147 Comments - The Muse - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:45 am: “… they are placing their personal interests above the people they serve.” Will we ever get out of campaign season??? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:49 am: Oh “ck”, lol. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HgT9QVkGXxI&feature=youtu.be Do I believe you, or Bruce Rauner’s own actions, words and “dreams”… Thanks, ow - Arsenal - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:51 am: Well, that’s pretty good news! I doubt the union will strike, either, so, y’know, they pretty much *have* to make a deal. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:53 am: “If AFSCME members decide to strike, it will show they are placing their personal interests above the people they serve.” Considering her level of experience with AFSCME, strikes, serving in government, and her knowledge of what motivates state workers to serve fellow citizens, she really hasn’t a clue - does she? - old-pol - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:54 am: Absent an agreement, the state need only pay minimum FLSA wages to all those who show up for work. - MrJM - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:54 am: And the Governor is as good as his word. Literally. – MrJM - Person 8 - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:54 am: So does this mean they just work under the current contract? To me that’d be a win for AFSCME, considering what rauner wants to cut. - Former Merit Comp Slave - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:55 am: yea he won’t lock them out……..until he does - Almost the Weekend - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:58 am: Smart by Rauner team. Let AFSCME dig their own grave, which they have had no problem doing the past four years. If AFSCME strikes to keep up a 37.5 hour work week, they lost the battle with the public and the media. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:01 am: “The administration is not going to lock out employees, and our team will continue to negotiate in good faith,” First off - you haven’t negotiated in good faith, so you couldn’t “continue”. Secondly, based upon the fact that good faith has been obviously lacking from the administration concerning negotiations, yet you claim otherwise - causes me to highly doubt the level of honesty and sincerity regarding a lockout as well. This administration has no record from which it may assume it has established any credibility or trust. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:02 am: AFSCME will not strike. If they do, it’s malpractice of the highest degree. Rauner wants a strike. Sonny Corleone, when no strike comes, Sonny will lock them out. Then “ck” will send emails about people supporting the lockout. - Excessively Rabid - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:06 am: I think the usual thing in this kind of situation is that the parties continue to work under the expired contract. If that happens, no strike and no lockout. If the administration tries to unilaterally implement some of the changes they want, things could get ugly and much more unsettled legally (see “pension reform”). It’s also possible they could try to goad the union into a strike by doing exactly that. They would try to frame it that the workers were abandoning their posts, just as above. The workers are better off in court than trying to argue with people who are opposed to the entire concept of collective bargaining. - Honeybear - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:09 am: The reason why it’s a 37.5 hr workweek is because we get 2 fifteen minute breaks a day. Having worked all but the past two years in the private sector, I can truthfully say that private sector employees screw around far more than public sector worker do. The offices I am aware of in the state are very strict about the 15 minute breaks. At revenue it’s practically a prison camp environment. Seconds late from break and you are written up. - Secret Square - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:10 am: I can’t seem to find it right now — maybe it’s been corrected — but I swear that earlier this morning I saw an online version of this story that said there would be no lockout “before June 30″. Did anyone else see it? - Aldyth - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:10 am: Define “negotiate in good faith”. Rauner’s dictionary must be different than the ones the rest of us have. - Wordslinger - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:11 am: That’s a pretty nasty quote from CK toward state employees. Geez, besides being union members, they are also citizens, taxpayers and neighbors, whose “interests” in serving their home state certainly are at the very least equal to those of a zealous reactionary’s hired flacks. A hired flack will do a 180 and spin it the other way if the price is right. Keep it bounds, please. - Anon - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:14 am: ===Absent an agreement, the state need only pay minimum FLSA wages to all those who show up for work.=== That’s not really how things work. - Secret Square - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:15 am: OK, here it is. Probably poor writing/wording on the part of the reporter or copy editor: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/06/15/gov-rauner-ill-government-shutdown-will-not-happen/ “Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner believes a partial shutdown of state government will not happen before the fiscal year ends June 30th.” Well, duh, of course it won’t. The question is what happens AFTER that. - Huh? - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:17 am: I will believe this when my key card unlocks the door on July 1st and every workday there after. - anon. - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:20 am: Of course AFSCME won’t strike - a majority of the their members will stay on the job showing that the union bosses are actually impotent. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:22 am: ck’s quote notwithstanding, AFSCME better get that in writing. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:27 am: ===Of course AFSCME won’t strike - a majority of the their members will stay on the job showing that the union bosses are actually impotent.=== I have no clue what it means, but I’m sure it made you feel better to “Say It!” The most effective tactic will be; Rauner locking out workers, and no rallies, no picketing, and phones not answered and office non-responsive, and a lone… a lone… AFSCME spokesperson, daily, at a podium saying, “We’d love to be at work, Governor Rauner doesn’t want us there.” Even @StatehouseChick knows… - the Other Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:28 am: @Excessively rabid and @old-pol, I believe the way it works if there is no agreement, the workers continue on the current contract until an impasse is declared. (It seems like the time requirements for declaring an impasse will be met on July 1.) Then, the employer (the State) can impose its “last, best and final offer” on the workers, and the workers continue under those terms until a new contract is reached. Now the danger for an employer declaring an impasse is that, as a practical matter, if “last, best and final offer” is ridiculous, the labor relations board is far more likely to find that the employer is acting in bad faith and take steps to correct that. I’ll be happy to stand corrected by someone with labor law experience. I’m actually quite curious about how this all would work as well — maybe a good subject for the blog or newsletter, Rich? - AC - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:28 am: ==Of course AFSCME won’t strike - a majority of the their members will stay on the job showing that the union bosses are actually impotent.== It’s fat cat union bosses, and you missed the anecdote about “job creators”. /s - Wensicia - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:30 am: ==it will show they are placing their personal interests above the people they serve.== Shouldn’t that be: “Rauner places his personal interests above members and the people they serve?” - Macbeth - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:30 am: Now AFSCME needs to publicly commit to not striking — despite whatever legislation may or may not get passed — and then sit down and work out a deal. If both sides commit to a deal — and agree to take away the nukes — then a deal will be made. It may take a while, but it will get done. - Nick Name - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:34 am: “and our team will continue to negotiate in good faith…” Rauner stepping before cameras to blast unions as “corrupt” “conflict of interest” “controlled by Madigan-Cullerton” in 3…2…1… - AC - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:35 am: ==If both sides commit to a deal — and agree to take away the nukes — then a deal will be made. It may take a while, but it will get done.== What we need is some legislation supporting a reasonable approach like that, maybe even with a binding arbitration provision similar to what is included in car purchase contracts. If only the governor had a bill like that he could sign…. /s - Reality Check - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:36 am: You’ll know this commitment is worth something if the governor signs SB 1229, allowing the option of a neutral independent arbitrator to help settle the contract. - Norseman - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:36 am: === ck’s quote notwithstanding, AFSCME better get that in writing. === 47, I wouldn’t trust them even if it were in writing. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:39 am: === ck’s quote notwithstanding, AFSCME better get that in writing. === “And then, just a mere 6 months after taking the Oath, Governor Bruce Rauner has been reduced in his credibility to the three dreaded letters for those people know they just can’t trust. M.O.U. …” - Joe M - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:39 am: Often overlooked in the AFSCME contract negotiations is that AFSCME also negotiates the health care benefits and premiums for about 31,000 Illinois state university employees. Whatever healthcare AFSCME negotiates for state employees - those are also the healthcare benefits and premiums that 31,000 state university employees get also. And I assume that those are also the healthcare benefits and premiums that non-union (e.g. managerial) state employees will also receive? So there are a lot more stakeholders in the healthcare part of the negotiations than just the 40,000 AFSCME state employees. - Sue - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:40 am: Step 1- negotiate to impasse Step 2- state implements its final offer Step 3-the union calls a strike We get to the same place - Mouthy - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:53 am: There is no need to strike if you’ve got all the conditions of employment that you currently enjoy. A strike will be forced with, for an example, an across the board 40% reduction of pay. Pay, along with many other items, are not included in the personal code… - Outside the Bubble - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:53 am: The Governor as candidate telegraphed his punch in 2013.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HgT9QVkGXxI - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:57 am: Perhaps the better question to be asking is, what happens if the Comptroller lacks the legal authority to issue payroll after July 1? Lockout or strike? To-may-to or to-mah-to. - walker - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 10:58 am: ==Will we ever get out of campaign season???== May 2016 for this first phase. The entire campaign effort is not about a balanced budget, or governing — it’s about the “turnaround agenda” items. Most frustrating to those who want our government to work, is that this political campaign appears to remain Rauner’s top priority. - burbanite - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:03 am: AFSCME employees aren’t elected, if they put their needs before those they “serve”, so be it. It is a job. - The Dude Abides - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:04 am: I talked to my brother in law yesterday, who is on the bargaining team. He told me that they are miles apart. He said the administration has moderated from their original position on some items but he didn’t elaborate. On the major items in the contract they haven’t budged. They are still insisting on a wage freeze for the entire length of the contract. The one item that seems most important of all to the administration is insisting on huge increases on the health insurance premiums. If I remember correctly he said that at some point a mediator could be called in but both sides would have to agree on the mediator. He mentioned that on the financial issues of the contract the mediator’s decision would amount to agreeing totally with one side or the other, no middle ground, so that is potentially dangerous for the Union. At least that’s how I recall him explaining it to me. - Joe M - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:05 am: ==A strike will be forced with, for an example, an across the board 40% reduction of pay.== Or a 500% increase in health care cost, which had been reported as the Governor’s proposal. - Secret Square - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:09 am: “The one item that seems most important of all to the administration is insisting on huge increases on the health insurance premiums.” Of course — because, as explained above, that hits all the non-union employees as well. “on the financial issues of the contract, the mediator’s decision would amount to agreeing totally with one side or the other, no middle ground” Huh? I thought the whole point of having a mediator was to find middle ground? - Macbeth - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:11 am: — Huh? I thought the whole point of having a mediator was to find middle ground? — Yeah, it seems to belie the idea of a “mediator” if it’s one side or the other. Then it would be an “extreme-ator”. What’s the difference between a mediator and an arbitrator? Or mediation and arbitration? - WeeblesWobble - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:16 am: aint youse peoples gots da google - Anotherretiree - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:16 am: ==Joe M Often overlooked in the AFSCME contract negotiations is that AFSCME also negotiates the health care benefits and premiums == Add to that list Non Medicare retirees…. - Joe M - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:19 am: Its not just higher health insurance premiums that Rauner is after. From a Feb 21, 2015 State Journal Register article: “Those [Rauner] officials said the group health plan should be more like the “bronze” plans offered under the federal health care law. HealthCare.gov, a site intended to help people shop for health insurance under the law, says such plans generally pay 60 percent of health care costs, while the individual pays about 40 percent.” - Tired - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:21 am: I’m waiting for the perfect storm with Rauner negotiating in good faith, and an impasse on the budget which stops payments to employees, who are then left with striking or working without wages, during a tooth and nail battle for contract. It feels too perfect to have not been designed. - Wensicia - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:21 am: ==What’s the difference between a mediator and an arbitrator?== Mediator decisions are not binding, you can refuse the recommendation. Arbitration usually is binding. - Arizona Bob - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:22 am: Until Madigan and Cullerton come to grips with the $3-$5 billion holes they’ve created as far in the future as we can see, how can the state afford guaranteed raises and increased contributions to benefits? Thinking out of the box, is there a mechanism by which the contract can be written such that a “bonus” could be provided contingent on spending in other areas being cut enough to establish a fund? - Joe M - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:26 am: That same Feb 21 SJR article also stated: “Nearly 362,000 people are enrolled in the state employees group health insurance plan — which covers both state and university workers — including active employees, retirees and dependents.” I was certainly underestimating the number of people under the State Employee’s health insturance. I’m not sure though how many of them will be directly impacted by the current State/AFSCME contract negotiations? Once many of those impacted realize that these negotiations will affect them, that is a sizable group to potentially side with AFSCME and against the Governor. - Secret Square - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:30 am: Just curious, has ANY private employer ever attempted to jack up the employee share of health insurance premiums by 500% in one fell swoop? I can see doing this incrementally, say, by 10% or 15% or even 20% per year over several years, but how is anyone supposed to budget for that big an increase all at once? - birds - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:43 am: Sue@10:40 has the right outline of what will probably happen. AFSCME has a couple of other options I won’t go into. - Cassandra - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:44 am: So, the ACA is becoming a benchmark, as I suspected it would. I am an ACA supporter, this is not a criticism. It does raise the question of fairness, though. Should I pay those higher taxes the Democrats and Republicans want to impose so state employees have better choices than ACA offers. Why? I’m assuming, here, that there would be some choices-if you are willing to pay more, you get lower deductibles, etc. In fact, why are we not paying for a state employee plan that mimics the ACA options in Illinois? Perhaps we are, but it doesn’t sound like it. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:48 am: AFSCME will not strike. Won’t. Theu have to know, no matter what “ck” thinks she is saying, Sonny Corleone will lockout workers before AFSCME will decide to strike. Sonny has zero patience. Why strike? Rauner will implode soon enough. - Macbeth - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:54 am: — AFSCME has a couple of other options I won’t go into. — Like accusing of not negitiating in good faith? This seems to me be the likely outcome. If AFSCME gives up something, Rauner has to give up something too. That’s the whole point. If they get to a point where AFSCME feels like it’s given in quite a bit — and not gotten corresponding concessions in return — then it’s obvious that bad faith negotiation is taking place. I can’t see Rauner giving up stuff — anything really — especially if the health insurance is already written into his budget. That in itself seems weird. He counted on savings that hadn’t been negotiated yet. - Joe M - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:55 am: If the ACA Bronze plan of insurance paying 60% and the employee paying 40% of health care bills, becomes the standard for Illinois state and state university employees, the Illinois state government and state universities will have a very hard time recruiting good people to come work for them. Can anyone give an example of a major private Illinois firm of skilled employees which offers its employees health insurance, that is only a 60/40 benefit? - RNUG - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:56 am: == Add to that list Non Medicare retirees…. == Which may cross the line speculated about during the Kanerva oral arguments in from of the IL SC. - DuPage - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:56 am: “Rauner will not lock out state employees”.* *Employee participation in the voluntary new pension plan, new health insurance plan, new lower pay scales, and voluntarily de-certifying union representation may be required. - ChelseaBlue - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:02 pm: I’m not buying it. Of course, as one of those greedy state workers, I’m not the target audience. The target audience is anyone who will believe him when he says “they forced me to do it. I never wanted to lock them out, but they left me no choice.” Will there be a lockout? I don’t know. But any state employee who leaves work on June 30 and leaves anything that needs personal attention (such as a plant), is fooling themselves. - RNUG - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:04 pm: == Employee participation in the voluntary new pension plan, new health insurance plan, new lower pay scales, and voluntarily de-certifying union representation may be required. == The IL SC already took any (coerced one way or the other) new pension plan for existing employees off the table. He’ll lose that one in court. - Cheswick - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:08 pm: Every time I hear the governor or his staff say they are “negotiating in good faith,” it sounds like someone who’d say, “I’m the fairest judge in the courthouse,” or “I’m the smartest doctor in the hospital,” or “I’m good looking.” Some things about yourself are best judged by others and not you. How you negotiate is one of those things. - Cassandra - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:13 pm: But the Bronze plan is the cheapest plan-there are others. I helped do the shopping for a relative and I at least remember that much, there was quite a range, in cost and in what was paid for beyond the core services. However, if this plan (Joe M) is inadequate, shouldn’t the Democrats who brought us ACA be advocating for a better/cheaper range of options. Or are only certain citizens (including state employees, perhaps?) “worthy” of a “better” health insurance. Indeed, should we be tolerating a political system that permits better health care for some than others. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:16 pm: Pledging no temporary budget the money will be gone? Sounds like a shutdown plan with workers turning around and going home. - Jack Stephens - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:29 pm: @cheswick: When I hear Bruce say he’s negotiatin’ in good faith I hear a former Bears coach sayin’: “Rex is our quarterback”. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:33 pm: If I recall correctly, state employees currently pay between 6 and 7% of their health insurance premium. So a 100% increase would take them to 13 or 14%, and a 200% increase to 20 or 21% of premium. Is anyone, anywhere, still getting a better deal than a 20/80 split? I don’t consider myself anti-union. But somewhere along the way, without really noticing it, we all in Illinois state government got it too good. I’ve said for years that it is unreasonable that we retirees get premium-free health insurance. It’s equally unreasonable for the currently employed to be paying 6 or 7%. It’s unreasonable that no retirement income in Illinois is subject to the income tax. Sure, it feels great, but the problem is it’s too good. No pay increases for 2 or 3 years isn’t that unreasonable in exchange for no layoffs. Most merit employees have gone 3 or more times that long without a pay raise. I’ve repeatedly said our retiree 3% annual adjustment is too good a deal, should be tamped down some, but apparently can’t be. If state employees get out of this still with a job, decent work conditions, good health insurance for which they pay more than they pay now, and continued union contract and civil service protection, their negotiators have done a great job. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:38 pm: By the way, if the administration wasn’t negotiating in good faith, I believe we would have long since seen complaints to the labor board, and as far as I know we haven’t. - FoodSuper - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:43 pm: Speaking of lockout: right now State Senator Gary Forby can’t get into The Hardin County Work Camp. Somebody high up will not give him a pass. This is a work camp in his district. Forby is a Democrat. - FoodSuper - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:45 pm: A State Senator usually is welcome with opened arms. HCWC is one spot the governor wants to close. The employees want him to tour to try and save the place. - RNUG - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:46 pm: == I’ve said for years that it is unreasonable that we retirees get premium-free health insurance. == Steve, remember, that was put in place at the time to stop a revolving door of the knowledgeable employees leaving after 4 or 5 years. Originally 8, later amended to 20 years and strictly designed to encourage career employees. == I’ve repeatedly said our retiree 3% annual adjustment is too good a deal, should be tamped down some, but apparently can’t be. == When th3 3% AAI was implemented, we started paying the extra amount the actuaries said we should pay for the benefit. It’s not out of line with long term inflation or CPI as calculated by the Feds; it only looks generous because the short term period we are in now has have a very low inflation rate, mostly due to the various economic crashes and the Fed policy of cheap money. == It’s unreasonable that no retirement income in Illinois is subject to the income tax. == Taxing retirement income is realistic ut we need to be reasonable after the threshold where it kicks in. - Rusty618 - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:47 pm: ==Perhaps the better question to be asking is, what happens if the Comptroller lacks the legal authority to issue payroll after July 1?== During the last stalled contract negotiations, the union members went 10 months without a contact and still got paid their full wages. What should be more of a concern, is what if there is no budget approved? Is there money appropriated for salaries? - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:49 pm: I looked up the plan for FY 2016 to see what they pay for health insurance and reasonable people would pay 40% more for it. A relative pays $395.00 per month for a family of four and it covers Healthlink OAP, dental, eyes. According to State of IL Benefit summary page: Healthlink OAP has $25/35 copays, $100 prescription deductible and a max of $13,500 out of pocket per family. - Joe M - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:53 pm: @ Cassandra ==Or are only certain citizens (including state employees, perhaps?) “worthy” of a “better” health insurance….. Indeed, should we be tolerating a political system that permits better health care for some than others. == On a philosophical level I agree with you that we should all have access to the same, good health care. In reality though, in the U.S. there is a great disparity in things like the health insurance people have (or dont’ have). There are the rich and the poor, haves and have-nots. It has been my experience that unions at least help one from being a have-not. That is why things like the current AFSCME negotiations are so important to the overall living standards of all employees. If the state and state university employees take a major hit on this, then all workers won’t be far behind in taking hits. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:55 pm: - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:33 pm: If it is 6% then they are paying 30,000 for my coverage. - SamHall - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:56 pm: If Rauner lowers the retiree insurance to the bronze level (from platinum) wouldn’t that also be a diminishment of a pension benefit? - Joe M - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:58 pm: @ Steve Schnorf, spoken like a true Rauner backer. But there are always two sides to every story. From that same Feb 21 SJR article: “AFSCME disputes the idea that workers are getting an unfair break on health insurance costs. It points to a study issued in March by the legislature’s bipartisan Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability that showed workers pay 17 percent to 18 percent of their health insurance costs, depending on the plan they’ve chosen. In the current budget year, AFSCME contends, the figure is 19 percent. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2014 survey of employer health benefits found that an average worker contributed 18 percent of insurance costs for single coverage. The figure climbed to 29 percent for family coverage. The study found the range was 13 percent to 24 percent for large public employers. “The governor’s claims about state employee health costs being out of line are simply false,” AFSCME Council 31 spokesman Anders Lindall said. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:06 pm: Anon 12::33, do you have dependents insured? Dependents pay a much higher percentage than employees, but still a good deal compared to what they might pay elsewhere. Are you including what you pay for dental and life? - ash - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:12 pm: Anonymous, you never answered an earlier question. Are you in the Rauner administration or an IPI plant? - Johnnie F. - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:15 pm: According to my benefit statement I pay $3900/yr for medical insurance and the state pays $14,700/yr. That make what I pay about 21% of the total premium cost. This is family coverage. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:22 pm: ==and reasonable people would pay 40% more for it== Tell that to somebody who would see their take home pay substantially reduced. There is nothing reasonable about it. - Confused - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:22 pm: @Steve Schnorf 12:33…” If state employees get out of this still with a job, decent work conditions, good health insurance for which they pay more than they pay now, and continued union contract and civil service protection, their negotiators have done a great job.” I am concerned about your comment that AFSCME members will be lucky if we get out of this with their jobs. I thought we also have civil service protection? Can you enlighten me? (No snark intended.) - Reality Check - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:28 pm: Schnorf’s figures are wrong (something that doesn’t happen often). Joe M. at 12:58 is correct, as the real-world experience of Johnnie F. at 1:15 proves out: State and university employees are now paying about 21% of premium. That’s comparable to other states and to large private sector employers. The changes pushed by Rauner would give Illinois the worst state health plan in the country by a long shot. - Anotherretiree - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:29 pm: ==SamHall== It certainly is a diminishment. But the courts haven’t been asked to rule on that. I proposed(maybe one of the first?) that the courts should rule that plans can be tweaked as long as they stay within the corresponding ACA color level . gonna take another lawsuit. Bad thing is, it may be 2 years before it is undone. Any big health bills you get will be too bad so sad. I can’t see a Judge figuring out how to make you whole. - Cheswick - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:29 pm: == I am concerned about your comment that AFSCME members will be lucky if we get out of this with their jobs. == My heart jumped in my chest when I read that, too, and I don’t even work for the state. - Liberty - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:31 pm: == steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 12:33 pm: I’ve said for years that it is unreasonable that we retirees get premium-free health insurance.== Not so unreasonable to the courts Mr Schnorf, Caterpillar and Fiatallis both lost suits when they tried to take away free insurance benefits once granted under contract. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:38 pm: Steve Schnorf: I asked a cousin what she pays and the name of her plan. Her $395 per mo covers her husband and two kids. The health insurance company is Healthlink OAP and I cant remember the company names for dental and eyes. I looked up the benefits of Healthlink OAP to see what and how much they covered. To me it looked like a fabulous deal now and still good if it increases by 40%. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:40 pm: @Anotherretiree It’s called an injunction. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:41 pm: ==To me it looked like a fabulous deal now and still good if it increases by 40%.== They aren’t increasing it by 40%. They are increasing it more like 500%. The proposal would be to do a 60/40 split. Employee pays 40% of the costs. There is nothing reasonable about that. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:41 pm: Joe M, thanks for the info. A couple of things. One, I was unaware that employee premiums had about doubled in 2014. Two, the study you reference, the 17 or 18% premium you reference is for all covered participants not just employees. So, employees pay let’s use AFSCME’s number, 19% of the cost of all insurance provided, including dependents, compared to the 29% for family coverage Kaiser reported. - reasonable - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:49 pm: if the Rauner administration is really not going to use a lockout then why doesn’t he just sign SB1229 and it is taken care of. - Ben Franklin - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:52 pm: The 6th largest economy in the world works 35 hours a week and are required to give employees 5 paid vacation weeks and 10 national holidays. Tauner should support that reform. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:52 pm: Folks, I went back and looked at my comment and I think it’s clear but you apparently don’t. I talked about employee premium, not dependent premium. The data and cases you are quoting quite accurately show that the employee who insures dependents pays roughly 20% of the total premium cost. The employee who doesn’t insure dependents apparently pays on average about 11 or 12% for coverage. 11% is very low for individual coverage, and 19% is low by a third for employee plus dependent coverage. And btw, I’m not shilling for anyone. I’m simply reporting numbers. If you think I’m cherry-picking the numbers, tell me what ones we should be looking at instead. - kimocat - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:53 pm: It also appears that CMS either purposefully inflates it’s numbers for insurance costs or are extremely poor negotiators. - The Bard - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:54 pm: Furloughs, layoffs, a lockout by any other name is still a reduction. - Anotherretiree - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:56 pm: ==Anonymous - It’s called an injunction. == That will work If you can get a Judge to order it before the new contracts are in force. We’ll probably have 45-60 days warning. I can’t see a Judge telling insurance companies they have to come back. - Sue - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:59 pm: Reasonable- is that a question- why would any chief executive hand the financial well being Over to an arbitrator. The last thing Rauner should do is sign the union’s desperate attempt to thwart a meaningful outcome in the negotiations and accept the legislatures efforts to cripple the State. If the Union want s ado tract they will either accept what the State offers with its final best offer or decide whether to strike. The governor has the upper hand here and needs to extract concessions since he won’t have the same opportunity with the legislature - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:12 pm: Demoralized, I know the union says Rauner is asking for a 500% percent increase in the amount employees pay for insurance, but do we know that that’s really what Rauner is demanding? At the end of May, I believe Rich quoted Roberta Lynch as saying Rauner wants a 40% increase in the amount employees pay for health care. I don’t get it. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:15 pm: @Anonymous: The proposal is that employees pick up 40% of the cost. That was what she was referring to. She probably misspoke. It is a substantial increase to what is being paid now. I don’t think anyone thought that they wouldn’t be paying more for health insurance but what is being proposed will have a huge impact on people’s take home pay. What they have proposed is unreasonable. It’s hard to come to an agreement when that’s put out there as a starting point. - Anotherretiree - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:18 pm: Anonymous 500% in what they pay for health care overall. 40% premium increase for a plan that is dropping from paying 90% of charges to 60%. Platinum to bronze. The percentages may not be quite right but are close. Its a don’t get sick plan. - Anon - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:21 pm: Both my wife and I work for the state and are therefore required to pay for health insurance coverage seperately instead of being covered under a family plan (the kids are under her plan and I’m on a single plan). A raise of 500% would shatter our finances and put our long term financial plan in jeopardy. A co-worker in the same boat said he and his wife would be contemplating divorce to save their family finances. By divorcing they would each be able to qualify for tax breaks and welfare. Jeez…I thought Republicans were all about family values?! - Johnnie F. - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:21 pm: For single coverage the total annual cost for medical is $7565 of which the state employee pays $2232/yr or 29.5%. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:30 pm: @Anotherretiree Again, there is a high chance this is going to end up in court. Courts issue emergency injunctions all the time. What do you want to see happen, more people retire and end up on public assistance? Then, you want to raise someones premiums if they are on disability, fmla leave, work comp leave, the legislature, judiciary, and then merit comp employees? - Secret Square - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:35 pm: Those of you tossing out figures for medical coverage — in addition to specifying whether it’s employee-only or dependent/family coverage — might also want to specify whether it’s for an HMO or for the (more costly) Quality Care plan. Do they vary in the amount/percentage of cost that the employee pays? - Mama - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:39 pm: ++- The Dude Abides - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:04 am: The one item that seems most important of all to the administration is insisting on huge increases on the health insurance premiums. ++ According to a recent IL Supreme Court ruling, it is illegal to charge a current state workers and retirees a premium for health insurance. The union knows the ISC ruling, and will not give on that issue. - Johnnie F. - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:41 pm: The numbers in my case are for an HMO plan. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 2:53 pm: Good point Secret Square. When I looked up my cousin’s plan (Healthlink OAP), I noticed there were 5 or 6 other plans that I didn’t look at. If everything went up 40%, she will be paying $6720 annual premiums, $35-50 copays, and her maximum out of pocket would go up to a steep $18,900. Like everything else, it depends on your salary, but Demoralized just said 40% of costs was Rauner’s starting point. I still think she would have a good plan if it went up 20%. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:01 pm: Anonymous: The plan that was proposed didn’t have traditional co-pays. You pay 40% of the premium and 40% of the cost of the service. I didn’t see what the deductible would be before coverage kicks in so it may be even worse. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:09 pm: ok, thank you Demoralized, now I understand! I thought we were talking about raising employee costs of their current plan, not replacing their plans with something that is more expensive and covers less. - kimocat - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:09 pm: Demoralized - If employees were to be required to pay 40% of the premium of the lousiest 60/40 bronze plan allowed under federal law, the premiums probably wouldn’t even be an issue — because what you would be paying for is a crap product. I don’t see how they can get away with doing this to 20 plus year non-Medicare retirees, because it is clearly is a charade to disguise diminishment. They might be able to do this to active workers and it would be an excellent tool to weed out the competent and accomplished ones for good. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:12 pm: - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 1:06 pm: This is just me. Also, this doesn’t invlude anything except Health Care. - Secret Square - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:16 pm: Also, if I’m not mistaken, the Quality Care plan is the big cost driver for the state — and it also happens to be particularly favored by retirees, since it doesn’t restrict your choice of providers. I would think more could be done to rein in the costs of this plan without forcing everyone else to pay out of the nose, and perhaps other orifices, for a “crap product.” - illinifan - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:19 pm: ACA says affordable health care is when the premium costs are no more than 9.5% of an employees gross income. If the premium is more than this, the person can apply to the Marketplace and obtain health coverage and if income is in the appropriate range they could qualify for tax credits. If employees do that this triggers the penalty to the employer (assuming this ever is implemented). The State of Illinois benchmark plan for establishing the standard for coverage is a silver level plan from BCBS (not Bronze). ACA gives the best cost breaks to persons who buy silver plans. The fact that he is talking the bronze plan is ridiculous. - Anon - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:21 pm: ===If I recall correctly, state employees currently pay between 6 and 7% of their health insurance premium. So a 100% increase would take them to 13 or 14%, and a 200% increase to 20 or 21% of premium. Is anyone, anywhere, still getting a better deal than a 20/80 split?=== It sounds like you should probably be citing sources. The premiums that is paid for each state employee is higher because they also include the retirees in that same group. The premium paid per an employee is much higher than I’ve seen on any W2 for private companies. (It’s box DD if you’re curious.) Though - I think you are forgetting that state employees exist in a labor market and when their credentials are taken in consideration, many are under paid compared to their compatriots in other states or the private sector. Do you really want a state that administrated by folks that don’t have better options? - ABC123 - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:28 pm: I can see an increase in the portion of the premium state employees are required to pay, but can’t understand how the entire plan could be changed. The open enrolment period is over and there are current contracts with the various insurance companies that can’t be broken. How would the administration be able to force employees to accept a Bronze plan without violating various contracts? I remember an issue with Health Alliance a few years ago and that resulted in lawsuits and the State losing. Perhaps I’m looking at this in the wrong way? - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:33 pm: ABC: They aren’t changing the health plan. They are changing what the employee pays. You’ll still get the same coverage. You’ll just be paying out the wazoo for it. - 618er - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:38 pm: Maybe he doesn’t want a contract or a budget. Wonder how many employyes will show up to work with no contact to protect them and no budget to pay them? - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:54 pm: Demoralized, now you have confused me again (easy to do)! Is Rauner demanding the state employees change health plans and pay 40% of it (as you said at 3:01) or is he demanding they pay 40% more for their current plan (as you said at 3:33) - Joe M - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:55 pm: There is some confusion here. Some of the reports and posters are talking about state employee’s total medical costs - which includes premiums, deductibles, copays, maximum out of pocket and a number of things affecting an employees total medical costs. Others are only talking about the premiums the state employees pay. That makes it hard to compare figures. I believe AFSCME was talking about an employee’s total medical costs when they said the Governor wants to raise that cost 500% - probably from a combination of higher premiums and lower coverage. From what I have been reading in the newspapers, the Governor wants to make both more expensive for state employees. He wants to raise premiums - and as per the Feb 21st SJR article, he would like to put state employees in plans where the insurance pays 60% and the employee pays 40%. - illinifan - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 4:07 pm: Joe M correct there is mixing….that said there is a maximum amount that he can raise the premium under ACA. There is also a Maximum out of pocket (this does not count the premium) under ACA. This MOOP to an employee can be no more than $6600 or family of $13,200. These amounts count deductibles, co-pays and coinsurance. These are the figures under a bronze plan. Bad news many of the bronze plans do not even begin to cover any costs until the person actually incurs bills that equal their MOOP cost. - Secret Square - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 4:09 pm: Any possibility that someone from AFSCME or from the Administration could put together a hypothetical example to show exactly how premium costs and out-of-pocket costs would be affected under the current proposal? For example, “Ed Employee currently pays X dollars a month for 90/10 HMO coverage for his wife and 2 kids. Under Rauner’s proposal, he would pay Y dollars a month for 60/40 coverage.” - James - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 4:32 pm: =At revenue it’s practically a prison camp environment. Seconds late from break and you are written up.= Honeybear, I’m curious as to whether this was also true during the Quinn administration. - Demoralized - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 4:36 pm: Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 3:54 pm As far as I know the COVERAGE would not change, but I can’t answer that for certain. It is the PAYMENTS for that coverage that will change. From what I understand the employee would pay 40% of the premium. In addition, the employee would pay 40% of the cost of the service (I’m assuming that would be 40% of whatever cost the insurance company has negotiated with the provider). I haven’t heard if there will be a deductible that would have to be met before coverage kicks in. I think the employee might disagree with you that it isn’t a change to their health plan. For some this scenario makes it too expensive to use. - Skeptic - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 4:40 pm: 40% of a several day hospital stay will break many people. - Grandson of Man - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 4:51 pm: “If AFSCME members decide to strike, it will show they are placing their personal interests above the people they serve.” Which explains why AFSCME was behind the anti-strike bill that’s on the governor’s desk. Here is a great article on unions and right to work that mentions Wisconsin’s failure to create fiscal health via stripping public unions. That state faces deficits and has moved to slash funding for its university system. The controversial bill that stripped public unions was ironically called “Budget Repair Bill.” http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/magazine/scott-walker-and-the-fate-of-the-union.html?referrer= - sad - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 4:51 pm: James, new environment at my agency. - sad - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 4:53 pm: Btw state employees get paid bimonthly so a week or two is unpaid.For the 37.5 crowd. - Anotherretiree - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 5:00 pm: == ABC123 contracts == I was told the current health contracts were extended 4-6 months as is allowed. Another benefit “choice” may be coming late this fall. ==James revenue == I have heard about the change at Rev. IT started under Quinn .. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 5:13 pm: MOOP reminds me of George on Seinfeld when he fought with the Bubble Boy, “The Card says Moops”. - ANON - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 5:33 pm: The bottom line is that Rauner wants to eradicate unions. Period. He wants to push public sector workers down and prevent private sector workers from being lifted up. He has no interest in truly negotiating. None. He is willing to use his money to make sure he wins and Illinoisans lose. Disgusting, really. And, he expects the GOP to follow suit or else. - Theo's Houseboy - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 5:51 pm: James- I work at revenue and I concur with honeybears description. I used to get daily emails about when to take breaks, what clock to use when taking breaks, and God forbid I leave at 2:46 instead of 2:45, my prescribed break time. And it was this way under Quinn. - Almost the Weekend - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 6:05 pm: Comparing taking your fifteen minute break to prison break is an insult to all private sector unions. I wonder how laid off UAW workers for John Deere and Caterpillar would feel about that. Or the Baker’s union for Hostess. I’ve said this all along AFSCME is immune to what has happened to the private sector since the 1990s and their time is soon approaching. Rauner should have only gone after AFSCME, ignored building trades and private sector. It would have isolated AFSCME more so than their poor leadership already has. Now if AFSCME loses the contract battle, private sector unions will be worried they are up next. Bottom line two groups who are having trouble staying on message, one will win. It’s anybody’s guess - fly on the wall - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 6:37 pm: Go back and look at the Union statements that the administration is not “negotiating in good faith” during the last 2 contract negotiations. Same old song and dance. Just cant believe how naive people are in believing the propaganda AFSCME puts out. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 6:47 pm: Rauner isn’t negotiating with himself. We keep hearing what the state is proposing, but what has the union offered or countered? Anything? Or, are they stonewalling, waiting until the last minute while blaming rauner for negotiating in bad faith? - RNUG - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 6:51 pm: == As far as I know the COVERAGE would not change, but I can’t answer that for certain. It is the PAYMENTS for that coverage that will change. From what I understand the employee would pay 40% of the premium. In addition, the employee would pay 40% of the cost of the service (I’m assuming that would be 40% of whatever cost the insurance company has negotiated with the provider). I haven’t heard if there will be a deductible that would have to be met before coverage kicks in. == If you have to go to paying for 40% of all services delivered instead of the current co-pay, then your coverage has changed … downward drastically in a lot of cases. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 7:04 pm: Renug, how does the 40% of all services delivered fit in with the federal law maximum of 13,200 per family. Is that federal law just for those enrolled in ACA? - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 7:14 pm: - Almost the Weekend - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 6:05 pm: You have it too easy. You have no clue. You would just love to hurt State Workers. See how the State is when many leave and they can’t get any good ones. You may regret your hoped for destruction of good people. - curmudgeon - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 7:15 pm: First off, for Mr. Schnorf and Joe M. I just checked my online insurance record: with no dependents on my insurance, I’m paying 16.59% of the health insurance-only premium and 16.85% of the total package’s premiums. Health insurance premiums went up some for everybody in each of the two Blago contracts. In 2013, they stayed about the same for the lowest pay levels, DOUBLED for those in moderate to medium pay levels, and TRIPLED for those in upper medium to high pay levels. For those who are puzzled what happens when a contract is agreed to, given that our annual “Benefits Choice” period was last month: If you search very, very diligently through CMS’ and SERS’ insurance webpages, you will find mention of a SECOND signup period. I hope the only thing we’ll need to change is the amount being set aside in our Flexible Spending Accounts. As to the comment about the number of retirees who sign up for “Quality Care” (the State’s self-insured PPO health plan), keep in mind the HMOs and OAPs are only available WITHIN Illinois. Out-of-state retirees and part-year residents have to go with the PPO (this applies to those on Medicare Advantage too, but they have a different PPO). Note that the health plan package covers both current and under-65 retired State employees — be they AFSCME, other unions, and Merit Comp — State University employees, AND legislators and judges. It’s my understanding that downstate retired teachers can also sign up, but have to pay the FULL premiums. Can anybody confirm that? Also, retirees over 65 fall into this plan if they have an under-65 spouse or dependent included in their coverage. Finally, increases in premiums will affect those retirees who are presently paying some premium, and copay/deductible increases will have SOME impact, but may be limited by Medicare limits. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 7:15 pm: - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 6:47 pm: You are a drive by or Rauner. The Union’s proposals have been stated many times. - steve schnorf - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 7:26 pm: 40% is the ask so I hear. Has anybody heard what the union offer is? - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 8:05 pm: From today’s Roberta Lynch update With the current union contract set to expire on June 30, the Union and Management are still very far apart in the effort to reach a successor agreement. While there is no formal agreement to extend the contract, bargaining dates have been scheduled for July and both parties have committed to continue good faith efforts to reach a settlement. - RNUG - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 8:31 pm: == Is that federal law just for those enrolled in ACA? == Don’t know, would have to research. My point was paying more for the same or less service was a reduction. - RNUG - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 8:39 pm: == It’s my understanding that downstate retired teachers can also sign up, but have to pay the FULL premiums. Can anybody confirm that? == That’s more or less accurate. Some of the premium is subsidized for the teachers who contributed to TRIP (Teacher’s Retirement Insurance Program) while working (in effect pre-paying for a future savings, just like all State workers pre=pay while working for their 3% AAI in retirement). If you did not contribute while working, then teachers pay the full premium which varies based on both age and Medicare status. - Mama - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 8:51 pm: Retirees won the Health Ins Premium lawsuit. Retirees do not have to pay premiums. - Anonymous - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:06 pm: SERS Retirees with less than 20 years of service pay 5% of the premium for each year under 20. - up2now - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:34 pm: Well, I pay 16.8 percent of my HMO health insurance premium, single. - RNUG - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 9:50 pm: == Retirees do not have to pay premiums. == They do for any spouses and / or other dependents. And if you’re not part of SERS / SURS, as a retiree you have to pay premiums … and there are more TRS retirees than any other system. - RNUG - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:09 pm: “The administration is not going to lock out employees, and our team will continue to negotiate in good faith,” Translation from Raunerspeak: We won’t get our hands dirty; we’ll order private security guards to do the lockout while we keep jawboning about how we want a deal and can’t get one. - Tom K. - Monday, Jun 15, 15 @ 11:34 pm: “The changes pushed by Rauner would give Illinois the worst state health plan in the country by a long shot.” Considering that the state has the worst financial problems of any other state, would this not be appropriate? - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 16, 15 @ 1:42 am: Steve Schnorf, it sounds like you’re a retiree, congratulations. As someone who has only been a state employee for two years, I’m not willing to give up step increases. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.