Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Welch urges judge to toss staff unions’ lawsuit

Posted in:

Illinois

* Subscribers know more. From Capitol News Illinois…

Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch is urging a Cook County judge to dismiss a lawsuit members of his staff filed against him last month seeking to force recognition of their union.

In a new filing Monday, attorneys for Welch argued the Illinois Legislative Staff Association has no standing to sue over the speaker’s refusal to engage in collective bargaining with the would-be union’s members. Welch’s attorneys reiterated an argument the speaker has been making for nearly a year: Illinois law doesn’t currently allow legislative staffers to unionize.

Although Welch last fall introduced and passed legislation through the House that would explicitly allow his employees to unionize, the bill has not advanced in the Senate. The ILSA last month accused Welch of feigning solidarity in public while privately colluding with Democratic Senate President Don Harmon to ensure the bill died in his chamber. And a few days after the General Assembly’s spring session concluded, the staffers sued Welch.

The speaker’s attorneys pointed to the ILSA’s “failure to appeal” the Illinois Labor Relations Board’s decision to not certify the union in March 2023, which found legislative staffers are specifically excluded from being able to form a union.

* From the filing…

Speaker Welch is Immune from Suit Regarding his Interactions With Legislative Staff Under Article IV, Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution Requiring Dismissal Under Section 2-619(a)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Article IV, Section 12 of the Illinois Constitution, which attaches broad immunity to legislators regarding legislative activities, provides:

SECTION 12. LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY
Except in cases of treason, felony or breach of peace, a member shall be privileged from arrest going to, during, and returning from sessions of the General Assembly. A member shall not be held to answer before any other tribunal for any speech or debate, written or oral, in either house. These immunities shall apply to committee and legislative commission proceedings.

* ISLA organizer Brady Burden…

“These legal gymnastics are embarrassing. Speaker Welch is saying that he is both above the law and shackled by it. The Illinois Constitution unequivocally guarantees us the right to bargain collectively, and we remain confident the courts will ultimately side with us. At the end of the day, Speaker Welch is only continuing to demonstrate his utter lack of shame.”

posted by Isabel Miller
Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 10:58 am

Comments

Welch: Proudly pro-union until it impacts his office’s financials.

Comment by TJ Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:04 am
At the end of the day, Speaker Welch is only continuing to demonstrate his utter lack of shame.

Well that’s like your opinion man.

Comment by People’s Republic of Oak Park Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:07 am
=== Welch “has created a climate of fear or anxiety within the staff” who allegedly feel vulnerable “to discharge or removal” from their jobs because the speaker has not recognized the ILSA. ===

Well, Duh.

You knew the job was at will when you took it. Now you’re trashing the boss because you want your cake and to eat it too. Unless you’re a superman staffer, you’ve done nothing to enhance the functioning of the office.

P.S. Enjoy the uneasiness of Dem leader fighting with union measure. (Hoisted on your own petard.) But the MAGA GOP caucuses don’t want a union either.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:17 am
Welch is flunking an ideological purity test. In a “purple state” this would be a much bigger deal. You need to “walk the walk” too sir.

Comment by levivotedforjudy Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:18 am
I think Welch’s legal arguments are mostly good ones. Not sure how the ILSA gets past the fact that they never appealed the decision of the ILRB.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:19 am
=== his office’s financials ===

It’s far more than that. Crazy hours, stressful demands, and dealing with MASSIVE egos.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:19 am
The immunity point makes sense in regards to an allegation of “collusion”, but if they’re trying to extend it generally to employment law, then it’s a joke. And while the law doesn’t currently allow legislative staffers to unionize, isn’t the point of a “fundamental right” that you can challenge the law for being overbroad?

Comment by hilarious Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:25 am
Speaker holds all the cards here, but the cognitive dissonance regarding a labor dispute is not a good look. Especially with the DNC coming to Illinois.

His ego is preventing him from doing the right thing. It’s like a small, insignificant cut on your leg that, left to fester, someday leads to an amputation. Be better.

The old hands who mock these kids and insist they should keep getting it in the neck like their predecessors did, “ because it’s tradition “, need to step back and consider how many other out of date practices we’ve had to change. And how those inequalities often excused themselves with “that’s how we always did it, so you should, too.” It’s a perverse logic that’s about envy. “We had to suffer, so everyone after us has to as well.” Just like the student loan forgiveness issue.

Comment by Give Us Barrabbas Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:34 am
Didn’t see my post come up, so repeating.
Welch has the advantage and can keep the kids at bay indefinitely but it is a very bad look to keep out front, especially with the convention coming. Don’t let this fester and become a permanent stain on your tenure. You are giving the GOP easy talking points to show you are not pro labor. Welch’s ego is the problem here. He can do and be better.

And old hands who insist the new kids should be abused the same way their predecessors were, how do you square that with other once-accepted abuses we have grown out of? Is it just a sense of:” I had to suffer, so everyone after me should, too.”?

Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:42 am
- You knew the job was at will when you took it. Now you’re trashing the boss because you want your cake and to eat it too. -

And the constitution was changed to say that all employees have a right to unionize. Some of you are either grossly or intentionally ignorant of this fact.

Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:43 am
The same constitution that says workers have a fundamental right to organize also says the branches of government are fundamentally separate and that the legislature gets to organize itself and set its own rules. While some enjoy watching the speaker take flak here, the underlying issue is not a slam dunk.

Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:43 am
=== Unless you’re a superman staffer, you’ve done nothing to enhance the functioning of the office. ===

Do you understand the incredible amount of work staffers do on a daily basis? They essentially make the whole place function. This is very demeaning.

Comment by Ex Journo Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 11:49 am
==Do you understand the incredible amount of work staffers do on a daily basis?==

I think everyone who reads this board understands that. Personally I loved all of it, especially being on the floor when fundamental legislation was being debated.

Comment by low level Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 12:02 pm
=== And old hands who insist the new kids should be abused the same way their predecessors were ===

Let me be blunt. We aren’t saying that anyone should be abused - we just see the way things are getting done and recognize that “the new kids” aren’t really doing a good job. There were so many errors and mistakes made by staff in both chambers that would never happened (and did not happen) under the old regime. And in return, the “new kids” want to work fewer hours and make double the salary.

Working on staff can be a great stepping stone into a lucrative career in a number of different areas. What you do with that opportunity it up to you.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 12:04 pm
Delaying the inevitable is morally corrupt. Federal law will allow unionization. Just do it now.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 12:09 pm
=== Federal law will allow unionization ===

No it will not. The National Labor Relations Act does not apply to government entities.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 12:18 pm
My observation is that a few of Welch’s staff are entitled, disrespectul and quite frankly racist. The vitriol being used in statements against Speaker Welch is toxic. These staffers would have never done this to Madigan, and they haven’t even uttered Harmon’s name. This is about changing the law, and the one person who has done something about it is being called names and getting sued. The one who won’t return calls or take a meeting is not even being mentioned.

Comment by Observer Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 12:20 pm
Am I missing something. An all homogenous group of staffers decides to form a union AFTER the Black Guy (I’ll say it since you’re all nibbling around the edges) becomes Speaker. Let’s be clear they would have never tried it under the old guy but I digress.

The Black guy not only AGREES, but SPONSORS THE BILL, PASSES THE BILL, it doesn’t see the light of day, and the BLACK GUY get sued! No mention of the the other two homogeneous pieces to the legislative puzzle?

Let’s call it what it is…at the least willful ignorance of the legislative process, but it sure looks like blatant racism.

Comment by Let’s Call it What It Is Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 12:33 pm
@ Hannibal Lecter

My mistake. It is hard for me to understand why civil service employees are not allowed to unionize.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 12:34 pm
Let staffers unionize. Hold them accountable to the constituencies they serve, but absolutely give them collective bargaining power.

It is an open secret that district staff roles are all about WHO you know, not what you know. Folks who spend long unpaid hours getting a candidate elected are often rewarded with a cushy job that (frankly) doesn’t require too much effort most of the time. Don’t get me wrong–there are times when the opposite is true. But, by and large, district offices are sleepy places.

This also means there is zero job security. District office staffs have to stroke egos, bend over backwards, and oftentimes take abuse just to keep a steady income. Unions are absolutely a solution to this problem.

Comment by Lakeview Looker Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:05 pm
I echo what “Observer” said. “ILSA last month accused Welch of feigning solidarity in public while privately colluding with Democratic Senate President Don Harmon to ensure the bill died in his chamber.” Why is no one asking the obvious question here: if Welch “colluded” with Harmon, why are they only going after Welch? Why is Harmon not mentioned in the lawsuit? You can’t have a conspiracy with only one person, so the fact that Welch is singularly targeted is very telling. It would be naive to believe race is not a critical factor here. All of the past 69 speakers of the IL House have been white men going back to John Messinger in 1818. That’s over 200 years of the white patriarchy in political power. Now some staffers are suing the first Black Speaker for supposedly doing something “in collusion” with the white male leader of the Senate - yet Harmon isn’t held responsible for his own actions. Instead, Welch is blamed. Seems pretty obvious to me what the real issue here is.

Comment by Zeitgeist Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:07 pm
Good for thee but not for me.

Fun also to see how the clean-break-with-Madigan squad has called up Madigan’s old war horse Mike Kasper to do their bidding. What will “the 19″ say?

Comment by DougChicago Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:08 pm
Kasper has been doing legal work for Welch since he became Speaker. Why would Welch use anyone else when the guy is a proven winner? All this motion did was confirm for me that Welch’s legal hands are tied by existing law. To give these folks what they want, the law needs to be changed. For all you people who don’t see that, you must not want to see it.

Comment by Springfield Watcher Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:18 pm
=== This also means there is zero job security. District office staffs have to stroke egos, bend over backwards, and oftentimes take abuse just to keep a steady income. Unions are absolutely a solution to this problem. ===

So a campaign worker gets a job as an in district staffer after helping get their State Rep elected. What kind of job security would you say that person is supposed to have? What if that State Rep resigns or loses their election? Is their replacement required to keep the in-district staffer from the prior rep on their payroll? Wouldn’t the new rep want their own in-district staffer that helped them get elected or appointed? I am curious where you would draw the line here when it comes to job security.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:35 pm
===District office staffs have to stroke egos, bend over backwards, and oftentimes take abuse just to keep a steady income===

Any legislator who treats district staff like this is playing with dynamite. One beef and a legislative career can end.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:37 pm
=== Why is Harmon not mentioned in the lawsuit? ===

Why didn’t the ILSA sue Harmon? Because they don’t work for him. If you are suing your employer for violating the Constitution, why would you sue another elected official that does not employ you?

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:39 pm
Is it not odd that Welch was the *only* person sued despite not only supporting, but *sponsoring* the bill to form the union??? At the baseline, it makes no legitimate sense. “Oh, you supported us, but something outside of your power happened that threw a wrench in our plan? Too bad, it’s your fault.” That’s what it sounds like.

Comment by FarOffintheDistance Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:40 pm
There are a lot of conspiracy thoughts here, but as to collusion, I cannot imagine both leaders not intentionally planning their outcome goals for this legislation, throughout the session. That is what leaders do.

Whether it amounts to routine or closed door discussion, it is obvious this stuff does occur, and the bill went down this session. Those suggesting if both leaders are responsible for the outcome and as such both should be publicly deemed responsible, that is a strong and rational argument.

As to === It would be naive to believe race is not a critical factor here ===

Race is always a factor in such matters, whether intentional or not. And in this case (and given the Welsh is the first African American Speaker), implicit biases should always be considered. That was the essence of affirmative action before the US Supreme Court decided race can never be considered. We should think about this at the very least, and address it openly.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:52 pm
=== One beef and a legislative career can end.===

To Richs point.

https://capitolfax.com/2022/10/27/rep-carroll-accused-of-firing-staffer-who-refused-to-have-an-abortion/

Comment by Principal Skinner Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:54 pm
=== Do you understand the incredible amount of work staffers do on a daily basis? ===

Yes, I understand the amount of work and stress they do during sessions and campaign time because I did it. One year, I had the pleasure and stress of being the staffer on the last bill that needed to pass to end the session. But off session, our hours were less, and work rules relaxed.

As pointed out by others. The job served as a steppingstone and it’s also rewarding knowing that your work plays an important role in the legislative process.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 2:08 pm
===Any legislator who treats district staff like this is playing with dynamite. One beef and a legislative career can end.===

Yes, and there are definitely more than a few examples of this happening. But, IMO, is it easier to blow the whistle and (probably) lose your job over verbal abuse or just take it and move on? I would opt for the latter when I have mouths to feed.

===Is their replacement required to keep the in-district staffer from the prior rep on their payroll?===

In an ideal world, yeah! In the federal civil service only the top handful of folks are political appointees. The rest carryover from administration to administration. And, in Springfield, Democrats (and maybe Republicans?) have staff that rotate through the assembly members that they help out with. Why can’t we have a similar system for district offices? Hire based on merits or a program rather than as campaign favors.

Comment by Lakeview Looker Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 2:13 pm
P.S. Stop with the racist conspiracy theories. This is the work of extreme progressives (what I label, the “mirror MAGAs”) who want to unionize everything and will lash out against foe and friend whenever they don’t get their way.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 2:16 pm
Interesting perspective, Norseman. Race cannot be considered.

If the intentions of people in what Weber called “The House of Power” cannot be considered to be related to race, regardless of outcome effects across social categories, then I guess you are creating a tautology. You define things as non-discriminatory by virtue of the fact that only intentional inequalities matter. Demonstrable outcome disparities across social status groups are not to be considered, unless they are demonstrably intentional.

This is the same logic federal courts and some state courts are using today to eliminate rights.

It would be better to err on the side of questioning, than on the side of denial. Questioning leads to answers. Denial leads to inequality.
produce racial inequities, then

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 2:35 pm
=== Why can’t we have a similar system for district offices? Hire based on merits or a program rather than as campaign favors. ===

Because an elected official needs someone who is committed to their success, including their political success. Do you think a staffer is going to work as hard for a candidate that they do not align with politically? Like do you think that a Democratic staffer would go the extra mile for a Republican legislator? No — they would not.

These are not non-political jobs. Oftentimes the in-district staffer has to deal with a ton of political issues and utilize political judgment when taking action on behalf of their legislator. Legislators have to trust that their staffer is going to look out for the legislator’s interest rather than their own interest.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 2:37 pm
===These are not non-political jobs.===

First of all, there is no such thing as a non-political job in any industry. Secondly, yes, Staffers should be committed to the success of their legislator…insofar as constituents are informed, serviced, and able to contact the legislator when needed. What other duties does a district staffer need perform on the state’s payroll? As a former one myself, I can tell you: none. Everything I was tasked with doing was for the benefit of constituents (and sometimes tangentially for the benefit of my boss). And that arrangement works well for a merit-based system!

===Do you think that a Democratic staffer would go the extra mile for a Republican legislator?===

Define this. What exactly is “the extra mile” and when would it be for a legislator? I could see “the extra mile” being spending an hour on the phone with a constituent who is hard of hearing to make sure that they are able to get their license renewed. But taking 19,000 pictures of a legislator holding a baby? Who does that serve, exactly?

And, to do away with this issue entirely, I’m not opposed to having merit-based hiring implemented along party lines! This would prevent any sort of lackadaisical or malicious staffer from sabotaging the other party’s work.

Comment by Lakeview Looker Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 2:55 pm
=== Race cannot be considered. ===

I’m sure you read some interesting books for which some may be relevant to other situations, but not this one and these books. Try to understand the nature of the job and the hiring practices of this and the Senate Dem caucuses.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 3:18 pm
Oops: “bosses” not “books”

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 3:20 pm
=== First of all, there is no such thing as a non-political job in any industry. ===

Ok, you lost me here. Are you saying that a cashier at McDonalds is in a political position?

=== Secondly, yes, Staffers should be committed to the success of their legislator…insofar as constituents are informed, serviced, and able to contact the legislator when needed. ===

Your comment gives me concern. The duties you cite are extremely general and non-descript and you imply that so long as you fulfill your duties to your own satisfaction (rather than the satisfaction of your employer). There is an art to drafting a press release or a post-session newsletter to inform constituents of a legislator’s legislative achievements during session. Sometimes a constituents issue is politically sensitive and has to be treated with care rather than just giving out pre-packaged information. The job is not as simple as you make it out to be, and it requires more political skill than you give credit for. I understand that constituent service office jobs can be stressful and challenging, but if a person can’t environment, they should get a new job.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 3:21 pm
Emotions (which are valid) aside, and racial context (which is valid) aside, the fact remains that the IL Constitution does not allow Burden to form a union. Hence the necessity for a bill, which Welch moved out of the House. The bill stalled in the Senate, under Harmon’s purview, and it seems that now Burden is blending two contradictory arguments: 1) Yes, we DO need a bill but it hasn’t moved, so it’s Welch’s fault for being in “collusion” with Harmon and 2) No, we DON’T need a bill because the IL Workers’ Rights Amendment abrogates the IL Constitution’s authority to disallow unionizing of Capitol workers (and somehow that’s still Welch’s fault). Which is it? Again, feelings are important but they are best processed in a therapy session rather than a lawsuit. The first argument is invalid (“collusion” with Harmon - see my previous post) and if Burden believes the WRA overrides the authority of the state, then he should be suing the STATE OF ILLINOIS, not Welch. What am I missing here?

Comment by Zeitgeist Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 3:44 pm
- what I label, the “mirror MAGAs”) who want to unionize everything and will lash out against foe and friend whenever they don’t get their way. -

You’re the one that seems to be frothing at the mouth over this. These employees have the right to unionize, and they’re demanding good faith negotiations.

Comment by Excitable Boy Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 3:48 pm
=== These employees have the right to unionize ===

Is it a right if there is no mechanism to enforce it? This lawsuit should bring an answer to this question.

Comment by Hannibal Lecter Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 3:59 pm
Both these things can be true: 1) Welch is a two-faced hypocrite for blocking the unionization of his staff. 2) The staff attempting to unionize are coddled whiners who don’t grasp the concept of being at-will employees for an inherently political entity.

Comment by Tony T. Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 4:02 pm
Yo, “Excitable Boy,” these employees apparently do not have the right to unionize. That is the question. Existing state law prohibits them for unionizing. THE ILRB said as much. And if the workers rights amendment changed that, why are we not hearing from labor in this state? Where is the AFL-CIO? Where if CFL? Crickets.

Comment by Observer Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 4:04 pm
===Ok, you lost me here. Are you saying that a cashier at McDonalds is in a political position?===

Hell yeah! They were on the forefront of the fight for $15. Obviously the degree to which anyone is immersed in politics varies from job to job. A district staffer will have to take politics into account more seriously and regularly than a McDonald’s cashier, because it’s part of the job.

===The duties you cite are extremely general and non-descript and you imply that so long as you fulfill your duties to your own satisfaction (rather than the satisfaction of your employer). There is an art to drafting a press release or a post-session newsletter to inform constituents of a legislator’s legislative achievements during session.===

I’m not advocating that staffers be their own bosses. I’m just advocating for a reality where staffers receive protection for the work that they put in to implement their boss’ vision of constituent service–whether that be sending out newsletters, giving referrals, or logging opinions.

There are absolutely political sensitivities that have to be taken into account–which is why I believe that any sort of merit-based hiring system screen for political loyalties. The beliefs of a staffer should, more or less, align with that of the legislator they work for. I wouldn’t want a MAGA staffer telling off constituents for asking his Democratic boss to vote for a pro-abortion measure. But I also know from my own experience that a lot of what district staffers do is informational. Finding resources for constituents, providing referrals to state agencies, etc. Those aren’t things that negatively impact the political image of a legislator in the slightest as long as they’re attended to properly.

And outside of the tangential political benefits that come with marching in a parade or attending a local festival, staffers aren’t supposed to engage in campaign work with their boss on state property or on state time…not that that rule is always respected. These guardrails are in place for a reason, and I think that it’s time that they’re expanded to eliminate as much political favoritism as possible.

Comment by Lakeview Looker Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 4:20 pm
So, we have a leader who is a minority heading up a caucus with a large number of minorities, and supervises a staff composed of more minority members than anything you’ll find on the opposite side of the aisle and you want me to accept your assertion of race being the issue. Got to provide better rationale than I’m seeing from you.

The bottom line is that it’s a bad idea regardless of the staff demographics. Please stop, we get enough silliness from the MAGAs.

Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 4:59 pm
@Tony T.

Calling Welch “two-faced” and yet he was the one crossed by his own staff despite the fact he SPONSORED their bill????

Comment by FarOffintheDistance Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 5:14 pm
Not that a lawsuit was entirely necessary in the first place, but where is Harmon’s name on the suit? Was he not the one to have blocked the bill? This just seems very intentional..

Comment by Let’s Just Be Honest Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 7:08 pm
It seems that part of the conflict here is that Welch promised things were gonna be different now that Mapes and Madigan were gone, and the staff does not feel it has changed.

Staff raised concerns long before there was any talk of a union, those concerns were dismissed.

Welch is swimming against the tide. “Legislative Immunity” is not gonna cut it.

Comment by Timothy Longbottoms Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 7:42 pm
Can anyone imagine a term President of the US having strangleholds placed on doing the people’s work for his elected time in office because politically appointed term employees struck due to wages? Protected classes and prohibited practices still apply. Where’s the beef Clara Peller!?! Seems sour grapes to me.

Comment by Dark Cypher Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 7:49 pm
It is frankly hard to believe that this has nothing to do with race. Welch has supported and sponsored the bill for his staff. He has no part in the decision that the senate made. I’m curious why all the fault of it not passing is falling onto him. His staff seem to be very entitled and irrational. When all the facts are laid out, he did everything that was in his power to support them. Yet it wasn’t enough. On the other end of the equation you have Harmon(who obviously isn’t a POC might I add) that isn’t at fault? Where is the anger towards him? Did he not block the bill? Where is his lawsuit? This all feels like an intentional way to discredit the Speaker. A common case of let’s blame the black guy.

Comment by Hillary Zanderman Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 9:13 pm
Is it not suspicious that an all-white union is trying to sue the first Black Illinois Speaker of the House for supposedly having anything to do with their bill being blocked?

Comment by Let’s Just Be Honest Wednesday, Jun 26, 24 @ 2:05 pm
****Lakeview Looker - Tuesday, Jun 25, 24 @ 1:05 pm:Let staffers unionize. Hold them accountable to the constituencies they serve, but absolutely give them collective bargaining power.****
—Absolutely not. See this is the problem. The people did not elect them. These positions are akin to volunteering or being an intern and they get massive perks that most people don’t see or get. Jobs taken for leverage, legislative experience, influence, and clout. These are not civil servants hired through the equal opportunity civil service process. And, if it’s not about “what you know” then how can you and what are you using to negotiate for pay? Your post is full of contradictions. When the candidate is done you are done.

Comment by Dark Cypher Thursday, Jun 27, 24 @ 11:15 am