|RAUNER: He leads, for now|
BUT DURING THE summer months, Rauner (the man whose gubernatorial premise is to do whatever he can to undermine labor unions) used his “veto” power to kill the law. If he can’t get the state to enact “right-to-work” in Illinois, he’ll settle for a city-by-city piecemeal approach.
That led to the state Legislature, convening for their fall veto session, working to override Rauner’s objections. The Illinois Senate took the override vote successfully, which led to the Illinois House (led by the evil being Mike Madigan – or so GOP ideologues would want us to think) taking its best shot at killing off a Rauner desire.
They didn’t quite make it. The Capitol Fax newsletter reported that the vote taken on the override measure was 70-42, with Rep. Michael McAuliffe, R-Chicago, voting “present” and six others not voting.The 60 percent majority required in the Legislature to override a gubernatorial veto is 71 votes, meaning effort to thwart Rauner fell one vote short.
|McAULIFFE: Voted 'present'|
BUT THAT DOESN’T end the politicking on this measure. For according to legislative rules, the bill’s sponsors can have this roll call thrown away, and try again another day during the veto session.
Reports coming out of the Statehouse during the afternoon indicate that’s exactly what will happen, with another vote likely to be called in a couple of weeks just before the Legislature adjourns for the 2017 calendar year.
One legislator, Sam Yingling, D-Round Lake Beach, was absent, while there may be some serious politicking in coming weeks to get some of those who managed to not vote on the issue to get off their duffs and cast a vote this time around.
Meaning Dems are likely optimistic they can get one more person to vote “aye,” which would allow for the veto override to pass – and give Rauner’s veto a great big raspberry.
|YINGLING: Missed the vote|
ALTHOUGH THERE MAY well be just as much politicking to try to find a person or two who voted “aye” this time around to – if not vote “nay” – just sit on their keisters and “accidentally” forget to vote next time around.
It’s going to be ugly as political people fight over the future of anything related to “right-to-work,” which is justified since the concept of “right-to-work” itself borders on ugliness.
It’s based on the ideas of some people who, for whatever reason, resent being asked to join a labor union when they take a job that is covered by such a benefit. “Right-to-work” is that Southern concept spreading its way to other states wishing to make an ideological statement that says people can’t be forced to join a union. If that were all at stake, I’d argue anybody silly enough to not want union backing is only hurting themselves with such actions.
But “right-to-work” usually is used by businesses to take actions meant to openly discourage labor unions from gaining any influence within their companies – and is meant to penalize those people who (from the business’ perspective) have the unmitigated gall to even think of wanting organized labor representation.
|MADIGAN: Will he win in the end?|
Which has led some individual communities (usually in the more rural parts of the state) to try to declare themselves “right-to-work” communities – a move that the federal courts have struck down on the grounds that only the state can make such a declaration.
Which is what is behind the new bill – by which government officials who try to push for such measures in the future could face misdemeanor criminal charges.
A step that some may consider too drastic – but when it comes to such a loaded issue like “right-to-work,” it is only natural that peoples’ tempers will get all riled up, “fightin’ words” will be spoke and the politicking will be fierce as certain people defend the rights of workers to have their desired union representation.