DRURY: Dem with nerve to vote 'no' |
But
the absence of state Rep. Ken Dunkin, D-Chicago, when the Illinois House met on
Wednesday literally left them short.
SO
WHY WOULD Democrats and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, even
bother with a vote?
There
was a Friday deadline for action. But the vote is more about putting people on
the record – legislators were forced to take a stand “aye” or “nea” with some
wimpier-types deciding to vote “present” instead.
Democrats
who want to continue to have the financial support of Madigan and the Illinois
Democratic Party’s electoral apparatus had to vote for an override, while
Republicans who want to have a chance at getting campaign cash from Rauner knew
better than to vote against it.
The
bill in question was a measure that would allow for labor disputes involving
state government employees to be resolved by an arbitrator. Rauner hates that
idea because he claims those arbitrators are not elected officials themselves.
HE’S
RIGHT. THEY’RE not. They are experts in labor law who by not being beholden to
electoral interests are capable of putting the issues of any particular labor
dispute into their proper legal context.
FRANKS: A usual Madigan thorn |
Anyway, 68 legislators wound up voting “yea” – three short of the 71 needed to override Rauner’s objections. Dunkin, in his absence, was one of three Dems who didn’t back Madigan, as were Jack Franks, D-Marengo, and Scott Drury, D-Highwood.
Springfield-based legislators Poe ... |
WHILE THE TWO representatives from Springfield – Tim Butler and Raymond Poe – both were the Republicans who didn’t back Rauner by voting “present.” Although that was more of a stance than that of state Rep. Terri Bryant of Murphysboro in Southern Illinois.
... and Butler didn't back Rauner |
Bryant herself is a former state employee and member of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, while Butler and Poe both have many, many members of that union who live in their district.
Voting
for a measure that would be perceived as anti-union could wind up harming them
when they have to seek re-election in the future. Not even Rauner’s campaign
contributions might not be enough to help them prevail against a well-funded
Democrat – which is something that Madigan might be able to find.
THEN
AGAIN, WHAT will happen to the Democrats who didn’t back Madigan? The speaker
himself refused to say this week that Dunkin was on his private “list” of
persona non grata because he didn’t show up (Dunkin’s Facebook page had pictures
of him in New York City).
DUNKIN: The 'no-show' |
Although
it was interesting to hear the boasts that if Dunkin had shown up, he could
have twisted the arms of everybody in his caucus and got the 71 votes! From
anybody but Madigan, I wouldn’t believe it. From “Mr. Speaker,” anything is
possible.
So
this issue moves forward, sort of. Because the end result is that the attempt
by Democrats to claim they were making a concession to Rauner’s union
opposition (the bill would have prevented strikes in the future) goes nowhere.
Which
means nothing changes. Except that now, Madigan and Rauner can start punishing those people who wouldn't align with their view.
Which means that we, the public, wind up losing!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment