Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x2 - Rauner responds * What happens next?

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Sun-Times yesterday…

Rauner told the Sun-Times, “If we win the [Janus] case, we will notify the state employees of their rights, the outcome of the case. We will inform them of their ability to choose whether to pay the dues or not, and direct them to a website or other information where they can implement their choice.”

Government unions have been bracing for a defeat and expect groups, bankrolled by mega donor anti-union conservatives, running campaigns to persuade government workers to opt-out of unions.

Rauner said the state will not mount a campaign; he expects outside groups will, telling the Sun-Times, “I believe that folks outside of the government both in Illinois and around the country will be working to advocate for an opt out campaign, I believe.

“And I believe that there will be forces including the union and other forces that will be pushing government employees to stay in the union or join the union.”

* Illinois Policy Institute…

In order to assert their First Amendment rights affirmed by the court’s decision, government employees who don’t want to be union members or to pay fees to unions may need to affirmatively opt out of their unions and out of fee deduction arrangements. Generally, that includes 1) written notice to the union opting out of membership, and 2) written notice to the government employer that the worker no longer authorizes dues or fees to be taken from his or her paycheck.

These public employees can do this with no effect on their compensation or other benefits – such as overtime or seniority – provided in their collective bargaining agreements.

Workers who have already opted out of their unions – commonly referred to as fair share payers – may not immediately see a change in their paychecks. To best ensure dues or fees are no longer docked, fair share payers should also give written notice to their government employers.

For more information on how to opt out of a government union, visit leavemyunion.com.

* AFSCME Council 31 sent this out yesterday to local governments with bargaining units…

AFSCME wants to ensure that all public entities that our union has a collective bargaining relationship with are fully aware of the steps that will need to be taken immediately to comply with a Supreme Court decision that declares the fair share fees currently paid by non-members pursuant to State law to be unconstitutional.

The decision will be effective the day it is issued. Therefore, if the ruling prohibits the collection of mandatory fair share fees, employers must immediately cease deducting any fair share fees from the paychecks of employees who are not union members, but fee payers.

Please note that any such ruling in Janus v. AFSCME will only impact the deduction of fair share fees and will not impact the collection of union dues from union members. All public employers can and must continue to deduct union dues from all employees who are union members.

If there is a payroll in progress which includes fair share fee deductions that cannot be changed prior to disbursement, the public entity and AFSCME will need to work together regarding resolution to the collection, as there are several options available and both employers and unions are responsible for compliance with the decision.

AFSCME is prepared to assist employers as needed to make certain all aspects of the Janus v. AFSCME decision are properly implemented in a timely manner. We will work together with you to ensure compliance with any directives of the U.S. Supreme Court and to limit the legal exposures of our respective entities.

In order to facilitate this process, we would appreciate it if you would provide us with an up-to-date list of any employees in AFSCME bargaining units for whom you are currently deducting fair share fees. […]

We ask that the employer refrain from communicating with employees about any Supreme Court ruling in this case. As soon as the Supreme Court rules, AFSCME will be prepared to communicate with all represented employees about the decision. Going forward, we will be prepared to address questions employees may have about the Court’s decision, and request that you refer any such questions to the Union.

We would also note that after the decision is issued, AFSCME and other unions representing your employees will be contacting you to meet to address the impact of the decision.

* From Comptroller Susana Mendoza…

I am profoundly disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision. Union representation is a path to the middle class and ensures fair treatment for workers in Illinois and across the country. It’s not surprising, but it is shameful that Governor Rauner would cheer this attack on working people’s power to organize and advocate for themselves and their communities. His war on organized labor is a war on minorities and women who make up the bulk of union membership.

Though I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, I will abide by the courts’ order. Once the lower courts give direction, my office will review the ruling and consult with state agencies to implement it.

*** UPDATE 1 *** Part of Gov. Rauner’s press release…

Rauner said that the State of Illinois will stop withholding ‘fair share’ fees from non-union member paychecks. He also said that Illinois state workers will be notified of the Janus ruling today and be given an opportunity to modify their union status. The average state employee union member in Illinois pays more than $900 a year in fees.

*** UPDATE 2 *** Illinois Economic Policy Institute…

1. The primary response to Janus by labor unions will be to engage and educate rank-and-file members. Instead of functioning in the background and providing reactive representation for workers in times of need, public sector unions can become more proactive. Many unions will increase their resources devoted to organizing. More unions may include rank-and-file members in contract negotiations, day-to-day administration, and political actions and decisions in efforts to increase worker activism. Moreover, unions may also provide classes to members on U.S. labor history or educate their members on the wage and fringe benefits of being union members. In addition, some unions may provide a tiered benefits package, with members-only benefits– such as discounts at local stores or on premiums for insurance policies– that are not provided to nonmembers. These and similar responses would increase the chances of a high-participation, high-membership public sector union in the wake of the Janus decision that permits free riding in the public sector.

2. In addition to engaging and educating rank-and-file members, labor unions are likely to bring new legal cases in the wake of Janus. For example, with the Supreme Court ruling that collective bargaining in the public sector is inherently political speech protected by the First Amendment, then state and local units of government that forbid collective bargaining infringe on the free speech rights and the freedom of association rights of union members. This could implicate laws such as 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, which may then be deemed unconstitutional. A second response may be to bring lawsuits against state and local governments which invest pension funds– which are contractually owed to workers– in corporations that contribute to political activities with which public sector workers disagree. Similarly, taxpayers may now be granted First Amendment rights to demand that their taxpayer dollars are not used for lobbying or political advocacy, such as by local governments to hire lobbyists to petition for policies with which taxpayers disagree.

3. The labor movement may also choose to replicate the success of the recent teachers’ strikes in “right-to-work” states like West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, and North Carolina. In February and March of 2018, public school teachers and other school employees in the state’s 55 counties went on strike, refusing to return to work until lawmakers provided a 5 percent raise. This concerted action occurred despite the fact that teachers’ strikes are illegal in West Virginia. Lawmakers approved a 5 percent raise following a two-week demonstration. Then, thousands of Oklahoma teachers walked out, protesting a decade of low and stagnant pay and demanding higher salaries as well as better funding for their schools. The teachers won a $6,000 bump in pay. Then, teachers in Arizona earned a 10 to 20 percent wage increase and additional funding for support staff following a week-long walkout. While these short-lived movements are less effective at securing gains for workers than labor organizations, some public sector workers may have no other recourse than to organize mass demonstrations after Janus.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:20 am

Comments

The non members continue to get the benefits of representation though, yes? Whether it be at contract time or grievances. Forget that. Thats theft.

Comment by low level Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:30 am
I am a fair share employee. I am not a union member because the union generally supports candidates I oppose. However, I have always recognized the benefits I derive from being in a position subject to collective bargaining. I have always wondered if any portion of my fair share payment is used for political purposes but have assumed it is minimal. I now have to determine whether the union has provided me benefits that outweigh my objection to supporting the political candidates the union endorses. I have to admit the union has had a difficult time with the current governor. While we have not received any additional benefits, the union has done a good job of fighting for its members and keeping what we have. It is more likely than not I will join the union. I suggest all fair share employees think this through very carefully. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.

Comment by SW Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:32 am
Hasn’t the Raunner Administration disciplined Union Stewart’s for contacting members on state time regarding signing up for the Union?

Comment by Claud Peppers Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:34 am
When they took psa’s out of the union they informed me me that i no longer had to pay dues. I said I still would. Im not a freeloader. Representation costs money. Why stiff them just because you can? They perform a service, they should be psud is how i viewed it. Pretty simple.

Comment by Team Warwick Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:36 am
^ exactly what SW said. Many times I really cant stand my union nor many of its leaders.

That said, I’ve been very happy to have them to represent me at contract time or the one time I had a grievance w an idiot and disruptive manager.

Comment by low level Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:36 am
==Forget that. Thats theft.==

I wouldn’t get too bent out of shape yet. There is already a lawsuit being filed to ascertain whether or not free-ridership is legal, and that’ll have to work its way through the court system. I don’t know many state workers other than my wife and her coworkers, but from what I understand full share membership has jumped up by quite a bit in the last couple of years. Like SW, most will have to decide for themselves if contributing is right for them until the courts decide on the free-riders issue. My guess is that most will see what afscme has done to stop Rauner from doubling their health insurance costs and decide its worth it.

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:41 am
Unions vs. Bruce Rauner, the Koch brothers, IPI and others. That’s the choice.

For state workers, union dues should come out to less than $1,000 per year, and members get lots of benefits, job-related and through consumer discounts and free education (for example).

Rauner’s contract terms would cost state workers over $3,000 a year—as well as the potential to lose everything won by unions.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:44 am
SW- very well said. I invite you to join me in union and solidarity to protect what we have.
Look, I believe that if they get enough of us they will petition the ILRB to decertify the union.
That means
No contact
No grievances
They choose pay
They choose benefits
They could literally say
Your job makes 29,000 dollars a year
And you pay for all your healthcare
There would be nothing to stop them
Tell me you don’t think this is what Rauner
Has been after all along
Totally kill our union.
Join today SW
Join my line defending our coworkers

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:49 am
Claud peppers, not that I know. They have been disciplined for signing folks up for People our PAC

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:50 am
==Union representation is a path to the middle class ==

Suzanna, you can make a far better case that stating this. For far more people than not, this is simply not true.

Comment by A guy Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:51 am
==For far more people than not, this is simply not true.==

It certainly can’t hurt. If the Governor had his way public employees would make less money and pay more for things like their insurance. He’d drive their “class” status down.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 10:57 am
==The average state employee union member in Illinois pays more than $900 a year in fees.==

They pay $75 a month for better wages and benefits? My god.

Comment by So_Ill Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:05 am
Love the fact that the unions don’t want the employers to communicate with the employees. Of course they want to be the sole source of info.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:11 am
=== I have always wondered if any portion of my fair share payment is used for political purposes but have assumed it is minimal.===

SW, not a single penny of your fair share fees - or of full member dues - goes toward political activity. Political activity is paid for by voluntary contributions from members over and above their dues, and goes to AFSCME’s lobbying arm, AFSCME People.

Federal law prohibits using dues or fair share fees for political activity.

Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:13 am
A Guy, for everyone in my office except a few of us who have higher pay spouses, it is totally true
Wages are the lifeblood of a local economy
Not low pay jobs
Only good paying jobs
Benefit an economy
Low paying jobs only benefit the
Owner investor class
Unions fight for and secure good wages and jobs

Fight for workers
Not for rich owners

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:18 am
===Love the fact that the unions don’t want the employers to communicate with the employees.===

Yeah, those emails from ‘JT’ were chock full of accurate info. for employees. They weren’t misleading in the least. /s

Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:29 am
Since the Supremes ruled that Union Dues are political, does this mean they are no longer able to be deducted from income taxes?

Comment by Question Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:31 am
If any politician could claim an “accomplishment” with this win, it would be Mitch McConnell, who held up a Supreme Court nomination for over a year, until Republicans could nominate Gorsuch.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:57 am
=I am not a union member because the union generally supports candidates I oppose.=

Why do you oppose candidates if they support you as a worker?
Another anti-worker worker?

Comment by Fantasy Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 12:13 pm
HB - AFSCME needs to get in touch with the Vegas hospitality unions to learn how to operate in a hostile RTW environment. They claim over 90% representation.

Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 12:18 pm
I think Janus helps McCann, which hurts Rauner. Conservative and moderate labor folks who don’t trust JB can now mobilize around a RINO who supports unions.

Comment by Dr. M Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 12:18 pm
I have a bad feeling this is going to be the next step. Does the unions have to protect and collective bargin for non union employees. I know from what I heard in the short term yes they have to but long term my gut is saying there will be two separate contracts, grievance rights etc and representation.

Comment by What about bob Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 12:29 pm
==A Guy, for everyone in my office except a few of us who have higher pay spouses, it is totally true==

HB, I know it’s true for some people. It’s not true for many. That being said, I always wish you and your mission well.

Comment by A guy Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 12:37 pm
the doomsdayers here base their predictions on the assumption that workers are too stupid to figure out that if they go fair share in order to free ride the benefits, that very soon there won’t be much in the way of benefits to enjoy.

That’s sort of insulting to workers.

Comment by A State Employee Guy Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 12:43 pm
This really shouldn’t be rocket science.

It was a simple little card about the size of a post card I signed to allow union dues to come out of my pay through payroll… it should take no more than a simple little card to cease having fees taken out now if one so chooses.

As an aside, for what its worth, my union dues were worth very dime. My choice of PEOPLE on top of my regular dues was also something I never regretted chipping in, and it was totally my choice.

Comment by Cindy Lou Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 12:53 pm
I believe Nick names is mistaken. Fair share excludes union expenditures related to election or support of candidates. But other part of required union dues can be spent on elections and support of candidates. if non of the union dues were spent on elections or in support of candidates, there would be no need for fair share payments. Fair share represents the amount attributable to collective bargaining activities. See Janus, slip op. at 3.

Comment by SW Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 1:08 pm
A state employee guy, it is a very real threat for total benefit loss.
Especially with smaller bargaining units like municipal and counties or individual facilities.
50% plus 1 and I believe they can petition for decertification.
Workers could literally see wages and benefits slashed to levels that make people leave.
That’s huge

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 1:54 pm
Wow……okay
I didn’t expect this today.
5 membership cards just showed up on my desk.
I hit the head and when I got back
There they were……

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 1:59 pm
Honeybear, I assume that means they’re leaving the union?

Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:40 pm
Perrid… “membership cards” .

Membership as in belonging. Joining. Becoming a member.

Comment by Cindy Lou Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:49 pm
-Perrid, in spite of ourselves (I am a proud union member), some individuals will choose to opt out of fair share and some may drop the union altogether. Big mistake IMHO. Wait til the offer is take it or leave it. Well on our way to becoming Wisconsin, except we have Speaker Madigan and a Democrat majority to stop RTW

Comment by Honeybadger Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:45 pm
Cindy Lou, I wasn’t sure if it was people turning in existing cards (like “Hey, I don’t need this anymore”) or if it was turning in paperwork to join. I agree the language makes more sense this way, I just didn’t know. Thanks for the info.

Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:56 pm
Honeybear take the rhetoric and know some folks are happy that all this is now more about choice. If the union is so great. Why did you have to force people? Are you concerned there’s no value? Remember the recession and folks lost jobs and wages? Thankful that the constitution was upheld. Read your history on why we fought for Independence.

Comment by Benfolds5 Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 6:58 pm
Benfolds5, bite me. You have no understanding of the issue.

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:14 pm