Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Joe Walsh plays the victim card for the umpteenth time
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Quinn responds to Catholic criticism
Posted in:
* From House Republican Leader Tom Cross’ press staff…
(T)he Illinois House’s Revenue and Finance Committee is meeting this afternoon in Chicago on HJR45. We have filed an amendment to that resolution calling for no new wage increases associated with any collectively bargained contracts throughout State government until the State has achieved two years of operating surpluses. An operating surplus would be defined as a state fiscal year in which the expenditures authorized or incurred are less than the revenues received during the same fiscal year, as determined by the Comptroller’s Office.
Under our proposed language, the state would also not approve any funds for payment increases in lieu of pay raises for health insurance benefit increases, employee cost sharing reductions, or reductions for employee contributions to the state employees’ retirement program until the threshold of two consecutive years of operating surpluses has been achieved.
* From a press release…
“Our priority is on the protection of jobs in this state and ensuring that we get our fiscal house in order above all else,” Cross said. “We should not enter into any new contracts that guarantee wage and benefit increases at a time when the Governor is talking about closing seven state facilities that serve those with mental health needs, at-risk youth, and house dangerous criminals.” […]
“We need to put the teeth back into every fiscal reform we enact in the State of Illinois in order to protect jobs and make them meaningful and accountable to taxpayers,” said Leitch. “For three years legislators have taken 12 unpaid furlough days, a significant pay cut. It’s only fair that all state employees share in the sacrifice until Illinois’ financial health is restored and we are no longer the ‘Deadbeat State.’”
* The Question: Do you support a wage/benefits freeze for unionized state workers until Illinois’ budget has had an operating surplus for two years? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 12:55 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Joe Walsh plays the victim card for the umpteenth time
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Quinn responds to Catholic criticism
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I voted No. I would be fine if this was a negotiated deal or a one time thing. I think the two year operating surplus is a bit crazy. Maybe Cross should have all members of the GA defer their salaries until we get all of the back bills paid.
Comment by Spliff Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:03 pm
Yes as long as:
1. All non-union workers do the same (including elected officials.
2. Operating surplus and paramaters are clearly defined (we don’t want budget games being played to avoid pay raises).
3. Debt restructuring plan (bonding) is passed to set up a payment plan for past due bills.
4. Freeze all other State spending.
Comment by Ahoy Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:03 pm
Absolutely not.
Holding union members hostage for political gain by the Republicans is unseemly.
Ugh. Disgusting.
Comment by Hold On Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:04 pm
We cannot and should not try to balance the budget on the backs of State of Illinois workers. There seems to be a widely held perception that all the jobs in Illinois are done by feather-bedded union stooges. That just isn’t so.
Comment by Chefjeff Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:05 pm
freeze everyones pay. not just unions.
oh and leitch can cry me a river about legislator furlough days the last 3 years. as if they are the only ones sacrificing? gmab.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:05 pm
Part of a knee-jerk reaction to one of Quinn’s deals with AFSCME. In the end it’ll be just another “shell game” with one group set up to lose each time.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:06 pm
No. This is more gamesmanship in lieu of statesmanship. Where to begin?
First, the General Assembly controls spending, thus controls whether there is a surplus or not in any given year. They could conceivably manipulate spending to ensure we never see two consecutive years of surplus. It wouldn’t be that difficult.
Second, if the General Assembly can implement a way to freeze healthcare costs in addition to its power to stop paying for the increases, then this might have some merit. But they can’t, so too bad for state employees as healthcare costs continue to escalate, you’ll have to eat the increases out of your wages.
Third, this would only apply to workers covered by collective bargaining. Why? Why not apply it to the General Assembly and merit employees? Or, why not dump this stupid resolution and do what Cross is trying to accomplish more directly: eliminate collective bargaining once and for all.
Simple solutions are generally neither. Stop playing games Mr. Cross. If you want to eliminate collective bargaining, put it in bill form and introduce it.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:06 pm
What a concept? Not spending more then you take in, wow why didn’t I think of that and run for office>
Comment by Dan S. Springfield Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:08 pm
No. See above. “Share the sacrifice” of the lege? Which created the problem in the first place?
Take a hike.
Comment by Ray del Camino Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:09 pm
===Third, this would only apply to workers covered by collective bargaining. Why? ===
The underlying resolution, sponsored by MJM, deals with state union negotiations.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:11 pm
I like the concept but do not trust the states politicans. We will never have a surplus because our leaders keep spending money and wasting what revenues we do have. It’s not the workers fault that the Dems have done huge boondoggles like kids first or free rides for seniors. The workers shouldn’t be used to finance hundred million dollar giveaways to sears or the CME. How about no tax breaks for corporations until the state has a surplus. No politicians family gets paid to be on a board or commission until we have a surplus. Maybe we could ground the state airplane until their is a surplus. Cross is coming across as increasingly out of touch. Stupid spending is the problem but Cross has no answers for that.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:12 pm
I voted no. Something is wrong in a state where the politicians penalize the folks who do the work and want to reward the CME with $100 million dollars in tax break. I stand with the 99%
Comment by anon Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:13 pm
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:06 pm:
No. This is more gamesmanship in lieu of statesmanship. Where to begin?
First, the General Assembly controls spending, thus controls whether there is a surplus or not in any given year. They could conceivably manipulate spending to ensure we never see two consecutive years of surplus. It wouldn’t be that difficult.
+++++++++++++
First, I agree this should be a general freeze on all state workers, legislators, judges, what have you, not just unions. But to 47th’s point I would say that if such a change were enacted, the unions would join with taxpayers to demand balanced budgets so that their wages could be increased. What usually is two groups working against each other, would become one group demanding fiscal responsibility from the government. I think it is a win for both sides.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:14 pm
I voted no, but would say yes if they include:
No Pork projects until the same, No Payraises for Elected officials until the same, Reduction in the Per Diem of Legislators to the % the budget is at a deficit.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:15 pm
I voted yes because I think they are on to a great concept, although I would tweak it. In my opinion it should definitely be all state workers – not just those who are unionized – and the benchmark should be revenues collected from the state’s income tax.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:15 pm
I wasn’t on the blog when you posted this, but somehow I have been recorded as voting Yes. Did one of the CFB staffers vote for me? Paperclip in my mouse?
I would have voted no, although I would support a statutory small salary increase rate for most workers either as a percentage of COLA or some other index.
Also don’t think wage hikes or staffing levels should should be tied into a multi year a contract, in an election year especially. Quinnism.
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:15 pm
I voted no. Can you imagine trying to get an approp through? Talk about pitting every single interest group trying to get funding going against AFSME. No matter what it was for AFSME would have to slip against it.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:16 pm
I voted no. However, I am willing to change my vote to yes, provided the GA takes a 50% pay cut.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:19 pm
As a long-time IDOT employee planning on sticking around through winter before retiring, the 1.2% raise in our contract that we are supposed to receive on January 1st is one big reason why I decided to spend another winter getting 2am callouts and missed family time fighting snow and ice. Taking that raise away will cause me to reconsider my decision, as it probably will many more of my fellow workers who are eligible to retire already. I’m not whining about it - just pointing out how chasing more people into the retirement system earlier that planned might affect both state services and the strain on the pension systemI already stretched thin…
Comment by Roadiepig Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:20 pm
To whom much is given, much is expected.
It should be amended to add all state employees and disallow member or caucus initiative
spending until the two year surplus threshold is achieved.
Comment by Aristotle Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:22 pm
Absolutely. We have to trim everywhere we possibly can. Should we give raises while cutting jobs? Should we stiff our vendors, potentially forcing them to cut hours and jobs, while we give raises? The concept of “shared sacrifice” means nothing unless even powerful groups like unions are forced to absorb some of the pain.
As I’ve been walking door-to-door, I’ve run into so many people newly or, worse, long-term unemployed. There are people paying their mortgage with their nest egg, or with their unemployment, or not at all. Two income families are suddenly half-of-one income families. How can we dole out raises to people already in (comparatively) secure jobs? How can public unions seek better benefits or higher pay when there is an obvious risk of job cuts elsewhere (including AFSCME jobs, etc)? It just doesn’t make sense. Payroll makes up a very large portion of state operations–of course we have to include that in cuts. What business would look at a tough budget without looking at payroll? It isn’t possible.
Comment by Liandro Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:22 pm
Rich, thanks for the clarification. Madigan’s resolution is designed to prevent the Governor from overpromising to get a labor contract. I get that, though I think it’s problematic for a host of reasons, but I don’t have a problem with the attempt to remove a “no-layoff” clause from collective bargaining.
Cross’ amendment further restricts collective bargaining in a way that gives the state the power to effectively eliminate wage increases, which are the heart of the matter.
And Cinci, yes, I suppose it could create a new interest group pushing for balanced budgets, but you don’t really think that is an intended result of this bill, do you?
No. What this amendment seeks to do is to negate labor contracts between the state and its unionized employees. I would prefer Cross put his name behind a clearly worded attempt to do simply that.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:23 pm
I voted no, for all the reasons 47th Ward so eloquently pointed out.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:25 pm
Sadly, I voted NO, for the reason that EVERY worker on the State Dime should expect the safe work rules. It would be difficult to explain to neighbors how Minority Leader Cross’ Staff got raises while a state carpenter, and other union workers got nothing.
All or nobody. Should be all, then you will see some serious pressure on the legislature and the governor to get the ship on course.
Mess with someone’s paycheck, then you will know what backlash is like.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:25 pm
Absolutely! As a unionized state worker.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:27 pm
When was the last time the state had two years of operating surpluses?
Comment by JustMe_JMO Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:29 pm
JustMe - I think George Ryan’s first two
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:31 pm
This would not take effect until a new contract is negotiated, and would be engrained in those negotiations, this won’t do anything to current contracts. Most non-union state workers have not received raises. I completely agree with this proposal, it puts the State in line with the private sector. Also, once they have all the State employees hollering at them to balance the budget, maybe the legislature will make real efforts to address the budget issue.
Comment by Realist Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:33 pm
Thanks, 47th.
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:33 pm
I think Siriusly is correct. Does anyone else remember Dan Hynes calling for a rainy day fund back then? It sounds so quaint now.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:33 pm
No, unless it says no pay raises for the General Assembly, the constitutional officers, merit comp and every other employee or agent can’t get pay raises, either. Add that, and my take would be, “It’s a stupid idea, but I’ve seen worse.”
Comment by anonymice Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:34 pm
The concern is always the state employees. What about all non-state workers employed by the vendors who do the work of the state by contract. Far more of them than state workers. They are stuck with state’s wonderful late payment system which has led to very few raises for them. So the state workers do not get a raise for two years. Welcome to the club. It’ll take several years of no state employee raises to feel the effects many vendor employees (union and non-union) have felt for the last 3-4 years. The no raise issue needs to be headed by the entire GA.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:36 pm
I voted no - I am hoping to get into the union so I can get a raise since I can’t remember when I had one (although I remember the legislatures) - and oh by the way - we have been ordered to take furlough days - and before the legislature thought of it - while they got a raise.
Comment by sadie Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:36 pm
the GA is right to give notice to the executive branch that pay raises (in any form) under collective bargaining wont be funded. tell quinn it applies to one year, or two years. thats fine. but “formulas” on examination almost always turn into gimmicks that are subject to manipulation.
just say no raises will be funded. then, as quinn has so helpfully established, the approp authority of the GA is paramount, and even if raise are given in a contract, they mean nothing if they arent funded.
Comment by langhorne Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:40 pm
Although a former union organizer (long, long ago, I admit), I said “yes”, but only because we have to start somewhere, and bargaining unit salaries have been boosted to unrealistic levels since the turn of the century. It is simply stupid for bargaining unit positions to make more than their equally-senior bosses who are not covered by the union.
Comment by wordonthestreet Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:44 pm
My understanding was the state is making progress – albeit slow – in paying off overdue bills. Which suggests revenue is greater than the current year’s obligations.
“An operating surplus would be defined as a state fiscal year in which the expenditures authorized or incurred are less than the revenues received during the same fiscal year.”
Seems like we already are satisfying the requirement.
Comment by Ivory-billed Woodpecker Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:45 pm
No. How would they even begin to implement this? If they had a surplus for two years, then gave raises which ate up the surplus would that mean their wasn’t a surplus so they couldn’t give raises which means they now have a surplus which means they can give raises which…ugh, gave myself a headache.
Comment by whISPer Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:49 pm
Yes, it is an interesting idea. Also would motivate some parties to push more to avoid deficit spending in this state.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:50 pm
” What about all non-state workers employed by the vendors who do the work of the state by contract.” Fair point — perhaps. Maybe it should be “No increase in any kind of spending for anyone until … 2 consecutive years…blah blah blah.” Share the pain. And see how far that gets.
Comment by What planet is he from again? Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:50 pm
Must be lots of state workers reading this blog. This should include all public employees in the state,under a state financed pension plan.
Comment by Louie Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:51 pm
I don’t know if I’m just having an issue posting or if my comment is being moderated, but maybe the third time is the charm.
I voted no. Anyone who’s ever been anywhere near the budgeting process knows that the numbers can be, um, finessed in different directions, depending on one’s goals. Whether there is a surplus or a deficit can depend on what one is including in the count, and how and when one is counting it. You want the numbers to show a surplus so you have money for a shiny, new program? Count the numbers to show a surplus. Want to show a deficit to keep employees from getting a raise? That can be done too.
This isn’t absolute, of course. No matter how you work it, you can’t generate a surplus out of our current catastrophe. But I saw enough years where it was close enough that an argument could be made that there was EITHER a surplus OR a deficit (and conflicting arguments were made by each party, in the directions you would expect).
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:52 pm
===First, the General Assembly controls spending, thus controls whether there is a surplus or not in any given year. They could conceivably manipulate spending to ensure we never see two consecutive years of surplus. It wouldn’t be that difficult.===
Do you really think they would need to cook the books to ensure that? Just conduct business as usual in Springfield and Illinois will never see a surplus ever.
Plus, if the unions want their raises, they’ll have to hold the Democrats they support accountable for their spending sprees. And Republicans who overspend in order to prevent the raises will be held accountable by their limited-government base (see, e.g., tea party response to neoconservative spending sprees).
Comment by Anon Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:53 pm
Sorry Rich, I’ll try again. To those who want it to extend to all state employees,do you really think that those professors at the University of Illinois College of Engineering that make it one of the top engineering programs in the country will still be there after not getting a raise, or for that matter having their pensions severely curtailed? They, and other highly trained professional state employees have options. This is a typical scattershot, partisan approach that the Illinois GOP is known for. The unintended consequences of this type of approach would be enormous.
Better Rich?
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:53 pm
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:23 pm:
And Cinci, yes, I suppose it could create a new interest group pushing for balanced budgets, but you don’t really think that is an intended result of this bill, do you?
==================
I don’t think it is an intended consequence. I think it is an unintended consequence.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:54 pm
== What about all non-state workers employed by the vendors who do the work of the state by contract.”==
Do you mean freeze the pay of the vendor’s employees or freeze the state’s payments to those vendors? The second might be a fair point. The first: not so much.
Let the vendors pay their employees whatever they want. But freeze what the state gives the vendor to make those payments. The vendor should be allowed it use it’s own money to give out raises or restructure.
But otherwise: fair point.
Comment by Lizard People Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:58 pm
===Payroll makes up a very large portion of state operations.===
I believe it is around ten percent.
===Once they have all the State employees hollering at them to balance the budget, maybe the legislature will make real efforts to address the budget issue.===
I think you are giving state employees clout that they clearly do not have.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:59 pm
===an unintended consequence===
I can almost see Henry Bayer testifying against nursing home reimbursements and early childhood education. Or massive statehouse rallies by AFSCME protesting paratransit increases and expanded mental health care or drug abuse programs.
Bizarro world indeed. And speaking for myself, I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the State of Illinois.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 1:59 pm
I would have said yes, if it also limited the state’s ability to shift costs to the employees until wages rise again.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:03 pm
Voted yes. Not sure if this is the right avenue, but any government employee receiving a raise in economic times like this is morally repugnant.
Comment by anon Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:04 pm
==No. What this amendment seeks to do is to negate labor contracts between the state and its unionized employees.==
Does it apply to current or only future? If only future, how does it negate anything? Just sets the ground rules for that contract.
Comment by Lizard People Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:06 pm
Ok, I guess I’m being moderated, thought I can’t imagine why.
I’ll just say I voted no, and I voted no because the budget numbers can often be nudged or massaged to show what one wants to show. That’s not possible when the budget is as bad as it is now, but someday when things improve it will be close enough that one could argue there is either a surplus or a deficit, depending on how the numbers are counted and what one’s purpose is.
Is that better?
Comment by TwoFeetThick Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:09 pm
Let me get this straight. The same folks who created the operating deficit by pushing $1.1 billion in Medicaid bills into the next fiscal year, now are saying that if they can’t muster the courage to make real cuts to balance the budget they will punish public employees?
This would be a fine idea if the legislature gave public employees the authority to veto appropriations in order to bring spending down and create an operating surplus.
This is like a teacher punishing Johnny because Billy stole Johnny’s lunch money.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:12 pm
Nice that average union increase mentioned in the resolution was calculated in a manner that picks up the last year of the previous contract. I think that contract was back-end loaded like the current contract is. Had to cherry pick numbers to ensure the greatest outrage, I suppose.
Comment by Johnnie F. Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:12 pm
Voted yes. Don’t we have a financial problem?
Comment by Just Asking Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:17 pm
===how does it negate anything===
If the Governor and AFSCME agree to a new four year contract calling for 1% annual salary increases, and then the state budget isn’t in a surplus, there is no increase. Why negotiate at all if the agreement can be voided due to circumstances beyond the control of the two parties to the agreement? If a 3rd party controls whether or not raises are allowed, but isn’t a party to the agreement, what is the point of negotiations?
This almost sounds like Cross is trying to borrow from state employees in the same way the Republicans insist we currently borrow from vendors.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:19 pm
at what point do you start living within your means?
Comment by Lance Stevens Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:22 pm
No, because the yahoos who control whether or not we have an “operating surplus” are the same yahoos who couldn’t be bothered to balance the state’s budget for the last 30 plus years, and instead stole money from state employee’s pensions.
The legislature has one job, to conduct the state’s business with the revenue the the state stakes in. A lazy state worker is one who refuses to do their job. The legislature hasn’t done it’s job for 30 years. They are the very definition of ‘lazy state workers.’
And why stipulate only union state workers? So lazy state worker Tom Cross and the rest of his lazy colleagues will continue to get their raises while they continue to fail to do their jobs.
Comment by Jim Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:28 pm
i voted no. i would have voted yes IF it was limited to those who make over $45K a year, including political appointees and elected officials. i do have a suggestion, though. i’d be more inclined to listen to tom cross (i passed his district office yesterday) if he returned all the monies he gets from the state to the state coffers until the state has a surplus for two years. seems like the least he could do…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:31 pm
The state will never have a surplus. They don’t budget to have a surplus.
Comment by fisher Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:38 pm
Threatening to close state facilities while at the same time awarding a $41 million CMS contract for temporary staffing makes it seem like some wires are crossed somwhere Governor.
Comment by JustaJoe Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:47 pm
I voted no, and would like to jump on Jim’s bandwagon. But instead of leaving it at Cross, I would have thrown in a few more names as well.
Then again, HeWhoMustNotBeNamed couldn’t possibly be at fault for any of the legislative failures of the past 30 years, could he? After all, ~cough~Madigan~cough~ is a legislative genius!
Comment by Colossus Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 2:54 pm
Of course not–this is ridiculous. State employee wages account for 1/20th of the overall budget. So a typical 3 percent annual pay increase costs the state about 15 hundredths of one percent of the budget.
And don’t forget Illinois has the fewest state employees in the nation per capita.
If you’re looking for money, try taxing the 67 percent of Illinois corporations that dodge state income taxes entirely.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 3:02 pm
What’s it going to take to even catch up the overdue bills? Years. And years. And more years.
State employees. Prepare to go five to ten years without raises.
Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 3:03 pm
I voted no. First, just exactly what is a surplus ??? I have no idea. It is my understanding that the state constitution requires the state to have a balanced budget each year. How to get around that? Decide to defer months of expenditures into next year. Since expenditures from this year actually won’t be counted this year, does that mean there could be a surplus this year ? Even though there are billions left over in unpaid bills ? With this kind of game playing, it would be easy to manipulate the budget for it to be whatever the party in power wanted it to be.
Apparently Cross forgot that part of the deal the union made with Quinn to guarantee no layoffs or facility closures was a furlough plan. I have taken more than 12 furlough days.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 3:07 pm
No. The suggestion is just more of the gimmickry and piffle propositions we’ve been hearing for the past eighteen months. Just another attempt to beat up state employees without a meaningful and enforceable commitment in return.
Comment by Zool Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 3:18 pm
Aldyth-
Some of us have already experienced that (until joining AFSCME) and a group of us still would have not received any raises… let’s see now… since 2003 and it made little difference. See there’s this giant sucking sound…
Comment by Still Laughing Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 3:22 pm
==If the Governor and AFSCME agree to a new four year contract calling for 1% annual salary increases, and then the state budget isn’t in a surplus, there is no increase.==
And both parties would know that going in, right? That kind of thing happens in contract negotiation all the time. Parts of the contract are contingent on outside factors. Not that unusual.
E.g., You can buy my house IF you’re approved for a loan. You get a raise IF your total sales are above $X. You get X% of the profits IF the company makes over $Y. Etc.
Comment by Lizard People Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 3:38 pm
That’s true Lizard. But using your example, under Cross’ amendment, Quinn doesn’t own the house he’s selling anymore because the General Assembly has a lien on the property.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 3:58 pm
It’s not a negotiation between Quinn and the unions. It’s a negotiation between the State of Illinois and the unions.
If my wife wants to set up ground rules for the sale of our house, I probably have to follow through with them when negotiating.
Comment by Lizard People Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 4:11 pm
Absolutely! There is NO money for raises……these are very tough times. When are people going to start realizing that. And oh, by the way, I support freezing all state employee raises until our fiscal is back in order.
Comment by downhereforyears Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 4:12 pm
State employees make up about 10% of the State Budget and that percentage has been shrinking for at least a decade. It makes no sense to try to balance the budget on the productive 10% of the budget.
How about freeze spending on all programs until the budget is in balance? It might actually get to a balance point in our lifetime.
Comment by Robert0117 Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 4:14 pm
This got me to thinking about the Compensation Review Board. With the wage depression in the State, shouldn’t they start to decrease the salaries of the positions they mage? LOL
Comment by Original Rambler Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 4:25 pm
Agree with 47th Ward. The comptroller’s web site has three different definitions of a balanced budget and who would ever trust the GA to pass a balanced budget, subject to which definition was used. Illinois is stealth Wisconsin, only you can’t bring guns into the capitol building (don’t bring your camera though….)
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 4:35 pm
It says all expenditures appropriated or incurred.
Which, I think, means the GAAP number. You have to count the bills you defer into next year THIS year, because that’s when they’re incurred.
Comment by Lizard People Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 4:41 pm
NO-
Call this what it is…Union Busting. This is the same nonsense that happened in Wisc. and Ohio. This is the politicians bending over for big business and letting them call the shots. Really, how can these people be in negotiations with the CBE group, Sears and others for 100’s of millions in Tax breaks, trying to pass a resolution limiting collective barganing, and at the same time they can’t even honor a signed contract for a 2% wage increase for average state employees??? Now they want to limit the Union more?
Comment by DEN61350 Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 4:56 pm
Look, either we will have or we won’t have collective bargaining. This appears to be a Wisconsin approach: “You have collective bargaining, you just can’t bargain wages, pensions, benefit costs, etc, etc.” That’s a silly game.
If the GA wants to tell the Gov ahead of time, “we’re not going to approp a wage package of more than x percent, fine. That doesn’t preclude real bargaining, it just tells both sides ahead of time what the stakes are.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 5:03 pm
NO It’s a political gimick with little fiscal impact.
GAAP standards actually followed in government numbers anywhere? LOL
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 5:24 pm
I voted no. I would vote yes, if :
No Pork projects until the same, No Payraises for Elected officials until the same, No Payraises for anyone in state government (MC, union and otherwise), cut Director’s vehicles, cut travel for all, except essential travel. They would freeze union raises and then give themselves a raises, much like Quinn has done with his staff. We all do more with less, and they should too!
Comment by Ain't No Justice Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 5:47 pm
I thought about this for several hours before I finally cast a vote. I was going to vote yes, and I’m going on 20 years with my position. But only if this was across the board for ALL people employed by the state of Illinois, and not just the organized members. Really? Never in my life will my total compensation come up to be what most of those in the legislature get out with. And they would never stoop to do the job that I do. Yes, I chose to be in a union. But I also pay into my pension, and the legislature is the group that caused this state to be in the horribly negative shape it is in as far as money is concerned.
Comment by Wickedred Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 5:51 pm
I voted no… That’s great that the politicians say they took
12 unpaid furlough days.. I say prove it..
When Department heads have to take 24 unpaid furlough days.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 5:54 pm
Makes Ryan look like a saint-well said-voted no,can’t see anything but game playing in the proposal.
Comment by dirk Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 6:13 pm
I voted NO but its getting harder to distinguish between corporate fat cats and “union leaders” many who make 6 digit salaries while the rank and file struggle and get caught up in these issues!
Comment by railrat Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 6:26 pm
we already did a volunter pay freeze and now they want more from union members. absouletly not. i voted no. if everybody takes a pay freeze now then they would match what the union has already done!!! But no the administrators have given pay raises to the 75K plus club just a few weeks ago. and they aren’t union members. where is the common sense at???
Comment by lawnboy Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 7:31 pm
Rich, Next time you do a poll like this, please don’t do it during the middle of the day when it reduces the productivity of the state employees to take time to answer your poll. I voted no.
Comment by Productivity Down Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 7:33 pm
Well, I have worked as a union state employee for 14+ years. Why does the state’s budgetary problems have to fall on the backs of the state workers. I work hard everyday for what I get. And yet they are trying to attack my wages, my union rights and my retirement. Certainly don’t see them dipping into their pocketing when cuts are discussed. I have waived my raise for the past year and doesn’t seem to have made a difference. Where were all these politicians we elected to monitor our state’s well-being and allowed us to get in this situation
Comment by Seriously Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 7:41 pm
I wonder what the poll results would be if the majority of the audience was not people who worked for the state.
Comment by Justin Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 8:09 pm
No vote. Spending on state employee salaries are in the 3-4 billion $ range. The state budget is in the neighborhood of 50 billion. Seriously? Does Cross think there is significant savings from this. U get what you pay for. Quality state employee’s will leave…
Comment by southern illinoisan Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 8:26 pm
Voted no because the legislature can rig the numbers.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 8:45 pm
Well that a 15 point landslide against Cross’ BS proposal…next.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 9:22 pm
Public sector unions shouldn’t exist.
In the private sector, unions bargain for a bigger share of profits in exchange for higher productivity. If they’re more productive, and bring in more money, they’ll receive their fair share of those gains through bargaining.
That doesn’t happen in the public sector. They’re not trying to get a bigger slice of the profit pie, derived from productive economic activity. It’s bargaining for a bigger slice of the tax pie, money obtained by force of law. The union can’t provide greater economic productivity in exchange for that greater slice, because the government isn’t a for-profit enterprise where profit is tied to productivity.
There’s no market to serve as a referee for public sector bargaining. Just higher taxes for nothing in return.
Comment by Nickname Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 10:01 pm
47th said it so well there’s no need to paraphrase. What a croc from the House of Dumba$$ Ideas.
Comment by Hawkeye Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 10:56 pm
First, I pay taxes. I pay my own salary! And then they taxes out of it. Cut my pay, freeze my pay, and I pay in less to the system. This talk of accountablility to the taxpayers is nothing short of crap. I am a taxpayer. My uncle worked for Illinois Power (now Ameren) for 40 years. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t have to pay his power bill, nor did he get a break on his bill. Moving on…
I started in the union. Took a merit comp job 9 years ago because my union path was frozen. Got a raise to take me to the bottom of the PSA scale and guess what — frozen salaries and furlough days required (thanks Rod!). After 5 years of no raises and minor raises, I joined the PSAs on the Union bandwagon. We won our LRB argument. With my raise, I agreed to do my part and take furlough days. One every month for the last 20 months. I even had to FIGHT to get them. They had to be approved all the way to our Chief of Staff with all kinds of justification (and after October, I was told not to take any more). Now, the Appellate Court has ruled that we should not have been allowed into the union, and if that decision stands, I stand to have my salary rolled back. So, I voted “no.” I am glad to have a job and benefits, but I work my butt off every day — even more so right now because of some the stupid laws that our corporately-purchased officials are trying to pass in veto session. Most of you hit the highlights — this is union bashing,raises for elected official and their appointed staff need to be frozen. Freeze travel spending and committee bonuses. This problem was created long before now with the pension raids and underfunding. More, there are many vendors that do things that could keep work within state agencies and open more jobs there. So, reduce the number of vendors (and subsequently, payments to vendors). And don’t get me started on these tax incentives. I won’t go into detail, but it’s going cost a lot of money in agency resources, and in the end, it’s all what I like to call “magic money.” I agree with the statement that with lower and frozen salaries, reduced pensions (already the lowest public pensions in the country), people will leave state government and take the lower paying jobs in a less frightening and stressful environment. And they will take their retirement monies out of the state funds and invest it in a nice ROTH IRA. I’ve seen people do it!
Really, dogs are extremely loyal creatures, but if you keep kicking your dog, eventually, he’s going to bite your ankle.
To Seriously — take your retirement and run. Your health isn’t worth it and your family misses you!
Comment by But What do I know?? Thursday, Nov 3, 11 @ 11:56 pm
They should add that if they do not have a Surplus for 2 consecutive years, then NO Elected official is allowed to run for ReElection!!!
The only way they are going to help this budget is to attack the social services areas. It is Taboo to discuss this cuts need to be made in that area.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Friday, Nov 4, 11 @ 7:32 am
I am about as anti-union as they come, but such cut-and-dried statements rarely work out in the end. Does the state need to get its fiscal house in order? Of course. Do the unions need to back down on pay and benefits somewhat? Probably.
However, there are situations that will require some flexibility and latitude. Plus, it may be a decade or more before the state can run two consecutive years of surplus. That’s a loooong time for anyone to go without a pay increase–especially considering inflation.
Comment by Fan of the Game Friday, Nov 4, 11 @ 8:59 am
“I keep spending more than I earn. So here is my solution. Until I pay all the bills I owe and have built up enough savings in the bank so I can pay all my future bills, I require that you do not raise my rent. OK? Because you keep raising my rent and that prevents me from not overspending.”
What a crock!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Nov 4, 11 @ 9:07 am