Unclear on the concept
Wednesday, Sep 22, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Mayor Lightfoot in Crain’s…
Prodding Pritzker further, she predicted union leaders who have blocked meaningful pension reforms would step up to negotiate a comprehensive solution to prevent pension plans from running out of cash to pay retirees.
“The leaders I have talked to understand the importance of doing something,” she said. “I think if there was leadership by the governor, labor would come to the table.”
Not sure which union leaders those would be.
* Also Mayor Lightfoot in Crain’s…
Well, here’s what Lightfoot said when I asked if she would back a constitutional amendment eliminating or altering the clause [in the state Constitution forbidding reductions in pension benefits]:
“I don’t favor that,” she said, adding that state pension plans are contracts that must be honored.
That sounds a lot like Pritzker, who says essentially the same thing whenever he’s asked about amending the constitution to eliminate or modify the pension protection clause.
The Illinois Supreme Court has decreed that government-promised pensions are an individual right and therefore cannot be collectively negotiated away.
…Adding… Good point in comments…
So the union leaders who won’t agree to vax requirements for fear of their members are now going to sell out those members’ retirement security?
Call me when the shuttle lands.
- Asteroid of Caution - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:37 am:
So the union leaders who won’t agree to vax requirements for fear of their members are now going to sell out those members’ retirement security?
Call me when the shuttle lands.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:40 am:
Lightfoot is the Rauner of mayors.
It’s one thing for labor leaders to cater to vocal minorities to a vaccination, even if it’s against a pillar of labor’s own existence, one thing all members seem to agree… our pensions are important to us, vaccinated or not.
- Frank talks - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:43 am:
Is this article from 2 years ago? Didn’t she already try to throw JB under the bus on pensions right after becoming mayor? Or maybe I’m just confusing what she’s whining about now with her constant whining that’s been since day one?
- Morty - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:45 am:
Liars lie
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:46 am:
Failure to properly fund pensions now rests on the shoulders of Griffin, the IOP/IPI and all the people who voted against cutting their own taxes and raising revenue from the rich.
There are two responses to pension cutters: find a way to raise taxes on the rich or shut the expletive up.
- walker - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:53 am:
“”the importance of doing something,” she said.”"
What exactly?
- DHS Drone - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:53 am:
A union cannot agree to cut pension benefits. Even Rauner eventually accepted that when he pulled his bargaining proposal that said all members voluntarily enter into tier 2. His team was told across the table that we couldn’t legally agree to that even if we wanted to. It was withdrawn next session.
- Manchester - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:54 am:
What part of the IL State Constitution and the IL Supreme Court’s ruling on pension rights did the Mayor not understand? This is nothing but political posturing. She knows full well that the only avenue forward is to fund and pay the pensions.
- Jane - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 9:57 am:
The Unions never negotiated in Detroit. It’s not in the interest from a re-election perspective. Seems like it’s better to have the City raise taxes or force a judge to deal with it rather than bargain away hard won retiree benefits.
- Blue Dog - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:02 am:
It almost seems that the voters have spoken on this issue.
- Annonin' - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:08 am:
Would these be the same union leaders who agreed to changes a few years back only to be sued by their members and defeated in the IL Supreme Court? Or different ones?
BTW most believe these benefits are generally protected by the federal constitution so the state amendment scheme don’t cut it.
- Seats - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:10 am:
First comment nails it. If the union wont protect its workforce with a vax mandate for fear of losing paid membership. There is zero chance they will sign off on reducing retirement because that will one hundred percent lose membership.
- Moe Berg - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:11 am:
Didn’t Mayor Lightfoot used to be some kind of high-priced lawyer at one of them fancy downtown firms?
Ain’t she a graduate of some prestigious South Side law school?
Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d start to think she was some kind of phony playing to the delicate sensibilities of the Crain’s ed board and its political columnists whose faith in “pension reform” is as unshakeable as that espoused in the Catholic catechism.
- Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:12 am:
=she predicted union leaders who have blocked meaningful pension reforms would step up to negotiate a comprehensive solution=
I predict that she’s wrong and that the union leaders know they are not in a position to negotiate these individual rights. She’s suggesting that the only thing standing in the way of resolving this issue is leadership on the part of the Governor while completing ignoring the law.
- thisjustinagain - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:14 am:
Lori Lightfoot is living in her fantasyland, and issuing statements totally disconnected from political and legal realities.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:15 am:
The problem is the debt for the current Tier 1 pensions. Since the 1970 IL Constitution explicitly stated the (implied Tier 1 since it was the only type at the time) pension is a contract, it doesn’t matter if they remove the clause now. Under by State and Federal law, the existing pensions would remain a contract.
If you were to break State and Federal contract law, even in a narrow exception, you would create a precedent to break any contract, undermining the basis of commerce in this country. I doubt the IPI really wants to go there … destroying the validity of a contract.
So if you can’t eliminate the debt, there is no point in eliminating the pension clause.
- Thomas Paine - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:15 am:
Asteroid nails it.
These are like the union members Rauner claimed were always coming up to him in secret.
The two biggest unions for city employees are the firefighters and the police, and if there’s to be any significant savings in City pension costs it would have to be from those groups.
The mayor just agreed to a ten year contract with the police. Was there a pension reduction in there somewhere, and if not, why did she agree to a ten year deal if she thought there was a pension deal in the making…because now there can be no pension deal.
But just to be sure, take five minutes Crain’s to call the firefighter and police union leaders to see if they are open to it.
I’ll wait for the Update.
- Roman - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:30 am:
Why is it the governor’s responsibility? The city has its own pension funds.
I believe the mayor’s people in Springfield know where LRB is located. File a bill.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:31 am:
This one reasonI didn’t vote for her.
Is Ty Fahner still whispering in her ear?
What’s next? Default on city debt?
- Fed up - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:33 am:
Ok, 1-even if a union could bargain why, lori said it herself they can’t change anything so your going to give up something you don’t have to?
2- even if a union could/ would bargain it only covers active members, meaning all non union workers and anyyyyy retiree isn’t covered….meaning any reform would be minimal.
- NonAFSCMEStateEmployeeFromChatham - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:38 am:
==Is Ty Fahner still whispering in her ear?==
Or are Pat Quinn and Squeezy?
- Glengarry - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:45 am:
Lori makes me miss Rahm.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:52 am:
=Lori makes me miss Rahm.=
Same here.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 10:57 am:
85,293rd verse, same as the first. Focus on the doable instead of wasting time and money on the prohibited.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 11:14 am:
Question. It seems Tier 2 is helping the State with it’s pension funding issues, at least slowing the growth of the gap, can Chicago implement their own Tier 2 or does she need Spfld for that?
- Lurker - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 11:19 am:
I will be disappointed if she gets re-elected. I’ll start thinking you democrats in this state are as silly as us.
- Roman - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 11:33 am:
== can Chicago implement their own Tier 2 or does she need Spfld for that? ==
Can and did. Tier 2 was created for all public employee pension funds in Illinois, both state and local.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 11:42 am:
Roman
Thanks, I did not realize that. So it’s the tab she’s stuck with. Good to know.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:39 pm:
=So if you can’t eliminate the debt, there is no point in eliminating the pension clause.=
And scene.
RNUG as per usual has this all tidied up. The legacy debt is and has been the issue, not the pension or benefits.
I have lost count, but the debt payment was somewhere in the ballpark of $6.5 billion. It may be more. Tier 2 is allowing the state to actually add equity to the pension system and has reduced the annual cost of pensions by something like $400-500 million.
Mayor Lightfoot may need medical assistance because she is swinging at ghosts right now. She is to mayors what Lori Lightfoot is to mayors (yes I meant that).
Missing Rahm too.
- What Goes Around - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:18 pm:
There is no better entertainment than when there is any mention of “Pension Reform” on here.
Keep funding the Pension payments on time, just don’t expect more revenue from the rest of us.
State needs to spend the revenues generated by current taxes.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:31 pm:
=== Keep funding the Pension payments on time, just don’t expect more revenue from the rest of us.===
… and yet the state cut over $600 million in tax increases on business for this last budget.
You might’ve missed that. It was in all the papers.
- Sue - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:51 pm:
Lightfoot talks for the purpose of demonstrating her lack of knowledge. Even if a union agreed to a pension cut any single participant could sue to void the changes. We know how that lawsuit would go
- Dotnonymous - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:16 pm:
Rauner and Rahm both left their indelible stain…can’t shout it out.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:23 pm:
Why do you all miss Rahm so much?
The last two mayors of Chicago are singing from the same hymnal on pensions and constitutional amendments.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-rahm-emanuel-casino-legal-weed-amendment-pensions-20181212-story.html%3foutputType=amp
- City Zen - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:43 pm:
===So if you can’t eliminate the debt, there is no point in eliminating the pension clause==
Then why keep it? Or maybe there is a point.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 3:47 pm:
City Zen
The people that want to eliminate the pension clause want to do so because they believe that it will then give them authority to cut existing pensions, which it won’t. That is what he meant. Of course you knew that already.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 4:07 pm:
==because they believe that it will then give them authority to cut existing pensions, which it won’t==
Then remove it. Or stop wasting time fighting people who want to remove it. If there is no power in that clause, let it go.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 4:19 pm:
===Then remove it. Or stop wasting time fighting people who want to remove it.===
LOL, a child says stuff like this.
“If it’s so secure, remove the clause”
No. It’s fine. It’s doing what it’s suppose to be doing.
You’re regressing.
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 4:27 pm:
==If there is no power in that clause, let it go.==
You really are dense aren’t you? The clause is there for a reason. You know that to.
Let’s speak really slowly for you again - eliminating the clause doesn’t accomplish what those that want to eliminate it thinks it will accomplish.