Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Is Rauner betting on “Little Trump”?
Next Post: What to expect today
Posted in:
* Press release…
Two Illinois government employees have filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to continue their case challenging the constitutionality of government union officials forced-dues privileges. The workers, all employed by the State of Illinois are currently required to pay union dues or fees to a union as a condition of their employment.
A District Judge recently dismissed the case, Janus v. AFSCME, and the two employees, who are receiving free legal assistance from staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation and the Illinois Policy Institute’s Liberty Justice Center, have now formally filed their appeal of that dismissal.
National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix issued the following statement regarding the latest development in the case:
“No citizen should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to work for their own government. This is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the violation is especially egregious for public servants who are currently required to pay dues to a private organization just to work for their own government. We are hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will soon outlaw this unjust practice for every public employee across the country.”
You gotta wonder if the Illinois Policy Institute would support a bill allowing all customers to eat at restaurants without paying a dime.
…Adding… OK, so, I misread an e-mail with the above press release attached. The case was appealed a few months ago and oral arguments are tomorrow. Sorry for any confusion.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:20 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Is Rauner betting on “Little Trump”?
Next Post: What to expect today
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===You gotta wonder if the Illinois Policy Institute would support a bill allowing all customers to eat at restaurants without paying a dime.===
That’s different…because Madigan!
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:29 am
The beginning of the end for public unions. By the time this reaches the USSC, the Court will be solidly conservative. Your last hope died with November’s election.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:30 am
You’re not comparing apples to apples. Citizens have a Constitutional right to work for their government. They don’t have a Constitutional right to eat in a restaurant.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:33 am
And how many restaurants that only kept their surliest waitstaff and most incompetent cooks, would have any customers? I see your silly analogy and raise.
Comment by weltschmerz Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:38 am
The truth is that RTW is actually beginning to have the opposite effect in a few RTW states. Union membership is riding in Colorado and Michigan. I think just like Rauner United labor you are going to see a lot more of this. It’s an article of faith I hold close.
I welcome RTW as a cleansing change. I want to stand with only those who want to stand with me. If I’m doing my job right, and meeting member needs hopes and resources then they will naturally want to stay Union. The rebuild and power is from the ground up. Union Marines are what we need to be about. I also like Union Gurkhas.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:41 am
Publicly regulated utilities spend money on lobbying, yet I’m not able to opt for “fair share” with AMEREN or Commonwealth Edison. Private property ownership is a rather basic right, yet nearly all new developments require dues paid to homeowners associations (HOAs). Many HOAs send a portion of their dues to CAI, a lobbying organization, and there’s no “fair share” opt out for the portion of dues used for lobbying. On those issues, right wing “advocacy” groups are nowhere to be found, but when it comes to unions, “fair share” doesn’t go far enough. Anyone who advocates that unions shouldn’t even be allowed to recover their costs doesn’t want unions to survive. Yet we wonder why the share of wealth is far more concentrated in this country than it is anywhere else in the industrialized world.
Comment by AC Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:42 am
==You gotta wonder if the Illinois Policy Institute would support a bill allowing all customers to eat at restaurants without paying a dime.==
Except in that situation the customers are choosing to exchange money for food. It’s voluntary.
They are FORCED to accept the union’s “bargaining services”, whether they want them or not, as a condition of employment. That’s the whole “sole bargaining unit” bit.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:44 am
===It’s voluntary. ===
Nobody is forced to work for the state.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:46 am
Strikes me as a contradiction that the same group that claims our state should be fiscally responsible is the same group that is paying the freight for those who want to freeload off of others.
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:46 am
…And there are tons of other rules and regs regarding state employment. Should we get rid of all those too because somebody might be upset?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:47 am
==Nobody is forced to work for the state.==
Same can be said to AFSCME workers complaining about their pay bring frozen or reduced in a budget crisis.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:49 am
=Nobody is forced to work for the state.=
That’s such a weak argument we hear here all the time. No one is forced to eat either.
The reality is people need to work and eat. No one should be forced to pay to an almost 100% political organization in order to keep their job.
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:49 am
The falsehood of “freedom” that is being free from joining a Union is comical, given the whole idea that people change jobs every day, never worrying they CAN’T leave one job for another.
“No, you must stay at this job”
Jobs have criteria. You don’t like the criteria, you have freedom to move on to other opportunities.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:50 am
===The reality is people need to work===
Agreed. But there is no absolute right to work anywhere on your own terms. It’s a free country. Get another job.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:51 am
Should all businesses be forced to pay dues to the GOP friendly Chamber of Commerce?
All guns owners required to give money to the Republican backing NRA?
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:51 am
“You’re not comparing apples to apples. Citizens have a Constitutional right to work for their government. They don’t have a Constitutional right to eat in a restaurant.”
What constitution are you smokin’ The better question is does a worker have a right to mooch the various services. benefits and protections that are in place because of labor agreement for a job they voluntarily sought and accepted.
If that is unacceptable shuffle on down to Sam’s.
Wonder if IPI will allow us to hang out in that nice office BigBrain bought for them?
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:52 am
==Nobody is forced to work for the state.==
Well employers don’t force employees to pay dues either. Unions do that. There’s a third party here creating conditions on employment when employment should be a contract only between an employer and an employee. They come to mutually agreeable terms, the employee works for them.
A more apt restaurant analogy than your original would be if paying the shoe-shiner in the corner was a condition of eating at Bob’s Steak House.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:52 am
===employment should be a contract only between an employer and an employee===
There’s also collective bargaining. Which you want to destroy.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:54 am
=It’s a free country.=
If that were true you think one could work a government job without paying tribute to the political party that represents the government’s interests.
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:54 am
you would think*
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:54 am
Fine. Get rid of fair share. You win. But then you don’t get the benefits either. Problem solved.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:58 am
==There’s also collective bargaining. Which you want to destroy.==
Wrong, I just think collective bargaining should be voluntary. If 80 out of 100 employees want to negotiate standard terms, let them. If they other 20 don’t want to be bound by those 80, they should have the option not to be.
“Free riders” are only a problem because of “sole bargaining units.”
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:58 am
==Fine. Get rid of fair share. You win. But then you don’t get the benefits either. Problem solved.==
Totally agree with this.
Non-union employees shouldn’t be eligible for grievance representation, step-pay increases, bumping rights, or whatever else is part of the contract.
Let it be up to the employee. If they see the union services as worth the cost, they’ll gladly pay dues. That’s why you see union membership going UP in some RTW states.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:00 am
Rich makes a good point. It’s not like the State keeps fair share dues a secret to potential employees. You know what you signed up for when you accepted the State position so stop expecting special treatment. Either don’t accept an AFSCME-covered position or work towards a promotion into a merit comp. position if you don’t like fair share.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:00 am
I don’t have an issue with the fair share concept, but AFSCME’s fair share is about 98% of full share dues. Hence many choose to pay the full share under the belief they will get better representation if they have an employment issue. AFSSME members didn’t get much bang for their buck in the last election or the most recent contract negotiations.
Comment by LTSW Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:01 am
(Face Palm)
===employment should be a contract only between an employer and an employee===
Then this…
===I just think collective bargaining should be voluntary.===
Maybe you need to sit out a few plays, figure out why people are on your lawn, why you’re angry a clouds…
… it appears you are lacking a clear understanding of your own opinions.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:01 am
=== I just think collective bargaining should be voluntary===
LOL
Then it ain’t collective.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:06 am
These workers who filed the lawsuit obviously don’t like Unions and like the Governor, wishes they would go away. That’s their right. It would be a messy situation for their employer though, the state, if these folks wanted the right to opt out of the Union in every sense, which would result in them negotiating individually with their employer for their benefits such as salary, insurance, etc. There’s the rub, these folks want the same benefits as their coworkers but they don’t want to pay a dime to the organization that negotiates on their behalf. To me that fits the description of a deadbeat.
Comment by The Dude Abides Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:06 am
Friedrich vs California will be revisited in late summer/early fall by the SCOTUS. Will this decision put the post to bed?
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:16 am
Political Animal, it sounds like your issue is with the Taft-Hartley act, passed by conservatives over a Presidential veto that required unions who were elected by a majority of their workers to be the exclusive representative to represent all of the workers, even those who choose not to be members of the union.
I think if federal law didn’t require unions to represent workers who weren’t members, we could have an honest discussion about this. But forcing unions to do the work without being able to seek compensation from the people receiving their services is a politically motivated illegal taking, plain and simple.
Comment by Juice Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:23 am
I agree, the end of the union is in sight.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:30 am
While nobody is forced to work for state government, they do have a Constitutional right to. Requiring someone to pay a fee to a union in order to exercise this Constitutional right is wrong and the purpose of this lawsuit.
Comment by Not It Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:36 am
Relax HB it’s not quite over yet.
Comment by Steward As Well.... Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:37 am
===in order to exercise this Constitutional right===
Where is that Constitutional right enumerated?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:38 am
I no longe have kids in public school yet I pay real estate taxes to support that. How unfair let me opt out
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:40 am
@Blue Dog I expect Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed by Summer. I can’t say with 100% certainty but I am expecting that he will provide that 5th vote against the Union.
Comment by The Dude Abides Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:42 am
Thanks, Juice. Someone needs to work on repealing Taft-Hartley, or at least that part of it.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 11:42 am
==If they other 20 don’t want to be bound by those 80, they should have the option not to be.= Reality check. I hope those 20 have their checks already made out to their local politicians, or they will be free-riders, free of employment. Those are the 2 options of employment at the State of IL. Get rid of the COLLECTIVE bargaining, and all you have left is 1 option, donate. NOT the solution. It’s funny how many republican Public Service Adminstrators ran to the union when Blago got elected isn’t it? It’s like the LRB was Best Buy and it was black Friday…all of the scratching and clawing.
Comment by notbuyingit Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:02 pm
“These workers who filed the lawsuit obviously don’t like Unions”
The poor dears. Crying all the way to the bank with their union scale paychecks.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:02 pm
Trygg does not even pay dues to the union now. He pays to the charity of his choice.
Comment by Young dinosaur Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:03 pm
Juice at 11:23 nailed it. Until federal labor laws are changed so labor unions are no longer forced to represent people not paying dues these RTW people are no different than anybody else sponging off others.
Comment by Past the Rule of 85 Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:07 pm
all unions that i have been in (3) have a dues objector clause
you pay lesser amount , after filing paper with the local…
Comment by jon r Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:10 pm
Juice, federal does not require that unions represent anyone other than their own members. They choose to do so of their own voilition. If they want to represent their members and their members only, all they have to do is relinquish their exclusive bargaining representative status.
Comment by Jack Kemp Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:10 pm
“While nobody is forced to work for state government, they do have a Constitutional right to.”
Really?!?! So when I was laid off for a year and applied to the State for entry level jobs for which I was over qualified for and didn’t get, I should have sued because my constitutional right to work for the State was violated? That is a new one on me.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:19 pm
- Robert the 1st - Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 10:54 am:
Your agreement is very weak because the unions can not force any union member to vote a certain way. To prove my point, look which political party Sangamon County voter supports.
Comment by Mama Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:25 pm
Jack Kemp, the law doesn’t require an employer to negotiate with a union that does not have exclusive representative status, so that would be a pretty strong reason to maintain it.
Comment by Juice Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:39 pm
The NRA and the C of C can’t force their members to vote a certain way either, but we know where the majority of their money goes.
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 12:42 pm
Robert:
You’re not forced to be a member of the NRA. You’re not forced to be a member of the Chamber of Commerce. And, you’re not forced to take a job that requires union membership. I have no idea what is so difficult to understand about the concept.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 1:52 pm
There is nothing contested in the hearing tomorrow. BOTH sides — yes the 2 employees- ask the court of appeals to affirm the dismissal of the suit. It is just a procedural step to get to the Supreme Court. So the real argument will come when they seek permission to appeal there. The Supreme Court is the only ballgame that counts now.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:00 pm
HB673 is a good middle of the road solution.
Comment by Together Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:04 pm
You’re not forced to start a business or own a gun.
But if you do you need to pay fair-share to these private organizations who work for your benefit.
Same argument the union uses. Ridiculous huh?
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:22 pm
The only argument that is ridiculous is yours. NOBODY is forced to take a union job. Period. End of story. You’re arguments are laughable.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:34 pm
Never have understood why if being a member of a union is such a good thing that joining one should be made compulsory.
Comment by CapnCrunch Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:45 pm
Juice and Jack Kemp, that exchange really got to the root of the problem. What a dilemma.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:45 pm
If you are in a UNION-COVERED position, then you should pay union dues or fair share. If you don’t want to pay union dues, then get a NON-UNION-COVERED position. There are quite a few in the state, since many NON-UNION-COVERED positions (merit-comp) have been vacated recently by people either retiring or finding jobs that don’t freeze their wages for ten years! If you don’t like paying union dues or fair share, and therefore, don’t like the benefits that the union gets for you, take a job that that is not covered by a union and the benefits that come with that (currently: no pay raises, and just a few years ago, mandatory furlough, no pay for overtime, along with the ever-delightful anxiety of knowing you could be fired at any time for any reason). I was merit comp for nine years, and it’s no fun! We need to protect unions in this country, since they are under attack nationwide.
Comment by Ma'at's Feather Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:48 pm
Juice @ 11:23…..Bingo!
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 2:55 pm
==The beginning of the end for public unions. By the time this reaches the USSC, the Court will be solidly conservative. Your last hope died with November’s election.==
Not if they do the right thing, and say that, “If you choose not to join the union, you don’t get the protection of the union contract.” See how many of those freedom-lovers will choose not to join the union when the contract says that no one outside the union can be paid as much as, or promoted ahead of, any union member in the same job, and non-union employees have to be laid off first.
Comment by Whatever Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 3:10 pm
=Not if they do the right thing, and say that, “If you choose not to join the union, you don’t get the protection of the union contract.”=
Employers would entice employees to quit the union by negotiating tough with the union and more generous with individuals. The union would be paid according to the lowest common denominator.
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 3:15 pm
The biggest difficulty for public sector unions is there is no counter balance in negotiating a contract. In the commercial sector, if a union pushes too hard, it can bankrupt a company. In the public sector, there’s not the same counterbalance. In fact, with public sector unions they try to vote out the politician that doesn’t give them what they want. As a result, for the politicos, negotiating with the unions is a “lose-lose” proposition.
Comment by Downstate Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 4:10 pm
Nice gaslighting Robert
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 4:33 pm
==Employers would entice employees to quit the union by negotiating tough with the union and more generous with individuals. The union would be paid according to the lowest common denominator.==
How is this good for most workers? Makes no sense.
Comment by Countersz Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 4:39 pm
Nice term Honeybear. I had to look it up!
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 4:42 pm
Robert- confession. I just learned the term two days ago. It is a good one.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 4:47 pm
The better (though longer) analogy is a vendor like Pepsi having a contract with a college to sell Pepsi on the campus. Then (thanks to the right to free ride) offer the students, faculty and staff the choice between paying a lower or a higher price for a can of Pepsi from the same machine. Eventually, Pepsi will go broke as more customers choose the lower free-riding price, which of course is the goal. Unionized public sector jobs are the last bastion of middle class stability for the bottom 90% of the education attainment scale.
Comment by SN1789 Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 5:11 pm
Most class A truck drivers make more a year than most state employees. What do you consider their education attainment scale?
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 5:16 pm
==Employers would entice employees to quit the union by negotiating tough with the union and more generous with individuals. The union would be paid according to the lowest common denominator.==
If the employers could do that, they would already be paying the union according to the lowest common denominator. The unions exist and get the employees to sign up because they get the employees a better deal than they would get bargaining on their own.
Comment by Whatever Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 5:21 pm
I don’t think that model would be sustained. It would be a “bait and switch” tactic. Not saying I agree with it but it seems like the obvious move for management to get ride of the union.
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 5:25 pm
I guess I’m saying I agree RTW weakens unions and of course that’s the purpose of the laws.
Comment by Robert the 1st Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 5:29 pm
“This is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution”
It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Fair share fees pay for nuts-and-bolts services unions provide, such as bargaining, contracts and all their benefits, grievances, etc. This is no different for the private sector than for the public sector. Having a double standard is discrimination. It’s treating public workers as being “less than” private workers.
There are multiple opportunities for government workers to express their First Amendment rights when it comes to public unionization:
1) Be like Boeing workers in South Carolina and don’t vote for a union to begin with
2) Vote to de-certify the union
3) Change the political culture of the union
Also, as Scalia implied, government workers have free speech limitations at work. Managers can refuse to grant workers’ demands in the workplace and stop the workers from continuing to make demands or requests. Workers don’t have unlimited free speech at work.
This balances out with workers who choose to pay union dues. They have First Amendment rights also.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 6:48 pm
The law should be changed so that unions aren’t FORCED to represent employees who don’t want to be represented. Let them fend for their own wages. Retirement vacation holidays job security etc etc. if they don’t want to pay. Fine. Don’t pay but they shouldn’t get the benefits
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 28, 17 @ 9:51 pm
Anonymous 9:51 that is not correct. We are forced by law to represent all employees as the sole bargaining unit in collective bargaining.
BY LAW!!!!
Taft Hartley I believe
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Mar 1, 17 @ 7:10 am
Honeybear:
He said the law should be changed. He didn’t argue that is the way it is now.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 1, 17 @ 7:40 am
My response should have been. Individuals in a bargaining unit can’t be on their own because it would legally collapse collective bargaining
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Mar 1, 17 @ 8:43 am
==And, you’re not forced to take a job that requires union membership.==
So the person is not forced to take the union job, but the job is forced to join the union.
It’s fun to hear management-speak is the defense of worker rights.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Mar 1, 17 @ 9:06 am
==The law should be changed so that unions aren’t FORCED to represent employees who don’t want to be represented. Let them fend for their own wages.==
Would you mind if STEM and Special Ed teachers formed their own union to demand a bigger slice of the contract pie because their services are in high demand? Because they can’t do that today.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Mar 1, 17 @ 9:09 am