* Press release…
Illinois Comptroller Leslie Geissler Munger on Monday announced that her office has finished processing payroll for July 15, ensuring that all state employees will receive their scheduled paychecks without interruption.
The action comes after a St. Clair County Court last week granted Munger’s request to pay all state employees in order to comply with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and avoid potential fines totaling three times the amount of missed payrolls.
“Paying all state employees is the right, legal, and fiscally responsible thing to do and I appreciate the Court’s authorization to move forward,” Munger said. “We are simply compensating workers for services they are already providing the state and ensuring that we are in compliance with federal law. To do otherwise would not only cause hardship to tens of thousands of employees and their families, but also make the state vulnerable to staggering penalties that we cannot afford.”
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires the state pay “covered” employees at minimum wage or face fines from the federal government. However, Illinois’ antiquated payroll systems make it impossible to swiftly determine which of the state’s 65,000 employees fall under the designation. Even when the respective employees are identified, the antiquated systems require Comptroller’s Office personnel to manually enter tens of thousands of reductions in pay rate and corresponding changes in deductions and benefits.
Given those realities, Munger and the Governor’s Office of Central Management Services last week asked the Court to allow the state to run full payroll to ensure compliance with the federal law. A Cook County Court initially directed the state to pay only minimum wage for “covered” employees but that decision was later stayed by an Appellate Court. On Thursday, a St. Clair County Court granted Munger’s request to run full payroll, giving her the Court Order she needed to legally move forward.
“While the legal process will continue to play out, I am confident that the Court will ultimately see that paying all state employees is the best and only way to protect the state from significant federal fines,” Munger said. “At the same time, it provides welcome relief to workers across the state, including those on the front line in serving our communities and most vulnerable residents.”
- William j Kelly - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:45 am:
Munger is in way over her head.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:47 am:
“- William j Kelly - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:45 am:
Munger is in way over her head.”
William j Kelly is in way over his head, there fixed it.
- William j Kelly - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:52 am:
Only in illinois would train wreck be spun as a fix! Lol
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:53 am:
Am I missing something? The July 15 payroll was never in danger because it was for work performed in the last fiscal year. It’s the next paycheck that deserves press releases, isn’t it?
- Mouthy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:53 am:
The payrolls would have been processed and ready regardless of any ruling and paid only when legally mandated. She’s just doing her job..
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 8:57 am:
===Munger is in way over her head.===
How so? Please explain, use words.
To the Post,
The Conptroller is in a tough spot. She is loyal (she is, it’s part of the equation) to Rauner, and she, now, has a legal means to pay, but there is always the constitutionality question, and the duties described, and following the law.
This move isn’t the intersting move, to me. If the Supremes rule further payments are not constitutional, the political, the governmental, the complete reaction of the Office of the Comptroller and Leslie Munger, now you have my complete attention.
This is one very specific step now is a stand alone decision. The next moves will dictate the governing and politics to that governing. No matter the feelings on the move, it’s really after the Supremes rule, if they even do, then you’ll see real… choices.
- BS - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:01 am:
So for the state employees who get paid on the 7th and 22nd each month, do we as state employees get paid on the 22nd???
- Wage slave - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:01 am:
–The payrolls would have been processed and ready regardless of any ruling and paid only when legally mandated. She’s just doing her job..–
Nope. Employees paid in arrears are getting an FY15 paycheck. Employees that are on an anticipatory schedule got their last check June 30. They first July check is drawn on FY16 funds.
Remember, nothing about this payroll beast is simple.
- Stones - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:02 am:
Anonymous (8:15)
Not every employee is being paid for work performed in June. There are several different pay cycles. Checks for work performed during FY 15 aren’t in jeopardy.
- Blago's Luxurious Grey Mane - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:22 am:
I’ll never understand why state employees all believe they are paid the same way.
About 10% are paid on an anticipated basis. That group will be paid on the 15th for work done 7/1-15. The Comptroller has ensured that group will receive their checks.
The Attorney General is fighting tooth and nail to prevent the 90% who are scheduled to be paid on a staggered basis anywhere from the 20th to the 27th of the month from receiving their scheduled pay. This group includes agencies under the Governor, Secretary of State, etc.
The easy way to figure this out is if you had to wait a pay period before receiving your first paycheck. If you didn’t you are anticipated, and the Comptroller saved you for this paycheck.
For the other 90%, your next pay is in doubt, and Lisa Madigan is not your friend.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:29 am:
===For the other 90%, your next pay is in doubt, and Lisa Madigan is not your friend.===
It’s true the Lisa Madigan is in a tough spot, but I’ve never heard a reasonable argument that includes someone following the constitution isn’t your friend. Just saying.
- zatoichi - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:43 am:
I appreciate all the concern about state employees getting paid and legalities of future state paychecks. There are 10 times as many non-state employees with vendors and providers who do contract work for the state than there are state employees. Their companies are not getting paid by the State for services they are providing the State right now. Where is the equal concern about their paychecks?
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:58 am:
I commend Munger for being proactive for workers. She has the spirit of JBT. She did right also by opposing Rauner’s contract bustin’ termination of fair share fees.
If it’s unconstitutional for workers to be paid without a budget, I accept that. The state government has to ultimately pass a budget.
These are very scary times, especially when Rauner shows how serious he is at negotiating in good faith by slippin’ an anti-union poison pill into pension reform, this late in the game, and after Illinois residents and the House indicated where he can put his union-stripping.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:58 am:
==that includes someone following the constitution isn’t your friend==
When you are in danger of missing a paycheck, we’ll talk.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:05 am:
- Demoralized -,
With respect, and you know, you follow this closely.
If/when the Senate concurs with the House, Rauner, again can AV or sign a bill paying state employees.
Rauner has the legal means and power. Circumventing (even allegedly), the constitution via the courts instead of making choices, why have an Executive? At what point is it more important to Rauner to have a court ruling to make this all “worth it”, as opposed to using the Pen, AV, and pay state employees.
That’s where I’m coming from.
With respect, as always
- Blago's Luxurious Grey Mane - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:18 am:
@Willy: I very much opposed Lisa Madigan’s election as Attorney General. I have to say, however, she has been pretty good. Unfortunately, she consistently has been MIA on public corruption, but she has been more of an independent voice than I expected with the obvious conflict of interest.
She was in favor of state employees being paid in 2007. One circuit judge said don’t come back, so she reversed her stance. I get that. She felt she had a duty to oppose this. I think once the St. Clair Co. ruling came down, however, she was off the hook if she really was in favor of state employees being paid as she was in 2007.
Instead, she immediately asked the St. Clair judge for a TRO (denied), has filed two appeals, including an emergency Supreme Court review.
It seems to me she did her duty in principle, and, frankly, the rest seems to be vigorous opposition borne of supporting her father’s position.
- Name Withheld - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:23 am:
Did anyone notice that the AG appeared to wait to file her motions after Munger had processed payroll?
- Concerned - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:24 am:
Or maybe Lisa is doing this because she, too, wants to put pressure on Rauner because she, too, vehemently disagrees with Rauner’s bend-over agenda.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:26 am:
===Unfortunately, she consistently has been MIA on public corruption,…===
See the Illinois Constitution.
===but she has been more of an independent voice than I expected with the obvious conflict of interest.===
What kind of “nod” is that? “Obvious”… ugh.
===She was in favor of state employees being paid in 2007. One circuit judge said don’t come back, so she reversed her stance. I get that.===
Then the rest… is opinion.
With respect.
- Just a lawyer ... - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:59 am:
Oswego -
Under our legal system, the court rules and we follow the rule of law - even when we disagree. Win or lose, that is how it works. Now if the supremes overturn the Appellate court so be it.
Munger is doing the right thing as determined by the court. It’s ok to disagree….but the rule of law still prevails.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:03 am:
===Munger is doing the right thing as determined by the court. It’s ok to disagree….but the rule of law still prevails.===
- Just a lawyer … -,
Maybe you need to actually read what a wrote, exactly as I wrote it. Read and get back to me.
Thanks.
- Michael Westen - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:05 am:
“Lisa Madigan is not your friend.”
You mean the Constitution is not your friend.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:08 am:
“- Michael Westen - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:05 am:
“Lisa Madigan is not your friend.”
You mean the Constitution is not your friend.”
No, we mean Lisa Madigan is not our friend.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:10 am:
===No, we mean Lisa Madigan is not our friend.===
Another victim heard from…
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:13 am:
=== ===No, we mean Lisa Madigan is not our friend.===
Another victim heard from…===
My point?
Ignoring 2007 and 2009 and the constitutionality and making sure the blame is just realky about saying “Lisa Madigan is… ”
… you might be missing the whole point(?)
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:22 am:
“- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:13 am:”
I am not a victim.
I am not missing any points.
You are the one missing the point. Lisa Madigan doesn’t need to do this, period.
It is not rocket science. She has not been consistent in the past and she did fight against giving the pay checks. She did not need to drop the Nuclear bomb.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:52 am:
“- Anonymous -”
Rauner chose to vetoes state employees’ pay.
… so… there’s that.
- Kurt in Springfield - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 12:29 pm:
Lisa does seem to pick her constitutional battles. She fought for SB1 instead of claiming it was unconstitutional.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 12:44 pm:
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:52 am:
“- Anonymous -”
Rauner chose to vetoes state employees’ pay.
… so… there’s that.
- Kurt in Springfield - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 12:29 pm:
Lisa does seem to pick her constitutional battles. She fought for SB1 instead of claiming it was unconstitutional.
That is a different issue. Pointing to one wrong doesn’t justify another wrong. I agree with Kurt.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 12:44 pm:
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 11:52 am:
“- Anonymous -”
Rauner chose to vetoes state employees’ pay.
… so… there’s that.
- Kurt in Springfield - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 12:29 pm:
Lisa does seem to pick her constitutional battles. She fought for SB1 instead of claiming it was unconstitutional.
That is a different issue. Pointing to one wrong doesn’t justify another wrong. I agree with Kurt.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 12:50 pm:
The only reason this is happening is because of the unions serving Illinois. Not the Governor. Not the Comptroller. Not the Treasurer. Not the General Assembly.
The UNIONS.
Thanks to the unions, everyone can survive, even those who are NOT IN A UNION. So - the next time you wonder why you are in a union, whether you should join a union, what your union dues are for, and why we have a union, remember this:
There may be times when you are right, and there are times when the law is on your side. During those times when you are being mistreated, it doesn’t matter what a government says - what matters are your friends, their connects and the unions to which you belong.
You want smaller government? Join a union to do what government cannot do to protect you and your family.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 1:07 pm:
Oh “- Anonymous -”
Ignoring that Rauner has brought this question, and just by doing his job, Rauner would’ve actually paid state workers, not used them as pawns, by now wanting them paid… when Rauner coulda just AVed the paying state employees… lol.
Rauner owns this, no matter the choice of the AG’s Office.
All coulda been avoided…
- Michael Westen - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 1:24 pm:
“You are the one missing the point. Lisa Madigan doesn’t need to do this, period.” Anonymous
I can see why you are anonymous. You are missing the point. If she believes she is following the Constitution, she DOES need to this, regardless of how she feels personally. She took an oath of office to do so.
She has upheld the law in various situations where she didn’t agree with it (see parental consent). Public servants don’t put their personal feelings above the law, notwithstanding sanctuary cities.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 3:23 pm:
“- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 1:07 pm:”
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Rauner being bad has nothing to do with Lisa being bad.
- Kurt in Springfield - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:20 pm:
Michael,
Lisa does not always follow the state constitution. As I pointed out, with SB1 she chose to defend a law which violated the constitution.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 4:23 pm:
===As I pointed out, with SB1 she chose to defend a law which violated the constitution. ===
(15 ILCS 205/4) (from Ch. 14, par. 4)
Sec. 4. The duties of the Attorney General shall be–
First - To appear for and represent the people of the State before the supreme court in all cases in which the State or the people of the State are interested.
- William j Kelly - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 5:20 pm:
It’s really unfair that the munger movie title has already been taken. http://youtu.be/2MxnhBPoIx4
- Kurt In Springfield - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 9:37 pm:
I stand corrected.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 14, 15 @ 10:50 pm:
“- Anonymous -”
Rauner AVs, there is no Attorney General position.
See how this all works?