…Adding… AFSCME has responded. Click here to read it.
* The veto override is scheduled for Wednesday, so the heat will continue to ramp up…
To: Agency Directors
From: Jason Barclay
General Counsel [to the governor]
Re: SB 1229 and Minority Hiring and Promotion Date: August 28, 2015
As you are aware, it is the responsibility of the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) to assist your agencies in ensuring that the state workforce accurately reflects the demographic makeup of our state. Summaries provided by IDHR from Fiscal Year 2014 indicate that state workers in minority groups, including race, national origin, sex, and disability, have been significantly underrepresented in many areas of state government in previous administrations. State law, 56 Ill. Admin. Code, Ch. II Section 2520.700, requires agencies to establish action plans to correct these deficiencies in state hiring and promotion practices.
It is Governor Rauner’s goal to meet, and where possible, exceed these important utilization goals by hiring, mentoring, and promoting qualified minority candidates throughout state government. Since 93% of all employees are in a union, to properly address the current underutilization rates, we need the support, cooperation, and partnership of the state’s unions as well.
In fact, in one of his first acts as Governor, Governor Rauner issued Executive Order 15-12 that requires labor organizations with state contracts to report the number of minorities and veterans participating in union apprenticeship and training programs. These programs are important pipelines for filling new vacancies in state agencies, and historically many union apprenticeship and training programs have not reflected the state’s demographic population.
The second critical impediment to addressing minority underutilization is removing seniority provisions in the state’s collective bargaining agreements that require the state to promote more senior, white and/or male candidates over more junior minority candidates that are equally or even more qualified than a senior candidate. We told the unions these provisions are unacceptable to this Governor. We want to promote candidates based upon their performance, not their tenure. And where minority candidates can be promoted into leadership positions, our agency directors should be given the opportunity to do so without restriction.
In contract negotiations, we proposed underutilization language in AFSCME’s next contract, for instance, that says:
“Where there exists an underutilization of a minority class in a given geographical region and/or job category, the Agency, after utilizing the Upward Mobility Program where applicable, may in accordance with applicable law, fill the position at its discretion to address the underutilization.”
On August 25, AFSCME rejected this proposal. We made clear at the bargaining table that this proposal is non-negotiable because it is a critical element of the Governor’s efforts to transform the culture of state hiring that gives underrepresented candidates more opportunities, and rewards high performance. This important provision, however, could be a casualty of SB 1229 if the Governor’s veto of the automatic arbitration bill is overridden.
As we have explained previously, an unelected arbitrator, and not the Governor, would decide whether minority candidates, and not more senior white candidates, are eligible for promotion since AFSCME will not voluntarily agree to this provision on their own. If these regressive hiring practices are not eliminated in our next collective bargaining agreements, it will make it very difficult to adequately address the systemic underutilization of minorities throughout state government.
To get this important message out to state legislators, we would ask that you start to identify how the rejection of this language could specifically impact individual candidates and overall hiring and promotion practices in your agencies. Unfortunately, many do not yet realize that SB 1229 can have sweeping implications far beyond the severe budgetary impacts that have already been publicized.
We appreciate your continued assistance in gathering information to educate the General Assembly and the public on this damaging bill.
* Meanwhile, Greg Hinz compares the AFSCME bill to impeachment…
Voters had varied reasons to elect Rauner over Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn last year. But clearly one of the main ones was the desire for change, change that Rauner loudly promised to deliver by cutting spending and remaking the way Springfield does business. Having given him that power, it strikes me as disingenuous for lawmakers to take it away, sort of partially impeaching him on the cheap. Too much money is at stake in a state that isn’t close to balancing the books.
Now, an argument can be made that governors have too much power in labor negotiations. But now is not the time to change that. Beyond that, even Rauner is not going to blithely declare a legal impasse in negotiations and unilaterally impose a new contract. If he does, lawmakers—and the public—will have plenty of chance to respond, starting in next year’s legislative elections.
On balance, labor negotiations are supposed to be tough matches of bluffing, chest-thumping, histrionics and, occasionally, strikes. The state will be far better off if the current process is allowed to proceed under the current rules, rather than having one side run a trick play.
The House ought to reject, or at least sidetrack, the override move. Then Rauner ought to return to the table and work out a deal that a hard-strapped state and its workers can live with.
- illinoised - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 9:51 am:
Could an override be the crack in the impasse dam that makes it burst?
- Ahoy! - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 9:54 am:
Hinz is dead on, Rauner is the only person in all of this who was elected by the entire State. The majority party in the House and Senate drew their own districts and chose their own constituents.
- old-pol - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 9:55 am:
Don’t often agree with Hinz - he nailed it this time.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 9:55 am:
In regards to race that is utter crap. 1) African Americans made up a HUGE percentage of the state workforce. In my the African Americans ARE the senior workers. State government has since the sixties been a safe and well paid refuge for African Americans. They are now the senior workers. Rauner is talking about trade unions where there is little minority seniority. The only reason this is coming out is because they are trying to peal off the black caucus. (Rep Ford in particular) Dirty backroom deals are being made. IF
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 9:55 am:
– When it comes to organized later,….–
When you can’t spot such a goofy mistake in the first clause of the first sentence, your column probably requires some more brain labor and should probably be published, later.
The impeachment comparison is ludicrous.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 9:58 am:
If he wanted to get rid of the seniority rules for everything then I’d be all for it. Too many times you have to hire somebody just because they are next in line rather than base it on who is the best person for the job. But what he wants to do is eliminate the requirement just so you can skip people to hire a minority. So now instead of a bad system based on seniority we would go to a bad system based on minority status. How about we hire the best person for the job. Can we do that?
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:01 am:
@GregHinz -
Illinois didn’t elect Rauner to be Unionbuster-in-Chief.
In fact, Rauner made the argument in the closing months of the campaign that he had no anti-union agenda.
I get it, you think its “unfair” for the legislature to chiange the rules at this point. But the legislature is merely responding to Rauner’s efforts to hold the state budget hostage, and his demands that AFSCME forfeit its right to collectively bargain on just about everything - even wages.
In other words, Rauner brought this on himself.
- Anon2U - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:01 am:
An override makes the vitriol in Springfield worse. This is a poison bill that will lead to a September-December freeze. Think things in Springfield can’t get any worse? Dems override this and good luck getting any R votes for increased revenue. As much as OW says “governors own” Madigan And his mushrooms gonna get saddled with the largest revenue increase Illinois has ever seen if they stick it to Rauner like this.
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:01 am:
As to Hinz, he knows full well that if SB 1229 is not overridden the Gov will impose impasse and AFSCME will be out on strike in early Oct. He knows it. They all know it. The spin is going full force because AFSCME has a high chance of being sold down the river to produce a budget deal. A STRIKE WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC TO THE STATE. Those who want a deal on state workers backs will be held to account. Overriding SB 1229 will only give AFSCME a crappy contract, nothing more.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:05 am:
Greg Hinz has it figured out correctly. The override must fail.
- burbanite - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:06 am:
-The House ought to reject, or at least sidetrack, the override move.- The senate voted on the 19th, then the house has 15 days to call it to a vote, so in the past 13 days, what progress has been made by the Gov?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:07 am:
Would Indy be forthcoming on the racial makeup of Rauner hires since taking office? I suspect that it is not that diverse.
Clearly this is a desperate effort to try anything to win.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:07 am:
In addition to everything else, the governor’s general counsel apparently can’t even cite a rule correctly.
“State law, 56 Ill. Admin. Code, Ch. II Section 2520.700″
First, it’s not a statute, it’s a rule, so calling it “state law” is inaccurate.
Second, rules aren’t organized into chapters, they’re organized into titles. This is Title 56. I have no idea what “Chap. II” is. Illinois statutes are organized into chapters, but they use Arabic numerals, not Roman. And there is no Chapter 2.
Third, rules are divided into Subparts, not chapters, and then further organized into Sections.
Finally, Section 2520.700 of 54 Ill. Adm. Code 2520 is a definitions Section for Subpart H of Part 2520. There is no definition for “action plan” but there is a definition for “plan.” The definition contains a cross reference to Section 2520.760, (Plans).
Section 2520.760 requires, “By September 1 of each year, every agency shall file with the Department [of Human Rights] a complete copy of its plan, including any amendments or additions made for that year.” The contents of the plan are covered in Appendix A of Part 2520.
I’m not a lawyer but it took me all of 5 minutes to dig all that up. Is this general counsel another superstar? Jeez.
- Nick Name - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:10 am:
Also, look at the date in my quote above from Section. 2520.760. The general counsel is telling directors to do something that they already are required to do by this very rule. in fact, if they complied, they will have already done all the work and have submitted their plans to Human Rights by or prior to today.
Day late and a dollar short, superstar. Sheesh.
- Bibe - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:17 am:
Interesting that this memo goes to Agency directors when the Governor has failed to respond to the union’s request for information on under-utilization of minorities in bargaining unit vs. management titles. The Director’s should be gathering the information for negotiations to support their proposal instead of spreading inflammatory ideas with no facts to back them up. I would love to get the State to stop by passing minority employees with MORE seniority in favor of white males with less.
- Neveranonymous - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:17 am:
What is holding minorities back is the Personnel Code and how lists of eligible candidates are compiled and used. This is a common problem among government personnel operations. It has nothing to do with bargaining units. If it did, and the governor could identify the problematic rules, he should be bargaining to change them. AFSCME would be auite receptive. Oh, wait, the Governor doesn’t understand bargaining. That is why this bill is necessary.
- State peon - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:18 am:
If you look at many agencies (Idot is BIG on this), promotions are already based on minority status. I would rather it was on a persons ability and job performance
- D.P.Gumby - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:19 am:
To the extent Hinz analogy is apt, it is appropriate as Rauner did not disclose his plan to shake up Springfield by stalemating government w/ a union busting agenda during his fall general election campaign. He didn’t say closing the State Museum was part of his Agenda. Just because he was elected doesn’t give him carte blanche.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:20 am:
Snark alert: perhaps SB 1229 should have been titled the “We Wanted Kirk Dillard But All We Got Was This Bill Act of 2015″.
- The Historian - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:21 am:
Hinz has been a 1st rate, class act journalist for a long time now.
- Horse w/ no name - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:23 am:
The House should not override and blindly assume that Rauner intends to bargin in good faith with an entity he openly wants to destroy. Please.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:23 am:
Oh - Louis G Atsaves -,
Hinz is only right if you are under the premise that Rauner is rational.
The hysterics at the State Fair, the Trib back page ad… the dismantling collective bargaining…
Bruce Rauner isn’t rational, and that’s why Bruce Rauner is failing.
- DuPage - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:27 am:
The state workforce already has a large number of minorities, and they make up a large number of AFSCME members. These are the very people that Rauner wants to hurt. To pretend that he is trying to help minority state employees is disingenuous.
- Slick Willy - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:31 am:
***Beyond that, even Rauner is not going to blithely declare a legal impasse in negotiations and unilaterally impose a new contract. If he does, lawmakers—and the public—will have plenty of chance to respond, starting in next year’s legislative elections.***
I think anyone that has been paying attention since the election would likely avoid using the phrase “Even Rauner is not going to…”.
“Waiting until next year’s elections to respond” is a likley unworkable and provides little comfort for state employees that are subject to a unilaterally imposed contract by Rauner.
- Joe M - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:31 am:
Arbitration requires and produces moderation. That is why Rauner is so against it. He likes to operate in the extreme
- A Jack - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:34 am:
As a veteran, I find this ridiculous since I was hired based on my veteran’s status.
If Rauner wants to do something for veterans and minorities, he could easily have suggested adding points to the promotion grade. That is likely in his power and would not go against the GA and could have been proposed months ago.
- illinoised - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:37 am:
Illinois did not elect Rauner to be king, just governor. I am not sure he understands that.
- Fedralist - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:37 am:
We have been on this AA government discrimination since Nixon implemented it.
It is wrong but it is the now norm.
It is race spoils pure and simple with women thrown in later as a response to the feminist movement.
For those Whites who have been in the employment market since Nixon’s little attempt to look compassionate and win in 1972, and do not have ‘ins’ or are not a part of the special elite, it is very discriminatory.
I have been on the negative end of it personally and I have seen it wrongly used in search committees in academia.
We are closing in over nearly a half of century of this discriminatory practice against Whites and particularly White males who are not of a more privileged background. Of course, many decades ago it was promised that this would be eventually out. Of course, that has not been the case.
- PolPal56 - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:38 am:
Who knew that Governor “No Social Agenda” was so pro-affirmative action? Bet this goes over really well with the base.
- Jack Stephens - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:48 am:
Federalist:
Your right. Originally the only people allowed to vote were Black Land Owners.
Forgot that in my history class.
I’m a White Male….btw
- Fedralist - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:50 am:
@Jack Stephens,
Thank you for living so firmly in the past. Your comment is typical of those that can not think of any other response.
- Jack Stephens - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 10:57 am:
@Fed:
White Men are NOT oppressed.
Sorry to inform you.
Please live in the present.
- JackD - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:00 am:
To suggest, as Hinz seems to, that Rauner was elected to break unions is absurd. Indeed, he seems to have lied about his intent during the campaign.
- Fedralist - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:06 am:
@Jack Stephens,
I am pleased that you personally have never had the experiences that originally talked about.
You have the right to speak for yourself but not for me.
- walker - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:20 am:
Regardless of where we stand on Rauner’s objectives, Hinz is correct in seeing this bill as an inappropriate intrusion in the Executive role and responsibilities.
Not illegal, not unconstitutional, just inappropriate — unless you consider this good law for all gov unions and for all administrations.
- curmudgeon - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:21 am:
Rauner claims that he needs seniority rules removed to better promote minorities. But based on the gulf between his rhetoric and his actions, I’m convinced he’ll use his proposed rules to lay off, demote, or deny promotions to anyone in the Tier 1 pension plan regardless of their race or ethnic origin.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:27 am:
Ok so the Governor is going out of his way to somewhat tactfully state that ASFCME is racist because of sb1229. Encouraging Agency heads to go and do the same.
I really hoped that Rauner would be a competent leader, with different sacred cows, giving the state the chance to find some compromises to actually improve things. I really need to have this optimism condition fixed. Do they have meds for that?
- Jack Stephens - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:48 am:
@fed:
As a member of the group: I AM speaking for it.
It’s never been oppressed.
Never.
- MurMan - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:57 am:
Jack, so by your logic, if I were a black man that had never been personally oppressed, then I could claim that all black men have never been oppressed?
I agree there is a history of white privilege and racial discrimination that has and still does oppress minorities, especially African Americans. That said, AA is a macro policy trying to correct macro disparities. It does that by discriminating against whites at the micro level.
So while white men have never been oppressed as a group, there are certainly white men that have gotten the short end of the stick due to AA policies
- MurMan - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:58 am:
They should tie AA policies to socio-economic levels instead of to race
- IL17Progressive - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 11:58 am:
Hinz is WRONG!
Hinz’s ideas hinge on the statement “not going to blithely declare a legal impasse in negotiations and unilaterally impose a new contract”. What unbelievable delusion!
Yes, Gov. Bruce will blithely declare impasse to destroy the right assemble for redress of grievances. Gov. Bruce has made that statement numerous times. Gov. Bruce has a prior history of doing similar with GTRC companies. Gov. Bruce can not stand the idea that someone/ some group is his EQUAL in making decisions.
- Nickname#2 - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 12:05 pm:
I have seen and heard people make the claim that they were passed over in favor of a minority who was “less qualified.” I always want to ask, “How do you know they were less qualified?” How do you know they didn’t perform wonderfully during the interview, have skills you aren’t aware of, or maybe, you’re not as qualified as you think? Personal anecdotes are terrible evidence for your incredibly broad claim.
- Flynn's mom - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 12:53 pm:
Now BVR is using the race card??? He is pathetic and is showing that he’s running scared.
- T.T. - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:08 pm:
@Ahoy!
Barack Obama is the only national office holder elected by the entire nation, while Congress is filled with plenty of members who were elected thanks to maps Gerrymandered by GOP-controlled state legislatures.
You good with Obama operating without being checked by Congress?
- BeenThereB4 - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:21 pm:
The governor is just doing what management always does before a union vote. He is lying. Making up all kinds of crap to scare the legislators just long enough to get the vote he wants. If they fall for it, when the truth comes it will be too late.
Why didn’t he make all of these claims last week when there would be ample time to fact check and debunk? Oh, answered my own question didn’t I?
- reasonable - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:22 pm:
it is not the first time the State has proposed this same concept at contract negotiations and it is not the first time that AFSCME has rejected it.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:25 pm:
I’m with DuPage. Rauner’s union stripping would hurt African Americans, who according to a poll I recently saw–perhaps Gallup–there’s a higher percentage of African Americans in unions than whites and others.
I strongly disagree with Hinz portraying Rauner as the victim. It was Rauner who’s been over the top with unions, and who is still trying to greatly undermine them. If Rauner wants to play hardball at the table, he should do that and stop trying to severely limit collective bargaining.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:31 pm:
#2 - yeah, but that’s how people relate. It’s possible to get people to relate to a situation is painted with a wide swath, but making something personal is more effective and relatable.
- Shanks - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 1:31 pm:
So they want to strip the seniority rights from a white male and give it to a minority?!?! Isn’t that the definition of racism?!
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 3:11 pm:
Shanks - that is not what is says -
It says that minorities are underrepresented in the union, and the union contract supports people already in higher up in the union, so the contract harms minorities that could be higher performing and more qualified
- Politix - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 4:53 pm:
But now is not the time to change that. Beyond that, even Rauner is not going to blithely declare a legal impasse in negotiations and unilaterally impose a new contract. If he does, lawmakers—and the public—will have plenty of chance to respond, starting in next year’s legislative elections.
To the first sentence, in what universe does Greg Jinz live where this couldn’t possibly be the case? Please. Rauner’s foaming at the mouth to break AFSCME.
And to the second, has he not noticed that Rauner could give a flying rat what the public thinks? He cut funding for disabled children for god’s sake. He Does Not Care.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 5:12 pm:
Hinz’s first clause of his first sentence still reads “organized later,” many hours after it was posted online.
Labor.
Labor.
Labor.
Organized labor.
“Organized later” is something you should all aspire to at Crains.
“Organized later” isn’t a typo. It’s the result of a group concussion to writers and editors, a pretty bad one considering they’ve kept it up there all day.
- Chicago 20 - Tuesday, Sep 1, 15 @ 9:02 pm:
Greg Hinz’ opinion piece in Crain’s is an emotional,misguided and is very loose with the facts.
But then when do the whole facts get in the way of what Greg Hinz wants to sell the public?