Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan responds
Next Post: Biss super PAC funders revealed
Posted in:
* From the Paul Simon Institute…
Most Illinois voters say they have a favorable overall opinion of labor unions, but their policy preferences are less like those of union leadership, according to the results of the latest poll from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Among the 1,000 Illinois registered voters surveyed, more than half (57 percent) say they have at least a somewhat favorable view of labor unions, more than 20 points ahead of the 36 percent who have an unfavorable view.
However, voters are split on how much influence they would like unions to have – 30 percent support them having more influence, 29 percent think unions should maintain the influence they have, and 36 percent wish they had less influence.
The survey was conducted Sept. 27-Oct 2. It has a margin for error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Wages and benefits for public sector unions have been an issue in Springfield, with Governor Bruce Rauner blaming them in part for the state’s budget deficit. He has also advocated for workers to be able to opt-out of paying unions for the work they do negotiating in the private and public sectors. Unions have said the wages and benefits they negotiate strengthen the state’s middle class. They also say even workers who don’t belong to a union should pay their fair share of the costs the union incurs representing and bargaining for non-members.
Self-described liberals (75 percent), Democrats (73 percent), and members of union households (75 percent) were most likely to have favorable views of unions. Only among conservatives and Republicans (37 percent each group) did fewer than half hold a favorable view.
Historically marginalized groups tend to desire that unions have more influence than they do today. Notably, 49 percent of African Americans want unions to have more influence compared to only 26 percent of whites.
Similarly, 40 percent of people with household incomes below $50,000 would like to see unions have more influence compared to only 24 percent of those with incomes over $100,000.
* But then we get to this…
Asked about their positions on right-to-work or “open shop” laws, respondents favored them by two-to-one, 48 percent to 24 percent. Notably, more than a quarter (28 percent) answered “other/don’t know,” suggesting a significant portion of the electorate is ambivalent or uninformed on the issue.
Most likely to favor right-to-work were conservatives and Republicans (64 percent and 63 percent, respectively). Most likely to oppose it were liberals and Democrats (36 percent and 32 percent), and members of labor union households (38 percent).
However, opinion shifted when interviewers explained “fair share” laws. Respondents were asked to choose between two statements: “When everyone in the workplace shares the gains won by the labor union, all workers should have to contribute to the union’s costs for negotiating those gains” or “No American should be required to pay dues to a private organization like a labor union against their will.”
There were 50 percent who supported the right to work description and 44 percent backing the fair share statement. Only 4 percent said they “don’t know.”The fair-share position was most strongly favored by liberals and Democrats (61 percent and 55 percent), African Americans (52 percent), those in households earning less than $50,000 per year (51 percent), and members of union households (55 percent). Conservatives and Republicans (65 percent and 67 percent) were most likely to favor the right to work position.
“The disconnect between Illinoisans’ favorable view of unions, and preferences for policies the unions dislike is interesting,” said Charlie Leonard, a visiting professor at the Institute and one of the designers of the poll. “I think this has to be in part because declining membership in unions leaves fewer people with the experience of the gains they’ve won for workers. And opposition to union influence has been a drumbeat message from business groups and Chamber of Commerce organizations.”
That’s part of it. But part of it is also the way the questions were asked. “Do you favor or oppose right-to-work or open-shop laws?” may seem straightforward, but do people really know what that means? Perhaps a differently phrased question next time?
* Also, this seems overly broad…
· When everyone in the workplace shares the gains won by the labor union, all workers should have to contribute to the union’s costs for negotiating those gains OR
· No American should be required to pay dues to a private organization like a labor union against their will.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan responds
Next Post: Biss super PAC funders revealed
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The concepts, being pro-labor and pro-RTW, despite efforts of some in both entrenched camps, are not mutually exclusive.
Comment by Deft Wing Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:13 am
While I think they could have spent more time writing better questions, I do think a broad base of the public can think both that unions are useful in some respects, but at the same time believe that no one should be forced to join any organization to get a job.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:16 am
Here’s my suggestion.
Do think that some workers should be allowed to “get a free ride” and not contribute to the union for securing the benefits they receive. OR Should workers (not “no American) not be required to contribute towards the union for the benefits they receive, because they disagree with the unions’ democratically derived political decision.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:22 am
Take a poll asking what right to work means and I bet that many people wont know.
Comment by Mal Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:23 am
I think all business owners should be forced to contribute to their local Chamber of Commerce.
All gun owners should pay “fair share” to the NRA.
Scary idea when it’s going to GOP groups huh?
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:25 am
So many self-proclaimed “conservatives” decry America as a welfare state, yet they overwhelmingly support a law that allows workers to get substantially higher wages and benefits and choose to pay nothing to the people who get it for them. People hate giveaways, except if they are on the receiving end.
Comment by Man with a Plan Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:26 am
Nothing in the law forces a union to represent non-members. They do so voluntarily. If they want to represent their members and their members only, then they should rescind their status as exclusive bargaining representatives.
Comment by Jack Kemp Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:30 am
“All gun owners should pay “fair share” to the NRA.”
No one gets to enjoy the benefits of NRA membership without paying NRA dues.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:31 am
=No one gets to enjoy the benefits of NRA membership without paying NRA dues.=
Nonsense. Every gun owner “benefits” from the legislation they pass or fight.
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:33 am
“Here’s my suggestion.”
Uh, in true polling the idea is to remove any slant or bias from the questions, not add it.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:36 am
==Nothing in the law forces a union to represent non-members. They do so voluntarily. If they want to represent their members and their members only, then they should rescind their status as exclusive bargaining representatives.==
BINGO! The only reason unions offer this “service” is to maintain a monopoly on representation.
The unions wrote the law to have exclusive representation of all workers. No other unions are allowed to negotiate on behalf of people in the bargaining unit. You cannot represent yourself or hire your own agent. Even if the bargaining unit wishes to join another union, it’s a totally arcane process. This is exactly how they wanted it…a veritable monopoly on representation. That exclusivity is worth far more to a union than fair share fees.
I find it a strange argument that it’s only fair a union receives some money for providing legally imposed services to non-members when the unions themselves wrote the law requiring unions to represent those non-members.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:43 am
“Every gun owner ‘benefits’ from the legislation they pass or fight.”
Oh… In the context of a discussion about collective bargaining, you’ve chosen to expand the definition of ‘benefit’ to the point of meaninglessness?
And you didn’t think anybody would notice?
Yeesh.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 10:48 am
Uh, in true polling the idea is to remove any slant or bias from the questions, not add it.
Then how is the actual question not biased with “no American”?
I’m saying put bias on both sides or none at all.
The question as posed was biased.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:00 am
The public has contradictory opinions on a subject. Who’d have thunk it?
Says something about the value of polls, or perhaps the thought process of the public.
Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:04 am
MrJM-
The entire argument for RTW is that unions use their resources for political activity that fair-share members might disagree with. I think my example was spot-on.
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:06 am
When it counted more, during Rauner’s nonbinding resolution TA tour, RTW failed in a big way. Yes, the resolution was nonbinding but there was no grassroots support for it.
RTW is the dream of certain super-rich, corporate CEO types and their media mouthpieces. In at least recent history, one political party is solely responsible for advancing their agendas.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:07 am
Honeybear - was the question biased solely based on the”no American” comment?
Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:07 am
=No American should be required to pay dues to a private organization like a labor union against their will.=
Well geez, this makes it sound like labor unions are walking down the street and ordering random people to start paying them dues.
Comment by chi Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:12 am
There has to be an easier way of phrasing the question:
“Should employees who choose not to pay union dues receive union benefits?”
Comment by Raymond Luxury-Yacht Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:12 am
I think this is all pretty simple and Ron Burgundy has the general idea.
The bigger issue is that the public doesn’t realize that non-union employees can’t choose to bargain for themselves in a union shop. I’d bet you would see overwhelming support in a similar poll to allow non-union employees to receive pay/benefits on their own.
Comment by m Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:14 am
The pollsters should ask if they’re aware that every athlete and entertainer they watch is part of a union and their participation (directly or indirectly) helps pay for the product these members provide.
Comment by Jocko Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:15 am
The more interesting questions: What is RTW worth in Illinois? $8 Billion in new state revenue?
Comment by walker Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:25 am
@Robert the 1st- since when is gun ownership a job?
Your argument is a false equivalency.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:29 am
The problem is the term “Right to Work”. Who the hell doesn support a person’s right to work.
If they description was something more appropriately described as anti-union, the results might be something different.
Why do you think proponents termed it “Right to Work”?
Comment by Winnin' Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:33 am
Good point JS. In most cases having a job is more necessary than owning a gun. That makes a strong case for RTW.
My other example, business owners like Rich having to pay fair-share to the C of C is closer to RTW, I suppose.
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:43 am
And I’m not against anyone’s right to join together and bargain as a unit. I fully support your right to do that. But the rhetoric on this issue is just a bit much.
Comment by m Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:49 am
The RTW issue is rather complex and far too many can not even name one of the state reps, Congressman or one of their Senators.
For that reason these types of polls, while interesting, do not really provide much insight.
Comment by Federalist Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 11:55 am
Why can’t we get rid of fair share and let people decide between
A) pay dues and receive benefits
b) don’t pay dues and receive no benefits
What am I missing?
Comment by Anon Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:01 pm
City Zen, you better go back to your history class and start over.all that anybody that wants to represent themselves or bring another union in, has to do is decertify from the current union. As far as being forced to pay dues, you just go fair share, a law passed in 1984 under Jim Thompson.
Comment by RETIRED 126 Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:16 pm
Honestly, totally honestly there are two sides to this.
If management is beneficent, fair, and good then unions seem almost unnecessary right?
But c’mon. In my experience, rarely is management any of the three qualities. Workers get shafted so much and so often that they are numb to it. You need a union to stand up and act jointly in unity. Thus collective bargaining.
But on the other side (I’d like my usual opponents to at least acknowledge my example of being self critical). Unions have been complacent, apathetic, and out of touch with workers current needs and plight. Things have changed a lot since the hayday of labor and in many many ways unions have not kept up. I get it. I actually do struggle every day to try and make those connections to help my coworkers as a union activist. AFSCME knows it and designed a program called AFSCME Strong to engage in the one on one work.
But here’s the upshot, nobody these days want to pay for something you don’t think you need. Nobody wants to pay for health insurance till you need it. Nobody wants to pay property taxes thinking it’s a black hole till your house in on fire and you need the fire department or you’re got robbed and you need the police.
Arrogant individualism is the problem here. “I don’t need the union. I’ve never had a problem. Its always worked out. We’ll never go on strike. It will never happen to me. I’m doing just fine., etc. etc” Until something doesn’t work out or goes wrong. You don’t need something until you need it. That’s when I’m personally glad I’ve at least got the union for now. But I’m lucky, real lucky. I’ve got a job. I’ve got rights and protections. Think of the million plus people who have been effected by Rauners’ destruction of the private social service network. Now no one on this blog feels it. We are privileged here. But over a million people do feel it with the loss of vital help. It very soon is going to be a matter of life and death. The people effected have been isolated and muted. The “business decision” was made against them. It’s too late. Rauner is going after labor because there is technically the ability and structure to resist and advocate on behalf of the whole, the worker, the oppressed. Which we are trying to do with varying degrees of effectiveness.
But the forces of arrogant individualism are legion.
Let’s see what happens when labor is defeated.
Then we’ll know if we really needed it or not.
But at that point there will be no going back.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:17 pm
–”Why do you think proponents termed it “Right to Work”?–
Probably the same reason “fair share” got its name.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:25 pm
Why can’t we get rid of fair share and let people decide between
A) pay dues and receive benefits
b) don’t pay dues and receive no benefits
What am I missing?
Knowledge of any labor law and theory.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:30 pm
–Nothing in the law forces a union to represent non-members.–
False- I believe it’s Taft-Hartley that forces us too. I don’t have time to look it up but I think it’s in Taft-Hartley. It is labor law. We have exclusive representation of certain bargaining units which includes fairshares. It’s everybody within certain job titles. For instance the Teamsters have the majority of IDOT people.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:33 pm
I think this is on the order of “Illinoisans want to cut taxes and spend more on education and social services.”
Oh, and get rid of “waste, fraud and abuse,” too.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:34 pm
–But the rhetoric on this issue is just a bit much.–
It’s my job, how I support my family. Of course my rhetoric is going to be hot.
If I fail to do my part I am complicit with my insurance doubling and losing most of my workplace rights. As it is, if the ILRB accepts the recommendations of the ALJ, they will most likely outsource my job with a year. They already tried to do that under the Quinn administration with the hiring of Maximus! Just think of what Rauner will do!
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:37 pm
If Right To Work was Right to be American…
I don’t agree with my country’s ideals so I feel I should not have to pay taxes. Yet by other people paying those taxes I have roads to drive on, police to protect me, schools etc. That is until others catch on and decide they shouldn’t pay their share either. How long do you really think this “union” of States would last?
Comment by LaSalle Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:40 pm
==all that anybody that wants to represent themselves or bring another union in, has to do is decertify from the current union==
@ RETIRED 126 - You may want to familiarize yourself with the de-certification process, either individual or bargaining unit. It’s extremely difficult and cumbersome. Research Clark County Nevada Teamsters vs NEA to see just how much.
And while that law was signed by Thompson, it was authored by the AFL-CIO and local NEA and AFT affiliates.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:58 pm
I believe what this says of the people is that they agree with the CONCEPT of the workers right to organize, but they area critical of the execution of unions based on Illinois experience. It would be interesting if they asked the Question, “If a worker believes they can negotiate better than the union in their own interests, should they be able to do so without paying the union for services they don’t want?” I’d expect those polled would be very favorable on that question.
Comment by Illinois Bob Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 1:39 pm
>Similarly, 40 percent of people with household incomes below $50,000 would like to see unions have more influence
If I’m labor, this is the number that gives me pause. These would seem to be the people with the most to gain from strong unions.
Comment by Earnest Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 1:42 pm
I believe the Spring 2016 Simon poll showed a majority of support for Right to Work.
Comment by Reme Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 3:03 pm
You obviously didn’t understand that it was a theoretical question about what sounds like a better system than the one we currently have. It would get rid of free riders. That’s what you want, right?
- Honeybear - Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 12:30 pm:
Why can’t we get rid of fair share and let people decide between
A) pay dues and receive benefits
b) don’t pay dues and receive no benefits
What am I missing?
Knowledge of any labor law and theory.
Comment by Anon Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 3:13 pm
Anon, my bad. I apologize. The problem is that people don’t realize all that the union does for them. They would simply choose the cheaper route and take the abuse. There are always folks out there that will undercut you, take less, and work for less. Collective bargaining does depend on the collective part. Regardless my bad if I got snippy. I’m all up in my fee fees as Rich says. lol
Comment by honeybear Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 3:22 pm
@Anon
=Why can’t we get rid of fair share and let people decide between
A) pay dues and receive benefits
b) don’t pay dues and receive no benefits=
You leave out a fairer option that makes far more sense and is less abusive of workers.
You let all workers who choose to do so to negotiate their own benefit contributions from the company, as well as their salary.
For many years I’ve negotiated far better vacation time benefits than the rank and file. The employers preferred given me that to extra salary. You can have a health, 401K plan that applies to all, but the company contributions could be negotiable. I work in a non-union business, and it works pretty well for the benefit of individual employees. we also can pay employees to their value and hire and fire appropriately and fairly. With unions you can’t and the better employees are at ore risk and paid less than fair and have to pay for the privilege. That’s clearly unfair.
Comment by Illinois Bob Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 3:47 pm
Over the years I have known a lot of people with no union experience who believe that ‘right to work’ is either guaranteed employment or (oddly) the employer’s right to fire anyone at will, no questions answered.
Comment by Redbright Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 3:54 pm
Thanks. We’re on the same page here. I just think that if the courts took away the fair share option almost every union member would pay their dues rather than save a few bucks but not get raises, representation in grievances, etc.
Comment by Anon Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 6:23 pm
(This was directed to Honeybear)
- Anon - Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 6:23 pm:
Thanks. We’re on the same page here. I just think that if the courts took away the fair share option almost every union member would pay their dues rather than save a few bucks but not get raises, representation in grievances, etc.
Comment by Anon Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 6:24 pm
“The disconnect between Illinoisans’ favorable view of unions, ……has to be in part because declining membership in unions leaves fewer people with the experience of the gains they’ve won for workers…..”
“The problem is that people don’t realize all that the union does for them.”
So if non members don’t believe in the union and they can’t be persuaded that being a member of a union is such a good thing we’ll just compel them to join.
Comment by CapnCrunch Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 8:34 pm