* Statement by Michael T. Carrigan, president of the Illinois AFL-CIO, on behalf of the We Are One Illinois coalition…

“The union coalition has made a great effort to ensure fairness for the public employees and retirees who did not cause this problem, to ensure the stability of the pension systems for future generations, and to offer a credible way forward. This agreement is our coalition’s bottom line.

“We continue to strongly oppose Speaker Madigan’s mega-bill, SB 1, which threatens to rob the retirement savings of teachers, police officers, and others in public service, by 20-40 percent. His proposal is not only drastically unfair, but it is blatantly unconstitutional, rendering any advertised savings fictional.

“We urge lawmakers from both parties in both chambers to embrace the agreed bill and oppose SB 1.”

* From an IFT e-mail to its members…

For the past several weeks, our union coalition has been meeting with Senate President John Cullerton to try to negotiate a pension agreement, demonstrating our willingness to share in the sacrifice and be part of the solution in the fairest way possible.

And finally, we have reached an agreement.

The agreement echoes our principles. It includes an ironclad funding guarantee, revenue by dedicating additional payments to the pension system, contractual protections for access to health care in retirement under several options, and limits the shared sacrifice asked of workers and retirees who did not cause this problem. You will find a full summary of the agreement here.

President Cullerton calls our agreement “credible” and “constitutional.” It represents our willingness to help stabilize our retirement systems, but remains our final, best offer.

* Glen Brown walks us through a bit of history…

It wasn’t too long ago when John Stevens, Legal Consultant for the “We Are One” Labor Coalition stated: “To take away the Cost-of-Living Adjustment [COLA] for [current and future] retirees is not a free and fair choice. It is a coercive choice under duress.” Indeed, the concept of duress (or coercion) is a vitiating (legally defective) factor and; therefore, Illinois legislators are breaching a contract by forcing public employees to make a choice to diminish their originally-vested and paid-for guarantee (unless, of course, their guarantees are going to be “diminished” through “modification of contract principles” at the bargaining table).

Like previous legislators’ proposals, the impairment of the COLA for both active teachers and retirees in SB 2404 offers public employees no ethical and lawful alternatives except to consent to the General Assembly’s demands and choose between two illicit choices.

It is unlawful to induce undue pressure upon public employees to make an unfair choice. It is a blatant exploitation of influence to obtain an unwarranted advantage – an illegitimacy of the General Assembly’s advantageous attempt to renegotiate a constitutionally-guaranteed contract. Furthermore, the “ironclad” funding assurance for a COLA is uncertain.

It was a short while ago when the We Are One Illinois Coalition stated, “Although [a] bill contains a pension funding guarantee, it can be circumvented if a court finds it significantly imperils broad categories of other funding priorities… [Besides], it does not give employees a separate right to civil action and only provides permissive authority for the retirement systems to sue for payment.” There is no question whether legislators will renege on any new promise made to public employees. The question is how soon it will happen. Let’s not forget that policymakers can rewrite or undo any bill they pass. After all, they are doing it right now.

* And teachers union dissident Fred Klonsky is not happy at all…

To be fair, I have also heard from some in the IEA who are telling me that we have to be pragmatic.

“This is the best the leadership could get. Crossing our arms and yelling ‘no” will get us nowhere.”

But this kind of pragmatism has a history.

It gave us the pension ramp in 1995.

It gave us the two-tier pension system. That royally screwed every teacher in TRS who was hired after January 1, 2011.

It gave us the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) so the state would qualify for Race to the Top.

It gave us Senate Bill 7.

The horrible Senate Bill 7.

There is nothing pragmatic about this kind of pragmatism. Pragmatism means doing what works.

We have said all along that this is a revenue problem, not a pension benefit problem.

SB2404 does nothing to address the revenue problem.

Does anyone believe that a promise to fund the system without changing the way we raise revenue is a promise that will be kept?

The thieves in Springfield know, as they have always known, that the union leadership can be pushed to a point of fear and capitulation.

If the deal goes through? The state’s political leaders will be back again for more.

They always come back for more.

Because for them it always works.

They are pragmatic after all.

But each time we fall for it, it comes back to bite us in the butt.

Thoughts?