16 Comments - Bill - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:40 am: Hannig should not worry about where the money is coming from. Rod paid for their puny raises by laying off their members. - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:41 am: The legislature makes a good point on something I never considered before, the Union negotiations. The Gov negotiates a deal without approval of any money. i.e. he enters into a contract that does not have the funding in the line item to cover it, then the legislature is required to come up with the cash. Since the contract creates spending obligatons for the State it would seem there needs to be legislative approval for the spending increases before they can becomne effective. The Gov cut budgets of other constitutional officers by as much as 25%, layed off hundreds of workers, is closing down State parks, reducing the hours of operation of Lincoln sites right before the big Lincoln celebration, but increases spending to Union memebrs by 15% over 4 years. Talk abou a hypocrite, the Gov complains about the budget being undefunded, but he just negotiated a greater debt then previously existed that now needs to be covered by that same budget. Since Union contracts represent spending they should be required to go throgh a legislative approval process as well. - Princess [name change] - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 8:57 am: True, Ghost, but then if the legislature becomes part of the process on contract negotiations, then for budget reasons one would think they should be in more on some of the decisions Rod is planning on closures. While the worker contract was something like $16 million, has the governor considered the state may be faced with paying back some federal grants it’s recieved involving a site closure? I assume if required the legislatures will have to cough up the pay back too. - Captain Flume - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:13 am: There is some irony in the way current unions fail to stand together. The AFL-CIO is apparently “pressuring” the Speaker and others to approve some kind of capital bill to put its members to work on the state dime, stand idly by as the AFSCME contract is negotiated even as those members are being laid off. I hear no rumblings from IFT, IEA, SEIU about these lay-offs, (but maybe I am not paying attention to the right sources). The Governor even managed to slough off using non-union labor in his home re-model during his first campaign. The allegiance between the Illinois Democratic Party and unionism ain’t what it is cracked up to be on either side. - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:20 am: Princess it would be nice if the closure committee had real teeth. Put in a provision that their approval is required and get rid of this meaningless advisory role in the handling of closures. - Princess [name change] - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 9:58 am: I agree with that , Ghost, but actually I was referring to sites that are not even brought before the committee nor required to be. The governor is fighting with all he has to get his CP , yet some completed projects costing millions of the money spent on the last CP, Ryans Illinois First, is being dumped out the back door as yesterday’s garbage. One might wonder why the state spent millions of it’s own money plus various state grants and federal grants, just a handful of years ago, only to decide it now wants to discard it and spend new money on something else. Will they discard the new desired project/plan they now want in this CP a couple years down the road? To me it’s like just putting a match to money. - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 10:27 am: Yep. A part of this problem is the lack of infromation reporting of these kinds of issues to the public. Most papers dont track spending or report on spending issues like that. SO the public is mostly unaware of what is happening with a lot of projects long term etc. Since we rely on the public and voting to try and place elceted officials in play who will make repsonsible spneding choices, the lack of information makes it hard for voters to keep their officials on track. - Capitol View - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 2:30 pm: About Pontiac - the issue is the same as in Springfield. In Springfield,the city is being clobbered because there are only Republicans elected to the General Assembly from that area, Senate and House. Also, Springfield only voted 21% for the governor in the last election. If no Democratic candidates for the General Assembly win in November in Springfield or Pontiac, expect more of the same… This is all about politics and has nothing to do with responsible governing. - Sweet Polly Purebred - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 4:38 pm: As a long time union member and former steward, I can honestly say that AFSCME is one of the most deceptive and most prone to SPIN of any union I have ever encountered. We had our “INFORMATIONAL” meeting at my building regarding the contract and the vote. It was a nothing but a spin fest for the union. We were told that the union had negotiated a 4 year contract and yet when provided with “HIGHLIGHTS” of the contract - not THE contract, we found that on the very last page, buried in a paragraph, was the statement that the AFSCME had negotiated to allow the state to reopen the contract to renegotiate health care costs in BOTH 2011 and 2012 with the codicile that if the state reopens health, AFSCME can ASK to reopen for wages. The state is also going to intiate a “WELLNESS INCENTIVE” program (we apparently use the doctor to much)and its success or lack of it will help determine if the state will reopen the contract - at the state’s discretion - there was NO mention of a joint oversight committee, etc. During my entire association with AFSCME it has been stressed that you never allow the state the opportunity to REOPEN/RENEGOTIATE a contract, because once the precedent is set, the state will use the precendent to negotiate the same right again and again. The council 31 rep that came to our building did nothing more than read the highlights paper word for word to us. When questions were entertained, he had few or no answers to questions regarding health care benefits in particular. He did say that AFSCME allowed the reopening clause, because if they hadn’t they would “STILL BE AT THE TABLE”. A number of members expressed concerns and that what was wrong with staying at the table until a complete contract was negotiated. No reponse was forthcoming other than that “It is hard work negotiating a contract and it had to come to an end at some time. Besides, the verbage allows AFSCME to REQUEST to reopen wages if health care rises” Like the state would ever allow that…. I asked questions regarding whether or not this reopening and raising of health costs would adversely affect retirees in the future. The answer I got from the “answer guy” was a flippant “MAYBE MAYBE NOT” - I did not expect him to be psychic, but did expect some response regarding ongoing efforts to protect our retirees. The union took forever to negotiate this “contract” and we were never given a copy, as AFSCME said all LEGAL verbage was not in place and we were given very little time(less than 2 hours) to make up our minds and vote on a contract that will deeply affect our lives for at least the next 4 years and probably longer. I would say that the union is as corrupt and prone to spin as our current governor, but that would be an understatement. The union is even more deceptive, as they present themselves as “protectors” of the labor force and the governor has made it abundantly clear where he stands on labor’s rights. - Bill - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 4:50 pm: If the contract is as bad as you say, and it probably is, then the rank and file should vote it down and send them back to the table or go out on strike. The leadership is only as strong as the determination and unity of their members. Unfortunately, most state workers are sheep. They’ll will gladly ratify the agreement. No pain, no gain. - Sweet Polly Purebred - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 6:42 pm: Bill: After I got two VERY flippant MAYBE MAYBE NOT’s I did vote NO. Previous to our meeting, I had obtained a copy of contract HIGHLIGHTS and discussed them with my co-workers. I pointed out that the state has TWO more opportunities to raise health care in the FOUR year’s this contract will be in place and when asked by other’s how I would vote, I stated that based on what I had seen I would most likely vote no - UNLESS the union meeting revealed details not available at this time that would change my mind. The very next day I received a call from a union official telling me that I should NOT be telling people that I was voting against the contract. I was also told that I really could not count myself as a member in good standing if I was going to work AGAINST the union that negotiated this fine contract. I asked why the union would allow the state to reopen the contract when it was so contrary to the good of the members and the past policies of the union. I got no substantial answer from the caller. I went to the meeting and stayed to listen - I did not just go and vote NO. Only after I again got no real answers to my questions did I vote NO. This WELLNESS INITIATIVE is scary. Basically it allows the state to bring in some monitoring group who will be showing film strips and advising employees on wellness alternatives. The contract language states that this will NOT be used as a punitive measure against those employees that are considered wellness failures…(reminicient of Alabama) The state reserves the right to reopen for health care IF THEY determine that the wellness thing is a failure. Here is where it get’s questionable. There is no mention of a joint oversight committee (union/management) to review the outcome of the wellness education. The verbage just allows the state to determine whether or not they think it is a failure or not and whether or not they WANT to reopen the health care costs. If anyone thinks they won’t reopen the contract regardless, they have as my mother would say “Another think coming”. As to strike, for that to happen we would have to be represented by a REAL union, not one that is in bed with the management, the governor and his half-baked labor relations people. It would not have bothered me in the least if they had stayed at the table til the cows come home. We are still covered by a fair contract and with NO health care increases. My co-workers and other state employees are lured only by the pay increases and see very little else. No wonder the increases offered were placed in the center of the document and highlited, while the reopening was on the last page in the middle of the last paragraph. Yes it is true that there is a 6% raise built into one year, but it is also true that that is the same year management can reopen to raise healthcare costs, so I have to wonder just how much this 6% raise is actually going to cost us in increased healthcare costs. - Sweet Polly Purebred - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 6:49 pm: BTW - the union mouthpiece stated with great smugness that union included the verbage that they can revist wages if the state revists healthcare costs because they felt that it would be a GREAT deterent to the state reopening the contract. Either this guy is incredibly naive or living in an alternate reality. - Princess [name change] - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 7:38 pm: Settle down Ms. Sweet Poor, you’ll send yor blood pressure sailing. I don’t know what happened at your local vote but I can say that at ours the district rep. was informative and everything was very upfront. There were no surprises ,nothing hidden before a vote. And as far as well initiative, well that’s not a bad idea. We’ll have to wait to see how it works. I know my own HMO plan is and had been giving me options to leading a healthier life style and management of my diabeties. It’s not near as terrible as you’re making it sound, at least not in my humble opinion, but then of corse you are entitled to yout own opinion of the contract. - Princess [name change] - Tuesday, Sep 2, 08 @ 7:45 pm: Oh, I’m am so sorry Sweet Polly, I am doing several things at once between dinner and kids. I did not mean to type ‘poor’ and did not realize I did. Please forgive me, it was not intentional and was simply a stupid blunder of the fingers. - Sweet Polly Purebred - Wednesday, Sep 3, 08 @ 12:16 am: I am not against wellness initiatives as such. I am against the union allowing the state to use that ploy to reopen the contract. It is presented in such a way as to lead one to believe that there is any chance that the state will find compliance strong enough to pass on opening the contract and passing more of the health care costs not once but TWICE in one contract period. I have been a member of AFSCME for more than 20 years and have been through many contract cycles. Throughout, the union’s position has always been NO renegotiating/NO reopening and for good reason. It is a slippery slope. A precedent you do NOT want to set. in essence the union has negotiated a two year contract with a four year wage increase package. AFSCME is a self-serving entity. They held up negotiations so that they could attend their convention in San Francisco on YOUR dollar. If they were as altruistic as they present themselves, they would have bypassed the convention and tended to their paying members business by continuing negotiations. - Princess [name change] - Wednesday, Sep 3, 08 @ 7:13 am: Sweet Polly, well I understand and respect your opinions and concerns on the contract, what I was pointing out in my original response was that fact the AFSCME was open with the facts of the contract and before the vote was taken. Am I happy as a lark over it all? No, I’m not. Over the years, and my family has been in this a number if years longer than you have, we’ve had our share of ‘battles’ with both sides. And with the ’settlement’ of this current contract, good or bad, it isn’t smooth sailing around here, as phone calls keep pouring in from frontliners who not only just had to vote on the contract but now also are fighting to save their jobs and understand their contract rights as Rod gave them an extra kick in the pants. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.