Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Police chiefs want Rauner to veto hemp bill
Next Post: The local news memory hole
Posted in:
* I was wondering whether my first day back on the blog might get crazy. This definitely lessens that possibility…
More Supreme Court opinions today, but again Janus vs. AFSCME was not among them. Next week is the last in the court's term this year.
— DougFinkeSJR (@DougFinkeSJR) June 22, 2018
Many, many thanks to Barton Lorimor and Hannah Meisel for filling in while I was away. You can use this post to express your appreciation, too, if you’d like.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:23 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Police chiefs want Rauner to veto hemp bill
Next Post: The local news memory hole
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
They did an AWESOME job. Thank you for filling in while Rich recharged.
Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:27 am
They did a fantastic job.
Comment by Saluki Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:28 am
Wait! Rich was gone?
Just kidding. They did a great job! It was a seamless transition.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:33 am
Welcome back, Rich. Yes, Barton and Hannah were amazing.
No Janus ruling yet indicates maybe that it isn’t the slam-dunk in Janus’ favor that many thought it would be.
Comment by Nick Name Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:35 am
Thank you Barton and Hannah - thank you very much.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:35 am
Lorimor and Meisel did a great job. Their work comforted me greatly. I’ve been worried that if something ever happened to you even temporarily that Illinois would be denied its greatest journalistic resource. They proved that Capfax will stay strong.
This place is so so important right now.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:41 am
Great job, Barton and Hannah! I really appreciate your perspectives and professionalism.
Comment by Commander Norton Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:41 am
As for scotus
This is s bad bad sign
They save the most controversial for last.
I read through the transcript for oral arguments
The truly frightening thing is that they could bring down
Collective bargaining for public unions altogether.
It is as more than just Agency fees that Janus was arguing against
It was collective bargaining
In the public sector.
My God
The Earth shattering result of that.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:48 am
Thank you Hannah and Barton.
Comment by Les Nessman Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:52 am
Welcome back Rich, and kudos to Barton and Hannah.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 9:59 am
Many thanks to Barton and Hannah for keeping the blog going while Rich was away!
Comment by cover Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 10:01 am
==No Janus ruling yet indicates maybe that it isn’t the slam-dunk in Janus’ favor that many thought it would be.==
It probably doesn’t indicate that. The Justices tend to take their time with rulings that they know will be very controversial and generate a lot of attention–the landmark cases of the past few years have generally come out on the last day of the Term. While it might come out Monday, a likely outcome is that they add a day and it comes out Tuesday along with the travel ban case.
Comment by Chris Widger Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 10:03 am
Mazel to both; they did a fantastic job while you were gone, Rich. I sat on a beach in the New England area and followed many stories. My spouse told me to stop thinking/reading about Illinois politics while on vacay. I told her to be quiet (in my mind, that is; then I promptly did what she said…until I could read later).
Comment by Yiddishcowboy Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 10:26 am
They were excellent! Their tone and thoughtfulness are in sync with yours.
Comment by The Most Anonymous Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 10:28 am
“But here collective bargaining is the core political activity, which we submit individuals cannot be compelled to support”
Janus transcript
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 10:34 am
Honeybear,
Rauner may have opened a big Pandora’s Box. If collective bargaining by a Union is Political 1st Amendment Speech that is inherently political advocacy and indistinguishable from Lobbying then Rauner made the biggest mistake of his political career by filing the Janus Lawsuit. A ruling that collective bargaining is first amendment speech would ELEVATE the status of Unions and collective bargaining. If collective bargaining is political speech, then any law diminishing the right to participate in collective bargaining would be subject to Strict Scrutiny. All hell would break loose. Right to work laws repealed, etc.
Comment by Devils Advocate Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 10:37 am
–they could bring down
Collective bargaining for public unions altogether.–
This was of course the ultimate objective, but cf. @DevilsAdvocate for a possible backfiring. Labor organizer / writer Shaun Richman discussed this possibility in March iirc, apropos the WVa teachers’ strike.
Also many many thanks to Hannah and Barton - they did a super job of filling in, and the fact that the site didn’t go dark during your time off (much deserved) meant a lot to IL politics devotees.
Comment by dbk Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 11:21 am
Thanks, Barton and Hannah! Your work was excellent, and I’ll miss seeing you both on this blog.
Glad to have you back, Rich.
Comment by Zorak Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 11:43 am
Thank you Barton and Hannah.
You kept the Ferrari rolling, and turned it over with a full tank of gas to boot.
Cannoli, Aldi’s “Millennial Water” and avocado toast to you both. Well done.
OW
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 11:54 am
Hannah did some real bird dogging.
Barton’s got some bite to go with his bark.
Comment by walker Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 11:55 am
They both did very good work.
The depth that they went into with some of the
discussion subjects really helped me understand
those issues a lot better.
Comment by Back to the Future Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 12:07 pm
@ Devils Advocate
Doubt the court will see it that way. The Janus argument is not that the union’s political activity should be banned, it’s that he shouldn’t be compelled to pay for it. The union would still be able to operate via voluntary contributions that would finance political activities.
This case is being incredibly hyped by both the media, unions, and the interest groups backing Janus. Unions are focusing so much on how they will be damaged by not having agency fees and too little on how they can provide value to voluntary members without it.
Comment by California Guy Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 12:14 pm
They did a GREAT job. Lots going on. So glad we got the coverage. Thanks to both.
Comment by Wonderful World Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 12:21 pm
Don’t see my other comment, so there is a shorter version.
Thnk they split hairs and kick the can. My guess is SCOTUS remands the case back to a lower court for fact finding, ordering the union to undergo an independent audit to determine if, in fact, any fair share money was spent on political lobbying.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 12:51 pm
California Guy at 12:14. Here is the Shaun Richman article.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/20897/heres_how_a_supreme_court_decision_to_gut_public_sector_unions_could_backfi
Comment by Just A Dude Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 12:51 pm
CA Guy and Devils advocate, thanks for responding.
Have you two read the transcript?
I have read it all the way through twice, once on the day of oral arguments and today.
It’s not being hyped. The liberal justices were appalled at the “reliance”( I think that’s what they called it) basically the cascade effect would be. They also were appalled at the threat to stare decisis or precident from Abood and other cases.
Yes it would be a humongous can of worms
Open labor war
But what I’m afraid of is a decision to make all public sector unions like most federal unions, unable to bargain over much of anything and without grievance procedure which was also attacked by Janus
Guys read the transcript
This is for all the labor marbles
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 12:54 pm
RNUG- I think that if that were the case the decision would have come out earlier. Last days of session always indicates a controversial decision. I am praying for your decision though
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 1:02 pm
@ Honeybear
I listened to the oral argument. It’s a negative for unions for sure, but I don’t think its all out armageddon. You referenced Federal employees and their lower status in terms of bargaining rights. Federal employees still have it pretty good. Good benefits, pension, decent pay, and a system in place for resolving workplace disputes.
The court ruling in favor of Janus won’t bring Illinois employees back to an 1800’s coal mine environment. You’re going to be fine. You have a decent job, decent pay, decent benefit, and a pension.
The future of the employer-employee relationship will not be at a bargaining table under the threat of strikes. That’s simply not how modern (and future) relations will go. We’re moving into a high tech, high efficiency economy. The old days of the union stewards walking around the factory floor complaining about shift changes are over. It’s 2018. Employer-employee relations will continue to become more individualized and less collective.
Out here in the Bay Area (intensely liberal by the way), the notion of unions in the tech industry or other emerging fields is blasphemous. The idea is literally hated and viewed as some kind of ancient process that slows down progress.
Comment by California Guy Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 1:07 pm
Great respite work by Barton and Hannah; I extend to them this Laurel, and Hardy handshake.
Janus is for all the marbles.
Comment by revvedup Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 1:13 pm
CA guy, ummmm
Dude, you’ve got to be management.
Cause that is some management bovine feces.
If Janus goes bad
Workers are going to get screwed
So hard
It will accelerate the race to the bottom
With wages
And income inequality
And it
Will be apocalyptic
For the racial gap in wages and inequality
Public sector jobs are the Alamo for African Americans
No other sector helps Black folk more
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 1:41 pm
== I think that if that were the case the decision would have come out earlier. Last days of session always indicates a controversial decision. I am praying for your decision though ==
Janus has had extremely heightened expectations since day 1. Anything other than a ruling for Janus will be controversial. Even upholding Aboud will, IMO, be seen as controversial.
In my longer posting that disappeared somewhere, I also speculated another possible outcome would be to rule for Janus but also rule he can not receive any union negotiated salary or other benefits. That would open a whole other can of worms.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 1:51 pm
==Out here in the Bay Area (intensely liberal by the way), the notion of unions in the tech industry or other emerging fields is blasphemous. The idea is literally hated and viewed as some kind of ancient process that slows down progress.==
Of course is when you’re a kid that has a rare skill and your are full of your self importance. Until the company decides to replace you with an H1B worker or fire you because you are less handsome than your replacement. Then you might wish you got together with your coworkers and laid down a few ground rules.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 2:00 pm
Hmmmm.. interesting point RNUG
Thanks
I think not allowing Janus member benefits round bring down exclusive representation and totally undermine collective bargaining
Multiple unions competing for members
Would lead to competition to be the most militant
Direct action gets the goods
Wobblies on crack
Again open labor war
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 2:00 pm
== My guess is SCOTUS remands the case … ==
-Honeybear-, part of the reason I think this is a similar case in the 1980’s involving some Revenue employees. It ended up being settled out of court; the union refunded all fees paid and set a lower fair share rate rather than open their books. I don’t see an out of court settlement this time.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 2:00 pm
2:00pm was I
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 2:01 pm
== Wobblies on crack
Again open labor war ==
Somewhat irrelevant aside that your comment reminded me of … one of the “souvenirs” tucked away in my gun safe is a firearm dated from the early 1900’s that was found concealed inside the wall of a southern Illinois coal miners union hall. If only it could talk …
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 2:10 pm
I remember when over 10,000 air traffic controllers got booted. Always felt that was wrong.
Today’s workers should not have to have a similar sword hanging over their heads while trying to earn a living wage and have safe working conditions.
Comment by cc Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 2:35 pm
Wow RNUG that is incredible. Exclamation point
Just a thought.
Maybe will it or loan it to the Mother Jones Museum or the Illinois Labor historical society.
Was it from “Bloody Williamson” county?
Sorry I’m like totally geeking out
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 2:37 pm
thanks Hannah and Barton! the tone was consistent and while I will always miss MillerSnark, it was soothing to have the great policy work while he was away. welcome back, traveling man.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 3:28 pm
===The Janus argument is not that the union’s political activity should be banned, it’s that he shouldn’t be compelled to pay for it. The union would still be able to operate via voluntary contributions that would finance political activities.===
Which is why Janus’ argument is so flawed. Not a single AFSCME member - full or fair share - is compelled to pay for political activity. Funding for PAC political arm of AFSCME comes completely from voluntary donations from members, NOT from dues or fair share fees.
This is by federal law.
The problem is, Janus contended that everything a union does, including collective bargaining, is political speech, which is ludicrous. So I agree with RNUG that the case may get sent back to the lower courts for finding of fact and to get some definition of terms.
Comment by Nick Name Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 4:02 pm
Corporate types should not be able to dictate how jobs will be negotiated. Trying to break apart collective bargaining and make it one-on-one is a divide and conquer strategy. Unions are as perfect as anybody—not perfect by any stretch—but they’ve proved to help bring about the middle class. In their decline we see increased income inequality.
As for my opinion, I’m going to just allow a boss who’s a rank hypocrite and made lots of money off of people like me yet wants to rip apart my protections dictate how and with whom I should bargain together? I don’t think so.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 4:05 pm
== Maybe will it or loan it to the Mother Jones Museum or the Illinois Labor historical society. ==
-Honeybear-, I have thought about that. Or the Coal Museum in Gillispee.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 22, 18 @ 4:34 pm
In Ancient Greece
When two phalanx rushed towards each other
The moment of contact was called the
Othismos
Tomorrow the greatest othismos
In labor history
Will begin
Afscme Locals 1805,124,3654, and 799
Of the Metro East
Have been preparing for many many months
Hand to hand
One on one
For the heart, mind and support
Of each member.
Janus doesn’t mean a thing if the employee
Stays with the union.
If we lose fairshare, so be it.
I’m saying we won’t need it.
It was a crutch
Labor militancy
Labor direct action
Are the new norm
Labor peace is over
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:00 am
Exactly right Sue, exactly right
We’ve been working like crazy
Every day
To solidify that relationship
Anecdotally, the one fairshare holdout in my large office
Signed the member card two weeks ago
Janus will backfire
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:52 am