60 Comments - fed up - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:23 am: yes if the state sen/reps and Gov and his staff,Judical officers are going to suffer through the same cuts. I believe in pension reform for new hires not breaking promises to those who are already hired. Maybe a temp wage freeze until revenue picks up after the reccesion ends. AFSCME worked hard to get the contract they have and yes it is good to them I doubt they will open it up but why should they without real cuts to the non union workers. - OneMan - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:24 am: #1 Yes, it will provide cover to a whole bunch of people who are friendly to their cause in the capitol. #2 Wage freeze, it will play the best with folks and isn’t as bad as some other stuff. - Concerned Observer - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:24 am: 1) YES, but only if the state makes concessions before the negotiations begin. Say, a guarantee not to lay anyone off. Otherwise, not a chance. 2) AFSCME should talk about freezing wages for no longer than 18 months, rolling back whatever last year’s mandatory raises were (if there were any, I don’t know), but should try to avoid furloughs. Keep people working, is my stance. It’s better to have 10,000 people take a 5% pay cut than to see those 10,000 suddenly become 9,500. - ivoted4judy - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:27 am: If they are going to attempt to fix the core problems with State government, then YES, AFSME along with a whole lot of other groups needs to have their contract opened up. Tough times means tough decisions and if the 4 leaders and Quinn ever actually get around to talking a fix then this contract and everything else is on the table. - Skirmisher - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:29 am: Yes, I absolutely think it is reasonable for AFSCME to make concessions, but only if the GA has voted to cover at least half of the deficit with a tax increase. If the politicians and people step to the plate to do their share with additional revenue, then everyone in state government should accept cuts and cost saving measures, including the union. - Shared Sacrifice - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:30 am: AFSCME should agree to postpone any wage hikes: 1) With a guarantee that no essential jobs will be cut (unless of course ALL political appointees are cut first); 2) Until a temporary tax hike is set to expire; 3) If lawmakers agree to sunset all corporate tax expenditures, a.k.a “tax loopholes.” AFSCME should agree to mandatory furloughs: 1) That exclude frontline public safety employees: state troopers, prison guards, DCFS caseworkers, child abuse and elder abuse investigators, etc… 2) That exclude employees at the bottom rung of the economic ladder; 3) That are tiered so that the highest earners take the most furlough days; 4) That place all lawmakers and state constitutional officers in the highest tier under the same terms (none of these crazy calculations that “lawmakers work 365 days a year”, etc.) - Macbeth - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:35 am: Of course they shouldn’t open the contract. Why negotiate a contract if it’s only going be re-negotiated when times suddenly change? The real question: why did the state agree to AFSCME’s allegedly “extravagant” demands in the first place? - Captain America - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:37 am: I’m definitely strongly pro-labor, but honestly believe some concessions are in order given the magnitude of the state’s fiscal problems. I would encouarge AFSCME leaders to bargain aggressively, but recognize reality. - LINK - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:39 am: 1. No. First, the Illinois General Assembly members need to do what they were elected to do and make the decisions instead of trying to remain in power by putting off doing the right thing (as many see it) to agree to realistic cuts and adjustments AND assess new income (taxes and the like) resources. 2. See #1. However, IF the politicians in the Illinois General Assembly do what they were elected to do and the need is still there, then and only then should AFSCME review opening the contract to match ANY changes the Illinois General Assembly members make with their own benefits and retirement packages. Aren’t elected individuals suppose to also lead? - Secret Square - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:41 am: Mac, “times suddenly changed” because actual state revenues have dropped, which I understand is something that has never happened in my lifetime (I’m 45 years old), and did not occur even during the early 1980s recession. It’s a rather extraordinary event that demands extraordinary action. I’m a non-union state employee. I have never received a single cost of living raise in 3 years and don’t anticipate getting one any time soon. I fully expect my pay to go down after July 1, the only question is by how much. That being said, “Shared Sacrifice”s ideas make sense to me, perhaps combined with a 5 percent pay cut for everyone. I can handle a 5 percent cut. However, the pay cut our agency faces right now could be WAY more than that. - topdog - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:42 am: Hell no, state employees did not get us into this mess. If state employees have to take furlough days then every working person should have to pay that same amount into the state coffers!!! - fed up - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:42 am: Rich has the state ever offered to open up AFSCME contract and make it better when revenues were higher. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:43 am: fed up, that’s Henry Bayer’s standard line. lol - downstate hick - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:43 am: Yes, Layoffs are inevitable if they do not make some significant contributions even with a tax increase. They should also become involved in supporting pension reform (a two tiered system and later retirement for younger workers). The current pension structure is not sustainable so they need to deal with it before they lose everything. Tough to ask for concessions, but its better in the long run to save as many jobs as possible. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:46 am: Princess will be surprised to learn that I’m not sure. It seems to me that it’s kind of risky for AFSCME, because once the budget starts depending on those concessions it might be hard to get them undone. Just as we have learned to be skeptical of “temporary” tax hikes, labor should be skeptical of making “temporary” concessions. I would imagine the national AFSCME (I assume there is one) has people working on policies related to when recession-related labor concessions make sense and when they don’t, and under what conditions. I would note that California started out with a certain number of imposed furlough days and I believe now is contemplating more, plus an across the board pay cut. From my regular middle class taxpayer perspective, I don’t care. I simply oppose Quinn’s highly regressive tax hike, and I really doubt it would be temporary. I think are underwhelmed legislators and ultra-liberal-leaning governor should figure out a way to fund state government without an income tax increase in the middle of a severe recession with an uncertain endpoint. Service taxes. Sin taxes. Creative accounting. Borrowing. Labor givebacks. I don’t care. Just do it. - Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:51 am: Q1: A contract is a contract. Both sides take a risk in entering into a long-term contract. My guess that if the contract was up this year, it would only be a one year contract with a pay freeze or a nominal, say 1% increase. Q2: If they decide to engage in mid-term bargaining, the wage freeze is the way to go in my opinion. It may save jobs. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:51 am: Anything we rank and file agree to would only put the smallest of dents into the huge blimp of a humoungous crisis. I certainly am willing to shoulder a fair amount of the burden but am quite skeptical about any promises the state may make. I realize it may be unrealistic to expect promises of no layoffs but the pension issue must be dealt with. Gotta catch up and get it on proper footing. I know reforms there are necessary but we have accepted changes in the past and did our part only to see the state renege on its’ part which is a part of the reason why the state is in such a mess now. We have been asked to consider furloughs and our small group says they are willing to do so if it can protect jobs - we are willing to do our part! - Reality Check - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:53 am: No. Through the huge cuts and gross mismanagement of the past 8 years, frontline state workers were the ones who kept essential services running. They have worked crushing overtime just to cope with the terrible staff shortages in every department. And they have already agreed in recent contracts to pay more for health insurance and more for their pensions while getting very modest pay increases. Their services are needed more than ever now in the awful recession - providing unemployment benefits, food stamps and medical assistance, protecting at-risk kids, caring for the most vulnerable, ensuring public safety. This is exactly the wrong time to cut vital services or the standard of living of workers who provide them. AFSCME members who work for state government are Illinois residents, too. They pay the same taxes the rest of us do. It’s wrong to ask them to take an unequal burden of fixing the state’s fiscal crisis, in the form of pay cuts piled on top of higher taxes. - Rufus - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:59 am: This is a difficult question to answer definitively. The current contract is weak as it is back-ended, i.e. low increase now, higher increases later. Many concessions were already given in the current contract. To renegotiate the contract means that the workers will not stay up with inflation. The total personnel cost has been stated at 3.2 billion; wage freeze, wage/benefit cuts and/or mandatory furloughs will, at maximum, only account for 10% of that amount at best. $320 million is 1/30 of the projected deficit. It isn’t going to make much of a dent. Furloughs are reasonable if they are intended to save jobs. Benefit cuts do not address the real issue, the insane increase in Health Care costs. The problem is not the workers, but the Medical/Insurance industry. Some of the budget problems are related to the current economic climate, and some of the budget problems are directly attributed to the mismanagement of the state’s funds by the previous governor and the current legislators. Their inattention to the economic realities has caused a large potion of the current deficit. What can be done to change their behavior is probably beyond the scope of these questions. Please realize that the head count of employees has decreased by over 10,000 since the beginning of Blago’s governorship. Illinois is one of the lowest in employee per capita in the nation. The state employees are not the cause of this current budget problem. - Princess - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:59 am: Okay, I’ll play, but forget I’m a union member because in this question I speak not for the union nor any of it’s other members-just little ol’ me. As a worker and as a citizen, I myself (only only myself here) think opening the contract should be absolutely not. No, no never, ain’t gonna happen. But also think I am not an unreasonable person unwilling to do my share. Raise my taxes, I would pay them. Ask me to volunteer to take furlough days without demanding and leaving me to arrange those hours so not to take too big of a hit on any one check/household budget area, I would volunteer for a share. As far as the pension 2 tier, I hate to see it, but the state does not need my blessing to do it. Been here long enough to remember it being 1.25 then changed to 1.67 and somebody coming in as a new hiree would still be coming it at 1.5, more than when I came in. I’ve fought my battles and figure new hirees can and will fight theirs. A wage freeze? No. My cost are going up, my taxes will have to be going up and believe a unvolunteer wage freeze would screw my household budget in a way I could not control. As far as lay-offs, I believe that lay-offs will happen even if the union would agree to volunteer furloughs or even to open their contract. I believe that nothing I would do will save some state employees nor cuts in some of our dept. budgets. I’m a realist and I can not put myself on the line to try to save what is out of my control. Having sat through lay-off meetings last year, I know the pain and sacrafices some of the workers were willing to take to try and save fellow workers, I highly admired that. But in the end for me, the state either has to lay me off or let me keep working and ask nice if I’d like to contribute by taking a volunteer furlough that would not cut off my legs. - Truthful James - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:00 pm: As I pointed out in another venue, it is not only the state that is in a hard place, it is every government below the State level which relies on sales and/or income taxes for a portion of their budget and which further is under the property tax rate maximums and the tax caps which should be called levy limits. Only home rule municipalities have the ability (if not the willingness) to raise taxes to replace the expected shortfalls from the sales and income tax collections and from taxes against property valuations which will quite soon have to drop. We ain’t seen nothing yet. All levels of government including schools have been swimming in the increased property tax valuations and the continuing (until now) sales and income tax increases. The time has come in Illinois not to raise the bridge over rising expenditures but to lower the river. #1 — Should AFSCME help to lower the river by re-opening the contract — yes #2 — What form should lowering expenditures take? I think it should vary local by local based on the condition of the government function in which the employees are active. One of the things not mentioned was management-employee joint analysis of work processes in order to achieve more efficient production without losing effectiveness. Coopertion by both sides needs to be the name of the game - Princess - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:09 pm: Must be an ‘fake’ Cassandra here today. Somebody, quick, is the ‘real’ Cassandra okay? She turned off auto, just for me? Yah, Cassandra, I knew you could do it. Good girl. Are we going to share that income tax increase together now ;-o - Steve - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:09 pm: 1) AFSCME is under no legal obligation that I know of to re- adjust a contract. The rule of law is more important than any other principal. 2) If AFSCME agrees to revisit the contract, wage cuts would be nice. If none of this happens, layoffs should occur. The next contract should be based on what the taxpayers can afford under prudent assumptions. I realize that certain jobs you really can’t cut wages much( like computer programs). But, some jobs could take wage cuts. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:11 pm: Yes they should opne it up and agree to a wage freeze. Every dollar the union memebrs save goes to reducing the number of union employees thathave to be layed off. A wage freeze is in line with the economic problems of the State, how many small buisness are responding to the problem etc. It puts State workers in the same boat. Henry Bayer wants to sacrifice the least senior state employees to benefit the more senior, and that is not fair. I would raise taxes to distribute the share of paying for the budget hole to all the citizens. I am opposed to furlogh days, which is just a fancy way of saying pay cut. Forcing State employees to carry the heavy lifting for the State, when the State majority of voters helped place us in this scenerio is not right. - JoJo - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:15 pm: Sec. of State employees have already been taking furlough days for the last 7 months or so. What union do they belong to? Does anyone know? - Princess - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:18 pm: Ghost –”Henry Bayer wants to sacrifice the least senior state employees to benefit the more senior, and that is not fair”.– Not Henry Bayer, Ghost, union contract. Lay-offs go according to the letter of the contract. Senority. - Anon - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:19 pm: Yes, they should negotiate some cut-backs in the current contract’s cost of living or pay increases, and maybe to allow furlough days, in exchange for avoiding layoffs, which can be done without reopening the contract. If they reopen the contract, they provide cover for the GA to vote for the tax increase (”See? We cut back on those lazy state workers, and raised taxes only to pay for needed programs!”) and it may earn them some chits they can cash when times are better. If they don’t, the layoffs may hurt their members more than the pay cuts and they get nothing in the way of goodwill. - Homey - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:20 pm: #1. If and only if, legislators and elected officials will work for free for the fiscal year. Some of these agency directors are also highly over-paid and could afford to donate their time. If all of the above happens (and I paint my masterpiece) AFSCME should consider a wage freeze for higher pay grades. - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:21 pm: I think the unions will be forced into the corner of public opinion on this. If I were a union negotiator, my choice of givebacks would be (best to worst) 1. Extend contract 1 year, no raises this year, push everything back to out years, no layoffs, furloughs or other changes. 2. no layoffs, no furloughs, stay w/current raise schedule, increase pension contribution 1% or 2%. 3. A few furlough days, no other changes. 4. no layoffs, no furloughs, stay w/current raise schedule, increase health care contribution a few %. 5. 2% temporary layoff, lowest seniority goes first, hiring freeze, layoffs 1st choice in a callback, no other changes. The union will fight a 2-tier system like heck, IMO. If anything happens, it’s likely to be one or a combination of these ideas. As mentioned before, all this will just make a few % dent in the overall state deficit anyway, but it will let private sector taxpayers blow off a little steam and give politicians cover. - prowler - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:26 pm: * Should AFSCME agree to reopen its state contract. NO, if wages are lowered and the tax tax rates are increased then the state employees just took a double hit for a problem they did not cause. * If the contract is reopened, should AFSCME agree to a wage freeze, wage/benefit cuts and/or mandatory furloughs? None of the listed items should be considered by AFSCME, they should be willing to allow voluntary furlough days to be taken with not conditions attached on when the days could be taken. I know I would voluntarily take furlough days as I’m sure others would. - Old Elephant - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:27 pm: Let’s remember that, unlike Mike Madigan, John Cullerton and Pat Quinn, AFSCME did NOT support Rod Blagojevich for Governor in 2006. They were very vocal and upfront about the impending disaster facing state government. So, it’s a little hard to suddenly demand that they sacrifice their contract in order to bail out those who failed to show the same foresight that they did. In addition, no one seems to be suggesting that the union that benefited the most under Rod Blagojevich — SEIU — should sacrifice anything. If any union ought to be asked for givebacks it should be SEIU, since they have been at least complacent and, more accurately, a major contributor to the problem. It’s a little like the Democrats now, after 6 years of going along with Rod Blagojevich’s unaffordable schemes, suddenly demanding that the Republicans fix the problem for them. That said, both AFSCME and the Republicans are probably going to have to help fix this mess, whether they like it or not. And, both need to make sure they get something in return. Republicans appear to be focusing redistricting, Medicaid reforms, more rights in the General Assembly and some agreement for a long-term solution to the pension funding problem. I won’t presume to know what AFSCME should ask for, but I would suggest that they make sure the Blagojevich enablers pay through the nose for the Union’s help in bailing them out of this — perhaps some concessions to strengthen their position against encroachment by SEIU, expanded union positions, etc. It’s really up to them. They entered into the contract in good faith and are under no obligation to bail out the Blagojevich endorsers now. - Bill - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:30 pm: No. They should not re-open the contract. It wasn’t the union employees who mismanaged the state into insolvency and there just is not enough money in their entire contract to make even a little dent in the deficit. The contract wasn’t that hot to begin with but it is all they have and they should hang on to it. This problem, as been said here hundreds of times, is a revenue problem, not a spending problem. State union employees aren’t making that much to begin with. Cutting their pay, stealing their pensions and laying them off will only add to the state’s problems as unemployment costs escalate. Besides who would be left to do the work? Management? Ha, you’re dreaming. As always some people want to penalize the people who do the real work in order to enrich the management class. Just say no, Henry. Don’t enable them any more. Don’t let them squeeze out another do nothing year. The time is now to raise taxes and pay the state’s debts and that includes what they owe their employees. - ahoy - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:33 pm: Yes they should because if they don’t it’s going to mean layoffs. I do think that lawmakers should have the same concessions on them that they ask from the employees. - Pelon - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:42 pm: 1) The union should enter into negotiations if for no other reason than to generate good will with the taxpayers. If we don’t like the State’s concessions, we can just walk away from the table. 2)As an AFSCME member, I would like to see the following plan implemented. a) Scheduled wage increases for the next few years get converted into retirement contributions until we are paying the full share of the retirement contribution. Then, it won’t matter if the new employees are in a separate tier since they will pay their own way. The State will still need to make catch-up payments for the past and provide a guaranteed benefit in case the calculated payments aren’t enough to cover expenditures. b) Expanded severance benefits for those laid off. I’d love to prevent layoffs, but I don’t see that as a possibility even with a tax increase. c) Mandatory furlough days for those over a certain income level. Voluntary furlough days for everyone else. In the grand scheme of things, this won’t make a huge immediate impact, but it will help prevent this type of situation in the future. It would also be good PR for the union and provide cover for the GA. - Working man - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:45 pm: No. They should cut entitlements across the board by 25%. Working people should not have to pay so much for those that don’t work. - Whatchoo Infer - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:46 pm: I remember the Furloughs under Ryan, we were still expected to come in to work for zero pay. I wouldn’t have minded taking a day home without pay, but taking several days and still coming in to work made me grumpy. I would be okay with a voluntary freeze for one year, it is more symbolic than anything but it will help the deficit a little and show AFSCME is sympathetic to taxpayers. And the poor Merit comp people can count the years they DIDN’T have a wage freeze on the fingers of one hand. The pension debt is the biggest lump to deal with, and while a union member and supporter, I believe it is time for a 2-tier system. The reason for it is that generally in the world of work, and not just in public service, we no longer have “lifers” that put in 15, 20, 30 years on a job. That’s not the world we live in any more. Nowadays, people change entire careers several times over a lifespan, so new hires might be based on a 10-year work span instead of 30. For those people, they are not going to see much of a pension for a 5-10-year stint with the state, so it makes sense to give them a “streamlined” benefits package that rewards them differently but adequately, and in a reasonable manner commensurate with their service. If you initiate the second tier for new hires, you can let the old timers age-out of the system gradually and still put the brakes on the growing pension interest debt. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 12:56 pm: What if AFSCME made the concessions conditional on the state fulfilling its pension obligations? This way the union leadership could say to its members it got something for the workers in exchange for the concessions. And Quinn would have some leverage to negotiate with Republicans. - wizard - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 1:13 pm: For once I agree with Bill, never thought that would happen. Pelon, why would we want to give the GA “cover”? They caused much of this problem by not delivering what they promised, and deficit spending. They shouldn’t get “cover”, they should get replaced, and I mean both sides of the aisle. - JaySeaBee - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 1:25 pm: No, the contract should not be opened up. It will have no effect on solving the budget mess. Quinn can layoff EVERY state employee and shut down EVERY agency and program and the state will still be $5 billion in debt!! This contract tall is a red herring from Quinn. If the contract says layoffs can happen, start laying off and see how long the public endures even longer lines and wait times for state services. Cut the 3,000 mid-level people for starters in good faith governor. - So. ILL - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 1:28 pm: No. They should be allowed to get a raise while they demand every one else pay more in taxes and threaten legislators’ jobs. Why should they have to sacrifice when they can just demand it of every one else and still receive their pay raises? If everyone else gives a little more its less that they have to give up. Power to the unions. - Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 1:32 pm: Carl, The state’s on the hook for the pension payout whether they fund it well or totally mismanage it. Hard to see an upside for the union there, to bargain for what’s already yours. - Bill - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 1:53 pm: So Ill, Now you’re talkin’! - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 2:48 pm: Although pressure may ultimately get them there, my position were I AFSCME would be a resounding NO. It always pains AA to say this, but (choke) Bill is right. AFSCME didn’t foist Filanomics upon the State; the Blago/Quinn administration did. Most of the commenters here who say AFSCME should reopen couldn’t handle most AFSCME bargaining unit jobs, regardless of the pay. It’s not unreasonable to ask all State employees- and State-funded employees-(hello SEIU) to share in the solution to the State’s financial problems. However, as long as Filan and other fumigees are still drawing a check, a legislative pork bill stays alive, and Peotone Airport still has lift, it’s most unreasonable to ask AFSCME, or the FOP, or any bargaining unit, for concessions. - lincolnlover - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 3:19 pm: I work for Historic Preservation. I am an AFSCME member and proud of it. At IHPA, we lost 50% of our employees last year in Blago’s evil slashing of our agency. Most of us have already lived through a 4 month layoff. We’ve paid our dues and done our part to balance the mess that Madigan allowed to happen. Which one of you “ordinary taxpayers” is saying thank you to us for our sacrifice? I WILL NEVER, EVER AGREE TO ANY CONCESSIONS!!!!! I had to take my daughter out of college, and a fellow employee had to take his mother out of her alzeimer’s facility, two of our people lost their homes to foreclosure, and those are just the ones I know about. I hate Blago and Madigan. When someone attacks you personally and threatens your ability to provide for your family, just for their own political games, they should be jailed. This isn’t what Madigan was elected for. He should stop playing games, sit down with Quinn and Cross and get this thing settled. My family has suffered enough from this stupidity and I will fight tooth and nail against any concessions. Let the GA members suffer like our families did. If they can’t settle this, they shouldn’t be paid: they should be laid off. - Cheesehead Girl - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 3:25 pm: Sec. of State employees for the most part are SEIU. There are some IFT employees, mainly IT people & the Archives. Then there are various others, i.e. Teamsters, Electricians, etc. And yes, SoS employees (from the Secretary on down) took furlough days last year. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 3:29 pm: What are you people, nuts? We have two kinds of people here in government, the politicians and the workers. The workers do the work, and the politicians make the promises, passes the legislation and runs for office. So what we have here are politicians who ran amok for a decade. They really, really, screwed us royally. They are the ones responsible. They are the ones that need to fix the messes they created and ignored while most of us listen to all the alarms. To expect the workers to shoulder both a tax increase and a salary decrease after a decade of dealing with our politician’s whims and stupidity is blatantly unfair. It is dead wrong. Worse, it is the wrong way to solve this problem. Asking AFSME to break their contract is a selfish thing to do. This people who claim that state workers should “share the sacrifice” fail to acknowledge the sacrifices that have been already made by our state workers. It isn’t a matter of politics. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, state workers do their jobs regardless. To expect them to take it from both ends is not shared sacrifice - it is human sacrifice. - lincolnlover - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 3:32 pm: Well said Vanilla Man. - wizard - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 3:35 pm: Thank you VM, could not say it better. - Gish - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 5:00 pm: 1) No, mostly on the argument that it doesn’t get re-opened in times of largesse to the Union’s benefit. 2) AFSCME could and should offer mandatory furlough days so as to negate to wage increases still to come. The increases still happen on the books which helps employees. Management saves money which helps strained budget. Employees should be fine since wage increases haven’t occurred and there ideally would be no reduction in check size. - Pelon - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 5:05 pm: While I can understand and agree with the feelings of those who say the legislators and governors are responsible for this mess, I don’t see how blaming them solves the budget problem. The money has to come from somewhere, and right now, most taxpayers are insisting that they don’t want to pay more taxes. The best hope to get a tax increase to prevent massive layoffs is to convince the taxpayer that the State is making an effort to cut costs. Right now, that hasn’t happened. An AFSCME give back in a few areas might help. I’d rather give that a try than watch 10,000 state workers get the axe. It has nothing to do with what’s fair. It’s about what is in our best interest. Sometimes an unfair solution is better than no solution at all. - southern illinoisan - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 5:15 pm: I am not a labor relations lawyer, and please correct me if I am wrong, but if the union opens the contract for negotiations then I believe everything in the contract is fair game. I have read a lot of good ideas here and they sound nice. But the reality is the contract is a legally binding contract and it must be adhered to. I am a state employee who is not a union member and I will answer both questions as a resounding NO! AFSCME made concessions in negotiating the deal. If they open the door there will be more than wage freezes and furlough days. And attempting to get a guarantee of no layoffs will not happen. The state will not agree to those terms even for 1 year. I agree that there must be some shared sacrifice in tough times. But other than still having my job the last few years have not been a picnic. We have sacrificed enough already! - thunder1 - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 6:31 pm: I agree with Prowler. No AFSCME should NOT reopen the contract. We are NOT the cause of all these budget problems. I would take voluntary furlough days but no cut in pay or freeze my wages. Our contract is fair. - dumb ol' country boy - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 6:49 pm: No AFSCME should not open their contract, however there is a little clause where it gets opened up next year, I believe, to re-negotiate health care. Once it’s open it’s open to everything. The govennor still has not streamed lined the upper management jobs, thats what is draining agencies budgets. When I hired into an agency 20 plus years ago we had 4-6 pictures hanging on the wall, the who’s who of the department. Now we have over 18. I believe the front line workers are tired of the mismanagment and misspending of state dollars by political hacks. Yes there needs to be a two tier retirement system, the quicker AFSCME conceds this the better off the state is going to be. - anon - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 7:07 pm: Single mom state worker who has not had more than a 1% raise in 8 years says, keep the contract closed, we didn’t cause this mess. Get rid of the hacks and the political bs first. - PalosParkBob - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 8:29 pm: Get ready for a schock. No, I don’t think the contract should be re-opened, despite the fact that it was very poorly negotiated on behalf of the state. We should learn from this mistake and take action so that it will not be repeated. There should always be an “escape clause” in public labor contracts, including those in schools and municipalities, that limits all increases in salaries and benefits to a ooercentage of revenue growth. No revenue growth, no increases in salaries and benefits. It’s fair, and it’s the only way to avoid catastrophes like our current situation when long term contracts are negotiated. The GA can pass legislation making this a REQUIREMENT in all public labor contracts. For years spineless bureaucrats and politicians have been giving away the store to the public employee unions and campaign contributor contractors. Legislating the ability of the state and local governments to make responsible adjustments to compensation based on economic conditions MUST be done to fix the structure that created the “structural deficit”. “Let all the poisons in the mud hatch out”-Old King Log - long time state worker - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 9:47 pm: Anyone have any stats on layoff savings? For example, if x are layed off July 1, then when will actual “savings” take place? Probably not for about 6 months. And what about the cost of administering these by HR staff (bumping etc?). What percentage of the budget problem are salaries and benefits? - Don't Get It - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 9:51 pm: I’m confused just a little bit here. So we don’t fill open state jobs because there is no money to pay them, but we ask others to work OT to do the work those workers used to do and then some think that furlough will save money? I guess the only way that works is if those furlough people end up coming in and work for free. I concur - contract shouldn’t be opened. Pension situation is not unsustainable, just mismanaged. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 10:19 pm: ==No. They should cut entitlements across the board by 25%. Working people should not have to pay so much for those that don’t work.– Working Man, you stole the handle, but you’re no Merle Haggard. What exactly are you talking about, anyway, in relationship to the questions? This Sean Hannity bloviating is for the kiddie shows on cable, not here. While you’re figuring it out, I’ll drink my beer in the tavern, sing a little bit of them working man blues. - Emily Booth - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:10 pm: NO. - Emily Booth - Tuesday, Jun 23, 09 @ 11:14 pm: I meant to elaborate but the screen froze and my post posted. I already gave 1 furlough day to balance the state budget during the Ryan admin and went without a raise for 4 yrs during the Blago admin to balance the state budget. So, my answer is no. I already gave. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.