Senate The US Politics discussion

Jabbadabbado

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politic...n-strawn-bring-legal-action-forced-union-dues

Isn't this a dumb move? Illinois has always seemed to me to be a deeply Democratic state with regard to the levers of power. Obviously Republicans sometimes occupy the governorship, but in terms of Chicago and the statehouse and who really controls what, is this not a blatant move to please folks like the Koch brothers? More to the point, I don't see the governor having the same base of support as Walker did in Wisconsin.

 

I'm sure his initiative will get a lot of sympathy downstate, but no, I don't think he can succeed on this issue. Illinois won't become another Wisconsin.

 

That makes sense to me. Illinois's electoral votes are already dialed in for the Democratic nominee in 2016-- barring some kind of colossal failure on that person's part, Illinois is going blue again, and the rest of the state's politics would seem to be a likely reflection of that. I suppose that could have been said of Wisconsin as well, since it last went blue in 1984, but the margin hasn't been nearly as big as in Illinois.

In other news, Patrick Leahy is skipping Netanyahu's speech: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/patrick-leahy-skip-netanyahu-speech-115058.html

I wouldn't be surprised to see a real exodus (yes) from the speech on the Democratic side at this point, as lesser Democratic senator have all the cover they need.

 

Ugh. I did it again and found myself in a Facebook argument about politics. Basically, me claiming that the pledge of allegiance in schools can appear reminiscent of a totalitarian state and that most democracies don't require such a daily oath out of school children. You can imagine the legions of opposition that sparked, all accented by the ubiquitous "I'm an American citizen and I LOVE this country!"

 

Except you guys are looking in the wrong direction. It's no secret that Rauner looked to Indiana, not Wisconsin for this. Rauner used Mitch Daniels as his framework for this, and Daniels' action goes back to 2005, a couple of years before Walker and Wis. One of Rauner's campaign platforms was to promote more cooperation between IL and IN, because IN has been poaching companies from IL specifically because of IL union costs. Rauner's action creates zones where IN and IL match up. It's not a new thing based on the Koch Bros or even Walker and what he recently did in Wis.

IL recently had a court case which was decided by the US Supreme Court as well, while Quinn was still Governor. The SC basically said that forcing home health care workers (that group was the subject of the suit) to pay union fees violated the First Amendment. The SC did stop short of ruling on whether all public-sector workers can be compelled to pay the dues, but Rauner also used the SC decision in his executive order. It's hard to argue with that.

KW, it should also be pointed out that since 1970, IL has had 30 years of republican governors, and 16 years of democratic governors. Position-wise, almost 2 to 1 in favor of GOP executives. Typically, the state legislature represents Chicago and democrats, and the Governorship represents the rest of the state down in Springfield. You're correct with the legislature, but if you had to typify the governorship, it would be republican. Blagovich being (D) was actually the anomaly when it comes to the governor position. (Quinn was just an extension of Blago, being his LtGov, and of course, wasn't re-elected)

 

I agree that pledging allegiance to a state (especially children being compelled to by an authority figure)-- or anything, really-- is morally repugnant and I haven't done it the few times I've encountered the situation as an adult. I laughed hysterically when Boyhood revealed to me that Texans also pledge allegiance to Texas at school. God, that's so pathetic.

 

I actually just learned about that recently. I'm fairly sick of the notion that someone who questions such things is being hateful towards America and should leave the country.

 

It's a blue state-- also please note what I said about the levers of power. Unless the governor's powers are dictatorial, he can't do what he wants without the legislature, which I believe is very Democratic.

 

Stearns County is grossly Republican, though I hope that all changes.

 

Pledging allegiance to a flag is no less ridiculous if you do it for a state or for a federal union.

 

What about a credit union?

 

Um, Ok? Who doesn't know that IL is a blue state? This is what you said:

Isn't this a dumb move? Illinois has always seemed to me to be a deeply Democratic state with regard to the levers of power. Obviously Republicans sometimes occupy the governorship, but in terms of Chicago and the statehouse and who really controls what, is this not a blatant move to please folks like the Koch brothers? More to the point, I don't see the governor having the same base of support as Walker did in Wisconsin.

Except you're viewing the situation 1)as an outsider, and 2)obviously not Rauner's constituency. At the state level, most of IL's executives have been republican. Because Rauner ran, and won, on this exact issue. Does that make it a "dumb move?"

The point that I was answering is that it has nothing to do with the Koch brothers, or what Walker did in Wisconsin. While he campaigned, Rauner stated that he was a huge fan of Mitch Daniels in Indiana. Since IN is a right to work state, this would create economic zones that share similar features. And Rauner said that one of his goals was to increase ties between IN and IL. Daniels' plan goes back to 2005. Certainly, the recent Supreme Court case helped Rauner's executive order because he incorporated that exact case. IL has had several high profile companies leave the state because of Cook County-driven union costs. McComick place, Chicago's premiere convention center also had to reorganize its financial structure because, it too, lost multiple convention accounts because its union costs were double and triple what were found in other areas.

Based on what you posted, you seem to believe that this was a flash in the pan move by Rauner. It's not. It's based on his looking toward IN, not Wisconsin. Walker certainly helps Rauner's case, but Rauner himself looked to Mitch Daniels, who installed these reforms a decade prior to now. It could be said that perhaps IL is the last bastion of 1950's union mentality. Detroit was another zone, and Detroit had to declare bankruptcy. IL isn't too far off. States have to remain competitive and develop technical edges. The days of 5 Teamsters standing around to do a job that 2 workers could really do are long over. Blagovich and Quinn were still beholden to the unions, or these reforms would have been started back in 2005 like in Indiana.

 

Uh, I don't disagree. I meant state as in sovereign entity, such as the U.S. or the Netherlands. No one ever tried to compel me to pledge allegiance to California, and I find pledging allegiance to Texas hilarious because it's part of that special Texan delusion of independence.

 

It's the insistence on a non-existent separateness that makes it so hugely pathetic. The US pledge already encompasses Texas, whereas the state--from a legal, literal standpoint--is inseparable from the broader country. So what are they even saying?

In any case, when I was a boy, I was taught to refrain from these things, because oath-taking is unworthy and this place was undeserving were it not.

 

it will be interesting to find out whether the current Supreme Court has the balls to kill off the state public employee unions, but maybe so. I should definitely add the caveat that Rauner will only succeed in court at the highest appellate levels, and that state employee union dues will not die a quiet death.

 

I pledge allegiance to Crom and the old gods.

 

But this is what is going to be interesting. At this stage, Rauner's executive order just gives members of public unions the choice to join the union or not. Prior, even if you weren't a member of the union, the union took mandatory "fair value" dues from your paycheck. The employee didn't have a choice. That's what the union is arguing for, that they continue to take the mandatory union dues out, and I don't think the unions are going to get their way. Sure, they won't go quietly, but I think the result is stacked against them. The unions can cry and scream, but I think it's going to come down to the SC case that was just ruled on. If you want to join a union. Fine. But if you don't, then the union can't force you to pay dues. I don't know how many state workers would choose to be in unions if they had a choice, but the union should accept this option.

Maybe Rauner's next step is to remove collective bargaining from public positions, but that's not what this executive order covers.

 

We're agreed. Having unions not get their way on this issue will kill them off. All employees get the advantage of union collective bargaining, but anyone who so chooses can opt out of paying for it. good deal until the union collapses.

 

This is where you're lucky that your broadleft party is not controlled by trade unions. >20% of the adult workforce is unionsed, and most of that 20% is public servants, yet they can write policy for our whole country.

 

So Jeb Bush releases hundreds and hundreds of emails from when he was governor in an effort to be open with the American people. But, in the process of doing it, forgot to redact the names, addresses and even social security numbers of the people he was corresponding with.

 

Well, in the US, if anything, the left sort of is. It's not as broad as the example you used for Australia because labor union membership has been declining across the country. But on the state micro-level, left politicians in IL are very much beholden to labor unions.

As an example, during testimony for the McComick Place hearing I mentioned above, the union representative testified that the cost markup for a Chicago trade union member was 120% (!!) It was pointed out that even with collective bargaining, the average trade union markup in other areas was 30%. The Chicago Teamsters couldn't account for the 90% difference. But what was so totally mind blowing was that instead of reducing the markup so the convention center could become competitive, the union representative suggested that the state put up a subsidy so the union workers still got their pay differential, but the cost wasn't passed on to the customers, just the tax payers. That mindset is so representative of Chicago politics.

To be fair, one of the 5 unions did agree to reduced labor rates- I think it was 5%, IIRC... And it should be also pointed out that the top wage scale for laborers is a salary of $105,600 a year. Instead of a 5% cut, the labor unions could take a 30% pay cut and still make $74,000 a year. I would love to make $74,000 a year to set up chairs, tables, and stages every day. That's waaaaayyyyyyy beyond the original premise of "protecting worker's rights." It's no wonder companies are looking outside of Illinois to move to, but the general assembly is so scared of the unions they won't do anything about it.

As far as collective bargaining, that's also where the unions have it both ways. Because of political contributions, for example, Chicago raised its minimum wage to $13 per hour in tiered steps. There's nothing wrong with that per se, as long as it exists across the board so you don't have pockets of non-competiveness in isolation, which is what happened. But in a giant middle finger to those getting the wage, the organized labor unions actually put forth the idea that since the minimum wage increased, contractually, unionized workers automatically have to make a percent more than that. So, in essence, the gains of the minimum wage increase are lost, or at least the $13 basic wage is actually a realistic increase to 19 or 20, but only for union members. Even without the forced fair value dues, I think the labor organizations would be fine.