Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: About last night
Next Post: Some vetoes among Governor’s bill actions
Posted in:
By Barton Lorimor Email | @bartonlorimor
* CPS and CTU have agreed to bring mediators into the ongoing contract negotiations…
“We continue to look forward to productive conversations as we work toward an agreement that protects our classrooms, our teachers’ pensions and the taxpayers,” district spokeswoman Emily Bittner said. “Mediation is often productive in helping parties bridge their disagreements.”
Because the Chicago Teachers Union has deemed picking up all 7 percent of its pension costs at once as “strikeworthy,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel confirmed Wednesday that CPS CEO Forrest Claypool will propose stretching out the change over several years.
“It’s one of those things that the parties do when you don’t have a contract done, by law,” said CTU attorney Robert Bloch. “We could settle through mediation, that could get it done.”
Mediation is the first of several steps required before a strike can occur. The CTU has not yet held a strike authorization vote by its members.
* Meanwhile, We Are One chairman Michael Carrigan has an editorial in today’s SJ-R bashing the Governor for vetoing the arbitration bill…
The use of an independent arbitrator is a common and time-tested way to resolve contract disputes. The same fair process that SB 1229 offers to all state employees has been used for police officers, firefighters and prison security staff in Illinois for more than 30 years.
Unfortunately, Gov. Rauner has employed a lot of misinformation in his effort to defeat the bill. Contrary to his claims, there are many safeguards to ensure arbitration is fair. Among them, the governor and union mutually select the independent arbitrator, who has to take the state’s financial condition into account in crafting the fairest possible result for both sides.
The governor says the bill is not needed because he won’t lock out state workers. Tellingly, however, he never says he won’t try to impose demands so extreme that employees essentially are forced out on strike
* Related…
* New CPS CEO Forrest Claypool lines up leadership team: Andrell Holloway, a former CTA official who supervised internal audits, has taken a similar position at the school district at a $191,000 annual salary.
Another hire from the CTA is Doug Kucia, who resumes his role as Claypool’s chief of staff. Kucia, a longtime aide to Claypool during his time as a Cook County commissioner and head of CTA, has an office adjacent to Claypool’s executive suite at CPS’ downtown headquarters and will make $175,000 a year.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 7:39 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: About last night
Next Post: Some vetoes among Governor’s bill actions
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Kudos to Claypool and Mayor for seeking a peaceful resolution.
Cheers to Carrigan for calling out Rauner. As numerous court orders attest, our state’s human services sector provides critical, lifesaving and life altering work. It makes sense to apply the same arbitration standards to those employees that prohibit them from striking that we apply to prison guards and police.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 8:18 am
SB 1229 is not something new, nor is it a plot against the taxpayers. As Carrigan mentions, Interest arbitration has long existed as the sole means for resolving contract disputes for publicly employed security officers, peace officers, and fire fighters in Illinois. Under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA), these groups of employees cannot strike in the event that they reach impasse during negotiations with their employers. Instead, since its enactment in 1984, Section 14 of the IPLRA has required that these employees and their employers participate in mediation and interest arbitration proceedings. Pursuant to this statutory framework, the parties begin mediation if a new agreement has not been reached. If a mediator cannot resolve the dispute, either party may request binding interest arbitration.
Since on financial issues, the arbitrator goes with one side’s offer or the other, arbitration tends to at least bring the two sides a lot closer together, even if they can’t settle on the final terms of a contract. This bill merely extends to state employees what is already done throughout the state with police and firemen. One can see all of the arbitration decisions that have taken place with Illinois police and firefighter vs villages, etc. at: http://www.state.il.us/ilrb/subsections/arbitration/IntArbAwardSummary.htm
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 8:26 am
I like the idea of arbitration in principle, but in a state as badly governed and, er, ethically challenged as this one, in which politicians of both parties are obsessed with finding ways to raise taxes on the middle class while saving themselves and their cronies, it’s hard to believe that any arbitrator would be independent.
The lack of trust in Illinois state government is one of the most pernicious outcomes of the Ryan-Blago-Quinn years, and its effects are going to be with us for a long time.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 8:36 am
Cassandra, local government entities have trusted this kind of arbitration for police and firemen since 1984, and I haven’t heard any complaints from local government.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 8:47 am
—
The lack of trust in Illinois state government is one of the most pernicious outcomes of the Ryan-Blago-Quinn years, and its effects are going to be with us for a long time.
—
Sure, because you can certainly trust Rauner.
Comment by Macbeth Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 8:51 am
==but in a state as badly governed and, er, ethically challenged as this one, in which politicians of both parties are obsessed with finding ways to raise taxes on the middle class while saving themselves and their cronies, it’s hard to believe that any arbitrator would be independent.==
So…leave it in the hands of those politicians, then?
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 8:56 am
So the State Arbitration bill lasts only for four years, or the term of one Bruce Rauner. Other than that, it didn’t exist in the past with state union employee negotiations.
And that “Arbitration bill” is spun as a “common and time tested way to resolve contract disputes.” LOL!
Go back to the negotiating table. Cut the crap.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:03 am
The claim that the bill prevents a strike is misleading. There was exception language in the bill that would have allowed the union to still strike for a time period. This was a terrible bill weighted heavily in AFSCME’s favor
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:06 am
==Go back to the negotiating table. Cut the crap.==
Indeed. There aren’t any real negotiations going on. Until both the state and the union sit down and have serious negotiations we’ll continue this stalemate. Neither is yet willing to give up their pipe dream demands.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:07 am
==So the State Arbitration bill lasts only for four years, or the term of one Bruce Rauner.==
1) Rauner will probably win a second term.
2) There is a mechanism to amend bills as they’re considered.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:08 am
==And that “Arbitration bill” is spun as a “common and time tested way to resolve contract disputes.” LOL!==
Louis, I guess you don’t consider since 1984, a long time? Why don’t you take a look at the results of Illinois government arbitration hearings with local police and firemen at:
http://www.state.il.us/ilrb/subsections/arbitration/IntArbAwardSummary.htm
before you laugh them off.
I’m guessing you prefer Rauner’s anti-union stance and agenda and that is the reason you don’t like this arbitration bill? It would punch a hole in the Governor’s anti-union agenda.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:22 am
Why would any of our esteemed pols want to go back to the bargaining table. From their perspective, “the arbitrator made me do it” is their perfect defense against criticism of any controversial outcomes. Our political masters want to take no risks at all of losing their good life. Why do your job, when somebody else will do it for you, for free.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:25 am
==Go back to the negotiating table. Cut the crap.==
That would be good advice for Rauner concerning the state budget. However, if the General Assembly can’t get Rauner to the negotiating table for a state budget - he’s holding the budget hostage for his anti-union agenda — then why should we expect the Governor to come to the bargaining table with AFSCME for contract negitiations? The Gov’s actions with his refusing to negotiate a state budget is proof that a bill like SB 1229 is needed.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:27 am
A question. If the veto stands and an impasse is called on 10/1 or later, IDOC will be covered by arbitration eveb if no one else is (chose IDOC because AFSCME). Using 38k as total #state employees and IDOC has 12337 according to itap or 32% of payroll. Are we going to have 2 contracts? How would that play out? Especially regarding healthcare for retirees?
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:30 am
@Joe M, there was a public safety purpose for police and fire unions back in 1984. It would be a stretch to try to claim a public safety purpose now for AFSCME that would mirror or rise to the same level as a lack of police and fire protection.
I do not agree to all of Rauner’s turn around proposals concerning unions. I do agree that there has to be some serious changes to union contract rules in Illinois to push the state forward.
The Arbitration bill pushed by AFSCME in the legislature designed to tip the balance of current negotiations to their favor FOR THIS GOVERNOR ONLY is pure crap.
Go back and negotiate. Some negotiations are tougher than others. Both sides need to put their big boy pants back on and sit down and get serious.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:30 am
Maybe Madigan and Rauner should try arbitration.
Comment by Michael Westen Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:31 am
@Joe M, ===”The Gov’s actions with his refusing to negotiate a state budget is proof that a bill like SB 1229 is needed.===”
Now you are comparing oranges to bananas. Last I heard, the Governor isn’t refusing to negotiate a state budget. The Governor is linking portions of his “Turn Around Agenda” as part of his negotiations.
It is the Democrats who control the legislature that seem to be having an allergic reaction to (1) jump start the Illinois economy and make the state a little bit more business friendly, and (2) actually balancing a budget. Or did we forget how the State ran out of cash for many programs this part March because they deliberately passed a budget filled with red ink?
If Rauner signs the budget proposed by the Legislature, will the State run of out cash this year by the Christmas Holidays or Valentine’s Day?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:37 am
More reasons we need SB 1229.
“We may have to go through rough times. We may have to do what Ronald Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. Sort of have to do a do-over and shut things down for a little while. That’s what we’re gonna do.” - Bruce Rauner
“”I may have to take a strike and shut down the government for a few weeks and kinda redo everybody’s contract. That’s a possibility…I will do it proudly.” - Bruce Rauner
Does that sound like someone who wants to bargain in good faith?
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:41 am
==If Rauner signs the budget proposed by the Legislature, will the State run of out cash this year by the Christmas Holidays or Valentine’s Day?==
If Rauner had gotten passed and signed his own budget proposal the State would also run out of cash only a month or two later. GA’s 4 billions shortfall vs Rauner’s 3.2 billion shortfall. So yes, $800 million would get us another month or two.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:44 am
@Joe M, “===Does that sound like someone who wants to bargain in good faith?===”
Saw the proposals AFSCME has posted here and elsewhere. If AFSCME wants to be perceived as bargaining in good faith, it should (1) start moving away from some of those provisions which were real eye openers, and (2) stop “judge shopping” for a friendly Arbitrator to gain an unfair advantage only while Rauner (and no one else) is governor.
So far Rauner has agreed twice to continue negotiating with AFSCME. What’s the problem here?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:49 am
SB 1229 didn’t come out of an ideological vacuum. It was a response to Rauner’s anti-union agenda, which reportedly was to eliminate unions from Illinois. Something funny happened on the way to that, though. Grassroots activism stopped his anti-union policies at the local government level. The GA crushed right to work. Nothing that unions won under Rauner were given to them by him. He had to be stopped by force.
Now let’s first see if the Senate has enough votes to override the veto, and the same with the House. Madigan said the votes are there, but there two Democratic state reps who are sick, and there’s Rep. Franks. Let’s see what Republican legislators do when the bill is called. Let’s see if they are different than the so-called “insiders” Rauner attacks, who march in lockstep to the drumbeat of unions (like they did with pension reform).
Why does it bother people if SB 1229 becomes law? Is it because some want draconian anti-union policies, and some want to eliminate unions? If that’s the case, then the bill is more than justified.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:53 am
Louis
No offense but let’s not act like the contract negotiations are in a vacuum. Had Rauner declared an impasse and forced his last proposal on AFSCME prior to the veto logic would dictate that his chaces of the veto standing would decrease dramatically. I would say those extensions are less good faith and more good politics.
From Rich’s reporting they are far from a reasonable give and take. And yes both sides staked out unreasonable positions that should have been left behind back in June.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 9:58 am
==What’s the problem here?==
If you want my opinion (and nobody asked for it) I believe the union would get serious about negotiations if the Governor took his healthcare proposal off the table.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 10:12 am
==What’s the problem here?==
For starters:
- Rauner demanding that state and state university employees double what they pay towards their health ins premiums. 40% of their health ins premiums vs the average of 19% they have been paying. The Kaiser Foundation reports that nationally employees pay 16-18% of the premium in employer based health ins probrams.
- demanding that state and state university employees be put in 60/40 health ins plans where the employee pays 40% of medical bills.
- and many other things as mentioned at:
https://capitolfax.com/2015/05/26/afscme-rauner-wants-to-force-a-strike/
Granted, Rauner claims he has dropped his plan to use the contract to force Tier I pension plan employees into Tier II. But that is not really a concession since it would have been illegal anyway.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 10:15 am
My problem with Rauner is assuming he means what he said: Arbitration leads to the “dictatorship of the teachers’ union.”
It appears the negotiators are acting
professionally, if slowly. But it also appears the Governor doesn’t understand unions or labor relations at all.
Comment by walker Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 10:24 am
Louis, the bill does not allow AFSCME to go “’judge shopping’ for a friendly Arbitrator to gain an unfair advantage”
Arbitrators have to be agreed upon by both sides. I assume they would come from this list:
http://www.state.il.us/ilrb/subsections/arbitration/roster.htm
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 10:26 am
If one looks at the police and firemen arbitration hearings that routinely take place at:
http://www.state.il.us/ilrb/subsections/arbitration/IntArbAwardSummary.htm
they will see that it is pretty evenly spit as to whether the arbitrator chooses the employers or the employees final offer. And if one opens up and reads the full report of each of those hearings they will see that the arbitrator really is independently studying the issues and spending a great deal of time on them before issuing a decision. It will require reading some very long arbitration reports, but perhaps some of you should invest a little reading time before you dismiss the idea of arbitration.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 10:37 am
=Some negotiations are tougher than others.=
Louis, the statement above is so true, especially in the current economic climate (for public sector).
I was part of a rough one last year. Through it all I never felt like I needed to attack the union or call anyone corrupt.
The union made some interesting statement that reinforced my belief that they were somewhat out of touch with economic realities. I was not surpised by that either. Their role is to teach students not to spend day and night on the business end of the district. I share information, through out the year, as well as open access to our books. But their role is different. I think, in many ways, there are parallels hear. The rank and file employee has a much more limited framework than management. It has an impact on bargaining, it just does. I don’t expect the rank and file to have the depth of knowledge, not because they are incapable because that is not true, just that it is not their normal function.
If you have any interest in a high functioning team, ever, it seems unwise to excoriate them from the word go, to attack their union and then expect them to come back like it didn’t happen.
And, unions can and do say some pretty silly, wrong headed things as well. I still cannot get Karen Lewis’ “murder mayor” out of my head. Inexcusable. Unproductive.
Somebody has to keep their head, I think you have to lead by example and hope to change the culture that way (if you think a culture change is needed).
And, don’t get me wrong, you have to hang tough sometimes. I am no kitten at the table. It is bargaining though, not telling and not a burn contest.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 10:52 am
Louis G I agree the union needs to move from its unreasonable stance. That said the governor needs to also move from his unreasonable stance on employee health care costs. A negotiation requires movement by both. The challenge with this governor is he dictates and does not negotiate. This is what is frustrating the legislature (on both sides of the aisle) as well as the current negotiations with AFSCME.
Comment by illinifan Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 11:01 am
“move from its unreasonable stance.” I’m assuming you’re referring to the 3% raises or whatever it was? According to the last burst or press releases, they haven’t even gotten to that part of the negotiations. So with that in mind, what AFSCME non-economic demands are “unreasonable?”
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 11:21 am
“===The challenge with this governor is he dictates and does not negotiate.===”
For this comment and many more who are more frustrated with Rauner’s intransigence and not the intransigence of AFSCME, take the ideology out on both sides. Both sides are ENTITLED to their ideological positions. The “we are eliminating Rauner’s ideology so we can facilitate a union agreement by imposing one on the State of Illinois (not Rauner for those who have made this personal)” is not negotiating, and is in fact even more harmful to this state. It opens the door to mischief in future negotiations and ultimately what we tax payers (remember them?) will pay as a result of these shenanigans.
Get back and negotiate. A tough negotiation means you have to work harder. This will anger many here, but public sector unions aren’t used to being pushed back to this degree, and they need to face the new reality.
When I first started in law, the firm I was with represented several unions. The principal of the firm ended up being president of one of those unions. I understand the union mentality of “we are not giving that up, we fought too hard for it.” And I am not critical of that mentality. But in this economic climate and rapid world economic changes, the union should return to the table and start talking along the lines of “we will give you this . . . if you give us . . .”
Just a suggestion that I am sure will fall on deaf ears.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 11:30 am
“===According to the last burst or press releases, they haven’t even gotten to that part of the negotiations.===”
Sad, isn’t it? Still squabbling over work rules, some of which are antiquated and need to be changed. But the no brainer changes aren’t happening because . . . ?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 11:31 am
Counselor Atsaves, point taken about mutual entitlement to ideological positions. As to your comment “Get back and negotiate. A tough negotiation means you have to work harder.”, I’m going to make some assumptions so correct me if I’m wrong. 1) You are not involved in the current contract negotiations. 2) You do not know of anyone involved in the current contract negotiations.3) You have never been involved in contract negotiations on the scale of the current contract negotiations. Fair assumptions? If those assumptions are correct I can hardly see how you could in all fairness give advice about the current contract negotiations when you are not involved in them, do not know anyone involved in them, or even have a reasonable basis for comparison from personal experience. No counselor, I think you are pontificating. I on the other hand, talk regularly with several of the negotiators on the union side. They have been absolutely tight lipped about specifics, as required by law, despite my best efforts to learn them. (and no not tightlipped because it would make the union look bad. Because I asked about those things as well) But what I have learned is that the negotiations have been without question hard fought, exhausting, and contentious! Both sides are slugging it out. So I don’t feel that your suggestion to “return to the table and start talking along the lines of “we will give you this . . . if you give us . . .” is valid. It’s not that your suggestion will fall on deaf ears. It’s that those with standing will see your suggestion as ridiculous and dismiss it.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 12:23 pm
Louis -
If Rauner can’t negotiate with the union and come to a resolution without threatening them with a lock-out, then 1) he’s not negotiating and 2) he is not up to the job of governing.
Anyone who believes you get better outcomes by threatening those you are negotiating with has never been involved in serious negotiations and apparently was in a sensory deprivation chamber for the entire CTU debacle.
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 12:39 pm
I see all the time the comment that “taxpayers can’t afford” this or that. The problem with that statement is that this is a government organized by voters, not taxpayers. Not every voter pays state taxes (such as retirees and active military for instance) and not every taxpayer (such as corporations) gets to vote.
As a taxpayer, you are paying for the privilege to live in Illinois and you don’t have a say in government. While voters do have a say.
Granted a taxpayer can move in the hopes of earning a higher net income. However according to recent studies, while Republican states have more jobs, Democrat states have better paying ones.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 12:52 pm
Rauner didn’t exactly create an impression that he was negotiating in good faith when on July 8th he proposed:
From Gov. Bruce Rauner’s pension reform bill…
Prohibited subjects of bargaining.
(a) A public employer and a labor organization MAY NOT BARGAIN OVER, and no collective bargaining agreement entered into, renewed, or extended on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly may include, provisions related to the following prohibited subjects of collective bargaining:
(1) Employee pensions, including the impact or implementation of changes to employee pensions, including the Employee Consideration Pension Transition Program as set forth in Section 30 of the Personnel Code.
(2) Wages, including any form of compensation including salaries, overtime compensation, vacations, holidays, and any fringe benefits, including the impact or implementation of changes to the same; except nothing in this Section 7.6 will prohibit the employer from electing to bargain collectively over employer-provided health insurance.
(3) Hours of work, including work schedules, shift schedules, overtime hours, compensatory time, and lunch periods, including the impact or implementation of changes to the same.
(4) Matters of employee tenure, including the impact of employee tenure or time in service on the employer’s exercise of authority including, but not limited to, any consideration the employer must give to the tenure of employees adversely affected by the employer’s exercise of management’s right to conduct a layoff.
https://capitolfax.com/2015/07/09/the-mother-of-all-poison-pills/
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 1:54 pm
“===As a taxpayer, you are paying for the privilege to live in Illinois and you don’t have a say in government. While voters do have a say.===”
So taxpayers are prohibited from voting? Taxpayers have no say in government? At all? Ever?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 2:19 pm
@Honeybear, I’m a ridiculous type of guy. All my union activity was in the private sector representing unions with manufacturing jobs that slowly vanished as the years progressed. When I left that firm those unions were feeling some serious pain from loss of membership as jobs moved across the border, or to southern states, or factories shut down in favor of Mexico and other foreign countries.
Recent history hasn’t been very kind to private sector unions and public sector unions should be considering new ways to face new realities, or they may find themselves suffering the same fate.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 2:26 pm
Joe M those four points to be imposed at the determination of the local governmental body are the root of the problem. Once a property tax freeze is in place there will be no choice but to impose the bargaining restrictions, fait accompli.
Comment by Rod Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 2:30 pm
I am in the middle here. sort of
I think the Gov should ne be seeking to remove collective bargaining rights, and needs to drop his push for these laws.
I think the Union should not be seeking to remove managements rights by pushing for forced arbitration, which is just the union version of what Rauner is doin. this arb bill would be horrible for the State. it would give a person over whom voters have not control the ability to grant or give away State money and resources. Just horrible.
I would support a compromise on this legislation. In the Event of a Stalemate instead of arbitration the matter would be heard by a State Panel comprised of elected members of the General Assembly. The gop would select 2 from the house and senate, the Dems would select 2 from the house and the senate, and a 5th person would be elected from the house by a majority vote of dem and repubs, and could be from either party.
this 5 person panel of elected officials would arbitrate If and only if the parties were at impasse.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 3:08 pm
Louis,
Can you provide some examples of the antiquated work rules AFSCME is squabbling over.
Comment by tired of politics Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 3:34 pm
==this arb bill would be horrible for the State. it would give a person over whom voters have not control the ability to grant or give away State money and resources. Just horrible.==
Ghost, once again, this type of arbitration has been done successfully in Illinois at the local government level since 1984 for police and firemen. Local government hasn’t complained. Voters haven’t complained. The unions haven’t complained. I don’t understand what you are complaining about?
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 3:39 pm
The robo calls to “tell Senator McCann” and “tell Rep. Poe” are burning up my phone line.
Comment by Liberty Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 3:54 pm
==this arb bill would be horrible for the State. it would give a person over whom voters have not control the ability to grant or give away State money and resources. Just horrible.==
It would take the kids out of the equation. Teacher strikes are settled when the parents say enough is enough. This time around there will be no public support for the teachers when they find our teachers only pay 2% for their pensions not the 9% they were. They negotiated that in contract talks. Now it is being re-negotiated.
Comment by Rollo Tamasi Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 4:06 pm
It is my understanding that SB 1229, commonly referred to as the arbitration bill, only deals with current contract negotiations between “the State of Illinois and a unit or units of employees
of State agencies.” It is my understanding that SB 1229 does not deal with teachers or anyone other than state employees of state agencies.
It is a separate story that CPS and CPU have agreed to bring in mediators. Also, that CPS/CPU story doesn’t involve mandatory arbitration - it only involves mediation.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Aug 14, 15 @ 4:16 pm