71 Comments - jimbo2600 - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 7:24 am: Union members don’t walk away from a job at 5pm if they are still needed. - AC - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 7:29 am: I think there may some agreement that some positions might not be appropriately included in the union. It’s a question of where the line is drawn. Has anyone addressed the fact that that, according to AFSCME, this bill would strip ALL PSAs of their collective bargaining rights? Either the newspapers have it wrong, stating that only titles brought in after December 2008 could be removed, or AFSCME has it wrong, with their claim that all PSAs would lose their bargaining rights. As I read the bill, and I’m not a lawyer, it appears that AFSCME has the correct interpretation. If that’s the case, all the discussion of “legislative liaisons and deputy chiefs of staffs” is a smokescreen for removing everyone from the union who is in a job title that includes nearly 2,000 people. - Hank - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 7:48 am: That is really ridiculous that some state lawyers are unionized. Anyone know how their work product is? Are they just sitting around wearing the lawyer badge and punching the clocks? If so, sounds like a nice gig that should end! - Ron Bolek - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 7:48 am: Comparing Pat Quinn to Scott Walker is sloppy, lazy and reckless on the part of AFSCME. More than 95% of IL state workers are union. That’s the highest percentage nationwide. This bill would keep us at the highest % nationwide. - Retired Non-Union Guy - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 7:54 am: I’ll repeat my comment from yesterday in more concise form. Based on my experience as a SPSA from the day the title was created, you can’t blanket classify PSA or even SPSA as management. Lot’s of those titles are held by technical or licensed people who were swept into “management” by CMS when the titles were created. They have no more authority or power than the brick out in the sidewalk. To find the managers who have the ability to hire / discipline / fire, commit to expenditures, and set policy, you will have to do a position by position audit. Anything else is just plain stupid and an invitation to more lawsuits … - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:02 am: Hank, either take a breath or leave. Your choice. - Stooges - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:03 am: The union ranks are full of political hacks that came in with Blago and sought refuge from future governors by getting in the union. Plus, Blago punished the career managers by never giving raises, and many of them jumped at the chance to join the union where they enjoyed huge annual raises from the ridiculous contract Blago gave the unions to buy their votes. IDOT technical employees are now 95% unionized, where they were once around 50%. - Flaming Liberal - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:06 am: We need to hold the line on “union busting” in Illinois. We are losing in Wisconsin and even New Jersey is “throwing us under the bus”. Governor Christie, as expected, is attempting to lessen union power. But, the leaders of the senate and the house, both Democrats, are concurring. The future of the party is at stake here. Hold the line Illinois Democrats. - How Ironic - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:14 am: The Gov’s office only brought this upon themselves. After 6 years or more, people are tired of no raises, furlough days and endless other ‘death by a 1000 cuts’. After a while, joining the union seems an attractive alternative to the endless chats about how there is zero money for merit comp increases. I’m not suggesting that there IS money, but the perception is that joining a union is the ONLY way to get a pay increase at the state. And it pretty much is at this point. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:14 am: Legislative liaisons make policy? That’s news. I’d like to know how legislative liaisons are lobbying their lawmakers. It would seem to me that if they make policy, they’d be telling lawmakers to vote No. If, however, they just carry out orders from above, they’d be urging lawmakers to take away their union membership. Talk about a Catch-22. - PublicServant - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:23 am: This bill isn’t “Union Busting”, but it’s far from perfect if it doesn’t address the points being made by some that certain positions are being labeled as management that really have no authority to negotiate wages, salary, benefits, or work conditions with the employees that they supervise. And those with added management responsibility that are making less money than the personnel that they manage need to be reviewed for resonableness, and that language should be written into a better bill. - JimF - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:38 am: This is one of those issues that is sooo polarized that it is hard to find people in the middle ground. Proponents of the bill claim that only actual managers and policy makers will be covered which sounds good to me. Opponents claim that thousands of people who are neither will have their union status stripped away, which sounds very bad to me. The union is making a lot of extreme rhetorical charges rather than attempting to find and defend a reasonable limit. I.e we would support a bill if a rupitable audit of the targeted jobs is performed and the legislation only addresses managers and policy makers. But, conversely, people like the governor are also starting fires not shedding light. I have actually NEVER seen a public employee in Illinois in the last decade or so who would actually quit at 5 if there was an important issue to be dealt with. Has anyone with standing who is objective actually analyzed the bill to see who is closer to the truth? - Draznnl - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:39 am: -That is really ridiculous that some state lawyers are unionized. - I was one of those unionized lawyers when I was a state employee. We organized after going through several years of the Ryan and Blago administrations with no raises and mandatory furlough days. We were front-line employees before we organized and we were front-line employees afterwards. Our job descriptions and work product didn’t change. The only significant differences were getting reasonable raises and a little protection from the political hacks supervising us. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:41 am: “Quinn’s office argues the move would save the state money and make government more efficient…” Sometimes a blind squirrel gets a nut. Yes, not having the union would save money. Why is it that he believes this true only on this class of workers. Would not the same logic hold for ALL state workers? And if you are for the right to unionize, should you also be for the right to not unionize? Why are employees forced to join a union and pay dues to an organization that provides them no support, and is in the game only for the money and the power it brings? - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:49 am: As far as attorneys and engineers and such, it is totally appropriate for them to NOT be in the union. In the private sector, these employees would be EXEMPT status is they are salaried, even if they have no managerial responsibilities. - Robert - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:00 am: I don’t understand the timing of this, given the three-fifths rule. Why is Quinn not waiting until next session to push this? - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:01 am: Not sure what union busting is. Is any change in the power of the union union busting? Why is it when WI and NJ reign in some of the union power it is bad, but when NY does it it passes muster? There needs to be some sort of balance between management and labor. The problem as pointed out by Stooges above, there are political appointees who become union members and are protected on two levels from their poor performance. Ultimately we should be doing things for the benefit of the citizens, not just a squeaky wheel. That goes for any special interest, whether it is business, labor etc. - Sue - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:03 am: Quinn is looking for a small sign to prove he can be tough- He is fighting the wrong battle since a victory won’t impact the budget- in contrast- his nemesis- Chris Christie is on the cusp of significantly reducing NJ employee health insurance and pension costs for his state with the help of a Democratic State Senate Majority leader proving it can be done if you know what you are doing and are willing to put your reelectability at stake - Justice - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:04 am: The union has successfully positioned themselves as the only game in town by working with the Gov to deny raises to all management employees, while getting nice, consistent raises for their members….and significantly increasing their war chest. The more members, the more dues, and the more political clout. Many in the union were forced to be there from strictly an economic standpoint. While those not in the union still are denied raises. This system of pitting one against the other works to the benefit of those in power but goes against the grain of decency and fairness in just about every way possible. It is my opinion that we should get rid of all unions in public service and education. - Ahoy - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:15 am: This is an absurd reaction by AFSME and nothing more than a money grab by them. There are simply positions that do not belong in a union. Obviously management and political jobs are one of them. Even AFSME is well aware of this, but it will affect their bottom line. This common sense legislation is so far away from union busting that those comments cannot even be taken seriously. - Lincoln's Penny - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:26 am: “most state workers will stay after 5 to get an important job done”. Sure, i agree. But you have to pay them overtime! More often than not i have seen the management employees refrain from asking the unionized members to stay after 5 because they know they will get rebuffed by their fiscal office. So, they end up taking the extra load. And, as in the case of the legislative liaisons, they may have to work weekends and usually stay til late from Jan-May. That can get pretty expensive. - Quiet Sage - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:33 am: IF the Illinois Democratic leaders had the political smarts they think they have, they would public broadcast themselves as the antitheses of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. They would support public sector union organizing to the hilt, making exceptions only in cases of obvious union overextensions such as high management and (probably) legislative liaisons. According to polls, a majority of the public in Wisconsin has been supportive of the aggressively pro-union stance of the Democratic party there. Democrats came very close to unseating a sitting Wisconsin Supreme Court judge (almost unprecedented in that state) and are likely to do very well in the recall elections targeting Republican legislators. As far as one can tell, however, the Illinois Democratic leaders basically approve of the positions Scott Walker has taken with unions as well as public sector pensions. They just want to move more slowly in the same direction. You can’t get worker and middle class support by claiming you are slightly less awful than the other guy. You have to draw clear distinctions on matters of basic principle. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:45 am: Do you know how much these management people are paid? These people are not victims! They play the System to be where they are now, and still are by unionizing. They make belonging to a union a mockery. AFSCME is committing suicide. It can not represent both the field hands and the overseers too! - AC - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:02 am: JimF raised an important question, “Has anyone with standing who is objective actually analyzed the bill…?” Quinn talks about the bill being limited to “high-level management positions such as attorneys, legislative liaisons and deputy chiefs of staffs for state agencies” whereas AFSCME has it including people who aren’t even low level managers. Does anyone really know who is likely to be impacted? Is the bill so poorly written that no one really knows until it makes it to the courts for interpretation? Either the administration is downplaying the impact of this bill, or AFSCME is overstating it. I’m too close to the issue to read it objectively, and I’m not an attorney. - Bemused - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:04 am: As I see it AFSME is just taking the same kind of position as say the NRA folks. I.E. if we let them have an inch next they’ll be back for a foot and half a leg. Okay that is what they are paid to do. Of course many on here think they do nothing for their pay. Yet they also feel they have done too good a job with getting the percentage IL public workers unionized. Then you have folks like Cincy who have to throw out the standard “Right to work for less” position. It is the same everything on the internet should be free kind of thought. I want all the benefits without the cost. I can do quite well on my own and todays employers will treat me fairly. So why are these folks joining the union again? My opinion, yes there should be limits on who can be organized. The real fight is over where those should be. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:11 am: ==In the private sector, these employees would be EXEMPT status is they are salaried, even if they have no managerial responsibilities.== I do not believe that is correct. The NLRB web site indicates EXEMPT status is based on what an employee does, not on whether they are hourly or salaried. The implications above, such as that unionized employees would not work over-time without compensation and that they would be harder to fire are without merit. Salaried employees, union or otherwise, are employed to perform a job, and, as such, are expected to work the hours necessary to complete it. Legal requirements regarding compensation apply to union and non-union folks alike. Likewise, legal requirements regarding dismissal for cause apply to all workers. If the State is not following the laws regarding compensation and dismissal, it should be. Unions do provide a structure to ensure legal requirements are followed. Unions also provide a collective pool of money to hire legal representation that an individual worker might not be able to afford. If, in the process of collective bargaining, the workers request additional rights or compensation beyond that required by law, the employer can always say “No.” - Wensicia - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:12 am: Is Quinn jumping on the anti-union bandwagon? Pre-election Quinn will protect all union positions until 2012. Post-election Quinn wants to change positions to non-union status. Maybe he should offer an opt-in, opt-out choice. By the way, many union positions don’t follow a clock, quite a few of us take work home. We have many tasks that don’t follow given timelines. - Justice - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:20 am: Perhaps I should clarify “management” per VM’s astute observation of who the players really are. Many of those doing the heavy lifting are considered by the Governor and his minions as “management” when they are, by classification, in those positions of making management decisions. However, we all here know that it is a far cry from reality as those hacks slid into position by the Gov are and have been making the key ‘management’ decisions for years through fear and intemuidation. The real workers, with the managers titles, get no financial consideration. Since they have no champions in their corner to assist them in maintaining a just compensation plan, they lose. The unions, on the other hand, with their players in place, win handily. Also keep in mind, that both Ryan’s and Blagojevich’s hacks hid themselves in the shadows with nice paying positions, which are mostly in the union now. A gross miscarriage of fairness and decency. It is an affront to the American way of life and WE let it happen and look the other way. What have we allowed ourselves to become? - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:23 am: ==The problem as pointed out by Stooges above, there are political appointees who become union members and are protected on two levels from their poor performance.== A simple solution: Take the time to document poor performance. The assertion that someone is not doing their job needs to be documented. Unfortunately, too many supervisors to not want to make the effort to establish a paper trail or pursue it. Step 1: periodic review with goals for following year; Step 2: subsequent evaluation with documentation that goals were or were not met; Step 3: if goals are not met, develop a remediation plan; Step 4: if remediation is not met, dismissal. All state employees should be having their work reviewed at least annually. If they are not, this is a failure in management. If the goals are worthless or there is no follow-up, this is a failure in management. The bottom line is this: poor performers who stay in their jobs are a management failure. Too often, poor managers blame “the unions” for protecting poor performers when it is the managers who are not doing their jobs. - bigdaddygeo - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:23 am: So, is collective bargaining good or bad? And why are State of Illinois employees who are union members, selfless public servants willing to stay past 5 to get an important job done, but managers who are union members aren’t. So, it’s important to have collective bargaining - except when it isn’t. Gov. Pat Quinn (D-Ill.) (from Huff Post) “Illinois is open for tourism all the time,” he told The Huffington Post. “We have Wisconsin legislators and I think Indiana legislators, I really think that everybody knows it is important to have collective bargaining. It is the best way to resolve differences, and what’s happening in Wisconsin, I don’t think will spread anywhere.” - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:29 am: With few exceptions, to be exempt an employee must (a) be paid at least $23,600 per year ($455 per week), and (b) be paid on a salary basis, and also (c) perform exempt job duties. An employee who meets the salary level tests and also the salary basis tests is exempt only if s/he also performs exempt job duties. - wordonthestreet - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:31 am: Some good points made here. Now retired, I used to be an SPSA who worked lots of overtime hours for no extra pay. Glad to do it… my job was to get the job done, regardless of the hours worked. As a manager, the biggest problem I had with managing was that my front-line supervisors were in the union… and thus these mission-critical jobs were filled via senority. When an incompetent, yet senior, employee got the supervisory job, many of the less-senior, more competent employees would get fed up with having to work around their boss, or to do the boss’s job, and they would find more satisfying work elsewhere. However, by paying the front-line staff more than the much more complex job of front-line supervisor, the brain trust running state government created this mess, not AFSCME. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:37 am: OK my question is what percentage of federal employees are Civil Service and are protected? How are we any different? - Alexander cut the knot. - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:41 am: “Pot calling kettle” the simple solution is broken in state government - you will spend your entire time on grievances and not get your real job done; not to mention, at least in the past, also needing a map to show the non-union “connections” of a given worker, i.e. how did he or she get where he or got and how has he or she managed to stay in govt., and who’s going to gun for you if you succeed in the simple solution and yet still need to be reappointed. Yes it is a failure in management, but at the very top for decades of not backing up those who pursued the simple solution and learned their lesson. - lincoln's beard - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:53 am: Tell me how many unpaid furlough days I’m going to have to take next year and then I’ll tell you whether or not I want to join the union. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 10:58 am: ==my front-line supervisors were in the union…and thus these mission-critical jobs were filled via senority== The answer to this could be to change the contract language regarding promotions. I know that’s no easier than passing a law, but it should be pursued. At some level, such a change would also be in the interest of the unions. - wordonthestreet - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:10 am: Pot: Unions will never give up senority… it’s the heart of their organization. Too bad. The other really bad thing about managers being in the bargaining unit is the resulting reluctance by them to document poor performance of a fellow union member. - Segatari - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:13 am: Gee, what a shock - union leaders perceived Pat Quinn to be their very best friend because they can’t stand anyone with an R by their name and yet again another backstabbing and twisting of the dagger. They NEVER EVER LEARN. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:14 am: –It can not represent both the field hands and the overseers too!– Interesting perspective, Scarlett. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:15 am: Segatari, a candidate who advocated a right to work law would’ve been better for the unions? How? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:16 am: And, I would add, a candidate that ran a TV ad singling out union leaders? - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:17 am: Rich, It may not be better for the UNIONS, but it may be better for the WORKERS. The unions do not care about workers, they care about the power the union member’s dues bring. - Irish - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:45 am: I am in agreement with all above who are stating that this bill is not what Quinn is saying. It is not about policymaking legislative liasons it is about other middle management positions who politicians want out of the unions not because they are managemnent or because being a union member is affecting their judgement but because the politicicnas want to look good to voters and they want to be able to appoint their friends into those positions when they become vacant. These people have “as much authority or power as the brick out in the sidewalk.” Quinn is a DINO and a LINO. Democrat and leader in name only. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:51 am: Police and fire are unionized. They work past five p.m. This seems like a pretty bogus argument. @Cincinattus - I think you’re probably quite wrong there. Brady advocated 10% across-the-board budget cuts. That wouldn’t be good for the workers fired or the ones left behind to do the work of seven people. - Bemused - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:52 am: Cincy, I have sat and looked at your 11:17 post. I have been over time a craft journeyman, a Union Organizer and Business Agent. I think I know something of the inner workings of organized labor and I take exception to your post. I will be the first say you are not 100% wrong but I would like to see what you have or what you know that allows for such a broad indictment. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:54 am: Food for thought, the unionized lawyers and psa supervisors and SPSA senior managers oocupy the highest titles in the state. PSA positions cap at 120k a year and SPSA at 130k As merit comp positions those lawyers and managers earn a salary, like the private sector, for working hoe ever many hours its takes. As union employees you pay them time and a half for hours over 37.5, and double time on state holidays, or quadruple time on thanksgiving and certian major holidays. We set the pay cap at 120k a year because it was a salary job expected to work until the job is done, now we pay them as hourly employees….should we be paing senior managers and attorneys at the rate of 180k to 260k a year for “overtime” work? - Bemused - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 11:56 am: I forgot to add before all of the above I was a non-union contractor. - Reba - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 12:20 pm: To use semantics as a simple argument, the PSA title is Public Service ADMINISTRATOR. If they are not doing administrative work, as some claim, then it would seem that those people are being paid for something they do not do. Either they are being paid extra for things they do not do, or they are, in fact, administrators and do not belong in the Union. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 12:21 pm: Bemused, Firstly, I said MAY. It is no sure thing that right-to-work would be better than the current system. But we do know some things. The current system is severely broken, and there is some evidence that union demands are helping bringing down corporations (GM) and government (Illinois). Tinker-around-the-edge “reforms” won’t work. I have worked in Fortune 10 companies, and have owned my own business. I have never had a beef with the workers. At one time, unions were vital to the success of America. I do not believe that is any longer the case. As the economy evolves to a service oriented one, I don’t see what tremendous benefits there are for unions. Protection from paper cuts? Workplace rules and costs associated with wages and benefits no longer make economic sense. Within the public sector, unions have a built-in conflict of interest; they support and help select their bosses using taxpayer supplied money. This is enough rationale in my case to ban unions from the public sector. So, I will stand by my statements. The fine works done by the unions in the past are no longer relevant. Almost all of the tasks are now a function of government (e.g. NLRB, EPA, OSHA). Forced closed-shops take away the freedom of an individual to work for a governments and some industries (while you can opt-out of a tiny portion of dues used for political activities, the lion share remains in the union’s coffers and nobody believes that the remaining share of money collected isn’t used for politics since money is fungible). It is my contention that all of this adds up to one thing. Unions are no longer relevant to the actual worker, and only exist to gather dues, which are then used for the purposes of power and influence. - Reba - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 12:26 pm: Main Entry: ad·min·is·ter Pronunciation: \əd-ˈmi-nə-stər\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): ad·min·is·tered; ad·min·is·ter·ing \-st(ə-)riŋ\ Etymology: Middle English administren, from Anglo-French administrer, from Latin administrare, from ad- + ministrare to serve, from minister servant — more at minister Date: 14th century transitive verb 1 : to manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of 2 a : to mete out : dispense b : to give ritually c : to give remedially intransitive verb 1 : to perform the office of administrator 2 : to furnish a benefit : minister 3 : to manage affairs — ad·min·is·tra·ble \-strə-bəl\ adjective - fed up - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 12:36 pm: They are going after PSA. It is a flat lie that that they can not discipline. we have been doing it for 3 without any problems. This is nothing more that them protecting their patronage jobs PERIOD!!! - girlawyer - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 12:55 pm: But in reality, the title “Public Service Administrator” is used to cover all sorts of jobs, such as prison psychologist. I’m not sure the title should be controlling. And the suggesting that lawyer=manager is not accurate either. The junior lawyer in a large office does not “manage” anyone. Yet it was this “management” theory that the courts used to disallowed the attorneys in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office to join a union. Curiously, the attorneys in the Cook County Public Defender’s Office are unionized. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 1:01 pm: People, go read the bill. It’s defined in there. - It's not that simple - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 2:08 pm: Yellow Dog Democrat - Police and Fire may be unionized, but the mid level managers belong to a different union than the rank and file. In Chicago PD, the rank and file are Fraternal Order of Police, but Lieutenants are in a Police Benevolent and Protective Association. IF the State were to follow that scheme, these middle managers would belong to … SEIU? Another union? - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 2:48 pm: ==The fine works done by the unions in the past are no longer relevant. Almost all of the tasks are now a function of government (e.g. NLRB, EPA, OSHA).== Except, of course, that the government depends on workers to call attention to violations. In a non-union shop, do that and get fired. Why do you think the recent mine disasters were in non-union mines? The labor unions act to protect workers who call attention to violations of work and safety laws. In addition, the unions protect worker’s wages. If the unions were useless, upper-level management would have no reason to keep unions out. They would bring them in to placate the workers. - Springfield Skeptic - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 3:19 pm: Ghost. PSAs may top out at 120K per year but very few actually make that much. Chop about 45K off that and you should have a pretty good average. BTW, 80% of the union folks that work for me (PSA) passed me in salary over the past 5 years. It wasn’t until they put me in the Union that I finally got a raise. Now only about 40% of my staff make more than I do. - Pat Robertson - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 4:08 pm: ==People, go read the bill. It’s defined in there.== Sort of. It says the Governor can bar from the unions people who “have a title of” Senior Public Service Administrator, among other things. As for what that means, Reba, it brings to mind Mark Twain’s crack about “the street which is called Straight” in Damascus. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 4:09 pm: It says more than that, PR. - Bemused - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 4:48 pm: And corporations gather profits which are used for power and influence, of course that money goes to glenda the good witch. Cincy you are a fun guy. I will have to concede, your knowledge and presentation of the GOP talking points is top shelf. I of course disagree. I think the world you present has the working class grabing the cesspool dipped end of the stick. Things like AFSME controling the elections has me rolling. Oh and when you pay me for my labor it’s my money no matter where it came from. - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 5:01 pm: ==It is my contention that all of this adds up to one thing. Unions are no longer relevant to the actual worker, and only exist to gather dues, which are then used for the purposes of power and influence.== How about this: It is my contention that all of this adds up to one thing. CEOs are no longer relevant to the stockholder, and only exist to gather very large compensation packages, which are then used to further their own personal power and influence. - State worker - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 5:02 pm: The State Administrators in the Department of Juvenile Justice have a scam of their own going on now. They take a non-union Administrator and “demote” them into a Union job where they can make twice as much money and get this…they then assign them back to their previous non - union job with an extra 10 percent raise. And if that isn’t enough they get an extra months pay because they are now in a union and do NOT have to take the 24 furlough days. SCAM - Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 5:04 pm: To the point: Why is it that an organized group of supervisors cannot effectively supervise? They should be in their own bargaining unit and probably in a different union, but they ought to be able to supervise… - dupage dan - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 5:06 pm: In my state agency we have administrators who don’t administer claiming they can’t do that because as union members they can’t discipline. And they can not easily be fired for not doing their jobs. Madness. - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 6:00 pm: I am a PSA I was unable to Dicipline staff, I had to go to CMS Labor Relations for that. I was unable to administer proper annual evaluations as they are required to go through upper management. I don’t get to even keep track of a budget. I do get to collect the time off forms and send up to the bosses. I agree that the agency legislative staff should not be in the union. The union got greedy and now everyone must pay. Also, I am on step 8 and I do not make anywhere close to $120k. - Pat Robertson - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 6:15 pm: ==It says more than that, PR.== True, but 100% of the definition of “Senior Public Service Administrator” is someone who has that job title or who is “authorized” to “exercise substantially similar duties.” Basically, if they called a janitor an SPSA, that janitor and every other janitor whose job was not unionized as of December 2, 2008, could be barred from ever unionizing by this bill. And good luck finding a definition of SPSA in any statute or reg. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 6:18 pm: ===Basically, if they called a janitor an SPSA=== There’s also a limit on how many they can designate. 1900. - park - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 6:44 pm: I think this debate goes to the heart of collective bargaining. The labor laws were set up to protect concerted activity by employees, not just ‘blue collar v. white collar’ job protections. The labor v. management arguments pretty much ignore that. In my opinion, all state employees should be entitiled to union protection, if they so choose. In Illinois, everyone but the political employees certainly need protection from the CC Dem ‘friends of the working man’ that still run the State. The State is not unprotected….the only reason that we’re so unionized now is that Blago gave away the store, and Quinn desperately wanted to be governor. Thus, lots of guaranteed raises and no layoffs. In response to the criticism, Quinn tries to balance the budget on the backs of the 5% not yet in the union. Now THOSE people are the ones that need the protection of ‘concerted employee activity’. Quinn is a boob. Probably was born one, and certainly will die one. Why should he be able to screw up hard-working people’s lives because he doesn’t have a clue. - jimmy james - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:18 pm: so since this is likely to fail is it simply to show the union that he will be able to get a simple majority at a later date and they better make some sort of trade/deal with him or he’ll pass at a later date? As a MC employee I think there are titles that shouldn’t be represented and mine is likely one of them, do i wish i was in? only for the pay bump (i’d get over 13k just to get me to step 1 at this point) - jimmy james - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 8:24 pm: “Also, I am on step 8 and I do not make anywhere close to $120k.” the vast majority of psa’s step 8 are 8k to 9k a month….very few are lower - state employee - Tuesday, Jun 21, 11 @ 9:16 pm: I love AFSCME and am grateful for collective bargaining. I am a hard-working, ethical employee and I deserve the protection and benefits that AFSCME negotiates for us. I am HAPPY to pay union dues. - Pat Robertson - Wednesday, Jun 22, 11 @ 8:34 am: ==There’s also a limit on how many they can designate. 1900.== We can all sleep a little better, knowing there’s a cap on the number of totally random acts they can engage in. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.