* The administrative law judge has sent a split recommendation to the Illinois Labor Relations Board regarding the dispute over whether AFSCME and the Rauner administration are legally at impasse on contract negotiations. The Rauner administration claims they are at impasse, AFSCME denies it. There’s something in this recommendation for both sides.
First, a bit of reasoning…
Though the Board could find that there was impasse on one of the three critical issues, and that under the NLRB precedent, this would presumably allow the State to implement its entire last, best, and final offer, I find that this remedy is, like the standard remedy urged by the Union, extreme when applied to this case. The parties were at impasse on a large number of packages, but they were not at impasse on several others. If the State were able to implement its entire last, best, and final offer, the implications and impact would be so enormous that, when applied to this case, it would be destructive of the collective bargaining process and not serve the statutory mission of the Board.
* Some background…
After spending extensive time with the factual and legal matters raised in this case, I am left with the firm conviction that both parties entered negotiations with the intent to bargain and bargain hard. I do not imagine that an objective reviewer of this record will come away with a belief that either side acted as in a completely virtuous manner. However, like all things, good faith bargaining is a sliding scale with some lawful conduct looking less like good faith but not necessarily falling so deficient as to be unlawful bad faith bargaining. Certainly, neither party went out of their way to make negotiations easier on the other or to be overly accommodating, nor is this required of the parties under the law.
Instead, these negotiations reflected a battle mindset on both sides of the table, with each willing to do what it takes to achieve its bargaining goals. However, this mindset does not mean that either side was not sincerely seeking to reach agreement. The Union clearly did not share the State’s interest in having the contract settled expeditiously. The Union contends that the State was unlawfully intransigent on its bargaining goals; accordingly, the Union looks with indifference at the number of proposals the State withdrew and the number of proposals on which the parties reached agreement. The State urges that it came in to bargaining looking for a negotiated agreement, but the Union largely failed to respond to proposals in a way that would actually bring the parties closer together. Despite their many differences in philosophy and approach, I find that record before me, taken as a whole, reflects that each side sincerely hoped to reach agreement, though they had vastly different views of what that agreement should look like and had varying levels of optimism about whether they would actually be successful.
* The decision, such as it is…
Therefore, I am resistant to accept either of the parties’ lawful, yet extreme, positions on remedy. Instead, I recommend that the Board adopt an alternate approach. I recognize that a decision on whether to adopt an alternative remedy is a policy decision that is within the exclusive province of the Board. Some support exists for an alternative remedy in the Board’s precedent, specifically in cases where, as here, that alternative remedy accomplishes the Board’s statutory mission to promote labor harmony and “to provide peaceful and orderly procedures for protection of the rights of all.” […]
I recommend the Board adopt a modified remedy, namely partial implementation. Specifically, I recommend that the Board allow the State to implement the packages on which the parties have reached impasse and for which there exists no other impediment to implementation: Subcontracting; Vacation, Holiday Scheduling, and Leaves of Absence; DOC/DJJ Roll Call (Definition of Terms, Articles V, XII, XVII, XIX & XX); Mandatory Overtime; and Management Rights and Check-off/Fair Share packages. Of course, nothing would prevent the State from continuing to bargain over these issues if it so chose.
On packages on which the parties are not at impasse or that the State either failed to provide information or provide the Union sufficient time to respond once receiving the information, I recommend the Board order the State to provide the requested information and send the parties back to the table for further bargaining and resolution of issues precluding implementation. Those packages include the following: Wages and Steps, Appendix A – Health Insurance, Layoff, Outstanding Economics, Health and Safety Outstanding Issues, and Semi- Automatic/Classification In-Series Advancement.
Awaiting response from both sides.
* The next step…
Pursuant to Section 1200.135 of the Board’s Rules, parties may file exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Decision and Order in briefs in support of those exceptions no later than 30 days after service of this Recommendation. Parties may file responses to exceptions and briefs in support of the responses no later than 15 days after service of the exceptions. In such responses, parties that have not previously filed exceptions may include cross-exceptions to any portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommendation. Within seven (7) days from the filing of cross-exceptions, parties may file cross-responses to the cross-exceptions… If no exceptions have been filed within the 30-day period, the parties will be deemed to have waived their exceptions.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Press release…
The following statement can be attributed to Catherine Kelly, Press Secretary for Governor Rauner:
“We appreciate that the Administrative Law Judge concluded that we have been bargaining in good faith for a fair deal on behalf of taxpayers. We are reviewing her opinion to evaluate the next steps as the rest of the agreed-to process continues.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Council 31…
An administrative law judge of the Illinois Labor Relations Board has dismissed the Rauner Administration’s complaint against AFSCME Council 31 and upheld much of the union’s cross-complaint against the administration.
The ALJ rightly rejected the Rauner Administration’s core contention, finding that the parties are not at impasse on the fundamental issues of wages and health care. She said that the administration has refused to provide information to AFSCME that the union needs to develop proposals and said they must do so. She recommended that the labor board order the state to resume bargaining on these and other issues, and to do so in good faith.
In short, she said that the Rauner Administration should “cease and desist from failing to bargain collectively in good faith with [AFSCME]” and “Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the union over the terms of provisions of a successor agreement”. (***see citation below)
“We are pleased that today’s recommendation underlines what AFSCME has been saying all along,” AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Roberta Lynch said. “There is no impasse on key issues, and the parties should get back to the bargaining table to resolve them.”
There are also points on which the union disagrees with the hearing officer’s findings. For example, AFSCME does not believe that the parties are at impasse on subcontracting and other issues. The union will continue to review the recommended decision, which is voluminous and detailed at more than 400 pages long.
“Ever since Governor Rauner’s representatives broke off negotiations with our union back in January and walked away from the bargaining table, AFSCME has repeatedly made clear that we want to reach a fair agreement and we are prepared to do the hard work of compromise to make that possible,” Lynch said.
In contrast, the Rauner Administration for eight months has refused to even meet with the union bargaining committee. Instead Governor Rauner wants the unilateral power to impose his demands, forcing public service workers in state government to work under his unfair terms or go out on strike.
Both parties now have the right to file written “exceptions” on points of disagreement with the recommended decision, as well as replies to the other party’s exceptions. Those filings and the recommended decision all go before the full labor board, which has indicated it could consider them and act on a final decision in November.
“We hope the labor board’s final ruling will affirm the hearing officer’s recommended order to resume negotiations,” Lynch said. “But there is no need to wait—Governor Rauner should direct his representatives back to the bargaining table now, to work with AFSCME and develop a compromise agreement that is fair to all.”
***FOOTNOTE:
From the recommended decision and order [https://www.illinois.gov/ilrb/decisions/decisionorders/Documents/S-CB-16-017rdo.pdf, pages 248-9]:
It is hereby ordered that the State of Illinois Department of Central Management Services, its officers and agents shall:
A. Cease and desist from:
1. Failing to bargain collectively in good faith with the American Federation
of State, County and Municipal Employees (Union) by failing to provide
requested information;
2. Failing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union by declaring
impasse on packages where the parties are not at impasse;
3. Failing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union by declaring impasse on packages when the State has failed to provide requested information or failed to provide the Union with a sufficient opportunity to
review and respond to the information; and
4. Failing and refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union,
in any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the Act; …
B. Take the following affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
1. As soon as practicable, provide the Union with the following information…
2. Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union over the terms of provisions of a successor agreement
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 1:58 pm:
God help us, Subcontracting implemented by the State. That removed the protective passage that forces the State to show that it would be cheaper to privatize a function. If approved by the ILRB the State could privatize any job for any reason.
Loving God we’re going to get laid off en masse.
- Consideration - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 1:59 pm:
Any chance we could leave the comments open on this over the weekend to allow our resident experts time to digest, evaluate and comment?
400 pages is a lot to go over on a Friday afternoon.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:02 pm:
===400 pages is a lot to go over===
Most if it just rehash, restating facts, etc.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:04 pm:
Hey, I know it’s going to happen but I’d ask, beyond hope that we could be respectful in this discussion. We’re talking about my job and the jobs of a lot of other folks. I’m going to do my absolute best to be civil and not battle but you have to know this is intensely scary right now since I’m not sure what all this means yet.
- Deft Wing - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:08 pm:
So, there was no “bad faith” determined to exist by either party. Nonetheless, this ALJ crafts an equitable solution - to her/his mind - and advocates the Board adopt it.
Don’t bet on the Board going with this Solomon-like decision. If the Board finds similarly on the seminal issue of no bad faith, the State wins and its last, best and final offer will be it.
- tired of politics - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:08 pm:
Honeybear, sadly I believe you are correct but I don’t think you will see any privatization until the contract is resolved. If AFSCME does not strike privatization will happen, if AFSCME strikes and wins privatization will not happen.
- Interesting - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:08 pm:
I can guess the governor’s response:
Happy Labor Day, AFSCME!
Love,
Governor Rauner
- Anon - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:09 pm:
What a mess. If his terms on subcontracting get implemented people could get laid off while negotiations on wages and the other issues are still ongoing. Right?
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:11 pm:
–Union largely failed to respond to proposals in a way that would actually bring the parties closer together.–
As a front line steward, I winced when I read this. I wasn’t there so I can’t speak to it. But I will say with being under attack from day 1 when Rauner tried to take away fairshare, I think that set the tone for the union failing to give an inch. But I still winced. Criticism like this hurts.
- GetOverIt - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:13 pm:
And AFSCME wanted to Quinn to learn a lesson?! How’s that saying go? “Save your nose despite your face”…
- ANONIME - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:15 pm:
Look for the retirements to begin!
- pool boy - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:16 pm:
Wow. With out reading 400 pages, it appears the Gov has won if this is accepted. It also seems like the judge has lumped money and non money items together which does not make sense to me.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:17 pm:
–Don’t bet on the Board going with this Solomon-like decision. If the Board finds similarly on the seminal issue of no bad faith, the State wins and its last, best and final offer will be it.–
I’m so so afraid you are correct. I am so so sad right now. Either way it is good for folks like me. Strike and economic catastrophy or slow economic strangulation or both paths of horror for our States public servants. Either way we’re going to collapse as a state workforce. We’ll collapse.
- GetOverIt - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:20 pm:
Then again, does the recommendation pass legal muster? That is, each part of the contract is part of the whole. If so, a patchwork approach would undermine fundamental principles of contract.
- kitty - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:20 pm:
The State should be required to demonstrate that a required category and or level of service can be provided for less before being permitted to privatize anything. Even so, there are federally mandated maintenance of effort requirements that prohibit privatization of a number of programs funded by the federal government, either in part or in whole, without prior federal approval. Examples include services funded by Title XIX Medicaid, the food stamp program (SNAP), child support enforcement and unemployment insurance, there are others as well.
- Nick Name - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:21 pm:
“So, there was no “bad faith” determined to exist by either party.”
No, the decision lists about eight instances of bad faith by the state — more if you really want to drill down.
- walker - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:25 pm:
In other words “no holding hostages” within the negotiating process.
A rare recommendation, likely to be ignored.
- illini - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:27 pm:
Another Friday afternoon “news dump”, but this time I don’t think, or at least hope, that our Governor is to blame.
No comment now on this.
Let’s see what his vetoes look like yet today!
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:33 pm:
Sorry I meant to say “either way it is NOT good for me” Sorry
- Madigan's lapdog - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:35 pm:
“Save your nose despite your face”…. I think it’s: cut off your nose to spite your face. But anyway.
- MasterPiece - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:36 pm:
“No union dues check-off” is all that is needed to strangle the union. I’d be shocked to learn that they aren’t dancing and prancing around the governor’s office over that one.
- Dee Lay - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
Subcontracting is the ballgame isn’t it?
Enmasse privatization of government functions?
Happy Labor Day!
- Anon - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:38 pm:
So, the question appears to be will we strike over subcontracting? I’ll await the AFSCME response to the decision.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:40 pm:
–Look for the retirements to begin! –
You jest but the loss of institutional knowledge so quickly without the means to keep or recover it is going to quickly lead to major dysfunction.
– Even so, there are federally mandated maintenance of effort requirements that prohibit privatization of a number of programs funded by the federal government, either in part or in whole, without prior federal approval. Examples include services funded by Title XIX Medicaid, the food stamp program (SNAP), child support enforcement and unemployment insurance, there are others as well.–
Yes, true but that doesn’t mean they won’t try it and succeed. Quinn almost did with Maximus and Human Service Caseworkers in Medicaid redeterminations.
- BB18 - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:42 pm:
I am so confused. What does this mean for union employees? Will they strike? Is it over for and officially at an impasse? I wish it was just a yes or no. Planning a future is a bit difficult right now.
- Deft Wing - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:42 pm:
Nick Name: I just read the Opinion. To say it was an attempt to be thorough would be understatement. I commend the ALJ for her efforts. But … it was a really uneven and at times rambling Finding. What’s more, the ALJ repeated that her’s was a somewhat unprecedented attempt to fashion a remedy other than what the law provides.
That said, I did not see anything refuting my original comments and supporting yours — yes, the ALJ found “violations” -by both parties- but no bad faith. And in the absence of bad faith, a determination of impasse can likely be found on this record by the Board. Meaning there is a legal basis to support the State’s last, best and final offer as take it or leave it.
- Juice - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:44 pm:
MasterPiece, the final offer on union dues check-off was basically just language that said the administration believes they’re unconstitutional and that they reserve the right to challenge their constitutionality. So I doubt they’re doing much dancing or prancing because of that.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:48 pm:
BB18, No this is just the recommendation of the administrative law judge to the IL Labor Relations Board. It does not mean a strike vote until the ILRB rules that we are at impasse. There’s a lot of legal stuff going to happen. Steady on BB18, steady on, and pray with all your heart that we can go back to the table on all of it.
- Expletivedeleted - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:50 pm:
Perhaps I am a pessimist but I read this as a straightforward win for the Gov. Now he can remove all job security while “bargaining” over wages. “Oh, you don’t want a pay cut? Maybe I’ll just privatize this particular State service. Don’t agree to pay twice as much for crappier insurance? Ok, I’ll fire those guys over there.” That is not a negotiation. All AFSCME employees should walk. Unfortunately, an awful lot of them will probably elect to stay and take their chances.
- Last Bull Moose - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
I would expect privatization to start in the support services such as IT, Finance, and HR. When the Tier 2 employee status was developed, it became harder to show savings through privatization.
My experience was that the “extra” cost of the union was not in wages but in the inability to reward good performers and remove poor performers. We had one very good young worker who went to the private sector because his talent could be rewarded. We also had about 3% of the workforce that was not useful. In back office situations we could work around the ineffective workers. No room to put them with front line workers who dealt with cases.
One tricky thing about state workers is that many positions require knowledge of state-specific procedures and policies. This knowledge takes time to develop and has little value outside the State. If we see the mass retirements I expect, the State will be hard pressed to provide services at an acceptable level. Too much knowledge will walk out the door.
What surprised me about State workers was how many of them did good work through their sense of pride despite a lack of incentives or punishments. There was no way to provide carrots or sticks, but most did good work if treated with respect.
- Norseman - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 2:54 pm:
Now we’ll see how the board responds to this “split” decision. I’m not hopeful, but I’d be glad to be proven wrong.
- Stones - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:00 pm:
Interesting proposed solution by the ALJ. I’m not at the table but I assume that some of the items cited were part of a package proposal (I.e. The package is accepted or rejected in its entirety). Overall based on what I read the Union should be happy so far.
- Macbeth - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:01 pm:
—
I would expect privatization to start in the support services such as IT
—
Privatize IT? They’ve already done it — with DoIT. It’s a essentially state run private IT department — with non-union employees, I suspect.
- Annonin' - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:02 pm:
Appears the ALJ is sayin’ grow up boys and girls and start talks for real.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:04 pm:
—What surprised me about State workers was how many of them did good work through their sense of pride despite a lack of incentives or punishments. There was no way to provide carrots or sticks, but most did good work if treated with respect.—
Thank you…really thank you so much for saying that.
- Annoin'N - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:05 pm:
BTW it is refreshin’ to see BigBrain wandering around St. Louis divertin’ attention from Trump — not. $16 million GOTV …. someone should ask an immigration question.
- DuPage Dave - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:06 pm:
To all the AFSCME members who voted for Rauner- hope you enjoy what may be your last Labor Day as a state employee.
Two years ago these people were so strongly supporting Rauner but now they don’t seem to remember telling everyone how they voted. The Harris Building is full of these folks.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
As to the Dues check off, Rich could you find and repost the Administrations last best and final. The working I just read links it back to it. Thanks. That would be super helpful to us rank and file to know if we’re about to be gassed in the trenches.
- got news for ya'll - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
let the resignations begin! lots will resign under these draconian work conditions and take their chances in the open job market and elsewhere. the stress of this crapola os not worth it to stay and het kicked around anymore. to h*ll with rauner and zero help from the community at large.
- thisguylmao - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
it speaks volumes that Gov. “we must save money” Rauner wants to do away with the requirement that subcontracting must be demonstrably cost-effective
- springfield will be detroit - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:10 pm:
i hope all the bozos that voted for rauner like staye workers and local business owners enjoy the ghost town their about to inherit!! enjoy!!!
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:12 pm:
Dupage Dave- it’s easy to blame those folks who voted for Rauner at the same time Rauner did not run on his anti union thoughts, actions or proposals. He was perfidious. Let it go. We’ve got to face this all together. I canvassed several weekends for Quinn and got pushback from a lot of coworkers about it. I was mad when the election happened but it doesn’t do us any good now. For the othismos before us we must have all pushing in unison. Form ranks sisters and brothers, form ranks.
- turkey - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:14 pm:
i say the people should take to the streets like they did in july to put down the coup in turkey. people leave your homes and business and vlock the streets of downtown springfield!! rally ho!!
- Present - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:16 pm:
AFSCME is not blameless here. Not brothers n sisters but pawns to be played.First, sleeping with management and then getting them in the union. Dead coalminers are turning in their grave. This is what Rauner knows.
- Consideration - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:18 pm:
Could this be used…
“Instead, I recommend that the Board adopt an alternate approach”…
by the ILRB to say “let’s use arbitration”????
- Fed Up - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:21 pm:
I have just one question for the State Workers who voted for Rauner, how is this working out for you? Rauner said that he was going to break the Union and some of you still voted for him!
- Politically Incorrect - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:22 pm:
It is understandable that union employees are upset.
If there is hope, it starts with the briefing schedule that puts off a final decision by the Board until November.
Any decision of the Board may be appealed to court and the court can stay the order and maintain the status quo while the issue gets briefed there. And there are further judicial appeal rights.
So this is far from over even without the thought that a strike may be voted on.
Many are concerned that the Board will favor the Governor, so the initial battle seems uphill.
Good luck to the State workers who did not want this news breaking on the holiday meant to honor them.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:23 pm:
===…behalf of taxpayers.===
Oh “ck”,
State workers, even Union state workers are taxpayers too.
Maybe in Madeupville the Muni workers there aren’t taxpayers.
I’d re-calibrate the Rauner Word Jumble.
Happy… Labor… Day.
OW
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:24 pm:
Turkey- seriously don’t say crap like that.
- Iron - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:28 pm:
To say that Rauner didn’t run as an anti Union candidate I’d so incredibly diluted. That’s all he ran as! Many state workers begged for this by voting for him. Oh but now it doesn’t matter? We are in this together because of fools.
- Macbeth - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:30 pm:
BTW — if there’s no bad faith on either side — then don’t *both* sides need to agree that there’s an impasse?
The whole point was that Rauner accused AFSCME of bad faith — ergo, we’re at an impasse. If there’s no bad faith — on either side — then there can’t be an impasse.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:32 pm:
–concluded that we have been bargaining in good faith for a fair deal on behalf of taxpayers.–
There’s the signal to the ILRB. We’re shot.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:32 pm:
Bad bad news for union employees. But not entirely unexpected. The terms at impasse were the non-negotiable issues for the union, therefore the issues the union will strike over. Whenever the labor board decides to implement these provisions, the union will be prepared to strike.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:34 pm:
As always, keep your eye on the end game. Get out the vote across the state, spread the word.
Focus on how the Governor has lied, misrepresented.
Seek support from other rank and file unions.
Make phone calls to get out the vote.
End game Vote, Vote, Vote and VOTE.
- Deft Wing - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:38 pm:
Again, if the Board concludes there was no bad faith by the State, similar to the ALJ’s finding, then there’s impasse (which the ALJ found too … but then went through some mental gymnastics to split the baby). And if there’s impasse then Union employees will have to decide to take the State’s last, best & final offer … or walk.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:41 pm:
==there’s no bad faith on either side — then don’t *both* sides need to agree that there’s an impasse?==
No. You can bargain in good faith and still reach an impasse.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:43 pm:
===“We appreciate that the Administrative Law Judge concluded that we have been bargaining in good faith for a fair deal on behalf of taxpayers.”===
Labor, that’s ALL of Labor…
Vote. Accordingly.
Please note the Cowardly 7 that signed that embarrasingly pathetic letter to AFSCME and …
You know. Labor knows.
No quarter. None.
Vote accordingly.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:45 pm:
Still hoping for the stars to line up this way:
1) More D lawmakers get elected in November
2) ILRB impasse decision still tied up in court in January
3) new lawmakers pass arbitration bill in January.
- Macbeth - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:46 pm:
But I thought the tolling agreement indicated that both sides need to agree that there is, in fact, an impasse.
I mean, what’s to prevent one side saying: “Impasse!” and the other saying “No impasse!” — which is exactly what’s happening here.
How can you have an impasse if both sides don’t agree? Otherwise, what’s the point of negotiation? Just say, “Impasse!” on day 1 — and it’s over.
- ryan - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:46 pm:
Heh… Capitol Fax mentioned in the Stipulations section…
- pool boy - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:46 pm:
I think we need a music post. I recommend “The end is not in sight” by Amazing Rhythm Aces.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:48 pm:
===Capitol Fax mentioned in the Stipulations section===
Yeah. Apparently there was disagreement (prompted by Rauner’s legal counsel) over whether some of my posts could be used as evidence.
- Macbeth - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:48 pm:
Adding: And Rauner’s letter to state employees specifically said that AFSCME was acting in “bad faith” — which, apparently, it wasn’t — and that bad faith was the basis of Rauner’s “Impasse!” declaration.
- Robert the 1st - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:50 pm:
=Still hoping for the stars to line up this way:
1) More D lawmakers get elected in November
2) ILRB impasse decision still tied up in court in January
3) new lawmakers pass arbitration bill in January.=
Would have to be held up into March or later. Rauner has 60 days to veto any bill. No chance.
- NIU Grad - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 3:55 pm:
“Most if it just rehash, restating facts, etc.”
Like how half of a history book is the reference section.
- Tough Guy - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:00 pm:
I live in an area represented by one of the “Cowardly 7.” What is amazing is that some state employees will have a “We Support State Employees” sign in their yard with a “Bourne for Representative” sign next to it. Absolutely clueless.
- Nick Name - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:03 pm:
Deft Wing, as you can see in the AFSCME response, and in the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ ordered the state to “Cease and desist from Failing to bargain collectively in good faith” on four separate items.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:03 pm:
Nice response Council 31!!!!!!!Huzzah!!!!!
- Responsa - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:05 pm:
The current governor of Illinois was elected because more people voted for him than voted for Pat Quinn. One can reasonably argue that there were a variety of reasons for this result (most of them having nothing to do with AFSME), which included voters/taxpayers being desperately worried about Illinois’ economic future and for better or for worse wanting to see Illinois at least TRY a different direction. The blaming/shaming by union members of other union members who may have voted for Rauner is—interesting and sad.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:06 pm:
Legal folks- is her order binding?
It is hereby ordered that the State of Illinois Department of Central Management Services, its officers and agents shall:
I know the ILRB makes the final call but do they have to obey her?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:06 pm:
- Tough Guy -
It’s a ” some of the people all the time” thing
- RNUG - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:10 pm:
Going to take a bit to digest it but one thing g jumped out: Rauner got a big win on the subcontracting.
- Tough Guy - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:11 pm:
OW. You’re right, but it sure gives me heartburn.
- Present - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:14 pm:
Tough Guy- I think we used to be neighbors! Voting against ur interest is rampant not just in small towns.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:15 pm:
–Lynch said. “But there is no need to wait—Governor Rauner should direct his representatives back to the bargaining table now, to work with AFSCME and develop a compromise agreement that is fair to all.”–
Restaurant Quality as OW says.
Perfidy exposed.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:15 pm:
===is her order binding?===
That’s her suggested order. Come in off the ledge. lol
- Phenomynous - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:16 pm:
I’ll never get the argument that AFSCME thinks that GOP members have to bail them out from collective bargaining. AFSCME should have worked harder during the gubernatorial election. That’s on you. Trying to pull the chain on GOP members because you failed to act during the election and feel compelled to change the rules is crazy.
- Honeybear - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:25 pm:
So Rich, it’s her suggested order to the ILRB meaning that she’s suggesting to the ILRB that they order that? Sorry if I’m on a ledge. I’m trying really hard to get this as a ton of people have just come over to me, having gotten the AFSCME update texts. I want to get it right for them. Thanks. I know I’m jacked up. I’ll try to breath deeper.
- Anon - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:28 pm:
I think it could drag out until March if it goes to IL Supreme Court. If ILRB rules in November that’s only four or five months.
1) More D lawmakers get elected in November
2) ILRB impasse decision still tied up in court in January
3) new lawmakers pass arbitration bill in January.=
Would have to be held up into March or later. Rauner has 60 days to veto any bill. No chance.
- walker - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:31 pm:
Back to the partisans hearing what they want to hear.
No, she did not find either party bargained in good faith as a blanket statement. She found that they bargained in good faith on enough issues that there wasn’t an obvious impasse.
No, she did not find either party failed to bargain in good faith across the board. She found they appeared not to bargain in good faith on some specific issues.
Are these separable? Does the board have to take an all or nothing approach to the status of the negotiations?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 4:37 pm:
- Phenomynous -
It’s just voting accordingly is all.
That’s it.
- RNUG - Friday, Sep 2, 16 @ 5:00 pm:
Darn, lost my long write-up so here’s the short version. Interesting the judge urged the labor board to use their discretionary powers to split things.
The subcontracting is a big win for Rauner. Hope some org keeps track of it re cost effectiveness and any cronieism.
Fair share checkoff a win, but not as big as some make out.
For now, keep in mind it’s a recommendation, albeit a bit of a groundbreaking one.
- Anon - Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 8:47 am:
I don’t think the ALJ understands how complex negotiation works. Parties compromise on some disputes and hold firm on others as part of reaching an overall deal.
- steward - Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 10:33 am:
She is basically saying he can impose his subcontracting while he talks about the other stuff. Interesting. She gave the labor board a way to appear like they are slapping him while giving him that which he most wants.
See how they rule come November…
- Anon - Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 11:14 am:
Steward, yes. As long as we can get a stay from the appellate court before he imposes his subcontracting plan we should be okay for a while.