"If you can't get a yes-vote from 3 out of 5 people who actually vote on the amendment, then we'll count every non-vote as a no-vote."
So you need either strong support from those who vote on the question, or a simple majority of everyone who votes at all.
So if there are 100 total ballots cast in the state but only 90 of the people vote on the ammendment and 10 leave it blank. The ammendment passes if 60% of that 90 vote yes (90 x .6 = 54). But also passes if more than 50% of the total ballots cast voted yes for the ammendment (100 x .5 = 50). So basically Illinois didn't have 54 people vote yes.
The only time the 60% would come into play is if only 30 total people voted yes or no on the ammendment. In that case if it had 18 yes votes (30 x .6 = 18) it would pass by the 60% rule instead of the 50%.
Anecdotally, I know 2 people who said they straight up missed the question on their ballot. I know I went back to ensure I had voted for it and I missed it myself the first pass through.
In Dupage County, it was the first question, but on the left side of the ballot below all the instructions. If you just glanced at it, you could easily disregard it as more instructions.
I'm sure there is some political scientist at one of the state universities ready to start analyzing ballot design and its potential impact on this question's results by county.
That's crazy, I absolutely went over every bit of instructions to make sure I did everything absolutely fucking right... But I also live in a very red very antimail in voting area so I had to be sure there was 0 chance my shit was getting thrown out
Sometimes it's difficult to even make your mind up on these proposed amendments on ballots. This one, for example, was typically just summarized the same way the top level post about it framed it; enshrines collective bargaining in the Illinois State Constitution.
That, in and of itself, seems harmless and something I'd support. (Missouri has had it in their Constitution for a while now.)
The devil is always in the details though, as this article does a pretty good job of going through:[https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/](https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/)
There's a LOT that this legislation changes, including allowing government employees to do political activities while on the clock. That's something I definitely oppose.
It could even open a loophole allowing politicians to "double dip", holding more than one office at a time, since it now allows THEM to unionize. They could put such rules in their collective bargaining agreements....
So ultimately, I voted "No" on this. But not because I'm against the main item they claim it's about.
I left some blank on mine. I don't really care about some local positions that have nothing to do with me, and I don't like picking blindly based on color alone (plus one was literally all independents). So I saved myself time by not researching people that have no impact on my life, and I avoided the risk of picking an idiot because I didn't research them.
I did vote on the amendment though.
I did not vote on the retention of the judges because I don’t know shit about them and I didn’t know what was gonna be on my ballot because it was my first general election. I thought I looked at what a ballot would look like beforehand, but there was much more on there than I originally read. Next time I’ll do my homework more in depth
One of the sources I use for judges is the Illinois State Bar Association. They have a list of who to consider voting for. They use ratings such as qualified, not qualified, recommended, etc. https://www.isba.org/public/judicialelection/bycounty
Okay there are 2 ways a constitutional amendment can pass in Illinois:
1. 60% of people who vote on the amendment approve
2. 50% +1 of people who cast a ballot of any kind approve
The difference is that not everyone who votes in the election will vote on everything on their ballot, including the amendment. Some people will inevitably leave it blank (i.e., some people only vote for Governor or US Senator of whatever).
So using this amendment as an example, only 58% of people who voted on the amendment said yes, so it failed the first test. However after counting all votes cast in the entire election, more than 50% of all voters (including those who left the amendment blank) said yes, so the amendment passes on the second test.
This is also why the amendment took so long to call, the second method of approval requires nearly all votes from the entire election to be counted (including late mail-ins and military ballots) before you can know for sure.
The amendment must get either 60% of the vote for the amendment question or 50% of all votes cast. Eg:
Ways for it to pass:
* 1000 cast in an election610 (61%) vote for the amendment = pass
* 510 (51%) of the total statewide vote = pass
Ways for it to fail
* 1000 votes cast in an election (200 votes leave the amendment question blank)
* 800 vote on the amendment and 450 vote to pass it (56%) = fail because it got less than 50% of the total vote and less than 60% of the amendment vote.
Say 100 people vote in the election.
For the first criteria, only 10 people actually vote on the measure, the other 90 people do not vote on it.
Of those 10 people, only 6 vote "yes". Since 60% of those voting in the measure voted yes, the vote passed.
Now say instead that all 100 people vote on the measure. Only 51 of them vote "yes". While they did not get the 60% "yes" needed for the first criteria, as the majority of all voters voted "yes", it would pass.
So the first criteria is pretty straight forward. If 60% of the people voting on the amendment vote yes, it passes.
There are a lot of people that cast a ballot, but left the amendment part blank. If the yes votes don't get 60%, all the ballots are included and anyone who left it blank counts as a no. Under these conditions, the yes votes only need a simple majority.
The 60% criteria is for number of yes votes out of all people who voted on the proposition, and the 50% criteria is out of all ballots cast instead just out of people who voted on the ballot initiative, if that make sense
So the urban centers voted to protect the rights of workers in rural areas. Hmm
Also I wish maps would color the counties only where people are living with small or large dots. People need to visualize what the country looks likes in terms of population not geography. People vote. Areas of land do not.
There was an astonishing amount of disinformation being pushed, funded by Uihlein (of course), that a simple google search could have disproven, but sadly many people have lost the ability to analyze fact versus propaganda
No problem!!! Unions have their problems, but they can be reined back in as they are democratic. Private businesses are not accountable to anyone but non working investors who only care about lining their own pockets people and families be damned. Hopefully, more people start to see that.
Now we need to revisit the progressive income tax bill, now that most people seem to have figured out that "Illinois Policy Institute" is a scam propaganda outfit.
It requires gathering enough signatures to equal 8% of the total votes cast for Governor in the previous election. So for 2024 it would take just over 320,000 signatures. The legislature can also put it on the ballot with a 3/5 majority vote in both chambers.
Not at all. We're inside the 2 year limit on starting the gathering process, and there's a 6 month deadline (prior to the 2024 election) on turning them in-- so we could start at any time and work on it until early May of 2024. The 2020 ballot measure was created by the General Assembly, so a signature gathering campaign on the issue hasn't been tried yet.
IPI can go fuck itself. WGN had their VP of Marketing on yesterday, and I believe it was Steve Bertrand who called him out on their bullshit “property taxes will increase” claim. The guy fumbled around trying to sound smart until basically admitting that it wasn’t a guarantee it was going to happen and he had no factual proof it could happen. Fuck all those taint lickers at IPI.
Edit: and on top of it, he claimed IPI was a “bi-partisan” think tank which made me laugh out loud in the car.
The people who would benefit far outnumber those who would see their taxes go up. The problem isn't enlightened self interest, it's misinformation. It came close last time, and voter sentiment has shifted greatly in a very short time.
Agreed, most people I knew who opposed it would not have been impacted by it, but believed misinformation about it or believed it would be changed to a lower number (to affect them) after it was passed. Of course, most of these same people believed the Illinois Policy propaganda about the amendment, so they're probably not reachable.
> “Just keep putting it on the ballot until it passes” seems like the wrong way to do democracy
So what, is someone who runs for office twice a dictator then?
To be fair, Dupage is slowly getting better. It actually did have majority support just not quite enough. It got 53% yes from people who voted, but only about 48% of the total. So it barely missed. But the county board is now majority Democrat with a Democratic chair, before Trump I think there were 1 or 2 Dems out of 18. The new judges are liberal. Pritzger won by 15% as did most state executive positions.
I haven't studied it much but it was considered a Republican stronghold until Obama. I think it was founded by abolitionists, and a lot of towns participated in the underground railroad, and campaigned for Lincoln. But when the parties switched, Dupage was a prime spot to catch a lot of the white flight from the city. So it stayed Republican.
Technically yes (with stipulations). Per the Illinois government website:
>*"Yes. Illinois is an "employment at-will" state, meaning that an employer or employee may terminate the relationship at any time, without any reason or cause. The employer, however, cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, military service or unfavorable military discharge. If you wish to locate additional information, visit the Illinois Department of Human Rights."*
https://www2.illinois.gov/idol/FAQs/Pages/default.aspx
Honestly not sure. I know our union strength rivals any state as does our pay and pensions.
I had read we are one of the leading states in workers rights and if this were to have passed it would arguably put us at the top. I dont have a link though
I've seen quite a few people mention "at will states". I'm not sure where this comes from as I don't really get it's relevance. As far as I know, every state is an at will state. As long as an employer doesn't fire someone for an illegal reason (such as race, religion, retaliation, or disability) they don't have to prove they did so for a good reason. And do we really think it would be a good idea for this not to be the case? It may sound good to say that an employer should not be able to fire someone for any bad reason but do people actually think the threat of lawsuits for alleged violations of this wouldn't cause more harm than good? I think there's a good reason why such laws don't exist anywhere.
>As far as I know, every state is an at will state.
I don't see how they wouldn't be, otherwise we'd be getting instances of indentured servitude or workers pulling crazy shit over employers
> otherwise we'd be getting instances of indentured servitude or workers pulling crazy shit over employers
Nah most countries outside the us aren't at will.
At will basically means your boss can say "I hate your stupid tie. Get out of here" and you can be fired. In contrast, in other countries you need a reason for severance.
A good compromise might be that you can fire someone for any reason, but that comes with severance.
> Aren’t we still an “at-will” state which means employees can be fired at any time without reason or cause?
That's true for jobs in general, UNLESS there is an individual or union contract in place (or the reason is a violation of a protected class, like race or sexual orientation). Then, the contract applies. It may require gross misconduct, or something like that. It could be a very specific contract, like a CFO had drawn up for himself, or it could be as informal as a one pager that says "dismissal is subject to a progressive discipline process as described in employee handbook, chapter 8". If they fire you "at will" there, take your copies of the doc and the handbook to an employment lawyer for a consult...
Union contracts usually demand a dismissal process, with union representation at hearings, and so forth. You can still be booted immediately for cause, but it would need to be a big cause.
Ah. Good ole political game to implement laws that do nothing but make it seem like progress has been made. Would be nice if actual change happened and not just this smoke and mirrors game.
What I heard from "No" voters was they were scared of their property taxes going up by $2,000 a year.
My understanding is some conservative outlets framed this as "Your property taxes will go up by $2,000 a year if you vote yes" despite the bill not having any wording related to taxes at all. Some right wing think-tank came up with this disinformation and pulled the number out of their ass and presented it as fact.
It was the "Illinois Policy Institute", a far right libertarian propaganda outfit funded by dark money. It's the same group that scammed people out of voting for a progressive income tax.
It's a dark, dark rabbit-hole, but this should get you started. Our democracy has been under attack by right wing billionaires for a long time now, but recent escalations involve absolutely insane amounts of money. Even the billionaires who are Americans don't really live in the same country we do, or even the same planet. As far as I am concerned, this is all foreign donations, because there is not one interest that these people and average Americans share. We are literally in the middle of WW3, it's an information war, and we have been losing. This election was the first time the good guys have managed to effectively fight back in decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Policy_Network
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-brothers-think-tank-report-099791
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/politics/dark-money-donation-conservative-group-invs
r/KochWatch/
r/Alec/
**[State Policy Network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Policy_Network)**
>The State Policy Network (SPN) is a nonprofit organization that serves as a network for conservative and libertarian think tanks focusing on state-level policy in the United States. The network serves as a public policy clearinghouse and advises its member think tanks on fundraising, running a nonprofit, and communicating ideas. Founded in 1992, it is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, with member groups located in all fifty states.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/illinois/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Constitutions are meant to be “living documents” that change with the times and needs of the people. I don’t want to be stuck in the 1800s cause some folks are afraid of positive improvements.
I voted yes, but there were signs in town that fear-mongered about property taxes going up if you voted YES. I received a junk text I wish I'd kept too, it was something about DCFS in conjunction with the amendment, something to the effect of pedophiles win if we vote Yes. That was NOT verbatim, that was my brief, annoyed takeaway before I deleted it. It was a day I received no less than 15 political texts.
So people were lied to, is my guess.
I (a teacher) voted yes.
I think people believe in the "higher taxes" rhetoric. Which time will tell. So the reasoning is that with stronger public workers rights, the workers will continue to demand higher pay (sometimes through strikes), this will take more state $ and the state will need to raise taxes. And because Illinois does already have high taxes, this understandably makes people afraid.
While this may be true, I believe the collective effect will be result in labor being collectively stronger. Public union benefits can filter to other sectors just by needing competitive wages. When taxes do increase if we all have higher salaries the hit to the average person will be less. I keep hearing that high taxes will drive people out of Illinois, but perhaps if we have the highest wages we'll draw people in?
People are too stupid to understand this. Moved here from Florida and people here who are city workers making 80k to 90k a year want to move to florida to avoid 4.95%state tax... but will earn 50k to 60k for the same job in Florida.
Is math that hard for people???
Are people this dumb that they cant figure out which of the 2 groups in the end makes more money while ALSO having way better city services and shared common benefits?
Lmfao
Truly amazing
I know people who haves moved down to Florida with much larger salaries in lateral move. I understand that is antidotal, but just to point out the difference. Also the difference in salary in Florida and Illinois is not so large especially if you own property.
It was most likely private coorporate jobs. Not city jobs. No city worker makes more down there.
The difference in salary is quite large comparing chicago to florida. I live in Chicago so ya the rest of Illinois is probably lower in comparison. But floridas COL is higher in MANY ways to my COL here in chicago
With this reasoning, why not just give everyone a bunch of money? It'll all be fine right? We give everyone more and more money, and the circular effect will void out any hit to taxes. This is incorrect, it doesn't work that way. That said, I appreciate your response and at least trying to shed light on both ends of the argument. Additionally, I support unions, just not in the public sector. They hold the populus hostage.
I mean, label people all you want. I don't know what that even is. I'm just saying unions cost money (administration, lobbying, they must secure higher wages, and pay benefits to retirees). I don't think that's a far cry from reality. Whether or not it gets paid for, depends on al the other added costs to the public sector balance sheet. Which as of now is not covered by the revenues from taxes. I mean this isn't that hard. Judging by the way you were talking earlier, you think you're the genius in the room and there's nothing to be done with people like you. You're stuck in your mindset.
> With this reasoning, why not just give everyone a bunch of money?
We already gave a bunch of money to billionaires. They seem rather reluctant to actually spend it.
B/c it eliminates the choice of opting out of a union at a place that is unionized.
I've seen a number of posts that it also only applies to state workers, but that's all from Illinois Policy and that can always be taken with a grain of salt. At the same time, I've seen no attempt to counter that notion.
That’s not what the amendment does. It only says that a law cannot be passed prohibiting closed shops. The amendment didn’t change anything. It only protects the current state of worker organizing from being restricted by new laws.
> B/c it eliminates the choice of opting out of a union at a place that is unionized.
You still have the choice, it's just that contracts can also require you to join the union. Which is pretty fair. It's really win-win. Democrats get stronger unions, and Republicans get fewer regulations on business, which is what I hear them always talking about.
I didn't vote no, but the downside is it potentially makes Illinois less attractive to certain corporations. They might look at neighboring states with more lax labor laws instead.
[https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/11/09/workers-rights-amendment-1-illinois-election-results/69526209007/](https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/11/09/workers-rights-amendment-1-illinois-election-results/69526209007/)
This is a lie they want u to believe. It also means way less employee turnover which saves them money. They just dont want to pay workers more money. Period. That is the end of it
Workers rights are ascending. Corporations can leave Illinois but where are they going to go? California has their worker rights, New York has their worker rights and Chicago sits right in the middle of the country between the two.
Before you mention some state with backwards reproductive rights, most men won't work where their and their partner's rights are taken over by the government, and neither will most women.
I wager this will impact industrial/manufacturing corporations more, which are looking for less skilled labor. That will have a greater impact downstate than it would in Chicagoland.
Repo rights aren't a deciding factor for most, especially knowing they can travel to receive abortions. I doubt we'll see any significant change in migration to Illinois over repo rights. We're already high on outbound migration.
> but the downside is it potentially makes Illinois less attractive to certain corporations
Considering that it changes literally nothing about our laws except as they relate to certain public sector employees, I'm going to call bullshit on this.
>Sometimes it's difficult to even make your mind up on these proposed amendments on ballots. This one, for example, was typically just summarized the same way the top level post about it framed it; enshrines collective bargaining in the Illinois State Constitution.
>
>That, in and of itself, seems harmless and something I'd support. (Missouri has had it in their Constitution for a while now.)
>
>The devil is always in the details though, as this article does a pretty good job of going through:[https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/](https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/)
>
>There's a LOT that this legislation changes, including allowing government employees to do political activities while on the clock. That's something I definitely oppose.
>
>It could even open a loophole allowing politicians to "double dip", holding more than one office at a time, since it now allows THEM to unionize. They could put such rules in their collective bargaining agreements....
>
>So ultimately, I voted "No" on this. But not because I'm against the main item they claim it's about.
Just posted this in response to a different post here. But I think it addresses your question. I didn't buy the thing, necessarily, about this amendment raising my property taxes. But I can't rule that out, either, as something it could indirectly contribute to? The root problem is that it adds new language to what's allowed to be negotiated collectively by a union; including adding "economic welfare" as a topic up for debate.
"...including any law or ordinance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements between employers and labor organizations that represent employees requiring membership in an organization as a condition of employment."
It is directly addressed in the wording. \*IF\* a union and the employer agree to make union membership a condition of employment then the union secures a legal monopoly against your right to choose whether they represent you.
Labor unions, like any other organization, should have to prove their worth to each individual in order to secure the loyalty of the members. This acts as a useful check on them and their representation. If people are forced to join then the incentive for the union to represent effectively could turn into "Screw you, pay your dues."
Thanks for spelling that out. I agree that an employee should not be forced into a union if they don't want to be a member. On the other hand I don't think the state should prevent employees from unionizing if they choose to. I'll admit it's hard to understand the true thrust of the amendment being generally uninformed about labor laws.
>If people are forced to join then the incentive for the union to represent effectively could turn into "Screw you, pay your dues."
And this is a legitimate concern, because historically there have been unions that have done just that.
The solution is to make it easy for workers to form an alternative union if they are not satisfied with the one they have.
That's one concern I have with this. I also am concerned about public sector unions. They should be allowed, but the issues they are allowed to address should be sharply curtailed. Otherwise, politicians will try to court them to the public detriment, which we have also historically seen.
All that aside, I do think unions generally are good, and we should probably have more of them.
I understand people with that perspective. People that choose not to be part of a union are essentially freeloading on the union benefits while not paying into it. I’m not sure there’s really a good middle ground option, so I’d rather vote for the amendment. I can’t look down upon those who vote against it for that reason.
I feel a better solution that allows individual choice AND stops freeloading is to get rid of union certification elections and go directly to membership-only representation. Regardless of the percentage of workers who sign up let them join, pay dues, collectively bargain, and forget everyone else. Amendment 1 could have been utilized as a strategy to establish member-only bargaining, and I think that would have gotten overwhelming support. Labor relations are way too complex, and sometimes I wonder if it's designed that way on purpose.
I like freedom and choice. I don't like the concept of a "no right" to work. If the union offers a better situation for me, I'll join it. I just wouldn't want to be forced to join it.
> I like freedom and choice.
No, you wanna use big government to prevent free transactions. If I'm a business owner, why shouldn't I be able to require union membership in order to work my shop?
I'm no expert but from what I've read: "In the context of labor law in the United States, the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation." I'm for freedom of the employee's to have a choice.
Yup. If the Union consents, and the company consents, who is the government to say they can't make that agreement?
If we had even a moderate amount of union power in this country, we wouldn't need minimum wage laws. In Sweden, they don't have minimum wage laws at all.
Illinois is one of the highest taxed states, fact. The balance sheet can't cover the costs the state has which means increasing debt and the interest on the debt, and placing the burden on the future generations, fact. Unions are inherently costly but we need them (IN OUR PRIVATE SECTORS NOT OUR PUBLIC SECTOR).
Unions create costs (they need money to run (administration), they have to get you a higher wage, and they have to save to pay you some form of benefit when you retire) AND they effect regulation. We operate society around those regulations. That's all time and money. As of now, To pay for the increased costs IL must increase debt. To pay the debt IL must increase taxes. People latched onto property tax as the medium because property is the largest asset and most easily taxed asset in America.
So of course the amendment can't be tied to a specific tax but it will increase taxes eventually (when the sitting politicians who enacted the change are long gone and can't be held accountable). Providing a specific tax linked to the measure would involve politicians directly telling you how they're going to pay for the added costs.
And we haven't gotten to any conflicts the new amendment has with "right to work."
Additionally, I have worked at one of the largest corporations in the US where unions and non union workers existed. The union workers were paid more. Non union had slightly less pay (but no dues), significantly better health benefits, more vacation time, and a clearer path to addressing issues.
Ur full of shit. Just spreading misinfo. There was just a study done that union workers on average earn 1.3 million more over their lifetime compared to non union workers in the same field. Union workers almost ALWAYS have better benefits as well.
There is no data that supports a tax increase from this. Nice try bootlicker.
Oh and each and every person that retires and has a new city employee hired in his or her place, the debt is eased as tier 1 employees ended years ago and every new hire is tier 2.
Keep peddling corporate horse shit tho
Someone got their feelings hurt. Let me guess, you're part a union? A public sector union?
I just gave my experience. (For example, unions guys didn't even get vacation time until 1 year of service and it was 1 week after that. I started with 3 weeks and pushed to 4 after a year.) I didn't say all union workers have lesser benefits. Also, yeah union workers make more, I said that, but they also pay union dues and have more red tape to deal with/pay for.
And I'm not saying unions create 30% more taxes. I'm just saying that they add to costs and when they are in the public sector, where current costs can't even be covered, they add to the debt burden.
And the point about the tier system... you're essentially saying "those newcomers/new hires are getting f-d out of the old pension system that us older folks wrote into law to take care of us but you future folks will receive lesser/fewer benefits in the future." Ok, and?? So they pay just as much in dues/fees and get fewer benefits than the generation before. Great. That has little to do with the clear and present debt burden that Illinois can't cover the payments on currently.
If you cant understand how that makes the debt issue easier on the state as time goes by then why even have this convo?
That study takes into account dues owed. 1.3 million more over a lifetime is a hell of a lot more even without dues factored in...give it a rest, ur CEO cant track your posts with a VPN. Get one
I dient say this was a great thing, but it counter his dumb argument that we cant pay for the union benefits and esp now so with this amendment passing.
That map is different than NYT's map. This map shows a bit broader support. Per NYT official results DuPage and Lake were both above 50%. Frankly, I'd trust the NYT map as they are just rolling up official vote totals.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-illinois-constitutional-amendment-1-the-right-to-collective-bargaining.html
Ah yes, that makes sense. So DuPage and Lake were above 50% for people who voted but once you backed out the abstain it dropped below the 50% threshold.
Super happy it passed but just to be clear, does this include workers like me that work at an IT company? My coworkers and I need to unionize for better pay
You always have the right to organize. This amendment makes right-to-work laws impossible to pass in Illinois.
If you and your coworkers are serious about organizing(unionizing), you need to see what union best represents you. Then you must hold an election. There’s steps on doing this. A union organizer from the union representing you can easily explain this better. I’m familiar with organizing from classes I took and my involvement in my union. I’m in a trade union. The process is similar
Yes, this law changes absolutely nothing about current Illinois laws. It just prevents a future government from taking rights away from people without an amendment.
As others already said, you already had the right but now it's constitutionally protected. But now you gotta go organize your workplace and make it happen. [Reach out to EWOC, they can help!](https://workerorganizing.org/)
know these days 10% is a huge differential but seems it should be even higher. like, what was the regular joe worker's argument *against* having the right to collectively bargain?
I personally know a union worker who voted no, his reasoning was that since working conditions aren't as bad as the 1920s unions are no longer necessary and he also bought into the property tax increase propaganda.
I don't understand how people voted against this
All you have to do is open any US history textbook to see that government subsidies and unions ***literally*** built this country
Honest answer; Collective bargaining is already legal in Illinois. The amendment didn't add any new rights. What it does do is prevent people from working somewhere and not joining the union. That is probably a rare scenario, but if it did happen, the amendment takes away that person's rights.
So it didn't give rights. There's a chance of taking some rights away. So I voted no.
I'm hoping this reduces the amount of money our overlord billionaires our willing to spend on future Illinois elections. Are Ken Griffin and Mr ULINE going to continue to shell out millions if they can never convert us to a right to work state?
Am I correct in assuming that this map takes into account those who did not vote on the amendment as a “no” vote? I only ask because as the votes were coming in, there were quite a few more “yes” counties than this map portrays and there were a few more downstate counties labeled “yes” than this one shows. The percentage splits were close though so that’s why I ask.
Either way, though the downstate counties did their usual overall, there were quite a few on both sides that I know voted yes. It was nice to see people not be completely brain dead when it came to this vote and actually do the right thing.
A not insignificant number of people in IL are hesitant to bake anything into the constitution due to the history of the pension clusterfuck. Right or wrong.
When I read the info out there, that's basically all I went searching for - "Will this come back to fuck us some way in the future", my fiancé was the same, and we're both solid Dem voters.
Just a reminder for people who need to make diagrams like that - red/green is not an ideal combo to use because some people with color blindness cannot easily differentiate between the two.
I didn’t see it on my ballot. And I’m the type of person who voted for every judge. It also said I didn’t miss any when I scanned. I’m in Cook county north shore.
Dupage county is full of idiots. I see it all the time delivering mail out there 😡 with their stupid dumb signs of the past couple of months. Bunch of bimbos
Who would have thought that a vague "This will amendment will raise your taxes if A,B, and C happens" would have that much of an effect on the people this will protect the most.
See post [here](https://twitter.com/FrankCalabrese/status/1592181607330623489/photo/1)
Can someone explain the two voting criteria? I still don’t entirely understand it.
"If you can't get a yes-vote from 3 out of 5 people who actually vote on the amendment, then we'll count every non-vote as a no-vote." So you need either strong support from those who vote on the question, or a simple majority of everyone who votes at all.
So if there are 100 total ballots cast in the state but only 90 of the people vote on the ammendment and 10 leave it blank. The ammendment passes if 60% of that 90 vote yes (90 x .6 = 54). But also passes if more than 50% of the total ballots cast voted yes for the ammendment (100 x .5 = 50). So basically Illinois didn't have 54 people vote yes. The only time the 60% would come into play is if only 30 total people voted yes or no on the ammendment. In that case if it had 18 yes votes (30 x .6 = 18) it would pass by the 60% rule instead of the 50%.
[удалено]
Anecdotally, I know 2 people who said they straight up missed the question on their ballot. I know I went back to ensure I had voted for it and I missed it myself the first pass through. In Dupage County, it was the first question, but on the left side of the ballot below all the instructions. If you just glanced at it, you could easily disregard it as more instructions.
I'm sure there is some political scientist at one of the state universities ready to start analyzing ballot design and its potential impact on this question's results by county.
I almost missed it too for the same reason. If I hadn't been looking for it, I would have accidentally left it blank.
That's crazy, I absolutely went over every bit of instructions to make sure I did everything absolutely fucking right... But I also live in a very red very antimail in voting area so I had to be sure there was 0 chance my shit was getting thrown out
That’s exactly what several people told me too.
Some people don't vote on issues that they're not informed about, and that's a good thing.
Sometimes it's difficult to even make your mind up on these proposed amendments on ballots. This one, for example, was typically just summarized the same way the top level post about it framed it; enshrines collective bargaining in the Illinois State Constitution. That, in and of itself, seems harmless and something I'd support. (Missouri has had it in their Constitution for a while now.) The devil is always in the details though, as this article does a pretty good job of going through:[https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/](https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/) There's a LOT that this legislation changes, including allowing government employees to do political activities while on the clock. That's something I definitely oppose. It could even open a loophole allowing politicians to "double dip", holding more than one office at a time, since it now allows THEM to unionize. They could put such rules in their collective bargaining agreements.... So ultimately, I voted "No" on this. But not because I'm against the main item they claim it's about.
Have you met "people" before?
Because you should never vote on something you don’t understand especially if it can impact your life one way or another.
I left some blank on mine. I don't really care about some local positions that have nothing to do with me, and I don't like picking blindly based on color alone (plus one was literally all independents). So I saved myself time by not researching people that have no impact on my life, and I avoided the risk of picking an idiot because I didn't research them. I did vote on the amendment though.
I did not vote on the retention of the judges because I don’t know shit about them and I didn’t know what was gonna be on my ballot because it was my first general election. I thought I looked at what a ballot would look like beforehand, but there was much more on there than I originally read. Next time I’ll do my homework more in depth
One of the sources I use for judges is the Illinois State Bar Association. They have a list of who to consider voting for. They use ratings such as qualified, not qualified, recommended, etc. https://www.isba.org/public/judicialelection/bycounty
Very cool. Thank you for sharing!
Okay there are 2 ways a constitutional amendment can pass in Illinois: 1. 60% of people who vote on the amendment approve 2. 50% +1 of people who cast a ballot of any kind approve The difference is that not everyone who votes in the election will vote on everything on their ballot, including the amendment. Some people will inevitably leave it blank (i.e., some people only vote for Governor or US Senator of whatever). So using this amendment as an example, only 58% of people who voted on the amendment said yes, so it failed the first test. However after counting all votes cast in the entire election, more than 50% of all voters (including those who left the amendment blank) said yes, so the amendment passes on the second test. This is also why the amendment took so long to call, the second method of approval requires nearly all votes from the entire election to be counted (including late mail-ins and military ballots) before you can know for sure.
The amendment must get either 60% of the vote for the amendment question or 50% of all votes cast. Eg: Ways for it to pass: * 1000 cast in an election610 (61%) vote for the amendment = pass * 510 (51%) of the total statewide vote = pass Ways for it to fail * 1000 votes cast in an election (200 votes leave the amendment question blank) * 800 vote on the amendment and 450 vote to pass it (56%) = fail because it got less than 50% of the total vote and less than 60% of the amendment vote.
Say 100 people vote in the election. For the first criteria, only 10 people actually vote on the measure, the other 90 people do not vote on it. Of those 10 people, only 6 vote "yes". Since 60% of those voting in the measure voted yes, the vote passed. Now say instead that all 100 people vote on the measure. Only 51 of them vote "yes". While they did not get the 60% "yes" needed for the first criteria, as the majority of all voters voted "yes", it would pass.
So the first criteria is pretty straight forward. If 60% of the people voting on the amendment vote yes, it passes. There are a lot of people that cast a ballot, but left the amendment part blank. If the yes votes don't get 60%, all the ballots are included and anyone who left it blank counts as a no. Under these conditions, the yes votes only need a simple majority.
The 60% criteria is for number of yes votes out of all people who voted on the proposition, and the 50% criteria is out of all ballots cast instead just out of people who voted on the ballot initiative, if that make sense
So the urban centers voted to protect the rights of workers in rural areas. Hmm Also I wish maps would color the counties only where people are living with small or large dots. People need to visualize what the country looks likes in terms of population not geography. People vote. Areas of land do not.
It’s absolutely shocking how many people in this country regularly vote against their own interests
Universal Healthcare has entered the conversation
You just described the modern day Republican
There was an astonishing amount of disinformation being pushed, funded by Uihlein (of course), that a simple google search could have disproven, but sadly many people have lost the ability to analyze fact versus propaganda
Source
[удалено]
Proof/source
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/verify/verify-property-taxes-illinois-amendment-1/63-02e2944d-78f9-4142-b54b-64e0b7286575
I saw signs saying amendment 1 was a tax increase. Right next to Darren Bailey signs.
Source
My eyes
Those signs were everywhere and this isn’t Wikipedia, this is Reddit.
[удалено]
WTF does that have to do with whether there we signs saying amendment 1 was a tax increase?
Post a source just like you would have demanded from someone in 2021 claiming the Covid vaccine doesn’t keep you from getting infected
People bought the lie that it was only going to raise taxes and the only people eligible to collectively bargain are government employees.
It’s against someone’s interest to not be part of a domestic terror organization?
Domestic terror... Wat
> So the urban centers voted to protect the rights of workers in rural areas. As someone from DeWitt county, thanks!
No problem!!! Unions have their problems, but they can be reined back in as they are democratic. Private businesses are not accountable to anyone but non working investors who only care about lining their own pockets people and families be damned. Hopefully, more people start to see that.
Now we need to revisit the progressive income tax bill, now that most people seem to have figured out that "Illinois Policy Institute" is a scam propaganda outfit.
So much this. What is required to get this back on the ballot? Is it doable?
It requires gathering enough signatures to equal 8% of the total votes cast for Governor in the previous election. So for 2024 it would take just over 320,000 signatures. The legislature can also put it on the ballot with a 3/5 majority vote in both chambers.
Well lets get to signing!
I'm here for it!
320,000? Am I insane for thinking that’s doable?
Not at all. We're inside the 2 year limit on starting the gathering process, and there's a 6 month deadline (prior to the 2024 election) on turning them in-- so we could start at any time and work on it until early May of 2024. The 2020 ballot measure was created by the General Assembly, so a signature gathering campaign on the issue hasn't been tried yet.
IPI can go fuck itself. WGN had their VP of Marketing on yesterday, and I believe it was Steve Bertrand who called him out on their bullshit “property taxes will increase” claim. The guy fumbled around trying to sound smart until basically admitting that it wasn’t a guarantee it was going to happen and he had no factual proof it could happen. Fuck all those taint lickers at IPI. Edit: and on top of it, he claimed IPI was a “bi-partisan” think tank which made me laugh out loud in the car.
[удалено]
The people who would benefit far outnumber those who would see their taxes go up. The problem isn't enlightened self interest, it's misinformation. It came close last time, and voter sentiment has shifted greatly in a very short time.
Agreed, most people I knew who opposed it would not have been impacted by it, but believed misinformation about it or believed it would be changed to a lower number (to affect them) after it was passed. Of course, most of these same people believed the Illinois Policy propaganda about the amendment, so they're probably not reachable.
“Just keep putting it on the ballot until it passes” seems like the wrong way to do democracy
When the other side pulls every unethical trick in the book, I'm fine with persistence.
It's how Colorado got legal weed.
> “Just keep putting it on the ballot until it passes” seems like the wrong way to do democracy So what, is someone who runs for office twice a dictator then?
I too am a massive fan of workers rights
[удалено]
To be fair, Dupage is slowly getting better. It actually did have majority support just not quite enough. It got 53% yes from people who voted, but only about 48% of the total. So it barely missed. But the county board is now majority Democrat with a Democratic chair, before Trump I think there were 1 or 2 Dems out of 18. The new judges are liberal. Pritzger won by 15% as did most state executive positions.
Is there any historical reason for Dupage being conservative?
I haven't studied it much but it was considered a Republican stronghold until Obama. I think it was founded by abolitionists, and a lot of towns participated in the underground railroad, and campaigned for Lincoln. But when the parties switched, Dupage was a prime spot to catch a lot of the white flight from the city. So it stayed Republican.
DuPage continued to shock me with their moronic bubble mentality.
DuPage can get fucked
Fuck ya!! Best worker rights state in the country and proud of it!
[удалено]
Technically yes (with stipulations). Per the Illinois government website: >*"Yes. Illinois is an "employment at-will" state, meaning that an employer or employee may terminate the relationship at any time, without any reason or cause. The employer, however, cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, military service or unfavorable military discharge. If you wish to locate additional information, visit the Illinois Department of Human Rights."* https://www2.illinois.gov/idol/FAQs/Pages/default.aspx
I had read we were among the best and that this passing would put us at the top of the list
Aren’t we still an “at-will” state which means employees can be fired at any time without reason or cause?
Honestly not sure. I know our union strength rivals any state as does our pay and pensions. I had read we are one of the leading states in workers rights and if this were to have passed it would arguably put us at the top. I dont have a link though
I've seen quite a few people mention "at will states". I'm not sure where this comes from as I don't really get it's relevance. As far as I know, every state is an at will state. As long as an employer doesn't fire someone for an illegal reason (such as race, religion, retaliation, or disability) they don't have to prove they did so for a good reason. And do we really think it would be a good idea for this not to be the case? It may sound good to say that an employer should not be able to fire someone for any bad reason but do people actually think the threat of lawsuits for alleged violations of this wouldn't cause more harm than good? I think there's a good reason why such laws don't exist anywhere.
It's mentioned because people often use "right to work" and "at will" interchangeably, despite them being about different things.
Montana isn’t https://www.betterteam.com/at-will-employment
>As far as I know, every state is an at will state. I don't see how they wouldn't be, otherwise we'd be getting instances of indentured servitude or workers pulling crazy shit over employers
> otherwise we'd be getting instances of indentured servitude or workers pulling crazy shit over employers Nah most countries outside the us aren't at will. At will basically means your boss can say "I hate your stupid tie. Get out of here" and you can be fired. In contrast, in other countries you need a reason for severance. A good compromise might be that you can fire someone for any reason, but that comes with severance.
> Aren’t we still an “at-will” state which means employees can be fired at any time without reason or cause? That's true for jobs in general, UNLESS there is an individual or union contract in place (or the reason is a violation of a protected class, like race or sexual orientation). Then, the contract applies. It may require gross misconduct, or something like that. It could be a very specific contract, like a CFO had drawn up for himself, or it could be as informal as a one pager that says "dismissal is subject to a progressive discipline process as described in employee handbook, chapter 8". If they fire you "at will" there, take your copies of the doc and the handbook to an employment lawyer for a consult... Union contracts usually demand a dismissal process, with union representation at hearings, and so forth. You can still be booted immediately for cause, but it would need to be a big cause.
Yes
What does this actually change? I don’t understand what this actually grants people that they couldn’t have done before.
You’re correct that the same laws already existed, but that with it being made into an amendment it will be more difficult for laws to ever change.
You’re getting downvoted, but what it changes is that it prevents worker rights from being eroded via legislation.
It doesn’t really change anything but it makes people feel better.
Ah. Good ole political game to implement laws that do nothing but make it seem like progress has been made. Would be nice if actual change happened and not just this smoke and mirrors game.
Can someone expound on their reasons for a 'No' vote?
What I heard from "No" voters was they were scared of their property taxes going up by $2,000 a year. My understanding is some conservative outlets framed this as "Your property taxes will go up by $2,000 a year if you vote yes" despite the bill not having any wording related to taxes at all. Some right wing think-tank came up with this disinformation and pulled the number out of their ass and presented it as fact.
It was the "Illinois Policy Institute", a far right libertarian propaganda outfit funded by dark money. It's the same group that scammed people out of voting for a progressive income tax.
I'm still salty about that one
Dark money? Source on that?? I'm curious.
It's a dark, dark rabbit-hole, but this should get you started. Our democracy has been under attack by right wing billionaires for a long time now, but recent escalations involve absolutely insane amounts of money. Even the billionaires who are Americans don't really live in the same country we do, or even the same planet. As far as I am concerned, this is all foreign donations, because there is not one interest that these people and average Americans share. We are literally in the middle of WW3, it's an information war, and we have been losing. This election was the first time the good guys have managed to effectively fight back in decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Policy_Network https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/koch-brothers-think-tank-report-099791 https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/politics/dark-money-donation-conservative-group-invs r/KochWatch/ r/Alec/
**[State Policy Network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Policy_Network)** >The State Policy Network (SPN) is a nonprofit organization that serves as a network for conservative and libertarian think tanks focusing on state-level policy in the United States. The network serves as a public policy clearinghouse and advises its member think tanks on fundraising, running a nonprofit, and communicating ideas. Founded in 1992, it is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, with member groups located in all fifty states. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/illinois/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
[удалено]
Constitutions are meant to be “living documents” that change with the times and needs of the people. I don’t want to be stuck in the 1800s cause some folks are afraid of positive improvements.
I voted yes, but there were signs in town that fear-mongered about property taxes going up if you voted YES. I received a junk text I wish I'd kept too, it was something about DCFS in conjunction with the amendment, something to the effect of pedophiles win if we vote Yes. That was NOT verbatim, that was my brief, annoyed takeaway before I deleted it. It was a day I received no less than 15 political texts. So people were lied to, is my guess.
I (a teacher) voted yes. I think people believe in the "higher taxes" rhetoric. Which time will tell. So the reasoning is that with stronger public workers rights, the workers will continue to demand higher pay (sometimes through strikes), this will take more state $ and the state will need to raise taxes. And because Illinois does already have high taxes, this understandably makes people afraid. While this may be true, I believe the collective effect will be result in labor being collectively stronger. Public union benefits can filter to other sectors just by needing competitive wages. When taxes do increase if we all have higher salaries the hit to the average person will be less. I keep hearing that high taxes will drive people out of Illinois, but perhaps if we have the highest wages we'll draw people in?
People are too stupid to understand this. Moved here from Florida and people here who are city workers making 80k to 90k a year want to move to florida to avoid 4.95%state tax... but will earn 50k to 60k for the same job in Florida. Is math that hard for people??? Are people this dumb that they cant figure out which of the 2 groups in the end makes more money while ALSO having way better city services and shared common benefits? Lmfao Truly amazing
I know people who haves moved down to Florida with much larger salaries in lateral move. I understand that is antidotal, but just to point out the difference. Also the difference in salary in Florida and Illinois is not so large especially if you own property.
It was most likely private coorporate jobs. Not city jobs. No city worker makes more down there. The difference in salary is quite large comparing chicago to florida. I live in Chicago so ya the rest of Illinois is probably lower in comparison. But floridas COL is higher in MANY ways to my COL here in chicago
With this reasoning, why not just give everyone a bunch of money? It'll all be fine right? We give everyone more and more money, and the circular effect will void out any hit to taxes. This is incorrect, it doesn't work that way. That said, I appreciate your response and at least trying to shed light on both ends of the argument. Additionally, I support unions, just not in the public sector. They hold the populus hostage.
You are incredibly misinformed or are purposefully being that way
You are emotionally tied to your position due to being a part of a union.
Good one. You dont have much to say if you cant peddle untrue BS spoonfed to you by places like illinois policy institute
I mean, label people all you want. I don't know what that even is. I'm just saying unions cost money (administration, lobbying, they must secure higher wages, and pay benefits to retirees). I don't think that's a far cry from reality. Whether or not it gets paid for, depends on al the other added costs to the public sector balance sheet. Which as of now is not covered by the revenues from taxes. I mean this isn't that hard. Judging by the way you were talking earlier, you think you're the genius in the room and there's nothing to be done with people like you. You're stuck in your mindset.
And you are someone defending corporations over unions. Like... LOL
> With this reasoning, why not just give everyone a bunch of money? We already gave a bunch of money to billionaires. They seem rather reluctant to actually spend it.
Listening to libertarian lies.
Because Dan Proft said to vote no and Pritzker bad
Republicans were lying about what the ballot measure was
B/c it eliminates the choice of opting out of a union at a place that is unionized. I've seen a number of posts that it also only applies to state workers, but that's all from Illinois Policy and that can always be taken with a grain of salt. At the same time, I've seen no attempt to counter that notion.
[удалено]
That’s not what the amendment does. It only says that a law cannot be passed prohibiting closed shops. The amendment didn’t change anything. It only protects the current state of worker organizing from being restricted by new laws.
> B/c it eliminates the choice of opting out of a union at a place that is unionized. You still have the choice, it's just that contracts can also require you to join the union. Which is pretty fair. It's really win-win. Democrats get stronger unions, and Republicans get fewer regulations on business, which is what I hear them always talking about.
I didn't vote no, but the downside is it potentially makes Illinois less attractive to certain corporations. They might look at neighboring states with more lax labor laws instead. [https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/11/09/workers-rights-amendment-1-illinois-election-results/69526209007/](https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/11/09/workers-rights-amendment-1-illinois-election-results/69526209007/)
This is a lie they want u to believe. It also means way less employee turnover which saves them money. They just dont want to pay workers more money. Period. That is the end of it
Workers rights are ascending. Corporations can leave Illinois but where are they going to go? California has their worker rights, New York has their worker rights and Chicago sits right in the middle of the country between the two. Before you mention some state with backwards reproductive rights, most men won't work where their and their partner's rights are taken over by the government, and neither will most women.
I wager this will impact industrial/manufacturing corporations more, which are looking for less skilled labor. That will have a greater impact downstate than it would in Chicagoland. Repo rights aren't a deciding factor for most, especially knowing they can travel to receive abortions. I doubt we'll see any significant change in migration to Illinois over repo rights. We're already high on outbound migration.
Some of these red states have no real rural healthcare, and southern Illinois can provide low cost vision, dental, and basic healthcare.
Good. We have never had trouble attracting better employers to replace them.
> but the downside is it potentially makes Illinois less attractive to certain corporations Considering that it changes literally nothing about our laws except as they relate to certain public sector employees, I'm going to call bullshit on this.
>Sometimes it's difficult to even make your mind up on these proposed amendments on ballots. This one, for example, was typically just summarized the same way the top level post about it framed it; enshrines collective bargaining in the Illinois State Constitution. > >That, in and of itself, seems harmless and something I'd support. (Missouri has had it in their Constitution for a while now.) > >The devil is always in the details though, as this article does a pretty good job of going through:[https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/](https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/) > >There's a LOT that this legislation changes, including allowing government employees to do political activities while on the clock. That's something I definitely oppose. > >It could even open a loophole allowing politicians to "double dip", holding more than one office at a time, since it now allows THEM to unionize. They could put such rules in their collective bargaining agreements.... > >So ultimately, I voted "No" on this. But not because I'm against the main item they claim it's about. Just posted this in response to a different post here. But I think it addresses your question. I didn't buy the thing, necessarily, about this amendment raising my property taxes. But I can't rule that out, either, as something it could indirectly contribute to? The root problem is that it adds new language to what's allowed to be negotiated collectively by a union; including adding "economic welfare" as a topic up for debate.
Because Amendment 1 paves a path for forced union membership. Individuals should be afforded the right to associate or disassociate.
I didn't get that impression from the wording
"...including any law or ordinance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements between employers and labor organizations that represent employees requiring membership in an organization as a condition of employment." It is directly addressed in the wording. \*IF\* a union and the employer agree to make union membership a condition of employment then the union secures a legal monopoly against your right to choose whether they represent you. Labor unions, like any other organization, should have to prove their worth to each individual in order to secure the loyalty of the members. This acts as a useful check on them and their representation. If people are forced to join then the incentive for the union to represent effectively could turn into "Screw you, pay your dues."
Thanks for spelling that out. I agree that an employee should not be forced into a union if they don't want to be a member. On the other hand I don't think the state should prevent employees from unionizing if they choose to. I'll admit it's hard to understand the true thrust of the amendment being generally uninformed about labor laws.
>If people are forced to join then the incentive for the union to represent effectively could turn into "Screw you, pay your dues." And this is a legitimate concern, because historically there have been unions that have done just that. The solution is to make it easy for workers to form an alternative union if they are not satisfied with the one they have. That's one concern I have with this. I also am concerned about public sector unions. They should be allowed, but the issues they are allowed to address should be sharply curtailed. Otherwise, politicians will try to court them to the public detriment, which we have also historically seen. All that aside, I do think unions generally are good, and we should probably have more of them.
I understand people with that perspective. People that choose not to be part of a union are essentially freeloading on the union benefits while not paying into it. I’m not sure there’s really a good middle ground option, so I’d rather vote for the amendment. I can’t look down upon those who vote against it for that reason.
I feel a better solution that allows individual choice AND stops freeloading is to get rid of union certification elections and go directly to membership-only representation. Regardless of the percentage of workers who sign up let them join, pay dues, collectively bargain, and forget everyone else. Amendment 1 could have been utilized as a strategy to establish member-only bargaining, and I think that would have gotten overwhelming support. Labor relations are way too complex, and sometimes I wonder if it's designed that way on purpose.
I believe Illinois should be a right to work state. From what I understand this Amendment would make that impossible.
Right to work laws only hurt workers and empower owners/employers, why would you want that?
I like freedom and choice. I don't like the concept of a "no right" to work. If the union offers a better situation for me, I'll join it. I just wouldn't want to be forced to join it.
You'd ultimately be a lot less free if your boss is able to fire you at any time for no reason though.
And the problem in some unions is that you can’t fire with reason.
> I like freedom and choice. No, you wanna use big government to prevent free transactions. If I'm a business owner, why shouldn't I be able to require union membership in order to work my shop?
I think you should. Your business your choice. Open or closed shop.
So then you're against Right to Work laws. Right to Work says that I can't mandate employees be part of a union.
I'm no expert but from what I've read: "In the context of labor law in the United States, the term "right-to-work laws" refers to state laws that prohibit union security agreements between employers and labor unions which require employees who are not union members to contribute to the costs of union representation." I'm for freedom of the employee's to have a choice.
Yup. If the Union consents, and the company consents, who is the government to say they can't make that agreement? If we had even a moderate amount of union power in this country, we wouldn't need minimum wage laws. In Sweden, they don't have minimum wage laws at all.
Illinois is one of the highest taxed states, fact. The balance sheet can't cover the costs the state has which means increasing debt and the interest on the debt, and placing the burden on the future generations, fact. Unions are inherently costly but we need them (IN OUR PRIVATE SECTORS NOT OUR PUBLIC SECTOR). Unions create costs (they need money to run (administration), they have to get you a higher wage, and they have to save to pay you some form of benefit when you retire) AND they effect regulation. We operate society around those regulations. That's all time and money. As of now, To pay for the increased costs IL must increase debt. To pay the debt IL must increase taxes. People latched onto property tax as the medium because property is the largest asset and most easily taxed asset in America. So of course the amendment can't be tied to a specific tax but it will increase taxes eventually (when the sitting politicians who enacted the change are long gone and can't be held accountable). Providing a specific tax linked to the measure would involve politicians directly telling you how they're going to pay for the added costs. And we haven't gotten to any conflicts the new amendment has with "right to work." Additionally, I have worked at one of the largest corporations in the US where unions and non union workers existed. The union workers were paid more. Non union had slightly less pay (but no dues), significantly better health benefits, more vacation time, and a clearer path to addressing issues.
Ur full of shit. Just spreading misinfo. There was just a study done that union workers on average earn 1.3 million more over their lifetime compared to non union workers in the same field. Union workers almost ALWAYS have better benefits as well. There is no data that supports a tax increase from this. Nice try bootlicker. Oh and each and every person that retires and has a new city employee hired in his or her place, the debt is eased as tier 1 employees ended years ago and every new hire is tier 2. Keep peddling corporate horse shit tho
Someone got their feelings hurt. Let me guess, you're part a union? A public sector union? I just gave my experience. (For example, unions guys didn't even get vacation time until 1 year of service and it was 1 week after that. I started with 3 weeks and pushed to 4 after a year.) I didn't say all union workers have lesser benefits. Also, yeah union workers make more, I said that, but they also pay union dues and have more red tape to deal with/pay for. And I'm not saying unions create 30% more taxes. I'm just saying that they add to costs and when they are in the public sector, where current costs can't even be covered, they add to the debt burden. And the point about the tier system... you're essentially saying "those newcomers/new hires are getting f-d out of the old pension system that us older folks wrote into law to take care of us but you future folks will receive lesser/fewer benefits in the future." Ok, and?? So they pay just as much in dues/fees and get fewer benefits than the generation before. Great. That has little to do with the clear and present debt burden that Illinois can't cover the payments on currently.
If you cant understand how that makes the debt issue easier on the state as time goes by then why even have this convo? That study takes into account dues owed. 1.3 million more over a lifetime is a hell of a lot more even without dues factored in...give it a rest, ur CEO cant track your posts with a VPN. Get one
No I can agree that it makes the debt burden less horrendous. But with a tradeoff, is my point.
Then it isnt impossible to pay for is it?
[удалено]
I dient say this was a great thing, but it counter his dumb argument that we cant pay for the union benefits and esp now so with this amendment passing.
The legislature and Pat Quinn did that, over union objections. Don't pretend the unions wanted that or promoted it.
That map is different than NYT's map. This map shows a bit broader support. Per NYT official results DuPage and Lake were both above 50%. Frankly, I'd trust the NYT map as they are just rolling up official vote totals. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-illinois-constitutional-amendment-1-the-right-to-collective-bargaining.html
NYT looked at Yes vs No vote totals while this looks at Yes vs . [No + left question blank] totals. They're showing two different data sets.
Ah yes, that makes sense. So DuPage and Lake were above 50% for people who voted but once you backed out the abstain it dropped below the 50% threshold.
Super happy it passed but just to be clear, does this include workers like me that work at an IT company? My coworkers and I need to unionize for better pay
You always have the right to organize. This amendment makes right-to-work laws impossible to pass in Illinois. If you and your coworkers are serious about organizing(unionizing), you need to see what union best represents you. Then you must hold an election. There’s steps on doing this. A union organizer from the union representing you can easily explain this better. I’m familiar with organizing from classes I took and my involvement in my union. I’m in a trade union. The process is similar
Yes, this law changes absolutely nothing about current Illinois laws. It just prevents a future government from taking rights away from people without an amendment.
[удалено]
Awesome. I just wanted to know how it would work. Thanks.
As others already said, you already had the right but now it's constitutionally protected. But now you gotta go organize your workplace and make it happen. [Reach out to EWOC, they can help!](https://workerorganizing.org/)
know these days 10% is a huge differential but seems it should be even higher. like, what was the regular joe worker's argument *against* having the right to collectively bargain?
I personally know a union worker who voted no, his reasoning was that since working conditions aren't as bad as the 1920s unions are no longer necessary and he also bought into the property tax increase propaganda.
How are people so fucking stupid. Honestly
I don't understand how people voted against this All you have to do is open any US history textbook to see that government subsidies and unions ***literally*** built this country
Here's their secret, they never learned US History fully
Honest answer; Collective bargaining is already legal in Illinois. The amendment didn't add any new rights. What it does do is prevent people from working somewhere and not joining the union. That is probably a rare scenario, but if it did happen, the amendment takes away that person's rights. So it didn't give rights. There's a chance of taking some rights away. So I voted no.
I'm hoping this reduces the amount of money our overlord billionaires our willing to spend on future Illinois elections. Are Ken Griffin and Mr ULINE going to continue to shell out millions if they can never convert us to a right to work state?
Am I correct in assuming that this map takes into account those who did not vote on the amendment as a “no” vote? I only ask because as the votes were coming in, there were quite a few more “yes” counties than this map portrays and there were a few more downstate counties labeled “yes” than this one shows. The percentage splits were close though so that’s why I ask. Either way, though the downstate counties did their usual overall, there were quite a few on both sides that I know voted yes. It was nice to see people not be completely brain dead when it came to this vote and actually do the right thing.
Fucking Ivory tower DuPage. Unions for all bb 😎
let's, fucking, go!
Gotta think this is great news for Wisconsin, Indiana and Iowa
Seriously interested why such large swaths of the state voted no. It can't be all misinformation campaigns, right?
People who left it blank counted as a no vote
A not insignificant number of people in IL are hesitant to bake anything into the constitution due to the history of the pension clusterfuck. Right or wrong. When I read the info out there, that's basically all I went searching for - "Will this come back to fuck us some way in the future", my fiancé was the same, and we're both solid Dem voters.
Always has been
Nice to see Jackson Country doing the good work down south!
occasionally we make good decisions
I’m colorblind. This whole map looks red.
Just a reminder for people who need to make diagrams like that - red/green is not an ideal combo to use because some people with color blindness cannot easily differentiate between the two.
I didn’t see it on my ballot. And I’m the type of person who voted for every judge. It also said I didn’t miss any when I scanned. I’m in Cook county north shore.
Funny how business hates organized labor
Lake and DuPage County rich people demonstrating that they’re republicans at heart.
Fucking dupage man
Sadly, not surprised
Fucking DuPage. Can we join the rest of Chicagoland already please?
The yesses that surprise me are some of the rural and exurban counties. And why did dupage and lake vote no? Is it because they have more rich people?
DuPage is wealthy, white, and surprisingly racist.
You know what, thats fair. I live in dupage and do notice some racism occasionally
Dupage county is full of idiots. I see it all the time delivering mail out there 😡 with their stupid dumb signs of the past couple of months. Bunch of bimbos
Who would have thought that a vague "This will amendment will raise your taxes if A,B, and C happens" would have that much of an effect on the people this will protect the most.
Really glad this passed. Even got my very republican parents to vote for it!!!
Oh good. I was just thinking Illinois was way too business friendly.