(The Chicago Tribune)—Officials in Lincolnshire are aware of the possibility that a new union ordinance could soon face a legal challenge, and both sides are gearing up for a fight.
The Illinois chapter of the AFL-CIO — one of the largest union organizations in the nation — is considering a potential lawsuit following Lincolnshire’s Dec. 14 vote that established an ordinance which allows some union members to opt out of paying union dues.
Spokesman Bill Looby sent out a news release this month from chapter president Michael Carrigan, saying, in part: “The elected officials of Lincolnshire did not advance the cause of their residents. They acted outside the law with this politically-motivated ordinance. We are exploring all options with our legal counsel.”
Looby said in a phone interview that he did not know when the chapter would make a decision, or a filing.
“That’s just not something that gets taken care of in a matter of hours,” he said. “Nothing legal happens quickly.”
The Liberty Justice Center, a conservative thinktank in Chicago, will represent Lincolnshire for free, if need be. The group’s senior attorney, Jacob Huebert, said they would be ready to respond if the AFL-CIO or another group acts quickly.
“The Liberty Justice Center is prepared to defend Lincolnshire’s ordinance against the unions’ legal challenge, whenever it comes,” Huebert wrote in an email.
The AFL-CIO’s displeasure stems from a belief held widely among unions that so-called “right-to-work” laws weaken unions or even break them apart. Illinois is among about half the states that permit employers and their workers’ unions to require mandatory union membership before an individual can take a job covered by that union. In these arrangements, the employer removes the union dues from the worker’s paycheck and funnels that money directly to the union.
The concept approved in Lincolnshire ends such an arrangement, giving unionized employees the option of whether to belong to the union or withhold dues — the “right to work” without being in an organization.
Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, has promoted these “right-to-work” zones since taking office at the start of the year. Several of the states that border Illinois — including Wisconsin — have outlawed the mandatory-union practice, and Rauner has asked Illinois municipalities to take up the cause within their own borders.
Lincolnshire’s ordinance affects only private companies, and has no impact on its teachers, firefighters or police officers’ unions.
“We set our goals on economic development, and expanding our retail and commercial base,” said Mayor Liz Brandt. “We are in potential of losing a few businesses” to Wisconsin, just 45 minutes from the village.
She declined to specify which businesses she worried about the most. Citing the possibility of litigation, she did not wish to say much more — other than acknowledging the size of the step Lincolnshire has taken.
“It’s an enormous issue, and it’s volatile for people,” she said.
In Champaign, at least one University of Illinois labor law professor is watching events unfold with interest.
“The bottom line is, it’s unlawful,” said Professor Matt Finkin, the chair in law of the Center for Advanced Study at the School of Employment & Labor Relations. “There’s no way this will stand.”
Finkin said the Wagner Act, a 1935 law that strengthened unions, created the National Labor Relations Board and permitted unions to bargain mandatory memberships into their contracts with employers. The 1947 Taft–Hartley Act further empowered “states” to opt out of parts of the Wagner Act, using the word “state,” Finkin said. The high court could potentially rule that “state” also encompasses counties, municipalities and other forms of local government
Finkin spoke bluntly about what he saw happening in Lincolnshire: a municipality willing to be a test case in a conservative push to have the justices reinterpret Taft-Hartley as giving local governments the power of right-to-work zones.
And if there was ever a time to push for a new vision of Taft-Hartley, Finkin said this may be it.
“It’s a very conservative court,” he said. “It’s the most business-friendly court since the 1920s.”