Chicago Teachers Union contract demands are totally divorced from reality – Wirepoints
May 8, 2024
36 Comments
Details emerging about Chicago Teachers Union’s upcoming contract show just how divorced its demands, both extreme and expensive, are from the reality at Chicago schools. It’s not just about massive salary increases, but also about money for migrant students, climate initiatives, abortions and gender-affirming care. About blocking parental notification. Count on CTU’s demands to veer further from reality until the public finally says no.
Weekly crime statistics from the Chicago Police Department: Report through 5/4/2024.
Gov. JB Pritzker calls it “ethics” reform.
It’s rare to see city leaders in Chicago take an open, unabashed stance on the collapse of literacy. To complain is deemed as too political, too racist or too anti-public schools. So it’s refreshing to see Willie Wilson, a successful businessman and leader of the black community, call for a literacy initiative “with the goal of getting 100% of Black students reading at grade level.”
Jason Huebert, President of the Liberty Justice Center“The Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that unconstitutional proposals cannot go before the voters, so the courts should order state officials to remove Amendment 1 from the ballot.” This has been the same point I’ve made before around changing the constitution to remove pension rights. Adding an amendment to the constitution removing contractual rights would violate the US Constitution. Sure you could remove the amendment and basically make pensions a gratuity going forward, but nothing would change existing contracts including 3% AAI. Would the Illinois Supreme Court really let an amendment go… Read more »
The Contracts Clause versus the Bankruptcy Clause: Bankruptcy Court Holds Bankruptcy Clause Reigns Supreme https://restructuring.weil.com/chapter-9/the-contracts-clause-versus-the-bankruptcy-clause-bankruptcy-court-holds-bankruptcy-clause-reigns-supreme/ “…The bankruptcy court first reviewed the Contracts Clause, which provides that “no State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The bankruptcy court focused on the word “State,” explaining that the Contracts Clause does, in fact, ban a state from making a law that impairs the obligation of a contract. The Contracts Clause does not, however, ban Congress from making such a law. Indeed, by virtue of the Bankruptcy Clause, the U.S. Constitution actually authorizes Congress to make laws that… Read more »
This is another argument that Congress could pass a law reducing IL pension benefits, even outside of bankruptcy, thus overriding the IL State Constitution pension and contract clauses. IL could say yeah, federal law lets us reduce your pensions.
Which is kind of what the critics of the new proposed amendment are saying, Federal labor law is always going to reign supreme over IL state law, no matter what constitutional amendment they try to insert…
[cue picture of soyjack pointing to picture of IL 1970 Constitution]
Congress would be violating the US Constitution as well. Pensions are not just protected by the Illinois Constitution. If congress can pass any law to over rule a contract, then the contracts clause fails to exists. You better hope that’s not the case.
Keep dreaming though. I know it helps many of you when paying your taxes.
I think you’re misunderstanding the reasoning in the Stockton case: “The bankruptcy court focused on the word “State,” explaining that the Contracts Clause does, in fact, ban a state from making a law that impairs the obligation of a contract. The Contracts Clause does not, however, ban Congress from making such a law. Indeed, by virtue of the Bankruptcy Clause, the U.S. Constitution actually authorizes Congress to make laws that would impair contracts.” This is an argument that the US Constitution does authorize Congress to make laws that would impair contracts. Bankruptcy laws are but one example of Congress, and… Read more »
You are talking about bankruptcy while I was pointing out that an amendment changing the pension clause would violate the US Constitutions contracts clause. The people seeking to remove the pension clause from the constitution aren’t proposing so just to seek bankruptcy. They just want to change them when they see fit without ever going through bankruptcy. Two separate issues.
Us constitution only prohibits the STATES from impairing contracts:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Congress can impair state’s contract laws. Through bankruptcy or otherwise. An amendment to the state constitution removing the pension clause wouldn’t even be needed if a mere act of congress is sufficient.
Might want to check out the fifth amendment. Your interpretation of the constitution is far out there.
No it’s not, I’m just quoting the stockton bankruptcy case and the constitution itself.
Fifth Amendment: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property”
A pension is a contract, and a contract is a promise to perform. The Stockton bankruptcy opines that states cannot impair contracts but congress can, and does, through bankruptcy laws.
PPF, this point you are simply being dishonest by constantly claiming that the Contract Clause is an absolute bar to contract impairment. You know damn well that courts have been clear that reasonable modifications can be made under the right circumstances. You can probably name the leading cases yourself. It’s all a matter of fitting the pension reform properly and fairly to the situation at hand. So, can we please at least make this an honest conversation?
Never said they were absolute. NEVER. Why can’t YOU have the honest conversation? I’ve stated that trying to alter the language of the pension protection clause and changing the language to alter them at will, as you’ve suggested, would be a diminishment of their benefits if you went after existing pensioners. The Illinois Supreme Court has said such. Why would the Illinois Supreme Court allow such language ever to appear on the ballot that offered up this diminished benefit. I’m stating you won’t get it into federal court and the amendment will never make the ballot. You love to quote… Read more »
PPF,
The Illinois Supreme Court is wrong.
Thinking of the IL Constitution as so malleable by the political expediencies of the times makes it seem to be merely a set of suggestions, and while your point of view seems to have merit in our times its also important to think about the unforeseen consequences that might result. There surely would be some, and the whole legal system depends upon a high degree of permanence in what society expects. Changing any state constitution can become a slippery slope for social stability. Its important to remember “the oil always goes to the squeaky wheel.”
The Illinois Supreme Court determines how the laws are interpreted, not debtsor, Mark, or the Illinois Policy Institute. The court has determined that you are wrong. That’s all that matters.
PPF, again, as you know well know, it would not be the IL Supreme Court that would decide after an appropriate amendment. It would be a federal court applying federal law.
Again, Mark, it would be the Illinois Supreme Court that would even allow your amendment to the ballot. Stop lying to your readers. You know I’m right.
If the ILSC doesn’t allow your amendment how do you get to federal courts? Oh, that’s right, you don’t.
PPF. That’s a new one. Do tell me on what grounds the court would stop the constitutionally authorized amendment process.
Mark, Did you even read my original post or the article you posted? Jason Huebert, President of the Liberty Justice Center“The Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that unconstitutional proposals cannot go before the voters, so the courts should order state officials to remove Amendment 1 from the ballot.” How can you say it’s a new one if you had? If this argument is valid for these parents, how would that same argument not be valid for pensioners? If your language states that the state can take away earned pension benefits it would violate the contracts clause. The court could… Read more »
The Kanerva decision is also significant because it shows the extremes to which Illinois’ top court will go to side with pensioners. As a harsh dissent pointed out, to protect health insurance as a pension benefit the court had to “read into the pension protection clause language that is not there…to do so is to usurp the sovereign power of the people.” With the stroke of a pen, the court added what is now a $56 billion, constitutional guaranteed liability to the state’s balance sheet and another $f2 billion in debt to local governments.Wirepoints September 15, 2020 This court Mark?… Read more »
No response Mark? Is that an admission that you believe the ILSC might actually not allow your language to appear on the ballot?
I’m glad you finally admit Mark that your amendment plan is seriously flawed. Completely ignoring the argument won’t make your plan more solid.
PPF, I asked you for a basis by which an Illinois court would disallow the amendment. You provided none, and only mentioned that they have disallowed others where they had good reasons or at least a plausible reason. They would have no plausible rationale here as long as the amendment procedures were properly followed.
Disallowed based on your language violates the US Constitution. How about the contracts clause? The 5th amendment? You name it. Any challenge would be presented to the ILSC. The same court that you state will go out of its way to protect pensions. Are you actually saying that as long as amendment procedures are followed then the state can vote on an amendment even if it violates the US Constitution? Are you actually saying the the ILSC can’t step in before this amendment ever got to the voters? You continue to not answer these simple questions. Whether it’s plausible or… Read more »
Unions are the cancer that is killing Illinois.
Right to work is the cure
Even if this lawsuit doesn’t work, it brings negative publicity on the amendment itself. Because I suspect the apathetic voter, one who hasn’t paid attention to the issue, is more likely to vote yes.
Spot on. See our new column on this. Illinois better wake up to what this is about.
Your typical voter also doesn’t realize the difference between a plumbers or electricians union and the public sector unions. One affects the cost of housing and home repairs and the other is just a continual bleeding of your wallet.