Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois
YouTube

* OneMan was at the Thompson Center today and interviewed AFSCME Council 31 Executive Director Henry Bayer about the feud with Gov. Pat Quinn. Have a look…

* OneMan also took a bit of video of the informational picket…

* The governor was asked several questions about this issue during his Chicago press conference today…

Click to download

* And the IFT has joined AFSCME’s federal lawsuit…

Two locals of the Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois Federation of Public Employees (IFPE) Local 4408 and Illinois Federation of Teachers, Local 919, have joined the American Federation of State and City Municipal Employees in their lawsuit against the state and Gov. Pat Quinn for his decision to freeze state worker pay despite a contractual two percent raise promised to the employees.

“This suit is about much more than workers not receiving pay raises, this is about upholding a collective bargaining agreement” IFPE Local 4408 President Tom Kosowski said. “These men and women, who perform quality services for the tax payers of Illinois, deserve to know that their employer, the governor, will honor his commitments under the law.”

* The Question: Should Gov. Quinn rescind his decision to block contractual union pay raises? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

Online Surveys & Market Research

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 1:56 pm

Comments

Gov. Quinn needs to do what Mr. Bayer wants. He needs to rescind his decision to block the raises, and then he should take what Mr. Bayers considers the more favorable act of doing what Gov. Walker did in Wisconsin of barring collective bargaining by public employees.

If Bayer thinks Quinn is worse than Walker, Quinn needs to show Bayer what Walker stands for. The fact that doing so benefits us all is just one happy footnote to the story.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:02 pm
Sending the matter to arbitration is appropriate.

Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:13 pm
No. As much as I hate it, I think Gov. Quinn should let the courts decide this and let the pressure on the GA mount before the next budget negotiations. Backing off now would just be more fodder for the crowd who accuse him of being spineless and would accomplish nothing with the GA.

Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:13 pm
Letting the courts decide will just cost the State even more money. Quinn needs to learn that contracual promises are not the same as campaign promises.

Comment by Doubtful Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:21 pm
With the cuts the GA approved to personal service lines, and considering the already depleted state work force in some agencies, I’d like to see the GA take more responsibility here.

However, Blago negotiated the original contract, Quinn signed two arbitration agreements (I think).

I believe you need to honor your agreements, but this is a convoluted mess.

I think the Senate should have oversight over final contracts through Executive Session. Give some GA say over the process so they have to own it more.

Comment by Leroy Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:28 pm
Everyone needs to contribute in tough economic times.

Comment by A.B. Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:38 pm
The State cannot sign contracts and then claim it can’t perform because it - the State - failed to raise the money to pay the contract. Who would sign them without having a security deposit from the State. It’s like the U.S. issuing debt but not raising the credit limit to enable the U.S. to pay the debt. If it is a bad deal, he should renegotiate it or get his pound of flesh on the next round with AFSCME.

Comment by Alexander cut the knot. Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:38 pm
While Quinn continues to exhibit extremely poor leadership qualities (no surprise there), the GA made this mess. Why is it that none of our so-called “leaders” can ever think about the consequences of their myopic actions?

Comment by wordonthestreet Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:44 pm
For once I agree with OneMan - what i’ll do for a thin-crust cheese and pepperoni from Mista!

Comment by 10th Indy Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:47 pm
We live in a country based on rule of law. Whether or not you think the state should cut personnel expenses, or benefits, a contract is a contract and should be honored. Even Governor Walker of Wisconsin waited for the (then) current contracts to expire before eliminating collective bargaining with those unions. To cut personnel expenses, Quinn should wait and do it when the new contract with the union is negotiated next year(Spring 2012). (Note: The current contract ends on June 30, 2012. Negotiations usually begin early in the year in which the contract expires.)

Two other points: One, Governor Quinn’s administration, not Blagojevith’s, negotiated the pay raise schedule for this fiscal year under a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Quinn administration and AFSCME before the election. He has tried to spin his decision by saying he did not negotiate these raises.

Two: Just because you don’t have the money to honor a contract does not mean you are not legally obligated to honor it. I own real estate. What if a tenant told me, “Sorry, my employer did not give me the money I was expecting this month, so I don’t have to pay you.” That is not a valid legal argument.

Besides, Quinn and CMS is in violation of the IL Public Labor Relations Act(5 ILCS 315/7)which basically states any changes to any bargaining agreement must be negotiated. Eliminating raises, etc. is certainly a change to the agreement. Look it up, I did.

Comment by aLibertarian Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:56 pm
There appears to be a valid argument to be made on both sides of the issue. Let the courts figure it out. He has stepped into it up to his chin and needs to see it through. If I were a betting man I think he’ll cave before the court can rule on the case.

Comment by Kerfuffle Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 2:58 pm
I said no because I think (hope) he’s trying to make a larger point.

The best thing the state can do for the state is meet its obligations, to employees AND vendors.

Comment by Happy Returns Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:00 pm
Quinn needs to stick by his decision. As crappy as I think it is, and as much as I generally support unions (though I’m not in one, nor is anyone in my direct family), if the money isn’t there, it’s not there. The union should take it up with the GA. That said, I think this whole mess creates a dangerous precedent that will make negotiating future contracts, um, difficult.

Now, if it comes out that Quinn is playing a Blagovian game to gin up a crisis when one doesn’t have to exist, then let him suffer the consequences.

Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:02 pm
I think he shoud and believe he will rescind his decision and try to reach a compromise through negotiation. I don’t believe he will do this because it’s the right approach. I believe he will do this because of his roll as fundraiser for the Democratic Governor’s Association. Getting AFSCME at the federal level involved means he is going to have to buckle.

Comment by Casual Observer Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:06 pm
TFT: I think the state has a real fiscal crisis, doncha think?

I’d like the GA for once to attempt to lead or at least take part of the responsibility for the mess they helped to create instead of dumping it on whomever is occupying the Governor’s office at the moment…let’s see ‘em sweat just a little…

Comment by Loop Lady Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:07 pm
Contracts should be Honored. But, the “appropriations” issue presents itself bigtime. Quinn has little choice but to stick by his decision. Let the Court decide.

Quinn is so bad at PR that both the GA and the Unions are skating . If ” appropriations” is an out then both Union leadership and the GA let the workers down.

Comment by x ace Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:12 pm
LL: My point is if Quinn has the money to pay the raises by shifting funds around within agencies, eliminating unfilled positions, etc., but is instead doing all this to make a splash to stick the GA’s nose in it (thereby generating a crisis when one does not have to exist), then he is wrong, and channeling the ghost of Blago.

And, I agree, it would be nice to see some real leadership from the GA. But, as Senator Trotter put it, everyone wanted to get into the kitchen, and now they’re finding out it’s hot in the kitchen. It’s tough when one realizes that smell is one’s political career going up in flames. That said, they’re there to lead, and they should do so.

Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:23 pm
Voted yes, because contracts needed to be honored; wanted to vote No because think the whole mess needs to be sent back to legislators for them to fix…

Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:24 pm
Regardless of whether I think the union should be getting raises (which I don’t), I voted yes because the state is going to waste money on a lawsuit that it cannot win. You can’t simply ignore a contract.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:27 pm
I think its in the best interest of both Quinn and the unions that this one be decided by the courts.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:28 pm
A legal binding contract.

Comment by Tobor Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:43 pm
Yes, a contract is a contract. PQ will look foolish when he rescinds it but he never should have tried to pull this stunt in the first place.

Comment by Still Stuck with Sen. CPA Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 3:51 pm
The simple truth is the GA did not fund the raises. If the Governor pays employees the full increase, state government will run out of money for staff line items sometime in the spring. What then? He is the Chief Executive of Illinois and has to play the hand dealt to him. There is no way he wins a showdown with the GA for a supplemental appropriation. Even COGFA has revised their revenue estimates downward. Where will the money come from? So, this Governor has to act today as if there will be no money tomorrow. It is called leading. Something he has been very poor at but now has a chance to try it out.

Comment by Nagidam Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:00 pm
A contract is a legally binding agreement - period. This particular contract was opened twice in the past 18 months, amended, and resigned. This isn’t just a good-faith agreement with spit and a handshake. We can lay blame with the GA or the Gov, or even say Blago was responsible for allowing the initial contract to go as is, but in the end, it’s a legal violation. More, the Gov’s interpretation of the Labor Relations Act is insane…and the fact that he is trying to push regs through JCAR to interpret the statute in this manner is just another sign that there was premeditation in the contract violation. As was recognized earlier, the GA did not hide the fact that it wasn’t budgeting for the raises, so rather than fight them, it appears that the Gov’s office has been preparing for this legal battle…even if the they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

Comment by but what do I know??? Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:15 pm
NO.

There are many government contracts subject to appropriation. If there is no appropriation, there is no contract. Sorry guys, but the General Assembly took away your pay raise during the appropriation process.

Comment by anon sequitor Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:17 pm
I voted no, because there is not enough money appropriated so there is little choice out side of layoffs. Let the union fight for more appropriations from the general assembly.

Comment by downstate hack Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:22 pm
I shall support Pat Quinn on this one occasion.

Comment by Southern Peggy Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:28 pm
Yes, he signed the contract. that contract is legal and binding.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:37 pm
Yes. But I am biased, I am a State Employee. That aside, a legally binding contract is exactly that, legally binding. What is not binding is the 20%-30% raises that the Governor gave his staff after the Union agreed to defer the raises prior to this raise. Neither is the amount of Administrative staff that are making $100,000 and up. The number of SPSA’s that the state is trying to put into the Laborers Union is not legally binding, but will add to the budget problem.

What the Governor is not saying, and I urge Council 31 to base their stand on is that the apropriation is for Personnel, and not broken down into how many dollars per employee. The same saving could be made by moving the salary levels of all Administravtive Staff back to FY2009 levels, and eliminating unneeded Administrative positions. Once again the Gov made this decision based on where he would get the most uproar and try and force the GA into spending more money, while not cutting in places the budget should be cut.

But Hey, Im retiring in a few monthes anyway, wont have to worry about it long.

Comment by SO IL M Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:39 pm
No. The unions need to take the mater up with the GA. If there is no money, there isn’t much Quinn can do other than take the steps he has taken.

I would prefer that he get rid of the unions.

Comment by Justice Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:47 pm
For all of you who believe Quinn is right because the contract was subject to appropriation think about this. Vendors are owed between 6 or 7 billion dollars under contracts with Illinois, no money was appropriated for them either. Why can’t Quinn just not pay them what is owed and cancel those contracts also. Would anyone agree or think that is right? No, because a contract is a legally binding document regardless of current financial circumstances.

Do you think you can tell your bank that even though you have a contract, you can’t pay your payments, so the contract is void. No, there are always negative consequences with breaking a contract. Under this scenario, the State will spend and waist hundreds of thousands of dollars it does not have defending an indefensible position, just to lose in the end. Contract law & the IL Public Labor Relations Act are clear. For one party to change the terms of the contract, the changes must be negotiated and agreed to by the other party.

I agree, that the state must cut expenses any way it can. Government at all levels must learn to spend less than it takes in to pay off debt. Current levels of government spending for the most part are unsustainable and entitlement spending is the worse. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Peter becomes a Pall(Paul) bearer.

Breaking a contract you agreed to is illeagal and immoral. And I reiterate, Quinn agreed to the raises for this fiscal year when he signed the Memorandum of Understanding with AFSCME before the election last year.

Comment by aLibertarian Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:48 pm
I was reluctant to vote since I am a state employee. A yes vote would be expected, I guess. I voted no only because the gov should make a decision and then stick to his “guns”. However, I think his decision was wrong in the first place since he is breaching a contract. He could have used other means to make the payroll but decided on the political decision. The populist stands he takes backfire and have resulted in him rescinding earlier decisions and only makes him appear to be what he is….weak.

Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:48 pm
Yes, Gov. Quinn should rescind his decision and allow the raises for multiple reasons. A contract is a contract. Plus he can manage around the reduced funds by having his directors do line item transfers of funds. Give the directors some suggestions on where to take the funds from but let the line managers make the decisions. When it all hits the fan due to lack of funds in line items providing direct services, then the Gov. can stand up and point the finger at the GA for underfunding the agency(s).

Although I loathe the way the game is played, a smarter politician would cut the stuff that is sacred to most people and let the screaming begin. Like one of the Democrats said a year or two ago, (to paraphrase) you don’t want to waste a crisis.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:55 pm
No. How can he give HB the money if it isn’t there. Why can’t HB understand this simple point.

Comment by Just Asking Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 4:59 pm
The simple answer is to rescind and give the raises. That is a temporary step at best. The ripple effect being discussed is that mathematically, after giving the raises, the money will run out in Spring. When it does, what happens? Closures? Mass layoffs? Simply do not pay salaries? There will be more lawsuits to cover the coming contract raises scheduled for later this fiscal year. Where will the needed money come from? Another group with a state contract that gets shorted? Since the game of chicken has started, maybe Quinn should name 7-8 large state facilities/operations being studied for closure (not just as an exercise) starting August 1, 2012 and begin the paperwork while developing service alternatives. Suggesting the schools for Deaf and Blind be closed and drug/alcohol treatment programs be closed sure got quick GA responses. Remember the statements about coming ‘financial pain’ issue from several months ago, that train is still at the station. The GA going to finally step up and actually do something that puts their careers on the line? Many non-state workers that do services for the state are already there.

Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 5:00 pm
Pat Quinn was for raises, before he was against them…

Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 5:43 pm
Voted yes. Legal contract.
I am very very happy to pay my union dues to AFSCME. Collective bargaining is a basic right and I’m glad I have it.

Comment by chicagoan wanting to move out of IL Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 5:59 pm
2/3 + of top 50 multi-billion dollar corporations in IL pay less than 2% state income taxes.

Need to keep repeating this basic truth.
There is lots and lots of money being hoarded there.
We shouldn’t be squabbling over which cuts to make. Simply raise more revenue by closing these corp loopholes and implementing a progressive state income tax as civilized states already have.

Comment by chicagoan wanting to move out of IL Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 6:05 pm
===pay less than 2% state income taxes===

Um, no. The number is actually 2 percent state and local tax burden.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 6:13 pm
For those of you that use the argument that there is no money, there hasn’t been money for about 10 years now. The comptroller’s website discusses the definition of a balanced budget and Illinois just doesn’t make it. Now to single out employees is purely a political stunt, not intended to bring the state’s finances back into balance. That would take courage which this governor doesn’t have. In the end I fear he will just look foolish again. Would you do business with the state if contracts meant nothing?

Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 6:24 pm
I voted no. He raised the curtain, might as well start the show.

It was an odd move, but he might as well play it out now and see what the robes really think.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 6:34 pm
From the SJR:

–About three dozen workers marched in Springfield in front of two state office buildings on a day when the heat index hit 111 degrees…In Chicago, about 100 workers marched in the blazing sun in front of a downtown state office building… –

Yeesh. Not exactly an overwhelming show of force. You couldn’t get more people at lunch? Wasn’t “blazing” hot today in Chicago, anyway.

Geez, if you’re going to do this sort of thing, you better have your fastball hopping or you’ll look bad.

And before you blame the weather, the folks in Madison brought tens of thousands every day for a month outside in the freezing cold to see that nice Mr. Walker that Bayer has been speaking kindly of lately.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 6:51 pm
the Gov needs to resind! a contract IS a contract but this should serve as a shot over the bow, the socialist unions had better recognize whats going on in the labor movement nationally, labor is fairly safe when there are true collective issues but “pigs at the trough” aren’t going to gain sympathy or support from anyone! especially when the financial climate is what it is for the so called “middle class” smart labor leaders will re-invent there local unions!!

Comment by railrat Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 7:26 pm
State employees are tired of being thrown under the bus anytime there’s a budget issue. We’ve taken furlough days. The last raise we got was eaten by the tax increase, so many ended up making even less than we did before the raise. They’ve borrowed from and underfunded our pensions but the money is still coming out our checks. We are not an atm. Don’t come runnning to us every time you overspend or underfund something. To Gov. Quinn, if you knew the budget was wrong then why did sign it? You should have sent it back til they got it right.

Comment by under siege Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 7:35 pm
This is a dangerous precedent. Contracts should be honored. It puts into jepordy all multiyear contracts and could cause vendors to act appropriately. There is money in the approp lines and there are other alternatives the Gov could exercise. He chose not to.

Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 8:48 pm
Under siege? Thrown under the bus? Any state employee who thinks they are under siege or are being thrown under the bus is so out of touch with life outside government that they should be fired immediately.

Hey gov’t workers, wake up. Unemployment is over 9%. NOBODY outside government is getting a raise. Be glad you have a job.

One more note: the idea that a government employee contract is the same as other contracts is sort of ridiculous. The unions are writing big checks, and managment is not worried about making a profit. If management overpays, it won’t exactly go BK. It is not an arms’ length transaction and should not be treated like one.

Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 8:58 pm
Voted no after the polls closed. Don’t see how an executive branch contract obligates the GA to appropriate. Could easily change my mind as the legalities unfold. I freely admit I really don’t understand this at all.

Comment by Excessively Rabid Tuesday, Jul 12, 11 @ 9:02 pm
Let’s see-no raise or no job? Vendors wait over 150 days to get paid…

Comment by waitress practing politics... Wednesday, Jul 13, 11 @ 7:10 am
The reality is that the State is in severe crisis.
What is the end game? The Unions will take this to court. They will most likely win. The cost of the court case adds to the depleted revenues, causes a loss of productivity in the workers and becomes a distraction from the business of the state. Now tell me exactly how this is a good idea?

Comment by Observer of the State Wednesday, Jul 13, 11 @ 7:24 am
The union’s greed is stunning.

Lawmakers’ salaries cut. Human service employees across the state fired. Human service clients dumped like yesterday’s trash. Vendors going unpaid. Deflated home values.

And the union is screaming for its raise.

Comment by King Louis XVI Wednesday, Jul 13, 11 @ 8:26 am