Illinois governor makes union dues voluntary for some state workers - Yahoo News

 

By Mary Wisniewski

CHICAGO (Reuters) - In a strike against public employee unions, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner on Monday signed an order eliminating union dues for some state employees who don't want to pay to support union activities.

Rauner, a Republican and political neophyte who came into office in January, has been vocal about his problems with public labor unions and their political power. The order, which would eliminate so-called "fair share dues," affects 6,500 state workers who have opted out of unions but still have to pay dues.

“Forced union dues are a critical cog in the corrupt bargain that is crushing taxpayers," Rauner said in a statement. "Government union bargaining and government union political activity are inexorably linked."

The action is likely to be challenged in court. The Rauner administration said dues would be placed in escrow during the legal process.

Rauner has argued that reforms are necessary to heal the state's financial problems. He has also proposed "empowerment zones" - areas where voters could decide if workers must join unions and pay dues.

Illinois has a chronic structural budget deficit, and the lowest credit ratings and the worst-funded pension system among the 50 states.

Rauner said he based his action on a review of the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in Harris v. Quinn, which found that Illinois law violated the First Amendment by forcing home healthcare aides to involuntarily pay union fees.

Roberta Lynch, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, the largest public labor union for state workers, called the move "a blatantly illegal abuse of power."

"Our union and all organized labor will stand together with those who believe in democracy to overturn Bruce Rauner’s illegal action and restore the integrity of the rule of law," Lynch said in a statement.

"It's a frontal assault on unions," said Harley Shaiken, a labor expert and professor at University of California-Berkeley. "He is interpreting the Harris-Quinn opinion, which was narrowly constructed, into a broad mandate."

Steve Brown, spokesman for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Democrat, said Madigan has "urged Rauner to focus on near-term budget concerns."

State Senate President John J. Cullerton, also a Democrat, said his legal staff is reviewing Rauner's order.

Rauner's anti-union rhetoric has been compared with that of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who pushed for legislation that made union fees voluntary for state workers, among other changes.

Illinois governor makes union dues voluntary for some state workers - Yahoo News

Here some criticism of the Harris Vs.Quinn case:

The Flaws of Harris v. Quinn and a Path Forward for Public Employee Unions

Guest Post

by Catherine Fisk, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California Irvine School of Law

As I have argued elsewhere, in striking down an Illinois law authorizing the state to require unionized home care workers to pay their fair share of the cost of union representation, the Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn disregarded its longstanding rule that it does not decide questions of state law and failed to reconcile the result with the First Amendment rights of government workers or the Court’s other cases on when compulsory fees constitute compelled speech.

First, under Illinois law, government-paid and government-regulated home-care health workers are state employees. Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Harris disregarded state law when it invented a vague new category of non-“full-fledged” government employees who have greater First Amendment rights than other workers to refuse to pay the costs of union representation.

Second, if under Garcetti v. Ceballos, and United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, government employees have no First Amendment rights to speak on the job on matters of public concern or to engage in political activity on their own time, why do some government employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay for services that their union is legally required to provide them?

Third, the Court failed to explain why fair share fees differ from compulsory payment of lawyers’ bar dues, which the Court approved in Keller v. California State Bar.  To quote Keller, substituting only “home care workers” for “legal profession,” Illinois has an “interest in regulating [home health-care workers] and improving the quality of [home health-care] services.”

Yet there is a way forward. As I argue with Ben Sachs, where unions are unable to require objecting workers to pay fees – whether it’s in right-to-work states or in work situations that fall under Harris v. Quinn – we should get rid of the rule of exclusive representation. Non-fee payers wouldn’t be subject to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, they wouldn’t have to interact with their employer through a collective agent, and they wouldn’t be required to pay anything to a union they didn’t vote for. Unions, for their part, would be required to represent only those workers who actually want representation.  Another possibility is that governments wishing to bargain with a single representative on behalf of their workers could agree to pay the cost of the representational services on behalf of all workers. No worker would then be compelled to pay anything to a union and the dissenting workers’ First Amendment rights would not be violated.