now being urged by the state but it is only investigated and so forth however the in the old painting that the opinion explicit explicitly states that both sides agreed to that construction there's no agreement in trial is being overall findings are not admissible just as in world painting where the state in be bound by that decision that this is the interpretation of the act safeguards is that it is a second issue and i talked about that i think that the national marine case and i and with regard to the investigation that responded does not have access to that investigation file in order to constitutional but i disagree with the fact that it could be construed that way so sell it so when fans believe the parties agreed only that our construction constitutional right ok and there's no such agreement in this case well so if well if we accept here's here's my point you know me and we'll pay and they specifically say here's another spot we allow the parties agreed reading the act which we find otherwise constitutional to control our disposition of this case i mean there's a difference there because in this case if we accept your construction and say that's what the statute says and i believe i can counsel say that that in fact our construction is constitutional it's just that she disagrees with that just as the plaintiff in world painting did right but both plaintiffs believe that that the  we we said that in fact there was an opportunity to beat her and so we were just squarely addressing their arguments it was only when when barbara once said well it looks to us like the department is authorized to to of education i want to pin you down on that because i will make sure exactly what your construction of the statute is that you're asking this us to adopt you're saying that under the statute the department best of gates that has no authority outside of court t through a series of questions here and your construction of the statute is at that circuit court proceeding it's a dyno vo proceeding and the department has the burden of proof of proving a violation of the g d right now in keeping just looking at the statute i mean it seems like me that says the amount of the penalty when finally determined i take it by the department may be recovered in a civil action filed in any circuit court i mean it sounds like it's just more like a collection action but that's not what you're saying right this is not how the department is just the act you know if i really felt like the way in that know hearing because because you can't bring the findings then you can bring obviously the evidence supporting the findings but not the findings of the south and thus there is no deference to them and this is why you know there's no there's no and we say this is what the act rican reasonably be interpreted to say under that construction that's constitutional that's what the set was in this case where there's no agreement about that unlike world painting are you is up to a certain amount per day per person and so that means the fine could be zero in fact you know so given the circumstances and so again to department does not understand the act saying you know it's just like the affidavit it would be very simple to know these things so well it's it's possible that there are other major contractor like planes that would not be there the contractor here would not know  and so you don't leave out the most important aspect of the employer employee relationship you know and it doesn't really make any sense here now if i can speak just for a minute about the  supported their has banned in illinois since two thousand and one a growing problem of misclassification across the board generally there was a fifty five percent increase from one two thousand and one to two thousand and five and also there was a huge increase a ten percent increase along and in in the construction field between the two thousand and one two dozen five average and two thousand five itself so there is an enormous difference in construction in particular and construction was singled out also because of the revenue problem the bias classifying employees as independent contractors the st industry in particular misclassification it is accentuated and it was dissolved and you know in the north of us loss of revenue to the stick which is one of the that plus one of you know person employed you don't get unemployment benefits and you have to pay your entire social security as opposed to the employer being so on because the employer doesn't have to pay social security doesn't have to pay for the which can be up to one think the including fair wages and so on and and state that those are all three very important illegitimate state interests that are the rational basis for the act here the statute and it will figure out what under the circumstances the gravity of the you know of the violation and so on figure out with an appropriate penalty would be to see in  department does not make those determinations in any sort of legally binding way it has to make those it has to come up with those conclusions in order to know whether or not to proceed with an enforcement action and circuit  circumstances and with this act out here i don't think that would really help that much because of the other those four elements are just not something you can help down as he said in the end there's even a slide out there and that is similar to this where constitutional