August 18, 2015
Dear Lawmaker:
I know the Governor’s office is intensifying pressure on you to sustain his veto of SB 1229, the fair arbitration bill. Unfortunately, his crusade against this bill is based on hyperbole and misinformation. I wanted to respond specifically to some of the key misrepresentations in the governor’s memo sent to you today.
Arbitration is not a dangerous and alien idea. In fact, it is already in state law. As you know, this legislation merely extends to state workers the same fair arbitration process that Illinois law has provided for more than 30 years to municipal police and fire personnel and to state prison employees and state troopers.
Arbitration could avoid a strike if negotiations fail. Nothing in the legislation compels the parties to go to arbitration. In fact, either side could choose arbitration if negotiations fail to produce a settlement. As such, the bill does not short-circuit the negotiating process, but offers an additional path to a settlement free of the hardship, conflict and disruption that a lockout or strike could cause.
AFSCME has said repeatedly, and I reiterate, that it is our preference to reach a settlement at the bargaining table. We’ve been working diligently to achieve that goal and intend to continue to do so.
Our union has a four-decade track record with six different governors (and countless mayors, county executives and other elected leaders) of doing just that—bargaining in good faith to reach an agreement. The Rauner Administration does not have any such track record. The governor can point only to one settlement reached for one small unit of state workers on his watch.
On the other hand, we have his bellicose statements made more than once on the campaign trail that he’ll “take a strike and shut down state government” in order to impose his demands on state workers.
State employees remain deeply troubled by the threats he made then and the related actions he takes now: Reports of the administration recruiting strikebreakers among retirees or the National Guard; false characterizations of the compensation now earned by state workers and the proposals our union has made in negotiations; legislative poison-pill demands that would wipe out workers’ rights as a precondition of enacting other unrelated policies.
Arbitration is fair. The governor is wrong to insult the reputation of the experienced professionals who serve as independent arbitrators. Arbitrators are mutually chosen by both the employer and the union and they are guided by the law to consider factors including the state’s financial condition in crafting a fair settlement. There is no evidence to suggest that they rely on only a few states in forming their opinions, and even a cursory review of the arbitration decisions listed on the state labor board’s website makes clear that they rule at least as often—if not more often—in favor of the employer as the union.
False claims. It’s regrettable that the governor’s memo resorts to repeating disproven claims about state employee compensation. Illinois state employees do not earn salaries far in excess of other states, and a University of Illinois study found that state and local government workers earn 13.5% less than comparable private sector workers.
The governor’s misstatements about the pay of child protection workers, correctional officers, nurses, emergency responders, caregivers and all the other men and women who do the real work of state government are particularly offensive given the six-figure salaries and political clout hires reported among the governor’s own top staff. His administration’s push to replace a pay scale based on a worker’s job and experience with one based on who the boss likes best would open the door wide to similar cronyism throughout state government.
The governor’s claim that the union’s initial economic proposal would cost the state $1.6 billion borders on the ludicrous. The administration has failed to produce any accounting of this number, despite our union’s requests for the calculations to back it up. The governor’s memo likewise distorts many other of our proposals: AFSCME has not made a single proposal to “increase pension benefits”; we have proposed almost no changes to the state health plan; and our proposals regarding overtime are intended to reduce it, not increase it, but the administration has rejected them.
Act in the public interest, override the veto. One has to ask why the administration is resorting to such desperate tactics to defeat a perfectly reasonable piece of legislation. Why the over-the-top rhetoric, habitual falsehoods and political pressure tactics? The only plausible explanation is that the bill would provide stability where the governor wants conflict. The bill would prevent a strike when the governor has vowed to force one. And if negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the bill could allow independent arbitrators to craft a fair settlement instead of giving the governor free rein to impose his extreme demands.
In the end, each legislator must vote their conscience and their constituents. We hope you will look at all the facts and, in the name of ensuring stability of public services and fairness for public service workers, override the veto to enact SB 1229.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Roberta Lynch
Executive Director
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:11 pm:
Ms. Lynch better be about 71 and 36.
I get the politics at play, the need of the letter, the understanding of the counter-balance, I understand the “why” of the letter, Rauner’s own memo, I get it. I do.
The letter is done, the memo is completed, now…
… start counting the noses.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:17 pm:
Right as usual OW. Right as usual. But loving God do I not want to be forced out on strike.
- The Dude Abides - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:19 pm:
Actually a very well written response from the Union and there are some very valid arguments presented there. So does anyone have an inkling of what will happen with SB1229? If the Senate votes to Override what does Madigan do? That’s what I’m wondering.
- Casual Observer - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:25 pm:
“If the Senate votes to override what does Madigan do?”
He says “checkmate”. He has him where he wants.
As to the letter, I think it’s well written and gives talking points to be used for cover.
- Almost the Weekend - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:26 pm:
=Arbitration is fair. The governor is wrong to insult the reputation of the experienced professionals who serve as independent arbitrators. Arbitrators are mutually chosen by both the employer and the union and they are guided by the law to consider factors including the state’s financial condition in crafting a fair settlement.=
Then how come they only want arbitration in place for this governor? When Rauner’s term is over it’s back to the previous process. If I’m Rauner I keep pushing this specific issue. Or push for arbitration for the next several contract negotiations (2019 and 2023) and see how they respond.
Also interesting to see what the Speaker will do with this. But mutual enemies do seem to make good friends.
- Chicagonk - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:42 pm:
AFSCME certainly put all their eggs into this basket. Hopefully this is all a delicate dance and at the last moment a deal will be struck, because if this override falls flat, AFSCME members should take a hard look at the leadership.
- The Dude Abides - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:43 pm:
@Almost the Weekend. Agree with the mutual enemies angle. It’s not ancient history when the Unions were unhappy with the Speaker. They now face a hostile Governor who has been at their throats from day one. This same Governor from day one hardly ever misses a chance to attack the Speaker. I think Rauner should have played his hand differently these past 7 months. If they do override SB1229 the Democrats have assured themselves of huge, probably unprecedented support from labor in the 2016 midterm.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:44 pm:
ATW, are you thick?
How does a GA in 2015 mandate what happens in 2023?
Every law is temporary. The next governor and GA can toss them at any time.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:44 pm:
Very well written response. AFSCME has a track record of negotiating contracts. The Governor can’t even put a budget together.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:48 pm:
Almost the Weekend, because the other governors actually negotiated. It took 18months of slogging with Quinn. 6 months with Rauner and we haven’t even gotten to financials yet.
- cdog - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:50 pm:
Please get the headlines up MAIN STREAM MEDIA
This deserves just as much space as the Rauner cr*p.
- Macbeth - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:51 pm:
Good response. If this fails tomorrow, I’m very disappointed in Cullerton. Pass tomorrow, pass in the house — and be done with it. It takes away the one — the single — thing Rauner wanted: a strike to fire workers.
- Any Mouse - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:56 pm:
One of the commenters helpfully provided a link to a lit of arbitrators and their decisions. I read through one case and random and was interested to see the standard used by the arbitrator quoted below. As I read it, this standard will tend to create escalating benefits costs. It appears that once a benefit is granted or increased, it cannot ever be eliminated unless the union agrees. This seems to act a ratchet. In a case where benefit costs escalate faster than revenue, diminished services are inevitable.
From the decision:
http://www.state.il.us/ilrb/subsections/pdfs/arbitrationawards/S-MA-13-269.pdf
The well-accepted standard in interest arbitration when one party seeks to
implement entirely new benefits or procedures (as opposed to merely increasing or
decreasing existing benefits) or to markedly change the product of previous negotiations
5
is to place the onus on the party seeking the change. . . . In each instance, the burden
is on the party seeking the change to demonstrate, at a minimum:
(1) that the old system or procedure has not worked as anticipated when
originally agreed to or
(2) that the existing system or procedure has created operational hardships
for the employer (or equitable or due process problems for the union) and
(3) that the party seeking to maintain the status quo has resisted attempts at
the bargaining table to address these problems.
Without first examining these threshold questions, the Arbitrator should not
consider whether the proposal is justified based upon other statutory criteria. These
threshold requirements are necessary in order to encourage collective bargaining.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 6:56 pm:
SB 1229 needs to be overridden. If it isn’t, a strike is inevitable.
- Mouthy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 7:01 pm:
AFSCME, IMO, should be pouring everything it’s got into the override effort. Governor should keep his chin up..after all Trump may need a running mate..
- Casual Observer - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 7:14 pm:
Time to break out the MOUs? If the Governor signs x,y,z MOUs then the legislature won’t override. It could be seen as a win/win and still achieve the same results as the bill.
- Mama - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 7:19 pm:
Rich, AFSCME is not the only union representing state workers. If AFSCME strikes, will IFT, IFSOE & any other state union strike too?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 7:26 pm:
Good letter. I think she got everything except saying that it’s wrong for him to divide state workers and “taxpayers” into separate groups since state workers pay taxes too.
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 7:27 pm:
Nope. This is the whole ballgame for Rauner. Override. His high-pitched yammering confirms this override strikes at the heart of his real agenda. Force a strike. Fire or starve employees into capitulation to his demands, and then allow the deems to raise taxes, withholding his veto but vowing to work hard to reduce taxes if you’d just vote my raunerbots in.
Override. Override. Override.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 7:34 pm:
Mama, no the Taft Hartley act (I think) prohibits “sympathy” strikes. So no they cannot go on strike because we did. They have to come to their own negotiations and decisions. Thus the trade unions couldn’t join us out on strike either. Unless they got to impasse with their negotiations as well.
- Yossarian - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 7:46 pm:
Ms. Lynch wrote an excellent letter. I hope that the Lawmakers read and understand it.
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:10 pm:
Perhaps then, depending on what happens tomorrow, the union should take the Governor up on his offer of non-stop, around the clock good faith negotiations in order to see if an agreement can come in the 15 days that would remain for the House to act.
- IL17Progressive - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:13 pm:
Veto override is necessary! a common Union busting action is to claim “not bargaining in good faith” so corporate can walk away and impose their desires and fire workers and hiring non-Union. Gov Bruce cannot be given the unilateral choice to bust the state unions. Gov Bruce is skilled at unuion busting with this two timing hat trick.
- Mama - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:14 pm:
Honeybear, thank you for answering my strike question. Do you know if, Rauner is offering the same deal to the other unions?
- PublicServant - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:21 pm:
I wonder if the governor’s concept of “good faith” matches yours, Steve?
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:23 pm:
We won’t know for sure until the union tries it, will we. And the union as well as the administration can keep the House briefed on how it’s going
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:25 pm:
There is no need for this bill, for reasons previously expressed.
Despite the tough talk on both sides, this is a solution in search of a problem at this point.
Let the negotiating process work as it has for decades.
- Muni Guy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:33 pm:
Override, strike, drive the State of Illinois closer to the brink of insolvency. Would the last employee please turn out the lights when you leave.
- PolPal56 - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:33 pm:
Mama, not all of the unions are in contract negotiations this year.
- Rasselas - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:38 pm:
Any Mouse, that’s a pretty tortured reading of that decision. In fact, it appears to say the opposite. If one side (e.g., the union) has resisted efforts to address the problem with the status quo, then the arbitrator can go there.
- Miami - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:49 pm:
How did the anti-union Rauner Administration reach a deal with the Teamsters? Perhaps because they are reasonable?
- Huh? - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:50 pm:
Honeybear when a trade union, say laborers, goes on strike, other trade unions, say teamsters or operators, won’t cross the picket line.
The teamsters and operators aren’t necessarily on strike. But they won’t cross the picket line in sympathy with the laborers.
The problem with the state employee unions is that they may not have that same type of sympathy, thus one union may cross another’s picket line.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:51 pm:
- Miami -,
Are the offers to the Teamsters and AFSCME the same?
It’s a yes… or a no…
- Archimedes - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:02 pm:
This law would prevent Rauner from bargaining to impasse, then imposing his Last Best and Final offer.
Under current law, he doesn’t need to lock out employees. After he imposes his LBF he either gets employees working at the compensation he wants, or the union will go on strike because of how low the LBF is. Just what he wants.
If the GA over rides his veto, he can’t impose a contract to lower costs or get a strike to strengthen his cred.
- Miami - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:06 pm:
Why does it matter what the offers are? It’s where you end up and agree.
- Triple fat - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:08 pm:
Accept not except!
- AlabamaShake - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:10 pm:
**Mama, not all of the unions are in contract negotiations this year.**
Wrong… all state employee contracts were required to expire by 6/30/15. The only contract that has been settled is the Teamsters contract. As far as I know, every other contract is open now and is being negotiated.
- Triple fat - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:12 pm:
That was rich, Rich.
- thoughts matter - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:29 pm:
Mama
Many of the contract with the various unions representing state workers have clauses that say no striking just because someone else is. Strikes are only allowed if your contract has expired and negotiations have reached an impasse in the negotiation of that contract - not someone elses.
- Joe M - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:40 pm:
As has been mentioned in previous threads and posts - AFSCME also negotiates health insurance benefits and premiums for union, non-union and supervisory state employees, their dependents, and retirees. AFSCME also negotiates health insurance benefits for state university employees, both union and non-union, their dependents and retirees. Whatever AFSCME negotiates for their members health ins and premiums, is what all those other groups get too.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:40 pm:
Very well written letter … and it does a very good job of staking out the “moderation” side of things.
- Mouthy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:42 pm:
== steve schnorf - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 8:10 pm:
Perhaps then, depending on what happens tomorrow, the union should take the Governor up on his offer of non-stop, around the clock good faith negotiations in order to see if an agreement can come in the 15 days that would remain for the House to act.==
That’s not a bad idea but it may be too late for it plus if the governor is demanding and not negotiating it’s a fool’s game..
- RNUG - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:42 pm:
== Then how come they only want arbitration in place for this governor? When Rauner’s term is over it’s back to the previous process. If I’m Rauner I keep pushing this specific issue. Or push for arbitration for the next several contract negotiations (2019 and 2023) and see how they respond. ==
If that was an issue, instead of vetoing it, Rauner could have AV’d it to apply to all Governors.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:44 pm:
- RNUG -
===If that was an issue, instead of vetoing it, Rauner could have AV’d it to apply to all Governors.===
Please stop making sense.
Honest question;
Does the Rauner Crew know how an AV can be advantageous?
- Triple fat - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:45 pm:
Honeybear, you are correct about Taft-Hartley. It also made possible right-to-work-for less laws by authorizing states to outlaw Union security clauses (closed Union shops). They have to outlaw the clauses throughout there jurisdiction, though.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:46 pm:
I think the Governor’s good faith efforts would be helped by an override. His veracity track record has not been good. I’m hoping that Madigan can get it done.
- Triple fat - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:47 pm:
I know I’m taking a chance here but …Their not there. Damn you autocorrect… At least that’s my story.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 9:59 pm:
- OW -
Well, I could start repeating Rauner talking points … but I haven’t received any pay offers yet. I could be open to one; I just bought a union built luxury car I need to pay for … but for them to reach me, I’d probably have to unblock all the Rauner front group numbers that are call blocked on my phone. LOL!
Seriously, I’d say the Rauner frat boys don’t understand how to play the political game with the available tools. As most of us here know, Illinois Governors have quite a bit of power, both real and political, if they choose to exercise it. Based on the evidence to date, the Rauner crew doesn’t even know where the levers of power are, let alone which way to move them.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 10:12 pm:
===Seriously, I’d say the Rauner frat boys don’t understand how to play the political game with the available tools. As most of us here know, Illinois Governors have quite a bit of power, both real and political, if they choose to exercise it. Based on the evidence to date, the Rauner crew doesn’t even know where the levers of power are, let alone which way to move them.===
That actually is week said and it suprises me even after everything with Quinn the lack of understanding of the levers, how to make them advantageous, and the strength to use and wield the power so readily available.
It’s quite mind-boggling. You boiled it down to the bone.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 10:13 pm:
“… well said… ”
Apologies.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 10:28 pm:
- OW -,
No apology necessary; I understood what you meant. Remember, I’d have been tossed off here years ago if Rich took points off for spelling and typos.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Aug 18, 15 @ 10:45 pm:
We’re both lucky grades are on style and substance, and not spelling.
- DonaldTrump - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 1:04 am:
Pretty sure I we elected Rauner to negotiate with the unions not some random arbitrator. Didn’t see any mention in that memo that police and fire have arbitration in their contracts because they can not strike. Rauner has promised not to lock out workers why can’t they promise not to strike. After all they repeatedly exclaim that they want what’s best for the people of Illinois.
- Truthteller - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 7:26 am:
Why doesn’t, as Rich suggests, Rauner pledge in writing that he will not unilaterally impose a settlement?
It’s because that is his intent. And anyone who thinks a settlement imposed by him will be fairer to all parties than one imposed by an arbitrator would be incorrect
- IL17Progressive - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:22 am:
Truthteller is correct! Gov. ‘destroy unions’ Bruce will never accept a temporary continuation that bans him imposing a unilateral settlement. That’s what he has done in many of his other companies.
- taxpayer - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 10:47 am:
This is a disgusting bill curried by AFSCME special interests. It is corrupt. It is only applicable to this governor. It is the sort of thing that got us in this mess in the first place.
- Taxpayer Too! - Wednesday, Aug 19, 15 @ 11:25 am:
This bill has nothing to do with what “got us into this mess”. It is a ’situation’ of Rauner’s own making.