* From JT to state employees…
Dear Colleagues,
Today marks the first day of AFSCME leadership’s campaign for strike authorization. The decision to vote in favor of a strike is a very serious choice and should not be done with incomplete (or worse, inaccurate) information. At CMS Labor Relations, we always strive to provide complete information to bargaining unit employees on all topics. You can visit team.illinois.gov to find answers to your many questions and to submit new ones. Our team stands ready to help in these challenging times.
We also prepared the attached one-page document that briefly summarizes why, in our view, a strike is not warranted. Although others may disagree, we believe a strike against the taxpayers is reckless.
We firmly believe that our last, best, and final proposal is one that is both reasonable and necessary given the State’s current fiscal condition. Twenty other unions have accepted substantially similar proposals. A lengthy strike will result in significant disruptions to striking workers’ pay, health insurance, and pension benefits, and risk disrupting the services to some of the taxpayers we have pledged to serve.
Of course, the decision to strike is yours and yours alone. We will respect whatever decision you make and hope the Union does likewise. We remain available to answer questions or provide information to ensure you are fully informed.
Sincerely,
JT
John Terranova
Deputy Director
CMS Office of Labor Relations
* From the attachment…
The State’s Proposal Is Reasonable and Necessary
· Employees continue to be among the best-paid in the nation: average total annual compensation, with benefits, is over $100,000
· Health insurance options allow employees to select what is best for them and their families
· Depending on the choice of health insurance plan, monthly premiums can be as low as zero (AFSCME falsely claims everyone’s premiums will double)
· Temporary pay freeze (not permanent, as AFSCME claims when it falsely says the State is permanently eliminating step increases)
· A merit incentive program that extends to all employees a plan similar to one successfully implemented for AFSCME-represented Lottery Sales Reps four years ago
· Additional safeguards against privatization, along the lines of what AFSCME has negotiated in its CBAs with employees in other States
· Retention of bumping rights during layoff
· Modest changes to overtime provisions without changing the work week you’ve always had
Potential Costs of a Strike Are Significant
· No pay during the strike
· No health insurance subsidy during the strike
· No credit towards pension benefits during the strike
· Average monthly cost to a striking employee is over $8,000
· No one knows how long a strike may be; whether employees strike or not, the State simply cannot afford AFSCME leadership’s demands of billions of dollars in additional pay and benefits during the four-year contract at issue
· Replacement workers can be hired to maintain services during a strike, and in some cases, those replacement workers may be permanent.
· In contrast, employees who cross the picket line continue to receive their pay and benefits and retain their same job protections—contrary to AFSCME’s claim, they do not become “at will”
Thoughts?
- AC - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:47 pm:
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
- Cold of Winter - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:49 pm:
Your health insurance premiums can be zero…. if you decline getting insurance through your employer???
- Grimm - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:50 pm:
I’d like to thank JT for the reminder to vote…
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:50 pm:
===Potential Costs of a Strike Are Significant
· No pay during the strike
· No health insurance subsidy during the strike
· No credit towards pension benefits during the strike
· Average monthly cost to a striking employee is over $8,000
· No one knows how long a strike may be; whether employees strike or not, the State simply cannot afford AFSCME leadership’s demands of billions of dollars in additional pay and benefits during the four-year contract at issue
· Replacement workers can be hired to maintain services during a strike, and in some cases, those replacement workers may be permanent.
· In contrast, employees who cross the picket line continue to receive their pay and benefits and retain their same job protections—contrary to AFSCME’s claim, they do not become “at will”===
First there’s the scare, then there’s the fear, then there’s the threat
Cost. Long time. Could get replaced.
And this is a “good email”
“Take our deal, see, ands a nobodies gets hurt.”
Shocking brazen.
- Cubs in '16 - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:50 pm:
“A merit incentive program that extends to all employees a plan similar to one successfully implemented for AFSCME-represented Lottery Sales Reps four years ago”
How’d that work out?
- Delimma - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:51 pm:
It may not have been this governor’s fault, but we have massive obligations to our state employees. To tell them now that all of those promises will be left unfulfilled is just unfair. Shouldn’t the taxpayers who received the benefit of billions of dollars that should have been set aside shoulder the burden of paying for what they agreed?
- AC - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:53 pm:
==Twenty other unions have accepted substantially similar proposals.==
Except for such trivialities as health insurance, and in one case even a no layoff clause.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:53 pm:
I think all of these e-mails are borderline harassing. It’s important to note that in every one of these e-mails they put the not-so-veiled threat out there that if you strike you may be replaced. Either they want the union to strike and are hoping these harassing e-mails will make people vote to strike or they are completely incompetent and don’t understand how these e-mails aren’t helpful.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:55 pm:
If I was on the fence before I read this email, I’d be voting to strike after reading it.
- Cubs in '16 - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:55 pm:
===“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”===
Emails from JT on consecutive workdays plus one from the Gov. himself…methinks so too.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:56 pm:
- Demoralized -
I’m of the Camp that believes the Administration knows exactly what these emails say, mean, infer, and even destract from in this.
Rauner called them “Af-Scammy” on purpose too.
- Skeptic - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:57 pm:
“A merit plan that extends to all employees…”
Isn’t that called “merit comp?” And isn’t it true that merit comp people haven’t gotten a pay raise in ages?
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:58 pm:
These unions bargained for benefits they knew the state couldn’t afford. They live here. So now the piper has to be paid and their benefits have to be brought under control. Suck it up and deal with it. Don’t like it, then go to work in private industry and see if you can match salary and benefits.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 2:58 pm:
“Monthly premiums can be as low as zero”
Gee! Free “Wellness Visits”. What a bargain!
All we have to pay is 100% of all medical bills outside of that (yearly) checkup!
All AFSCME members - don’t be fooled by this - vote “YES” on the strike authorization vote!
- Hambone - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:00 pm:
=== Demoralized ===
OR - they are not and have never been written for us. State Employees might be receiving the emails but they the desired audience is the people employees are forwarding them to.
- Anon - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:02 pm:
Seriously, how am I supposed to concentrate on my work with this clown emailing me every 5 minutes? I already have enough stress and anxiety over this whole situation. Maybe he’s baiting Roberta to file a ULP on him but I hope she does.
- Steve Schnorf - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:02 pm:
John,you know ive been thru this drill a few times before, and i have done my share of spinnig and posturing, so my soul is not unsoiled. Tell me 1 other group that has agreed that its members will pay out of current salary within $100 a month of what afscme members are being asked to pay for the same level of coverage and i will go away forever on this issue. ss
- Almost Retired Guy - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:03 pm:
“Additional safeguards against privatization…”??? Changes to Article XXIX, section 2 make it EASIER for the administration to outsource via “Managed Competition”. C’mon, man!
- Union proud - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
An arbitrator has now ruled not once, but twice, that the governor’s proposals on health insurance and merit pay are unfair. Check the arbitration section of the ILRB website for the decisions on the troopers’ case. Same two proposals we got offered and the arbitrator ruled against the state. The state made him look at the case again and he ruled exactly the same way over again.
- Nick Name - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
Terravona should just begin all his e-mails, “Hello Clarice.”
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:05 pm:
Why not just post the state’s legal briefs on the website to have individuals make their own informed decisions instead of telling people what you only want them to hear JT?
- Huh? - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:05 pm:
“monthly premiums can be as low as zero”
If you are a Teamster.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:06 pm:
Lying by omission. Again. Workers will get stuck with a 60/40 health insurance plan, no matter how it’s sliced. Not all workers will get merit pay. Most of merit pay will go to a minimum of 25% of workers, for exceptional performance standards over which Rauner refused to bargain at negotiations or provide details.
The door will be completely open to privatization. Also, those who get hired under Rauner’s contract would get the same crappy health insurance deal in retirement that Rauner’s trying to force on active employees. Workers would have to pay 100% for dependent coverage during retirement.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:08 pm:
Replacement workers can be hired to maintain services during a strike, and in some cases, those replacement workers may be permanent.
Please, list those cases in which they can be replaced? The state has committed unfair labor practices your administration is fighting in court. Please, again, post the legal briefs so we all can make our own informed decisions.
- Pale Rider - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:12 pm:
I’m confused. The average employee makes over $100k/year. The average employee will lose 8k/month. Am I missing something?
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:15 pm:
In contrast, employees who cross the picket line continue to receive their pay and benefits and retain their same job protections—contrary to AFSCME’s claim, they do not become “at will”
By suggesting people resign their membership with the union, yes, employees are still covered underneath the civil service code and can only appeal disciplinary actions if they are 30 days or more suspensions or terminations. Currently there is an injunction in place where the state can’t lock out it’s workers and the union cannot strike. If they do decide to strike they have to give a five day notice. Again, give the whole picture.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:16 pm:
–Replacement workers can be hired to maintain services during a strike,–
And how will they be paid?
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:21 pm:
During that five day notice, a strike investigation is requested by the employer, in which case they determine who is essential and not essential. Those who are essential are told to show up to work with a court order and which conditions they work under. Essential employees are those public employees performing functions so essential that the interruption or termination of the function will constitute a clear and present danger to the health and safety of the persons in the affected community. JT please mention that also in your emails you send to us, and again, along with the state’s legal briefs.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:25 pm:
https://www.illinois.gov/ilrb/arbitration/Documents/S-MA-15-347SupplementalArbAward.pdf
This is the state police’s mediation decision in which case the mediator ruled that fair share fees are legal in the state, against merit pay proposals, and the health insurance proposal is unreasonable by the state, again, please post this to the website if you truly want the employees to make their own decisions instead of telling people what you only want them to hear.
- Nick Name - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
Good luck hiring replacement workers without a budget.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
This is the states response to the arbitrator for the state police
Terms of the Award Regarding the State’s Proposal on Merit Pay and
Gainsharing
The terms of the award regarding merit pay and gainsharing should be
rejected. The State’s proposed provision regarding merit pay and gain sharing were
reasonable as indicated by its use in both private and public sectors. The
reasonableness of the State’s proposal is also supported by its safeguards against
the use of subjective factors such as favoritism and/ or politics, and gives employees
the opportunity to avail themselves of the grievance process. Thus, the arbitration
award should not have rejected the State’s proposal and we reject this term of the
Award.
2) Terms of the Award Regarding the Trooper’s Proposal on Health Insurance
The terms of the award regarding the Trooper’s health insurance should be
rejected. The issue of health insurance is pending before the Illinois Labor
Relations Board with the next day of hearing scheduled for .Jan 3, 2017. As such,
we believe it would be premature to include the terms of the Award regarding the
Trooper’s proposal on health insurance in the collective bargaining agreement.
Therefore, we reject this term.
3) Terms of the Award Regarding the State’s Fair Share Proposal
The terms of the award regarding fair share should be rejected. The State’s
proposed provision regarding fair share were reasonable. The current collective
bargaining agreement and arbitration award are unconstitutional as it acts to
Illinois State Police - FOP Lodge 41 - Supplemental Interest Arbitration - page 2
compel employees to support an organization that is contrary to their beliefs.
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court criticized the constitutionality of
the reasoning in Aboud (sic) in Harris v. Quinn. Thus, the arbitration award
should not have rejected the State’s proposal and we reject this term of the Award.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:31 pm:
== Dear Colleagues ==
Suspect few, if any, AFSCME members or fair shares consider Johnnie Boy a ‘Colleague’.
== We will respect whatever decision you make… ==
Other than the fact that my boss, Ruiner, has no respect for you whatsoever. [ Better ].
Finally, this reads like a political statement on State’s (taxpayers) dime. How is this legal?
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:40 pm:
Rauner/JT - “Health insurance options allow employees to select what is best for them and their families.”
Actually, all of the different “Health Insurance” options in the Governor’s “contract” increase AFSCME members overall medical costs by 100% to 140% if you end up actually using your health insurance.
The Governor is telling workers, “Go ahead and gamble with your families financial well-being. Pick a low-premium/high deductible plan. Just hope that you never have health problems (or get in an accident). If you do, you will pay anywhere from $6,000-$10,000 of your medical costs up-front each year.”
The trouble is, younger workers are stuck on bottom steps and will not see a raise for the next few years (if ever). The older workers are already using their health insurance and will definitely see these higher costs immediately.
Don’t forget also:
1) You will be billed retroactively back to July of 2016 for these increased heath insurance costs, so all will see a massive reduction in their paychecks immediately.
2) Your overall medical costs will (once again) rise an additional 10% in July 2017.
3) Your overall medical costs will (once again) rise an additional 10% in July 2018.
Basically the Governor’s eventaul goal is to kick all state employees off of employer-based healthcare. Obamacare/Trumpcare will then be the only option.
AFSCME members, our bargaining committee needs to be able to call a strike if needed. It will only do so if Rauner is able to implement his “last/worst” contract.
In this week’s strike authorization vote, remember:
1) A “YES” vote means that you support the union in this fight and that you are against the Governor’s “contract”.
2) A “NO” vote (or not voting at all) means that you support the Governor and are OK with him destroying the union and privatizing your job.
Please vote “YES”!!!!
- NotBuyingIt - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:41 pm:
Just the Facts from JT or is it Fake News? I for one think he and his buddies are running scared. Go vote! By now you should know the truth!
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
The Panel rejected the Merit Pay proposal, noting that it was offered in the context of a
general wage freeze and freeze on experience increments, and thus would be the major component of the compensation system for the duration of the contract. As such it represented a “breakthrough proposal” - something that is completely new to the contract, significant, and sought through arbitration rather than voluntary agreement. Breakthrough proposals are disfavored in arbitration, and especially high levels of proof are required before a breakthrough
will be ordered.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:47 pm:
There are a number of problems with the Governing Body’s rationale, but the principal
one is that it is directly contrary to the commands of the statute. The Labor Act provides, in the final sentence of Section 14(d), that “Arbitration proceedings under this Section shall not be interrupted or terminated by reason of any unfair labor practice charge filed by either party at anytime.” The Governing Body expressly asserts that the pending unfair labor practice charge should interrupt this arbitration proceeding. There is no way to reconcile the Governing Body’s rationale for rejecting this portion of the Award with the statutory language. If the Arbitration Panel acceded to the Governing Body’s reasoning, it would be acting in contravention of the Labor Act. As the reasons stated for rejecting the Award on Health Insurance are illegal, we decline to alter the terms of the Award with respect to Health Insurance.
- Norseman - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:51 pm:
=== · Employees continue to be among the best-paid in the nation: average total annual compensation, with benefits, is over $100,000 ===
I love this point to employees. You’re overpaid so stop whining. I always respond well to insults.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 3:59 pm:
Rauner/JT - “The decision to vote in favor of a strike is a very serious choice and should not be done with complete (or worse, accurate) information.”
There, fixed it!
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 4:06 pm:
Rauner/JT - “Twenty other unions have accepted substantially similar proposals.”
Wrong! In the case of the Teamsters, Rauner agreed to pay more toward their health care coverage so employees’ costs will not increase; in the case of the construction trade unions, he agreed to wage increases based on increases in the prevailing wage in their sector; and in the case of conservation police, he agreed to ‘no layoffs’ for four years. None of these qualify as “similar” to the harsh terms he is trying to impose on AFSCME members.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
$100K? I wish. $8,000 loss. According to what? Citations please. The misdirection and threats makes me literally sick to my stomach.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 4:46 pm:
==$8,000 loss. According to what?==
I’m assuming it’s the average take home pay for a month plus the average cost of health insurance for a month (employee will have to pay the full cost). That number sounds like it could be close to right.
- Demoralized - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 4:48 pm:
Or they are using the high end, which is probably what they are doing.
- Hottot - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 4:55 pm:
I noticed he left out the part concerning job privatization and how the state would not have to show cost savings.
- up2now - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 5:17 pm:
Re: Anonymous 3:40 p.m. remarks about health insurance premium increases. As a retiree with less than 20 years service (18), I pay 10 percent of my premium a month. If my portion of the premium were to double, wouldn’t I be paying 20 percent, which is contrary to established rules at the time I retired? If the TOTAL cost of the premium stays the same, how can my portion double?
- The_Equalizer - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 5:44 pm:
== We will respect whatever decision you make… ==
I think that might be the first time Rauner and his cronies have hinted that they respect anyone. Congrats state workers!
== · Temporary pay freeze (not permanent, as AFSCME claims when it falsely says the State is permanently eliminating step increases) ==
I wonder, when will this temporary pay freeze end? Got a date there, JT?
- NATTY BOY - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 7:19 pm:
Nick Name:Hello Clarice. Hilarious.
I think a more appropriate greeting would be “Hello Allied Soldiers. Are you lonely? Put down your arms and join the Wermacht and join our fraulines in pursuit of peace….”
- Generic Drone - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 7:23 pm:
Im tired of the state always saying other unions have agreed to similar contracts. That’s a flat out lie. No other contract has called for elimination of bargining rights or privatization. Why don’t the press tell the whole story. I watched channel 20 news report tonite and they mentioned the “similar contracts agreed to by other unions” story, but did not offer any comparison.
- foster brooks - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 8:18 pm:
the only thing that changed in the downstate teamsters contract was a wage freeze and the amount of vacation that can be accrued for new employees. plus if you are in the wellness program the insurance is 100% free
- XDNR - Monday, Jan 30, 17 @ 10:56 pm:
Rauner/JT and their “Alternatve Facts” and so it goes unchallenged by the weak media.
- Shanks - Tuesday, Jan 31, 17 @ 12:10 am:
“· In contrast, employees who cross the picket line continue to receive their pay and benefits…”
Yeah…until you are forced onto a new contract that will dramatically alter your pay, benefits, work rights, etc.
I hope we aren’t that gullible.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 31, 17 @ 8:44 am:
Can’t lose $8000 a month if I don’t make $8000. More accurate would be “up to a month’s pay,” but accuracy and honesty went out the window when Rauner stepped foot into office.
- Anon - Tuesday, Jan 31, 17 @ 9:56 am:
I would like to know why JT and the governor can flood my work computer with alternative facts and AFSCME can’t post a rebuttal on the same forum. I personally would like to see AFSCME’s answers to these allegations on the work computers also. Fellow members don’t allow Scare tactics to cloud your decision. Vote what is best for you and your family’s well being.