54 Comments - illinois manufacturer - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 12:58 pm: Add a forced strike to the crisis list. - jim - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:02 pm: nobody can force the union to strike. lockout also precluded by agreement Rauner signed with AFSCME. - Anonymous - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:02 pm: Saying “both sides should be truthful” is not necessarily saying “Neither side is being truthful.” - Oswego Willy - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:04 pm: Where was that 60 person Rauner Ralley held last Tuesday? Where was that thousands of marchers rally for Labor and Social Service held last Wednesday? Hmm. - Formerly Known as Frenchie M - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:06 pm: What does “truthful” mean here anyway? As in — one side is lying? Or: one side needs to capitulate to the other? I agree, though — seeking the labor board was an odd choice. Rauner was impatient. I get that. He’s always impatient. But “impatience” doesn’t obviate the need for authentic negotiation. Does Rauner understand that? Does Rauner care? - Illannoyed - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:09 pm: This is an attempt to straddle the issue. Makes sense considering the district. - Honeybear - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:11 pm: 1) Consider the source. Any Raunerite has a perfect record of transparency and truth telling. s/ 2)Having several really good friends in negotiation, I can tell you that AFSCME has been very transparent and upfront. Sure there is some spin but also we weren’t done at the table. That was not our Last Best and final offer. Let’s not act like it was. Does anyone believe a word out of Perfidious Rauners mouth? - Honeybear - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:14 pm: nobody can force the union to strike Yeah right,….you pay my insurance premiums then. You get me another job when mine is privatized. You pay the step increase I should have gotten by now. Bite me - DHSJim - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:19 pm: Well, cross that house Republican name off the list of potential yes votes for 0580… - Formerly Known as Frenchie M - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:20 pm: Actually, the impasse — or the attempt to get one declared — is *exactly* a way to force a strike. Once an impasse is declared, Rauner’s offer goes to AFSCME. Rauner knows exactly what he’s doing here. He’s *planned* this since he was campaigning — probably before. But he knows that it doesn’t matter how he *bargains*. He can say, “I want AFSCME to pay ten times the amount now they’re paying for insurance.” AFSCME’s response? No. But we’ll pay a bit more. Rauner’s response. “Ten times.” AFSCME: “No, but we’ll pay a bit more.” Rauner — okay, forget it. We’re at an impasse. That’s how to force a strike. And he’s doing it. - illinois manufacturer - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:23 pm: What Honey said - Mouthy - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:27 pm: Former Frenchie has it down.. - kitty - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:28 pm: I heard the interview. I believe Rep. Butler represented words to the effect that he didn’t believe AFSMCE was being truthful with respect to how much it had compromised relative to initial negotiating positions. Mr. Butler didn’t accuse AFSCME of not being willing to negotiate. Contrast this to Mr. Rauner who walked away from negotiations as part of what has clearly been a calculated and deliberate attempt to impose a “last, best and final” offer with a false claim of “impasse” from day 1. His insistence on non-financial contractual changes which would entail no prohibitions on outsourcing or privatization and eliminating seniority based protections validates this. - BBG Watch - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:31 pm: Honeybear for Gov! - working stiff - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:36 pm: no one except rauner is wanting a strike. he’s wanted a shut down since the campaign. - pool boy - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:37 pm: The truth is AFSCME and the governor are so far apart and have been, it will take some type of outside influence to get them to compromise, just like all the piecemeal budgets that have been passed. I am not sure if this will happen. - Delimma - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:41 pm: The thing that bothers me is that the pension problems that the state has are related to the state taking money they should have spent on pension funding, and using that money, instead, for the benefit of taxpayers. The entire argument for aggressively attacking the pension funding is that it’s going to cost taxpayers a lot of money. It’s money we saved in the past, right? I say we, because aren’t state employees taxpayers too? - Formerly Known as Frenchie M - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:43 pm: The fact that AFSCME was led on by Rauner is (for me, at least) troubling. There was no way AFSCME could have prevented Rauner from calling in the labor board — but I’m not sure they understood that this was an inevitable (or, at least, strong) possibility. I fear they — AFSCME — missed the memo about an impasse favoring management, not labor. How they could have avoided this — I don’t know. But it seems they walked right into it — and now they’re struggling to get out of it. - Honeybear - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:47 pm: Kitty, thanks for doing the real work of checking the source. My bad if I aimed for the head and put one between his running lights. If that’s what he was going for then I get it. We were still negotiating. You don’t give away the store on the first round. You inch towards each other. And okay, maybe we said we had gone a foot when we’d given an inch. Again, spin, and not patent perfidy as Gov. Rauner committed. But if spin is sin then yeah, we’re guilty. But even then, we weren’t done yet and we had not issued our last best and final as Rauner has. He needs to own the perfidy about not wanting to bust our union and destroy all labor. Feeble homebound senior citizens want to know why destroying labor is more important than the delivery of meals on wheels? - Jay - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:49 pm: So Butler says both AFSCME and Rauner not being truthful, yet he still refuses to allow an independent arbitrator in negotiations? Looks like a walking contradiction. - Almost the Weekend - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:52 pm: “I believe if both sides get truthful about their negotiations, they can figure it out,” I believe if that happened Rauner probably would say he regrets wanting this job an AFSCME would want Pat Quinn back as governor. Funny the way the world works - Honeybear - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 1:53 pm: FKFM, I don’t think we could have avoided the ILRB and Rauner not taking us there. This became a play when Brother Coli was appointed to the board. I have a union sister who has been to every single day of hearing. She gives us a play by play every evening. AFSCME in my and her opinion is destroying the Rauner folks in that hearing. If it is declared an impasse it will be solely because the board is owned by Rauner. The merits are clearly on the side of AFSCME. But as I have started to say, “Merit is (almost) meaningless”. - The Equalizer - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:02 pm: Sounds like a man needing both unions and Rauner happy, which is impossible. Therefore, a tiny pox upon both their houses. - Decaf Coffee Party - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:04 pm: When the governor repeatedly says going to arbitration would (not could) cost the state $3 billion, is that not conceding that a mediator would turn thumbs down on the governor’s proposal? - DHSJim - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:18 pm: “The merits are clearly on the side of AFSCME. But as I have started to say, “Merit is (almost) meaningless”.” Not if AFSCME could negotiate a stay once labor board sides with Rauner so he can’t impise terms while we bring this to court. If all else fails (0580, labor board), I can see a potential victory here. If not, we would have no real choice to go on strike. Would a strike bring Rauner to the table? - Formerly Known as Frenchie M - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:25 pm: – Would a strike bring Rauner to the table? — No. And that’s precisely why AFSCME can’t strike. Rauner will bring in scab labor. The strike will last weeks, if not months — and, most likely, any workers who remain on strike will never get their jobs back. The strike — like the budget — is a feature not a bug. People *like* the fact that Rauner is enacting the politics of punishment. This is the strict “father figure” (the conservative right) that stands opposed to the Nurturer (the progressive left). Folks will vote against their self-interest (just as many on the progressives voted for Rauner) simply because Rauner framed the debate in a way that made him sound stern enough, strict enough, to solve problems. Never mind that he hasn’t solved the problems — or that he’s exacerbated problems. It’s the messaging that matters — and voters (at least these days) seem to like the idea of a strict authoritarian messenge messenger who appeals to the idea that, yeah, it’s time to pick yourself up and make what you want happen. This is the freedom that conservatives always talk about — the freedom to do what needs doing to aspire to the 1% (or whatever you want to call). This is why a strike will only backfire. - Joe M - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:32 pm: Let the arbitrators decide who is being truthful. - DHSJim - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:37 pm: I was afraid you would say that Frenchie. I heard Rauner decided to run in 2012 when Rahm caved to CTU after they went on strike. Still though, 10,000 on Wednesday. 60 on Tuesday. I think you might be wrong about Rauner’s popular support. And imagine almost the entire state shutting down. Can Rauner take the political pressure this would cause. - Norseman - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:38 pm: === “I believe if both sides get truthful about their negotiations, they can figure it out, …” === Politician speak for: I need to play both sides of this issue. I’ve got a lot of State employees and government workers in my district to placate, but I don’t want to cross the money guy either. - Small Town Girl - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 2:42 pm: Norseman nailed it. Don’t buy even this small pathetic attempt from Butler to make us believe he has his own thoughts on the matter. - Robert the 1st - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 3:00 pm: = any workers who remain on strike will never get their jobs back.= Are people really willing to lose their jobs over having less generous health insurance? I’m sure Rauner would love that. Especially if you’re tier 1. - Arthur Andersen - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 3:00 pm: Norseman +1 - DHSJim - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 3:05 pm: Are people really willing to lose their jobs over having less generous health insurance? —- No. But they are willing to lose it for unlimited privatization because their jobs will be lost anyways. - MSIX - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 3:48 pm: =Are people really willing to lose their jobs over having less generous health insurance?= As many of the AFSCME folks I know are earning far less than $30k/yr and are there solely for the insurance benefits, “less generous” could make the job no longer worth it. - Mama - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 4:06 pm: ==- DHSJim - @ 3:05 pm: “No. But they are willing to lose it for unlimited privatization because their jobs will be lost anyways.” DHSJim, how many state jobs can Rauner privatize? - Ihpsdm - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 4:43 pm: I left my state job back in February and moved to a different state. I wish AFSCME and great people like Honeybear nothing but the best. I hope they can prevent the drastic cuts and restructuring that Rauner wants to impose, which would hurt a lot of people that have done nothing wrong. The privitization is what scared me away and caused me do conduct an extensive country wide job search. I was fortunate to find another job but had to move away from Springfield. - Anonymous - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 4:48 pm: “Are people really willing to lose their jobs over having less generous health insurance?” Those currently at Step 3 or below may be willing to since entry level pay is so low and the step increases are there to get you to a decent living over time. But no one ever talks about that. - Honeybear - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 4:53 pm: Ihpsdm- as they say in the Navy “Fair winds and Following Seas”! We hate to lose good employees like you but you just totally proved my point. Those who can leave, will. Best wishes in your new state. Keep us in your thoughts and prayers and warn your new statesfolk what you have seen! - Honeybear - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 4:55 pm: Those currently at Step 3 or below may be willing to since entry level pay is so low and the step increases are there to get you to a decent living over time. But no one ever talks about that. Bingo. That’s why if I were negotiating I’d keep the steps up to 5 years of employment. Freeze it after that. That would give just enough of a leg up to ride it out. - Pelonski - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 5:04 pm: 5 years of steps seems like a good compromise. Freezing the step levels below that is going to make it real hard to keep good people around. In the last year, we’ve already seen a high turnover. Recent grads will take state jobs to get started in the work force, but the good ones won’t stay around long with no chance for pay increases. What the state will end up with is the people who can’t get better paying jobs elsewhere. - State Worker THX 1138 - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 6:01 pm: Good luck trying to find someone to step in and do my job in the event we go on strike or they try and privatize my position. That person would be utterly and profoundly lost, without a clue as to where to start. I’m certain there are many similar positions throughout the state. Of course, Rauner hasn’t thought that through or doesn’t care. - Anonymous - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 6:15 pm: Sadly, my office is full of merit comps who have been given the same work as me. Makes me worried. - Anonymous - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 7:09 pm: “Monday, May 23, 16 @ 4:55 pm:” I disagree totally Honeybear. I want my Step. I deserve it. - Honeybear - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 7:19 pm: Don’t get me wrong. You totally deserve your steps! I’m just saying if it were me and we had to make a compromise that is one I would do. I get it anonymous sister or brother! - Honeybear - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 7:22 pm: As an aside. You know what was one of my favorite parts of the rally? When Cullerton said “You state workers do a great job”. I realized that I can’t remember anybody saying that to me. I really appreciated it. - 5-ohhhhhh - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 7:24 pm: I hope there is no way any legislator from the Springfield area gets re-elected if they vote against HB580. We came to bat for Sam because he voted for those who he represents. The others need to listen to the majority of their constituents instead of chasing the money. Davidsmeyer said he voted present last time because the tolling agreement signed by Gov and Gov said he would negotiate in good faith. UMMMMM. OK C.D. Where are you now? Grow some and vote for the people who voted for you. Turn your back on us and we turn ours on you. If any haven’t already. - RNUG - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 9:48 pm: Late to the party tonight. And a number of people have touched on one or two of the items here. his is a little something I drafted last week to put my own thoughts in order on the labor contract. ————- To both Governor Rauner and AFSCME, it’s time to try something different. Here is a suggested package to solve the apparent impasse of contract negotiations. Do a reset and start over here. Governor, you say you value State workers. You say you want a more cost-effective workforce. You say you want to reduce the power and influence of unions, not destroy them. You say you can make deals with unions. AFSCME, you say you just want reasonable wage increases and reasonable insurance. You also want to keep job security, but you protect ineffective workers; that needs to change. Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder; my version may not be the same as yours. I’m sure both sides wonder who am I to offer an opinion? I’m an Illinois citizen, a taxpayer, and a retired state employee. I worked under seven different administrations. I have seen a lot. I also have union roots. Grandpa was a founding member of a local; extended family were / are union members. The following suggestions will anger both sides. None of the asks are totally unreasonable. Nothing totally ruins either side. It will cost the State some money and the State will have to surrender a bit of control. Unions will have to give up some future money, some job protection, and some control. Both sides need to reform some processes. These proposals are a potential basis for compromise somewhere in the middle. This is an entire package; read and consider all of it together. I’m going to start with the State gives, then list the union gives. The State should agree to continue the existing health insurance coverage at current cost; reducing insurance coverage will just reduce employee spending power and increase the demand for higher wages. If you can’t get better savings out of the insurance companies, you aren’t trying hard enough. If you want a better workforce, the State should agree to some raises; I’ll detail this in the union section. The State should continue to collect union dues and fair share via the payroll deduction process. The State should continue the current job security provisions and outsourcing limitations with some exceptions noted below. The State should drop the so-called right to work campaign for the term of the contract. The State should ensure all back pay is made up in the current fiscal year. If the State can’t generate enough health insurance savings through better contracts with the various companies, the State should appropriate enough funds to get the unpaid claims current (ie, 90 - 130 days) with the current fiscal year. AFSCME (hereafter the union) should agree to a 40 hour work week for current pay. Whether or not the 2 federally mandated 15 minute per day breaks are included within that 40 hours can be negotiated. The union should stop protecting incompetent employees. If an employee fails the new review process listed below, they should not be in that job. If it is a recent promotion, possibly the failing employee could be reverted to their previous position instead of being terminated. Exact penalties can be a topic of negotiations. There should be a process to reduce some of the ridiculous grievances. Lots of management and employee time is wasted handling grievances. Grievances at some point in the process should be reviewed by a board of private citizens with no ties to either the administration or the union; their decision would be the final stop in the process. If the grievance is unfounded and there is a pattern of unfounded grievances, there should be a fine on the employee, say something in the $200 - $500 range, to be paid partially by the employee and partially by the union. Union employees should get raises, but not both step and COLA. I understand the argument that new employees should receive steps the first few years as they master their portion, so I would be OK with keeping an annual (not semi-annual) step in the 3% - 5% range for 3 or 4 years, but no COLA. For employees beyond the 3rd or 4th year, only a COLA. The COLA should be based on the previous year’s federal CPI … and should be dependent on receiving a meets or exceeds evaluation under the new evaluation process outlined below. There needs to be a better evaluation process that includes peer review as part of the criteria and, for managers, anonymous input from their immediate subordinates. The group ratings would be averaged to prevent a single mal-content from playing havoc with someone they don’t like. If you don’t receive an acceptable or meets / exceeds when the manager and group numbers are averaged, you don’t get your step or COLA that year. Get bad evaluations 2 or 3 years in a row, and you are terminated, period … no appeals, no recourse. This would get rid of both the slackers and do nothing political hacks. I’ve broad brushed this. I’m sure both sides have other wants, but politics is the art of the possible. I think the administration, the employees, and the citizens of this state will all find some parts of this proposal they can agree with. I’m sure there are items others would add to this list. I’m sure a lot of people on both sides won’t like a lot of what I’ve written. But someone has to get serious about a proposal somewhere between total destruction of the workforce and total capitulation by the State. - steve schnorf - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 10:15 pm: I think no one on either side will like this idea, but one thing that could be done to take some of the sting out of increased premium costs, and possibly out of co-pay and deductible increases, is to base all those things on an increasing percent of payroll as salary goes up. Clearly, there is a different impact of cost increases on people earning $30,000 a year and those earning $80 or 100,000 a year. - RNUG - Monday, May 23, 16 @ 10:50 pm: -steve schnorf- I thought the health insurance premiums for SERS employees was already a sliding scale based on salary? - Honeybear - Tuesday, May 24, 16 @ 7:11 am: RNUG very valiant effort! If I had an extra one I’d send you our current contract so that you could have had the benefit of what is and isn’t covered. As you know I have been a proponent of military style fitreps for some time. The push back I would give you is about grievances. It matches my thoughts on lawsuits. You should have the right to file no matter what the merits. That being said I have had to stifle a couple of my folks from filing and education ensued. But the root of the problem is still a caustic and verbally abusive Assistant Local Office Administrator. But regardless, all you talked about could be negotiated in fervent negotiations. We can’t do that if the Governor is not at the table. That’s why we need to do this arbitration. Hey, I appreciate the stab at it! You are a great citizen and statesman RNUG! - RNUG - Tuesday, May 24, 16 @ 7:28 am: -Honeybear- Thanks. Re the grievances, this is what I wrote: “If the grievance is unfounded and there is a pattern of unfounded grievances,” The key word there is PATTERN … I have no problem with people fling legit or semi-legit complaints. - RNUG - Tuesday, May 24, 16 @ 8:21 am: Re-reading what I posted at 9:48pm, on second thought, re the first few years raises, I would also be OK if it was the greater of the step or the CPI based COLA. Something else that could be negotiated by reasonable people. - Thomas stell - Tuesday, May 24, 16 @ 9:43 am: Union busting has been a Republican conservative tactic since Regan. Trickle down was another scam to make the rich filthy rich. Bush destroyed America with his personal wars and tax breaks for the filthy rich. Regan,bush senior, handed over the nafta fta for Clinton to sign which destroyed America. All the economics problems stem from the Republican God Regan and the rauners of the world Carry the Regan cross with pride. We have to keep fighting. , - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 24, 16 @ 10:07 am: I don’t see what’s so burdensome about processing grievances. We filed a legit one last year and the bosses quickly brushed it off at steps 1 and 2. It’s been sitting on someone’s desk at step 3 for a year now. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.