Who’s the bigger political whiner?

Mark Janus or Anne Stava-Murray – both of them are in the news of concern to people with an interest in Illinois state government.

JANUS: Continuing the fight against unions for state officials

And the question may well be which one is being more of a malcontent in terms of their political behavior.

BOTH OF THEM are engaging in rhetoric and actions intended to express their discontent with the standard operating procedures in existence at the Statehouse scene.

Both of them are managing to tick off the people who are part of the operations of the state government.

Janus, of course, is the guy who became the namesake of the court case that eventually resulted in labor unions losing the authority to automatically require union dues from all state government employees who benefit from those union contracts.

But in ruling that Janus was wronged by being forced to join the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the courts also determined that it wasn’t practical to require the unions to “pay back” any of the money they collected.

AFTER ALL, THE unions merely were charging the dues that were permitted under the law at the time.

So Janus – who has since retired from the state payroll and now does work for the ideologues who led the anti-organized labor group that filed the lawsuit that bore his name – now wants the courts to refund the money he had taken from his state paychecks to cover the dues.

He claims he’s owed some $3,000. The federal appeals court based in Chicago will have to take on this case.

STAVA-MURRAY: Still opposes Madigan

It would seem that Janus and his ilk are really after a devastating blow that would financially cripple the labor unions altogether. Being the namesake of the court case isn’t enough to appease him. He’s out for financial blood – which is bound to ensure his name becomes Mudd, in the eyes of state government officials.

BUT IT MAY be that Janus won’t be the one who offends political people the most.

That may well be Stava-Murray, as in the state representative from Naperville.

She’s the woman who made a public stink by being the lone Democrat who refused to support the notion that Michael Madigan ought to be retained as Illinois House speaker.

Is it really a surprise that since Stava-Murray deliberately went out of her way to snub Madigan, that he and his allies are not all that enthused about doing anything that would be of benefit to her? In the real world, the answer is “no.” To Stava-Murray, however, it comes as a shock.

FOR STAVA-MURRAY SAYS her bill meant to protect the rights of people who file complaints against state government officials with the Inspector General’s office is being thwarted deliberately by Madigan & Co. She says her bill has a “do not call” order placed on it that will prevent the measure from ever getting a vote

Now I’m not going to argue the merits of this particular bill. Maybe there are some legal protections that people with complaints about the state ought to have.

It just seems absurd for Stava-Murray to be surprised that she can be so openly critical of her political party’s leadership, then expect their full cooperation. It reeks of “Casablanca” and Capt. Renault being “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here.”

Perhaps even more ridiculous than Janus thinking he’s entitled to a refund just so he can ideologically screw over his one-time colleagues on the job who derived benefits from their union membership.

  -30-

Organized labor can’t make up its mind for the Chicago mayor election

Remaining neutral?

It's intriguing to see the way that the various factions that comprise organized labor and unions are shaping up with regards to the upcoming mayoral election run-off.

With the "excitement" factor amongst the electorate focusing on the campaign of Lori Lightfoot for mayor, it seems that Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle is counting on having the "reliable" factor of having labor unions on her side.

Siding with one-time member

BECAUSE UNIONS DO have the ability to get their members to turn out and actually cast ballots in accordance with the desires of union leadership.

If that one poll commissioned by Stand by Children Illinois that shows Lori Lightfoot with a 2-1 vote ratio in her favor really has any truth to it, then Preckwinkle really is going to need every bit of organized labor support if she’s to have the least bit of a chance to have victory in the April 2 run-off election.

Which is why Camp Preckwinkle surely was disappointed to learn this week that the Chicago Federation of Labor – the organization that oversees so many union locals – has decided to remain neutral.

The union leadership may well be taking the honest attitude – one that says their interviews with the two mayoral candidates have such similar views and attitudes on issues related to workers and labor that they can’t pick between the two.

PRECKWINKLE: Her labor backing unsure

ANYBODY WHO THINKS there’d be a serious difference between a Mayor Lightfoot and a Mayor Preckwinkle is exaggerating the fact.

Although it seems that the labor unions that backed the campaign of Susana Mendoza during the first phase of the municipal election cycle are basing their endorsement decisions on the fact that Preckwinkle focused much of her negative campaigning against Susana.

Lightfoot could get some union member support just based on the fact that they want to spite Preckwinkle come April 2. And since the Preckwinkle campaign is basing its hopes so heavily on a strong union member voter turnout, the lack of an endorsement could result in enough voter apathy that could result in a Lightfoot victory.

LIGHTFOOT: Uncertainty a plus for Lori?

Perhaps even enough that justify the idea that Lightfoot is leading Preckwinkle by a 58 percent to 30 percent margin.

SO I’M SURE that Preckwinkle is determined to exaggerate the significance of one union that seems willing to stand by her side – as in the Chicago Teachers Union. Which remembers that back in the days before she became a political person, Toni was a school teacher.

The union issued its own statement saying that the 2-1 voter ratio support for Lightfoot was “stupid.” They were quick to recall that Stand by Children was a group that supported efforts back in 2011 to raise the standards by which the teachers’ union could go on strike.

As they see it, the group was nothing more than an organization promoting the anti-labor beliefs of Bruce Rauner – who we all know later went on to his one term as Illinois governor, where he tried imposing his anti-union agenda on all of us only to have the voters reject his re-election bid last year.

Should we disregard the idea that Lori Lightfoot has such a huge lead, or that people are that opposed to the idea of a “Mayor Preckwinkle?” Personally, I think the number of people surveyed for the poll (only about 400) is too small to reach a serious conclusion about anything.

BUT IT WOULD seem that Preckwinkle has at least the teachers’ union remaining on her side. Although, to be truthful, it’s not unusual for the teachers’ union and other unions to be in disagreement with each other.

Will Preckwinkle move from left to right side of bldg. following Election Day?

With the schoolteachers often taking more progressive stances on issues as opposed to the unions that represent workers who earn their living with physical labor.

Although the idea that Preckwinkle has the more liberal union members potentially on her side would fit in with the Preckwinkle campaign strategy of convincing voters that she, and not Lightfoot, is the true progressive for people to pick from come Election Day.

Which is a stance she would not have had to think of taking if the originally-expected scenario of a run-off election between Preckwinkle and William Daley were reality.

  -30-

The payoff for helping to undermine organized labor influence in Illinois?

I’m sure some are going to accuse me of being overly cynical. Why can’t I appreciate the honesty of someone fighting for their personal ideals, they’ll say about me.

JANUS: W/ Honest Abe looking over his shouder

Yet I couldn’t help but snicker a bit at the weekend news reports about Mark Janus.

HE’S THE CHILD care specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services who allowed his circumstances on the job to be used by the partisan ideologues who were anxious in filing a court case to try to undermine the influence that organized labor has within Illinois state government.

When the Supreme Court of the United States last month ruled in his favor, it was Janus’ name that got national attention. I’m sure for some people, the name “Janus” is now as big a deal as the names of “Roe” and “Wade.”

As in the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that tossed out all the state laws that considered abortion to be the equivalent of a criminal act, and not a decision that was truly a woman’s personal business.

Janus is a long-time state worker who claims he enjoyed his job. But he also has personal views that make him object to having a labor union being involved in his employment.

HE PARTICULARLY RESENTED the notion that even though he didn’t want to join the union (Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), union dues were deducted from his paycheck to cover the cost of the work the union did in representing his on-the-job rights.

That was the basis of his lawsuit, and the high court has ruled in his favor.

Now, the Illinois Policy Institute has offered Janus a job – one he plans to accept and will begin work at come Aug. 1.

Some will forevermore view "Janus" as a bad word

Which probably benefits Janus, since he’ll now be doing blatant partisan political work (a senior fellow speaking out on behalf of workers’ rights, from the social conservative perspective). He’ll probably be happier that way.

BUT IT REALLY comes across as Janus getting his payoff for helping partisan ideologues undermine organized labor – which many state employees do rely upon to ensure the state doesn’t run roughshod over their concerns.

SHAKMAN: Will Janus name gain similar aura?

For the point of this lawsuit is to spark an effort by which many government employees get swayed (or possibly strong-armed) into thinking they should drop out of the AFSCME labor union.

A significant loss of membership would result in a financial loss if it means the union has less in membership dues to fund its work. Get enough people to go along with such talk, and you could start to have a movement for revoking recognition of the union altogether.

Which is the real goal of the ideologues who engage in such rhetoric. Make those “lazy bums” on the state payroll realize they ought to be grateful anybody bothers to employ them. Even though anyone with sense realizes treating employees with a modicum of respect is the real way to get efficient labor from them.

JANUS, WHO IS now 65, likely wasn’t far from being able to retire. Although I’m sure his financial future is significantly stabilized, what with private sector employment that he gets largely because his name was used as the legal basis for the Janus v. AFSCME lawsuit.

Of course, I’m sure those people who think more highly of organized labor will feel he sold them out, so to speak. But I’m not out to put the “Judas” label on Janus. In fact, I’m fairly sure the state payroll would no longer be a pleasant place for him to be employed in the months and years following his involvement with the lawsuit.

How will AFSCME recover from partisan court ruling?

All I know is that a part of me wonders if there’s any truth to the rhetoric being spewed by AFSCME types saying that not many state workers are looking to quit paying dues, and a significant sum of state workers who hadn’t previously joined the union are now doing so!

Janus’ name is going to be remembered for his partisan action far more than the work he did on behalf of children. It will be interesting to see what kind of taint, in coming decades, that will develop. Or if it develops an aura similar to that of "Shakman" (as in Michael, the attorney/activist who inspired the lawsuits that heavily restrict government hiring for partisan political purposes) which I'm sure Janus thinks is likely.

  -30-

NAFTA talks have something about it for just about everyone to hate

When it comes to the North American Free Trade Agreement, it seems we truly have a policy meant to unite us – since there’s something in it that arouses the ire in just about everybody.

The logo that expresses hostile concept to many

The deal that was supposed to bring the United States into a sense of unity with the other two major nations that comprise the North American continent seems to do little more than tick people off.

TO THE POINT where it has President Donald J. Trump finding every excuse he can come up with to say he’s going to kill the trade deal off. While Mexico’s newly-elected president is going about saying he fully intends to keep the deal in place.

Which means we have yet another issue upon which the two nations can’t agree upon.

As things stand, the United States is negotiating these days with Mexico and Canada to supposedly come up with a new trade deal for the North American continent to abide by. Supposedly something that will be more equitable than the current deal – which dates back to the Clinton presidential administration.

Although if you’re old enough to remember back that you, you’ll know that it really wasn’t Bill Clinton who came up with the idea for NAFTA.

THE TRADE DEAL was the goal of former President George Bush (the elder, not his son). Yet his one-term presidency managed to come to an end before he could get Congress to go along with ratification of the deal.

TRUMP: Won't sign off now

In a sense that the Clinton Administration wanted to start off with a sense of bipartisanship, it took over the lead on NAFTA, which ultimately got it passed by U.S. officials – thereby making us a partner in the deal that was meant to keep nationalist concerns from interfering with the ability of goods to be shipped across the three North American nations.

Almost as though we were one with Mexico and Canada.

Which is an ideal I’m sure people who back this Age of Trump we’re now in absolutely despise, and which is the big reason the current U.S. president is so eager to back us out of the deal.

LOPEZ: Wants NAFTA to remain

OR ELSE FIND some sort of terms that will allow U.S. interests to think of themselves as the preeminent power and the other nations as subordinate.

Keep in mind that the original ideal behind NAFTA was to keep our local regulations from interfering with inter-American trade. None of those pesky union contracts meant to protect workers’ powers were allowed to interfere with trade.

All those environmental regulations we have developed to protect our eco-system but which other countries have no equivalent for themselves? They’re also bad, very bad, in terms of thinking of trade.

Which is why organized labor has always hated NAFTA; it was perceived as a way of undermining their influence. While also making them question the sincerity of Clinton’s “liberal” political credentials.

CLINTON: Gets the credit/blame

YET THE IDEOLOGUES amongst us always thought that the idea of trying to promote the North American nations as equals and boosting trade amongst us was somehow a subversive thought. The fact that it came up during the Clinton presidential years was all the more reason to mis-trust it.

Hence, we had Trump say recently that he’s not going to sign off on any renegotiated NAFTA deal until after the Nov. 6 elections – probably hoping that a change in political partisanship will strengthen his hand so he can be even further hard-headed in his negotiations tactics.

BUSH: His administration's idea

Yet Andres Lopez Obrador said Monday he’s going to do everything he can to keep the current NAFTA deal in place – largely because he’s the guy whose campaign’s ideology has been compared to that of failed presidential dreamer Bernie Sanders, and who sees himself as the anti-Trump.

Oddly enough, Trump’s refusal to act soon may play into Mexican interests – because Lopez’ presidential term doesn’t actually begin until December. Which makes it very likely that cheap rhetoric about NAFTA will join all the stupid talk about a border wall that will clutter up the political rants we’ll hear the rest of the year – on both sides of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo del Norte.

  -30-

EXTRA: 5-4; How predictable!

I wish I could say I was shocked and appalled Wednesday morning, but I’m really not.

KAGAN: Former U of C prof wrote dissent

Shocked, at least.

FOR THE SUPREME Court of the United States issued the ruling that had been feared by anybody with a sense of fairness toward people who work for a living.

In Janus vs. AFSCME Council 31 (which represents state government workers right here in Illinois), the high court ruled that those employees were having their right to free expression infringed upon by having union dues deducted from their paychecks.

The effect of the ruling is that labor unions are getting harassed in ways meant to undermine their influence and ability to protect the interests of their members – the people who do the work.

That is the intent. The people who favor this ruling are the ones who want to undermine organized labor, and they’re hoping that by making it more difficult for unions to collect the dues upon which they rely for their operating funds, they can undermine their ability to serve their role.

BASICALLY, IT’S THE ruling for those people who are upset that Illinois has never shown any inclination to become a “right to work” state – a place where union membership cannot be required to have a job and where companies are given free reign to do whatever they can in order to discourage their workers from even wanting to have union representation.

RAUNER: He's happy, but not for long?

This ruling actually was anticipated. It was figured by many that the growing ideological margin among the high court’s composition would result in an anti-labor ruling.

Sure enough, the 5-4 vote was purely partisan – with Justice Elena Kagan (a one-time University of Chicago Law School professor) writing the dissent and Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing an additional legal opinion in support of her.

About the only person I can think of who is truly pleased is Gov. Bruce Rauner, since such a ruling fits in completely with his vision that government needs to completely undermine organized labor influence – a view that is the reason many believe he’s likely to get tossed out of office on his keister come the Nov. 6 elections.

  -30-

EXTRA: Tribune goes union! Or is this just the point where the “war” begins?

Call it a shock, if you will. But I was stunned (sort of) to learn that the Chicago Tribune management on Sunday conceded the right of their editorial staffers to organize themselves into a union.

What kind of content will fill news boxes of the future?

The typical process would have been for a National Labor Relations Board-overseen election, with management going out of its way to intimidate its reporter-type people into thinking they don’t need no stinkin’ union.

INSTEAD, MANAGEMENT CONCEDES a majority of their reporters are banded together, and they will have to work out some sort of contract with them to define terms of employment and conditions and other items of interest.

Which, of course, is the real significant point.

In these times where too many companies that have to deal with unions go out of their way to play hardball in negotiations, it is a tactic I would not be surprised to see take place with the Tribune – given its strong, anti-union history of existence.

How long will it take for contract talks to even begin. How quickly will things get stalled. How many months will it take before we have an impasse. Will we someday see Tribune-types picketing that new building they’re moving into this summer – what with the Tribune Tower having been sold off from out under the paper to provide the broadcast division additional revenue?

I’M OLD ENOUGH to remember the 1980s when the Tribune undermined the unions that represented their pressmen, and I also remember the creation of new positions that were union-exempt to deal with the striking workers -- who basically never recovered their former strength.

Is that what could be put forth for the editorial side? Perhaps create a new class of reporter-type people who would do significant amounts of work, while strictly limiting the job classifications that would be covered by the contract.

I don’t doubt there are many younger people with editorial aspirations who’d think nothing of taking such jobs. My own drawback on the job market these days is that I expect to be compensated fairly for my work – which I’m sure is perceived as a hostile act toward some corporate financial bottom line.

In short, I’m happy for those reporter-types who feel a sense of victory in gaining union recognition without much of a fight. But it also means management will be fully armed (and ammo’ed) for the contract negotiation “war” that is forthcoming.

  -30-

Six more months of retaliatory Rauner bashing by organized labor interests

It almost seems like a stereotypical image to the point where it is amusing – the sight of a couple of guys in a bar wearing ballcaps talking about how the interests of everyday people benefit from organized labor.

Will these 'guys' become TV regulars between now and Nov. 6?

With Gov. Bruce Rauner being the guy intent to undermine the influence that labor unions have within Illinois state government. How dare he!?!

OF COURSE, WHEN one considers the large amounts of money that Rauner and business-oriented organizations have spent in recent years to try to push the message that the unions are all that is wrong with our state (and Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is their corrupt champion), this may be a long-overdue bit of political payback.

What motivated me was a few hours I spent earlier this week with my grandmother, who at her age isn’t the most mobile of people around. Which means that for a bit, we had the television on.

Somewhere between “Judge Judy” and the local television news (which usually gets her all worked up into how stupid our political people can be, and at her age of 96, she’s seen a lot of nonsense spewed in the name of government), I saw the latest advertising spot by the Fight Back Fund.

From what I can tell, the group is headed by a suburban Countryside attorney, Marc R. Poulos, whose own interests are in defending the political people who have been taking quite a rhetorical beating because of their refusal to think of labor unions as some sort of criminal conspiracy.

ACCORDING TO THE group’s web site, they are, “tens of thousands of workers who are standing up for middle class families by standing up to politicians and profiteers who seek to serve their own special interests rather than the greater good.”

Aside from putting together political spots for television, the group says it has worked to prevent Illinois from becoming a “right-to-work” state (one in which businesses can openly behave in ways meant to discourage their workers from joining labor unions) and to force Indiana officials to adequately maintain state highways.

But what caught my attention was the advertising spot, which I’m wondering if we’re going to see much of over and over and over again between now and Nov. 6.

I’m talking about the spot set in a bar with many people enjoying an alcoholic beverage or two following a hard day’s worth of work. The focus is on two particular guys, one black and one white (got to keep a sense of balance, which I’m sure will offend the ideologues amongst us) talking about how peoples’ work benefits us all.

NOBODY’S HERE IN a suit. We’re talking ballcaps, with one of the men in a purple sweatshirt and the other in a green t-shirt.

A vision of the “common man” upset about the political people who want to use them as a punching bag to benefit their own Election Day interests.

Not that this should be surprising. I have long wondered how long it would be before the union interests started fighting back against all the cheap shots that Rauner & Co. have been spewing out in their direction.

A part of me has wondered why it took this long. Although I’m sure the level and intensity will step up later this summer when the gubernatorial campaign of Democrat J.B. Pritzker begins spending his millions of dollars to put up their own ads that will directly bash Rauner upside his head in its desire to “Dump Rauner!” come Nov. 6.

SO AS FOR these purple and green guys taking up the cause of the working man, are we going to see far too much of them this summer? Will they become regular characters in a series of ads that mean to tell us of the evils of Republican politicos (and Democrats who feel compelled to suck up to conservative ideological interests)?

Are they going to become a 21^st Century equivalent of Harry and Louise – the characters of those 1993 television ads who told of us the evils of then-first lady Hillary Clinton’s efforts to bring about health care and insurance for all people; rather than just those who were fortunate enough to have jobs that provided it?

I literally wonder if these guys are going to get names and develop backstories of their own, as though we’re supposed to think they’re real people instead of characters in a commercial spot we see on television?

Considering that we’re nearly at the six-month mark (it’s Sunday) until Election Day, that’s going to be a lot of advocacy television spots we’ll have to endure between now and then. Will it become so much that we’ll have to hide from our TV sets?

  -30-

Chicago’s ugly brawl for 2018 may well be within the Tribune ranks itself

Chicago Tribune news people have been speaking out in recent weeks about how they want to organize themselves into a union and have bragged about how they have about 85 percent of their staff in support of the idea.

No longer the 'World's Greatest Newspaper,' and no longer just 2 cents. Will it remain without labor unions

But it really shouldn’t come as any surprise that the newspaper’s management on Wednesday responded with the equivalent of, “I don’t care!”

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE Guild received a formal response saying that the 85 percent of people signing union cards indicating their support for becoming an official union isn’t enough to sway them.

“Not enough information” was what management said, adding they’re more than willing to follow the procedures established by the National Labor Relations Board – by which a formal election will need to be held at some point later this year.

If a majority of reporter-types remain in support of the idea of becoming a chapter of the NewsGuild – Communications Workers of America, then perhaps there will be an officially-recognized union. But not one bloody moment before!

No such election has yet been scheduled, although I would expect it could happen sometime in late summer – or perhaps during Autumn. Round about the time the Chicago Bears start stinking up Soldier Field again with their awful play, we could see this issue resolved.

IN THE WEEKS and months until then, we’re going to see a whole lot of hostile rhetoric. A whole lot of reporter-types, including some of the most honored and award-winning in the newsgathering business, are going to be told publicly by management how replaceable they all are.

How in this particular era of the news business they ought to feel thankful to be employed by anybody who allows them to report the news for a living, and how the last thing they ought to be doing is trying to undermine the business interests of their employer.

Now I’m sure some people are going to want to think I’m exaggerating the situation. Particularly if they’re the types of people who are inclined to believe there’s a touch of truth in the over-the-top statements I wrote in the past couple of paragraphs.

Tribune soon to leave their historic tower

But I have my memories of back when I got out of college and started out in the news business.

MY FIRST PAYING reporter gig (I was an unpaid intern at a few places previously) was at the now-defunct Star Newspapers of Chicago Heights. By and large, I have pleasant memories of the eight months I was there and of some of the people I met.

But when I got there in June of 1987, the newspaper was in the midst of trying to establish itself as a local of the Chicago Newspaper Guild. A process that managed to split the staff into factions until the ultimate culmination in late October that year of an election.

One that I remember being a poll watcher for the union interests, and one in which I still remember the union interests lost by four votes. Not as close as a couple of years later when the old Southtown Economist newspaper tried to unionize and wound up with an evenly-split vote – a result that went in favor of management and was a loss.

Personally, I always thought the best jobs I had were at union-organized newsrooms. Mostly because it established set rules for dealing with various situations – rather than letting them be determined by what could appear to be the whims of management.

News business has changed much throughout the years

BUT TRYING TO establish a union shop in a newsroom is not something I ever would want to repeat in my work life. Particularly the letters me and my colleagues would receive from the New York attorneys retained by the newspaper to intimidate us into thinking we were being recklessly irresponsible in even contemplating making demands of the newspaper.

All or this is likely to occur at the Tribune – particularly since the one-time World’s Greatest Newspaper has such a history of being intensely anti-organized labor. Col. McCormick of the paper’s past (and whose distant relations have recently purchased an interest in the newspaper’s ownership) would boast about how he’d pay his reporters well (by newspaper standards) so as to make them think union representation wasn’t necessary.

Those supporting the unionization effort (including some reporters I know personally) say that recent years have brought about changes in circumstance that make the old logic inapplicable. They’re going to feel the gut check when they learn management is willing to openly demean them in order to keep the status quo in place.

Because I certainly can’t see any newspaper supportive of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s own anti-union efforts for state government willing to allow the “beast” of organized labor to soil the new offices they’re planning on moving into this summer.

  -30-

Supreme Court acting decently, but it could be opposite a year from now

For those people of a progressive mindset, the Supreme Court of the United States acted Monday in a responsible manner; although one should keep in mind that the nation’s high court ultimately is unpredictable and could wind up issuing rulings that offend the sensibilities of decent people.

Likely to offend somebody, no matter how they rule

For this is also the day that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case out of Illinois that could go a long way toward undermining the influence of organized labor within government.

HECK, GOV. BRUCE Rauner himself made a point of being in Washington, D.C., for the morning court call. The man who got himself elected governor so he could single-handedly undermine labor unions in Illinois government wanted to be on hand to see, and hear, for himself what the high court thinks. Which Democratic gubernatorial challenger Daniel Biss said Monday is sufficient reason not to re-elect Rauner.

A ruling in that case will come up later this year, as likely will be any action the high court takes with regards to federal immigration policy – specifically the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program that President Donald J. Trump wants to have eradicated from out government.

That program is the one enacted during the Barack Obama presidency and is meant to treat young people who were brought as children to this country by their parents without valid visas.

DACA to live on, at least a little while longer

In the wildest of fantasies of all those individuals who voted for Trump, making America “great” again means deporting every single one of the roughly 700,000 young adults who fall into this category.

TRUMP LAST YEAR used his executive order powers to eliminate the program, but federal district courts in San Francisco and New York have issued orders that keep the program in place for the time being.

The president had asked the high court to immediately take up the case, instead of requiring both of the cases to go to federal appeals courts first. The Supreme Court on Monday refused, saying Trump hasn’t given sufficient reason why the usual legal process should be cut short.

Of course, the “reason” is that Trump is a political and governmental amateur who probably really thinks he ought to be able to bark out orders and have government minions do what they’re told. Privately, he probably thinks the Supreme Court is being insolent and disrespectful of his presidential authority.

Will the court ultimately undermine the union?

But it means the rule of law is prevailing, thus far. Although it always is likely that the appeals courts will rule, and the Supreme Court will wind up taking on the issue some time next year – and could wind up issuing a ruling that will be Trump-pleasing at that time.

I SAY SO because in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME Council 31 (which represents Illinois government workers), court watchers suspect the nine-member court had a 4-4 split, with the newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, the unknown who’d likely decide the case.

Gorsuch, of course, is the justice who got appointed by Trump himself, and Trump has made it clear he sides with Mark Janus (the state worker who objects on ideological grounds to being part of a labor union and doesn’t like that union dues are withheld from his pay).

Not that Gorsuch gave any hint of where he stands – during Monday’s hour-long hearing, he said nothing and asked no questions from any of the attorneys involved.

But it has certain people convinced that the end result will be a 5-4 ruling against organized labor interests and in favor of those people who’d actually be inclined to vote for Rauner’s re-election come Nov. 6.

WHICH IS ALWAYS possible, except that my own observations of appeals courts throughout the years is that nothing is absolute. Those of us of a progressive leaning can only hope the knee-jerk reaction doesn’t prevail.

TRUMP: How angry will he be a year from now?

Which also is what I’m telling myself with regards to the fate of DACA, since I suspect Gorsuch got his life-time appointment to the high court because Trump feels (at least) he can be counted on to do what The Donald expects of him.

Could we be getting another ruling on this immigration issue that will wind up offending the people who were pleased on Monday that any threat of deportation for hundreds of thousands of young people would be postponed for the time being?

Or will the high court wind up surprising us by issuing responsible rulings in both cases – thereby reaffirming our faith in our government, while most likely turning the presidential complexion from his current sickly orange to a bright red bursting with anger?

  -30-

DNAinfo.com ‘death’ in Chgo, NY shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone

As a reporter-type person who has experienced unemployment on several occasions, I sympathize with the DNAInfo.com website in Chicago and the individuals who earlier this week abruptly learned they were out of work.

RICKETTS: Owned Cubs/media pair less than Tribune Co.

Although there’s nothing at all surprising about the fact that the company operating websites in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington – along with Chicago – decided to suddenly ‘pack it in’ after eight years of trying to cover news in those cities.

JOE RICKETTS, THE head of the wealthy family that owns the no-longer-defending World Champion Chicago Cubs and also was a significant financial backer of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential bid (the family nearly got a member appointed to a Cabinet post), let it be known he was giving up because the business end was failing.

The company wasn’t generating enough revenue to cover the expenses of actually having people on the payroll to cover the news – which is an essential expense if one is going to cover the news properly.

Various reports have pointed out the fact that the employees connected to the websites in New York voted last week to organize themselves as a labor union. Some would have us believe that Ricketts’ decision to shut down was purely a response to not wanting to deal with organized labor.

Which may be true. But the idea that management would rather not have their employees sticking together to negotiate benefits for all is nothing new. The idea of an owner hating organized labor shouldn’t come as a shock to anybody!

Two local websites that are now ...

SO I’M NOT about to join the parade of Ricketts bashers, some of whom are even insisting that we boycott Chicago Cubs games in response to his anti-labor actions. I would never expect him to be sympathetic, and I personally certainly don’t need this as a reason to ignore the Cubs – a ballclub I have never much cared for.

What I take personally from the DNAInfo.com closings is evidence of how costly it can be to professionally report the news. And how those people who are eager to see newspapers and their centuries of experience in doing so (the Chicago Sun-Times is a baby, tracing its origins back to the days just before Pearl Harbor) wither away are truly ridiculous in their attitudes.

There are those people deluded enough to believe there is no loss to society from fewer newspapers because the Internet and websites are capable of replacing them.

... a part of Chicago's media history

Yet most websites I have seen that are news-oriented are way too reliant on having newspapers to generate stories and content in general that they can appropriate for their own use.

A SITE LIKE DNAInfo.com, which actually had reporters looking for stories in the neighborhoods of Chicago (some neighborhoods were covered more thoroughly than others) that was generating its own content is running into the same problems as those who historically were disseminating their content on printed pages of pulp.

Which means most of these sites wind up becoming the medium of choice for benefactors with the finances to not care about their financial bottom line.

Even then, there comes a point when many of them have to cut off the funding and shut down. Remember the ProgressIllinois.com website, which had reporter-type people out-and-about covering stories – with the bills being paid by the Service Employees International Union?

Even they had to give in – with the website remaining in place, but un-updated since that final date. AP: Donald Trump Wins Presidential Election (UPDATED) is the final headline, as though determined to perpetually remind us all of the annoyance our society brought upon itself just over a year ago.

Sun-Times still reporting news, despite death predictions.

THERE IS ONE significant difference between the two closings – DNAInfo.com and its sister websites suddenly found all their content erased from the Internet. A letter from Ricketts explaining his decision to suddenly shut down (and make the four months of vacation pay and severance his reporters will receive seem overly generous) is all that remains of the sites.

There is some speculation Ricketts may try to archive some of the content – for those who care to see what once was of this particular attempt at covering the news.

Although as anyone who follows the “news” is fully aware, yesterday’s stories are ancient history. It’s the ongoing developments that provide for an overall report that has relevance to people’s lives.

And without it, we as a society may have to get used to a condition in which our attempts at public “education” may wind up being fulfilled with cutesy pictures of kitty cats, quirky pictures of people doing something stupid, and all the porn, porn, porn we could ever desire.

  -30-

EXTRA: If at first you don’t succeed…

I suppose Gov. Bruce Rauner could claim a political victory, as fleeting as it might turn out to be, by pointing out the Illinois House of Representatives failed Wednesday in its efforts to pass a law concerning “right-to-work” legislation despite the governor’s objections.

RAUNER: He leads, for now

It was the General Assembly during the spring session that passed a bill prohibiting municipalities from enacting their own laws meant to undermine the ability of organized labor to operate in their communities.

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?

IN A PLACE like Illinois, particularly with its two-thirds majority of residents living in the urban Chicago metro area, “right-to-work” has never taken hold (although over in the neighboring “Land of Hoosiers,” it has). Our state Legislature is representing a majority of Illinoisans in rejecting the very concept.

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.

  -30-