Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner launches another anti-Madigan TV ad
Next Post: Rauner to receive lifetime achievement award from National Black Chamber of Commerce, gets shout-out in new Chance single
Posted in:
* Jim Dey…
Gov. Bruce Rauner, who initiated the lawsuit, hopes the Janus decision will reduce the enormous influence that public-employee labor unions have on government at all levels in this state.
That’s one of the reasons his administration immediately posted information online instructing employees how they could drop union membership.
So far, however, his administration is being quiet as to what steps employees are taking. AFSCME is similarly circumspect on that question.
Union spokesman Anders Lindall stated that “just a handful” of members have decided to drop out. But he did say “hundreds of former fee-payers” — non-union members required to pay agency fees to the union — “have joined the union as new members.” He said the ratio of those joining to those leaving is “more than 10 to 1.”
* Meanwhile, Governing Magazine looks at some post-Janus actions…
Just over two weeks since the decision, about a third of the affected states – most led by Democrats — have already taken actions meant to make it harder for people to leave unions and harder for anti-union advocates to persuade them to leave. […]
For example, Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo signed two bills in early July to let police unions stop representing non-members in grievance cases. New York tucked a similar rule — for all state employees — into its 2019 budget, which was signed in March.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also signed an executive order — on the day the justices announced their Janus decision — to prevent state agencies from releasing employees’ personal data that could be used by anti-union groups to persuade members to pull out. He said he plans to advance follow-up legislation to expand these new rules to local entities as well. […]
Some states have passed legislation to help unions make their case for membership to new employees. California, Maryland and Washington state now guarantee unions full access to hiring orientation sessions so they can explain the advantages of membership. California and Washington, as well as New Jersey, also prohibit public employers from discouraging membership. In New Jersey, violating this law comes with a financial penalty: Employers have to reimburse unions for any lost dues that result from their actions.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner launches another anti-Madigan TV ad
Next Post: Rauner to receive lifetime achievement award from National Black Chamber of Commerce, gets shout-out in new Chance single
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
AFSCME has the orientation access written into the current Council 31 contract under the Fair Share clause (page 222 of the booklet for non-fair share units). Since all units are non-fair share now, AFSCME should be taking advantage of that clause.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:27 am
Not everyone who was a feepayer hated the union. Some were okay union but didn’t want to join, for various reasons.
The choice now is binary, stand with unions, who are member/worker-driven and most definitely bring results, or the super-rich like Rauner who are trying to cripple and/or kill them.
Illinois state workers stand to lose so much more without a union, with Rauner as governor and with him succeeding in his goals, such as harsh financial cuts, help with college, loss of job security, etc. The cost-benefit analysis so overwhelmingly favors the union, when comparing the cost of dues with the cost of Rauner’s cuts.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:36 am
So public sector union membership is increasing post Janus? AFSCME won? Why all the complaining then post-Janus?
Or is the same scenario as watching the Washington Nationals take an early lead against the Harlem Globetrotters?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:37 am
Ironic that Rauner’s behavior towards employees & AFSCME has served to circumvent his key goal. Almost like refusing to negotiate a Contract encouraged ppl to stay in the union. I’d call it Unforseen Consequences but in honesty it was a pretty obvious outcome.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:40 am
Unions decided to move away from their past militancy to pursue greater institutional protections. In many ways, this strategy worked. Rauner and others like him want to return to 19th century levels of regulation. They may just find they are faced with 19th century style labor militancy, as with recent red state teacher strikes.
Comment by Actual Red Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:43 am
==He said the ratio of those joining to those leaving is “more than 10 to 1.”==
Don’t you need at least 8 to 1 to break even? Hardly a windfall, monetarily-speaking.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:44 am
This is my experience. One person opted out. Three joined full pay and 7 folks are going to the member meeting tonight from here. Previously it was only myself and maybe another going. Janus started the Second Coming of Labor.
Give it a couple months
Management will go after the freeloaders
And they’ll come running back.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:45 am
Mark Janus and Bruce Rauner are a good example of white privilege.
Mark Janus feels he doesn’t need a Union because as a white male he can easily find a job with a decent wage and good benefits. That isn’t always the case for other groups of people from the African American or Latino community. Even among women. History shows that no matter how well qualified these people were white males still received higher pay. So Mark Janus and others like him are ignorant of history or are selfish and just don’t care because his white privilege is better than Union membership.
Comment by Real Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:47 am
It sounds like this could actually backfire on Rauner. I don’t think many of us expected this. I think state workers are waking up to the fact that the Union is their ally and guys like Rauner are not. Maybe those Union dues are a good investment for them.
Comment by The Dude Abides Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:52 am
CZ is looking really hard to find the cloud in all that silver lining. Isn’t it good enough that one of the biggest hammers that the right could use on the left was a dud so far?
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:56 am
“Not everyone who was a feepayer hated the union.” I was among them. I was put off by their pitches to get me to become full member (for example: “just a few dollars a month” isn’t going to win me over, tell me how much it will actually cost) and I’ll agree some unions in some instances should be pared back. I became a full member as soon as Rauner got elected, and I’m glad I did.
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:56 am
No, it’s not a windfall. Likely the union will have to cut political contributions to fence sitters.
In fact you may make politicians more union conscious since they will be competing for a smaller pot of money.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:58 am
I think the real impact will be felt with new hires going forward.
Comment by Phenomynous Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:04 am
This in my opinion underscores the importance and need to keep duty of fair representation and exclusive representation. Being a union leader is fundamentally to serve coworkers. Providing excellent service to coworkers is the foundation for support—to catch more flies with honey, so to speak. Since nonmembers are signing up, it’s imperative for leaders to continue/improve their service.
Being hostile to nonmembers would not only discourage them from joining, but would open the door for losing exclusive representation (which is the trade-off for freeloading). It would open the door for bribery and union-busting on the inside. Rauner types would make separate deals with nonmembers and encourage members to opt out with like offers.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:06 am
- City Zen - Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 10:44 am:
==He said the ratio of those joining to those leaving is “more than 10 to 1.”==
Don’t you need at least 8 to 1 to break even? Hardly a windfall, monetarily-speaking.
Comment by Roadypig Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:08 am
IF membership is increasing that’s fine because it is voluntary, not forced. But lawmakers still trying to rig the system for state unions is bogus. Elected officials represent all residents, not just union members. They should be working to keep state employee costs reasonable and in line with available revenue.
Comment by NeverPoliticallyCorrect Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:09 am
I think this is AFSCME being very careful about how they worded it. “He said the ratio of those joining to those leaving is “more than 10 to 1.”” I believe “those joining” would be the fair share members who had the dues stopped already, while “those leaving ” were full dues members who stopped paying dues.
As an example, if there are 1000 members, and 100 of them were previously fair share. All of these 100 members automatically stopped paying dues after Janus. 20 of those may have signed up to become full dues paying members. And 2 of the previous full dues members may have stopped paying dues. This is a 10-1 ration of “those joining” to “those leaving”, but Afscme is still down 78 dues paying members in this example.
Comment by Smalls Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:12 am
Not sure where the rest of my reply went, but I;ll try again.
If the goal of Janus was to get the unions ability to collect fees, then having a 10-1 ratio of employees agreeing to join as full members means the union is not only keeping the amount that they were receiving as fair share but also getting the remaining amount of full share rates. Janus was Rauner’s dream of eliminating the unions y starving them of money. Instead, if membership has increased they can afford a few drop outs and still be able to function for it’s members. If Rauner had any numbers that showed his side was winning, we would know by now. Plus he doesn’t have a right-wing legislature changing the things that unions can negotiate for its employees, and that’s not likely to happen this fall either.
Comment by Roadypig Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:13 am
@NeverPoliticallyCorrect, membership was never “forced” and the court’s decision did not change that. Try another talking point.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:15 am
==CZ is looking really hard to find the cloud in all that silver lining.==
Is my math wrong? If membership numbers trump revenue, then why not drop dues to $1?
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:24 am
I always thought of the Union as an 800 pound Gorilla.
Now when do you need an 800 pound Gorilla?
When you have to go into a room with another 800 pound Gorilla and having 2 800 pound Gorillas are your best option…
Comment by WhoKnew Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:38 am
NPC- explain to me exactly how lawmakers rig the system for unions? Our contact is negotiated with the Administration not lawmakers. Quinn gave us holy hell in 2011. It’s why many couldn’t bare to vote for him (plus SB1). Quinn and Madigan were absolutely hated by our members and council. But I’d say we paid for the error of not supporting Quinn many times over.
Now you see a United labor
So show me how exactly lawmakers are rigging the system?
It’s a myth
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 11:38 am
Isn’t this simple? When you have a “boss” who tells you he want to cut your wages, cut your benefits, cut your pensions but still have you come to work enthusiastically and do better than your best, would not a normal person feel they need to either leave the job or find someone to protect those wages, benefits? What here do some not understand? Unions were formed to protect workers from hellious bosses who wanted them to work for nothing. It seems that war is hardly over.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 12:05 pm
Rauner? Hurry Up November..
Comment by Shake Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 12:11 pm
Two week ago this place was in full blow catastrophe mode. As expected, the sun still rose and unions still exist.
Comment by California Guy Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 12:18 pm
==But lawmakers still trying to rig the system for state unions is bogus.==
It’s how Governing Magazine decided to interpret the actions of the lawmakers. Not publicizing workers’personal information so they won’t be harassed is a common sense and compassionate thing to do.
Then there is access to orientation sessions so people can make informed decisons. You have a problem with free speech? Mark Janus would be so disappointed in you.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 12:32 pm
== Two week ago this place was in full blow catastrophe mode. As expected, the sun still rose and unions still exist. ==
It’s going to be many years before we know the real impact of the Janus decision. IMO, hanging the Court’s decision on free speech was a real stretch and that will come back to haunt them.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 12:41 pm
Smalls explanation is likely correct, smoke and mirrors and Houdini from afscme
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 12:42 pm
==But lawmakers still trying to rig the system for state unions is bogus.==
It’s how Governing Magazine decided to interpret the actions of the lawmakers.
Not publicizing workers’personal information so they won’t be harassed is a common sense and compassionate thing to do.
Then there is access to orientation sessions so people can make informed decisons. You have a problem with free speech?
Then there are laws saying people can’t get grievance protection for free. But labor unions will still negotiate contracts for the behalf of nonmembers. What’s wrong with people not getting a service they didnt pay for? You think that happens in any other arena of life? Try not paying your electric bill and get back to me.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 12:46 pm
CZ, California guy gets my point. The crowing from the right suggested the second coming of Ayn Rand after the Janus decision, but so far it seems to be a wash. Time will tell, I suppose, but the world did not end yet. Your math was not suspect, but is seemed you were trying pretty hard to see a victory out of not much.
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 12:51 pm
So far, being in a government union is still a pretty decent deal.
I think this is about as far as the “right” can go. There’s already a lot of attention placed on how pension and other benefits have been awarded. The days of sweetening pensions and ignoring revenue are probably over. Pension sweeteners in general are probably over. Add Janus decision on top of this.
I think the future for unions and their employer (State of IL, muni’s) is going to be more moderate. Unions will probably focus more on handling workplace disputes and bargaining. Lobbying lawmakers won’t be as effective with so much attention on pensions and taxes.
Labor vs Management in Illinois has ended in a draw.
Comment by California Guy Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 1:14 pm
Ok, so Rauner and Janus,(aka Koch bros puppets),move to checkmate. Now labor needs to find any wriggling room in the courts decision to manuever out of this hiccup. After Rauner is gone, a new Governor may be agreeable toward conditions other democratic leaning states have done to counter the Janus decision.
Comment by Generic Drone Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 1:14 pm
While wage and benefit increases might stagnate as the state becomes more lean in order to pay off the pensions and other accumulated debt, I can see ways in which a politician might be favored by unions and the rank and file. Those ways might include rebuilding the state workforce, bringing work back in house rather than outsourcing to pinstripe patronage firms, keeping insurance costs steady, and similar things. A little respect for the hard work done by state employees might be helpful as well. Some of these things would cost little or nothing, or actually save money. Thus, union support via political donations might still be sought and deserved, and a use seen for unions by the employees.
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 1:55 pm
Honeybear- I’d find management or workers harass or go after “freeloaders” as you say, you do realize the legal ramifications, right? Your writing those ppl huge checks and risking your job.not the way to go about it.
Comment by Anna Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 2:15 pm
It’s the law of the land now and if you harass or discriminate against a law you are leaving yourself and potentially state/union open to civil lawsuits. Your calls for harassment of the ppl who opted out isn’t a good idea.
Comment by Anna Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 2:35 pm
Predicting the outcome of the Boston Marathon by reviewing the pack at the 100 meter point…
Comment by Stuntman Bob's Brother Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 2:36 pm
Anna, you misunderstood. Honeybear 10:45 am.said management will go after the freeloaders. He isn’t “calling for the harrassment of the people who opted out.” He is making a prediction on what management might do.
Comment by 17% Solution Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 3:16 pm
AFSCME is correct.
Stewards visited state employees who were not full members and most didn’t know they weren’t. So what AFSCME did was clean up what the state’s HR departments were failing to do.
AFSCME won’t be assuming anymore. It will work harder to collect dues.
Finally, no one builds unions faster than a joke like Rauner. His entire term in office has been so bad, state workers want protection from him.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 3:29 pm
Check the numbers in 6 months some will queitly withdraw.
Comment by theCardinal Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 3:53 pm
==Check the numbers in 6 months some will queitly withdraw.==
Why? What’s going to happen in 6 months?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 4:06 pm
I’ve been fair share for 2 years without anyone knowing. The union didn’t go to bat for me when I asked them to do 1 simple thing. That 70 per month is a nice raise.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 4:20 pm
I can tell Tom isn’t an AFSMCE Member because he’s buying the line of Rauner… $70.00 a month? Baa Haa Haa. Try again.
Comment by Get Real Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 4:59 pm
Well 34.50 ish. Yes.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 5:28 pm
Per pay period.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 5:28 pm
Oooh $35 dollars - now you can finally buy Natty Light in the 24 pack.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jul 19, 18 @ 9:35 pm
Give yourself a raise and it could be the last one you ever see.
Comment by Raccoon Mario Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 7:15 am
==I’ve been fair share for 2 years without anyone knowing. The union didn’t go to bat for me when I asked them to do 1 simple thing.==
Yup. The majority of people I meet who are disillusioned with their union say similar things. They think unions are gods riding around in their chariots granting wishes to good girls and boys. And why wouldn’t they think that? The right wing press tells us that every day. They say union members get whatever they want, union members are lazy, they can never be fired, etc. So it’s a big shock to some people when they find out they have to their jobs and do it well, and they can be fired. And their union representatives want good working relationships with the employer, they aren’t going to take a run at the employer for every trivial grievance.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 7:22 am
The monetary cost has always been at the forefront of proper union communication with workers. What will Rauner’s contract terms cost workers and their families? The concept of unions is more abstract unless it’s reduced to costs and benefits.
Rauner’s contract terms are godawful and much more costly than paying union dues. The terrible repercussions of not having a union in the workplace, Rauner’s ultimate goal, are vast and even go into financial help for college, legal and services, consumer discounts, etc.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 8:22 am
The union will vouch for ppl who commit sexual harassment, threaten ppl with violence, and who sleep on job. I’ve seen it all and I am shocked that they will go to bat for these ppl because of seniority.
They deserve too be gutted and they will. Remember, they can quit any time they want now.
Comment by Tom Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 9:20 am
And yet the union that defends violent
people and people who sleep on the job wouldn’t do “1 simple thing” for you. Lol, that “1 simple thing” must have been a real stinker.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:25 pm
Yesterday it’s unions are bad because they won’t help and today they are bad because they help too much. You need to pick a lane, son.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Jul 20, 18 @ 12:32 pm