46 Comments - Joe M - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:14 am: I would venture to say that the Governor thinks of employees as a hindrance to profit. And that also influences his thoughts on public employees - public employees just make people pay more in taxes, thus also hindering profits - Skeptic - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:19 am: For those who thought this was all about AFSCME…. - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:19 am: What is the answer? - Wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:21 am: “Not a priority…..,” he said, during the campaign. What he forgot to add was, “…..but an obsession.” - Demoralized - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:23 am: The Governor is approaching all of the unions in the same manner. He’s going for the jugular. Contrary to what anybody says there aren’t any good faith negotiations going on from either the unions or the administration. They aren’t even on the same planet. Talks are pretty useless right now. Until something changes in those attitudes each side might as well be talking to a wall. - Langhorne - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:23 am: I believe the statement, but it would help to know what some of the demands are. - facts are stubborn things - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:24 am: elections have consequences — we could have had Kirk Dillard. - walker - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:28 am: SEIU can take their case to the public with personal stories, and win more easily than AFSCME. If Rauner Team is smart, they will tread more carefully with this crew. - Almost the Weekend - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:28 am: Bad move by Rauner. He has opportunity with SEIU to isolate AFSCME even more. Picking multiple battles with all unions will never work. Pick one and stick with it. You are in office for four years and need something to show you are “shaking up Springfield.” - Joe M - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:29 am: What is the answer. Possibly SB 1229’s Amendment 2, which institutes mediation, followed by arbitration if mediation doesn’t work. Granted, the Gov will most likely veto that bill. But I think it did pass in the Senate with enough votes to override. And was fairly close in the House to passing with enough votes to override. Three members in the House voted present - and seventeen chose not to vote. - Challengerrt - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:36 am: She is absolutely right. They are some of the lowest paid workers, and it is unfair for him to demand pay freezes and all that other garbage. This is where he shows he has no compassion or empathy for anyone except the big fat cat corporations. - Skeptic - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:47 am: “What is the answer?” Seems pretty obvious to me, a fair contract. - DuPage - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:48 am: Rauner seems to think: Profit=Good, Costs=Evil, Union=Higher Pay. Thus Union Employees and their Unions=Root of all Evil. It seems Rauner actually thinks he has the moral high ground. - Mason born - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:51 am: Rauners biggest fault is his hubris. There was an opening to cut ASFCME from the herd and make some changes. Instead he targeted prevailing wage and right to work. Now he is handing his oposition a trump card in going after seiu who can easily put sympathetic faces to the conversation. I will say do we know what the demands were? If it’s a healthcare plan like he proposed for Asfcme have to agree. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:52 am: “If Rauner Team is smart, they will tread more carefully with this crew.” On the other hand, SEIU is one of the unions conservatives most love to hate (for reasons that would take all day to explain). If, as I suspect, Rauner is ultimately trying to play to a national audience of potential GOP donors/supporters that may be all the more reason for him to go for their jugular. - Mason born - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:52 am: Note agree with the statement not BR. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 10:52 am: The fallout from Rauner’s obsession to destroy all unions will be huge. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 11:11 am: In the case of AFSCME, we don’t know what their asks/offers are, though they have made sure we know what the administration is asking. In the case of the service employees, we know neither. Makes it hard for us to have any idea who is on God’s side and who is the villain in these disputes. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 11:16 am: ==In the case of AFSCME, we don’t know what their asks/offers are, though they have made sure we know what the administration is asking.== The Tribune today stated AFSCME is demanding an increase of more than 11% over 4 years (in addition to normal step increase). Funny how they haven’t mentioned that. By comparison, I believe with Quinn they only got about 4% over 3 years. And they went to the table with Rauner with demands almost 3 times that??? Now who’s thinking unreasonably… - nixit71 - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 11:17 am: In these lean times, perhaps Ms. Johnson can convince SEIU Healthcare IL/IN to lay off one or two of their SEVENTEEN Vice Presidents in their organization to keep dues low for their ” low-income workforce”. And to demonstrate the high qualifications required to be a VP at SEIU Healthcare, here is the title of one of the VP’s, taken verbatim from their profile on Linkedin: unnion politcal person at SEIU Healthcare - AC - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 11:25 am: Nixit71, I’ll bet SEIU could reduce their dues to $0 and it wouldn’t come close to paying the proposed increases in health insurance costs by the Rauner administration. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 11:26 am: So is arbitration the endgame for both sides. Each has a constituency to appease. Could be risky. For us taxpayers too. - AlabamaShake - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 11:27 am: **In the case of the service employees, we know neither.** Steve - you must have missed this: https://capitolfax.com/2015/05/20/seiu-blasts-rauner-over-contract-talks/ - Honeybear - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 11:33 am: OOooooh that’s a really good zinger nixit71! I am so impressed by your power and skill at taking down your enemy. (snark) - AlabamaShake - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 11:35 am: **In these lean times, perhaps Ms. Johnson can convince SEIU Healthcare IL/IN to lay off one or two of their SEVENTEEN Vice Presidents in their organization to keep dues low for their ” low-income workforce”.** Having 17 vice presidents had nothing to do with the proposals that Rauner has put on the table. Good try though. Also, using LinkedIn typos to attack the union? You must really be struggling with finding anything substantive to use. - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 12:18 pm: “I believe the statement, but it would help to know what some of the demands are.” Google AFSCME Council 31 negotiations/2016. - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 12:21 pm: “Granted, the Gov will most likely veto that bill. But I think it did pass in the Senate with enough votes to override. And was fairly close in the House to passing with enough votes to override. Three members in the House voted present - and seventeen chose not to vote. ” I believe it has already passed both houses. If you know the bill number, you can look it up. - Mokenavince - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 12:28 pm: I doubt very much that any unions will be busted by Rauner. Posturing on both sides ,let the games begin. - Norseman - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 12:32 pm: === “I believe the statement, but it would help to know what some of the demands are.” Google AFSCME Council 31 negotiations/2016. === Mama, we’re discussing SEIU negotiations. - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 12:35 pm: “In the case of AFSCME, we don’t know what their asks/offers are, though they have made sure we know what the administration is asking.” Steve, AFSCME is asking to extend their current contract - they are NOT asking for raises. - LTSW - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 12:36 pm: I worked at DHS when SEIU started representing these home care workers. SEIU never had to negotiate before. The past administrations just gave them most of what they wanted. The state’s payments to SEIU Healthcare are huge and there really needs to be an audit of whether or how much of those payments are really going for healthcare for these workers. - nixit71 - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 12:41 pm: Having 17 vice presidents sounds like a lot of bloat to me. But hey, it’s not my dues, just that of its “low income workforce”. Hire more VPs, for all I care. Far be it from me to identify things in direct control of the union, with no political dependencies, that could benefit their members financially. And pay no mind that many of these SEIU VPs were actually paid to work on Preckwinke’s campaign (among others), then are paid by SEIU to lobby those same politicians they worked for. Nothing to see here, huh? And anyone who goes by “union political person” should be called out, spelling errors or not. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 1:22 pm: @nixit71 And how many people on Rauner’s campaign staff is working directly for him now anyways? Anyone who goes by “Policy Analyst” like the Illinois Public Policy Institute or Illinois Turnaround Campaign should be called out also if were going to go after unions. - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 1:39 pm: Norseman, you are right. I was referring the wrong union. Thanks for correcting me. - AlabamaShake - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 2:41 pm: ** there really needs to be an audit of whether or how much of those payments are really going for healthcare for these workers.** There is an audit. The state gets it. 100% of the health care money goes to health coverage and related admin costs. - Anonymiss - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 2:44 pm: Well put, @Wordslinger - Skeptic - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 2:46 pm: “union political person” doesn’t necessarily mean the person got the job by political appointment. It could be that their function is to act as a liaison with politicians, perhaps similar to “lobbyist.” That’s opposed to, say, VP of Finance, or VP of Information Technology or VP of Labor Law or …. In addition, just because the title says “VP”, does that necessarily make it bloat? You’re implying (with nothing to back it up except innuendo) that each VP just sits in his/her comfy chair behind a big desk and does little. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 2:49 pm: shake, I sure did mama, if you’re correct, didn’t the contract they want to extend include annual COLAs? Steps? Automatic promotions? They aren’t willing to increase their contributions to health insurance premiums from what they are paying under the old contract? Etc? - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 3:09 pm: “They aren’t willing to increase their contributions to health insurance premiums from what they are paying under the old contract?” After the recent ISC ruling on insurance premiums, they would be fools if they increase their contributions to health insurance premiums. I’m not sure about changes to “Steps”, but that it only applies to the first 7 years of employment so… - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 3:17 pm: “include annual COLAs? Steps? Automatic promotions?” Steve, you should be able to find AFSCME Council 31’s current contract on their webpage or CMS’s webpage. - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 3:22 pm: So, you are saying the last contract didn’t include COLAs, steps, and automatic promotions? Right! I don’t need to look. - AlabamaShake - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 5:24 pm: **ISC ruling on insurance premiums** Mama - just FYI, you have a lot of facts wrong. On this particular one, the ISC didn’t rule at all on insurance premiums for current employees. It rules on retiree health insurance. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 7:27 pm: AFSCME did get a total of 4% in the last contract but all of that went to higher health insurance costs. Of course their negotiations for the new contract started with requesting larger salary increases and no increases in insurance costs. You need to be able to give up some of what you want to reach a reasonable middle ground! Compared with Rauners starting (and apparently current) offer where they started is not at all unreasonable! - Emma's Mom - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 8:13 pm: To clarify, steps don’t apply to the first 7 years of employment. When steps are operational, the way they work is whatever Union title you’re in you go up a step each year until you hit the top step, Step 8. A contract or two ago, they lengthened the ladder, instead of Steps 1-7 it became Steps 1c, 1b, 1a, 1-8. One of the things Gov wants to do is eliminate Step 8. - Rusty618 - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 8:42 pm: ==To clarify, steps don’t apply to the first 7 years of employment== Emma, to the contrary, steps apply mostly to the first 8-12 years of employment, until you top out. After that, the only raise you get is what is negotiated in the contract. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 9:59 pm: Wednesday, Jun 24, 15 @ 8:42 pm: 10 years at Revenue for the Step increases Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.