85 Comments - phocion - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:10 am: ==…the Governor remains all too willing to engage in conflict and disruption—something that is not in the public interest== As opposed to a Governor that engages in capitulation to every union demand. Now, that’s in the public interest. /s - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:11 am: They can complain until the cows come home. Rauner won. The Governor vetoed. Thems the breaks. If you’re “shocked”, welp, then you are beyond Tryivg to help understand that elections have consequences. If you’re upset, then instead of just writing, get 71 and 36. Otherwise the lip service really is for show. No sympathy, but what are you going to do besides letters and griping, what in the processes are you going to do? Rauner made his move. - walker - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:14 am: Both the Governor’s veto message, and this response, don’t help with much of anything. Both are flawed, and preach to their own choirs. Just get on with the negotiation. - Norseman - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:14 am: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsyLBxY-Sik - Amused - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:15 am: All sides should just stop the press releases and lock yourselves in a room and don’t come out until there is an agreement. I’m a state worker and understand both sides need to compromise, especially on the economic issues. I can live without a raise for a couple of years so long as healthcare costs are contained. Both sides need to be realistic and work together. Stop using workers as pawns and just let us do our jobs. - allknowingmasterofracoondom - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:15 am: Spot on OW, spot on. By now the unions should realize who exactly they are dealing with. Rauner is not going to give. In fact I see him accelerating the inevitable disaster of a shutdown, partial or otherwise. THAT my friends is in the “public interest”. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:17 am: They want to nullify the right to strike? This is hazardous ground. Even with a sunset provision, this will have ramifications after Rauner and Madigan are gone. At one time, some union executives thought pension holidays were a good idea too. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:17 am: === In fact I see him accelerating the inevitable disaster of a shutdown, partial or otherwise. THAT my friends is in the “public interest”.=== Considering Rauner said yesterday he would not lock out workers, you seem out of step with really what’s going on. Let us know when you catch up with the rest of us. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:23 am: There’s not going to be a lockout or a shutdown. There just isn’t. Anybody that thinks there is isn’t thinking through the situation very well. The Governor may want a strike. But he’s not going to do a lockout. That doesn’t get him anything and, in fact, gives the union a PR boost. Since they aren’t all that good at the PR game right now why would he give them a softball to hit? - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:24 am: Rauner said yesterday he would not lock out workers Rauner also said he would force a strike then break the union like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. So do you take him at his word on everything? And if you do, OW, imagine you are a state employee. Imagine Rauner diddles around for a couple more months. Then he tries to impose his off-the-wall demands. Unless 1229 is enacted, this seems a not unlikely scenario. Do you choose to eat it? Or strike? - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:25 am: Take a breath AFSCME. We understand you are hostile to this Governor. You were hostile to him during the campaign, and after the campaign. You have been relentlessly hostile. Yesterday, you accused the Governor’s office of telling a lie when they claimed IN WRITING that they would not lock you out. That hostile playbook ought to be shelved. It isn’t working. And the veto was appropriate. It infringes on the powers of the executive branch of government. Keep it up and poor Lisa Madigan will be forced to court to argue against you. So, what is “Plan B” here? - Mama - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:26 am: Willy, explain why the guv would veto a bill that cost the state no money, and keeps state workers from striking? I understand the guv wants to create a crisis, but does he understand what it means when all state offices (except DOC)shut down? - Sue - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:26 am: Any taxpayer who thinks interest arbitration is a good idea should take a look at a few of Ed Benn’s decisions for the city of Chicago. The problem is that you are delegating the contract outcome to a non- elected individual not answerable to anyone and for all practible purposes not subject to judicial review. The union knows it is likely to be very happy with an arbitration outcome which is why they are pushing so hard which is exactly why taxpayers would be ill served - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:27 am: infringes on the powers of the executive branch Huh? Many thousands of state employees already have arbitration. This is no different. Try again. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:30 am: ===Yesterday, you accused the Governor’s office of telling a lie when they claimed IN WRITING that they would not lock you out.=== - Louis G Atsaves -, With all due respect, this Governor and what he says about things IS simething to question. And often. I’m only accepting “it”, me, personally, because 1) Rauner wants a strike, not a lockout, and 2) Every governor needs a budget and labor peace and eventually Rauner will “figure” that out. It has nothing to do with Rauner being a man of his word, lol - Sue - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:30 am: Reality - grievance arbitration and interest arbitration are very different from one another - Skirmisher - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:32 am: The arbitration deck is heavily loaded in labor’s favor. This was the correct move by Rauner. AFSCME needs to get on with negotiation, recognizing that is is no longer a case of gaining ground or even keeping the status quo, but one of limiting what has to be given up. Times have changed. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:33 am: @reality check: are you referring to BINDING Arbitration or Arbitration, the results of which can be accepted, or rejected by either or both sides? The vetoed bill refers to BINDING Arbitration. Pretty big difference. - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:33 am: @Sue - the point is, many thousands of state employees already have interest arbitration to resolve contract disputes. This is no different. - phocion - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:33 am: Sue is spot on. Benn has been an unmitigated disaster for taxpayers not only in Chicago, but throughout the suburbs. He has nearly always given the union what it wants, without regard to cost to the public. This is how interest arbitration works - take all authority away from accountable elected officials and vest it in the hands of unelected people who have a strong pro-union bias. Of course AFSCME is upset that the Governor sees through this charade and vetoed this bill. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:34 am: - Reality Check -, The fact that 40% of voters identified as living in a “Union Household voted for Bruce Rauner makes my sympathy very low to non-existent. Sorry. What the unions do now, that’s all they got. This letter isn’t helping, but getting 71 and 36 would help. I’m sure all the AFSCME members who wanted to teach Quinn a lesson feel … well, I dunno how they feel, but, they got rid of Quinn… - Norseman - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:34 am: === Take a breath AFSCME. We understand you are hostile to this Governor. You were hostile to him during the campaign, and after the campaign. You have been relentlessly hostile. === Really Louis. Do you type this stuff without laughing? Your guy came out of the gate swinging at unions and state employees and you have the temerity to claim he’s a victim of their ire. Don’t play us for stupid Louis. That’s woefully beneath you. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:36 am: @Oswego Willy, it was IN WRITING. Pretty hard to back away from something that is IN WRITING. Gutsy move there. Why is AFSCME still denying this was IN WRITING? - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:36 am: Given this blog’s usually well-informed commenters, the demonstrated lack of knowledge about the arbitration process is quite remarkable. Both parties have to mutually agree on the identity of the arbitrator, so neither side could be stuck with someone who’s biased one way or the other. It’s similar to jury selection. - Almost the Weekend - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:37 am: Great press release AFSCME,that will show Rauner. If these press releases don’t start talking about knocking on doors, town meetings to educate businesses that many of their consumers are AFSCME members, they are a waste of time. You guys are fighting for your life and sending out press releases despising the governor. Who we already know you don’t like. Leadership figure it out, and please learn from your history the past three years that the same old play calling isn’t going to work. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:38 am: ==without regard to cost to the public== The cost is not a consideration, nor should it be. An arbitrator is there to settle contract matters. I don’t disagree with your views on that particular arbitrator but with all due respect it’s not his job to be concerned about cost. If you are concerned about cost take it up with the employer who agreed to the terms of the contract. - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:38 am: So OW, you’re not going to answer the question about what you would do in this situation? - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:39 am: ===Willy, explain why the guv would veto a bill that cost the state no money, and keeps state workers from striking? I understand the guv wants to create a crisis, but does he understand what it means when all state offices (except DOC)shut down?=== The Governor “himself”, through his explanation of the veto made his case. I’m not avoiding, but I don’t need to speculate on thoughts, since the Governor said why. Motives? The Governor wants his “options” even “ck” said that. The motive is to limit this option, but keep the Illinois National Guard ready to step in. Military occupation of state agencies, ordered by the elected civilian government of Rauner… wow. - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:41 am: The cost is not a consideration, nor should it be. This is false. One of the guidelines an arbitrator must consider is “the financial ability of the employer to meet the costs” of a settlement. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:41 am: - Louis G Atsaves -, lol, no one is denying it was in writing, just as you won’t deny the Illinois National Guard might occupy state agencies. Rauner’s word, is as good as the phone call he made to Madigan on election night. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:42 am: ==This is false. == If the terms of a contract are clear then, no, cost is not a consideration. If a contract says pay for this and the employer refuses and it goes to an arbitrator the arbitrator isn’t going to care how much it costs. He or she is going to care that the terms of the contract require it. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:42 am: ===So OW, you’re not going to answer the question about what you would do in this situation?=== I think I said get 71 and 36. That’s next. Yeah, I’m pretty sure I said that… - Beaner - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:44 am: Formerly Known As… Twenty years ago, Unions in Illinois spent tens of thousands of dollars to get the Courts to order Pension funding. The ISC said then the Pensions have to be paid, but there is no requirement for current funding for future payments. Hence, the financial public fraud of the Edgar Pension Ramp was deemed okee-dokey. Unions did not agree to the Pension Holiday, they spent a bundle all the way to the ISC to prevent this fiasco. - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:46 am: @ Demoralized, then you are confused about what’s being discussed. We’re talking about interest arbitration to resolve differences in negotiations, not arbitrating grievances that arise from the interpretation of existing contracts. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:47 am: Beaner - not all unions thought it was prudent. But some unions supported pension ==holidays== as recently as 2005. I will try to find a source for you. My comment was not to be critical of unions, just to say that sometimes it helps to pause and take a deep breath before taking drastic steps out of frustration or the government failures. - The Colossus of Roads - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:47 am: Willy, agree with your comments. In addition, maybe AFSCME can look at Teamster agreement for guidance as well. The times they are a changing. - A guy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:48 am: The fact that this was the predictable response from AFSCME is such a huge part of the whole problem. Both sides; shut up and deal the cards. Arbitration is and should be a last resort. - phocion - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:49 am: Demoralized, you’re incorrect. Reality Check is correct in noting that arbitrators are supposed to consider cost. The fact is, however, that they ignore that mandate when rendering their pro-labor decisions. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:49 am: Reality Check: I was responding to phocion’s particular discussion of a specific arbitrator and in that context we were talking about grievance arbitration. Somebody setting the terms of a contract are going to have a different standard. Somebody arbitrating enforcing the existing terms of a contract isn’t going to care about the cost. You are correct that we are talking about two different things. - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:50 am: Let’s see now if any Republican legislators in the House will vote to override the veto (assuming it clears the Senate), and serve their union constituents, or will they side with perhaps the biggest special interests in state history: Rauner, Uihlein and Griffin. - Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:52 am: phocion: The decisions you speak of (or at least I assumed you spoke of) involve a specific arbitrator. I’m familiar with his decisions and often shake my head at them. But, if you are an arbitrator looking at the specific terms of an already existing contract and that contract requires something specific the arbitrator isn’t going to say “oh, sorry, they can’t afford it so that provision doesn’t apply.” Perhaps those terms should not have been agreed to if they couldn’t afford them. Your agreement or disagreement is related to the contract terms themselves. You can whine all you want about the cost but, as I said, perhaps you should take it up with the employer who agreed to those provisions. - Norseman - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:52 am: Grandson of Man, stay out of House exits when this bill comes up of a vote. If not, you’ll get injured by these GOP Solons storming out to avoid getting on the record. - Wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:55 am: Guy, with the veto, arbitration is not a “last resort,” it is not option. I dont see Rauner take the heat for a lockout. That doesnt track his actions to date. - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:58 am: Arbitration is and should be a last resort. Actually, under current law, for most state employees, arbitration is NOT the last resort. A strike or lockout is. If you believe the second part of your statement - that arbitration SHOULD BE the last resort - then you support 1229. - Mouthy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:04 pm: If the governors’ not negotiating then the best possible scenario would be to go to binding arbitration. Arbitrators have their own organization which one of the parties would send a request for a list of available arbitrators. By mutual agreement each side might select three and then the process of striking the names would commence. Each side would try to discern if a particular arbitrator has a pro union or management bias or tendency by researching prior case rulings. In a case of solving a grievance the arbitrator would look at the facts, listen to testimony, and apply what they’ve seen and heard to the contract language. A non binding arbitrator in a contract impasse basically is a problem solving go between who will suggest ideas to get the parties off the dime. I’ve been through one of those and it works but then again both sides were looking for a solution. In a binding arbitration the arbitrator would look at the last, best, proposals and write out a solution which would be a contract both parties have to accept. From what I’ve seen and heard binding arbitration is going to be the union’s best hope. It don’t look like there’s much bargaining going on and the public outbursts reflect that.. - zonz - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:05 pm: oy _______________ - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 11:33 am: @reality check: are you referring to BINDING Arbitration or Arbitration, the results of which can be accepted, or rejected by either or both sides? The vetoed bill refers to BINDING Arbitration. Pretty big difference. - allknowingmasterofracoondom - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:11 pm: OW, with respect I said shutdown, not lock out. Whatever the road to a shutdown - no budget in place, a strike, whatever that road is I believe a shutdown if what Ruaner is after. Then the message will be - look at what Madigan/Dems caused…. - A guy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:12 pm: RC, if I’m reading the response up top correctly, arbitration is being discussed as a step before a strike/lockout. Am I misreading this? Are they misstating this? Either way, I don’t support elements of 1229, enough so as to support the veto. There’s a much better way to peel this onion. Hopefully cooler heads are at work than the public posture here. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:15 pm: - allknowingmasterofracoondom -, Nope, on a contract, the Executive, and only the Executive negotiates this contract. Would never fly. Plus, if “ck” is right, and the National Guard become an occupying force in the state agencies, only a governor can do that. - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:18 pm: A Guy - I think you are misreading. 1229 provides that, should impasse be reached, either union or management could invoke the same arb procedure used for police, fire and prison security employees. 1229 further provides that during such arb procedure, there could be no strike and no lockout. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:20 pm: Just prohibit locking out employees and employees striking. Any differences go to an independent arbitrator like other states do. Rauner is hell bent on busting the union anyways. Obstruction after obstruction, my way or no way at all. Override the bill already. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:23 pm: Don’t forget about Rauner’s tolling agreement. If an impasse is reached, it dissolves automatically. Read after the effective dates of the most tolling agreement. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:27 pm: - allknowingmasterofracoondom - (Sigh) Ok to your “shutdown”, (which is very different than this post) agency letterheads say “Bruce Rauner, Governor” Although @EditBoardChick is a swell person, really nice and all, when she was a Chick at the Statehouse, she knew governors own the happenings and functions of givernment. Now, when @EditBoardChick wrote, “Protest Madigan, not Rauner”, the argument is about the politics, not the functions of givernment that the Executive is fully responsible, namely the agencies I said, and the cuts and managing the responsibliites of those agencies, and how they go about it. Governors are responsible. We will now get back to Union contracting. - Omega Man - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:27 pm: From the perspective of a union member who’s never been on a contract negotiating committee but who has voted in favor of every contract they’ve hammered out over the last few decades, the union has always been very professional and truthful with the rank and file. They can’t tell us all of the details of every bargaining session, but they can certainly give us the “big picture” when it is warranted (mostly when talks are not going well). This is so we can all understand why we are being asked to picket at the workplace, rally at the State Capitol (or Governor’s Mansion if needed). Democracy is at it’s best when it is an open process. Basically as the state’s economic problems got worse and worse, each successive administration got more and more extreme in its demands. Governor Rauner is completely “off the charts” in this regard, wanting to tear up the prior contract and start over from scratch. State employees have been willing to help with each new contract. Many concessions have been offered and accepted, both written into the contracts themselves and offered while they were in effect, mostly to avoid the threat of layoffs. What each new governor seems to understand less than his predecessor is that decades of providing services that are not paid for with real revenue and raiding the pension “piggy bank” cannot be fixed by turning the hardest working state workers in the nation into the poorest. Ask anyone in a Merit Comp position who went more than ten years with no raise, taking furlough days and seeing union members (slowly) continue to progress, year after year. This is why so many MC’s got their titles moved into the union. - TRH - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:29 pm: It seems to me an independent arbitrator should not beholden to anyone. Not the taxpayers nor the union. His/her only concern and duty should be to decide which proposal is most fair to both sides. If administration’s proposals are truly fair then there should be no reason to oppose this method. - A Jack - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:30 pm: So let’s override SB 1229 and let Rauner argue it out in front of the ILSC, whom he called corrupt. That should keep him busy for a while. I am not surprised that he removed that voluntary tier 2 move out of negotiations. The union can’t negotiate that anyway. That isn’t to say it’s off the table. He is just planning a different route to get there. But for now, the ball is back in the GA’s court. - TRH - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:31 pm: Besides, if negotiating is that important to the governor then learn to do it reasonably otherwise it should be taken from his hands. - Gooner - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:34 pm: I tend to be pro-union and anti-Rauner, but the Gov. got this one right. One of the reasons I like unions is that there is a negotiated contract. If either doesn’t like it, they don’t have to sign. By its nature, the process is fair. Arbitrating takes away the negotiation. As Oswego Willy noted above, Rauner won. He gets to be on the other side of the table. That’s what the voters wanted. - Mouthy - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:39 pm: == TRH - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:29 pm:== His/her only concern and duty should be to decide which proposal is most fair to both sides I don’t believe it’ll be one or the other but a combination of what the arbitrator feels is fair from both side’s point of view which will be condensed into one contract.. - Responsa - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:42 pm: ==It seems to me an independent arbitrator should not beholden to anyone. Not the taxpayers nor the union. His/her only concern and duty should be to decide which proposal is most fair to both sides. If administration’s proposals are truly fair then there should be no reason to oppose this method. == You’re not from Chicago, are you? - Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:44 pm: Arbitrating takes away the negotiation. No. It offers an option - other than a strike or lockout - if negotiations fail to produce an agreement. Police, fire and prison employees in Illinois negotiate all the time. Sometimes they go to arbitration if talks don’t yield a settlement. This bill gives the same safety valve to the admin or union w/r/t all state employees. - Liberty - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:44 pm: ==…the Governor remains all too willing to engage in conflict and disruption—something that is not in the public interest== ==As opposed to a Governor that engages in capitulation to every union demand. Now, that’s in the public interest. /s== I wouldn’t call Squeezy and the insurance changes capitulating to every union demand… - TRH - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:54 pm: ==You’re not from Chicago, are you?== Why, does Chicago have an alternative definition of independent? - jake - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 12:58 pm: Lot of either ignorance or obfuscation in some of these posts. Standard best practice in labor negotiations with public sector unions is to go to binding arbitration if the parties can not come to agreement. It happens in Illinois municipalities all the time. The arbitrator is supposed to be guided by prevailing agreements in comparable situations. For example, for a city negotiating with its police union, the arbitrator will look at agreements in other cities with comparable size and demographics and try to replicate that. In the case of State workers, an arbitrator would look at prevailing agreements in other states. Nobody is happy when arbitration happens, but it is better than a strike or a lockout. - Anon - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 1:02 pm: Unless you are at the top of the 1% along with Rauner, why would you share his strong anti-union views. Bitterness? Fear? Complacency? I never quite understand why people who themselves might benefit from joining a union are so opposed to the right to bargain collectively. Should we not all want to do better? - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 1:08 pm: Just like in Wisconsin how they passed Act 10 and excluded FF and police from the requirement there. It’s the whole, “those who put their life on the line” argument somehow should be in a different class, but then are used against the same state employees they work with when the tables are turned. Rauner is flip-flopping especially in his pension proposal which strips pretty much bargaining rights from government employees. In my eyes, Rauner is trying to turn people against one another and when 2016 elections come around money donations in this state will become like the wild west. - Anon - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 1:14 pm: - Anonymous - “In my eyes, Rauner is trying to turn people against one another” I could not agree with you more. I think he is divisive and in general lacking compassion about any pain, even short-term pain, he causes if he thinks it will achieve his end goals. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 1:21 pm: Beaner - there are more, but Senate Bill 27 was in 2005. JBT was ==furious== about the pension payment holidays in the bill, but the IEA, CPS, IFT and SEIU all supported it. The IFT witness slip supported amendment 2 that ==reduces the required State contributions to the retirement systems by $1,177.9 million in FY 2006 and $1,131.6 million in FY 2007. Reducing contributions in FY 2006 and FY 2007 will also reduce contributions in FY 2008 and FY 2009, as those contributions are based in part on the FY 2007 contribution amounts.== - Anon2U - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 1:31 pm: FKA is on point. Binding arbitration is the WORST thing we could do with non-safety unions. It’s baseball arbitration people. Winner take all. And those that think the states ability to pay can be considered or that the arbitrator can take parts from each side or split the difference are wrong. Binding arbitration for public safety works because they can’t strike. Gotta have the firefighters show up if there is a fire. AFSCME can strike all they want because if they don’t show up no ones house burns down. The veto was the right thing to do an Smiddy can only expect more millions spent against him now. Can you keep financial pace in that race AFSCME? - Robert the 1st - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 1:39 pm: For years we hear that all the wages and benefits AFSCME receives are fair and right because they were negotiated in good faith. AFSCME did a good job negotiating and if tax payers aren’t happy they should do a better job electing a negotiator to represent them. (An argument made be several commenters on this blog in years past.) Now that tax payers have taken that advice, AFSCME tries and changes the rules of the game. The negotiation process was nothing short of holy to many of you prior to Governor Rauner. - PabloUsted - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 1:44 pm: Great press release AFSCME,that will show Rauner. If these press releases don’t start talking about knocking on doors, town meetings to educate businesses that many of their consumers are AFSCME members, they are a waste of time. ==You guys are fighting for your life and sending out press releases despising the governor. Who we already know you don’t like. Leadership figure it out, and please learn from your history the past three years that the same old play calling isn’t going to work.== Couldn’t have said it any better. - Anon - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 1:59 pm: - Omega Man - Thanks for sharing the truth. - Union Leader - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 2:00 pm: Governor Rauner knows exactly what he is doing. By him vetoing SB 1229, he now is setting up his own GOP to either stay in lock-step with him or risk his wrath and a primary if they vote to override and side with their union constituents. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 2:59 pm: @Anon2U I’m sorry, but I am a state employee and support striking only as very last resort. When Rauner gets out of campaign mode, he can come to the bargaining table like he said he would instead of having his people do it for him. Start listening to employees already. Other states bar lockouts and strikes by public employees and use binding arbitration to break impasses. Why is it that when every contract is renewed merit comp employees get the shaft on raises? (At least in the last two administrations?) My boss has bills to pay just like everyone else and does not have the luxury of owning 9 homes. There is nothing wrong with being successful, but what I have a problem with is when someone uses there money, calls it free speech, and somehow thinks they own the state then wants to bust unions in the process who helped get him to where he is at. - Amazing - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 4:01 pm: I think the veto was correct (I dislike rauner), I think Ed Benn is one of the best arbitrators out there (I represent govt entities in these for a living). I can’t stand afscme (for the same double talk they accuse Bruce of) but if they just ask for a Me too with the teamsters then we can really see whether the Bruce is telling the truth. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 4:04 pm: @Anon2U - thanks. As you said, this is not the police or fire department. @Gooner - kudos. Very well said. They have also been able to agree an extension through September 30, so they should be able to agree on even more in time. - nixit71 - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 4:07 pm: Perhaps that AFSCME’s $250,000 investment in “Dillard for Governor” last year did not pay off. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 4:17 pm: Just like Rauner paying people $8,000 per person to certain individuals in the Republican Party in taking the RTW vote in the same week? Then both parties I think should tone it down a notch. Like he said in his budget speech “God didn’t make Democrats and Republicans”. Anyone can argue they put their life on the line for cause xyz . What about DCFS caseworkers? DHS caseworkers? Highway maintainers? Electricians? - All the answers - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 4:41 pm: If Rauner wants a stalemate and Illinois goes to hell, it’s on him. That simple. If the state goes to hell, all the more reason to cut his staff’s pay. You can only pay people so much to “tweet” around. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 5:06 pm: @All the answers - Jealous or merely bitter? - Norseman - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 5:26 pm: All the answers, Louis is fair game, but let’s leave his wife out of it. - burbanite - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 5:29 pm: = if tax payers aren’t happy they should do a better job electing a negotiator to represent them. (An argument made be several commenters on this blog in years past.) Now that tax payers have taken that advice,= LOL, I am not seeing it! “Negotiation is a dialogue between TWO OR MORE people or parties intended to reach a mutually beneficial outcome, resolve points of difference, to gain advantage for an individual or collective, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests.” emphasis added. And one would think the negotiations would occur directly and not through posturing letters. - Oshawott - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 8:38 pm: SB 1229, to me, is like a Brazilian Wax coupon for the Gov. that expires with his term. I’d have declined also. Not so sure it shouldn’t be compulsory though. - one of three puppets - Thursday, Jul 30, 15 @ 9:15 pm: Who is more likely to send a message in a GOP primary? Rauner or AFSCME? - Sad Sack - Friday, Jul 31, 15 @ 2:43 am: WAR ON WORKERS IS ON EVERYWHERE! Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.