Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Good morning!
Next Post: Legislators looking to move up
Posted in:
* My Crain’s Chicago Business column…
Imagine the uproar if a governor proposed a law allowing local governments to tell their residents that paying monthly cable television bills now is purely optional.
If your county or city opted in, you could have whatever cable channels you wanted without paying a monthly fee. No repair charges either, unless you felt like chipping in.
The governor likely would be laughed out of office. If you want a private service, even a monopolized private service, you should expect to pay.
But that’s pretty much what Gov. Bruce Rauner is proposing for labor unions.
It’s called “right to work” by its proponents, although Rauner referred to it as “employee empowerment” during a Jan. 27 speech in Decatur.
Go read the whole thing before commenting, please.
* The SJ-R wonders why Gov. Rauner is pushing this issue…
One possible scenario – perhaps the best-case scenario, given the tenor of the discourse now – is that Rauner intentionally is using his anti-union rhetoric as a bargaining chip to later get what he wants from AFSCME during negotiations. It’s not unusual during labor talks for each side to stake out extreme positions, hoping for eventual common ground in the middle.
But what Rauner has in mind is anyone’s guess outside of his inner circle. The first-time governor is untested and unknown, and he still isn’t offering specifics about how he intends to fix the state’s fiscal problems from a structural standpoint, instead continuing to rail about the sins of the past.
Rauner clearly believes right-to-work zones hold some promise for Illinois or he wouldn’t talk about them with such emphasis. But even the pro-business Illinois Chamber of Commerce says the move is unnecessary.
“Illinois doesn’t need right to work (laws) to compete with its neighbors,” Todd Maisch, chief executive of the Illinois Chamber, told the Chicago Tribune.
Rauner’s focus should be on bringing together the groups that have a role in fixing Illinois’ severe fiscal problems, including unions, rather than creating unnecessary divisions. Mutual respect is a must if Rauner intends to achieve his goals.
If last week was any indication, it’s shaping up to be a contentious year at the Capitol.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Good morning!
Next Post: Legislators looking to move up
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
My view is that Rauner is itching for a fight, and has picked one with the public employee unions to start off his budget cutting campaign. He will most likely pose this as a conflict between funds for community agencies (day care right now is in big trouble) and overpaid state workers.
I don’t think this will be very successful, since even the Chamber won’t line up with him. And threatening the existence of unions is not a bargaining chip- it’s a declaration of war.
The SJ-R should check Rauner’s business record. I don’t believe “mutual respect” plays a big part in the takeover and buyout business.
Comment by DuPage Dave Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:18 am
Couldn’t this anti-union rhetoric backfire and actually cause an increase in union membership?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:18 am
One thing one might infer from BR’s focus on this issue is that he has no solutions to the real problems facing the state.
Comment by UIC Guy Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:20 am
“In other words, ditch the right-winger rhetoric and do something real.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. In fact, let’s just ditch the rhetoric from both sides and just do something real.
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:20 am
The ledger shows Rauner got paid $9,000+ on Friday. I thought he wasn’t taking a salary. Is anyone paying attention to make sure he donates it and watching where the money’s going?
Comment by Anon Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:21 am
I wonder if this is for audiences outside Illinois.
Does he want to be VP? There is some precedent for a candidate choosing a sort of empty minded but right wing rhetoric spewing half-term Gov. for VP.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:21 am
“Couldn’t this anti-union rhetoric backfire and actually cause an increase in union membership?” Doubtful, I know several Democrats who voted for Rauner because of their disdain for AFSCME and their supposed chock-hold on the state. The government unions better play their cards right, I’m not sure how they can win.
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:22 am
===Rauner’s focus should be on bringing together the groups that have a role in fixing Illinois’ severe fiscal problems, including unions, rather than creating unnecessary divisions.===
That’s exactly right. But creating divisions is red meat for the Fox News crowd. And it would seem that at this point Rauner might be following the path to the Scott Walker model, perhaps hoping for a platform to become a national GOP hero. OK, but that really doesn’t make sense given the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. So I’m trying to with hold judgement till after State of the State and Budget messages.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:23 am
Where are the solutions? What does this businessman who was touted as such an expert have to offer other than bullying people? It seems that it’s headed toward embarrassing for him.
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:24 am
He just wants the ego stroke from Republican-leaning news sources.
Comment by anonymous Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:28 am
The SJ-R Opinion, when I read it, captures the feelings I keep having about Decatur and the U of C “lectures”
What the heck is going on…and hoe is this going to help with the governing?
They make a great point;
“…The first-time governor is untested and unknown, and he still isn’t offering specifics about how he intends to fix the state’s fiscal problems from a structural standpoint, instead continuing to rail about the sins of the past.”
This campaign-style rhetoric and rehashing blame isn’t finding common ground between the Unions and/or the Democratic Leaders.
Rauner, either he is off the reservation with Mike Z and the Crew or getting encouragement to bypass the governing aspect of his job, is making the classic mistake with the Leaders of publicly saying red meat rhetoric and then, sometimes the same day, talking about working together to solve problems.
Which is it?
It’s important for credibility, it’s critical for governing, that your word is beyond reproach, and you deliver to your co-equal partners your 1/2 a loaf.
Decatur and U of C is self-serving nonsense that focuses on fairly tale results given the make-up of Illinois governmental realities.
The road map to get your half load from Cullerton and MJM is easy to see, but I am blind to how the rhetoric Rauner speaks will lead to governing.
When the legislative agenda get bill numbers, and the budgeteers see a budget they need to pass, then we all might see what is real here, but this rhetoric has zero chance in governing…so let’s see how Rauner pivots…again.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:29 am
@Gooner–Suppose your scenario were correct…That heartbeat away person–OMG. OMG.
Comment by Kippax Blue Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:39 am
The keyword in this debate is that these are ZONES!!! Do not fret Chicago can keep its unions and be its own little self entitled entity up north. There are some areas downstate that can really benefit from right to work zones.
Companies are eager to come to the state for these specific zones.
The belief that unions are the only entity that can offer up reasons for higher wages is pure ignorance. Let the workers have their money and not pay for ridiculous dues that can go towards other needs in life ( ex: child care ).
Maybe its just a down state guys opinion but don’t discount the utility of these for some counties in need.
Comment by ThatOneGuy Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:40 am
He can run from the real issues, but he can’t hide. He wanted the gig, time to get to it.
On the WUIS website, Charlie Wheeler has a comprehensive and sober breakdown of the reality of the FY16 budget — you know, one that uses real numbers and stuff, rather than social agenda union-busting rhetoric.
It’s short, sweet and real. The bottom line is that under current statutory spending mandates and revenue projections, you could zero out all GRF spending on everything but education, health care and human services - but you’d still have to cut education, health care and human services.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:40 am
Rich, great colum for Crain’s.
This portion below is really spot-on, for me, in all that is going on with the rhetoric, generally;
“Besides, the General Assembly, controlled by Democrats, is never going to approve this right-to-work scheme anyway. Pretty much everyone at the Statehouse is baffled about why Rauner would make this such a priority so early in his term.
nstead, he should focus on some concrete, doable things.”
Bingo.
Again, Rauner is off the reservation smart staffers like Mike Z and others would try to steer the governor away…
Or…
Man, I can’t think of an “or” unless well-respected government types in Rauner’s Crew are just sold on being a loose canon and that will lead to governing(?)
Baffling.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:41 am
I don’t understand how people are surprised by the rhetoric being spewed by by Rauner. He campaigned on this anti-union/antiworker platform throughout the primary. I don’t think this posturing or pandering by Rauner. I think that his main goal of his term as governer is to reduce costs by reducing the workforce, their salaries, and/or their benefits.
Comment by Hacksaw Jim Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:42 am
Serious question: I understand Rauner will be able to set wages for state workers when the contract expires at the end of June, but can he change benefits without the legislators? Say health insurance? Could that be the budget plan? Replace the $20k/year health plans with something half the cost?
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:43 am
That One Guy,
Sure they are. Some employers like paying workers terribly. That’s why they move jobs to Mexico.
Now, there are certain people who want to make Illinois workers the financial equivalent of Mexican workers, but they tend not to win elections in Illinois.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:48 am
Every speech has a consituency group. Who is behind him on this one? Are they people from Illinois or from outside the state? Who ever they are I bet they have lots of money.
Comment by Makandadawg Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:49 am
Solid column, Rich. Great cable TV analogy and great ending.
That is so ironic, the people who call recipients of social services “takers” are the ones who are creating another class of “takers”–people who get full union benefits without paying dues.
Now I read that in Indiana, the state supreme court ruled for right to work, because unions are the sole negotiators of contracts in businesses or governments that have unions, and workers can’t negotiate for themselves in such places, but still, workers get benefits for which they don’t pay, including the grievance procedure, which can be of great benefit, and whose results very often create a better workplace for workers.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:52 am
@ Robert the 1st - Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:43 am:
Based on my experience, Rauner will be negotiating with the unions on salary and health benefits as well as other benefits and work related rules etc. I believe there would be a point at which reducing health care benefits too far would run into legal issues related to the recent ISC ruling that health care premiums at retirement are protected. This issue was raised in front of the ISC during the Kanerva vs Weems case. There is room to increase co payments etc but I don’t believe a reduction in benifits of 1/2 would be accepted without a strike and would certainly face legal challenges.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:55 am
It is pretty easy to create targets with generalized statements about over paid teachers/state workers, issues of union bosses, and everything is much worse than we thought. The case is not helped when Admin replacements get paid 36% more than the previous staff, but then the new people are taking pay cuts to come to Illinois. Huh, and I thought state workers make more than people in private business. The coming specific, detailed plans will surely calm all the players so they can work together.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:55 am
Great column! I asked on state senator what was up with Rauner. The response? “I have no idea. I wish he’d stop campaigning and start governing”. If he has a plan, it must be a very well-kept secret. Legislators seem frustrated, agency employees are scared and annoyed. One agency person said they can’t make an expenditure of any type without approval from the highest levels, and it’s causing real problems.
Comment by Archiesmom Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 9:59 am
Thanks “facts are stubborn things”
Appreciate the response. But that does mean health benefits are solely up to Rauner. I had previously assumed that health benefits were in line with pension benefits and couldn’t be changed without passing laws.
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:01 am
Somebody has to be the scapegoat for the State’s budget mess, and public employee unions are the Republicans’ fall guy. As far back as I can remember, Republicans, who tend to be business people, have never understood that employees won’t be satisfied with the lowest wage employers are able to get away with, along with no benefits or insurance. Who wants to be a wage slave?
Maybe GOP logic is, “If you don’t like it, start your own business.” Ironically, when unions were the strongest in the U.S., the 1950s and 1960s, the economy was booming. As soon as corporations started to ship job overseas, the economy began to stumble.
Go figure.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:02 am
It’s important to keep in mind that we didn’t elect a politician. We elected a guy who spent millions of his own dollars to hold office and seems content on continuing to spend millions of his own dollars while in office. I find it amusing when I hear others opine about what he should do or say or how he should govern. Rauner doesn’t care what you think! He’s not a consensus builder. I have no idea why he ran or how he’ll govern but it does appear fairly obvious that Rauner has his own plan and agenda and it has little to do with adapting to what others want. It’s also becoming apparent that “campaigning” may very well be Rauner’s style of “governing”. If that’s the case it should be a very interesting 4 years.
Comment by pundent Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:06 am
I’m looking forward to a robust economy where spending is up, businesses are thriving….all on reduced worker salaries, reduced employer coverage of insurance. Sounds like a great plan to put more money in workers’ pockets to spend out there.
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:08 am
He’s playing this like it’s more than just a setup for government union negotiations. He might think it sends a signal to big companies that he’s on their side, even though this doesn’t have a chance of passing in Illinois.
The best explanation remains that it’s the price of entry to be taken seriously by big GOP funders on the national scene. If a bonehead like Scott walker can be taken seriously and funded by that crew, Rauner can easily take his place in the national pecking order with some successes and image builders in Illinois.
Comment by walker Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:09 am
==he doesn’t care what you think==
Well, now that he’s been anointed, I guess he can be that way. But last I heard, publicly elected officers were there to serve the public. I guess that’s what people who voted for him wanted. No comment from the electorate. No thank you, don’t care what you think or want.
Comment by AnonymousOne Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:18 am
pundent - ++ He’s not a consensus builder.++
He can campaign all he wants and receive no support from the legislators.
Then he won’t be a builder at all.
Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:24 am
I hope this is just a bargaining ploy. He is gonna lose support from the public in a hurry if he goes all in to curb union rights.
Comment by Very Fed Up Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:26 am
He will have to provide substance in a couple of weeks. His fun time bashing people will be over and he’ll have to lead.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:26 am
Robert - The details of the group insurance plan are negotiated between the admin and the union (even though the plan covers all state employees, including those NON-union). The legislature is not a party to the negotiations, nor do they get to vote on the final agreement. However, a member of the legislature could introduce a bill that would require such approval. I do not recall this having ever been done. There could be a legal reason I am not aware of.
Comment by NotYetRetired Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:27 am
Rauner is going to propose a plan that leaves upper middle class and upper class Illinois, as well as school funding, relatively unscathed and crushes labor and Medicaid spending. And then he’s going to force every member of the General Assembly to answer, “Which side are you on?” (irony intended). Underestimate this approach — which will subtly rely on voters’ most base instincts — at your own risk. It won’t work everywhere, but it won’t need to.
Comment by Sam Weinberg Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:30 am
On the flip side, AFSCME has been very, very weak on the PR front. It has been frustrating to me as a member. They have never been able to get out in front of these attacks. They haven’t invested in any marketing outside of what they do for their own membership. We get a glossy newsletter periodically and I’m assuming legislators are on the mailing list, but that’s it. Why not plan for a classy, nonpolitical TV buy for a few weeks a year touting the work of AFSCME membership. Something to show regulars who we really are. It feels like they put all of their efforts into election time and then fall off. We lost ya’ll. It’s not break time.
I have other doubts about the strength of our leadership. We have received zero info from our agency stewards and I’m not sure if I have the right to expect anything more but in this climate, it feels a little eerie.
Comment by Politix Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:31 am
- Sam Weinberg -,
From Charlie Wheeler;
“The math is unforgiving — all the rest of state government could be zero-funded next year, and Rauner still would have to cut from education and/or health care/human services. That obviously won’t happen, so be prepared for the deepest cuts — ever — in the public’s most-cherished programs in the proposal.”
Whose side dies real math fall on?
Rhetoric ain’t governing and math is math.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:34 am
Think of a Governor who force everybody in a certain area to pay for Cable TV if they watched it or not. Some people who where forced to pay for cable who did like the contented and found it offensive. But the Cable company always made large donations to the Politicians who where in power. So a law was written every body in a certain area paid for cable no matter what. They could opt out of the cable TV but still where forced to pay a fee almost as much as the cable TV per month There was a exception that if they had religious objections the Cable bill could be donated to a non profit organization!! But everybody was forced to pay for Cable TV. This assured that the BIG Cable TV Bosses had guaranteed income and very large salaries. It also assured that large political contributions where made to friends of Cable TV. Everybody was happy except the people forced to pay for Cable TV. No matter how bad the service, everybody was forced to pay. There was no way to make sure you got good service with forced payments. The cable TV company didn’t have to worry about anything, They got there MONEY
Comment by Think of this Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:35 am
Tot, as with cable TV, you are free not to accept employment at a unionized shop.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:38 am
@thatoneguy:
So its ok for the Chamber of Commerce to collectively bargain and negotiate for lower wages and benefits on behalf of workers?
Comment by Del Clinkton Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:41 am
Please quit saying Bruce is some kind of successful businessman. He only released page 1 and 2 of his tax returns.
That.Says.Nothing.
He is only a success in his own mind. For all we know the laundromats could have lost a lot of money.
Comment by Del Clinkton Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:44 am
“Tot, as with cable TV, you are free not to accept employment at a unionized shop.” That’s kind of an ironic argument, when listening to AFSCME leadership, you’d think state employment was a human right defined in the Bill of Rights.
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:45 am
If cable television is unionized labor, then does that make netflix/hulu/amazon prime right-to-work zones?
I gave up cable a long time ago because I could get the services I wanted for far cheaper than what was being offered.
Comment by Phenomynous Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:48 am
“Think of a Governor who force everybody in a certain area to pay for Cable TV if they watched it or not.”
But of course, the employees in union shops *do* “watch the Cable TV”. They avail themselves of the benefits of unionization, from increased salaries and sick time to grievance procedures to health and safety standards.
That’s why “Right to Freeload” is the proper term, here. The RTWers don’t want to disassociate from the union, they just don’t want to pay for it.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:52 am
If you accept the cable TV comparison, then closed shop states would say, “If you want to live here, you are required to buy cable TV and pay a monthly fee for it. If you don’t want to, move somewhere else.”
Comment by Tree Stand Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 10:58 am
=== If you don’t want to, move somewhere else===
lol
Try again.
If you want cable TV in Springfield, you have to go with Comcast. If you want a state job in Springfield, you have to accept the fact that it’s likely a union shop - at least, for now. But you don’t have to buy cable TV service (you can go with satellite service) and nobody is forcing you to apply for a state job (there are other jobs).
What you right to workers want is to first force unions to provide a service for free, which then could put unions out of business - and that’s the real goal.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:04 am
That One Guy @9:40
=== Companies are eager to come to the state for these specific zones.===
What companies have publicly stated they are eager to move to Illinois for these zones?
=== The belief that unions are the only entity that can offer up reasons for higher wages is pure ignorance.===
I don’t understand what you are saying. Everybody can offer reasons for higher wages, however, unions typically have the collective power to do something about it. Individual employees, no matter how empowered they may feel, are less likely to empower their checking accounts.
Comment by Past the Rule of 85 Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:05 am
Rauner is a chaos agent.
His campaign promised to “shake up Springfield”.
He became rich as a young man in a hurry.
Governors always go with what worked for them and got them into office. Bruce Rauner got their by being in a hurry, spending millions to build a resume of good social works, married the right kind of social liberal wife, and kept himself and everyone around him sane by doing as many things as he could stick his nose and fingers into.
That isn’t what we need as a governor right now, and he would disagree with that.
Bruce Rauner needs to discover that state government needs to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. He didn’t buy it. He doesn’t control it like he did with his previous acquisitions.
Illinois has already been through too much for a revolutionary gubernatorial administration. Citizens have had too much bad, to want too much of anything right now. Governor Rauner needs to understand that he will not be able to leapfrog over a decade and a half of maladministration, impeachment, incompetence and stupidity, indictments, and bad economics just because he says so or has the money.
So Governor Rauner, stop the revolution you think we need. We don’t want that. We want change, but we want to be ready for these changes. Problems we have, but we are not willing to gamble what we currently have in order to chase a solution you think will solve them.
Get that?
You have to respect our need for stability. We need a respite from the craptastic decade we’ve been through. We are not wanting you to transform us. We want a moment to stop spinning. Your revolution is not wanted yet.
We don’t need a your revolution. We need you to point out a different direction for our state. We want you to map that direction out for us beforehand. We want other state leaders to agree with your map. Then we will see how it goes.
NOT THIS.
You might see us as an overweight blob of people failing to keep up with the swifter state markets. OK, so we need to do something to help - we get that. You don’t help us get there by throwing us out of a moving car and telling us to start running alongside it.
Your governorship after last week shows us that he don’t understand what we have been through, and don’t understand that while we might want change, we have had a lot of change forced upon us that sucked.
We want stability first.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:13 am
==Rauner intentionally is using his anti-union rhetoric as a bargaining chip to later get what he wants from AFSCME during negotiations.==
Agreed. Rauner is simply following up on Harris v Quinn, and Walker. Not sure how he can fully exploit it, but look for him to chip away around the edges at every opportunity. He’ll continue the bashing rhetoric because his right wing base loves it.
Comment by Toure's Latte Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:14 am
If unions are so good at protecting workers than why do they have to compell fees out of people? If a locality wants to be right to work - fine, you can still join a union if it adds value. Let local communities decide whats right for them, not a one size fits all Springfield/Washington mandate.
Comment by kizzo Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:26 am
==The belief that unions are the only entity that can offer up reasons for higher wages is pure ignorance. Let the workers have their money and not pay for ridiculous dues that can go towards other needs in life==
Really? The typical worker is treated like a commodity: “if you don’t like it here, you can leave (or be fired)” When one worker asks for a raise, the employer can laugh at them; when all of the workers make the request they are taken more seriously.
That said, the real power of the union is as an advocate for a safe work place and fair and equitable treatment. Contracts are not only about wages; they are mostly about working conditions and disciplinary procedures. The dues paid by workers supports the enforcement of those provisions. Union workers can be fired, but must be given due process. Bosses like Rauner hate that, they want to fire at will, for no cause. In a non-union shop, if some one worker is so bold as to point out a violation of law or endangerment of worker safety, they can be fired, problem solved. In a union shop, the workers are empowered through collective action and an enforceable contract. You might note that the recent mine disasters in the U.S. were all in non-union mines, and that is not a coincidence. Subsequent investigations revealed numerous violations of safety laws and practices that unions would not tolerate.
In a union shop, the union has to advocate for all workers in the bargaining unit; this is required by federal law. Rauner and other right-to-work advocates seek to undermine unions by telling workers that “fair share” is somehow unfair. In reality, the fair share fees pay for the union to represent workers as the union is required to do by law.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:27 am
===If unions are so good at protecting workers than why do they have to compell fees out of people?===
If cable TV providers are so good at providing services than why do they have to compel fees out of people?
Fixed it for you.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:30 am
“The typical worker is treated like a commodity” It’s so odd to me seeing people comment so negatively about themselves. You really think you’re just a monkey with a wrench? You can’t negotiate for yourself? You can be replaced by anybody? Doesn’t say much for our state workforce does it?
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:31 am
kizzo: if the CTA is so good at moving people around the city of Chicago, why does it have to compel people to pay fares? Why not make fare-paying optional?
However good the service, some will always choose to take it for free if they can. Others, seeing that, are likely to join them.
Comment by UIC Guy Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:34 am
I have been both a union worker and in lower level management. When I was in a union my union always was by my side if there was an issue. When I was a supervisor I always knew when upper management (i.e., the Rauners of the world) was behind me because I could feel them back there.
Comment by Past the Rule of 85 Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:36 am
“There are still some in power who would return us to the days of impoverished, helpless workers and all-powerful wealthy business tycoons. They seek the destruction of labor unions, because we are the only voice of the workers, and the things we fight for help everyone.” http://www.sbctc.org/doc.asp?id=4463
Comment by Enviro Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:38 am
- kizzo - Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:26 am:
==If unions are so good at protecting workers than why do they have to compell fees out of people? ===
If I remember correctly, when unions are representing you in a grievance or a legal issue, you are not charged. That is part of what the fees pay for. It is probably much cheaper than contracting with an attorney on your own.
Comment by NotYetRetired Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:46 am
=== health benefits were in line with pension benefits and couldn’t be changed without passing laws. ===
That falls into the “it depends” category.
20 year State retirees are entitled to health insurance for life … but exactly what level is open for debate. Presumably, the ceiling is what they used to have and the floor is the ACAC rules.
Current employees are pretty much covered by the union contract(s), with that extended to the non-union workers. I expect there is a lot of qwiggle room here, with the floor being ACA level insurance.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:55 am
=== AFSCME has been very, very weak on the PR front ===
Think I’ve made that point multiple times over the past several years. The unions will need to spend every penny they have just to be visible in the PR war.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 11:57 am
Cable companies don’t compell fees. You have the option of paying for cable or not. I’d agree that the packages are monopolistic and I hope internet TV and on-demand programming beats the status quo. I have 600 channels and watch 4-5. If you think about it, if this goes through, it won’t suplant right to work it will just give communities the option of being right to work or not. Why is it ok for the state to decide a one size fits all policy? What’s wrong with county by county?
Comment by kizzo Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:01 pm
Robert the 1st: I can’t be replaced by just anybody, but that fact is lost when the people making the decisions are 5 or 6 layers (without exaggeration) above me. To them, I’m a cell in a spreadsheet, and if they need their budget to look better, they just delete that cell, and *poof* I’m out of a job (or would be without Union representation.) As for “negotiating for myself”, just exactly with whom am I to negotiate? And what makes you think he/she will have any interest or clout?
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:01 pm
===You have the option of paying for cable or not. ===
And you have the option of working for a union shop or not.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:07 pm
Unions incur expenses when they represent their membership in a multitude of ways. If they are not collecting ‘dues’ from their membership, how would they be able to pay their operating expenses and the expenses for services (ie: negotiation of good healthcare benefits - which will likely change drastically in the coming fiscal year unless the unions can negotiate successfully for their members) that their members expect?
Comment by NotYetRetired Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:18 pm
I’ll add that even the non-union employees benefit from the union contract as far as healthcare benefits are concerned. Without the union negotiation, everyone (union AND non-union) would be paying higher monthly premiums and co-pays for services.
Comment by NotYetRetired Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:19 pm
What is wrong with county by county is that it compels somebody to do something for free.
It forces unions to negotiate deals for people who do not pay.
The employees voted in the union. The union then gets paid to negotiate.
Don’t like a union? Tell the co-workers to vote them out. But don’t take the benefit without writing the check.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:20 pm
==- kizzo - Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:01 pm:==
Why have states? Why have nations? Why not micro-nations? Hell, why not anarchy? This block club is just too one-size-fits-all for me.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:22 pm
No one seems to bring up that no one is required to be a union member only that you pay the “fair share” fee.
Comment by Liberty Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:29 pm
Liberty, state employees belong to open shops. Private workers belong to union shops.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:37 pm
I was once a president of a “cable company.” Most of the subscribers were willing to pay their monthly fees and we at the “company” did our best for them. However, I always found it interesting that we were one of the few “cable companies” in the state that did not have fair share. We had a few subscribers who did not pay their fees, yet expect the cable company to be there at their beck and call. Not surprisingly they represented a sizable percentage of our service calls.
Comment by G'Kar Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:46 pm
RNUG as usual said it first. I expect employees and non Medicare retirees (me) to take a hit on medical July 1st. Medicare retirees Jan 1st. Not as clear cut a lawsuit as the premiums. What I wonder about is the $500 opt out option. Will it be retained as an incentive to go away ? The minimum ACA plan (Copper/Tin/Lead?)is a big reduction from the admittedly gold plan offered now.
Comment by Anotherretiree Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:02 pm
Rich == are you saying that a right to have a job is equally as important as a right to have cable TV? Choosing to work is a matter of living really. Cable TV is entertainment. Not having a job because you don’t want to pay compelled fees is a big deal. Not have cable TV because you don’t want to pay for channels you dont want is annoying, but not as imoortant as some ones right to work.
I guess we’re just going in circles now. Either way, I think county decisions are more local and representative anyways. Isn’t local control a good thing? Why not for labor regs?
Comment by kizzo Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:04 pm
===Not having a job because you don’t want to pay compelled fees is a big deal===
Yep. But that would be your choice.
Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps, fella, and, as our new CFO would say, “Get a job.”
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:06 pm
===Isn’t local control a good thing? ===
Worked really well at College of DuPage, right?
Just sayin…
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:07 pm
Labor law Q:
What is the source of the requirement that those who don’t pay dues (in a RtW regime, e.g.) are still covered in the CB unit and thus enjoy the negotiated bebefits. Or rather, what would need to be changed to make it that you’re on your own if you don’t want to pay dues?
Comment by Todd Gak Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:10 pm
Rich == So the solution is State of Illinois control? They have a sweet management/success record alright!
Comment by kizzo Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:44 pm
Isnt the afscme contratc up sometime this year? How are negotiations going?
Comment by Ghost Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:52 pm
Rauner is strictly for big business and cheap labor. That means no unions and huge amounts of 3rd world immigration where the individuals are use to working for next to nothing.
Nothing new here, it has been going on for the last 50 years and we are now seeing the results.
Comment by Federalist Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:57 pm
==So the solution is State of Illinois control?==
Umm, there are lots of things controlled by the state, and for good reason. I’m not a big fan of taking issues that are clearly statewide issues (like the issue of unions) and letting localities decide. There are reasons we have statewide laws.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 1:58 pm
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 12:07 pm:
===You have the option of paying for cable or not. ===
And you have the option of working for a union shop or not.
and no one forces a company to unionize, only to bargain. The whole right to work issue seems to be overblown to me.
Comment by Liberty Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 2:03 pm
“Why is it ok for the state to decide a one size fits all policy?”
Because universal standards are good. They provide certainty and stability. We’re talking about the law here, not baseball caps.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 2:26 pm
“Not having a job because you don’t want to pay compelled fees is a big deal.”
So is bankrupting a union because you want its services, but don’t want to pay for them.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 2:27 pm
” It’s so odd to me seeing people comment so negatively about themselves.”
Complaining about how someone treats you =/ commenting negatively about yourself. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 2:29 pm
Didn’t the union, at one time, have a form that any union member could fill out at the end of a year and request the entirety of their union dues be paid back to them? I seem to recall that being the case (or at least it was, years ago).
Comment by CharlieKratos Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 2:43 pm
“Right To Work” is a deliberately misleading political label,(like many others).
It means: “Right To Get Union Benefits Without Paying Union Fees.”
That’s all it means.
Many commenters above don’t seem to get that.
Comment by walker Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 2:49 pm
SCOTUS has decided over and over again that unions can rightly and legally bargain for their members and their members only. Doesn’t that mean that unions voluntarily* represent those who opt out?
You can say that those who opt out are freeloading over and over again, but just saying it doesn’t make it so.
Comment by White Denim Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 2:58 pm
==You can say that those who opt out are freeloading over and over again, but just saying it doesn’t make it so.==
Good try, but that’s a woefully ignorant view of the realities of how the benefits of union negotiations work.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:00 pm
The NLRA (and the IL Labor Relations Act) both mandate representing non-members who are in a bargaining unit. That is why a fair share fee can be collected from non-members, unless the state passes a “right to work” law, in which case the fair share fee cannot be collected. But according to the law the union still has to represent people, even if they aren’t receiving a fair share fee.
Comment by chi Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:04 pm
All it says is that the union cannot bargain for lower wages for its non-members while bargaining for higher wages for themselves. It doesn’t say that they have to represent non-members, and they can avoid the conflict by relinquishing exclusive bargaining status for all of a particular company’s employees. By choosing to maintain exclusice representation they are voluntarily agreeing to represent nonmembers.
Comment by White Denim Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:11 pm
In re: fair share payments. Some employees (IDA warehouse examiners RC-29 contract) actually made a habit of requesting refunds and got them….. and still enjoyed union raises and representation.
Comment by flea Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:16 pm
If the ACA standard is used then there will be more lawsuits. Count on it. This will be vigorously pursued by those hired before April 1, 1986 and are not Medicare eligible.
The ACA standard would be something pulled out of the blue with no legal basis. Of course, that does not mean that Rauner and GA might try that scenario and see how it flies in the courts.
A more reasonable standard, and I believe one that would be hard to deny, is that the retirees would get the same plan as the current employees. That has more precedent than the ACA type tactic.
This does not mean that deductibles and co-pays would not go up. They will.
Also, the state could go after dependents. After all, they are not state employees or retirees. They have no legal right to any medical coverage. Again, as a guess, such dependents might be covered but have to pay full costs.
All of this is conjecture because this is the State of Illinois where if you put forward common sense you are probably flying against the wind.
Comment by Federalist Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:28 pm
As a follow up, since the courts have ruled that the health insurance to retirees can not be diminished, it will be very hard to make the case for reduced benefits.
That might be the trick tried but it is most dubious, and as I said before, we will be headed back to the courts.
Naturally, if co-pays and deductibles are raised in line with inflation, perhaps even CPI medical costs, then retirees would have little to complain about.
Comment by Federalist Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:32 pm
Anyone else see the slides Rauner sent the legislature today? His obsession with gov employee salaries is almost comedic.
Comment by Politix Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:43 pm
White Denim, I don’t know what you’re referring to.
From the ILRA:
(c) A labor organization designated by the Board as the representative of the majority of public employees in an appropriate unit… is the exclusive representative for the employees of such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, …
(d) Labor organizations recognized by a public employer as the exclusive representative or so designated in accordance with the provisions of this Act are responsible for representing the interests of all public employees in the unit.
Exclusive Representation benefits the employee and the union, because among other things, the more people that bargain collectively the more power they both have. It benefits the Employer as well because the Employer isn’t stuck bargaining 10 (or 50, or 100) different agreements woth 10 different unions. It increases efficiency.
Comment by chi Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:45 pm
I must say I am very encouraged by some of the comments here against right to work, and of course by Rich’s position on this issue and other op-ed articles and editorials. As Borat would have said, “Very nice.”
I agree that if people don’t want to be in a union, they should work at a non-union business. Or better still, they can be super-wealthy private equity people or hedge fund managers.
They can get a union job and convince members to vote out a union instead of getting union benefits and not paying for them. Karen Lewis was a virtual unknown, but with hard, smart work and campaigning, she won the position of CTU president.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 3:54 pm
chi, You don’t know what I’m “referring to,” yet you respond directly to it.
Nothing in the law prevents a union from exclusively representing it’s members. That’s what I’m referring to.
Comment by White Denim Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 4:20 pm
==Nothing in the law prevents a union from exclusively representing it’s members.==
You’re naive if you think that can happen in practice. You may be “exclusively” representing your members but those non-members are going to see the benefits of the fruits of the union’s labor.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 4:55 pm
If I am making $10/hr and joining a union gives me a 25% increase, I’m probably not complaining about the 2% union dues. After all, a 23% increase is still better than what I was making before.
Comment by Man with a plan Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 5:00 pm
===Nothing in the law prevents a union from exclusively representing it’s members.===
In Illinois, that’s correct. In Indiana, not so.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 5:00 pm
Please reread the section of the law I posted- 1. once elected, a union is the exclusive representative. 2. The exclusive representarive must represent everyone in the bargaining unit, member or not.
In other words the law specifically prohibits a union from only representing its members, and requires a union to represent everyone in the bargaining unit. Are you conflating bargaining unit with union?
Comment by chi Monday, Feb 2, 15 @ 6:20 pm
One thing not recognized so far here (much) is that RTW mainly affects Building Trade Unions, not public ones. And dues money/working assessments go to far more than bargaining for wages and benefits when one belongs to one of the trades. Apprentice and Journeyman training are large components of what they do. Generally members do not have to pay out of pocket for their training, excluding books. that can be one heck of an education to provide a good living without college.
Job cost are not cut when RTW is involved, just what the working person is paid to perform their work. The owners simply get more of the pie.
Comment by Flatlander Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 10:02 am