Politically partisan tactics have a knack of repeating themselves at Statehouse

It’s true that Democrats in the Illinois House of Representatives used political tactics Thursday to take a partisan pot shot at the idea of the “right to work” legislation that Gov. Bruce Rauner so eagerly desires.

RAUNER: Took a political hit

The Illinois House pushed forward a bill that allegedly details the specifics that Rauner wants in a new law that would undermine the concept of organized labor and unions in this state.

OF COURSE, MADIGAN’S bill wasn’t put together by Rauner’s people. His staff had nothing to do with it.

The whole purpose of Thursday was a political stunt so that the Democratic majority that runs the Illinois House (and the state Senate too) could vote “no” in such an overwhelming manner that they could say the idea was dead.

This was a political hit, similar to the scene in “The Godfather” where Clemenza killed Paulie Gatto in the car. The only thing we don’t know is if the Madigan “hit job” involved ditching the murder weapon, but making sure to take the canoli.

So yes, Illinois House Minority Leader James Durkin, R-Western Springs, wasn’t totally out-of-line when he ranted Thursday that the vote – which was 0-72, with 37 other legislators voting “present” (and seven other legislators conveniently being absent from the House chambers when the vote was called) – was pointless.

“WHAT’S HAPPENING TODAY... is really a disservice to this body, to this chamber and to this building,” Durkin said.

But excuse me for not being terribly sympathetic toward the Grand Ol’ Party, which I know is really only upset that they can’t use the exact same tactics on Democrats.

MADIGAN: Following Pate's lead?

I make that statement knowing it isn’t the least bit libelous because I remember the days of the mid-1990s (back when Republicans were not only relevant to state government, but were dominant) when the exact same tactic WAS used on the Democrats.

It was an issue in which there was an attempt at negotiation, of sorts. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar and then-Mayor Richard M. Daley had reached a compromise and had publicly announced their deal – which Daley was to then persuade Democrats to support while Edgar would do the same for Republicans.

THE REASON THIS issue sticks in my mind some two decades later is the fact that then-Senate President James “Pate” Philip was offended that HIS staff was not included in the negotiations.

PHILIP: His memory lingers

He didn’t like the idea of being told what to do, not even by a governor of his own political persuasion who was supposed to be his ally.

So the very next day, before any talks to try to persuade legislators to back the governor/mayoral deal could take place, Philip had his staff put together a bill supposedly based on the ideals of the issue.

Then, Republicans in the Senate voted unanimously against it. All of the Democrats voted “present.” Officially, Philip said that the vote was legitimate because it showed “nobody wants this.” As I recall, a watered-down version of the issue eventually did get passage, although bitter feelings never truly withered away.

COULD THIS LATEST action have a similar effect – in that it makes it appear that the incumbent governor is weak and capable of being pushed around by a united front on the part of legislative Democrats?

Too many similarities to politics

It would be an equal response to the tough talk that Rauner has engaged in whenever issues of organized labor come up.

Although if it were to wind up that both sides of labor/business disputes were to wind up realizing the need for compromise and to back off the cheap trash talk when trying to resolve the issue, then perhaps something good will have come from Thursday’s politicking.

 

  -30-

Rauner vs. Madigan, Lisa that is

It’s starting to feel like the dominant trend in Illinois state government in coming years is going to be brawls of Rauner vs. Madigan, as in the daughter of the Illinois House speaker who is state attorney general in her own right.

Yes, it could be that the biggest obstacle Gov. Bruce Rauner has to overcome to impose his ideological agenda is that of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan – who on Friday took a serious dump all over the fantasies the new governor has about bringing ‘right to work’ concepts to Illinois.

THOSE TYPES OF laws enacted in several conservative-leaning states are meant to undermine organized labor in ways that discourage workers from wanting to join unions. Usually by permitting companies to be able to engage in actions that are hostile to labor interests.

Rauner tries to claim that it somehow forces people who don’t want to join a union to do so if they want to work in certain types of jobs. In reality, it makes it easier for companies to single out for abuse those people who would want to have a labor union help represent their interests on the job.

Right to work is a concept that is big in Southern states, and has spread to certain other parts of the country – including our neighbor states of Indiana and Wisconsin.

In the latter, Gov. Scott Walker wants to think his hostility to organized labor interests will carry him to the White House as a successor to Barack Obama come the 2016 election cycle.

ILLINOIS IS DIFFERENT politically and the Democratic Party interests that control the General Assembly are highly unlikely to ever take full-fledged ‘right to work’ seriously. Which is why Rauner was talking about creation of ‘right to work zones.’

As in certain communities might be able to designate themselves as places where labor unions would have such restrictions that they would be unable to function within those boundaries.

I suspect that Rauner thinks if he could bring the ‘right to work’ concept to parts of Illinois, the rest of the state would soon be clamoring for the same thing.

But on Friday, Madigan (the attorney general, not “Mr. Speaker”) issued a legal opinion saying that Rauner’s idea is not legal. It wouldn’t work. He can’t go about trying to impose ‘right to work’ laws piecemeal by slipping them under the door crack.

IT WOULD BE a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, Madigan wrote, and that it would take the actual General Assembly in full to approve changes in state law to bring ‘right to work’ anywhere in Illinois.

Which is a big ‘fat chance’ in Illinois. There might be some local officials in isolated pockets of the Land of Lincoln (mostly the kind of people who wish they could be called Hoosiers) who would be willing to offer up their communities for an experiment.

But full-state passage isn’t likely. Perhaps too much of Illinois is urban? Or maybe it's just that Illinois people, urban or rural, are too smart to put up with such nonsense.

Rauner could still try to file some sort of lawsuit and convince a judge he’s right. But he’d have Lisa Madigan and all of the attorneys who work for state government in opposition.

IT WOULD EXPOSE his desires as the politically partisan power grab that it truly is.

It wouldn’t be the first time this governor and the current attorney general disagreed on an issue. Let’s remember that when the death of Illinois comptroller Judy Baar Topinka created a vacancy, Rauner’s preference was to appoint a replacement for the full four-year term.

While Madigan ultimately said a special election must be held at some point, rather than let Rauner appointee Leslie Munger have a full four-year term.

Is this going to be the trend; those people with more progressive political leanings viewing Lisa Madigan as their savior to protect the masses of Illinois from being tormented by the governor who (let’s be honest) didn’t win election as much as his opponent in last year’s election cycle lost it.

IF SO, THEN perhaps we ought to view the happenings of Jan. 11 (the day before Inauguration Day) in a new light; when Madigan and Rauner were both at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum and the Chicago Sun-Times got a picture of the two embracing.

Perhaps now in retrospect, the two wish they had wrapped their fingers around each others’ necks!

  -30-