Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Because… Madigan

Posted in:

Illinois

* Senate President John Cullerton visited the Tribune editorial board yesterday…

Rauner wants to give local governments more flexibility on what matters are subject to collective bargaining — Cullerton suggested that’s a non-starter. Rauner wants to curb venue shopping for friendly courts in the civil justice system — no dice with Cullerton.

If there’s room to deal, he suggested, it might come in modest changes to the workers’ compensation system and prevailing wage laws.

The changes Rauner seeks — we’d argue they’re business-friendly, taxpayer-friendly, citizen-friendly — are geared toward shaking a moribund status quo here that has consigned Illinois to be an economic also-ran. […]

[Cullerton] does seem to want to create some distance, at least in style, between himself and Madigan, who is locked in a glare-off with the governor. Madigan’s chief contribution to all this has been his weekly clenched-fist news conference. (Home of the famous quote: “I’m not going to spend a lot of time on that question.”)

* Wow. “More flexibility” on collective bargaining. From the governor’s actual bill…

Prohibited subjects of bargaining.  

(a) A public employer and a labor organization may not bargain over, and no collective bargaining agreement entered into, renewed, or extended on or after the effective date of  this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly may include,  provisions related to the following prohibited subjects of collective bargaining:  

(1) Employee pensions, including the impact or  implementation of changes to employee pensions, including   the Employee Consideration Pension Transition Program as  set forth in Section 30 of the Personnel Code.  

(2) Wages, including any form of compensation including salaries, overtime compensation, vacations,  holidays, and any fringe benefits, including the impact or  implementation of changes to the same; except nothing in  this Section 7.6 will prohibit the employer from electing  to bargain collectively over employer-provided health insurance.  

(3) Hours of work, including work schedules, shift  schedules, overtime hours, compensatory time, and lunch periods, including the impact or implementation of changes  to the same.  

(4) Matters of employee tenure, including the impact of  employee tenure or time in service on the employer’s  exercise of authority including, but not limited to, any  consideration the employer must give to the tenure of  employees adversely affected by the employer’s exercise of management’s right to conduct a layoff.

Also, no mention at all of getting rid of the prevailing wage. No substance about any of the governor’s proposals or why Madigan is opposing them. Just happy talk about the hero and bashing of the villain.

Why are the governor’s supporters so darned reluctant to defend their guy’s anti-union proposals in the mass media?

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:03 am

Comments

==Why are the governor’s supporters so darned reluctant to defend their guy’s anti-union proposals in the mass media?==

Because being FOR something is much harder than BEING against someone.

Comment by Abe the Babe Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:08 am
OK, what’s left? I’m guessing dress code.

Comment by a drop in Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:10 am
===Why are the governor’s supporters so darned reluctant to defend their guy’s anti-union proposals in the mass media?===

@EditBoardChick - I gave up actually looking at things objectively because being a Rauner shill pays better on the Edit Board #July31 #Payday #WooHoo

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:10 am
Rauner would get widespread support from public if he just focused on term limits + redistricting for an initial win. Would put democrats in a very uncomfortable position to defend what the public hates. Plenty of time in a 4 year term to work on other things.

Comment by Very Fed Up Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:11 am
It would be easier to make a list of what you may collectively bargain over under Rauner’s plan.

Comment by Stones Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:12 am
“Why are the governor’s supporters so darned reluctant to defend their guy’s anti-union proposals in the mass media?”

Rich - Can you ask them on our behalf? They would never respond to us pleebs, but they may respond to you!

Comment by Dee Lay Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:13 am
===Why are the governor’s supporters so darned reluctant to defend their guy’s anti-union proposals in the mass media?===

@EditBoardChick - Usually I have to remind the supporters not to talk about things that may hurt Bruce. I like my gig #GagOrder #BlameMadiganInstead #Simple

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:14 am
Abe’s right. Plus, the constant hyperbolic Illinois-bashing by the governor and his supporters is not helpful.

Comment by Crispy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:14 am
“That’s a good question. Sound and thought provoking. Instead, can I interest you in a ‘Fire Madigan, 2.0′ coffee mug?” - @EditBoardChick

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:20 am
Public employers must currently bargain wages, hours and other conditions of employment.

This bill eliminates mandatory bargaining on wages. (except health insurance)
This bill eliminates mandatory bargaining on hours.
This bill eliminates mandatory bargaining on key conditions of employment such as layoffs, tenure and pension.
Ergo, this bill effectively eliminates public section collective bargaining.
It is D.O.A.

Comment by Jake From Elwood Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:23 am
How can a guy so smart that he was able to elected governor think that something like this will fly in Illinois? Oh, wait… he BOUGHT the governors office…

Comment by downstate commissioner Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:25 am
It’s unfortunate that the press is somewhere between lazy and willfully dishonest on Rauner’s plans but as a Democrat I don’t think whining about the refs is an effective plan. I wish the press was better on how they cover Rauner but I’m far more frustrated watching the Democrats hold winning messaging cards and yet they’re losing on the messaging. Let’s go Democrats, get in the game. Don’t wait for the Tribune to decide to come to your rescue, it ain’t happening.

Comment by The Captain Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:25 am
Let’s be fair. The Gov will still allow you to collectively bargain whether you can wear Khakis on casual Friday.

Comment by Norseman Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:26 am
Bruce,

Where IS your Constitutionally Mandated Balanced Budget?

Love,
Jack

Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:26 am
I’m just gonna say it: They’re cowards. They’re pathetic. And they aren’t doing their jobs. It’s extremely disappointing to watch this play out.

Comment by Politix Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:33 am
I think the Tribbies are banking on Griff or somebody else in Rauner’s network to buy them and save their phony-baloney jobs. The layoffs there just keep coming.

They’re awful shills in every sense of the words. They’re bad at it, ignorant and hysterical.

Illinois is hardly an “economic also-ran” (whatever that means), but the Trib is a dying enterprise, a shell of its former self.

When Tribune Co. emerged from bankruptcy, they cut the newspapers off like a gangrenous leg to save the rest of the company.

Consider this: In 2007, Tribune bought the L.A. Times for $8.2 billion.

Now, the entire Trib Publishing group of newspapers, including the Times and Trib, has a market cap of $386 million.

The poor public pension funds that got stock holding the bag as majority shareholders can’t unload them at any price.

On, they’re financial geniuses over there. Pay attention to them when they opine on economics.

Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:34 am
“Why are the governor’s supporters so darned reluctant to defend their guy’s anti-union proposals in the mass media?”

Reminds me of the “southern heritage” apologists’ insistence that the Confederacy’s treasonous secession was about states’ rights or Lincoln’s abolitionist leanings or inadequate law enforcement or dissatisfaction with federal military protection or anything other than the actual casus belli.

It’s difficult to come to an agreement when some people won’t even acknowledge the nature of the disagreement.

– MrJM

Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:34 am
===Rauner wants to curb venue shopping for friendly courts in the civil justice system===

Is that like the Governor shopping for a judge to PAY state employees, some of whom the Governor wants to strip every aspect of anything that looks like, acts like, is, collective bargaining?

Asking for a friend…

@EditBoardChick - Our hero Bruce wants to shop for his own corrupt judges, not the corrupt judges he can’t get to agree with him. Simple #BlameJudgesToo #IgnoreHypocrisy #TheLawIsCorruptUntilItIsnt

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:34 am
-Why are the governor’s supporters so darned reluctant to defend their guy’s anti-union proposals in the mass media?-

Because they know they are perfidious. Rauner did not run on an anti-union agenda and thus does not have the mandate for an anti-union agenda. To defend the anti-union stance is to acknowledge the perfidy.

Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:35 am
Rauner wants to curb venue shopping? Not quite. His bill would not allow injured people to sue in the jurisdiction in which they live. They can only sue in the jurisdiction where the defendant is located. Want to sue State Farm? Go to Bloomington IL. Good luck finding a jury to side with you and against the dominant employer in the area!

Comment by Concerned Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:39 am
This isn’t just a Tribune issue. No one in the general Illinois media has addressed this. You think someone would mention that we would already have a two year property tax freeze if it wasn’t for the Governor’s insistence that it includes a reduction in union rights.

Comment by Pelonski Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:48 am
VCU, term limits are the goo-goo beards. Rauner wants to keep them alive as campaign issues next year.

If Rauner had been serious about term limits, he wouldn’t have peddled that obviously unconstitutional referendum question last year.

Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:51 am
The Tribune editorial board should recuse itself from any discussion concerning wages, unions, and collective bargaining. Like Rauner, their bias is so strong they can’t even write an intelligent, pro/con editorial on the subject, let alone actually put in writing what anti-worker legislation they would specifically support.

Citizen friendly? Sure, if you believe Illinois citizens would like to see a massive reduction of the middle class in this state.

Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 10:54 am
Everything is about crushing public sector unions - whether in negotiations or poison pills in the little legislation he has put forward.

It would serve us all well to remember that the election was more about Quinn losing than Rauner winning. Of course, had Rauner not sung a different tune in the general election than he did in the primary perhaps Quinn could have beaten him.

But, we have a governor who cannot grasp the idea of governing and simply wants to destroy workers. He is after all, the baddest enemy anyone can have.

Comment by Anon Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 11:00 am
Someone should write an article debunking the myth of the “Liberal Media”. All I see is the right wing Tribune and all the local papers that run articles written by the Illinois Policy Institute, not your typical liberal stuff.

Comment by Say It Ain't So!! Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 11:13 am
From McQueary today:

“Legislation that will be reintroduced in the Illinois Senate next week would tackle a number of issues, including freezing property taxes and throwing a lifeline to Chicago Public Schools’ pension obligations.

But the most important thing the bill would do is sunset the current school state aid formula….

Republicans in the Senate voted “present” on the bill when it came up for a vote earlier this month. Answering to Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, they wanted restrictions on teachers unions and prevailing wage limitations included. Last year, they wouldn’t talk about the funding formula unless the state addressed pension costs.

It’s time for Republicans to show some courage and vote for a bill that will have greater impact statewide, particularly for south suburban, downstate and rural school districts suffering from dwindling property wealth. Those districts stand to gain through reworking education funding.”

That doesn’t sound much like a shill to me.

Comment by Juvenal Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 11:46 am
Oh @EditBoardChick.

Bruce Rauner denied, personally, a child a chance at Payton Prep because of the need that Rauner’s denied, Winnetja-living, Daughter needed a slot.

Not nary a word from @EditBoardChick, especially when advocating all that “choice” she pontificates.

Shills gloss over a lot.

@EditBoardChick - I want all students to get the best educations, and if Gov. Rauner can get one by clout for his daughter over a deserving child, I can live with that #BlindEye

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 11:53 am
Rich,

I don’t think that they want to avoid defending the proposals, I think that they just don’t want to draw any attention to the fact that they exist, but that’s just me assigning malicious intent to it.

It might just be a case of where they picked their narrative 2 years ago and refuse to deviate from their narrative.

Comment by Anon Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 12:02 pm
It’s difficult to come to an agreement when some people won’t even acknowledge the nature of the disagreement. Mr.JM

Or even impossible?…especially when dealing with the perfidious…(just wanted to say perfidious)…cool word…doesn’t rhyme with treacherous… but it does mean the same thing?

I want my Governor to say he’s Everyone’s best friend…but…that’s just me?…believing in Democracy?

Comment by Anonymous Redux Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 12:03 pm
Somebody got a new thesauris. #iamphotosynthesis

Comment by Golfman-r Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 12:45 pm
What is getting frustrating is the governor’s unwillingness to stand up and make the case on individual issues.

If you can’t make the case on the individual bill, you either can’t or don’t want to.

I still think Rauner knows Madigan controls the statehouse and engaging only sits at a table Madigan has already rigged. Creating chaos and pain takes power from Madigan.

Yea, Rauner may “own” this eventually, but Madigan still has not passed a balanced budget either. Madigan can put pressure on him by that simple task, but he can’t do it.

The inability to balance a budget is the one flaw Madigan cannot overcome. Rauner knows it and he intends to get a lot of miles out of it.

Comment by the Patriot Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 12:48 pm
Willy, how many kids were denied entrance to UIUC because MJM and his pals used their clout?

Comment by anon Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 1:18 pm
- anon -,

A selective high school that requires you live in the city, when the Denied, Winnetka-Living Daughter was going to 8th grade not in Chicago, where residency and qualifications are vital in the highly selected school…

… Did MJM deny a child from U of I so HIS child could attend, and… was residency… a mitigating factor, let alone a test score?

Think on that for a minute…

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 1:24 pm
“Why are the governor’s supporters so darned reluctant to defend their guy’s anti-union proposals in the mass media? ”

Because the only possible defense is “We hate workin’ stiffs” and that ain’t gonna fly.

Comment by JoanP Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 1:29 pm
Nice non-answer Willy. Does MJM OWN IT, because there were quite a few kids denied admission to the U of I.

Think on that for a minute…or two.

Comment by anon Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 1:31 pm
Get back on topic, please.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 1:32 pm
Anon- Speaker Madigan is not Rod Blagojevich… In fact the Speaker impeached the person accused of rigging the U of I acceptance policy …. I know this is a small detail to you… But thanks for adding to the narrative that Rauner’s actions resemble those of convicted felon and impeached Governor Blagojevich. Thank you very much!

Comment by Triple fat Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 1:35 pm
It’s just soooo haaaard to defend the indefensible! You know? It’s really really hard.

Comment by Triple fat Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 1:43 pm
It seems to me that much of what we are seeing is rational behavior (although whether it is responsible is a different question). Both sides prefer to avoid, if possible, owning the tax increase that’s coming. Both sides prefer, if possible, to avoid owning the program cuts that are coming. Certainly the Ds want to avoid owning even the small things that are probably coming that will impair working people. Surely the admin prefers not owning the less moderate of the proposals it has made, at least in the minds of the people (and their supporters) most negatively impacted by them. The governor appears completely sincere in his belief that significant changes need to be made in Illinois’ business environment if economic growth and employment is going to even get back to it’s previous normal levels. And it’s hard to doubt the Ds sincerity in their defense of the pink/blue collar workers of the state (although the benefit to some of their traditional non working class funders is also a given).

If I’m even close to right, then it’s going to be very hard to get people to abandon what they believe to be rational behavior and engage in behavior that seems antithetical to their goals. But that is what a compromise is going to require. Very hard.

Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:19 pm
Anybody that would believe that Madigan and the dems would “steer” state goodies (i.e. entrance to U/I) is obviously not drinking the party Kool aid. Now sit down, shut up and drink your Kool aid.

Comment by Nobody important Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:31 pm
Triple Fat, that is some revisionist history right there.

I want to be clear, I have absolutely no problem with the Speaker or any other legislator inquiring about the status of an applicant or providing a recommendation for a constituent. It is how the university responds that could become an issue. But the Speaker was most definitely one of the central figures in that “scandal.”

Comment by Juice Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:34 pm
- Nobody important -,

You sure it was only Dems? lol

Well said - steve schnorf -.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:34 pm
Steve, I’d say the difference is that the remainder of the FY16 budget that is not in the clear cannot be ignored much longer by the governor without serious blowback to him and the GOP caucuses, while the Dems can please their constituents by simply refusing to budge on the anti-worker stuff.

The “leverage” of bridging the current gap through scorched earth on social services and higher ed is no leverage at all.

Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:42 pm
Ugh, Nobody important, if you’re going to make stuff up, can you at least do it on something that isn’t so easily proven false.

All sorts of Republicans found their names on their list.

Comment by Juice Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:43 pm
Word, I’m not so sure politically. The constituencies most affected by the remaining non-payables include a lot of D voters

Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:51 pm
Juvenal- given the Governor’s latest letter, please consider taking back your comment that @statehousechick isn’t a shill.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:58 pm
===Juvenal- given the Governor’s latest letter, please consider taking back your comment that @statehousechick isn’t a shill.===

@EditBoardChick got a lil excited and finished her work on July 31st, “payday”.

It was probably like when the Press Shop already had a rebuttal to Cullerton… while Cullerton was speaking.

@EditBoardChick’s status was never in question.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 3:11 pm
=== Word, I’m not so sure politically. The constituencies most affected by the remaining non-payables include a lot of D voters ===

I’m sure these D voters are going to blame the person who deserves the blame - Rauner. Also, GOP legislators have people with social service needs as well.

Comment by Norseman Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 3:25 pm
- steve schnorf -

=== === Word, I’m not so sure politically. The constituencies most affected by the remaining non-payables include a lot of D voters ===

I’m sure these D voters are going to blame the person who deserves the blame - Rauner. Also, GOP legislators have people with social service needs as well.===

I agree with - Norseman - on this.

Governors own in the end, as it’s going is debatable, at the end, governors sign and own

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 3:43 pm
Let me suggest another thought. Although we have a few hard left and right wingers posting on here, most of us are pretty moderate. Setting aside whether the governor’s specific proposals are the right ones or not, I suspect that most of us agree with the proposition that it’s pretty important to do some things to improve Illinois economic and employment climate. I believe that our moderate mindset is a part of what makes many on here wince at some of the governor’s proposals.

That’s not how we would do it at all, me included. Build consensus as you go, chip away at the problem as solutions are agreed to, use the agreed bill process, that’s how most of us grew up politically/governmentally, and we still believe in that approach.

I’m not trying to channel the governor here, I’m just trying to kind of intuit what he might be thinking. First, I think he believes the state’s situation is quite serious, more serious than most of us think, and I think that he believes a time consuming solution is inadequate. It would be pretty hard to argue that we’ve made a heck of a lot of progress in the past 10 or 15 years. Two recessions and our state government’s actions and inactions have left us with a lot of unpaid old bills, seriously degraded reputation in the credit markets, too much underemployment. too many people simply giving up and dropping out of the workforce, too much immigration out and too few people moving in, too few state employees in many program areas to do their jobs properly, you name it.

I suspect the Governor came to the conclusion that the gradual moderate approach wouldn’t adequately address our problem; essentially, we lose too much ground and time each year so that gradual solutions are a problem compounder, not a solution. Something pretty significant needs to be done as quickly as possible.

If you believe that, and also believe more drastic solutions are needed than can be accomplished thru the old tried and true approach (an agreed bill process is never going to lead to a dramatic change in one fell swoop) it is probably reasonable to say let’s do it all at once, not drag the pain out over two or three sessions with a lot of hard votes each year: rip the bandage off and fix the problems now.

Again, if I’m even close it’s easier to understand why we are where we are. But I don’t have a clue how we get out of it.

Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 3:45 pm
===Again, if I’m even close it’s easier to understand why we are where we are. But I don’t have a clue how we get out of it. ===

Right on both parts.

And I think the governor would fully agree on both parts, too.

lol

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 3:47 pm
Agreed. Schnorf said it right.
Have a good weekend all!

Comment by Jake From Elwood Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 4:47 pm
==…and also believe more drastic solutions are needed than can be accomplished thru the old tried and true approach (an agreed bill process is never going to lead to a dramatic change in one fell swoop)…==

I think the agreed bill process can lead to some dramatic change. Mautino’s restructuring of the DNR is a good example of a package that included administrative changes as well as fiscal adjustments. It was a lot of work with a lot of different constituencies at the table.

I think the agreed bill process might be the only way to solve this. Trick will be getting everyone to the table AND, even trickier, getting them to focus on the core issues. It would be best if they would at least decouple the state’s fiscal issues from the “business climate” issues and negotiate the two separately.

Overall, I think if Rauner had focused on the budget this year, he might have notched a win and been able to use that win as leverage to move on other issues…

Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 5:09 pm