By: Mark Glennon*
What were they thinking? You truly have to ask that about whoever drafted Amendment 1, which is on the ballot for Illinois voters to approve or reject in November.
Under current Illinois law, public workers have broad rights to unionize and bargain collectively. There are key exceptions, however, that have long been widely accepted by conservatives and liberals alike. In fact, in 2012, those exceptions were expanded with bipartisan support by legislation sponsored by top Democratic legislators and signed by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn.
But Amendment 1, also known as the Workers’ Rights Amendment, would sweep away all those exceptions giving every public worker in Illinois a fundamental constitutional right to unionize and bargain collectively.
The IPRA, the Illinois Public Relations Labor Act, grants “public employees full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing” to collectively bargain for certain matters.
However, the law recognizes that certain exemptions are essential.
For example:
• Most top level supervisory personnel with influence over policy are exempt. A State Journal Register editorial explained the reason for that exemption when it was expanded in 2012. “It goes without saying that labor unions exist as a check on management. But what happens when management is part of the union?” Obviously, unions shouldn’t be on both sides. “A basic understanding of the jobs in question and, especially, of the system by which the state’s constitutional officers work with the legislative branch proves the need for these exemptions,” said the editorial.
• The Illinois Board of Elections and its employees are exempt. That’s because union activity is “inherently political,” as the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed put it 2017, affirming a long-standing principle, and politicized workers at the Board of Elections would be fraught with risks.
• Certain government lawyers are excluded from collective bargaining and union membership rights. Lawyers in office of The Illinois Attorney General, for example, frequently deal with labor and union membership issues and lawsuits. For that and other reasons, the IPRA appropriately limits their unionization rights.
• Units of government handling audits and ethical complaints likewise should not be run or staffed by inherently political union members. Current law therefore has exceptions to collective bargaining rights for Executive Inspectors General, commissioners and employees of the Executive Ethics Commission, the Auditor General’s Inspector General, commissioners and employees of the Legislative Ethics Commission and GOMB — the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget and more.
Into the dumpster those exceptions will go if voters approve Amendment 1. It would constitutionally supersede not just those and other exceptions but all other Illinois laws about public worker unionization and collective bargaining.
Specifically, the amendment would create a new, personal right that the General Assembly and Governor could never change. The amendment says “Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” to protect their “economic interests,” which means most everything. Its full text is below.
It’s critical to note that the amendment is not tied in any way to existing law. The “employees” that it covers, for example, would mean all state employees and its definition under current labor law, which contains the exceptions, would mean nothing.
State employees who negotiate contracts with labor unions would even have the right to be union members. And since they would have a right to negotiate through “representatives of their own choosing,” they could even have the right to be members of the very union they negotiate against.
Even legislators might be interpreted to have the new constitutional right.
What changed since 2012? That’s when a bill (Senate Bill 1556) expanded the exemptions for bargaining rights, primarily respecting supervisory positions, with bipartisan support. It was sponsored by top Democrats — Senate President John Cullerton and House Floor Leader Barbara Flynn Currie. It passed in the Senate unanimously and with bipartisan votes in the House. It had support not just of labor-friendly State Journal-Register, but of the conservative Illinois Policy Instituteas well.
The only organizations who opposed the bill that I can find any record of were public unions, which, of course, strongly support Amendment 1.
Current Senate President Don Harmon was among those who voted for the bill but now backs Amendment 1.
What gives? I have reached out to Harmon’s office for an explanation and will update if he responds.
Harmon was hardly alone. The General Assembly resolution that put the amendment on November’s ballot got significant support from many Republicans, and we are trying to get their response as well. Eleven Republicans in the Senate voted and eight in the House voted in favor, along with every Democrat in both houses. All of them have some explaining to do.
This issue of how Amendment 1 would destroy essential exceptions to public worker unionization has been entirely ignored. It’s just one of many unrecognized consequences of the proposed amendment.
You can’t just throw out hundreds of pages of existing law on public worker bargaining and unionization and replace them with a superseding, two-sentence right. You won’t find any of the consequences mentioned in the state’s official summary of the amendment which has now been published by the Secretary of State with the presumed purpose of helping voters decide.
We will continue to publish all news and commentary about the amendment, pro and con, and hope Illinois voters study up.
*Mark Glennon is founder of Wirepoints.
Earlier related columns from Wirepoints:
- Amendment 1 has two objectives: To give massive new powers to government unions and to stop Illinois’ private sector from going Right to Work – Sp. Presentation
- Wall Street Journal Calls Out The Whopping Lie Behind The Pending Constitutional Amendment Illinois Is Ignoring
- Illinois’ biggest fraud on its voters yet is coming in its official description of proposed constitutional amendment
- Are Workers’ Rights Amendment Supporters Lying In Their Ad, Did They Lie To Legislators Or Lie To The Court?
- Scope Of Pending Illinois Constitutional Amendment Goes Far Beyond Appearances. It’s A Monstrous Giveaway To Public Unions.
- Illinois lawmakers want to cement union powers into the state constitution
Text of Amendment 1:
(a) Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at work. 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 work place safety, including any law or ordinance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements between employers and labor organizations that represent employees requiring membership in an organization as a condition of employment.
(b) The provisions of this Section are controlling over those of Section 6 of Article VII.
Audio and summary 
If this bill passes, say goodbye to local control over all Illinois parks and expect to see open drug and alcohol use, needles, no sanitation and fire hazards, but no ordinary park users.
when are the tax payers going to be considerd, they are footing the bill.Know wonder everyone is leaving the state.”play by the rules” explains the truth about this sham
Anyone who votes for this when it’s on the ballot had better never complain again about pensions and how much it’s costing them as a resident and a homeowner. This will tremendously increase your burden. If you don’t mind don’t do your homework and vote for this financial fantasy ball buster guaranteed to empty your bank account. I hope you don’t have enough cash left to rent a Uhaul and get your ass out of Illinois when it’s all said and done.
Basic question #4. If Amendment 1 is passed, would how what is allowed to be “bargain collectively over” is paid for no longer be limited to state and local laws? What are the terms or condition of payment for all the bargains? Home Rule (per section b) no longer applies. i.e. what is “bargain collectively over” by CTU in Chicago, for example, could be paid for by taxpayers in Rocford as part of terms of bargain agreement. Chicago and other municipalities are already trying to get the state to pick up the tab for their pension disaster.
Yes, they could bargain for essentially anything they want, whether it relates to themselves as workers or not. In other words, they could bargain for any “economic interest” of anybody in the state. That’s express in the “pro” arguments in the state’s official summary of the amendment. It says, “This amendment will protect workers’ and others‘ safety.” It is linked here: https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/con_amend/ca_english.pdf. So, for example, teachers’ unions could demand a tax increase dedicated to pensions, universal basic income or whatever the social justice warriors want.
I was more asking WHO pays for the bargains if the rule book has been thrown away? you could have a bargained deal agreed to in one of the 7,000 units of gov that as part of the bargain would have to be paid by state as a whole or some other unit of gov?
Basic question #3. If Amendment 1 is passed, would what is allowed to be “bargain collectively over” supersede federal laws? i.e. public sect employees would be able to bargain over being exempt from paying taxes, laws or regulations.
No
No offense, NB, but you need to catch on what we’ve been writing, and we have covered that extensively. No, it cannot override federal law, and virtually all of private sector labor law is federal law, which is why they are lying in their ads about nurses and private sector workers. For IL government workers, however, that is regulated by state not federal law. The amendment would supersede all of that covering unionization, exclusive bargaining rights, etc. The two-sentence amendment would have supremacy over all other state law.
Basic question #2. If Amendment 1 is passed, would what is allowed to be “bargain collectively over” supersede state or local laws? i.e. public sect employees would be able to bargain over being exempt from paying taxes, prop taxes, laws or regulations.
No.
Yes, a constitutional provisions trumps all state and local laws. An exemption from taxes, however, would go too far because of “uniformity” and federal equal protection law, but they could bargain for something that accomplished much the same thing in different ways.
One more peskie question (and maybe WP has already addressed before, and yes I apologies I did go and try and read-up on previous excellent WP articles on Amed 1). IF: Amendment 1 is passed, and (per Mark) Amendment 1 as “a constitutional provisions trumps all state and local laws” and therefore all the previous decades of zillions of laws regarding workers rights, pay, pensions, etc are essentially thrown out the window. Including, most importantly for tax payers, change from Tier I to Tier II legislation. THEN: By what actuarial/ accounting standards are any new negotiated benefits calculated on as… Read more »
Could a union renegotiate their pensions and insist they be calculated using Tier I criteria or some other actuarial criteria and tax payers be damned? Pension enhancements can happen at any time today. For example, each COLA enhancement was approved by the Legislature whereas participants were able to upgrade service time before 1998 to be valued at 2.2 points in exchange for a lump sum payment upfront and the school districts picking up a portion of the cost. Sometimes it’s a gift, sometimes it’s this-for-that. That said, a single bargaining unit being able to re-negotiate their pension benefits directly would… Read more »
“For example, each COLA enhancement was approved by the Legislature” There’s your answer. Yes the legislature can enhance pensions at any time. A local district does not have the authority to change the pension code. “Technically, having the school district (or state) pick up the employee portion of the pension contribution could be considered a pension enhancement (paying less for the same benefit).” Just like health insurance or other benefits, this is just non-cash compensation. Technically the employer pays this cost just as they would other benefits. “If a union were trying to get the state to pay their state… Read more »
Thanks for your knowledgeable reply’s. I’m probably incredibly naive and writing in generalizations, impractical or not. I understand pension enhancements can be approved currently at any time under the restriction of current laws through legislative approval, (like Tier I & II bill passed way back when). Your both talking about laws & legislative approval process for collective bargaining that currently exist. But what I’m trying to get at is very simple. What happens when all those laws (and maybe legislative approval process) no longer apply if Amendment 1 is passed? What is the collective bargaining legislative approval process? what are… Read more »
What happens when all those laws (and maybe legislative approval process) no longer apply if Amendment 1 is passed? What law no longer applies? This amendment does not remove laws unless that current law pertains to certain individuals not being able to collectively bargain. Nothing in this amendment touches any pension laws. Nothing in this amendment transitions the pension code to be determined at the local level. Please point to the language in the proposed amendment that provides you with this belief. All of your questions seem to come from this faulty premise that now local school districts can spend state money… Read more »
All the laws are not thrown out. Where do you read that all laws regarding workers rights, pay, pensions are thrown out?
Also, unions don’t negotiate the pension code with local government units. This is done at the state level.
PPF, i thought that was what Marks articale was all about?–from his articale “It would constitutionally supersede not just those and other exceptions but all other Illinois laws about public worker unionization and collective bargaining.”, and from marks reaponce to my question above–“Yes, a constitutional provisions trumps all state and local laws.”? But your saying all pension laws would stay in place, because they’re not part of collective bargaining process?
The way the amendment is worded–“No law shall be passed that interferes with…..”. So, I’m not a lawyer, but when it states “shall be passed” dose that mean only future laws? And Amendment 1 doesn’t supersede present laws?
It supersedes present laws.
That’s gigantic
so then, my bigger general question–state and local units of gov will determine taxes for labor on assets at present or in the future based on what? labor deals that have ZERO restraints on what can be bargained for? How could any government or society function? Is this allowed under federal law?
Mark, Are you making the claim that local unions will be negotiating pensions instead of the state? Sure things negotiated through a CBA will supersede laws but that doesn’t mean everything and anything can be negotiated through a CBA. If you truly believe that then I’m surprised you wouldn’t list it in one of your “Cons” under the amendment 1 section. Nothing in the language of this amendment indicates that as a possibility. Even if you would somehow stretch this far fetched scheme, nothing would prevent the state from forcing any local government or school district to pay for said… Read more »
Yes, mostly agree w ppf. this is to huge. We need some kind of further explanation of how or why a constitutional amendment supsedes current state and local laws
It’s not that I don’t think a CA supersedes. I just don’t believe local unions have the right to negotiate pension benefits with a local government that is paid for by the state. It’s well outside what they are authorized to negotiate.
PPF–do you mean by CBA? Constitutional B????? Amendment?
If what Mark claims is correct then it would seem that this would be A-#1 issue to get out to voters for are side to try and defeat Amend 1
CBA – Collective Bargaining Agreement. CA – Constitutional Amendment.
Will someone please tell me who were the Republicans who supported this atrocity. I am a Republican precinct committeeperson and I will NOT be supporting any of them.
Senate voting record
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/102/senate/10200SC0011_05212021_001000T.pdf
House voting record
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/102/house/10200SC0011_05262021_003000A.pdf
I tried to post the links to the voting record but when a add link to my post I get sent to “awaiting for approval”.
If you google “SJRCA0011 Illinois voting record“, the first option with take you to the voting record of both the House and Senate.
PPF, it’s up now. We are manually checking our spam filter frequently and restoring anything wrongly stopped. For some reason the software doesn’t seem to like you. Maybe the folks who wrote it don’t like public pensions.
Maybe it’s all the down votes I get.
This is not a direct answer to which Republicans supported the amendment, but see the Illinois General Assembly’s report of the Illinois House and Senate voting on SJRCA0011 (which was Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 11 in the 102nd General Assembly). Chicago Tribune also reported on it in the 05/26/21 edition (Illinois legislators approve proposal . . . ), saying that “The proposed constitutional amendment, to be placed on the Nov. 8, 2022, ballot, was approved in the House on an 80-30 vote, with nine Republicans joining Democrats in supporting the change.” The Tribune did not specify the Senate vote… Read more »
11 Senate Republicans voted in favor of placing the amendment on the ballot while 7 voted no. 61% of the Senate Republicans were in favor of the amendment. The 9 house Republicans represent just under 25% of all house Republicans. Overall, 83% of the Senate and 68% of the house voted for this. Not one Democrat voted against this while a few didn’t place a vote.
Republican senators: Craig Wilcox (32nd District), Donald DeWitte (33), Dave Syverson (35), Neil Anderson (36), Win Stoller (37), Sue Rezin (38), John Curran (41), Steve McClure (50), Chapin Rose (51), Terri Bryant (58) and Dale Fowler (59). In my research, I learned that every one of these senators received campaign contributions from a PAC that shares an address with the Fight Back Fund, the largest donor funding the amendment’s passage as well as being Michael Madigan’s largest donor. At least a couple of these senators received nearly $300,000. Republican representatives: Jackie Haas (79), Norine Hammond (93), Jeff Keicher (70), Seth… Read more »
Thank you
From what I can tell, most lawmakers who voted for this had little idea what it really means, though rest assured that some of the Republicans who voted for it are as submissive to public unions as the Dems.
So that’s good to know. As we look at this amendment It seems that General Assembly members don’t know what they’re voting for or against. Do citizens know what they’re voting for or against when they put these clueless people in office? Probably not, that’s the problem!
Basic question. If Amendment 1 is passed, would teir II pension legislation or any of the other zillions of bills passed over decades making changes or minor tweaks to Illinois gov employee regulations or benefits still remain intacted for new or existing public sec employees when contracts are collectively bargained?
Yes. The problem would be making any further changes, which are essential, but would become nearly impossible.
So typical that getting another pension reform amendment on the ballot is a “pipe dream” but this monstrosity gets approved in the blink of an eye. Harmon is the absolute worst, such a useless phony.
Folks, hang onto your wallets.
its going to be 7,000 units of Illinois gov trying to litigate this F-ing train wreck on the taxpayer dime—WOW!!!
From what I understand, there’s usually a small window in which union members can leave their union. In theory, the amendment would force unions to allow its members to cancel their memberships at any time as forcing members to stay members for any set length in time would violate their constitutional right to have “representatives of their own choosing.” I whole-heartedly expect collusion among unions if this passes. There’s no way there going to let their members hop freely from union to union. I bet they are already re-writing their by-laws to squirm their way around the giant loopholes in… Read more »
Nixit, you are spot on. I don’t think it’s just “in theory” that union members would have a right to cancel membership at any time. With a firm constitutional right that workers could pick a rep “of their own choosing,” it looks clear to me that they would have a right to hop around. This is just one aspect of the how the amendment would destroy the whole concept of one union as exclusive bargaining agent, the full implications of which are being ignored. The press, of course, is till out to lunch on this.
I think the bottom line is the folks in the machine that wrote this con-job amendment intentionally kept it ambiguous because they are selling it to dullard voting public as a Amendment that’s for all but in reality only applies to public sect unions. The Sangamon Co ruling back in May made this crystal clear (per Ballopidia article & others) even though in States Official Summary–Arguments In Favor of the Proposed Amendment (for example-“This amendment will protect workers’ and others’ safety. That includes guaranteeing nurses’ right to put patient care ahead of profit and making sure construction workers can speak… Read more »
The amendment is really two parts (two sentences), it seems second half of second sentence sort of gives existing union deals some coverage. First sentence is supposedly about an employees right to choose —“bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” –Great, as an individual employee you are FREE to choose your representaion. It doesn’t say you have to sign up with a particular union, or even a union or that an individual couldn’t represent themselves? But then second half of second sentence is all about unions (“labor organizations”) future changes to existing “execution or application of agreements” with employers… Read more »
Mark–another gigantic issue. If Amendment 1 passes the state, municipalities and crazy 7,000 units of government will no longer necessarily be negotiating contracts with the unions they are signatory to, but virtually any number of entities or individuals (per “Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing”). If passed I assume every public sector employee could conceivably bargain as individuals or with any number of entities with a unit of government and not as a member of a union that the unit of government is signatory to? The entire concept… Read more »
What advantage would that provide? Unions strength is in their numbers and the ability to withhold their labor if their demands aren’t met. Negotiating alone would have the exact opposite effect.
So, your saying exclusive signatory contracts with units of gov would no longer be needed? Unions would just bargain on stength in #s?
True, UNLESS the employee in question is intelligent and hard-working and (God forbid) Republican and/or conservative. A few of these employees could replace a host of burn-outs and loafers. Pay several of these “good” employees more and lay-off the “others.” Bring the good guys of all genders along and promote them to management. Amendment 1 would provide a defense against union lawsuits aimed at perpetuating the reign of the incompetent and indifferent. Forced “quiet quitting.” One assumes that all lawful contracts would be of equal standing. Unions who try to interfere would be liable for tortious interference with contracts. (That’s… Read more »
In this tight labor market? Any high performing individuals or ones with hard to replace skillsets would serve themselves better to break off on their own or form smaller bargaining units separate from the one they’re currently in. You don’t need to be a member of a large bargaining unit to disrupt labor. For example, STEM or ESL teachers at each CPS school could each form their own union separate from CTU and go on strike. That would be enough to disrupt classes across every school in the entire school district.
A *Pandora’s box* of *unintended* consequences…?
Or the actual intention…?
That’s forming a union that aligns with their specialty. No different than carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc… It’s something that could definitely happen. However, my comment was about a person going alone. One person forming a union is by definition not a union. Who exactly are they uniting with? What they are really doing is opting out of the union with the right to negotiate as an individual. They can already opt out of the union.
PPF, I think the point is that there is no doubt are at least some workers who have strong disagreement with at least parts of what their unions stand for. In CPS, for example, there are clearly a number of good teachers who despise the woke Marxism CTU stands for. Under this amendment they will automatically have standing as a bargaining unit. I do think it would take two or more workers not just one, but that’s no big issue.
Mark, It’s not that I don’t think some people would break off and form a smaller union that maybe aligned closer to their political views or perhaps closer to their specialty. It’s just that bargaining as an individual is the exact opposite purpose of a union. In fact, it doesn’t even meet the definition. Also, if people break off and form smaller unions, that would benefit management overall and this amendment could actually be a positive to reign in costs. If there are several different bargaining units that make up only a fraction of the overall workforce, would management be… Read more »
PPF— how would a CPS, for example (which at this point barely functions at an astronomical price), be able to negotiate with multiple unions and/ or individuals that would all be constitutionally guaranteed bargaining rights with CPS and still function? It would be an impossible accounting/ legal nightmare. Multiply that times illinois 7,000 units of gov–and OMG are already crappy Illinois gov will grind to a halt!!
CPS already negotiates with around 10 different unions right now. They will manage just fine. While there are issues with this amendment, this concept of multiple unions is not the great problem that you believe it is. Also, the idea that a bunch of individuals are going to form a union of 1 is ridiculous. A union of 1 is exactly what you have in a non-union shop. Do you really think labor unions advocated for this amendment so that a bunch of people can go form a union of 1? You are worried about a non-existent problem. There are… Read more »
PPF – there will be instances of multiple unions wishing to bargain if the amendment passes. There are always a group in larger unions unhappy with their representation, and some groups will be motivated to use the new amendment. And there will be litigation over it. But I tend to agree with you that the challenge of having to negotiate with multiple unions is one of the least problematic aspects of the amendment.
PPF–you seem to be admitting that Amendment 1 opens up a million legal land mines. like yes, individuals could bargain individually or the exclusive signatory agreements become useless? but somehow all this issues are impractical so the voters should go ahead with voting “yes” on amendment 1?
When did I state that one should vote for amendment 1? Please provide the source. I don’t think it opens up a “million legal landmines”. Most of these are just conjecture and if anything distract people from the real issue. Worrying about how CPS will negotiate with multiple unions (when they already do) or that some local union negotiates pension enhancements from tier II to tier1 (they don’t have that authority) or that a CTU contract negotiates Rockford to pay their bills (ludicrous), is absolutely pointless. There is one major issue. The state continues to spend more than the revenue… Read more »
Perhaps there are a couple of strategic advantages to getting the unions to fight among themselves. Dem. politicians would initially support those who provided the biggest political contributions … those legislators ARE for sale. And perhaps the largest unions have the biggest war chests to pay lawyers. However, the more suits in play, the greater the chance some of these spin-off units would draw a judge who isn’t in the CTU’s pocket. And perhaps some well-funded think tanks and their law firms would pitch in. And unless the press chooses up sides, media consumers would perhaps be treated to a… Read more »
PPF, I think that’s mostly right, but we view this as something that is potentially positive. For example, we regularly hear from teachers across the state who really dislike the leftist politics supported by various teachers unions. They don’t speak up, however, fearing reprisals from those unions. I could see them choosing to bargain through some different group that they would call a union. And if it got enough traction those who joined would take at least some comfort in their numbers.
That’s my point Mark. The complaints about multiple unions would actually be a positive thing for people that want to reduce the power of larger unions. It’s definitely not something to get worked up about if you are trying to limit the power of CTU. This could very well fall under the old adage, be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.
Yes, there are many other considerations, however.
CTU had three separate caucuses running for control of CTU. At the very least, two of those could branch off easily.