Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rate the new Vote Yes for Workers Rights TV ad

Posted in:

Illinois
YouTube

* The Vote Yes for Workers Rights constitutional amendment PAC has reported raising $1.7 million since the end of June, when it reported having $2.9 million in the bank after buying $4 million in TV ads in advance of the fall campaign to obtain lower rates. So, as of today, they’ve got somewhere around $3.6 million to spend, with more likely on the way.

Here’s their first ad, which is up on cable with a two-week buy of $174K in Chicago, Rockford, Peoria-Bloomington and Champaign&Sprngfld-Decatur…

* Here’s the script, which features a health care working explaining the issue to viewers…

These kids are fighters. We work with them so they can make it to their next birthday. We see these kids as family, but hospitals see them as dollar signs. They cut corners. Fewer nurses, longer shifts. It’s not safe for these kids. When we speak up, we risk being fired. But the Workers’ Rights Amendment will protect us as we stand up for our patients. I shouldn’t lose my job for putting them first. That is my job.

At the top of the ballot, vote yes on the Workers’ Rights Amendment. Protect the workers who protect us

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:05 am

Comments

Shouldn’t that banner text say, Hospitals are putting profits over patients?”

Um… F

Comment by twowaystreet Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:09 am
Pretty gross to use sick kids as the bait when in truth these nurses would use the laughably cartelish powers Amendment 1 would give them to walk off the job on those kids for the sake of more money.

Comment by Gross Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:09 am
Grade = B

This is well produced, and definitely suggests to the average viewer that hospital workers (a) care about patients, and (b) are overworked. I believe the message was well presented. It is a soft sell, that should apply well to parents.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:17 am
== when in truth these nurses would==

Flag on the play for using “in truth” when predicting what would happen in a hypothetical.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:17 am
What I find most interesting about this is the conscious attempt to associate labor issues with new demographics and professions. This isn’t a bunch of white guys in hard hats.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:18 am
Anti-Labor folks will continue to pick at ads like this with not a critical eye but with an eye to make less what it means to support labor.

It’s a B, a solid B

===When we speak up, we risk being fired. But the Workers’ Rights Amendment will protect us as we stand up for our patients. I shouldn’t lose my job for putting them first. That is my job.===

The thing is… if you think these workers should lose their jobs for speaking up, you won’t be for the amendment anyway.

It’s a B

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:19 am
“Amendment 1 would give them to walk off the job on those kids for the sake of more money”

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution currently gives health care workers — and any worker — the right to walk off the job at any time, for any reason.

The Workers’ Rights Amendment would merely guarantee those workers the right to bargain for safe working conditions, fair pay and benefits.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/102/SJR/PDF/10200SJ0055lv.pdf

– MrJM

Comment by MisterJayEm Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:23 am
Illinois is already one of the most union-friendly states with a massive Dem supermajority. Sort of unseemly to use sick kids as pops to prevent Illinois from ever passing RTW laws.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:24 am
===Sort of unseemly to use sick kids as pops to prevent Illinois from ever passing RTW laws.===

So you want right to work laws to make sick kids’ lives… worse?

That’s kinda unseemly, no?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:26 am
He doesn’t know how it works either.

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:28 am
Great ad, rated A. Union rights need maximum protection from the likes of last governor and the Illinois doom pushers who would practically stop at nothing to turn us into a red state.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:29 am
- City Zen -

How does it work.

Please note - MisterJayEm -‘s comment.

I’ll look forward to your anti-labor take.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:29 am
“The Workers’ Rights Amendment would merely guarantee those workers the right to bargain for safe working conditions, fair pay and benefits”

Wrong, the amendment does not expand union organization efforts- it simply will prevent Illinois lawmakers from ever considering RTW-type measures.

SJRCA0011

” No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and work place safety, including any law or ordinance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements between employers and labor organizations that represent employees requiring membership in an organization as a condition of employment”

https://tinyurl.com/ycbd4yvc

Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:40 am
C- because most people have a positive view of hospitals, especially children’s hospitals. It isn’t easy to make “pediatric cancer ward” your big business foe in this campaign.

It would be much more effective to show examples of children getting substandard care due to staffing decisions or nurses/staff members getting fired for advocacy than simply saying it happens. This same ad could’ve been more effective if the speaker was a parent whose child suffered as a result of such activity by a hospital, and it would make the message more personal and real.

I support the proposed amendment but think this is a lukewarm opening ad.

Comment by Skokie Man Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 10:51 am
Excellent start much better than dopey “Fair Tax” fiasco. Now lets get the whacks & Gomer to spend millions fighting it…..sure fire winner

Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 11:02 am
- Donnie Elgin -

You want… laws that interfere with, negate, or diminish the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and work place safety…

Against workplace safety?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 11:02 am
“it simply will prevent Illinois lawmakers from ever considering RTW-type measures”

And that’s exactly what the words merely guarantee workers the right to bargain for safe working conditions, fair pay and benefits mean.

– MrJM

Note: Reflexively barking “wrong” only works for that other Donnie — the one who had the visit from the g-men yesterday.

Comment by MisterJayEm Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 11:20 am
==Wrong, the amendment does not expand union organization efforts- it simply will prevent Illinois lawmakers from ever considering RTW-type measures. ==

Actually, *that’s* wrong, and it’s because you failed to include a huge chunk of the text of the amendment in what you quoted. Here’s the part that you left out, the part that doesn’t fit your narrative:

“Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at work. ”

This is potentially a massive expansion of labor activity beyond the NLRA status quo. The NLRA excludes certain employees; this text does not. The NLRA has a more limited set of issues they can bargain over. The NLRA does not recognize the right to organize as “fundamental”, but merely subject to statute.

If this Amendment passes, it gives organized labor a ton of new organizing opportunities to explore, and it gives the GA a lot of new ways to help organized labor. And that’s exactly why IPI fought it; the expansions beyond the NLRA I noted above were at the heart of their lawsuit (in fact, I took them directly from their Complaint).

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 11:25 am
==I’ll look forward to your anti-labor take.==

The ad clearly states that “Hospitals are putting patients over profits”, which is exactly what hospitals are supposed to do.

What exactly is the problem they are trying to solve?

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 11:40 am
-So you want right to work laws to make sick kids’ lives… worse?-

What’s the empirical evidence to suggest that kids are more unhealthy in right to work states? There are many right to work states out there.

Comment by Steve Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 11:42 am
Yes, I am tweaking folks.

Here’s why.

First it’s “shameful” to use sick children, then it’s about the right to be able to diminish workers’ rights, then finally it’s bad that one “can’t” have the opportunity to diminish workers’ rights.

Those arguing against the amendment (and taking it to this ad), the idea that one feels it’s necessary to have the *ability* to hurt workers is necessary… it’s proving the point that there’s a need for this amendment

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 11:49 am
- Pretty gross to use sick kids as the bait -

Such an ignorant argument. Is it gross to profit off sick kids?

Because that’s what these providers do, day in and day out.

The workers are the ones taking care of them.

Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 11:54 am
===What’s the empirical evidence to suggest===

Why would one think a unionized healthcare worker is worse?

That’s the point of the exercise.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 12:16 pm
Strong ad. Well-written script. Clear frame and story: focused on kids but with workers the heroes and hospital administrators as villains. Framing the issue as being about sick kids is the right (and obvious) move — not sure why people are saying it’s unseemly. It’s politics.

Still, interesting idea @Skokie Man:

== This same ad could’ve been more effective if the speaker was a parent whose child suffered as a result of such activity by a hospital ==

Not sure if that could work in reality, as a worker would have to have messed up as a result of long hours or whatever, and the workers need to be painted in a good light. But an interesting thing to try — if, of course, the ad folks, could find the perfect family on to put on camera.

Comment by Other 47th Ward Guy Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 12:21 pm
Does this amendment give the senior staff to the Governor and other constitutional officers and General Assembly staff the right to collectively bargain? I thought that was not allowed by statute but obviously the constitution takes precedent over a statute?

Comment by Baileywick Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 12:41 pm
==Does this amendment give the senior staff to the Governor and other constitutional officers and General Assembly staff the right to collectively bargain==

It also unshackles union members who were forced to join one specific union to join a different one than their co-workers or form their own.

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 1:43 pm
==It also unshackles union members who were forced to join one specific union to join a different one than their co-workers or form their own.==

Such as allowing Secretary of State employees to join AFSCME on their own rather than SEIU or IFT? Or even if someone who works in SOS Vehicle or Driver Services thinks that “since they work in a vehicle-related field,” than he or she has the right to join the UAW instead of SEIU? Does that give union employees the power to pick their own unions over the ones management gives them?

Comment by Just Sayin Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 2:18 pm
==Does that give union employees the power to pick their own unions over the ones management gives them?==

Management doesn’t give out unions. Members vote for their one and only one representative of that bargaining unit. Management then bargains with that union.

==Or even if someone who works in SOS Vehicle or Driver Services thinks that “since they work in a vehicle-related field,” than he or she has the right to join the UAW instead of SEIU?==

Yes, that SOS employee can affiliate with any union they want (UAW, Teamsters, etc). Better yet, they can form their own union independent of the AFL-CIO altogether. Sky’s the limit under the amendment.

Keep if mind the field is irrelevant for many bargaining units, especially for workers that don’t apprentice under a particular trade. For example, Intelligensia workers unionized under IBEW when you’d think a food service worker would be better aligned under SEIU or UFCW.

This amendment might pressure more unions into offering more training and certification programs on their own dime. Open markets breed competition. It will definitely bring to light what little some of these unions bring to the table. SEIU, AFSCME, UFCW come to mind.

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 2:53 pm
Simply trying to pull at my heart strings with a sick a kid and bug bad hospital turns me off.

Comment by Groucho Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 3:26 pm
“It will definitely bring to light what little some of these unions bring to the table. SEIU, AFSCME, UFCW come to mind.”

City Zen, I’m a proud member of AFSCME Council 31, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. AFSCME does a lot for their members. I make a decent income, have good benefits, and can retire from my career, knowing that I served in a position that made a difference. Before my career with the state, I made $10.00/hr with a temp agency. AFSCME allowed me the opportunity to do better for my family, and I’m grateful for that.

Comment by Fivegreenleaves Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 4:57 pm
Same bunch that has blocked the Midwest nurse compact legislation to allow more nurses to work in Illinois and walked out of the University of Chicago Hospital forcing the hospital to transfer babies out of their NICU. Unions care about one thing–a contract–that’s it, nothing else.

Comment by ANON Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 4:59 pm
One more thing I want to add, I want what my union has given me to be offered to every working person in Illinois, public sector, and private sector. That’s why I’m voting YES for the Worker’s Rights amendment.

Comment by Fivegreenleaves Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 5:02 pm
ANON, maybe if mgt. cared about the contract, none of that would’ve happened. I don’t blame the union for mgt. breaking their contract.

Comment by Fivegreenleaves Tuesday, Aug 9, 22 @ 7:47 pm