Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

CMS blames AFSCME for halt to bonuses

Posted in:

Illinois

* Clever…

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, since the Labor Board’s ruling on November 15 that the State and AFSCME are at impasse, we have begun implementing $1,000 bonuses and other merit pay, instituted bereavement leave, and asked AFSCME to join us in jump-starting workplace safety task forces.

AFSCME responded by going to court to stop the State from implementing these and other common sense measures.

Once employees found out about AFSCME’s efforts, we started receiving questions like this one: “I was curious if the union blocked my $1000.00 bonus that I have earned or if the state was able to issue my check.”

Unfortunately, AFSCME obtained a court order that blocked bonuses, bereavement leave, and workplace safety task forces. On December 5, appearing before a judge who we believe has no jurisdiction to even hear the case, AFSCME got a temporary restraining (TRO) order that blocks the State’s implementation efforts. Until the TRO is lifted, no bonuses may be issued, nor may the State implement any other common-sense proposals.

We will of course vigorously challenge the TRO on appeal and keep you updated on the progress.

Sincerely,
JT

John Terranova
Deputy Director
CMS Office of Labor Relations

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:43 pm

Comments

It is the ultimate spin but at least my charities and I got a chuckle from the email which is more than most of the emails from him.

Comment by Gish Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:47 pm
I don’t know of a single state employee who really thought they’d get a 1000 bonus. What was coming out was a doubling of our health insurance in just the first year retroactive to July AND paying more every year After that.

That everybody believes.

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:48 pm
I love the completely unattributed quotes from employees blaming the union for stopping the administration from implementing the contract prior to the union having the opportunity to vote on it.

Comment by Notorious RBG Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:49 pm
Yes, Illinois state government would truly be a workers paradise were it not for the interference of the fat cat union bosses. (Sigh)

AFSCME needs a clear and concise response that’s easily understood in under 30 seconds by folks not especially familiar with this situation.

Comment by AC Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:50 pm
This sounds more like campaigning than leading. Extraneous comments about the judge and so forth aren’t pertinent to notification that bonuses are stopped.

Comment by Thoughts Matter Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:50 pm
This is to funny. That darn union. I want my 1000 bonus so I can pay 5000 more on healthcare.

Comment by Ezlife Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:50 pm
=AFSCME responded by going to court to stop the State from implementing these and other common sense measures.=

….these and other autocratic measures.

More accurate.

You see, the governor does not know how to negotiate. Corporate raiders only operate from a position of strength when busting out distressed companies.

Negotiating typically happens between two or more parties where one does not have an overwhelming advantage. It isn’t easy but it can be successful.

Rauner can’t do that. He has to be an autocrat, he does not know anything else.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:51 pm
I think that, to employees facing having to pay an extra $8,000-$10,000 annually in health insurance, the $1,000 “bonus” was never more than an insult.

Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:53 pm
== You see, the governor does not know how to negotiate. Corporate raiders only operate from a position of strength when busting out distressed companies. ==

Dead on. +1

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:54 pm
It also stops them from privatizing services at a higher cost to taxpayers since the economic benefit limitation is not in the LBO.

Comment by Steve Polite Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:54 pm
Honeybear, so… do I understand you to say that nobody believes that the administration will abide by the terms of the contract, but everyone believes some totally made up thing that isn’t in the contract?

Bizarre.

Comment by Jack Kemp Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:56 pm
Mr. John Terranova fails to mention article XXXIII NO STRIKES OR LOCKOUTS found on page 203; and subcontrating and privatization of jobs deemed that by the Governor’s office.

Comment by Jc19pd2 Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:57 pm
I still wonder how you give pay raises without an approp.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:58 pm
Its not a lie if you believe it to be true.

Comment by ILGOV2018 Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 1:59 pm
“Blame it on the Terra Nova.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaRlW-jz1QQ

Comment by Deft Wing Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:01 pm
It was obvious as soon as they put it out that they never intended to pay the bonus. $730 or so after taxes isn’t life changing but it would have cost the state around $38,000,000 and would have looked bad. AFSCME let everyone know in advance they’d appeal the LRB decision if they lost. They just want to see if they can peel away anyone who can’t do preschool math.

Comment by A Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:01 pm
AFSCME now can use this email as evidence that the state began implementing its terms before a written decision was issued.

Comment by Mal Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:01 pm
Uncle “JT” (Santa) shows up with our $1,000 Christmas bonus and big bad old AFSCME Union (Grinch) slides down the chimney, punches Santa in the nose and steals it! Bad Union! Bad Union!

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:03 pm
Thoughts matter- it’s my understanding that Bradford the States’ attorney tried the jurisdiction line in court. It obviously didn’t work to well since even AFSCME thought that the TRO would be moot with the written decision from ILRB. Bradford must have wacked off that judge because he made it good till the 13th of Jan. RNUG was right. Challenging a judge like that in court can comeback to bite you.

Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:05 pm
I think those emails are all signed “Allen D”

I love the completely unattributed quotes from employees blaming the union for stopping the administration from implementing the contract prior to the union having the opportunity to vote on it.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:08 pm
This sucks. I had just spent the $1000 on my new cardboard box I was going buying after I just sold my house, at a lose, to afford my heath insurance cost. Damn Union!

Comment by DoITMinion Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:09 pm
However this ends, I would not assume, as a state employee, that my health insurance expenses would not go up substantially as a proportion of total compensation. It seems to be a trend in the private sector as well. And an increase in premium costs for those buying individual policies on the exchanges made headlines in the recent presidential election and may have contributed to the outcome.

In other words, it’s not all about AFSCME vs. the evil mogul.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:10 pm
TRy to play it off like it’s all good things. Doesn’t mention your insurance will more than double.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:11 pm
=== Its not a lie if you believe it to be true. ===

Thank you for the insight Donald.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:20 pm
“AFSCME let everyone know in advance they’d appeal the LRB decision if they lost.”

Correct, and the Rauner trying to implement “last, best final offer” measures such as the bonus and bereavement leave prior to the LRB’s written order was illegal anyway. Nobody believes the union blocked those things, but it plays well with some people anyway.

Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:21 pm
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:08 pm: I think those emails are all signed “Allen D”

None are from me, sorry…. However I still think this is a stall point even though I can agree that the administration was going ahead with implementation procedures prior to the written ruling whether or not they were just getting things done in advance or not, it was incorrect procedure.

Comment by Allen D Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:21 pm
The problem with this email and all prior ones is that it shows the contempt the governor and his people have for the employees. To believe that the employee would not seek out information, read what’s happening, understand union contact is insulting and telling.

Comment by Ex Spsa Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:25 pm
I look at this exactly like the Goldberg letters…

As clever and genius as they are, they are also on direct and equal proportion to it not helping, but encouraging an unhelpful atmosphere.

So…

It’s actually cleverly genius.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:25 pm
Seriously.. an additional $8000-$10,000 a year in insurance costs? Where in the holy hell are you people coming up with this stuff? That is the most ridiculous load of garbage I have ever heard in my life. When was the last time that you had a look at your pay stub? I don’t know anybody working for the State who is paying $8000 a year for their health insurance. Not even close. A young, single, male, non-smoker probably pays $700. Annually. I know a guy who pays $1800 a year for himself, his wife, and his infant son. Go ahead and keep pumping this lie. It will only make the administration look better when they debunk it.

Comment by Jack Kemp Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:29 pm
Lets look at this slightly differently.

Based on calculations posted here here earlier this week, BVR “earned $90,000 per hour based on a 40 hour work week”.

And he is offering $1000 bonuses to “qualified” state employees in exchange for ????

Our Governor made more in 2 seconds than he is offering to our valuable employees in bonuses - you do the math.

Comment by illini Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:29 pm
J-T is a J-O-K-E

Comment by Joe Biden Was Here Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:30 pm
- A little over the top on wielding the 1k bonus worth getting that upset about, but hey - he’s got a point. And honestly this is the first time in decades that AFSCME doesn’t have the better hand. 27 automatic raises, straight through a recessions… AFSCME has won a majority of things the private sector only dreams of. Rauner is finally winning a big battle on behalf of the taxpayer… yes, that’s right. When you reduce costs by billions, while also not screwing over state workers (no one can make the argument that they are or will be struggling due to the result of this contract) than that is a win for everyday taxpayers.

Comment by JustRight Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:34 pm
Really wish there was a way to opt out of this guy’s BS emails. Or at least let us respond to them.

Comment by Fixer Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:34 pm
The emails were sent to state employees but state employees are not the primary audience.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:36 pm
If by “clever” you mean “childish and ridiculous” then, yes, it’s clever.

Comment by Chucktownian Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:40 pm
If they really want to treat the employees to money, just pay us the backpay that we are still owed.

I find it ironic that I got another work survey yesterday and one of the questions was what low cost things can the state due to improve our work atmosphere? I said to stop threatening to reduce our pensions and stop trying to change our contract to allow you to outsource our jobs.

After reflecting, I realize the survey answers could be used to make our lives worse, as it seems the govs office wants us all to leave anyway.

Comment by Anon1234 Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:41 pm
I think Rauner’s compensation and net worth are completely irrelevant to the issues in discussion here. There are many extremely rich men (mostly men)who have sought and won political office in the country. Complaining that he just doesn’t understand regular folks is too easy. But if you believe extreme wealth disqualifies him, I guess you won’t be voting for Pritzker or Kennedy should they run.

Rauner’s methods for achieving an improved business climate in Illinois may not be popular with many, but they are hardly revolutionary and I doubt that they have anything to do with his
lack of concern for the common man. Lots of US CEO’s probably think the same way. Perhaps, the majority.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:43 pm
Cassdandra, You’ve sure got a lot of nerve deviating from the groupthink on display here.

Comment by jim Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:46 pm
Way to go Cassandra, lay it out there. the grasping at a persons status and just that, grasping at straws.

Comment by Allen D Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:51 pm
How is this in 2 courts ar once?. What is going to happen in the St.Clair courts on January 13th while somthing else is happening in the appelate court in Chicago.

Comment by Confused Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:51 pm
== How is this in 2 courts ar once?. What is going to happen in the St.Clair courts on January 13th while somthing else is happening in the appelate court in Chicago. ==

The judges will work out which case / court proceeds. Most likely the St Clair one gets dropped … but because the State ticked off that judge, I suspect he won’t lift the TRO before the specified date.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 2:57 pm
I’ll try for a third time in a more reserved tone, since my first two comments seem to have been nuked.

These comments about paying an extra $5k, $8k, or $10k a year in insurance premiums are by a large margin the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on this blog. Literally ridiculous.

There is, almost certainly, no State employee who is paying anything even close to that in insurance premiums. A young, single, male non-smoker probably pays $700. Annually. One person I know pays under $200 per month for a family of 4. Another pays about $150 for the couple and their infant.

Even if insurance premiums did in fact, double, which is a claim suspect all its own, they’d be looking at a max $2100 a year increase. Sure, that’s nothing to scoff at. Fine. But the absurdity of claiming $10k more a year in insurance? That does not help your case. It only hurts it.

Comment by Jack Kemp Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:10 pm
“no one can make the argument that they are or will be struggling due to the result of this contract”

How is this for struggling. Being unemployed so job can be outsourced at a greater cost. How about you take $200+ out of your pay (retroactive 6 months) just this year. Not to mention raising more unspecified amount later years. But no one will see a hardship from it. What do you consider hardship then?

Comment by Union thug Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:11 pm
To opt out of the Terranova emails, look up his email address in Outlook and ask him to stop distracting you at work. I’m not sure if it’d work but it would be interesting if a lot of people did it.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:20 pm
Jack

It will cost my family and extra 5400 per year. You can look at the rates yourself online. It’s out there for everyone to see

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:21 pm
Terranova would have us believe that a UNION does not want employees to have more money, or safer work conditions? Goebbels would be proud.

Comment by Union Man Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:28 pm
Demoralized,

That is to keep your current plan, correct? My understanding is that there would be an open enrollment with an opportunity to find a different plan at a lower cost. Doesn’t seem at all unreasonable.

Another angle: while I grant that $5k more per year is a lot of scratch, consider the alternatives. I know a guy who thought he was getting laid off (private sector) so he started shopping around for insurance. Premiums *started* at $600 a month just for him with no dependents.

So it goes.

Comment by Jack Kemp Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:32 pm
@Jack Kemp

I pay $216 per month for a family of 2. I am in the next to lowest bracket due to my low salary. Workers with higher pay have higher amounts. My taxable income was $34,000 this year, and another $2500+ per year insurance is quite a chunk for me. Sorry if you don’t feel it is.

BTW, the lowest individual rate I see is $68 per month, which is $816. I don’t know who you know that pays $700 a year but I don’t see how.

Comment by HangingOn Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:38 pm
Jack

it depends upon the salary you make, and whether or not you have more than 1 dependent. I have two, and at my salary the total for health and dental for the 3 of us comes to $316 per month. There is another salary level above me, so at that salary, I’d be paying even more. Doubling would be another $316 per month. However, I believe the deductibles, co-pays and out of pockets were also expected to double or more. If your insurance carrier was a PPO and you had to go out of network, you could end up paying $13,000 out of pocket in addition to any charge deemed over reasonable and customary. That’s where the real increase amounts would come from, not just the premium.

Comment by thoughts matter Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:39 pm
==so he started shopping around for insurance. Premiums *started* at $600 a month just for him with no dependents==

Apples to gorillas. Companies get quantity breaks on insurance. You look for insurance yourself, as an individual, and it will of course be higher. May as well compare what a print shop with 5 employees has to pay compared to Caterpillar. Guess which will get the better rate.

And last I looked I could get Gold level insurance for just myself for $280. Not sure where he was looking. Maybe it had something to do with me not having a high income. *shrug*

Comment by HangingOn Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:43 pm
I didn’t say it was the same. I said it was an alternative. As in, ya know, not the same. As in what other people have to deal with. That was the point.

And this would obviously be with him having *no* income, save maybe a couple months of unemployment bennies. Because he would be, ya know, unemployed.

Comment by Jack Kemp Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 3:50 pm
“The judges will work out which case / court proceeds.”

The January 13 court date is a case management conference.

Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:23 pm
Jack, do a little research before spouting off with zero to back it up. Page 277 of the LB&F offer is where the insurance changes start. It’s available online. Let me know if you have trouble finding it, I’ll be happy to link it to you.

Comment by Fixer Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:29 pm
“My understanding is that there would be an open enrollment with an opportunity to find a different plan at a lower cost. Doesn’t seem at all unreasonable.”

To families with catastrophic illnesses, such as cancer, or families with diabetics, or families with dependents who require constant maintenance meds for clinical depression or other mental illnesses, or families with accident-prone kids who require trips to the ER (current ER co-pay: $250), etc., etc., switching to “a different plan at a lower cost” is not only unreasonable, it is unfeasible.

Lives are at stake here, and life isn’t all beer and skittles outside your little bubble.

Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 4:33 pm
Currently for my family coverage I pay 24% of the premium for health insurance. The average for private sector employer sponsored health insurance is 29%. I would not have a problem with a modest increase to 29% or even slightly more. Rauner wants to double my contribution to 46% of the premium. In addition to that, Rauner wants to impose contract terms for an additional 10% premium increase in 2017 and an additional 10% premium increase in 2018. As for less costly plans, the State has not given specifics on those. The less costly plans would likely have high deductibles and would not be a responsible choice for my family. Folks that are advocating for bad health insurance for State and University employees because someone else has bad insurance, well… enjoy your own race to the bottom.

Comment by Jimmy H Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 5:26 pm
“Lives are at stake here, and life isn’t all beer and skittles outside your little bubble.”

Exactly. Insurance premiums would more than double under Rauner’s forced terms, as would payments for dependents. Cost caps for emergency rooms, inpatient hospitals, prescription deductibles and dependents’ deductibles would be removed. Terranova admitted in a written communication that the state would pay 60% of healthcare costs. That’s 40% for workers, a terrible deal.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 5:40 pm
== Rauner wants to double my contribution to 46% of the premium. ==

Everyone needs to understand the goal is 100% paid by the employee.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 6:07 pm
Today’s spam from JT was extremely insulting. I suppose the way they see it, if they can turn one employee against the union it’s a win for them and it’s free to spam everyone when you control the delivery system.

Comment by A Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 7:09 pm
I am really turned off by the passive aggressive language from both the state and the union. These emails always make me cringe. We’re adults. We’re (mostly) highly educated professionals. Treat us like professionals.

Comment by Emp Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 9:04 pm
== - RNUG - Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 6:07 pm:

Everyone needs to understand the goal is 100% paid by the employee. ===

Any facts at all to back this up?

Comment by Cadillac Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 9:47 pm
== Any facts at all to back this up? ==

Not without busting my source …

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Dec 7, 16 @ 10:49 pm
You know where JT and Mr. Moneybags can stick the $1000 bonus…

Comment by State Worker THX 1138 Thursday, Dec 8, 16 @ 8:57 am

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Good news and not so great news in Site Selection report
Next Post: Question of the day: Golden Horseshoe Awards

Last 10 posts:

Reader comments closed for the weekend (04-19)
AG Raoul orders 'Super/Mayor' Tiffany Henyard's charity to stop soliciting donations as Tribune reports FBI targeting Henyard (Updated x2) (04-19)
Isabel’s afternoon roundup (04-19)
Pritzker on 'Fix Tier 2' (04-19)
Caption contest! (04-19)
House passes Pritzker-backed bill cracking down on step therapy, prior authorization, junk insurance with bipartisan support (04-19)
Question of the day (04-19)
Certified results: 19.07 percent statewide primary turnout (04-19)
SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition (04-19)
It’s just a bill (04-19)