78 Comments - Cassiopeia - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:07 am: Department of Innovation and technology has provided the proposed contract to their members. Members are beginning to read the actual contract and may be questioning whether the proposed health care costs are onerous enough to warrant going an an illegal strike and lose their jobs. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:10 am: ===…illegal strike and lose their jobs.=== What do you base this on? Thanks. - Johnnie F. - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:10 am: Anders…you left out the part about unchecked reckless privitazation while eliminating any and all job security. Please see recent Tribune stories of how privatization has impacted IL group homes for the developmentally disabled. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:12 am: Anders is right. AFSCME should highlight how low entry-level pay is and how bad Tier 2 is to counter people who talk about high paid employees. Telling new hires to quit if they don’t like it isn’t the right answer. - Larry Mullholland - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:14 am: To honor a Jeff Spicoli when he spoke with Mr. Hand: If you agree to it and I agree to it, doesn’t that make it OUR proposal? Further, If AFSCME continued to refuse to share with their members the details of the contract offerings, how would the members actually know which side proposed a now implementable item? - A guy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:15 am: Not the strategy I’d pursue… - Trolling Troll - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:17 am: I haven’t heard much about this in the media: “In a bizarre twist, the Rauner Administration has already filed its own appeal of the Labor Board ruling that it purportedly won. AFSCME is filing a motion to dismiss that appeal this week, since it was filed before the board’s written decision was issued.” - Almost the Weekend - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:18 am: If you talk about Tier 2 to receiving terrible pay and pension benefits then the discussion becomes tier 1 having to make sacrifices which none of them want to make. Afscme leadership is only looking out for tier 1 employees. Once tier 2 is in charge tier 1 will have their day of reckoning. - anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:19 am: Keep in mind…this is UNPAID leave, and provides no additional benefit not already available beneath FMLA provisions. The cost to the State and the taxpayer is zero. This is simply a re-branding of part of FMLA and a PR stunt. This isn’t a new concession, this became law on July 29, 2016 when it was signed. Employees were already eligible for this benefit, as it covers the entire state, and not just AFSCME employees. - Earnest - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:20 am: I think maybe it’s a weak response by AFSCME. It doesn’t put a lot on Rauner or give the press any direction to pursue in questions. Even with the facts on their side, increases in health insurance and lack of raises doesn’t resonate with as many people these days. They’re worried about their own job prospects and finances. Perhaps they could have framed things along the lines of: employees are scared of some of the proposals, the holidays are coming, people are worried about their jobs and being able to afford their mortgages, could the governor put out his timeline to implement his proposals rather than have people waiting every day for the next shoe, and there will be bad things as well as the good, to drop?” This kind of uncertainty is something pretty much everybody can relate to and empathize with. - Jon - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:24 am: I’m not sure if AFSCME has realized that the public relations battle has already been lost. With editorials critical of AFSCME in the Tribune, Sun-Times, News-Democrat, and the Journal-Star is pretty indicative that the public is not on AFSCME’s side in this. Lindall’s comment on the bereavement leave also show’s the tone-deafness of AFSCME considering the recent Tribune stories on how a state agency (which is likely being read by anti-union folks as “union state employees”) has failed disabled adults. AFSCME’s claim of “real harm” directed towards state employees pales in comparison to the suffering of others in the state. If there is a positive from Trump’s win, it is that there is some recognition that the working class is upset, and in their minds well paid state employees with great health insurance are complaining isn’t going to gain any traction. Add to this the grievance stories (which I imagine more will be trotted out by the administration in the coming weeks), and we have a total loss for AFSCME. I hope AFSCME learns from the loss, but AFSCME’s in trouble for the time being. - Cassiopeia - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:25 am: ARTICLE XXXIII No Strike or Lockout OW—-From the contract on page 203: Section 1. No Strike During the term of this Agreement there shall be no strikes, work stoppages or slow downs. No officer or representative of the Union shall authorize, institute, instigate, aid or condone any such activities. - Rogue Roni - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:25 am: They can keep the bereavement and the “bonus”. I’m not going to swallow the poison pill of privatization. No one in their right mind in the workforce should vote yes on a contract with that attached. Don’t forget Rauner ran a firm that specialized in outsourcing. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:26 am: ===During the term of this Agreement=== And when that’s expired, they can strike. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:29 am: ===And when that’s expired, they can strike.=== That’s where I was at. How do you base that as illegal? It’s this type of misinformation that causes ill-placed anxiety. There is anxiety, just understand what’s honest in it. Ugh. - Cubs in '16 - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:30 am: -Cassiopeia- That provision only takes effect if both sides agree to the contract. It does not apply while AFSCME is appealing the ILRB’s decision. AFSCME retains the right to legally strike. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:31 am: @Cassiopeia: A strike isn’t illegal. Since they were declared to be at impasse the union can “reject” the contract and go on strike. It won’t do any good but they can do it. - NIU Grad - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:34 am: Surprisingly tepid response…maybe they’re noticing the political realities of attacking some of the administration’s proposals? - tomhail - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:35 am: Jon - Folks south of Springfield don’t read or care what The Trib thinks. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:39 am: ==has provided the proposed contract to their members== The contract is out there for everyone to read. I would suggest people read it because there is still information out there that is just wrong. Here’s what it says about bereavement leave: In cases of the death of a son, daughter, step son, or step-daughter, employees will receive three (3) days bereavement leave with pay - Nick Name - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:40 am: I too would like to know just what the heck the Rauner administration filed an appeal on, since it got all it wanted from the LRB. - City Zen - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:46 am: The state needs to implement a 2 tiered salary schedule or benefits structure. Tier 1 compensation packages cost much more than Tier 2 due to the difference in pension benefits. Lumping in the Tier 2 folks into the same salary freeze and/or benefit cuts as Tier 1 isn’t fair. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:47 am: It again boils down to Rauner’s contract proposals in totality. There’s a lot of bad stuff in there. It makes sense for Rauner to try to push what is less bad or even good. Then there’s the optic of a multimillionaire–with so much money apparently to burn that he bought a political party–not being willing to pony up more of his money in state income tax but who’s slashing thousands of middle class workers’ livelihoods. That is bad faith citizenship and bargaining. Rauner is able to easily afford paying a higher state income tax but instead is seeking to solely extract harsh concessions from those who earn so much less. The higher income tax for the top earners would not prevent a need for state workers to make concessions, but it could lessen them and would show that the boss is willing to share the pain. Yes I know it’s very hard to pass a progressive tax, but Rauner wouldn’t be the least popular politician for pushing it. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:50 am: ===Tier 1 compensation packages cost much more than Tier 2 due to the difference in pension benefits=== … which are constitutionally protected. Now what? - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:51 am: If Rauner agreed to the bereavement policy recommended by the union, how is this action an imposition? - State Worker THX 1138 - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:53 am: @City Zen. Exactly why I am not happy with the union. Tier 2 is getting the royal screw here. Union seems to either not care or be oblivious to it. Thanks for nothing. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:55 am: OW - As I said, 2-tiered benefits. For example, Tier 1 salaries remain frozen but Tier 2 gets raises. Or Tier 1 pays more for health benefits but Tier 2 employees keep the existing, more costly health care. That’s how you recognize the difference in compensation packages. Pensions are constitutionally protected. Salaries are not. - City Zen - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:57 am: Oops, Anonymous was me. @THX - The state shares the blame. They should have come forward with a 2-tiered deal. They should know better. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:58 am: To pass a progressive income tax, the state would need not only a new governor but a new legislature. Too many of the present crew benefit from our present flat tax, which favors the wealthy over the middle class. And rich folks make campaign contributions and speak to power. So when our political masters get desperate over the state’s finances, they’ll raise the same old flat tax and probably raise it pretty high. The easy button. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:59 am: You think that can get passed by the membership? Why or why not? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:00 am: - Cassandra - Progressive income tax, would there need to be a change to the Constitution? How would that get implemented? - ComeTogether - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:00 am: @Anonymous 9:55 Us Tier 1’s that actually obtained decent titles before the freeze are not cool with that. If anything, Tier 2’s should kick rocks. Life’s not fair. Why should low step Tier 1’s get the shaft? - Formerpol - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:10 am: Boy, is AFSCME out-of-touch. Let ‘em call a suicidal strike. - RNUG - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:11 am: == Progressive income tax, would there need to be a change to the Constitution? == Yes. The General Assembly would have to initiate it and place it on the next general election ballet. Then the voters would have to approve it. - MAD MAX - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:16 am: I agree that AFSCME needs get better at public relations, and when you’re dealing across the table from Rauner, it should be SO easy. This man wants the world to burn, and his “negotiating” style is pretty self evident. This is the same guy that included at the last sentence of (a previously proposed) contract (paraphrased) “by signing this contract, you are voluntarily enrolling into the Tier 2 pension system”. This is the guy that inserted language into (a previously proposed) contract that he could suspend the contract if an “emergency” existed (no explanation or definition was given). The $1000 Merit Pay bonus is transparent as well; unless you’re a Union Steward or on the bargaining team, you’re pretty much going to qualify for this bonus. The 40/hr work week and bereavement items just play well with the public. And why isn’t everybody up in arms that while everything in Illinois is going to ####, this guy is paying out bonuses? If an Appeal doesn’t stop him, I see Health Ins panning out like this; right before Christmas, you can either switch to the “doubled” premium, or I’m going to retroactively recoup to July 01 on your last check of the year. BTW, if you switch, I’ll also forgive the past 6 months of same coverage you already received. Privatization; Let’s say you work for SOS on the maintenance crew. One day, your supervisor says you’ve been replaced, as Rauner has hired Servicemaster to contract out the services you performed. Then he hands you a Servicemaster job application, and says they’re hiring (for about half price w Tier 2 benefits). And don’t think that he’ll give you much to decide (leverage, it’s what he does) My hope is that the Appeals Court will see his demands are so far into left field, no one on the other side of the table would EVER agree to it. At the end of the day, if the Governor can ultimately decimate the Union, it’s not really a contract, is it? - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:20 am: ===Yes. The General Assembly would have to initiate it and place it on the next general election ballet. Then the voters would have to approve it.=== So, as you know, - RNUG -, this would not be what some would say is a “quick fix”… If this all were easy… - Mr. Peters - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:24 am: The average AFSCME worker’s salary goes up by $10,000 every 4 years? Complaining that the average worker’s pay won’t go up $2,500/yr might not be Mr Lindall’s most sympathetic argument to the public given the economy that the rest of the public is dealing with. - Confused - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:25 am: The state isn’t paying their share of health benefits to providers, yet they take premiums from employees. Now they want to take more from employees for insurance premiums with no guarantee the state will get current on it’s insurance obligations. Isn’t this fraud? - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:40 am: I’ve been curious about this too. I can’t find any info on if. If it sounds like forum shopping. I really don’t know If there’s one appellate district that has to hear the appeal. But if there isnt, Rauner probably filed a frivolous appeal in the most conservative, Republican one in the state to try to fix venue there and make AFSCME fight to transfer it to Cook or a Springfield. - Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:40 am: –Since they were declared to be at impasse the union can “reject” the contract and go on strike.– There’s the rub. They can, but will they put a strike at this time of year to a vote? They may not want to know the results at this point. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:40 am: Forgot to paste the comment to which I was replying. - Trolling Troll - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 9:17 am: I haven’t heard much about this in the media: “In a bizarre twist, the Rauner Administration has already filed its own appeal of the Labor Board ruling that it purportedly won. AFSCME is filing a motion to dismiss that appeal this week, since it was filed before the board’s written decision was issued.” - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:41 am: ==Keep in mind…this is UNPAID leave, == Incorrect. A strike wouldn’t be illegal…but it would be incredibly stupid on AFSCME’s part - reddevil1 - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:41 am: Has AFSCME released there last official offer?….It seems that they are quick too criticize and want their members too support them, but don’t give all the information. I want too see hard facts/figures. - OldIllini - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:49 am: Re progressive income tax, an interesting stat from today’s RealClearPolicy, that in 2014, 48 percent of California’s income-tax revenues came from the top 1%. Now how do you suppose they persuade those top 1%ers not to leave the state? - Jimmy H - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:50 am: Is it really a contract when the State includes provisions they think is possibly not legal? Also, the State is willing to include these dubious provisions knowing it might result in the employee having a large financial burden in the future??? From Page 291: “If, for any reason, the above provisions relating to consideration for retiree healthcare are subsequently invalidated or deemed to not be in compliance with state law, employees who choose this option will reimburse the State an amount equal to the difference in value of the coverage they received under this option instead of the other plans offered under this agreement. Decisions made to select this option are irrevocable.” - GOV2016 - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:58 am: @Mad Max….. Privatization; Let’s say you work for SOS on the maintenance crew. One day, your supervisor says you’ve been replaced, as Rauner has hired Servicemaster to contract out the services you performed. Then he hands you a Servicemaster job application, and says they’re hiring (for about half price w Tier 2 benefits). And don’t think that he’ll give you much to decide (leverage, it’s what he does) Essentially, this is what the North Riverside Mayor and village board did to their union firefighters. Helped along by Odelson & Sterk law firm. This cost the taxpayers of North Riverside, well over $500K in legal fees. - Honeybear - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 11:03 am: Reddevil1. We are following the agreement to not negotiate in public. We weren’t done negotiating so we have no final offer. Rauner walked away and issued last best and final. We say we are not done and reAdy to give concessions. That’s what this whole thing is about. - HangingOn - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 11:14 am: ==Tier 1 salaries remain frozen but Tier 2 gets raises.== Due to past employment by a municipality, I am Tier I. I have 3 years in with the state. I am also stuck on the 2nd step and am a low paid employee. Not all Tier I salaries are what Rauner claims they are. Too big of a cut and I could be a state employee on the medical card getting SNAP benefits. I’m guessing that could cost the state more in the long run. Especially since I won’t be paying as much taxes as I was. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 11:25 am: ==We say we are not done and reAdy to give concessions.= So you’ve changed what you’ve been saying the last year. Gotcha. - Nick Name - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 11:31 am: “So you’ve changed what you’ve been saying the last year. Gotcha.” AFSCME has constantly and consistently urged the Rauner administration to return to the bargaining table, ever since he walked away from it last January. Try to keep up. - working stiff - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 11:38 am: ==Department of Innovation and technology has provided the proposed contract to their members.== really? i’m part of that group. when and where did this release of information take place? - Union proud - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 11:39 am: Not all tier 2’s are on substeps. Tier 2 is for people hired 1-1-11 and on. Substeps are for people hired sometime after April of 2013 I believe when the Quinn contract was ratified. There is a chunk of tier 2s who don’t get substeps if they were hired in between those two dates. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 11:51 am: Maybe instead of Tier 1/Tier 2, pick a step, maybe 4 or 5, and give raises to those below it so they can catch up over time. - City Zen - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 11:59 am: ==48 percent of California’s income-tax revenues came from the top 1%. Now how do you suppose they persuade those top 1%ers not to leave the state?== Hooray for Hollywood. And the Pacific Ocean. And the mountains. - RNUG - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 12:06 pm: == So, as you know, - RNUG -, this would not be what some would say is a “quick fix” == -OW- Definitely not a quick fix. Ideally, to handle the current shortfall, you would immediately implement an increase to the flat tax that explicitly sunsets if/when a graduated tax is approved by the citizens. - Anon1234 - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 12:13 pm: All of these proposals are meaningless when the governor refuses to negotiate. Why would he offer raises to anyone when he doesn’t have to. I’m curious what real concessions he made in negotiating the contract to thus point. From the previous contract, I think the only benefit to the union is this bereavement time, which probably costs the state virtually nothing, but is the right thing to do. Personally I think it should also include spouses and parents. It doesn’t matter anymore. It’ll go to a strike and I think far more people will support the strike than anyone realizes. Administrators are pissed too as they are getting a pay cut too. The system will collapse and some of it can’t be contracted out. Especially tough to do without a budget when most contract agencies refuse to work with the state. The question now is what will afscme ask for in order to end the strike. - A Jack - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 12:43 pm: Lindell’s $10,000 number is likely referring to the doubling of the heath insurance premiums over four years. My own estimate given the the health insurance numbers they published on that labor site do come in at a just under $10k pay decrease. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 12:45 pm: Why would our political masters bother doing the work for a progressive tax, with attendant risks, if a flat tax increase were implemented. As I’ve been saying, an increase in the flat tax is the easy button. Keep the wealthy happy, and, well, tough for the rest of us. - Cubs in '16 - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 1:10 pm: ===The question now is what will afscme ask for in order to end the strike.=== Removal of subcontracting language will be essential to AFSCME’s demands. Also, and I’m not an insider so this is simply speculation on my part, AFSCME would agree to at least a partial wage freeze and a less drastic increase to the cost of healthcare. - Newsclown - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 1:14 pm: Gotta love the love letters to employees from J.T. offering that thousand dollar bonus. Reminds me of the salesman at the used car lot that thought he could really “sweeten the deal” on the junker he was pushing, by offering to fill the car’s tank with gas, if I bought it right then. I don’t know anybody that would put up with a hard job that paid *LESS* every year, instead of at least keeping up with inflation. never mind bonuses and raises, but just keeping up with the cost of living increases. Yet the argument is ALWAYS proffered as: “The Greedy Union wants thousands in raises every year, while you folks without anybody’s backing are taking it in the shorts.” Get it right: it’s a series of cost of living adjustments to just keep pace with inflation/ cost of living. It is not a grand give-away of unmerited pay. It’s not a windfall. it’s people asking for what’s fair, and a governor who is rich and powerful and so doesn’t care. Non-union people should support the union’s efforts because a win for them raises all boats, economically speaking. And killing the unions off is against the best interest of everybody living in small towns and large. Well, except the people Bruce Rauner hangs with. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 1:17 pm: Lest we all forget BR’s master plan! BUY IT - Check BREAK IT - Check SELL IT - Workin’ on it - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 1:20 pm: - Cassandra - Times a wastin’ - State Worker THX 1138 - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 1:22 pm: Interesting, and sad, how the all for one, one for all, solidarity brothers and sisters rethoric goes out the window when a person’s pocketbook is threatened in a serious way. Human nature is a b. - Deft Wing - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 1:43 pm: That statement is yet another example of the Union leadership’s malpractice. It is easy to see why Rauner is winning the PR battle with AFSCME. - Moby - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 1:46 pm: Anyone remember this? When the last contract was signed by Quinn, many GOP (and maybe some Dem) lawmakers were all up in arms about the Governor agreeing to a “generous” contract with AFSCME. Many of those lawmakers were screaming that the Governor should not have sole power to sign personnel contracts without their approval. I wonder if those same lawmakers still feel the same now with a GOP Governor attempting to have a contract to the other extreme. - Jon - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 2:00 pm: I keep seeing the AFSCME line “we weren’t done negotiating” and Rauner “refuses to negotiate”. These mean absolutely nothing. The administration came into negotiations from a position of strength; the state is in a financial mess and they are not beholden to union money for campaigns. The administration knew, from the beginning, all they had to do is show up for a few sessions to show they are negotiating in good faith, make a few concessions, and then ask for an impasse declaration by indicating that due to the financial condition of the state, they could not concede any of their positions regarding financials. At this point all they have to do is show there is no money to give to employees. Sure, AFSCME can argue the state can always raise more money, but AFSCME’s political allies are in a fight for their lives against Rauner’s money, so there is no political support for AFSCME, AFSCME couldn’t even arrange for anything beyond a Clinton shout-out about the negotiations. Not only have the GA Democrats failed to get the job done for AFSCME, public opinion of AFSCME has tanked (ironically enough partly due to the GA Democrats trying to take negotiations out of the hand of Rauner). In my opinion AFSCME has failed its members, they engaged Rauner blindly, they had no idea what they were getting into. I understand AFSCME members clinging to this “we weren’t done” mentality, but the reality is we were done from the beginning. I ask this without any snark intended, but what did AFSCME members expect to receive through negotiations? Personally, I was just hoping for a moderate increase in health insurance costs, and a faint hope for the continuation of step increases. - pool boy - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 2:44 pm: Although he hasn’t said this, Rauner would love a strike. He doesn’t care about providing services, could blame the union and save 15 million a day in payroll, pension, insurance and other miscellaneous payments striking employees wouldn’t get. - DHSJim - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 3:07 pm: I also agree that the Don’t Dictate/Negotiate tactic is a waste of time. We need to give Rauner a reason to negotiate. The only tool in our arsenal now is a strike. Agree with some here that this might not work with AFSCME’S horrible pr campaign with the public. But we have nothing to lose at this point. If we accept Rauner’s terms, we lose already. All or most of our jobs will be privatized and all we’ll have to show for it is a $1000 bonus but really severance pay. AFSCME needs to truly reach out to the communities we serve and the general public and not only show how incredibly unfair this deal is but also show how it will bring down their standard of living. Show how privatization won’t lead to better services and show how this will drive down everybody’s wages by destroying the labor movement in this state. And also point out how Rauner made $175 million last year but refuses to pay more in taxes but wants to squeeze middle class workers.I hope the courts overule Rauner’s unfair deal and we can get an injunction, but it’s time for AFSCME to stop depending on others to save them. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 3:34 pm: Bracing myself for the Labor Board to issue its written decision around 4:30 tomorrow afternoon and for Rauner to then drop the hammer, implementing his whole contract just before 5:00, before AFSCME can get into court for an injunction. His Thanksgiving treat. - (Un)Happy State Employee - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 3:47 pm: I have a concern that I haven’t heard discussed yet. Since BVR seems to be moving forward as if his Last/Best/Final is a done deal…is he going to just slip that $1000 bonus into our paychecks without notice and then claim that since we ‘accepted’ the money that it’s a form of agreement to his contract terms? - Honeybear - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 4:24 pm: Anonymous 3:34. Pretty sure that’s what will happen. We are already losing 3 caseworkers next month. Man we are going to go down fast as a workforce. Who will work for the state? People have said it all along. Feature not bug. Yep, the offices may be open but man forget doing anything with the state. Nobody cares anyway. The public will not give two hoots. - Responsa - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 4:43 pm: Maybe Anders will go on Chicago Tonight to explain this to the public. - Leave it to BVR - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 5:29 pm: Honeybear, do you have any info on the appeal BVR filed after he won? Did he just pick the most conservative appellate district and file something there to try to fix venue there? - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 5:39 pm: Anonymous @ 1:17- you forgot, Pocket that cash. - 1st Time Union - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 7:39 pm: ==Tier 1 salaries remain frozen but Tier 2 gets raises. Or Tier 1 pays more for health benefits but Tier 2 employees keep the existing, more costly health care.== Due to prior service, I am tier 1, but I am stuck on the 1st step because of the freeze in salary for the past year. We have been told, like Obama Care, that if we want to keep our present insurance we can do that, but it is going to cost 100% more than we are paying now; however, if you want to pay the same amount that you pay now, you can do that also, but you will have $6000/year deductibles. That may be okay for the younger generation, but when when you are older and healthcare costs more, $6000/year will be devastating. I might as well take my luck without insurance…it will be a lot cheaper! - Property of IDOC - Tuesday, Nov 22, 16 @ 10:38 pm: And the new language preventing relatively no transfer, inter agency transfers or bumping rights would need to be stricken. - reasonable - Wednesday, Nov 23, 16 @ 7:10 am: the union never agreed to a Tier 2 arrangement, the legislature passed it and it was signed in to law. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Nov 23, 16 @ 7:43 am: Leave it to BVR, I really don’t know. Again, I’m just rank and file. That being said I do keep my feelers out. I’m not sure what is happening. Hang on sisters and brothers, it’s going to get rough. Hunker down in your bit of trench and expect it all to get thrown at you. This is WWI style trench warfare. Keep you head down and mask on! Pray to God this is not Galipoli. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.