEIU will have to sue a lot of their members to collect. IPI is merely trying to poison the well of dues paying members by skewing LM2 reports and the like in a light least favorable to the Unions. All of the Unions better lawyer up for the negotiations, because Rauner already has.
Comment by Western Ave. Doug Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:23 am
Gee, sounds like mere pennies compared to some of the lush spending on “conferences” and what not in the private sector. The private sector will always have the veil of secrecy (non-publishing of employee salaries/benefits) to protect their spending. It truly is a witch hunt.
Comment by AnonymousOne Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:24 am
The next step would be analyzing relationships between those consultants and union leaders.
This is going to get nasty. All involved should have their houses cleaned up by now, after having nearly a year to prepare for this possibility.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:25 am
Union officials sure do take care of themselves. Didn’t realize just how well.
Comment by Cassiopeia Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:26 am
- southwest -
https://capitolfax.com/2015/02/02/rauner-hires-three-from-illinois-policy-institute/
Maybe ya should add this to your reading list.
Maybe this might help in connecting dots.
You’re welcome.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:26 am
@Cassiopeia:
Bruce received $36,000,000.00 in undisclosed monies to run for guv-ner. Bruce made $25,000.00 an hour last year.
Comment by Del Clinkton Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:30 am
@IPI
“SEIU Healthcare…spent $6,859 on Christmas decorations for the office.”
Quick, someone call Fox News! The WAR ON CHRISTMAS has begun. Why does IPI hate Christians, and won’t allow the unions to spread Jesus’ word?
Why are Christian Union brothers and sisters being persecuted by the IPI?
Comment by How Ironic Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:33 am
Please don’t ever use the phrase full-frontal and iPi in the same sentence again or I am afraid I will have to ban myself for life.
Comment by William j Kelly Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:34 am
According to the Raunerbots standards, AFSCME is pretty effective with it’s 5 cents.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:35 am
The United States is a phenomenally rich country.
Illinois is a rich state.
Chicago is a rich city.
The people like Ken Griffin & Bruce Rauner have gotten rich. Now they are converting their capital to political power to reduces the pay and pensions of government employees.
This is unjust. It is morally wrong.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:37 am
I’m distressed to know that tens of thousands of state workers are spending nearly as much on influencing politics as one of Bruce’s friends. If you want to know about money corrupting state politics, let’s look at how Bruce got pension money to flow his way.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Bruce-Rauner-Scored-Business-After-Donating-300000-to-Pennsylvania-Governor-262148741.html
Comment by Carhart Representative Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:41 am
Thank you Mr. Willy, but I already read that post. I’m looking for commenters who are in the know to post rebuttal information/figures to the IPI post by Rich. I read this blog during my breaks because it is concise and informative.
Comment by southwest Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:41 am
==Now they are converting their capital to political power to reduces the pay and pensions of government employees.==
Reducing their pensions is a bipartisan effort, one that was passed by a Dem majority in the legislature and was signed by a Dem governor.
Neither of their hands are clean.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:42 am
John Tillman was paid about $284,000 in 2012, for heading an organization that is a tiny fraction of the size of the IEA.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:43 am
Since special interest groups are to be dismantled, after unions, who next? Surely, unions shouldn’t be the only ones singled out, right?
Comment by AnonymousOne Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:44 am
I’d like to see a list of IPI’s funders and what percentage came from Rauner, Uhlein, Koch, Griffin, etc. The $$ pooled from hundreds of thousands of workers does NOT equal a few contributions from very wealthy individuals advancing their fringe self-interest.
Comment by Anonymiss Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:44 am
- southwest -, this is the place for that.
Ignore the IPI hires and how this is all coming out, when, at your own “risk”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:44 am
IPI’s 990: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/412/412057028/412057028_201212_990.pdf?_ga=1.178308196.1185526733.1415508597
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:45 am
I am wondering if the reported AFSCME political contributions are actually coming from dues, or is it from PEOPLE contributions. PEOPLE is the political campaign for AFSCME. Workers pay dues to PEOPLE separate from their membership dues & membership is voluntary.
Also, for AFSCME, if only 5% of dues goes to political contributions, and I believe the fair share dues are 95% of membership dues, how are fair share employees being coerced into political contributions they don’t support ? The IPI argument supports AFSCME, not Rauner in this instance.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:50 am
5 Ilcs 315/15
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:51 am
I do not understand why people hate the unions for helping people make a decent wage. It is my understanding that Rauner managed and made money from the State Employees retirement fund. If it was not for the unions there would be no retirement fund. And now he wants to “bite the hand that feeds him”?
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:52 am
full monty
Comment by walker Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:52 am
You could title this report the “Rauner Rhetoric.” The core function of a union is to provide services to its members. That comes through staff in regional offices around the state providing services. Those offices, the staff and the support staff are how those services are provided directly to members. How is that overhead? It’s an apples to oranges comparison to other charities. The irony is the biggest nonprofit with the largest staff and highest payroll is the one spinning this for Mr. Rauner who helps fund them.
Comment by IPILIE Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:54 am
I guess this is what the unions get for only a half ass effort last March..I bet some of them are thinking we should spent a whole lot more on Dillard early on..elections have consequences.. LOL
Comment by Not Rich Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:56 am
Interesting to see in the news how so many of Rahm’s donors bought so much influence in Chicago’s City Hall. Where’s the same reports for private buyers (campaign contributors!?)on a broader scope? Anybody want to bet that government unions’ contributions are only a microdot in comparison? Also, how credible is the “non-partisan” IPI anyway?
Comment by forwhatitsworth Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:57 am
This isn’t just a little ugly, This is going to be the Big Ugly. There is going to be a lot of collateral damage.
So much for “fixin’” Illinois.
Comment by Rufus Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 10:59 am
If you read the date from IPI carefully, you will see that the whole issue of union members (or non-members in the same work unit), unfairly being forced to pay for political activities, is false.
At 5%-9% for political activities, and with a fair share fee not including those amounts, IPI has once again provided data that undermines their public argument. They did the same yesterday with the contractor explaining why he takes prevailing wage jobs in Illinois.
Now if IPI’s real goal is to slime the union leadership by focusing on overhead spending, then they have succeeded.
Amazing to me that IPI staff is so biased, that they don’t even realize when they undercut their own arguments with their own data.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:00 am
“Union officials sure do take care of themselves. Didn’t realize just how well.”
I love the point when anti-union rhetoric loops around to attacking success.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:01 am
“Reducing their pensions is a bipartisan effort”
I bet the next move won’t be. Never underestimate legislators’ capacity for fecklessness.
Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:03 am
Lets compare GTCR’s numbers to where the unions put their money. I am sure 6k on Christmas decor will be seem like child’s play.
Comment by Come on man! Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:03 am
What does IPI have against Christmas?
Is that some sort of atheistic, Ayn Randian social Darwinism sort of thing?
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:13 am
== but, hey, I’m in the private sector.==
Isn’t that also true for Tillman?
Comment by Anonymoiis Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:15 am
Didn’t conservatives teach us that we have to allow unlimited campaign contributions because corporations are people ? But I guess union memebers aren’t ?
On a local matter…has anyone else noticed how WMAY AM has become an IPI station from 9-12 M-F AM ?
Comment by Anotherretiree Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:18 am
Public sector unions are a racket and a rip-off. Shame on us for allowing the corrupt activities of our elected representatives. Now we are paying the price.
Comment by Freedom to Choose Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:20 am
It’s pretty fair to assume that IPI is spinning/crunching the numbers as best it can to make the point against unions. Fair enough. Given that, it is instructive that they can’t get any higher than 9 percent of spending on political activities for any of these unions. Rauner is right in that unions have bought politicians. What’s amazing is that politicians cost so little. If I were a union member, and I am not, I would be happy that such a small portion of my dues went toward buying politicians to such great effect. Klickna et al may or may not be overpaid, but they sure know how to deliver bang for the buck when it comes to making political contributions.
Comment by Bad At Math Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:21 am
I’m waiting to see the Cullerton and Madigan’s response to this assault. I was of the opinion that Madigan would have been responsive to some reasonable curbs on the union. However, I’m rethinking in light of the nuclear war being waged by Rauner.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:23 am
If you look at this in the context of history this is a deterioration of the public sector not caused by Rauner. Although his face is on the front, the descent of the public sector labor market was intitiated by SCOTUS with the Rutan decision, and in my mind will continue. Rauner can no longer hire whom he wants with every party chairman in Illinios ala Thompson. We had a white male fraternity that overpaid good Republicans for being in many cases semi-retired and a source of campaign funds and workers. When Rutan came along, things still worked out because the unions stepped in and gave money. A prominant Springfield attorney argued Rutan and made a good living creating settlements making sure her clients were hired anyway, as the only recourse for the state was to put her clients to work or face the risk that a federal judge appoint a federal Trustee charged with hiring everybody for CMS when a previous consent decree was violated. Rauner is the face of the writing on the wall folks, A regression of the mean for most state employees as private sector values of wages and benefits as the structure of state employment decays. Although the quick way of describing it is as Willy says is “elections have consequences”. There is a structural undermining which is the root cause that we cannot ignore, and Rauner is just a symptom of.
Comment by Madison Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:24 am
I thought the IPI was a free market sort of organization. If that’s the case what’s their beef with people’s salaries? I guess only CERTAIN people should make high salaries.
The hypocrisy is thick here.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:27 am
Norse, we have an initial response. I suspect you would consider it not even “tepid”. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Speaker (less so, Pres C) let AFSCME stew awhile before reacting at all. He doesn’t want to be a hand-maiden for them either. His memory of them at State fairs hasn’t faded. It may be a while before you see a discernible reaction from him on this.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:29 am
Illinois Policy Institute doesn’t act like a 501c3 and the $3million Rauner gave it (Source: Bernie Schoenberg) in 2013 should have raised alarms all along. Bernie, William Kelly, and others have been saying this stuff all along. Rauner is now hiring people from IPI and he has the gall to talk about shaking up Springfield? I’d like to know why IPI and John Tillman have not yet been investigated or been questioned by the media about their tax status. What about Rauner and the black church leaders he ended up taping for roles in his administration? All this tax-exempt tax status stuff deserves serious scrutiny and a crackdown - otherwise - why bother saying it means anything?
Comment by anonymous Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:29 am
Thanks IPI for this information. Looking at the data, AFSCME and the other Union’s are a great deal when compared to IPI.
IPI has a whopping total of 41 employees
Pays CEO $285,679.00 salary.
Responsible for 41 people.
Hides the vast majority of salaries of employees.
Hides secret income stream and donations over last several years of $10,441,491.00.
Has 2 offices.
AFSMCE has over 150 employees
Pays Exec Director $166,017.00 or almost $120,000.00 less than IPI Leader.
Responsible for over 150 staff and over 70,000 members.
Government requires to list out all monies spent on every expenditure and staff.
Spends only 5% on political activities (staff has to account for any time spent working on any political activities).
Has 8 offices throughout State of Illinois.
Thanks IPI, you’ve proven the point that Unions are more transparent, more efficient, more effective, more fruggle and are a better deal than Richy Rich Rauner, the KOCH brothers and their shadow groups.
Comment by Thanks IPI Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:31 am
One drawback of being inside the State Capitol is that one is not in the real world. Talk to any teacher and the corruption inside the teachers union is worse than anything than Rauner has outlined. Rauner is talking to the people who matter — the voters. It will be an interesting time where real information can be given to voters that the media and other groups will not report.
Comment by The obvious Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:33 am
Investigate John Tillman, Bruce, Rauner and the tax-exempt status shell game. $3 million from Rauner to John Tillman/Illinois Policy Institute in 2013 - in return for what?
Comment by anonymous Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:34 am
==Illinois Policy Institute doesn’t act like a 501c3==
Agreed, but so what? Tons of 501(c)3’s don’t act like non-profits and get away with it, and they have for years. Read any stories about how social welfare groups, a cousin of 501(c)3’s, launder campaign contributions?
It would be unfair for the IRS to pick on IPI unless it starts cracking down on everyone. And it should.
Comment by The IRS Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:36 am
==I’m rethinking in light of the nuclear war being waged by Rauner.==
It’s a free country, but I’m speechless at the over-the-top rhetoric some people are posting. I’m wondering what phrases are left to be used when something really big happens?
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:43 am
The obvious
“Talk to any teacher and the corruption inside the teachers union is worse than anything than Rauner has outlined.”
Examples, please.
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:53 am
Re the IPI’s ridiculous research on “union bosses” —
https://illinoisepi.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/a-quick-comment-on-government-unions-in-illinois/
Comment by Anonymiss Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:01 pm
“from 2002 to 2014…the five major government unions in Illinois spent a combined $46 million in political campaigns in that time”
= roughly $3.8 million a year.
“The man who beat Quinn, Gov. Bruce Rauner (R), and his wife, Diana, were the largest individual donors to state political campaigns. Rauner, who made his fortune in private equity, gave his own committee more than $37 million. He also contributed about another $300,000 to candidates running for the Illinois legislature.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/01/28/top-50-mega-donors-spent-almost-half-a-billion-dollars-on-state-elections-in-2014/
“Griffin spent more than $6 million on the 2014 elections, including more than $5.5 million to Rauner’s campaign in the run-up to Election Day. The Citadel CEO also was one of the top funders of a failed effort to change the way Illinois draws its political maps — the once-a-decade process known as redistricting.
In the last days of 2014, Griffin put another $8 million and Rauner another $10 million into the governor’s campaign fund. (Businessman Richard Uihlein put in $2 million).” -AP
Hmmm, the “buying power”, when comparing the two sides, seems to favor the plutocrats….
Comment by Under Influenced Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:06 pm
Federal law prohibits IEA and IFT from spending dues money on political activity. That money is collected separately and spent by their PACs. They can spend dues on political education. The law is titled Landrum Griffin.
Comment by Wadeiea Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:08 pm
You wonder if Raunef feels a tiny bit silly complaining about buying elections or using campaign contributions to influence public policy or get business.
I mean, how does he pull it off without busting out laughing? No one can lack in self-awareness to that degree.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:12 pm
Bottom line is that you can’t compare a union with 501c3. Tillman gets the contributions from donors who would cut him off if they thought he was taking more than he was worth. Union bosses force members to pay whether they want union representation or not, and there’s really no way to get rid of union leadership in Illinois if you want your kneecaps to stay in their natural location.
What do you folks think will happen if current public union employees are allowed their freedom from the union yoke?
The better ones will get better deals than the salary schedule. This two tier system will result in interesting situations when it comes to layoffs, particularly in schools. Will those in the union be riffed before the at will employees that may be more cost effective? I suspect the younger, high quality teachers will be the most likely to go independent since they’re the most cheated by senior faculty in union negotiations.
Regarding “freeloaders”, what about management that have their salaries pegged to the highest base pay for those at lower grades? They don’t pay union dues, and they don’t go out on strike, yet they’re often receiving the benefit for the overpriced union salary schedule.
Education, in particular, is desperately in need of right to work reform if things are going to get better for the kids. This is a good first step towards that end.
Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:15 pm
“If you look at this in the context of history this is a deterioration of the public sector not caused by Rauner. ……. Rauner is the face of the writing on the wall folks, A regression of(to) the mean for most state employees as private sector values of wages and benefits as the structure of state employment decays. …..There is a structural undermining which is the root cause that we cannot ignore, ……”
-Madison-
Could you expand on “a structural undermining” ? Are you referring to private sector union wages and benefits becoming the norm for public sector unions?
Comment by CapnCrunch Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:47 pm
“there’s really no way to get rid of union leadership in Illinois if you want your kneecaps to stay in their natural location.”
Stop. Stop right here. This throw away line that says that union leaders will engage in illegal and violent behavior if challenged is what is fundamentally wrong with this entire debate. You put this out there as though it should be taken as a given. That unions are necessarily filled with illicit activity and corruption. Are unions perfect? Of course not. If you want to talk about ways to improve things, lets do that, but stop trying to use lines like that to buttress your concern about workers.
Comment by Montrose Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 12:52 pm
@Montrose
=This throw away line that says that union leaders will engage in illegal and violent behavior if challenged is what is fundamentally wrong with this entire debate=
Montrose, tell that to Jimmy Hoffa, if you can find him!LOL
Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:15 pm
==Regarding “freeloaders”, what about management that have their salaries pegged to the highest base pay for those at lower grades? They don’t pay union dues, and they don’t go out on strike, yet they’re often receiving the benefit for the overpriced union salary schedule.==
At the state you’ll find that most managers make less than their employees. How is that benefiting?
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:26 pm
If IPI’s report is to be taken at face value. Then it sets up a big lawsuit to determine what the real “fair share” of representation is.
Take out politcal $$$ but the offices and admin are gonna get counted to a lerge degree, But there is enough here to muddy the waters.
Comment by Todd Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:29 pm
We need to make this a drinking game. Every time someone bangs out the phrases “Koch Brothers”, “right to work”, “union croynism”, “corporate fatcats”, “501(c)(3)”, “shell game”, “union officials”, “corrupt bargain”, “fair share”, “1%”, “plutocrat”, “oligarch” and “pension reform” then we all need to take a shot. Seeing as those are all likely to be used at some point before the end of the day, I am going to need an Uber ride home.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:30 pm
== If IPI’s report is to be taken at face value. Then it sets up a big lawsuit to determine what the real “fair share” of representation is. ==
Getting the unions to open their books to public scrutiny has been the goal of the anti-union groups at least since the 1970’s. As I commented the other day, in the 1970’s and 1980’s there were quite a few fair share lawsuits and whenever the courts ordered the union books opened, the unions worked out settlements instead of opening their books. Since that period of time, unions have taken a page from the wealthy playbook and set up separate PAC’s. You never know, but i suspect there wouldn’t be too much to find these days if the books were opened up except maybe some questionable salaries
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:44 pm
== We need to make this a drinking game. ==
I don’t think I have enough supplies in stock to make it through the day!
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:45 pm
RNUG - agreed and my rum “collection” would quickly run out.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 1:52 pm
Dillard lost by 2.7% in the primary. Quinn lost by 5% in the general. Stepping on the gas in the primary would have been the most cost effective way to defeat this guy. Unions just couldn’t bring themselves to go all in on what would have been the best political decision of the decade. Being bold takes leadership from them and that doesn’t seem to be in plentiful supply with them.
Comment by one of three puppets Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:00 pm
RNUG- What are you talking about? Unions’ books have been opened to the DOJ and the general public since Landrum Griffin was enacted in 1959.
“Union bosses sure know how to treat themselves” -
Are you serious? AFSCME’s director makes 160k a year, and is in charge of 150 staff, 70k members and millions of dollars of assets. A comparable job in the private sector would make 7 figures, easy.
Most union staff are extremely well-educated and experienced compared to what they are paid. They have organizers and staff representatives with JDs, MAs and PhDs, many of whom have more years of experience working in labor relations (a field that richly rewards HR directors, consultants and other types that work for management). How many HR directors do you know that, besides their typical duties, stand in the snow on pickets?
Comment by Old and Tired Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:35 pm
One of Three Puppets-
Union leaders don’t decide to who to endorse, their membership does, and they all vote on it.
I know Rauner wants you to believe “union bosses” are in some seedy tavern somewhere, knocking down whiskey sours and deciding who the next state senator will be, but that’s not how it works. Especially when you are trying to get all the unions on board simultaneously.
Comment by Humbug Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:38 pm
Ok, other than Jimmy Hoffa, who was a union boss that was openly violent? Any from the last 50 years?
You should also read up on the violence directed towards union organizers in America over the years. Harlan County, the Ludlow Massacre, the Pullman Strikes etc.
Fun thing about Hoffa:
Jimmy Hoffa went to jail for illegally fully funding Teamster pensions.
In Illinois, if you illegally UNDERFUND pensions you don’t go to jail, you get reelected.
Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 2:42 pm
What keeps the IPI from publicly sharing who funds them? They sell nothing, they don’t sell advertisements. Why are they afraid to tell the public who bankrolls their discredited Libertarian agenda?
Comment by Das Kapital Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:09 pm
Bob:
And if you aid in the collapse of the US economy by running a bank and gambling away other people’s money you get a bonus.
Good times had by all at the expense of somebody else.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:31 pm
=== Das Kapital - Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 3:09 pm:
What keeps the IPI from publicly sharing who funds them? They sell nothing, they don’t sell advertisements. Why are they afraid to tell the public who bankrolls their discredited Libertarian agenda?====
Wow. When you ask like that it’s hard to know why they don’t share information voluntarily with you.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:05 pm
Das-
IPI doesnt want to reveal donors because they receive the bulk of their money from out-of-state interest groups like CATO, ALEC, Freedomworks, Heritage Foundation et al.
It would destroy their credibility, at least among their uninformed fans, that they are advocates for Illinoisans.
Comment by Old and Tired Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 4:13 pm
Ok, and the Governor is spending $130,000 on a fancy consultant to do the job taxpayers elected him to do. Difference here? Taxpayers are paying for it.
Comment by Mary Sunshine Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 6:10 pm
Capn Crunch,
Yeah. once upon a time, nobody wanted a State job. There was more money to be made elsewhere. then the unions came, and after that the patronage. Patronage was always around, but it wasn’t lucrative except at the top. There will always be patronage,but the feds have tied everybody’s hands on all but the Rutan Exempt positions.
Once the postwar boom ended, the Industrial Revolution asvwe knew it ended here when the Rauners of the world exported the remnants. Now they want to bring that salary schedule to state government.
Comment by Madison Tuesday, Feb 10, 15 @ 11:18 pm