Nonprofit Quarterly         Martin Levine      April 6, 2016

And then there was one. Illinois is now the only state continuing to operate its government without its required budget, making it ground zero for the national debate between Republicans and Democrats over the role of government and fiscal policy and providing us with an ongoing case study of how “small government” will affect the schools, social service agencies, and public services that are woven into the fabric of our communities.

The frozen state of the State has been particularly challenging for the state’s colleges and universities, both public and private. As spring semesters draw to a close and the admission process for next year’s class is at its height, the current and future harm are both becoming clear. For the state’s public university and college systems, the lack of a budget has meant no state funding at all in the current fiscal year.

After nine months of inaction by the state’s political leaders, we have learned much about the strength and resilience of the organizations that have been forced to operate without the funds they expected from the state. The numbers tell a story of the commitment Illinois had been making to its institutions of higher education. The state’s flagship University of Illinois system was expecting as much as $660 million in direct state funding, or about 12 percent of their total annual revenue. Another large institution, Southern Illinois University, was expecting a state allocation of $220 million, or about a quarter of its operating budget. At some of the state’s smaller institutions, the holding back of state funds poses an even larger challenge. For example, direct state funding represents more than 30 percent of Chicago State University’s $100 million operating budget.

The state’s scholarship program, the Monetary Assistance Program (MAP), which particularly supports low-income students, was expected to provide over $300 million to Illinois students this school year. While this is direct aid given to students to be applied against their tuition, schools recognize that replacing these funds is beyond the financial ability of many of their students and have taken on at least some of the burden of filling the gap. This burden falls on both public and private colleges and universities that desire to serve a range of students, rich and poor.

The larger institutions, those with a sizeable endowment and a large, wealthy alumni network, have had resources to cushion the blow. They have been able to limit the need to cut deeply into their programs by drawing down or borrowing from their reserves. Smaller schools without this foundation to rest upon have found it necessary to take more drastic action to get through the year. Chicago State University will end its school year early and expects to lay off hundreds of employees out of a total head count of less than 1,000 at the end of April. Eastern Illinois University recently informed its community that it would “need to lay off 177 civil service employees and have administrative and professional employees take a specified number of unpaid days off in March, April, May, and June.”

If this year has not been easy, next year may well be much worse. There is a real possibility that that there will not be a budget for FY 2017. Universities and colleges now need to plan for how they will operate without any state funding for a second year. As Southern Illinois University President Randy Dunn said recently to Inside Higher Ed:

We’re seeing this incremental dismantling of our universities piece by piece, as people get laid off and things get shut down. Over time you turn around and you wonder what happened to your university. Piece by piece it just disappeared on you. I worry that we started down that path.

And it will be the smaller institutions, those who have had already needed to drain limited resources, that may be forced to choose between severe reductions in the scope of their program in order to balance their budgets almost totally on tuitions or closing down totally.

Low income students, those most dependent on MAP grants, will feel the hurt as fewer schools will be able to let that part of their expected tuition income slide waiting for Illinois to have a budget and fund the program. The uncertainty and turmoil that this situation drops into each campus also pushes students to consider other options, including transferring to schools in other states.

The harm being done to higher education is mirrored in the state’s social service and education sectors. Those not protected by court orders or special funding agreements have been using their reserves, borrowing funds, and cutting expenses in order keep doing the work the State of Illinois has asked them to do. While few have closed, the total human impact has been significant. If the standoff does go into a second year, the fallout will be much greater, as their resources have already been heavily committed getting through the current year.

Will the political leaders of Illinois recognize that enough harm has been done already and look for a way to resolve their standoff? Unfortunately, it’s not looking that way right now.

WCIA            By Kelsey Gibbs         April 7, 2016

ILLINOIS -- State union workers have been without contracts since last summer. They say Governor Bruce Rauner has broken off negotiations.

Union works say the last thing they want is to strike. They said Rauner refuses to participate in the collective bargaining process for more than 35,000 state employees.

Workers say they're concerned about the negative effects a strike would have, especially on their own families and those they serve like seniors and those with disabilities.

They want the governor to return to the bargaining table. They also want lawmakers to side with constituents and not a political party.

Union workers are also calling on Rauner to sign an arbitration bill similar to the one he previously vetoed. It would bring a mediator in for negotiations.

AFSCME Council 31 and SEIU Healthcare Illinois both had their contracts expire June 30.

The Baltimore Sun   Nicholas Florko    April 7, 2016

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its first ruling since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The court's decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association could have mortally wounded public sector unions, stripping them of their legal ability to collect the funds to keep their doors open. However, a 4-4 ruling ultimately allowed unions to live another day. For me, the case was personal. As a union member, a former union organizer and a member of a union household, a defeat for the California Teachers Association could have meant an unraveling of the organization I depend on to protect my rights at work. However, unlike many of my union brothers and sisters, I'm disappointed by the decision.

At stake in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was the legality of agency-shop agreements, which allow unions to collect money, known as agency fees, from employees working in a union workplace even if they decline membership in the union. These fees pay for the benefits all employees receive when they have union representation, such as contract negotiations and being represented in grievance proceedings. Without agency fees, the union is legally obligated to represent all workers in a bargaining unit — including non-members — but employees are not obligated to pay for those services.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is just the latest attack on public sector unions through right-to-work (RTW) legislation, the controversial state legislation that has outlawed agency-shop agreements in 25 states. Essentially, a ruling for the plaintiff would have mandated that all states become right-to-work.

Right-to-work legislation means a death of unions via the "free rider problem." The ability to be represented by a union for free has led to an increase in employees who simply reap the benefits of the union without feeling compelled to pay their fair share. Not only do unions lose the agency fees that help keep their doors open, but many workers who otherwise may have joined the union because of the often small difference in cost between agency fees and union dues simply decline to pay anything at all.

An October study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that free riders represented 20.3 percent of bargaining units in RTW states, compared to only 6.8 percent in non-RTW states.

The number of free riders directly correlates to the health of a union. Without the funds to pay for union services, the organizations simply can't keep the doors open. The health of a union can be measured by union density, and the numbers don't lie: Right to work states had 17.4 percent union density, compared to 49.6 percent in non-RTW states.

I say this all to underscore how relieved I am by last week's ruling. However, to call the ruling a win would minimize the Republican-manufactured constitutional crisis that our nation currently faces.

While all union members should rightfully breathe a sigh of relief, no advocate of democracy should view the Friedrichs decision as a win. An affirmation of a previous ruling due to a gridlocked court, handicapped by a complete abdication of constitutional duty, is not a win.

Had the Senate hastily confirmed the Obama administration's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, perhaps unions also would have walked away from the Friedrichs case unscathed. Based on Judge Garland's previous rulings, it's reasonable to assume he would have ruled in the defendant's favor.

Judge Garland may have also excused himself from the case, as justices have done in the past after being appointed mid-case. However, at least that decision would have been made by a highly qualified justice who has dedicated this life to our legal system, not a politician looking to score political points.

Even if President Barack Obama's nominee had been less friendly to unions, I still would have rather had all nine justices presiding over the case. I am confident that the arguments for organized labor would have won out. Even if they hadn't, that is the nature of our democracy and the power vested in our highest court.

No one wants to win a fight with their opponents' hands tied behind their back, and that is exactly what this ruling was.