52 Comments - hisgirlfriday - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:00 am: So now what, Bruce? We wait til Trump puts a 5th vote to overturn Abood on SCOTUS or you got more planned here. - Anony - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:02 am: Sweet, more gridlock…. Anyway, could help Rauner keep his voters angry. OTOH, could make him look ineffective. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:05 am: When will we raise taxes in Illinois so we can give Afscme what they want? Dems need their big coffers and votes. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:06 am: - Mal -, I thought you left, you can’t keep YOUR promises? Your drive-bys are… noted. To the Post, Rauner will wait all this out. Time is on his side. Good, bad, or otherwise, Rauner isn’t Quinn and AFSCME now has Rauner. Thems the breaks when you wanted to teach Quinn a lesson. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:07 am: ===When will we raise taxes in Illinois so we can give Afscme what they want? Dems need their big coffers and votes.=== Rauner can’t have a budget without the Rauner Tax. Good on you for being - Anonymous -, putting your name to the ignorance of truth isn’t wise. I’d stay - Anonymous - too. Honest, lol. - Mal - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:09 am: This could be the real reason why Rauner vetoed the $215 million schools bill. - phocion - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:10 am: Can’t wait to read the opinion from the St. Clair labor judges. Coming soon - overturned on appeal. - Johnnie F. - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:11 am: This is based solely on the implementation prior to the written opinion from the ILRB, correct? If a written decision comes out today, Rauner can still move forward with implementation and AFSCME would have to refile based on the whole ULP issue. AFSCME would then wait for a second injuction based on that ULP lawsuit? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:13 am: - Mal - So you’re not leaving… Or you are… lol. Hysterical. Labor peace is going to be needed to govern, even if it is a strike, last and final, or judicial orders in the meantime. - Try-4-Truth - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:13 am: ====== Mal - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:09 am: OW Remain confined in the comment section of political blogs. You aren’t credible anywhere else. Good luck though!====== Holy personal attacks Batman. Get a grip. - Anon - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:20 am: Nooooooo……. that means I won’t get my $1,000 bonus! I was really counting on that to pay my doubled health insurance costs and help with my job search after my job gets privatized! Thanks, AFSCME! /s - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:34 am: Honestly Oswego Willy: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME is the United States’ third largest organizational contributor to political campaigns, having donated more than US$90 million since 1990.[30] The organization contributes almost exclusively to Democratic Party campaigns; since 1990 the ratio of Democratic to Republican contributions by the AFSCME has exceeded 99:1. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:36 am: - Anonymous - Your point? Did I miss it? lol - RNUG - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:37 am: No contract suits Rauner for now since iteans wages stay frozen. Plus he got several good PR pops without now having to spend the money on bonuses. - Anony - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:40 am: OW - not sure the point of the anonymous poster….. That said, the cited info suggests that a battle with AFSCME provides red meat to those who voted for Rauner. - Anon - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:44 am: “The Center for Responsive Politics”, or CRP. - DHSJim - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:45 am: @Anony, and hope and encouragement and most importantly a little more job security for those who didn’t vote for Rauner. And even for some of those who did vote for Rauner too. This is good news. - Leave it to BVR - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:46 am: Quite right. When it’s time for reelection he can brag about how he didn’t pay anyone a raise for four years. > - DuPage Dave - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:54 am: Rauner remains a complete and utter disappointment. - Anon - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:57 am: To the update: bad news, but there is a different appeal and injunction motion ready to go. - Anony - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:57 am: DHSJim - not sure what your point is, but a Republican going after a public sector labor union is politics 101. Just like a Democrat going after the rich. - Get a Job!! - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 11:59 am: To the update, How convenient. What incredible timing. Surely a total coincidence. :RollsEyes: - Union proud - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:01 pm: Mal’s comments about OW say a whole lot more about Mal than they do about OW. To the post and update: Still waiting to see the written decision on ILRB’s website. Also to watch is the arbitration page on that site to see when the arbitrators decision on the FOP case comes out. How that arbitrator rules will be very telling. - Johnnie F. - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:02 pm: Wow. The ILRB certainly has impeccable timing. I wonder how? - Henry Francis - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:03 pm: Honestly Anonymous: $90 million over the past 17 years from how many hundreds of thousands AFSCME members has your undies in a bunch? Rauner by himself has topped that in just past 3 years. - Seats - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:21 pm: Beings it has been blocked once (before it was in writing); should we expect them to be able to block it again with a separate injuction through the St Clair County courts? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:27 pm: - Anony - All true, and it helps Rauner with his agenda, PR in the “fight”, and statute with those who don’t like Labor. Yep. You’re there. - Stumpy's bunker - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:40 pm: That squeek you’re about to hear will be Pandora’s box flying open…and much like ordnance, the destructive apparitions can’t distinguish between AFSCME members and innocent bystanders, and large & small business owners. Cue rep’s Avery Bourne, Sarah Jimenez and Tim Butler for another “can’t we all get along”, “let’s all go back to the table”, “hard-working state workers” statement…all the while pushing buttons against us. Congrats, Bourne and Jimenez on your re-election. You must have been as surprised as the rest of us. - Anon - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:50 pm: ===When will we raise taxes in Illinois so we can give Afscme what they want?=== As an aside, AFSCME’s members get paid for doing things that the people of Illinois want, or at least what their legislators and the federal government have decided they want. ===having donated more than US$90 million since 1990=== Rauner and his buddies are going to have topped that in just 4 years time. What nefarious plot can be assigned to them? - Fudo Myoo - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 12:56 pm: Well to the update. That was quick. Do people really still believe that the ILRB is still independent? The lawyers are quietly in court on Friday. No way ILRB should have known about it. Suddenly they come out with the written? Magic! Look folks the ILRB like the Republican Party is whole owned. AFSCME knew that the second the ILRB overturned the Interest Arbitration denial to have healthcare removed from collective bargaining for cops. The ILRB actually ruled that healthcare could be removed from collective bargaining. This TRO actually averted a nuclear attack by Rauner who was going to implement draconian healthcare when AFSCME couldn’t appeal without a written decision from the ILRB. AFSCME lives to fight another day. Thank a loving God - BK Bro - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 1:48 pm: -Fudu Myoo- Same can be said for the judge in St. Clair county. Do people really think St. Clair county judiciary is still independent? LOL. There’s a reason AFSCME goes there. - Sue - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:19 pm: No one going against a union has a fair hearing in St. Clair. Then again the odds are pretty stacked at the appellate level too. Someone advising the G should have had the State go into Sangamon and ask for a dec judgement allowing for implementation - Fido Myoo - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:25 pm: BK. fair comment for now. But when 5district appellate changes over ( it may have already). I don’t know when judges take the bench. January? So st Clair will be neutralized. - Cubs in '16 - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:25 pm: ===No one going against a union has a fair hearing in St. Clair.=== And no one in AFSCME is going to receive fair treatment from the Gov. or ILRB. So it’s a wash. - Stones - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:34 pm: Respectfully, my understanding of the process is that the Court TRO trumps (no pun intended) the ILRB ruling, at least until it is lifted or a higher Court rules otherwise. Anyone have different info? - Honeybear - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:38 pm: The written ILRB ruling made theTRO moot. It only stopped the molestation period where AFSCME could not appeal without some thing written. Fido is correct here. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 2:55 pm: They can still make a direct appeal to the appellate court and and ask for a TRO to be issued until the administrative review is completed of the case. - Bradley A Zahn - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 3:13 pm: I can’t find the written decision on the ilrb website yet, does anyone know when or where it will be posted? - Union proud - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 3:14 pm: It’s up now - Huh? - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 4:19 pm: Sorry - here is the correct link: www.illinois.gov/ilrb/decisions/boarddecisions/Documents/S-CA-16-087-01bd.pdf - SoILL - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 4:35 pm: I am not an expert by any means, but it appears the ILRB issued an impasse ruling strictly because of the privatization clause and the unions lack of movement on that single clause. If I understand it correctly, Rauner has to return to the negotiation table for the other areas of the contract, primarily wages and medical insurance. Can a subject matter expert or attorney tell me if I am I reading this correctly? If this is the case, am I correct by saying the fight for privatization is lost, but wages and medical insurance might not be lost? and Rauner must begin negotiating again on wages and med insurance? - DHSJim - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 5:20 pm: SoILL, that’s what the ALJ ruled. ILRB ruled that because they’re at impasse on privatization, they’re at impasse period. - JJ - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 5:33 pm: Does anyone know if AFSCME has to file another law suit? - RNUG - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 6:10 pm: == Does anyone know if AFSCME has to file another law suit? == Yes, or modify the original one to make different claims. - JJ - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 7:14 pm: Thanks - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:35 pm: RNUG, does AFSCME have a chance of winning their lawsuit? - Honeybear - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 9:41 pm: Anonymous, absolutely they do. Rauner has not bargained on good faith. It’s obvious. Faith and solidarity - RNUG - Monday, Dec 5, 16 @ 10:53 pm: AFSCME has a decent chance of winning on some items. They have what appears to be an Unfair Labor Practices claim over some items related to information sharing. There are other claims they can try also. Just going to depend if they can win on enough items. The administrative judge’s report makes it clear only certain items were at an impasse when the State claimed the whole thing was at impasse. That may help with a claim of not bargaining in good faith. But what is more likely to help are all Rauner’s public statements on video back to at least 2012 about being willing to take a strike and his plans to try to destroy unions, and specifically AFSCME by name. Collectively, that video could prove clear and long-standing intent to NOT bargain in good faith. At minimum, I would expect AFSCME to get a stay until the court can conduct a full review. As long as the courts rule in AFSCME’s favor at least partially, I would expect any TRO to remain until an appellate court or SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal. But, and this is where it gets tricky, Federal courts have a history of not jumping to intervene when it is a State as employer dealing with their own employees. Going to depend on how blatant the court views the violations. And timing also plays into it. Assuming appeals all the way to SCOTUS, it could be at least a year of status quo. But during that time, we will have a Justice appointed and AFSCME may ultimately lose. But if Rauner loses his reelection bid, AFSCME may still win … but only after working for years without a raise, etc. You can be sure this situation will make some new case law … but I’m not sure which way it will ultimately go. And the timing may actually be more important than the actual law. - facts are sbubborn things - Tuesday, Dec 6, 16 @ 8:15 am: The good news for retirees is that if a court orders TRO, health care stays as is. RNUG, I would take several more years as is and then hope for a fair health care contract with reasonable cost increases that are not a “back -door” way to unconstitutional premium increases — Kanerva vs. Weems. - Johnnie F. - Tuesday, Dec 6, 16 @ 8:24 am: In ULP cases, what is the typical resolution if the courts rule there were indeed ULPs by the CMS team? Does the court force the parties back to the bargaining table, or is some other renedy imposed? - David - Tuesday, Dec 6, 16 @ 9:14 am: Suit has been filed I hear - Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 6, 16 @ 2:43 pm: State employees are being asked to take the employee engagement survey again. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.