 Attorney General Lisa Madigan, however, says the governor has strayed beyond his
duties and is “forum shopping” his personal views.
The two now may meet in court.
“Fair-share” dues are partial dues withheld from employees who do not join the
unions. They are intended to reimburse the unions for costs related to
bargaining and contract administration.The attorney general argues Gov. Bruce
Rauner overstepped his authority in halting the dues collection by executive
order and seeking a federal court ruling to back his decision.
As the attorney for the state, Madigan says it is her duty to defend the
constitutionality of Illinois’ laws, in this case the Illinois Public Labor
Relations Act.
Rauner administration spokesman Lance Trover said the move was expected and will
not derail the governor’s plans.
“The attorney general’s actions will have no impact on the Governor’s efforts
to protect taxpayers and state employees who don’t want to pay forced union
dues,” he said.
In motions filed Monday, the attorney general argues:
The partial dues are valid under Illinois law, in line with controlling case law
and part of valid collective bargaining agreements.
The governor had no standing to file a federal action in this matter as an
injured party but is merely expressing his personal opinion on the
constitutionality of the dues. She contends the governor is “forum shopping.”
The federal court has no jurisdiction in the matter as there is no federal
law claim being made. Rather, she argues, is raising the First Amendment as
anticipated defense against state-law claims.
Even if it chooses not to dismiss, the court should stay any action to allow
state suits on the same subject to proceed, as the question is one of state law.
Rauner says he isn’t trying to cripple unions and only is standing up for
constitutionally protected rights and freedom of choice.
The unions say otherwise, accusing Rauner of everything from a “war on the
middle class” to trying to beat unions down prior to contract talks with the
state coming this summer.
[to top of second column] |
 Bill Messenger, a lawyer with the National Right Work Foundation
who has argued labor law cases before the Supreme Court, said the
questions in the Rauner pleadings and a similar case, Friederichs v.
California Teachers Association, are ripe and of national
importance.
In recent cases including Harris v. Quinn and Knox v. Service
Employees International Union, the justices have indicated they are
leaning toward examining the constitutionality of public-sector
employees being forced to pay mandatory fees, Messenger said.
If Rauner or Friedrichs is successful, there would be a direct
impact for public-sector employees and examination of cases in the
private sector might follow.
“It’s not so much a direct impact on the private sectors as it is
what’s the next issue to be considered,” he said.
Political analyst Kent Redfield said he doesn’t see Madigan’s
attempt to intervene as motivated by partisan politics, although
some will certainly see it as such.
The fourth-term attorney general is a Chicago Democrat and
daughter of longtime House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago.
Rauner is a Republican from Winnetka who touts local choice and free
markets.
But Illinois politics are always either blatantly partisan or at
least viewed as such, said Redfield, professor emeritus at
University of Illinois Springfield.
Perhaps more unusual and more interesting about this case, he
said, are the dynamics of two constitutionally empowered executive
officers seeking to fulfill their duties but coming from entirely
different viewpoints.
“It’s probably being handled as reasonably as it could be given
the complexity of both the legal-constitutional arguments and the
politics,” he said. “It’s really easy to see conspiracy and
partisanship in terms of this … but there are basic legal arguments
here.”
[This
article courtesy of
Watchdog.]
Click here to respond to the editor about this article |
