Some people have taken to calling it the stealth amendment: an effort to amend the Illinois Constitution in a manner that will benefit organized labor.
But just how it would work and what exactly it would do has many folks scratching their heads.
Amendment 1, which voters will decide Nov. 8, would amend the state constitution to make it easier for labor unions to maintain membership and to protect benefits of workers who are mostly employed by local and state governments.
If the constitution is amended, benefits for state and local workers would always ratchet upwards, said Chris Davis, president of the Illinois Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
“It would put what is decided at the negotiating table ahead of state law itself,” he said. “We’re extremely concerned that whatever benefits are negotiated will then be constitutionally protected, and that legislators have abdicated financial regulatory responsibility. For example, let’s say a police union negotiates that body camera footage can’t be used in disciplinary actions against a police officer. Even if state law is changed allowing it to be used, what was negotiated in the contract will take precedence over state law.”
Matt Paprocki, treasurer of the Vote No on Amendment One Committee, is succinct in his objection: “It will raise your taxes.”
Paprocki, who is also president of the Illinois Policy Institute, said the cost of these ratcheted-up benefits that can never be diminished will be passed on to the taxpayers and they will see both their property and income taxes continue to rise.
Tim Drea, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, countered that the amendment will spur prosperity and increase the overall tax base, making tax hikes less likely.
One thing both opponents and proponents of the measure agree on is that if the measure is passed, the Illinois General Assembly would never be able to pass a right-to-work law without again amending the constitution.
Right-to-work laws prohibit workers from paying mandatory fees to a union.
Supporters of right-to-work laws say it is unfair to force workers to pay a fee to a union they don’t want to belong to. But opponents counter that it is wrong for those workers to receive benefits negotiated by the union without paying a representation fee.
Currently, 27 states have right-to-work laws. Nine states have enshrined the measure into their state constitutions. Illinois would be the first state to use its constitution to prohibit such a law, said Patrick Semmens, the vice president for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus vs. AFSCME, a case originating in Springfield, that government workers could not be forced to pay money to a union, essentially imposing a right-to-work regime on all government workers in the nation.
Davis said he doesn’t anticipate there to be the political will to pass a right-to-work law in Illinois anytime in his lifetime, so there is little need for an amendment ensuring it doesn’t happen.
But Joe Bowen, spokesman for the Workers’ Rights Amendment, has said political winds change over time and while the current legislature wouldn’t pass such a measure, it could happen in the future.
Amendment 1 has not captured nearly as many headlines – or political ads – as the unsuccessful push two years ago to pass a constitutional amendment creating a progressive income tax.
“This time we are working smarter – not harder,” said Mark Denzler, president and CEO of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association. “We know we are going to be outspent by organized labor so we are targeting specific populations to try and defeat it.”
Denzler declined to specify what tactics or demographics opponents are employing in their efforts to defeat the amendment. But he noted polling is showing it will be a tight vote.
“Nearly 70% of people have a positive view of unions, and it actually ranks higher than organized religion and other organizations,” Drea said. “So, labor unions have a high favorability. It’s a product of the pandemic – people saw abuses.”
Drea said some people were forced to work without personal protective equipment during the pandemic and the public has come to see a need for workers to have the ability to collectively bargain workplace safety matters with their employer.
“My view of this is you don’t necessarily have to have a contract or a union representing you for collective bargaining,” he said. “But if employees want to get together and go talk to the boss about grievances, they would have that right to do so. That happens a lot more than people realize. It’s like, ‘Hey, you guys, we need to change things. Let’s go talk to the boss.’ And the second thing it would do is create a fundamental right to a safe workplace.”
Denzler said the amendment is written so vaguely that he anticipates years of litigation to determine its scope if it were to pass.
Drea countered that constitutional language, by its very nature, is written broadly. He noted that the U.S. Constitution has lasted for more than two centuries because its broad language has allowed courts to uniquely interpret provisions over time.
One of the issues in question is whether all the provisions of the amendment would impact private-sector workers. The prevailing view seems to be that most private-sector workers are covered by the National Labor Relations Act, which would pre-empt state law. The NLRA allows states to decide for themselves on right-to-work laws.
Bowen said that while most private-sector workers are covered by the federal law, some are not. For example, farm workers, household employees and independent contractors are not covered. But this would provide them with the same rights as other workers.
Scott Reeder, a staff writer for Illinois Times, can be reached at sreeder@illinoistimes.com.
Related Stories
This article appears in 2022 Election.
