…Adding… AFSCME has responded. Click here to read it.

* The veto override is scheduled for Wednesday, so the heat will continue to ramp up…

To: Agency Directors
From: Jason Barclay
General Counsel [to the governor]
Re: SB 1229 and Minority Hiring and Promotion Date: August 28, 2015

As you are aware, it is the responsibility of the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) to assist your agencies in ensuring that the state workforce accurately reflects the demographic makeup of our state. Summaries provided by IDHR from Fiscal Year 2014 indicate that state workers in minority groups, including race, national origin, sex, and disability, have been significantly underrepresented in many areas of state government in previous administrations. State law, 56 Ill. Admin. Code, Ch. II Section 2520.700, requires agencies to establish action plans to correct these deficiencies in state hiring and promotion practices.

It is Governor Rauner’s goal to meet, and where possible, exceed these important utilization goals by hiring, mentoring, and promoting qualified minority candidates throughout state government. Since 93% of all employees are in a union, to properly address the current underutilization rates, we need the support, cooperation, and partnership of the state’s unions as well.

In fact, in one of his first acts as Governor, Governor Rauner issued Executive Order 15-12 that requires labor organizations with state contracts to report the number of minorities and veterans participating in union apprenticeship and training programs. These programs are important pipelines for filling new vacancies in state agencies, and historically many union apprenticeship and training programs have not reflected the state’s demographic population.

The second critical impediment to addressing minority underutilization is removing seniority provisions in the state’s collective bargaining agreements that require the state to promote more senior, white and/or male candidates over more junior minority candidates that are equally or even more qualified than a senior candidate. We told the unions these provisions are unacceptable to this Governor. We want to promote candidates based upon their performance, not their tenure. And where minority candidates can be promoted into leadership positions, our agency directors should be given the opportunity to do so without restriction.

In contract negotiations, we proposed underutilization language in AFSCME’s next contract, for instance, that says:

“Where there exists an underutilization of a minority class in a given geographical region and/or job category, the Agency, after utilizing the Upward Mobility Program where applicable, may in accordance with applicable law, fill the position at its discretion to address the underutilization.”

On August 25, AFSCME rejected this proposal. We made clear at the bargaining table that this proposal is non-negotiable because it is a critical element of the Governor’s efforts to transform the culture of state hiring that gives underrepresented candidates more opportunities, and rewards high performance. This important provision, however, could be a casualty of SB 1229 if the Governor’s veto of the automatic arbitration bill is overridden.

As we have explained previously, an unelected arbitrator, and not the Governor, would decide whether minority candidates, and not more senior white candidates, are eligible for promotion since AFSCME will not voluntarily agree to this provision on their own. If these regressive hiring practices are not eliminated in our next collective bargaining agreements, it will make it very difficult to adequately address the systemic underutilization of minorities throughout state government.

To get this important message out to state legislators, we would ask that you start to identify how the rejection of this language could specifically impact individual candidates and overall hiring and promotion practices in your agencies. Unfortunately, many do not yet realize that SB 1229 can have sweeping implications far beyond the severe budgetary impacts that have already been publicized.

We appreciate your continued assistance in gathering information to educate the General Assembly and the public on this damaging bill.

* Meanwhile, Greg Hinz compares the AFSCME bill to impeachment…

Voters had varied reasons to elect Rauner over Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn last year. But clearly one of the main ones was the desire for change, change that Rauner loudly promised to deliver by cutting spending and remaking the way Springfield does business. Having given him that power, it strikes me as disingenuous for lawmakers to take it away, sort of partially impeaching him on the cheap. Too much money is at stake in a state that isn’t close to balancing the books.

Now, an argument can be made that governors have too much power in labor negotiations. But now is not the time to change that. Beyond that, even Rauner is not going to blithely declare a legal impasse in negotiations and unilaterally impose a new contract. If he does, lawmakers—and the public—will have plenty of chance to respond, starting in next year’s legislative elections.

On balance, labor negotiations are supposed to be tough matches of bluffing, chest-thumping, histrionics and, occasionally, strikes. The state will be far better off if the current process is allowed to proceed under the current rules, rather than having one side run a trick play.

The House ought to reject, or at least sidetrack, the override move. Then Rauner ought to return to the table and work out a deal that a hard-strapped state and its workers can live with.