106 Comments - Bogey Golfer - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:43 am: =If the agency doesn’t have enough clerical workers, it should hire more instead of overpaying at a management rate.= And in the meantime, let the tax returns pile up, and the citizens wait for their refunds, if appropriate. I believe that response is the difference between the private and public sectors, at least in the minds of many. - OneMan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:43 am: Well I guess the public sector is different and it might be a function of the type of job functions I have had as an adult. But if we had an issue or a backlog a manager stepping in to help even if a task was below their skill set as it were or below their pay grade. For example I have been involved in office moves and have seen VPs climb under desks to get stuff up an running. If she just said, “Hey, this is a union job and our job as a union is to make sure only union members to this because it is in the best financial interest of our members” I would respect that, but don’t pretend this is about you being some sort of watchdog of public resources… I don’t expect a Teamster to say he is looking out for management or an employer by insisting some union contract thing be followed, why can’t unions just fess up and say it is about the economic interests of it’s members? - Union Dues - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:45 am: If the lines arent drawn and defended, if indeed they are allowed to be crossed then the state will continue to breech them. First merit comp people helping out in emergency situations, then contractual, then out sourcing. This was an extreme reaction necessary to underline a fundamental point. - Skeptic - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:46 am: Don’t single out government unions for this sort of thing. The musician’s union requires theaters to hire musicians to not play. See what happens when a mason grabs a piece of wood to hold a brick in place at a job site. The list goes on. And it’s all ammunition for the anti-union crowd. But is it union over-reach, or is it protecting jobs? That’s the question. The musicians are protecting their own from recordings, using synthesizers instead of individual instruments and computers. The carpenters are making sure that carpenters are the ones handling the wood. When you look at it from that side, it may not be so horrible. I think the bottom-line is that if someone hadn’t abused it in the past, there wouldn’t be a rule against it in the present. - ABC Lawyer - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:46 am: Lynch’s response shows the problem that AFSCME faces with reality. There is very little sympathy for defending the indefensible. AFSCME’s reputation for grieving every single item without thinking of public perception and the cost to the taxpayer is gonna cost them. - walker - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:46 am: Trib’s right in this specific case. Let the manager decide, when facing an unusual load, whether it’s the best use of her time to step in and help. Managers can and do often work past regular hours without extra pay. Welcome to the real world. - Steve Reick - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:47 am: I was on the phone with an ILDOR employee late yesterday afternoon on a client matter, and he kept a running countdown on the number of minutes he could continue to talk to me before the clock struck 5:00. I don’t think he was pleased about having to hang up before my issue was resolved, but he said he had no choice. I’m having a real hard time finding sympathy for either side in the fight that’s going on in this state. It’s people like the guy I was talking to who get stuck in the middle, who end up taking the heat for something over which they have no control. - Anonymous - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:48 am: Im with the Trib on this one. If work needs to be done, and the existing workforce is not able to keep up, you need to take measures to get it done. If that means supervisors helping out, then so be it. The union’s position that they should simply hire more clerical workers is shortsighted. There may not be a budget to hire such workers, and the supervisors are generally salaried employees that will still have to do their own work as well. In other words, they are not “overpaying at a management rate”. Common sense needs to prevail here. - JoanP - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:49 am: On the face of it, it makes sense for management to have jumped in. But I see this as akin to businesses suing to protect their trademarks. If you don’t, you risk losing trademark protection. As Union Dues points out above, not insisting that the contract be adhered to risks being considered to have acquiesced in continued violations. - the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:49 am: I bet there’s a lot more to the story, on both sides. Silly things like a manager stepping in to reduce the backlog don’t motivate workers to file a grievance unless there’s a back story. Having said that, yes, it’s harder for management to function with a unionized workforce. A unionized workforce also prevents management from operating like petty dictators. That’s a fair tradeoff, IMO. I think it’s far more likely than not that there was a history between the manager and his/her employees that led to the grievance. We don’t know what it is, and maybe the manager was in the right. But I think there’s more to the story. - Stones - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:50 am: Like most grievances, I’m sure there is more to the story that a simple case of a supervisor stepping in to help process tax returns. - Stuff Happens - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:52 am: I agree to some degree. I work for a university and there was a 1″ tree branch near the entry to our building that always bonked people in the head, especially on windy days. It was reported, but the grounds people never did anything. Eventually, someone went out there with a big pair of loppers and cut the offending limb on their own. Unfortunately, a grounds worker saw, reported it, and then our employee was disciplined for doing work that union members should be paid for. I think unions are important and have a place. I also think that people on both sides of the union argument sometimes can’t see the forest for the trees. - Skeptic - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:53 am: “There may not be a budget to hire such workers,” Much like the line out of the ISC Pension ruling…they can deliberately create a budget that forces this very scenario. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:55 am: Mrs. Sleep runs into this issue with AFSCME all the time at her office. They routinely file grievances over minor issues and then get extremely defensive over the procedure(s). That makes government less efficient and a worse steward of the taxpayer’s money and needs. OneMan is right. Ms. Lynch needs to just come out and say that she is standing up for the needs, wants and concerns of her dues paying members. She is their leader - just like Mike Carrigan is the leader of the Illinois AFL-CIO and like Harry Crisp is the leader of Pepsi MidAmerica. There is no shame in stating the obvious and the truth. I wonder if some entities have become so tone deaf that they cannot cut through the white noise. - Juvenal - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:56 am: The real issue here seems to be not only “not enough Indians” but also “too many chiefs”. My guess is that the issue over at Revenue, as with all of state government, is that we seem to be perpetually surprised by the fact that folks retire or otherwise depart state government and agonizingly slow to fill frontline vacancies. In other words, management needs to focus on managing better. But maybe because they can’t, they focus on what they can do, which often amount to opening the mail. Also, if this is the best the Chicago Tribune can come up with, than its no wonder that efforts to balance the budget without raising taxes and solely by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. - Name Withheld - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:57 am: My gut initial reaction: As a member of a union, this is something that we should not be doing. if the supervisor’s intent was to help out, then you have a supervisor who understands about huge and unreasonable workloads and is trying to relieve some of the burden. That’s what you want out of management - understanding and compassion and a willingness to pitch in when things are hard. My thoughts after a few minutes: It really depends on the intent of the supervisor and management. I’ve been in situations where management used supervisors as on-demand extra work, instead of recognizing that a department is understaffed and ill-equipped to handle to workload. This really should have been a situation that was handled directly by the people involved and not escalated to a grievance. But the administration (past and present) has made such an issue of demonizing state employees that the kind of give-and-take that should occur between reasonable adults is all but impossible. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:58 am: I’m with the Trib on this one. This is exactly what’s wrong with unions these days. They view this as “lines are being breeched (sic)” when the reality is it’s far more about having a “whatever it takes to get the job done” attitude. I first encountered this in college decades ago when I worked as a clerk in a grocery warehouse. Even though I was barely above minimum wage, I was considered management because I worked in the office. But I hung out a lot with the guys on the floor so when a spill happened and I stepped in to help clean it up, I was flabbergasted when I was told I was violating union rules and I needed to step away. It was said by one of my buddies on the floor who just didn’t want me to get in trouble, but it’s exactly the same kind of attitude we see here. I’m recognize unions are vitally important and am stridently opposed to the right to work nonsense which is far more about politics than about work, but this is the kind of thing that gives unions of all kinds a bad name. - Johnny Pyle Driver - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:59 am: ===I’ve been in situations where management used supervisors as on-demand extra work, instead of recognizing that a department is understaffed and ill-equipped to handle to workload.=== bingo - The Equalizer - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:59 am: Why exactly do people keep quoting the Tribune? Quoting a prominent media source that is balanced is fine, but the Tribe is a wildly partisan attack rag (see any random editorial for evidence). Why would anyone keep quoting them? It’s a Rauner mouthpiece. Why not quote The Nation too? Both have obvious wide-leaning political agendas, at least be balanced about it. - Norseman - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:59 am: This is one of my pet peeves with the union. There are times where common sense needs to be used. - Stuck on the 3rd Floor - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:01 am: To Anonymous @ 9:48- The issue here is that, by helping out, the manager is plastering over the hole that exists due to a lack of proper staffing levels. If that approach continues indefinitely, it becomes calcified in the operations of the office, and becomes a given. The manager wasn’t hired to perform those tasks, and the fact that there’s a backlog is an indication that citizens are trying to have it both ways-they want their tax returns done in a set period of time, but they absolutely don’t want to pay more taxes to assure that outcome. It’s a problem throughout every facet of IL government. - Eastside - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:02 am: Ms. Lynch’s rebuttal is predicated on the assumption that the supervisor makes more money than those being supervised. This is not longer an assumption that can be made in state government. - Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:02 am: Hard not to be with the Trib on this one. In any other circumstance, a supervisor stepping in to help subordinates is a very good thing. Unions simply do not understand and it really hurts them in the public eye when they do something like this. - Tobor - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:05 am: Contract Language, for a reason. - Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:06 am: I agree with the Tribune. Processing tax returns that have either checks attached to them or generate refunds expeditiously is squarely within serving the public. And the union was allowed to verbally reprimand the supervisor? Someone is kidding us here, right? Right? - OneMan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:07 am: . The manager wasn’t hired to perform those tasks, and the fact that there’s a backlog is an indication that citizens are trying to have it both ways-they want their tax returns done in a set period of time, but they absolutely don’t want to pay more taxes to assure that outcome. There is a third option, a contract not require tasks be done by some people and not others. - Anon - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:08 am: Does anyone know the name of the DoR grievance being discussed? Are they public records and how would one obtain a copy? FOIA? - gg - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:08 am: The state has lost most of it’s managers and supervisors in the last two years. Many of the technical workers (doctors, accountants, computer support/programmers, lawyers) have an easy time finding a job “on the outside”. The new management “from the outside or peter principled up” will not admit they are fish out of water. The new management strikes out at “the old dogs” who know how the system works. It is not rocket science but takes years and months to learn all the ins and outs. So more employees leave. Call any legal firm and ask if they have noticed a lack of technical and processing understanding at state agencies recently. Money is not the issue with many long time employees. You only can kick a dog so many times before he leaves. - The Colossus of Roads - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:11 am: They should have declared this an emergency and hired temp workers. What happens when these low level people are sick or take vacation? Supervisors fill in for workers all the time. - Monday morning - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:11 am: To Juvenal’s comment, “In other words, management needs to focus on managing better.” In my 30 years in state government, it has grown increasingly difficult to manage, especially beginning with the Blagojevich administration and continuing relentlessly to the present day. The governor’s office calls the shots on hiring, and the procurement process makes expedient purchasing nearly impossible, leaving too few people with too few resources to do the work. So I find it hard to blame the union for taking a stand about managers doing union work. - D.P.Gumby - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:12 am: Both sides are wrong and are not acting in a constructive, cooperative manner. In other words, they are acting just like Congress and other elected officials, Vlad. Putin, the Trib editorial board, and most adolescents. - Short Bus Rider - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:13 am: The unions are out of control and need to be stopped. Protecting too many overpaid, incompetent and unproductive employees who cannot be terminated. The supervisor was probably tired of watching the employee working at a snails pace and complaining about how much work they had to do. - Formerpol - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:13 am: This kind of nonsense, combined with the sweetheart public pensions eating up all the other state programs, is killing the unions in the court of public opinion. But they don’t care, do they? In my private sector work everyone helps out to get a project done. Lawyers sweep floors, secretaries set up equipment, etc., - whatever is needed. But unions are killing themselves over these inanities. - The Equalizer - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:17 am: “Lawyers sweep floors…” Riiiight. That happens everywhere. - Skeptic - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:20 am: “Lawyers sweep floors, secretaries set up equipment, etc.” So what happens when there’s more legal work than the lawyers can handle? Just have the secretaries do it? - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:21 am: The Trib is stereotyping unions and saying that productivity across the state is penalized because of one incident. The Trib’s prejudice against unions is literally dripping from this editorial, when it says unions overall are an “enormous drain” on the state. What about the countless contract violations committed by management that hurt workers and were resolved in their favor because of grievances? How much money was saved by taxpayers because issues were resolved in the grievance process early rather than causing serious problems later, such as lower worker productivity and morale, illness due to stress and injury at work, higher turnover because of oppressive work conditions and lawsuits? I don’t know, but I know this should be at least raised when the Trib claims without evidence that unions drain the state’s resources. What’s far more draining to the state is the expiration of the income tax increase. - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:21 am: ==- Team Sleep - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 9:55 am:== The state agreed to the rules. If they don’t want to follow the rules they agreed to and put in writing, AFSCME wouldn’t be filing grievances. It’s that simple. Furthermore, considering the source, I would not be surprised if there is more to the story. It’s also grating that the Tribune complains about employees trying to protect their jobs, when that is exactly what newspapers have been trying to do for a decade now by hitching themselves to wealthy sugar daddies (WaPo) or sucking resources from more productive entities (TribCo) within the organization. - Anonymous - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:21 am: Anyone familiar with state government would know that this is a management created problem. Political supporters are not interested in lower paid jobs, and it is easier to give a supporter a management job than to hire into a union position which has to be posted and open to all bidders. The result is as Lynch suggests- too few clericals, resulting in taxpayers paying more to get the work done than it should. This is not a new phenomenon, goes back decades. The union’s insistence that work be done by employees it represents is a good thing, except for the politicians and their friends - dupage dan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:22 am: When the work piling up is of a temporary nature, it can be hard - given work/hiring rules - to be flexible enough to bring someone on as a temp to handle the short term increase in work load. In situations that have occurred in the agency I work in, when there is little likelihood of any additional staff hiring to be had, the administrators step in and help out. I had never thought of that being something to be grieved, curiously enough. And, also curious - not one grievance has ever been filed as a result of the managers stepping in to help out. Interesting. - ANON - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:22 am: I agree with Norseman @9:59. Common sense seems to have gone away. In this case, there should not have been a grievance. If properly staffed, the manager shouldn’t have stepped in. But, as a state worker, I have seen time and time again where a department is so understaffed even working 24 hours a day wouldn’t get them caught up. They need all the help they can get, whether it be management and not in their duties or not. Revenue is a good example of an agency that has peak workloads. They can’t staff for that every day of the year. That would also be irresponsible. I’m not saying they aren’t understaffed because I’m sure they are. I’m just saying there needs to be some solution to hiring ‘temporary’ workers during times of peak activity when it usually isn’t as much of a workload. - Liberty - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:26 am: Is this the worst union example Rauner can come up with? - archimedes - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:27 am: Given the information and example - it would seem that strict contract wording wins out over common sense. It has been my experience, however, that this kind of situation is directly related to the relationship between union and management in the work place. The better this relationship - a culture of respect and open communication - the less likely the union is to grieve. In fact, a clause “protecting jobs” in the contract will have more flexibility and target outsourcing rather than temporary needs. When a conflict comes up, it is resolved with conference - not grievance. - PublicServant - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:28 am: Yeah, gotta say, this is definitely an example of union goofiness. It’s tax season. Workload varies, so hiring a bunch of fulltime employees to complete tax return processing now, would seem to mean the new employees would likely be sitting around the rest of the year doing nothing. I’m not sure how it works, but a manager helping her employees are a good thing, not something that the union ought to be filing a grievance over. - Gone, but not forgotten - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:30 am: When I was a forced fair share member of AFSCME, I experienced Teamsters Technical 916 employees and my very own merit comp supervisor doing my clerical work on OVERTIME. I was not allowed the overtime, and when I complained, I received no support from AFSCME. I had added to my complaint that my supervisor had also insulted me by stating that he liked to do mindless work sometimes. So, I’ll just leave my comment now, before I say something that can get me deleted. That being said, I have never had a use for AFSCME. - Twr76 - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:34 am: @Short Bus Rider The unions are there to protect employees, period. Areas are very short staffed in many agencies currently. Politicians like to use emergencies to scare the public to get their point across. @Short Bus Rider The unions are there to protect employees, period. Areas are very short staffed in many agencies currently. Also, before you start stereotyping, why don’t you look at both sides of the issue and heed your own advice before you give it. - illlinifan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:35 am: This is not a new type of grievance or decision. AFSCME has been consistent on this issue for a lot of years. When I was a manager I found it frustrating since some of the work load was just a temporary increase that could be quickly solved with all hands pitching in. If it required additional staffing that process took so long that the problem would just grow and the people who needed the service suffered. - Twr76 - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:35 am: @Short Bus Rider The unions are there to protect employees, period. Areas are very short staffed in many agencies currently. Politicians like to use emergencies to scare the public to get their point across. Also, before you start stereotyping, why don’t you look at both sides of the issue and heed your own advice before you give it. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:38 am: Have you people any idea how long the DOR has been understaffed? Over a decade! Do you people have any idea how long AFSCME has been telling DOR that they need to hire more employees during tax season to keep up with the flood? Over a decade! Every year it is a repeat of watching a diminishing army of tax processors be overwhelmed by a growing mountain of tax returns. Every year, DOR sees their non-union management step in and put in overtime. They are doing what needs to be done because they won’t hire more help. A decade people. This isn’t just a one-off as presented by the Tribune. This is, and has been, an annual spectacle of mismanagement at DOR. The grievance was legit - or it wouldn’t have been settled. Trust me, plenty of grievances are ignored. There has been over a decade of grievances filed against this situation. So quit claiming AFSCME is preventing the work from being done. They have been trying and have been ignored for over a decade on this very problem. DOR won’t hire to replace the people leaving, and haven’t for a long time. DOR on this issue is being mismanaged. The very idea of a supervisor putting in overtime, instead of hiring more to process our taxes is outrageous. It has been going on without complaint for a very long time. So quit pretending this is an aberration which should have been overlooked, and that the union is just being difficult. Look at the big picture and stop assuming. The grievance was found justified. The Tribune’s ignorant reporting of it - isn’t. - Langhorne - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:38 am: Wow, one cherry picked (incomplete?) example leads to this: The demands in AFSCME’s 196-page contract often controvert the interests of taxpayers. From overtime costs to seniority rules to the endless grievance process, public employee unions can be an enormous drain on state resources. Unions resist progress, efficiency, modernization — anything that threatens a union job. That’s one reason why Rauner kicked off his first month as governor with a clenched fist toward organized labor. It can be tough to streamline state government alongside obstructionists.” The contract runs 196 pages bec it has to cover almost every conceivable situation covering most of a 50,000 person workforce. Remember, we have 93% union membership of the workforce bec of how employees were treated. - Twr76 - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:43 am: @Gone, but not forgotten Your supervisor was not getting overtime, so how did it harm you in the first place? Are you aware that you do not have the convenience of hiring and firing people in government work like in the private sector? - Observation - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:44 am: -The unions are there to protect employees, period. - In this case, protectan employee from what? From having a workload eased because an extra set of hands stepped in to help? From having a less stressful day and a more relaxed break because the pile on the worker’s desk was not falling over? - Team Sleep - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:46 am: PC - does the union HAVE TO file a grievance? Or is it up to their discretion? Was the steward pressured from above to “take action”? Seriously. - Wordslinger - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:53 am: That settles it. Get rid of all unions and default on pension payments. Thank you, Tribbies, for your deep dive. Your work here is done. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:53 am: I didn’t realize there were any supervisors left who weren’t also in AFSCME. - Allen Skillicorn - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:54 am: The hypocrisy stated in that letter is exactly why the image of public sector unions is tarnished with the general public and why public opinion is changing on these issues. - Twr76 - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:58 am: @Observation He needs to tell the whole story and in what area he worked in. If you don’t have enough people in the first place, it’s on the supervisor to get approval to hire more people. If the governor’s office says no, you can’t do anything about it. In the instant case, Rauner bashes anyone who disagrees with him. Would you come to work for someone who wants to fire you in the first place? - Jake From Elwood - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:59 am: Council 31 sounds a lot like the McCormick Place locals. Seems nitpicky. - Formerpol - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:00 am: Yes, lawyers sweep floors, set up computers, go get lunch, and do whatever is needed. That’s a big difference in the private sector and explains why things can actually get done when job security and pay is not guaranteed. And don’t tell me that state workers are overworked. I’ve been a state worker, and was shocked at the lassitude and lack of responsibility I saw. Just no comparison to the private sector, where you have to show results regardless of how many hours it takes. - Chicago Guy - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:04 am: I question the union’s cost effectiveness argument. My impression is the union members make close to the same as the supervisor. With OT, they likely would be making a lot more than the supervisor. - Just Me - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:06 am: This reminds me of what my college business professor once said, “Unions are a business, and just like any other business its goal is to generate revenue, and its revenue is union member dues. Their goal is to increase membership as much as possible and collect those members’ dues. Looking out for the best interest of the company [in this case the State] doesn’t factor into their decision whatsoever.” - phocion - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:06 am: Work rules. McPier renegotiated theirs and it allowed them to remain competetitve. I suspect Ms. Lynch will find many of her cherished (and patently unreasonable) work rules under assault at the bargaining table she must share with the Rauner Administration. Labor excesses lead to consequences. The voters said so in November. - Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:10 am: Still no response by anyone other than myself: the union as part of the Arbitrator’s decision was allowed to verbally reprimand the supervisor? What is wrong with this picture? - Anon. - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:17 am: ==I’m just saying there needs to be some solution to hiring ‘temporary’ workers during times of peak activity when it usually isn’t as much of a workload.== Revenue does hire a lot of temps during filing season. - Truthteller - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:18 am: Do you suppose the Trib learned of this grievance from the Rauner administration? Do you suppose the editors checked with the union to hear its side of the story? Are the folks who are buying the Trib side doing due diligence? - Bogey Golfer - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:21 am: @Vanilla Man - And tax season would be a good time to hire part-time employees to cover the peak period, and then reduce staff afterwards. But you don’t hire more full-time staff because you have a short-term crisis. I know AFSCME won’t allow part-time staff - THAT”S THE ISSUE. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:21 am: Still no response by anyone other than myself: the union as part of the Arbitrator’s decision was allowed to verbally reprimand the supervisor? What is wrong with this picture? You are old and don’t know that it is 2015, when most public employees have as many university degrees, years of experience and knowledge as the supervisor - meaning being a supervisor no longer means behaving like the people they manage are beneath them? You question belongs in Edwardian England. - Tommydanger - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:21 am: “Still no response by anyone other than myself” Careful, sounds like Glenn Close talking to Michael Douglas. - Bemused - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:25 am: Like others I have to wonder about the back story on this. Did the employee and supervisor already have a bad relationship? Maybe this was something that had been ongoing and the employees felt it time to make a point. After telling upper management for some time you need more help with no response, sometimes you have to take a different tack. Do work rules sometimes seem to go beyond common sense, yes they do. In my experience though it is more often the case that the employee is too worried about the loss of his job or promotional consideration to file such grievances. - L.A. - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:28 am: “Yes, lawyers sweep floors, set up computers, go get lunch, and do whatever is needed.” I work for two private-sector attorneys and I would pay a million dollars to watch just one of them sweep a floor in the office or go anywhere near setting up a computer (actually, I try to keep them far, far away from setting up a computer) or go a grab lunch for anyone other than themselves. Don’t get me wrong, they are great to work for, but neither one of them is going anywhere near those three things! - phocion - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:33 am: Langhorne, we have 93% unionized State of Illinois workers because Blagojevich and Quinn struck a corrupt bargain with public sector unions. Their end of the bargain was to make life for non-union workers miserable and freeze their pay, treating them worse than union workers. They capitulated to the most extreme union demands and made unionization an attractive, and perhaps the only rational option for otherwise professional employees. The unions gladly filled the two governors’ campaign coffers in recognition of doing for them what no previous Republican administration did. - Twr76 - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:36 am: @Just Me It reminds me of what Matthew 6:24 says, “No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” Something what Rauner forgets apparently. - Honeybear - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:36 am: Wow…a lot of stuff flying around here. CAN WE PLEASE try to not dehumanize PEOPLE here. Stop already with the union bashing, management bashing, STOP BASHING! I really really want to see us return to treating people with inherent dignity and worth. (and yes, I realize that I called for Rickert to experience myriad forms of shame and humiliation yesterday. I get it. I’m a hippocrit. I’ll own that. Just let me take the high road this time and judge me by my argument) My spouse served a sentence at Revenue for a year and a half. It’s a hard place to work for all. It’s highly technical work and so you can’t just hire help. My spouse is educated to the hilt and still had trouble with the complexity and tangled nature of some of the tax problems. People have to be trained for sometimes months to be able to handle different cases, like withholding, business taxes, individual, etc. The environment there is oppressive. No talking/socializing. If your phone is out they will fire you. If you’re late by a second coming back from break or lunch you’ll be disciplined. Management and Labor are locked together in a death spiral of hatred and loathing. Greivances and Disciplinary actions fly arrows in a medieval battle. Niether side is probably right or accurately portraying themselves. No side is clean at Revenue. It’s a bloodbath over there. (FYI you can’t FOIA greivances to find out names or anything) Now contrast Revenue to where I work. Management last year told our members they had to use their vacations or get them approved by Oct 31. Union Stewards said no, that violates the contract. You can’t tell members when they have to take vacations. Management came back and said “but we want to make sure we have correct staffing for the holidays”. Union stewards said “we understand that and agree, but what you just did is caused the new employees to panic and take/schedule their vacation time before Oct 31, instead of putting in for vacation when they wanted to be approved or denied at Managements discretion. The new employees taking all their vacation time before Oct 31, causing its own staffing problem. Most of the new employees wouldn’t get vacation time right around the holidays because of lower seniority but they thought they couldn’t take off any other time in Nov or Dec. “Oh, we didn’t realize that they would think that.” Management then put out an email clarifying. No greivance was filed. Other times management was totally in the right about an employee. The stewards tried to get the kid straightened out, tried to help but in the end the kid got terminated. I myself am about to get my desk moved to a back storeroom with no windows with 5 other workers. When we heard they came to me screaming about “hostile work environment” etc. “Nothing we can do guys. They have the right to put us in any room, (as long as it’s safe) doing whatever job falls within our classification. It’s their call and they have that right. Plus it’s the only room available with the phone lines in it. It sucks but there you have it.” I would like to believe that most state union worksites are like mine, vigorous dialogue but not toxic like revenue. I pray people will not judge state unions AND management by one of the worst examples out there. Folks who work for the state by and large are good people. We need to be more focussed on negotiating and compromising skills than killing each other with rhetorical arrows. - A Jack - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:36 am: I have seen cases where AFSCME has overreached as well as case were management overreached. A case were AFSCME overreached had to do with smoking areas in buildings which thankfully squelched by the GA. And sometimes AFSCME will protect workers that shouldn’t be protected. But no organization is perfect. And right now they are the only way that my worker rights will be protected from those who would love to go back to the glory days of capitalism. - Twr76 - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:45 am: @phocion Yes, the enemy is the corrupt public sector unions (and anyone else who doesn’t agree with Rauner). Don’t forget to include the previous Republican governor who was locked up for taking bribes when he was Secretary of State. Start focusing on specific individuals instead of everyone as a whole already. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:48 am: Some are, willfully or not, missing the Trib’s point, which is to smear unions and get rid of collective bargaining. One example can’t be used to represent the whole–especially when the example was resolved in favor of workers by an arbitrator. Wanting to change some contract terms is one thing, and vigorous negotiations and debate should be encouraged, but wanting to wipe out the process, and unions, is quite another. It’s apparent that many union members can tell the difference. This kind of thinly-veiled bigotry is what helps fuel the labor movement, as we can see with more fair share fee payers signing union cards. - Smitty Irving - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:49 am: Juvenal “… management needs to focus on managing better.” You ever heard of the ePAR system system? - Smitty Irving - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:49 am: Bloody phone. Just 1 system. - Skeptic - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:54 am: phoicon @ 11:33 I’m glad I didn’t have my mouth full when I read that. Sheesh. - OneMan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 12:15 pm: So using a few example to make a point…. Yeah, it isn’t like anyone else does that besides evil Bruce… Come on, does anyone really think, seriously, that AFSCME’s viewpoint on this is protecting the taxpayer? By golly, we just don’t want that supervisor doing work that is beneath them… - Demoralized - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:09 pm: I love the people who just say: “Well, we need to hire more people.” Ok. That may be the case. But guess what. That isn’t going to happen. So, when things need to get done people need to figure out a way to get the work done. This person did and somehow that’s a bad thing. Look, I think all the union bashing going on right now is ridiculous. But the union does not help their cause when they file goofy grievances like this. If the union wants to be taken seriously by the public then they had better knock this kind of garbage off. - Demoralized - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:12 pm: @formerpol: Wow. Nice hyperbole about state workers. Just because you say people aren’t overworked doesn’t make it so. I can tell you that that a lot of people are, in fact, overworked. Staffing is way down in the state and people act like that comes without consequences. The same amount of work has to get done by fewer people. It is what it is. But, don’t sit there on your “private sector is better” high horse and claim that state workers are any less productive. It’s ridiculous on its face. - Finally Out (and now very glad to be) - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:15 pm: Have to agree with Honeybear, please stop the bashing people! You are doing it over a most likely slanted and probably incomplete article from the Tribbies. Both sides have faults, it’s part of life and the rules they are playing by were agreed to by both sides. During my time, our group (at 25% staffing) had a manager (politically appointed) who was working on a new computer system we had no knowledge of. (This manager had no tech background) After a few months on it, a couple of us were called in to his office and were told about it. We were instructed to “fix it” and finish the project. Because this person did not have the background to do this and design was below poor, the project work had to be scrapped and started from scratch. So this manager wasted a lot of their time that could have been spent on administrative functions. In other incidents, the manager would answer requests from clients and do the work without any input. When problems surfaced, clients were told we were incompetent and then we were brought in to “fix” the problems. Once completed the manager would take credit! Unfortunately that manager was “peter principled” to a higher tech position, imagine that. These incidents occurred during the Blago administration but I’m sure this type of thing still happens. I can see where there are situations where a manager could help out as long as they have the capability and knowledge to do the jog, even though I was in a union unit. It is done all the time, even if some don’t want to admit it. There was a lot of “even though this is not allowed, we need to get the job done.” and we were good with that. It isn’t an easy situation, but please don’t group everyone into one box because of the article above. I can understand management’s frustrations sometimes, but as I said, everyone is working by the given rules. Most state employees are good people who have a job to do and want to do it well, whatever it takes. If someone doesn’t like the rules, work together and change them to something that is workable for both sides. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:38 pm: In my experience I have seen many instances of bargaining unit work done outside of the unit without the union filing grievances. The Trib is throwing out a red herring to distract us from the much bigger problem of our fiscal crisis, and the need to raise revenue. - Anon - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:43 pm: So many points . . . I must agree that the state should be staff appropriately with fair wages. In this case hiring additional clerical staff would have been a wise decision instead of allowing a backlog that led a manager to step in. I am troubled by those who so easily bash working individuals and would deprive them of the right to earn decent wages and benefits as well as deprive them of union representation to protect them. - anon - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:58 pm: “The union claimed the supervisor violated a clause in AFSCME’s contract by doing “bargaining unit” work. The case went to a mediator. The union demanded overtime pay for the employees whose work the supervisor performed. Both sides settled instead on comp time for the workers. “ Both sides have to agree on the mediator, this is just sour grapes. “The supervisor got verbally reprimanded by the union.” Please explain to me how AFSCME can discipline a member of management? “When Gov. Bruce Rauner talks about the grip public employee unions hold over state government, this is an example of what he means. The demands in AFSCME’s 196-page contract often controvert the interests of taxpayers. From overtime costs to seniority rules to the endless grievance process, public employee unions can be an enormous drain on state resources. Unions resist progress, efficiency, modernization — anything that threatens a union job.” When a group of workers vote to be represented by a union, the work done by those workers becomes “bargaining unit” work. To allow someone outside the bargaining unit to do that work undermines the entire collective bargaining process. Whether its supervisors or temps (who the AFSCME contract permits) the net result is replacing union workers with non-union workers, which is why the mediator ruled with the union. If rules like this did not exist, management would hire people to do union work, give them “supervisor” titles and eventually replace it’s unionized workforce with these “supervisors”. - Skeptic - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 2:18 pm: “The demands in AFSCME’s 196-page contract often controvert the interests of taxpayers.” In other words, they have the audacity to prohibit things like unlimited (and uncompensated) overtime, shift differential and favoritism. Imagine that. (Sarcasm) - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 2:54 pm: Please explain to me how AFSCME can discipline a member of management? You have no idea how often management needs to be disciplined. They run rampant, royally screw up, then rarely has to be held accountable for it. A union reprimand towards a management fiasco which finally reaches a settlement, isn’t much, but it is usually richly deserved. Stop believing that management is so innocent here. There had to be plenty of warnings and complaints about this in order to reach this point. Honestly, stop acting like management is Snow White and AFSCME is a Duke Lacrosse Team. Its pretty ridiculous. - Earnest - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 2:57 pm: I think AFSCME’s response reads more like talking points than addressing the specific situation. I think many of the responses here in the comments are more convincing. Also, when I hear someone referred to as a manger, my assumption is that they are overtime exempt, and thus no additional costs–if that’s not the case, I’d like that information. I would like to have heard some specifics in their response, and to be effective they could relate it to the impact on us–who doesn’t want to get their tax returns on time? Not meaning to comment at this point on the various merits of the arguments on both sides–just stating a perception that AFSCME is missing some great opportunities to assert their value. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 3:07 pm: Langhorne, we have 93% unionized State of Illinois workers because Blagojevich and Quinn struck a corrupt bargain with public sector unions. What a ridiculous thing to state. Where’s your proof of this corrupt bargain? I was there. When the budget started crashing about the time Blagojevich climbed on board, ending decades of GOP dominance, state agencies without unions started carving up each agency’s budget for their own salaries, because they could do it. I got screwed out of many cost of living increases because I could be screwed. By the time AFSCME was considered, there was a race to it in order to finally end the reign of stupidity and corruption rampant within non-union agencies. You people who talk about how the unions tie the hands of management are assuming that management cared to do its job correctly. Well, the situation in reality was so bad - AFSCME couldn’t keep up with all the demands for entry. When the dust finally settled, I was told what I already knew. I was screwed out of pay increases that ended up padding my management’s wallets. There was no corrupt bargain. What there was, as I witnessed it for years, is corrupt management that got so tiresome at the expense of everyone else, citizens from every educational background and politics, decided things couldn’t get any worse by joining AFSCME. I was there. Put on your glasses and see what we all saw before AFSCME was begged to come into our offices. There was no need for a corrupt bargain when public employees are treated as badly as we were by an insanely out of control management. - permanent partial disability - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 3:21 pm: ===”Please explain to me how AFSCME can discipline a member of management?”=== @Vanilla Man: You still haven’t answered this question, other than using some diversion tactics. A union that has the authority to “reprimand” management, either publicly or privately, has too much power. The “reprimand” must come from the manager’s supervisor. Or have things become that topsy-turvy in Illinois Government? - Demoralized - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 3:23 pm: VMan Bitter much? Sheesh. I think you need to tone down your rhetoric about “management” or more clearly define who you consider to be “management.” Ain’t none of the managers I know who got “fat wallets” any time in recent memory. I think there is some validity to arguments that the union has too much power. I don’t fault the unions for that. There are two sides to every negotiation and the state gave up far too much in my opinion. There isn’t a lot in the contract that I think is out of line, but there are a few things in there that tie managements hands sometime. Anyway, I think that there does need to be some consideration of who is in the union. It was a mistake to let PSA’s in the union and some of that has been undone, though not to the degree necessary. There should never be a manager in the union. I understand why that happened. People got tired of being treated like dirt when it came to raises. It doesn’t make it good policy though. I think we can have conversations about the union on a rational level. But, the Governor is preventing that from happening by his anti-union stance. You don’t achieve results by demonizing. - Politix - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 3:33 pm: A contract is a contract, no matter how much you don’t like the rules. Bring it up in negotiations if you don’t like it bc once that contract is signed, that’s it. - Honeybear - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 3:35 pm: -but there are a few things in there that tie managements hands sometime- Like what specifically? Specific Article and section please. - Secret Square - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 3:40 pm: “stop acting like management is Snow White and AFSCME is a Duke Lacrosse Team.” In case you all have forgotten, the accusations against the Duke lacrosse team turned out to be false, and were pushed by an overzealous prosecutor eager to make a name for himself. Which, come to think of it, makes it an even better analogy for the current situation…. - Demoralized - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 4:22 pm: ==Like what specifically? Specific Article and section please.== Jeez. Don’t get so defensive. No contract is perfect from anybody’s perspective. My biggest issue is the seniority issue when it comes to hiring. I shouldn’t have my hands tied in hiring just because somebody has been around longer. I should be able to consider who would do a better job. Some of my other issues I think have more to do with the state’s (i.e. CMS) interpretations of the contract. For example, GPS tracking of employees while on work time. To me that’s covered in Article II, yet it had to be negotiated. I shouldn’t have to negotiate knowing where my employees are while they are on state time (I’m talking about field employees, not office employees). - anon - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 4:27 pm: “I think AFSCME’s response reads more like talking points than addressing the specific situation. I think many of the responses here in the comments are more convincing.” Agreed, Roberta doesn’t seem to have Bayer’s acumen when dealing with the media. - Honeybear - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 4:36 pm: My bad Demoralized, Article XVIII Senority. I’ll give you that. I’m not a big fan of it either and I get the problems with it. I actually do. My triggered response had to do with putz’s who say without knowing “managements hands are tied!”. You obviously know what you’re talking about and I should have remembered. My apologies. So for the second time today (but in different forum) I will say; Troll sorry…troll go back under bridge now….troll not mean to step on flower. - Demoralized - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 4:42 pm: It’s all good. - Honeybear - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 4:45 pm: To the seniority subject. I have always thought they we need to handle it like the military and have Fitness Reports. Sure there are problems with bad officers writing them but a regular system of performance review would make our workers and management a hell of a lot better. So I’m actually with you on that. We’ve got several positions unfilled because of it. What I wouldn’t do for a good trainer! But the person next in line is not an option. I get it, I really do. I can also understand the need to have a seniority system as well. Never a simple answer to anything. - papa2008 - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 4:56 pm: The problem exists on both sides. Having worked for the state and knowing many other people who work for the state there are some generalities to explore. Out of every 10 employees in an office, four are outstanding, doing the job above and beyond. Two are marginal, barely able to keep their head above water. And four are almost useless, excessive absenteeism, poor work output, kept around because of union membership. On the other side are two managers. One probably very able, but hamstrung by the lack of support from the politically connected supervisors above them. And one, promoted from the employee pool, because of seniority, completely unqualified to hold the position, but hanging on until retirement. Supervisor one trying to do what she can, but slapped down by the bureaucracy in which she is mired. - Twr76 - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 4:58 pm: Anyone in that has worked in state government knows why PSA’s went into the union was because they did not receive raises for almost a decade. Also there was a huge disconnect between mid-management and upper management. With that being said, our current governor has no experience running an agency. Even Edgar said that. He is used to going into companies and making a profit out of them. Sadly, with money there is always usually that power grab. People are leaving in drones at agencies. Every new administration is different, but it’s a known fact that the baby boomers are retiring. When it’s your time to retire, you want to be able to enjoy what years you have left and I wouldn’t blame anyone for being like that. Last time I checked, no one is saying here, I wish I would’ve spent more time at the office. - James Knell - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 5:06 pm: @Formerpol - those old dogs won’t hunt. How long ago were you a state employee? - Cassandra - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 5:30 pm: I’m with AFSCME on this one-although I think they should have tried to resolve the issue in a labor-management conference first. Maybe they did. The grievance process can be abused,though. If a supervisor has time to do substantive bargaining unit work, then the agency has too many supervisors. The next time one retires, use the money to hire more clerks, instead of replacing him/her. Or automate the job more. That’s the real future, although I suspect government agencies will be late,late,late to that aspect of the future of work. So many political pals to feed. - Anon - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 6:09 pm: I agree with the result. My bureau has 4 union members and 9 merit comps, including 2 supervisors, doing the exact same bargaining unit work. The merit comps average $20k more in salary than the union members. - MotherJones - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 6:27 pm: Is it so hard to believe that the union could be a) protecting bargaining unit work AND b) suggesting something (hire cheaper help for the appropriate function) that would help the state financially, at the same time? The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Quite often the union tries to make an argument in the employer’s self-interest that also achieves their own goals. It’s good practice, it isn’t a signal that the union is cherry-picking facts to make themselves look good. One thing is clear - the Trib chose and used this example, narrowly described and heavily tainted, to try to paint the union and the contract in a negative light. No doubt at all on that front. - Anonymous - Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 7:07 pm: ==I agree with the result. My bureau has 4 union members and 9 merit comps, including 2 supervisors, doing the exact same bargaining unit work. The merit comps average $20k more in salary than the union members.== You had me up to that last sentence. There are an awful lot of merit comp supervisors making less than the union employees who work for them, and I don’t know any my agency who are making anything like $20k more than their union workers. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.