Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: AG Madigan cites legal precedent in response to Rauner promise
Next Post: He said, she said
Posted in:
* Press release…
Statement of AFSCME Council 31 executive director Roberta Lynch:
“Although there is no budget in place for the fiscal year beginning July 1, the public services that Illinois residents rely on must continue without disruption, and our union has been working to ensure just that. State employees will remain on the job, and as we have done in the past, AFSCME has prepared to take legal action to ensure that they are paid for their work on time and in full.
“But the lack of a budget still poses a real threat to the public good. We are extremely concerned about the harm to children, families and seniors served by state-funded nonprofit agencies, including those where more than 5,000 AFSCME members provide disability care, mental health treatment and other services, which face uncertainty and the threat of damaging cuts.
“The current situation can’t go on indefinitely. We urge the governor to stop demanding that the General Assembly approve his unrelated agenda items that would harm the middle class as a precondition to budget talks, and instead work with lawmakers to fairly fund state government and the important services it provides.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 3:36 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: AG Madigan cites legal precedent in response to Rauner promise
Next Post: He said, she said
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Who” will be the defendant? Title?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 3:38 pm
“unaware”
Donald Trump was delayed seeing table after table of people to offend along the way.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 3:39 pm
Will the Attorney General defend the state against this lawsuit to pay state employees?
Why not simply decline to defend the law, as she did in the marriage case?
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 3:41 pm
AFSCME should not have included that last paragraph. Why pick on the governor when you are already in trouble? Why threaten legal action either? AFSCME has a major PR issue. They shouldn’t be causing attention to themselves when Madigan and Rauner are going all twelve rounds. Sit back for once and see how the cards fall. You have played to many hands the past five years and keep coming back to the table with the same strategy. Pretty soon you will be tapped out and can’t get another marker.
Best move for AFSCME is to show up to work, and if they don’t get paid wait it out. Stay silent and hope a budget gets passed. If you threaten legal action during a lockout when the poor and disabled don’t have crucial services you come off as arrogant and inconsiderate. I doubt AFSCME will do this but it’s their best chance to receive some positive press and be shed in a different light by the media fo once. Rank and file good luck
Comment by Almost the Weekend Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 3:51 pm
I didn’t mean lockout, I meant budget impasse. Apologies for multiple posts
Comment by Almost the Weekend Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 3:52 pm
Roberta Lynch, Official Spokesperson, Status Quo
Comment by nixit71 Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 3:52 pm
Because we don’t get paid if the workers don’t get paid.
Comment by papa2008 Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 3:53 pm
AFSCME should have waited until tomorrow to file a lawsuit. A lot can happen on the last day of the fiscal year.
Comment by Mama Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:04 pm
Previous post says it all.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:04 pm
==Roberta Lynch, Official Spokesperson, Status Quo==
Bruce Rauner, Official Advocate for State Employees (following today’s memo)
/s
Comment by AC Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:05 pm
Mama: It doesn’t say they filed suit, just that they are prepared to.
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:06 pm
My post above should state …AFSCME should have waited until AFTER tomorrow… sorry
Comment by Mama Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:07 pm
- Skeptic, Thank you for clarifying.
Comment by Mama Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:08 pm
“Why not simply decline to defend the law, as she did in the marriage case?”
This is a bad comparison as she declined to defend it because she believed it was unconstitutional … as the Supreme Court in fact JUST RULED FRIDAY. You should pick one where she didn’t turn out to be right.
Comment by Educated in the Suburbs Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:09 pm
- Educated in the Suburbs - Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:09 pm:”
It was not a bad comparison.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:27 pm
“The current situation can’t go on indefinitely.”
While it can’t go on forever, it will definitely go on indefinitely.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:35 pm
—AFSCME should not have included that last paragraph.—
I would have to disagree. I think it is the most important piece of AFSCME’s press release. Everyone in Illinois should be asking the governor to drop any demands that are unrelated to the budget and start hammering out a balanced budget that makes fiscal sense instead of pushing his non-budget ideology. I can see no outcome where holding budget negotiations hostage to push through his ‘Turn Around and Bend Over’ Agenda that doesn’t ultimately leave Rauner wearing this mess.
He has 3 1/2 years left in his term to work out these other issues…if he uses strategy he may be in a better position to negotiate after the 2016 election. Right now he’s hurting his party.
Comment by Bulldog58 Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:42 pm
I guess I’ll show up and then ask cwlp, my landlord, my children’s stomachs, and all my other bills to “sit and wait” it out until a sound, bipartsan agreed upon budget is passed…yeah, that seems like a plan!
Comment by state worker Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:57 pm
AFSCME didn’t read Lisa Madigan’s opinion?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 5:03 pm
- Louis G. Atsaves -,
Is the Attorney General’s opinion solid?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 5:15 pm
OW
-Is the Attorney General’s opinion solid?-
She thinks so…
Comment by Bulldog58 Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 5:17 pm
The comptroller will be the named defendant?
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 5:19 pm
Will Rauner be supporting AFSCME if it comes down to a lawsuit, against Mike and Lisa Madigan, the status quo, the combine?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 5:22 pm
There is a small window here related to the pension lawsuit oddly enough.
The Supreme Court has previously extended the courts authority to order payment of judicial salaries despite the approp law et all where it was necessary to uphold the constitutional protection on judicial salaries. i.e. to protect the constitutional right the court had limited authority to order the State to make a payment without an approp.
There is a very oddly strung together argument you could make that since the constitution protects retirement, and retirement and contributions come from payroll, that payroll be continued in order to protect the constitutional right to retirement benefits…..
Comment by Ghost Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 5:25 pm
The AG’s precedents, (notice that unlike Raunner she actually named them), and position are very strong and very clear in this case. No need to interpret, the courts have made it very clear. I’m not sure what the basis of the appeal would be. Raunner would have no standing but maybe a Hail Mary like Police Powers? That was so compelling in the SB1 case!
Comment by Old and In The Way Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 5:42 pm
Good way to turn state workers against the Madigans.
Comment by Emanuel Can't Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 6:28 pm
===Good way to turn state workers against the Madigans.===
How so? Use your words please.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 6:35 pm
The state workers aren’t going to blame the Madigans. This is all Rauner.
Comment by Greyhound Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 6:57 pm
Ghost, they would be hard pressed to make the analogy that the Jorgenson v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill. 2d 286, 304, 811 N.E.2d 652 (2004) ruling could be a applied here. Jorgenson was a ruling that Blago violated the constitution. Ordering the Comptroller was the remedy for that violation. As you indicated and nicely explained in L. Madigan’s info, ordering the payments would be the violation of the constitution.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 7:46 pm
- Ghost - , while I see how you got there, that would be a pretty long reach. Don’t think it would fly, and if you got a judge to buy it, it would probably be moot by the time is went through all the courts.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 8:29 pm
- Anonymous - Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 4:27 pm
Thanks Anonymous.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Jun 29, 15 @ 9:54 pm
Nice job of Rauner trying to deflect responsibility here.
Comment by ihpsdm Tuesday, Jun 30, 15 @ 7:35 am