The state of the State
THERE is an old, cynical saw, which says "No man's life, liberty or property is safe, so long as the legislature is in session." If true, we can all relax once again, for the lawmakers have gone home.
But, while adjournment is a relief to many an honest citizen, many another is once again dissatisfied. We need only look to the dourful members and leaders of public employees unions for an example. Collective bargaining, the prize plum of their garden, has again fallen from the tree, "rotten ere it was half-ripe" — to paraphrase the poet.
Why did it fail again? Ask the interest groups. How could it have been rejected despite the pundits' plaudits? Perhaps the answer lies in yet another legislative aphorism, which runs: "There is no such thing as a bad bill, only bad backers."
In this case the level of support must really be abysmal, for the idea has failed to make it every year since 1947. That's almost as long as it's been since the Chicago Cubs won a pennant, but as baseball fans say, "wait'll next year." Of course the problem with collective bargaining is not that the backers are inferior (many Cub fans say the same thing of their team) but that their opponents are strong and legion, and, yea, they do smite them.
It is the Chicagoans who do the smiting to collective bargaining bills. The Democrats of the big, mean machine in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, chaired by Frank Savickas (D., Chicago). This year again, as usual, they made the committee a graveyard for bargaining bills by failing to vote them out.
It is an embarrassment to some, but a surprise to no one that Chicago Democrats — who call themselves pro-labor — can't abide the birth of this long-labored concept. The reason is simple. The city leaders prefer to deal with public (read patronage) employees through time-honored (political) channels, meaning that the employees can have no higher worldly authority to appeal to should they choose to refuse a city administration offer. In the past, of course, such offers could seldom be refused, due to the firing and hiring hierarchy in Chicago wards. (See Charles Cleveland's "Chicago" column, p. 30.)
Nonetheless and howsoever, it did appear at the top of this session that collective bargaining stood a good chance this time around. Opposition from the potent Chicago bloc was one reason for its failure. For another, let's back up to the "bad backers theory" — perhaps we dismissed it too soon.
Many observers feel that supporters failed to present a unified front, offering too many different bills, thereby making it easier for opponents to squash them all. There were over a dozen public employee bargaining bills presented. Some were for teachers, some for police and firemen, some for college professors, some for everybody. None passed.
"We found we couldn't get behind one bill," said Curtis Plott of the Illinois Education Association (IEA), a group which tried and failed to pass a bill of its own after finding it couldn't agree with the goals of either a university professors' group, or the Chicago Teachers Union. Another problem was the conflict between the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), over territorial labor organizing rights.
As a consequence, the only bill with any real chance of passage was H.B. 2 sponsored by labor champion Rep. Thomas Hanahan (D., McHenry). It was gutted in the Senate Labor Committee after a three-hour hearing June 9, a hearing Hanahan called "a fraud, a hoax, a charade."
Hanahan's ire was directed mainly at fellow Chicago Democrat Sen. LeRoy Lemke, who voted with Republicans in amending the stuffings out of the bill. Lemke had objected to the bill because he said it would take away the power of local governments to require that employees live where they work. But Lemke's objection was politely called "hogwash" by Hanahan, when Lemke refused to go along with Hanahan's offer to remove the residency requirement.
Hanahan also criticized Senate President Thomas Hynes (D., Chicago) for failing to replace ailing committee member George Sangmeister (D., Mokena). Samuel Maragos (D., Chicago) could also have prevented the amendment, but he failed to show up in the committee until after the bill was heard,
Don't AFSCME
The agreement — ratified by legislature and union — came two days after
fact finder Eric Schmertz entered the
mired talks and offered a compromise
solution. It was unique in that the union
agreed to make first-year raises dependent upon the state's ability to pay out
from monies already appropriated to state agencies.
Governor Thompson hailed the part
as a "fair one for both the state and
union." Meanwhile he says he favors a
comprehensive collective bargaining
law, and has extended an executive
order issued by Gov. Walker (No. 6) in
1973 allowing executive branch employees to bargain collectively.
It's still in contention whether or not
"there ought to be a law" on the
subject.
2 / August 1977 / Illinois Issues
Despite the latest defeat of a formal,
legal collective bargaining bill, negotiations between the state and AFSCME
resulted in a pay raise pact later on, in
mid-June. Proving that bargaining bills
have more political than practical
significance, the tentative agreement
came after 14 months of state negotiations with the 27,000-member union. It called for a pay raise, limited to $50 per month during fiscal 1977, dependent upon state revenue availability. Starting
July 1, employees get a $100 bonus and
receive $10 a month for each $10 million
in revenue above current projections. In
July of 1978 a $50 per month pay hike
would be granted.