[UPDATE: AFSCME has responded. Click here.]
* From a memo sent by the governor’s legal counsel, with all emphasis added…
To: Agency Directors
From: Jason Barclay
Re: UPDATE: Employee Pay Proposal Date: January 6, 2016
As we have discussed in the past, one of the Governor’s priorities is to modernize the employee compensation system. The Governor set several broad goals for how that modernization should occur: (1) despite our significant budget constraints, we will not reduce current employee salaries or wages; (2) for the first time in the State’s history, we will implement a meaningful bonus system that rewards and incentivizes exceptional performance that will be evaluated by fair and objective measures; (3) employees at all levels should be financially rewarded if they identify and help implement taxpayer savings ideas; (4) merit employees, who have not received an across-the-board wage increase since December 2, 2005, must not be treated as a second-class workforce and must be compensated in a way that encourages promotions and reflects management responsibilities; and (5) automatic “step” increases are appropriate but not until the state’s massive budget deficit and financial crisis are solved.
To that end, we have begun implementing this new program for merit employees and the 17 labor unions who signed collective bargaining agreements in 2015. We have put a comprehensive compensation package based on these principles on the table in our negotiations with AFSCME. We believe this is a fair and thoughtful way to better compensate all of our employees, especially those who have never previously been rewarded for going above and beyond the ordinary course of business.
* The memo goes on to discuss employee bonuses…
We have proposed a bonus program to reward and incentivize high-performing individual employees, or an entire work group’s or unit’s performance. Payment will be based on the satisfaction of performance standards to be developed by the State in consultation with AFSCME or other union representatives.
Under the State’s proposal to AFSCME, for instance, for Fiscal Years 2017, 2018, and 2019, the State would set aside an amount equal to two percent of the budgeted base payroll costs for AFSCME bargaining unit employees. Employee bonuses would then be distributed as follows:
1) Every employee would be eligible to share equally in the one-quarter of the Bonus Pool if they accomplish these two basic requirements:
2) The remaining three-quarters of the Bonus Pool would be distributed to no fewer than 25% of employees who satisfy performance standards developed by the Employer in consultation with the Union, as well as meeting the criterion set out in subsection (1)(a) above.
As noted above, we have proposed working with the Union to develop specific policies for the program. Once developed, the Union will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the policies prior to implementation. Consistent with our intent, we have proposed to reward employees or groups of employees based on specific objective achievements and to prevent payouts that are influenced by favoritism, politics, or other purely subjective criteria.
Several Teamsters bargaining units have agreed to a similar provision and the State and those unions have held numerous productive discussions on objective criteria, fair to all, which can be used to measure performance. The Teamsters accepted the State’s proposals last summer, and 50% of eligible IDOT Teamster employees will get bonuses next summer, ranging from $1,500-$4,000, with half of all bonuses near the high end of that range.
The five Teamsters bargaining units are not the only unions to agree to wage increases linked to merit and performance. The trades unions ratified their collective bargaining agreements in November of 2015. Employees represented by twelve different trades unions, such as carpenters, plumbers, stationary engineers, painters, electricians, maintenance workers, barbers, etc., will also receive merit incentives following the conclusion of additional discussions between the State’s employee relations team and the leaders of those unions. Those discussions will be scheduled for the first quarter of this calendar year.
* Merit pay…
Furthermore, we are also committed to using merit pay to improve the efficiency of state operations and better align the incentives for the Employer with the workforce. To that end, we have proposed a gainsharing program in which employees or agencies that achieve savings for the State will share in such savings. The savings will be calculated based on achieved savings for the State. Every state employee will be eligible for this program, regardless of their level or job description, and the program will be structured so that employees can receive significant portions of taxpayer gains.
* Signing and attendance bonuses…
As you are aware, we previously offered every AFSMCE represented employee a $1,000 non-pensionable signing bonus if a new collective bargaining agreement was ratified by January 1, 2016. The State offered this to AFSCME at the bargaining table on September 8, 2015 in the first negotiation session following the failed veto override vote on AFSCME’s Bill, Senate Bill 1229.
Our proposal clearly stated that: “In the event a successor agreement is ratified prior to January 1, 2016, all bargaining unit employees who are in active employment status on that date shall receive a one (1) time, non-pensionable bonus of $1,000.”
AFSCME’s leaders had more than 100 days to consider the proposals similar to those already adopted by the Teamsters and Trades unions before the signing bonus offer expired. Even though AFSCME missed the January 1, 2016 deadline, today our negotiators modified this proposal one more time because we are still committed to finding ways to increase employees’ wages in this fiscal year.
Accordingly, the State has offered the following to AFSCME:
All bargaining unit employees who are in active employment status on June 30, 2016 and who have missed fewer than five (5) percent of their assigned work days between the effective date of this Agreement and June 30, 2016 shall receive a one (1) time, non-pensionable bonus of $1,000.
This proposal is designed to help our employees with additional payments, but it is linked to attendance. We have chosen attendance because it is a simple marker that is universally applicable to all employees, regardless of the specific nature of their duties. Moreover, many of our crushing overtime costs are made only worse due to excessive absenteeism. This is made worse when employees “make up” their absences by volunteering for overtime, paid at time-and-a-half.
We consider this attendance bonus a simple hurdle to cross, but one that begins to demonstrate that people can earn more when it is tied to performance, when the performance criteria are objective, and they are clearly understood by the workforce.
To be sure, these attendance policies will be implemented in a manner consistent with federal employment law so as not to detract from employees’ rights to take FMLA leave or military leave. But the message should be clear: people who show up to work and people who do good work for the state will be rewarded for their efforts.
Under our proposals, after July 1, 2016, the merit pay and gainsharing programs discussed above will go into effect for AFSCME represented employees.
* Incentives for non-bargaining unit employees…
Our desire to incentivize and reward employees is not confined to those employees that are represented by a union; we also want to recognize the many outstanding State workers who are not represented by a union. Unfortunately, many of these individuals have not received a raise in many years. In fact, the last across-the-board pay increase to non-union personnel was over a decade ago. To address this injustice and to reward these employees, we will be expanding the performance bonus system to non-union employees and looking to correct base compensation inequities for managers and those who have been promoted into merit positions. It is my hope that the performance bonuses for non-union employees will be the first step in ensuring that the needs of these employees are no longer overlooked.
Your thoughts?
- Cimbada - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:59 am:
“Have missed no more than seven (7) of their assigned work days (or no more than 56 of their assigned work hours) in the fiscal year during which a bonus is distributed”
What about employees that miss work due to ongoing health treatments like chemo or dialysis? How does this plan work for them?
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:00 am:
I like the ideas but not all of them. The sharing in “tax payer gains” is a slippery slope.
So if say the department boss does not buy band aides for the workers, or skips safety training, or skimps on hard hats and they use faulty ones. They incur “tax payer” gains and then give a bonus?
It is dangerous and the devil would be in the details.
- Mama - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:03 am:
What about women who missed work to have a baby?
- NotYetRetired - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:04 am:
I would assume that planned vacation time and/or sick time for doctor appointments are not subject to the ‘no more than 7 assigned work days’ language. However, assumptions can be wrong. Do we know the actual intent?
I think rank and file employees would have a difficult time cashing in on the available funds for saving the state money because those types of policy or operational changes and decisions are usually made at levels above the rank and file.
- DuPage - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:05 am:
Don’t get sick or take maternity leave, or you will be financially punished!
- Homer J. Quinn - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:05 am:
if you take a vacation, does that count as “missing your assigned work days?” seems like it’s one more way to sow discord in the union.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:07 am:
It’s so ironic for Rauner to criticize corruption and cronyism while with this offer he is opening the door to it. Who will determine what are “work policy violations,” and how can we trust that evaluations will be fairly done? This appears to leave the door wide open for favoritism and other forms of abuse.
Who trusts that this system will be implemented fairly, in this state with this history?
At least with across the board pay increases, the corruption elements are taken out or reduced. Merit is recorded and rewarded via employee performance evaluations and promotional opportunities.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:08 am:
These ideas all seem reasonable and fair and things taxpayers will support.
- Blue dog dem - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:08 am:
Reasonable. Finally the much touted business approach.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:08 am:
Except for the signing bonus, almost every one of these proposals has been tried before, but not in this exact form. There were previously attendance incentives in the form of an extra personal day off and in the form of making 1/2 of unused sick days payable upon retirement. There was a bonus system for making cost saving proposals. There was, for a very short time until capped, a performance based raise system within the MC titles. All of these former attempts were ineffective, either due to being poorly run or the cost being too high … especially the MC performance pay system because of both the cost (leading to the caps and quotas) or the fact a lot of it was routed to the political hacks instead of the actual workers. I would expect similar or worse results with the correct crew.
Much ado about nothing.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:11 am:
Darn auto correct on the phone. Meant ‘current’ not ‘ correct’.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:12 am:
Rauner’s proposals make a ton of sense. Even his detractors need to give him some credit - his labor negotiation team clearly top notch and looking for a fair deal. AFSCME will look unreasonable if they don’t agree with these common sense ideas.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:14 am:
“a) Have missed no more than seven (7) of their assigned work days (or no more than 56 of their assigned work hours) in the fiscal year during which a bonus is distributed”
So employees would not be allowed to use benefit time?
“$1,000 non-pensionable signing bonus” — Unconstitutional.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:14 am:
The below language which Rich already cited appears to answer the maternity and medical issues raised:
“To be sure, these attendance policies will be implemented in a manner consistent with federal employment law so as not to detract from employees’ rights to take FMLA leave or military leave.”
Is there somewhere where the entire memo can be accessed, rather than excerpts?
Also interesting is how when AFSCME screamed about the governor’s last offer, the “signing bonus” to individual union members was never mentioned.
- Johnnie F. - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:14 am:
7 workdays x 7.5 hours equals 52.5 hours not 56. So enbedded here is employees working an extra 0.5 hours a day.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:15 am:
The obvious divide-and-conquer political gamesmanship aside, in what Lewis Carroll-world do you start handing out bonuses when you’ve already engineered a fiscal disaster in which you’re spending $33 million a day more than you’re taking in?
Can somebody tell this “businessman” he really can’t bust-out the SOI? It’s a going concern.
- Thoughts Matter - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:16 am:
My job is all about creating efficiency, accuracy, and reducing expenses. How are you going to measure that fairly in relationship to someone whose Job has nothing to do with that? I am all for performance appraisals and corresponding increases - our last contract eliminated them at managements request. Good thing I have an internal work ethic. The proposals don’t sound bad.
- 19th ward guy - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:16 am:
Reasonable and well thought out. From re-engineering the functions of state government to concrete proposals like this, voters will quickly figure out what gang is the real problem in this state. Maybe 5 decades in offices is enough.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:17 am:
As we have discussed in the past, one of the Governor’s priorities is to modernize the employee compensation system.
Bull. This isn’t modern at all! This is how thing used to be done across the US until the administrative corruption grew so bad, a US President was assassinated in 1881. This “merit” labeling is newer, but the idea behind it is as old as when governments were conducted in Latin.
Governments used to be run like this. You got your job because you knew someone who got elected. Candidates promised public jobs to people in order to get votes. Then, in order to keep your job, you ensured that you kept helping the guy who got you your public service job.
Corruption was rampant. Governments became little fiefdoms of taxpayer funded money pits.
Sorry, but this ain’t new.
This is the kind of garbage it took over a century of reform, judges, legislation, unions and finally the US Supreme Court to clean up.
Take it from a CEO of a venture capital organization to completely misread our history and propose turning back our government’s clock to the Tammany Hall era. Teddy Roosevelt, (once a Civil Service Commissioner, himself), is flipping in his grave at Oyster Bay right now.
It is 2016 guys, not 1816!
- Cassandra - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:18 am:
Looks to me like a plan to make the personnel line of Illinois state government even more expensive to taxpayers. Could we have some cost estimates? The political hires, especially, much be salivating. After all, bonusworthy performance is largely in the eye of the supervisor-beholder.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:18 am:
-Anonymous-,
His labor team obviously doesn’t know any state employment / management history. Pretty much been there, done that, didn’t work or didn’t stay the course. I would expect the same results this time.
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:18 am:
Attendance bonuses are childish. You should be expected to show up for work unless you’re ill or dealing with some sort of serious crisis. Your bonus is having a steady job that offers sick and vacation time. I find this idea infuriating and completely contrary to the argument that the state can’t afford luxuries right now. Grow up, people!
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:19 am:
Oh Boo Hoo for the state employees. They have had regular increases and a great pension for years. As someone who provides community services for the disabled my staff hasn’t ever seen any regular increases because the state rarely increases what they pay us. If the state won’t increase what they are paying community organizations then there shouldn’t be any increases for state workers!
- Abe the Babe - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:20 am:
Devil is in the criteria details. What’s good performance at EPA? Processing complex air and water permits faster? Or at revenue? Faster review times for corporate tax submissions? Or at DCFS? More cases completed?
Do we want any of that? Im not saying it cant be done. Im saying the criteria has to be developed at such a granular level and with such precision that it may not be worth the time and effort.
Count me as skeptical but I give them credit for trying.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:22 am:
1) What are the measurables?
It’s known the number of state employees. It’s known the number of days taken off. It would take some significant leg work, but it can be found. So… show your work. Make me see. Make the case why it’s better.
2) Is this bypassing the collective bargaining negotiations still going on with AFSCME today?
Is this a way to ensure, no matter how things are ironed out, these programs are already running, so… that’s that.
3) How does this impact medical? Medical leaves? Can this be something that can leak into the health insurance discussions, with bonuses and medical coverage sending mixed signals?
The whole health insurance gambit is one of the major holdups of AFSCME and the Administration, so… show how changes in coverage and “days” and medical procedures, including a birth, show me… what are the impacts of logical medical occurances and “days” and rewards.
I’m with - RNUG - until I can see how AFSCME deals with their contract and how a preemptive move like this works… beyond what may have been tried before. Until then, “Meh, much ado about nothing”.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:22 am:
=“$1,000 non-pensionable signing bonus” — Unconstitutional.=
How so? I’m sure pension contributions won’t be deducted. No contributions other than taxes are taken from bonuses. Hence, why it’s called a bonus.
- Annonin' - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:22 am:
Guessin’ the SuperStars have struck out with their $1K Gold Stars for perfect attendance, so they turn to the court of public opinion. Let’s add free camel rides to see if they get in line.
BTW could someone explain how perfect attendance (i.e. drag you butt to work when sick) improves efficiency?
- Mitch59 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:23 am:
Why would anyone agree to this offer! It penalizes the sick and those that are hurting! Once again Rauner living up to the saying Rich Get Richer and Poor Get Poorer!
- burbanite - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:25 am:
Get back to me in a year with how many people actually realized some benefit from this.
- Tam - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:26 am:
Why would anybody agree to this. For all you who do have and argument on we haven’t had an increase or we don’t have this. Please feel free to organize a union. Join a union. Stand up in solidarity with the rest of us and fight fo what everyone deserves. If merit pay is so great…. Then why do the merit comp employees not get raises for the 7+ years. How’s that for tour doing a good job.
- Century Club - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:27 am:
“State employees get bonuses for showing up, but no money for veterans, students, elderly”
That’s the headline they want?
- NixonHead - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:27 am:
The general union opposition to this is ridiculous. They realize that bonuses are a potential threat to their holy grail of seniority/step-pay system. Sad to say that this is why State employee unions are a modern necessity like a typewriter or an 8-track player.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:27 am:
Rauner’s political hires depended upon this when they came on board. Originally, the Superstars depended upon the salaries of the hundreds scheduled to have been laid off, but suddenly discovered that the laws were not on their side.
So, how do you keep these Rauner hires in place with Tier 2 benefits, (if they even get that!), and with salaries lower than for those they replace?
This way.
Blagojevich is watching and laughing at us right now. Look Rod - this is how a multi-millionaire governor plays your game! Fun eh?
- tobor - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:28 am:
==how can we trust that evaluations will be fairly done? === I had twenty five years of evaluations and to call them a joke is being charitable.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:29 am:
“So employees would not be allowed to use benefit time?”
They will probably be able to take time off, they just won’t qualify for the bonus.
Time off of work is precious, and the state offers time off that is not unreasonably generous. Losing a financial reward for simply using benefit time off of work that is already offered is a loss for employees. It’s bogus.
Plus, there is merit in the system because the longer you work for the state, the more benefit time you get.
There is also merit in the step pay increases because they are received via years of service.
- Not right - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:29 am:
Say two people are at the same title and one is step 8 and one is step 5. At the end of this four years, they should both be at step 8 making the same pay. It’s not right that someone gets promoted and shares the same title with someone while the one at step 8 makes a considerable amount of more money. Why promote to a more difficult job knowing you won’t receive more money, while doing the same job as a co-worker who could be making 10-40k more a year than you??
- ILPundit - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:29 am:
I need to see a better definition of “assigned work days”. Because if the condition for giving you a raise is that you cannot use your accrued and approved benefit time off, then all that proposal is, is a back door pay cut — because you lose most accrued benefit time at the end of the year.
- He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:29 am:
I remember the upper management telling me how to rate my MC employees when I gave them their annual evaluation. It did not matter if it was the correct rating or not, that was how I was told to write it.
This is a way that his staff or placements can get the bigger raises and others get the smaller raise or none at all.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:29 am:
Why would anyone agree to this because then you can’t even use your vacation time unless it was previously scheduled. This is a terrible proposal that is lumped on top of a lot of terrible and unreasonable proposals.
- Bulbous1 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:30 am:
The Agency head has no clue what I do, much less if I’m performing at a level deserving of a bonus.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:30 am:
If your argument is “yeah, stick it to state workers”, you have no argument… and I’m embarrassed for you.
The green with envy folks are the smallest people.
- Macbeth - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:31 am:
I echo RNUG’s comments above. This has been tried in various forms — and it’s always either taken back away or modified.
Plus, all these “incentives” seem vaguely creepy — like venture capitalist talk to keep the employees mollified before the real boom falls.
It’s nonsense. Creepy, bizarre management nonsense.
- john - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:35 am:
This is Illinois! This is the land where doing political work gets you jobs, raises, and promotions. Federal investigations and prosecutions have clamped down on the most egregious of these practices. (I know it still happens, but nothing like it did even back in 2000).
Proposals for “merit pay” are actually proposals that will morph into “political pay.” Even if we trust the Rauner administration not to do this; we are reopening the door for future administrations to use “bonus dollars” as “political payback.” Regardless of the rules put in place for these bonuses, when political bosses get to make choices over wages and bonuses; political activity will eventually factor it’s way into the process.
This is Illinois. We have had scandals about bonuses, promotions and jobs for decades. Why on God’s green Earth would we make it easier to insert politics into the state workforce?
- A Jack - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:37 am:
If sick days are discouraged, will that not hurt taxpayers who may come in contact with sick state employees who may have otherwise stayed home?
Won’t this result also in the accumulation of sick days which can be used to purchase service credit, thereby inadvertently increasing the pension liability?
- Cassandra - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:38 am:
Rauner’s labor team needs to go back to school and take courses in public agency personnel law and management. The titles of the course could be Nothing is Ever Simple and The Public Labor Unions Have Been Doing This A Lot Longer Than You Have.
Or they can keeping looking for the easy button.
- dogwood - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:39 am:
So we are going to start penalizing people with long term illness. Maybe they can find some assistance at one of Rauners nursing homes.
- Juice - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:39 am:
I’m pretty sure they will keep the bonuses non-pensionable by handing them out in the form of prepaid debit cards.
- Sune326 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:42 am:
This proposal will penalize people with serious illnesses. Why would anyone agree to this?
- Political Animal - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:42 am:
Sounds like an extremely generous deal to me and a good way to motivate people, especially the merit comp folks who’ve been getting stiffed for a decade.
The only people against pay for performance are those with poor performance. Problem is, they receive equal voice in the Union so they can prevent other workers and the whole state from progressing in a positive direction, for the mere fact that they wouldn’t benefit.
Anyway, I highly doubt this system penalizes you for using vacation time and personal days. I would interpret “assigned work days” to be days you’re assigned to work, not days you’ve requested leave.
If my interpretation is wrong and using accrued benefit time incurs a penalty, then I take back the positive things I said about the plan.
- bb - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:42 am:
“To that end, we have proposed a gainsharing program in which employees or agencies that achieve savings for the State will share in such savings.”
What a perverse policy is this? In a state that has cut spending on many vital programs to the bone already, to pit public employee receiving raises against finding spending reductions in a state that already spends below the national average per capita on services, with especially low spending on social welfare and health programs that impact the most vulnerable among us, it looks like the Governor would like to incentivize state workers to provide even lower quality, slower services to fewer people in order to get bonuses. This is like some serious dystopian future coming to Illinois if these proposals are agreed to.
- Trolling Troll - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:42 am:
They only get $1000 bribe to do what Rauner wants? What would the total tax payer cost be? $35mil? I guess it’s all in a day’s losses.
- princess buttercup - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:51 am:
Using attendance hours as a marker for bonuses can work negatively for those young families with small children. My children are grown now, but when they were little i often used all my sick leave for doctor appts and watching sick kids. They are little germ carriers with immature immune systems and catch everything at school or daycare and bring it home to you and their siblings. Now, although i no longer have little kids, i do have an aging parent with chronic cardiac issues and approaching age dementia and have had to attend their hospital admittances, emergency room visits and dr.appts.as their family representative. My work attendence record over 27 years is excellent. Ive never been paid for overtime ever. So im concerned that the proposal might be an incentive for undocumented leave time. That was an old problem we eradicated years ago by having generous leave time allowances. I would not want that old problem to resurrect itself.
- Heyman! - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:52 am:
This is something that would only benifit the boss! And not the common worker. If it’s true you want to increase the wage of the employees union & non-union just agree to a wage increase and let he bonuses be just that, incentives to be a better employee. And for those that say why us and not them. IT’S CALLED BARGAINING! you should try it! They just might agree to YOUR proposals also.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:53 am:
-NeverPoliticallyCorrect-,
Point of fact. Only some of the state employees have seen regular raises. The Merit Comp (basically management and top level techies) have not had a raise in 13 years (since 2002). A lot of the union people in technical jobs receive salaries tens of thousands of dollars higher than their bosses. The MC people have actually taken a number of pay cuts, including forfeiting the pension pickup that Schnorf helped engineer, and through mandatory furloughs.
- tobor - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:53 am:
Remember what the bonus did for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
- GetOverIt - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:55 am:
I think this is good start and especially for non-bargaining unit employees. Three things stand out: (1) Pay increase and no decrease; (2) addressing pay inequities between managers and those being managed; and (3) freezing step increases when revenues do not meet projections.
But I also see the rub…the presumption here is clearly that union employees don’t show up to work; or am I making this up.
- Norseman - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:56 am:
RNUG did a great job with his comments. I’ll say the “non-pensionable” bonus is a horrible precedent to accept. I saw a declaration of support for step increases when the state get’s its act together, in whatever distant future that happens. I don’t see reference to support for the principle of across the board salary increases for union members. So I can’t help but think this “bonus” system (euphemism for merit pay) is intended to replace across the board increases.
Finally, this is all fine and dandy but when do we expect there to be any budget to implement these monetary proposals. Last I looked budget negotiations haven’t gone too well.
- Jockey - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:57 am:
“we also want to recognize the many outstanding State workers who are not represented by a union. Unfortunately, many of these individuals have not received a raise in many years. In fact, the last across-the-board pay increase to non-union personnel was over a decade ago”.
Is this a way to give political hires a raise? I would like to see some data on the “Date of Hire” of the non-union employees. I assume many of them are “new” hires.
As a fmr. SPSA, let go by the last year, the “Superstars” also came in a cleaned house in my former agency of many SPSA’s. Some of these were replacements were “Campaign Kids”. Are these recent replacements the recipients of the non-union raises?
In addition, raises are not the number 1 issue with SPSA’s, JOB SECURITY is. During my tenure, it was difficult to recruit employee into non-union positions, from their union positions. It was particularly difficult if they had many years experience and were close to retirement.
Why would anyone take such a risk, especially given the environment of lack of job security?
Lastly, I’m not bitter, I just don’t see the logic in this.
- Joe M - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:58 am:
==2) The remaining three-quarters of the Bonus Pool would be distributed to no fewer than 25% of employees who satisfy performance standards developed by the Employer in consultation with the Union, as well as meeting the criterion set out in subsection (1)(a) above.==
In other words, the supervisors ultimately decide which 25% of employees get this pot of bonus money. And supervisors making such decisions more often than not, amounts to cronyism.
- Norseman - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:00 am:
=== not had a raise in 13 years (since 2002) ===
RNUG, the last raise was given during the FY encompassing Rod’s re-election year - Rod thought that might pave over the bad treatment he heaped on folks during the previous 3 years.
- Educ - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:02 am:
Believe it when I see a merit employee *who isn’t a Raunerite “superstar” hire* get an increase. Right now they’re asking people to take on additional duties with no additional compensation and flatly rejecting department head requests for increases for high-performing employees who’ve taken on many additional responsibilities in the past year and haven’t had a raise in seven years. I’ve heard they’ve also refused requests for increases for people who have actually been promoted to a new job title.
- crh178 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:02 am:
And what happens when we don’t use our vacation time and we max out? Do we lose that time? You can only carry two years worth of vacation time. Only having 7 days off a year will result in losing time. Is this one of the angles they are aiming for? Not having to pay out vacation time when employees retire?
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:02 am:
Let’s say employee X gets a bonus but not employee Y. Employee Y somehow finds out about it, feels cheated and goes to the union to investigate a possible grievance. The union and employee are using taxpayer time poring over perhaps lots of the employees’ work to determine whether a contract violation exists.
Let’s say this happens on a grand scale, with many employees. It could be a colossal waste of time, money and resources. In other words, not meritorious.
Plus, would it be known to every worker who gets the bonuses? If not, there could be tremendous suspicion. If so, the scenario I described could occur.
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:03 am:
===(2) for the first time in the State’s history, we will implement a meaningful bonus system that rewards and incentives exceptional performance that will be evaluated by fair and objective measures;===
These don’t really exist. For many positions they would be required to create fair and objective evaluation measures, and unfortunately doing so then prioritizes those metrics over job performance. So, those metrics would need to be implemented, reviewed, evaluated, and re-implemented.
Otherwise, you might just wind up incentivizing folks for things that don’t matter or don’t actually improve performance. Frankly, many of the state’s supervisors are not prepared or educated to handle this kind of bureaucratic process.
At the end, if the bonus pool is 2% of the current salary we’re not exactly talking about an amount that is significant.
- Facts are Stubborn Things - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:05 am:
yes, lets make sure that employees come in the door sick so they don’t miss their bonus. snark
- zatoichi - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:08 am:
This same bonus idea going to be used for the 100,000+ employees who do the work for the state through contracted human service organizations that provide residential, day programs, employment, medical, and home based services and have not seen a rate increase in 5-6 years. Or do they just get stiffed again?
- Skeptic - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:08 am:
“(3) freezing step increases when revenues do not meet projections.” That’s the parallel to the “Police Powers” argument that the ISC shot down in flames in the pension case. The argument was that things were so bad, we had to declare an emergency. ISC said the emergency was of their own making, pay up. So when I hear “revenues don’t meet expectations” I think about whose expectations those are and what they were smoking when they made them.
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:10 am:
Proposals like these (and some of the “take that state employees!”) just depress me. People on opposite sides of the aisle don’t even live on the same planet. As a state employee, my job was my job. I was (or should have been) evaluated on the basis of the purpose for which they hired me. Not on the basis of how much money I saved. And for thousands of employees, there just aren’t real opportunities to save money that don’t undermine the effectiveness of the jobs they’re doing. It makes no sense.
Then you have people who see the obvious negatives to proposals like this and say “boo hoo state employees.” Are we trying to fix a problem, or are we seeking vengeance on political enemies? Which is more important? Finding a solution or sticking it to our enemies.
SMH
- Johnnie F. - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:10 am:
RUNG, wouldn’t MC employees who were forced to pay the 4% pension cost during the Blago years have an argument that it was a diminishment? I’ve wondered if a case could be made for that?
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:12 am:
-Norseman-
Easy to make the comments when you’ve been there and done that. I’ve made no secret I was an SPSA for a lot of years.
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:12 am:
If this proposal doesn’t include vacation and sick time as part of the attendance criteria, then what are they even saying? If you no-call/no-show less then 7 times we’ll give you a bonus? I would hope that applies to every single employee in the state…
- Union Man - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:14 am:
“Bonuses are to be paid only to employees who vote in a primary election within the same party as the Governor AND in a year in which the state takes in more than it has spent.”
That’s the probable reality.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:15 am:
If they refuse to raise taxes, revenues will never meet expectations.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:17 am:
Thanks for keeping me honest -Norseman-. Must be getting old to forget the one.
- Federalist - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:18 am:
This was to be expected from Rauner. Surprised he did not announce it when he first took office.
If unions give in to this there is very little reason to have a union- what Rauner wants.
Hopefully the unions will be bright enough to see through this and stop it in its tracks.
Any reasonable proposal would include a basic COL based upon SS for EVERYBODY. Otherwise, everyone knows you have an actual decrease in salary. After that then the Rauner formula could be seriousl considered.
- Mama - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:19 am:
This would benefit the people hired on contract (not employees).
- Anonymity - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:22 am:
Horrible suggestions, having been both merit comp (who decided people’s bonuses) and a union employee at various times. In my department, the performance measures will be very subjective, and will never be fair. People will grieve their evals. The proposal will encourage sick people to come to work. Also, why should I be penalized if I already have vacation time scheduled for before July 1?
Of course there is no mention that agreeing to this wonderful $1k bonus also would have meant agreeing to doubling our health care costs.
Clearly they are now trying to negotiate in the media, but only sharing part of the story. It isn’t like these superstars have some great new ideas that hadn’t been tried and failed before.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:24 am:
There is a culture in AFSME that since you won’t get paid for unused sick time you might as well use it. So now you have employees that call in sick the first week of the month and carry very little sick time on the books. When something big comes up they file for FLMA which while they still can get docked at least they won’t be disciplined for missing work.
- Mama - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:24 am:
How can you give any raises without a union contract or a budget?
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:24 am:
-Johnnie F-,
There probably was an argument to be made at the time (especially because the union managed to get it all back in the form of make-up raises in the next contract) but the non-union management people weren’t that organized and / feeling beat down enough to sue over it. Either that or most of us were career employees who still more or less trusted the state and wanted to just serve the citizens.
I suspect if the same thing were to happen today after over a decade of scorn and abuse, there would be a stampede to the courthouse.
- Skeptic - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:34 am:
“There is a culture in AFSME” Show me a large workforce where this isn’t the case.
- walker - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:35 am:
Finally! Something both positive and new out of this administration. It’s even related to better management too.
About time.
Whether it will work as proposed, I’ll leave to the better-informed.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:41 am:
==This proposal is designed to help our employees with additional payments==
This caught my attention. Anybody else read this as “This proposal is designed to help our employees with an increase in healthcare costs”?
- Johnny Moron - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:41 am:
A WHOLE $1000?? And all I have to do is pay $3000 more for my insurance, watch the bosses kid get all the bonus money, and possibly lose my job to an out of state contractor??
I can get a big screen TV, a play station, and them spinner rims for my Pinto!! Sign me up! Yee Haw!! Beer money!!
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:47 am:
There’s two sides to every coin. I get the complaints that this isn’t fair because evaluations are subjective. Of course they are. That’s how they are no matter where you are. But I also look at this in terms of the evaluation system we have now. I really don’t see the point of even evaluating a union employee. Those with bad evaluations get the same raise as those with good evaluations right now. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to at least give this a try.
As for the non-union employees, something needs to be done and has needed to be done for a long time. It used to be that merit comp employees got some sort of a COLA when union employees got one. That stopped under Blagojevich and since then the pay between management and employee has gotten totally out of whack.
- Carhartt Representative - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:03 pm:
=This caught my attention. Anybody else read this as “This proposal is designed to help our employees with an increase in healthcare costs”?=
More health insurance costs means people get worse insurance and get less medical care. Then you penalize them for taking off missing more than 7 work days. I hope none of these employees are working in close contact with the public because they’re being doubly incentived to just try and work through bugs.
- Georg Sande - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:06 pm:
This alone is more than Ryan, Blago & Quinn did, in the aggregate, to try and implement some semblance of reasonable work rules that actually produces good work product, rewards good employee efforts, and seeks to benefit taxpayers. Bravo.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:17 pm:
I am not defending the RAUN Man, but we cant keep doing business as usual. In my world,absenteeism is a major,major factor in if we make money on a given day.
- Skeptic - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:24 pm:
“I really don’t see the point of even evaluating a union employee.” Well, this goes along with “It’s impossible to fire a Union employee.” It is in fact quite straight forward firing a bad Union employee, if you properly document the situation. And part of that document trail is…Evaluations.
- Keyser Soze - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:25 pm:
People who work in State agencies, or who have friends working in State agencies, are well aware of the many well paid employees who use their sick days, personal days, and even vacation days, as soon as they accrue. It is a sad commentary that the State’s negotiators are willing to offer bonuses in order to slow this practice. It’s also a good idea. If you can’t fire the slackers maybe you can at least persuade them to show up for work.
- Big West - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:29 pm:
It would be helpful to know if this applies to vacation days or not. Should it only apply to call-off sick days, it’s at least justifiable. Full time private sector workers usually accrue six sick days a year and state workers accrue twelve.
They’ve chosen an interesting number with seven. It’s one day more than most private sector workers will ever get.
Yes, it penalizes pretty much anyone who might need to call off more than seven times, including those with long-term illnesses, folks who might have to call off with a sick child, pregnant women, etc. That’s the point. It’s private sector management.
- Donald Segretti - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:39 pm:
Reminds me of the old Soviet Era joke….”we pretend to work and the state pretends to pay us”
- Lester Holt's Mustache - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:45 pm:
The bottom line is: Is this all predicated on accepting the 400% increase in health care costs? Are you really offering workers a $1000 bonus for perfect attendance, but only if they accept the outrageous increase in health care costs? I know AFSCME leadership are buffoons, but who are they trying to fool here? That deal seems absurd on its face regardless of any arguments about medical leave, etc.
- State Engineer - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:52 pm:
If we can clarify the Assigned work day this may have merit. If Vacation is not counted it’s not as bad leaves 3 Personal days and 4 sick days to be used and still meet the goal.
My concern is more for the single parent. Little Johnie gets sick and sent home from school there goes a day etc.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:55 pm:
=So we are going to start penalizing people with long term illness=
No on is being penalized. People will still get paid sick days. It rewards those who call off less than 7 times.
It’s fascinating reading these comments from all the government union workers. The “everyone needs the exact same compensation no matter what!” is so foreign to the rest (majority) of IL.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:59 pm:
Well, it’s a start. As others have noted, nice to see the Merit Comp folks finally recognized.
A couple skunks at the picnic, though-the last time I checked, the Finance Act clearly prohibited the payment of “bonuses.” This may be a verbiage issue for Indy or something worse.
Further, the Governor or CMS in his stead have no authority to declare any particular compensation “non-pensionable.” And, good luck running a pension bill just to fix that and a) passing it and/or b) getting it back with a bunch of “ornaments” you’re not gonna like.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:03 pm:
Whoops-the sick leave piece of this also sounds discriminatory as heck and would seem ripe for a lawsuit. I took about that much time just to deal with newborns and help my wife, let alone all my aches and pains.
- Flynn's mom - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:06 pm:
@Johnny Moran and Lester Holt’s Mustache…..you nailed it!
- HangingOn - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:07 pm:
== “everyone needs the exact same compensation no matter what!” ==
Funny, I spent 19 years working in the private sector and saw that same attitude there. I don’t see it in the state office I work in, though. I see the whole “things should be fair but I don’t really expect them to be” attitude a lot more.
- Anon - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:14 pm:
What’s next, a free Snickers bar for employees who don’t take a bathroom break during the day?
- Trolling Troll - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:14 pm:
Anonymous 12:55pm
You sound like you know way to much about this proposal. You must be a “superstar” looking to garner some favor with this blog. People earn time off. It’s part of the compensation package for all employees union or not. People using what they earned is no ones business. If you don’t want to use your vacation time or you never get sick, that’s your business.
- Buzzie - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:15 pm:
A political proposal which means nothing in the absence of full details.
- Flynn's mom - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:15 pm:
I do love a Snickers. I wish I worked for the state!
- Papa2008 - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:19 pm:
Every single employee in each department knows who is earning their pay and who is getting paid. Every front line supervisor should be able to say to their supervisor: This is what category each employee in my department belongs. And why. If they can’t they should be immediately removed and replaced. Those under performing employees then are immediately removed and maybe replaced. 30 days of this and the naysayers about public employment would be quieted. Until that happens, we won’t.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:24 pm:
The Snickers might be a better incentive. My wife used to only go to the one gas station that gave a Snickers with every fill-up.
- Jimmy H. - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:26 pm:
Lester Holt’s Mustache has it correct,”The bottom line is: Is this all predicated on accepting the 400% increase in health care costs?”
It’s propaganda; Rauner is playing the reasonable and generous card. How many times has he done that and left out the poison pill? He’s leaving out the part of his contract proposal that guts the health insurance. This may also be the beginnings of cover for declaring an impasse.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:26 pm:
The best part about the AFSCME response was the pivot to how some of this didn’t work in the Chicago schools.
- There is power in a union... - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:31 pm:
Ask the administration if they have even thought up all the “superior performance” criteria for all the job titles…
- Skeptic - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 1:43 pm:
“What’s next, a free Snickers bar for employees”, no supervisors will be issued sheets of star stickers. Gold if you don’t take any bathroom breaks, silver for one, bronze for two … applied to the forehead to the employee.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 2:12 pm:
“I really don’t see the point of even evaluating a union employee.”
Contractual language states it’s the employer’s intent to do evaluations. This seems like it’s in the employer’s best interests to conduct them.
How can any merit system even begin to operate without uniform criteria that are applied to all workers in specific titles? How does the employer determine who gets bonuses without these criteria?
Evaluations may be necessary for promotions, because workers with less seniority can get promoted due having greater skill or ability than more-senior workers. How would the employer know about the better worker with less seniority if evaluations are not done? If anyone complains that this is not done right by the state, don’t blame the union.
Evaluations may also be necessary for better work performance, because they put management and workers on the same page. They are tools to help management and workers achieve goals and identify problems.
Workers may want to leave the state and work someplace else. Performance evaluations are very important. What happens when someone applies for a job and has no written performance record? How can the new employer evaluate that person?
- Illinois law - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 2:27 pm:
How many MAP grants could be funded with these $1000 signing bonuses?
- Work In Progress - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 2:40 pm:
The criteria for earning a bonus will informally be known as the friends and family plan
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 2:51 pm:
“no supervisors will be issued sheets of star stickers.”
I worked in a State office where one bureau chief had a chart with stars next to the names of his staff. Just like in kindergarten.
- Dale Cooper - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:04 pm:
“State workers haven’t had a raise in a long time, merit pay will give them a raise”, “State workers make about 30% too much”. So which is it?
- Jim - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:24 pm:
In other words, bigger carrot, only this time it’s chocolate covered. To me, it looks more like the lottery. You get a 1 in 292 million chance to get a bonus for screwing your self and all other union members out of a reasonably secure future.
- Yeahright - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 3:49 pm:
Does this include if I miss a day for a secret 2 week vacation?
- Omega Man - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 7:24 pm:
Every state employee is a unique person doing a unique job for the state. The best and hardest workers often work with little or no direct supervision. How are these employees to be evaluated? The Governor should stop torturing state employees with these “nickel and dime” ideas and start governing.
All AFSCME members should remember that THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IS JOB SECURITY. After that, the combination of overall compensation and health insurance may have to take a small hit in the next contract.
The governor needs to realize that AFSCME WILL NEVER AGREE TO A CONTRACT THAT ENDS JOB SECURITY and therefore ENDS THE UNION!
- DuPage Dave - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 8:59 pm:
The old merit comp system (pre Blagojevich) worked pretty well. There were some slim years and some fat years but it evened out if you had a decent boss.
On the other hand, the new “merit but no comp” system just plain stinks.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:10 pm:
DD, I would generally agree with you. The system wasn’t perfect and a bad supervisor could really hurt you (anyone ever work for Mike Tristano?) but it was a huge step up over the old system. The only problem I had with it was that some agencies did it fairly and others were like Lake Wobegon, where everybody was above average.
- lost in the weeds - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:21 pm:
One way to reduce the sick leave benefit is by using as a bonus derived from entire payroll.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:55 pm:
At least in our IDHS office, I think that every employee who even gets close to meeting all the unrealistically high performance standards the local office administration mandates, much less exceeding them, should get a bonus. Problem is too that performance standard agency-wide in DHS are not uniform despite the common work duties performed so at base, there is already plenty of room for abuse in rewarding anyone.
- State of ILL - Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:59 pm:
Evaluations are a complete joke for the most part, and everyone knows this. Favored employees get great evaluations, but if a supervisor doesn’t like you - you’re toast. Most state supervisors couldn’t fairly supervise or evaluate an employee if they had a manual. Down with this proposal that will bring even MORE politics to the political system called “evaluations.” IL has been consistently criticized for its personnel policies - large reports have been issued on how dysfunctional the state system is at attracting and retaining good workers. The good workers get no recognition many times and the cronies take care of their own and their buddies.
- Clown Show - Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 7:22 am:
Moreover, many of our crushing overtime costs are made only worse due to excessive absenteeism. This is made worse when employees “make up” their absences by volunteering for overtime, paid at time-and-a-half.
This is happening in the area I work in. Employees docked and will work overtime to cover the miss money and get additional time off due to the time-in a half. Nice gig. Rules should be made to stop this practice and supervisors who allow it should be held responsible. It is wrong.
- working stiff - Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 8:29 am:
==It’s so ironic for Rauner to criticize corruption and cronyism while with this offer he is opening the door to it. Who will determine what are “work policy violations,” and how can we trust that evaluations will be fairly done? This appears to leave the door wide open for favoritism and other forms of abuse.==
which is why afscme keeps rejecting this idea. everyone knows how bonus system works. nothing to do with actual work.
- WATCHINU2 - Friday, Jan 8, 16 @ 11:20 am:
Jason Barclay, General Counsel, from another State to Rauner, 39 years old, husband and Father of three. His salary is $186,300.00 per year. Which is a 53% higher than Quinn’s General Counsel salary. Mr. Barclay purchased a 11 room home worth $1.37 million dollar home for he and his family. There still are State employees that are still owed back wages. The State refuses to pay them.The Rauner administration makes 36% more money than Quinn’s adminstration. Since Rauner can pay his adminstration the big bucks. Then, be the right boss and give your employees the back pay you owe them.
Why don’t you give the 36% increase to the real employees who are struggling on your front lines.