Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pat Quinn finds his latest cause
Next Post: Stop Credit Card Chaos In Illinois!
Posted in:
* Subscribers know more. From the Illinois Legislative Staff Association…
Legislative Staff Union tires of delay tactics and attempts to run up legal bills
On June 24, 2024, Speaker Welch filed a motion to dismiss our lawsuit demanding he recognize our constitutional rights. In a pattern all too familiar by now, this motion appears to be more focused on optics than on actual legal substance. This case is, and has always been about the fact that the Speaker is obligated to recognize and bargain with ILSA under the constitution, but refuses to do so. Speaker Welch is not above the law.
The first argument the Speaker’s legal team puts forward is a misguided attempt to use what is analogous to the Trump v. United States defense, arguing improperly that the Speaker has immunity from civil liability due to the “Speech and Debate” clause, while acting in his “legislative capacity.” If this were true, legislators could be immune from prosecution for misdemeanors, such as: aggravated assault, battery, DUI (when going to and from legislative business), theft of labor or services, and offering a bribe.
The second argument, regarding a lack of private cause of action for constitutional rights violations, willfully ignores the actual legal basis for the suit, which is the officer exemption. This is stated clearly and in bold in the header for the only count in the lawsuit: “Count I – Officer Exception: Violation of Constitutional Right.” It is pretty hard to miss, but they seem to have managed it.
We are further accused in the third and forth arguments of forum shopping, failing to exhaust administrative remedies, and claiming that the Illinois Labor Relation’s Board (ILRB) has exclusive jurisdiction, despite the expressed opinion of ILRB and our own stated opinions, and legislative employees being specifically excluded from ILRB’s jurisdiction. Additionally, ILRB correctly noted that they cannot apply constitutional law; it would be up to the courts to determine if the legislative staff exemption was unconstitutional. These arguments establish that the Speaker would have cried foul regardless of our actions, and that we should have just taken him to court in 2022.
The final argument for dismissal again willfully ignores the actual legal basis of the suit, which is regarding an official violating our constitutional rights as workers, rather than, as they suggest, the Speaker’s status as a “public employer” under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA) . The motion simultaneously claims that we are covered by, and then not covered by, the IPLRA depending on whether it suits the Speaker. All of that ink aside, this has no bearing on the actual case, and seems to be included to pad the page length, much like a student using ChatGPT in an essay.
You can read the ILSA’s filing here Welch’s motion to dismiss is here.
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pat Quinn finds his latest cause
Next Post: Stop Credit Card Chaos In Illinois!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Warning: Sometimes pandering to a constituency group without careful consideration of the ramifications will bite you in the …
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:18 am
Shaming the speaker makes no sense when they’re wrong on the facts and the speaker actually passed their bill. You might think legislative staff would better understand how to make progress on difficult issues.
Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:34 am
This probably would have been more successful if they had sued both legislative leaders. How do you make a constitutional argument related to only one leader and make it against him in his personal capacity? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Comment by Springfield Observer Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:34 am
=== How do you make a constitutional argument related to only one leader===
Where’s the standing to sue someone who’s not their boss?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:41 am
I’m no lawyer but if you are making a constitutional argument, you have to sue Harmon too. The standing would come from the fact that Welch passed a bill to address their concerns, but Harmon won’t even take a meeting with them.
Comment by Standing Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:48 am
Whether or not the union’s legal strategy is sound, I feel for them. It’s a real gut punch to find out that your employer who publicly espouses pro-labor values is willing to go to the mat to crush your union.
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:53 am
=== I’m no lawyer but if you are making a constitutional argument, you have to sue Harmon too. The standing would come from the fact that Welch passed a bill to address their concerns, but Harmon won’t even take a meeting with them. ===
With all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about.
The lawsuit is not based on some failure to pass legislation, the lawsuit is based on the failure of the Speaker’s Office to recognize the union and engage in bargaining with them. Why would they include Harmon in the lawsuit, if the ILSA has only attempted to unionize the House staff?
Since you are not a lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you do not make arguments on legal concepts like standing.
Comment by Barrister at the Lectern Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:54 am
===but Harmon won’t even take a meeting with them. ===
LOL
You’re gonna let people sue a Senate President for not meeting with them?
You really should take a nap. A long one.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 12:00 pm
This approach by ILSA just makes no sense to me. Publicly attacking and suing the Speaker of the House does not seem like the best approach to me. But I’m from a different school.
Comment by Springfield Watcher Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 12:17 pm
==Publicly attacking and suing the Speaker of the House does not seem like the best approach to me.==
What should they do then, keep asking him “pretty please with sugar on top to voluntarily recognize their union? They tried that already and got the cold shoulder.
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 12:23 pm
Staff union efforts are going on in several states. A simple google search will show you how things have been handled in Maine, New York, Washington, Oregon, California and several others. I don’t see a single state where the staff public attacked a chamber leader. It seems counter productive to me to be attacking Speaker Welch who is a proven labor champion and has been recognized as such by labor groups. Again, a simple google search will show you that too.
Comment by Springfield Observer Too Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 12:51 pm
- Speaker Welch who is a proven labor champion -
Except for his own staff. He’s refusing to negotiate, why is this so hard for some of you to understand?
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 1:22 pm
==Speaker Welch who is a proven labor champion==
Then he should act like it. We’ve seen what he’s willing to do for connected unions who contribute to his campaign. If he’s not willing to bargain with his own staff then maybe he’s just a proven champion of his own self interest.
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 1:32 pm
Excitable Boy and Charles in Charge you two should probably be asking why those labor unions are not helping the staff. If anyone knows what the workers rights amendment means, they do. In all of the states I mention above, the state fed and other unions have publicly and vocally supported the staff. I haven’t heard a word from the labor unions in Illinois. Where are the Teamsters? Afscme? SEIU? Maybe Brady Burden and his crew should try to get their help before suing the Speaker of the House. But something tells me they don’t agree with his legal theory.
Comment by Springfield Observer Too Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 2:07 pm
Springfield Watcher?
Springfield Observer?
Springfield Observer Too?
If y’all are gonna sockpuppet Welch’s position (or Speaker, is that you?), at least come up with some original handles
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 2:08 pm
==Where are the Teamsters? Afscme? SEIU?==
Good question. They oughta step up.
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 2:15 pm
I think the lawsuit is doomed. It argues that the constitutional amendment grants labor rights outside of existing labor laws–that employees are entitled to their invented labor processes. Even for Illinois, that is step too far.
More worrisome for the Speaker should be the staffers’ communications. These things have the tenor of a sovereign-citizen screed over fluoride in the water or microchips in vaccines. If this is the level of professionalism coming out of his employees, then the Speaker has bigger problems than this lawsuit.
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 2:29 pm
- you two should probably be asking why those labor unions are not helping the staff. -
Why? Are those unions in charge of House staffers?
Welch is the boss, and he’s refusing to recognize the union. This is very simple.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 2:41 pm
=== you two should probably be asking why those labor unions are not helping the staff. ===
Because they’re astute enough to not go against a leader of a legislative chamber that has been delivering for them most of the time.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 3:09 pm
==Because they’re astute enough to not go against a leader of a legislative chamber that has been delivering for them most of the time.==
If the big unions are legitimately worried that the Speaker would stop “delivering” for them if they pushed him to do right by his own staff, then maybe Welch isn’t such a “labor champion” after all?
Comment by charles in charge Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 3:19 pm
== This case is, and has always been about the fact that the Speaker is obligated to recognize and bargain with ILSA under the constitution, but refuses to do so. Speaker Welch is not above the law. ==
This legal conclusion is inaccurate. The Speaker is under no obligation, legally or morally, to negotiate with these staffers. Given the tone of their releases and the things they say, I would suggest he fire them for their ridiculous comments.
Comment by thoughts Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 4:42 pm
This whole effort to unionize these positions is ridiculous. That is all. That’s the post.
Comment by Shytown Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 5:23 pm
- The Speaker is under no obligation, legally or morally, to negotiate with these staffers. -
What part of the amendment is unclear to you?
- 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. -
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 5:25 pm
== This whole effort to unionize these positions is ridiculous.==
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. The people with the least power on legislative staff really suffer from being at the total mercy of the people with the most power in the entire state. If anyone needs a union, it’s them.
Comment by charles in charge Friday, Aug 2, 24 @ 12:02 am