Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker: ‘Here in Illinois, we have a low tolerance for bulls–t’
Next Post: Delivery Helps Chicago Restaurants Grow On Uber Eats
Posted in:
* Illinois Policy Institute…
On Aug. 4, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law House Bill 1120, which requires union neutrality clauses in all charter contract renewals or proposals. These clauses mean charter school operators will be required to support a union’s attempt to organize its staff, making it easier for CTU or other unions in Illinois to unionize charter schools.
*facepalm*
Union neutrality doesn’t force the charter schools to support union organizing. From the new law…
“Union neutrality clause” means a provision whereby a charter school agrees: (1) to be neutral regarding the unionization of any of its employees, such that the charter school will not at any time express a position on the matter of whether its employees will be unionized and such that the charter school will not threaten, intimidate, discriminate against, retaliate against, or take any adverse action against any employees based on their decision to support or oppose union representation; (2) to provide any bona fide labor organization access at reasonable times to areas in which the charter school’s employees work for the purpose of meeting with employees to discuss their right to representation, employment rights under the law, and terms and conditions of employment; and (3) that union recognition shall be through a majority card check verified by a neutral third-party arbitrator mutually selected by the charter school and the bona fide labor organization through alternate striking from a panel of arbitrators provided by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Does a union neutrality requirement make it easier for the unions? Heck yes, it does. It prevents employers from actively undermining their organizing efforts. Do employers dislike these requirements? Heck, yes, they do, and they likely have good reasons. But it does not require the employers to support the activity. They just have to stay out of the decision. Also, keep in mind that these are taxpayer-financed public schools.
Anyway, your thoughts on this law?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 10:54 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pritzker: ‘Here in Illinois, we have a low tolerance for bulls–t’
Next Post: Delivery Helps Chicago Restaurants Grow On Uber Eats
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The law is fine. It is how it should be handled. Our Teacher’s Union actually makes my job easier.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:04 am
The IPI is never Unclear on the Concept. Dishonesty is their only play. If they tell the truth, they would lose every time.
Comment by West Sider Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:10 am
IPI’s claims are a stretch - but there is no denying that law is chilling the free speech of admin/leaders of charter schools. Additionally, the unions will have the ability to intimidate workers as the secret ballot election option is gone and is replaced by card check.
“charter school will not at any time express a position on the matter of whether its employees will be unionized”
“union recognition shall be through a majority card check”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:24 am
If politicians behaved the way that anti-union employers do during NLRB campaigns, our jails would be filled with (more of) them. It’s disgusting that bosses are, under weak federal labor law, allowed to threaten workers with their livelihoods. It’s about damn time IL took steps to strengthen labor law, particularly as it relates to entities that accept public funding.
Comment by Now I’m down in it. Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:26 am
Like most legislation passed by the Il GA
Bought and paid for
Comment by Seriously Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:35 am
Charter schools in Illinois were set up to provide more flexibility in academics and hiring. Illinois is a union state. Charter schools might not survive in a union state. The taxpayers have every right to decide how they want their dollars spent. If they don’t want charter schools without unions: the educational choice people will have to face reality and move towards supporting private education.
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:37 am
=Bought and paid for=
By who? The “neutrals”? Lol.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:38 am
===Bought and paid for===
“We need suppression of workers organizing”
The anti-union thinking is so angry… that even allowing workers to “think” about organizing is dangerous.
If it was bought and paid for, in this instance, which member (of members) were anti-union but now magically flipped for this bill
Take your time, don’t hurt yourself thinking
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:39 am
Seems pretty reasonable to me, which would explain why IPI decided to make it sound unreasonable.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:40 am
When the lense you are looking through includes visceral hatred for unions then you have reactions like this. Truth does not matter.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:42 am
Glad the law passed. Give those teachers an opportunity to be represented by leaders of their own choosing. As it is today, the turnover among teachers in non-unionized charters is a detriment to building stable and experienced school leaders. Salary and working conditions are poor enough that charter teachers get out as soon as they can, to traditional CPS or suburbsn schools, where scheduling, expectations and responsibilities, salaries and benefits are laid out in black and white. This contributes to these schools being durable, permanent institutions of learning. Makes a difference to have staff and personnel there for decades; they build institutional and community knowledge, relationships.
Many of the charters - especially the big high school chain - has a revolving door of inexperienced teachers, of whom only 75% are required to be licensed.
Comment by Ashland Adam Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:44 am
Dues money well invested.
Comment by Franklin Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:49 am
JB and the Dems have now passed three bills that limit free speech; abortion, firearms, and now one on charter schools. The first two have already been challenged in court.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 11:59 am
Excellent law, plain and simple. Workers should always have a right to organize their majority voice in negotiating working conditions.
Then again, I grew up in the South where management viewed itself as landed aristocracy, and workers often falsely believed the insufficient crumbs they occasionally received were some sort of benevolent gift from management, like manna from the gods.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 12:12 pm
Not opposing something is a form of tacit support so not in favor. If unionizing is so beneficial then they would be successful regardless of opposition by the school district. There are already plenty of protections in place in both federal and state law for unions. This one is unnecessary and overly restrictive.
Comment by Captain Obvious Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 12:34 pm
To the IPI, anything short of kicking unions in the teeth is supporting unions.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 12:45 pm
It’s interesting that fraud and deception are so important to conservatives that they have become a key component of the brand.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 1:12 pm
Here in the big city, we love any new law that helps the CTU. Because they just don’t get enough love.
Comment by allknowingmasterofraccoondom Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 1:25 pm
===Because they just don’t get enough love.===
Winners. Make. Policy.
Fixed it for you.
And that policy?
===It prevents employers from actively undermining their organizing efforts. Do employers dislike these requirements? Heck, yes, they do, and they likely have good reasons. But it does not require the employers to support the activity. They just have to stay out of the decision.===
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 1:34 pm
This isn’t onclear on the concept.
This is obfuscation of the concept.
Comment by Save Ferris Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 1:36 pm
*unclear
Comment by Save Ferris Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 1:36 pm
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 1:34 pm:
And in this case, winners make horrible policy/hiring decisions. Mayor Johnson has been stocking his cabinet with CTU critters. This city was run by CTU in the past, now it actually is run by CTU. He just axed Dr. Allison Awardy (who is a brilliant, and true public servant) because during the pandemic she followed science and sent the kids back to school, against the CTU wishes. So yea, CTU gets lots and lots of love. More than they deserve, arguably.
You really didn’t fix anything, OW. I know what winners do. When the voters in our city get their civic head out of their civic rear ends and vote him out, there will be blood in the political streets of Chicago from all the CTU firings.
And the kids will feel it, as they always do.
This law does nothing. The unions already have the ability to do whatever they want in this state.
Comment by allknowingmasterofraccoondom Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 1:49 pm
= Because they just don’t get enough love.=
Now do farmers…
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 2:10 pm
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 2:10 pm:
Come again, JS? Don’t understand what you mean.
Comment by allknowingmasterofraccoondom Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 2:23 pm
I’m glad it was passed. The workers’ right to organize is just that, a right, and the employer should have no say in the matter, nor should they be allowed to intimidate employees from organizing.
In regards to the Illinois Policy Institute, it doesn’t surprise me they reported the bill incorrectly. They’re not known for honest journalism.
Comment by Fivegreenleaves Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 2:27 pm
=== When the voters in our city get their civic head out of their civic rear ends and vote him out, there will be blood in the political streets of Chicago from all the CTU firings.===
Bitterness is not a factual position, it’s an opinion.
So is this, an opinion.
===horrible policy===
Yeah, well, those ignorant voters you disagree with, they want what Johnson is doing, and if they don’t? Well, they’ll tell him that too.
===… stocking his cabinet with CTU … Awardy …===
Her service was always at the pleasure of the mayor. Any hires are at the discretion of ANY mayor… unless you feel mayors need to hire whom you approve.
Winners pick personnel… personnel *IS* policy.
So there’s that too.
In the end? You are telling me you’re bitter that voters don’t see how smart you are “blood in the political streets” which really is melodramatic, something an in-law uncle would say as they acknowledge… winners make policy…
=== This law does nothing. The unions already have the ability to do whatever they want in this state.===
So it was just a bitter rant? Nothing changes?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 2:29 pm
-When the voters in our city get their civic head out of their civic rear ends-
Mayor Johnson won fair and square. A majority of Chicago clearly approved his vision for CPS. The late H.L. Mencken wasn’t all wrong:’Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.’
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 2:56 pm
- Steve - Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 2:56 pm:
Steve, of course he won fair and square. I am not arguing anything like that at all.
And it is a majority of the people who voted in the mayoral election, not the majority of Chicago. You do understand the difference, right?
Comment by allknowingmasterofraccoondom Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 3:29 pm
=== And it is a majority of the people who voted in the mayoral election, not the majority of Chicago. You do understand the difference, right?===
What, the non-voters didn’t want him?
There is a difference, he’s still the mayor. Voting matters, in 3+ years Johnson will face the *voters* again.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 3:35 pm
=== And it is a majority of the people who voted in the mayoral election, not the majority of Chicago. You do understand the difference, right? ===
What exactly are you suggesting the relevant difference is?
Children did not vote. People in jail did not vote. Non-residents in Chicago did not vote, nor did undocumented workers and documented workers. A lot of sick and infirmed did not vote, nor did many people with physical and mental impairments. A lot of able-bodied people did not vote, including register and non-registered people.
So if you would elaborate on what leads you to think those who did vote are significantly different from those who did not, and tell why you think non-voters would have changed the election had they voted, I am actually interested in your theory.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 5:02 pm
===And it is a majority of the people who voted in the mayoral election, not the majority of Chicago. You do understand the difference, right?===
Those who don’t vote by default vote for the winner, whoever that may be.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 16, 23 @ 9:50 pm
Perhaps those more knowledgeable than l might be inclined to educate me; but doesn’t the Federal Labor Relations Act require employers to be neutral about employee union organizing?
Comment by Joe Thursday, Aug 17, 23 @ 12:57 am