Fun with numbers
Thursday, Feb 18, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the governor’s press office regarding the House passage this week of the so-called AFSCME “no strike” bill…
“Illinois taxpayers cannot afford HB 580 – it’s a $3 billion tax hike masquerading as a labor bill. If it becomes law, it will dig Illinois’ fiscal hole even deeper, further squeezing social services and, ironically, it will lead to layoffs.
* Tribune editorial…
On Tuesday, Madigan’s House dissed the governor by passing a dangerous bill that would take the AFSCME negotiations out of the governor’s hands and submit the two sides to binding arbitration. A three-member panel would look at AFSCME’s desires and the governor’s offer and pick a winner. No let’s-split-the-difference compromise based on what Illinois could actually afford. Just pick a side. Feel lucky? The Rauner administration doesn’t. The stakes are absurdly high: The union’s demands could add another $3 billion in spending over the life of the contract.
* Part of AFSCME’s response…
The governor’s wildly exaggerated claim appears to reflect not union proposals but existing costs. AFSCME’s proposals on general wage increases would average just $58 million a year more than Rauner’s proposals over four years. AFSCME’s proposals on health care, steps, overtime and holiday pay do not increase status quo costs or employee compensation. Moreover, AFSCME has made clear that its latest proposals are not its bottom line, and that in contrast to the Governor’s adamant refusal to continue negotiating, the union is willing to negotiate further.
* Here’s the union’s cost comparison of wage proposals on the table in January, when talks ended. These are year by year, beginning Fiscal Year 2016 through FY 19…
* So, I asked the governor’s office for deets and they sent me this…
* I then asked AFSCME for a more detailed rebuttal…
Rich —
Here are the facts of the administration’s purported $3 billion claim. Clearly, as stated in what we provided to you yesterday, their numbers are wildly exaggerated and attempt to misrepresent status quo provisions as if they reflected new or added costs.
General Wage Increase- The administration’s figure is $530 million, including rollup for FICA and pension); my number is $497 million over four years. Either way it’s pretty close.
Step Increase- Their number is inflated by the inaccurate assumption that all step-eligible employees will receive steps for all four years of the contract. In fact, of the 40% of all employees eligible to receive steps, nearly half (45%) will reach the top step prior to the last year of the contract. Further, their calculation neglects the attrition savings that, as we pointed out yesterday, generally make steps cost-neutral (that is, steps are paid for by the savings realized when employees retire at step 8 and are replaced by new hires at step 1). Finally, the Union proposal does not change the current agreement so does not represent a new or additional cost.
Holiday Pay- The Union’s proposal does not change the current agreement, so this does not represent a new or additional cost.
Overtime Pay- The Union’s proposal does not change the current agreement, so this does not represent a new or additional cost.
Roll Call Overtime- The Administration withdrew its proposal and agreed to current language, so this does not represent a new or additional cost.
Additional Longevity Pay- The Union on Jan. 8 withdrew its proposal to increase longevity pay.
Temporary Assignment Pay- The Administration withdrew its proposal and agreed to current language, so this does not represent a new or additional cost.
Additional Payouts and Incentives- I have no idea what this refers to.
Indirect Impact of AFSCME agreement- The administration is charging $300 million in phantom costs that are associated with the impact of the AFSCME agreement on other union agreements. Those costs should be assigned to those other collective bargaining agreements, not AFSCME’s.
Health Insurance Savings- As we explained yesterday, the union’s health insurance proposal essentially represents the status quo, so it does not represent a new or additional cost. The Administration claims a value of $1.72 billion, which I suspect they produce by multiplying the savings in their FY 17 proposed budget ($566 million by 3 years). However, this savings is for the entire group health insurance program. Of the approximately 275,000 active employees and dependents enrolled in the state’s group health insurance, I estimate that just 80,000 (about 30% of the total) are AFSCME members and their dependents. So here again, the Administration is jacking up purported costs by including costs associated with other state employees and university employees, not just the 38,000 AFSCME state employees.
I hope this is helpful to you.
Martha Merrill
Director of Research and Employee Benefits
AFSCME Council 31
- illini97 - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:32 pm:
Buncha poindexters, I tell ya.
- The Captain - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:33 pm:
Thank you to Martha Merrill, it’s always a treat to watch someone do their job well.
- Austin Blvd - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:39 pm:
Were the salary and benefits of the “superstars” included in the Rauner analysts?
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:41 pm:
Stop telling the truth Martha. The Governor decides what the truth is.
- burbanite - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:44 pm:
“I have no idea what this refers to.”
“executive managment”
Come on they are just numbers. Who cares about numbers? You need to look at the overall theology of it! /s
illini97 you beat us to it! +1
- There is power in a union... - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:45 pm:
Go Martha!
A minor nitpick: “Further, their calculation neglects the attrition savings that, as we pointed out yesterday, generally make steps cost-neutral (that is, steps are paid for by the savings realized when employees retire at step 8 and are replaced by new hires at step 1).”
New employees come in at step 1C. Which is even cheaper…
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:47 pm:
i’m sad that this is the level of detail we need as voters and taxpayers, and yet this is the level of detail derided by the Tribune and seemingly the voters themselves
- A. Donahue - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:48 pm:
“The union’s proposal does not change the current agreement.” Because the current agreement doesn’t represent *the current offer*.
It’s sleight of hand to compare a proposal to the old Quinn/Madigan deal and not the current Rauner offer.
Ted Cruz would be proud.
- Jack Stephens - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:56 pm:
Corrected:
“Illinois taxpayers cannot afford “Wealthy Welfare” – it’s a $3 billion tax cut masquerading as Government Entitlements for the Elites. If it becomes law, it will dig Illinois’ fiscal hole even deeper, further squeezing social services and, ironically, it will lead to layoffs.”
Bruce,
Please forward to the Superstars in the Admin!
Love,
Jack
- Norseman - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:58 pm:
The headline needs to be changed from “Fun with Numbers” to “Funny Numbers.”
- Truthteller - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 12:59 pm:
The Rauner Administration is employing weapons of math destruction. Call out the troops
- Get a Job!! - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:00 pm:
Bahaha so of the Governor’s $3B figure over 2/3 is based on his arbitrary lines he’s drawn in the sand?
- Small Town Girl - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:01 pm:
The Rauner Administration and their mouthpieces keeping quoting this 3 billion dollar figure as if they have already discussed this with the chosen arbitrator and it has been decided. Not only are the superstars SUPER they must be soothsayers as well.
- Leading InDecatur - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:01 pm:
A.Donohue
It’s dishonest to make a lowball offer then paint a counter offer at existing levels as an increase. Any increase should be as compared to the existing contract.
By your logic, if I offered you a new contract at one tenth your current pay, and you asked to be paid at your current level, you’d be asking for a 900% increase. Would you be ok with the offer? Would you be ok with the characterization of your counter offer? Of course not.
- Miami - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:03 pm:
Isn’t the group health benefit negotiated by AFSCME the benefit that is then used for all employees, including merit comp and university people? I think that’s how it works.
- Skirmisher - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:05 pm:
In all of this discussion of fairness over the last few months, I have yet to see anyone make an argument as to what “value” AFSCME offers to state government in return for all of the high pay and benefits demanded. It all seems to be about how much benefit there might be to the union members. In my own experience, the state gains virtually no value at all. If I hire a private sector union plumber or pipe fitter, I am pretty much guaranteed to get an extremely well qualified, highly skilled person to perform the desire work. However, an AFSCME union person bumping into a position can show up knowing absolutely nothing about the job or program, while the person displaced might have been very competent. Sadly, I have met many an AFSCME worker in state offices who were for all practical purposes illiterate as well and only marginally trainable. Seems to me that as an employer, the state should demand from the union measures that better assure that the government gets commensurate value for the extra costs of a union contract. So why is this not a part of this discussion?
- Rufus - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:10 pm:
To paraphrase Mark Twain:
“there are lies, damned lies, statistics, and words from Rauner”
- Chicagonk - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:21 pm:
AFSCME’s rebuttal that maintaining the status quo on health insurance doesn’t equal an additional cost is wrong. Any private sector employee can tell you that if they even had the option this year of maintaining the same health insurance plan (copay, network, deductible, etc.), the premium went up substantially.
- skeptical - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:23 pm:
“Miami” - yes, the AFSCME group health agreement covers other state employees. Rauner has apparently told CMS to implement his last offer on heath insurance effective May 1.
- There is power in a union... - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:27 pm:
Chicagogonk,
But it’s not our proposal. So he shouldn’t say “the union’s” proposal would increase costs by 1.7 billion. He should say, the union’s refusal to accept my proposal could fail us to realize 1.7billion in savings.
And actually our last healthcare proposal did increase what we pay for healthcare. Immediately after receiving our proposal, his team declared impasse across the table.
- Miami - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:28 pm:
Ok. Skeptical, thank you.
So Martha’s claim that the AFSCME negotiation on health care only applies to AFSCME members is not correct. It will apply to everyone.
- burbanite - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:36 pm:
Miami, that is not attributable to AFSCME so I think her representation is correct. If they don’t want it to apply to non AFSCME members, they should address it with them. AFSCME is only responsible for its own (and fair share employees)
- Small Town Girl - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:39 pm:
Is there a rule/law somewhere that forces the state to provide the same health care for everyone that is negotiated by AFSCME? not that I think non union employees should pay more. I am just curious as to what established this practice. I know several non code agencies do not make their employees pay their share of their retirement costs so all things aren’t uniform.
- Vet - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:40 pm:
i feel they should leave healthcare alone since they arent paying the insurance companies what comes out of the paychecks…
- Trolling Troll - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:42 pm:
@skeptical 1:23pm
How can an insurance increase be implemented if there is no contract agreement?
- Joe M - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:54 pm:
“During former Governor Edgar’s administration he gave all negotiating rights for health insurance to AFSCME because this union had more State employee members than the other unions. In addition, to keep from further complications (meaning reducing time spent with other State entities/departments) AFSCME health insurance negotiations would include everyone who worked for the State, including management, all other non-union employees, and in addition all State and university retirees.”
I found that info in an Illinois State Employment Association Retirees news letter, about 3/4s of the way down the page at: http://www.isearetirees.org/
- truthteller - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 1:57 pm:
CMS may or may not apply the AFSCME insurance premiums to other employees. It is at the discretion of the Governor. In fact the Governor is paying $1600 per month for health insurance to the Teamsters. He is not offering that to AFSCME, nor is he apparently planning to pay that much for other employees
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:00 pm:
I believe that Rauner isn’t used to being fact checked. His background allowed him to make numbers up and if they are wrong, then bail and let those behind, file for bankruptcy.
All this “stand behind real numbers” part of his new gig is a shocking new realization to him, I bet.
He’s no poindexter - more like an old Rolodexter
- RNUG - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:13 pm:
Notice health insurance cost / savings (depending on your point of view) alone amounts to half of the total.
Interesting he is going to try to impose those changes in May without a contract. He just can’t over his idea he can do whatever he wants. Bet there will be another class action lawsuit over it.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:13 pm:
2.5X pay for “Super Holidays”
Overtime for roll call.
Overtime for over 37.5 hours.
None of these ridiculous demands can be considered because they’re the current status quo huh? Wow are state employees out of touch.
- Politix - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:23 pm:
skirmisher - Agency performance is measured all the time in state government. Who do you think is doing the “performing.” I’m sorry that you don’t know what government does for you on any given day.
Let’s take a moment and measure Bruce Rauner’s performance these past 12 months. What value has he added to the state? Zippo. I’m a taxpayer. I want my money back.
- Robert the 1st - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:24 pm:
=What value has he added to the state?=
I’ve enjoyed the extra income for the tax hike expiring.
- Will Caskey - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:28 pm:
Of all the dumb things. The only thing that matters is the relative difference between Rauner’s position and AFSCME’s position, which from the wage comparison does not look like it approaches half a billion let alone $3 billion.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:41 pm:
==None of these ridiculous demands can be considered==
The point is that these aren’t additional costs. The Governor is portraying at is costing the state more money. It won’t. It’s status quo. You can argue the merits but you can’t argue that it’s an added cost.
- Paul Grajnert - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
Finally someone is calling Bruce out for the Confederate lies that he and his party are bamboozling the voters. Keep it up!
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:49 pm:
The fact Rauner is scared of arbitration is proof he knows his proposals aren’t “fair and reasonable”.
- Nick Name - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 2:55 pm:
“Rauner has apparently told CMS to implement his last offer on heath insurance effective May 1.”
Sigh. No contract. No budget. And the fiscal year doesn’t start until July 1, but never mind. *drink*
- jim - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:32 pm:
If the facts are as AFSCME claims, the labor board will certainly reject any argument that the two sides are at an impasse and order them to resume negotiations. why not let that process play out?
- MrBill - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:40 pm:
Next election “VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE, NOT YOUR POLITICS”
- Chicagonk - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 4:46 pm:
@RNUG Rauner did win an arguably easier case with the ILRB two weeks ago over not paying longevity and step-increases. I read through the decision (address below) and the state now has a fairly clear playbook for how to proceed.
http://www.illinois.gov/ilrb/decisions/decisionorders/Documents/S-CA-16-006%20rdo.pdf
- RNUG - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:35 pm:
- Chicagonk -
Thanks. I’ll have to find time to read it later tonight.
- Pip - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:41 pm:
Robert the 1st, why are you always about bringing every else down instead raising others up?
In this state government employees have just as much right to negotiate salary and benefits as any private sector individual or group does.
Just because the money pool comes from taxes doesn’t mean the costs can never go up. Costs of everything goes up.
Under your theory everyones salary goes up except for state employees. They should always go down. State employees have expenses and pay taxes just like you.
Are some benefits out of line with current private sector benefits, sure. Many are not though. Not much was said about public sector salaries when they were half of the private. Now that they are in line or slightly above the likes of you start crying.
You voted the politicians in office that gave the apparent luxury benefits. Vote them out and take them away. But don’t call “state employees out of touch” when they are doing what anyone else would do in their situation.
- There is power in a union... - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:58 pm:
“RNUG Rauner did win an arguably easier case with the ILRB two weeks ago over not paying longevity and step-increases. I read through the decision (address below) and the state now has a fairly clear playbook for how to proceed.”
The administration is trying to split some hairs there. It’s a contract extension in everything but name and step plan?
And they have been paying longevity the whole time. There are simply proposing to end it going forward for anyone new who qualifies. And they are brining back semi-automatics.
- Mama - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 6:25 pm:
Of course there will be another class action lawsuit when he tries to implement insurance changes without a contract agreement with AFSCME. I have a feeling he wants AFSCME to file a lawsuit. There is no doubt he wants to financially break AFSCME.
- Mama - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 6:34 pm:
++There is power in a union… @ 5:58 pm:+
TIPIAU, Please explain “semi-automatics”?
Thanks
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 6:48 pm:
“- There is power in a union… - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 5:58 pm:”
semi automatics. — What about the Steps?
I have not been given my step increase.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 8:05 pm:
Skirmisher easily 60% in my office have masters degrees! I know there are going to be oafs in every office even private sector but I take offence at your statement. If anything your statement shows me where you rate on the spectrum.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 18, 16 @ 9:52 pm:
@ Skirmisher
Your statement is very misguided just like Rauner’s budget. Also, you fail to take into account several factors such as education, experience, and type of job one is performing or applying for.
Now what you may call illiteracy, may be your own failure to do research on problems the state is facing or it may be just you stereotyping.
Have you ever went and taken an exam or the interview process to get on with the state? Do you know that the state has to hire a veteran over a non-veteran in the majority of it’s open-competitive hires?
You fail to realize the majority of your blue collar jobs for the most part are represented by different trade unions which require apprenticeships people have to go through which many do in the private sector.
AFSCME represents different occupations, many with college degrees and above. Anybody who comes to work for the state expecting to make $$$ is in the wrong industry. Many of your positions after a new administration comes in get replaced anyways.
Furthermore, an AFSCME member or the majority of your state employees have to be deemed qualified for the position before even moving into it unlike all these czars the governor has. Remember him saying “my superstars have had to take a paycut to come work here.”
Finally for once offer specific solutions to your concerns instead of complaining if your so wise and experienced.
- RNUG - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 12:57 am:
- Chicagonk -
After reading that decision, I see what you mean about the game plan. I also see where it will probably be a lot harder for the state to prevail on changing the health insurance in the face of a duty to maintain the status quo because, unlike that example, I don’t remember an instance where the State changed the health insurance while a contract was being negotiated. There may be a precedent out there somewhere but one of the lawyers here would need to dig it out.
Assuming no precedent, I think the union may win an unfair claim re unilaterally imposed health insurance changes.
- Anonyous - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 5:55 am:
Can someone tell me why All state workers are not subject to random drug testing? I think all of us tax payers have the right to know Every trade union has it, and most private employers. Why not AFSCME?
- Robert the 1st - Friday, Feb 19, 16 @ 8:02 am:
=benefits out of line with current private sector benefits=
They sure are. Let’s not forget it was AFSCME that successfully lobbied to raise income taxes on everyone. No additional tax increase until Rauner’s meager demands are met.
- [moderated comment] - Friday, Mar 4, 16 @ 9:13 am:
Meager doesn’t mean what you intended it to.