* Despite the introduction late last week of a supplemental appropriations bill to fund back pay owed by the state, AFSCME sent out this press release late yesterday afternoon…
Caregivers for the disabled, child protection workers and prison employees are just some of the nearly 40,000 frontline employees of Illinois state government who will vote again on whether to go forward with a new union contract with the Quinn Administration.
The state employees’ union, AFSCME Council 31, announced today that a new vote is required since the first tally was based on the administration’s commitment to drop its appeal of a court decision. In that case, the judge ruled that the state is obligated to honor the prior union contract and owes employees back wages withheld since July 2011.
Governor Quinn has asked that the appeal be dropped, but the authority rests with Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who has refused to do so.
“Tens of thousands of state employees have been denied their rightful wages for nearly two years,” AFSCME Council 31 executive director Henry Bayer said. “The court has ruled, correctly, that the state must honor the prior union contract, and that employees are owed their back pay. We think the appeal should be dropped and the matter put to rest. Since the earlier vote was based on assurances that the appeal would be withdrawn, union members have a right to re-vote now.”
The union and the Quinn Administration are urging lawmakers to approve an appropriation to pay the back wages. Passage of that measure would make the court case moot.
* Attorney General Madigan wasn’t moved. Her office’s response…
Until the legislature decides whether to appropriate funding to pay the raises, it would be premature to dismiss the state’s appeal. If the state dismissed the appeal before the legislature decides whether to appropriate the money, that would take a legal option off the table for the state.
Ultimately, this is a funding issue for the legislature, the Governor’s office and AFSCME to work out through the budget process.
Our putting the appeal on hold for now does not impact the state’s ability to fund the raises.
* From the SJ-R…
A $145 million supplemental budget bill has been introduced in the House that would provide enough money to pay the back wages. There is no timetable for lawmakers to act on it.
House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, believes the past due wages fall into the same category as old state bills and can be paid with tax revenue that came in higher than expected last year, said his spokesman Steve Brown.
AFSCME spokesman Anders Lindall said 40,000 AFSCME members will revote on the contract over the next two weeks. If union members reject the agreement this time, it could be back to the start.
“In any negotiation, if any party does not ratify an agreement, then no contract is in place,” Lindall said. “The parties could return to the (bargaining) table.”
* AFSCME also laid out the choices for its members in an e-mail yesterday and recommended a “Yes” vote…
Voting will get underway right away at worksites across the state. Members will have the opportunity to decide whether to affirm the ratification vote that was previously taken and move forward with signing the contract or to refuse to sign the contract.
If the membership votes YES, to sign the contract:
* Employees will be placed at their appropriate salary level (with either a 2% or 7.25% increase) effective July 1, 2013.
* AFSCME and the Quinn Administration will continue to work toward passage of HB 212, the supplemental appropriation that would provide funds to pay all back wages owed to employees per the previous contract. If the supplemental is enacted so that the back wages can be paid, then the lawsuit will effectively become moot since that is the issue before the court.
* All terms and conditions of the union contract would be in effect.
If the membership votes NO, not to sign the contract:
* The salary increases (either 2% or 7.25%) scheduled for July 1 would not go into effect.
* The union contract will not be in effect.
* The Administration will not have to uphold its commitment to lobby in support of the supplemental appropriation for the back pay, though the Union would continue to do so.
* The Union or Management could seek to return to the bargaining table.
The AFSCME Bargaining Committee recommends a YES vote to sign the contract at this time and to move forward to lobby vigorously for passage of the supplemental appropriation.
Thoughts?
- LINK - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 9:16 am:
Interesting. I do not see this release on their website and have not received an email (as I haven’t in response to two prior requests to AFSCME or in the last several months).
Thank God for Capitol Fax!!
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 9:17 am:
Do I understand Lisa Madigan’s logic correctly?
Unless the GA funds the back pay, I will appeal the court decision ordering the GA to pay the back pay so the GA doesn’t have to pay. That about right?
One more general note is I think MJM’s sudden push is a major indication that LM will run for governor because if the bill passes, the problem will be behind her, a claim she can make even if the bill is not implemented because of future court rulings which will be litigated after the 2014 primary.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 9:21 am:
=== is a major indication that LM will run for governor ===
You’ll “find” anything you look for in politics.
- Robert the Bruce - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 9:25 am:
==Unless the GA funds the back pay, I will appeal the court decision ordering the GA to pay the back pay so the GA doesn’t have to pay. That about right?==
This sounds right to me. Call me crazy, Cincy, but I do follow this logic. It is her job to fight against being forced to send our tax dollars to the public employees. But if her client decides on their own to pay those back wages, then she can’t overrule her client and say “no, you can’t pay those!”
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 9:26 am:
I find this action by my union to be pre-mature and irresponsible. I plan on abstaining from a vote. Since the appropriation was just introduced on Friday, and it appears that MJM has given hints that he may support it, why a re-vote now ???? Makes no sense. What happens if the workers, who are now stirred up about this, vote no. Then the appropriation passes. Now there is no contract.
Additionally, the actions of the AG are meaningless. Even if she drops the appeal it would not guarantee payment of the back pay. The money must be appropriated by the legislature. A dropped appeal would just keep the status quo in place. The state owes the money with 7% interest. It is up the legislature when it gets paid.
- RNUG Fan - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 9:29 am:
I find this a brilliant political strategy. Next the GOP will unanimously support gay marriage and gun control and then run the ISRA nose in it.
- Sgtstu - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 9:52 am:
AFSCME Steward - You trust MJM ?
“MJM has given hints that he may support it”
I think a large number of Afscme members are past “trusting” Mike Madigan.
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 10:04 am:
Sgtstu
Until the process has played out there is no basis for any action. Instead of the drastic action of a re-vote, all efforts should be focused on getting the appropriation to pass. In the mean time, AFSCME contines to not sign the contract. A re-vote comes if the legislature refuses to appropriate the money. This action is causing chaos among the AFSCME workforce, many of whom don’t understand what is going on.
“I think a large number of Afscme members are past “trusting” Mike Madigan.”
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 10:04 am:
I’m not sure of the point of all of this considering agencies have been told to process Step increases for FY13 even thought the contract has not yet been signed. Those raises, at least in our agency, will be reflected on the first paycheck in May and back pay for those Step increases will be processed as soon as possible thereafter. I’m not sure what re-voting on the new contract has to do with the back pay issue from the last contract. I frankly have no idea why we are processing pay increases for the new contract when it hasn’t even been signed yet and even questioned it. But orders are orders.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 10:09 am:
==It is her job to fight against being forced to send our tax dollars to the public employees.==
Actually it’s her job to represent the State of Illinois (as in government) and, as you said, once the State of Illinois as the client decides to essentially settle the case her role ends or should end.
- BMAN - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 10:17 am:
It seems AFSCME members want to work, they did their part in ratifying the contract and in doing so helped to resolve the issue. When will the Legislature, Governor, and Attorney General quit playing their games by saying it is someone else’s fault. Those elected should shoulder the blame and work to do their part.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 10:21 am:
I don’t agree with AG Madigan’s position. We signed a contract that was violated and found to be in violation in a court of law. We then ratified another contract in which the deal was to drop the appeal for the exchange of concessions, which would save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. I feel as if Madigan is butting into our agreement between our employer and ourselves. I don’t know the law but have the feeling that she is overstepping her bounds.
I wish that in good faith, Madigan would withdraw the appeal and recognize the validity of contracts. What happens if we re-ratify the contract and don’t get the appropriation or get it in an untimely manner? Would her office then withdraw the appeal? Why have this strife during times when we all need to work together to fix the state’s finances?
I am inclined to vote yes again for the contract, but not happily. One of my reasons for doing it is to help save the state money in these times of horrific debt.
- Irish - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 10:39 am:
Here is what you can expect with two Madigans in key positions in the state government. Worse if Lisa becomes Governor. Games are/will be played. And with two of the three ruling positions being held in one family guess who wins. The Maidigans.
The vote should be to not ratify the contract. Then AFSCME should present the position that a strike vote has been taken and overwhelmingly approved. The State has acted in bad faith and if by a certain date a written agreement that the back pay will be paid by 7/1/13 is not in place and signed by the State then the strike will be called. If the agreement is signed then it becomes part of the new contract and then it is sent out to be ratified.
The union is negotiating with people who have no rules and make up their own. Verbal agreements mean nothing. All one has to do is look at their track record and it becomes very evident. These are people who will use children and others in dire need as pawns to line their own pockets. This goes way beyond Ethics into the realm of moral misconduct.
Oswego Willy - Your party HAS to come up with someone viable. PLEASE!
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 10:46 am:
@Irish:
Unless a judge orders the Comptroller to pay the back pay with or without an appropriation the power now rests solely with the GA to appropriate the money. I’m glad some of you see this as such a black and white issue but it’s not. Did you not read anything? The Governor wants to make the payments. He is waiting on the GA to give him the money to do so. Your issue now is with the GA.
- Onlooker72 - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:03 am:
Demoralized You are mistaken in your statements. The raise you are speaking of that will become effective this month is from a grievance filed July 1st of 2012 when Quinn stopped all raises for all agencies while negotiations where going on. That grievance was settled last month April 17th to be exact and AFSCME won so they had to put people on their proper step effective immediately and pay them any back pay they were due from July 1st of 2012 until now. This has nothing to do with the new contract so they aren’t giving you a raise early they are paying what they should have been paying you depending on when you would have went up a step.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:08 am:
@Onlooker:
I understand that but it is still a step increase associated with the current contract. People aren’t going up another step once the contract is settled. I don’t know how AFSCME had the right to file a grievance in the first place over an issue that was part of a contract that didn’t exist yet. Union members shouldn’t have been granted a step increase when there was no contract. I will never understand the logic of judges when it comes to stuff like this. The whole issue is ridiculous. Just sign the contract and move on and stop being babies about it. The union got raises and a guarantee that any health insurance increases would not kick in if the raises were not funded. The union won and should be taking a victory lap.
- Johnnie F. - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:08 am:
All this GA didn’t appropriate the money excuse started when Quinn and the union had a no layoff agreement. That hasn’t been the case for a year now. There is no appropriation solely for raises…there is an appropriation for personnel. Pay contractual obligations or lay off employees. It is the GAs decision.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:09 am:
Actually I shouldn’t have said judges in my statement. But I still don’t understand the logic of settling a grievance which, in my opinion, had no merit to begin with.
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:15 am:
Demoralized
The old contract was still in effect by mutual agreement. All conditions of that contract were still valid.
“Actually I shouldn’t have said judges in my statement. But I still don’t understand the logic of settling a grievance which, in my opinion, had no merit to begin with.”
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:15 am:
Step increases have nothing to do with the contract. They are part of the states Pay Plan which was suspended. If they were implementing the contract longevity would be included. The step increases at the frozen agencies will be to the frozen pay grade.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:18 am:
@Anonymous:
The state’s pay plan isn’t divined out of thin air. It is the result of the contract for those covered by a contract. If they have nothing to do with the contract then perhaps they should be omitted from it.
- AFSCME Steward - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:18 am:
Anonymous
Step increases are part of the contract.
“Step increases have nothing to do with the contract. They are part of the states Pay Plan which was suspended. If they were implementing the contract longevity would be included. The step increases at the frozen agencies will be to the frozen pay grade.”
- RNUG - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:25 am:
I think the real question is why do the re-vote now? Is it intended to put pressure on the GA? Or to gin up more “calls for action” from the rank and file?
- anon - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 11:32 am:
Why the Re-Vote now. Why not wait till the end of themonth to see if the GA passes a supplemental appropriation.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 12:06 pm:
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 10:09 am:
==It is her job to fight against being forced to send our tax dollars to the public employees.==
Actually it’s her job to represent the State of Illinois (as in government) and, as you said, once the State of Illinois as the client decides to essentially settle the case her role ends or should end.
++++++++++++++++++
As a duly elected constitutional officer, the AG represents the citizens of the state, and not the government.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 1:30 pm:
@Cinci:
Wrong. In a lawsuit against the State she represents the state as it’s attorney. She has a role to play for the citizens of Illinois but in this case she is not representing the citizens except through her representation of the government. The government is the defendant. That is the client in this case.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 2:44 pm:
She has discretion. She is not compelled to represent the State because the Governor wants it.
- RetiredArmyMP - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 4:10 pm:
I believe the Ag filed the appeal to the state’s loss in the pay lawsuit at the request of the Gov., not of her own accord as representing the citizens of the state. Shouldn’t she also withdraw the appeal since the Gov. has requested it be withdrawn?
- Anon - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 8:21 pm:
What I find most interesting is that the AG chose not to mount a defense for the civil union issue because of a personal opinion on the merit of the law(if I understood her reasons for not mounting a defense correctly), but is currently supporting/continuing to defend an action that was a clear breach of contract law. It would seem to me that by her not dropping the appeal, she is indicating that she believes the State has the ability to violate contracts it entered into.