logo
In Illinois, Democrats tout pro-labor bona fides, but sometimes push back when their staffs seek unions

In Illinois, Democrats tout pro-labor bona fides, but sometimes push back when their staffs seek unions

Yahoo16-04-2025
As she worked the campaign trail more than a year ago, Cook County state's attorney hopeful Eileen O'Neill Burke made a promise to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
If elected, O'Neill Burke wrote at the time, she would recognize a union of her assistant state's attorneys if a majority of them wanted one.
Having served as an assistant state's attorney herself, O'Neill Burke wrote in the letter, she understood the challenges of the prosecutors' jobs.
'Union representation and the ability to bargain collectively with management are one of the most important tools to protect the rights of workers,' she wrote. 'It would be my honor to be a part of that historic process.'
O'Neill Burke was sworn into office in December. Two months later, the Teamsters Local 700 came forward and said a majority of Cook County prosecutors wanted to join their union and asked the state's attorney to grant them voluntary recognition.
But O'Neill Burke did not recognize the union, arguing that because decades-old Illinois Supreme Court precedent bars the prosecutors from collective bargaining, her hands were tied when it came to recognizing their union voluntarily.
'It's shocking in a bedrock of a Democratic stronghold that Chicago is … that they would have leaders, Democrat leaders, opposing us trying to unionize,' said one felony trial division prosecutor who said he had lobbied his friends and family to vote for O'Neill Burke. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because he fears being fired for his support of the union. 'I think that's just a total violation of the party standards.'
The prosecutors are not the first public employees in pro-labor Illinois to face pushback from their employers when they have tried to organize in recent years.
Last year, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch was sued by members of his own staff, who accused him of violating the state's Workers' Rights Amendment — a major victory for state Democrats when it passed by referendum in 2022 — by depriving them of their right to collective bargaining. The amendment enshrines the 'fundamental right' to collective bargaining in the Illinois Constitution.
Also last year, the Chicago Board of Elections objected to a union petition filed by city elections workers, arguing that union membership would qualify as 'political activity' that elections workers are prohibited from taking part in by the state's election code. The case is still pending.
In all three cases — that of the prosecutors, the legislative staff and the elections workers — employers have argued the law bars their staffs from unionizing.
Advocates say the real hesitation of bosses to recognize unions is the unwillingness of even self-professed pro-labor employers to give up control over their staff.
'It seems to me that whether there is a law or isn't a law really becomes a bit of a subterfuge to sort of hide behind whether you generally believe in the rhetoric that you've used,' said Bob Bruno, director of the labor studies program at the University of Illinois.
The prosecutor who spoke with the Tribune said he finds meaning in his job, putting in long hours fighting for justice for crime victims. But he said he has serious concerns about working conditions within the office that he hopes a union could help address.
Notorious shifts in the Felony Review Unit, during which prosecutors are sometimes sent out alone in the middle of the night to interview crime victims and witnesses, are one pressing concern. It's not uncommon for younger attorneys he advises on those shifts to ask him to stay on the phone with them as they drive back from police stations or hospitals because they're afraid of falling asleep at the wheel, he said.
Prosecutors were spurred to unionize by a desire for pay parity with Cook County public defenders, the Teamsters have said. Assistant public defenders have been unionized since the mid-1980s, before the Supreme Court case that barred prosecutors from unionizing, and Teamsters representatives say they are better paid than equally experienced prosecutors, on average.
Meanwhile, O'Neill Burke's office has asked the state labor board to dismiss the union petition.
'The applicable Illinois Supreme Court precedent is still the controlling authority on the issue of whether ASAs may be represented by a union for purposes of collective bargaining,' the filing said. Additionally, the office argued, certain prosecutors have 'supervisory' responsibilities and should therefore be barred from joining a union on those grounds.
The Teamsters say they have other legal avenues available to overcome the 1995 Supreme Court decision, including legislation in Springfield that would allow prosecutors to unionize and the Workers' Rights Amendment. The amendment has the potential to expand the kinds of workers who are eligible to join unions in Illinois, experts say, although it has yet to be fully tested by the courts.
Matt McGrath, a spokesperson for the state's attorney's office, said in February that O'Neill Burke 'supports organized labor and the right of workers to collectively bargain, including ASAs once Illinois law allows for it.'
'Decades of binding case law must be addressed for that to happen, however, and as the county's chief law enforcement officer and a former judge, she has taken an oath repeatedly to uphold the law,' McGrath said at the time, adding that the office 'looks forward to working with the appropriate stakeholders to get this right.'
McGrath declined to provide additional comment. When asked whether the office supports the Teamsters-backed legislation that would give prosecutors collective bargaining rights, which recently passed the House, McGrath said the office had not taken a position on the bill.
In a statement, Local 700 President Ramon Williams accused O'Neill Burke of using 'dubious legal arguments to distract the public and her own employees from the simple fact that she could recognize the union today.'
Welch has also maintained that the law must change for his staff to unionize, even with the state's collective bargaining amendment on the books.
Two years ago, the Illinois Labor Relations Board dismissed a union petition by the Illinois Legislative Staff Association, finding the workers were excluded from collective bargaining under existing state law.
The board's executive director, Kimberly Stevens, wrote in the decision that the board did not have the authority to adjudicate whether or not the then-nascent Workers' Rights Amendment would overrule existing state law, a decision she said was up to the courts.
Afterward, Welch introduced a bill that would have given the legislative staff union rights. 'Unions have always provided a path for people to do better. I've witnessed what unions can do for my family, as well as families across this state. Illinois will always stand for workers' rights,' Welch said in a statement about the legislation in 2023.
The legislative staff union later accused Welch of sponsoring the bill to deflect criticism without any intention of it becoming law.
Meanwhile, the staff association's lawsuit has been winding its way through Cook County Circuit Court. Welch's spokesperson declined to comment.
Critics of public employee unionism say public employee unions can create conflicts of interest when the interests of workers may be at odds with those of the public.
In the case of the elections workers, for instance, the Board of Elections noted that the politically powerful Service Employees International Union Local 73, which hopes to represent the elections workers, lobbies legislatively and makes endorsements and donations to political candidates. The union, for instance, helped propel Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to victory, though it has since become embroiled in a spat with the mayor's closest labor ally, the Chicago Teachers Union.
'At some point you run into a conflict of interest between the public good and your own personal good,' said James Baird, a management-side labor and employment attorney who represents both public and private sector clients.
For instance, even if elections workers — whose jobs include tasks such as surveying new polling places and making sure they meet accessibility requirements — don't actually exert meaningful power over the voting process, the appearance of fairness is important, Baird said. They're in a 'different position than somebody that's driving a salt truck,' he said.
SEIU 73, which represents Cook County elections workers, has described the Chicago Board of Elections' objections to the city workers' union as 'frivolous.'
Max Bever, a spokesperson for the Board of Elections, said the body could not comment on pending litigation.
Baird, the management-side attorney, added that public unions can put workers' interests at odds with the interests of the public they serve.
'Is it better for the public that prosecutors work fewer hours?' Baird said. 'It's better for the prosecutors, but is it better for the public?'
The Cook County prosecutor who spoke anonymously said he's heard the arguments about the downsides of unions, including that they can protect lazy workers.
But having parents who belonged to a public sector union helped him recognize the protections the union gave them. He grew up, he said, with the union 'putting food in my mouth.'
And public employees fighting for union recognition argue that better working conditions for themselves would benefit the public too.
Brady Burden, an analyst in the speaker's office who has helped lead the union effort there, said legislative staff are stretched thin because of low staffing levels.
Turnover rates in the office, he said, are 'bad for like a Taco Bell, let alone a place where people are expected to develop the sort of skills necessary to analyze, draft (and) shepherd legislation.' And staff who are running on little sleep, Burden said, are not doing work at the quality they're capable of.
'Having a union on speaker's staff would drastically improve not just working conditions within the speaker's office, but the quality of work that's done by the legislature,' he said.
Burden said he had expected some pushback when the staff went public with their union. 'Being in a managerial position does something to your brain,' he said. 'The idea that your staff is unionizing … can look as if they are directly attacking you, as a person, morally, even if that's not necessarily the case.'
Bruno, the University of Illinois labor expert, agreed.
Employers, even those who support labor in general, often get defensive when faced with the prospect of sharing power with their employees, he said.
'They shift into the employer mode,' he said, 'and things go wacky.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities

The Hill

time19 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities

The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.

David Jolly, leading Democratic candidate for 2026 governor, shares views on abortion and Alligator Alcatraz
David Jolly, leading Democratic candidate for 2026 governor, shares views on abortion and Alligator Alcatraz

CBS News

time20 minutes ago

  • CBS News

David Jolly, leading Democratic candidate for 2026 governor, shares views on abortion and Alligator Alcatraz

Jim devotes the entire half-hour to a sit-down with David Jolly, the leading Democratic candidate for governor in 2026. Jolly is facing his strongest criticism, not from Republicans, but from his fellow Democrats, especially on the issue of abortion. That's because 10 years ago, when he was in Congress, Jolly was a Republican who made it clear he believed life began at conception. Now, as a Democrat, Jolly says his views on abortion have evolved, and he now supports a woman's right to have one. Jim and Jolly also discuss the controversial Alligator Alcatraz detention center, the affordability crisis, and other issues he would have to address as governor. Guest: David Jolly/(D) Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Jolly, who as a Republican represented Florida's 13th District from 2014 to 2017, is officially running for Florida governor as a Democrat. Jolly, a vocal critic of President Donald Trump, joins a growing and diverse field in the 2026 race, which includes Republican Congressman Byron Donalds and former Democrat-turned-Independent Jason Pizzo. In an interview with CBS News Miami's Joan Murray, Jolly explained his decision to run under the Democratic banner, despite the significant voter registration gap favoring Republicans.

'They're trying to rig the system': Sen. Padilla says Dems should fight fire with fire
'They're trying to rig the system': Sen. Padilla says Dems should fight fire with fire

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

'They're trying to rig the system': Sen. Padilla says Dems should fight fire with fire

California's Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla said his party should be willing to fight fire with fire, in light of Texas' potential, controversial gerrymandering plans. "If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they'd be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box next November," Padilla said in an Aug. 3 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But they know they're in trouble," he continued. "And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power." The California senator was referencing Texas Republicans' proposed new map of their state's congressional districts, following President Donald Trump's urging that the GOP find a way to flip as many as five seats in next year's midterm elections. "Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats," Trump told reporters on July 15. Padilla likened Trump's ask of Texas Republicans to his request during his first term in office that a top Georgia official "find 11,780 votes" to put him over the top in the Electoral College for the 2020 election. Redistricting in the middle of the decade, rather than every ten years after new census data is collected, is rare. And the pushback from Democrats across the country has been widespread. Blue state leaders have threatened tit-for-tat responses, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has suggested redrawing his state's map to counteract Texas' efforts. (Newsom faces the challenge of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps, unlike Texas, where lawmakers dictate the boundaries.) Some California Democrats are wary, warning that a redistricting arms race could spiral and erode trust with voters. In response to those concerns, Padilla told NBC he believes it's appropriate for the Democrat-controlled state to evaluate its options. "The ideal scenario," he said, "is for Texas to stand down. They don't have to do this; they shouldn't do this. But if they were to go forward and deliver Trump his five additional Republicans ... the stakes are simply too high" for Democrats not to respond. Padilla also addressed recent comments from his fellow Democrats about the state of politics and American democracy, including Sen. Cory Booker's call for his party to "have a backbone." "It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines," Booker said from the Senate floor on July 29. Asked whether Booker's defiant approach was the appropriate stance for Democrats under the Trump administration, Padilla said, "Look, I think the extreme way in which this administration is conducting itself calls for higher and higher profile ways of pushing back." After announcing that she would not be running for California governor in 2026, former Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on CBS's "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert. In her interview on July 31, Harris told Colbert, "Recently, I made the decision that, for now, I don't want to go back into the system. I think it's broken." Padilla agreed, in part, with Harris' take, saying, "I think the system is under duress." "Democrats are doing our part to try to stand up and push back," he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store