Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Absolute pensions
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The BGA has an interesting story about what’s behind Gov. Bruce Rauner’s local “right to work” zones idea….
The concept of right-to-work zones has been pushed nationwide by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative policy group that drafts model legislation.
Jon Russell is director of ALEC’s program for cities and counties. Russell said that in Kentucky, where ALEC has advised leaders, the measures are meant to cover private sector workplaces like the General Motors Corvette plant in Warren County, the first in the country to pass such an ordinance. […]
Brent Yessin is a Florida attorney who started lobbying and nonprofit organizations promoting right-to-work zones. Proponents will be pushing the zones in Ohio and Pennsylvania, along with Illinois, he said.
“It is a grassroots locally driven process,” Yessin said. “It’s not a cookie-cutter approach. I can’t just take what I did in Kentucky and do it in Illinois. But still there are some lessons that are applicable. It’s a movement that will continue to grow.”
* The Kentucky legislature refused to pass a right to work bill, so some locals did it on their own…
The governor could push state legislation meant to enable the local right-to-work laws. Or individual municipalities and counties could pass such ordinances without state legislation. But federal labor law says only states or territories can pass right-to-work legislation, and unions have promised to sue if local bodies try to do it on their own.
In Kentucky, where six counties have passed such legislation, Attorney General Jack Conway, a Democrat, issued an opinion on Dec. 18 that stated the measures violate federal law. Last month a group of labor unions sued regarding the ordinance passed in Hardin County, Kentucky.
* So, keep that in mind when reading this…
[Director of the Illinois chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business] Kim Maisch thinks legal challenges to right-to-work zones would be unfair.
“We’ve seen organized labor try to pass a lot of things via ordinance at the local level,” like minimum wage laws and responsible bidders ordinances; those issues are covered under different federal laws than union organizing.
“We find it ironic they oppose the other side utilizing that route,” she said.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:12 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Absolute pensions
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Why don’t we call it what it is: “right to freeload”
Comment by JoanP Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:16 am
==legal challenges to right-to-work zones would be unfair==
The old “it’s not fair” approach. Sheesh.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:21 am
JoanP - “Why don’t we call it what it is: “right to freeload”
+1, I couldn’t say it any better.
Comment by Beans and Franks Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:22 am
ALEC’s model RTW bill, provided to GOP legislators nationwide, is part of a “grassroots locally driven process.” Had to laugh out loud.
Aimed at all unions, of course, not just Rauner’s “government union thugs.”
Comment by walker Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:26 am
Kim, I take it your organization will refuse to sue to protect your rights.
To repeat a great quote form Demoralized, “Sheesh.”
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:27 am
Kim Maisch thinks we are stupid. Local minimum-wage ordinances exceed the federal standard. That’s perfectly legal, of course. It’s called the minimum wage, after all, not the maximum.
Local ordinances that attempt to limit free-bargaining rights conferred by federal law do the opposite. They undercut the federal standard.
If she believes her bogus legal approach has merit, she should advocate a local minimum wage lower than the federal one, local pollution regulations that gut EPA standards, or localities designating zones where federal income tax rates don’t apply. All would be equally valid by her logic.
Comment by Reality Check Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:38 am
Walk, I was thinking the same thing.
ALEC and some Florida lobster mouthpiece are pushing “grassroots locally-driven” efforts in Kentucky, Ohio, PA and Illinois.
Spin like that, you fall down.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:40 am
Local governments should be very concerned with the legal costs associated with such a move.
Comment by Lil Squeezy Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:42 am
Worker rights = human rights.
Corporate rights aren’t.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:46 am
What part of federal preemption do they not understand?
So how about we start the Right to Golf. You don;t need to pay membership fees to country clubs in order to get on the golf course just show up and claim your cart and tee time
You know you can have all the benfits of membership, without paying any of the dues, fees or acessments
seems fair
Comment by Todd Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:49 am
Good point Todd..I’m heading over to Illini…
Comment by Mouthy Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 10:57 am
- todd -,
Is it “bad” that I agree with your thoughts, but is it ok if I root for your example? There’s 2 tracks in IL I’d like to get on for 18.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:00 am
@Joan P
=Why don’t we call it what it is: “right to freeload”=
You ARE referring to forced unionization laws, correct?
Comment by Arizona Bob Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:01 am
@Carl Nyberg
=Worker rights = human rights=
Absolutely right, Carl, which is why if a worker chooses not to be exploited by a union that works against their interests, they shouldn’t be coerced to support or join that organization as a condition of employment. It’s a “human” right that union parasites try to cheat people out of.
Comment by Arizona Bob Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:05 am
@Todd
=So how about we start the Right to Golf. You don;t need to pay membership fees to country clubs in order to get on the golf course just show up and claim your cart and tee time=
A better analogy to what we have now is to be forced to pay country club and greens fees….even if you DON’T WANT TO PLAY GOLF! You pay for it anyway. Free the workers, pass right to work!
Comment by Arizona Bob Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:08 am
Federal law allows “states and territories” to pass laws regulating union membership or its equivalent. Not counties, not villages, not school districts. The legal challenges currently underway in Kentucky are likely to be successful in turning these local laws over.
How about “right to walk” where I don’t have to pay homeowners association fees for plowing the streets and cul de sac?
Comment by Gabe Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:13 am
It was bound to happen eventually, but we’ve at last reached the point when only Arizona Bob responds to the comments of Arizona Bob.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:13 am
Great…Illinois now borrowing ideas that have been implemented in Kentucky. Now there’s forward thinking for ya!
Comment by Stones Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:16 am
So, if you are working in a “union shop” and decline to pay the dues - when you get in deep doo doo with the boss you can’t expect the union to back you up.
Or you work in a closed union shop but are in a non-union, semi management position. The union bargains for higher wages and you, by extension, get a higher salary. Do you then owe the union for helping out?
Having been in 4 unions during my adult years (since 1975) I have always found it rather odd (ok, galling) that the company is collecting the union dues for the union. Really? In fact, in most of the unions, I never saw a single person from the local coming around asking what they could do for us. Now, I know that you can say, “no one forced you to work for that company”. If you live in a small town with one major employer, good luck with that. If you work in an industry where there really are no jobs that use your skills unless you are in a union shop or, if you work for the state (like myself) and you can’t be in said job without being forced to join the union - and have the state collect your dues for you. Nice work if you can get it.
Comment by dupage dan Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:25 am
Does ANYONE have a bill number for any of the Gov’s “proposals”??? I keep checking the ILGA website every day?? Can somebody help?? Maybe I should put in the keywords “Plan A NO PLAN B????
Comment by Not Rich Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:29 am
=ALEC’s model RTW bill, provided to GOP legislators nationwide, is part of a “grassroots locally driven process.” Had to laugh out loud.=
Yeah, I found that one pretty hysterical too
Comment by Carhartt Representative Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:31 am
I thought right-wingers were big on the Constitution? Kim Maisch needs a basic class in the Supremacy Clause.
The County-wide RTW laws are clearly contrary to the NLRA (which is why they haven’t happened already, frankly). The practical goals of these groups is to make unions spend their money fighting these laws in court, and to drum up support by obfuscating the true intent of these laws, which is simply to drive down workers’ wages and reduce the political influence of the lower classes. RTW laws make labor cheaper and mutes labor’s voice, bottom line, end of story. Slavery laws and disenfranchisement make labor the cheapest and the quietest, but this is the next best option for them.
Comment by chi Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:36 am
The problem with comparing Ill. with other states is that while it is largely rural, like other neighboring states, we have what they don’t. Chicago. If you take the largest metro areas in Ind., Wisc. and the rest, they don’t have around 7 million people like Chicago and the collar counties do. Not even close. A solid union stronghold and also an area which workers of all levels and demand higher wages. The anti union groups for some reason don’t see that. If Rauner and the rest of his cohorts still need a further wake up call, have a debate with a teamster local. Get the popcorn going and grab a seat because that should be entertaining.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:41 am
Bob:
Nobody is forced to pay union dues. You don’t have to take a job that is union if you don’t want to. It’s not that difficult to understand is it?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:45 am
Why does this hallowed “freedom” to choose only go to people who *don’t* want to be in a union?
I mean, if it’s all about “freedom”, can’t we just ditch all those onerous years-long procedures — which culminate in a majority vote by co-workers — required of people who want to be represented by a union?
Comment by Sam Weinberg Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:46 am
At this point, I wonder if the better option for Governor Rauner would be to go after prevailing wage scales.
The right-to-work zones are ripe for a U.S. Supreme Court hearing, so perhaps that would be Governor Rauner’s endgame. He seems to be itching for a fight. Would he be willing to push things that far? And does ALEC want to push it that far on behalf of Kentucky?
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 11:59 am
It should be as easy to opt into a union as it is to opt out, if this is all about freedom, right?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:09 pm
Things really never change. When boses are worried about union dues, it is because they can not stand their money going straight to the unions. They could care less about worker rights.
Comment by Makandadawg Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:09 pm
National cookie cutter and advocate for franchise politics claims their legislation is grass roots. What’s next, McDonald’s claiming their food reflects local cuisine? Is Amazon a mom & pop store now too?
Comment by AC Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:13 pm
AZ Bob is calling his Chevy dealer trying to buy the first “Corvette Right-to-Work.”
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:23 pm
AA - yes, and it will free him from the oppression.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:24 pm
How much more beneficial would it be to allow local governments to suspend tax exemptions to churches, or just do away with welfare or education? There has to be a good case made that a community with no schools, welfare or churches saves a lot of money and those savings can let businesses located there to gain an economic edge, right?
Why not attack all the societal institutions which cost us money? A lot of churches are conservative - so, why not begin to collect taxes from them because you don’t like how their politics works? If we collected taxes from all the churches exempt, we can save the taxpayers millions! That would lower the costs for anyone in those places, right?
What if we just abolish public schools? Think of the savings!
Why is it that these anti-union people are only attacking unions when there are much bigger fish out there to fry?
Funny how we didn’t destroy unions during every economic downturn over the past 100 years, isn’t it? How did we ever survive with them around?
Unions are good for a society. Governments should not be allowed to destroy good societal institutions because of politics.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:29 pm
@Arizona Bob
“A better analogy to what we have now is to be forced to pay country club and greens fees….even if you DON’T WANT TO PLAY GOLF! You pay for it anyway. Free the workers, pass right to work!”
But you’d still be standing on the green. So either pay your country clue member dues or get off the green. We don’t care whether you want to play or not.
Comment by RayRay Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:36 pm
Anyone in a State union job who thinks the unions aren’t doing anything for them is clueless. You only have to compare the wage increases over the last 10 years for union jobs with the non-union jobs to see that the amount paid in dues or fair share over that time is less than the increase in wages for just one or two of those years. That’s one of Rauner’s key arguments; unions have extracted far more in compensation from the state than is justified.
Comment by Pelonski Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:40 pm
“You only have to compare the wage increases over the last 10 years for union jobs” Quiet you fool! You didn’t get the memo? IL state workers are “underpaid” wink wink. If we so much as face a wage freeze we’ll all immediately quit and go work in the private sector where we’d make so much more money… hahaha.. laughing out loud while typing this…
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 12:52 pm
People buy products and services that meet their desires and needs. People aren’t buying unions in general. When unions monopolize labor, we all suffer.
Comment by Apocalypse Now Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:06 pm
Robert,
The fact that merit comp employees haven’t seen a real raise in 10 years doesn’t mean the raises received by union members weren’t warranted. Many merit comp employees are severely underpaid given their responsibilities.
Comment by Pelonski Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:07 pm
Rich calls it an “interesting” article. I say its craptastic.
The Scott Walker line, apart from being really poorly written, was long out of date — Wisconsin now has statewide right-to-work; if a regional approach was ever discussed there, it was dropped month ago.
The Rahm reference was completely irrelevant.
And it glosses over the legal issue: federal law allows states to go right-to-work, but that legislation does NOT say explicitly that such power is exclusive to states or denied to local government. It will likely take a US Supreme Court decision to clarify.
The BGA’s only appeal to authority is the Attorney General of Kentucky. Um, right.
Comment by gopower Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:08 pm
Apocalypse,
If people aren’t “buying unions”, why is there a need to create a law to restrict their power? Unions can only represent workers if a majority of those workers choose them in an election. The unions have no power or rights without the support of the union members in a shop.
Comment by Pelonski Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:10 pm
“Unions are good for a society.”
Right, being a member of one is such a good thing that joining one should be compulsory.
Comment by CapnCrunch Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:10 pm
Section 8(a) of the NLRA:
“Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.”
If anyone could give me a single citation to the Congressional Record, the statute, or court opinion that supports the claim that this language should be read to include local governments, I would much appreciate it.
Comment by Sam Weinberg Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:34 pm
Sam:
Why this is an interesting issue is: municipalities are a creation of state governments. How a court will rule is anyone’s guess.
Comment by Steve Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:40 pm
==joining one should be compulsory==
1. Unions are formed with a vote. Shall they re-vote every time a new person is hired?
2. You don’t have to take a job where union membership is required.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:45 pm
Right, being a member of one is such a good thing that joining one should be compulsory.
Would you have a problem if our government attacked the United Methodist Church because it won’t hire atheists? Would you have a problem if our government attacked the Masons because you have to believe in God to join?
Why are you so comfortable with our government demonizing and attacking a societal institution proven to provide benefits and goods to those who are members of it?
No conservative should be comfortable with a government which feels it should wreck havoc or demonize for political benefits - ANY groups beneficial to a society?
Those Amish over there - they manufacture products they don’t even use in their own homes because those products need electricity, and those people won’t let that into their homes. They make a lot of money! So let’s make them an issue! They have stuff we don’t have, so let’s make them an issue!
No conservative should favor seeing a government tear apart any societal group which brings benefits and stability to our society.
Unions are good. This governor is wrong.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 1:54 pm
Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Unions formed because left to their own devices employers exploit employees. Unions created much of what we see as the middle class today.
Now removing unions will have grave consequences to our rapidly shrinking middle class. Wages in the middle have gone down by household while wages at the very top have increased exponentialy.
We created vacines to deal with diseases too. Then we decided they were not needed and saw an influx of preventable diseases reoccur.
we need to stop looking at unions like there is no longer a problem, and strive to eliminate them having grown accustomed to the benefits they provide. Just like when we stoped vacinating kids because we felt comfortable with the lack of problems… Until we forgot and stopped vacinating.
I do have an alternative compromise. Employees can opt out of fair share; but by law they do not get ahy of the benfits of the contract. They can have the salary and benefits they can negotiate for themselves. Problem solved.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 2:05 pm
“Would you have a problem if our government attacked the United Methodist Church because it won’t hire atheists? Would you have a problem if our government attacked the Masons because you have to believe in God to join?”
“Why are you so comfortable with our government demonizing and attacking a societal institution proven to provide benefits and goods to those who are members of it?”
Vman, I’m not sure if I fit the definition of conservative but I would be uncomfortable if the government attacked any church or the Masons for any reason. I have often wondered, for example, why churches and or hospitals, for that matter, should be exempt from property taxes; - they are both businesses selling something and they frequently build rather fancy headquarters. But I don’t believe my thoughts should be characterized as an attack on a social institution that benefits society. I understand the Governor’s position on public sector unions but I am puzzled at his ideas about those in the private sector. Their future will be determined by economic conditions beyond the Illinois state line.
Comment by CapnCrunch Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 2:57 pm
VMan, after all these years, I am inspired by the eloquence that you can bring to bear once you figured out that it’s your turn in the barrel.
Good luck, brother. When it comes to this Rauner guy, you’ve got a friend in me.
See if you can help out DuPage Dan. His comments suggest that he’s more confused than usual.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 4:23 pm
So called ‘Employee Empowerment Zones’ should really be called ‘Employee Poverty Zones’. A study by EPI ten years after Oklahoma passed right to [starve] work, after the National RTW Committee promised a doubling of manufacturing jobs EPI found that Oklahoma had actually LOST a third of thier manufacturing jobs. That is just one of the of the lies the anti middle class RTW supporters put forth to sell this legislation, that it will increase jobs. Another by-product of RTW is infant mortality rates in RTW states are 14 perecent higher than free bargaining states. Another obvious affect to workers in a RTW state is you will earn less money,and that is all workers across the board. These severals items are facts, something that always get in the way of people like Governor CEO.
Comment by Outside the bubble Monday, Mar 9, 15 @ 7:02 pm