39 Comments - John Bambenek - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:10 am: Hire scabs and be done with it. - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:12 am: == require significant reductions in wages or benefits== Yeah–they’re calling it “The Great Recession” and it’s happening all over. Get out of your office and check it out for yourself, or better yet: get back to work! - dave - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:20 am: It is unacceptable that MARBA is refusing to negotiate before next week. As for the recession, I have yet to see any evidence from MARBA that the recession is forcing them to get workers to make concessions. Which makes me think that they are using it as an excuse. The Union has justified why they are asking for increases health insurance contributions, and it is rational and logical. And that is the ONLY increase they are asking for. MARBA continues to cry about the recession and refuses to negotiate in a timely manner. But people want to blame the union? - This Little Piggie - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:20 am: How can you starve people making in excess of $100k per year?! - dave - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:23 am: How can you starve people making in excess of $100k per year?! How many of them are making 100k a year? You do know that they only work, roughly, 1000 hours a year right now, right? - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:25 am: dave….so it’s OK that they don’t pay ANYTHING toward their medical costs? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:26 am: Piggie, dave is right. The knee-jerk reaction against all unions here is a bit much to take sometimes. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:27 am: Oh lord! We’ve gotten to a point where either we have a government agency or group regulating a project into a standstill, a NIMBY group sending lawyers crawling over a project, and now, a union deciding to stop a project. Can anyone get anything done anymore? - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:30 am: I’m a fan of Quinn, but it is pretty hard to see him bringing the sides together and getting a resolution. He’d be better off naming someone with gravitas to arbitrate this mess. What’s Ab Mikva doing these days? Or better yet, ask Jim Edgar to mediate. Why would either side go into the bargaining room only to hear Quinn drone on about Lincoln, or filibuster about the history of labor unions in Illinois, or whatever else he’d think of on the spot? I don’t think Quinn has what it takes to bring these two any closer to where they’d be on their own. He’d only look more ineffective if he tried. - cassandra - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:33 am: Well, the problem is that most private sector workers are probably going to have to absorb the inevitable increases in health insurance premiums themselves as we proceed towards and begin health care reform. These increases aren’t necessarily a bad thing, assuming the huge profits of the corporate health care sector can be trimmed back. If technological advances in medicine are to be made available to all, it is going to cost more. But people will live longer and healthier lives. But many of us members of the middle class, especially those who work independently or for small business, are going to have to absorb these increases ourselves, while public and private employee unions get these increases “covered” while they whine endlessly about pay raises they didn’t get. This may be the new new thing for unions–they cover huge increases in health care costs while minimizing same. We taxpayer will have to pay these increased costs directly for government employees, especially if Pat Quinn is managing the negotiations. So let’s not be swayed when AFSCME or MARBA or any public or private union cries poor. Look at the benefits. They’re not free. - dave - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:35 am: so it’s OK that they don’t pay ANYTHING toward their medical costs? Yup. - dave - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:40 am: so it’s OK that they don’t pay ANYTHING toward their medical costs? But, of course, it isn’t true that they don’t pay anything towards their medical costs. First, they pay co-pays. Second, L150 has been subsidizing the health fund due to the reductions in hours. Where does L150 get the money? From their members. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:58 am: My employees and I don’t pay any of our health premiums. The company (that I own) pays them. There are a few of us left who believe that “health and welfare” are part of the employers’ responsibilities. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 12:01 pm: I wonder why the unions with all their cash on hand and political clout don’t attempt to influence public opinion more, especially when every single story has the hourly wages in it but not the annual pay averages. It is a natural calculation to make: $50/hour x 40 hours/wk x 50 weeks/yr = $100K. Few realize how much idle time laborers are forced to have. - Ghost of John Brown - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 12:10 pm: Both sides probably need a swift smack upside the head on this one. I’m guessing that the pols in Springfield have plenty of places to spend money these days instead of spending it on roads. Keep this up, screw up the construction season and the pols will have less of a desire to help next time around. While the folks at 150 and MARBA are fighting, there are a lot of associated businesses with people sitting around not working because they depend on construction. Guys - flip a coin, and be done with this and quit beating your chests (both of you). If you were smart, you would get this done and come out with a joint statement something like “with people out of work, and the economy teetering, we want to stand together and put people back on the job. We have resolved our differences and we look forward to bettering our state with a quality transportation system”. Feel free to use that - I give you permission. Just stop the fighting and get back to work. - plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 12:18 pm: It would be better to cancel the projects than to agree to 4.55 percent per year. The money has to be borrowed to pay for the projects. The hourly rate for labor is just way too high as it is. 14+% increase over three years is simply a nutty expectation. How many of the people who have to pay the taxes, to pay the construction bills have comparable compensation? - Vote Quimby! - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 12:36 pm: Sure Dave…I understand members have co-pays. My wife is a union member (and pays a prorated share through payroll), and I don’t understand why MARBA will not negotiate while the construction season dwindles. I know contractors are bidding jobs below cost…perhaps that is why. Could you reconcile these differences please?: Daily Herald story: ==Union spokesman Ed Maher has stressed that union workers are not seeking a pay increase. The compensation increase would pay for rising health and other benefit costs== Dave’s post: ==And (health insurance) is the ONLY increase they are asking for.== - Robert - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 12:48 pm: I agree with Lefty Lefty’s point that unions need to argue more about the hours worked for p.r. purposes. so what is the typical annual wage? $50,000 @ 1000 hours/yr and $50/hour? But really effectively it is better than a $50,000 job, because (1) No contribution to health insurance. Not sure how much this should cost, but I contribute $6,000 per year, so I’ll use that and (2) they only are working 1,000 hours, so certainly have the opportunity to earn extra money by working odd jobs or part-time elsewhere. Conservatively, 500 extra hours @$10/hour gets $5,000 more. Very roughly then the total wages+unusual benefits are $61,000 ($50,000 wages + $6,000 health care + $5,000 gigs). These workers are not wealthy, but they are all earning an okay living, in my opinion. I don’t blame them for being tough negotiators. I appreciate what incredible work unions have done in the history of our state and our country. But in this instance, I’m all for holding the line on anything more generous and hiring scabs if the union says no. Quinn shouldn’t get involved until he at least reduces/eliminates the raises he gave to his staff. Shared sacrifice. - dave - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 1:15 pm: Who are these scabs that people talk about, that supposedly are trained and qualified to operate heavy machinery? - Rebel - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 1:35 pm: One quick question. Are these construction projects part of/paid for through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The one that the Gov passed to put people that were unemployed back to work? - Skeeter - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 1:35 pm: I’m about as pro union as you get, but I actually agree with the very first comment. Very bad timing to strike or frankly, to demand anything additional. Be happy that management is not demanding a cut to the hourly rate. The only people getting raises today are Quinn staffers. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 1:36 pm: VMaN, try to find the strength to get through another day. Life is so hard, isn’t it? Get used to fights over health care. Everyone has always wanted to live forever, and now you can come closer in ways that were unimaginable even 20 years ago. Modern medicine costs a lot, but everyone wants it. The debate on how to pay for it has just started. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 2:14 pm: @Lefty Lefty, =My employees and I don’t pay any of our health premiums. The company (that I own) pays them.= Does your company have any customers? Yes? Then they pay your healthcare premiums. Unless your company prints money, of course. @dave, =Who are these scabs that people talk about, that supposedly are trained and qualified to operate heavy machinery?= I betcha there are some unemployed heavy equipment operators who love to get a paycheck. Whether or not they would cross the line is another question. Didn’t Pres Reagan fire all the air traffic controllers and hire a whole new crowd? Messed up the skies for a bit but life went on. As a former member of 3 unions and a current member of a union I have to say I agree with Skeeter about the timing of this strike. With the exception of PQs staffers many of us are struggling to make it and are not looking favorably at this action. In a few weeks the projects won’t be able to be completed anyway so let ‘em stew over this while the snow falls. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 2:16 pm: @word, =Everyone has always wanted to live forever, and now you can come closer in ways that were unimaginable even 20 years ago= The old joke goes like this: In Scotland, they think that death is imminent. In Canada they think that death is inevitable. In California they think that death is optional. - Chicago - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 2:25 pm: The money the unions are seeking isn’t coming from the taxpayer. It’s coming from the contractors’ share of the profits. The unions aren’t asking the state for more money here. The cost of the next project need not increase because the unions get an increase. The only thing that happens is the contractors make a smaller profit. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 2:25 pm: ===The money the unions are seeking isn’t coming from the taxpayer.=== Yes, it is. I see your point, but it is tax money. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 2:38 pm: dupage dan- Thanks for the lesson in microeconomics. By your logic if I pay my workers, and they pay for their own insurance, then I paid for it, and therefore my customers paid for it. Where does you logic end? I’ll tell you how it actually works–I charge the industry’s acceptable fees, and then I decide what to do with my company’s revenue stream. I could easily decrease or eliminate health care costs, SIMPLE Plan contributions, vacation days, etc. and make at least 30% more money than I already do. I choose not to; I give it to my employees. It has absolutely nothing to do with DD’s comment. Now someone will chime in about worker retention and tax breaks and small business incentives and all that. Yeah yeah yeah fine. But the fact is that a private company owner with no unionized employees can do almost anything he/she wants with regard to pay and benefits. Then you’re stuck with the workers that will accept that. - Leroy - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 2:43 pm: ===The money the unions are seeking isn’t coming from the taxpayer.=== Sweet. So have the contractors pad the additional cost in and pass it on to the state. That is win-win. You think the state is going to fight the increase the union needs? The increase is creating jobs, and paying for health benefits. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 2:50 pm: Comments by “look at the real world” and “@#$%^&&” were deleted because they came from the same IP address. Sock-puppets are not welcome here. Go away. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 4:17 pm: Lefty Lefty, Ain’t capitalism grand? The simple fact of the matter is the money to pay for this comes from somewhere. It doesn’t just appear. So, if that is what you meant by your question “where does your logic end”, then that can be discussed. Who you hire, how much you pay, are they unionized, etc. All part and parcel to business, which you are well aware since you own one. As a customer, I would not necessarily be concerned about the management of the business and how much you pay your employees. In the macro-economic world it does, eventually. Isn’t capitalism grand? - 3 beers to Springfield - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 5:20 pm: Construction laborers may only work 8 months out of the year, but any hour over 8 per weekday and any Sat or Sun hour is paid at least 1.5 or double time. This is regardless of how many hours have been worked in that week. For accurate wages and benefits for Union employment categories, check out the IDOL listing of prevailing wage. In Illinois, prevailing wage is union wage and the unions have a state agency eager to enforce their wages, benefits, work rules, etc. This is the DuPage County rate table. http://www.state.il.us/agency/idol/rates/ODDMO/DU_PAGE9.htm - Todd - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 6:20 pm: Skeeter – We didn’t make or choose the economy and there isn’t much we can do about it. The contractors choose not to put a serious offer on the table and were at 0% for 3 years up till June 28 where they went to 1% which was 66 cents. had there been real movement at the table, we might have stayed on the job. But we know that they just wanted to drag the talks out till winter. So with no proposal, there wasn’t much to bring back to the members. So a strike vote was the only option left. We now are hearing that that the contractors are trying to interfear with our internal Union election They hope that with a 2000 guys who havent; worked a full year in two, with the ones that would vote against mom, apple pie and Jesus, along with a number of dissaffected members may change the election and give them a sweetheart deal. One of their latest things is to demand the right of assignment for machines. All unions have a scope or work or jurisidction. Now the contractor wants to do away with that and give the work to who ever he wants which means the cheapest. So they will give our work to the laborers, and they will give their work to the carpenters and so on. - Todd - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 7:07 pm: Some seem to be upset at our healthcare benefits. Our members over the years have decided to put money into benefits as opposed to more on the check. So while you may see a higher co pay, we see something of the same, but instead of a co-pay we simply pay a higher premium. So it’s not based upon how sick you might be, or if you use the system, it is for the overall level of coverage. Over the years we have asked the members what they wanted, and they have chosen the benefits. We have given them the opportunity to cut benefits and put more on the check, but they have refused it. Instead choosing to divert raises into healthcare and pensions. And our plan doesn’t cover everything, limits on braces, physicals, chropratric, imunizations just to name a few. We started out own pharmacy to cut drug costs. Wallgreens can’t do it as cheap as we do. And, we have $150 MILLION we are willing to use over the next 3 years to cover the shortfall in man hours/premiums. So for being proactive and good stewards, deferring raises for benefits, we are suppose to be the bad guys? - 4 percent - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 10:40 pm: Funny thing is that some of the same unions lobby for increased health care mandates at the Capitol which result in higher premiums for employers! Despite the increased costs, many legislators continue to vote for these mandates. I trust that Local 150 and others will now lobby against these mandates. - Doug - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 10:59 pm: Any groups asking for a raise in these economic times should be villified. - Todd - Tuesday, Jul 13, 10 @ 11:13 pm: 4 percent — we didn’t support the healthcare bill. Didn’t support mandates at the capitol. As a matter of fact some democrats that voted for the Obama bill may loose our support this fall. Don’t lump us all in together. - downstate hack - Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 8:45 am: The union members are fools or lackies. This strike has already cost them more in lost wages than any settlement will get them back in two years. The union leadership is losing all credibility for their members with the public. - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 10:12 am: Todd’s rational arguments represent the union’s view better than most union bosses. He personifies rational debate. While I hardly ever agree with him on union issues, he is one of the best spokesmen for his cause, and is a great asset to CapitolFax discussions. That said, I think the union is making a grave tactical, and perhaps strategic error. The union risks loss of an entire work season, and consequent loss of wages for its members. It has been shown time and again that the lost wages as a result of a strike are never made up after a strike. I feel for these union members’ families… - Todd - Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 10:17 am: cinci – thanks for the comments. I understand the economic arguement, but the destruction of the working conditions would cost a lot more and destroy jobs permenently. That being said, i think there will be some big news today with small contractors Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.