Rauner eliminates ‘fair share’ union dues for state workers

Newly elected Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner has signed an order to end forced union dues on people not wishing to join.

This comes as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court order last.

Former Governor Pat Quinn was voted out last November, and he decided not to take action.

This might be specific about which unions are affected.

One SEIU local president said the governor's top priority is to ruin the lives of working families in Illinois.

I guess it depends on who's family your talking about !!


Rauner eliminates ‘fair share’ union dues for state workers

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Gov. Bruce Rauner stepped up his campaign against government employee unions by eliminating so-called “fair share” dues paid by workers who don’t join a union.

The Republican said Monday he has signed an executive order erasing what he says is a “critical cog in the corrupt bargain crushing taxpayers.” He says forcing non-union employees to pay union dues requires them to fund political activity they don’t agree with.

He says he took action after a U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year that found the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act violated the First Amendment by mandating involuntary union dues.

a reply to: xuenchen

Last fall, Illinois GOP candidate Bruce Rauner spent $63.9 million -- $27.3 million of his own money -- to buy the right to occupy the Illinois Governor's mansion.

Looking at some of the things he campaigned on I actually like many such as term limits spending on infrastructure but I do wonder why a man spends 27 million of his own money to get a job paying in the thousands.

Any time you see the words "fair share" you know something unfair is happening. People should not be mandated by Government to join and pay for unions.

originally posted by: xuenchen
One SEIU local president said the governor's top priority is to ruin the lives of working families in Illinois.

Keep in mind that this isn't about unions (not that I am a fan of unions but, they are a whole different animal) who, according to this idiot, are the only working families in Illinois.

It is about public sector unions which really are primarily responsible for the hole we find ourselves in. They suck the most money out of our budget and they spend the most money on politics out of everyone (yes, including the evil Koch brothers).

The teacher's unions are some of the most vile, destructive and violent of organizations to ever disgrace this country.

They are completely uninterested in improving your child's education, just ask one of them, they aren't afraid to say it explicitly.

a reply to: xuenchen

Being forced to pay dues to an organization you have no intention of being a part of and seeing those donations go towards political candidates you don't support would certainly piss me off.


What if non union individuals formed their own union and then forced established unions to pay fees. Do you think those unions would comply?


Unions were once an integral part of protecting workers from business owners before laws were put in place. Since then they have become a monster unto themselves.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Looking at some of the things he campaigned on I actually like many such as term limits spending on infrastructure but I do wonder why a man spends 27 million of his own money to get a job paying in the thousands.

As opposed to the $23.6 million contributed to Quinn by unions alone?
Politics are evil, period.

a reply to: Oaktree

I guess Quin was who he ran against so OK.

I hope you can distinguish between outside contributions and a person's own money.


What sense is there in spending 27 million of your own hard earned cash to buy an election so you can occupy a seat that only pays in the thousands?


It is ridiculous the amount that is spent on elections and that goes for everyone, but it is either Bat Schnitt crazy or crazy like a fox to spend your own money acquiring such a seat.


How does he plan to recoup his money?

We really need to get a law that completely prohibits entities from donating funds to political candidates. he Supreme Court ruling that money = speech was BS and needs to be changed.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
We really need to get a law that completely prohibits entities from donating funds to political candidates. he Supreme Court ruling that money = speech was BS and needs to be changed.

I disagree, I think that the torrent of cash from unions is perfectly legal, it is the unions themselves that must be disassembled. As it is, they contribute the lion's share of political donations.

Even so, it is clear that the private sector is capable of countering their sophistry despite the lack of comparable cake. Any law which curtails political activity is necessarily undemocratic and antithetical to citizen participation in the political process.

a reply to: greencmp

Except in this case our government represents the people IE individual. Special interest groups are not individual any more than corporations are individuals.

restricting the amount individuals can donate while allowing special interest conglomerates to spend unlimited cash is undemocratic.

A law restricting campaign donations that was put in place by the peoples representatives and signed into law, only to be gutted by the Supreme court in contradiction of the peoples wishes is undemocratic.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There should be no restrictions on political activity. Neither for individuals nor for associations.

As much as I hate the AARP, I will defend their right to try to take away my rights and bankrupt this country to the death.

a reply to: greencmp

I can respect your position although I don't agree with it. Our government was founded on the principles of the individual and not business.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I can certainly respect that.

Americans for Tax Reform is a good example of an association which I do support.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Xcathdra

I can certainly respect that.

Americans for Tax Reform is a good example of an association which I do support.

The massive valid point that I over looked..

We rebelled from the crown because of no taxation without representation. I suppose if we are to tax business then they should be represented. I don't think they should be allowed to have the level of access they do and I still think the intent was for the government to represent the people and not business interest.

As a side note interesting link. A lot of my beliefs are represented.

Taxes are a necessary evil and I truly believe that in some areas we under pay in taxes. With that said I would like to see all tax initiates and current tax law reworked where the tax revenue can only be applied to the basis of the tax.

It is like amendment 3 in Missouri some years ago. Our gas tax was being used on projects it was never intended for. The passage of that amendment required that tax money to go only to where the tax designated it. It massively helped out our roads / infrastructure as well as highway patrol.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well said.

In my mind, the only way to prevent the undue influence and power of special interests on our legislature is to limit the influence and power of the legislature.

Without the violent coercive instrument of the state, there is little motivation or reward for those lobbying efforts.

I will jump straight to the primary concern that we all share (perhaps especially libertarians), private power and the lack of a civil authority which possesses the ‘military capability’ (not really the phrase I am looking for here but it will do) to subdue private violent assertions. I do not have an entirely satisfactory answer for this other than to rely upon our second amendment right which I believe is just as much of a check/threat to the overt abuse of power by private entities as it is for public ones.