* Belleville News-Democrat…
A union representing state workers filed suit Wednesday in St. Clair County, seeking to prevent Gov. Bruce Rauner from imposing his final contract terms.
Rauner ended talks last winter with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees state council. A state labor board sided with Rauner this month that talks were at “impasse.” That means the governor can impose his terms.
He did that a second time Wednesday in announcing an employee drug and alcohol testing plan.
Rauner’s office said the governor’s final offer includes $1,000 merit pay for employees, overtime after 40 hours, bereavement leave, workplace safety task forces, the use of volunteers, and drug and alcohol testing of those reasonably suspected of use on the job.
* From the Rauner administration…
The American Federation of State County Municipal Employees yesterday filed suit in St. Clair County to block the administration from implementing its last, best, and final offer including $1,000 merit pay for employees, overtime after forty hours, bereavement leave, workplace safety task forces, the use of volunteers, and drug and alcohol testing of those reasonably suspected of use on the job.
“Overtime after 40 hours of work, workplace safety task forces, drug and alcohol testing for those reasonably suspected of use on the job, and bereavement leave are not unreasonable and simply make sense,” Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said. “We ask that AFSCME work with us on implementing these common sense changes and ensure that employees’ bonuses are not delayed because of needless, meritless litigation.”
On November 15 the neutral Illinois Labor Relations Board ruled unanimously that the parties are at impasse and the Rauner administration can implement its last, best, and final offer to AFSCME.
* From AFSCME…
AFSCME has asked a circuit court to halt the Rauner administration’s unilateral imposition of its demands on state employees, including a 100% increase in health premiums, a four-year pay freeze and a blank check for the governor to outsource public services for private profit.
Governor Rauner entered a binding legal agreement clearly stating that no changes can be implemented unless the Labor Board finds the parties are at impasse. Under Illinois law, there is no such finding until the Labor Board issues a written decision, which it has not yet done.
The Rauner administration walked out on bargaining in January and has refused to negotiate ever since. In contrast, AFSCME has repeatedly said we are prepared to consider any of the governor’s proposals and to modify our own, but that requires both parties to be at the bargaining table.
Governor Rauner should negotiate, not dictate. By forcing confrontation instead of seeking compromise, the governor bears responsibility for this litigation and the threat of a disruptive strike.
- Norseman - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:44 am:
Good Luck Honeybear!
- Honeybear - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:45 am:
Sharp is the word. Quick is the action! Fire as you bare!
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:46 am:
I want my $1000 so I can go on strike!
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:48 am:
A desperate and kind of sad tactic that will only delay the inevitable.
Strike or don’t AFSCME members. That’s soon your sole choice.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:50 am:
I wish AFSCME would publish what the insurance would cost people each month. One of my family members worked for the federal government and paid about $600 a month for a family plan. Now that he is retired he is still paying this. What does AFSCME pay? They never publish this.
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:51 am:
Rauner is paying state workers under a court order. With no budget, can he pay for outsourced work?
- Fixer - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:52 am:
$1000 one time bonus versus paying $3000+ more annually for insurance… and the ability to privatize without showing it will save the state anything.
Yep, this reeks of the Superstar.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:54 am:
- Deft Wing -
They are within their legal right to go to court.
Once there, they will face the legitimacy of their case, and it will be based on its merits… and a ruling, favorable or not, including rejecting the case outright, the court will weigh in.
Your dismissiveness is based not in the recourse but with those seeking a solution. Good to know. Thanks.
- Johnnie F. - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:56 am:
Neither desparate nor sad…just part of the process, not unexpected. I assume this move only applies to the attempt to implement w/o a written decision from the ILRB? Once issued, AFSCME will have to again appeal the decision and ask for an injunction based on unfair labor accusations outlined in the ILRB’s ruling(s).
- phocion - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:56 am:
St. Clair County: The forum of choice for organized labor.
- Mr.Black - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 10:58 am:
Deft Wing - lol. Not a fact that strike not not will be the only option.
OW beat me to it
- Fixer - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:00 am:
Also, for those asking about changes in the contract, go to the Illinois website and under featured sites go to TEAM. From there under Labor Relations is the state’s last, best, and final offer. It’s a large PDF so just be aware it takes awhile to get through.
- RNUG - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:07 am:
== St. Clair County: The forum of choice for organized labor. ==
Not only is it a generally favorable court district, it is also the place where most of the court orders were issued that have kept State government somewhat running.
- HangingOn - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:14 am:
==$600 a month for a family plan==
What size family? I pay about $230 now for me and 1 child and am told I will be paying over $500 for 2 under Rauner’s terms.
- Joe M - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:15 am:
==I wish AFSCME would publish what the insurance would cost people each month…They never publish this==
Its not like its a secret. Its freely available from the Illinois CMS site, and always has been. And its not just the insurance plan for AFSCME employees - but ists also the plan for all state employees and state university employees.
https://www.illinois.gov/cms/Employees/benefits/StateEmployee/Documents/FY2017_State_BC_Book.pdf
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:17 am:
Why yes, anyone can run to court and sue. That’s a right bestowed upon us all, including AFSCME. Of course, frivolous cases are regularly filed. I happen to think those types of lawsuits are desperate and sad … and wasteful.
But, that’s okay. We’ll soon see what ultimately happens with AFSCME’s lawsuit. I am willing to take a friendly wager on that final outcome (the end game, not whatever the St. Clair court conjures up locally).
Not unlike the illusory lawsuit (to come?) from some committed, and seated, lawmaker about pay (no lame duck will do), I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how it all turns out.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:17 am:
As noted earlier this week: if AFSCME files suit in St. Clair County then a) that circuit court has titled a bit and b) the 5th District Appellate Court is now 4-3 in favor of the Republicans. So if AFSCME wins the first round then the Appellate Court gets it and could likely side with Governor Rauner. Will the Illinois Supreme Court want to hear it? There are a lot “what ifs” in this situation.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:20 am:
“I wish AFSCME would publish what the insurance would cost people each month. One of my family members worked for the federal government and paid about $600 a month for a family plan. Now that he is retired he is still paying this. What does AFSCME pay? They never publish this.”
The union has published it for several job titles. It has appeared in CapitolFax. Look it up.
- BK Bro - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:23 am:
Deft Wing probably right about being frivolous. AFSCME may very well know, based on their own legal advice, that they really don’t have much of chance. However, as a union, they’re doing well by their members to try every action possible to either stop or delay Rauner from imposing terms. At the end of the day, Rauner will probably impose his terms anyway. I’d be surprised if AFSCME DIDN’T try to get some legal drama brewing to slow things down…
- Sue - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:26 am:
Lynch is toast once Predident Trump fills out the S Ct. There is another public sector union dues case now before the Seventh Circuit. The Supreme Court can finally put the strangle hold these unions have on struggling states and cities by ending compulsory dues which was about to happen before Scalia left a 4 / 4 split on the Friedrich case.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:29 am:
Deft Wing - regardless of whether the suit is “frivolous” please keep in mind that AFSCME has in-house counsel whose job is to do things like file injunctions or court cases. It would practically be legal malfeasance for AFSCME’s lawyers to NOT file a lawsuit. Now if they brought in expensive outside counsel - especially with such a skimpy strike fund - then a lawsuit would be frivolous.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:33 am:
Good job on the 5th District Apellate court Team Sleep. You guys mopped the deck with us on that one. Took our legal options ultimately off the table. My local never really got how important Weber and Bleyer were. Weber knew she was going down when I spoke with her at the Labor rally. She didn’t say it but I read it in her face.
- kitty - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:34 am:
AFSCME’s best hope is to obtain an injunction prohibiting implementation of the governor’s terms and hope that the legal process to include appeals extends to the end of what will hopefully be the end of Mr. Rauner’s only tenure as governor. In the meantime, AFSCME needs to do a much better job of public relations messaging.
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:35 am:
An Appellate Court Justice was recently at a “Labor rally”?
Yeah, bye-bye.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:38 am:
Honeybear - all of the major unions new that in 2006 and 2012 when they took out Judge McGlynn (who, ironically, is much less of an idealogue than either Barberis or Moore). And now they have Barberis and Moore to contend with and the trial lawyers, unions and other Democratic-leaning groups are certainly going to have a tough time going forward.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:40 am:
Lost in all this is that Rauner gets his 4-year wage freeze “de facto” due to endless litigation.
- Anon - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:47 am:
AFSCME basically agreed to a 4-year (or 8 if he gets reelected) wage freeze when if signed the tolling agreement with Bruce.
- Anonny - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:56 am:
Would love to see Madigan and Cullerton say they will not negotiate the budget until Rauner negotiates with AFSCME. Make him taste his own medicine.
- DHSJim - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 11:56 am:
As long as he doesn’t get to impose unlimited privatization and doubling my health care premium, I’m fine.
- ANONIME - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 12:24 pm:
Regarding the cost of health insurance. I currently pay almost $200 for one person. Double that is $400 for only one person. Is there any guarantee they will start paying the claims after they double it? OR, are they just going to take that money for other programs too and leave the state employees paying more for the insurance and also needing to pay up front? Someone told me the other day they had to pay $1000 up front to the dentist before they could have something done.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 12:24 pm:
In a world of few options and in which thousands of workers are about to make big sacrifices while Boss Rauner (h/t Politico article) and his few plutocrats get off scot free, it’s good to see.
“Would love to see Madigan and Cullerton say they will not negotiate the budget until Rauner negotiates with AFSCME. Make him taste his own medicine.”
I was just thinking about this. I agree and would like to add a millionaire surcharge amendment. It could turn the focus on Rauner and his allies, who make googobs of money and pay one of the lowest state income taxes while crying about how bad it is in Illinois.
- RNUG - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 12:26 pm:
== As long as he doesn’t get to impose unlimited privatization and doubling my health care premium, I’m fine ==
Once the written finding is issued, that is EXACTLY what Rauner can do.
- working stiff - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 12:26 pm:
== Someone told me the other day they had to pay $1000 up front to the dentist before they could have something done. ==
if so, please have them contact their local steward with the information
- DHSJim - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 12:55 pm:
Right RNUG. Which is why I hope we get injunction and why we need to go on strike if injunction is not granted. Nothing to lose.
- Anon - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 12:56 pm:
Working stiff, Can I go to someone besides my steward with this? The local doesn’t seem to think anything can be done.
- flash - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 1:02 pm:
I have had to pay up front for services rendered by my dentist he said he would give me the money back and the 9% intrest the state is paying and there running 15 months behind also the 40 hour work week is not a problem but when you get mandated wich is when your supervisor calls you a half hour before your shift end and tells you that you have to work another 8 hours but you had a vacation day earlier in the week so you only get straight time for your mandate that’s not wright
- Anon - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 1:52 pm:
They’re really going to hammer the press with that sham bonus. There’s no way they’d pay out $38,000,000 for nothing and now they get to blame the union. I hope enough people can see through that.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 2:33 pm:
Does anyone know where a person can get a copy of the lawsuit that was filed in St. Clair Co. by the union?
- Politix - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 2:39 pm:
I pay $540/mo for a family of 4 plus prescription deductible and co-pays of up to $30 for each visit. What do you non-union folks pay?
- facts are stubborn things - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 2:58 pm:
A 100% increase in health care costs that will then become the health care benefits for retirees (at least that is how it has worked in the past) will arguable be at odds with Kanerva vs Weems ISC ruling that health care benefits are a pension benefit that can not be diminished or impaired. I wonder if we might see a split emerge from what is negotiated for employees and what is approved for retirees? This thing has a long way to go.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 2:59 pm:
Politix-
At my company you would pay $428/month, $35 copay for Dr, $50 for specialist. $2000 deductible for any procedure with a $10,200 max out-of-pocket. We’re suppose to have best plan in the industry.
- Jon - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 3:00 pm:
Is AFCSME contesting the LRB ruling of an impasse or just seeking a halt to the implementation because a written ruling has not been issued? AFSCME’s press release buries their reasoning, but without seeing the actual filing, it appears to just be contesting the administration acting prior to the written ruling.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 3:06 pm:
=We’re suppose to have best plan in the industry.=
That is pretty solid insurance.
What industry? Just curious, because it is better than our school district insurance except for the out of pocket max which is higher than ours.
- Doc Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 3:13 pm:
I’m a professor at a state university. Our current health insurance is good–I’ll be honest about that. I pay about $275 per month for good coverage. That about 5.5% of my salary. My salary, however, is not good (compared to peers), nor is my pension (even if the state was fully funding it). I’d arguably be better off with Social Security (which I’m not eligible for, given that I’m on a state plan). Overall, I”m probably something like 10% underpaid compared to folks at peer state institutions.
Rauner’s proposal would allow him to boost my monthly contribution from $275 to $742 a month, or 13.7% of my salary, by FY 19. My salary isn’t going up, and my pension certainly isn’t getting any better. This means a 8% pay cut over the next three years, so that my already poor take home pay is lousy. Or I could gamble that my health will remain fairly good, and opt for third class health insurance with no increase in premiums–but I’m not a spring chicken, so that’s a huge gamble. I get no benefits from any of the sweeteners in the AFSCME contract, as they don’t effect me.
This is of course yet another excellent way to drive faculty out of the state–faculty are fleeing almost as quickly as students, meaning that even if the state starts funding universities again, there won’t be much left to fund.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 3:16 pm:
Food distribution.
- NobodysAccountable - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 3:22 pm:
If spouses work for the state, each spouse has to carry an individual policy. This affects those households even more.
- Crazyillinois - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 4:10 pm:
I think retirees will take a hit on dependent care premiums. CMS knows what kanerva means but they will make sure retirees pay their share with the dependents.
- Wronger Rauner - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 6:02 pm:
Anonymous @ 10:50 re: AFSCME benefit costs
Go to CMS’s website and look at employee benefits. It’s extremely easy to find out. Nothing is hidden.
- Cassandra - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 6:12 pm:
It’s not frivolous. It may be a long shot, but given the stakes, AFSCME has to pursue every possible avenue.
Can they get a stay? That would be an indicator as to how strong their case is.
- AnonAnon - Thursday, Dec 1, 16 @ 6:30 pm:
For those asking… AFSCME is arguing that the terms can’t be imposed before an official ruling from the ILRB (written ruling). In addition, they are arguing unfair labor practices on the part of CMS for various reasons. I read the court filing and they make some very valid arguments. Perhaps it would benefit some people to read the document before saying the lawsuit is frivolous and baseless. I am not a labor attorney, but I would be amazed if a judge didn’t agree with some of the points made by AFSCME.