Government unions were never meant to be

The labor movement – and the rise of unions in the American workforce – developed because of the poor working conditions present during the Industrial Revolution.³ Congress passed laws promoting collective bargaining in the private sector because of the concern that private employers would exploit workers – through long hours, poor wages and dangerous working conditions – to increase profits.⁴

Those laws, along with other provisions that followed, applied only to private employers’ workers.

That’s because early union supporters – some of the biggest names in the movement – understood key differences between the private sector and public sector meant there was no place for unions to represent government workers.

Take Samuel Gompers (1850-1924), the founder of the American Federation of Labor, which later merged with the Congress of Industrial Organizations to become the AFL-CIO.⁵ Seeking to keep unions out of partisan politics, Gompers believed collective bargaining should involve “trade unionism, pure and simple.”⁶

It was the belief that unions have no place in government that led President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to say in 1937:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people…

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.… Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”⁷

Around the same time, courts across the nation were holding that collective bargaining agreements with government workers were forbidden, with one justice on the New York Supreme Court holding that government unions are “incompatible with the spirit of democracy” and “inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded.”⁸

The judge continued:

“Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.”⁹

That sentiment continued into the 1950s, with George Meany, the first president of the merged AFL-CIO, who stated, “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”¹⁰

But why differentiate between unions for government workers and unions for private employees? The answer lies in the very distinct differences between the two types of unions. Checks and balances exist for private-sector unions. Not so for government unions, particularly in Illinois.

Government unions are inherently different than private-sector unions

If early union activists thought government unions are so different, what are those differences?

First, there is no archetypal profit motive in the government sector. Congress passed laws promoting collective bargaining in the private sector to prevent the exploitation of workers by employers who were seeking to increase their profits through long work hours and poor working conditions. For example, the United Mine Workers of America was founded to bring coal miners out of horrible conditions and unregulated mines.¹¹ In 1898, before Congress had even passed modern labor laws, that union secured its first contract, which guaranteed wage increases and an eight-hour day, among other provisions.¹²

That protection is inapplicable to government workers. Because the purpose of government is not to generate a higher profit, it therefore lacks the same incentive to exploit workers.¹³ Moreover, most government jobs are not dangerous, nor do they exist under horrible conditions. In fact, most union members in the United States are now professionals.¹⁴

Second, there is a natural check on union demands in the private sector. Private-sector union demands are limited by the company’s profit capacity and other competition in the marketplace. If a private-sector union demands too much, a company will eventually crumble or lose market share to less expensive competitors, and union workers will lose their jobs.

One example: Striking bakery workers drove iconic Hostess Brands Inc., out of business in 2012, triggering the closure of the company’s 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers and 570 outlet stores.¹⁵ Then-CEO Gregory Rayburn explained the company simply did not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike. The closure affected 18,500 workers.¹⁶

There is no similar check in the public sector. Governments don’t permanently shut down or immediately go bankrupt because unions demand more money. Instead, taxes go up and taxpayers bear the burden.

Third, there is no competition in the public sector. The public sector is a monopoly. There is one source for government services. If a resident is displeased with the services her state provides, she cannot simply choose to seek those services elsewhere – barring a move to another state. If she is displeased with the operations of her local city government, she cannot choose to receive those services from the next town over without moving. The private sector, on the other hand, is competitive. If a consumer is unhappy with a service provided by a private business, he or she can shop elsewhere.

The monopolistic setup is compounded when government workers decide to strike. Strikes or other work stoppages by government workers can cripple state and local governments and shut down important public operations and services. This has an obvious detrimental impact on residents.

And that ties into the final, though perhaps most important, distinction: the very nature of government unions pits them against the taxpayers. In the private sector, increased union salaries and benefits are reflected in the services a company provides. Costs go up and are passed on to the consumers, or the employer eats the costs and earns less profit, or a combination of the two. If costs go up, consumers can decide to do business elsewhere. Unions are bargaining against the employer, not against the consumer.

In the public sector, unions are bargaining against the taxpayers. When government unions bargain for higher wages and greater benefits, they are demanding that taxpayers pay more or prioritize money away from other services. That, in turn, makes the demands of government unions inherently political. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said, “decision making by a public employer is above all a political process.”¹⁷

What’s more, unions often pour millions into the political campaigns of the officials they are bargaining “against” at the negotiating table.¹⁸ Government unions, in essence, hire their own employers. Instead of fair and balanced bargaining, where a government employer is representing the interests of taxpayers, he or she is beholden to the union on the other side of the table. Taxpayers and their interests are not truly represented.¹⁹ It is very different from the private sector, in which there is a distinct differentiation between employer and union.

Warnings from early union activists went unheeded by politicians. In the 1960s, states began enacting laws allowing and regulating collective bargaining for government unions.²⁰ By 1970, about half of state workers across the nation had gained collective bargaining privileges.²¹

Illinois followed in 1983.²² It’s now a state that proves those early activists correct.

Government unions are the adversary of private-sector union members

Government unions are the most powerful special interest in Illinois, and they use that power over residents – including over workers represented by private-sector unions.

Government union leaders have more power than private-sector unions, or any other special interest group for that matter. That power drives up costs (i.e., taxes) for all Illinoisans. Government unions also spend millions on politics in Illinois and get what they want in return. Those wants are often at odds with what the majority of Illinoisans want.

The Chicago Teachers Union provides a prime example of how government unions use their extreme influence to get what they want – at a cost to Illinoisans all over the state.

Government unions have more power than private-sector unions in Illinois

Illinois government unions can override state and local laws they don’t like. Private-sector unions cannot do that.

Illinois voters passed a first-of-its-kind government union provision when they approved Amendment 1 in November 2022. Inaccurately dubbed a “Workers’ Rights Amendment,” it in truth allows government union contracts to override state and local laws.²³ It provides no additional rights to private-sector workers, who are protected by federal – not state – law.²⁴

The language of Illinois’ Amendment 1 is broad. While typical bargaining includes wages, hours and other terms or conditions of employment – which are traditional subjects of negotiations that have a long history of case law guiding states and courts on their meaning – Amendment 1 adds “economic welfare” to the mix.

But “economic welfare” is undefined in the amendment and does not appear in state law labor provisions. It could mean virtually anything. On top of that, the language of the amendment prohibits lawmakers from ever restricting or clarifying the language. Any broad new provisions negotiated into government union contracts will be backed by the weight of the Illinois Constitution.

No other state has a constitutional provision like Amendment 1.²⁵

Yet even before Amendment 1, Illinois was unique in giving some government union collective bargaining agreements the power to override state law. The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act states:

“In case of any conflict between the provisions of this Act and any other law… the provisions of this Act or any collective bargaining agreement negotiated thereunder shall prevail and control.”²⁶

The amendment and statutory language together make Illinois the only state that allows government unions to override state and local laws without restriction.²⁷

Illinois has long been an outlier in giving government unions broad powers over residents. Amendment 1 takes that status to a new level.

Not only do private-sector unions not have that sort of right in Illinois, but their members are also affected by government unions’ use of that extreme power. A review of Illinois’ state statutes revealed government unions could override more than 350 provisions related to schools, children and other residents.²⁸

Among these laws are provisions:

• Protecting school children.
• Regulating immunizations of school children.
• Outlining required school curriculum.
• Protecting children under the watch of the Department of Children and Family Services.
• Prohibiting political activities while engaged in government work.
• Prohibiting unionization of elected officials.
• Prohibiting politicians from holding multiple government offices.
• Prohibiting government employment of people convicted of violent crimes.
• Allowing termination of government employment for misconduct.
• Setting public safety policies.²⁹

For example, the Illinois School Code prohibits anyone who has committed a sex offense from being licensed to teach and stops anyone convicted of a drug offense from being licensed to teach or supervise until seven years after the end of the sentence.³⁰ But a teachers’ union could negotiate a contract provision holding that licensure is not required to be employed as a teacher in the school district (i.e., it’s a “condition of employment” the unions can negotiate).

While more than 350 provisions have been identified, more likely exist. Illinois’ amendment and statutory language are so broad and vague it’s hard to predict every potential state law or local ordinance that could be trumped by a government union contract. The Illinois Compiled Statutes include thousands of provisions related to all aspects of residents’ lives, from general provisions (Chapter 5) and elections (Chapter 10) to business transactions (Chapter 815) and employment (Chapter 820).³¹

Government unions have a history of pushing unpopular issues, or issues beyond the scope of ordinarily negotiated employment topics, that lawmakers don’t want to address. Under Illinois law, government unions can “pass” their most unpopular demands at the bargaining table, and voters – including private-sector union members – have no way to hold them accountable.

Government union rights in Illinois drive up costs

Government union contracts are funded by taxpayers. The virtually unlimited subjects that government unions can negotiate into their contracts cost taxpayers even more. In fact, research shows states with stronger government unions have more debt, and more debt means more taxes.³²

Take the 2019 contract between the Chicago Teachers Union and Chicago Public Schools, which cost the typical Chicago homeowner at least $80 more per year in property taxes to cover the cost.³³ Or the contract negotiated that same year between the state and AFSCME Council 31, which cost $3.6 billion more than what taxpayers would have paid under a taxpayer-friendly contract.³⁴

Then there’s the current CTU negotiations with CPS, in which the union began by demanding 9% wage increases, a 100% electric bus fleet and $2,000 per student for asylum seekers.³⁵

CTU’s demands are estimated to cost $50 billion over the course of the contract.³⁶ CPS has projected just 52 of those demands would create a $2.9 billion deficit for fiscal year 2026 and a $4 billion hole by fiscal year 2029.³⁷

Yet CTU is demanding the city raise taxes and fees to fund its exorbitant demands.³⁸ It’s even floating the idea of making Illinois’ hospitals pay their “fair share.”³⁹ If CTU gets its way, it will be more expensive to live in the city – and even health care costs could go up.

Government unions spend millions on politics in Illinois – and get what they want in return

While government contracts are expensive, there’s more to government union power in Illinois than just what they obtain in collective bargaining. There’s also a powerful quid pro quo. Government unions fund political campaigns – and then the elected government officials owe them.

Once again, CTU provides the prime example.

CTU has spent more than $24.3 million on politics since 2010, when a radical slate of union leaders took over and ushered in years of political wrangling.⁴⁰ Not all of that money was focused on Chicago politics.

In fact, nearly half of lawmakers in the 103rd Illinois General Assembly (2023-2024) received money from CTU,⁴¹ according to records with the Illinois State Board of Elections. Those contributions included:

• $620,071 to state senators
• $662,200 to state representatives
• Donations to 84 out of 117 Democrats, or 72%
• No donations to the 59 Republicans.⁴²

Notably, CTU donated to 40 state lawmakers whose districts were outside the city and school district, showing its interests go well beyond the school district’s boundaries.⁴³

But contributing money to politicians is just one part of the puzzle. The other part is seeing results. And CTU has laid the groundwork to get what it wants – a political quid pro quo that emboldens and empowers the union.

In the most recent legislative session, the Illinois General Assembly did CTU’s bidding on 60% of the bills on which CTU took a stance.⁴⁴ Clearly, CTU’s money is translating into corresponding action by lawmakers.

Specifically, the union officially registered its position on 59 bills during the recent 103rd General Assembly.⁴⁵ Of those, it supported 54 bills and opposed five bills. But here’s the kicker: lawmakers passed 32 of the 54 bills CTU supported. None of the bills it opposed passed.

From limits on charter schools to expungement of criminal records, CTU had an opinion.⁴⁶ Taken together, the Illinois General Assembly did what CTU told them to do on more than 6 out of every 10 bills.

That’s more power than any special interest group should have.

Government unions push for radical progressive ideas counter to preferences of private-sector union members

Frequently, government union priorities are not in the best interests of most Illinoisans. Sometimes those demands run explicitly contrary to residents’ preferences. That includes the political leanings of union households, which increasingly vote Republican.

Take CTU’s leaked contract demands, which include a bevy of controversial provisions, including the following:

• Secrecy from parents on their children’s pronouns and sexuality.
• Cash to asylum seekers.
• “Police-free” schools.
• “Climate justice,” including a 100% electric bus fleet, solar panels at schools and complete carbon neutrality in the district.
• Pension funds moved away from investments that are “contributing to climate change.”
• Charter school limitations.⁴⁷

An Illinois Policy Institute review found no other large school districts had such far-reaching provisions in their contracts.⁴⁸ CTU would make history by negotiating – or legislating by contract, rather – these demands into “law.”

Then there are bills CTU supported in the last legislative session, including the following:

• House Bill 2392, which passed, allowing teachers to take 10 paid days each school term to do “federal advocacy work,” i.e., politics, for government unions’ state affiliates.
• House Bill 4895, which passed, requiring instruction in all public schools on climate change solutions.
• Senate Bill 3649, which passed, effectively prohibiting religious and policy-oriented 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from requiring their employees to attend meetings about religious or political matters – even if those matters are at the crux of the entity’s existence.⁴⁹

The union also prevented passage of bills that could have benefitted children and families all over the state. For example, it opposed House Bill 1246, which would have ensured parents in school districts of 300 or more students could see a list of the curriculum used in the district in the previous school year.⁵⁰

Previous legislative sessions tell the same tale. In the six legislative sessions between 2011-2022, CTU told lawmakers what to do 1,360 times.⁵¹ Some examples that trend against popular opinion:

• CTU opposed a bill letting school districts suspend or expel students convicted of violent felonies.
• CTU opposed a bill requiring school districts to notify parents that a school employee has been charged with a sex offense.
• CTU supported kindergarten sex education, but opposed math and reading intervention programs.
• CTU opposed a bill allowing the development of charter schools outside of Chicago with virtual-schooling components.⁵²

Also, CTU was a leading opponent of the Invest in Kids tax credit scholarship program, which provided private scholarships to low-income students to attend the schools of their choice. While 63%⁵³ of Illinois voters supported the program – polls showed vast support across all demographics⁵⁴ – CTU wanted it killed “for good,”⁵⁵ and Illinois lawmakers let the program expire at the end of 2023.⁵⁶

Overall, union membership voting trends show CTU and its government union allies push a progressive agenda that runs contrary to the preferences of a large swath of union households.⁵⁷ An estimated 45% of Illinois union members supported former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.⁵⁸ Nationally, at least 40% of union households voted for Trump in 2020.⁵⁹ By 2024, exit polling showed 45% of houses with at least one union member in 10 key states voted Republican.⁶⁰

Conclusion

CTU, while arguably the most recognizable government union in Illinois, is not unique. All government unions in Illinois – from the Service Employees International Union to AFSCME Council 31 – have the same rights, the same power to override state and local laws and the same ability to hold residents hostage to their political agendas.

No special interest group should have such control. Private-sector unions certainly don’t, placing their own members at a disadvantage in Illinois.

Historically, traditional labor union leaders have touted solidarity with their government union counterparts, but perhaps it is time that changed. Perhaps it is time for private-sector unions to acknowledge government unions for what they are: a threat to the prosperity of all Illinoisans.

Endnotes

^{1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union Members – 2023,” U.S. Department of Labor, Jan. 23, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.}

^{2 Mailee Smith and Hannah Schmid, “How Illinois politicians allow government unions to rewrite state law,” Illinois Policy Institute, April 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/how-illinois-politicians-allow-government-unions-to-rewrite-state-law/.}

^{3 James Sherk, “How Collective Bargaining Affects Government Compensation and Total Spending,” Testimony before the Committee on Government Affairs, Nevada Assembly, April 7, 2015,  https://www.heritage.org/testimony/how-collective-bargaining-affects-government-compensation-and-total-spending.}

^{4 See Mailee Smith, “AFSCME: The 800-pound Gorilla at the Negotiating Table, Illinois Policy Institute, Nov. 14, 2016, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/afscme-the-800-pound-gorilla-at-the-negotiating-table/ (citing James Sherk, “How Public-Sector Unions Differ from Their Private-Sector Counterparts,” in “Sweeping the Shop Floor: A New Labor Model for America,” 23, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, 2010).}

^{5 “Samuel Gompers: Topics in Chronicling America,” Library of Congress, https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-samuel-gompers; Kenneth Quinnell, “On the Anniversary of the AFL-CIO Merger, Listen to How it All Began,” AFL-CIO, Dec. 5, 2020, https://aflcio.org/2020/12/5/anniversary-afl-cio-merger-listen-how-it-all-began.}

^{6 Rachel Culbertson, “Origins of the Industrial -Age Labor Model: History Shapes the Future in Labor Policies,”  in “Sweeping the Shop Floor: A New Labor Model for America,” 2, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, 2010, https://www.freedomfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/documents_SWEEPING-THE-SHOP-FLOOR-A-New-Labor-Model-for-America_0.pdf; Kenneth Weinstein, “From Meany to Sweeny: Labor’s Leftward Tilt,” The Heritage Foundation, Oct. 4, 1996, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/meany-sweeney-labors-leftward-tilt-0#3.}

^{7 Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service,” August 16, 1937, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/letter-the-resolution-federation-federal-employees-against-strikes-federal-service.}

^{8 Daniel DiSalvo, “The Trouble with Public Sector Unions,” National Affairs, Fall 2010, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions.}

^{9 Daniel DiSalvo, “The Trouble with Public Sector Unions,” National Affairs, Fall 2010, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions.}

^{10 Charles Baird, “The Political Economy of Government Sector Unionism,” Hillsdale College, 2011, https://www.hillsdale.edu/educational-outreach/free-market-forum/2011-archive/the-political-economy-of-government-sector-unionism/.}

^{11 United Mine Workers of America, “125 years of struggle and glory,” July 2015, https://umwa.org/video/video125-years-struggle-glory/.}

^{12 Caroline Waldron Merithew, “United Mine Workers of America,” Dictionary of American History, https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/economics-business-and-labor/labor/united-mine-workers-america.}

^{13 Steve Suranovic, “How Public Sector Unions Can Exploit the Taxpayers,” Institute for International Economic Policy, George Washington University, Feb. 19, 2011, https://blogs.gwu.edu/elliott-iiep/2022/03/29/how-public-sector-unions-can-exploit-the-taxpayers/ (republished  March 29, 2022).}

^{14 Moshe Marvit, “5 Myths About Labor Unions,” Chicago Tribune, September 2, 2016, https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/09/02/5-myths-about-labor-unions/ (“For decades, the percentage of professional workers in unions has grown, and now professionals are the majority of union members in the United States.”). See also Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Union Members – 2023,” U.S. Department of Labor, Jan. 23, 2024, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf (“The highest unionization rates were among workers in education, training, and library occupations (32.7 percent) and protective service occupations (31.9 percent).”).}

^{15 Beau Yarbough, “Hostess Brands to lay off 18,500 workers, sell assets,” Mercury News, Aug. 12, 2016, https://www.mercurynews.com/2012/11/16/hostess-brands-to-lay-off-18500-american-workers-sell-assets/.}

^{16 Hostess was later purchased and re-named Hostess Brands, LLC. See “Hostess Re-opening Plants, Without Union Workers,” ABC News, April 26, 2013, https://abcnews.go.com/Business/twinkies-return-hostess-unions/story?id=19043854.}

^{17 See Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 585 U.S. 878, 920 (2018) (using the language of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 226 (1977), as part of its reasoning in overruling Abood).}

^{18 See, e.g., Mailee Smith, “Unions still fund Johnson, individuals back Vallas for Chicago mayor,” Illinois Policy Institute, March 31, 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/unions-still-fund-johnson-individuals-back-vallas-for-chicago-mayor/.}

^{19 See, e.g., “Editorial: Who’s the threat to democracy now? Brandon Johnson mocks Chicago voters with CPS power play,” Chicago Tribune, Nov. 14, 2024, https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/11/14/editorial-chicago-board-education-brandon-johnson-democracy/.}

^{20 Chris Edwards, Public-Sector Unions, Cato Institute, March 2010, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_61.pdf.}

^{21 Chris Edwards, Public-Sector Unions, Cato Institute, March 2010, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb_61.pdf.}

^{22 The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (P.A. 83-1012) and the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (P.A. 83-1014) were enacted by the Illinois General Assembly in 1983. See listing of Public Acts, 83rd Gen. Session, https://ilga.gov/reports/static/PA83.pdf. Both went into effect in 1984.}

^{23 Mailee Smith and Hannah Schmid, “How Illinois politicians allow government unions to rewrite state law,” Illinois Policy Institute, April 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/how-illinois-politicians-allow-government-unions-to-rewrite-state-law/.}

^{24 Mailee Smith, “Fact check: Private-sector workers excluded from Amendment 1,” Illinois Policy Institute, Oct. 6, 2022, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/fact-check-private-sector-workers-excluded-from-amendment-1/.}

^{25 Mailee Smith, “Amendment 1 would give Illinois government union bosses nation’s most extreme powers,” Illinois Policy, Oct. 22, 2022, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/amendment-1-would-give-illinois-government-union-bosses-nations-most-extreme-powers/.}

^{26 5 ILCS 315/15(a). While the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act does not apply to public educators, who are covered by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, the same power to override law now lies with education unions through Amendment 1.}

^{27 Mailee Smith and Hannah Schmid, “How Illinois politicians allow government unions to rewrite state law,” Illinois Policy Institute, April 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/how-illinois-politicians-allow-government-unions-to-rewrite-state-law/. See also Mailee Smith, “Fact check: No other state constitution has a provision similar to Amendment 1,” Illinois Policy Institute, Aug. 10, 2022, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/fact-check-no-other-state-constitution-has-a-provision-similar-to-amendment-1/.}

^{28 Mailee Smith and Hannah Schmid, “How Illinois politicians allow government unions to rewrite state law,” Illinois Policy Institute, April 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/how-illinois-politicians-allow-government-unions-to-rewrite-state-law/; Mailee Smith and Perry Zhao, “Above the law: Amendment 1 would let government unions void over 350 Illinois laws,” Illinois Policy Institute, April 2022, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/.}

^{29 See Mailee Smith and Perry Zhao, “Above the law: Amendment 1 would let government unions void over 350 Illinois laws,” Illinois Policy Institute, April 2022, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/.}

^{30 105 ILCS 5/21B-15 (a); 105 ILCS 5/21B-15 (a).}

^{31 The institute’s review highlighted only provisions in statutes directly related to government employment that are most obviously affected. See Mailee Smith and Perry Zhao, “Above the law: Amendment 1 would let government unions void over 350 Illinois laws,” Illinois Policy Institute, April 2022, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/above-the-law-amendment-1-would-let-government-unions-void-over-350-illinois-laws/.}

^{32 Justin Carlson, “Amendment 1 would guarantee Illinois’ sky-high debt, taxes would rise faster,” Illinois Policy Institute, Jan. 13, 2022, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/amendment-1-would-guarantee-illinois-sky-high-debt-taxes-would-rise-faster/.}

^{33 Press Release, “New CTU contract will cost taxpayers an extra $80 a year in higher property taxes,” Illinois Policy Institute, Nov. 1, 2019, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/press-releases/new-ctu-contract-will-cost-taxpayers-an-extra-80-a-year-in-higher-property-taxes/.}

^{34 “Pritzker signs AFSCME deal costing taxpayers $3.6 billion more than it needed to,” Illinois Policy Institute, Aug. 29, 2019, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/pritzker-signs-afscme-deal-costing-taxpayers-3-6-billion-more-than-it-needed-to/#:~:text=The%20new%20contract%20will%20cost,workers%20asked%20to%20support%20them.}

^{35 Mailee Smith and Hannah Schmid, “Chicago Teachers Union contract about politics, bosses’ power,” Illinois Policy Institute, April 11, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-contract-demands-about-politics-bosses-power/.}

^{36 Bryce Hill, “Chicago Teachers Union Contract Could Cost at Least $10.2 to $13.9B,” Illinois Policy Institute, June 3, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-contract-could-cost-at-least-10-2b-to-13-9b/. The current CPS annual budget is approaching $10 billion. Pedro Martinez, “Budget 2024,” Chicago Public Schools, https://www.cps.edu/about/finance/budget/budget-2024/. CTU’s demands would add an additional $10.2 to $13.9 billion over the course of the four-year contract.}

^{37 Chicago Public Schools, “CPS-CTU contract negotiations update,” Nov. 21, 2024, https://www.cps.edu/globalassets/cps-pages/about-cps/labor-relations/negotiations-update-11-21-24.pdf.}

^{38 Pavlyn Jankov, “Chicago is NOT broke: Millions on the table if wealthy pay their fair share,” Chicago Teachers Union, Dec. 5, 2024, https://www.ctulocal1.org/posts/chicago-is-not-broke-millions-on-the-table-if-wealthy-pay-their-fair-share/.}

^{39 Pavlyn Jankov, “Chicago is NOT broke: Millions on the table if wealthy pay their fair share,” Chicago Teachers Union, Dec. 5, 2024, https://www.ctulocal1.org/posts/chicago-is-not-broke-millions-on-the-table-if-wealthy-pay-their-fair-share/.}

^{40 Mailee Smith, “Report: Chicago Teachers Union is the new political machine,” Illinois Policy Institute, Sept. 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/report-chicago-teachers-union-is-new-chicago-political-machine/.}

^{41 Chris Coffey, “Chicago Teachers Union gives nearly $1.3 million to sitting Illinois lawmakers,” Illinois Policy Institute, June 6, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-gives-nearly-1-3m-to-sitting-illinois-lawmakers/.}

^{42 Chris Coffey, “Chicago Teachers Union gives nearly $1.3 million to sitting Illinois lawmakers,” Illinois Policy Institute, June 6, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-gives-nearly-1-3m-to-sitting-illinois-lawmakers/.}

^{43 Mailee Smith, “Chicago Teachers Union’s actions affect all Illinoisans,” Illinois Policy Institute, Oct 23, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-unions-actions-affect-all-illinoisans/.}

^{44 Mailee Smith, “Chicago Teachers Union is a lobbying powerhouse in Springfield, but is that waning?,” Illinois Policy Institute, Aug. 29, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-is-a-lobbying-powerhouse-in-springfield-but-is-that-waning/.}

^{45 Mailee Smith, “Chicago Teachers Union is a lobbying powerhouse in Springfield, but is that waning?,” Illinois Policy Institute, Aug. 29, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-is-a-lobbying-powerhouse-in-springfield-but-is-that-waning/.}

^{46 Mailee Smith, “Chicago Teachers Union is a lobbying powerhouse in Springfield, but is that waning?,” Illinois Policy Institute, Aug. 29, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-is-a-lobbying-powerhouse-in-springfield-but-is-that-waning/.}

^{47 Mailee Smith, “Forced agenda: Chicago Teachers Union contract aims to dictate radical, costly worldview to Chicagoans,” Illinois Policy Institute, July 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/forced-agenda-chicago-teachers-union-contract-aims-to-dictate-radical-costly-worldview-to-chicagoans/. See also Dylan Sharkey, “Chicago Teachers Union demands excluding parents from student pronoun, sexuality info,” Illinois Policy Institute, March 22, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-demands-excluding-parents-from-student-pronoun-sexuality-info/; Dylan Sharkey, “CTU leadership demanding green buses, carbon-free schools,” Illinois Policy Institute, May 11, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/ctu-leadership-demanding-green-buses-carbon-free-schools/.}

^{48 Mailee Smith, “Forced agenda: Chicago Teachers Union contract aims to dictate radical, costly worldview to Chicagoans,” Illinois Policy Institute, July 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/forced-agenda-chicago-teachers-union-contract-aims-to-dictate-radical-costly-worldview-to-chicagoans/.}

^{49 House Bill 2392, https://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10300HB2392enr&GA=103&SessionId=112&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=147469&DocNum=2392&GAID=17&SpecSess=&Session=; House Bill 4895, https://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10300HB4895enr&GA=103&SessionId=112&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=152760&DocNum=4895&GAID=17&SpecSess=&Session=; Senate Bill 3649, https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10300SB3649enr&GA=103&SessionId=112&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=153595&DocNum=3649&GAID=17&SpecSess=&Session=. See also Mailee Smith, “Chicago Teachers Union is a lobbying powerhouse in Springfield, but is that waning?,” Illinois Policy Institute, Aug. 29, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-is-a-lobbying-powerhouse-in-springfield-but-is-that-waning/.}

^{50 House Bill 1246, https://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1246&GAID=17&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=143342&SessionID=112&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=103. See also Mailee Smith, “Chicago Teachers Union is a lobbying powerhouse in Springfield, but is that waning?,” Illinois Policy Institute, Aug. 29, 2024, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-is-a-lobbying-powerhouse-in-springfield-but-is-that-waning/.}

^{51 Mailee Smith, “CTU told lawmakers what to do over 1,360 times in just 6 legislative sessions,” Illinois Policy Institute, June 8, 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/ctu-told-lawmakers-what-to-do-over-1360-times-in-just-6-legislative-sessions/.}

^{52 Mailee Smith, “CTU told lawmakers what to do over 1,360 times in just 6 legislative sessions,” Illinois Policy Institute, June 8, 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/ctu-told-lawmakers-what-to-do-over-1360-times-in-just-6-legislative-sessions/.}

^{53 Dylan Sharkey and Jon Josko, “Poll: Illinois voters 3-1 in support of scholarships for low-income students,” Illinois Policy Institute, July 20, 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/poll-illinois-voters-3-1-in-support-of-scholarships-for-low-income-students/.}

^{54 Editorial Board, “Will Illinois still ‘Invest in Kids’?,” Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/illinois-invest-in-kids-scholarship-progam-general-assembly-school-choice-teachers-union-1659dc2; Brian Stryker and Oren Savir, “Illinois statewide poll findings,” Impact Research, Oct 18, 2023, https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018b-408d-d77d-a38f-c7df7d550001&nname=illinois-playbook&nid=00000150-1596-d4ac-a1d4-179e288b0000&nrid=3fd82ed0-6af3-411a-b891-e9fff377892b&nlid=639163. See also Dylan Sharkey, “Another poll finds Illinoisans strongly back school choice scholarships,” Oct. 18, 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/another-poll-finds-illinoisans-strongly-back-school-choice-scholarships/.}

^{55 @CTULocal1, “Public funds should be for public schools, and Invest in Kids should sunset for good,” Chicago Teachers Union, Dec. 5, 2022, https://x.com/CTULocal1/status/1599846843021545472.}

^{56 Editorial Board, “School choice dies in Illinois,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 12, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/school-choice-dies-in-illinois-education-pritzker-2bf45e2b. See also Brad Weisenstein, “Illinois lawmakers adjourn without saving school choice, but fight will continue,” Illinois Policy Institute, Nov. 9, 2023, https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-lawmakers-adjourn-without-saving-school-choice-but-fight-will-continue/.}

^{57 See, e.g., Mailee Smith, “Illinois government workers’ union dues being diverted to swing state politics,” Illinois Policy Institute, Sept. 19, 2024,  https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-government-workers-union-dues-being-diverted-to-swing-state-politics/.}

^{58 “Illinois Voter Surveys: How different groups voted,” New York Times, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/ap-polls-illinois.html.}

^{59 “National exit polls: How different groups voted,” New York Times, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html.}

^{60 “Exit polling,” NBC News, Dec. 2, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls.}