* SJ-R…
Members of the largest state government employee union have ratified a new contract covering 35,000 state workers.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said Tuesday the vote was 96 percent of voters in favor of the deal to 4 percent against.
* From AFSCME…
STATE EMPLOYEES RATIFY NEW UNION CONTRACT
State workers represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 have voted to ratify a new collective bargaining agreement.
The contract covers some 35,000 employees, including child protection workers, nurse aides, correctional officers, police dispatchers, environmental technicians, and many others who provide vital services to Illinois residents.
The tentative agreement between AFSCME and the State of Illinois was reached on February 28 and submitted to union members for approval by secret-ballot vote at locations across the state over the past three weeks.
The agreement was reached after more than 15 months of often-contentious negotiations with the administration of Governor Pat Quinn.
“This new contract takes into account the state’s fiscal challenges, while also recognizing the vitally important work state employees do,” AFSCME Council 31 executive director Henry Bayer said.
“AFSCME members are on the front lines every day,” Bayer added. “They care for the elderly and people with disabilities, protect public safety, maintain state parks, respond to emergencies and more. They often work without sufficient staff or resources, going the extra mile to provide services that residents rely on, and they deserve to be treated fairly.”
Employees will receive a general wage increase that averages 1.3% per year over the contract’s three-year term. Those eligible for step increases will receive them as scheduled, while workers with more than 10 years’ seniority will receive a $25 per month increase in longevity pay.
At the same time, union members agreed to higher health care premiums, co-pays and deductibles, changes that will save the state some $900 million in the aggregate over the life of the agreement.
“While this contract doesn’t fully keep pace with the rising cost of living, it will help employees meet those costs,” Bayer said. “At the same time, it will help the state to address its economic challenges.”
* Gov. Pat Quinn’s announcement wasn’t overstated at all. Umm…
Governor Quinn Announces Best Contract for Taxpayers in Illinois History
Three-year Agreement Ratified by Union After Longest Negotiation in History
SPRINGFIELD – Governor Pat Quinn today praised the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 members’ approval of the new union contract covering some 35,000 state employees. Negotiations took more than 15 months and the agreement was ratified by AFSCME members over the past two weeks. Today’s development is part of the governor’s commitment to restore fiscal stability to Illinois.
“This is the best contract for all taxpayers in Illinois history,” Governor Pat Quinn said. “This contract recognizes the fact that the state is facing unprecedented financial challenges. I want to thank the members of AFSCME who approved the agreement and the women and men who negotiated at the table for more than a year to get this job done. Even in difficult times, the process can work. This is a win for all of our taxpayers and a win for state workers as we continue to move Illinois forward.”
AFSCME announced ratification of the contract this evening. The approved agreement will result in $900 million in healthcare savings over the life of the contract. The contract puts an end to free retiree healthcare in Illinois to ensure all retirees will begin paying a modest portion of their health insurance premiums starting July 1. In addition, the contract includes the most modest Cost of Living Adjustments in state history at a rate of 0 percent, 2 percent and 2 percent. Combined with step and longevity adjustments, this will total about $200 million over the life of the contract. The contract calls for new hires to start three steps lower, which amounts to about 9 percent less starting salary, which will save taxpayers money for years to come.
The contract also settles the pay raise litigation that has been tied up in court. As part of the agreement, the union and the administration have agreed to seek approximately $140 million in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 wages from the previous contract that were never appropriated.
This 15-month negotiation was the longest in the state’s history.
Discuss.
LIVE session coverage...
- State employee - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:22 am:
Has Quinn withdrawn his appeal yet of the judge’s ruling on the pay raise case? I didn’t see that anywhere.
- Huggybunny - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:34 am:
So is the State’s next move going to be the GA not appropriating the funding for the wage increases/longevity pay as a way to get out of paying them? Under the assumption that the GA didn’t o.k. the raises the Gov. did, so they don’t have to honor them?
- Irish - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:38 am:
State Employee - YEs the withdrawal of the appeal was all part of this process. As I understand it the retroactive pay raises and back pay will be paid as of 7/1/2013.
Huggybunny - If the money is not paid to the employees then any insurance increases are null and void. That is part of this agreement.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:45 am:
@Huggybunny:
Legislators have been asking agencies when they testify on their budget what happens if the GA doesn’t give them money for the raises. Some have said there would be layoffs. If you listened to an interview Madigan gave a few weeks ago he said that it’s possible agencies will have to choose between funding the raises and layoffs. You are right that the GA doesn’t have to appropriate the money. But, the courts have already said that contracts must be honored. If the GA doesn’t appropriate the money one of two things is likely to happen: (1) raises are not given and the provision in the contract barring increases in healthcare costs is invoked; AFSCME takes the state to court over the raises; (2) money is shifted around in the appropriation process before the budget passes causing other things to be cut or layoffs occur next fiscal year. Do I have a crystal ball as to what the GA will do? Nope. But I can tell you that the questions they are asking indicate they are strongly considering not appropriating any money for the contract. I think the raises will get paid but cuts somewhere else will have to be made to do it. I can also tell you, as far as the Step increases and back pay go for this fiscal year, some agencies have no idea where the money is going to come from to pay those increases without a supplemental. It’s a mess when one hand can agree to a contract but a different hand controls handing out the money.
- One of the 35 - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 9:53 am:
It must be very unsettling to negotiate with an entity that is not bond by the resulting agreement.
- Stones - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:05 am:
PQ is not very well served by his staff by issuing a press release like that. It just doesn’t strike the right tone after a long, contentious and difficult negotiation.
- cassandra - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:05 am:
I think we have to give Quinn a fair amount of credit for holding out for such a long period and give his principal negotiator(s) credit as well. Remember the Blago contracts, when Blago gave away the store? And no raises was never a real option–it was a negotiating stance. State employees’ private sector counterparts are getting some raises these days I believe, at least judging by my several working-age adult children and spouses.
Still, step raises and longevity bonuses unconnected to performance are pretty retro. And many state bureaucracies need a redo into the 21st with new, younger top management, increased use of technology, and new ideas for better service delivery and increased efficiency. Quinn’s ability to produce these improvements remains dubious, in my opinion, but he did pretty well with this contract.
- Huggybunny - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:05 am:
@Irish and Demoralized
Thanks for the clarification, I expect huge layoffs to follow. Not so sure that wouldn’t be a good thing for some of the younger employees, who could then find employment in the private sector where they would have Social Security..even as shaky as it is.
- rusty618 - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:22 am:
I believe the state was previously ordered by a Cook Co judge to hold some of this raise money at the comptrollers office, but I’m sure if it was the full amount.
It’s a good thing that AFSCME had a clause in this contract about retiree health insurance. I’m sure some retirees were not happy that AFSCME was negotiating for them, but it could a blessing considering what the state might have done with their health insurance premiums now.
- StayFree75 - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:23 am:
“Huge” layoffs for two 2% increases, really? Maybe some open positions won’t be filled, but that’s all I can see happening.
Also, many SERS employees are already eligible for Social Security.
It would be nice to be able to terminate poor performers, but alas, we have AFSCME’s 13-step discipline process.
- Elise - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:25 am:
Interesting to choose increased health care costs - how old were those at the barganing table - but as a SPSA - I would take about any raise right now
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 10:45 am:
@StayFree75:
It’s not just a 2% increase. It’s more like a 5% or 6% annual increase. Movement between steps can get you as much as a 4% salary adjustment (on top of the 2% COLA. It’s not an insignificant amount of money.
- Concerned Retiree - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:02 am:
The AFSCME summary of the contract includes the following statement: Effective 1/1/14 all Medicare eligible retirees will be enrolled in Medicare Advantage. That would mean that Quality Care would no longer exist for retirees eligible for Medicare. How is this to be implemented? What if I do not want to give up regular Medicare for a private health insurance plan? This may create real access problems for retirees who live in rural areas, who travel or who live out of state.
- Ready To Get Out - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:07 am:
Demoralized…don’t assume everyone is going to get step increases. I have been stepped out for 10 years, and there is only one person in my bureau who isn’t.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:34 am:
@Ready to Get Out:
I’m aware of that. But I can tell you that the effective increases across agencies is higher than the 2% number that was mentioned in the other post. Some will only get 2% and others will get as much as 5% or 6%. And, even if it is only 2% that’s a huge number for agencies with thousands of employees. It’s not something that can just be absorbed like the other comment suggested.
- Ready To Get Out - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:44 am:
Demoralized….not arguing that point, don’t disagree with you at all. It’s just when a generalized statement like that is made, there “are” people out there that then believe every state employee is going to get step raises every year. Hard to believe, huh????
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:18 pm:
@RTGO:
Not hard for me to believe, but then again I understand the system. And, those “people out there” you describe are also the same people that think I’m gonna get rich off of my pension.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 12:23 pm:
Since this is such an historic contract, I assume the Gov will work night and day to get it funded.
- qcexaminer - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:30 pm:
Obviously I don’t know all the ins and outs of this, but from afar, this looks like a super-de-duper Re-Elect Quinn For Governor document.
- kimocat - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 1:31 pm:
concerned retiree — If you go to the Medicare.gov website, there is an article on chcoosing Medicare Advantage. It specifically says that if you have an employer-sponsored supplement and regular Medicare, you shouldn’t choose Medicare Advantage. So how can the state start charging retirees a premium for supplemental insurance and at the same time force them into a private Medicare Advantage plan? Or does this mean that the State will pick up the additional premiums charged above Part B for a decent Medicare Advantage plan???
- Not to be too picky, but - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 2:20 pm:
I hate it when politicians say something is going to save $x million when they’re comparing it to something else that would cost even more. I am sure that this is a fair agreement and all, but the reality is that the raises are going to cost taxpayers more. Not a lot more, but more. That’s not a saving, that’s an increased expense. It’s less than an agreement that cost more, but it’s not actually a smaller number. You know?
It’s like when I go shopping and I bring home all my new stuff and I tell my husband how much I saved by buying it on-sale. And his point is generally — yeah, but it’s still $300.
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 3:19 pm:
My discussion? WOO-HOO–yes! Hats off to everybody involved. Now smile and everyone affected do your best to move ahead and think positive–on a whole range of matters! Because of with all the contentiousness surrounding that Contract issue, and all the bickering, and points and counter-points that went on for 15 months, it’s hard to deny that, on the whole, 96% Approval is a GOOD thing to see–an A+ in fact!
- Concerned Retiree - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 4:49 pm:
If we are required to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan, we will not have a state supplement or regular Medicare. We will only have the Medicare Advantage plan and whatever is included in that plan.
- ah HA - Wednesday, Mar 20, 13 @ 11:05 pm:
I am just glad it’s overwith. I’ve been on pins and needles up til now. I understand that the state is in dire straits and the Union is trying to protect itself and it’s workers but, there has to be balance. If you get something you must give something (via negotiation).