65 Comments - facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:50 am: Rich, what is the word on any COLA freezes? Is that part of the 1% contribution reduction? Had heard the freezes would be for current workers from 1 to 5 years depending on age? - Algonquin J. Calhoun - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:52 am: The quote I saw from Cullerton isn’t above, but to me was more telling (and disappointing from the Senate President. He said the CC bill supposed to be emerging is/would be “less unconstitutional” than SB1. Is that like being “a little pregnant”? - Jaded - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:53 am: So Cullerton is going to put 45% of his caucus on the bill and Rodagno is supposed to put 65% of her caucus on the bill? If that is the plan, the bill will fail. - walkinfool - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:55 am: Now, if only the CC members could agree on a bill. - Omay - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:57 am: So, if we can’t afford a 3% COLA now, how could we afford a 4% COLA during a large inflationary time with 1% decrease in employees contributions? - facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:57 am: @- Algonquin J. Calhoun - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:52 am I think Cullerton is just trying to put something together that at least has a consitutional (contract) rational to it. He seems to be holding firm to the idea that politicaly he needed more savings and yet must have some rational that passes constitutional muster. ie. 1% reduction in payrol for some type of COLA freeze when current employees retire and in exchange for changing COLA from a 3% flat to a 1/2 CPI a floor of 1% and a cap of 4% so possible to make more. i don’t agree one bit, but just presenting what I beleive is the rational. - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:58 am: Obviously the FIX is in and Cullerton has joined the Civic Committee, Madigan, Quinn crowd. And by the way what makes Cullerton think the union backed pension cuts are constitutional. Just because the union agrees to them does not mean they represent retirees. They don’t In any case, for starters, read what Culelrton said in the Chicago Sun Times: By Stephen Di Benedetto Staff Reporter February Updated: September 24, 2012 6:25AM SPRINGFIELD — The top Senate Democrat Wednesday splashed cold water on efforts to curb pension benefits for current state workers, saying such an approach would not withstand a constitutional challenge. On Tuesday, House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) predicted his chamber might move to scale back existing state workers’ pensions “midstream” to help rescue the state’s five pension systems from $85 billion in unfunded liabilities. But Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) told reporters a day after Madigan’s comments that tinkering with the taxpayer-funded pensions awaiting nearly 279,000 active state workers, teachers, judges, lawmakers and university employees likely would lose if challenged in court. “I think the public should know, and anybody who thinks that’s a solution to the problem, that it clearly is unconstitutional, and it won’t be available to us to solve our pension problems,” Cullerton said. - facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:00 am: Omay - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:57 am: =So, if we can’t afford a 3% COLA now, how could we afford a 4% COLA during a large inflationary time with 1% decrease in employees contributions?= I think the argument there is that in periods of high inflation the state would be in the midst of economic expansion and better able to pay. Also, suspect it is just a way to sell the constiutionality of the plan but we all know it would take 8% inflation to recieve the 1/2 of CPI COLA. - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:01 am: How can a COLA be stripped down to 1/2 the CPI for a select group of people? Talk about profiling. Incidentally, the 3% COLA has pretty much kept pace with inflation during the times of 14% inflation and now in current times (when averaged). The current economic inflationary state is as rare as the days of 14%, so…….. - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:02 am: @facts are stubborn things Please explain your following comment: “1% reduction in payrol for some type of COLA freeze when current employees retire” Are you saying that those already retired are exempt form Cullerton’s proposal? Because that is the only way this could make sense. - dave - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:04 am: **Or maybe a new governor comes in (Rauner, for example) and decides to dump defined benefits going forward altogether.** How, exactly, would a new Governor be able to do that? - facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:05 am: @Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:02 am: Great question, and I may not have explained myself very well. It is my understanding that the 1% reduction in pension contribution will be the “consideration” for current employees who when they retire (depending on current age) will experience anywhere from a 1 year freeze on COLA to a 5 year freeze on COLA. Those already retired would not experience any freeze and our “consideration” would be the 1/2 COLA with the potential to earn 4% in high inflationary times. I hope that helped? - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:07 am: I’m reposting my comment from another thread: And the only inflation protection that the proposed 1/2 CPI with a floor of 1% and cap of 4% provides is to the State, making sure the State only pays 2% or less on average. Anyone who takes 30 seconds to Google the Fed CPI numbers can show the long term average runs around 3% and this 1/2 CPI is a clear diminishment compared to the current fixed 3%. To have the possibility to avoid the diminishment argument in court, it needs to be the full CPI with no floor or cap. - facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:12 am: @- RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:07 am: Totaly agree. I beleive this is nothing more then just a political solution that for now needed to find more savings then SB2404 and yet retain some kind of legal rational ie. “consideration”. I beleive we are seeing a political solution play out within the reality of a strong legal framework that clearly protects pensions. What the GA can do politicaly and when they can do it. I think Cullerton nailed it when he illuded to the fact that if the IL SC overturned then they come back and look more at SB2404. Then when overturned you and I know they will move more towards the ramp and revenue but with the political cover. - Realist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:13 am: @Federalist, you are spot on with SB 2404. It doesn’t matter if the unions support it - retires and plenty of individual union members do not. I’m in the trenches (writing this on my break), and lots of people are moving from fear and despair to anger and defiance. And I’m hearing more and more talk about the constitution and lawsuits. Interestingly, the some of the union folks are saying that if their union supports any diminishment of pensions and doesn’t sue that they will donate to whatever group does sue. Has anyone been seeing this elsewhere? - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:13 am: It’s all about the visuals and the politics. A year and a half from now, once we’ve wasted untold millions and the ISC has told the GA they can’t do it, the GA will eventually get around to raising taxes as the only alternative. And at that point, all they can do for a year or two is bump the flat rate up because they will have missed the general election opportunity to alter the State Constitution to allow a graduated income tax … or waste still more money on a special election. The hell of it is the GA leaders know this … but it’s all about getting re-elected and maintaining a party majority. - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:14 am: facts — totally agree - facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:15 am: RNUG, I beleive that for the GA this is really a 30-60 ball game. What bill can get 30 votes in the senate and 60 votes in the house. To do that it needs a certain amount of savings and some legal rational to alter a contract. Then the bill can get to the IL SC get overturned and with now a different climate (more cover) they will procede again. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:15 am: ===How, exactly, would a new Governor be able to do that? === Partly, by vetoing every other reform bill, and vetoing the budget bills and anything else he can think of to shut down government until a solution is reached. - Realist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:16 am: Ugh - retirees. Spellcheck changed it. I guess it isn’t a real word. - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:17 am: Realist @ 10:13 am: If you didn’t do so, go watch the video from the ISC hearing on retiree insurance premuiums. While arguing the insurance is not covered, the state attorneys conceded the pensions are protected and can’t be touched. The State has already made the case for the coming retiree lawsuits and I, for one, look forward to quoting the State’s words right back at them. - Spidad60 - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:20 am: I don;t understand the 1% reduction in employee contributions, unless they are acknowledging the increased contribution employees pay to cover the 3% COLA. How about this…calculate how much would be in the pension fund if the State had made ALL of their contributions. Then calculate how much more current employees need to contribute in order to KEEP their current, undiminished, benefits. Future hires can be under what ever plan is offered them when they are hired - facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:20 am: @Realist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:13 am: Agree, but I beleive the union support is important in SB2404 because that is what can get it 30 votes in the senate and 60 votes in the house. Yes, still can sue and the union can not negotiate our legal contractual rights away as retirees. This is a 30-60 game for now to get something to the IL SC and let them rule so that the GA can continue to play this pension reform mess out politicaly. This is about trying to merge a political solution into a legal solution. - Bill White - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:20 am: === Or maybe a new governor comes in (Rauner, for example) and decides to dump defined benefits going forward altogether. === The fiscal consequences of doing that would be staggering. Without current employees paying into the legacy system (remember, Rauner moved new hires into a 401(k) style system) 100% of the benefits paid legacy employees would need to come from the taxpayers. - George - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:23 am: 18 Dem and 12 GOP yes votes probably doable unless the guv candidates — Brady and Dillard — jump off because the bill “doesn’t go far enough.” But I think there’s gonna be some sentiment in the Senate that the House should vote first on this supposed compromise. Plenty of Dem senators are still ticked that 2404 was never called in the House. - Obama's Puppy - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:28 am: === Or maybe a new governor comes in (Rauner, for example) and decides to dump defined benefits going forward altogether. === Even Rauner knows that would cost money that the state does not have and then having to deal with mandating Social Security on all school districts would be a dead pan loser. - DuPage - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:33 am: Awhile back I read about the Metro Sanitary District pension being changed by agreement with the union. It did not cut benefits but did increase the contributions. It was suggested it could be used as a model for the state. Has anyone heard anything about this? - stratten - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:37 am: what is missing from these “consideration” arguments of course is a freely arrived at meeting of the minds, as any first year contract law student could tell you…in contract law, you can’t change the terms of the contract unilaterally simply by giving the other party something of value..if they don’t want the contract changed.. - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:40 am: I do find it interesting that so many of those posting firmly believe the ISC will invalidate such pension reductions. Yes, I firmly believe they are unconstitutional but that does not mean the ISC will necessarily rule that way. Members of courts have their own personal opinions and other ‘influences’ that make clearly written constitutional language almost meaningless. And remember, the judges are exempt. The health insurance issue could be a prime litmus test for this. Clearly the IC mentions not only pensions but also retirement benefits and it is realistically impossible to argue that health insurance promised is not a retirement benefit. Yet, one judge has already ruled that way. Will the ISC rule that way also? If they do then everything is out the door because health insurance can be a ‘consideration’ for reduced pensions. And how far that illogic can go is frightening. Particularly if you are not Medicare eligible and a multi decade state employee who has no other health insurance other than the state. But again, one judge has already ruled that it is not protected under the IC. - Thomas - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:42 am: – DuPage – Yes, Chicago Water Rec District reached an agreement with all but one of their collective bargaining units and passed a bill that increased both employee and employer contributions. But the district’s employer increase is huge…I wanna more than a 50 percent increase over what they contribute now. If the state did the same, they would have to increase next year’s contribution to the pension systems by more than 3 billion. Don’t think that’s gonna happen. - Robo - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:44 am: We will seee after December 3rd. - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:45 am: Federalist @ 10:40 am: And at least one judge and one appeals court has ruled health insurance is protected and presumed to be a valid contract unless proven otherwise in writing. See Moriconi v Joliet - Pacman - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:46 am: Tying anything to the CPI is a joke. The CPI comes nowhere near accurately reflecting what is going on in the real world. And on top of that Cullerton et al want to give retirees a fraction of the inaccurate CPI. That would put retirees in a perpetual state of falling behind the true cost of living. It wouldn’t be long before retirees are applying for Link cards. More people falling into poverty. What a joke! - dupage dan - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:46 am: Since Quinn has indicated he will veto anything that doesn’t solve the $300 billion (a day?) in pension liabilities (snark) what is the liklihood he will sign a bill that doesn’t bring the pension into solvency until 2043? Doesn’t the Martire plan bring solvency in about the same amount of time? And constitutionally as well? Why are they re-inventing the wheel? Why am I asking a rhetorical question? - Southern Illinoisan - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:51 am: With regard to the mention that someone might wish to “dump” defined benefit plans in the future, does anyone know if the committee – and legislators, in general – have discussed any options for the significant number of State University Retirement System (SURS) employees who are currently enrolled in defined contribution or reduced benefit plans? SURS participants in the Self-Managed plan, which is not a hybrid, are fully responsible for their own investments and their retirement income is 100% dependent on the success of their individual investment strategies. In addition, they do not make any contributions to Social Security so they do not have a “safety net” in place if they are participants in this 401k-style plan. Furthermore, other SURS-covered university employees are enrolled in the Portable plan which allows them to move their funds out of SURS is they leave the employment of the State but they have already agreed to reduced benefits, including a reduced pension if they wish to have a survivor benefit for a surviving spouse, if they decide to retire from the State rather than seek employment elsewhere. Both of these existing plans offer reduced benefits to the employees and savings for the State as compared to the Traditional plan so it would seem that those enrolled in these options have already accepted reduced benefits once (yes, they did have a choice). My thought is that reducing them a second time would seem inappropriate. And one final note…I believe these plans are exclusive to SURS and not offered by any of the other systems. - pensioner - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:52 am: What is consideration for those already retired? - Mokenavince - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:56 am: It all sounds like Chinese arithmetic to me .A bunch of C students trying to figure it out = it’s not going to happen. Cullerton + Magigan+ Unions = Failure. Dream on. - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:57 am: @RNUG Re: Marconi vs Joliet. I am aware of this and I do hope my basic paranoia is totally unjustified. But won’t be convinced until a final decision. Guess that’s what makes me a paranoid. - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:00 am: @ pensioner - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:52 am: What is consideration for those already retired? It is obvious that even Cullerton has joined those who could care less about logic. So to answer your question THEY DON’T CARE. Pass something to make the Civic Committee, Chicago Tribune, the IPI and the CC happy and hand it off to the Courts. Even Cullerton seems to pretty open about this approach. - Cassandra - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:04 am: Cullerton’s argument is intellectually weak with respect to the diminishment clause, as I believe he recognizes, but it would provide a sympathetic ISC with a rationale to approve the cola reduction. I agree with Federalist. And isn’t the ISC the end of the road, since this is a state issue? As to the politics, what’s in this for the GOP, going into 2014, since Quinn and the Dems will be taking the credit for saving the state’s finances and so forth. State retirees in Republican districts, and I believe there are quite a few, might get restive and memories on this particular issue could be long. Maybe better to go through 2014 saying it’s not good enough. - Norseman - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:05 am: === Maybe. Or maybe a new governor comes in (Rauner, for example) and decides to dump defined benefits going forward altogether. === At least applying that solution to new employees would be constitutional. IMHO, it would lead to lower quality public workforce and shouldn’t be done. Also, if I recall from earlier stories this would result in some increased cost initially. - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:11 am: Cassandra - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:04 am: Not sure if it would be the end of the road or not. Even though the State has it’s own contract language very similar to the Federal language, you might be able to argue violation of contract clause or violation of equal protection (if one class like judges is not included) and possibly get it into the federal court system. Probably a long shot, but you never know … - Anon. - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:33 am: ==Clearly the IC mentions not only pensions but also retirement benefits and it is realistically impossible to argue that health insurance promised is not a retirement benefit. Yet, one judge has already ruled that way.== Not quite. One of the glaring gaps in the logic of Narduli’s opinion was that he kept saying that the constitution protects “pension benefits,” and then ruled that health insurance isn’t a pension and so is not protected. - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:50 am: Federalist @ 10:57 am: I hear you. I’m probably every bit as paranoid as you are, maybe more so. Heck, I went to work for the government in the early 1970’s because I figured it was better to be on the inside knowing what was happening than be on the outside wondering. My trust of government in general is low, and even lower for certain administrations (but we won’t go there). But we have to trust that the system of laws and courts will (mostly) work; it’s really the only thing separating us from anarchy. - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:51 am: Cullerton’s path makes sense to me- first try something that is more likely to be struck down by the court, but would save more money. Hope that the judge doesn’t read RNUG’s strong arguments on cap fax. If it is struck down, try something more modest. But I’m concerned that nothing will pass again. The republicans should do their share, but Cullerton’s stated goal of getting just 18 of 40 democrats to vote for it, and expecting republicans to deliver 12 of 19, seems like a recipe for failure. Democrats should be on for 21 votes, not 18. - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 11:57 am: Adding another comment I made in a different thread: … All this is nothing more than an exercise in crunching numbers to reach a budget goal in an attempt to let the GA continue spending without raising taxes. Save the State some legal fees and just raise the revenue. - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:06 pm: @Anon, You certainly got the drift of the legal nuance and avoidance of the retirement benefits issue. That’s what he did alright, just ignore that issue. However, my point, that this type of avoidance could well reappear at the ISC level. - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:15 pm: Anon. @ 11:33 am: Nardulli also ruled it wasn’t a contract, even though it clearly had the basics of a contract: an offer (free health insurance on retirement) and a requirement (working at least 20 years and retiring) which a lot of people fulfilled. A lot of people think Nardulli got that ruling wrong too. One of the most telling arguments there is the history of the retiree health insurance benefit. Initially, it was free to everyone who retired, which effectively meant a minimum of 8 years of service. Then it was modified via union contract to actually specify 8 years service. Then it was modified to require 20 years service (again, with union contract concurrence) but, again, basically NOT retroactively changed for the already retired. (There was a choice some people had to make, but it was a choice.) It still granted subsidized access to state health insurance at the 8 year mark, with a sliding payment scale up to 20 years. Bottom line is the changes were NOT RETROACTIVE on people who had already fulfilled the requirements of service & retirement, but only going forward, which lends a lot of credence to the contention of it being a contract. Eventually, we’ll get an initial ruling from the ISC … but that probably won’t be the end. Unless the ISC is crystal clear about not touching it, no way, no how, period, it will end up back in the trial court to make a determination if a valid contract existed and if it is protected. Could be another year or two before it gets a final resolution. Hopefully, the ISC will give the trial court some “guidance” like the appellate court did in Mariconi. - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:48 pm: @ RNUG Great Overview! Hope the plaintiffs made as good a case and hope that the ISC is as knowledgeable as you are and are honest. - Realist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:55 pm: After years of anxiety and depression, I’ve decided to be an optimist and have faith that the ISC will uphold the clear language of the Illinois Constitution regarding State employee retirement benefits. This summer I did quite a bit of reading on opinions by legal experts, and certainly the vast majority believe that retirement benefits simply can’t be diminished or changed under the IC. RNUG & facts are stubborn things, I agree - the GA is leveraging this into a legal situation because there is no political solution that allows them enough cover coming up to an election year. One can be realistic and still have faith that the ISC will uphold the Constitution. - Anon. - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:04 pm: ==However, my point, that this type of avoidance could well reappear at the ISC level.== Can’t argue with that. - Anon. - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:13 pm: ==Nardulli also ruled it wasn’t a contract, even though it clearly had the basics of a contract: an offer (free health insurance on retirement) and a requirement (working at least 20 years and retiring) which a lot of people fulfilled. A lot of people think Nardulli got that ruling wrong too.== Including me. I only wasted about an hour of my time reviewing his decision, including looking at the case law he cited, but one thing jumped out at me. He cited decisions of the Hawaii and Alaska SCs as supporting the retirees, and a NY decision as going against them, and just chose the NY decision without any real explanation. If you look at the Alaska case, it cites a more recent NY decision as supporting the retirees. That made me a little curious, so I looked up that case, too, and it involved an attempt to reneg on health insurance premiums that the statute said would be paid by the state if the employee worked X years. The court held that, even though its earlier decision had held that the NY pension clause didn’t make health insurance premiums a contractrual right, this statute in itself created a “unilateral contract,” which the employees had accepted by working the required number of years, and the state could not reneg on that contract. If Narduli had shown similar diligence in doing this job, he might have reached a different conclusion. - cod - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:31 pm: - Federalist - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:40 am: The exemption of Supreme Court Judges from the proposed $138B in benefit reductions creates an inherent conflict of interest for all members of the court. Pension reduction will hit hard on all others in the State system but not on their own pensions. The Judges Retirement System actually has a funded ratio of only 34.1%, worse than TRS, SERS, and SURS! What will the judges do, recuse themselves? - Martin - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:38 pm: Cod The judges aren’t deciding on their own pensions so there is no conflict. A 1% percent reduction in contributions plus a chance to get a 4% COLA =constitutional for current employees. I think present retirees will get to keep their 3% compounded COLA. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:02 pm: @Martin and cod- Conflict of Interest plays no part in the validity of the judges’ decision. If the Illinois courts are the only venue with jurisdiction, they could and would rule on it even if it were their pension involved. Happened before, when the judges ruled on their own pay raise during the Blago years, where his attempted cut of the state judges’ annual COLA was ruled on…by the judges themselves, and which set one of the precedents for the likely upcoming state pension court case. - PublicServant - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:30 pm: ===A 1% percent reduction in contributions plus a chance to get a 4% COLA =constitutional for current employees.=== Unilateral implementation of consideration without the option of keeping the current contract terms is…wait for it…unconstitutional. I’d like Cullerton to turn Maidar lose to render an opinion on whatever comes out of committee this time. I wonder what the likelyhood of that is. Also, what does any actuarial analysis of this “plan” look like? - RNUG - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:32 pm: PublicServant @ 4:30 pm: Technically, it would be a violation of contract law which, because of the pension clause, would also violate the State Constitution. - PublicServant - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:38 pm: RNUG, I don’t quibble with which constitution protects me from these thieves and their supporters, be it federal or state. - Quincy - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:49 pm: Bill White what about Dillard # Tracy they both are against RETIREES and there pension. They both have voted to cut our pension evertime there a vote to cut. Thats why Iam voting for Brady. Big Bills votes for the retirees and has helped us more then anybody knows. - PublicServant - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 5:14 pm: Quincy, specifically, how has Bill voted for retirees? - Norseman - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 6:03 pm: ===Bill White what about Dillard # Tracy they both are against RETIREES and there pension. They both have voted to cut our pension evertime there a vote to cut. Thats why Iam voting for Brady. Big Bills votes for the retirees and has helped us more then anybody knows.=== LOL. Bill is that you. We’re not that gullible. Its too easy to look up the roll calls to see how you voted. - No Raise - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 7:35 pm: The plan seems at least reasonable——until Republicans suddenly try to increase retirement ages. I mean, you have a guy who’s hanging in there for 29 years, then on the eve of promised retirement under the formula, he’s suddenly forced to wait—and the consideration is a 1% decrease in retirement contributions? Talk about diminishing benefits. Let’s see—I pay 1% of salary, but don’t get the promised 50% of salary after 30 years of service. Even a gradual increase in age like the prior bills had may doom the proposal. So why bother? - MIX_IT_UP - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:26 pm: AS long as you are an active employee, management has the right to change conditions with considerations as denoted in RNUG’s depiction of healthcare changes over the years. The union negotiated the changes in healthcare with management in consideration of other changes in the union CONTRACT. I cannot see how you can change particulars after retirement when you retired under a contract which falls under contract law regardless of the constitution. Of course, this is Illinois where money rules all! - Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:50 pm: So, as the current version is most clearly an improvement over the previous Senate version, and the improvement is “meaningful,” with no overwhelming obvious objections exposed in their proposal, when is the Speaker going to presumably jump aboard also (hopefully soon)…?! “Let’s roll!!” (Oh, and maybe somebody should contact Pat Quinn about taking a look at it, even though they may understandably not WANT to yet, but those Daily MILLion$ keep slippin’ away into NowhereLand, which sure ain’t into necessary, helpful, bonified SERvices for Illinoisans)…! - Federalist - Friday, Oct 4, 13 @ 1:52 am: @ MIX IT Up, But if you are not a member of the union that did the negotiation, then they had no right to represent you. This is particularly true when it was not just a matter of negotiations but also a state law that provided such health insurance. Again that pesky ole ‘diminishment’ angle inconveniently creeps in- although many politicians would like us to forget it. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.