The payoff for helping to undermine organized labor influence in Illinois?

I’m sure some are going to accuse me of being overly cynical. Why can’t I appreciate the honesty of someone fighting for their personal ideals, they’ll say about me.

JANUS: W/ Honest Abe looking over his shouder

Yet I couldn’t help but snicker a bit at the weekend news reports about Mark Janus.

HE’S THE CHILD care specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services who allowed his circumstances on the job to be used by the partisan ideologues who were anxious in filing a court case to try to undermine the influence that organized labor has within Illinois state government.

When the Supreme Court of the United States last month ruled in his favor, it was Janus’ name that got national attention. I’m sure for some people, the name “Janus” is now as big a deal as the names of “Roe” and “Wade.”

As in the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that tossed out all the state laws that considered abortion to be the equivalent of a criminal act, and not a decision that was truly a woman’s personal business.

Janus is a long-time state worker who claims he enjoyed his job. But he also has personal views that make him object to having a labor union being involved in his employment.

HE PARTICULARLY RESENTED the notion that even though he didn’t want to join the union (Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), union dues were deducted from his paycheck to cover the cost of the work the union did in representing his on-the-job rights.

That was the basis of his lawsuit, and the high court has ruled in his favor.

Now, the Illinois Policy Institute has offered Janus a job – one he plans to accept and will begin work at come Aug. 1.

Some will forevermore view "Janus" as a bad word

Which probably benefits Janus, since he’ll now be doing blatant partisan political work (a senior fellow speaking out on behalf of workers’ rights, from the social conservative perspective). He’ll probably be happier that way.

BUT IT REALLY comes across as Janus getting his payoff for helping partisan ideologues undermine organized labor – which many state employees do rely upon to ensure the state doesn’t run roughshod over their concerns.

SHAKMAN: Will Janus name gain similar aura?

For the point of this lawsuit is to spark an effort by which many government employees get swayed (or possibly strong-armed) into thinking they should drop out of the AFSCME labor union.

A significant loss of membership would result in a financial loss if it means the union has less in membership dues to fund its work. Get enough people to go along with such talk, and you could start to have a movement for revoking recognition of the union altogether.

Which is the real goal of the ideologues who engage in such rhetoric. Make those “lazy bums” on the state payroll realize they ought to be grateful anybody bothers to employ them. Even though anyone with sense realizes treating employees with a modicum of respect is the real way to get efficient labor from them.

JANUS, WHO IS now 65, likely wasn’t far from being able to retire. Although I’m sure his financial future is significantly stabilized, what with private sector employment that he gets largely because his name was used as the legal basis for the Janus v. AFSCME lawsuit.

Of course, I’m sure those people who think more highly of organized labor will feel he sold them out, so to speak. But I’m not out to put the “Judas” label on Janus. In fact, I’m fairly sure the state payroll would no longer be a pleasant place for him to be employed in the months and years following his involvement with the lawsuit.

How will AFSCME recover from partisan court ruling?

All I know is that a part of me wonders if there’s any truth to the rhetoric being spewed by AFSCME types saying that not many state workers are looking to quit paying dues, and a significant sum of state workers who hadn’t previously joined the union are now doing so!

Janus’ name is going to be remembered for his partisan action far more than the work he did on behalf of children. It will be interesting to see what kind of taint, in coming decades, that will develop. Or if it develops an aura similar to that of "Shakman" (as in Michael, the attorney/activist who inspired the lawsuits that heavily restrict government hiring for partisan political purposes) which I'm sure Janus thinks is likely.

  -30-

Court system supposed to protect us from overbearing politicos, but no more

Thus far, the federal court system has been sympathetic to Chicago in striking down efforts by President Donald J. Trump to eliminate the city’s laws that prevent its local police from being used by federal immigration officials to supplement their own efforts in harassing people.

The high court now Trump's rubber stamp?

But a part of me is constantly reminding myself that we haven’t heard the final word yet, and it’s always possible the ultimate court will come down in favor of the president – just because he’s the president from a certain political party.

WILL THE SUPREME Court of the United States use its 5-4 conservative-leaning majority and ultimately feel like issuing an order striking down “sanctuary cities” because it’s the desire of Donald Trump?

There already are those people who think the Supreme Court is inclined (possibly Wednesday morning) to rule against Illinois political interests in a case now pending as to whether public employee labor unions have a right to require government workers to join and pay dues.

Then, there’s the ruling the high court made Tuesday morning that says Trump’s efforts to impose travel restrictions against people from certain Middle East countries is acceptable – no matter how much many complain about its immorality, and how lower courts have ruled it is illegal.

Could “sanctuary cities” wind up facing the same fate some day? It is an issue yet to come before the high court. Yet it could also be a significant issue of sort come 2019.

TRUMP: Can't govern w/o allies in charge

THE SUPREME COURT, in the opinion issued Tuesday, said the president has the authority to get involved through executive orders in immigration policy, and also said it wasn’t terribly interested in hearing arguments about discrimination against Muslims.

But in the part that particularly amazes me, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion, “we (the court) express no view on the soundness of the (Trump immigration) policy.”

Meaning, the idea of the judicial branch providing a balance (specifically, being the force that keeps government officials from overstepping their bounds when they react too far) isn’t one that the high court particularly feels like honoring.

That is a scary thought, if you think about it.

ROBERTS: Backing up the president

BECAUSE THE MAJORITY of our society that is relying on the concept of “checks and balances” to keep a Trump presidency from imposing serious, and lasting, harm could find themselves let down beyond belief.

Just like what could happen in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME. That’s the case based on a lawsuit originally filed by Mark Janus, an Illinois government employee who resents the idea that he had to join the labor union in the first place.

His lawsuit seeks to strike down any such membership requirements in order to have his job, and theoretically could require the union to have to go back to each of its members and seek their permission to charge them union dues.

With anti-labor forces hoping they can persuade many workers to refuse to pay up, meaning the unions would lose significant revenues and be undermined to the point where they would become ineffectual.

MANY THINK THE current partisan leanings of the court will result in Janus prevailing – with those of us inclined to support labor hoping for a partisan political miracle.

Will union take a blow from high court?i

Which also is why I’m wondering what will become of the sanctuary cities issue – which thus far the courts have said the federal government is overstepping its bounds in trying to cut off federal funding to those cities wishing to protect all people from police harassment.

That is how it is perceived – as in local cops getting involved in immigration issues that they technically have no jurisdiction over and no particular knowledge about.

Those who support the “sanctuary city” concept believe it’s a matter of federal immigration officials doing their own jobs when it comes to immigration law. Will partisan politics cause the high court to ultimately disagree?

  -30-

Supreme Court acting decently, but it could be opposite a year from now

For those people of a progressive mindset, the Supreme Court of the United States acted Monday in a responsible manner; although one should keep in mind that the nation’s high court ultimately is unpredictable and could wind up issuing rulings that offend the sensibilities of decent people.

Likely to offend somebody, no matter how they rule

For this is also the day that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case out of Illinois that could go a long way toward undermining the influence of organized labor within government.

HECK, GOV. BRUCE Rauner himself made a point of being in Washington, D.C., for the morning court call. The man who got himself elected governor so he could single-handedly undermine labor unions in Illinois government wanted to be on hand to see, and hear, for himself what the high court thinks. Which Democratic gubernatorial challenger Daniel Biss said Monday is sufficient reason not to re-elect Rauner.

A ruling in that case will come up later this year, as likely will be any action the high court takes with regards to federal immigration policy – specifically the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program that President Donald J. Trump wants to have eradicated from out government.

That program is the one enacted during the Barack Obama presidency and is meant to treat young people who were brought as children to this country by their parents without valid visas.

DACA to live on, at least a little while longer

In the wildest of fantasies of all those individuals who voted for Trump, making America “great” again means deporting every single one of the roughly 700,000 young adults who fall into this category.

TRUMP LAST YEAR used his executive order powers to eliminate the program, but federal district courts in San Francisco and New York have issued orders that keep the program in place for the time being.

The president had asked the high court to immediately take up the case, instead of requiring both of the cases to go to federal appeals courts first. The Supreme Court on Monday refused, saying Trump hasn’t given sufficient reason why the usual legal process should be cut short.

Of course, the “reason” is that Trump is a political and governmental amateur who probably really thinks he ought to be able to bark out orders and have government minions do what they’re told. Privately, he probably thinks the Supreme Court is being insolent and disrespectful of his presidential authority.

Will the court ultimately undermine the union?

But it means the rule of law is prevailing, thus far. Although it always is likely that the appeals courts will rule, and the Supreme Court will wind up taking on the issue some time next year – and could wind up issuing a ruling that will be Trump-pleasing at that time.

I SAY SO because in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME Council 31 (which represents Illinois government workers), court watchers suspect the nine-member court had a 4-4 split, with the newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, the unknown who’d likely decide the case.

Gorsuch, of course, is the justice who got appointed by Trump himself, and Trump has made it clear he sides with Mark Janus (the state worker who objects on ideological grounds to being part of a labor union and doesn’t like that union dues are withheld from his pay).

Not that Gorsuch gave any hint of where he stands – during Monday’s hour-long hearing, he said nothing and asked no questions from any of the attorneys involved.

But it has certain people convinced that the end result will be a 5-4 ruling against organized labor interests and in favor of those people who’d actually be inclined to vote for Rauner’s re-election come Nov. 6.

WHICH IS ALWAYS possible, except that my own observations of appeals courts throughout the years is that nothing is absolute. Those of us of a progressive leaning can only hope the knee-jerk reaction doesn’t prevail.

TRUMP: How angry will he be a year from now?

Which also is what I’m telling myself with regards to the fate of DACA, since I suspect Gorsuch got his life-time appointment to the high court because Trump feels (at least) he can be counted on to do what The Donald expects of him.

Could we be getting another ruling on this immigration issue that will wind up offending the people who were pleased on Monday that any threat of deportation for hundreds of thousands of young people would be postponed for the time being?

Or will the high court wind up surprising us by issuing responsible rulings in both cases – thereby reaffirming our faith in our government, while most likely turning the presidential complexion from his current sickly orange to a bright red bursting with anger?

  -30-

Is Lisa Madigan on right track toward getting state to a balanced budget?

I’ll make one bold declarative statement before admitting I don’t have a clue how the situation concerning Illinois state government and its lack of a balanced budget is going to be resolved.
 

MADIGAN: Fighting for state budget

That statement is to say that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has the spirit of Illinois law clearly on her side when she and her staff of attorneys argue that Illinois government employees ought not to get paid until the budget mess is brought to an end.

THAT DOESN’T MEAN I believe her legal actions filed last week in the courts are going to be successful. Because having the “spirit” of the law on one’s side is nice, but doesn’t necessarily mean squat.

It could turn out there’s a technical legal interpretation that will be concocted by attorneys somewhere who are able to convince a judge of its merits. The fact that state law intended for the lack of a balanced budget in place to prevent government from operating might wind up meaning less than the 49 percent of the electorate that gave Hillary Clinton a plurality for the presidency.

She still lost! And it’s possible the courts will not think much of the Madigan move that asks the courts to issue an order preventing the Illinois comptroller’s office from meeting state payrolls come March 1.

Some think that Madigan’s real intention is to put pressure on the General Assembly (including the Illinois House of Representatives led by her father, Illinois House speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago) and Gov. Bruce Rauner to put together a budget.

AS IN HER legal request would become a moot point IF legislators and the governor can put aside their partisan political differences and approve something before Feb. 28.

 

Will Rauner, Madigan be able to resolve budget,...

Of course, they have been unable to do anything ever since Rauner became governor in January 2015. They did have that tentative spending plan in effect for the second half of 2016, but that expired when the balloons came tumbling down at New Year’s Eve parties all over the state.

Right now, we’re back in the same situation where state tax dollars are being collected and money exists, but it cannot legally be spent because of the lack of a specific plan detailing how it is to be spent.

Which is not an irresponsible idea at all. We ought to be able to see exactly how our tax dollars are going to be used. Would you really want any government officials to be able to spend the public’s money based on their own whims?

... thereby making speaker's daughter moot?

THE ONLY THING that has kept state government going since July 2015 is that some government programs operate under federal court orders that prevent state budgetary requirements from being literally applied to them.

There also was the previous legal exchange in which a Cook County judge issued an order saying the state payroll could not be met, but then a judge in St. Clair County (on the Mississippi River near St. Louis) ruled it had to be met. Although the Illinois Supreme Court came up with a ruling later that poked away at the St. Clair action.

The logic of meeting the state payroll without a budget is that the state, after all, has contracts with its employees’ unions. In fact, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is opposing Madigan’s current legal maneuver. They want state workers to keep getting paid – regardless of the top-ranking officials’ political ineptitude.

That ultimately is what a judge somewhere is going to have to decide – is the long-term fate of the state worth the hassle of the working stiffs getting their paychecks delayed? Which I’ll acknowledge would be a hassle to people who need that money they’ve earned in order to survive.

BUT THERE ARE other people suffering because the government programs upon which their livelihoods depend are being delayed. There are public schools across the state whose aid payments don’t come close to arriving on time. Just listen to your local school officials when they start talking bluntly about what they think of Illinois state government!

Perhaps the reality of being a government employee is that, while there are many perks and benefits to such jobs, one of the drawbacks is that you can be caught in the crossfire whenever people like Rauner and Madigan (Michael, that is) decide to take each other on.

The one plus is that having all these people angered over their incomes being tampered with probably is the only way that Rauner, Madigan and the other legislators will be motivated to give our state a balanced budget proposal.

Which, in the end, is the long-term solution to resolving the financial issues that make Illinois government a particularly laughable entity for government geeks to consider.

  -30-

At what point does a “principle” become too expensive to be practical

I have known of many government entities that have policies calling for them to automatically negotiate a financial settlement to any lawsuit filed against them – the moment that the settlement becomes a cheaper option that the legal fees that would be incurred in fighting for one’s political principles.

Legal activity on state raises will shift from Daley Ct ...

It seems that Illinois state government is not amongst them.

FOR A COOK County judge on Friday ruled that Illinois state government must live up to the pay raises that about 30,000 state employees were supposed to receive last year under the terms of their contract.

Judge Richard Billik, however, did not authorize a sudden rush in back pay for state employees. He acknowledged that the state budget as it currently exists does not authorize the extra funds that the workers should have got.

He’s not about to force them.

So the end result is that the state is now further in debt – to its workers!

AS AMERICAN FEDERATION of State, County and Municipal Employees officials put it in a statement they issued, “the state must pay what it can now and make employees whole eventually.”

... to Ill. Ct. Photographs by Gregory Tejeda

Of course, state government is taking the attitude that it will appeal Billik’s ruling. They’re going to try to get an Illinois appellate panel to rule that Billik blew it with his court ruling.

Which means the state is going to fight for its principles. It has me wondering if this is going to wind up before the Supreme Court of Illinois someday –with even the nation’s high court being asked to review the legal activity at some point.

It’s all going to be very pricey! All to make a point! Which wouldn’t bother me, except for the fact that the point itself is so morally bankrupt, when you think about it.

THE FACT IS that state government at some point in the past negotiated a labor agreement with AFSCME officials on behalf of state agency employees.

The reason for having such contracts is to keep the employees from continually asking for more and more whenever they please. We throw it in their faces that they agreed to a deal giving them so much, and that they have to accept it until it is time to negotiate a new contract.

But that also means they can throw it in the state’s collective face that they agreed to terms, and they have to live up to them.

The time to ask for serious concessions because of tough financial times is when negotiations toward a new contract take place.

IF UNION OFFICIALS try to get away with giving too little in the way of concessions, it can rightly be used against them that they’re not placing the needs of the state as a whole (their employer, which ultimately is all of us) in the right context.

All that happens when the state tries to back out of its contracts is that it loses respect! It makes itself look like a boorish buffoon, somebody who thinks that the purpose of everybody else is to give to them – and not receive.

And that is the legal principle upon which our state government, headed by one-time goo-goo Pat Quinn, seems prepared to fight to the death to maintain.

QUINN: How many hits will his rep take?

You have to be the hardest-headed ideologue who wants to view labor unions as incredibly venal in order to be able to see any grounds upon which our state government isn’t acting like a bully against its employees – who ultimately are the people who comprise state government.

THE STATE AS a legal entity has managed to embarrass itself far too much on this legal issue. Perhaps it is about time that all the efforts that attorneys will put into trying to appeal the Billik ruling can’t be used to try to find the additional revenue that will allow our government to operate in ways that adequately serve the people.

Who, in the end, are the very reason that government exists to begin with.

  -30-

Raises really about ‘letter of the law’

A labor arbitrator on Tuesday ruled in a way that will offend so many people – except for those who think logically on issues.

QUINN: Pay up, says arbitrator

Because the arbitrator’s ruling that says the state must provide the pay raises called for in its contracts with some 30,000 employees in 14 state agencies is such a no-brainer.

THE STATE APPROVED a contract with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and it must live up to it. The fact that the state is having financial troubles (who isn’t!) doesn’t get them out of it, just as nobody would by sympathetic if the state were doing well financially and the workers decided they wanted an extra raise.

You live up to the terms of the contract. Come the next round of negotiations, the state will have every right to take a hard line on what it is willing to pay and to try to seek something in the way of concessions. Just as the unions will be anxious to hold the size of financial givebacks to a minimum.

That’s just the way things are.

The fact that Gov. Pat Quinn thought he could pull off a move such as ignoring the terms of the contract that called for 2 percent pay raises for the state fiscal year that began July 1may be evidence that he is just as capable as Rod Blagojevich of operating in an outrageous world of political fantasy.

NOW HAVING SAID all that, keep in mind that I realize the state has financial problems. I realize that somewhere, later this year, the General Assembly and Quinn are going to have to figure out just where to come up with roughly $75 million – the amount of extra money needed to meet the payroll for the full fiscal year.

There will be some serious cuts. Somebody is going to be hurt. And someone inevitably is going to try to stir up the rhetoric against the “greedy” labor unions by claiming that cut is all the fault of the workers who should have been thankful to even be employed – instead of expecting anything resembling a pay hike.

That, of course, is nonsense.

When those ideologues say it later this year, I will call them on it. Just as I’m calling them on it in advance. Because we have to keep in mind that these people just have an ideological opposition to organized labor.

WHICH MEANS THEY’D be complaining about “greedy” unions no matter what the circumstances. Just because they have a right to speak does not mean we are obligated to take them seriously.

The state made a deal, and must now keep it. If times remain tight (and I fully expect they will for the next few years), then when the contract expires and a new one must be negotiated, that will be the time to put on the political pressure to get financial cutbacks.

It is something I have seen in countless units of local government in the past couple of years. Nobody gets a pay raise. But on the other hand, everybody keeps their job.

These are labor unions willing to be responsible and accept the current economic realities.

IF IT TURNS out that AFSCME officials play hardball and try to demand significant increases for the next contract despite current conditions, THEN we can consider lambasting them for being irresponsible.

Although we should keep in mind that anybody who makes knee-jerk reactions to situations involving organized labor most likely is being a dink. Because the specific conditions of each situation need to be studied before determining what should happen.

For now, we have fortunate state employees who will get their 2 percent pay hike for this year – which is something that those workers ought to enjoy while they get it. Because I suspect the state will take a hard line the next round of negotiations, and will have significant public support to do so.

Until then, we have arbitrator Edwin Benn writing an opinion saying that the pay raises stand and that back pay for the past couple of weeks will have to be paid within the next 30 days. “These are hard fiscal times for the state, no doubt,” he wrote.

“WHEN THE STATE did not pay the increase,…the state did not keep its promise,” Benn wrote. “The state must now keep its promise.”

Somehow, I can’t help but think that line of logic is a statement of the incredibly obvious, like something we would teach children to understand as early as Kindergarten.

Perhaps what that really means is that we have officials in our state government who are capable of behaving as though they still belong in pre-school. Perhaps we need to have someone pull out the floor mats so they can take a nap.

Because their fatigue seems to be making them cranky and illogical.

  -30-

How does Quinn deserve to be bashed?

It seems to be the political flavor of the week. Bash Pat Quinn for the sleazy, borderline crooked, deal he worked out with the labor union that represents many state government workers.

Nobody from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees will get laid off during the next two years. It doesn’t matter whether Quinn is governor, or whether he gets replaced after the Nov. 2 elections.

IT WAS AROUND the same time that the deal was completed that the labor union decided that it believes Quinn to be best qualified for governor. They gave him their endorsement. Considering that they also decided to snub Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, by ignoring endorsements for the legislative seats needed to maintain Madigan’s control, it has the appearance of something flawed.

Quinn is getting bashed about, most vocally by the people who want state Sen. William Brady, R-Bloomington, to be the next governor of Illinois.

Brady is the guy who talks in vague terms about how he’s going to cut costs within state government in order to close the deficit that has confounded officials for years. He won’t offer specifics, because he knows that if he does he will turn off so many potential voters that Quinn will be a shoo-in for election to his own gubernatorial term.

Layoffs likely would have occurred if we got a “Gov. Brady.” Now, Quinn has taken that option away from him. Which is why Brady is engaging in the rhetoric about “pay to play,” the government-speak term for “bribe” that is used when one has no evidence that anything illegal actually occurred.

CONSIDERING THAT THE state’s financial problems are of the level of severity that only a fool would think we can cut our way back to solvency, perhaps it is a good thing that this option has been taken off the table. Now we won’t have to endure any nonsense rhetoric that the budget would be balanced – if only we didn’t have those greedy state workers and their corrupt labor unions.

If we get a “Gov. Brady,” he’s going to have to address the issue a little more seriously, instead of engaging in the nonsense rhetoric that the conservative ideologues want to hear – but is totally unrealistic.

Personally, my hope is that with the election cycle past, the Illinois General Assembly will be in a mood next spring to start dealing with the state’s finances in a serious manner – instead of the way they have been handling the issue.

A desire to dump all over anything that might make former Gov. Rod Blagojevich look good, combined with political cowardice, is what has caused all the short-term measures that have done nothing but pushed the problem into the future, while also increasing the size of the debt.

I KNOW THAT some political observers are mocking the provisions of Quinn’s agreement with the labor union that call for spending cuts. They claim it is way too insignificant to matter.

Yet when one considers that this is a problem that is going to take years to resolve (why not, it took years to develop), I say every little financial bit helps. Anytime one can get a labor union to concede anything, it is an accomplishment – because technically, they’re not obligated to give back anything.

The fact that they were willing to make some concessions means they probably should get something in return. That’s what’s called negotiation. Imposing one’s will on someone else isn’t acceptable.

For the record, Crain’s Chicago Business reported this week that the labor union is going to have to come up with some legitimate cuts of at least $50 million, and up to $100 million. Those cuts could be less overtime, more unpaid furlough days and possibly a delay in pay raises the workers were supposed to be receiving come Jan. 1.

I CAN UNDERSTAND Brady being upset. He got one-upped. Of course, after a campaign season where Quinn has been dinged over and over, perhaps it was overdue for Quinn to get a blow in.

But I can’t help but think that the only people who are truly going to be upset are the ones who think government officials ought to be doing everything within their power to mess with organized labor. Any official who regards them as a part of government that is best cooperated with to avoid hassles is thinking too logically for the ideologues to accept.

So what do I think about this endorsement? It doesn’t seem too unreasonable. It is not shocking.

I always expected that AFSCME was going to endorse Quinn, which means that the labor union leaders will use their influence to get the rank-and-file of state workers to think that re-electing Quinn is in their best interests. What a surprise! The Chicago Tribune is favoring Republican William Brady when it comes to the latest "issue" in the gubernatorial campaign.

THEN AGAIN, AFSCME usually backs Democratic Party candidates for state government posts. The shock would have been if they had given Brady any serious consideration.

Brady, after all, is the candidate who has talked about lowering Illinois’ minimum wage, and has even used rhetoric that implies he wishes Illinois were a “right to work” state (meaning people cannot be required to join a labor union as part of their employment).

I would think that keeping Brady away from the Executive Mansion is the real motivation for AFSCME officials to endorse Quinn.

-30-

EXTRA: Does endorsement hurt Topinka?

What does it say for Judy Baar Topinka that she is the lone Republican who got the support of the leading labor union that represents state government employees?

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees local that covers state government workers made public their endorsements, and much attention is being paid to the fact that the union picked Alexi Giannoulias for U.S. Senate, but chose to back nobody for governor.

CONSIDERING THAT ILLINOIS Comptroller Dan Hynes has been counting on the notion that organized labor will boost his campaign to victory in the Feb. 2 primary, that has to hurt (particularly when combined with the fact that a Chicago Tribune poll shows Hynes getting his butt kicked by Gov. Pat Quinn.

But the endorsement for Topinka was the one that caught my eye.

Like most labor unions these days, they tend to prefer Democrats in elective office (similar to how the business-oriented groups all want Republican officials).

All of the AFSCME endorsements made public this weekend are for Democratic officials (although no political observers are getting excited about the idea that the union wants Bobby Rush to win another term in Congress).

EXCEPT FOR TOPINKA.

The lady from Riverside who always has been considered something of a loose cannon by her GOP colleagues received the endorsement of the AFSCME in her bid for Illinois comptroller.

What makes it interesting is that the union also gave an endorsement to the bid of state Rep. David Miller, D-Lynwood, who wants the Democratic Party’s nomination for Illinois comptroller.

So the labor union is telling us that this would be the one campaign where it might be permissible to consider voting for a Republican.

IT HAS ME wondering if some Democrats are conceding that it is highly unlikely they’re going to continue to win every single state constitutional office, so this is the post they’d be willing to sacrifice.

After all, Topinka as a state senator and as Illinois treasurer has a record of being as reasonable as any Republican can be – at least as far as Democrats are concerned.

But I wonder how long it will be until Topinka’s Republican primary opponent, Jim Dodge of suburban Orland Park, starts letting us know about this endorsement. For having a perception of being sympathetic to the interests of organized labor can be the literal kiss of death for a Republican candidate.

Did AFSCME unintentially do some serious harm to the Topinka camp by giving her their support?

WILL THOSE SAME Republican supporters who hated the idea of Topinka as their political party’s gubernatorial nominee in 2006 use this as a reason to deny her a political comeback?

Considering that this is a political campaign where the conservative ideologues are convinced that the name “Blagojevich” means they don’t have to compromise anything when it comes to picking candidates for the general election, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

For those of you who want to think that the electorate has enough sense to see through such a shallow logic, consider that these are the same people who got fooled by that video clip four years ago of Topinka dancing with George Ryan.

This could easily be twisted into something equally "sordid" in the logic of electoral politics.

-30-

Rural judge gets chance to revive soon-to-be-shuttered prison in Pontiac

The on-going political brawl over who has control of Illinois’ system of prisons has now worked its way to the courtroom, which means a judge is going to have to decide politically partisan questions in a way that will impact all of the state’s taxpayers.

At stake is the desire of Gov. Rod Blagojevich to close one of the state’s maximum-security prisons. He says such a measure is a necessity to save the state money (about $58 million per year) it does not have.

YET PEOPLE IN the communities that have the prisons have always argued their towns rely on the maximum-security correctional centers as a significant part of their economy. And the labor union that represents prison guards (along with other state government employees) says a governor does not have the right to arbitrarily whack so many jobs.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees went so far Wednesday as to file a lawsuit against Illinois state government, arguing that since the General Assembly specifically set aside money for the maintenance of a prison, it would be an illegal use of funds for Blagojevich to try to take that money and spend it on anything else within state government.

The lawsuit was filed in Pontiac, where a Livingston County judge will issue a first ruling in the case. The locale was chosen because Blagojevich (for now, at least) has targeted the Pontiac Correctional Center as the prison to be closed.

There’s no way a local judge who wants to get re-elected will issue any ruling that will be perceived as costing local voters (yes, prison guards vote) their jobs.

THIS IS A case that is going to be decided in the appeals courts and the Illinois Supreme Court in Springfield, Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it wind up in Washington with the Supreme Court of the United States having final say as to whether a governor can close a prison as a cost-cutting measure.

The problem with viewing this issue as purely a prison closing is that it isn’t.

The Illinois Department of Corrections earlier this decade oversaw construction of a new maximum-security prison in Thomson, Ill., a tiny rural town in northwestern Illinois to whom Galena and Dubuque, Iowa, are the closest “big” cities.

But shortages in state funding have prevented that facility from ever opening.

UNDER THE ONGOING Blagojevich proposal, that modern prison facility with all the security amenities expected of a 21st Century facility would be opened, with inmates being shifted from the to-be shuttered prison.

Technically, the number of prison guards and other prison employees on the state payroll would remain roughly the same, because the new facility in Thomson would have to go on a hiring binge.

But the people of Pontiac don’t feel like they should suffer an economic hit, even if Thomson would gain a boon unlike anything they ever envisioned as possible.

If this were just a matter of a downstate town being upset that they were losing something, I wouldn’t care much.

BUT THE SIMPLE fact is that this issue has always been political.

When Blagojevich originally proposed closing a state prison (combined with the long-overdue opening of Thomson) over a year ago, the prison he chose was the historic Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet.

If anything, that community could have afforded the economic loss from fewer prison guard jobs. Being at the edge of the Chicago area and having something of an economy of its own, it was not as dependent on a prison’s existence in its boundaries as any of the other rural towns that host Illinois prison facilities.

But Joliet-area political officials used their pull in the General Assembly, and eventually pressured Blagojevich to back off of his talk of closing down the century-old prison (which would be prohibitively expensive to renovate into a facility approximating what will someday exist in Thomson).

THAT IS WHEN the Pontiac Correctional Center got put on the political hit list.

With Republican legislators representing the area (and much of central Illinois), it is not like Blagojevich was offending anyone who was ever his political ally (unlike the Democratic organization that has pull in Will County).

And it’s not like Livingston County (which consists of Pontiac and little else along Interstate 55) can put on the kind of pressure Will County could to get the governor to change his mind once again.

So this is a case where Chicago-area political people were able to use their political muscle to force a governor to back off. Blagojevich had better hope that appeals courts do not give Livingston County the same influence – or else he’s going to look foolish.

ONE ARGUMENT MADE in the past by prison monitoring groups is that closing any facility is shortsighted. They cite crowded prison conditions in Illinois, and note the facility in Thomson was designed and built to supplement the existing maximum-security prisons – not replace them.

They say that Blagojevich’s attempt to save a few bucks would make worse a prison-crowding problem that exists in Illinois.

The political observer in me does get one chuckle out of the ongoing mess.

Part of the maneuvering that caused Blagojevich earlier this year to give up on closing Stateville was a promise from Will County legislators to oppose any talk of pushing for changes in state law to allow for recall elections for Illinois governors.

KNOWING THAT BACKING away from closing Stateville would reduce the issue of recall from a serious issue to one talked about only by political cranks was good motivation, and legislators from the Pontiac area actually voted in support of their Will County’s allies.

But in voting for the measure to protect Stateville, they wound up shifting the fight down to their home ground, since there aren’t an endless supply of maximum-security prisons that could be closed. “If not Stateville, then Pontiac,”is the logic running through Blagojevich’s mind.

Will any token Democrats running for office in Livingston County have the nerve to accuse the Republican incumbents for voting in support of a measure that will ultimately cost their hometown one of its major employers?

It is an absurd accusation, but it is no more ridiculous than a lot of the rhetoric that comes out of political campaigns prior to Election Day.

AND WHAT HAPPENS if the people of Livingston County are somehow able to protect their prison, getting some sort of court ruling that forces Blagojevich to back off of closing Pontiac?

Then the people of Chester, Ill., and surrounding towns in Southern Illinois would be well advised to start preparing for the political fight now, for their Menard Correctional Center would be the only maximum-security prison left that Blagojevich could even think of closing.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois Department of Corrections, along with the state comptroller and treasurer’s office, all were named in the lawsuit (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-pontiacprison-law,0,3847338.story) filed Wednesday by the labor union that represents prison guards.

Illinois prisons designed to hold roughly 34,000 inmates are being asked to confine about (http://www.pontiacdailyleader.com/news/x1366183620) 45,000 people convicted of various crimes.

Some think the Illinois General Assembly should intervene to save the Pontiac Correctional Center (http://www.pjstar.com/opinions/x2070802162/Our-View-Pontiac-deserves-fair-vote) from being closed. Yet that could wind up interjecting all kinds of regional politics into the issue.