Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Claypool endorses Emanuel, and the city sticks its nose too far into business
Posted in:
* After House Speaker Michael Madigan said this week that he wanted to start looking at legislation to reduce pension benefits, Senate President John Cullerton told reporters that he opposed the idea…
Illinois Senate President John Cullerton on Wednesday tossed cold water on the idea of reducing future pension benefits for current state workers, but House Speaker Michael Madigan appeared to forge ahead anyway.
“We’ve asked our staff to do research on it,” Cullerton, D-Chicago, said in an interview. “I’m pretty clear that it would be unconstitutional.”
However, Cullerton left open the possibility of the Senate considering a bill that comes over from the House.
“We’re not going to initiate a bill in the Senate,” he said. “I’d vote against the bill in the Senate. If the House passes a bill and the speaker wants it to be called … we’ll certainly talk.”
* The SJ-R editorialized on the issue…
Perhaps a more difficult question is whether it is fair. From a state employee’s standpoint, absolutely not. The employees have held up their end of the deal all along. The underfunding has come from the state skipping payments into the system.
From a private sector standpoint, however, it’s hard to argue fairness. Employees in the private sector have seen defined-benefit pensions end and employer matches of their 401(k) contributions discontinued. They’ve suffered under an economy that was nearly killed — through no fault of their own — by careless Wall Street daredevils who, by and large, have gone unpunished.
* Meanwhile, in other news…
After failing to confirm top gubernatorial appointees in the previous legislative session, lawmakers are now looking to tighten Senate rules to prevent a string of government employees from working without proper authorization.
A Senate panel on Wednesday approved Senate Bill 1, which bars future holdover appointees and acting appointees from serving without confirmation after 30 days. Temporary appointees will be allowed to serve until the next meeting of the Senate.
Holdover appointees are those who have finished their term, but continue to serve until someone new has been nominated.
The bill passed the Senate this morning on a unanimous roll call.
* And if that isn’t enough, the Senate is also working on education reforms. A bill is expected in March…
Advance Illinois executive director Robin Steans said progress is being made in some areas.
“There’s been a high level of agreement that it is time for performance to play a role (in staffing),” Steans said. “The devil is very much in the details. Are they going to do that in a way that’s really serious and meaningful, or is it more of a fig leaf? That’s what the negotiations are about now.”
Lightford said talks are focusing on how to bring performance evaluations into staffing matters rather than rely solely on seniority.
“I think we should look at it this way: Seniority should count, but to what degree? What part does performance count?” she said.
Couple that with issues about who should conduct performance evaluations — a school principal or a panel of the teacher’s peers.
“There’s a lot of moving parts to it,” Lightford said. “We’re trying to set up a system where personnel evaluations are impactful, they matter. Just because you’ve been a teacher for 10, 15, 20 years doesn’t mean you are OK if your performance in a lot of other areas is not up to par.”
* Senate President Cullerton talked with reporters about several of the above issues yesterday. Listen…
Many thanks to WUIS for the raw audio.
* Related…
* Lawmakers could try to cut state staff pensions
* Brown: No guarantees in life, even for public servants
* More pension reform coming?
* Lawmakers eye cost savings on state retiree health care, pensions
* Impact of tax increase on schools unknown
* No reprieve for those already on death row
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 10:22 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Claypool endorses Emanuel, and the city sticks its nose too far into business
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I’d say even more important than “is it fair” is “is it legal” — I hate that they protected state employees pensions in the state constitution, but they did and this attempt at retroactive re-interpretation threatens the rule of law more than the pensions threaten the state’s economic health (which is saying something).
Comment by lake county democrat Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 10:36 am
Does Cullerton have a plan to pay for the pensions?
How in the world does he plan to come up with the dough to pay them?
Comment by Anonymouse Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 10:45 am
The ‘rule of law’ bus left the station along time ago, my friend.
Comment by Anonymouse Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 10:48 am
An increase in the employee contribution (for SURS it is 8%) of 1 to 2 % would be more tolerable than a reduction in the benefit structure going forward would be more tolerable.
What the legislature must remember is that state employees took the job after considering the total compensation package. Universities recruit faculty and administrators on a national basis, so when considering whether to take a job in Texas or Illinois, the pension plan is part of that decision. So in effect the pension plan was used to induce people into the state university system. To unilaterally change the benefit formula at this point seems a blatant breech of contract.
Comment by siuprof Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 10:59 am
===An increase in the employee contribution (for SURS it is 8%) of 1 to 2 % ===
That would be $30-60 million. Not much.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:03 am
I think Speaker Madigan and Cross have an interesting idea. Going forward does not mean what you have already earned.
With all due respect J Hamos just doesn’t seem to have much common sense.
Comment by Interested! Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:07 am
Pretty amazing stuff when you have a Democratic House looking to reduce state employee benefits and a Democratic Senate looking to curtail teacher tenure.
That ain’t exactly bleeding-heart-liberal stuff.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:07 am
As a state retiree, I agree with the gist of the sj-r commentary. I’ll pay more or get less, but I’d like to see fairness applied. Most people would agree to that, even though we are not responsible for the problem. And while we’re at it, let’s see some justice toward the ones responsible for the Wall Street devestation. I want to see scoundrels pay.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:13 am
“threatens the rule of law”.
Since when do illinois democrats care about the rule of law?
If obama can cut off heating for poor people, mr. culerton can make richly compensated state workers a little less well compensated.
Comment by shore Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:15 am
What pension reform would be effective if the does not cotinue to pay their fair share? Also, would a 401k style plan weaken the existing system?
Comment by TrstMay Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:18 am
Would it be possible to adjust service credits for future service w/o running afoul of IL Constitution?
For example, beginning in 2012 and thereafter, a year of service would “earn” 0.9 years of service for purposes of pension benefit accrual.
Prior accruals of service remain unmodified, only accruals for future service would be modified.
Of course, treating pension benefits as taxable income would also help to balance the IL budget.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:23 am
I know Cullerton wants to protect his constituency, but there is far from unanimous consensus on his interpretation of the Illinois constitution. Sidley & Austin wrote an opinion earlier this year to the contrary.
Comment by Rarely posts Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:29 am
“Pretty amazing stuff when you have a Democratic House looking to reduce state employee benefits and a Democratic Senate looking to curtail teacher tenure.
That ain’t exactly bleeding-heart-liberal stuff.”
I do not agree with most stuff that Wordslinger writes, but he is right on target here. How can the Illinois Republicans be even less relevant than when the Democrats enact the Right’s policies? Smart move from Madigan, a bit of a one-two punch to balance the tax increase with real cuts. Terrible weakness from Cullerton, but consistent behavior, at least.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:31 am
- If obama can cut off heating for poor people, mr. culerton can make richly compensated state workers a little less well compensated. -
There’s some logic. First off, Obama can’t cut off heat to anyone, gas companies do that. Second, since when do you conservatives get upset over less taxpayer money going to poor people? Third, what on earth does decreasing funding to heating assistance have to do with the rule of law?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:32 am
This entire matter is blatantly unfair to state workers, who have paid into the system.
The fault lies with state legislators who did not carry out their fiduciary duty. How much money is in THEIR retirement system that is, SURPRISE fully funded?
I’d like to see them pay for their neglect by taking a portion of the monies owed to SURS from their pension system, but we all know that will never happen…
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:32 am
- Terrible weakness from Cullerton -
Yes, interpreting the constitution as it was written instead of trying to find loopholes in it does show “terrible weakness”.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:34 am
This is rich….
“… The employees have held up their end of the deal all along. The underfunding has come from the state skipping payments into the system.”
I think the SJR and others need to wake up and acknowledge the underpayment is only a part of the problem…Give credit to payrolls and spiking by the workforce and poor investment decision by the funds and the crony/manager buddies on Wall Street and elsewhere.
BTW the new scandal being investigated which involved banks overcharging (aka stealing fees) in foreign currency trades has spread from public pensions to hedge funds. Now there may be action
It is one thing to steal from the dufuses at the pension funds but when one steal from their other Wall Street thieves it is an outrage.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:37 am
Not all of us that work for the state make 100k a year. Some of these benefits were in exchange of raises over the years. I am all about fixing the problem but how come when the legislators talk about taking away they never include themselves?
Comment by Just Because Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:39 am
Why should state workers care, if state legislators systematically underfund the pensions, year after year?
According to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, they have to get theirs eventually - even if the rest of the state budget burns. So if I were a state worker (or a union head, even better), I’d tell my state legislator, “It’s fine, underfund the pension - I know I’ll get that from the courts eventually. In the meantime, spend more on benefits, or Build Illinois.”
The incentives from that constitutional provision are perverse. It ought to be amended out. I support a fair and just pension provision for state workers. And I think the idea that just because the private sector is burning down retirement security, the public sector has to go along, is a perverse idea in its own way. But I don’t think this is a special privilege that should be constitutionalized.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:41 am
****===An increase in the employee contribution (for SURS it is 8%) of 1 to 2 % ===
That would be $30-60 million. Not much. ****
Really, Rich. How do we fix the problem - is there one really big thing we can cut, some monster program not needed that we can just eliminate? Or do we have to do this one bit at a time? 30-60 mil may not seem like much but it is only one program. Look at others and whittle away and you may add it up to some substantial savings. Dirksen was right, you know.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:45 am
Loop Lady - The pension system for the General Assembly is either the worst or second-worst funded system (it is in a race to the bottom with the judges’ system). They are about the exact opposite of “fully funded.” I don’t disagree at all with your point that the problem is that the state hasn’t paid their share (for many decades), but they haven’t paid into theirs, either.
Comment by Katiedid Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:48 am
dd, my point was that benefit reductions probably cannot be avoided if all you’re proposing is a 1-2 point increase in contributions.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:00 pm
Rich - do you have the link to the list of holdovers Cullerton is concerned about? I know you have referenced it in the past but I can’t find it. Have any of these been part of Quinn’s announced “re-appointments”?
Comment by Both Sides Now Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:20 pm
does anyone know how many years of service a legislator has to serve before they are eligible for full retirement benefits with free medical?
Comment by always anonymous Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:26 pm
there are a lot of state workers who are under paid, or paid just right. There are 1000’s of union workers in low and mid level positions making $80 - $120,000 per year, and will retire at this rate. This is not an atack on the union, just that almost all state workers are in the union. This happened over blago’s 8 yrs in office as they made management workers pay double into their pension, have furlough days, and not receive any raises. In that seven year period management workers fell behind the union scale by almost 40%, this is why they most tried to get into the union. It is why most of the (excluding directors and asst directors) highest compensated workers are union… not management. This will really zing the pension bottom line. Will some reporter please educate the public on this… it wouldn’t take much research.
Comment by Shed some light Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:31 pm
All this talk of a change not being constitutional, I’m surprised to see no one talk of amending the constitution. Seems to me that would be the solution.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:33 pm
If you go back to the discussions held by the previous Constitutional Convention, they deliberately wrote the pension protection in because the funds were being already being shorted back then, just not to the extent done later. The convention did not trust state government to live up to the pension promises.
I don’t know if the percentages the SJ-R was tossing around yesterday were right, but they seemed to say if current employees wanted to keep the current pension deal, the employee contribution may have to be as high as 28%. It also seemed, reading the one bill that has been introduced, that they expect current state employees to not only contribute more in the future but also be responsible for picking up at least half of the existing shortfall caused by the state’s non-contribution. Was I reading that right?
Some of the discussion yesterday was interesting, especially the references and links to decisions about benefits already earned. Which leads to an interesting question. State employees were always told the health deal could change; however the 20 year “free health insurance” is a current statute. The cases cited state you can not retroactively change things. So, playing devil’s advocate, does that imply they can’t change free health insurance for current retirees?
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:34 pm
The single fastest way to address the benefit issue and reign in expense is to start charging “market” rates for retiree healthcare coverage- keeping in mind most state employees retire well in advance of 65 when private sector folks become eligible for healthcare coverage at government expense, there is no justification for continuing the essentially free retiree healthcare- Healthcare benefits have no constitutional coverage all that is needed to address the issue is political courage. Medicare isn’t free and neither should illinois retire healthcare coverage be free( or close to free)
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:35 pm
And if that is the case, then where are they going to find health savings?
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:37 pm
===There are 1000’s of union workers in low and mid level positions making $80 - $120,000 per year===
Illinois has the third lowest government employee payroll expenditures per state resident in the country
http://dms.myflorida.com/index.php/content/download/77329/452102/version/1/file/Final+AWR+2009-2010.pdf
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:39 pm
===I’m surprised to see no one talk of amending the constitution.===
You’d also have to amend the US Constitution. Contract law is involved here.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:42 pm
I don’t think there is any serious legal argument to be made that the State cannot change the formula for earning benefits going forward. We just cannot change what has already been earned. We also cannot unilaterally change the formula for unionized employees until the current bargaining agreements expire. This is all basic contract law. It’s also been done before. About 20 years ago, in lieu of pay raises, the State agreed to pay what had been the employees’ share of pension contributions that had previously been deducted from their wages. Blagojevich unilaterally took that away from merit comp employees when he first took office, and then had it included in new bargaining agreements. If he could do that, why can’t the State increase the employee contribution amount? (As an aside about employee contributions, people seem to think that a person who pays x% of their wages into the pension are somehow more deserving than those who pay nothing, when the difference is really just in how compensation is stated. A person who is paid $50,000 per year and contributes 10% to his pension and keeps the rest is in the exact same position as one who is paid $45,000 with the State making the contributions, with one exception: the one being paid $45,000 will get a smaller pension, and so ultimately costs the State less. So which one is more deserving?)
Comment by Pat Robertson Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:44 pm
==From a private sector standpoint, however, it’s hard to argue fairness. Employees in the private sector have seen defined-benefit pensions end and employer matches of their 401(k) contributions discontinued.==
This completely misses the point. Those private employers were mandated to contribute to Social Security. The state was not. The state’s retirement system is acting as “social security” for the state employees. A minimum standard for fairness would be the state paying the same as it would to Social Security (6% of wages up to whatever the limit is). Private employers do not have a choice on that payment, why should the state be any different?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 12:52 pm
Katie: Where do I go to find out if what you state is true? Besides, most of the legislators have another gig and that is not the case with State employees…
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:00 pm
Rich - That is probably because under Blago the state payroll was cut by several thousand workers. Check with CMS and find out if what I say is true.
Comment by Shed some light Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:08 pm
Rich - Also, since that report was published there have been approx. a thousand state workers added to the payroll.
Comment by Shed some light Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:10 pm
Rich - I also noticed that we were one step above California as they had the 4th lowest. New York was also in the top ten. For the record I think that Blago cut way to much and Gov Quinn has been responsible with his needed addition of union employees.
Comment by Shed some light Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:19 pm
What’s fair about offerinig (extra generous) pensions benefits to workers when it should have been able to be seen (as has been the case for a long time) that they were unaffordable?
What’s fair about accepting (extra generous) pension plans from an employer when you should know (as has been the case for a long time) that they were unaffordable to the employer?
This is no doubt a very hard realization for the government and those in the various pension plans. But as a taxpayer I feel quite strong about the fact (in my view) that what has gone on has equated to a fraudulent conveyance of benefits. The government has long been giving a benefit it had no plan to be able to fund/fulfill.
It’s time to suck it up and do what can be done to make the best of it. No one will be happy in the end but dealing with this has become unavoidable.
Comment by Wondering... Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:30 pm
I agree with siuprof - the pensions are part of the total compensation package offered to employees, who might then base their careers and lives around these “known knowns”, such as a “Constitutional Guarantee”. Having worked both private and public sector, I find it interesting that not much has been said about the fact that private sector employment the risk/reward incentive which generally tracks the market & economy. During the good years, salaries, high percentage raises and benefits in the private sector are increased to attract “the best” employees, etc. Bonuses, profit sharing and 401k matches are norm. In down years, these items are cut back. Higher risk/higher reward. The public sector tradeoff is (supposedly)job and benefit stability, typically lower salary than similar private sector jobs, and low percentage raises. Lower risk/lower reward. One question: during the really good economic years, does the general public try to raise the compensation or benefits of the public sector to match market upsides?
Comment by Been on both sides Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:31 pm
Wondering … I was an internationally recognized expert in my field. I was paid decent by the State but I worked for 50% to 100% less than I could have gotten in the private sector in exchange for the pension and health cares promises. I paid my share, I paid my taxes. If you want to retroactively take away my benefits, I retroactively want the millions you should have paid me … and the years of overtime I was supposed to get comp time off for.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:38 pm
LoopLady, The Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability puts out full reports on the health of the pension systems. here’s a link to the site.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/cgfa2006/Resource.aspx?id=5
Under the second heading, you’ll find a March 2010 report on financial condition of the pension systems. it should be required reading for any discussion on this issue.
Comment by piling on Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:46 pm
RNUG… if I don’t have the money to pay your pension how would you expect I have the money to give “your” millions?
Anyway, you miss my point. I am suggesting that the government and the pension beneficiaries (in particular those negotiating on their behalf) have been in cahoots for years negotiating bad deals for the taxpayers - and, in fact all of the direct pension beneficiaries.
Certainly, I have no proof of this. It’s just what I think the plans, numbers and results have borne out.
And anyway, if you are so smart (internationally recognized in your field) what the heck are you working for the State of Illinois for?!?
Comment by Wondering... Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:46 pm
As a state employee, I would gladly pre-pay pension credits at the current contribution and salary. I don’t have the option of retiring for many years. However, I would gladly infuse cash into the system for the extra security that I was already promised by the constitution. This money would compound interest in the meantime. I think that anyone already in the system should be able to prepay up to 10 years in the system. If I die, its a windfall for the system.
Comment by pre-pay pension credits Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:47 pm
I dont think cutting pensions to current workers is legal or fair. At least I had a chance to make up some of the last 2 years lost wages at my job with a bonus this year. I dont think the state is going to offer profit sharing for its employee’s. My mother a retired teacher isnt getting rich on her pension, I think wasting more money a a huge legal fight is a bad idea.
Comment by fed up Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:50 pm
I’m surprised Illinois’ public employee unions haven’t challenged the state and local governments in court for not making their actuarially recommended employer pension contributions. Aren’t the state and locals “diminishing or impairing” the contractual relationship established under the State constitution? If anything, it would put an end to all of the dueling over the consitutionality question.
Comment by Springfield Alum Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:54 pm
===I’m surprised Illinois’ public employee unions haven’t challenged the state and local governments in court for not making their actuarially recommended employer pension contributions.===
Illinois courts do not step into these sorts of issues.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 1:59 pm
Wondering … Pretty typical story. Started here while going to college, liked the work, got the rep, then stayed after a divorce to be near the kid. Several companies tried to hire me away; offered to pay my airline flights back every six weeks and my phone bills; finally decided I would rather see my son more. Got remarried and stayed to help both mothers (dad’s deceased). By that time was so far into the pension system it would have been stupid to walk away … plus I was enjoying the job and saying the State at least $1M each year. Even offered to work for no salary; just 10% of hard proven savings … but the State couldn’t deal with that kind of incentive program. I made my choices, but they were based on the whole compensation package.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:00 pm
==I am suggesting that the government and the pension beneficiaries (in particular those negotiating on their behalf) have been in cahoots for years negotiating bad deals for the taxpayers - and, in fact all of the direct pension beneficiaries.==
Bad deals for taxpayers? Really? It’s been a great deal for taxpayers so far. The state has avoided a tax increase by doing two things: 1) promising a pension that exceeds the SSA’s minimum requirements allows the state to avoid the payroll tax all private employers must pay 2) Not paying the required portion into the pension plans has allowed the state to “balance” the budget and retain and add popular programs. I am not aware of any state employee’s union that was happy with this situation. The negotiated benefits were reasonable IF the state had paid it’s share, which, for many employees, would be less than the state would have been required to pay to the feds for Social Security. Fully funded, as negotiated, the state pension systems would cost the state less than having no state pension at all.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:04 pm
SA - There has been at least one case where groups have tried that (I think it was the IEA), although the one I know of offhand was in the late 1970s/early 80s. Basically, the court told them that the constitution only guaranteed that the benefit would be paid, not that the state had to fund it properly to make sure the money was there.
Comment by Katiedid Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:07 pm
Might be time to bring back the Gambling expansion plan, a few more Casinos slots and video poker at the airports( Daley and airlines fighting about how to pay for runways)fix the legal issues with the liquor tax, take Rahmbos extension of the state sales tax to services, Cullerton Madigan and Quinn can get this done by opening day I’m sure. Then knock out workers comp reform, before you know it, it’s remap time.
Comment by fed up Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:13 pm
It seems to me that most of the articles on the pension crisis tend to gloss over or even leave out the fact the state employees pay between 4% -8.5% of their base pay towards their pensions. That fact that our legislators have always treated that contribution as a piggiebank to pay for their “members initiatives” instead of properly investing it (or at least put all of it in SERS) is the largest cause of the shortfall. This problem didn’t pop up overnight but my fear is that in the rush to do something the people harmed the most will be the ones who can least afford it- the retirees.
Comment by Roadiepig Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:15 pm
Math isn’t unconstitutional. When there is not enough money to pay for something, one way or the other, it won’t get paid.
Comment by Sam I am Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:20 pm
–I was an internationally recognized expert in my field. I was paid decent by the State but I worked for 50% to 100% less than I could have gotten in the private sector in exchange for the pension and health cares promises.–
You worked for 100% less than you could get in the private sector? You were a volunteer? Were you the one making recommendations on pension contributions?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:32 pm
Another point here, which is rarely discussed, is that state employees do not contribute to social security because of their pensions. That means that, when the retire, they will not be entitled to social security benefits, on the basis that they have a state pension instead. Take away the pensions, and it’s a double hit because there is no SS either. I say do away with pensions for new employees–but those that have worked for years did indeed hold up their end of the bargain. Depriving them of their pensions would be unjust and fundamentally unfair. Those in the private sector might complain, but this is the right thing to do.
Comment by the Dark Horse Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:40 pm
==I say do away with pensions for new employees==
The state cannot afford to do this. It would require the state to pay FICA payroll tax which would be more than they promised to pay (but did not) for the pension systems currently in place.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:45 pm
Let’s put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to change the protected status. I sure it would win 80%-20%. This has to happen.
Comment by Reform is needed. Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:49 pm
For some it is not always the money. Some would like to help their fellow man become better and improve their lot in life. True teachers and researchers see this as their purpose in life. Many are capable, particularly researchers to command larger salaries. They are attracted to universities because of the stability during and the retirement after their tenure. When the stability of employment and retirement is destroyed what is the impetus to get these people to stay in classrooms and teach the best and brightest? Remember they cost too much? Who will pick up the research for aids? Who will pick up the research for cancer? Who will train nurses to staff our hospitals? Remember they are too expensive. Someday we will all be forced to look beyond the money.
Comment by Griz Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 2:51 pm
here is a link to general assembly retirement system http://www.state.il.us/srs/GARS/retireben_gars.htm and when they die, their spouse gets 66% of the retirement pay.
here is the link for their healh coverage
http://www.state.il.us/srs/PDFILES/brochures/garsins.pdf
not only do they qualify for a pension with only 4 years service, read about the bump they get after being retired 1 year with over 20 years service, instead of a 3% increase , it is 3% for every year over 20 added together. So if they have 25 years the bump after 1 year of retirement would be 15%! they get paid health, dental, vision and basic life insurance.
What is needed is to have only one retirement system and all state workers receive the exact same benifits, not different ones for judges, general assembly, teachers and rank and file workers.
Comment by nothing but banter Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 3:16 pm
Dark horse: I think you might need to insert some qualifiers in your comment of 2:40. As it is written, it appears to me to be incorrect.
Comment by One of the 35 Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 3:23 pm
What goes with the continuing craziness on here among normally thoughtful commentary? Most state employees DO participate in social security, and the state pays its employer share like every other employer. Geez, does anybody know how to play this game?
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 4:06 pm
Coudln’t read the SJR editorial, refuse to deal with their ridiculous new paywall.
You’re not going to reduce anything contractually promised to state workers in a binding contract where one party contributes years of their life and the other pays them for it. You’ll sooner be able to repeal the laws of gravitation. Cullerton knows this. Mike does too; I have to believe this is just a stalling tactic on Madigan’s part and some kind of PR ploy. He knows this idea of reducing bennies to the old workers after the fact is D.O.A.
Comment by Newsclown Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 4:23 pm
I know that as a member of TRS there is no payment to Social Security. Also, I find the whole 401k argument lame because the state seems content on not paying any match…had the state paid their fair share from day 1 then I could understand the sentiment of business taking this away…but Rich how much more do the CEO’s in business (before their golden parachutes) make than the average worker? The reality which needs to be addressed is that the government’s relationship with business has resulted in the elimination of the middle class, and I am to be oh so thankful to humbly take what scraps are thrown to me. Well no thanks…I believe that business can do better. Maybe if you actually paid a worker a decent wage instead of outsourcing everything people would have money to buy things.
Last week I watched David Stockman, Reagan’s master of trickle down economics, on Bill Maher’s show and he said it best: The Republican party has mastered the war on taxes but miserably failed in the war on spending. I mean how much money is spent to give campaign workers and cronies jobs at our expense? What honest cuts and paring down of our services are we open to looking at before elimination of pension payments?
Comment by Double D Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 4:28 pm
Thank you Steve! That was really bugging me. Pot and the Dark Horse - virtually all SERS members, with the exception of police and firefighters, contribute to social security. TRS and SURS members do not contribute to social security, but they pay a higher employee contribution rate and get a higher retirement formula.
Comment by Correction Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 4:33 pm
Thanks, Steve. I was otherwise occupied and missed those goofy comments.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 4:53 pm
and very few TRS members are state employees
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 5:00 pm
I have worked for the Dept. of Corrections for 27 years. I have done a job that many many people have told me they would never be able to do. What do you consider fair and equitable for a pension for the years I have fought inmates, chased escapees, quelled disturbances, stopped escape attempts in progress, had urine and feces thrown on me, suffered broken bones, knee and back damage? Why would you seem to think that people who work in prisons should have to work well into their 60’s, when they have to control violent inmates who are in their 20’s and 30’s? What prison cell houses in the state have you been in that should be walked by Officers for 40 years, well into their 60’s? Remember, when you talk about “State Employees” you speak about all of the ones, whether they have sat in an office in a job that was made up for them, or actually worked to keep you safe. The problem can not be fixed by generalitys. It has to be broken down, examined fully, and fix the many problems that do need fixing, without just screwing the people who have actually worked and earned what they have coming. We did not create this problem. The people who did have a much better pension plan than we do. Lets start with reforming the elected officials plan, and go from there.
I stated this from my point of view, but there are more. How old should a Game Warden be before he shouldnt be walking through the woods in the winter time? How old should a State Trooper be before he can stop working the road?
I agree there are many many places cuts should be made, but across the board screwings is not the answer.
Comment by So IL M Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 5:01 pm
–threatens the rule of law–
–The ‘rule of law’ bus left the station along time ago, my friend. –
–Since when do illinois democrats care about the rule of law? –
Aren’t you supposed to throw “worse than Egypt” in with that?
What happened to “U-Haul,” anyway? Send out a memo or something.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 5:21 pm
But TRS pensions are a state responsibility/liability.
Comment by piling on Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 5:31 pm
Before our fearless legislators take on real pension reform, perhaps they should cut their teeth on lower hanging (very low) fruit–state retiree health care. Starting in 2014, there will be no need to subsidize early retiree health insurance (which is now premimum-free to the employees, cheap for dependents) because all Americans will have access to state insurance pools, regardless of health status. If we want to be generous, we could pay a cash subsidy to help pay for the post-retirement insurance premiums until Medicare kicks in. However, since most early retirement is optional, not sure why we would do that, and not sure why we would, starting 2014, treat a 40 year old who leaves state service after 5 years any differently from a 62 year old who leaves after 20.All will be eligible for state insurance pools.
Is this too much for our Democratic leaders. Probably. AFSCME will huff and puff and they and Governor Pat will all fall down.
Comment by cassandra Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 5:35 pm
If they are considering retro changes, then why not go back and reduce the monthly pensions of those based on salaries (single or combined) of $100,000 or more who are receiving $3,000 plus per month? They are the ones with the “fatcat” pensions and most served in appointed, not merit positions! The rest of the majority of rank state employees did give up the bonuses and salaries earned in the private sector during the “good economic days” when the private sector was free to earn whatever it could versus the public sector which was shackled to small increases. If any changes are considered it should be using a means test, because there are a lot of lower rank state employees who survive in a one-income household (versus two-person) and who attained the only job their educational level got them at the time, who would not qualify for an equal private position. The drain on the state isn’t from these lower rank state employees; it is from paying the “fatcat” pensions!
Comment by Susan Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 5:48 pm
===$3,000 plus per month===
3K is about the average, I think. You may have to reevaluate your thinking.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 5:50 pm
Many comments remind me of the legal geniuses who were so sure Rahm would never be on the ballot. If only there was a chief justice of the court of blog comment opinion …
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 6:27 pm
===of the legal geniuses who were so sure Rahm would never be on the ballot.===
You mean the appellate court?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 6:54 pm
In other words, there was a pretty legit disagreement there. Even election lawyers who weren’t involved in the case thought there was a chance that Rahm could be kicked off.
So, take a breath.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 6:55 pm
Firing all state employees…. what a way to treat people. There are a great number of state employees who are college educated, and have technical skills, and could work just about anywhere… if they were willing to relocate to do it. Many of them took the state employment for the benefits of working for a large local employer. Just because they work for the state does not mean they should work for less than the market driven salary and benefits. If you really want to treat your employees, yes I said YOUR EMPLOYEES in such a manner as to fire them all, then you should expect the best and the brightest current employees to leave, and the best and brightest prospective employees to refuse to apply. Once you remove a pension and replace it with a 401K (which is portable), there is no loyalty incentive. Many people will work 5 years to get their vested match, and then move on to a higher paying company.
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 6:57 pm
I work for the State and plan to retire at the end of 6/12 at age 66 with almost thirty years, 23 1/2 as an attorney. I am a “child” of the 60’s and was inspired by JFK to consider doing for my country. Due to the benefits I was promised I decided to forgo the high salary in the private sector because I could be comfortable in retirement. I still don’t make as much as a beginning associate in a private firm and don’t know any front line attorney who does. If I did I make what is paid in the private sector I could afford my own retirement plan. After 30 years I should be told sorry but the State didn’t contribute what it was legally required to do so pork projects and other things the legislature preferred to spend my money on you loose? If this was private industry the entire legislature might be looking at prison time.
Comment by soon to retire state employee Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 7:08 pm
–If this was private industry the entire legislature might be looking at prison time.–
No, they would be petitioning the bankruptcy judge for bonuses, a la Tribune Co., United Airlines and other corporations that gambled away their ESOPS or walked away from pension plans.
No matter how you slice it folks, it’s a lot colder out here in private sector land when it comes to security of any kind. Hence, the general public indifference or outright hostility to the subject of public employee pensions.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 7:29 pm
If there was a 401K where the employer used what were supposed to be matching contributions for other purposes and didn’t make the contributions I think jail would be in the picture. That is what the legislature has done. Employees have made their legally required contributions. The State has not going back to Governor Thompson so they could fund other projects. Same thing. By the way I was a prosecutor for 9 years prior to going to the State and prosecuted financial crimes.
Comment by soon to retire state employee Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 7:36 pm
–If there was a 401K where the employer used what were supposed to be matching contributions for other purposes and didn’t make the contributions I think jail would be in the picture. That is what the legislature has done.–
Employer 401k contributions are discretionary; they don’t have to make any.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 7:59 pm
The State’s contributions were not discretionary, multiple laws required they be made and they were not going back to Governor Thompson.
Comment by soon to retire state employee Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 8:21 pm
I don’t know what “most” employees get by way of social security- but I do know that teachers, if they lose their pensions, will not have SS benefits because they have not been paying in. So, at least with regard to many pensioners (teachers, and others), my comment was 100% correct. Where is the fairness in that?
Comment by Dark Horse Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 8:39 pm
lock the current pension values for present employees. over the next ??? make the payments to funds that value. then from this point forward, current and all new employee earn pension at the new rate….
Comment by 13TH Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 9:00 pm
The current system is not prohibitively expensive. You can like it or not think its a good idea, but you can’t say it is too expensive. The question of whether employees contribute enough or not is subjective, and is the subject of collective bargaining between the State and its unions.
The question of whether the State contributes enough is not subjective. The simple and indisputable fact is that it hasn’t for many years. It is going to have to make up those contributions regardless of any changes going forward.
What is very expensive is the effectively debt service on the contributions the state didn’t make, the annual (mostly unpaid) cost of which is over 6 billion dollars.
Until people understand the basic facts about the current system, much of this dialogue is just jibberish.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 9:31 pm
Totally agree with “Nothing but Banter”. It would be nice if Speaker Madigan put forth a good faith effort for everyone to share the pain and give GA members the same deal he wants to foist on the workers.
Comment by Hawkeye Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 10:15 pm
….along that line. Why doesn’t anyone ask him directly, on the record, whether or not he intends to include the other retirement systems in this strategy, particularly the GA’s system.
Comment by Hawkeye Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 10:17 pm
Steve - thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my ignorance. I am most familiar with SURS and TRS and did not realize that most state employees are in Social Security. (Are the Chicago teachers in or out?)
Nevertheless, those two (or three) systems have a lot of employees. While their employers (colleges, universities, schools) would have to pick up the cost of FICA, they rely on combination of state funding, local taxes, & or tuition. The impact of having that added expense would put a significant burden on the system. The schools and community colleges would be able to raise property taxes. It will be interesting to see if that results in changes to TRS and SURS being less than changes to the other systems.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:02 pm
Wordslinger, Yes, I really did work for that much less. I was paid enough to have a middle class life style but nothing extravagant. I didn’t buy a new car or new house the past 30 years, just used one’s within my budget. As I said in another post, some of it was personal choices to stay near family.
However, if I had taken those other jobs, I would be in either Jacksonville, FL, Austin, TX or Silicon Valley today. Looking at the snow outside, maybe that would have been a good thing.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:36 pm
I agree with wordslinger - it is much, much colder out in private sector land than at the state. Without a doubt. I have been both and back again.
That said, it is also quite true that in good times, state employees get their little incremental boosts and a holiday party in the shabby worn conference room at the end of the hall for an hour… private industry booms and zooms in the good times…
Some people chose and choose government because they remember the story of the tortoise and the hare, of slow and steady wins the race.
No one has a crystal ball, but some chose state employ b/c it held more certainties, albeit less upside.
Well, you take away the certainties… yikes.
Better tighten up that revolving door policy to the point that it is essentially indentured servitude.
Comment by Peter Snarker Thursday, Feb 10, 11 @ 11:50 pm