The Workers' Rights Amendment's Meaning for Illinois' Workers and Trade Unions OP-ED

by Dr. Victor G. Devinatz

In the 2022 national midterm elections, a “Red Wave,” in which the U.S. House of Representatives was predicted to be decisively won by the Republicans, never materialized. Although the Republicans achieved a razor-thin House majority, the U.S. Senate remained in Democratic hands. In Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker easily defeated Darren Bailey, with the Democrats retaining super majorities in the General Assembly. But also, on the Illinois ballot was Amendment 1, Right to Collective Bargaining Measure, more popularly known as the Workers’ Rights Amendment (WRA). Obtaining 58.4% approval of those voting on the amendment, the WRA, to be implemented, required that either 60% of voters back the amendment or a simple majority of all persons voting in the election had to support the WRA; it passed by meeting the latter criterion. In a nutshell, the WRA protects the rights of private and public sector workers to unionize and to collectively bargain on issues impacting their economic well-being and safety. Additionally, with this amendment, Illinois became the first U.S. state to prohibit right-to-work (RTW) laws for private sector employees. RTW legislation permits employees to neither join unions nor to tender dues or fees to them even though they have collective bargaining coverage. The 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME essentially implemented a RTW law for all U.S. public sector employees, which takes precedence over state-level measures. That said, the benefits that workers and unions ultimately derive from the WRA will depend on the workers’ own initiative in the coming years.

Although WRA opponents argued that the amendment’s implementation would lead to immense political power for public sector union leaders, the amendment was a purely defensive action by the state’s unions to prevent the further erosion of an already weakened trade union movement. After Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner’s election in 2014, he attempted unsuccessfully to form local “right to work zones” after realizing that he could not get a state RTW law through the Democratic-controlled General Assembly. Moreover, Act 10’s passage in 2011 under Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker severely restricted public sector union collective bargaining rights, leading to a dramatic public union membership decline. To prevent similar things from occurring in Illinois, the state’s unions were motivated to codify collective bargaining rights in the Illinois constitution.

Unsurprisingly, several business and conservative forces, such as The Heritage Foundation, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Policy Institute (IPI), The Wall Street Journal, Crain’s Chicago Business, and the Chicago Tribune, vigorously opposed the constitutional amendment. The IPI contended that implementing this amendment would guarantee a total property tax increase of at least $2,149 from 2023 to 2026, regardless of which party won in November. This alleged tax increase, ac- cording to the IPI, would result from the amendment granting Illinois public sector unions unparalleled collective bargaining powers compared with public unions in other U.S. states. Moreover, the IPI argued that the WRA includes several provisions that would result in public sector union leaders essentially controlling Illinois by permitting them to demand essentially anything they desired in contract negotiations through giving them a permanent right to strike to achieve their demands.

According to the most recent Gallup survey, 71% of Americans approve of unions, the highest rate since 1965, which might be one reason for the recent union organizing successes at Amazon, Starbucks, and other companies. That said, the WRA’s passage did not merely result from the public’s increased goodwill towards labor organizations. Rather, a coordinated campaign conducted by Vote Yes for Workers’ Rights, an alliance of unions and progressive organizations directed by the Illinois AFL-CIO and the Chicago Federation of Labor, knocked on doors, operated phone banks, sent direct mailings to voters’ homes, and ran television advertisements across Illinois.

So, what kind of protections does the WRA offer to employees? While the amendment prevents the passage of a RTW law in Illinois, it also might lead to including additional topics in contract negotiations. Although the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) affords collective bargaining coverage to most U.S. private sector employees, the WRA could provide unionization and collective bargaining rights to private sector employees excluded by the NLRA, such as independent contractors, supervisory employees as well as agricultural and domestic workers. Additionally, if the U.S. Congress ever abolished the NLRA, Illinois private sector employees would retain their collective bargaining rights under the WRA. The WRA will not, however, result in the elimination of many private sector employers’ vigorous opposition to unionization.

Nevertheless, the WRA’s success ultimately depends on rankand-file worker activity. Although the NLRA granted private sector employees legal rights, it was not until the sit-down strike wave from 1936 to 1938, organized by the employees themselves, that employers recognized unions. As in the late 1930s, it must be the employees themselves, not the union leaders, who lead unionization drives and organize collective actions in pushing the WRA to its democratic limits in enforcing workers’ unionization and collective bargaining rights.

Dr. Victor G. Devinatz is Distinguished Professor of Management, specializing in labor relations, and was the Hobart and Marian Gardner Hinderliter Endowed Professor (2014-2015) at Illinois State University. He can be contacted at vgdevin@ilstu.edu.