Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* House Republican Leader Tom Cross wants a union pay freeze to come out of the upcoming contract negotiations…

At a Chicago news conference on the one-year anniversary of the state’s income tax hike, Cross said a union wage freeze is among the cost-control measures the state should adopt as it continues to struggle with its finances. […]

“The ability to, or need to, freeze those salaries, not give increases, needs to be looked at as the governor starts negotiations with AFSCME,” Cross said. […]

Cross said he is working with House Speaker Michael Madigan’s office to put the wage freeze idea in writing. He wants it incorporated into House Joint Resolution 45, which Madigan introduced last year to set a limit on raises the state will grant unionized employees. […]

“Apparently Leaders Cross and Radogno believe the state should spend tens of millions of dollars on new corporate tax breaks, but nothing to ensure that caregivers, correctional officers and child-protection workers are fairly paid,” said AFSMCE spokesman Anders Lindall. “I think those priorities are upside-down.”

* The Question: Should AFSCME agree to a pay freeze in its new contract? Take the poll and the explain your answer in comments. Thanks.

Online Surveys & Market Research

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:30 am

Comments

Why should public employees continue to receive pay increase and in many cases automatic longevity increase, while the private sector generally is suffering and paying for the raises?

Comment by Louie Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:32 am
I would agree, however, I hope he’s not suggesting that this should be a permanent thing. Salary increases may not be the best idea right now.

Comment by Levois Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:34 am
What happens if the contract is allowed to expire?

Is the state obligated to continue?

Comment by Cassiopeia Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:38 am
Public employees should receive a pay increase that is fairly negotiated trough the collective bargaining process without interference from Cross or any other legislator. They do good work and should be compensated for it. Who in the private sector is suffering? Certainly not the CME group who booked billins in profits last year and then held up the state for hundreds of millions in tax breaks. It is about time that the people who do the real work make a little more money.

Comment by Bill Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:39 am
“Who in the private sector is suffering?”

Bill, you are joking, right?

Comment by Lakeview Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:41 am
“Who in the private sector is suffering?”
I really hope that’s a joke. Even if it is, it’s not funny in the slightest.

I certainly value the work public employees do, and recognize the unions role in creating a strong middle class. Even in bad economic times, public employee wages are beneficial when the money is pumped back into the local economy.

But when the budget is as dire as it is in IL, asking for a simple pay FREEZE should be an open and shut case. Private sector workers’ pay isn’t frozen, it’s falling and in some cases disappearing. Compared to the union shenanigans in some states, and the delicate way our state government is approaching it, I really hope AFSCME would accept such a proposal.

Comment by Anon Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:48 am
They probably should, if for no other reason than as a sign of good will.

Union workers have received cola after cola under the current contract, during a time in which inflation & the cost of living (as determined by CPI) hasn’t grown at the rate for which these employees have been compensated. We are all aware of the fact that Illinois already has a very low number of state workers per capita, implying that we already do more with less, but still union employees should be sharing in the sacrifice too. Many of these union employees now make more than their merit-comp managers as a result of getting so many steps & colas in the last few years while MC employees have been held flat (less 36 furloughs between FY10 & FY11).

A pay freeze shouldn’t mean that the state doesn’t appreciate the hard work of its employees its, it just means that these are difficult financial times & that the state intends to mirror what’s been going on with private employees for the last few years & hold the line on salaries for a year or 2.

Do I believe this will happen? Nope.

Comment by TCB Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:50 am
We voted “yes” just to help stoke the firestorm that will descend on Billboards in coming days. He deserves it. First he snuggles up to IPI - yuk - then he savages the workforce.
Oh the brutality of it all

Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:50 am
“Who in the private sector is suffering?”

Wow, that’s a slogan right up there with “Let them eat cake”.

In the immortal words of Rich…

…Oof.

Comment by Peter Snarker Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:51 am
As a state worker who is not a member of a union and who has not had a raise in almost 6 years and whose job responsibilities have increasedl, I am of the opinion that the Unions need to be quiet and be happy they have jobs.

Comment by Anon2 Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:51 am
People, don’t feed the trolls. Move along. Answer the question.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:51 am
It seems likely that employees are going to be asked to pay higher pension contributions and larger contributions to health care costs. Those issues aren’t separable from raises. If what we would be asking is for the Governor to accomplish all three in negotiations, we may as well add world peace and abolishment of poverty and hunger to his chores, since we clearly assume him to be a super-man of some sort.

Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:53 am
I wonder what Cross’ members think of this idea?
Rep. Poe, Brauer, etc?

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:53 am
Before jumping off a bridge, what percent of the current budget is for public employee salaries? By what percent would the budget be increased if raises were given. I would posit that there salaries is a relatively small part of the budget and this is penny pinching while the dollars fall out of the pocket.

Bill - As a former Illinois public employee, thank you for your kind words.

Comment by Huh? Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:54 am
But we’re hungry!

Comment by Bill Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:55 am
Yes, it should be on the “collective bargaining” table and yes, AFSCME should strongly consider supporting it.

Unfortunately, internal union politics will prevent this from happening. Saving jobs by agreeing to a pay freeze never gets a union leader re-elected. Pay hikes do. Or, a good fight with a strike. Sad, but true.

Unfortunately #2 is that Cross’s PR pop is what passes for governing in Springfield. No substance, just headlines. It may warm the hearts and minds of GOPs on this cold day, but it accomplishes nothing.

Comment by anon sequitor Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:55 am
Why not simply index the COLA portion of the “raises” directly to inflation and be done with that portion of it.

I dont understand why COLA isnt ALWAYS, in all contexts, indexed to CPI or some component thereof - if by definition it is a cost-of-living increase, and we have a measure to tell us what that cost-of-living increase was (sure, it would be, by necessity, somewhat rearward looking, but still generally closer to the mark), why isnt it always simply indexed? Or is that a budgeting problem b/c you cannot count on a certain fixed-cost?

Comment by Peter Snarker Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:55 am
I think AFSCME would do itself a great favor to accept a time-limited pay raise — just for a year.

Federal employees have been working under a two-year freeze, and Obama recommended just a one-half percent increase for the next fiscal, which begins in October. I work for a federal contractor, which is showing solidarity by freezing our pay, too. (Our health insurance just went up, for a net pay cut.) And of course, Soccerdad got a 100 percent pay cut in October — as have millions of people over these past years of hard times. To lots of us, a flat salary with a promise of no layoffs sounds pretty darn good.

The horrible actions of some GOP governors have prompted increased public sympathy for the public employees’ unions. Now is not the time for unions to blow that advantage by seeming oblivious to the pain of the people who pay their salaries — many of whom are struggling to make ends meet. Keep salaries flat for 12 months, and you’ll be negotiating from a much better place, politically and fiscally, when you come back to the table.

Comment by soccermom Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 10:57 am
If the state can afford to hand out $300 million in business tax breaks, can’t it afford a pay increase for nurses, correctional officers, etc.?
How big a percentage increase would that $300 mil fund?

Comment by Truthteller Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:01 am
AFSCME-represented state employees deferred pay increases and took unpaid furlough days to help with the budget in 2010 and 2011.

At the same time, Cross and Radogno were doling out huge raises to their own staff.

This year, 30,000 state employees have had an illegal pay freeze imposed on them in violation of their union contract. That’s ultimately going to cost the state more when it finally loses the legal battle Gov. Quinn provoked.

And it can’t be emphasized enough that Illinois has the nation’s smallest state workforce per capita. The entire state payroll is about $3 billion in a $50+ billion budget. A 3% pay increase amounts to less than two-tenths of 1 percent of all state spending.

State employees should be free to negotiate whatever fair compensation package they can get. That’s bargaining.

And compared to CME, CBOE, Sears and all Cross’s other Civic Committee friends to whom he’s eager to shovel millions of dollars in new tax breaks, state employees deserve it.

Comment by Reality Check Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:04 am
I think a pay freeze would be appropriate. I haven’t had a pay increase in years AND have had furlough days. A little equity in how workers are treated would be appreciated.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:06 am
TT,
That is exactly my point. Don’t forget that most of them already had a pay freeze this year when Quinn reneged on their raises.

Comment by Bill Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:06 am
The fact the some private companies don’t treat their employees well does not mean that the state should aspire to the same level of unfairness. The people that do the actual work should reap the most reward.

Comment by Bill Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:09 am
They should not only agree to it, they should offer it up. It would be a great way to build goodwill with voters and would make them look logical, given the state’s current financial situation.

Comment by Foxfire Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:12 am
I voted yes, but of course it would be part of negotiations and something should be gained by the concession. And since the negotiation of the AFSCME contract sets the stage for other state worker union negotiations. Since most “outsourced” private-sector substitutes for existing vacant state worker positions are likely to prove more costly than the state workers that would fill those vacancies, one trade-off could be phase out of those consultants and others and a filling of those vacant positions. Should be a win-win. Another trade-off could be some cap on any increase cost for defined health care payments required from employees.

Comment by JustaJoe Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:13 am
Reality Check’s (and some others) posts bring up an interesting and obvious point - the recent and very public corporate tax breaks.

I think one thing is clear - the current structure of the Illinois state government is adept at *giving* things, at least in negotiations, contracts and “on paper”. Whether it can actually afford what it negotiates, well, that’s a different story entirely. Just ask vendors waiting 6 months for payment for vital services they contracted with the state, or the pension fund that has been shorted, or the AFSCME workers not paid their previously negotiated contractual rates. All things promised but not paid for, or not timely paid for. Same goes the other way - sure, here, corporation XYZ, take $150M dollars back.

I guess I am really not seeing tough “NO!”.

How can AFSCME even bargain with a straight face with an entity that is currently (allegedly) breaching its contract and publicly “debating” breaching more portions of contract and constitutional law? AFSCME would not be well served to give too much away up front, bc they will be for sure giving away anyway when it comes time for the bills to be paid. Just my 2 cents.

Comment by Peter Snarker Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:13 am
I know people in the private sector who received LARGE raises last year and will again this year. Around ten percent. Asking for a cost of living wage increase isn’t out of line. There is “suffering” on both sides for sure but it’s not lop sided like some make it out to be.

Comment by Boss Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:14 am
I voted yes and this is why.

If it can be worked out between Cross and the Speaker to get this done, it is in the best interest of the union to go with the freeze, especially if it means their numbers stay the same.

The climate is ripe for a backlash, and calling the union unaware of the econimic climate and the realities of other industries that are downsizing.

Also, If Cross and the Speaker do this, it will also be a bi-partisan deal, making the deal more difficult to unravel, and there would be just too many “villians” for the union to point out to to the rank and file.

Take a freeze. Take a breath. Fight another day.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:14 am
Based on Governor Superman’s actions which deemed the current contract and supplemental agreement void because the raises were not in the budget, what is the point of negotiations of a new contract? The Gov could veto any money going to raises and cancel them.

A pay freeze, messing with pensions and other things to state employees are going to cause in essence a “early out” or mass retirement of people who hit the rule of 85. Services which are already affected will be strained more. Keep hitting the state workers, since we apparently voted for every spending bill that came across our desk.

If they do a wage freeze it needs to be across the board including Legislators, staffers, elected officials etc.

Then we can take all the money saved and give it to the next Corperation that threatens to move out of Illinois.

Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:17 am
Floating the pay freeze idea could be a cloaked attempt at dividing/conquering the AFSCME base for contract negotiations.

Comment by Still Laughing Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:18 am
AFSCME should agree to a pay freeze when the General Assembly agrees to freeze corporate incentives, agrees to abolish legislative scholarships, adopts exactly the same pension scheme as SERS employees (non legislators can’t do like Kurt Granberg), and criminalize “member initiatives” … .

Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:22 am
First, lead by example and institute a meaningful (30% or better) salary reduction for part-time legislators, they made the mess, they should share in it.

Second, eliminate any provision for automatic colas for any employee of the state. Collective vacationing is about bargaining through the economic changes and fluctuations that occur, not about one side guaranteeing to automatically compensate the other without consideration for such fluctuations.

Comment by Doc Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:24 am
I voted no because it should be negotiated at the bargaining table…not an edict from Tom Cross. Btw…all this talk about private sector not getting raises is off base. There is still too much unemployment for sure, but those lucky enough to be employed seem to be getting small raises. So why shouldnt front-line state employees like those who work in the prisons, nursing homes and other tough jobs.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/6735594-420/average-2012-pay-raise-3-more-for-top-workers-study.html

Comment by Raising Kane Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:25 am
How the h*** did collective bargaining become collective vacationing..? At least its Friday.

Comment by Doc Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:27 am
Ditto to Reality Check. I do agree with the fact private sector is hurting, but at its lowest level, the frontline staff!! Not corporations who are bringing in some of the biggest profits ever recorded!! It is not the frontline staff in state government that caused this problem, but they appear to be an easy target to attempt to correct the problem. AFSCME members deferred raises to save the state money last fiscal year and now has been forced into a WAGE FREEZE by our legislators who didn’t provide a balanced budget again!!! AFSCME members have not had a COLA increase or a step increase since before July of last year. How has that helped the private sector or the individual taxpayer? Did you see improvements, get a refund? Put blame where it belongs on the leaders of this state, the ones you elected. Give them a call and ask “What did they do with the money they took from state employees?” All of that money and millions more went to CME and SEARS, because of a threat!!

Comment by Ty Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:29 am
Did Cross say this with a straight face after acknowledging that he gave his staff raises last year which I think are funded by the same tax dollars.

My spouse is an AFSCME member but I believe that there should be a pay freeze. The state, as an employer, should look at its total costs (health care, pension, salary) and make a combined determination because each impact the workers.

Comment by 1776 Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:35 am
I voted yes, because the state simply can’t afford continually escalating payroll costs. I am in government but nonunion, and like others, have had pay freezes and furloughs, while unionized employees at my agency have enjoyed raises in excess of 3.5%. I don’t think it’s fair to compare the public and private sectors and their management of finances in the wake of the depression/recession as it is an apples/oranges kind of thing, but I do think it’s fare to compare union and nonunion government employees and how they’ve been treated. Nearly everyone else is rolling up their sleeves and taking a hit to try to deal with the state’s problems, and while I understand the unions’ motivation to protect the livelihood of their members, I think they need to come to the table with some spirit of shared sacrifice.

Comment by PJ Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:36 am
Meant to say “fair” in line 5, not “fare”… apologies.

Comment by PJ Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:38 am
Cross’s constituencies; the trust fund babies and high dollar corporate types have been doing quite well. So from that perspective his targeted austerity proposal doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. He should be proposing something constructive like a tax on services that could help the state treat its employees and other creditors fairly.

Comment by Honestly Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:39 am
I voted yes, because any reasonable person should realize that the State’s financial situation is desperate and if drastic cuts are not made, lay offs and reduced benifits for State workers is inevitiable.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:41 am
Why would state employees tie their hands in bargaining to buy some “good will”? They gave up some of their raises the last two years but that didn’t buy much good will. They still got stiffed by Quinn, and have to duke it out in court to get what’s owed. Quinn and Cross want to play hardball with workers, but they expect the workers to play softball?

Comment by Jeff Park Mom Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:42 am
Rich, your next Question of the Day should be “Do you think Tom Cross and Christine Radogno are aware that state employees in FY10 and FY11 deferred pay increases and took furlough days, and that in FY12 the state imposed a wage freeze?”

Possible answers would be “No, they are out to lunch” or “Yes, but they want working folks to keep sacrificing so that corporations can enjoy more tax breaks.”

Comment by Reality Check Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:43 am
I voted “no” because it would be an unwise position to take before negotiations which include a great many issues other than simply rate of pay. If I were them, I would be willing to end up with no pay increase if the other issues were resolved to my satisfaction and if I were confident the state would life up to its end.

Comment by Earnest Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:45 am
In the new contract as a state employee I would not be against a pay freeze for a couple of years, IF;

Everyone in the State government did the same. If all employees were treated the same, even those special staff members and pals of the Governor. And please don’t disguise them as salary adjustments as been done in the past.

The Governor made the current contract whole by allowing the employees who did not get their step increases and raises that were agreed upon to get those steps and raises. The reason this is unfair is because only some agencies did not get those raises and steps. Employees in the exact same jobs in other agencies got raises and steps. If you agreed to retire by last December 31 even if you were in the unfortunate agency you got your step and raises. To paraphrase our illustrious Governor, “everybody in, nobody left out.” Evidently he meant, except in this case. The Governor also made separate specific written agreements with some unions that if they took 10 furlough days and deferred their raises he would not make anymore cuts until the new contract. He also said that he would make sure that the furlough days taken would not impact the pensions of those who took the furlough days. He reneged on both. We had to buy back the furlough days in order for them not to affect our retirement. If you are going to give something to one group of employees it should be given to all especially when they are in the same bargaining unit and in the same jobs.

The GA and the Governor agree to forego ANY increase they are due. I know there is a state statute that says any elected official cannot take less salary, convenient, no? I am not sure if that applies to raises.

And finally that step increases were still honored. The pay steps schedule is part of the Personnel Code and not the contract. The pay schedule calls for increases for those employees who are newer and at the lower end of the pay scale. Increases to bring them up to the pay that their fellow workers are making should not be affected.

As a side note I find it very interesting that the Governor is doing everything he can to assist veterans to make the transition from service to civilian life. With the veteran’s preference playing a very big part in hiring state workers there are a lot of veteran’s in state service. Those who have returned from the gulf wars would be in the bottom part of the step system. So evidently it is a great thing to help veteran’s unless of course they have become state employees. Then, not so much.

Comment by Irish Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:46 am
These all have to be negotiated together: job protection, benefits contributions and payouts, and total compensation. A pay freeze would be good PR for both sides, of course.

2011 reality is that union state employees had an effective pay freeze, due to legislative appropriations deliberately disregarding executive agreements, and an effective loss in total compensation due to executive imposed unpaid furlough days.
It would be better for the two branches of government to be on the same page entering the negotiations.

Comment by mark walker Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:49 am
I voted no simply because it would be a horrible negotiation tactic to pre-emptively capitulate on the single most important issue for the unions.

What I’d like to see from both sides is something like this: give AFSCME a labor contract with specific requirements/deliverables that includes specific performance metrics. If AFSCME can complete the contract and meet its obilgations for less than the full amount of the contract, it keeps the difference and can allocate the “profit” to high performing AFSCME member-managers. In short, let the unions become partners with management, let them decide how best to meet the state’s objectives, how best to provide services, the best staffing levels, etc. Give AFSCME some skin in the game, and some incentive for efficiency. Give them the latitude to redesign the bureaucracy in a way that rewards creativity and promotes better outcomes.

If the state made AFSCME a true partner in providing state services, I think they could live with flat funding by trimming the fat they know exists in staffing levels/work rules and rewarding high performing and creative employees. The employer can’t pick winners and losers in this, but the union can and it’s about time they do. With the right kind of contract language, and the right attitude, this could be possible.

Or maybe I’m dreaming.

Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 11:55 am
If the State would pay what we agreed in the current contract, leave healthcare alone and pensions alone I would agree to a pay freeze for the current contract in negoiations, as long as it was only a one year contract maybe two at the most.

Comment by JJS Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:06 pm
I’d like to see the state pay its overdue bills before committing to higher salaries for any state employee.

Comment by Aldyth Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:07 pm
COLAs have been cut from vendor agreements for several years now. Contracts to providers (particularly in human services) include ‘reserve’ clauses which allow the state to simply hold back payments based on available funds. Funding has been relatively flat with no cola for these groups providing services to the state for several years. Basically cut colas from all groups: GA, unions, contracted, vendors, agency admin, etc.

For state workers you know what is coming next: colas vs. layoff/eliminated positions. Plus increases health/retirement costs. Welcome to the club.

Sears may have gotten a tax break, not sure I would bet on their future.

Comment by zatoichi Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:11 pm
No pay increase until the temporary income tax increase goes away.

i.e. until the state gets its financial house in order.

Comment by Jonsey Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:14 pm
Also…no pay increase until the backlog of unpaid bills is paid off.

Comment by Jonsey Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:15 pm
While they have every right to oppose this - as I’m sure they will - there is no reason union employees should not have to endure the same belt-tightening as the rest of the real world. And that’s not “cutting” a raise from 4% down to 2%, or other such budget nonsense. It’s a REAL freeze. The same salary as last year. Public sector union members are some of the only employees in the country that can pretend to be oblivious to state budget crises.

We simply can NOT continue to spend at the rate we’re spending and regain sound financial footing. Giving state employees raises, which I’m sure most would argue they deserve, is fiscally unsound right now. Period.

Add to the mess the increasing strain on the budget from the pension system and the clock ticking on the current income tax increase - not to mention no realistic chance that another revenue increase is on the horizon, and this shouldn’t even require discussion.

The governor should begin negotiating from the basis of CUTTING salary across-the-board, with the only reasonably acceptable compromise ENDING UP at a freeze. Ugly? Yes. Painful? Yes. Necessary? Yes. The largest arguably controllable expenditures in state government are personnel expenses.

The choice is CUT salaries or eliminate positions. Until leaders in power realize this, we will not come close to getting out of the budget hole we’re buried in.

Comment by Amuzing Myself Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:16 pm
i think we should get our raises we deserve them just like the governor and it bunch they voted themselves a big pay raise more then we have asked for lets be fair the state hasnt hold up there bargin of the deal with the pension and other thing we deserve our raises no matter what people think yes management hasnt had a raise but they r nonunion too and they choose to be in management and be nonunion too so they r making more money then alot of us too all that said

Comment by melissa Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:17 pm
I voted yes. It should result in a stronger bargaining position nest year. I am suffering from a pay freeze as I type….and the last two pay raises resulted in my take home pay decreasing! We should get the same raise the legislators get as we work 12 months a year, and they are in session, what, 2 months a year? COLA-What a joke. If it were to be fairly and consistently figured from year to year, decade to decade, then it would be fine. But when the going get tough, they change the method to figure it and guess who comes out on the ’short end’? And to those who think us state workers are overpaid…..you can apply for a state job the same as I did. ’nuff said!

Comment by Popeye Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:19 pm
NO. Am not a fan of unions, but the union spokesman is right. While it might be a good time to accept a negotiated no-raise contract, it should not be mandated by the legislators who created the budget (and pensions)mess.

Comment by downstated commissioner Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:21 pm
“Do you think Tom Cross and Christine Radogno are aware that state employees in FY10 and FY11 deferred pay increases and took furlough days, and that in FY12 the state imposed a wage freeze?”

Possible answers would be “No, they are out to lunch” or “Yes, but they want working folks to keep sacrificing so that corporations can enjoy more tax breaks.”

The answer would be as it would be for many Republicans, Democrats and our Governor’s, which is that they have had other priorities for our tax dollars. To many have priorities that would help them insure that revenues are spent in place’s were they help ensure they are re-elected rather than funding Pensions properly or the Public service’s that protect even our most vulnerable leaving our state budget and economy in a shamble’s.

Comment by fixit Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:21 pm
I voted no although it is conditional. If AFSCME agrees to no raises for a year or two in negotiations and gets something in return, for example, no increase in health care and/or pension contributions, that would seem very reasonable.

On the other hand, why would AFSCME even negotiate with this administration at all. Currently, we don’t know that the State will comply with contracts anyway. In the longer term, this seems to be a more serious problem than one year’s wage increases.

Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:28 pm
Raising Kane: Your question hits at the core of the problem. The answer is, “Because the state doesn’t have the money.”

Comment by Amuzing Myself Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:31 pm
As far as wage increase and the provisions of HJR 45, I don’t believe that this would require a person by person wage freeze, only a freeze on the total value of the contract. So my vote would be that the value of the contract should be frozen. Individual could still receive raises through attrition or reductions in other benefits. Commenters are pointing to staff raises. I would say to compare apples to apples here look at the staff wages over the life of the current union contract. Most of those staffers were on a two or three year pay freeze prior to any raises. Plus, I don’t believe the overall staff budget allocations were increased, much in the same way I suggest that raises can be given in the context of a flat union contract.

Comment by More Courage Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:31 pm
A freeze should be on the table for discussion. However everyone should be educated what their total compensation package is.

When medical insurance costs rise 15% to 20% per year, someone has to pay whether the employer is public or private. The worker has gotten a raise, even if their paycheck has not changed.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:32 pm
No. Why give up your most important collective bargaining tool? I don’t think even Walker went this far in Wisconsin.

Comment by Wensicia Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:35 pm
I voted no because our agency pays contractors $100-150/hour for doing the same work that state workers used to do. One project director has been here on contract for over 10 years with a 6-figure salary.

Comment by Headed to Florida Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:45 pm
I voted no, because the governor has reneged on the existing contract. At a minimum, AFSCME should get raises this year that make up for the bargained-for raises they postponed or lost altogether. And it should be a one-year contract, so that the Governor can’t invoke the “subject to appropriation” clause.

But getting an AFSCME pay freeze is child’s play next to getting the administration to unfreeze merit comp pay while there are still some actual workers left to get it.

Comment by anonymice Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:47 pm
I voted no. AFSCME should get raises but only after all the high paid managers that were moved to the union are removed. Some of these manager positions were exempt from Rutan and people were placed in these positions at high salaries. Now that they have been shifted to union coverage, they get the benefits of all the raises. A 2% raise on a $85,000 annual salary is much different than 2% on a $30,000 annual salary.

Comment by Can't Say My Nickname Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:54 pm
30,000 or so state union employees have seen their pay frozen by the Governor, but what about the other union state employees that continue to receive raises? (i.e. IDOT, Sec of State, IEPA, etc) How will this translate in a new contract?

Comment by Top of the State Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:58 pm
Our budget problems have been years in the making. At least five years. Throughout it all, AFSCME got decent raises. They should get nothing until the budget problem is fixed.

Comment by Old Milwaukee Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:58 pm
I voted no because none of the legislators are talking about freezing retirement and benefits. Instead they want to solve underfunded pensions by unconstitutional diminishment of the pensions. Wages cannot be seperated from benefits if there is a point to collective bargaining.

Comment by AC Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 12:59 pm
i agree that wages should be frozen. We simply do not have the money.

Granted, it’s tough to see special tax deals for ‘must keep’ corporations being negotiated but eventually we all must, and will feel the pain.

The money we save with this freeze will hopefully help the union to save some of their jobs, but my cynicism, and experience, says that the state will blow it on something else.

Comment by Sunshine Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:00 pm
Already read a lot of great arguments/suggestions from posters on the side of the unions here, so I won’t repeat them.

I answered “no”, because the state’s not operating and negotiating in good faith NOW, under the *current* contract.

Besides going back on promised and deferred raises, they are dragging union members thru the courts over things like state agencies illegally halting overtime and travel reimbursements, in violation of the FLSA. There’s a huge stack of these cases starting to wend thru arbitration right now, ISBE just had one ruled on in their favor in the past month. There are many more to go.

The union’s already shown shared sacrifice, agreeing to hold off scheduled raises, offering voluntary furloughs. For their pains they got treated shabbily by Quinn’s people and vilified by the same legislature that’s overspent on their own. Yet the union workers still come to work every day and do what needs doing. And doing more of it, with fewer people, than ANY other state in the union.

Between the three sides of the fight, Governor, legislature, and union, only the union has really held up it’s end so far.

Freezes should be negotiated, not imposed. I’m raised to play by the rules. You can agree to change the rules thru a process, and I’ll follow the new rules. But once they’re set, I’m holding you to them. No “take-backs”, no “do-overs”. That’s kid stuff.

And a contract has to be mutual: I expect to see the gov and leg each make and be held to real, concrete sacrifices of their own.

Comment by State Worker #45273 Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:06 pm
I can support this as an idea as long as it crosses over to non-union workers as well. We don’t need to still union members and then give raises to political (I mean legislative or executive) staff members.

I think a better idea is to cap payroll spending and look at ways to streamline, not fill positions (or at least institute a waiting period) and the consolidation of departments. There are ways to cap spending without capping wages.

Comment by Ahoy Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:10 pm
To disclose, I am a state employee of long standing who has reached the top of the pay scale for my classification. I only get “COLAs” at this point.

Seeing as how the private sector has been hit so hard w/layoffs, closings, pay reductions and the like, it would look bad for the union to fight for raises. While Bill and others can point to examples of some higher ups in the private sector reaping high salaries and the like, most of the working jamokes in the private sector have been hit hard. Not a good time to try to ask the hard pressed taxpayers for more - even with compelling stories of the hard work we do and the importance of our jobs. Those who pay their taxes and the state employees salaries have compelling stories, too. I won’t like the freeze, or the increased health insurance/pensions costs. I’ll survive. I am grateful for my job and the taxpayers who pay for it.

Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:15 pm
I didn’t agree to a wage freeze this FY but Quinn gave me one anyway…

Comment by Cindy Lou Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:16 pm
If we can’t afford to keep our employees’ wages current with inflation, how can we possibly consider even more tax cuts for corporations?

AFSCME should collectively bargain for whatever it thinks is in the best long-term interests of itsembers.

And its worth repeating that neither AFSCME nor the hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans who can’t find work were responsible for the 2008 financial collapse and resulting recession.

It was Tom Cross’s friends who did that.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:16 pm
How can a new contact be negotiated when the current contract is selectively ignored. I could cut my budget enough to give staff COLAS and save significant other money if CMS procurement rules could be based in common sense! Give front line managers decision making abilities with appropriate review, not the draconian processes that are in place. Red tape has exploded this fiscal year.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:19 pm
look at ways to streamline, not fill positions (or at least institute a waiting period) and the consolidation of departments

You do realize that Illinois has the nation’s smallest state workforce per capita and has had a systematic problem with runaway overtime costs due to not having enough staff, right?

Further cutting staff in DHS and DOC, the two largest departments, would drive payroll higher as laid-off employees are replaced by others working OT at time and a half.

Comment by Reality Check Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:22 pm
I voted no but I probably have a different (and controversial) take on it that a lot of you. It is also a conditional no.

First, the raises won’t really cost that much in terms of the overall budget.

Second, it should be part of the total compensation package and that should be negotiated.

Third, if you want to look at where some of the salaries have really become inflated, it is the automatic step raises in the union titles. Percentage wise, the step increases are much larger than the COLAs. That’s where a lot of the salary inflation has come from.

I’ve always viewed the combination of the step raise and the COLA as double dipping. The step raises used to about 5%, and there were 7 of them plus, sometimes, a longevity 8th step if you actually remained in the title that long. If it was up to me, I would eliminate all step raises and just have a COLA.

Disclosure: I’ve held job titles under the civil service step process (pre-union) and merit comp titles, so I’ve seen both sides of it personally. I also come from a multi-generational union family. And yes, as the primary family breadwinner, I took whatever the rules would give me.

I understand why step raises were implemented years ago to take politics out of raises; I also understand that steps reward the mediocre and incompetent while creating a disincentive for the exceptional worker. I also understand the shortcomings of the MC merit raises … both sides of it; on the one hand it can be political, on the other hand it was often budgetarially choked by upper management when large raises were given to exceptional workers.

I don’t have a good solution to how to give performance / longevity raises in government without politics intervening, but I don’t think either of the current approaches are working very well. The step system tends to overpay people, especially in the lower titles when compared to private industry. The merit system often underpays people when compared to the private sector … but the benefits used to even that out somewhat.

Just my two cents worth …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:45 pm
Melissa — the GA voted down the pay raise in 2010, I believe.

Comment by soccermom Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 1:47 pm
When this administration and GA learn fiscal reponsibility and really get serious about it money can be saved. But as unbelieveable as it may seem they are evidently not interested yet. Case in point. Money was found in DNR’s budget that would have allowed the Conservation Police employees to get their steps and raises. Some were told they would be getting them. But then the Director decided he would use the money instead to hire 12 new officers. If they don’t have the money to pay the employees they have, how can you hire new employees that you won’t have the money to pay next year?

Comment by Irish Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:00 pm
Stateville is clearly not willing to accept a pay freeze. Public safety officers are, IMO, in a special catagory. I don’t have to endure the kind of physical risk COs and POs do in my state employee job. I am sure there are other catagories, as well. Making sure they have what they need - full staffing, etc, is important.

Comment by dupage dan Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:10 pm
Yes. A pay freeze is one of the more reasonable concessions for the Union to make. Maintaining critical staffing levels, preserving the pension system, and keeping healthcare contributions reasonable are all “bigger fish” than taking a temporary pay freeze.

Comment by Union Member Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:12 pm
Reality Check,

You mentioned two good instances where not filling a position is a bad idea and maybe filling two positions instead of one could save money. The overall comment (which you should pay attention to) is to try to cap overeall payroll. There are different ways to do this, I listed a couple items that could be imposed where it makes sense.

Comment by Ahoy Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:18 pm
Stateville’s comments are out of line. I hope Rich has enough sense to delete it.

Comment by Randolph Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:18 pm
Randolph, that stuff regularly happens at prisons. The comment is gross and way too angry, so I may delete it, but it’s not inaccurate.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:22 pm
AFSCME and it’s members might be more willing to accept a year-long pay freeze if Quinn would honor the current contract. How do you go into contract negotiations when the current contract has been broken by management? I would be interested in what Republican state employees have to say about this.

Comment by Johnny Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:38 pm
That’s a shame, rich. While graphic, Stateville is spot on. I’m not a correctional officer or a police officer, but I certainly believe that these guys earn every penny they make. They protect me & my property from evil-doers.

In the case of CO, it is their job to maintain order in place literally packed to the rafters with the dregs of decent society. They put their health/life on the line every day they walk through the gates to come to work. Not only that, they work ridiculous shifts due to being grossly understaffed.

PO’s, are the same thing. They protect society & its property from those who intend to do harm to it. Every call they go on, whether it be a domestic violence call or a routine traffic stop, could turn into a shoot out. Their life is on the line every time they step foot out of their cruiser.

Comment by TCB Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:47 pm
I agree that state workers hold the line during recession and I wholly support collective bargaining rights. I also understand that those who work in institutions, prisons, etc. have incredibly challenging jobs. But honestly: Where on earth is this money supposed to come to? The only way it can be financed is through more debt or a cut to services (and we’re already a low-service state.)

As a young person, government debt is a real issue for me. I’m going to be the one to have to pay for all of the money the boomers borrowed. I’m the one whose school budgets have been cut. I’m the one that is going to have to accept less because my parents wanted more.

So, no, I don’t want to be paying for this pay raise by borrowing at a (probably) 6% annual interest rate. It’s a matter of intergenerational equity and just plain common sense. I’m certain public sector employees are very deserving of their pay raises but the money is simply not there and I don’t think you can justify slashing services just so employees can get a pay raise.

Comment by Danny Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:52 pm
Be careful what you agree to - remember the small group of state employees that aren’t in the union, aren’t politcal and have not had a raise since I can remember.

Comment by sadie Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:52 pm
Let AFSCME negotiate for themselves, rather than requiring that they agree to certain concessions beforehand. Let the negotiations be done by the parties rather than by outsider who may just want to see weaker unions.

Comment by glaber Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:53 pm
I am not a state employee but I think that state employees seem to perpetually be at the wrong end of the stick. Their salaries are not the problem here folks. Positions have been dramatically cut and those that remain have far more to do now than they did. This seems to be a symbolic gesture that rings hollow to me.

Comment by Kerfuffle Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 2:59 pm
I don’t think an across the board pay freeze is a good idea. Employees with “Second Tier” retirement benefits are already making a lot less than their colleagues in total compensation. Freezing pay may make it more difficult to retain and attract Second Tier employees - whose talents, such as professors, etc. we may need - in the short and the long run.

Comment by Fred Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:00 pm
maybe IF they give us the current raises that were a part of our last contract, and give us our back pay then MAYBE we could agree to a one year pay and step freeze.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:07 pm
-Why not simply index the COLA portion of the “raises” directly to inflation and be done with that portion of it.-

Because negotiations usually involve both economic and language issues. If management wants a beneficial change in language terms the result is often a monetary incentive to the union to accept the change. Sometimes the COLA increase bears little relation to the actual index because of such give and take actions. i.e. the State may offer a higher COLA because they want the union to pay more for health insurance.

I voted no because in the end, the union is entitled to collectively bargain over the issue and ability to pay arguments carry very little weight with arbitrators.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 3:52 pm
Government employees must be nostalgic for the days when they were merely considered lazy. Now it’s lazy and fat-cats.

In a negotiation typically there is a trade-off, not zero-sum. So to follow up on Rich’s question - what would AFSCME be willing to *trade* in return for a salary freeze? Health costs? No increased pension contribution? I am not sure what it would be, but certainly AFSCME isnt going to give up salary for nothing - I mean, salary is a pretty big deal when it comes to employment contacts, so they would be looking for something significant in return.

Comment by Peter Snarker Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 4:10 pm
Peter Snarker,

My guess is the trade-off will be no COLA raise in exchange for no or minimal increase in health care costs.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Jan 13, 12 @ 4:44 pm