28 Comments - Earnest - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 9:42 am: >“It doesn’t help the members of my caucus who I am asking to take these tough votes while he’s doing ads slamming them,” [Cullerton] said. True, but he can’t look like he only wants to pressure the Republican caucus. - AnonymousOne - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 9:49 am: Comprehensive pension reform. What does that mean? Because Tier 2 certainly changes pensions for those in it and it is not a good deal for them. So what else is there to change? - The Boss - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 9:53 am: How do Illinois Democrats let them keep getting away with the “Boss Madigan” stuff? Madigan sat out the entire senate “Grand Bargain” process, and lo and behold, Rauner came and sabotaged it. All by himself. Madigan was nowhere to be seen when Rauner showed a “reluctance to move forward”, ensuring that an actual bipartisan compromise “does not get a legislative success.” If there’s anybody whose members need to “rise up and say ‘put it aside’”, I’d think it would be Radogno and the other Senate Republicans who got sold out by Rauner at the 11th hour. Every time the name Madigan gets mentioned, I wish somebody would publicly remind Illiois Republicans of this. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:03 am: You sound like a Democratic legislator. We “fixed workers comp in 2011.” Nothing more can be done even though we are still only moved from 4th highest to 7th highest in terms of premiums https://classcodes.com/workers-compensation-rates-by-state/ Pension reform is also off the table because they “fixed it with tier 2″ The Democratic Senate Leader’s consideration model has not been tested in court. if that fails it is possible to open up the constitution for changes through a constitutional convention. After all everyone including Speaker Madigan believes the pension system is unsustainable. He has never modified his 2013 statement. - RNUG - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:16 am: == if that fails it is possible to open up the constitution for changes through a constitutional convention.== Since you can’t change things retroactively, please explain how changing the Pension Clause going forward will affect the existing Tier 1 pension debt. - Precinct Captain - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:20 am: ==- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:03 am:== The consideration model was as much a political strategy as it was a fiscal strategy. Get buy in from workers and unions, no legal challenges. Why would unions bargain now? - Annonin' - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:26 am: Funniest part of the Durkie interview is how he got lost trying to find WGN-AM. He comments about I-55 and JRTC reflect how little the $uper$tars share with their serfs. There have been a lot of discussions. I-55 IDOT wants blank check others want to see some estimates and admissions on lane seizes and surge pricin’ JRTC sale wanted to preempt city zonin’ it seems they now realize how poorly they prepared. - Redraider - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:34 am: The consideration clause is a non starter and have at the Constitutional amendment on pensions. Just remember the flat tax will also be on that ballot. - jim - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:36 am: durkis is half right. Madigan is determined to deny Rauner anything that he wants. Remember when Rep. Lang told the labor audience in springfield that Dems were prepared to go entire Rauner term without a budget. Durkin is wrong with his second assertion — no way House Dems rise up and demand Madigan make a deal. they’re content to let state burn, if the alternative is taking on the Godfather. Having said that, it’s obvious Rauner and Madigan need to meet in the middle and make a deal. that’s what divided government requires. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:37 am: I never said it would erase existing debt but it would slow the growth of new debt, an important distinction for an unsustainable system. Normally when you are in a hole you try to stop digging and going deeper in debt., but Illinois is not normal - RNUG - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:49 am: == it would slow the growth of new debt == Exactly how? You can’t change the Tier 1 rules, so no savings there. Tier 2 was implemented in 2011, it is the current rule, and it is supposed to have a net cost of zero for the State. The proposed Tier 3 / 401K plan can be implemented for new hires and voluntary switch by Tier 2 without changing the State Constitution. If we agree that Tier 2 costs the State $0, then a Tier 3 with any percentage of match by the State as is typical in that type of plan, will cost more. I asked the other day and will repeat it again: why would you want a plan that costs MORE than the current Tier 2 plan? I just don’t see where you get any savings. - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:51 am: Oh, so now I get it. By pension reform (which already happened with Tier 2), what folks really are saying is just reneging on all monies stolen from pension funds and starting from zero debt. That is what is in the minds of those wanting pension reform. In other words, screwing those who worked for you. - 51st ward - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 10:56 am: Tier 2 will fix the pension problem going forward. The issue is the skipped payments and lost investment returns regarding tier1 employees. The only way to fix that is to pay more money into the pension system and no elected official wants to use today’s money to fix yesterdays mistakes(misconduct). - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 11:16 am: The whole point of the consideration model is to change Tier 1 rules. I think you know that and again are being deliberately obtuse again. Future raises are not constitutionally protected - Demoralized - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 11:24 am: Lucky: You can’t change Tier 1. And you are right, raises aren’t guaranteed. The state is free to stop giving raises. But, if they do they are going to be pensionable. The only one being obtuse is you since you are apparently either unwilling or incapable of accepting reality. - coachm - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 12:08 pm: Lets get rid of the tier 1 people ASAP. Offer them the early buy out (2×2) they had 20 years ago and get all the new hires in 401k’s. That sounds like a plan to me. - Pass The Buck - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 12:37 pm: coach– you can’t get rid of ALL of the Tier 1 people THAT easily…some people, like me, are only Tier 1 because of past service, have only been with the State slightly less than 3 years. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 12:51 pm: Oh - jim -, lol It was Rauner himself that blew up the Senate Grand Compromise. If I were you, I’d want Rauner to back the Senate Deal and force Madigan’s hand. Your idea that Dems need to revolt against Madigan, what about SGOP members backing Leader Radogno and making Rauner force Madigan’s hand? - RNUG - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 12:51 pm: New Tier 1 staff were being hired as recently as 7 years ago; Tier 2 didn’t start until 2011. Plus, as -Pass the Buck- noted, there are a few people who were Tier 1 years ago, left the State but did not leave the retirement system, and recently returned, still in Tier 1. Some Tier 1 staff will be with us for as long as 30 years or so. But that’s OK, because it took 50 or 60 or 100+ years to dig this hole, and it will take another 30 to 40 years to dig out of it … as long as the State sticks to Tier 2 AND keeps making the Edgar / Blago “Ramp” payments. - RNUG - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 12:58 pm: The buyouts were 15 years ago in 2002 and 13 years ago in 2004. The 2002 deal was a 5/5. That is the one that did get people to leave; 11,000 actual State employees (mostly SERS) took advantage of it. It was a good deal for the employee but not really the State. It did lower payroll / GRF, but it did so at an increased strain on the pension funds and didn’t eliminate any health care costs. The 2002 wasn’t as anywhere as good a deal, and only a couple of thousand more left. At best, any ERI has had mixed results in terms of cost reduction. - Coachm - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 1:09 pm: RNUG- can you tell me specifically the 5/5 meant? All the kld timers i knew dived at it! As far as mixed results- better than no results? Thanks in advance - @misterjayem - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 1:50 pm: “The whole point of the consideration model is to change Tier 1 rules.” For years, you’ve had the opportunity to learn about the Illinois pension system from some of the people most knowledgeable about the subject — and yet you still post stuff like this? – MrJM - GA Watcher - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 1:56 pm: OW: Along the lines of what you suggested to jim, I actually think Speaker Madigan ought to back the Senate grand bargain and force Rauner’s hand. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 2:07 pm: ===I actually think Speaker Madigan ought to back the Senate grand bargain and force Rauner’s hand.=== “Actually” by Leader Radogno and President Cullerton working on their own, it puts pressure on both Rauner and Madigan, Rauner just chose to blow it up. So there’s that. Good try. - Whatever - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 3:12 pm: Romeo and Juliet, Act 3, Scene 1, v. 90. - RNUG - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 3:36 pm: -coachm- The intent of the ERI was to help SERS people (and others) retire, mostly under the “Rule of 85″ or the minimum age 60 requirement. If you are unfamiliar with it, that states you are eligible to retire if your age plus your service equals 85. For example, if you were age 55 with 30 years of service, you could retire at the pension you would be entitled to with 30 years of service. Assuming you were a normal SERS employee also eligble for Social Security (”coordinated”), you could get a pension of 1.67% * 30 years = 50.1% of your Final Average Compensation. Note: there are different rules and formula for some high risk job titles. Anyway, the above is the normal situation for Tier 1. The 2002 ERI offered a deal where the State would give you 5 years on your age (effectively a Rule of 80) and would let you buy anywhere up to 5 years of service credit. The service credit required payment of your normal retirement contribution; in the case of coordinated SERS, it was 4% for each year purchased. So for an “immediate” payment of 20%, you could purchase 5 years of service … which then got the Rule of 85 as low as 75. And the State even financed the purchase if you didn’t have enough money coming from your vacation / sick time credit, deducting the loan payment from your pension check. They really wanted people gone and made it as easy as possible. In effect, if you ponied up a little cash, you could retire with as almost the same pension as you would have received after working 5 more years (5 years of age plus 5 years of service, ignoring any raises you might have gotten to up your FAC). The State did put a few limits on it. If you took the deal, you had to retire; no banking the credits for future use. You had to he age 50 by December 31, 2002. And you couldn’t come back to work for the State directly without losing your pension except under very specific rules. Retirees could be called back on the “75 Day Rule” and could only be paid the hourly rate they were earning when they retired. And it was limited to 75 days a year, regardless of 1 hour or 8 hours a day. If the agency tried to directly hire you on a contract, the agency lost the funding they were using to try to hire the person and the retiree would lose their pension. Sorry about the long read, but needed to define normal to explain 5 & 5. - Annonin' - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 4:16 pm: Could one of the $uper$tars tell Durkie they are negotiatin’ an MOU with the city and as soon as that is done he can move his JRTC bill - WWGD - Monday, Apr 3, 17 @ 7:00 pm: Don’t worry- my family can’t stand these commercials that are undercover campaign ads. We Need A Budget not more commercials. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.