A press release from Governor Bruce Rauner:
Rauner hails US Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME
Decision restores free speech rights of state workers
WASHINGTON (June 27, 2018) — Gov. Bruce Rauner today hailed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME as a major victory for public sector workers’ First Amendment rights to free speech and association and a victory for taxpayers who must bear the high cost of government.
The Governor said that the decision will help combat the conflicts of interest created when government union leaders negotiate with politicians they help elect.
Bruce Rauner
“For decades, Illinois workers have been forced to pay partial union dues against their will,” Rauner said.
“The practice infringed on the constitutional rights of public sector workers who were asked to give up their First Amendment rights as a condition of employment. This decision fairly reinstates those rights.”
In 2015, shortly after taking office, Gov. Rauner issued an Executive Order to protect workers’ freedom of speech and initiated the lawsuit against AFSCME arguing compulsory fees for non-union government workers were unconstitutional.
The suit was later taken up by Illinois child support specialist Mark Janus and the Liberty Justice Center and resulted in today’s SCOTUS decision.
Prior to today’s ruling, paying union fees was compulsory whether a government worker was a union member or not, and whether a worker agreed with the union’s political agenda or not.
The fees average more than 80% of full union dues.
The high court’s decision means state workers can no longer be forced to pay union fees if they choose not to be a member of the union.
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.
“This ruling is pro-worker and pro-taxpayer,” Rauner said. “State employees – union and non-union – do tremendous work for the people of Illinois.
“This ruling is a great victory for our democracy, our public employees, and the taxpayers who count on us to bargain on their behalf.”
The significance of the court’s decision will be felt not just in Illinois, but across America.
It is estimated that there are 5 million public employee union members in 22 states who could be affected by today’s ruling.
“I am proud of what we started three years ago on behalf of state employees and taxpayers,” Rauner concluded.
“We are grateful to Mark Janus and the Liberty Justice Center for joining with me to bring this important issue to its rightful conclusion.”
Rauner wins Marathon!
After taking a cab to the finish line…
Government union workers were just freed by the Supreme Court. They now can pocket on average $900 per year and also do not have to endure any political causes promoted by union bosses that they dont agree with,.
This is all RINO Rauner has to show for his 4 years as WORST governor in America,
but it won’t be enough to win another term.
No pity for him as he did it to himself.
Now get ready for the king of commodes, Jumbo Boy, to take over the destruction of Illinois.
As a non Rauner fan this is actually huuugggee.
It means that less money will be available to Democratic candidates as unions will have to funnel some of that money back into their own coffers to make up for the workers who will free load.
More than half of current union membership is in the public sector.
It changes the playing field in a not insignificant way.
Honest? What about Ives?
“Honest” if you feel this way, why on earth would you think JB is going to win? I’m voting for Rauner. I didn’t like what he did with abortion but he is definitely the lesser of the two evils!
I hope Gasser cuts their dues. Thank you Andrew Gasser for sticking it out.
**I hope Gasser cuts their dues. **
That’s… not how it works.
@Cindy – What about Ives ?
I voted for her as she was clearly the better choice among the two, so what’s your point ?
If it were not for RINO Rauner telling slanderous lies about her I believe she would have won the primary.
@Russelville – I won’t vote for a lying backstabbing bastard who supports taxpayer funded abortion
and who has declared Illinois a sanctuary state, and neither will many thousands of others who
hold Conservative principles.
Remember this: The lesser of two evils is still evil.
An article from the Heritage Foundation titled,
“What Won’t the Government Unions Tell You? Unions 101”, explains the dangers of unions in the public government sector. President Franklin Roosevelt and President George Meany of the AFL-CIO, a union for private sector employees, both strongly felt that government employees should not be allowed to unionize. A very large part of the problem in the State of Illinois has been caused by both greedy government sector unions and politicians who received donations from these unions. The article is at:
https://www.askheritage.org/what-wont-the-government-unions-tell-you-unions-101/
“
Legal Monopoly: Government collective bargaining gives unions a monopoly on the government’s workforce.
The government must employ workers on the terms the union negotiates. It may not hire competing workers.
Private vs. Public-Sector: Unions operate differently in government than in the private sector. Private-sector unions bargain over limited profits. Competition from other businesses moderates wage demands. Governments earn no profits and have no competition. Government unions negotiate for more tax dollars.
Risking Public Services
When government unions strike, they can deprive citizens of essential services—such as education for children—until demands are met.
History of Government Collective Bargaining
Unions Once Rejected: Early labor leaders didn’t believe unions belonged in government. In 1955, George Meany, then-president of the AFL-CIO, said: “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” In 1959 the AFL-CIO Executive Council declared, “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen.”
FDR
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) gave unions extensive powers to bargain collectively in the private sector but excluded them from government. FDR believed collective bargaining had no place in public service and that a government strike was “unthinkable and intolerable.”
A Change of Heart
Union membership peaked in the private sector in the 1950s. Unions came to see government employees as valuable new dues-paying members. Some states, like VA and NC, still do not negotiate public spending with government unions. 52% of union members in the U.S. now work for a government.
Public-Sector Union Workers Outnumber Private-Sector Union Workers
The Consequences of Government Collective Bargaining
Leverage over Government: Granting unions a monopoly over work done in government gives unions enormous leverage over budgets and taxes. Unions use this power to raise taxes and get more of the budget spent on them.
Inflated Government Pay
Government unions win above-market compensation for their members. The average government employee enjoys better health benefits, better pensions, better job security, and an earlier retirement than the average private-sector worker, although cash wages are typically not inflated at the state or local level.
Forced Union Dues
In the 28 non-right-to-work states, unions negotiate provisions that force government employees to pay union dues or get fired. This brings government unions billions of dollars.
Politicized Civil Service. Government unions have the power to elect the management they negotiate with, so they spend heavily to elect politicians who promise them concessions. Government unions were the top political spenders, outside the two major parties, in the 2010 election cycle.
Rauner has not been a very good governor. However, his opponent is a Democrat and given the previous record of Democrats in Springfield over the last four decades in fiscally destroying the State of Illinois, it is a no-brainer to reject Pritzker and vote for Rauner. Rauner is the lesser of two evils. Too bad voters in Illinois did not select Jeanne Ives in the Republican primary.
In addition, given the dangerous tactics of Democrat politicians and their followers calling for harassment of government employees serving in the Trump Administration, calling for the abolishment of ICE, promoting open borders, defending vicious gang members who rape and kill, refusing to reform immigration laws, etc, etc, a good rule of thumb is to never vote for any Democrat candidate anywhere, anytime in the U.S. n
Let’s hope the dems absolute derangement is their undoing. I’m voting Rauner. For years I voted libertarian essentially throwing my vote away. It’s too important this year. Those not leaving or at least caring about what’s left of IL need to come out and vote republican. We need to be as motivated as the deranged. I would love to live long enough to see a republican governor with a republican house and senate could change. If anything
I’m still never voting for the sanctuary feeb!
Let Fatty JB run the Illinois Titanic aground.
Ok, I will be the first to send Sympathy to our Special Interest Angel, his Ticker must be
in a State of Shock. Not even a meow to remind us of his presence. Let Freedom Ring!.
It doesn’t change my vote for the Conservative Party candidate instead of that lying SOB Rauner.
Don’t forget unions will coerce people in many ways. That could be teachers refusing to acknowledge the employee who opts out, not being considered for promotions if you opt out, etc. Plus, they’re going to do some YUGE fundraising off of this. I can picture it now, “Give us money so we can fight back against the fascist Trump administration and his fascist Supreme Court.” Many gullible people will buy into this pea-brain rhetoric.
Vote for Rauner: Never!
He’s just like the closet case Marky mark Kirk.
I would never vote for him even if that meant the horrid Duckworthless
Irony: Republicans generally oppose entitlements and handouts.
Janus demanded, and won, exactly that.
So handouts for the poor are bad, but it’s ok to get everything for nothing if you’re part of the working class?
Nothing about this case represented conservative values.
It was simply a rich man throwing a temper tantrum because he didn’t get his way.
As a staunch conservative, I’m embarrassed that this case ever went to court.
What a waste of time and resources.
BTW, fair share members of my Union have since joined, becoming full dues paying members.
They’re not hypocrites – they don’t expect everything for nothing.
To what union do you belong?