Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Background is here if you need it. Have you figured out how you’re voting on the proposed constitutional amendment? Explain.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:41 pm

Comments

No I have not. Finding true, impartial assessments has been hard. I may just skip it.

Comment by Lurker Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:48 pm
I have not decided but I have a question. I don’t know if I’m explaining this right but under the proposed amendment, can the chiefs of staff for all state reps and senators form a union? Can all those political jobs in the SOS office form a union? Is it written in a way that people that can say they all have similar jobs feel they need to unionize because their positions are at risk due to non-job related issues (elections) so once they form a union they can’t be let go?

Comment by BigLou Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:56 pm
Yes. Voted for it.

Comment by Benjamin Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:56 pm
Voting yes, need to IPI/Billionaire proof worker rights in this state

Comment by JMJ Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 2:59 pm
I voted for it because I want higher property taxes. /s

I truly believe that the ability for workers to bargain collectively is a basic right and needs to be spelled out.

Comment by Curious citizen Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:00 pm
Early voted and followed the editorial boards of the Daily Herald, Chicago Tribune, and The Wall Street Journal in voting NO.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:05 pm
Not sure on this one. I will need to read the text. But in general I’m in support of the right of workers to organize.

Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:07 pm
I’m voting yes.
Workers rights are basic human rights.

Comment by Chicago 20 Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:08 pm
Voted yes, because anything that makes Billionaires pay more is good in my book.

Comment by AnonymousFool Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:13 pm
I am going to vote “no”.

I am not anti-union or worker, but I am management and from my perspective there are significant worker protections in Illinois. Some of the most extensive in the country.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:18 pm
Voting Yes. A basic statement to support unions gets me every time.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:23 pm
Voted “Yes” The Rauner years were enough to tell me that the Billionaires light touch should be rejected for ever

Comment by ANNON'IN Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:23 pm
Voted yes. This is an easy one.

Comment by Rachel Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:32 pm
Yes.

While the rights might be legislative currently, an amendment prevents those rights from being taken away legislatively.

In our new world of using the courts as a weapon of the minority, it is more important than ever to not rely on legislation exclusively for what we have decided should be our rights.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:36 pm
I am a dues paying union member who has already voted yes on the amendment.

Comment by Benniefly2 Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:39 pm
Voted yes, only thing on the ballot that required some deliberation (followed ABA recommendations on judges). Catanzara alone was enough to make me question my vote.

Comment by SIUEalum Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:46 pm
I already voted. NO.. I think it’s overkill

Comment by NotRich Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:47 pm
I am voting “Yes,” because of the following language in the Amendment:

No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.

I can imagine a time in the future when such language might be proposed, and want any such efforts to be required to go beyond executive orders, or partisan efforts by politicians in the legislature.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:48 pm
Voted early. Voted against it. Think the government unions already have enough power. Under the current environment, it’s already extremely hard to push back against the government employee unions.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 3:58 pm
I will vote “Yes”

Comment by very old soil Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:09 pm
Even if I hadn’t decided to vote Yes right away, the fact the Trib, WSJ and Herald are against it would have cinched it for me. Also voting Yes on the Cook County Forest Preserve rate increase.

Comment by West Side the Best Side Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:12 pm
Voting yes. Majorities don’t last forever and I’d rather CfG-proof our labor rights.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:13 pm
The amendment would also reverse the decision against AFSCME making it illegal to force/require people working in union positions to become members of the union…right? If so, I’m a yes. If you don’t want to be in a union, let someone else have the job.

Comment by Politix Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:25 pm
Leaning yes, but still haven’t fully commitment. I don’t think either side has made a compelling argument.

Comment by twowaystreet Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:26 pm
From the wording:

No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety,…

Someone please tell me what “…other terms and conditions…” means. To me that is an all-encompassing statement that will be enshrined in our state constitution. Way to broad for me personally.

I will be voting no.

Comment by Constitutional Watcher Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:27 pm
Voted yes, this was a no brainer for me.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:34 pm
Voted yes - unions built the middle class in this country, and the deference to business and the billionaires has largely destroyed it. I want it back, and protected.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:37 pm
Voted by mail, and voted YES to put a lid on IPI’s toxic anti-union agenda.

Comment by Justin Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:39 pm
Sheba and I voted early and voted yes.

There are too many threats against unions that it ought to be a constitutional right to bargain.

Strong unions were the backbone of the middle class.

Comment by Huh? Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:49 pm
I voted Yes. If this passes, collective bargaining will continue in the same manner that it is conducted today. This simply prohibits a future Rauner from trying to take away workers rights. It does nothing more. Anyone who has ever negotiated a collective bargaining agreement knows that management always has the upper hand and always will. It’s easy to sit there and say no (management). It is extrememly difficult to convince a group of people to put their paycheck on the line and hit the sidewalk (union). This amendment doesn’t change that dynamic.

Comment by CD Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 4:50 pm
Voted yes. Can’t take rights for granted in this country. Stronger protections we can get for certain things, the better.

Comment by DHS Drone Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:01 pm
As stated on the ballot, the failure to vote this ballot may be the equivalent of a negative vote.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:03 pm
- “ I am not anti-union or worker, but I am management and from my perspective there are significant worker protections in Illinois. Some of the most extensive in the country.”

Wisconsin also had significant worker protections until 2015.
https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/10/workers-lost-ground-on-wages-in-wake-of-wisconsins-anti-labor-laws/#

Comment by Chicago 20 Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:07 pm
No for me. It is completely necessary. The protections for unions in existing law are adequate.

Comment by Captain Obvious Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:15 pm
Will be voting YES to avoid becoming Wisconsin. Memorializing the language and protections is most important to me.

Comment by Now What? Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:19 pm
I will be voting YES on November 8. The more protection for workers from the robber/baron class is a good thing.

Comment by danray Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:20 pm
@Constitutional Watcher: Terms and conditions cover sick pay, vacation time, holidays, maternity/paternity leave, health insurance, etc.

Comment by Politix Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:34 pm
I voted yes. More union members will solve a host of problems.

Comment by Guzzlepot Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:37 pm
I’m voting no. The public sector unions already have enough power. Anyone who says otherwise has clearly not been paying attention.

Comment by Kane County Critic Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:40 pm
Voted Yes…There’s more Bruce Rauner’s out there, and being in the constitution saved pensions from the thieves previously.

Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:46 pm
Power to the people.
Voted yes.

Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:46 pm
Still undecided. Public sector unions are over-represented. Still not clear how it protects private sector organizing, if at all.

Comment by New Day Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:49 pm
=Wisconsin also had significant worker protections until 2015.=

Illinois isn’t Wisconsin.

When we enter any dispute, the position of the ILRB starts in favor of the employee.

I don’t gripe about the state of the labor rules or complain that I have to bargain most everything with our union. Those are the rules and our teachers are good and reasonable people.

But, I do believe that the worker protections in Illinois are more than appropriate.

You don’t have to believe it or agree,but I do know first hand what my experiences have been. I encourage you to vote your conscience.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:50 pm
I voted early and this was an easy “Yes” vote for me.

Comment by Osborne Smith III Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 5:51 pm
The one question I have about this being on the ballot. Who proposed it? Name the person who thought of it, wrote it, promoted it and got it on the ballot. Name the person, not the group.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:01 pm
Constitutional Amendments serve public sector unions only. Voted no.

Comment by Consider This Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:11 pm
I will be voting no. I am all for expanded right for private unions, but I do not believe that public sector workers should be able to organize.

Comment by Moved East Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:23 pm
As a former local president, this is a no-brainer–I voted yes.

Comment by G'Kar Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:25 pm
I voted “yes”—this was an easy vote for me. I come from a blue collar background. I was a member of a private sector union and later on in life was a member of a public sector union.

Comment by Bourbon Street Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:35 pm
Voted no.
We can’t afford to drive more businesses out of Illinois. We already have the highest unemployment rate and -2.5% economic growth in Illinois for the first 3 quarters of 2022

Comment by Jpf Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:50 pm
Voted yes. As what feels like one of the few government workers that doesn’t have a union (and is consequently routinely exploited), this is easy.

Comment by AlfondoGonz Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:53 pm
@politix

-@Constitutional Watcher: Terms and conditions cover sick pay, vacation time, holidays, maternity/paternity leave, health insurance, etc—

They why not list these items instead of how the amendment is worded. And what do you mean by “etc.”? You seem to be supporting the issue I have with the vague wording of the amendment.

Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 6:57 pm
Yes. One constant in my life is ultra-rich (starting with the Coors, et. al., that Reagan talked out of a 3rd party through Griffin / Uihlein) find people like John Tillman who recruits minions to repackage pre-New Deal attempts to destroy unions.

Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 7:10 pm
Leaning no. Current law offers sufficient protections. Open to having my mind changed though.

Comment by Original Rambler Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 8:18 pm
=Constitutional Amendments serve public sector unions only. Voted no.=

This statement is incorrect. While Federal law generally preempts state law with respect to private sector collective bargaining. The NLRA allows state law to prohibit union security agreements. A state passing this prohibition is what we all know as “right-to-work”.

To put it simply, the second sentence of the CA protect private sector unions from future “right to work” laws. If you want to keep Illinois from ever becoming a “right to work” state….vote yes with me.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 8:52 pm
I’ll vote yes tomorrow. Easy call. If IPI is hard against it’s got to be good.

Comment by Yes Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 10:53 pm
Voting yes. We need to ensure that our rights are protected. We might have a democratic majority in the legislature now but it’s not guaranteed and our rights aren’t guaranteed (we saw this with rauner)

Comment by AU Thursday, Oct 27, 22 @ 10:58 pm
I voted yes. I’m a woman. Thought for years my rights were constitutionally protected and would stay that way. *sigh* it only takes one administration…

Comment by Peanut Gallery Friday, Oct 28, 22 @ 8:32 am

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Tax Foundation: Illinois ranks low for tax competitiveness
Next Post: Live coverage

Last 10 posts:

Broad Support For Carbon Capture And Storage Across Illinois, “Vital” For The Environment and Downstate Growth (05-16)
Here we go again (05-16)
Protect Illinois Hospitality - Vote No On House Bill 5345 (05-16)
Rep. Tarver says CPS general counsel needs to be forced out over rape case (Updated) (05-16)
Showcasing The Retailers Who Make Illinois Work (05-16)
It’s just a bill (05-16)
Isabel’s morning briefing (05-16)
Open thread (05-16)
Adopt Legislative Fixes For Prior Authorization Denials Impacting Medicaid MCO Patients (05-16)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition (05-16)