RNUG referees
Friday, Jan 15, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Our esteemed commenter “RNUG” (which stands for Retired Non Union Guy) takes a look at the governor’s latest move on AFSCME…
Reading the documents carefully is an interesting exercise.
Reading the list of concessions, I get a bit confused. While maintaining the status quo may not be a good thing, a lot of what they maintain are concessions are nothing more than agreeing to the status quo. I’ll admit there are a couple of items I would not have conceded. There are some others, from both sides, that just seem plain silly to me. And to the public who will read most of it as gobbly-gook, I’m sure all of it will seem crazy.
I did find the switching between 3rd person and 1st person a bit disorienting in some of the FAQs. That removes the appearance of objectivity that we expect in such answers.
Maintaining the $1000 bonus and 2% increase are the same thing is disingenuous. The amounts are different and will have different financial consequences. I understand they are trying to convey that, with both pensionable, there is a similar Fiscal impact on future salaries and budgets, but they phrased it poorly.
While trying to talk all around it, the State is, in fact, doubling the health insurance cost for the current coverage levels. They also mislead somewhat on the health insurance; if we stick with ACA terms, it would probably be more accurate to call it a gold plan instead of platinum.
From what I can see here, I’m guessing the health insurance is the major sticking point. If I was AFSCME, I would agree to the wage freeze in exchange for status quo or a slight percentage increase in the health insurance. IMO, minimizing the health insurance increases has more impact on the employees than gaining raises.
The list of concessions referenced above is here.
…Adding… Our “Rookie of the Year” commenter “Honeybear” offers some thoughts…
I just want to ask if posters could be respectful as we go into this labor unrest. This is going to be a horrifying time for a lot of families of public servants, mine included. Most of the folks I work with here live paycheck to paycheck, not because of financial irresponsibility but because life is more expensive. No one I work with drives a luxury car, has a large home, etc. The folks I work with are just solidly middle class working folks. The lucky ones have a spouse that works in the private sector. The ones that are really going to hurt are the younger single workers who are just starting out. God bless them, every one has said they won’t cross the picket. I ask that posters be respectful during this time. It’s horrific to face financial ruin. Please remember that you’re talking about fellow Illinoisans. I had sincerely hoped we wouldn’t be here.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 11:51 am:
First, well said abd thoughtful work by - RNUG -
Second,
===I’m guessing the health insurance is the major sticking point. If I was AFSCME, I would agree to the wage freeze in exchange for status quo or a slight percentage increase in the health insurance.===
From the “outside”, I concur with the sentence pertaining to the health insurance / wage freeze “give”.
As to the health insurance being a major sticking point. It’s the major difference in any agreement that those try to say
“Rauner has ‘6,217′ agreements with unions, say one!”
It’s the health insurance that seems to be the obvious differences in the negotiated contracts.
You sure - RNUG - you won’t assist in some way and mediate this, and the budget.
I’ll spring for the Pepsi… and other “ingredients”… as prescribed in your own agreement…
- Formerly Known As... - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 11:51 am:
My only regret is that it is too early to nominate @RNUG for a 2016 Golden Horseshoe.
- Fiercely Independent - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 11:57 am:
RNUG is my new hero.
- Politix - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 11:58 am:
“If I was AFSCME, I would agree to the wage freeze in exchange for status quo or a slight percentage increase in the health insurance. IMO, minimizing the health insurance increases has more impact on the employees than gaining raises.”
I think that’s fair and most reasonable people I know agree.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:00 pm:
-OW-
Now that I’m retired, I prefer to avoid high stress situations.
- Name Withheld - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:01 pm:
I am continually and repeatedly impressed anew with RNUG’s analysis’ Thank you for sharing your insight and comments with us, sir.
- Mama - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:01 pm:
++- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 11:51 am:++ At this point, you will need plenty of beer and wine at the table. LOL
- Honeybear - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:05 pm:
I personally would be fine with the RNUG compromise of 2016, but I am more certain than ever that Pharaoh will not agree. Moving Hoffman was a sign that AFSCME is to be given no quarter. Hoffman will execute his orders. Bless you for trying RNUG and thank you as always for your personal support.
- Soccermom - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:07 pm:
Smart, RNUG. And given the scanty raise we’re talking about, AFSCME might do better to accept the pay freeze and then use it as a talking point to build public support. “We did our part to help the State solve its financial problems…”
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:10 pm:
RNUG,
I’m in agreement with you regarding the economic issues relating to AFSCME’s contract. Given the past wage increases, state’s current fiscal condition, etc. a wages freeze in exchange for limited increases in health insurance would seem to be very reasonable for both sides.
However, isn’t the Rauner administration also insisting on language changes such as an ability to sub-contact out virtually any job, elimination of bumping rights, etc. that would eliminate many significant employee rights. I think these non-economic issues are preventing the agreement that you have suggested.
Your comments on this board are very insightful and look forward to reading any comments you have regarding how the non-economic proposals may be preventing the sides from reaching an agreement on a contract.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:19 pm:
- RNUG -
I’ll put you down as a “weak maybe”… lol
- Honeybear -
Your comment to the commenters was well done. Given your own position and your own personal situation, the weight of those words is great, and how you have conducted yourself here lends even more credibility far beyond the words you wrote and where you find yourself in the positions in your work and your life.
I’ll try to keep your eloquent words in my mind as all of these situations continue to evolve. I’ve tried to remember we all are talking about people, but I’ll try harder.
I wish the best for you, and i hope for swift resolutions with limited pain to you and yours.
OW
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:22 pm:
- Anonymous - @ 12:10 pm:
Some, but not all, of that was covered in the concession list.
- illini - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:23 pm:
RNUG and Honeybear - both well stated and well done. Will anyone in Springfield be listening? We can only hope!
- Ok but not ok - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:24 pm:
If I was step 8 I’d agree to the wage freeze as well. Not directed at anyone specifically. Keep the service increase, drop the COLA. Heck I’ll do 45 hour work weeks and give you 4 holiday’s back.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:33 pm:
- Ok but not ok -
To be clear, when I said no wage increase, I meant it. No steps, no COLAs, no $1,000 bonus, etc. The only way you could get a raise would be to accept a different job position / title.
Or agree to an immediate freeze on wages and a slight increase 1/2 way or 3/4 of the way through the contract, maybe tied to the CPI.
Health insurance is the prize.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:38 pm:
One of the other sticking points is bumping rights, although it appears there could be a compromise, but I can’t come up with a good suggestion at the moment.
- Mouthy - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:39 pm:
I will be interested to see what AFSCME says are the sticking points other than insurance. Stuff the Governor says he’s gotta have. With out that the Governor’s list of concessions is useless..
- Ok but not ok - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
My final offer!
Two year wage freeze (Service Increases), no COLA for the four years, give two holiday’s back, and agree to a forty hour work week. And go ahead and increase my medical deductible by 25%. Seems fair enough.
- Stones - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
RNUG is 100% correct. They key is cost and quality of the health insurance.
Both AFSCME and Mgmt know rates are rising, AFSCME is seeing wages to offset the sting. Mgmt is seeking to have their employees eat most of the cost by accepting a freeze in wages.
Tough times ahead for sure. Increasingly I do sense a work stoppage is on the horizon although I am not sure when that might occur.
- Ok but not ok - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:44 pm:
I meant employee portion, not deductible.
- David Starrett - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:45 pm:
In the penultimate sentence of his letter to State employees, Rauner says this:
“Labor unrest in violation of the Tolling Agreement, or another attempt to circumvent the Board process that AFSCME voluntarily agreed to on three separate occasions, will not be tolerated. ”
This struck as a rather odd tone to close with. I wonder what he has in mind here.
- Mama - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:48 pm:
Will retirees on Medicare Advantage be left alone, or will we too see our insurance cost increased?
- Mama - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:52 pm:
What about the retirees’ COLAs? Will it remain ‘as is’ or will AFSCME contract change that too?
- Honeybear - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:53 pm:
OW- I hope that you will never modify yourself. Half the reason I read this blog voraciously is to read your snark and memorize your catch phrases. “own”, “dormroom” 60/30 etc. You have been a fabulous teacher and I ponder your responses throughout the day. Thank you for your blessing. I carry it with me forward.
- Triple fat - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 12:58 pm:
RNUG,
Thank you for your insight regarding negotiations. I am unclear as to what the List of Concessions mean when stating’…and countered with AFSCME managed competition model for Subcontracting…’ It smacks of being misleading. Do you know what model they are speaking of? Also, regarding healthcare- year 1 status quo; year two double employee premiums; year three and four unknown??? Wouldn’t state employees be responsible for further increases? Also I have no problem with a cola freeze… But a step and semi-automatic hits those new to state government, who are already saddle with high student debt and are already saving the state money by being enrolled in Tier 2 of the pension system…
- Mama - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:03 pm:
Honeybear, I wish you and your fellow union brothers and sisters nothing but the best during these dark times.
- Liberty - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:05 pm:
The state has withdrawn its proposal for AFSCME to go away and issued a revised proposal that hair-kari will not disqualify those provided with state life insurance provided they commit the act on the lawn of the governor’s mansion.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:07 pm:
- Honeybear -, Thank you for your very kind words, Godspeed.
I’m glad Rich added your thoughtful commevt to this Post.
- Triple fat - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:07 pm:
I’m Tier 1 by the way. I will gladly give up any cola and pay double for my family coverage. Another thing to consider, is many of the younger work force are single with no dependents- giving up future earnings for healthcare coverage doesn’t seem reasonable.
- Sarcastic - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:13 pm:
Many of the people with whom I work (myself included) come in early, work through breaks and leave late. They are already working more than a 37.5 hour week but are doing it for free. We get no overtime. I took a lower paying state job a year and a half ago from a higher paying private sector job hoping to eventually get back up to my previous earnings through step increases. To date I have had no step increase. I am willing to freeze my wages for a year or two, but I can’t afford to do that indefinitely especially with lesser insurance coverage and/or higher premiums. Rauner talks about changing the status quo in Illinois, but taking from the middle class and giving to businesses isn’t the solution either. I don’t think anyone knows what the right solution is.
- Facts are stubborn things - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:15 pm:
If your retired you certainly are for no change in health care in exchange for salery freeze. Step increases should go forward.
- SES - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:16 pm:
OW - “It’s the health insurance that seems to be the obvious differences in the negotiated contracts.”
Can you give detail? Other than the teamsters, who have their own healthcare fund, what is difference between current proposal to AFSCME and other agreements? Would be interested to find out.
- Pelonski - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:17 pm:
RNUG,
“To be clear, when I said no wage increase, I meant it. No steps, no COLAs, no $1,000 bonus, etc.”
As I said in the other post, I think this would be a disaster for the State. While I don’t see it as a problem for senior employees, it will generate high turnover of junior, low paid employees. Why would a quality employee want to remain in a career path with no opportunity for pay increases for at least three years?
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:27 pm:
Sad to say, I am not optimistic about exhortations to dial down the public emp!oyee bashing rhetoric. Rauner, Fahner, the Trib et al are far too invested in their false narrative.
- Facts are stubborn things - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:28 pm:
State employees are customers and tax payers. I think this is the middle class against the .1%.
- Sir Reel - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:32 pm:
I believe t current contract calls for step increases in years 1-8. As a former supervisor, I’m not sure all employees reach “experienced” in 8 years. Perhaps an extended step ramp would be a reasonable compromise.
That said, I think the time for compromise has passed.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:37 pm:
-Mama-
Assuming 20 yr SERS or equivalent retiree, the most they’ll be able to do to the MA plan is some increased co-pays & deductibles (thanks Kanerva), and even there the federal Medicare rules will limit them. Dependent coverage could get costly.
3% AAI - can’t be touched, period.
- Demoralized - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:40 pm:
@Pelonski:
At some point people have to be realistic. No raises for 2 or 3 years would not be the end of the world. I know plenty of non-union employees who have gone many, many years without raises. I’m not sure why people think that keeping what you have is not good enough compared to what the Governor is proposing. I’ve always said status quo, or as close to it as possible, should have been the goal of AFSCME. To continue to say that there must be raises just plays right into the Governor’s hands that the union is greedy. Don’t continue to give him that ammunition.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:43 pm:
- SES -
I defer to - RNUG - as the arbiter, but…
“It’s the health insurance that seems to be one of the obvious differences in the negotiated contracts.”
“one of” dropped off. Apologies.
- Juvenal - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:43 pm:
While I don’t disagree with RNUG, the administration hasn’t put that offer on the table for them to agree to, and if AFSCME puts that on the table, they know that the administration will reject it, make a ridiculous counter offer, and seek an Impasse ruling that would force either acceptence of whatever foolishness Rauner offered or a strike.
We are where we are because Rauner does not want to reach an agreement with AFSCME. Just as with the budget, the goal has always been to create a logjam in a way that he could try to blame someone else.
Legislators need to come back and act, or this circus is never ending.
- Demoralized - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:50 pm:
I see he lists as a major “concession” withdrawing a proposal on pensions. That’s not really a “concession” since it wasn’t even something that could be negotiated in the first place.
- Curmudgeon - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 1:51 pm:
== Sir Reel: “I believe t current contract calls for step increases in years 1-8. … Perhaps an extended step ramp would be a reasonable compromise.”
The last contract, negotiated under Quinn re-instated the three steps below Step 1 (originally added by Gov. Edgar), so there are now 11 steps.
That said, I think the time for compromise has passed.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:00 pm:
As to being younger and the health insurance versus wages choice, one major incident at any age can wipe you out overnight. For example, appendicitis can strike at any time; hit my uninsured son about age 28. It’s easier to recover from low wages than it is financial disaster. Unfortunately, for the working poor, they need both but about all some of them get is Medicaid.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:13 pm:
Much wisdom in RNUG’s words. However, he is also speaking as a retiree that gets 3% raises and holds out what I think is the unrealistic hope the administration can agree to modest insurance increases. The Governor said he needs to save 700 million. Since AFSCME is the only thing standing in the way of that, you can’t expect us not to fight to get raises that will mitigate that hit or keep those costs as low as possible. The Union doesn’t expect to get both and when Rauner decides which one is more important there will be a contract. I hope for RNUG’s sake that we don’t end up with raises to help offset huge increases in deductibles and co-pays that he will have to pay too. But that’s up to Rauner not AFSCME.
- Pelonski - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:16 pm:
Demoralized,
There is a big difference between being greedy and fairly compensated for your work. While it might be reasonable for a senior state accountant making $85,000 to take a pay freeze, I think it is unreasonable to ask the same of a junior accountant making $35,000 when the quality of their work continues to improve. That junior accountant is going to find another employer unless they are such a poor performer that they can’t. That’s not a good outcome for the State.
- Demoralized - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:20 pm:
Pelonski:
I’m not saying somebody shouldn’t be fairly compensated. I think you missed my point. In this climate a “win” is status quo. That needs to be good enough right now. My wife is in the union and I can tell you that she should jump for joy if she got “status quo.”
- Team Sleep - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:40 pm:
RNUG - thank you for being the voice of reason in all of this. Your advice on the matter is clearly as down the middle as possible.
- Triple fat - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:41 pm:
RNUG- with respect- I’m not saying that our younger workforce should go without insurance. I’m saying that they are not impacted as much as workers with family benefits… In other words since I have family benefits I am impacted more by a negotiated modest increase… Single coverage not so much. Likewise, employees at the top of the promotional wage scale are not impacted as much as someone starting at the bottom. What the Governor is proposing is that we make our younger workforce suffer disproportionately. Union brotherhood and sisterhood calls on all of us to stickup for one and other in fairness. Fairness calls for no COLA but steps and semi automatic promotions are worth striking for.
- Honeybear - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:43 pm:
Pelonski- That’s exactly what is going to happen. That young accountant is going to say “screw it” and work somewhere else. Plus no sane accountant would want to work for the state given what Rauner is doing to us. End result 1 senior accountant doing three times the work, retiring early, and NO ONE TO REPLACE him/her. The functions of the state are going to collapse. The public will realize this too late.
- Team Sleep - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:51 pm:
My wife and I were overjoyed when the Teamsters signed the contract with Governor Rauner. Yes - no pay raises through 2018 stinks. But our health insurance is as good if not better. I know the Teamsters and Operating Engineers are not nearly as big or “powerful”, but the thought of her going without paychecks was enough to convince her and her union pals to vote for the proposal.
Ironically enough, the only people who “advised” my wife and her Teamster members to vote no were AFSCME members.
When the Teamster lawyers were negotiating their contract, I spoke to one of the legal counselors for one of the locals. He told my wife and me something interesting. When the negotiations first began, all of the union lawyers were in sessions with the Governor’s lawyers and advisors. Several of the attorneys for the Teamsters and other smaller unions were open to hearing proposals, but AFSCME’s lawyers and higher-ups acted disinterested and appeared ready for a fight. As the negotiating sessions dragged on, the lawyer told me that AFSCME got worse and began getting angry with the other unions for attempting to bargain with the Governor. This lawyer is a family friend and has worked for the union for years, so I have no reason to doubt his story or claims. If what he says is true, then no wonder Governor Rauner has declared an impasse.
- Norseman - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
I see my long post on the iPhone, but not on the desktop. Don’t know what is going on. If you’re seeing multiple posts, I apologize.
- JI - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:54 pm:
The actuarial value of the state employees’ health plan is actually around 93%, which is ABOVE the platinum level. Not sure where RNUG got his estimate that the actuarial value was only 80% (Gold).
- Anonymous - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 3:04 pm:
“- JI - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 2:54 pm:”
You are wrong and RNUG is right.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 3:18 pm:
It’s been a couple of years but the last time I looked the insurance fell between gold and platinum. What I said was it would probably be more accurate to call it gold.
And even if we call it platinum, that is the level the State has consistently provided and is expected as the norm … and makes the reduction greater.
- Triple fat - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 3:24 pm:
JI do you know what the total Premium cost is for the manged health plans? I’m speaking of total cost State + employee. I am asking this because who cares if it is gold or platinum… All that is important is if it’s cost will be subject to the so called Cadillac tax in plan year 2018.
- RNUG - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 3:50 pm:
I believe that tax has been deferred for 2 additional years.
- Honeybear - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 3:52 pm:
Team Sleep, I’m sure you can understand that we’ve been pummeled with “come to an agreement with 17 other unions”. Each contract is more different than apples and elephants. In my mind I am happy that the Teamster came to an agreement. In my heart I feel betrayed. I feel like the Teamsters met the Governor at the crossroads at midnight. I don’t think the Teamsters are with Labor any more. Rauner wants ALL of labor gone and he’s going to go after you the second he’s through with us. My heart says you sold out. My mind says each union has to do what it feels right for it’s members. Those were the old days. Now I see the Teamsters as collaborators. Coli on the ILRB. Let’s be honest with each other union sisters and brothers. Let’s be honest. God, I hated saying that. Tell me I’m wrong. Tell me the Teamsters stand with AFSCME.
- There is power in a union... - Friday, Jan 15, 16 @ 3:57 pm:
Team sleep: on the very first day of negotiations the governor put out his fair share executive order. The very… first… day.
This guy was never going to bargain fair. Any settling he’s done has been to look reasonable and with units that are relatively small or have much different situations.
And always remember, while settling with teamsters and the trades on one hand, he’s using the other to whack prevailing wage, allow locals to opt out of collective bargaining, and tieing the removal of collective bargaining rights to pension reform.
I get the need to make it to the next pay check but try to see big picture here. The settlements today are to pave the way to labors destruction tomorrow. That is why he stomachs them. Because he keeps his eye on the prize.
- RNUG - Saturday, Jan 16, 16 @ 4:34 am:
Don’t know if Rich will allow this late post but I had an idea I wanted to share.
If the employees are going to be faced with a stiff health insurance increase, agree to it only with performance metrics and penalities. Insist that part of the deal is the State or insurance company pay any claims within 30 or 60 days of submission by the medical provider. And if the majority (90%, 95& ?) of the payments are not made in that period as determined by an independent audit, the State has to lower the next year’s employee health insurance premiums back to the previous year’s level.
This administration wants to reward performance, so let’s ask them to perform their basic duties when it comes to the health insurance. That will prevent the State from it’s current practice of delaying payment up to a year and using that (false) savings to finance other State operations.