* Press release…
The 4th District Appellate Court, today granted AFSCME Council 31’s request to put on hold the state labor board’s impasse decision in contract negotiations between Governor Bruce Rauner and the largest union of public service workers in state government. As a result, Governor Rauner cannot impose his terms, which include a 100% increase in employee costs for health care that would cost the average state worker $10,000, and an end to basic safeguards against irresponsible privatization schemes.
The court predicated its ruling on a finding that the union has demonstrated a “reasonable likelihood” of prevailing in its appeal.
“Today’s decision is in the best interest of all the people of Illinois, both public service workers and the millions of citizens who rely on their important work,” AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Roberta Lynch said. “We strongly urge Governor Rauner to join us in the spirit of compromise and return to bargaining in good faith to reach an agreement that is truly fair to all.”
Rauner’s administration broke off talks between the parties in January 2016 and has since refused to meet with the union.
The full decision is here.
* From the Rauner administration…
“We are currently analyzing this decision, but we are very disappointed with the court’s ruling which continues the stay that prevents our Administration from implementing common-sense changes in the AFSCME contract. These proposals include overtime eligibility after 40 hours instead of 37.5, the use of volunteers for state services, and a merit pay system. Every day of delay costs taxpayers over $2 million. Our contract framework is fair to the State’s taxpayers and employees alike and reflects proposals accepted by 20 other unions.”
- Norseman - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
Good news. Of course, it will only delay Rauner’s continued effort to kill AFSCME.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
===“We are currently analyzing this decision, but we are very disappointed with the court’s ruling which continues the stay that prevents our Administration from implementing common-sense changes in the AFSCME contract.===
That doesn’t sound like someone open to finding a common ground solution. Sounds like someone that only negotiates a “my way - highway”… bargain.
Good on AFSCME.
Good luck.
- @MisterJayEm - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:38 pm:
“The union has demonstrated a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of prevailing in its appeal.”
This is what storytellers call foreshadowing…
– MrJM
- Union proud - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:39 pm:
And suddenly 1700 people’s hopes of getting a state temp job were dashed…
- Grimm - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:40 pm:
Rauner Admin sounds like an annoying parrot…”Raaawk…40 hours…raaaawk…merit pay”
- Guess Again - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:41 pm:
Thank goodness there is still some integrity in this state!
- ConfusedPerson - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:41 pm:
So, if there is no declared impasse, does that mean that AFSCME cannot strike? And if AFSCME cannot strike since there is no impasse, and neither the Gov nor AFSCME wants to meet in the middle, are we stuck in limbo if the courts judge in favor of the appeal?
Are we in the freaking twilight zone or what? I’m moving to another State, this is getting ridiculous.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:42 pm:
“What good is it if we can’t crush the union because of the law? Do I have to crush the courts first?” - Fake Bruce Rauner
- CrispyCritter - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:43 pm:
The courts see through all of the Rauner nonsense.
- Henry Francis - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:43 pm:
So this so-called appellate court’s decision is costing taxpayers over $2 million a day?
Going without a budget is costing taxpayers $11 million a day.
- Union proud - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:45 pm:
People who sign up on that new job site might be waiting a tad longer…
- Exhausted - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:45 pm:
Judge rules in favor of appeal = No impasse
No impasse = no strike/lockout
No strike/lockout + no new movement from either side = …
Welcome to the twilight zone.
- Froggy - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:46 pm:
the Gov’s statement about implementing common sense changes never includes the triple digit increase to health insurance that employees would see, and which would apply to ALL state employees including non-union, legislators, judges, etc. I’m happy with the Appellate Court’s decision today. The Governor needs to swallow his pride and come to the table with realistic and reasonable ideas.
- sharkette - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:48 pm:
But the Insurures, can impose increases of any amount they want on the costs of insurance to those that are small business’s and the self employed,, which is 85% if the population in the USA,,, seems a bit unfair,, we pay our own, and we pay all employees of all the state too.. my tax bill has line after line item, each and everyone has a line amount of pension, pension pension, no line item on it says ipad for a child,, it says pension…hmmm
The 2nd largest bill the State of Illness has is it’s insurance premium costs..40% increase BCSBIL last year, on a multi year contract… mine go up up and up to. I do not get the luxury, of hey to bad you pay mine for me..
- Chicago_Downstater - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:49 pm:
@Grimm
Yah, but unfortunately you’ll remember what that dang parrot said if it squawks the same thing long enough and loud enough. And that’s what the Admin wants after all.
- Dailygrind - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:50 pm:
The other Unions had a choice of either a *100% increase in Health Insurance or No pay raises for four years. He wants Afscme to agree to both & the other Unions have a say in sub-contracting, AFSCME would not. (*unless afscme bargains for a less% to pay) than the other unions would pay the lesser %.
- Moby - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:51 pm:
Sharkette, uh what?
- Precinct Captain - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:52 pm:
==- sharkette - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:48 pm:==
Geez Bruce, did you knock a few back after your meeting with Chance?
- Free Set of Steak Knives - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:53 pm:
The only think preventing the administration from implementing common-sense changes is their unwillingness or inability to negotiate.
- Truth - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:56 pm:
What your not telling the people is the other unions that settled were given free health care free free now if Bruce would make a fair offer for health insurance to afscme this would be over also
- CrabMentality - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:57 pm:
This really is good news. The union was really on the brink.
- Anon - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:57 pm:
When ’so sue me’ back fires.
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 3:59 pm:
So….if impasse is eventually overturned does the Court order Rauner back to the negotiating table? Can the Court order binding arbitration?
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:00 pm:
Excellent news and unexpected too!
- Last Bull Moose - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:01 pm:
When I read the decision, the Court seemed unhappy with allowing the State to impose terms in areas where it had not bargained in good faith.
- CrispyCritter - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:03 pm:
== Can the Court order binding arbitration? ==
I asked that question about a month ago to an AFSCME lawyer and he said the courts cannot order binding arbitration. He stated that Rauner would go back to negotiating and just change 1 thing so slightly that it amounts to nothing, but will say he is negotiating and we’ll be back to where we have been given time. But at least this does buy us more time.
- Johnnie F. - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:04 pm:
Madigan and the 4th Appellate he controls.
- Red Dig - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:04 pm:
Arbitration is only allowed if the parties agree to it and public safety positions. Court can’t order it
- Juice - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:06 pm:
From the decision.
“The Illinois Constitution “authorizes only the General Assembly to appropriate for the State expenditure of funds”; neither the courts nor the executive branch has constitutional authority to appropriate the State’s revenues. McDunn v. Williams, 156 Ill. 2d 288, 308 (1993).”
Well the courts don’t seem to be actually following that belief these days.
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
Thanks Crispy and Red. So looks like State workers wait it out under tolling agreement and hope for a new Gov. in 2019.
- Anonymous - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:08 pm:
“seems a bit unfair,, we pay our own, and we pay all employees of all the state too.”
Totally unfair! I mean it’s not like you could get a job that offers insurance as a benefit or even get a state job. /s
- Anonymous - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:08 pm:
“seems a bit unfair,, we pay our own, and we pay all employees of all the state too.”
Totally unfair! I mean it’s not like you could get a job that offers insurance as a benefit or even get a state job. /s
- Union proud - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:08 pm:
Ironically it was the governor who bent over backwards to get the case moved to the 4th circuit. Labor board hadn’t even issued a written decision and the governor appealed to the 4th in order to get the case heard in a friendlier venue. Union waited for the labor board written decision and filed in the 1st. ILSC ruled that everything be moved and consolidated in the 4th, including the temporary stay. We’ve been assuming that the 4th would dissolve the temp stay any day which would let the governor impose. Instead they just made it permanent. Governor is not having a good day…
- Seats - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:09 pm:
Was this judgement expected or was it one of those rare cases where no one was confident which way it would go?
- jim - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:09 pm:
Huge win for AFSCME. this maintains the status quo for months and months. no strike, no health insurance increases. everything will continue to be as it was.
- Blue Bayou - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:10 pm:
sharkette is Proft
Same exact writing style and level of argument.
- Anonymous - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:11 pm:
Not taking sides here, but if one side or the other is not willing to budge on their offer and the other side won’t agree to it, isn’t that by definition an impasse? No matter how many meetings there have been or how many offers, once one side has reached their limit, isn’t it an impasse? Can the courts make someone better their offer? I get it that AFSCME doesn’t want an impasse if that means the Governor can implement his last offer, but how can the courts make him offer anything better?
- Cubs in '16 - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:12 pm:
===Was this judgement expected or was it one of those rare cases where no one was confident which way it would go?===
Judging from the comments from people ‘in the know’ I’d say this was totally unexpected.
- The Dude Abides - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:12 pm:
@Crispy..Agree Then the Union can offer one very slight concession. The Governor can get disgusted and declare another impasse. The Union can then appeal again and might win in the Appellate court again. It could drag on for some time if the Governor continues to be hardheaded, which I think he probably will be.
- CrazyHorse - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
No time to exhale if you are AFSCME. Come out and say you’d like to transition to a true 40 hour week but Bruce will not negotiate. I just don’t know why they want to keep getting gut-punched on the 37.5 hours.
- Anonymous - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:17 pm:
Management typically forum shops to the Fourth District because it is perceived as a conservative Republican court. So if even such a court has problems with the way management has handled things regarding the impasse, it shows how far out on a limb management really is.
- Pundent - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:17 pm:
Bad news for Rauner going into the weekend. Hopefully Chance can console him as they work on the education plan.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:30 pm:
Wasn’t the 4th supposed to be the friendly district for Rauner?
- Shake - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:31 pm:
Love To See Rauner Lose..
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:34 pm:
The Superstars may want to rethink some messaging next week…
- Juice - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:35 pm:
Anonymous @ 4:11.
The court’s decision that the parties likely weren’t at impasse is centered on the fact that the union had requested information on the administration’s health care and wage proposals that the administration never responded to. And without having that information, the union wasn’t given an opportunity to offer a counter-proposal. Since the union wasn’t given that opportunity, the administration can’t say they’re at impasse.
- Rogue Roni - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:35 pm:
1st Chance the Rapper now this. Poor Brucie
- Patrick - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:41 pm:
Sharkette seems to be making two arguments: 1) that private health insurers get to dictate terms and prices to customers, so the state should get to dictate terms and prices to workers it insures and 2) that pensions make up too much of the tax bill.
To the first point, I’d say Sharkette is asking the wrong question. It should be why can’t the state just dictate terms and prices; it should be why aren’t you more upset that private insurers get to run roughshod over customers? (Side note: remedying that problem was a major focus of Obamacare, but I’d wager sharkette doesn’t want to hear that.) Instead of getting mad that your neighbor isn’t getting screwed, you should be asking why you are.
With regard to the second point, I’d say sharkette again focused on the wrong thing. The workers paid their share of the pensions all along, and if the state had paid its share, we wouldn’t be in this mess. The problem is that revenue hasn’t kept pace with the cost of providing services, so lawmakers robbed Peter (the pension system) to pay Paul (services). I’m not even in a union (or a state worker, for that matter), but it bugs me that the whole pension discussion seems to be about how best to get away with screwing workers who paid their share into the system. There’s something fundamentally wrong with that.
- A Jack - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:43 pm:
I found the court’s discussion very interesting. The employer, according to the National Labor Review Board, cannot unilaterally call an impasse.
- RNUG - Friday, Mar 3, 17 @ 4:45 pm:
AFSCME employees got a big reprieve today, but until a contract acceptable to both sides is in place, an axe will be hanging over their heads. Morale might stabilize for a short time, but it will keep decking long-term.
I expect this game will go on for two more years. Even by losing, Rauner is winning by avoiding raises. And avoiding paying the back pay that has languished for years. Plus it continues the uncertainty in the workplace, making the State a less desirable employer for someone looking for a career.
The destruction of the State workforce will continue, just at a slower pace than desired by the 1.4%.
- Anon - Monday, Mar 6, 17 @ 10:43 am:
What, no email from JT today? LOL!!
- Anonymous - Monday, Mar 6, 17 @ 11:10 am:
It’s early
- Flynn's mom - Monday, Mar 6, 17 @ 3:18 pm:
I would put my fingers in my ears and nah nah to the Gov. But that would probably be frowned upon on this site, so I’ll just say good for you AFSCME members.