Well, that’s interesting. Illinois’s newly inaugurated Gov. Bruce Rauner has thrown down the gauntlet:
Moving beyond rhetoric, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner on Monday issued an executive order that aims at absolving state workers who don’t want to join a union from paying fees that support collective bargaining.
The new governor’s decree effectively attempts to impose right-to-work rules on public employees, an idea Rauner and his pro-business allies also are pursuing for private-sector unions.
My first question is whether Gov. Rauner is acting within his powers in doing this? I’d welcome opinions on that.
It seems to me that there are three questions: the governor’s powers under the state constitution, his powers under statute, and the contents of the state’s contracts with its public employees’ unions.
It appears that I’m not the only one raising these questions:
Anticipating a strong pushback from organized labor, Rauner filed a pre-emptive federal lawsuit in Chicago seeking to have his decision declared legal. But the move likely will spark additional court battles as unions quickly decried the effort as an illegal abuse of power. It’s also possible Democratic lawmakers could vote to overturn Rauner’s executive order.
Under state law, employees can decline to join a union but are still on the hook for “fair share†fees related to collective bargaining and contract negotiations. The idea is that if all employees are getting the benefits from a new contract, everyone should contribute to the cost.
Illinois statute prohibits those fees from being used to support political activities, but Rauner contended it’s nearly impossible to draw a distinction because public sector unions directly negotiate with the government.
Indiana’s former Gov. Mitch Daniels led the way on this back in 2005 and it will be interesting to see how this works out. This is totally consistent with the remarks Gov. Rauner made in his State of the State address, namely that if Illinois is to compete with its neighbors conditions here must be brought more into line with those that prevail among our neighbors.
There’s more commentary on this story at memeorandum.
Update
Wisconsin resident Ann Althouse notes the temperate reaction to the governor’s move from the Illinois Democratic leadership:
Explain the calmness: 1. The Democrats have the majority, so they’ll be in control and need to plot a careful response, 2. The Democrats feel vulnerable in the next election cycle, and Rauner is shining a light on what actually is something of a “corrupt bargain… crushing taxpayers,” and an intemperate reaction would make them look guilty, 3. They know the budget needs hard work, and they rather appreciate Rauner’s taking the front line against the unions, 4. All of the above/something else?
I’d pick door #1 except that I’d stop with “The Democrats have the majority”. Democrats have a super-majority in both houses of the Illinois legislature. It’s well within their power to block anything Gov. Rauner does. Why be intemperate? They have nothing to worry about.
My first question is how does Rauner have the authority to bring this lawsuit? The Illinois Constitution vests legal authority with the Attorney General to represent the state. There was a series of Illinois Supreme Court cases on this issue in the 1970s (when, as it was pointed out to me, the Court was packed with former Attorney Generals), and it continues to be a nettlesome issue when the A.G., an elected official with his/her own agenda, and won’t represent State government or its laws.
The complaint is brought by the Governor, represented by someone on Rauner’s staff, in the context of (a) having enacted an executive order to suspend the fair share statute, (b) over which there is a case or controversy over the legality of the executive order, and (c) asking the federal court to declare the fair share statute unconstitutional. It’s possible (probable?) that the Governor does not have standing to bring this lawsuit; only the Attorney General. But if the case is dismissed, the executive order is not touched. Perhaps, the A.G. is being forced to deputize a member of Rauner’s staff as a special attorney general, but perhaps the A.G. would rather challenge the executive order herself in state court.
Correction: the attorney signing the complaint states that he is a Special Assistant Attorney General. I’m not sure how I missed that. Did Lisa Madigan deputize him? In which case, the insiders would have known this was coming for a long time, more like weeks, than days. Does that suggest some tacit support for this? (As in, not necessarily agreeing with the law or policy, but agreeing that the governor’s action isn’t blatantly insane) Or did Rauner make a Constitutional power grab?
Governor visited my kid’s middle school today. He gave about 24 hr notice, when the Principal already had been scheduled to be at the state Beta Convention (*). He gave a speech deploring how Illinois schools are some of the worst in the country and wants to make them some of the best (**). My daughter says that he received questions from three students she’s never seen before, strategically placed throughout the audience.
(*) I guess it’s like Key Club, my daughter is advancing to nationals in two events. I’m going to Nashville!!!
(**) This school has received national recognition, so I’m not sure about the venue choice here. It’s a magnet school, but the teachers are union.
It’s probably not completely unrelated that the state’s contribution to schools’ budgets is either at or near the bottom among the states. That’s particularly important for poor districts.