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

Chicago Tribune

16-04-2025

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.'