Will wonders never cease?
Thursday, Mar 24, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Illinois Policy Institute finally discovers a need for public employee unions…
The city [of Chicago] argued that there was bargained-for consideration in this [pension reform] case because workers received a new benefit in the form of a funding guarantee. The “bargain” supposedly occurred when representatives of city-worker unions allegedly met and 28 of the 31 representatives voted to approve the changes.
The [Illinois Supreme Court] correctly rejected that argument because the unions could not bind their members through that vote, which was not part of collective bargaining with the city. […]
The decision also leaves open the possibility that unions could agree to such changes on their members’ behalf if they did it through a collective-bargaining agreement. That could make large-scale changes easier. And it should be permissible because workers represented by a union give the union the right to make a contract on their behalf through collective bargaining.
* Maybe the governor will take the highlighted part out of his pension reform bill…
Prohibited subjects of bargaining.
(a) A public employer and a labor organization may not bargain over, and no collective bargaining agreement entered into, renewed, or extended on or after the effective date of
this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly may include,
provisions related to the following prohibited subjects of collective bargaining:
(1) Employee pensions, including the impact or
implementation of changes to employee pensions, including
the Employee Consideration Pension Transition Program as
set forth in Section 30 of the Personnel Code.
(2) Wages, including any form of compensation including salaries, overtime compensation, vacations,
holidays, and any fringe benefits, including the impact or
implementation of changes to the same; except nothing in
this Section 7.6 will prohibit the employer from electing
to bargain collectively over employer-provided health insurance.
(3) Hours of work, including work schedules, shift
schedules, overtime hours, compensatory time, and lunch periods, including the impact or implementation of changes
to the same.
(4) Matters of employee tenure, including the impact of
employee tenure or time in service on the employer’s
exercise of authority including, but not limited to, any
consideration the employer must give to the tenure of
employees adversely affected by the employer’s exercise of management’s right to conduct a layoff.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:07 pm:
Okay so we take item 1 out. So what. The rest of the subjects prohibited leave us only to bargain where the water cooler is. IPI…man it is hard for me to believe that they could be so compensated for being so mean and callous.
- the Other Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:09 pm:
The back pay decision also had an interesting bit about how public employee collective bargaining is different because the public employee unions can participate in the political process. I wonder how that works when the State then decides to restrict political participation by unions?
In any event, I still can’t get past the simple fact that the Governor wants to restrict unions from bargaining over wages. I mean, even the most rabid anti-union person I know would agree that bargaining over wages is a legitimate function for a union.
If you take all these things out of collective bargaining, what’s left? Bargaining over parking spaces?
- Very Old Soil - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:10 pm:
Pension benefit is an individual right and can not be bargained away by the union.
- BumblesBounce - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:17 pm:
of course the IPI wants in in the collectively bargained agreements that way, as we have just learned, the benefits would be subject to appropriations and therefore will never be paid
- Norseman - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:18 pm:
Well isn’t that convenient!
- Andy S. - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:41 pm:
All of the pension bills so far tried to cut benefits (AAIs) of retirees. The retirees are not union members and surely cannot have their pensions diminished so that union members can get a bigger raise. That is like saying I demand that you pay me $100 but you will be made whole, because you have my permission to take that $100 away from someone else.
- Mason born - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:51 pm:
Just the new straw to cling too.
- OswegoTim - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:06 pm:
The article goes on to say, “To go further and avoid eventual disaster, however, the state will need a constitutional amendment changing or repealing the pension clause.”
Does the IPI/this author really believe this would help given the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution? And of course his other suggestion of moving all new government workers to 401k style. Which does nothing to lower the amount owed for about 30 years and has already essentially been solved by tier 2. Brilliant!
- Tsavo - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:11 pm:
Just to add to the post by Andy S.,
The Rhode Island Supreme Court stated in Arena v. City of Providence, 919 A.2d 379, 389-390 (2007) that (a) the plaintiff retirees were not members of or represented by unions; (b) the plaintiff retirees are retirees and, as such, cannot be treated as employees as the United States Supreme Court found in Allied Chemical v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 404 US 157 (1971); and (c) the plaintiff retirees do not share a “community of interest” with active union members as current union members and retired members could have adverse interests. Note that these assertions were within the context of the Firefighters union attempting to “arbitrate” the COLA fight with the City. If the Court found the retirees to be union employees, the COLA benefits would have been arbitrable. The Court did not find the retirees to be union employees nor represented by the union and, as such, the dispute was not arbitrable.
- Mama - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:11 pm:
“the benefits would be subject to appropriations and therefore will never be paid”
BumblesBounce, I still find it hard to believe the Supreme Court would issue a decision that will cause the state to crash.
- Ghost - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:14 pm:
back in early 2000 sometime the union agreed to a pension cost increase and the employee contribution went up.
- Anon and on and on - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 4:12 pm:
“-Mama- … I still find it hard to believe the Supreme Court would issue a decision that will cause the state to crash.”
Sorry to say, Mama, that train left the barn already.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 5:05 pm:
Keep the unions, make contributions that cover PACs voluntary. Raise salaries, Dump Pensions, have 401Ks and Match them like corporates do. Problem solved.
- RNUG - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 5:45 pm:
== Keep the unions, make contributions that cover PACs voluntary. Raise salaries, Dump Pensions, have 401Ks and Match them like corporates do. Problem solved. ==
Contributions would cover costs IF the State had put their share in consistently and on time. Can’t dump existing Tier 1 pensions. Tier 2 pensions already cost the State zero and have money left over to slightly pay down Tier 1 debt. 401K with any state match would cost more.
Exactly how does any of this save the State money? Show your work …
- Union thug - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 5:55 pm:
Ghost, the contributions were moved from the state to the employees. In a previous contract the state agreed to pay the employee portion instead of raises. The change in the 2002 contract was to move that back to employees over the life of the contract. Also raises were tied to the shift in the hopes of not lowering take home pay. No change in law and no reduction in bennifits.
Also anonymous political contributions are voluntery. Its called PEOPLES. Union can not use dues for politics
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 9:46 pm:
Ghost, I can add a bit to your comment about the last benefit formula change/contribution increase. For TRS/SURS, contributions were raised one percentage point and State/employer contributions were raised about half a point. The estimated increase in the unfunded liability was to be amortized over a ten year period, after which the ongoing increase in normal cost would be funded by the employee/employer contributions. Edgar would not sign the bill without this provision. This carefully crafted compromise was tossed in the ashcan by Blago/Filan when they slashed contributions starting in FY03.