36 Comments - John Bambenek - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 9:59 am: The idea that they can’t change pension benefits for current employees isn’t strictly true. The state can’t modify pension benefits already earned (or being collected), but it can modify benefits not yet earned. Likely it would require “terminating” employees and rehiring them immediately. Politically, however, it’s virtually impossible to pull off such a coup. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:01 am: It’s a burden-passing solution, which is never good. But Rich, local control has been the hallmark of the Democratic Party in Illinois for, what, at least three days. - Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:17 am: - Likely it would require “terminating” employees and rehiring them immediately. - So you’re a big fan of upholding the constitution, but when it comes to the unions you’re open to using loopholes like that? Great principles John. - cassandra - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:18 am: The issue of whether or not state employee benefits can be frozen (something that is occurring in the private sector all the time)is a matter of interpretation, I suppose. The state would have to try it and let the courts decide. That doesn’t seem likely to happen in the foreseeable future. But those who base their financial planning on absolute certainties should remember that there are none. Meanwhile, has Quinn caved on free retiree health benefits. That outrageous perk actually could save some money. And eliminating it is hardly going to cause a great uprising among the taxpaying general public. - Loop Lady - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:21 am: I heard a discussion on Chicago Tonight last evening with some folks on the panel insisiting that current employees must realiize and accept the fact that they cannot collect the pensions they thought they were entitled to because the Legislature has consistently fallen down on their responsibility to adequately fund the system…the Indians on the reservation are not happy that they are in line to be the fall guys for a lack of financial discipline by our esteemed duly elected reps. I can’t say I disagree with their outrage…they should not bear the brunt of their fiscal irresponsibility. I think a way out of this is to offer early retirement at expected levels to those eligible to do so ASAP…I’ve been hearing rumours to this effect, and IMHO this needs to be offered before session is over… - Captain Flume - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:23 am: ==I’m not sure twenty-somethings who have a burning desire to teach really think all that much about pensions…== Though I am not a teacher, tt has been my experience in talking with very many state employees, that pension benefits and retirement are surprisingly (to me) high priorities on the list of work-related topics in their conversations, all age groups included. In my private sector life, most of my industry circle put off much of that conversation until their 50s. - cassandra - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:28 am: I thought that last early retirement binge in 2002 cost the state a gadzillion. Seems like it would be politically risky. Besides, why would the state’s management classes retire? They aren’t that busy now. And work is entertainment for many–better than sitting home and watching tv. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:32 am: Where’s the editing at the Trib? The difference between 74% funded and 54% is huge. How can you miss that on your editorial page? - bcross - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:33 am: ==tt has been my experience in talking with very many state employees, that pension benefits and retirement are surprisingly (to me) high priorities== Agreed, Captain. You’ll find people commuting fairly long distances in central Illinois for clerical/secretarial positions. These aren’t $100K — more like 1/4 that. Commuting costs nearly eat their take-home pay but they do it for health coverage & a pension. - Cindy Lou - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:33 am: Just how many does one honestly think would take the state up on early retirement incentive if we’re presently looking at the possible boost of retiree insurance going to roughly $300 to $500 pre medicare age? For many who might have thought of exiting given the opportunity at any time soon, they’d be afraid to when they see a big chuck of their pension might be flushed right away that was going to be there a few minutes ago. There is no quick fix easy answer. While you’re dangling a carrot in front of them, you’re holding a hammer over their head if they chance the carrot so to say. - bcross - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:35 am: ==accept the fact that they cannot collect the pensions they thought they were entitled to because the Legislature has consistently fallen down on their responsibility to adequately fund the system== Which of course makes those same State employees REALLY NERVOUS about any proposal that has the words “guaranteed contribution” in the description! - Cosmic Charlie - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:41 am: ==If they get into teaching at 22 for a pension, then maybe they shouldn’t be teaching anyway.== Hmmm Rich. Not so sure about this drive by statement. Why would thinking about retirment/pension disqualify someone from teaching? Does someone need to have a purely selfless heart to teach? Why can’t it be both? I want to help kids and look out for myself in later years. Seems like a natural way to feel, even at age 22. - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:44 am: –I’m not sure twenty-somethings who have a burning desire to teach really think all that much about pensions…– It would be sad it they did. You’re only that age once, to my increasing surprise. - Nearly Normal - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 10:54 am: Free health care insurance is not what I get from TRS. I pay a monthly premium for my HMO which is what I selected from the options offered for my county. I will say that the cost has been subsidized by the state and no doubt my premium is less due to that state contribution. I fully expect to pay more for my insurance in the future like everything else. I won’t qualify for Medicare for a few years so TRS is my main insurance until that time. - Obamas' Puppy - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 11:03 am: Despite the fact that changing benfits for current members is clearly and undeniably unconstitutional, this point of view only exposes those who believe public employees should be punished for devoting their life to public service. It is never enough for these people. Its like saying my house was robbed because my 401(k) went down so its ok for yours to be robbed too because you work for the “evil government”. The fundamental difference is Social Security, it is time to mandate coverage for all government employees!!! - Brennan - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 11:11 am: =those who believe public employees should be punished for devoting their life to public service.= It’s a job with wages and benefits. What makes it different is it comes with insurance in the form of the government treasury. In exchange for the employment insurance, they accept the socialization of their gains and losses. If that is unclear, perhaps their union is a horrible educator. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 11:14 am: Cassandra, once again you have no clue about state employees and management. While there may be some political staff that are not busy the majority of state employees are extremely hard working and dedicated. Many have kept the state working in spite of all the garbage that has happened over the last 6 years. Even with the constant bashing by clueless people that listen to stereotypes they contine to do a great job. Our pensions are one of the lowest in the country. That is still not good enough for you, if you had your way we would work for below minimum wage, with no benefits at all. Keep in mind it is not OUR fault that the Legislature did not fund the pension as they are required to do. While you are looking into things ask why they exempted themselves from the pension reforms. Who abuses the pension system more, State Employees or Legislators? - Cindy Lou - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 11:16 am: Nearly Normal, my husband will be SERS, as his dependent I have paid my premium the same as if he were retired or active and will continue to do so even when he retires. I actually don’t have a problem with a retiree employee paying for their own premium as a active would do. And of course active/nonactive employee/retiree would expect to pay as the rates are increased for all. The average retiree pension I’m speaking of is 20,000 a year, what I am saying is someone who expects to get 20,000 and then suddenly two months after retirement finds they now have to put 6,000 of that out for a new premium is not going to go racing out the door for any early retirement incentive. - Nearly Normal - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 11:17 am: Rich, many young people are aware of their financial futures and do think about where they will be down the road. Those of us who mentor new teachers tell them to put a little away each month even if it is $25 or $50 each month to start. Many of them tell us that they have had that conversation already with their parents and have set up an IRA or other retirement account. Not everybody that comes out of college is clueles about the real world. Some of them have been working all along so their student loans are not sky high. - Merit Comp Slave - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 11:26 am: Let me get this straight..most teachers only work 9 or 10 months a year so if you factor that in when figuring total time worked over a lifetime, age 67 would be like 60 in dog years to the rest of us!! I have to work until I’m 62 and (many have to work longer) and that’s 12 months a year. Also many moons ago when I was 22, I could care less about retirement - was just SO happy to get a job, any job and make some many, any money - dont tread on me - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 11:46 am: The government has no business whatsoever disturbing people’s existing contracts. Whether its employment or mortgage or whatever, the government should leave them alone unless fraud is involved. - CircularFiringSquad - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 12:32 pm: Someone asked what the dopes at the bankrupt, fed probe target that runs the Countdown Clock would suggest the space wasted on their stunt takes up about +25,000 words. That’s is a lot of slop they will not have to spoon out over the next 8 months. - inpatient in il - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 12:50 pm: Maybe teachers shouldn’t get into that line of work for the pension. But even someone that goes into teaching on its own merits would be perfectly reasonable to consider the pension benefits offered when deciding in which state to look for work. - steve schnorf - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 1:02 pm: JB, I know the world is a simpler place for those of you who always ignore the fact that in Illinois public employees can, by law, organize and bargain collectively. Most state employees are covered by both civil service and collective bargaining contracts, and/or tenure laws. I don’t think it would be all that simple to immediately terminate and rehire them. Another simple solution for a complex problem, again wrong. - Downstater - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 1:28 pm: I’m not sure if this is place for this question…but…if it’s unconstitutional to alter pension benefits for existing state employees, can the constitution be altered via a constitutional amendment voted on by the electorate? If given a choice of higher taxes or altering the existing state pension plan, I’m confident of the outcome. - Secret Square - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 2:28 pm: “If it’s unconstitutional to alter pension benefits for existing state employees, can the constitution be altered via a constitutional amendment voted on by the electorate” The answer must be yes — isn’t that precisely the reason public employee unions were so strongly against con-con in 2008? - WalterGPW - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 2:42 pm: Rich Whitney will be giving his take on the Pension Bill in Carbondale at 3:30 today I believe. Intermission Room, Varsity Theater 418 S. Illinois Ave. Carbondale, IL. - Downstater - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 3:01 pm: SS, Yes but con-con can only be considered every 10 years, and that opportunity was voted down last election. But…can a constitutional amendment be voted on by the electorate between conventions? - Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 3:05 pm: ===only be considered every 10 years=== 20 - Cindy Lou - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 3:09 pm: The Illinois Constitution can be amended either by Constitutional Convention –if 3/5 of the members in each House of the General Assembly agree to it, which voters can approve or disapprove or by the General Assembly –if 3/5 of each house of the General Assembly approve the amendment, which is then submitted to the voters at the next general election. (quick google, likely better wording elsewhere) - Pat Robertson - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 4:04 pm: ==“If it’s unconstitutional to alter pension benefits for existing state employees, can the constitution be altered via a constitutional amendment voted on by the electorate” The answer must be yes == True, but you still have to worry about the federal constitution’s prohibitions against states passing laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” Federal courts have held that, when a state law is intended to create a contractual obligation (which is precisely what our constitution expressly says it is doing regarding “pension and retirement system” benefits), the state can’t back out of the contract by changing its laws. The courts could very easily hold that we cannot cut back on retirement benefits (including free health insurance) for current state employees even by changing our constitution. - Downstater - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 4:39 pm: Okay. One more question…if you’ll indulge me. Since, the state has the ability to not impose a state income tax on state pension benefits (which I’m pretty sure is the present situation), do they also have the ability to impose a “super-tax” on excessive state pension benefits, if they so chose? I’m not advocating this. Just want to know what limited options they might have. Thanks! - Pat Robertson - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 4:51 pm: Downstater — an argument could be made that the existing exemption is “contractual,” although I think that is pushing it too far. Taxing higher amounts could be challenged as violating the constitutional prohibition against graduated taxes. On balance, I think they could, as long as they don’t tax a retired judge. It’s amazing how the constitution matches self-interest sometimes. - JustaJoe - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 5:28 pm: “I’m not sure twenty-somethings who have a burning desire to teach really think all that much about pensions…” But Rich, they should, and they do think about the viability of the profession. The perception here is that public sector employees are mostly uneducated patronage slugs that are somehow given too much. Educated professionals , like teachers, are taken for granted. Security and stability are the trade-offs for higher pay and mobility present in the private sector….that trade-off can be attractive to many. Do we want better teachers, better government financial people, better managers, better engineers, better lawyers, etc? Do we want the best and brightest in public service? Or, do we want the bottom of the barrel with low talent and without a work ethic? And, if the compensation bar is lowered for new professionals, what will the unions do in the long run? Bargain for more. - irving & ashland - Friday, Mar 26, 10 @ 7:04 pm: Rich, You’re wrong about allowing early retirement. It always costs the taxpayers more in the long run. There is no salary class making so little that paying someone new to do the work, while you also pay the old employee 60-80% of their last salary not to do the work saves money. Part of the problem we have now is that local governments for years shunted expenses off into the pension system by making this flawed argument for early retirement. It may move around who makes most of the payment, but the overall outlay is larger if you allow early retirement. - the truth - Wednesday, Mar 31, 10 @ 12:16 pm: Operation Crooked Code Update: Petru Cladovan The feds, prosecutors, and judge finally admit and conclude amid all set forth charges that Petru Cladovan is and was innocent AND ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED today 3/30/2010. Petru Cladovan was found that he never had intent and/or knowledge of any bribes and all accusation were misinterpretation of twisted perfected lies by so called “expeditor”, who was forced to start operating, as a mole with the feds, and with whom orchestrated this entrapment only to reduce her possible charges sentence of 130yrs if convicted. This same “expeditor” ironically under oath admitted and testified that Petru Cladovan had no implication nor knowledge of her illegal business transactions and that all business between her and Petru Cladovan were 100% LEGAL and legit!!! It is only fair to say that after two long years of false accusations, wrongfully indicted, and defamation not limited to by the government and by media to Petru Cladovan and his family, the truth and innocent prevails. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.