68 Comments - chad - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 1:52 pm: Anyone out there have a handle on what the loss of agency fees and a loss of union membership might mean for AFSCME statewide? A back-of-envelope calculation suggests a loss of about $7.4M in agency fees and a potential loss of about $40.8M if 40% of current AFSCME members dropped (40% is what I saw reported as the Wisconsin drop). Even if this roughly approximates the potential loss it sure looks like a blowout. - Perrid - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 1:56 pm: “You will NOT [at this time, here and now] lose your employment benefits if you opt-out of the union” but we reserve the right to f$%# you over in the future if the union crumbles. - chad - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 1:57 pm: Just recalculated using different assumptions, and came up with loss of about 5.5M in agency fees and 36.9 in lost dues (using the 40% loss figure). That would be a $42.4M drop. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 1:58 pm: The opt-in require is, dare I say, Yuge - Downstate - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:02 pm: -The opt-in require is, dare I say, Yuge- And something the unions were not expecting. - Sense of a Goose - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:02 pm: Can the unions challenge the law requiring them to represent non-members? Freedom of association. Turnabout being fair play and all - NoGifts - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:04 pm: Since they are making it so easy, wouldn’t it be great if everyone contacted HR and joined the union? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:06 pm: ==Can the unions challenge the law requiring them to represent non-members? Freedom of association. Turnabout being fair play and all== Read the opinion. I guess they *could*, but unless there’s significant turnover in the Court by the time that case would reach it, they’d be wasting a lot of money. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:07 pm: Thank goodness that CMS were immediately ready with their Supremes’ ruling interpretation and ready to go to defend First Amendment rights. Not exactly in the job description — I guess they’re just extra-dedicated. - Awaiting Response - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:08 pm: Mr. McDevitt, please provide a copy of this “recent ASFCME circular” that says employees will lose their benefits if they opt-out of the union. - chad - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:09 pm: With Kennedy now gone,this is a closed book for 50 years. - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:10 pm: ==Can the unions challenge the law requiring them to represent non-members?== That’s not exactly what the decision says, it just says you can’t be compelled to pay dues anymore. Nowhere does it specifically say that unions must represent employees who refuse to pay for representation. I wouldn’t be surprised if afscme comes up with a plan to do just that sooner rather than later, and announce they will not be representing free riders going forward. Whether that will withstand legal muster is another issue though. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:11 pm: Illinois state statue requires the state to provide healthcar …. Sure but what kind. That’s they key. Have you seen the proposed healthcRe rauner put together. What a joke. You’ll need all of that ‘saved’ fair share money. Plus more to pay for that state provided healthcare - Texas Red - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:13 pm: Now that free riders are truly free and with the selection being an opt-in, most of the old fair share employees will take the $737 raise. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:15 pm: Well that didn’t take long. Wonder when that memo was written? - Downstate - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:18 pm: “What a joke. You’ll need all of that ‘saved’ fair share money. Plus more to pay for that state provided healthcare” In the private sector, I pay over $18k per year for coverage for myself and family. With a very high deductible. Would a state employee mind sharing what their out-of-pocket is for a family of four, as well as their deductible? - Xxtofer - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:18 pm: My suggestion is two tiers. All union particsipants get “a, and c” like one free consultation with union leaders. Members get unlimited consultations but non-members must pay beyond the original benefit. Seems legal — you pay for what you want. - Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:19 pm: ===-The opt-in require is, dare I say, Yuge-=== ===And something the unions were not expecting.=== Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think this means existing members have to ‘opt in’ again. It just means fair share employees have to in order to become full fledged members, same as it’s always been. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:19 pm: == Illinois state statue requires the state to provide healthcar …. Sure but what kind. That’s they key. Have you seen the proposed healthcRe rauner put together. What a joke. You’ll need all of that ‘saved’ fair share money. Plus more to pay for that state provided healthcare == Yep. What I’ve heard through sources, if Rauner had his way, you would be paying almost a year’s dues every month for health care … plus that again for dependents. - lost in the weeds - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:20 pm: So union members must opt in to have the union fees/dues deducted from paycheck? - Anonni - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:20 pm: Most contracts or agreements include employer neutrality clauses. I believe, even though bargaining never ended, there was some sort of continuation of terms, and I’m surprised that wasn’t in it. If so, this seems to cross that line. Also, I haven’t seen any circular (I don’t work for the state and am not an AFSCME member), but it’s common for unions to offer benefits that are members-only that are not directly related to the job, such as access to union-funded scholarships, discounts on certain products and purchases, etc. Additional perks of membership, beyond representation that is required for all. - Stooges - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:20 pm: -Anon 2:11 - IDOT technical employees are represented by the Teamsters and Rauner cut a deal with them for free health care for four years but no raises. Teamsters also provide members with a $1,000 life insurance policy. I can see the unions adding other sweeteners to entice people to stay. - Anonni - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:21 pm: Also current members likely signed a card “opting in” before this decision — they should not be asked to do it again. - lost in the weeds - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:21 pm: never mind above post I made. - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:22 pm: -The opt-in require is, dare I say, Yuge- ==And something the unions were not expecting.== Actually, this was anticipated by at least some unions which began having members sign cards affirming membership in late winter. - Me Again - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:23 pm: I’m waiting for another cozy “Chat with JT” video so I’ll feel all warm and fuzzy about CMS’ take on all of this. - Downstate - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:23 pm: —if Rauner had his way, you would be paying almost a year’s dues every month for health care … plus that again for dependents—- Again, can someone tell me what an Illinois workers pays in health insurance? - Texas Red - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:31 pm: “Yep. What I’ve heard through sources, if Rauner had his way, you would be paying almost a year’s dues every month for health care … plus that again for dependents” Yes welcome to the real world of health insurance costs. The potential reduced benefit for 35-40K unionized state workers will be a cost savings for the 4.5 million households that pay taxes in Illinois. - Birdseed - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:36 pm: === - Downstate - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:23 pm: —if Rauner had his way, you would be paying almost a year’s dues every month for health care … plus that again for dependents—- Again, can someone tell me what an Illinois workers pays in health insurance? === Very, very little. - Shark Sandwich - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:36 pm: > Again, can someone tell me what an Illinois workers pays in health insurance? Everything you want to know is on Sergei Brin’s webpage. - Thoughts Matter - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:37 pm: Downstate - it varies by which Insurance company you pick, whether you have dependents and how much money you make. I think you could see it if you went to CMS. Next month I will be paying $315 a month for myself and 1 dependent. I will have co-pays for doctors, hospitals and prescriptions. If I go out of network, hospital bills will only be covered at 60% of reasonable and customary- no limit. - Thoughts Matter - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:38 pm: Downstate- forgot to add - Until a few months ago, the claims were being paid 18 months late. Now they are only six months late. Collection agencies are very familiar with state employees. - Downstate - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:39 pm: Thoughts, Thank you. That was helpful. Your costs are less than what I pay, but more than what I had been told. - Perrid - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:39 pm: Seconding the fact that people will lose more money under Rauner’s healthcare plans. to keep the same level of health care the premium will double, which means the even an individual is looking at a $100+ cut a month. Or you can get cheaper healthcare and pay more in dedictibles and co pays. In the long run you will lose more than you gain by not paying dues. Maybe you, like Janus, are standing by your principles, if so fine, whatever, but if you think that this will save you a dime I have a beach house in Nevada to sell you. - WhoKnew - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:41 pm: Downstate - I pay $265 a month for me and my wife. I think my W2 reported @ $13,000 contributed by the State for 2017. They have reported this for the last 4 years, as it could be used in calculations for the Cadillac tax. - Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked Yet?) - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:42 pm: =In the private sector, I pay over $18k per year for coverage for myself and family. With a very high deductible. Would a state employee mind sharing what their out-of-pocket is for a family of four, as well as their deductible?= So are you suggesting because you are happy with this insurance other employees should be also? - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:45 pm: “In addition, even if you opt-out of the union, you still receive the same employment benefits as union members.” The unions should not have to represent non-paying-non-union workers! If I belonged to any other organization that required dues, and didn’t pay, they would throw me out. Unions should be allowed to do the same! - Mama - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:47 pm: “Well that didn’t take long. Wonder when that memo was written? ” RNUG, You can bet your sweet bippy it wasn’t written today. - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 2:54 pm: ==So are you suggesting because you are happy with this insurance other employees should be also?== Texas Red is only providing proof of the way republicans view the world. To most people, someone would see that disparity in health care costs and say to themselves “I should have costs like that as well”. Republicans look at the same disparity and think to themselves “I don’t have that, so no one else should either”. Going through life being as miserable as possible towards other people doesn’t seem appealing to me, but to each his own I guess. - City Zen - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:00 pm: ==Mr. McDevitt, please provide a copy of this “recent ASFCME circular” that says employees will lose their benefits if they opt-out of the union.== If employees stop paying dues, the union could be weakened, even decertified. You could lose your health insurance, paid time off, retirement benefits and more. http://www.afscme31.org/body/Scam-alert.pdf - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:01 pm: Downstate I’m guessing you aren’t in a union ? - Curmudgeon - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:02 pm: My reading of the CMS letter is that there is NO option for non-union member employees to contribute a Fair Share payment through payroll deduction. The only way to contribute through payroll is to sign the union membership card and become a full member. So Fair Share is completely eliminated, but the union is still required to represent this new large pool of noncontrigutors. - Gruntled University Employee - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:07 pm: Lester Holt’s Mustache for the win. - Joe M - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:10 pm: https://www2.illinois.gov/cms/benefits/StateEmployee/Documents/FY2019%20BC/State2019.pdf has the information needed to figure out what state employees pay for their health insurance. It varies by the plans offered in one’s county, plans chosen, family size, etc. - Nick - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:12 pm: Downstate Thanks for making my point - downstate hack - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:15 pm: I think estimates of 40% here are low. Most employees will look at this as a $700 to $900 raise and not join. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:18 pm: ===and not join=== You may be right about the pay raise, but you’re backwards on the action taken. Employees who are already “in” the union will have to opt “out.” - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:18 pm: “Again, can someone tell me what an Illinois workers pays in health insurance?” State employees pay a percentage ballpark to other states. Rauner wants to make active state workers pay 40% of all costs, far worse than any other state. Why should state workers take massive cuts when Rauner has made hundreds of millions of dollars in two years (while governor) and is taxed at a lower state income tax than almost every state in the region? As far as opt-in/opt-out, many state workers already signed recommitment cards. This or something like it was anticipated. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:20 pm: Downstate hack Sure they can free ride for a while. But even state workers can do simple math. Eventually when enough drop out they will have to start paying much higher insurance premiums higher. Deductible. Might even Havel take a Pay cut Or a pension change. Lose some holidays or whatever - Texas Red - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:26 pm: “has the information needed to figure out what state employees pay for their health insurance.” wound be really interesting to see the total premium cost for the various health plans and coverage’s ( single, 1 dependent, 2+ dependents) that is the true cost to the taxpayers. - Sigmond - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:29 pm: Grandson of Man - wealth envy is very very ugly. - Cindy Lou - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:40 pm: Texas Red, it’s not a secret. You’ll find what you want over at COGFA. - Perrid - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 3:48 pm: @ texas Red, all the info is here: https://nessie.uihr.uillinois.edu/pdf/benefits/rates.pdf That’s from the U of I’s HR. You’ll have to do your own calculations of the percentages and it gets a little complicated. Also, since the contract hasn’t been renewed in what, 8 years now? the employee premiums haven’t been adjusted, so the split between employee and employer has changed since it was first signed. That being said, I think last year when I number crunched it the “best case” (meaning the employee paid the smallest percentage of the total premium) was around 7%, individual only and the lowest salary range, and the worst case was again for an individual at the highest salary at 28% of the total premium. If you have dependents you fall in the middle somewhere. That’s not too crazy, though it is better than the private sector on average according to BLS. The employer/employee split isn’t the big problem, the killer is that it is very, very expensive health insurance. - Perrid - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 4:05 pm: Here is the BLS’s data about employer/employee splits. IL is on the generous side, even looking at unions in general (though not by much there). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs2.toc.htm - City Zen - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 4:17 pm: ==Grandson of Man - wealth envy is very very ugly.== Grandson of Man is to wealth envy as City Zen is to taxing retirement income. - Raunersilverspoon - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 4:28 pm: That email violates the national labor board laws. Employers are explicitly prohibited from offering benefits to employees to discourage union support. https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/employerunion-rights-and-obligations - Anon - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 4:30 pm: I got the CMS email this afternoon reported, it as a phishing attempt. - California Guy - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 4:35 pm: Opt-in requirement probably put in place due to States trying to go against the spirit of the anticipated ruling by making it difficult/complicated to opt-out. - Anon - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 4:37 pm: I never worried about being in the union while I worked at IDOT until around 2000 when non union employees got nothing for 10 years and union employees received COLA every year. I also saw upper non union supervisor get let go for political reasons. Any body that works for the State now would be crazy to opt out union representative - d.p.gumby - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 4:38 pm: R silver spoon…that’s what I thought. Janus doesn’t change NLRB - Raccoon Mario - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 5:02 pm: === That email violates the national labor board laws. Employers are explicitly prohibited from offering benefits to employees to discourage union support === Not only that, it’s in violation of the ethics training that we’re mandated to take every year that says you can’t use state resources for political purposes. - anon616xx - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 6:07 pm: @anon 4:30 - hahaha that’s funny. Wish I’d have thought of that. - Truth - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 6:09 pm: Perhaps if union members stopped trying to poke each other up to climb ladders I would opt in…but, that’s not the case so,I will keep my 800 bucks and hope for the best. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 6:26 pm: It’s the opposite of wealth envy. It’s certain multimillionaires and billionaires who resent and loathe the employee-led organizations who give their time and efforts to help their coworkers. It’s Rauner and his ilk who are waging class warfare by going after those who live paycheck to paycheck, to make them poorer and weaker. Bruce Rauner got rich off of the people who willfully belong to organizations he is trying to bust apart. He said so himself. Yet to some he gets a pass, and support, but workers who helped enrich him must be gouged and slapped down. - IllinoisCitizen - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 8:55 pm: First, the State has a organization that largely parallels to NLRB, so that potential violation is still in play. And on decertification, clarification is needed. I n most union elections, only members can vote. So it would seem that those who are outside of membership cannot influence it at all. - Anon - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 9:07 pm: Hoping this energizes the State employee workforce to get their friends and family out to vote. Afscme made us complacent. Many employees forgot that working elections works. The Speaker will benefit from this. - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Jun 27, 18 @ 11:30 pm: Downstate, I’m late to the party on your question but I pay $306 in monthly premiums. That’s just the beginning. I hit the out-of-pocket max of $12,500 and deductible of $7,500 in the first six months of the year, which doesn’t include vision, dental, and prescriptions, which raise my family annual total to well over $20,000 a year. That’s our second largest expenditure. Taxes are the first. Don’t tell me this plan is rich. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 28, 18 @ 12:08 am: –Grandson of Man - wealth envy is very very ugly.– What’s your opinion of boot-licking? That taste sweet? Teach your kids to roll that way, for the rest of their lives? At first blush, my thought to your post was a metaphor of a rooster going to town, but this is a family blog, so I didn’t. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.