Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Reader comments closed for the holiday weekend
Next Post: Most big Illinois companies pay less than 2 percent for state, local income taxes
Posted in:
* For the complete story on how and why Gov. Pat Quinn decided to cancel scheduled pay raises for thousands of union employees, click here and here.
* The reasoning basically boils down to this: The state Constitution gives the General Assembly the sole authority to appropriate funds. The state’s Labor Relations Act has a clause that makes all union contract provisions subject to appropriations. Therefore, since the GA shorted the approps for personnel, the governor had no choice but to cancel scheduled pay raises. Even so, AFSCME claims that the action is illegal and vows to fight it in court
* Quinn was asked about his action over the weekend…
Approximately 30,000 state workers, from prison guards to health care workers, were supposed to get a raise Friday, after having time-deferred their previous two raises.
The governor said ‘no’. Legislators did not put money in the budget for the raises, so for now, they will not happen.
“We have got to run the government, got to make sure it lasts for an entire fiscal year - all of the services that people need - and when the money was not provided for the pay raises, I had no choice,” said Quinn.
Listen…
* Frank is not a lawyer, so you can’t take this to the bank…
Quinn wanted a budget $2 billion larger than what was approved by the Democratic-led legislature. But a leading legislative budget negotiator said the administration never signaled that it would try to bypass a collective bargaining agreement with union workers as a financial management strategy.
Rep. Frank Mautino of Spring Valley, the House Democrats’ budget point man, also said he doesn’t think Quinn’s pay raise move is enforceable.
Mautino acknowledged lawmakers cut the personal services budget lines of state agencies, but said this was to allow Quinn to eliminate unfilled positions because the governor struck an election-year deal with AFSCME not to seek layoffs.
Discuss.
…Adding… Ghost makes several strong and quite important points in comments…
Set aside that it is AFSCME and just insert “contract” here.
Right now every Gov can only spend money which has been appropriated for that purpose. Quinn can not sign a contract to buy the Dodgers, for example, if no money has been appropriated for it. It is a fundamental check and balance of our system. Only the GA can authorize and approve spending.
If the GA does not approve the spending, then the money can not be spent. There is no legal remedy as the court does not have appropriation authority either.
If the court upholds that a Gov can spend money without spending authority form the GA stand back, you think our budget situation is bad now, imagine a Blago who could enter into contracts for health care without any money being appropriated to cover them…or to build buildings or roads etc.
In essence if the court sides with AFSCME, it is giving the Gov authority to spend money without the approval of the general assembly, which tosses out any need for the general assembly to appropriate and approve spending. [a few minor spelling corrections made]
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Reader comments closed for the holiday weekend
Next Post: Most big Illinois companies pay less than 2 percent for state, local income taxes
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If Brady was governor and tried this, it would be World War 3 in Illinois. Remember Wisconsin and Governor Walker? That would seem quaint. Absolutely everyone would be polarized, and nothing would get done.
Just like only Nixon can go to China, only a Democrat can take something away from the AFSCME.
Quinn is actually the right man (patsy?) to have as governor while Illinois runs out of money.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:42 am
But he gave his person a 48% pay increase!!!!
Comment by fed up Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:47 am
If the money’s not there, the money’s not there. I’m sure AFSCME will challenge, but if they’re successful, here come the layoffs, barring further appropriations.
Any “agreement” they have with the governor doesn’t trump the GA’s power of the purse.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:48 am
I am not so sure that AFSCME is going to just let this slide because it’s Quinn vs. Brady. If they do it is going to be a huge mistake, if anything by going after this they will show it isn’t just unions not liking Republicans.
Also Quinn’s Democratic governor group thing gives them some leverage. If I were him I would do my darndest to make someone wear the jacket on this.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:49 am
The FY12 budget is terrible, and there will be pain.
The amusing part is the misdirection on who is responsible for that pain, as usual.
I used to think having politically divided government needed to happen in Illinois - but based on how things are in Congress right now, I don’t have much hope for reasonable resolution of budget issues here.
Comment by Leroy Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:54 am
Set aside that it is AFSCME and just insert contract here.
Right now every Gov can only spend money which has been appropriated for that purpose. i.e. Quinn can not sign a contract to buy the Dodgers, for example, if no money has been appropriated for it. It is a fundamental check and balance of our system. Only the GA can authorize and approve spending.
If the GA does not approve the spending, then the money can not be spent. There is no legal remedy as the corut does not have appropriation athority either.
If the court upholds that a Gov can spend money without spending authority form the GA stand back, you think our budget situation is bad now, imagine a Blago who could enter into contracts for health care without any money being appropriated to cover them…or to build buildings or roads etc.
In essence if the ocurt sides with AFSCME, it is giving the Gov authority to spend money without the approval of the general assembly. WHich tosses out any need for the general assembly to appropriate and approve spending.
This is a monumental issue well beyound the AFSCME contract.
As mentioned, put in a blago or other Gov unrestrained in what contracts they can enter into…
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:56 am
So Illinois can skimp out on its own collective bargaining contracts, but then the State through the ILRB can stick cities and counties with unaffordable increases through binding arbitration. Well that seems fair.
Comment by Shemp Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:56 am
- But he gave his person a 48% pay increase!!!! -
A promotion isn’t the same as a raise.
I’m not sure if AFSCME is being wise to go after Quinn on this, he’s just being honest about the budget handed to him. I’m guessing the idea is that they should be focusing their efforts on the GA to get additional appropriations in the fall.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:56 am
Does Afscme get a refund. They bought Quinn and are now finding out he is defective.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:58 am
What needs to happen is an overhaul to the payroll system as a whole. Though promised, it is difficult for me to feel sorry for the Union workers not getting their pay increase. I’m a (non-union) Senior Public Service Administrator with a (union) Administrative (clerical) Assistant that makes $6,000 more a year than I do before I take furlough days - even though we’ve both been here about the same amount of time. Make sense of that in any employment situation! The only reason SPSAs want to be unionized is so we can get paid what we’re worth!
If Quinn and Barbara Flynn Curry succeed in keeping SPSAs from entering the Union and eliminating the Public Service Adminstrators from it - then what will happen? Will the PSAs go back down to the pay level they would have had? And if so, will they have to pay back what they’ve earned and shouldn’t have in the same way the State has to pay when there’s a dispute over whether a person can be in the Union, and then wins and gets backpay? Or will the SPSA’s pay level raise to be higher (as it should be anyway based on an organizational chart) then the now non-union PSAs?
This spring we’ve heard all about Pensions and healthcare but the issue is much bigger than that. It’s time to sit down at the table, look at the money in the personal services line and pay it out based on the organization chart. Yes, that would mean that those at the top - the managers/merit comp who’ve taken furlough days and haven’t had a raise in more than 2 years will get a raise and it may mean that those in the union that are already making more than they probably should might not get a raise. But that’s what should be done - run the state like a business and take a logical approach!
Comment by Both Sides Now Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:59 am
“I’m not sure if AFSCME is being wise to go after Quinn on this, he’s just being honest about the budget handed to him.”
Quinn should have been more involved during the budget process.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:01 am
If this goes through Quinn’s negotiating power with AFSCME or any other group will be destroyed. He can blame it on the Legislature, but it all comes down to him and his staff. He couldn’t get the bill passed to yank people out of the union, so he pulled this stunt.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:02 am
Agree with Anon, if this were Brady AFSCME and friends would be unloading viciously. That being said, they aren’t going to roll over on this.
It’s getting tougher to spend the money we don’t have. But why, then, was Quinn promising things he couldn’t deliver? I guess that’s not really a serious question if I think about it. Hardly the first time, and you have to wonder (again) how much he knew and planned when he was making those campaign promises and deals.
At what point does his dishonesty and incompetence just dominate his reputation?
Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:03 am
- Quinn should have been more involved during the budget process. -
Yes, because I’m sure additional spending for AFSCME raises would have just soared through the House. Did you not pay attention to how Madigan ran things this session?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:05 am
Ok sure, it is what it is. So, start by giving the AFSCME membership back the difference of their lost wages of taken furlough days (per the agreement). Oh wait, the money aint there. sigh
Comment by whatever Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:06 am
These are the same people who pay dues that get turned into political contributions. They should give themselves a raise by keeping the money in their pockets and quit wasting it trying to buy politicians. Two problems solved.
Comment by Gallery Sitter Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:08 am
Both Sides Now,
The problem is I don’t see that admin agreeing to take less, yet you want more and there is nothing else in the pot.
I am looking forward to meeting the person who says ‘reform’ means they get less
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:09 am
An interesting thing about this story is Henry Bayer claiming Quinn was “lower” than Walker, Kasich, or Christie.
Be careful what you ask for Henry.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:10 am
So, No raises for your current front-line works, but you can hire 40-60 hire new employees within the same agency. Doesn’t make any sense. How can you hire new employees if you can may payroll for the ones you have.
Comment by ANON BS Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:10 am
The federal constitution prohibits states from using their legislative authority to reneg on their contracts. And the courts have ordered states to appropriate money needed to comply with their decisions. Anyone remember when the courts took over the Kansas City school system? The State is going to lose when AFSCME challenges this decision in court.
I predict the employees will get their raises, the lawyers will get their fees, the administration will get a good scolding from the courts, and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag for everything.
Comment by Pat Robertson Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:18 am
The govenor could have just agreed NOT to replace the openings that exist now, nor fill any others for the life of this contract and he would have accomplished the same thing…and half of the amount of the raise that we were supposed to get was deferred from last year as we were trying to help the state with her money woes. The union also had provided the state with ideas to save $50 million over the course of a year as further proof that we are willing to help…all the state had to do was keep up their end of the deal. Quinn isn’t the only bad guy in this, he’s just the front man…The real culprits are the democrats that now hold office…at least the republicans were honest up front on how they would screw us…maybe it’s time to vote for those whose evil you know than those who hide their evil from you
Comment by seacow52 Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:20 am
What would have happened if Quinn presented it as a choice to the General Assembly and then the unions?
“GA, based on what you’ve appropriated, this is the choice I will present to the unionized workers, either pay freezes or lay-offs. Are you OK with this?”
Then the unions could have expressed their anger with the legislators.
If the GA didn’t budge, then Quinn could have told the unions, “This is how much money there is. I prefer to implement pay freezes and maintain services as much as possible by avoiding lay-offs, but if the unions prefer to enforce the letter of the contract, Illinois can conduct layoffs instead.”
If Quinn’s situation is that he’s been hemmed in by appropriations and collective bargaining agreements, he should be savvy enough to distribute the blame and the decision making.
Given a choice, I expect union members would prefer freezes to layoffs. I know whenever I go to a forum discussing cuts to government budgets public employees always insist they do their jobs primarily to serve the public.
Quinn seems to have created a situation where he’s taking the heat when he could have deflected most of the heat to the General Assembly and manipulated the unions into making the tough decision instead of Quinn.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:21 am
Good for Quinn showing courage here. Let’s not kid ourselves, no one was more beholden to union prison guards than Bill Brady. Anyone who think Brady would have been anything like Scott Walker is nuts.
Comment by just sayin' Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:21 am
===Anyone remember when the courts took over the Kansas City school system? ===
That won’t work here. Several attempts have been beaten back by the courts.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:22 am
I was upset to hear how much money the Governor and General Assembly saved the state and PEOPLE OF ILLINOIS. I am one of those “People of Illinois” So where did I save? My grandfather, father,even my sons and myself have fought in Wars for our country and our “American Dream” way of life. Where is the dream now? We work hard every day in deteriorating conditions doing a job that is every day more dangerous. Not because of myself or my fellow workers, but because of budget cuts. We can not walk away from our job and they know this. Those who stormed the beaches at Normandy would be ashamed, shocked, that we are as Americans, treated this way today.
Comment by Sweed Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:22 am
===They bought Quinn and are now finding out he is defective. ===
Perhaps he wasn’t bought. Ever think of that?
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:23 am
“Quinn should have been more involved during the budget process.”
In theory, yes, but with Quinn’s waffling, it would have taken much longer and we still would have the same budget.
Comment by Miss Marie Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:23 am
An interesting move, certainly not one I would have thought of back in the day. It’s the most bold thing Gov Quinn has done since taking office.
If his underlying goal is to save the money, then unfortunately the battle will be fought over the wrong issues. The real issue is the money isn’t there, and spending needs to be reduced, and this battle will be fought over collective bargaining rights, labor relations laws,transferability, etc.
If his underlying goal is to prove to the disingenuous business groups in Chicago that he can’t simply freeze union wages the way they demand, this may prove that.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:25 am
Well put, Sweed. Like you, I equate denial of a pay raise to storming beaches protected by Nazi machine guns. Exact same thing.
But in all seriousness, what heck is wrong with the union people? When did they lose their perspective and their common sense? Every time they talk, I, a Chicago Dem, wants to recruit the next Chris Christie to run for IL gov.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:27 am
Any union official who says eliminating raises is worse than stripping collective bargaining, as Walker did in Wisconsin, is a fool who should be voted out by his members.
Public employee unions endorsed politicians who raided the pension funds. And none of those union officials have been voted out (correct me if I’m wrong).
The public employee unions are powerful in Illinois. These unions endorsed the politicians who made a mess of Illinois’ finances.
Union officials whining about government having to take extraordinary measures should own up to their own role in looking the other way as politicians made a mess of the situation.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:28 am
Steve- what are your thoughts on the CO pension decision- reducing the Illinois COLA to the lesser of the CPI or 3 percent would have gone a long way to balance the pension problems in the last 5 years when inflation was close to zero- even the feds don’t give SS cola bumps when inflation doesnt’ justify it-
Comment by Sue Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:33 am
Schnorf — How much flexibility do the agencies have to move staff to OSF and other funding lines. If they reduce the numbers of staff funded by GRF, does that mean they would have some freeboard for raises?
Comment by soccermom Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:35 am
I haven’t posted in a while, and I want to clear a few things up. AFSCME didn’t “buy” Quinn. Far from it. Anyone think the union was jumping for joy at the choices that were given is sadly mistaken. The only person who has been up front and honest with AFSCME is Judy BT thus far.
And AFSCME dues don’t go towards political action - legally members have to donate separately for that. So ceasing to pay dues won’t do any good, except weaken the voices of the members.
And a lot of members can’t take furlough days if they are front line in corrections or human services, because they have to pay overtime to cover the shifts. Lose, lose situation there. And after two furlough days, you get a free paid day off down the road. So the state ends up losing money in the end.
We can’t afford not to do something about the pay increases, or about the budget mess. If they lay off staff again, we go right back into the mess we have had for the past nine years - extremely high overtime, highly stressed frontline staff, and no remorse from supervisory staff outside of the office/facility you are in. It’s sad to say but all the commentary from WI is right - we didn’t create the mess, but we are certainly paying for it. (see how non-union folks get that dirty taste in their mouths when they talk about union members, like we are some privileged class. Union members aren’t. We work hard, get bad pensions, don’t see our families enough thanks to bad work hours and overtime, and are frequently to blame for every states fiscal problems.)
I don’t have the answer, but I know this - Union members are taxpayers too. The truth is - every 3-4 years, management from the state sits down for MONTHS with union members from across the state to negotiate a new contract. Legislators should know what the financial part of this is from year to year so that it can be factored in to the budget. The contract is legal and binding with the state.
Comment by Wickedred Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:41 am
I have to agree with Carl on this issue. The real problem with Quinn is his lack of management skills.
If he had worked with the union and pressured the GA during the budget cycle the focus would be were it belongs on the budget process and the lack of available funds.
Now the focus is on Quinn and does he have the authority to nullify the union contract.
The results may have been the same or there may have been a different solution but by not engaging all parities beforehand it creates a situation of distrust and animosity.
Make no mistake this will cause a loss of productivity on a work force that already feels pretty demoralized.
Comment by Observer of the State Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:51 am
Sue “reducing the Illinois COLA to the lesser of the CPI or 3 percent would have gone a long way to balance the pension problems in the last 5 years ”
You can not be serious! I do not have any problem with a change in the COLA but do not understand how it would have had such an effect in five years. Do you have any numbers on this?
Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:58 am
@OneMan - I’m sure they don’t want to take less - but does it make sense to you that a clerical worker should make almost $60,000/year? That’s why I’m saying the pay system is not equitable, logical, or business-like; and is not good for the morale of the workers or the tax-payers of the state. It needs an overhaul!!!
Comment by Both Sides Now Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:02 am
Observer, Carl, and I are on the same page…
no one is holding the GA accountable on budget matters, and the people with the least influence have been shafted…the key operable term “justifying” the non issuance of raises for AFSCME members is the phrase “subject to appropriations”…the budget process is a mess, full of nuances, and beyond the intellectual grasp of most legislators…
Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:03 am
Steve Schnorff– “An interesting move, certainly not one I would have thought of back in the day. ”
I don’t think you or the Edgar staff would have pulled this, you guys were honorable and an agreement was an agreement.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:05 am
In the past I’ve seen vendor contracts voided due to non-appropriation issues … and it’s held up in court. The contract did specifically contain language voiding the contract if the funds were not appropriated. Now this was for equipment lease / purchase, not personnel services so it’s not exactly identical. But I won’t make any predictions on this one once it gets to court …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:06 am
Bigtwitch- every COLA increase gets built into the base payment so if Illinois had lessened or eliminated the COLA bumps it would be paying out that much less in benefits- we are talking about three percent a year (every year componded) on a base in the billions in terms of payments
Comment by sue Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:19 am
This also creates multiple classes of AFSCME unionized employees - 30,000 no raises but another significant chunk (10,000+) do get raises. Solidarity when your unions brother/sisters are placed in a different position than you?
So now you’ve got 3 classes of employees:
- non-union MC (short-end of stick always)
- union, but with contracted for $
- union, but without contracted for $
Divide and conquer!
Comment by Peter Snarker Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:23 am
sue, the pension issue was addressed last week. Take a breath already.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:25 am
I might consider a change in the COLA to a variable rate if:
a) it was a real COLA formula that included energy, food and housing increases and not the numbers doctored one used for Social Security and other federal purposes
b) it was not capped so it could reflect real inflation when it returns (anybody remember 15% inflation back in the 80’s? … it’s coming again in a few years based on current federal fiscal policies)
Since (a) & (b) aren’t going to happen because they are unpredictable and, therefore, unable to be budgeted for, then I’m just fine with the 3% COLA … over the years it generally has averaged out to the real inflation rate, some years we’ve won and other years we’ve lost.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:33 am
Last Friday, Bayer was talking how Quinn had “broken his contract with the men and women who do the real work of state government. These tens of thousands of Illinois state employees care for…”. What about the hundreds of thousands of employees who work for the vendors and subcontractors? They do not do any ‘real work’ for the state? They only get delayed payments and budget cuts. So when AFSCME sues the state, where will the money come from to pay those raises? Push those vendors payments off again or more cuts/reserves?
Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:40 am
The main thing currently without additional clarification would be the longevity. Been getting longevity for 25 yrs…if it is missing come the last paycheck of July it is a ‘take away’. Not just not new money in check, but longterm money missing.
Have not been paid weekend pay since before Thanksgiving sometime. Worked the 4th and know that overtime will not be seen until maybe next July. Had management ask for volunteers to work different park last Saturday…could not understand why no one jumped at the thought of ‘overtime pay’. Uh, why? Promises of extra mean nothing when you know it will not actually come for months and months.
Very little of my sites payroll comes from general revenue funds. We just lost one more man down the first of July due to retirement. We can and will limp along with our beaten down and broken equipment. It’s jumping in to say it’s getting tough out here. Moral is low, the boss is under pressure to perform, whacks at us harder than previous as there is work to do and nobody here left to cover it all. Lack of funding in my agency is nothing new, nothing we’ve not been facing for the mjority of the last six/seven years.
I’m sure whatever happens happens and I’m sure that whatever it is, us out here will keep plugging away…one day at a time.
Comment by Cindy Lou Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:56 am
@bothsidesnow
Your comments remind me of something my grandfather used to say.
“You are underpaid and everyone else is overpaid”
Government pay is next to impossible to reduce, just like killing a government program is virtually impossible to do. So while this talk of ‘reform’ is nice, it isn’t within the realm of reality right now.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:58 am
We can debate the merits of overhauling our state compensation, benefit and retirement system another day. The budget was out of whack. Quinn cut more than I thought he would. And he took AFSCME to task and held them to last summer’s agreement. I remember the uproar during the heat of election season and AFSCME members wiping their collective brow after breathing a sigh of relief. AFSCME’s leadership and members had to know Quinn and his budget folks wouldn’t forget about the pact to discover savings while not laying anyone off. I would say that’s a fair trade. AFSCME doesn’t seem to want to negotiate with anyone.
Comment by Team Sleep Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 12:33 pm
Saint, I’m not sure whether this is an honor thing or not. It is certainly tactical, but I’m not sure who it is really aimed at. I think we will have to wait to see.
Unless things have changed dramatically, the GA doesn’t approp “current salaries” and then “raises”, they approp a overal (by fund) personal services line. Who is to determine if that approp is for the current employees without raises or a reduced number of employees with raises?
Unless I’m wrong, Hynes first got away with saying the GA didn’t specifically approp raises for state officers, legislators, judges, etc, ergo the raises couldn’t happen. He shouldn’t have been allowed to get away with that, but it sets a precedent for this.
It will be harder now to argue that the no layoffs language is binding if the raise language isn’t. either way, the Governor has drawn a line in the sand: this should be interesting to watch.
Mom, yes, if they can, but many agencies don’t have much opportunity to move employees onto other funds. They can, however, transfer into personal services from other lines.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 12:38 pm
=== The federal constitution prohibits states from using their legislative authority to reneg on their contracts.====
ahh but the State is not reneging on the contract. You run into 2 principle issues. First, the labor act states that the contract the Gov signs is subject to money beng approrpriated to support it. Thus Il law already limits the liability of the State to the approp.
Second, a contract has to be legal to be enfroceable. Under Il law, any contract signed by the Gov for which spending authority has not been approved by the GA is either void, or voidable as illegal. For example, the Gov could not sign a contract that requires all buisness in IL to remain, and requires them to pay AFSCME, and buy subscritptions to the cap fax.
The rpoblem, the Gov does not have authroity to bind private business. Same issue here. If the Gov doesnot have the authroity to enter into a contract for which no money has ben appropriated, then the contract cannot be upheld as it is not valid.
Which is why I think this issue can have repercussions which will echo through IL for decades to come. If the court finds this is a valid contract, then there is no limit on the Gov’s authority to contractualy bind the State to spend money.
If AFSCME wins, we all lose, and a lot more then just pay issues.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 12:53 pm
Ghost, I think you are overthinking this
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:00 pm
I dunno, Steve. It’s not like the GA has ever actually ratified this contract.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:03 pm
The GA never ratifies contracts, Rich, labor or otherwise. Governors have entered into multi-year labor contracts for as long as we have had collective bargaining for public employees. Yes, they are subject to appropriation, but there is an appropriation. This is far from the first time that a GRF personal services approp has been sufficient to fund pay plans in each agency. As I said, i think this is going to be very interesting.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:11 pm
Which would be an interesting change to IL labor law, add in a provision that the GA has to approve the economic portion of the contract for it to be valid. The non-economic portion of the contract would reside with the Gov authority.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:11 pm
“insufficient”
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:12 pm
What is really scary about all of this, for me, is the number of people who are going to be hurt by the budget in the first place, and now, the number of people who will be hurt by this announcement by the Governor.
I’m talking about the people who aren’t employed by the state, but who are directly impacted by state services - the elderly, the disabled, the children, the sick, the abused. The fallout from this is going to be felt for a very long time and it’s not going to be pretty.
Cuts in funding already in place, cuts in services and now sure to be staffing cuts. We made a lot of progress, well, we were catching up in the last year, now we will backslide nine or ten years.
Comment by Wickedred Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:20 pm
One would think that the GA would be notified of the economic contents of the contract, once ratified, so that it could be included in the annual budget. If you saw the number of people involved in the contract talks, including more would not help the situation at all.
Comment by Wickedred Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:23 pm
I agree with Schnorf in that you have to see at whom this move is aimed. Is it aimed at AFSCME or is it purely a move to put pressure on the GA? It is the gutsiest thing Quinn has done and it will be really interesting to see how it plays out.
Comment by Kerfuffle Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:24 pm
Ghost, under labor law that would almost undoubtedly be illegal. There has to be one authorized bargainer (the Gov) for the employer. The GA could bargain with its own employees if they organized.
BTW, I’m not saying this is how things should be should be, but from bargaining either 4 or 5 contracts (I forget), this is how it is.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:33 pm
I don’t see how anyone can look at this and see anything admirable in this action. It is the action of a ineffective politician who doesn’t have the backbone to stand up and take a position on anything and stick to it. His flip flopping in the past has been sad but somewhat humerous. However his reneging on contractual obligations to those who are owed money, his reneging on his bet with Gov. Walker of Wisconsin, and now his reneging on a contractual agreement he had with his employees, shows a pattern of lack of backbone and lack of integrity, and clearly iullustrates his word means nothing. I can remember being taught by my Dad that a man’s word was his bond. If you gave your word on something you followed through, no questions, no exceptions. Evidently Pat didn’t get the same instructions.
The GA used to make sure that agreements they made with Blago were made into law so he couldn’t change his mind. Looks like the same should be done with PQ.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:38 pm
Schnorf, in previous instances where the GA did not appropriate enough for contracted payrolls, how was it handled? Not filling budgeted positions, layoffs?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:42 pm
If the state renegs on their part of the AFSCME/PQ agreement, then the union should be able to require that all furlough days be reimbursed with interest and that all deferred pay increases be paid per the original contract with interest.
Comment by wizard Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:50 pm
If PQ’s agreement is not binding then they must obey the original contract by default.
Comment by wizard Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:51 pm
WS, yes, plus approp transfer in to personal services
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 1:52 pm
Steve S. Isn’t this approp game the way the GA got around the law that was passed back in the 90’s that pension payments had to be made? They would put the pension payment in the budget as required by law then they didn’t appropriate the money for it so they didn’t get paid.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 2:08 pm
Irish, not that I recall. Until Edgar’s 95 legislation, the pension payment was usually a “well, let’s see how much we have left now” plug number.
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 2:22 pm
Steve there are a number of States, including NY, which have such a law on the books. it is perfectly legal under the form of government where only a legislature can spend money.
The Gov can negotiate it, but it is subject to ratification approval of the legislature. BTW the union contract is not approved by Henry Bayer or a single neogitator, it has ot be voted on by the membership to be valid.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 3:19 pm
==First, the labor act states that the contract the Gov signs is subject to money beng approrpriated to support it.==
First, that’s not what the act actually says. It’s what the CMS memo claims the act means. Second, if that is what it means, enacting a law that says “we can get out of any contract that we enter” is, on its face, a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts” contrary to the federal Constitution. This isn’t a case of requiring legislative ratification of a contract before it can go into effect, which shouldn’t be a federal issue. This is trying to reneg on a contract that has been in effect for years and from which the State has benefitted. I don’t think a judge would have much problem with this issue. Unless there is a loophole in the “no layoffs” agreement or AFSMCE can be enticed or forced into reopening the agreement, I think that the state will ultimately wind up paying all current union members the contractual raises.
Comment by Pat Robertson Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 3:40 pm
===First, that’s not what the act actually says.===
Yes, it does…
(5 ILCS 315/21) (from Ch. 48, par. 1621)
Sec. 21. Subject to the appropriation power of the employer, employers and exclusive representatives may negotiate multi‑year collective bargaining agreements pursuant to the provisions of this Act.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 3:44 pm
===is, on its face, a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts” contrary to the federal Constitution.===
State public employee labor law is a tricky business, however.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 3:51 pm
“If Brady was governor and tried this it would be World War 3 in Illinois.”
Is it possible that could still happen? After all, if AFSCME really does believe Quinn has “sunk lower than” Walker then they could be expected to respond with equal or greater outrage…
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 3:52 pm
Beware union leaders: pinky swears (or pinky promises) in exchange for political contributions just do not carry the weight they used to.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 3:57 pm
===is, on its face, a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts” contrary to the federal Constitution.===
Also, this is no after the fact change. That approp clause has been in the law for quite a long time, predating the contract.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 4:09 pm
What happened to the “we can move Quinn, but we can’t move Brady” battle cry before the election?
Comment by WazUP Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 4:33 pm
Good for Quinn!!! Now let’s see if he follows through with it. The last two AFSCME contracts were unsustainable given the economic recession.
Comment by Louis Howe Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 7:46 pm
no money for front line hardworking state employees, but plenty of money to give back in subsidies and ongoing tax breaks to multi-billion dollar Corp’s like Catepillar.
Thanks for showing your true puppet nature Quinn! Clearly you are for big business and AFSME and the union and workers will hold you accountable.
We will support someone else, and we are very motivated.
Comment by chicagoan wanted to move out of IL Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 8:28 pm
AFSCME had to fight Quinn in court right after he took over. Do it again…choose a forum and go for it.
Comment by park Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 8:30 pm
Rich, I’ve missed reading this every day…..
Comment by Wickedred Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 8:39 pm
Well-said, Irish!
“However his reneging on contractual obligations to those who are owed money, his reneging on his bet with Gov. Walker of Wisconsin, and now his reneging on a contractual agreement he had with his employees, shows a pattern of lack of backbone and lack of integrity, and clearly iullustrates his word means nothing. I can remember being taught by my Dad that a man’s word was his bond.”
Comment by chicagoan wanted to move out of IL Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:04 pm
–We will support someone else, and we are very motivated.–
Hold that thought for 3.5 years. Or get that recall petition going, I guess.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:14 pm
So, union goes to court, court rules that state has non-personal services approps and forces legs to change statute on 2% transfer limits and forces agency to transfer to all necessary funds to cover personal services (including cola, steps, etc.) One year, no limit on % to transfer. Thoughts?
Comment by Grasshopper Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:30 pm
The union should not have weakened its position by deferring raises through the threat of layoff. That said, I think article 34 of the contract comes into play here that doesn’t allow modification of the pay plan without negotiation between the parties. What will likely happen in the end is a huge back wage claim with interest. I had one of these in the past when CMS failed to put me on the correct step when they rearranged job titles. It was a nice lump sum.
Comment by Jack Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 9:45 pm
If AFSCME goes to court won’t the court probably send them back to pursue their administrative remedies?
Comment by steve schnorf Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:20 pm
Good discussion here. Not sure the courts can usurp the legislature power to appropriate funding or tax at the state or federal level. I base this on my public school secondary education constitutional law degree. Sometimes the simplicity of such education can inform one versus the confusion of multiple state and federal laws and court cases. More from Wikipedia
“Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause.[1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause[2] and the Uniformity Clause.”
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
Comment by mushroom in the dark Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:21 pm
reading further at Wikipedia
“Power of the purse, generally
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 imposes accountability on Congressional spending:
“ No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. ”
The first half of this clause indicates that Congress must have appropriated by law the funds to be spent before the funds can be released from the Treasury. It serves as a powerful check of the legislature on the executive branch, as it further secures Congress’s power of the purse. This provision, when also combined with the bicameral nature of Congress and the quorum requirements of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, serves as a constitutional check and balance on the legislature itself, preventing most spending that in effect does not implicitly have broad support with respect to both representational popular will in the House of Representatives and inter-regional approval in the Senate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause
Comment by mushroom in the dark Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:28 pm
Remember some were not in agreement with the Executive on the 2010 agreement with ASCFME.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/article_32362888-c536-11df-8258-00127992bc8b.html
Also if the raises can be reneged, then the no layoff agreement can also be broken over inadequate appropriations. Heck what about the rest of the contract?
Comment by mushroom in the dark Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 10:49 pm
===and forces legs to change statute===
No way. Not in Illinois courts.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 5, 11 @ 11:08 pm
They have changed the 2% to 3% in the past for one year and one year only. Why not FY12?
Comment by Grasshopper Wednesday, Jul 6, 11 @ 7:39 am