67 Comments - soccermom - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:33 pm: Yes, negotiating in public would be a great idea. What we need is more bloviating and grandstanding…. - siriusly - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:36 pm: I believe in the end, the resulting contracts would not be significantly different than what we see today. However, the public disclosure of all the elements at play would provide a measure of protection for the state officials who are viewed as giving away too much - often they have no choice. State labor laws regarding arbitration heavily favor the bargaining unit, not the government. I think sunlight is better in this case. I voted yes. - Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:41 pm: What I would like to see eliminated is the secrecy around court settlements. I was investigating a deputy sheriff accused of sexual harassment. In an earlier case the deputy sheriff wrongfully incarcerated a Cook County social worker b/c he had a grudge against her. The incident was between two Cook County employees, on property owned by Cook County government. Cook County paid off the social worker and kept the deputy sheriff (previously fired by Chicago PD for taking bribes). But the settlement was covered by a confidentiality clause. “Confidentiality clauses” on settlements when there are allegations of misconduct by public officials is BS. If Rep. Ives wants to make government more transparent, I would start by eliminating “confidentiality clauses” in lawsuits alleging misconduct by public officials. And then I would put every IG complaint and investigation online. - Chris Sale Fan - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:45 pm: I voted no, but I believe we should revisit the idea of having the General Assembly have a place at the table. Not to bargain, but to listen to the negotiations and report back to the body the status and to set expectations for budgetmaking. To keep having to have these pressures on the appropriations process that are out of the control of the General Assembly while it does its Constitutional duty is untenable. - Ann - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:45 pm: Negotiating, almost by definition, has to be a confidential process or it simply wouldn’t get done. Even then, most of the real movement happens not at the table but in various even-quieter side chats where various scenarios are tentatively explored. The people supporting the proposal probably think that the really important stuff in Congress happens on the chamber floors, too. That’s just not how it works. - ToddAF - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:47 pm: Absolutely not. It’s often hard enough to get two sides to agree to the conditions of a contract when doing so in private, where they can offer up ideas that might be unpopular but necessary to getting a deal done. Can you imagine if both sides had to worry about responding to public opinion of every single detail of a contract before the two sides can agree between themselves? Once a tentative contract is reached, yes, the details should be made public, but just like the saying “laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made,” the same goes for contracts. Let negotiators do their thing, and the details can come to light when they’ve got an agreement on paper. - Francis Underwood - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:48 pm: While parts of the bill are good ideas, they have little chance of passing with Ives name attached. She like to rail against the power’s that be…why would they allow her to accomplish anything? Compromise is a word that needs to be added to her vocabulary… - ??? - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:50 pm: I voted yes. Even those who are in the union have been kept in the dark regarding the retroactive raises they were supposed to get, according to the contract that was ratified in March. AFSCME has ignored all of the questions posted on their Facebook page regarding this issue, and I’ve heard some members say that when they called the AFSCME offices to inquire about the back pay, they were hung up on. Nice way to treat people who pay dues. I think everything should be out in the open from the get-go, so that there is no confusion as to what the contract terms are. - Will Caskey - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:51 pm: Good lord no. Contract negotiation is the very definition of executive privilege. If the executive is negotiating badly then vote him out. If he’s not voted out then that’s on voters. Sheesh. - HenryVK - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 12:57 pm: What Will said. In addition, a contract is a give and take. Put that clause in and take that clause out. If the start negotiating in public, it inherently puts the party in a position of weakness for the next contract. - Raising Kane - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:02 pm: No, it would make it impossible to compromise. She really is the worst of the freshman class. - Stones - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:05 pm: You never negotiate in public. Don’t worry about how the sausage is made, just worry about what it tastes like in the end. - Big Guy - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:05 pm: Will: How would you know that he’s negotiating badly if you’re not allowed to know anything until after he’s already signed the deal? - Will Caskey - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:08 pm: Big Guy, that’s how representative democracy works. You vote, take a seat for X years and then you get to vote again. So having been relegated to a superminority apparently Republicans want to do away with that whole “elections resolve disputes” thing. - Allen Skillicorn - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:10 pm: Absolutely, unequivocally yes. - mythoughtis - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:11 pm: I voted no. We have branches of government and elected officials for a reason. It is so they can represent us, since all 12 million of us won’t fit at a bargaining table or be able to vote on legislation. If all 12 million of us are allowed to weigh in on contracts … then the contract will never get executed. Most of those 12 million don’t understand what the jobs entail. A lot of them think that all state workers should get paid minimum wage, and get benefits equal to those offered to employees working at the local gas station. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:11 pm: I’m all for it, it would be great to hear AFSCME explain in public the need for having Columbus Day and Election Day off and the countless steps it takes to fire an AFSCME member and the rest of the “goodies” they have in the contract. I’m not anti state employee but those in the private sector would find it interesting to hear AFSCME argue their case and do so for all the world to hear. - Big Guy - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:13 pm: So people should only have an opinion about public policy during election season and should be kept in the dark the rest of the time? Got it. - mythoughtis - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:20 pm: no, Big guy, that is not what we are saying. You can call your legislator at any time and voice your opinion, but you are never going to be privy to 100% of the info available regarding any issue while the issue is still under discussion. By the way, do you think everyone in this country should know the nuclear launch codes? - OneMan - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:24 pm: Voted no, but agree that once a contract is ratified it should be public record immediately. - Mouthy - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:31 pm: No. It’s a stupid idea. The “Boss” has all the power. If you think the boss is giving away too much then fire the boss. If the boss has to okay everything with the public before they agree to it then they are no longer negotiating. It would be an endless cycle which would produce nothing but chaos which I believe is what anti union right-wing groups and legislators really are after. I’ve been there. This is nothing but goofiness…… - Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:39 pm: I voted yes after giving it some thought. It would give the public a more true picture of what is going and what the issues are that matter to both sides. Right now we get press releases which basically demonize the positions of the other side from both sides. It would end both or one side taking an extreme position in favor of something more to like by both sides. - Mongo - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:41 pm: I voted no. The State should vigorously negotiate its position, and so should the members of the CBA. The process would be both delayed and chilled with “hey the spotlight’s on me” moments at every turn. If Ives is from the good for the goose, good for the gander school of thought, how about opening up to the public view the negotiations between corporate presidents and the corporation? - G. Willickers - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:43 pm: I’ll continue to vote no on this idea until the day that companies which receive tax breaks of any kind make public any and all CEO negotiations with Boards of Directors. Good for the goose good for the gander and all that. - xxtofer - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:47 pm: The “public” doesn’t have a right to know everything, and with all due respect, if I’m a state employee, the public is not my “boss.” For sure, public funds pay me, but my employer is the STATE OF ILLINOIS which is both composed of and separate from the people. (If it’s not, when I get fired, I’m suing all the millionaires in the state for wrongful dismissal, since they are my “bosses” as well). As said here, negotiations require compromise; they required give and take; they require hard stands; they require winners and losers (or at least winning and losing issues). That is practically impossible in such an open setting. Bad idea. Bad law. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:50 pm: How about asking Ives if she supports requiring all politicians’ fundraising requests - be it by phone, e-mail, in-person, at an event, etc. be made public via video and audio recording of said request? - Joe M - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:50 pm: Black’s Law Dictionary definition of negotiation: negotiation, n. (16c) 1. A consensual bargaining process in which the parties attempt to reach agreement on a disputed or potentially disputed matter. • Negotiation usu. involves complete autonomy for the parties involved, without the intervention of third parties. __ I voted no, because making the negotiations public would border on bringing about the intervention of third parties, as those third parties try to influence the negotiations. There has to be one autonomous voice for each side - and I can’t imagine the state legislators sitting on the sidelines as observers only. And once the GA gets involved we will have dozens of conflicting voices representing the State and nothing will get done. - Mongo - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 1:56 pm: Anon @ 1:50…good one - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:04 pm: What I’d like to know is if any other state or local government has tried this. I really doubt they have done so with any sort of success. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:04 pm: No. Bargaining frequently involves taking outrageous opening positions and slowly retreating from them, and is very strategic and tactical in nature, especially on the employees’ side. - Frenchie Mendoza - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:12 pm: An absurd question. I voted no. If it’s “negotiated” in public — then it’s not negotiation — it’s grandstanding. Obviously, the public despises public employees. I say this not as a snipe but as a point of fact. No one likes state workers. No one. And if they do, they certainly won’t admit it in public. It’s akin to saying, “If I”m elected, I’ll raise taxes.” It’s political suicide to even imply state workers deserve anything — let alone a fair contract. Frankly, it’s not fair for the state side, either. Neither side is able to compromise if the dealings are public. If the governor gives even an inch — it’s the end of the political road for him. And of the union gives, it’s the end of the union leadership. The only people suffering would be the state workers (which no likes anyway) The only way to settle a public “negotiation” would be to talk in private anyway. Sorta like bringing your entire family to negotiate with the car dealer (who would certainly bring her manager into the mix as well.) The only way to seal the deal is for the buyer and salesman to go out in the hall and — in private — hammer out the compromise and then shake on it. Same goes here. In the end, it’s always the private understanding and handshake that seals the deal — not the shrill voices screaming and yelling about “fairness” and “liberty” and “constitutional rights” and “if I don’t get my way, I’m moving out the state” and “I hate state workers anyway. Let’s stick it to ‘em all.” and “If I don’t X in my private job, you can’t have X in your public job.” Besides, we know Rauner is gonna have to “let ‘em strike for a couple weeks” in order to “rewrite the contracts” — so he’s already tipped his hand. Sound negotiator, that one. - NoMoreBull - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:17 pm: Clearly, I voted yes. - Mouthy - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:17 pm: @- steve schnorf - Well said. We would always start outrageously high and management would always start outrageous low. Nobody ever starts close to where you end up. - Frenchie Mendoza - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:23 pm: — it would be great to hear AFSCME explain in public the need for having Columbus Day and Election Day off and the countless steps it takes to fire an AFSCME member and the rest of the “goodies” they have in the contract. — Yeah, it must really gall “private workers” that these public goofs have days off instead of stock options and bonuses. Because, you know, there’s nothing worse than a public employee getting a “benefit”. Because, you know, private workers get no benefits. None at all. I mean, it’s hard — reeawally, reewally hard — working in the private sector. Those darn CEOs making all that money, getting all those tax breaks? Well, they deserve that, right? Better a million dollar tax break for a corporation than a day off for someone? *rolls eyes* - Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:27 pm: BTW, would Rep. Ives accept an amendment to extend this to negotiating contracts that aren’t labor contracts? - John Galt - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:37 pm: I’m a conservative, support transparency generally, but voted “no” for negotiating in public. I think negotiations behind close doors can encourage candor and the potential taking of unpopular positions (at least temporarily) in the natural ebb and flow of contract negotiations. There are already problems of posturing and leaks, but putting them on camera or opening them up for public observation would make it even worse. However, I DO support putting the final proposed contract language (as well as other proposed bills & amendments, etc.) on the internet for a full week or 10 days before it becomes finalized. None of this under the cloak of darkness–here, not vote on a massive bill we’ve only given you 30 minutes to review, etc. - Rod - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:49 pm: I voted yes. I think that formal negotiation sessions should be public and the media should be able to cover them. Not just at the state level but also at the level of public entities like school districts and city governments. All written proposals should be allowed to be seen by the interested public who are paying taxes. What we have now is union and public officals briefing the media about the status of negotiations with no way to verify either the supposedly great offers made by public entities or big concessions put on the table by unions. - Shemp - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 2:49 pm: I wouldn’t mind it, but I am not sure I would champion it. From my firsthand experience, I would think the union side would potentially be embarrassed by some of the antics and proposals that occur. Collective bargaining just becomes a big game that wastes management’s time. - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 3:00 pm: No, no, no. Any of you “Yesers” care to show your hand to the other guys when playing cards? I didn’t think so. Appears that the folks here who have actually bargained contracts or participated in the process (me too) are all opposed to this nonsense. - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 3:02 pm: No. I’m all for more transparency, but there has to be some room for privacy in negotiations. The contract will ultimately be public, if the public doesn’t like it that’s why we have elections. - Phenomynous - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 3:16 pm: Judging only from the popularity of the hit tv show “Pawn Stars” on the History Channel, I vote Yes. People love watching the bargaining process and I think that this could make for some good reality tv. Illinois should contract the show to a weak media market, like CSPAN, and use the commercial revenues for paying down pensions. Did I just solve Illinois financial crisis? - Beck - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 3:17 pm: The tax payers didn’t agree to this, so why shouldn’t we be able to negotiate new contracts if the burden is shifted to us? We are taxed enough already, we’ve had enough! - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 3:19 pm: ===The tax payers didn’t agree to this, so why shouldn’t we be able to negotiate new contracts if the burden is shifted to us? === Um, you ever hear of a republic? - Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 3:24 pm: Well, we could decertify the union… /grinning while ducking for cover - bman - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 3:46 pm: i do not think the public should be involved in contracts. After all isn’t that a function of the chief executive? However if the public had signed the previous state employee contract maybe those employees would already have the pay raises they were promised. - Give Me A Break - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 4:07 pm: I’m seeing a fundraising aspect to this. Illinois could sell the contract talks as “Pay for View”. - gunilla - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 4:08 pm: I voted yes. Can anybody honestly say , that it is working now. - olddog - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 4:17 pm: I voted no. As a local government reporter in another state (which later amended its Open Meeting Law), I covered school district contract negotiations. It wasn’t worth watching — trust me on that one — and it taught me you should never, ever try to negotiate in public. - L.S. - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 4:57 pm: It’s just not practical to expect deal makers to be honest with each other. Some things need a little privacy. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 5:10 pm: I voted no. Contract negotiations should NEVER be held in public. Oh, and @Beck, get real. You think the public should get to sit in and participate in negotiations? People, we have a REPRESENTATIVE government. We elect people to represent us. That is your voice. It’s not a direct democracy where you get to have a personal say in the day to day operations of government. Some of you need to go back and re-take your high school civics courses. - Dom - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 5:11 pm: These are public employees paid by the taxpayers. The negotiations should therefore be public. Every facet of government activity needs more transparency. - Blake - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 5:45 pm: I think Internet posting of the Union contract is a fair & transparent idea, but asking for negotiations to be in public is asking for grandstanding and undermining the process of good-faith negotiating. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 7:03 pm: Teacher salaries comprise the bulk of school expenditures. Taxpayers should be able to watch the process of contract resolution. - Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 7:06 pm: No. If they can’t work it out in Private in good faith after a lot of tryin’, the Union can always make some noise and attract attention to their perceived plight by goin’ on strike! - hyperbolic chamber - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 7:10 pm: We haven’t enough posturing for the cameras and notepads now in Congress/ the GA, etc. that we need more of it? Recipe for success there. Let’s open up all negotiations on bills in the GA and put cameras in caucus meetings while we’re at it. - Madison - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 7:11 pm: I voted yes. Its my money being “negotiated”. No? - xxtofer - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 7:36 pm: @ Frenchie: Those days that you mention are public holidays, passed by the General Assembly as such. They are negotiated off b/c they ARE holidays, just like Labour Day, Christmas, or Casmir Pulaski day. And I would hazard a guess that you probably don’t understand the intricacies of a labour contract and its termination processes. The point of such contracts are to protect the PROCESS, not the individual. Management (in general) has shown itself to be arbitrary, capricious, and often baseless in its decision to fire. Contracts protect employees from that — and we should be arguing for MORE protections for private employees, rather than fewer for public employees. @ Gunilla. Yes, it seems to be working. The governor settled on a contract with state employees. A strike was adverted. Neither side got everything it wanted, but at least both sides were able to live with the result. That appears to meet the definition of “working.” @Madison. No, it’s not your money. By agreeing to live in this state, in the society, you’ve agreed to relinquish a certain portion of your income to the state, who then acts on your behalf. It’s no more your money than it’s your money once you buy a subscription to CapitalFax. … Furthermore, maybe I’ll get on board once I get to vote on defense contracts and going to war. - Being real - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 7:52 pm: Absolutely. Our state government is so wasteful and dysfunctional, it needs as much accountability as possible.0 - Kevin - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 9:04 pm: I might think differently about this if the state wasn’t hemorrhaging money. It is obvious that our representatives are not managing the taxpayers’ business appropriately - just look at the bottom line and all the red ink. Some added disclosure can’t hurt. Maybe the voters need to see some details in the media of what is being done in their name and with their wallets. - Bill and Eileen - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 10:15 pm: I definately would vote for this type disclosure. No back room deals You wonder why we are in such a dysfunctional state. We are the laughing stock of the country and no one cares. - iThink - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 10:25 pm: Got to be honest, I am surprised the poll results are so close. Bargaining a contract can be tough enough with strong personalities at the table, throw in the potential volatile mix of raging anti-government types, and it would be proverbial gridlock. But, I believe that is Ives goal. It is clear Rep. Ives has no real experience on how things get done, but she should have some concept of how a representative democracy works. The taxpayer is represented at the table by the elected officials - that’s why we vote for them. - iThink - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 10:30 pm: –We are the laughing stock of the country and no one cares. – Bill, I am not arguing the state can be dysfunctional, but I am going to challenge you to find another state that has this type of open-meeting law that doesn’t contain additional provisions about collective bargaining and executive sessions. Provide an example of a state that does it right. - iThink - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 10:32 pm: –Its my money being “negotiated”. No? – Can I get some open disclosure of defense contracts? What about the medicaid recipient’s hip replacement? Hey it’s my money. - Elaine - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:55 am: Yes , Absolutely ! What is wrong with the Taxpayers being a part of the conversation by knowing the Truth in Negotiations ? Jeanne Ives must be someone willing to step up to the plate for all the hardworking people like my husband and I that will have to work into our 70’s to pay for all the benefits and salaries no one could ever Justify or say it is Deserved. - Mac - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:58 am: I am not in favor of public involvement in contract negations. The contracts are available to be seen from the freedom of information act for those interested. Public involvement during negotiations would only lengthen the process. - William F. Wall - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 1:51 pm: If a person or organization (union) is unwilling to negotiate in public, what are they trying to hide, especially here, where the taxpayer is footing the bill for the contract negotiated? - Feel Betrated - Thursday, May 2, 13 @ 2:27 pm: When government took over the pension system secretly years ago they screwed it up by using funds for their own pet projects. Now they have to pay and are secretly trying to pass on their mistakes to the people who trusted them. Now the retired, disabled, and middle class has to pay for their mistakes. We need to watch to see what crooked deals some of them are making and have a voice in what is done! Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.