|
Rauner asks agencies for strike plans, impacts
Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - Posted by Rich Miller * I’m not yet convinced that AFSCME will strike. I figure they’ll wait for a lockout attempt. But one never knows, so this “Contingency Preparation Assessment” form sent out to agencies asking them for their plans for and the potential impact of a public employee strike seems like a prudent administrative move. Click the pic for a larger image…  Notice that temp workers will apparently be hired. * Something that got cut off from my screen grab above…
|
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:33 pm:
Do. Not. Strike.
Rauner will lock you out. Sonny overreacts.
I’ve stated my tact, I’d hope for that response by AFSCME.
A strike is giving Rauner what he wants. Don’t do it.
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:35 pm:
Why strike? Let the governor be the bad guy, if that’s what he wants to generate national publicity for himself…. Whoops, I meant “save the state.”
- The Colossus of Roads - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:35 pm:
Strike plan, with such a large % of all state employees in the union, they won’t have enough people to answer phones, sort mail and read e mails.
- Cassiopeia - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:36 pm:
If AFSCME is smart they won’t risk a strike. I feel that most employees will show up to work and the strike attempt will fizzle.
- Not quite a majority - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:37 pm:
I’m wondering how much of this is ’smart administrative research’ and how much is ’scare them silly by making sure it ends up in public places’. Seems to me any good administration would do this quietly in meetings at the top level — not leak it to the world at large. Just sayin’.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
The man hates unions because he hasn’t a clue about them.
This is more proof.
- Mouthy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
More frightening of the workers. Question is will it work or will the workers stick together and fight back in unison. Governor’s got all the power and a big stack of money to sway opinion but the one item he lacks is numbers. If state employees use their numbers for a common purpose they will win and the Governor knows that.
- Give Me A Break - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
Not sure this is anything new, when I was in state gvt., every time the AFSCME contract was coming to an end, executive staff were asked to prepare a strike plan.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:39 pm:
===not leak it to the world at large===
This wasn’t an admin leak.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:40 pm:
I know that if we, as a school district, created a document like this our union would immediately claim that we were not negotiating in good faith and possibly an unfair practices action. I am sure our legal counsel is much more conservative than the governor’s though.
I think it is smart to evaluate the impact, but I think it is a slippery slope and caution is advised.
Rauner’s and the states capacity for a legal defense is certainly much greater than our little school district so a roll of the dice might be ok.
- AnonymousOne - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:40 pm:
What a governor, working for the betterment of the state for all it’s citizens. Or do only some citizens matter?
- Almost the Weekend - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:40 pm:
Watching AFSCME make a major decision is like watching Lovie Smith throw a challenge flag in the NFL. You wonder what they both were thinking. Anybody’s guess with AFSCME is as a good as mine.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:40 pm:
…they won’t have enough people to answer phones, sort mail and read e mails…
We already have computers doing that.
- Anon1234 - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:41 pm:
1. Would this apply to employees at state developmental disability centers? They can’t just leave people unable to care for themselves.
2. For those enjoined, I’m wondering if the state has to keep the current contract in place?
- dupage dan - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
In 25 years have never had a whiff of a strike re AFSCME. In all the unions I have ever been in (first one, Boilermakers - in 1975, Sheetmetal Workers Union and Aerospace & Machinists), I saw only one strike vote - cancelled when the plant owner threatened to move the factory to Mexico. Very little benefit from a strike and THAT disappears after only a week or two and THAT is if the union wins the strike.
AFSCME - DO. NOT. STRIKE. It is PRECISELY what Rauner wants.
- SextusEmpiricus - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:42 pm:
Agree with OW…
Do not strike. Hold the line. Continue to negotiate in good faith. Let Rauner lock you out. Do not play his game.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:45 pm:
I have negotiated numerous labor contracts and I always let it be known that a strike would not shut down the company. You better believe everybody knew that we would use management employees, replacement workers, any legal means to continue operations.
That is just a prudent business practice. I would be disappointed in the governor if he did anything less.
- Anon - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:47 pm:
Someone said yesterday that the lockout is only an option for management after a strike is declared. Then management, if it wishes to do so, can lock out union members who try to cross the picket line. Is that incorrect?
- Jorge - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:47 pm:
This looks more like a lockout plan.
- facts are stubborn things - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:48 pm:
Not sure it is just a matter of continue to negotiate in good faith and get locked out. I believe at some point the last offer on the table becomes the law and you accept or strike. That last offer may not come before many good faith steps are taken etc. but I do believe it can end up that way.
- Apocalypse Now - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:53 pm:
I am sure there are plenty of qualified people willing to take the job of strikers, if it happens.
- facts are stubborn things - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:54 pm:
AFCME will not strike unless a horrible unacceptable contract is going to be imposed on them. At that point, the feeling is usually we have no choice.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:54 pm:
Contingency planning has always happened at this stage in the game of contract negotiations. I know the current climate makes this seem sinister but it’s not out of the ordinary.
- SextusEmpiricus - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:54 pm:
==Strike plan, with such a large % of all state employees in the union, they won’t have enough people to answer phones, sort mail and read e mails.==
Not bad for a tautology - that is to say, for not saying anything about the real world.
- Rufus - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:55 pm:
There’s more than just this form going on. Each major agency has a new person on staff just to handle the potential lockout/strike.
Everyone here is predicting a lockout.
- Mouthy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:57 pm:
Lockout or strike the Governor probably thinks union employees are deep down the equivalent of the Iraqi Army…
- Former Merit Comp Slave - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:58 pm:
Had to do several such plans when I worked at the state. There are several different ways to fill out these forms and once they travel up departments to the governor they always are changed several times depending on the message the governor wants to send. Our department’s submitted plan never survived the trip. A strike or lockout either one would be catastrophic, people won’t get that until it’s too late (including the governor)
- The Colossus of Roads - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:58 pm:
Vanilla Man, you must have the smartest computer in the world if it can open a letter, time and date stamp it, prepare a reply and mail out the reply without any human interaction; read an e mail and send an answer without human interaction. Eventually all voice mails must be answered and/or you always get a choice to talk to a live person.
- Rusty618 - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:03 pm:
Remember that AFSCME members worked for 10 months without a contract during the previous negotiations in 2012-13. The current contract would hold, unless Rauner locks them out.
If AFSCME did strike, which I hope they don’t either, there are very many professional positions in the state, requiring 1-3 years of training, that could never be filled by a temp.
- Hoping for Rational Thought - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:06 pm:
When I was at the state we always had to have an updated strike plan when the contract was negotiated. It was just something to have and was part of doing business. This isn’t surprising at all. What may surprise the administration is how hard it will be to operate during a strike or lock out.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:06 pm:
I seem to recall the same type of thing happening when the Quinn was on the other side of the table. Every business should have a continuity plan, be it fire, flood, terrorist attack, earthquake, labor strife or whatever however unlikely the event might be.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:20 pm:
==I seem to recall the same type of thing happening when the Quinn was on the other side of the table.==
Well, rhetoric to the contrary, Pat Quinn wasn’t exactly a beloved ally of labor.
But, in principal, I agree with you, these kind of things are just prudent, not really a sign.
- Just Me - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:23 pm:
Any good CEO would be prepared for a strike when there are contract negotiations that they don’t believe would go smoothly. I don’t quite understand why this is news.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:32 pm:
===I am sure there are plenty of qualified people willing to take the job of strikers, if it happens.===
Hiring replacements is not going to help the H&SGOP come election time.
Then again, Rauner cares less about the GOP GA…
- A guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:35 pm:
SOP, no matter how negotiations are going. There’s probably a filing cabinet full of these from years gone by.
- Anon - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:43 pm:
Rusty618@3:03, I think the difference is with Quinn he and the union mutually agreed to extend negotiations which is why the old terms stayed in place.
- Slade - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:48 pm:
So is my thinking right here… If the contract expires and mediation/arbitration fails then the administration can dictate the new terms.
At that point the unions can either agree with the new terms and continue working or they can strike.
Seems like the “don’t strike, be locked out” option favors the administration because they can dictate very bad new terms.
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:48 pm:
==- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 2:45 pm:==
Is this just another “opening salvo”?
- illinifan - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:48 pm:
Agree there are filing cabinets full of these plans…the question is does this new crew even know where the filing cabinets are kept? Sometimes egos are so big they block a persons vision.
- anonymous1001 - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:48 pm:
Wonder if they would allow me (as a state retiree) to come back to work as a ‘temp’?
- Skeptic - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:55 pm:
“Wonder if they would allow me (as a state retiree) to come back to work as a ‘temp’?” The word for that is “scab.” Not only that, but a double-dipping one at that (pension + salary.) I’d hope you wouldn’t consider it.
- Say It Ain't So!! - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:56 pm:
This must be for a lockout, because the fifth issue, “number of temps you may seek to hire pre-strike”, would require a knowledge of an actual strike/lockout. Do any agencies have excess funds, where they can hire temp workers for a future strike that most people think would be a dumb move on AFSCME’s part to even think about?
- AC - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:57 pm:
The governor has an opportunity here. He could get the union to agree to the worst contract in a generation. Sure he’d have to give up on the non-negotiable items, like voluntary moves from Tier 1 to Tier 2, and eliminating bumping rights so that he can contract everything out, but he’d be able go gain the leanest contract in a long itme. There is a strong parallel to this situation and Cullerton’s pension compromise. I’m not saying that his plan was constitutional, but the unions were willing not to sue and agree to the compromise in order to avoid the risk going forward. He may not see it, but Rauner has a win, and all he has to do is put it on the table. State employees are risk averse, so much so that that they would ratify a really bad contract right now, but not one that decimates the contract language they worked hard for years to put in place. If Rauner pushes this fight forward, it’s very likely that he will get less out of the deal than he could right now. It’s up to him to decide if he’d rather take a chance at establishing a vision of a perfect anti-worker paradise, or accept a win on something he really can control.
- anonymous1001 - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:57 pm:
I dunno …. how does this differ from the 70 day contract thingy. Also … ’sticks & stones’.
- Wordslinger - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 3:59 pm:
I know some at the state level call it “arbitration” but it’s really “mediation,” is that correct?
If it was true “arbitration,” there wouldnt be the possibility of a strike or a lockout as both sides would be bound by an arbitrator’s decision.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:01 pm:
No Precinct Captain, it is exactly what I said it was in an earlier post. Any employer would be derelict in his duties not to have contingency plans if a union decided to strike. All governors would prepare for a strike. Numerous posters have said the same thing.
Your question made zero sense.
- Tired of it all - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:04 pm:
There are no winners in a strike or lockout, only losers. I can’t believe that there is even a hint that someone believes that it is possible to hire enough professional people to keep the state operating. Most state administration personnel see the end result, and have no idea how or what it took to get there. So, if Rauner wants to hire a lot of people to answer phones to tell people “they don’t know”, I guess he’ll get his wish.
Don’t strike, let Rauner take the heat.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:06 pm:
===is that correct?===
It’s arbitration.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:10 pm:
I personally don’t see any strike/lockout lasting for more than a handful of days. I suspect we will have neither.
- Finally Out (and now very glad to be) - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:12 pm:
Saw these at my agency during last contract negotations with Quinn. Nothing new.
I also remember us taking a strike vote and union officers told us that it was only so they could get permission of the members in case it got to that point. Probably also a warning shot across the bow to the other side?
- zonz - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:13 pm:
Serious question: does anyone see Rauner as a savvy businessman running the state like a business?
(Me, I see him as a business investor who has lived and made decisions a world apart from those who run businesses with real people in them)
- Norseman - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:14 pm:
Different form same practice. I’ve never been impressed by past plans. A lot of services would be shut down. There will not be enough trained supervisors to get things done. There not enough people on-board now to get all things done. Temps can handle phones, but not perform inspections, etc.
Anyway, this shouldn’t matter because - as folks have pointed out - a strike would play right into Rauner’s hands.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:15 pm:
I see him as a very smart businessman. It is impossible to totally run the state like a business because politics get in the way. But many business principles can be used in managing government. The first principal is pay your bills and don’t spend more than you have.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:17 pm:
It’s very different from the 70-day contract thing. With a 70-day contract, you’re hired back to do the job you were doing before you retired (and hasn’t been filled yet.) What you’re suggesting is taking someone else’s job. In other words, you, with your guaranteed defined benefit income swoop in and take the job of someone who is likely supporting a family. And it could be their only income. Call it Sticks and Stones if you want, but it still stinks to high heaven.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:18 pm:
Yep, strike authorizations are a shot across the bow just as business contingency plans are a shot across the bow.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:18 pm:
Letters?
You still thinking it’s 1958?
I haven’t gotten paper mail since 2003! Not even junk mail!
- Anonymous - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:19 pm:
Well said, Skeptic.
- Casual Observer - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:23 pm:
All agencies should go through this exercise once in a while. It’s not much different than a disaster recovery plan. And it would be prudent for employees to hold off on big purchases and beef up heir savings…just in case. What I would watch for is if CMS starts awarding a big potful of service contracts, then watch out.
- anonymous1001 - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:33 pm:
Skeptic - I wouldn’t expect to come back to fill a position that I had no experience with (say, a prison guard). But I do believe I could come back to fill a post that I retired 3 years ago.
As far as we are talking hardship… who suffers more, the recipient of state-provided benefits that get delayed (who might be living day-to-day), or the state-worker I replace (I prefer the term ‘back-fill’) whose daily life may be more ’stable’?
- tired of politics - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:36 pm:
Skeptic, you are spot on.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:37 pm:
well said 1001
- Anon - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:43 pm:
@PeoriaGuy. Rauner was a bully in business and is a bully as governor. No business savvy is required to threaten people.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:47 pm:
1001: Then the compassionate thing to do would be to lean on our Governor and the Union to come to terms on a contract so that the people whose job it is to handle those things can get back to work and do them, and not pull the rug out from those very people. Workers really have very little leverage, and when people like you come in and stick a finger in their eyes by “filling in”, it’s natural that you are viewed with distain.
- anonymous1001 - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:00 pm:
Skeptic - It boils down to this: I enjoyed my 35 years of service to the State (for the most part), and I think I can provide a ‘patch’ should things get ugly.
- Cheswick - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:04 pm:
Honest questions: If there is a strike, is it safe to assume union members of the other branches of government (courts, treasurer, etc.) will respect the strike? On the other hand, if there is a lock-out in the executive branch, how will that affect employees of the other branches of government, if at all?
- me too - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:08 pm:
1001 call it what you wasn’t, a scab is a scab.
- me too - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:08 pm:
Want not wasnt
- Anonin' - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:13 pm:
Does this mean SpeedTypist will be mopping the floors at the Mansion? Slip/Slit
- anonymous1001 - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:15 pm:
SCAB, stands for Seniors Considering Additional Benefits …. doesn’t it?
- The Dude Abides - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:17 pm:
As several of you have previously stated the Union should not strike. They need to be clear in their message that they have no intention to strike and thus abandon the people who are vulnerable and most dependent on state services. They also need to be clear that they intend to bargain in good faith until an acceptable contract is hammered out, regardless of how long it takes.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:25 pm:
I am with you The Dude.
- anonymous1001 - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:34 pm:
TDA / PG - Likewise… like I said, I’ve only been retired for 3 years. A lot of people I admire (hard working State employees) are still at their desks. I don’t wish them any ill.
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:34 pm:
I have never been a union guy, always a management guy. I always blanched at the name calling from the union–the SCAB term in particular. I have always thought both parties should negotiate in good faith, both parties avail themselves of their respective legal rights and that civility was a good thing. But that is just me
Now in the public arena, it appears all bets are off.
- Nadia - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:41 pm:
It’s normal for an employer to prepare a contingency plan in contentious negotiations.
A strike and a lockout are economic tools employed to hopefully improve a parties bargaining position.
Several years ago legislation was passed and became law that made workers who are locked out eligible for unemployment. To one of the law experts out there does that statute apply to public sector (state) workers?
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 5:57 pm:
I read Section 604 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I saw no exemption for public workers. Here is an excerpt:
For the purpose of disqualification under this Section the term “labor dispute” does not include a lockout by an employer, and no individual shall be denied benefits by reason of a lockout, provided that no individual shall be eligible for benefits during a lockout who is ineligible for benefits under another Section of this Act, and provided further that no individual locked out by an employer shall be eligible for benefits for any week during which (1) the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked out employees refuses to meet under reasonable conditions with the employer to discuss the issues giving rise to the lockout or (2) there is a final adjudication under the National Labor Relations Act that during the period of the lockout the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked‑out employees has refused to bargain in good faith with the employer over issues giving rise to the lockout, or (3) the lockout has resulted as a direct consequence of a violation by the recognized or certified collective bargaining representative of the locked out employees of the provisions of an existing collective bargaining agreement. An individual’s total or partial unemployment resulting from any reduction in operations or reduction of force or layoff of employees by an employer made in the course of or in anticipation of collective bargaining negotiations between a labor organization and such employer, is not due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute until the date of actual commencement of a strike or lockout. - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/ilstatutes/820/405/604#sthash.WsRiY5rO.dpuf
- State Employee - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 6:38 pm:
I think government will shut down before there is a strike…I think that’s what Rauner wants as well. Then, not only does he not have to pay non-essential union staff, he will have to pay non-essential MC staff…
- State Employee - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 6:39 pm:
oops! I meant NOT have to pay non-essential MC staff as well…
- Ginhouse Tommy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 7:14 pm:
If it goes that far which I doubt he will shut down the state rather than bring temps.Too much to learn and a bigger mess to clean up afterword. As far as his fight with the union he has gone too far. If he loses now he has no political credibility left. I think he may have over played his hand. He should have been a little more patient.
- MotherJones - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 7:30 pm:
anonymous1001…
>I think I can provide a ‘patch’ should things get ugly.
Did you enjoy your 35 years service in part because of the rights, benefits, and compensation provided by the Union contract? Are you enjoying retirement due to the Union-negotiated pension? If either of those are true, why on earth would you even contemplate undermining the strength of the union now and return as a scab during any kind of work stoppage? That’s just asinine.
- Kevin Highland - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 8:36 pm:
As eager as anonymous1001 is to go back to work one would think you retired before they were financially ready?
Are you suggesting that your lavish pension & benefits are inadequate?
- Mama - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 8:57 pm:
Some State employees are not in the AFSCME union - they are in IFT or IFSO or other unions. Would the State employees in other unions be required to come to work if AFSCME strikes? Would a lock out include all unions?
- zonz - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 8:58 pm:
IMO Rauner is less a businessman than a savvy investor… though with co-owners he did run his private equity investment firm (PE Firm).
A friend of mine works at a PE Firm like Rauner’s. Though my friend’s firm controls companies with operations around the world my friend’s firm has a SMALLER scale and reach than Rauner’s (in most every respect). Operation of my friend’s firm is handled by the handful of major owners of the firm, together with several minor owners, plus various types of support staff, including people on the path to being minor owners.
NONE of those folks spends their days running (or supervising those who run) the operating businesses controlled by the PE Firm - - called the “portfolio companies.” That “business operation” function is handled by various employees of the PE Firm who are seasoned business operators. Each such operator person is assigned one or more of the portfolio companies for handling its “business operation” requirements. They do their thing and report to the Board of Directors the portfolio company - - on which sits one or more of the major owners of the PE Firm.
To my understanding Rauner ISN’T a seasoned business operator. He is a guy who made his fortune arranging the financing, acquisition and disposition of portfolio companies, and blessing operator recommendations about expansion/contraction/merger/bankruptcy/liquidation of the companies.
Rauner is a guy who sits on the Board of Directors; to my mind that is very different from how he has portrayed himself.
_________________________
- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:15 pm:
I see him as a very smart businessman. It is impossible to totally run the state like a business because politics get in the way. But many business principles can be used in managing government. The first principal is pay your bills and don’t spend more than you have.
- Hold Up There! - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 9:49 pm:
I really dislike Rauner and that dislike is quickly evolving into hate and loathing. However, I can’t help wondering how many of our state’s public employees and their families either voted for him last fall or just didn’t vote for Governor at all. There had to be many especially AFSCME workers who thought Quinn was so abominable. I wonder how they feel now when they look themselves in the mirror and realize it’s “their guy” who is doing this to them and their families.
Hopefully, every state worker and teacher in this state will get involved in the political arena in some form or fashion and get Rauner voted out after four years of this stuff.
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 10:07 pm:
==- Peoria Guy - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 4:01 pm:==
The joke is that you’ve been screaming in these comments for several days about everything being an “opening salvo” even though negotiations have been going on for months. Lighten up.
- Former Merit Comp Slave - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 10:31 pm:
Hold Up There here is the distinction. Many people didn’t vote for Rauner. They voted against Quinn. Be careful what you ask for……..
- Bibe - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 10:32 pm:
Very smart commenters seem to think Rauner will lock the union out? Why would he do that? Should the union members allow him to impose tens of tousands of dollars in insurance increases and just take it? What choice but strike will there be then?
- RNUG - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 10:33 pm:
Adding to what others have said, this was Standard Operating Procedure when there was a question of a strike.
The old plans I was involved with called for the SPSA’s and PSA’s to keep things more of less running. The biggest difference I see this time around is the State will have a lot less bodies to try to keep things running since most of the PSA’s are now in the unions. People may be overlooking this simple fact …
- zatoichi - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 10:36 pm:
The number of employees working for community providers and private vendors are easily 10-15 times the number of state employees. Wanna make plans for a strike or a lockout? Make a plan on where you will bus the 10s of thousands of people in group homes, supportive mental health services, crisis centers, drug/alcohol programs, vendor suppliers. Are these organizations expected to stay open and provide services if they do not get paid because checks do not get processed and written? That only hits a couple hundred thousand people who work at or get services at these places. How long do you think banks will honor provider/vendor credit lines based on State of Illinois IOUs in a lockout/strike?
I’ve done work with the state for many years. Amazing number of long term staff and managers simply walking away in retirement. These are the people who know where (and why) the operational maps are. A good friend in a higher state manager position cannot find really experienced people to fill the open positions in their office. They are hiring some noobs who need extensive training. Experienced people simply do not want to step into the tornado.
- Keepingitreal - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 10:49 pm:
Well said MamaJones!
- Johnnie F. - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 10:57 pm:
While many positions became unionized, the State has simultaneously made the decision to not fill vacant SPSA positions, many of whom have retired. Then the State complains about lack of managerial staff. whaaa??
- RNUG - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 11:00 pm:
== Amazing number of long term staff and managers simply walking away in retirement. These are the people who know where (and why) the operational maps are. ==
Yes. I know some who are ready to jump if things don’t improve quickly.
It would be a real bit of irony if the SPSA’s that Rauner expects to hold things together instead decide to retire when a lockout or strike happens. That would be a perfect storm of 10 - 15 years of no raises and public verbal abuse the last several years by Rauner surrogates coming home to roost!
- Johnnie F. - Wednesday, May 27, 15 @ 11:42 pm:
We have lost 7 of our 11 SPSAs over the past two years. 2 more ready to jump ship due to the treatment and scapegoating that continues, especially in the political arena. This is a huge problem for technical areas of State government.
- CharlieKratos - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 7:35 am:
I believe that this year will impact state government employment for many years to come. Many will retire and, worse still, many will simply not want to go to work for the state. We’ll be missing out on the best and brightest and be stuck with those who can’t get a job anywhere else. Does Rauner not realize that he’s hurting the future of the state by attacking the unions or does he just not care?
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 7:54 am:
- CharlieKratos - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 7:35 am:
I agree.
I am a highly educated State Employee with private sector experience before I started with my State position ten years ago.
I am ready to leave and have my resume ready. I am just waiting to see where we are in July and come on Capitol Fax to search out RNUG’s comments.
I am very greatful to RNUG for all of his comments on this site.
- Peoria Guy - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 7:58 am:
Precinct Captain, as your comment had nothing to do with this thread, I would suggest YOU “lighten up”
- CharlieKratos - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 8:00 am:
I should amend my comment a bit to read, “stuck with those who can’t get a job anywhere else and those who have been with the state for so long that starting over isn’t an option.”. Of course, when those who stay are there just because they can’t be anywhere else, or choose not to because they’ve already committed the majority of their working career to the state, the quality of what they produce will be mediocre at best.
Why strive to excel when your own boss hates you and doesn’t value your contributions? Personal fulfillment only gets you so far and “warm fuzzy feelings” get squashed pretty quickly when your employer is doing everything in their power to make sure that your future is less bright.
- Anon - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 8:30 am:
I’m still not sure, does there have to be a strike declared before there can be a lockout of those who try to cross the picket line?
- Anon - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 8:31 am:
Not sure I asked the right question. Can Rauner lock anyone out if the union doesn’t first declare a strike?
- 1 - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 8:38 pm:
1
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 10:27 pm:
1
You are wrong
- Property of IDOC - Thursday, May 28, 15 @ 11:02 pm:
I say we all put in for a stress leave on the 31st. LOL
- UMW - Friday, May 29, 15 @ 7:08 am:
We stand ready to throw rocks and slash car tires of those we call “SCABS”. Let them come!
- DiRT - Wednesday, Jun 3, 15 @ 4:03 pm:
There is NO PLAN for a lock out, but the Union is always scaring people with the idea of it because FEAR MONGERING IS WHAT THEY DO BEST. “No Union? You’ll be making 50 cents an hour!” They’ve never been honest and never will be. Call for a strike. Let the real workers show up for work and toss the rest of the bums out.