Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Apples and oranges?
Next Post: Why hasn’t this problem been solved?
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s news service…
A Democratic candidate for governor picking up the endorsement of the Illinois’ teachers’ union highlights the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME for one state representative.
Democratic candidate for governor J.B. Pritzker said in a Saturday news release, “I’m so proud to receive the endorsement of the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the 100,000 teachers, paraprofessionals, higher education faculty and staff and public employees they represent.”
State Rep. Grant Wehrli, R-Naperville, said it’s naive to think all 100,000 members support Pritzker.
“I’m sure there are some that support other Democratic candidates and maybe even a few that support Gov. [Bruce] Rauner,” Wehrli said.
“[The endorsement] infers the entire union membership is behind [Pritzker],” Wehrli said. “It silences their own members’ voices that may have a different political viewpoint.”
Wehrli said IFT’s endorsement of Pritzker disregards those forced into the union who don’t agree with the endorsement.
“They somehow defer their rights to free speech to the union bosses who can endorse whomever they want and use their membership as a show of force even if some members don’t agree with that union endorsement,” Wehrli said.
So, to be legit, every group that endorses candidates has to do so unanimously? Odd.
Also, if a worker covered under a union contract doesn’t agree with an endorsement, that person is under zero obligation to vote for the candidate. The person is also free to speak out against that candidate. And none of that person’s fair share fees are used on the campaign side.
* From the IFT’s Aviva Bowen…
“The IPI propaganda arm ‘reporting’ about the IPI litigation arm’s attack on working families is rich. Rauner would make Steve Bannon proud.”
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 9:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Apples and oranges?
Next Post: Why hasn’t this problem been solved?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
SquirelyWherli might be too young when some union teachers even back GOPie state reps — until thedouble crosses.
It is amazin’ how dumb this dude can make himself appear
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 9:55 am
“The IPI propaganda arm ‘reporting’ about the IPI litigation arm’s…”
All that’s missing is the IFT’s propaganda arm Illinois Working Together.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 9:57 am
So by that Wehrli’s logic, corporations and businesses can’t make endorsements either if all of their employees don’t agree with their viewpoints. I’m fine with unilateral disarmament if he is!
Comment by Corporate Hack Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:02 am
Illinois Working together doesn’t claim to be a news service, but at least you don’t dispute that IPI and ILnews are propoganda.
Comment by huh Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:07 am
=SquirelyWherli might be too young when some union teachers even back GOPie state reps — until thedouble crosses.
It is amazin’ how dumb this dude can make himself appear=
His only contribution (if it can even be called that) is Twitter trolling, the guy does nothing else of merit.
And, now he is stating that any “group” the supports the GOP candidate really isn’t unless it is unanimous? Or do they play by different rules?
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:12 am
reporting a lawmaker’ hot take is propaganda?
Comment by Headdesk Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:13 am
Mr. Wehrli is best when tweeting bad phony conservatism then trying to be the “voice of reason” that dilutes an endorsement.
At least Mr. Wehrli said “Democratic”… usually it’s “Democrat” in between the angry tweets that always find the conspiracy in the end.
Indeed, unions, teachers’ unions, trade unions, even public employee unions use to endorse Republicans at a rate much higher than zero.
Mr. Wehrli either lacks that institutional knowledge, ignores that history because it goes counter to union bashing, or worse, doesn’t want to learn about how labor and Republicans have found common ground.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:13 am
I’m not trying to be rude, but I’ve often wondered if Wherli lives in his own mind and is completely void of any reality. If you read his twitter feed, it’s incredible how he attempts to spin and refocus facts to the point that you could argue he’s flat out lying. I get that’s politics, but he’s just so very bad at making actual points or defending his logic. Probably because they lack any sense of logic.
Comment by FCCTSM Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:19 am
== highlights the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME ==
Grant Wehrli wants to break the teachers unions. Okay , this isn’t a surprise, but the explicit reminder is helpful.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:19 am
My understanding with Janus is that Janus literally doesn’t think he/state employees should have as high pay and benefits, “short” work hours, etc., he doesn’t want to support the actual collective bargaining. If I’m remembering the article right he said something about working with poor kids and wanting more state dollars to go to them, not the union/state workers. Whatever you think of that argument, that and this endorsement business are fairly far apart.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:22 am
It’s a ridiculous crock. Union members have plenty of opportunities to vote for other members to be in union governing bodies who make endorsements. If members don’t like who the executive body endorses, they can mount campaigns to vote out those leaders, you know, just like people do in a democracy.
That’s what is the problem with Janus types. They refuse to live in a democracy and accept the choices of state workers, who overwhelmingly choose to be union members.
The IPI and Rauner are only about union-busting and crippling opponents. The rest, like this piece and the other crocodile tears over employee freedoms, are just smokescreens.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:31 am
“Democrat” is a noun.
“Democratic” is an adjective.
“Republican” is both a noun and an adjective.
Saying “a Democratic candidate running for governor,” is correct.
Also correct is “a Democrat running for governor.”
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:34 am
Maybe some are swayed into thinking “union” membership is lockstep group think, no individuality involved. We vote the way our educated minds tell us to, not what any association head tells us to do. After all, our Teachers’ Association, like the American Medical Association (is that a union?) has diversity of opinion.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:37 am
“So by that Wehrli’s logic, corporations and businesses can’t make endorsements either if all of their employees don’t agree with their viewpoints. I’m fine with unilateral disarmament if he is!”
The big difference that I think makes this moot is corporations are not taking agency fees from their employees.
Why not just report the results of an endorsement vote which accurately reflects membership views on all candidates of both parties?
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:38 am
==All that’s missing is the IFT’s propaganda arm Illinois Working Together==
Sez the guy who fills Capfax comment sections with pro-Rauner propaganda every chance he gets. Maybe you and the Lucky Pierre bot can get together and tell us one more time how all these union endorsements of Pritzker are actually the result of a nefarious plot by the speaker to raise our taxes.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:38 am
Won’t be an issue when Judge Gorsuch eliminates the confusion next year.
Comment by SmartiePants Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:45 am
Corporations don’t have an agency fee coming out of their employees’ accounts.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:46 am
==Corporations don’t have an agency fee coming out of their employees’ accounts.==
And your point?
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:47 am
Why can’t unions just report the results of a member vote? All candidates, all parties.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:47 am
==highlights the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME ==
How does it do that unless he thinks that case is going to somehow result in the elimination of the IFT.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:50 am
A union is the agent of all union members, regardless of party, thus the agency fee.
A corporation is not the agent of its employees and it would make no sense to apply the same standard to them, as suggested @10:02.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 10:52 am
As an IFT member, my spouse was polled exhaustively on this matter (and others) a few weeks ago. The call lasted about 30 minutes, and it was a thorough and objective poll. Mr. Wehrli has taken up the Sandack mantle of groaning and bloviating about about “process” on the floor. Yet, when a interest group goes through a thorough vetting process and reaches a result that he doesn’t like, he groans about that. We get that Pritzker scares the bejeezus out of Wehrli and his ilk. So attack Pritzker on the merits, not a union for representing its members. And not by using the megaphone of a Koch/Rauner-funded lobbying arm masquerading as a “news service”.
Comment by toothlesstiger Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:04 am
Janus is naïve if not dishonest to imply that savings brought about through diminishing teacher and public employee compensation with measures like RTWFL will be applied to programs serving those whom are marginalized. Janus is parroting the discredited Rauner / IPI talking points intended to divide educators and public service providers from the populations they serve. If RTWFL becomes the law, hopefully the courts will not compel continued representation for freeloaders like Janus. Ironically, the organization Janus works for, HFS Division of Child Support Enforcement, entails a large volume of stressful work and is subject to a high number of employee grievances.
Comment by kitty Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:04 am
==The big difference that I think makes this moot is corporations are not taking agency fees from their employees.
Why not just report the results of an endorsement vote which accurately reflects membership views on all candidates of both parties?==
You’re a little short-sighted on this one. If private companies want to take more money to endorse political candidates, they simply do not give raises to certain employees that year. The employee literally has no choice except to get another job, and the employee’s political views are not taken into account at all.
When unions make political contributions, they are voluntary and refundable to members and fee-payers alike. Members can run to be part of the boards that make these contributions. There is much more choice and input for workers.
Comment by Travel Guy Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:30 am
I wonder if shareholders, who have a property right to some profits earned by corporations, could try to sue those corporations for the political dollars they shell out as the companies’ political donations are infringing on shareholders’ (owners’) free-speech rights and costing them money potentially against their will.
Comment by Travel Guy Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:31 am
*implies
Comment by LXB Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:32 am
And certainly an endorsement by the Tribune editorial board only means a few old, out of touch people like a candidate.
The RTW ruling will have no effect on union endorsements.
Comment by A Jack Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:32 am
Travel Guy, your second point is interesting, @11:31.
I’m not an attorney and don’t know the Citizens United opinion very well, but I think you make a valid point re shareholder free speech.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:46 am
Travel Guy:
Those investors don’t have to invest in that company if they aren’t happy with the politics of that company. You can’t have something done against your will when you have free will to not be associated with the company. And the same argument can be made about unions. Everyone has free will to not take a job that involves union membership.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:51 am
..even a few support Rauner…
Yup 2 out of 5. Aint changed a bit, but like Alabama and old Blue, if there isnt a conservative on the ballot worth supporting, staying at home.
Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 11:55 am
=Corporations don’t have an agency fee coming out of their employees’ accounts.=
Interesting. They do have shareholders. If Wherli’s drivel is now gospel then Corporations need to get permission from every stockholder or they cannot endorse.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:01 pm
==Everyone has free will to not take a job that involves union membership.==
If a prospective candidate for a govt job has all the qualifications to perform the duties of said job as deemed by the employer, why should we care if he wants to join the union or not?
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:14 pm
“why should we care if he wants to join the union or not?” We don’t. That’s what fair share is.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:21 pm
City Zen
The point is nobody has to join a union so the argument about forced dues is ridiculous
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 12:35 pm
–The big difference that I think makes this moot is corporations are not taking agency fees from their employees. –
Corporations poll their owners — the shareholders — before contributing money to politicians?
You aspire to sophistry, but don’t quite make it.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 1:24 pm
Demoralized, ridiculous? SCOTUS didn’t think so.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 1:28 pm
Perhaps not. And I don’t wear one of those black robes so my opinion isn’t worth a whole lot here. But no one has yet been able to articulate how anyone is forced to pay dues.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 1:30 pm
Oh, and the Supreme Court is capable of doing the ridiculous. They get the final say on these sorts of things. Doesn’t mean their final say isn’t ridiculous.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 1:31 pm
Someone really believes he/she can go against their union and request dues back due to political endorsements? For those that don’t believe union intimidation against employers AND their members doesn’t exist anymore, you need to pull your head from the sand.
Comment by Been there Wednesday, Dec 13, 17 @ 7:13 pm