* Another e-mail from JT went out yesterday afternoon…
Dear Colleagues,
I’ve continued to receive many questions from employees regarding the State’s Last, Best, and Final offer. In particular, these questions have asked about the State’s subcontracting proposal.
Let me begin by saying that the State has no plans to engage in mass privatization of state employee jobs. Any statements you have heard to the contrary are not correct.
Second, unlike the last AFSCME collective bargaining agreement, the State has offered protections against subcontracting that borrow from AFSCME’s contracts with other public employers. These protections give state workers a more meaningful role in subcontracting discussions, potentially leading to better outcomes for employees. Under the last contract, state employees did not have this ability.
You can read the specifics of the State’s subcontracting proposal on page 186 of our last, best, and final offer, which is posted on the TeamIllinois website.
Please refer to the State Employee FAQs page for information on subcontracting and other labor issues, as well as to submit questions.
Sincerely,
JT
John Terranova
Deputy Director
CMS Office of Labor Relations
* I asked AFSCME’s Anders Lindall for a response to one particular passage…
You asked for a response to “JT’s latest email to state employees [which says]: ‘unlike the last AFSCME collective bargaining agreement, the State has offered protections against subcontracting that borrow from AFSCME’s contracts with other public employers. These protections give state workers a more meaningful role in subcontracting discussions, potentially leading to better outcomes for employees. Under the last contract, state employees did not have this ability.’”
This is more Rauner/Terranova misinformation.
Here’s the truth: If the state wants to privatize, the union contract now requires subcontracting to meet a standard of “greater efficiency [or] economy”. Rauner wants to do away with that or any standard. Instead, under his “final offer”, the administration could, “at [its] discretion”, allow employees to bid against private contractors—but even then, the administration could reject any bid without justification or appeal.
The existing “efficiency or economy” standard helps to protect the public from outsourcing deals that waste tax dollars or let private entities cut corners to maximize profits. An example: When the state hired a corporation called Maximus to scrub the Medicaid rolls, AFSCME found that privatization would cost $18 million a year more than doing the work with state employees. In addition, Maximus was wrongly stripping Medicaid recipients of their medical coverage (likely because it employed untrained call center workers it hired on Craigslist). We showed that the “efficiency or economy” standard was not met and Maximus was dropped, potentially saving millions of dollars for taxpayers.
In general we believe that public oversight, accountability and transparency are important whenever privatization deals are considered. We think Rauner’s push to delete the “efficiency or economy” language could permit privatization without any safeguards. But we have said time and again that we’re willing to consider the administration’s proposals on this and any other issue, and to modify the proposals we’ve made previously, in an effort to find common ground. The only way to do that, though, is through negotiations, and as you know, the Rauner administration has refused to even meet with our bargaining committee for more than a year.
…Adding… And about the claim that the Rauner proposal borrows from AFSCME’s contracts with other public employers, here’s Anders…
I don’t know where they got their language from. I do know that AFSCME has thousands of contracts with employers all across the country; some have stronger subcontracting provisions than the current state of Illinois contract does, some weaker. We think the current standards are good for Illinois, but the governor can suggest changes by coming back to the bargaining table — which he refuses to do.
- UISer - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:04 pm:
Perhaps this is a dumb question, but how are these emails from the Deputy Director legal? I imagine AFSCME is not allowed to email all state employees. These seem to walk the line between doing political activity on a state email.
- Red Dig - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:04 pm:
JT is a lot of things, but a lawyer he is not
- MAD MAX - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:07 pm:
FINALLY, we’re talking about the privatization language! If you are forced to sign a contract that allows the other side can virtually replace the entire other side, it’s not really a contract, is it? Unfair labor practice?
- Precinct Captain - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:09 pm:
Falsehoods and misdirection are the Rauner Special.
- TominChicago - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:12 pm:
Why do I suspect that he probably is not getting a lot of emails from employees?
- answer - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:15 pm:
Does it “borrow from AFSCME’s contracts with other public employers”?
- Nero's Fiddle - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:16 pm:
JT/Rauner: “Let me begin by saying that the State has no plans to engage in mass privatization of state employee jobs.”
Of course not. That would be doing things out of order. Rauner’s first objective is to destroy as many unions as he can, starting with AFSCME. Once he gets each new “contract” in, he will fire workers agency by agency, unit by unit and job by job. He would never fire all unionized state workers at once (as much as he would like to) because that would trigger a statewide shutdown that would be blamed on him.
For any unionized worker who is thinking about NOT supporting the (inevitable) strike, you may wish that you had acted differently once the pink slip shows up on your desk.
Remember, Rauner’s current “Last, Best and Final offer” only covers employees until 06/30/2018. Whatever worker rights Rauner can’t shred in this “contract” will be wiped out in the next.
To all AFSCME-covered state workers, please cast your ballet in the (ongoing) strike authorization vote!
To all other union brothers and sisters, please support us in any way that you can!
- not buying today - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:19 pm:
TominChicago? of course they’re not getting any emails from employees. like the average employee could reach out and contact these upper crusts. geez!!
- W.S. Wolcott - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:21 pm:
This is the big one. AFSCME is asking me to vote yes to strike next week. Generally strikers are seeking better compensation and better working conditions. My side wants a pay freeze and ~10% increase in health care costs. That’s right. My side is asking me to strike - for a net loss. But now that JT brings up privatizing my job, that makes me itchy. Itchy enough to to vote yes. Some unions got no layoff clauses in their contracts that are “similar” to the one he’s offered to AFSCME. I’m going to go back and look at his last best and see if I can find that no lay off clause over at “TeamIllinois.”
- not buying today - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:23 pm:
my kid said that at the union informational meeting they went to it was stated by the union reps that they don’t even think JT writes these emails and that the content is from contracted union-busters with JT’s name on it.
- RIJ - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:26 pm:
JT is a conductor on the Alternative Facts train.
- Union proud - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:29 pm:
Pair the subcontracting language to the changes in layoff language for a more full picture. In the current language a contractor doing similar work has to be laid off before state workers. Under new language the contractor is protected during a layoff.
- Nick Name - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:30 pm:
Thank you, JT, for finally giving AFSCME the opening to talk about Rauner’s privatization language — which AFSCMEshould have started talking about eighteen months ago.
And, JT, as often as you’d like to mention privatization in future e-mails, please do so. In case AFSCME needs more prodding.
- The_Equalizer - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:34 pm:
Can confirm: Maximus was a disaster. It was so bad that the DHS offices had to clean up the mess Maximus made of things, including a six (or so) month backlog.
- Nero's Fiddle - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:34 pm:
In the “job by job” firings, Tier 1 workers (higher pay / greater pensions) will be the first to go!
- AC - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:38 pm:
This is the central issue, if your job is contracted out, and your job is lost, it doesn’t matter how much the state charges for your health insurance. At that point your pay isn’t frozen, it’s reduced to zero. The issue of contracting and bumping rights cannot be stressed enough, and when it comes to settling the contract it must remain the top priority.
- Pelonski - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:43 pm:
“Perhaps this is a dumb question, but how are these emails from the Deputy Director legal?”
The short answer is the Illinois Labor Relations Act:
…provided, that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit an employer’s right to internally communicate with its employees as provided in subsection (c) of this Section…
…(c) The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit…
As Governor, Rauner and his Management team represent the State of Illinois as the employer. They have the right to communicate their opinions on labor issues to employees. Since the State owns the email system, that means they can send emails. AFSCME has the same right to provide information to employees through their own resources, but the State has no obligation to allow AFSCME to use State resources.
- Nero's Fiddle - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:54 pm:
After the Tier 1 workers are gone, Rauner expects to fire the Tier 2 workers, unless they “self-terminate” because of flat/declining wages and high-premium/high-deductible health care (or no health care).
- BeenHereB4 - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:56 pm:
From page 186 of the Last Best and final Offer:
The employer reserves the right to contract out work it deems necessary.
The following stipulation was specifically removed by the governor:
because of greater efficiency, economy, or other related factors.
So the governor can replace current state workers with private contractors even if those private contractors are more expensive.
- Nero's Fiddle - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 1:59 pm:
@ W.S. Wolcott “I’m going to go back and look at his last best and see if I can find that no lay off clause over at “TeamIllinois.””
Good luck, cause you won’t find it!
It’s time to stand up with your your union brothers and sisters - please vote YES on the strike authorization vote!
- Skeptic - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 2:07 pm:
Compare this to the Teamster’s contract (the “substantially similar” one.) With both, a management/labor team can propose a counter offer. With the Teamster’s contract, if the counter offer meets the technical requirements and is less expensive, then their bid is used. With the AFSCME offer, acceptance of the bid is up to the discretion of the employer.
I’ll leave it up to you to determine just how “similar” that is.
https://www.illinois.gov/cms/Employees/Personnel/Documents/emp_teamsterds.PDF (Page 39)
https://www.illinois.gov/sites/TeamIllinois/Documents/State%20AFSCME%20Contract%20for%20Tentative%20Agreement.pdf (Page 186)
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 2:11 pm:
To - Pelonski -
And it should be pointed out that there is no requirement that these communications from JT be truthful.
And since they never are (truthful) I suggest the following:
Right-click on this most recent JT email, slide the cursor down to “Junk”, then slide it over to “Block sender”, and left-click. Then click “OK.”
When making decisions this important, you should be relying on facts not JT’s “alternative facts.”
- Huh? - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
It must be Friday. I was missing my weekly JT blast of alternative facts.
- Porgy Tirebiter - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 2:28 pm:
The last lines of the JT e-mail were cut off. They were …mwah ha ha. Mwahahahaha
- Bill - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 2:50 pm:
The emails whether truthfull or not are working. I know of 6 people who went fair share in the last few weeks. They can’t go without a paycheck and they don’t want to be fined by the union. It’s effective.
Also, not to get pass ourselves, if we somehow “win” against Rauner, what are the unions plans to counter a Supreme Court decision that will cripple the unions? It will be coming in the next 6-12 months. We dodged a bullet with Scalia’s death last year. I feel the walls are slowly closing on organized labor and people outside of workers and their families are not on the unions side.
- Anon - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 3:06 pm:
With a strike looking likely, does anyone know if management is likely to cancel all approved vacation time citing “operating needs?” I have approved time next month but am thinking about canceling my trip so I don’t get stuck and find myself fired when I get back.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 3:11 pm:
“mass privatization”
How about substantial privatization? Raunernova is playing with words. There can be a lot of privatization without it being “mass privatization.”
“no plans”
Not now, but maybe later. Again, Raunernova is playing with words.
- Demoralized - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 3:18 pm:
Anon:
I’d be checking with your HR or legal folks. If a strike happens while your on vacation you may end up not getting paid and getting a bill for your health insurance.
- kitty - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
The ability to privatize services without demonstrating greater efficiency or cost-effectiveness is bad for taxpayers. How can either side of the aisle support this? Where is the outrage?
- Union proud - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 3:28 pm:
You can safely assume that during a strike the state will invoke “operational needs” which is all they need to cancel your vacation before it starts or call you back if you are already gone. If that happens you can inform your employer that you are withholding your labor. At that moment you’re “on strike” and can’t be ordered back. But you no longer get paid.
- Anon - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 3:42 pm:
Thanks, Demo and UP. I could swallow the loss of pay and full insurance bill for a week but wouldn’t want to find myself fired and fighting to get my job back.
- Nero's Fiddle - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 3:50 pm:
Bill - “I know of 6 people who went fair share in the last few weeks”
That’s the opposite of my workplace where virtually all remaining fair share have filled out green cards to become full union members.
Remember, fair share have no voice in the strike authorization vote. For any who would have voted “NO”, they are making a “YES” vote (and a strike) more likely by dropping out of the union.
- WhoKnew - Friday, Feb 3, 17 @ 4:38 pm:
- Demoralized -
If you don’t use/need the Insurance while on strike you get 60 days to decide if you want to pay the COBRA & another 40 days beyond that to come up with money. All Insurance will be reinstated when/if you return.
Don’t see that in any of JT’s missives! /s