Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 * No Janus decision yet

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Discuss…

And again today, the U.S. Supreme Court releases two decisions. Neither of them is the Janus case. The wait goes on.

— DougFinkeSJR (@DougFinkeSJR) June 25, 2018

…Adding… I’m hearing Gov. Rauner went out to DC at least partly in anticipation of a ruling today.

*** UPDATE *** Heh…

Gov @BruceRauner staying another day in DC to be at Supreme Court Tuesday in case #Janus opinion comes out. #TWILL. @ChicagosMayor @Rahm Emanuel also in DC on Monday, at @HolocaustMuseum events, other meetings.

— Lynn Sweet (@lynnsweet) June 25, 2018

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:21 am

Comments

Is it better or worse for Rauner re-election if Janus is successful?

Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:24 am
It’s good for his re-election. He’ll frame it as fighting Madigan and the machine, and winning.

Comment by Mr.Black Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:33 am
He won last time because so many union members voted for him - that is not the case now.

Again, who is his constituency?

Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:35 am
Don’t see how it helps Rauner. This is Illinois. All the union haters are red state republicans that hate someone having the ability to obtain a decent wage.

Comment by Real Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:35 am
–I’m hearing Gov. Rauner went out to DC at least partly in anticipation of a ruling today.–

Maybe he’ll stop and visit with all those administration and Congressional leaders he claims he talks to all the time about weighty issues.

“That Rauner, R-A-U-N-E-R…..”

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:36 am
@ Real, all the union “haters” might be, but not everyone who is siding against the unions here necessarily hate the union. More than a few moderates want to scale back the union’s power in IL specifically.

Comment by Perrid Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:37 am
Its a big plus with his money people. Uihlien, Griffith and Zell will be very grateful for this perceived victory. Maybe even enough to embrace him, its the money that counts with those three…

Comment by Board Watcher Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:38 am
@ Real, all the union “haters” might be, but not everyone who is siding against the unions here necessarily hate the union. More than a few moderates want to scale back the union’s power in IL specifically

-Why because that big ol employer needs more power? Your corporation needs more power? No thank you.

Comment by Real Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:42 am
If the union was republican, this could of all been avoided

Comment by Rabid Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 9:51 am
What is wrong with Union haters? Like who hates the idea of a Union that workers join to help them help each other to live a better life and bargain on decent wages, benefits, and worker protections? Like who in a sane mind would hate something like that unless you have HATE in your heart? Do you hate that a group of people you don’t like are in some of these Unions and you rather them living in poverty? Also, why is it everytime I come across a Union hater its usually always some white republican guy? Its like you rarely see any minority Union haters.

Comment by Real Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:01 am
The outcomeis predictable. What would be most significant is whether the opinion will address the union duty of fair representation? Unions have to fairly represent even those who do not join and would not pay dues. That legal duty seems untenable if unions cannot seek fair compensation for that representation.

Comment by Union lawyer Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:04 am
I’d think if he is out in Washington to celebrate the expected anti-union decision, he’ll be pre-celebrating his November loss. A win in Janus is nothing to gloat about in what is still a blue state. As Dee Lay pointed out, union members voted for him last time based on false promises things would be better than under Quinn. There’s no way the cowboy, motorcylce-ridin’ shtick will work on union members this time.

Comment by Tommy boy Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:05 am
“He’ll frame it as fighting Madigan and the machine, and winning.”

It’s about crippling the political opposition and not about employee rights, for Rauner. It’s about ultimately trying to jam employees with harsh cuts. No way in the world does Rauner want to strengthen employees.

Will Rauner go after public employee unions by name in his campaign if Janus wins, or will he cloak it in hidden language, like corrupt insiders?

Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:06 am
You got it Union Lawyer. Whatta ya bet the Supremes just sidestep that? It will take years and another suit to remove that requirement.

Comment by wondering Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:10 am
This might turn out, though, to be careful what you wish for. Fat and lethargic won’t fly anymore. Unions will have to and will start working and producing results.

Comment by wondering Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:15 am
==Is it better or worse for Rauner re-election if Janus is successful?==

Push. He’ll frame it as a victory, but it fires up the unions while being too abstract for everyone else.

But when you’re down double-digits, you root for *anything* that changes the status quo.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:16 am
===when you’re down double-digits, you root for *anything* that changes the status quo===

Yup. But he’s “only” down 9.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:18 am
If/when(?) a ruling comes down and if Janus wins… Rauner, he and Diana, will have spent $112 million to take down labor…

… and Rauner got 2 in 5 households to vote for him in 2014.

“You think Quinn learned his lesson?” - fake labor voter who may be upset if Janus wins, and is confused what exactly is going on.

Labor needs Rauner’s numbers to be 1 in 5 or better 1 in 6…

Can they get it? We’ll see.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:22 am
I still think they punt and order a lower to fact find on union spending.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:25 am
If the Court decides against unions, it opens up a huge can of worms about First Amendment Rights.

Comment by Mike Cirrincione Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:25 am
Something weird going on. Evidently not the slam dunk Rauner thought. Bet they send it back for a trial to get facts into evidence

Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:28 am
===I still think they punt and order a lower to fact find on union spending.===

- RNUG -

You came up in a convo I had last night. I stated that your take is my “hope” as there is a legal possibility for that type of ruling, especially with a clearer need here to talk to the Abood precedent, not the standing of Janus.

One can hope.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:28 am
===Something weird going on. Evidently not the slam dunk===

Maybe or maybe not. IIRC, they waited until the final day to announce the gay marriage decision, which was pretty darned sweeping.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:30 am
Real @ 9:35a
I’ve learned to never underestimate the “angry outback”. Witness the rise and seemingly inexplicable support for Donald Trump, Bruce Rauner, Erika Harold, et al.

Comment by Stumpy's bunker Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:32 am
sorry, meant for @Dee Lay at 9:35a

Comment by Stumpy's bunker Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:40 am
It’s folly to speculate why or why not a decision hasn’t come down. The Supremes can send back their decisions for rewrites by their clerks time and time again.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:41 am
===Something weird going on. Evidently not the slam dunk===

The schedule of released decisions doesn’t necessarily indicate any haggling.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:43 am
–Gov @BruceRauner staying another day in DC to be at Supreme Court Tuesday in case #Janus opinion comes out. #TWILL. –

So he’s going to blow two days in DC on the taxpayer dime for the chance he might get a Supreme Court building background for a TV pop?

Dude has a lot of time on his hands.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:45 am
Union Lawyer == What would be most significant is whether the opinion will address the union duty of fair representation?==

If they don’t simply follow their precedent, they have to address this question because Janus’ claim is that he should not be required to accept representation by the union because that representation (including contract negotiations) is inherently political and the union’s negotiating positions are contrary to his political views. If they agree that he has a valid 1st Amendment complaint against the unions that entitles him to some remedy, they have to address the representation issue.

Comment by Whatever Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:49 am
The Governor’s out of state? Quick, somebody re-key the locks and change all passcodes! /snark

On a more serious note re Janus, reading the SCOTUS tea leaves is always difficult. Maybe call Vegas for the line on the decision?

Comment by rivfun@yahoo.com Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:50 am
Real @ 9:35a
I’ve learned to never underestimate the “angry outback”. Witness the rise and seemingly inexplicable support for Donald Trump, Bruce Rauner, Erika Harold, et al.

-When and where? Right now it’s the opposite.

Comment by Real Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:52 am
If Janus wins I guess we will see just how many members LOVE their unions by the drop numbers

Comment by Sue Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 10:53 am
this is not the venue for decertifying a union

Comment by Rabid Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:01 am
Gotta ask if GOvJun was partially in DC to w** himself on the SCOTUS steps WHAT ELSE was on the “to do” list? And why would he issue a release?
And why does CaptFax — all rested, tan — believe GovJunk only down 9? No one should trust any poll that much.

Comment by Annonin' Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:07 am
==If Janus wins I guess we will see just how many members LOVE their unions by the drop numbers==

I’m not sure you quite understand the issue here. No one is required to join the union. If you don’t like ‘em, you can drop ‘em right now. Janus is merely about making sure the union is compensated for the non-political work it does on each worker’s behalf, because the unions are legally required to represent each worker even if they don’t join.

Comment by Arsenal Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:14 am
===Dude has a lot of time on his hands.===

I don’t think it’s possible to over-estimate the importance of Janus to Rauner. Assuming the Court finds for Janus, this is everything Rauner has advocated for throughout his public life. This is the whole enchilada for Rauner. He will declare victory on the courthouse steps. And if he was a decent man, he’d resign on the spot too, just for good measure.

No, he’s going to DC simply and only to spike the football. He just wishes Illinois had an aircraft carrier he could land on and, wearing his flight suit costume, he could declare “mission accomplished.”

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:17 am
Whatever, not being required to accept representation does not equate with not being required to offer representation.

Comment by wondering Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:20 am
“I still think they punt and order a lower to fact find on union spending.”

I did not think this at first, but the narrow way the Court handled the bakery/gay marriage case made me think (for the first time) that they may send it back for fact finding.

I’m curious to see how it plays out for Rauner. The (true) conservative flank of the party spearheaded and financed this suit. If they remain peeved at Rauner for HB 40, etc., they may not take kindly to him claiming their victory as his own?

Comment by Centennial Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:38 am
Union Haters. Union Lovers. That language, in itself, tells the story. Nationwide. I am union thru and thru. Literally I have all my trade work union performed. Shopping as well. But I can readily admit many problems with union hierarchy. What does that make a person of my ilk?

Comment by BlueDogDem Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:55 am
performed. Shopping as well. But I can readily admit many problems with union hierarchy. What does that make a person of my ilk?

-The same can be said about just any organization.. Not entirely sure what your point is but recalling your post history I thought you leaned republican anyway.

Comment by Real Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:05 pm
== I did not think this at first, but the narrow way the Court handled the bakery/gay marriage case made me think (for the first time) that they may send it back for fact finding. ==

If a court can find a way to avoid a ruling they will. Cases are often decided or overturned on technical or procedural issues.

One pension case I’m watching in another state ignored the constitutionality issue because the court could overturn the law on improper procedure passing the law. We haven’t heard the last of that case. I ran it past a lawyer friend who used to work for the Legislature here and he agrees it is interesting and might have a major impact here in the long run. Let’s just say if it stands and if it is applied to other states, “business as usual” in the GA will drastically change. I

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:08 pm
Hope Rauner took a couple of extra buck$ with him. Ya know Washington is expen$ive.

Comment by Generic Drone Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:30 pm
He went out to ask that the decision be delayed so it is closer to the election? Unions already mad at him and he has tv ad waiting how he saved workers for the unions.

Comment by Publius Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:36 pm
This ruling could have a much wider impact than just unions. I would have to guess if a corporation makes a political donation that a shareholder disagrees with, the shareholder could use a ruling for Janus as a basis for a suit.

So if the Supreme Court looks at that side of the issue, they may defer their decision.

Comment by A Jack Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:50 pm
According to Scotusblog, there will be additional decisions tomorrow at 10am. That has to be the end of the session and so Janus should be released tomorrow morning.

Comment by Anonimity Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:51 pm
“Sir, the Supreme Court building is closing for the day. I am going to have to ask you to leave the steps.”

Comment by Montrose Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 12:55 pm
Wondering @ 11:20 == Whatever, not being required to accept representation does not equate with not being required to offer representation. ==

You miss the point. The union will still have to offer representation, but Janus is saying he must be allowed to opt out of that representation, meaning he will not be covered by the collective bargaining agreement. If he is still covered, he’s being forced to accept a contract binding on himself based on a union’s political activity that is contrary to his political preferences. His 1st amendment claim is that he must be allowed to negotiate his own deal.

Comment by Whatever Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 1:10 pm
The Republicans are once again attacking working families by trying to destroy unions that provide employment protections. We must vote out all republicans

Comment by Richie Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 1:38 pm
@whatever

Based on your post I disagree with my wireless carriers use of my money to lobby for political activity that is against my political preferences. Same thing with the use of my tax dollars.

Comment by Mike Cirrincione Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 2:25 pm
Whatever, 2 separate things. His arguement is based on the 1st amendment. The requirement to represent is from Taft Hartley. You miss the point I was making

Comment by wondering Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 2:43 pm
wondering - I know your point. You’re missing my point — Janus’ claim is that the requirement to represent is unconstitutional when the union’s representation in contract negotiations is actually the advocating a political position with which he disagrees. If mandatory representation in contract negotiations is constitutional, he has no 1st amendment complaint that he is required to pay for the representation.

Comment by Whatever Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 3:16 pm
Fair solution is to remove the requirement to pay a fair share fee AND remove the bargaining requirement.

Que all the haters.

Comment by California Guy Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 3:20 pm
–Que all the haters.–

Que?

No entiendo.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 3:44 pm
help me out here but AFSME is a collective bargaining group not really a union? Not everyone gets the same pay for the same work or even more production(piece work.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 5:35 pm
“Again, who is his constituency?”

People whom don’t take the time to get all of the Facts.

Comment by Mama Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 5:42 pm
California Guy,

I mentioned that exact solution to a union rep. He said one problem with that is an employer could offer non union employees higher pay to entice others to leave the union, thereby eroding membership.

Comment by Steve Polite Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 6:20 pm
- Centennial -

I’m basing my guess on what happened in a IDOR case in the 1980’s. It only went to the IL SC, not SCOTUS, but it was close to the same argument.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 6:21 pm
=== I mentioned that exact solution to a union rep. He said one problem with that is an employer could offer non union employees higher pay to entice others to leave the union, thereby eroding membership. ===

That could also give leverage to the union where they could say, “If you can offer non-union employees higher pay, then union employees should be able to get the same.”

Comment by Raccoon Mario Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 6:29 pm
Anonymous @5:35,

AFSCME is a union bargaining agent. Members are the union. Every union member in the same title is on the same pay scale; same as other unions. AFSCME represents members in many different titles from doctors and lawyers to police, nurses and sanitation workers. Do you think all those titles should pay the same because they are represented by the same union?

Comment by Steve Polite Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 6:29 pm
I am hearing Rauner was denied service at the Red Hen for his vote on SB40.

Comment by BlueDogDem Monday, Jun 25, 18 @ 11:38 pm
We’re all aware that Rauner is not a party to this case? He had no standing, he’s not paying for it, his lawyers didn’t argue it.

If you read the chronically uninformed Kass, you’d think this was Rauner’s deal.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 7:21 am
Rauner felt the need to go to DC rather than find out the verdict from media? What a weird person.

Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 7:46 am
–Rauner felt the need to go to DC rather than find out the verdict from media? What a weird person.–

There’s a Goat a few blocks away from the Supremes building by Union Station. Maybe he’s hanging out there for a third day, waiting for his 10-second TV pop.

I doubt they have thousand-dollar-bottles of wine, though. I imagine you have to run through about 100 bottles of wine at the Goat before you hit the $1,000 mark.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 8:08 am
“Rauner felt the need to go to DC rather than find out the verdict from media?” Those cash filled envelopes won’t distibute themselves.

Comment by 17% Solution Tuesday, Jun 26, 18 @ 3:15 pm