Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Confirmed
Next Post: Let’s be careful out there
Posted in:
* From a press release…
Illinois law forces most employees of state government to pay money to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs. Even though state employees aren’t forced to be full-fledged union members, they are required to pay fees to the union whether or not they want representation. Today, three state workers represented by the Liberty Justice Center have taken legal action to end that practice.
In February, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner issued an executive order to stop collecting “fair share” union fees from employees of state government who are not union members. Gov. Rauner simultaneously filed a federal lawsuit asking a federal judge in Chicago – and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court – to declare mandatory non-member union fees unconstitutional. The three state workers represented by the LJC have filed a motion in federal court seeking to intervene in that lawsuit.
“The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose whose speech they support and what groups they associate with. State workers shouldn’t have to sacrifice that right just to keep their jobs,” said Jacob Huebert, senior attorney at the Liberty Justice Center. “No one should be forced to pay money to a government union to keep their job. In filing this motion, these state workers are asking the court to protect their fundamental First Amendment rights and the rights of all state workers.”
The motion was filed this morning in federal court. It is available online here: https://d2dv7hze646xr.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/92-main-92-2.pdf
Background: In February, Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner issued an executive order to stop collecting “fair share” fees from people who work for state government and are not full-union members. Gov. Rauner simultaneously filed a federal lawsuit asking a federal judge in Chicago – and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court – to declare non-member union fees unconstitutional.
Government unions and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan asked the court to dismiss Rauner’s lawsuit, arguing the governor did not have standing to bring this suit because he has not been required to pay union fees.
Regardless of how the court rules on the standing issue, the three state workers taking legal action today do have standing to challenge these union fees. For years, they have been forced to pay money to a union against their will, just to keep their jobs. These plaintiffs seek to intervene in this lawsuit to make sure that their fundamental First Amendment rights are protected.
Due to the magnitude of this case, it may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is positioned to rule that mandatory non-member union fees are unconstitutional based on of its June 2014 ruling in Harris v. Quinn, in which a home health worker challenged former Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn. In the Harris decision, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote that a 1977 decision allowing mandatory non-member union fees was “questionable.” In Harris, a majority of the high court ruled that requiring home health workers to pay mandatory union fees was a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The Liberty Justice Center is a “public interest law firm started by the Illinois Policy Institute,” according to an earlier press release.
The three plaintiffs are Mark Janus, Marie Quigley, and Brian Trygg. Janus works for IDOT, the others work for Healthcare and Family Services.
* From the complaint…
[Mark Janus] does not agree with what he views as the union’s one-sided politicking for only its point of view. Janus also believes that AFSCME’s behavior in bargaining does not appreciate the current fiscal crises in Illinois and, does not reflect his best interests or the interests of Illinois citizens. […]
[Marie Quigley] also objects to many of AFSCME’s public-policy positions, including the positions that AFSCME advocates for in collective bargaining.
For example, she disagrees with AFSCME’s negotiation of contract terms that favor seniority over employee merit for purposes of layoffs and promotions, is concerned about the effect that AFSCME’s bargaining behavior is having on the Illinois budget, believes that union representatives are only looking out for themselves at the expense of union members and the people of Illinois, and does not believe that AFSCME is acting in her best interest or in the best interests of Illinois citizens. […]
[Brian Trygg] has sincere religious objections to associating with Teamsters Local 916 and its agenda. Trygg also believes that Teamsters Local 916 harms Illinois residents by objecting to efforts by the State to reduce costs that would allow public funds to be made available for more important uses. For example, the Union resists any furlough days, despite the State’s budget issues.
Discuss.
*** UPDATE *** Illinois AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan…
“It’s no surprise that corporate-funded, anti-worker organizations are supporting Gov. Rauner’s illegal executive order. The Right To Work Foundation and Illinois Policy Institute are corporate shell groups looking to further erode middle class economic security to boost the objectives of their benefactors. We will protect the integrity of the law, our collective bargaining agreements and the rights of all workers from these politically motivated attacks.
“The issues raised in the Governor’s lawsuit and by the interveners were decided long ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Abood. The concept of charging employees for non-political union representation is permitted under the First Amendment. We are opposed to workers having a free ride where the union is required to represent them without reimbursement for representation expenses that are non-political in nature.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:14 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Confirmed
Next Post: Let’s be careful out there
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
smh. How can we miss you if you won’t go away?
Also, how is the gov supposed to run for pres if is known as ==IPI candidate==?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:17 pm
This is how they should have proceeded from the start. I still disagree with them, but at least this doesn’t require Rauner to make his laughable “vicarious First Amendment” argument.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:18 pm
They disagree, so they should vote for the decertification of the union. If a majority of their co-workers don’t agree with them, they will fall into the same plight as all the taxpayers who feel government doesn’t ideally represent them. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it beats the alternatives.
Comment by Man with a plan Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:21 pm
Took a while, but they found their three crazy people. Great.
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:24 pm
Good for them. As opposed to some of their other products, this is some good work by IPI that can change real policy.
Comment by Pese Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:24 pm
Nice, they even managed to find a religious objection. Because what’s a good “First Amendment” fight for Justice without a religious objector thrown in there?
Comment by Illini97 Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:25 pm
Man with a Plan, I’m just signal boost this:
“They disagree, so they should vote for the decertification of the union. If a majority of their co-workers don’t agree with them, they will fall into the same plight as all the taxpayers who feel government doesn’t ideally represent them. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it beats the alternatives.”
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:26 pm
My god, I hope Rauner wins just so these 3 jacks get what they deserve: unpaid furlough days, a rigged “merit” system, and salary/pension cuts!
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:26 pm
As long as they focus on representation issues, like negotiation tactics and positions, and not on political or lobbying efforts,(for which they are not now paying), they have some decent arguments.
Comment by walker Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:27 pm
“For example, the Union resists any furlough days, despite the State’s budget issues.”
Once again, the argument here boils down to, “Unions should not be allowed to fight for themselves.”
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:28 pm
I strenuously object, my union has been protecting my wages.
To the post:
1. No one is forced to pay for “politicking”. That’s what fair share is for. If you have a “religious objection” to associations, same thing, fair share.
2. I disagree with a whole bunch of crap the state does, somehow I still have to pay the taxes.
Comment by chi Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:30 pm
If I could get in the union - I would luv to pay the dues - go without a raise for 12 years see how it feels
Comment by Yatzi Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:31 pm
Since these three workers are opposed to the union and all that it represents, I wonder if they reject their vacation days, return their salary increases, and offer to accept higher co-pays for all of their medical care?
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:32 pm
Gonna be some awkward office moments at DOT and HSF. “Let me get this straight Brian, you want furlough days?”
Comment by Philo Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:32 pm
To add to Slick’s list, they could also resign and therefore help the state’s budget problems.
lol
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:32 pm
When is it going to sink in that in representative from of government, the majority wins the representation? A majority voted for the unions and a majority voted for the contract. those are the rules.
You can no more opt out of your state rep, senator, congressman or even President. may not be to your liking, or even moine at times, but you get what the majority votes for. thats it.
They have 3 options, vote against the union when it’s formed and win the vote. Vote against the contract when presented and previal. Vote to decertify the union and change things up.
or they could even run for office in the unions and then have a direct say and contol over things.
But they do neither. This is more union hating right wing BS trying to get throught he courts what they can’t get otherwise.
Illinois law allows for fair share dues. this stuff about merit pay vs senority seems to be a new little twist as the NRTWF refines their arguements.
Either way, you get representation, you gets to pay for it. Otherwise I want to come to your countyclub and play for free without being a member.
I want to use your home owners assn pool and stuff without being a member.
I’ve siad it before and I will say it again, some of this is brought on by some unions who have gone far afield from representing their members interests and taken on every social justice cause as if it were a collective bargaining issue.
That is what really ticked of many on the right with their crusade for left wing causes that had little to nothing to do with the union.
Comment by Todd Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:33 pm
=== For example, the Union resists any furlough days, despite the State’s budget issues. ===
Seriously, this is your beef with the union. If this guy truly believes in taking furloughs, then he is in an extremely small minority. The whole point of unions is to represent the majority of their members.
IPI is always good for a few good laughs.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:35 pm
==Illinois law forces most employees of state government to pay money to a union as a condition of keeping their jobs.==
I like how they begin the press release that is completely false and then go on from there.
Most employees choose to be in the union and are not “forced” to pay dues.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:35 pm
It certainly seems as though the IPI is trying to make itself into a powerhouse in politics in Illinois.
To say their track record is spotty is probably being generous.
John
Comment by John Boch Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:36 pm
=== For example, the Union resists any furlough days, despite the State’s budget issues. ===
They have resisted, but they’ve also agreed to them in the past.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:37 pm
=== one-sided politicking for only its point of view===
And the Illinois Policy Institute, on the other hand… Oh, wait.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:41 pm
“Three crazy people” was a bit harsh. “Three stooges” is more accurate.
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:42 pm
This will be a win-win for the three plaintiffs. On the off chance they win they will be right-wing heroes for damaging the unions. If they lose they will be right-wing martyrs and probably get some $30,000 a month job with Rauner as labor relations experts.
Comment by Past the Rule of 85 Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:44 pm
I don’t know how easy this would be, but I know of a PSA who refused to have her position put in the union. I doubt that she ever received a raise again. I say, if they don’t want to be in the union, take them out and if the state wants to reduce their salary or fire them without cause, I say have at it. I don’t think it is fair to punish all employees because of a few who think it would be better without the union. Let them try it out first and then see what they think.
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:44 pm
If they went to work pro bono they would not be union members?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:44 pm
Why is my vote to unionize or not unionize being trumped by these court cases?
I voted for a union. The majority approved it. I voted for a contract. The majority approved it. If you’re in the minority? That’s life. That’s a democracy.
What the heck is going on here?
Am I going to have to sue to for taking away my vote and nullifying the results?
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:44 pm
The last I heard of furlough days, they were mandatory for merit comp and voluntary for union. In other words, union members could choose to take the furlough days (basically unpaid time off) if they wanted to do so.
Comment by CharlieKratos Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:44 pm
The union agreed to voluntary furloughs for employees who felt compelled to help out the state….I wonder if there is a record if any of these 3 kooks took any furloughs?
Comment by Get a Job! Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:45 pm
In theory, none of the arguments made by the plaintiffs have any merit because they are not forced to be union members or to pay for the union’s political agenda. They are only supposedly paying for the direct costs of the union representing them and bargaining for higher wages, better benefits, better working conditions, etc., i.e. the fair share fees. I wish there were a way for these folks to not have to pay any dues at all and, in return, not receive the higher wages, etc. the union negotiates, but that is simply not a practical alternative. If that were allowed, it would be in the interest of the State to nevertheless give these non-union employees the exact same terms the union employees get, thereby encouraging everyone to be a free-rider and totally defunding/destroying the union in the long run.
The only question I have is who determines the amount of the fair share fees, and whether each union’s outlays for representation vs. political lobbying can be separated out, and reviewed by an impartial third party. Obviously, if the union determines the amount, it has a financial incentive to classify as much expenditure as possible under the representation umbrella and set the fair share fee as high as possible.
Comment by Andy S. Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:45 pm
I kind of have to agree with Marie Quigley’s position on seniority over employee merit for purposes of promotions.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:49 pm
Their fair share dues will appear to be pennies compared to the increased insurance premiums they will have to pay if the union is no longer able to negotiate those on their behalf. They will be singing a different tune if (or when) that happens.
Comment by ArmyMan Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:49 pm
Hearing alot about the rights of people who want union benefits without having to pay a penny for them. What about the rights of people to form a union? Are there no rights to organize? Rights one way but not another? I agree with statements above….you don’t belong….you don’t get to participate in any benefits achieved by members. Find another job too. No one forced you to accept a job that is union organized. Furthermore, no one’s got you shackled to it either. There are doors.
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:49 pm
It really is simple it seems to me. They knew when they took the job it was union and you had to pay dues. If people don’t want to pay union dues then don’t take a union job plain and simple. You can’t get the benefits for free.
Comment by Onlooker Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:50 pm
Not a religous expert but I think public employees can already opt out of “fair share” on religous grounds. Jehovah’s Witness followers are the ones interested in this carve out on First Amendment grounds.
Comment by TGS Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:50 pm
To the use of a lawsuit itself, I find this quite ironic.
Having followed politics for many years on both a national and local basis, it has generally been liberal factions that, when their legislative attempts failed, resorted to trying to change things using the legal system. Now it appears the conservatives have learned to try to use the same methods.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:52 pm
Am I missing something here (as I snorted my ice water all over the place reading this)? Doesn’t the NFLA state clearly enough for a 3 year old that union representation cannot be messed with as long as he majority of the workers in that union vote for representation? Those who don’t wish to join can pay fair share as they enjoy all the same benefits and wages as the union members. Legal fees being paid out of the $20 million slush find? Too funny! I need more popcorn !
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:53 pm
Rich -
I just want some reporter to ask the IPI/LJC if these individuals have opted out of the state’s pension benefits and health care coverage.
Can you swing that?
LOL
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:56 pm
RNUG - I agree except for the fact that you have politically appointed people doing the promoting and some if not more than some are hacks and/or unqualified. My point is you have instances of people promoting and/or hiring their friends which goes back to the “it’s not what you know…..it’s who you know days.” I get what you are saying but the seniority thing at least makes it a level playing field
Comment by Seeing Both Sides Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:57 pm
Brian has history:
Trygg v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, et al.
2014 IL App (4th) 130505
Comment by Cheswick Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:58 pm
Trygg works for IDOT making over 100k a year, which he can attribute a large part of that salary due to increases the UNION got him over the past 10 years. Janus is an entry-level Child Support Specialist in Healthcare & Family Services and Quigley is a level 2 Executive for Public Health, both of whom are lower level state employees making over 70k, most likely due to union negotiated raises and salary increases. Perhaps all 3 of these leeches needs to give back all the extra money the unions got for them over the past 10 years if they are allowed to stop paying dues. The only reason most of these people came into the union was to get more money when Blago stopped paying merit raises. Now they want out when the gravy train has run it’s course. It’s people like them that give state workers a bad name and reputation!
Comment by Roadbuilder Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 12:59 pm
I wonder how many furlough days Mr. Trygg has voluntarily taken. Is this something he wants to do or does he just want others to have unpaid furlough days, but not himself.
Comment by Say It Ain't So!! Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:00 pm
Wasn’t the Original Organizer himself, Jesus a Union Carpenter? Or was Jerusalem a “Right to Worship” zone?
Comment by Jack Stephens Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:02 pm
I’m sure Rauner told these three (fill in the blank) he will “have their backs” if the lawsuit doesn’t work out.
Then we’ll be reading about three new $200,000 consulting jobs in his administration.
Comment by Finally Out (and now very glad to be) Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:03 pm
It sure would be nice if I could be Fair Share customer of the wireless companies, all of whom use my money to lobby against my best interests. Thus violating my First Amendment rights. Or break their monopoly.
Comment by Jack Stephens Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:10 pm
===I think public employees can already opt out of “fair share” on religous grounds===
They can. By statute, they have to send their fair share fees to charity instead. And Trygg went all the way to the appellate court (and won) over this very issue.
http://www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/AppellateCourt/2014/4thDistrict/4130505.pdf
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:10 pm
==not what you know but who you know days==
With unemployment as it is, these days we’re back to who you know days. If you have recent college grads it is definitely who you know. Don’t know why it’s called networking in the private sector but is considered a sinister event in the public.
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:12 pm
It has been my experience that union employees holding these type of core beliefs (similar to these plantiffs) file the largest number of ridiculous grievances against management and eat up way more than their “fair share” of fair share.
Comment by Johnnie F. Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:15 pm
Since this is all about employee freedom, I’m presuming “non compete” clauses and “revolving door” provisions are next for action by the IPI. Clearly the argument “if you don’t like the terms of employment go work somewhere else” can’t apply to those situations, but not to unionization, can it?
Comment by AC Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:15 pm
“For years, they have been forced to pay money to a union against their will, just to keep their jobs.”
The employees only now have come forward? This looks like ideologues looking for lawsuit victims to promote their political agendas. Why weren’t the employees aggrieved a long time ago? How does this have any standing? Courts are there for people who have issues serious enough to merit standing.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:20 pm
How do we object to the Gov office calling worksites asking us to report what other employees are doing and threatening us?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:24 pm
“Finally Out (and now very glad to be” has hit the nail on the head. Win-lose-or-draw on the lawsuit, watch where these 3 ultimately end up.
I wonder if their ‘concern’ for the state’s finances will prompt them to turn down any subsequent raises/promotions that may come later? /s
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:25 pm
RNUG- you can agree with Marie Quigley’s argument all you want, it’s beside the point. There are innumerable different viewpoints on different topics within any union, within any democracy. But majority rules, there are ways for people to affect change within the existing structure, and if they are unsuccessful, it is only because most people don’t agree with them.
Comment by chi Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:26 pm
All of these persons are very well paid for what they do. I wonder if they object to that.
Comment by A Jack Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:41 pm
Dear Brian Trygg,
As a retired former highway maintainer and Teamster member, I just want to thank you for you efforts to help insure that you and all future state highway maintainers have the right to make much less income than they do right now. I’m sure you will be very popular (if you aren’t already) with your fellow maintainers, and I hope they give you all the respect you deserve for your courageous stand for your “sincere religious beliefs” that what your Union doe t hat offends you so greatly .
/sincere snark
Comment by Roadiepig Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:43 pm
— If you’re in the minority? That’s life. That’s a democracy. —
Except it doesn’t at all work that way in this country, and you know it. Otherwise, why the endless decisions to overturn the will of majority re: marriage equality? Or voter ID? Or abortion restrictions? Or campaign finance laws? Do these plaintiffs have a chance, arguing on constitutional grounds? I don’t know. But stop with the disingenuous “will of the majority,” pseudo-flag-waving, “Whatever happened to my country/democracy?” claptrap.
Comment by JB13 Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:44 pm
Presumably these three amigos have refused to accept any union contract pay increases, including often substantial step increases and have instead joined in solidarity with non-union state employees who received no pay increases and involuntary unpaid furlough days. Otherwise their participation in this litigation is pure hypocrisy.
Comment by Hawkeye in Illinois Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:48 pm
I’m still trying to determine which religion would be compromised by having union representation ? Having someone help negotiate for better wages or defend you in a dispute doesn’t go against any religion I know of. Is it because some of the democratic politicians are for something you are against (women’s right to abortions for instance)? If so, just shopping for a gallon of milk must be hard for poor Brian- what if the owner of the gas station or grocery store is not in agreement with you on all of you per issues? It’s so hard to live life without being offended…
Comment by Roadiepig Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:49 pm
I had a union organizing republican grandfather - he was the supervisor - fairness for workers and reasonable profit gor business - as I have said before I would love to be in the union - go 12 years without a raise
Comment by Yatzi Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 1:53 pm
@roadie:
I agree. I’ve been searching the Bible for Jesus’s opinion on Unions. Can’t find it.
Comment by Jack Stephens Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:03 pm
=RNUG @ 12:49 pm: I kind of have to agree with Marie Quigley’s position on seniority over employee merit for purposes of promotions.==
I agree RNUG. That’s always been one of my biggest beefs with the contract. That and the nearly impossible task of showing a deserving employee the door.
Comment by Sangamo Sam Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:03 pm
=one-sided politicking for only its point of view=
I hope he never winds up in court. “psst, Mr. Defense attorney. Haven’t you spent enough time talking about why I might not have committed the crime. How about some witnesses talking about how I could have done it?”
Comment by Carhartt Representative Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:04 pm
From the Appellate Court case, here’s the “religious” issue, in Mr. Trygg’s own words (in response to an email):
What tenet or teaching of that religion prohibits payment to a union?
I cannot point directly to a teaching of Christianity that prohibits payment to a union, but the tenets of my belief are rooted in the need for me to be a professional man of good [rapport] and good standing, with high moral and religious standards. I believe the Lord has been with me and provided for me, and that I should not bow down to other gods.”
Comment by Sam Weinberg Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:06 pm
If my memory serves me correctly, I took at least 1 furlough day under Ryan. Merit comp workers had to take more.
Comment by Politix Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:13 pm
What have unions ever given us anyway except for the eight hour day, child labor laws, the weekend, workplace safety standards, and unemployment insurance?
Comment by Carhartt Representative Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:17 pm
They knew just as I did when I applied for my state job that the position that was offered to me was in the union, if they really did not want union membership and the benefits the union gets them, then they should have turned down their job offers, they did not have to accept them, but as you see they did not. I believe if they want out of the union then they should be put in a merit comp position with the same pay no union coverage or let them quit their jobs and take a job somewhere else with no requirement for union membership or fair share. Take them out of the union or fair share whichever they are in, but also let them know they will no longer reap all the benefits of what the unions bargain for, for the employees that are in the union and fair share. It’s funny how when someone is sitting pretty with the benefits that the union acquired for them than they decide they don’t want to be in the union!
Comment by Challengerrt Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:20 pm
===They knew just as I did when I applied for my state job===
Not sure about the others, but Trygg was placed in a bargaining unit after he started working for the state. It’s why he makes so much now, even though he’s religiously opposed to unions.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:21 pm
Never fear, the IPI is nonpartisan.
— Jim Muir, Southern Illinoisan
Comment by The Equalizer Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:22 pm
I would love to see the kind of deal that BVR has for these three if they are successful with this suit. Golden tickets to the chocolate factory I’m sure. Fair Share is just what it sounds like, FAIR. These chosen three better get ready for the “fun” they just unleashed on themselves.
Comment by BlameBruceRauner Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:30 pm
==I cannot point directly to a teaching of Christianity that prohibits payment to a union, but the tenets of my belief are rooted in the need for me to be a professional man of good [rapport] and good standing, with high moral and religious standards. I believe the Lord has been with me and provided for me, and that I should not bow down to other gods.” ==
So, he also doesn’t have auto, home, dental, health, life or disability insurance? because those are also instances where his fellow co-workers, or fellow insurance company customers would be the ones providing for him. Maybe he should work for free so that his employer isn’t providing for him.
Comment by mythoughtis Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:30 pm
2008 JANUS MARK J HEALTHCARE & FAMILY SERVICES $54,371.75
2009 JANUS MARK J HEALTHCARE & FAMILY SERVICES $58,511.11
2010 JANUS MARK J HEALTHCARE & FAMILY SERVICES $57,287.85
2011 JANUS MARK J HEALTHCARE & FAMILY SERVICES $54,302.88
2012 JANUS MARK J HEALTHCARE & FAMILY SERVICES $58,875.50
2013 JANUS MARK J HEALTHCARE & FAMILY SERVICES $61,991.50
2014 JANUS MARK J HEALTHCARE & FAMILY SERVICES $66,721.00
2015 JANUS MARK J HEALTHCARE & FAMILY SERVICES $17,169.00
2008 QUIGLEY MARIE A PUBLIC HEALTH $53,335.00
2009 QUIGLEY MARIE A PUBLIC HEALTH $56,058.80
2010 QUIGLEY MARIE A PUBLIC HEALTH $51,908.00
2011 QUIGLEY MARIE A PUBLIC HEALTH $60,085.18
2012 QUIGLEY MARIE A PUBLIC HEALTH $62,956.95
2013 QUIGLEY MARIE A PUBLIC HEALTH $78,140.17
2014 QUIGLEY MARIE A PUBLIC HEALTH $79,230.21
2015 QUIGLEY MARIE A PUBLIC HEALTH $19,305.00
2008 TRYGG BRIAN KELLY TRANSPORTATION $80,210.95
2009 TRYGG BRIAN KELLY TRANSPORTATION $81,057.83
2010 TRYGG BRIAN KELLY TRANSPORTATION $90,220.49
2011 TRYGG BRIAN KELLY TRANSPORTATION $97,007.32
2012 TRYGG BRIAN KELLY TRANSPORTATION $104,154.57
2013 TRYGG BRIAN KELLY TRANSPORTATION $107,145.35
2014 TRYGG BRIAN KELLY TRANSPORTATION $109,149.16
2015 TRYGG BRIAN KELLY TRANSPORTATION $26,796.03
They would never have received this without the union
Comment by Disappointed Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:40 pm
Searching the bible today for …….Though shall not give money to Unions, ah their it is, right after though shall not give poor people help.
Get Real this Trygg guys makes me sick, using religion to push this POLITICAL issue…..the gall of some people these days.
Comment by BlameBruceRauner Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:40 pm
Illinois Labor Relations Board Executive Director Jerald Post found that the “petitioner’s
asserted beliefs were no more than a personal predisposition, and therefore insufficient under section 6(g) of the Act.” The Appellate Court ruled in Mr. Trygg’s favor “because the collective-bargaining agreement failed to safeguard the right of nonassociation under section 6(g) of the Act”, but “decline to address whether petitioner qualifies for the right of nonassociation under section 6(g) of the Act.” Based on this, it would appear that the religious beliefs argument is not very strong, but that’s what he still wants to use.
Comment by Say It Ain't So!! Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:54 pm
“using religion to push this POLITICAL issue” Made me think of an analogy…he attends church. The church needs him (and everyone else) to put in an offering to cover the costs of heat, electricity, water, etc. But he doesn’t like some of what the preacher said, so rather than just join another church, he sues. And of course the church isn’t going to build a special corner with no heat or electricity just for him, so he gets the benefits without the cost.
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 2:56 pm
Religion is a Lifestyle Choice. No one is born that way. Unlike race, sex, gender, or sexual orientation. If this job so objectionable to his “lifestyle” then quit.
Comment by Jack Stephens Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 3:07 pm
2015 salaries from the ledger:
Trygg. $106,572.00
Quigley. $77,220.00
Janus. $70,956.00
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 3:32 pm
To Disappointed:
GO BACK EVEN FURTHER IN MARIE QUIGLEY’S SALARY HISTORY. She started in the early 1990s at Public Health as an office aide or clerk making next to nothing - probably not even $20,000 a year. Look what the dreaded (yea, right) AFSCME has done for her. No college degree and she is making nearly $80,000 which is more than some PhD’s at that agency. She’s a total hypocrite. I knew her husband Pat Quigley at the ABC Club. They moved to Springfield from St. Louis. Marie is infamous for her brown-nosing and political gamesmanship at that agency, which drove people away. This is a total joke.
Comment by State Worker Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 3:52 pm
State Worker, while I don’t know why Marie is allowing herself to be used for this suit. I think your personal attack is out of bounds. I found her to be very competent. You will find busybodies in all agencies who want to cast aspersions about others. Most of it out of jealousy. While I have my complaints about a number of union issues, I’m opposed to the union busting activities of this governor. I do hope she looses this lawsuit.
P.S. I know those PhD’s you mention. I have no problem with Marie earning more than them. A degree doesn’t make a competent worker.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:35 pm
Oh, I see the logic. I don’t believe in eating meat, though I know my religion has no specific enet against it. So, when I go to a store that sells meat, I shouldn’t have to pay for my groceries.
Comment by Neveranonymous Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 4:46 pm
Norseman, this isn’t a personal attack. My point is the union made her meteoric rise possible and you know it. Lots of “competent” people in the state employ don’t move up like she did. People that denigrate college degrees (like yourself) don’t have one, which I bet is your case. Fair is fair and the state ain’t as you well know. She and the other fair share people should pay their “fair” share since they reap all the benefits of the union they so obviously hate. Hypocrites all!
Comment by State Worker Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:02 pm
After reading more about Trygg’s past lawsuit , I don’t this new lawsuit will change any of his co-workers thoughts about him at all.
I’ll leave it at that…
Comment by Roadiepig Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:08 pm
State Worker, I just thought you were just a little misinformed about Marie. I was mistaken. I now realize your an idiot. I judge people on merit not on the degree they hold. In my work with her, she was competent. I found a couple of PhDs to be incompetent. Obviously, you have no clue of what went on in Public Health or are someone who got passed over by Marie. While I agree with your opposition to Rauner and this lawsuit, I have no use for your desire to make gossipy attacks on someone we both disagree with.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:16 pm
Dude makes $110K a year in a union job and he’s down on it for “sincere religious objections.”
Well, brother, when it comes down to a choice between God and mammon, you know the right thing to do. I’m sure you’ll get your reward in heaven.
What a vulgar abuse of faith and religous liberty.
You’ve got mouthpieces who are willing to peddle that sacrilegious nonsense to a judge? And a beard who will stand up for it?
See you in church.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:31 pm
Three employees? Three is the best they could come up with out of 6,500 fair share employees? Why aren’t thousands out of the 6,500 holding marchs and rallies in support of Rauner? I think we know.
Today rauner was out there pitching local control over police and fire pensions (presumably by town meeting so they could cut them). How many days til we have an agreement? The silence from cullerton and madigan is deafening.
Comment by Langhorne Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 6:35 pm
I wonder if Ms. Quigley was upset with the union that helped compensate her family enough to purchase a $386,000 house
Comment by Yeti Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 9:44 pm
Uh Norseman…this is the “idiot” replying to you. The word is “you’re” (an idiot) - not “your”. You’re welcome. Hmmmm…why would I suspect that you don’t have a college degree or at least one in English. Good try to put those who do down though. I judge subordinates on merit too. But here’s a little tip for you….college matters. And no, I never worked with or competed with Marie. She wouldn’t qualify for any position that I would, since I have college degrees (plural). And, I am not snobbish about higher education…I just know a lot more about her than you think and we college graduates get tired of seeing hacks in government that are marginally qualified for their jobs move their brown noses up the ladder (or somewhere else).
Comment by State Worker Monday, Mar 23, 15 @ 11:59 pm
A few comments on the motion to intervene. First, it’s surprisingly sloppy — I realize Dan Webb and his pals are doing this pro bono, but still…expected better work from Winston Strawn. Second, the claim for damages (past dues wrongfully withheld) is a clear loser and was tossed in only b/c the lawyers think it gives them another hook. Third, Mr. Trygg’s “religious” objection is absurd. While he may allow the motion to intervene, my best guess is that Judge Gettleman dismisses the case and let’s this play out in state court … but that won’t stop Rauner or the ideologues at IPI and their big money funders (Koch Bros, et al.).
Comment by Lawyer Observer Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:12 pm
===Dan Webb and his pals are doing this pro bono===
Webb is no longer affiliated with the case.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:15 pm
Webb is no longer representing Rauner, but check out the motion to intervene. He and other lawyers from Winston are representing the 3 state employees.
Comment by Lawyer Observer Tuesday, Mar 24, 15 @ 12:30 pm