34 Comments - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:42 am: Forgive me Pat Quinn, for I did not know. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:43 am: “The Governor and I agree, in the principles of the Pension Plan, but I will not agree to any plan that also, at its core, takes collective bargaining away from workers.” - A guy - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:44 am: In a strange universe, long long ago… - Frenchie Mendoza - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:44 am: He’ll be as he always is — smart, funny, and emphatic. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:44 am: Raises can still be negotiated, but if you select the compounded COLA option, then the raises won’t be pensionable. Raises can still be negotiated, but if you select the compounded COLA option, then the raises won’t be pensionable. Raises can still be negotiated, but if you select the compounded COLA option, then the raises won’t be pensionable. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:45 am: If your lunch selection was the chicken, you get the compounded COLA. If it was the beef, well … - Norseman - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:46 am: He’ll do his best comedy routine including a bit imitating Rich. Talking candidly hasn’t worked out to well for Madigan and Rauner lately. Too many OODA Loops. - Anon221 - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:47 am: Hopefully thoughtful, reasoned, and reflective comments. As others have stated more elegantly than me, John Cullerton is the adult in the room. - jls - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:49 am: That is not the plan you are looking for. Move along. - ColdofWinter - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:49 am: He will mention his starting point for his desired tax increase and there will be a headline about it. - Ricardo - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:55 am: Wonder if he’ll take a question from Chris Robling? - Casual observer - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:59 am: If he’s honest he will say the state is broke and broken. But he is not the kind to throw his hands in the air and say I give up. I believe he is the kind of guy who will work hard on any legislation that passes muster. - Anonymous - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 10:59 am: He will do his best to continue to push labor behind Madigan. He will not admit it, but through omission will allow his base to realize that he cut a deal with the Governor without securing anything any return…. except an attack on the person his base is running behind. He will then privately complain that his base provides greater support to the Speaker. - Lincoln Lad - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:06 am: He won’t miss-speak about a tax increase, and feed the Gov’s talk track in the ‘epic’ struggle. That’s for sure. - Ghost - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:09 am: I told you so….. then sit down…. his protective filters left for other work so should be interesting…. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:15 am: There will be no Mea Culpas for sure. Probably a lot of finger pointing about the other side. I don’t think he will mention the lone about how Democrats like to spend money but don’t like to raise taxes - Independent retired lawyer, journalist - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:16 am: “A choice is not a choice if the person making the choice is being forced to make a choice between two unconstitutional choices?” - Lil Squeezy - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:21 am: I can understand all of this if Cullerton got a budget in return. But upset your base and do not protect CSU. Upset your base and do not help out local providers. Etc. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I understand why Cullerton is constantly miffed at Madigan, but assisting in Rauner attacks on Madigan without getting anything in return is baffling. - Elementary - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:27 am: Folks, I agree with Independent retired lawyer, journalist. The concept of choosing between two benefits that employees already have is unconstitutional. I guess the legislatures will have to get their hands slapped again. As in they can’t seem to understand what unconstitutional actually means. - Lil Squeezy - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:33 am: Elementary– Of course it is unconstitutional! The only constitutional reform is one in which the employee has a choice to be held harmless. The statutory definitions of salary is protected. Any increase to base salary of a Tier 1 member that falls below the federal DB wage cap is pensionable. Period. - Joe M - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:37 am: State pension system folks, so I have a deal for you. Do you want to shot yourself in your left foot - or your right foot. You get to choose. - Enviro - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:40 am: Chicago is ranked 4th in the nation for innovation by CNN Money. Site Selection magazine ranked Illinois 3th in the nation for the number of corporate expansions. - Holzer - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:43 am: I think he will say this: “There are literally 6 generations of Cullertons who have had a hand in the design and operation of the governmental systems currently in place in the State of Illinois and City of Chicago. Right now, there are dozens of my relatives and close friends who directly benefit from these systmes in a way regular working people can only dream about. Will I work with the Governor to change these syeteto change these systems in a way that benefits regulalr working people? Sure I will. Trust me.” - Lil Squeezy - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:43 am: I should backtrack a bit because in defense of the Governor you do have a stronger argument if you take salary out of bargaining. But I think you would have to go as far as saying no one can get a raise EVER. Those who elect the reform can get a yearly bonus- that is not tied to performance within the given year BTW. It’s ridiculous. I still think a losing argument, but a better argument none the less. I think you would also struggle to say no one gets a raise ever, without including Tier 2 members. Would think there is an equal protection argument there. - 32nd Ward Roscoe Village - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:50 am: I will be in attendance–so I won’t guess but will report on Monday. - Chris Robling - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:53 am: I hope he says how high he thinks taxes need to go. - Anonymous - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:54 am: @Michelle Flaherty 10:42 am: Well played!! - Mama - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 11:58 am: Cullerton is to smart to talk about taxes. - Mama - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 12:08 pm: Cullerton: I tried to work with the governor, but y’all know how well that worked. - Dave Dahl - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 12:14 pm: All I can think of now is how the president paid tribute to Rikeesha on her last day as the person who would keep him and Patterson in check, and how I wondered, now nobody will do that? We’ll find out Monday. - Anonymous - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 12:15 pm: To simplify. Compensation/earnings/salary are defined in the pension articles. Basic compensation/base salary are a part of those definitions. Those definitions are inputs to determine employee contributions and more importantly the benefit calculation. The calculation formula and the inputs used in that formula are protected. That means you have to pay employees who do not elect the reduction outside of their basic compensation/base salary. Other types of payments can be pensionable as well which means you have to make considerations towards those types of payments too. Very difficult to do regardless, but nearly impossible if you do not outlaw increases to basic compensation/base salary. - wordslinger - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 12:36 pm: “The governor said what?” - Lil Squeezy - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 12:53 pm: Lil Squeezy meant to say at 11:43 am that those who do NOT elect the reform could conceivably receive a yearly bonus that is not tied to performance with in the given year. But they certainly could not receive an increase in base salary without that increase being considered pensionable. - Lil Squeezy - Friday, Jan 22, 16 @ 1:02 pm: When Cullerton/Rauner say you do not have a right to a salary increase, that is false. Under current law you absolutely do have that right, either through bargaining or simply through your employer deciding to give you one. To the Governor’s credit (partially), you do have to actually take that right away. I say partially because this extends past bargaining. As long as you have a right to accept an increase in base pay, you have a right to increases in your pensionable earnings. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.