155 Comments - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:37 pm: So do they insist on including the elimination of collective bargaining over wages in the proposal or not? I’m getting a headache. - Archiesmom - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:38 pm: I need a personal injury lawyer, because I just got a nasty case of whiplash. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:39 pm: So… what was all that anti-union stuff inserted for? That’s on Rauner. The Governor can’t remember if Cullerton wants to join him in decimating unions? That’s a hot one. “No, we agreed, I just forgot you don’t want to lower people’s earnings and end collective bargaining. That’s on me.” This is embarrassingly pathetic. What, it’s not a fib if ya “forget” what ya agreed to and make up your own agreed to terms? - Everybody needs a hug - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:40 pm: Train wreck - Nearly Normal - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:41 pm: Looks like Rauner’s way of forcing a pension bill from the Dems. We have a variation on “he says, she says” with Rauner and Cullerton. - Politix - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:41 pm: Governor: Here is my plan, which the President agreed to. Cullerton: Um…no. I didn’t. Governor: Yes, you did! You agreed! Everyone, he agreed! - Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:41 pm: That non apology is long enough to be a McQueary column - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:41 pm: Maybe something the Federal tax and pension lawyers would agree is still safe harbor territory. Still not hearing a constitutional trade. - Mama - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:42 pm: He is attacking Pres. Cullerton & his staff now. Who is next? Does Rauner not know that this is no way to reach an agreement with the current legislative leaders? - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:43 pm: No offense, Rich, but this is more interesting than tennis. - X-prof - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:43 pm: Bbbut, the gov said it wouldn’t be constitutional unless we end collective bargaining over wages. I don’t understand the basis for that argument, but by the gov’s own analysis, doesn’t that mean that the core of Cullerton’s proposal — w/o the union bash — is unconstitutional? - Wow - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:43 pm: Kind of like election night: “I just got off the phone with Madigan and Cullerton”.. - forwhatitsworth - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:45 pm: Deja Vu (all over again). Doesn’t a person become a member of and gains entitlement to the rights and benefits a pension system on the first day of their employment? Can someone change the rules in the middle of the game? - chi - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:46 pm: Rauner is obviously uninterested in building trust with Dem leaders. Shows that in the bigger picture, he’s not interested in working out any kind of budget deal. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:47 pm: -forwhatitsworth- In order, to date, the courts have held yes, no. - Joe M - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:48 pm: Can’t the Gov just come up with HIS plan, rather than trying to argue that it is Cullerton’s plan? Then the argument would be solved. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:49 pm: Fake CK: Major progress today. The leaders are on the same page! - Retired - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:49 pm: RNUG, please explain reference to Safe Harbor - Anon221 - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:49 pm: From L.T.: “On that core principal, the Governor’s legal team and the President’s legal team have agreed, and this is the model that the Governor and Republican leaders endorsed today.” **** Key phrase???- “On that core principal…” Core principal agreement, perhaps. Details… not so much. Constitutionality of Rauner’s tweaking- most likely unlikely. - Cassandra - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:50 pm: Is there an objective estimate as to how much this plan would save. I still think that any significant savings would require (unconstitutional) diminishment. No magic beans.Of course, if it’s all a Kabuki dance–we’ve seen it all before–recently. - Rufus - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:51 pm: Like we can believe anything that comes out of Trover’s office? - tominchicago - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:54 pm: Rauner’s argument is BS on its face. The “decision” to be made by employee has nothing to do with current salary. It is whether you want to freeze your base salary for determining your pension benefit in which case you will get the COLA on your pension once you start drawing in it. Alternatively, you can continue to boost your base salary for pension calculation purposes but you would then forego the COLA once you start to draw on pension. But the first option doesn’t require you to forswear future raises. - AC - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:55 pm: If I were trying to convince employees to exchange cost of living adjustments upon retirement for raises now, I’d probably offer them raises now. Perhaps Rauner needs to throw in a GTCR baseball cap, or an Illinois Policy Institute fanny pack as an added incentive, I’m sure that’d convince someone to take the deal. - PT - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:56 pm: Looking at the law and not the politics: If the “Cullerton plan” is SB2404 from 2013, we know that is unconstitutional based on the clear language in last year’s Supreme Court decision on SB 1. If the “Cullerton plan” is now “choose your COLA or your pay raise,” then we’ll have to wait for the court to chime in. But RNUG is right — if a consideration-based reform plan does not include “I choose the status quo” as one of the options, it’s very likely to be found unconstitutional, too. - X-prof - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:56 pm: A simple thought experiment for Governor R. and Senate Leader C.: Consider any proposed pension reform legislation w/o the status quo option and compare it to an alternative version that is identical except it adds a status quo option. If a reasonable worker would make different choices under the two versions, the proposed legislation fails as a diminishment of pension benefits. - Boss Tweed - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:56 pm: I mean, it’s all he-said-he-said now, but it’s not very credible to say that Cullerton was on board with the union bashing. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:58 pm: Yea right Governor. Just like election night you just got off the phone with Speaker Madigan. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:58 pm: I bet the first draft of that release said “we double dog dare Cullerton to do it.” - Earnest - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:58 pm: >we urge him to immediately introduce new pension reform legislation that he thinks will be approved by the Supreme Court, and the governor will be open to considering it Category: Cooperation In his first year since assuming the position of Governor, Bruce has shown a serious weakness in the area of cooperation. He presented a co-worker’s plan in an inaccurate manner, then insisted that co-worker was wrong to say it was different. When that co-worker again noted that the plan as presented was not his, Bruce insisted that the co-worker develop a new plan immediately which he would consider on some unspecified timeframe. Bruce could be more effective in this position in the coming year by being more accurate in portraying his interactions with his fellow workers. Though this he will be able to identified more areas of agreement in order to accomplish his own goals and further those of the overall agency. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:59 pm: Who’s on first? - Demoralized - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 1:59 pm: Who’s on first? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg - ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:03 pm: —-Rauner clarifies, says they’re in agreement The problem is they are not in agreement. The Governor is lying. Saying now they are in agreement with the ‘core’ principal misses that Rauner has a second core principal in his plan that they are not in agreement over. Meaning, in no way are they in agreement. He’s lying. Can we please start to use this as an accurate description of what Rauner is doing? - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:03 pm: -Retired- Allusion to the portion of the federal tax code that says non-coordinated (don’t pay in to Social Security) members must have a pension at least as good as SS would provide. That’s were Rauner’s line about the election being permanent came from; the IRS doesn’t allow changing your mind over pension choices. That makes it comply with Federal law, not the State Constitution. Note: even with a reduced AAI, it is unlikely a Tier 1 pension would rule afoul of that rule. Tier 2, which is not what is being discussed here, might someday have that problem. - HangingOn - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:05 pm: ==3 percent annual increase== I was under the impression that, years ago, workers started paying a small percentage more toward that 3%. So, unless he’s going to refund all the money every employee has paid into that, how can he withhold it? Isn’t that like a pizza place saying they’ll only give you a small pizza after you paid for a medium unless you upgrade to a large? Sounds like a weird version of blackmail to me…. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:05 pm: ==If the “Cullerton plan” is now “choose your COLA or your pay raise,” then we’ll have to wait for the court to chime in.== That is the key, imho. If pay raises are not mandatory under law - which they are not, iirc - then ==I choose the status quo== would include a scenario offering no pay raise. The state would lose many talented employees, but it sounds as though this version of ==I choose the status quo== and ==choice== may pass muster. Scary times. - Gruntled University Employee - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:05 pm: ==Cullerton’s plan would give workers a choice between having their pay frozen for pension purposes or retaining the 3 percent annual increase they now get that’s designed to offset inflation.== If an employee chose to have his pay frozen for pension purposes would his contribution be frozen also? Say his rate of pay was $60K when he made the choice and over the course of his career he finished his secondary schooling, the stars aligned, and he was chosen for Middle Management with a new pay rate of $100K. Would his annual contribution to the fund be capped at 8% of $60K ($4,800.00) or would it be 8% of $100K? - Qui Tam - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:05 pm: How would any faux “reform” allow the people of Il to avoid paying their pension debt? Tier II is in place. What else can reasonably be done but repay the borrowed funds on the (or a) ramp? - ILPundit - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:07 pm: I think the first clue that they weren’t in agreement was probably the fact that the Governor had this press conference, and Cullerton wasn’t there actually, you know, endorsing it. Usually, when you actually have an agreement, you don’t hold a press conference where only one side is represented. But I guess that’s the old way of doing business. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:07 pm: ===The problem is they are not in agreement=== Let’s wait for Cullerton’s response. - Honeybear - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:08 pm: (thank you Mr. Miller, I’m under control now) I just wish all these politicians would work on how to make the pension payments then keep them under control. - Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:08 pm: Core principle, not “core principal.” Learn how to *&@#$ spell, Rauner-bots. - Harry - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:08 pm: Reading this, I doubt that Rauner’s people understand Cullerton’s proposal. Cullerton’s pension proposal would not affect an employee’s raises or salary in any way except whether they are pensionable. Ooops? - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:09 pm: -Qui Tam- Lowering the AAI going forward lowers the expected payout which lowers the projected amount of shortfall / debt. Expect to pay out less in the future and you can pay in less more. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:10 pm: ===Core principle, not “core principal.” Learn how to *&@#$ spell, Rauner-bots. how embarrassing, I repeated that. - 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:11 pm: Does Rauner have Radogno’s vote? she voted no on SB 2404. - jim - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:12 pm: you don’t have to give pay raises, but you do have to give Colas. I’ve heard Cullerton raise this issue before. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:14 pm: -HangingOn- Yes, a portion of every employees pension contribution is specifically designated as being payment for the AAI. It is a paid for benefit first obtained by union contract and then codified (read granted in court terms) by the GA as a state statute. - siriusly - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:15 pm: The Governor should ask Cullerton to work it out with Madigan first, then do the press conference second next time. If Rauner is telling the truth and Cullerton was mostly on board. Perhaps they didn’t talk about the press conference and Cullerton viewed this as still in the discussion phase. Perhaps Rauner is not good at this thing. - DuPage Don - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:15 pm: illinois is in a steep nosedive and no one has even got a hand near the yoke….”PULL UP” (siren sound) “PULL UP” (siren sound) “PULL UP (siren sound) “PULL UP” (siren sound)➡️Catastrophic explosion! - AC - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:15 pm: ==What else can reasonably be done but repay the borrowed funds on the (or a) ramp?== Tempt people to voluntarily give up their pension in exchange for a cash buyout, rather than attempting to penalize people in Tier 1. I’d bet 5% or more would trade Tier 1 for Tier 2 if the gave them enough to buy a car, vacation or pay for a home remodeling project. Everyone thinks they’re an investment guru, a plan to give people at retirement 3/4 of the net present value of their pension as a lump sum would get quite a few takers too, I suspect. - Anon221 - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:17 pm: Thanks Roland. I missed it too, ArchPundit. - D.P.Gumby - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:20 pm: Will Brucie ever discover that lying isn’t governing? What worked to fool the voters does not work as well in office. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:22 pm: Let me try to phrase it a different way. You don’t have to give raises. But if you give a raise, under current court interpretations, it has to be pensionable. If the union wins a contract with raises in it for all their members, I don’t see how the State can condition the raise on accepting a lower AAI. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:23 pm: HBO “Dad’s Home State” - Season 2, Episode 15 Bruce finally looks at his own pension plan after misreading and thinking it was President Cullerton’s. Bruce uses the plan to light a cigar. Diana begins writing her own personal rebuttal to the State of the State. Lance tweets random pictures of brownies to Rep. Lang, Goldberg writes a letter to President Cullerton on “Cooperation and Agreements”. Comedy, 57 minutes - Juvenal - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:23 pm: ===The problem is they are not in agreement=== ==Let’s wait for Cullerton’s response.== “The president stands by his earlier statement.” - RP If Rauner actually believed he and Cullerton were singing from the same page of the same hymnal, he would have invited Cullerton to the concert for a duet. - Norseman - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:24 pm: === having their pay frozen for pension purposes === Interesting! I thought the plan was to not get a raise. Clearly, changing for existing workers what is pensionable resulting in diminished benefits for not agreeing to diminish your benefits is unconstitutional per the SB 1 ruling. The discussions had been that you could only get a pay raise if you agree to diminish your pension. Without agreeing to the constitutionality of this so-called consideration - actually extortion plan, I can’t help but consider this an impairment of collective bargaining. AFSCME can only negotiate raises for the subset of their members who’ve agreed to pension reductions. - AC - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:25 pm: ==Goldberg writes a letter to President Cullerton on “Cooperation and Agreements”== The full text of which would make a great DVD extra. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:29 pm: -Norseman- I’m not as up on labor and union law as you are. Is Rauner crossing a legal line here interfering in contract negotiations? - burbanite - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:29 pm: I am shocked the gov’s pants haven’t caught fire yet! Too bad most of the people in this State are not truly following the details of what is going on. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:31 pm: ===The full text of which would make a great DVD extra.=== I’m trying to get Goldberg to do a commentary in the Bonus section for all episodes for the “Season 1″ Box Set, but all I’ve heard back is silence. Fingers crossed! - Austin Blvd - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:32 pm: If Rauner says they’re in agreement, then they’re in agreement. End of story. Rauner to Durkin and Radogno: “Orange whip? Orange whip?” - SoILL - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:32 pm: Will they please just include a phrase that allows me to jot invest in the state pension. Ifnit is Rauners position that people shouldnt be forced to pay in their fair share union dues…. why is he forcing me to pay into the pension system. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:33 pm: RNUG - in your mind, would not granting COLAs actually violate Article XIII, Section 5’s diminished/impaired section? If an actual pension payment was kept the same and the retiree still paid nothing towards healthcare premiums, would no COLAs truly constitute a diminishment/impairment of benefits? You will still be a part of system, your pay would never decrease in real dollars and your healthcare is technically as cheap as possible. I get a little peeved when folks act like changes to the system are inhumane or mean. My dad’s pension was cut by his company without him having any rights or grievances. When he was eligible for Medicare, the benefits department told him he was eligible for a plan that magically trebled after he turned 65, so of course he signed up for Medicare. Plenty of mine employees back home have had their pensions and healthcare either wiped away or greatly reduced. I think sometimes perspective is needed. And yes - some people will clearly take issue with me saying this. But not every person who was promised something has seen the promise fulfilled. People are envious creatures. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:34 pm: And - for the record - Scott Weiland was a Core principal. If you don’t get that, then I don’t know what to say. - sal-says - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:35 pm: == Now is the time to act. == Where was all the interest in ‘acting’ for the last 12 months; you know, since raunner’s coronation? Balanced budget and all that? About, just sayin’, how’s about ‘acting’ on delivering LAST years ‘balanced budget’ BEFORE this years is due? Any pension bill is at least 2 years away from taking effect and producing ANY savings. RAUNNER ADMINISTRATION: DO.YOUR.JOBS.TODAY !!! - Flynn's Mom - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:35 pm: @OW, great episode, I like lighting the cigar with the pension plan. - walker - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:36 pm: By Trover’s logic, Rauner was “in agreement” with Madigan’s Tax Freeze bill. - Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:37 pm: I love how the governor acts like he and Cullerton have been working on this for weeks and Cullerton says that he got a phone call about it this morning. ===“But this is not my plan, not the plan we discussed this morning, and it does not have my support.”=== ===“Administration lawyers have spent weeks negotiating the best possible pension reform language with members of Senator Cullerton’s staff.=== - Mama - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:38 pm: We should be talking about repaying the borrowed funds on the ramp. RNUG, Why is no one talking about repaying the pension funds? - Flynn's Mom - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:39 pm: The governor is the Andre Breton of Illinois. - Dee Lay - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:40 pm: Norse and RNUG - “I can’t help but consider this an impairment of collective bargaining.” If it walks and quacks like negotiating in bad faith, do we see today’s events used in a potential future NLRB hearing? - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:40 pm: ===I like lighting the cigar with the pension plan.=== Thank you. The scene is back-lit, shot low, so it’s shot as a silhouette; papers ablaze, cigar lit, smoke begins. Breathtaking. Of course, this is a comedy so “Bruce” nearly burns his fingers after, so… - Siyotanka - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:41 pm: Questions, questions, questions…is this regarding current working employees, or for retirees??? - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:43 pm: RNUG’s point on the other post is valid. Why isn’t Turnaround Illinois or Liberty Principles pushing for a Constitutional amendment? Indy Map folks have been going hard at it for two election cycles, and it looks like things are going to work out in that arena. Bruce and his allies have enough money to “force” the issue. Why isn’t he doing that with the pension systems? It would have much more of an immediate impact than a remap or term limits proposal. The only thing I can think of that he’s holding his powder dry until 2018 when he’s running for reelection. That’s the only plausible scenario. - Flynn's Mom - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:47 pm: @OW, I’m crying from laughing!! Comic genius…”nearly burns his finger” - Formerly Known As.. - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:47 pm: @Anon221 and @ArchPundit - To err is human. Most commenters understand that, and are very patient with simple errors by quality commenters such as yourself. Some commenters, however, apparently like rubbing others noses in simple errors. You make intelligent comments here, and that error was inconsequential to what you bring here. - DuPage Don - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:47 pm: –Flynn’s Mom @ 2:39 pm– Whoa, whoa, no one told me there would be references to 20th Century French writers on this blog! - Carhartt Representative - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:47 pm: Is it possible that Rauner just doesn’t know who Cullerton is. Maybe he talked to somebody else on election night and that’s who he’s negotiating with on the budget and who agreed to this proposal. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:48 pm: -Mama- Because avoiding the repayment is the whole point. That requires higher taxes. - tominchicago - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:48 pm: Team Sleep- Rewriting the pension clause of the constitution wouldn’t solve this problem. Even if you deleted it, current employees now have a federally protectable property interest in their pensions as they are now. You could only apply the constitutional amendment prospectively. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:49 pm: -Siyotanka- Current workers - Carhartt Representative - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:51 pm: =I get a little peeved when folks act like changes to the system are inhumane or mean. My dad’s pension was cut by his company without him having any rights or grievances. When he was eligible for Medicare, the benefits department told him he was eligible for a plan that magically trebled after he turned 65, so of course he signed up for Medicare. Plenty of mine employees back home have had their pensions and healthcare either wiped away or greatly reduced. I think sometimes perspective is needed.= You’re right. That’s not inhumane or mean at all. I bet your dad was thrilled to know he was helping the bottom line. - Norseman - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:52 pm: RNUG, I don’t have the expertise to answer your question either. The one thing I know is that Rauner doesn’t care. - Undone - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:53 pm: In order for this to work, wages cannot be in collective bargaining. This is why the Last Best Final offer will exclude wages as a bargaining item. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:55 pm: ==Administration lawyers have spent weeks negotiating the best possible pension reform language with members of Senator Cullerton’s staff== Seems they have both put some work into this. Let’s see their whole plan before prematurely rejecting it. - Anon221 - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:58 pm: Thanks FKA - Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:58 pm: @FKA Don’t be so daft. “Their” plan. Funny. If it was “their” plan, you would have seen them together unveiling it, not Durkin and Radogno. Please, their plan. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 2:59 pm: Carhartt - what was his option? Sue his employer? On what grounds?! My dad has no constitutional protection for his benefits. Ask any GM retiree who got his or her pension and health insurance benefits cut. The courts have recently sided against them, and now the UAW either has to live with it or pony up resources to fight a federal court ruling. - Dawn - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:00 pm: I think we are beginning to see why MJM and his staff have been so reluctant to sit down with these guys. Rauner, et al, seems to have some problems with telling the truth. - Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:02 pm: ===My dad has no constitutional protection for his benefits. Ask any GM retiree who got his or her pension and health insurance benefits cut. The courts have recently sided against them, and now the UAW either has to live with it or pony up resources to fight a federal court ruling.=== Um, okay. It’s legal, but don’t you think it could qualify as inhumane or mean? - Nick Danger - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:02 pm: BR to JC, “so we’re in agreement?” JC, “yes we are” 30 min. later… MJM to JC, “So John….we are NOT in agreement with the Gov, correct?” JC, “ummm, yeah, yeah sounds right”. MJM, “Good. Now go out there and clarify pronto.” - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:04 pm: Team If some people had social security, personal investments AND A PENSION and the pension was cut, those people would probably not see disaster. But when there is no social security and all you have is a pension, it’s cruel to pull the rug out from your feet when you are now unemployable and people take from you. - Nope, Nope, Nope - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:05 pm: One more down, and only 1,094 news cycles left to win! - Honeybear - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:05 pm: -In order for this to work, wages cannot be in collective bargaining. This is why the Last Best Final offer will exclude wages as a bargaining item. - What are you talking about? I’m looking at a synopsis of Managements Last,Best, and Final offer. Uhhh Wages are most definitely on it. What are you talking about? - Twitter - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:07 pm: Well, considering some of us haven’t had a raise in 10 years and there are no guaranteed raises in the future and the bonus are non-pensionable… I’ll take the 3% AAI. - JoanP - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:10 pm: @ DuPage Don - Just the surrealists. Though I do think the comparison of Rauner to Breton fails in other respects, considering Breton’s life-long Marxism! - Jack Stephens - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:10 pm: @undone: Can parking spots be negotiated? How about cups at the drinking fountain or coffee pot? Why not wages? Dont you negotiate your wages or do you just whatever is offered? - 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:11 pm: Fake Rauner New Release: “Governor Rauner has once again compromised on his turnaround agenda. He has taken the collective bargaining issue off of the turnaround agenda table. He has now placed it on the pension reform table. Governor Rauner has gone further, and allowed Senate President Cullerton to put his name on it.” - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:13 pm: 3:04 - also, pensions are not taxed in Illinois. If pension payments are frozen, I don’t consider that a “cut” when you’re not paying taxes on your pension. And paying a nominal amount for your health insurance premium every month isn’t too much of a stretch since Social Security recipients pay an average of $150 a month for Medicare Parts B & D - neither of which cover eyecare or dental services. Those are well into the hundreds of dollars range(s). - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:13 pm: -Honeybear- They are proposing removing wages from collective bargaining. That way, if I understand the pitch, it ends up an individual, not union negotiated / imposed, choice and it gets closer to a valid contract consideration / modification model. - archimedes - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:14 pm: RNUG @ 2:22PM. Exactly. The ILSC decision on SB1 specifically said, “capping the maximum salary that may be considered when calculating the amount of a member’s retirement annuity” is a diminishment. Whatever salary is earned must be counted in the pension formula. The only thing I can think that might be tried here is to say that all members of the pension funds (Tier 1 only) will no longer receive increases in salary - period. Then allow an opt out choice - if you voluntarily choose to reduce your AAI during retirement you will be eligible for salary increases in future years. The fact that the opt out would be linked to a voluntary pension diminishment would be the problem - in past decisions the ILSC has said that incidental changes in employment conditions that meet bona fide goals (other than pension savings) might co-incidentally diminish a pension would be OK, but if the purpose is to diminish pensions, not OK. - PublicServant - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:14 pm: Rauner just wants a pension “reform” plan out there so his next “balanced” budget address can count on saving “billions” from it. “Oh, the corrupt supremes found a clearly constitutional law, unconstitutional…they’re in the Puckett of the corrupt union bosses…and, oh, the special interests too.” - Get a Job!! - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:15 pm: Trover’s statement sounds to me like Rauner’s crew agrees with RNUG (and the courts) that any salary increase must be pensionable. Which means that in order for there to be any savings, Rauner has to make darn sure there are no salary increases granted. Forever…………thus the exclusion of compensation from collective bargaining. Which means all Rauner has done is taken Cullerton’s idea & inserted a poison pill. Par for the course, campers. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:18 pm: -Jack Stephens- Well, one time as a SPSA I managed to get a better parking space thrown in; when I went back on contract, I couldn’t get a parking space at all. So yes, they can be negotiated. LOL - the Cardinal - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:18 pm: here is a great idea; Lets continue on with the status quo. CPS, Pensions, deficit spending ad infinitum. Hum “Come on get Happy” as they all drive the Partridge family bus off the cliff. - Name/Nickname/Anon - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:22 pm: ===Team Sleep- Rewriting the pension clause of the constitution wouldn’t solve this problem. Even if you deleted it, current employees now have a federally protectable property interest in their pensions as they are now. You could only apply the constitutional amendment prospectively. === I know not everyone here agrees, but I believe if they change the constitution, they will be able to make changes to future accruals of current employees (obviously it will get challenged if they do this). - tominchicago - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:22 pm: Get a Job!!! I think you are right. What Rauner is proposing a true Hobson’s Choice. Either you forgo the COLA or you forgo any future raises. I doubt that Cullerton agreed to that. - PublicServant - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:22 pm: The status quo of an insufficient flat income tax is what needs to be changed here. Even Rauner knows it’s insufficient. Let’s work on getting that reformed in a bipartisan fashion. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:23 pm: The Illinois Supreme Court in a footnote said consideration only works for “additional” benefits. Not just for a different package which does not total up to anything additional. The City made similar arguments in its pension case. The justices did not seem receptive to the idea. No decision yet, but I think the opinion may well put further kibbosh on the notion blathered about by Rauner and Cullerton that pensions can be diminished merely because there was a “choice.” - nadia - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:25 pm: How Rauner characterizes the issue of wages in the future and how Hinz explains the issue of wages under the Cullerton plan are far apart. If I were a state employee without SS my choice would be simple, forego the pay increase. A signal to AFSCME should be negotiate like your negotiating for a construction worker; if you get a wage increase, put part of it in the pension and the remainder on the check or whatever disbursement works out. I would think allowing each employee to choose for themselves whether or not they put the pay increase on the check or put it towards the pension would be a nightmare for the HR folks to keep track of. As my HR friends have told me options are a bad thing when it comes to benefits, they like employees to get the same benefits at the same levels. Allows them to downsize the HR department also! - ArchPundit - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:25 pm: So this is just weird, but let me ask a clarifying question. Does anyone think Cullerton was on board to limit collective bargaining of salaries? Or did Rauner’s staff have these meetings witha an assumption that limiting the bargaining had to be limited to Constitutional and never bothered to bring it up until Cullerton said he wasn’t on board for that? While I know this kind of clusterahem is common for Bruce, I’m still just confused. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:26 pm: NNA - yes, and that is why this could eventually go through federal court. Will federal judges be as quick to dismiss “emergency powers”?! My guess is that they will not. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:30 pm: -Honeybear- and others, A few words of unsolicited advice. Even though this affects you personally, you need to try to not take it personally. Change doesn’t happen overnight (and may take years to be clarified) so panicking immediately doesn’t do any good. If you need to, back away, ignore it for a bit, do the things you like. When you feel like it, sit down and logically review what is proposed and the options. Not always easy to do … but sometimes necessary for your health and sanity. In other words, take a “mental health” moment for yourself. - Facts are Stubborn Things - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:32 pm: “Cullerton’s plan would give workers a choice between having their pay frozen for pension purposes or retaining the 3 percent annual increase they now get that’s designed to offset inflation” The choice is between two bad (diminishing) results….must have option to keep what you have. Seems clearly illegal. - Bill White - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:33 pm: @ArchPundit @3:25pm I believe you hit the nail on the head. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:36 pm: -Team Sleep- Re Constitutional Amendment, the only voter allowed initiatives are changing the makeup of the Legislature. That’s why the Millionaire Tax initiative on the last ballot was a joke; it was just advisory instead of legally binding. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:40 pm: RNUG - perhaps then such an advisory is needed? The millionaire’s tax and the remap push have certainly grabbed people’s attention. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:43 pm: -the Cardinal- If the status quo included the 5% income tax rate, then the State would be in decent shape compared to today. Under Quinn the state WAS making the required pension fund payments every year, he had cut the unpaid bill backlog from about $9B to about $5B, and he had cut about 10% of discretionary spending out of the state budget multiple years. Continuing that would be a vast improvement over today’s course. - @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:47 pm: I know this kind of clusterahem is common for Bruce… Just thought that bore repeating. – MrJM - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:54 pm: States are (more or less) independent entities in this republic. Federal courts tend to avoid cases involving the State as an employer. They view that as an internal disagreement the State courts can resolve. They would be even less likely to intervene in a state level dispute between the three branches of state government. - Flynn's Mom - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:59 pm: @JoanP at 3:10-you’re right about the Marxism and Breton, but I was going with the dark humor angle in my comparing Breton and Rauner. - Independent retired lawyer, journalist - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 3:59 pm: Good heavens, Governor. Get your story straight. Sheesh. And everybody please understand that the pension-funding issue cannot legally be resolved on the backs of those taxpayers who are, or were public employees. - Gary from Chicagoland - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:05 pm: RNUG: 1) If this new pension bill passes, what about a 5 year teacher contract that is in the first year with pay increases included every year? 2) if an employee elects for 3% AAI, can a yearly ‘bonus’ pay increase be accepted by the employee but not considered pensionable pay? 3) did the State ever repay the recently missed monthly pension payment into TRS? - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:06 pm: One other observation I should have made early on … this is just another variation trying to use the Sidley-Austin (law firm) opinion that benefits not yet earned can be changed. That kind of logic is how private industry raided their workers’ pension funds. As far as State workers, the IL SC has already said NO! to that kind of logic. - CapnCrunch - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:07 pm: “I would think allowing each employee to choose for themselves whether or not they put the pay increase on the check or put it towards the pension would be a nightmare for the HR folks to keep track of…..” HR doesn’t have a computer? - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:14 pm: HR doesn’t have anyonevwho knows how to reprogram it. - @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:28 pm: “We agree.” “No, we don’t agree.” “YES, WE DO AGREE!” “Governor, do you know what ‘agree’ means?” – MrJM - Mama - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:36 pm: “HR doesn’t have anyone who knows how to reprogram it.” Thanks to the new contractual workers. - Mr. BA - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:39 pm: Riddle me this… If a teacher who was hired before Tier 2 kicked in is making 40 grand now, would this mean this salary would be frozen forever if they took the COLAs at retirement? Or they would be frozen in their retirement at their base salary if they didn’t? This seems beyond harsh… - Juvenal - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:41 pm: I haven’t heard anything new today to convince me that this idea is Constitutional. My deep respect for Madiar aside, “Heads I win, Tails you lose” is not consideration. If Governor Rauner truly believes that the state cannot afford pension levelers and salary increases, he should start but not giving his staff raises and stick fast to that principle at the negotiating table with the unions. - Mostly Harmless - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:45 pm: RNUG and others: If the choice comes down, basically, to the threat of “give up your raises’ pensionability or your AAI,” can it legally be considered voluntary consideration? In other words, if those and only those who refuse to give up the AAI are punished specifically for doing that, won’t a court see this as coercive and not truly voluntary? - PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:50 pm: I liked Governor Quinn’s plan that made payments in a timely manner. One plausible reform option would be to make a few double (or even triple) payments then refinance the debt. My joke this morning when told about the upcoming press release: “Maybe they will announce the November 2015 payment has been made.” - Mama - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:05 pm: ++- RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 4:06 pm: “One other observation I should have made early on … this is just another variation trying to use the Sidley-Austin (law firm) opinion that benefits not yet earned can be changed. That kind of logic is how private industry raided their workers’ pension funds. As far as State workers, the IL SC has already said NO! to that kind of logic.” RN++ “That kind of logic is how private industry raided their workers’ pension funds.” RNUG, Thanks for the clarification. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:28 pm: @Anon221 - any time - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:32 pm: ==“Their” plan.== @Ducky LaMoore - you think they have not agreed on anything at all? That ==weeks of negotiation== resulted in no common ground? ==Don’t be so daft== They must have agreed on some points. Let’s see what those points turn out to be. - sal-says - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:43 pm: As an afterthought. This ALL is just fluff. Agreement/no agreement? Whatever. The likelihood of this going to court is great. So, no expected ’savings’ for at least a couple of FY’s. So, Mr. Raunner and your SuperStarts. What’s your budget and spending plan for NOW? Trust me, we are ALL listening and waiting. - JoanP - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:48 pm: @ Flynn’s Mom - So I figured. And may I say that seeing a Breton reference here is a refreshing change from the garbage I see regularly at places such as the Trib comments sections? - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:49 pm: -Mostly Harmless- Unless it offers “keep what you have” as a choice, I don’t think it would be considered voluntary. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:53 pm: -Mr BA- Without seeing the actual language, that’s how I would take it. As far as harsh, to repeat another commentator, THEY DON’T CARE. - Flynn's mom - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:55 pm: @JoanP- Thank you!Yep the Trib editorials and comments are getting old. - Flynn's mom - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:59 pm: @JoanP= Thanks! - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 5:59 pm: -Gary from Chicagoland- 1) I don’t see this as being able to override an existing valid contract, only a future one. 2) Based on most of the rulings to date, I don’t see the courts saying a “bonus” is not part of salary. If it is salary, it is pensionable. 3) Don’t know because I never bothered checking. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 6:08 pm: -archimedes- You think it would fly if they argue the primary purpose is to destroy the union, not diminish pensions? - Mostly Harmless - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 6:09 pm: RNUG- I agree. The counter argument is that there is no guarantees right to a raise. So, what if the offer were “no raise or no AAI”. That might be considered a “keep what you have” option. But, would withholding raises only from those who refuse to accept a diminished pension be called coercive, so even that would not be constitutional? - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 6:13 pm: -Mostly Harmless- It looks like the courts will have to answer that question. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 6:23 pm: -NNA- The IL SC has already said that “reducing uneraned benefits” plan won’t fly. See the SB-1 ruling and pay attention to the comments and footnotes. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 6:38 pm: -Juvenal- Let’s be clear here. Eric Madiar was charged with finding a legal way around the pension clause. He found a valid contractual consideration / voluntary choice loophole. Everyone has latched onto the “choice” part and skipped over the “voluntary” and “valid consideration” parts. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 6:56 pm: Did anyone else read the IPI email on pension reform? They had 7 points in it but 2 items really jumped out at me. * stop local school districts from picking up the employee portion of the pension payment * do a cost shift to the local districts of the normal employer pension cost Think about this for a minute. The teachers (who aren’t currently, since some do) will have to start paying the 8% or so employee payment. For the school districts currently paying the employee portion, they can shift that money to paying the employer portion, somewhat negating the change. For school districts not paying the employee portion, their only choices will be lay-offs or tax increases. So in some districts the teachers lose and in others the taxpayers lose. - Roscoe Tom - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 7:09 pm: Maybe the gov. wants to take Illinois into bankruptcy like the CPS so he and his buddies can buy it back for a nickel on the dollar and thumb his growing Pinicchio nose to all of us. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 7:44 pm: -Roscoe Tom- They’re going to have to change Federal law first. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 8:18 pm: -Team Sleep- @ 3:13 pm You are somewhat misinformed about what state retirees are paying to Medicare, etc. Everyone age 65, including State retirees forced to Medicare Advantage programs, have to pay Medicare Part B premiums, which this year starts at $121.80 a month. (Note: depending on when you first go on Medicare, your premium may be less because your annual increase in Medicare premium cost is limited to not exceed your annual SSI COLA, if you receive one.) Then, for dependents who are also paying Part B, add the cost of dependent health insurance coverage to get basically Part D coverage plus picking up a lot of what Part B doesn’t cover. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 8:34 pm: To clarify / correct my 6:56 pm post a bit: Teachers are supposed to be paying 9.4% as part of their contribution to TRS. This includes both the pension and AAI portions. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 8:37 pm: Thank God for RNUG Thank you for all that you do to help us during these tough times. I will go on strike if the Union calls for it. If we lose, I will find a private sector job. I am highly educated and a CPA with an MBA. I previously worked in the private sector but came to The State for the “big picture”. I was never treated this bad in the private sector. I am very greatful to RNUG. I have been a State Employee for 12 years and don’t know if I can make 20 if the union gets crushed. I have 14.5 years until retirement. - RNUG - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 9:14 pm: And while we’re talking generalized advice to SERS state employees about pensions and this latest no raise / reduced AAI choice, here are a few things to keep in mind. Your pension is based on your final average compensation. FAC is defined as the highest 48 consecutive months in the last 120 months. In other words, your highest 4 year average out of the last 10 years. If you got a raise last year, then you have not quite maxed out your FAC. Even if you get no more raises in the next 3 years, your FAC will still be slightly increasing. In other words, the “salary” used to calculate your pension will still go up slightly over the next 3 years. That ignores the fact that your service time portion of the calculation also continues to increase. So what I’m saying is that even if your salary isn’t going up, your earned pension will still increase for a few more years. If you’re close to retirement (defined as 5 years or less), the probable best course is to just hang on for the roller coaster ride. If you just hired into Tier 1 shortly before 2011 and have a good prospect outside the state (defined as less than 8 to 10 years in and under, say, age 40 or 35), it’s probably best to bail out. If you are in-between those two categories (or in a situation like described by Pass_the_Buck yesterday), there is no good generic advice I can offer. Making a choice for this group will be very situation specific; pretty much damned if you go or damned if you stay. These people, especially, should try to get good unbiased professional financial advice from a fee type advisor; you’ll have to pay for it, but it might be the best money you’ve ever spent. To quote Red Skelton: “Good night and may God bless.” - AnonymousOne - Thursday, Jan 21, 16 @ 9:30 pm: Anonymous who previously worked in the private sector but came to The State for the “big picture”– You sure did get a picture you’d rather forget you ever saw, I’m sure. If you have skills, you don’t need to wait. Use your skills somewhere, other than in public service. A workplace where you’re not disrespected and made to feel that you should be ashamed for taking other peoples’ money (as if you’re not a taxpayer too) while the job you do helps those very people. The absolute worst part of all of this mess is the witch hunt mentality that has taken over. No–the worst part is the game being played to turn middle class worker against middle class worker. While middle class workers struggle to pay their bills, send their kids to school, folks like our governor and those orchestrating this drama are doing better than ever(and laughing all the way to the bank). But so many can’t or won’t see this as sacrificing honest working people for the gains of those who don’t have to work. There are much better places for your talents, Anonymous. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.