Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: B3 fallout?
Next Post: MLB playoff open thread
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Rauner attempted to reframe the debate by arguing Democrats already have voted for various union-weakening proposals in recent years, nullifying their argument that they’d be violating a core principle if they approved his demands. […]
Instead, the governor said, the fight was “about political tactics for the next election versus policies for the next generation” as he insisted Democrats were more interested in protecting their political allies in organized labor than “helping the middle class.” […]
“Length of school day, length of school year, layoffs in Chicago teachers, whenever they needed something out (of collective bargaining), they take it out,” the governor said. “So when somebody argues to you (that) this is about a violation of the core principles of the Democratic Party, call it on them. Call them on it. It’s not true. Simply not true. This is about political manipulation, political maneuvering, not about true genuine policy.”
It’s true that the Democrats have whacked the teachers and AFSCME over the years. Heck, in 2010 those unions boycotted House Speaker Michael Madigan’s campaign funds, and two years later AFSCME flooded Governor’s Day with hundreds of angry, screaming protesters.
But what Rauner wants is patently extreme and most definitely goes against the “core principles of the Democratic Party.” I’m not gonna post it yet again today, but click here if you’re not sure what I mean.
There’s a big difference between taking length of the school year out of Chicago collective bargaining and forbidding teachers and local government employees to bargain on all wages and benefits, overtime and pensions.
C’mon, man.
* Sen. Kwame Raoul rebuts another Rauner argument. The governor says that the fact that he has removed so many items from his list of demands is proof he is negotiating in good faith…
“If you just throw something on the wall that is to the extreme and say, ‘OK, I’m dropping that now,’ that’s not a fair point of departure to say, ‘I’ve negotiated,’” Raoul said of Rauner.
Yep. Dropping “right to work” zones from his agenda wasn’t negotiating, it was accepting reality that there was no way that thing was ever gonna pass and pushing for it was doing more harm to his party than good.
* More from Raoul…
“That said, I think that there has been efforts to meet the governor halfway on some of the issues that were part of his Turnaround Agenda.”
Oh, please. They haven’t met Rauner half way on anything.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:27 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: B3 fallout?
Next Post: MLB playoff open thread
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Bruce is more interested in protecting his Millionaire friends than the Middle Class.
But when you market your policy as “right to work” or a “turnaround agenda” it sure sounds appealing.
Like fast food restaurants that say their frozen chicken nuggets are all white meat….till you look at the ingredients.
Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:33 am
===Oh, please. They haven’t met Rauner half way on anything.===
Half credit for worker’s comp reform and property tax freeze? When they tried to do something, Rauner said no thanks.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:34 am
Rich: You know what you need? A TV show like Judge Judy where the various players in the “Theater” makes their case, and you can say Judge Judy-like things, you know like, “You think I’m an idiot? You’re lying. And you know how I know you’re lying? Your lips are moving.” I’d watch.
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:35 am
Yes indeed. There is a worlds.of difference between negotiating and taking a tough stance on benefit issues and not having the right to negotiate.
Comment by blue dog dem Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:35 am
Rauner’s latest message is schizo. He and the superstars don’t see that?
Democrats are controlled by the unions. Democrats voted in the past to stick it to unions.
Can’t be both.
P
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:36 am
===Oh, please. They haven’t met Rauner half way on anything.===
That’s the good part.
Comment by tobor Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:40 am
The impasse is a feature, not a bug.
They ought to nickname him Stonewall Rauner.
Rich -
Begging your pardon, but haven’t Democrats voted 12 times on a property tax freeze? Granted, it doesn’t include Rauner’s union-busting provisions, but that is still meeting him halfway, isn’t it? Just not the half he actually cares about
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:41 am
Did they not okay the privatization of the Department of Economic Opportunity to obscure Transparency on hundreds of millions of dollars of give-aways of Taxpayer dollars to profitable companies with billions in revenues which pay their top exective millions of dollars a year?
Comment by Beaner Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:42 am
It’s hard to meet halfway when one of the starting points is off the map.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:42 am
I think we have to realize that this is both parties faults. Neither side is working with each other. Our state is in bad shape. Both parties are punishing the innocent people who need services as leverage. It is time for them to think of the people of Illinois, quit playing these games of chicken and think of our state.
Comment by Reality Check Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:43 am
Say what you want, the rank and file agree. Rauner was elected because the rank and file of AFSCME and IEA were tired of taking it on the chin. The democrat party whacked union workers and put the money into social programs. The democrat party is the party of the non-working class, not the party of the working class.
Teachers lost collective bargaining, seniority, and substantial funding under the Rod-Quinn/Madigan administrations. It was a deliberate decision by democrats to abandon the IEA. The only reason the elections are close is the republicans are not grabbing the opportunity at meaningful reforms.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:44 am
Some true institutional knowledge here would debunk Rauner.
Rauner won’t be debunked. Rauner knows. We need to get in line to know too. Ugh.
No pragmatism is seen by either side, when it comes to the actual bigger picture of meeting halfway. That tells me one thing;
No trust.
Can’t be pragmatic, work to be pragmatic, take half, give half, unless you trust your trading partner…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:45 am
You don’t meet someone halfway when they only have 1/3rd of the votes necessary to do anything they want to do.
It is the minority party’s governor who needs to begin working with the majority party’s leadership to find the compromises possible. Rauner’s political goals should meet reality.
The Tribune is only embarrassing itself further with garbage like this.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:48 am
What I don’t understand is why he is pushing all of these labor reforms when there is a high likelihood that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of Friedrichs and thereby make the entire country right-to-work. Why spend so much political capital to move the timeline forward a few months?
Comment by Spiritualized Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:49 am
Seriously, the D’s did vote on some of the Rauner proposals, just without the anti-union poison pills. There were deals that could have gotten done on Workers Comp, Property Taxes, and even some agency reorgs if Rauner was willing to drop the anti-union stuff. He wasn’t, so the deals didn’t get done.
Politically speaking, if any deals are to get done now, it’s going to have to be Rauner meeting the D’s more than half way across the divide. I suspect the D’s will want more than a MOU; at this point I would expect a tax increase and budget to be passed together, and the tax increase signed BEFORE the budget is sent for signature.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:50 am
Man, pick a lane, Governor. Either Democrats are bought-and-paid-for by the unions, or they’ve already stuck it to unions before, so what’s the difference now? It can’t be both.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:53 am
== What I don’t understand is why he is pushing all of these labor reforms when there is a high likelihood that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of Friedrichs and thereby make the entire country right-to-work. Why spend so much political capital to move the timeline forward a few months? ==
Because Rauner wants to push beyond whatever might be won in the Friedrichs case and apparently doesn’t want to wait for whatever gradual change might occur as a result of it.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:54 am
Have not heard of any Turnaround Agenda resolutions from local governments for a while. It would seem the Governor would want to continue the charade/effort to demonstrate the broad based support his plan has for turning around/running aground our state.
Comment by Tommydanger Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:56 am
On Thursday, Rauner said the state’s gridlock was not about “some personal dynamic between one politician and another,” a reference to his dispute with Madigan.
Um, WHAT? Does he listen to what he is saying? He has spent months and millions demonizing madigan. Now, never mind?
Comment by Langhorne Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 9:58 am
-Beaner-Amen. This is my contention on why Rauner is a hypocrite.
Comment by blue dog dem Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:01 am
Beaner, the DCEO PPP was a total poison pill unacceptable to Rauner or DCEO. They don’t get any points for compromise.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:02 am
I’m going to throw out an idea that will be panned by many, but I’m hoping for the sake of Illinois we can come up with something to break this impasse. We’ve lamented before how Topinka was a moderating force. Her loss was a huge loss for all of us in that respect.
We need some moderating force to help now! Someone who can try to work with both sides to come up with face saving compromises to end this stalement. If his health is good enough, I would urge George Ryan to step up and mediate between the leaders.
(Pause while the hue and cry dies down.)
Yes, George is a tarnished felon. He was an old school politician caught in an environment of higher ethical expectations. He was also respected by both sides of the aisle. He did have a desire to make government work. He was good at bringing folks together.
If not him, Thompson may be the best next choice. I don’t perceive he was held to the same level of respect by Madigan as Ryan.
I don’t think Edgar ever achieved near the level of respect by Madigan than attained by the other two to be helpful here.
Whether Ryan or Thompson’s health will allow or whether they even want to go near this poisonous environment I don’t know. But we need a white knight to come to the rescue. I only hope that the egos behind the impasse would be willing to accept some moderating force. Doubtful, but for the sake of so many others something must be done NOW!
Now, I’ll put my thick skin suit on and wait for the avalance of naysayers. My only response in advance is to challenge these folks to come up with a plan other than to blame one side or the other.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:08 am
@norseman:
Actually I agree.
The problem is that Ryan or Thompson would be considered Socialist Tax and Spend Liberals….in the same way Reagan is viewed by the so called “freedom” wing of the Republicans.
Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:19 am
- Norseman -, I’m with you.
I had hoped Geo. Ryan woukd have been someone Rauner, even in the most secretive and quite way, would’ve reached out for some serious advice when it came to “dealing” with Madigan, even as Rauner, himself, continually hammered and shook the possible working relationship.
Rich shot down my half-hearted “Paul Lis-like voice” for Rauner, reminding us all, “He (Lis) wouldn’t last a day”.
Speaks volumes to the mindset of the Rauner Administration; You’re with us, I’ll give you your opinion, and don’t give me yours.
Edgar is useless. Edgar was used for his cache, and when it mattered weeks and weeks ago, who really knows what advice and what was said publicly matched.
Sometimes being the one questioning doesn’t mean you can’t agree, it means thinking outside of the bubble helps in the governing. Rauner has yet to learn that, Rauner is not a pragmatist when avenues to get a half a loaf are repelled by doubling down and attacking his trading partners.
I’m on board. GHR could probably assist in trying to be a deal maker and pragmatic, and probably save a half dozen GOP GA members from punishing bad votes caused by Rauner’s ignorance and stubbornness.
“He’d be fired in a day”
I knew it was true, just hoped it wasn’t real. It’s both.
I have your 6 - Norseman -, you’re where the pragmatism, or lack thereof, has led us.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:21 am
Jack, most far right folks actually lionize Reagan and pretend he was a paragon of conservatism without equal who took it to those nasty democrats like no one since has. He didn’t work with Tip, and he never had an 80% rule. It’s like how W kept us safe. Its not true, but it is manna from heaven to them. Indisputable fact nevermind it’s easily disproven. Reagan would be drummed out faster than Boehner in this day and age.
Comment by Me too Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:25 am
Norseman,
I am offended by you referring to George Ryan as a “white night.” Seriously?
Comment by I Remember Ryan Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:26 am
- They haven’t met Rauner half way on anything. -
Except for term limits and redistricting reform, there is no public support for the other items on the agenda. Why should legislators go halfway on an incompetent idealogue’s dorm room fantasy agenda? Especially when he’s doing nothing to build public support for it.
Comment by Daniel Plainview Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:26 am
Norseman- exact opposite reaction. I would pray with all my heart that Ryan-Thompson-anyone would be able to mediate the slaughter. But at this point I have lost all hope. No one will disuade Rauner. The legislators formerly know as the ILGOP, now called Raunerites have everything on the line. They will not capitulate. I am convinced that only intervention from SCOTUS or the 2016 elections will break the impasse. I would honestly love ANYTHING to work. Love of God, somebody call Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama, Malala, anybody.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:29 am
RNUG @ 9:45: exactly!
Comment by JackD Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:31 am
Leave the Public Sector Unions alone to do their collective thing. Just forbid them from engaging in elections. The judges in the state can’t participate except for running their own campaign, the same should go for the PSU’s.
No campaign donations, no mandatory union dues for campaigns, no organized field workers, no organized campaigning period… End of Story!
They get paid by the public taxpayers, they shouldn’t use their salary to influence their salary….
Comment by RUGurmpy? Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:33 am
- RUGurmpy? -,
How do you feel about dark money, super PACS, and other restrictions outside just singling out Unions?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:38 am
@rugrumpy:
Agreed! As long as the Elitist Millionaires (I.e., Rauner) play by the same rules.
Did you know Bruce feeds at the Public Trough to makes his money?
Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:42 am
Rauner didn’t run on this. He wasn’t elected to “reform collective bargaining”.
So “meeting halfway” is nonsense.
Rauner needs to get the votes to pass a budget. It’s on Rauner, not the Dems.
Comment by Macbeth Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:42 am
Reading this article on Don Blankenship of Massey Energy made me think of Brucie: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/blankenship-trial-king-coal-west-virginia
Comment by D.P.Gumby Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:43 am
Even if Rauner or Madigan saw a potential benefit of having a third party step in to break the logjam, one of them would still have to initiate a perception of “giving in”, (i.e “losing”). Pride and ego preclude the possibility
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:44 am
As much as I am not in favor of Super Pac’s influence on the political process, it is at least private money. If individual teachers or state employees wish to donate to campaigns, follow the same rules as everyone else for transparent reporting of large contributions, they are free to have at it. We can’t keep private money out of elections (at least that is what the Supreme’s have ruled), but we can minimize my tax money from being unfairly used against me.
Comment by RUGurmpy? Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:45 am
I’m guessing RUGrumpy thinks special interest money is okay, even all that dark sourceless secret money, unless it goes to those he doesn’t agree with.
Comment by Me too Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:46 am
Rugrumpy:
Rauners money is NOT “private money”.
Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:47 am
This feels like a stunt. “Re-boot Rauner” forgot to request food during the negotiation and the hostages are perishing from malnutrition.
Comment by Jocko Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:48 am
- RUGurmpy? -
So, different rules for different people? “Some more equal than others?”
“Who” gets to decide who’s worthy to be donating, and who’s not?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:49 am
It is time for Rauner to urge Durkin and Radogno to introduce his agenda and request hearings in the House and Senate. Then, call those proposals for a vote.
Comment by Austin Blvd Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:50 am
Bruce made his money in Nusing Homes…..paid with your tax dollars.
Mortgage Welfare, commonly known as the mortgage interest deduction, strongly favors the wealthy. Yet another example of tax dollars being used against you.
Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:51 am
Grumpy, it isn’t your tax money. It stops being your money the minute it is in the governments hands. Then it dtops being their money when the exchange it for labor of an employee. Then, and this is key when some of that money is required to go to the union for fair share dues, it only gets used for negotiating contracts and associated overhead. Someone must voluntarily become a full member for any of the money the pay the union to be used in political donations. So you see, or you would if you weren’t deliberately obtuse, the money that unions give politicians is not state money ir your money, but is in fact the unions money to give, money they aquired through a voluntary payment from a member with full knowledge of the type of politicians that money would vo to. When i buy paper products or oil I’d prefer not to have that money go to politicians supported by the Kochs. As soon as i buy their products though, that money is theirs to do with as they please. Ya dig?
Comment by Me too Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:56 am
George Ryan!?
Was that intended to be said out loud?
Unbelievable.
Signing off for the day, that was just too much.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 10:56 am
=They get paid by the public taxpayers, they shouldn’t use their salary to influence their salary….=
=it is at least private money.=
IF the state were making a direct payment to a campaign then it is PUBLIC money.
If a state worker contributes money from their salary or dues it is, in fact, PRIVATE money.
Once they complete their job responsibilities and receive compensation those funds cease to be public dollars. Unless you consider these TAXPAYERS to be public property. And they are taxpayers that pay plenty of taxes.
I think you need to re-frame your narrative and the way you are viewing these folks, being paid by the public does not make you public property or your salary public property/dollars when you use them for constitutionally protected free speech.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:01 am
==we can minimize my tax money from being unfairly used against me.==
We have already minimized it to zero. You don’t get a claim on a public employee’s compensation.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:05 am
—Someone must voluntarily become a full member for any of the money the pay the union to be used in political donations.—-
NO NO NO NO NO WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!! Only and I mean only money given to AFSCME PEOPLE (basically the unions’ political PAC) is used for political purposes. BY LAW not a cent of union dues either fareshare or fullpay can be used for ANY political purpose. Again only money individually donated to AFSCME PEOPLE (I don’t know what the SEIU or other union pac is called) can be used for anything political. It’s the law and AFSCME follows it to the letter! Now the only thing that the Gov. could have a beef with is that the donations can be made through direct withdrawal from one’s paycheck. That is how my contribution to AFSCME PEOPLE comes out. I have also sent in additional money by check. Sorry to grump but this is how the misunderstanding purpetuates.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:16 am
Just a hunch but something tells me Brucie would not appreciate what third party medication could bring to the table.
Comment by Cubs in '15 Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:26 am
RUGrumpy:
I think you need to read the 1st Amendment again.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:30 am
*mediation not “medication” Although the latter might help more than the former…
Comment by Cubs in '15 Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:32 am
I see no reason to think that the governor listens to anyone, because he feels he’s right and entitled.
Comment by Aldyth Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:34 am
“something tells me Brucie would not appreciate what third party medication could bring to the table”
If the “third party medication” was medical marijuana it might help a lot… (sorry, couldn’t pass that up)
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:35 am
No I think you said it correctly medication is what we need now. Roxanol STAT!!!!!
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:36 am
Is there any chance that Rauner could save face by deeming his conditions for acting on a budget met if the GA simply VOTES on his anti-union measures, even if they lose? He has to know they have no chance of passing but if they were at least voted on, he could say “Well, at least I got them to consider it.”
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:42 am
Which part of that did you oppose
Dog thoughts
TB foolish examples
Real examples of D compromise
Comment by Anonin' Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:44 am
Jump on the crazy train to mile high city an hash this out
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:46 am
The House passed significant anti-union provisions in P.A. 95-708. Where was the Speaker protecting the middle class union members then?
Comment by Just Me Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:52 am
“If the “third party medication” was medical marijuana it might help a lot… (sorry, couldn’t pass that up)”
LOL SS (Brucie to Madigan) “Aww, just forget all that union bustin’ stuff. I was just playin’! C’mon, bring it in…I need a hug. Now pass me one of those donuts would ya?”
Comment by Cubs in '15 Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:52 am
Need to see GOP votes on the Turnaround Agenda. That might jumpstart things.
Comment by Austin Blvd Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:52 am
When Rauner, Inc. offers such false equivalencies how in the world could anyone rank where the democrats fall in their degree of compromise? “Meeting Rauner halfway” is thus open to all kinds of interpretation.
Comment by Vole Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:53 am
Secret Square - Do you honestly think that Durkin and Radogno really want to hold votes on the turnaround agenda and allow their members to vote green or red?
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:58 am
-Norseman-
Maybe get both Thompson and Ryan TOGETHER to offer to broker a deal.
Probably won’t work since Rauner seems to want nothing but unconditional surrender but at some point he has to acknowledge he doesn’t have the votes for his agenda.
However, with both Thompson and Ryan calling for action, it might offer some cover to GOP members to take some hard votes in opposition to Rauner’s orders.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 11:59 am
I’m glad they have not met him halfway on anything. Half a bucket of….. You know. Or, that’s like wearing a Cardinals hat and a Cubs jersey…..
Comment by Union Man Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:08 pm
It is telling to me that it seems that more than a few folks around here believe it to be in the best interest of the GOP to have someone other than Bruce Rauner speaking for it, and compromising.
No mention of a Democratic compromiser?
Is this because the idea that the problem lies within the GOP and its leadership is seen as the problem? Madigan doesn’t need someone to lead him to compromise? Rauner’s claim that it is the Democrat’s fault for no budget solution isn’t finding enough support?
Yes - it is.
When the GOP shows up here in comments and pines for Ryan or Thompson as leading to a compromise between the Governor and the General Assembly, it means there are cracks in Rauner’s support, his excuses, his turnaround agenda, and his Illinois shut down methods.
Wow.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:15 pm
I P I is wrong for stating the agiv is right to reject any tax increase. True conservatives believe in paying the bills.
Comment by Union Man Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:15 pm
I P I is wrong for stating the agiv is right to reject any tax increase. True conservatives believe in paying the bills.
Comment by Union Man Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:17 pm
Sorry for double post from the cell phone
Comment by Union Man Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:20 pm
RUGrumpy once an employee is paid for their service to the public it is no longer tax payer money. It is the employee’s money to spend as they wish.
Comment by Seymour Kid Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:30 pm
recall. right around the corner
Comment by quincy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:34 pm
Dance Band @ 11:58am.
Yes, is time for the GOP to man up.
Good faith votes and support of Dear Leadrr’s agenda.
You know, Profiles In Courage, etc.
Just might jumpstart things.
Comment by Austin Blvd Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:37 pm
===recall. right around the corner===
No it’s not. Not even close. Not even close to being far.
Will. Not. Happen.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:37 pm
- Dance Band on the Titanic -,
What do you think the $20 million held over Radogno’s and Durkin’s heads for, “fun”?
It’s to guarantee votes; “Green”, “Red”… even “Yellow”
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:40 pm
Honeybear is wrong, union dues can be used for political contributions and that is what most unions use, AFSCME has a strong PEOPLE program and uses that additional contribution for their political money, but if they choose to they could use union dues for political contributions, that is the law.
Comment by reasonable Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:52 pm
- reasonable -,
Please cite.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:54 pm
- reasonable -,
If you are specifically citing “Fair Share”, please cite what you say as true there.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 12:58 pm
from the FEC
Corporate and Union Activity
Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees. Click here to download the Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations [PDF].
Apart from supporting PACs, corporations and labor organizations may conduct other activities related to federal elections, within certain guidelines. For more information, call the FEC or consult 11 CFR Part 114.
Illinois allows the contributions by the union and a PAC
http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/CampaignDisclosure/PDF/Contribution%20Limits.pdf
Comment by reasonable Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:03 pm
If I’m a GOP legislator, especially in the House, I’m beggin my leader to vote on the Turnaround Agenda. Madigan’s already got me votin red or yellow on property tax cuts and other consumer-friendly bills.
Gotta stand for something.
Comment by Austin Blvd Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:04 pm
On meeting Rauner half way:
If “Reasonable” is where they need to meet, the Dems are about 250 miles away, but Rauner is 1,000 miles away. Rauner needs to be a lot closer to “Reasonable” before he starts asking the Dems to meet him half way.
Comment by PolPal56 Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:04 pm
- reasonable -,
How is - Honeybear - wrong? What did he/she comment specifically that’s “wrong”?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:06 pm
in State elections AFSCME and other unions can use union dues for political activity, even in federal elections, they can’t give them money but they can use the union dues to pay for the expnses incurred of doing literature distributions
Comment by reasonable Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:09 pm
- reasonable -,
I asked where specifically did - Honeybear - comment incorrectly?
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:11 pm
Honeybear stated
BY LAW not a cent of union dues either fareshare or fullpay can be used for ANY political purpose. Again only money individually donated to AFSCME PEOPLE
that is not factual
Comment by reasonable Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:14 pm
Are you saying fair share can be used for political purposes?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:16 pm
Okay legal people weigh in please. Taft-Harley Act prohibits union dues from paying for anything political does it not? Reasonable has called me to the mat. This summer at Labor Leadership school this is what I was taught. If I’m wrong I’m wrong but I don’t have the time (or skill) to look up and site the legal passage. Can anyone help solve the dispute? By the way, this is the way disputes should be handled. Let’s refer to experts or source and check. Again, if I’m wrong I’m wrong and I’ll even apologize unreservedly but I don’t think I am.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:17 pm
ok, you got me on that one, but the rest of it is wrong, full dues can be used for political activity.
Comment by reasonable Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:18 pm
So, Honeybear, a union member must designate that a portion of his/her payroll deduction be used for political purposes.
Unions can’t just bundle up the dues and use them for political contributions.
Comment by Austin Blvd Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:19 pm
Inside baseball at its finest. Ridiculous ineffective and…a bit desperate.
Comment by Southsider Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:20 pm
@ow:
If it turns out that Bruce is involved with Barbara Boyd in some way…..does that change the recall question?
With respect.
JS
Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:20 pm
- Jack Stephens -
No. There’s no way 4 GOP GA members will sign off on the recall. No way, no how, and B3 is Rahm’s not Bruce’s. Too many “buffers” even for Rahm, although Zopp actualky was ON the CPS Board, so her US Senate campaign will implode at some point with these indictments.
Respectfully.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:25 pm
Taft Hartley has to do with Labor Relations, the FEC Federal Election Commission and the Illinois Election Commission govern the campaign finance laws.
Comment by reasonable Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:32 pm
Austin Blvd, exactly so. I sign a green card to join AFSCME as a fullshare member. I can if I want to, sign a white AFSCME PEOPLE card to send $4.20 or other amount to AFSCME PEOPLE for political activities. TOTALLY SEPARATE PROCESS. Frankly most folks joined PEOPLE just to get the jacket which comes in handy in our over airconditioned office (at least my room is. It’s a meatlocker in here)
This illustrates why it is so hard to act politically in unison as a union. I’ve got several folks in my office who are very conservative and Rauner supporters. Yes, they are very conflicted now. All except for one who is just a racist, jerk/troll who just happens to be a Republican. He’s just a looney. We have to have conservatives to balance our democracy. I don’t mean to impune Republicans. Sorry, I digress. But yes AFSCME and AFSMCE PEOPLE are two separate processes.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:34 pm
I produced citations reasonable. Your ball. Actual citations please.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:36 pm
===Once more, with feeling===
@OW
What if we get him for litterin’…? And creatin’ a nuisance?
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:38 pm
OW:
Thanx. Enjoy your posts and always learn something.
JS
Comment by Jack Stephens Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:41 pm
Here you go, again.
from the FEC
Corporate and Union Activity
Although corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees. Click here to download the Campaign Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations [PDF].
Apart from supporting PACs, corporations and labor organizations may conduct other activities related to federal elections, within certain guidelines. For more information, call the FEC or consult 11 CFR Part 114.
Illinois allows the contributions by the union and a PAC
http://www.elections.il.gov/Downloads/CampaignDisclosure/PDF/Contribution%20Limits.pdf
Comment by reasonable Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:41 pm
===What if we get him for litterin’…? And creatin’ a nuisance?===
Oh, that?
Well, we’ll ride him out on a rail, with the real barbershop quartet singin’, people will be watchin’ down by Old Wilson Crick, picnicin’, with the ladies twirlin’ their parasols, and men tuggin’ at their suspenders…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:43 pm
- Jack Stephens -
No worries, bud. Thanks. I’m always learning here too.
OW
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:47 pm
Rauner won’t back down. Classic case of hubris. All he cares about is breaking down workers and rewarding those around him.
Comment by Liberty Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 1:55 pm
Reasonable, Union Dues cannot be used for political activity unless the membership approves such an expenditures. Political Action money is normally a separate contribution to the union, along with their dues, as authorized by the individual members. Union dues themselves are designated for specific expenditures for the benefit of the members.
Comment by burbanite Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:08 pm
All these hackneyed slurs against both sides get very old after a while. Can someone please say something original?
Comment by Formerpol Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:12 pm
Obviously I don’t post here often.
Per Vman
Democratic mediator: Richard M Daley
Seriously
Comment by Ill-Will Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:13 pm
“What if we get him for litterin’…? And creatin’ a nuisance” Would it be ironic for him to be put on the Group W bench?
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:13 pm
===Democratic mediator: Richard M Daley
Seriously===
RMD “couldn’t testify” in a court case, you think even putting himself in the middle of this is “wise” given that pronouncement by his own lawyers?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:16 pm
-unless the membership approves such an expenditures-
Nope. Membership dues can only be used for collective bargaining, negotiating, etc. Not for political purposes.
-Union dues themselves are designated for specific expenditures for the benefit of the members.-
There’s the correct statement. Man, it’s such a difficult thing to convey and get right. But it’s so pivotal to so many anti union arguments to get right. A lot of the very underpinning of so-called “right to work” arguments are based on this misunderstanding.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:19 pm
I feel for you but I can’t reach you
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:20 pm
Maybe another set of campaign ads, Rauner buying flowers, Madigan in black and white, with an ominous voiceover would help. /s
Comment by AC Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:20 pm
OW with respect, nope.
Should have added/snark
Apologies
Comment by Ill-Will Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:20 pm
- Ill-Will -
It’s all good, bud, the “Seriously” threw me.
Pretty ironic, lol.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:23 pm
…just a sidebar…George Ryan has already helped BVR immensely. The ILGOP sustained serious collateral damage when Ryan self-destructed. After successions of GOP gubernatorial campaign failures, vulture capitalist Rauner saw his opportunity, scooped up the ILGOP wreckage, and remolded it into something else entirely.
Grassroots GOP’ers don’t want to see Ryan again anywhere. Or Rauner for that matter.
Comment by Gumby Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:27 pm
- Gumby -, that is “hard core” and it’s also sadly Spot On.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:30 pm
Rookie poster.
Forgot that I “know” some of you all from daily reading, I’m unknown.
Comment by Ill-Will Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:31 pm
Maybe it isn’t possible to live in the mansion while it’s being renovated and remain reasonable or even make reasonable arguments. While we are trying to make sense of the sudden shift from “Democrats love unions” to “Democrats hate unions” no one has considered what impact replacing the roof on the mansion has had on our governor. Perhaps the budget gets settled when the roofers stop nailing, every morning, day and evening and the man has a chance to think. /s
Comment by AC Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:32 pm
Honeybear
That actually makes it more confusing. Fair Share is supposed to be the cost to negotiate and administer the contract without any political expenditures. From the definition you’ve been given of the way dues are spent fair share should equal full dues. Yet to my understanding they do not. Since the Union sets fair share rates I wonder whichexpenses they are leaving out?
Seriously not trying to pile on but something seems off and I’m curious what is left out.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:45 pm
- Ill- Will -,
Welcome. Stick around too.
I’m always confused;
Are anti-Union, 1st Amendmet, monetary questions really about the money, or the message?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 2:56 pm
Mason—I apologize if I mistated something. It’s such a precise thing and massively vexing. No fairshare and fullshare are not equal monetarily. Fairshare is a lesser percentage of what is charged to fullshares. Each union is different. I’m not sure where the difference between the two goes. But I do know that neither fairshare nor fullshare go to political purposes. Only my AFSCME PEOPLE contribution goes towards political purposes. Clear as mud? Again I’m not trying to be a putz. I’m trying to be very clear. Thanks for indicating where I need to tweek.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 3:04 pm
OW, anyone who asks the question knows the answer. I’m amazed at people who oppose representation find themselves represented by groups that are far more interested in protecting big business than they are protecting free speech. Following the money in the upcoming Supreme Court fair share case is a great example of that.
Comment by AC Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 3:05 pm
@Mason Born & @Honeybear
My understanding:
Fairshare -Pays for bargaining & individual grievance resolution to like level 3
Full Dues - Pays for bargaining and individual grievance resolution up through level 4/arbitration
If you want to support the unions political activities you have to fill out a white card to join what every they are calling the lobbying group this cycle.
Comment by Kevin Highland Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 3:13 pm
Thank you Kevin! I believe that is correct now that you mention it. I guess I need to review my Filing a Grievance chapter. Thanks again.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 3:33 pm
reasonable
You are correct on Corp. and Labor Pacs. Just an fyi, Corp. PAC’s may accept money from management employee but not from union employees nor from a direct mamagement supervisor of a union employee. State of Illinois PAC’s may accept money from anyone associated with the corporation. Union, management, retirees, vendors, etc. There is a limit of $21,600 from a corp. or a labor organization to a PAC, except a Candidate PAC that is restricted to $10,800.
Comment by RUGurmpy? Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 4:12 pm
Kevin and Honeybear thanks for the response.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 4:22 pm
At this point, I would like to see the moderate legislators of both parties get together, put together a proposal they all support, get it voted on and passed (by whatever that takes), override the veto (by whatever that takes) and then vote in different leadership for house and senate (from among their group) at the earliest opportunity and work to vote in a different governor. Probably not reality; but it should be. The present situation should not exist.
Comment by logic not emotion Friday, Oct 9, 15 @ 4:45 pm