Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Pritzker criticizes Trump administration’s support of Rauner’s Janus case

Posted in:

Illinois

The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overrule a 40-year-old precedent that allows compelling public employees to pay some fees to unions that represent them, an important tool for the U.S. labor movement.

It was another dramatic reversal in a high-profile case before the high court, and at least the third time since President Trump’s inauguration that the Justice Department has renounced its past positions, some held for decades.

It puts the administration squarely on the side of conservative legal activists, who have complained for years that the requirement violates the free-speech rights of those who don’t want to join the union or pay fees to it.

The Supreme Court precedent the administration wants to overturn says that unions may charge all employees for the cost of collective bargaining, but not for the union’s political activities. About 20 states allow that practice.

The brief is here.

* Pritzker campaign…

After the Trump administration announced their support of an anti-union Supreme Court case spearheaded by Bruce Rauner, Janus v. AFSCME, JB Pritzker released the following statement:

“Donald Trump endorsed Bruce Rauner’s lawsuit to obliterate unions and hurt working families across our state and country,” said JB Pritzker. “After failed attempts to force his special interest agenda on Illinois, Rauner is partnering with Trump to roll back worker’s rights on a national scale. This case could threaten the mere existence of public sector unions, and there is too much at stake for working families to have their governor and president working against them. As governor, I will always stand with the labor movement and fight these attempts to hurt working families.”

Nothing from the other Democratic candidates as of yet for any statewide office, including AG. Kinda surprising, but Pritzker has the staff to stay on top of this stuff

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:21 pm

Comments

Seems like a big enough issue to Dem constituents for the others to notice and get off a quick tweet.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:26 pm
Nothing new from Pritzker. Link Rauner and Trump together always. Personally, I think voters are a bit smarter than this, but it’s always worth a shot.

Comment by People Over Parties Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:26 pm
===Nothing new from Pritzker. Link Rauner and Trump together always. Personally, I think voters are a bit smarter than this, but it’s always worth a shot.===

Rauner is polling at 30%

Trump is poklibv at 37%

Trump lost Illinois by 16+ points.

Personally, I’m surprised I haven’t seen more side-by-side images in ads yet by Pritzker.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:29 pm
Rauner is hanging his hat on this court case. He has accomplished nothing else. But when he returns to the wine club and smoke filled cigar rooms of wealth - this is what he will be able to boast about. I broke the unions for you.

I am surely hoping the middle class will coalesce soon.

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:30 pm
===Rauner is polling at 30%

Trump is poklibv at 37%===

Same poll? No snark

Comment by People Over Parties Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:31 pm
Of course people are going to link Rauner to Trump. They’re practically the same person.

Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:35 pm
===They’re practically the same person.===

How so?

Comment by People Over Parties Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:39 pm
Pretty good response, but he shouldn’t have limited it to public sector unions.

Comment by Frank Grimes Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:41 pm
===Same poll?===

Same pollster, I believe.

Trump and Rauner are the same as Virginia voters seem to think Republican President - Republican Governor is the same.

Same as it ever was. Nothing new or sinister. Been that way… off-years areclike that.

Ask Candidate Rauner, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:48 pm
Trump - 36.9% - Illinois

http://bit.ly/2fZxzRm

Rauner at 30%

http://bit.ly/2iCKsC9

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 2:52 pm
Campaigning pols who go “places” they don’t need to go and do it for no apparent additional benefit fascinates me almost every election. Pritzker’s comments on Janus today is a good example of that. He has the union money and backing, their endorsement, and a great many union household votes already sewn up. Yet, Janus is an Illinoisan in an Illinois-centric case with obviously some significant level of support within the state — is on its docket and is headed for a Supreme Court decision. Does Pritzker believe his scolding of the Trump administration is going to affect the Supreme Court’s ruling in any way or garner him any additional votes for governor that he does not already have with respect to this particular union issue? Did he consider the possibility that he might actually lose some potential Dem primary and/or general election votes because he has been so overtly vocal about this? Does he understand that some people in Illinois would view a Janus win as a victory, not a loss for workers’ rights?

If the other Dem gubernatorial candidates can manage a more measured reaction to Janus it will show they get the larger picture..

Comment by Responsa Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:13 pm
“Donald Trump endorsed Bruce Rauner’s lawsuit to obliterate unions…”

The Janus decision will not obliterate unions. Some unions will thrive. Some will merge in order to thrive. Some will not adopt and will disband. But utter “obliteration” will not happen.

…and hurt working families…”

I’m a working family with no union affiliation. How would I be hurt?

Comment by City Zen Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:23 pm
===Did he consider the possibility that he might actually lose some potential Dem primary and/or general election votes because he has been so overtly vocal about this? Does he understand that some people in Illinois would view a Janus win as a victory, not a loss for workers’ rights? ===

Are there any 100 percent issues out there? Odd comment.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:24 pm
This ties Trump and Rauner together and validates Pritzker’s attempt to do so.

But, many Americans believed that someone who outsourced businesses, scammed poor university students and was smart for paying low or no federal income taxes was a friend of the working class. Others are seeing what was expected to be seen from Trump—ACA repeal zealotry, support for big tax cuts for the wealthiest, stripping of environmental regulations, union-busting, etc.

Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:39 pm
@Responsa -He’s running in a Dem primary and he doesn’t need to court rich social issue liberal donors scared of/disdainful of unions. Why shouldn’t he speak out forcefully on this?

The average voter who hates unions isn’t casting a ballot in a Dem primary.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:52 pm
I work, as does my wife. My kids don’t though. In their defense, they are too young.

Non of us are in unions. Not sure how this will be bad for us.

Comment by Ron Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:34 pm
State workers lives could be ruined for no other reason other than for political games. Public sector needs unions more than anyone because of the political atmosphere they work in

Comment by NICKy Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:48 pm
==Link Rauner and Trump together always.==

Sorry the truth hurts so much.

Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:52 pm
==Public sector needs unions more than anyone because of the political atmosphere they work in==

If the public sector work environment is that toxic, then there are bigger issues than union affiliation.

Comment by City Zen Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:06 pm
What about the vast majority of citizens and taxpayers that are not government employees. We need protection from the incestuous relationship between pols and public sector unions.

Comment by Ron Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:15 pm
=If the public sector work environment is that toxic, then there are bigger issues than union affiliation.=

There are, workers still need protection / due process from inept, hostile, and unaccountable state management.

Comment by Lifts other boats Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:15 pm
This issue is only up again because Scalia died before the Friedrich case was decided. These is zero chance the Supreme Court doesn’t find against public sector unions now that we have 9 Justices. Who cares what Pritzger or Rauner think on the outcome. It’s a done deal

Comment by Sue Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:17 pm
The problem with the Janus case is that the argument he makes is nonsense. He argues that he could have gotten a better salary and benefit package for his position negotiating with the state alone on his own.
This is the kind of bogus straw man that the Roberts court loves. Like other supreme court decisions, it may be the law of the land, but that doesn’t make it right.

Comment by The Fake Chief Justice Sue Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:24 pm
–Nothing new from Pritzker. Link Rauner and Trump together always.–

How couldn’t he link Trump and Rauner on this one? Did you read the post?

What’s weird is no public love from Rauner to Trump for joining in.

What’s up with that? No gratitude to the president of your own party for backing your play?

Yesterday, Rauner made a point of thanking Chris Kennedy on twitter for something-something. But for Trump, …. crickets.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:28 pm
When u have a nasty hateful vengeful governor. Yes it’s that toxic

Comment by NIcky Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:08 pm
== ==Public sector needs unions more than anyone because of the political atmosphere they work in==

If the public sector work environment is that toxic, then there are bigger issues than union affiliation. ==

I’m not a big fan of the current AFSCME because they have way overreached on lots of stupid little issues. And yes, there are bigger issues … like a hostile management starting at the top.

But … and it is a BIG but, they do have a place in government employment. The unions and their work rules (some of whch I’ve railed against in the past) are a necessary evil to counterbalance both standard and workplace favoritism, nepotism, unequal treatment, and all the other isms that creep in when there is no counterbalance. All the civil service and anti-political rules (and court rulings like Rutan) don’t work.

I don’t think unions are necessarily the best solution, but they are better than a 100% subjective system like existed before civil service. Civil service stopped some of it, but a lot more got stopped by the unions.

My gripe with unions is that they protect the incompetent and fail to reward the exceptional. If the unions would spend more time policing their own ranks and shut down some of the inane grievances, they would strengthen their hand. But they won’t do it enough, so the unions weakening their position … and provide lots of ammunition for the anti-union crowd like Rauner.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:28 pm
“He argues that he could have gotten a better salary and benefit package for his position negotiating with the state alone on his own.”

He couldn’t be more wrong. He ought to take a good look at Rauner’s contract proposals, especially health insurance.

“Public sector needs unions more than anyone because of the political atmosphere they work in”

Just look at the putrid contract Rauner’s trying to force on state workers—huge cuts and loss of protections—while Rauner’s income increases bigly, as in $279 million while being governor and creating massive fiscal, economic and human damage to the state.

The statement is also correct because the contract protects workers from horrible bosses like Rauner, who scapegoated and fired his competent PR staff.

Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:30 pm
=He couldn’t be more wrong. He ought to take a good look at Rauner’s contract proposals, especially health insurance.=

He probably has seen the contract proposal. His, albeit delusional, argument is that his current contract and this Rauner’s lowball offer is the union’s fault and you collectivists are holding him back. I know Mark and I think he actually believes this (?) The out-of-touch Roberts USC will probably also rationalize it 5 to 4.

Comment by The Fake Chief Justice Sue Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:52 pm
“My gripe with unions is that they protect the incompetent and fail to reward the exceptional.”

Management hires and promotes them. Why does management certify and keep trainees who have shown that they’re bad workers? Management has ample time to review their work before certifying them. Those workers become the union’s problem, too.

The contract states that workers with less seniority can be promoted due to “demonstrably superior” performance. So if management follows the contract, seniority does not stop better workers from being promoted over worse workers with more seniority.

Union members and fair share fee payers are entitled to representation–at least for union reps to hear them out. Imagine if reps failed to do this, then the union would get criticized for not caring and doing its job.

Darned if you do and darned if you don’t–just like attorneys–hate them ’til you need them.

Rauner did not propose shortening the disciplinary process in his contract proposals. If he cared about quality workers and getting rid of bad worker faster, he would have done that. Rauner doesn’t care about this efficiency, just like he doesn’t care about efficiency and economy in subcontracting.

Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 7:40 pm