Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

*** UPDATED x1 - Rauner administration responds *** AFSCME explains Rauner’s overtime pay demand

Friday, Dec 16, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller

* AFSCME Council 31 is handing out a new flier to state workers to counter some of the statements made by the Rauner administration. This part was the most interesting to me. Click here for the full flier…

The end of overtime pay? What’s Rauner really up to with his plan to change overtime policy? His administration has informed employees that it plans to impose a new regimen in which the calculation of overtime will only count hours actually worked. What the specifics of the administration’s final offer make clear is that holidays, vacation days, and sick days will not count in that calculation: “Only actual hour worked above 40 will be at the overtime rate.”

In other words, if you’re out sick one day, you can be mandated to work 16 hours the next day, but you wont get paid overtime for those additional eight hours!

Worse, because Rauner’s “final offer” allows management to ignore overtime rotation procedures by picking who will be mandated to work overtime, you can be sure that employees in 24-hour facilities who have to use a sick day will be targeted to work overtime when they return. Managers will be making mandatory overtime assignments based on which employees took a sick or vacation day in a given week. [Emphasis in original]

I asked the governor’s office for a response at about 1:30. I’ll post it if they send one.

* Related…

* Berg: AFSCME’s egomania is betraying its members: The length and cost of negotiations thus far is already insulting to Illinoisans. And AFSCME has acted like a spoiled child at the bargaining table.

*** UPDATE *** From Catherine Kelly…

Hi, Rich:

AFSCME’s talk of mandatory overtime is a distraction and a blatantly misleading tactic to divert attention from the fact they currently do not have to work 40 hours a week to earn overtime. AFSCME should stop these games and stall tactics and work with us on implementing the contract.

Best,
ck

53 Comments

But what if Drury does run?

Friday, Dec 16, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Rep. Scott Drury is not the most popular guy in the House. Let’s all stipulate to that. He’s on the odd side, if you ask me.

But what if he does run for House Speaker?

When cornered, politically vulnerable House Democrats always tell reporters and constituents that they had a binary choice between voting for fellow Democrat Mike Madigan and voting for the Republican, so they went with the Democrat.

But if Drury runs, HDems could conceivably have a choice between voting for the Democrat Madigan and voting for a Democrat who’s also a “former federal prosecutor,” as Drury loves to refer to himself.

* People out there in Voter Land simply don’t know Drury like many Statehouse types do. All they’ll know is that some “reformer” Democrat stuck his neck out and the mushrooms still voted for Madigan, who is the most unpopular politician in this state by far.

That’s a precarious position for Downstate and suburban targets. And, don’t kid yourself, plenty of Chicago Democrats also hear about Madigan at the doors and at events.

Drury could make life seriously complicated for his caucus.

…Adding… Some of you may be missing the point here. I doubt at this point that Drury can actually get elected. He’s Scott Drury, after all, and just about every HDem member has already pledged a vote for Madigan.

This post is about the potential political consequences of voting with Madigan and against Drury.

47 Comments

*** UPDATED x1 *** Rep. Welch claims Rauner has canceled further negotiations

Thursday, Dec 15, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Earlier today, GOP Rep. Mark Batinick gave his side of the story about Tuesday’s often tense working group meeting to discuss local government mandates and consolidations. A few minutes ago, Rep. Chris Welch (D-Hillside) sent me this…

Hi Rich,

I attended Tuesday’s meeting at the request of Speaker Madigan and I’m happy to share my perspective. Unlike my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I think it’s incumbent on any legislator to gather the proper information and data prior to passing important legislation. I and my other Democratic colleagues refuse to be a rubber stamp for the Executive Branch while important questions remain unanswered. The message I heard loud and clear was that in order for the State to get a budget, the General Assembly better cave to the Governor’s demands.

Prior to the meeting, I was told the group would discuss mandates, but the actual topic was destruction of collective bargaining rights. The Governor’s office did not provide us with legislative language prior to or during the meeting. Democratic members and staff asked many questions in an attempt to nail down specifics on each proposal discussed. There were some tense moments, usually when a Democratic legislator or staff had the audacity to ask for specific information, or an explanation about the negative impacts of the Governor’s proposals on middle-class families.

When the meeting ended, there was a willingness to continue discussions, despite the fact that the Governor’s Office was leaking blatantly false information about Democrats’ position to the media during what we thought were private discussions. We asked the Governor’s Office to provide language and additional information, and indicated we were ready to meet again. However, I was informed a few minutes ago that the Governor’s Office refuses to engage in further negotiations at this time.

Chris Welch

Man, if they’re still trying to push through significant collective bargaining limits at this stage of the game, we can probably forget about a deal.

*** UPDATE *** I’m told by the Rauner folks that they disagree with everything in Welch’s e-mail.

Democrats, they say, have been asked to provide some counter-offers, which they say the Democrats have refused to provide. So, until the Dems do provide those counter-offers, there’s apparently no sense in having further meetings.

However, Sen. Andy Manar told me that he agrees with everything Rep. Welch wrote. “I was fully expecting to have another meeting to continue where we left off,” he continued. “To prepare, I asked our staff to put together information to be ready for the next time we met.”

103 Comments

The trust issue - HDem version

Thursday, Dec 15, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller

* Steve Brown on WBEZ…

“The change in tone is due to the uninterrupted campaign rhetoric that we listened to for over two years,” Brown said. “That fills everybody with the expectation that if there were some kind of a budget agreement … once a vote was taken, there would be a never-ending series of attack ads. Robocalls, dark money, (and) character assassination sponsored by Governor (Bruce) Rauner.”

* There is ample justification for this viewpoint. After all, the governor, who is by far the largest single contributor to the Illinois Republican Party, regularly denies all knowledge of his party’s activities…

“That’s its own process. I have nothing to do with it. I don’t spend my time thinking about it or focusing on it.”

There’s also the Aaron Schock dark money precedent. All of a sudden in early 2013, the potential gubernatorial candidate started getting whacked by dark money attacks. The same sort of thing happened again in 2014 against all of Rauner’s opponents.

So, the Madigan types figure dark money will most definitely be used against Democrats after a budget agreement, whether through Dan Proft or some other group, and that Rauner will flatly deny any and all involvement, just like he’s doing now with the BossMadigan.com website.

…Adding… Wordslinger makes some great points in comments…

Yes, that will happen, but so what? You still have to do your jobs.

And please — getting whacked in campaign media for making tough votes? Madigan’s crew engineers tough votes all the time so they can whack GOP candidates with them later.

The Dems should consider making the great leap forward to the 1990s when it comes to message delivery and maybe they wouldn’t worry about Rauner so much. It’s not like his crew is dazzling with the message.

Right now, Dems are getting clobbered because they’re not in the ballgame.

…Adding More… From Juvenal in comments…

Have Democrats used rollcalls to put Republicans in tough positions? Sure.

But not ever that I can recall when it came to something that required bipartisan support to pass that Democrats actually wanted.

When you want something to pass, and it requires a structured, bipartisan rollcall, there is always another piece to the deal: both sides have to agree that the bill isn’t going to be the basis of attack ads.

In other words: every Democrat who voted for George Ryan’s license fee hike could rest assured that neither Ryan, Daniels, or Pate would come after them.

That trust is utterly lacking.

And it doesn’t make a bipartisan agreement impossible, but it does make it that much more difficult, because now those Democrats have to be much more careful about what level of funding they can defend, not just for targets either. You have to assume that dark money is going to flood the streets of Chicago again against black caucus members accused of raising taxes for Boss Madigan.

Heck, Rauner just spent money pillorying Forby for voting to confirm his own labor board appointments.

Much. More. Difficult.

39 Comments

« NEWER POSTS