* The governor struck a defiant pose yesterday…
Gov. Pat Quinn said Tuesday that he’s ready for a possible lawsuit from the state’s largest employee union after he moved to block raises for 33,000 workers that were scheduled to take effect last week.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 has threatened to pursue legal action over Quinn’s decision, which affects employees at 14 agencies and boards. Quinn said he had no choice but to eliminate the scheduled pay raises after lawmakers shorted the payroll budget by $75 million.
“If they decide to sue, that’s their right and we’ll be happy to meet them in court,” Quinn said. “The General Assembly just did not appropriate any extra money for raises for employees. They chose not to … and anybody who is unhappy about that should really go to the legislature.”
Democratic lawmakers acknowledge they cut money for personnel but argue it was to allow the governor to eliminate unfilled positions after Quinn struck a deal with AFSCME before last year’s election to not seek layoffs.
* Actually, plenty of legislators said that the budget cuts specifically targeted the raises, although most of them were Republicans. Set the Wayback Machine to May 12th…
State Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, said the House is urging labor union officials to again defer the raises to avoid having to make cuts in other areas of the budget.
“We’re suggesting to them that they should not implement the raises,” Reis said. “We’re suggesting to them that they come back to the table.”
State Rep. Bill Mitchell, R-Forsyth, said the pay raise issue was one reason he voted “no” on the latest budget plans.
“I don’t think its going to be realistic,” Mitchell said. “I don’t think these are going to be the final product.”
Quinn could’ve eliminated filled positions as well, not just unfilled positions.
* AP…
While Quinn said repeatedly that lawmakers did not set aside money in the budget to pay the raises, that’s not entirely accurate.
It’s true that lawmakers cut spending for salaries despite the scheduled raises. But budgets don’t distinguish between regular salaries and raises; they simply give the governor a certain amount of money for employees. The governor decides how to spend the money.
So, potentially, Quinn could have cut some jobs and used the money available to pay the full raises to remaining employees. Or he could have paid everyone the higher salaries and come back to lawmakers in October and requested more money. He also had the option of vetoing the budget.
What about just proceeding as if the budget cuts didn’t exist? Probably not prudent…
“We have got to run the government, got to make sure (the money) lasts for an entire fiscal year,” Quinn said. “I had no choice.”
Well, he did have a choice. He could’ve just vetoed the budget or done something else. But acting as though a budget cut doesn’t exist could cause big problems down the line if no additional money is appropriated. Those who suggest such a course of action in the current political climate are pretty darned irresponsible.
* This is a very good point by the Peoria paper…
On the flip side, [Quinn] created some of this mess himself by unwisely boxing himself in when he was running for election in 2010, making a deal with AFSCME not to eliminate any more jobs or close state facilities in exchange for some other budget concessions and apparently AFSCME’s endorsement. If that produced enough union goodwill to help launch him to the victory stand, that has since vanished, as AFSCME is on the warpath.
* When will we see action? Maybe today…
The union spokesman says AFSCME could file legal action to reinstate the pay raise as soon as Wednesday. Their contract does not expire until next year.
* After looking into this some more, I think the Sun-Times editorial board may be right…
But state workers have a contract, and we don’t see how Quinn can get around it. With a few legal maneuvers, the state workers’ main union probably can get the raises restored. Quinn likely knows that, of course, which makes his move puzzling.
Subscribe to learn more.
Also, has anyone else noticed that the Tribune editorial board has been completely silent on this issue? I mean, the governor finally takes on AFSCME and not a peep from the union’s most avowed enemy? Strange. They had time for a Casey Anthony editorial today, but nothing on this topic.
* And Cullerton talks of compromise…
Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, suggested the issue also could be dealt with by the General Assembly. Senate Democrats agree with Quinn that the budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 is underfunded in a number of areas.
“We will add the governor’s latest actions to the list of items in the current year’s budget that need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months,” Cullerton said in a statement.
I checked, by the way, and that statement does not mean that Cullerton wants a special session.
* Listen to raw audio of the governor…
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 4:08 am:
Rich, why would the Tribune have a spine and comment something possibly positive about Illinois Democrats or Governor Quinn? It doesn’t fit the storyline.
As for AFSCME, I feel this will boil down to some legal minutiae in state law somewhere outside of the constitution, if such law exists as it relates to appropriations or contracts.
From the IL Constitution:
“The General Assembly by law shall make
appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.”
Simple enough, right? If the money is not appropriated, it can’t be spent. But…
“No ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or making an irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed.”
Is the state impairing these contracts by not giving the raises?
I’d also like to see what the AFSCME contract reads. Are there any provisions like the CTU contract that allow reconsideration of certain (seemingly) automatic pay hikes? I doubt it, since we would have probably heard of it by now, but it would still be interesting to read the AFSCME contract to see what could be mined from it.
- the doubtful retiree - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 4:58 am:
Honestly ? With this bunch , gov’t & labor, what did everyone expect ? Quinn’s interpretation of all this is somewhat suspect as well as timimg. AFSCME folks knew this might be coming weeks back & apparently stood on the sidelines instead of being “pro-active”. As to any impairment ?…the courts will need to decide. These folks have been pretty much recession-proof, are still working at very good jobs with good salaries & never missed a pay-day or benefits to date, despite the state’s financial issues. You’d think that would register. Apparently AFSCME top brass doesn’t know this either. I’d think AFSCME top brass would have wanted to get in on the front end of this, for a little control, to be part of a solution for the balance of this current contract given the state’s dire financial issues & set the tone for future negotiations coming later this year into next. This current contract expires in less than a year & so does the “no closure/ no lay-off” injunction that can potentially effect thousands of employees. Think they have troubles now, wait till 06/30/2012. They { AFSCME mgmt} better get their act together & soon. Rather have a job & benefits ongoing or get a few 1-2 % raises now with a “pink slip” soon after ? Times are real tough in Illinois. Lay-offs & closures are just around the corner. There aren’t many jobs to go to that pay that kind of money with those kind of benefits. Just sayin’.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 7:52 am:
Like other recent cases (Emanuel residency, cap. program funding), this looks like it’s on a fast track to the Supremes. They’ve been getting a pretty good workout lately.
- Old Milwaukee - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 8:32 am:
This looks like good politics for Quinn. The public sees him taking on the unions to stop pay raises. The voters will remember that even if the employees eventually get their raises.
I don’t think he did it on purpose. I think it was payback for AFSCME working so hard against Quinn’s bill to pull some management positions out of the union.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 8:59 am:
- Old Milwaukee - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 8:32 am:
This looks like good politics for Quinn. The public sees him taking on the unions to stop pay raises. The voters will remember that even if the employees eventually get their raises.
I don’t think he did it on purpose. I think it was payback for AFSCME working so hard against Quinn’s bill to pull some management positions out of the union.
I agree this is good politics for Quinn, but disagree that it was not planned that way. It is inconceivable that Quinn believes that the raises will not be forced by the courts– his position is unsustainable. Therefore, this is pure gamesmanship– he gets to look tough while letting his allies still get the money.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:10 am:
Actually, his position isn’t “unsustainable”. If the ILRA says “subject to appropriations” and there are insufficient appropriations to support the raises, that appears to be a pretty “sustainable” position. May not win in a Supreme Court controlled by Democrats, but not a laughable position by any means.
- Bring Back Boone's - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:10 am:
Great point about the Trib Editorial Board. I was thinking the same thing. However, I did see several of Quinn’s harshest critics trumpeting the story. I was watching Fox News Chicago, and there was a segment about it with footage of Quinn’s presser saying he was happy to meet them in court.
Seems like a pretty transparent political stunt by Quinn. He’s been beat up as anti-business in the wake of his income tax hike and seems to be desperately trying to turn that image around. Big bill signings for workers comp, Job creation announcements (no matter how small), and now this spat with AFSCME. My guess is he knew this wouldn’t hold up in court, but wanted the PR hit regardless. He can always mend fences with the union.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:21 am:
I cannot believe there is not language in the Union contract that covers things like this, there has been prior Governors and their staff that were a LOT smarter that the current group and they did not do this. Even Schnorff said yesterday it was an interesting move.
It seems that the ability to not fund the raises would make the contract negotaions a moot point. The State could agree to 20% a year raises and then just simply not fund them. This is a bad precident.
Overall something doesn’t add up here.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:25 am:
=== Quinn could’ve eliminated filled positions as well====
Nope. Under the union contract employees can only be eliminated for cause, or in a layoff. Elminating a position for lack of funds is pretty much the definition of a layoff, but there is a contract not to do layoffs.
So if the contracts are valid and must be upheld, then the State cannot elminate union positions, can not freeze pay etc…but does not have the approrpiation to cover the contract. If the Gov can enter into a legal contract without spending authority….then we can just skip the GA and the Gov can contract for whatever he wants.
Should make thebudget process go faster if the gov has unlimited authority to spend without the approval of the general assembly.
- Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:33 am:
To me, I really don’t think this was a “stunt” to improve Quinn’s image with conservatives. I think the quote “and anybody who is unhappy about that should really go to the legislature.” is more telling than anything. The GA is going to have to revisit the budget in the fall, and I think Quinn is ginning up support early so that he’ll have more support this time around. Cullerton’s statement makes me think he’s on board with this as well.
- Robert - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 10:57 am:
Quinn didn’t handle this very well, but it seems that he’s stuck in a bit of a pickle, if Ghost @10:25 is right.
1) Not enough money appropriated to pay salaries 2) Forbidden by contract to cut pay or cut union jobs
- mokenavince - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:04 am:
AFSCME should remember the golden rule, the man with the gold rules. I think Quinn knows this is a win win for him. Does AFSCME or any other union
think they can get a better deal with someone else. I doubt it.
- Nick Name - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 11:44 am:
Me thinks this relates to pensions somehow. Maybe testing the waters. Attack on multiple fronts with plans to concede certain threats.
The legislature has underfunded the pension system multiple times yet they continue to give COLAs to retirees. How is that different from union raises? They are both contractual obligations right?
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:15 pm:
I’m not an attorney, but I anticipate where this will get dealt with is NLRB, not the courts, at least initially. Or, I guess it could quickly go to some Chancery Court, since there would appear to be no dispute about the facts.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:20 pm:
===I anticipate where this will get dealt with is NLRB, not the courts===
AFSCME told me yesterday that avenue will take a long time. Expect a court challenge first.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:24 pm:
Yep, but usually, unless there are really drastic circumstance justifying a TRO or something, the courts say “Go exhaust your administrative remedies’ for purposes of judicial economy, etc
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:55 pm:
I was just looking at a copy of the cost savings agreement signed by AFSCME and Illinois, in which 2% our July 2011 raise was deferred to 2012, and in which $100 million in savings was targeted by 2012.
Did something go wrong with this agreement that is impacting the state’s ability to pay us? Are we not meeting our agreed-upon savings targets? If not, it’s a shame, because working together seems like the best way to get a handle on problems.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 1:21 pm:
doubtful retiree,
I hope you voted Democratic, with your statement about our (government worker) recession-proof jobs, because if you didn’t, you voted for people who have the real recession-proof jobs: oil companies and corporations that make massive profits and get tax subsidies. The Sun Times did a story the other day on how the middle class is losing ground, while corporations’ profits increased by almost half. It’s one thing to be upset about government worker salaries and benefits as they relate to state budgets, but please stop comparing us to the rest of the work force, because if you do, you have to take into account people who get astronomical salaries and benefits–especially now in these down times. Just sayin’.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 4:21 pm:
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 12:15 pm:
“I’m not an attorney…”
… but did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night?
;-{)>
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 4:30 pm:
Near as I can tell, there is nothing stopping Quinn from “freezing” all current vacant positions. By taking that approach he wouldn’t be doing any layoffs or eliminating positions. I don’t think he promised to keep every position filled at all times (maybe he did?). But freezing the empty headcount would free up funds that could then be used to pay the raises. Vacant positions have been frozen before for various reasons; this would be a new twist but should be legal. He’d just be hiring at a slower rate designed to stay within the personnel line item budget … pretty much the same as delaying payments to hospitals and doctors to stay within this year’s budgeted amount.
- chicagoan wanted to move out of IL - Thursday, Jul 7, 11 @ 7:35 am:
from previous comment “He can always mend fences with the union.”
Um… NO.