Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Fewer workers, higher payroll as AFSCME’s fight continues

Posted in:

Illinois

* Overtime, scheduled pay raises and less use of part-time employees all contributed to this phenomenon…

The state of Illinois paid fewer employees more money in 2010 than in 2009, a Dispatch/Rock Island Argus analysis of state payroll reports indicates. It was the second consecutive year that more money was paid to fewer workers. […]

– During calendar year 2010, 78,567 people got paychecks from the state, a decrease of 369 from the 78,936 paid in 2009. In 2008, the state employed 82,681 people at some point in the year.

– Even as the number of people paid dropped in 2010, the payroll went up by $94.8 million, from $4.35 billion in 2009 to $4.45 billion in 2010. In 2008, the state paid $4.30 billion in payroll

And then there was this…

The analysis of the year-end reports also shows that in 2010, as in 2009, the number of people receiving less than $50,000 dropped, while the number making more than $50,000 grew, most dramatically in the $100,000-$150,000 range. The number of people in that range increased by 613, to 3,147 in 2010, after having increased by 314 from 2008 to 2009.

* Meanwhile, my weekly syndicated newspaper column is about the AFSCME pay raise controversy…

There are lots of different angles to Gov. Pat Quinn’s highly controversial decision to unilaterally refuse to pay scheduled, contractual pay raises to unionized state employees, so let’s take them one at a time.

This is not “new” news:

Chicago reporters are the only ones with access to the governor these days (Quinn has held just one Springfield press conference in months). The city’s reporters probably don’t know that the House Republicans — and even some House Democrats — have been agitating since at least April to somehow stop AFSCME’s scheduled pay raises.

The issue burst into the open during a late April hearing of the House Human Services Appropriations Committee when the state’s director of Rehabilitation Services threatened to shut down the Illinois School for the Deaf and the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired if the committee followed through on its proposed overall spending limits. Republicans thundered that AFSCME’s pay raises should be cut before the administration even considered such a drastic closure ideas. Even Democrats got into the act during the hearing, saying the union should, at the very least, be brought to the table to talk about the upcoming raises.

House members openly admitted that they’d eliminated AFSCME’s pay raises from the budget when they overwhelmingly passed an appropriations bill on May 12th. That approp bill shorted numerous agency personnel lines by millions of dollars. Rep. Bill Mitchell (R-Forsyth) even cited the elimination of the pay raises as a reason he voted against the bill.

So, the governor is absolutely right that this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

Both sides have good points

The governor rightly says that the Illinois Constitution gives the General Assembly sole power to make appropriations, then correctly quotes the state’s Labor Relations Act: “Subject to the appropriations power of the employer, employers and [public employee unions] may negotiate multi year collective bargaining agreements pursuant to the provisions of this Act.”

So, Quinn says, the lack of legislative appropriations for raises means there is no legal authority for the raises. And considering that the issue of union pay raises is part of the legislative record on that appropriations bill, it certainly sounds like a valid argument.

Then again, the General Assembly went farther than just cutting pay raises out of the budget. In some agencies, personnel costs were slashed well beyond the price of the scheduled raises. So, it may not be as cut and dried as Quinn says.

Plus, AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Henry Bayer claimed last week that the statute Quinn is using as vindication was actually pushed by AFSCME back in the day. Bayer explained that the law was drafted to allow local governments to negotiate multi-year union contracts.

Union officials also point to a provision in their state contract which mandates that the administration “shall not unilaterally change any bona fide past practices and policies with respect to salaries, hours, conditions of employment, and fringe benefits enjoyed by members of the bargaining units without prior consultation and negotiations with the Union.” That sure looks like Quinn can’t do anything without first negotiating a change.

The union has taken its case to an arbitrator, which could force the administration back to the bargaining table, where the union is under no real obligation to concede anything. They’ve also filed a federal lawsuit.

Hollow blame game

The governor blamed the General Assembly and Rod Blagojevich for his predicament last. The Legislature got the blame for failing to appropriate enough money to fund the pay raises, and Blagojevich was hit for negotiating the contract’s pay raises to begin with. Fair enough.

But Quinn is the one who really hemmed himself in by negotiating an election-year agreement with AFSCME to not lay off workers or close state facilities until next June. Without that agreement, Quinn wouldn’t be in such a bind today. Then again, without that agreement, Quinn might’ve lost the election.

Contradictory explanations

The order to rescind the raises was issued by the Illinois Department of Central Management Services, which oversees the AFSCME contract. The original explanation I got from CMS was that they believed alternate strategies, like eliminating empty job positions, would invite an AFSCME lawsuit. However, eliminating positions has always been held forth as a way to manage the appropriations shortage, and it is clearly within the administration’s right. The governor then said that he wanted to keep the government functioning properly, so he decided to avoid eliminating positions. Quinn also said he’d be “happy” to meet the union in court when it files a lawsuit over the pay raise issue.

The whiplash is palpable.

* Related…

* Finke: : Credibility not a Quinn strength

* Editorial: Salary cuts aren’t optional

* Illinois public workers file lawsuit to stop salary freeze

* Quinn, union members react to AFSCME suit

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 7:11 am

Comments

The Moline piece is a “study” they did last year–and didn’t bother to fix its flaws. Most obviously, they make no distinction between full- and part-time employees. Dumb.

Comment by Reality Check Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 7:40 am
The analysis would be more useful (and accurate) if they offset employee benefits savings associated with fewer employees from the payroll numbers.

Comment by phocion Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 7:58 am
So who are these people making 100K+? Would like to have job titles, and whether they are union or non-union!

Comment by wondering Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 8:13 am
The major discussion revolves around the union contract calling for raises totaling 4%+ over the next year and what steps the union/state will take next. Where is the discussion on the contracts with state vendors? They represent far more employees and more of the ‘real’ work (to use Bayer’s term) being done for the state, yet they seem to be a far back, second thought. Moss’s charts from last week showed the inequity of union raises to not-for-profit funding cuts over the last 5 years is not even close. Moving most vendor payments back several more months while the unions want their scheduled raise today makes the issue more starkly clear. Those vendors all have contracts too. Guess some contracts are more important than others.

Comment by zatoichi Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 8:54 am
Many state employees are being asked to pay in advance for medical services that are covered by insurance plans. Additionally, required travel for work has to be payed in advance using personal funds or credit card. Employees get reimbursed in the same “timely” manner…just like any vendor. Many end up paying credit card interest out of pocket.

Comment by Johnnie F. Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:41 am
wondering —
They are all on the SJ-R website. Mostly doctors, some nurses, SPSA’s, PSA’s, a few IT people, and others.

Comment by Rufus Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 9:41 am
This seems like it should go back to the bargaining table, to at least preserve the integrity of collective bargaining and contracts. If this agreement can be nullified, can’t all collective bargaining agreements be nullified?

Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:42 am
Rich, I thought that the number of state employees was more like 46,000…not the 70,000 or so the newspaper reports. Does anybody know what the correct figure of state employees is?

Comment by surge voter Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 12:21 pm
They’re using part-time, even one-off workers.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 12:22 pm
thanks

Comment by surge voter Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 12:23 pm
Johnie F, it’s even worse than you state. My sister still works for the State and has to travel a couple of days every week. At one point the State owed her over $10K in travel expenses. Plus she isn’t in the union any more, so she gets hit with all the rest of the garbage like no raises, furlough days, etc. Most the time she is working unpaid until midnight every night just to try to stay even with the work. Like most overworked state employees today, she’s counting down the days to retirement … if you think the 2002 ERI brain drain was bad, there’s another one coming in a year or two.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 12:31 pm
Is there any study as to how many workers — a la vendors — rely on state payments for payroll?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 4:47 pm
I don’t mind losing a raise for the last two years, but why don’t they stop hiring new employees then. If we don’t have money for union raises, how can they possibly justify hiring more people?

Comment by Ain't No Justice Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 5:07 pm
CRY BABY CRY BABY

THERE HAVE BEEN NON-UNION
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RECEIVED A RAISE
5 OUT OF 9 YEARS

ONLY A SMALL % BEING SINGLED OUT
FOR POLITICAL REASONS

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 7:13 pm
Does the over $100k salary bracket cover retiring employees who are getting a one time lump sum refund of unused vacation and sick pay, or other considerations that would bump up the count?

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Jul 11, 11 @ 11:02 pm