Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The following letter to the editor appeared in the State Journal-Register the other day…

This is in response to State Capitol Bureau reporter Doug Finke. He needs to understand the difference between a “perk” and an “earned benefit.”

A perk would be like getting air travel miles for using a credit card, getting free meals and hotel rooms at a Las Vegas casino for gambling in said casino, etc.

I hired on with the state of Illinois in 1985. I took almost an $800 per month cut in salary for this job. The reason I did this was for the state benefits, which at that time included a decent retirement and medical benefits.

This was promised to me and all state employees employed at that time. This was never a perk.

In case you do not know this, you have to be employed by the state for a minimum of 20 years to receive these benefits. Maybe for you at The State Journal-Register benefits are a perk. State employees had to put up with all the political garbage in order to earn a moderate retirement, which, by the way, ranks 48 out of 50 states, to earn the benefit of paid insurance.

How would you feel if, after 20-plus years, The State Journal-Register decided not to honor any of its commitments to you? Or how would you feel if the SJ-R took a percentage of your pay toward your retirement benefits and used it at their whim? Private-sector management would be up on charges for what our government has done to state employees.

— Keith Pierce, Springfield

Yeah, because people who work for newspapers know absolutely nothing about massive layoffs, elimination of retirement plans, reductions in health insurance benefits to almost nothing, major stock losses after parent corporate bankruptcies and annual pay cuts.

Sheesh, Mr. Pierce, try working for a newspaper and see how comfortable you feel about your future. Trust me, most of the reporters I know who’ve moved over to government aren’t all that upset about pension reform.

* That being said, I have a lot of very good friends who work for the state. Almost all of them are conscientious employees who generally confide that the people who do the most complaining (and take the least action) about the Statehouse are the ones who do the least work. I also have an uncle who’s a retired state employee. He was furious when he first heard about the health insurance premium changes, but he calmed down after the situation was explained to him.

* The Question: How would you rate the legislative performance of rank and file state employees so far this year? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

Online Surveys & Market Research

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:29 am

Comments

I don’t understand the question. When you say “legislative performance” do you mean how state employees have presented their case to the General Assembly? Thru non-union groups? as individuals? not really sure how to grade this.

Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:36 am
Non-union employees are not at all organized. Union members should be better informed about the status of “negotiations.”

Comment by ANALYST Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:36 am
Rich,

Sorry, I am confused …do you mean “for” or if you do mean “of”, are you asking about non-union lobbying for state employees?

No snark at all, I am just confused. It’s probably me.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:38 am
I don’t understand the question either. The rank and file don’t get to perform legislatively (and the legislature isn’t exactly big on talking to the front line troups about anything - quite the opposite in fact).

Comment by titan Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:38 am
I am a state worker. The bell shaped curve is a valid measurement of the quality of the workers I have observed over time. There are some great ones and some near great. There are some extremely poor performers protected by their particular union from being terminated. There are some who are not quite so bad. Then there is the vast majority. Those workers who do a pretty decent job some of the time, and a passable job some of the time. In this, the workforce is no different in the state work force than it is in the private sector.

Comment by johhnypizza Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:39 am
i don’t understand the question either.

Comment by Cassiopeia Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:40 am
Misread the question. Thought you were asking about state workers performance on the job. I do not think many state workers are contacting legislators. Even within the bargaining units most rely on their union regional and state wide officers - who typically are not state employees, nor always from Illinois. So, I guess the grade would have to be an F.

Comment by johhnypizza Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:43 am
I don’t quite understand the question either, except I will say in general that public employees around the country have lost a great deal of political clout and are not effectively making their case. We’re already in a situation where being in the public sector in most positions means an overall cut in compensation and opportunity compared to the private sector, with the only offset being the relative job security, and yet the meme that public employees are featherbedded indolent leeches is the dominant one when it comes to talking about pay and benefits. Just to take one example, in any situation where public employees were perceived equally to private ones, Scott Walker would not stand a chance in this Wisconsin recall — yet as of now he’s polling slightly ahead. Then again, if public employees were perceived equally to private ones, Walker would never have run against them in order to get elected in the first place.

Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:45 am
Cry me a river, Keith. No sympathy.

Comment by Burning Down da House Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:58 am
I’m sorry; I don’t know how to answer this question.The rank and file don’t get to legislate, their union representatives handle this.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:59 am
If in fact (and I doubt it was the only reason) you left other employment to take a state job for the benefits - then it just shows the benefits are and have been too generous for to long. Taxpayer interests trump yours.

Comment by Fair Share Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:02 pm
Well, state workers are gonna get screwed. The letter writer to the paper was correct in his assessment of the situation. If had compared the situation to a business other than newspapers, maybe Rich wouldn’t have taken the thing so personally. When Rich explained things to his uncle, did he tell him that legislators, did in fact, used pension funds at their whim in order to keep constituents happy? C’mon, Rich. Yes, a solution has to be found. But let’s man up to the root cause of the situation. State workers and state retirees are being asked to fix a problem they didn’t cause…state lawmakers raided pension funds so taxes didn’t have to be raised and to prevent painful cutback. Now a select few, who actually played by the rules, are gonna have pay for it all. How is that at all fair?

Comment by Deep South Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:04 pm
Ok, I think I got it …

I would give them a “D”…

If Wisconsin’s situation would be an “A” because, heck, they got it to the point of recalling a governor, the rank and file have been eerie quiet, and passive to the Legislative Representation, ..

Further …

The Ranks and File are now beefing at the job the Legislative Crew did, but where were the Rank and File?

I have heard the old adage, “Too Little, Too Late” take the spin of “Too Little, Too Late, Too Bad” when it came to the process of legislation.

They get a “D”

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:05 pm
The state employees would help their cause a great deal if they showed some sympathy for — or even information about — the impact of this economic downturn on the rest of the workforce. If you read the papers — skinny as they have become — you’ll see that many people have lost their jobs, their benefits, their 401k’s, their homes. By comparison, an increase in healthcare premiums looks pretty mild.

Comment by soccermom Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:06 pm
Rank and file employees should have rang the legislators phone nonstop when the legislature was breaking the contract with regarding retiree health insurance. The didn’t and we see the result. I think an ‘F’ so far is appropriate. I agree with the person who wrote the SJ-R that yhe health insurance premiums paid for retirees was a benefit and not a perk. Though I agree the newspaper business has been brutal, I also agree that a private company would be in serious trouble if the ruthlessly tried to break their collective bargaining agreement like the state is attempting.

Comment by AC Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:07 pm
Rank and file public employees (many who are not in a union, some are not allowed to by law) are at work not down lobbying, so I didn’t vote….

Comment by LIberty_first Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:08 pm
I want to add … the Rank and File whine CONSTANTLY. They are never, ever happy.

And even the small few, who make it worse for the VAST majortiy, will never be happy.

These minor few WANT $200K jobs, work a 3 day work week, have 2 assistants (for a task that only needs ONE of the 3 of them), and an early retirement package, about 4 months from when you speak to them last, including their medical insurance, because they will brag about the side job they are going to do more of to have “spending money” …

They are few, VERY few … but “Rank and File” … they are out there, they whine, and we hear them.

The “D” stands

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:14 pm
Soccer mom - the bigger question here is contractual law. The state shouldn’t be allowed to violate a contract any more than a private company should. Unfortunately were live in a world of massive number of laws and progressive government where lobbyists and legislatures pick and choose winners and losers. Companies and unions shouldn’t be allowed to raid their pension funds but they have found legal ways to do it. If the state does it to their own employees, no one in the private sector has a chance.

Comment by LIberty_first Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:16 pm
Soccermom:

I completely agree with your above point. State workers do have a valid “moral” complaint (and perhaps contractual/constitutional as well - we’ll see - and oh, by-the-by, the constitution can be changed folks. then it’s end-game. think the civic committee type hasnt thought that one through?).

BUT the state worker “complaints” are so tone-deaf to the times. Have to pay some health insurance costs? Cant retire under rule-of-85?

Seriously? That is the big complaint? It’s laughable on some level the tone-deafness of the arguments. Fair? No. Not fair. Predictable? Yes. Hello, the money isnt there and the taxpayers are not going to EVER bail-out worker benefits that have LONG ago disappeared in the private sector. That’s the context.

FAIR SHARE:
I also note that you make a good point about coming to the state employment - another great benefit of working at the state is not alot of worry about getting let go compared to the private sector where anyone, and I mean ANYONE, is a bad quarter away from being gone. It’s a benefit to state employees mentally to not work under those conditions, another intangiable benefit of state employment. Honestly, state employees cannot really even comprehend that sort of environment.

I like you guys, for the most part you are a great crew to see day-in and day-out, but people dont care about our problems they are focused on their own, I mean really, right? They arent digging into their pockets to make sure some guy gets benefits predicated upon a 1985 economic picture no matter how “fair” it is.

Comment by Peter Snarker Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:18 pm
I guess its ok for the tribune to bash state employee benefits in every other editorial but someone writes a letter to editor they are labeled a bunch of brats.whos acting like the brats ,remember the calender the trib posted everyday showing the number of days cook county enacted the sales tax. Judging by the big bonuses handed out at the trib how bad is it? Just asking.

Comment by foster brooks Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:19 pm
I gave them a “D” and then saw Oswego Willy’s good explanation of why I was right to give them a “D.” I agree with OW.

I’d add, the one thing state employees are saying that could be resonating is that pensions/benefits for electeds are grossly excessive. Since there aren’t too many elected officials, the total dollar amount isn’t significant, but the symbolism is there, as is the hypocrisy of cutting benefits for some while keeping excessive benefits for themselves. State employees should push this issue more.

But I’m not sure if this grade is fair as I’m not sure whether the real fault lies with public employee unions, who perhaps should be doing a better job of pushing talking points to their membership.

Comment by Robert Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:26 pm
I think too many people look at the question of public employee pensions through the wrong lens. We end in a race to the bottom when we say, “Private sector employees get screwed on their pensions, so public sector employees should also be screwed on pension commitments.”

Look, there is no doubt that the state has dug itself into a hole with pensions, and imo there is no doubt that public sector employees will have to make sacrifices to get out of that hole. But let’s be clear: we are asking the public sector to make sacrifices because the state cannot meet its commitment to them, not because the pensions are too “generous.” The problem is that private sector pensions are inadequate, and that it’s too easy for private sector pension commitments to be avoided.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:31 pm
I did call my GA rep and state senator. I also called the Governor and Madigan. Interestingly, Madigan’s office said they didn’t care what I thought because I wasn’t his constituent. I replied that since he held all the power, I certainly was his constituent. I don’t think that changed their minds. He still doens’t care.

Comment by lincolnlover Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:31 pm
the other anonymous -

I dont disagree with you - but the larger context is the private sector must fund the public sector benefits. period. the message you state is possibly true, but it is simply not resonating with the “already screwed” private sector employees that a stand must be made on the middle class generally by their reaching into their pockets to fund gov’t workers paying zero toward health-care.

That’s just crazy talk in this world of uninsured and high-deductible plans.

Look, I dare anyone on this blog to come up with an argument that will actually resonate with the body politic as to why govt services should be cut or why taxes should be raised to fund a 59 year old retiree’s entire insurance premium.

Yes, it may well win in the courts, but I am sorry I cannot see how it wins the public opinion over. The narrative is off, it is backward looking. Ok, fine, that was a reasonable benefit in 1985. Yawn. Ok, fine, the politicians are a bunch of self-serving meanies. Yawn.

Comment by Peter Snarker Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:37 pm
I don’t know if I understand the question either, however I will say this. Some state employees have become conditioned that the union , if they are a member is the only way to get the ear of the legislators. For years we at my agency have been told that we do no communicating with legislators or the press. And if by chance we do, even on our own time off it has to be the agency party line or you could be disciplined. With that stick hanging over your head you don’t do a lot of independent lobbying for yourself, especially when the agency director has come out with a position paper that they support the Governor’s position completely. So breaking that habit to lobby against the Agency’s position does not come easy.

Comment by Irish Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:39 pm
I’m not sure why the general public thinks State workers aren’t aware of, or touched by, the bad economy…we live in your cities, on your streets and pay all the same taxes and higher cost of fuel, food, etc. that you do (except for those of us who don’t pay into SS). Our families are pinching pennies, just as your families are. I’m sorry so many of you have lost benefits, I don’t wish that on any American, but that doesn’t change the fact that we feel (be it wrong or not) that we had a contract with the State and they have welched on it. The courts will decide who is right, and whoever loses will have to deal with the outcome.

Comment by Huggybunny Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:42 pm
The so-called whining referred to is:

1) When you take a public job, you KNOW you will not be making the huge salary that you can potentially make private. So you trade a pension in old age for the great life (or potential of it) in younger years. It’s a gamble. Some in the private sector lost the bet. Sorry. We played safe. Sorry. But we never lived the good life. Never had a chance to.

2) the whining occurs with all the public discussion of various peoples’ worth bing debated in newspapers, coffee shops, meetings, public places. In case one didn’t realize, that’s demeaning and doesn’t do great things for morale on the job. I’ve always maintained that everyone’s income/benes/perks should be printed publicly and we can all debate peoples’ worth. I think many private sector employees would find their mouths at a loss for words then.

Comment by Inactive Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:44 pm
I gave them an “A” just for Keith Pierce’s letter.

Yes, the newspaper industry and its employees have suffered, especially in large markets.

But all of that personal experience seems to rarely inform reporting or editorializing.

Check the web for all those news stories extolling Google’s virtues. How many mention that Google was eating the newspaper industry’s lunch by gobbling up advertising dollars while providing free access to newspaper’s content?

Your newspaper declared bankruptcy and then gave upper management big bonuses? Ignore it. Blame some politicians when government models its behavior on the private sector.

Waste or lazy state employees? Write a nice column about it in between updating your fantasy baseball team and shopping for Mother’s Day presents on the company computer.

Social Security and Medicare are broken and need to be scrapped! I know, because I read press releases masked as news stories weekly, regurgitated to us by journalists who, thanks to these very programs, don’t have to worry about their elderly parents dying in a sickly, impoverished and miserable state.

My grandmother was a news reporter across six decades. She prided herself on her independence. Independence from partisan politics, other people’s agendas, and the passions of the moment. Not independence from her own life experiences, morality, common sense and the facts of the world around her, which make you a BETTER journalist.

YDD

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 12:53 pm
I suspect Storekeeper II is a job title that only exists in government.

Comment by OneMan Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:04 pm
The letter writer is obviously not paying attention to use the news industry in his example. That said, the comments spewing the stereotypical generalities about state employees doesn’t add to the discussion.

I would also like to know when our society has gotten to this low point where we condone inequity because others have similarly suffered.

I would also like to ask whether my sympathy for others who suffer inequities will change your opinion on proposed changes to my pension benefits. If that does matter than understand I watched my father financially struggled in his senior years because of phony promises by his employer. I also worked with poor families who hoped that I could somehow help them. I still remember the picture of one man’s family that was part of his plea for assistance.

To the question at hand, my family gets an A + for effort, a C for effectiveness with non-local legislators. The legislators without a large public employee constituency are more interested in pleasing their leaders or business supporters than listening to state employees.

Frankly, grading employee effort is spurious. What happens is beyond our control. Even the much heralded march on Madison didn’t change the outcome.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:05 pm
Peter Snarker - please read my response to Soccermom. The argument is one of contract. The state has the money to pay its contracts (even if you disagree with the contract in the first place). Violating the state constitution and contractual law affects everyone.

Comment by LIberty_first Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:07 pm
Where I worked, we were too busy to keep up with the legislative performance of other state workers. Downsized, increased work loads, little to no support from the administration, open to a public that expected services and benefits regardless, meant Springfield, which controlled our daily work lives, was at the same time, very far away. We survived the h*llious Blago admininstrations and this is where we are: 2 governors in jail and a GA that can’t pass a balanced budget to save their lives.

Comment by Emily Booth Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:13 pm
One of the problems here is the unknown. Neither the government nor the press have told us how much retirees are going o have to pay for health benefits. This entire issue would be easier to understand and accept if we weren’t talking about $800 million. Instead let us know how individuals will be affected.

Comment by Publics Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:35 pm
I gave them a B.

Most state employees are hard working and do a good job. Most state employees are doing their job as well as covering for positions not filled when someone left, or worse, filled by one of the minority that does a crappy job. Most state employees deserve the promise made to them. I find the argument that their benefits upon retirement were part of their employment package, negotiated in good faith by both sides, to be very compelling. I think they have done a good job in making this point.

Follow the judges though. That lawsuit will be fun to watch!

Comment by Mongo Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:43 pm
I gave them an A, prospectively. The one aspect of the situation no one has been discussing is that you get what you pay for. The state employees are starting to vote with their feet in big numbers. The state is going to wind up paying more to replace them than it would have taken to keep them, and it will be getting less in return.

Comment by anonymice Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:49 pm
When I read the question, I decided that I didn’t understand it, so didn’t answer. After reading the comments, I guess I did understand it right, just don’t understand why it was the subject of a poll.
I give them a “D”, because apparently the legislators aren’t worried about what the state workers think. I do agree with the poster who said that most legislators don’t care, unless they have large numbers of state employees in their district.
Madigan’s attitude is actually pretty realistic; I have checked the voter registration list to see if I care what somebody thinks- if he or she isn’t a registered voter, why should I worry about them?

Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:55 pm
Unfortunately most state workers that are “rule of 85″ are scared to death, there is little information being given and LOTS of rumors. The Rumors are basicially forcing them to decide to get out and get into the retirement system, or gamble and possibly lose a large sick leave payout or get placed in a diminished retirement system.

The people that are close to Rule of 85 are mad because they fear they will have to work til they are 67 which for a lot of them would be working for the state for 40+ years.

Either way, the distrust of the Quinn Administration and mostly of the Legislators is as high as I have seen in all my years in Springfield.

Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 1:57 pm
Voted “D”. The question is indeed a little confusing. Most ‘rank & file” state employees have no basis for legislative performance. They may have contacted their elected state officials, but how much effect does that have? Not all have union representation either. Collectively, were they able to counter the constant narrative about their “cushy” pensions and benefits that made them the fall-guys for an irresponsible General Assembly? Nope!….so, a “D”

Comment by JustaJoe Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 2:03 pm
Awww…what a sweet tribute to your Grandmother, YDD. She sounds like a great woman.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 2:11 pm
“The State” exists because of the consent of the governed. Fundamental to a State’s existence is its soveriegn immunity. Contracts that are not deemed in the best interests of “The State” or “the governed” can and should be nulified. That’s the first duty of “The State” and that duty can and should be superior to any other duty enumerated or not in the constitution or statutes. We are witnessing the beauty and genious of democracy in action. The limited resources of the state will be allocated as those who consent to be governed desire them to be.

Comment by Air-Is-Total Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 2:12 pm
I think most state employees expect to pay more for the retirement “benefits” that we have including health insurance. My issue is that the legislature got us into this situation by not putting in the states portion of pension payments. I have seen nothing in their proposals that address this issue. Without addressing the main cause of the problem I fully expect that they will continue to display a lack of fiscal fortitude and will have “pension holidays” in the future.

I do have sympathy for those in the private sector as I have watched Horace Mann and Franklin Life pull the rug out from under their employees and then give those executives huge payouts while the rank and file get shafted. It wasn’t right then and it isn’t right now.

Comment by NotCloseToRetiring Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 2:18 pm
If legislators could just refrain from passing legislation that required people to make the legislation work as intended, the problem would be solved.

For example, HB4665 as amended passed both chmabers yesterday. From the synopsis: “Provides for the Illinois Emergency Management Agency to have primary responsibility for State radon mitigation efforts.” Well, is the IEMA some ethereal idea, or is it an organization that takes “people” to handle those mitigation efforts? Those “people” would be generally called state workers. Any legislator that looks down his or her nose at state workers ought to first look at why there are state workers in the first place.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 2:25 pm
Norseman, I’m not condoning inequity. I’m saying that the state employees are not making their case well. Yes, it’s absolutely true that state employees are paid less than their counterparts in private industry, and yes it’s true that many of those state workers accept those lower wages because they are drawn to public service. (Ask me how I know…) But if you’re going to make your case to the public, you need to do it in a way that wins. And letters like the one above lose you support.

Comment by soccermom Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 2:25 pm
= Contracts that are not deemed in the best interests of “The State” or “the governed” can and should be nulified =

The Founding Fathers completely disagree with that sentiment. The US Constitution specifically says in Article I, Section 10: “No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”. The current Illinois Constitution of 1970, which Speaker Madigan was involved in formulating, contains similar language in Article I, Section 16.

Comment by cover Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 2:32 pm
I voted C because I can’t see what most of them can actually do. Most state workers I know do a decent job and often go out of their way to do the right thing. There are slackers, but just about the same number found in any industry. Not all the state workers are part of the unions.

As for Keith, talk to the industries where whole companies have simply disappeared, got bought out/sold off, gone bankrupt, technology caught up to them, stocks dropped 95%, or just ran out of money. Many of those workers lost everything even when there were contracts and long held agreements. What is happening to state workers is not fair or right. It is simply the way it is when a huge company gets run into a financial corner with no where to go. It is extremely difficult for the people directly effected. It makes me very glad that most of my retirement is vested in 401ks or other accounts that are out of my employer’s control.

Comment by zatoichi Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 2:33 pm
Cover - 2:32pm - In Keystone Bituminous Coal Assoc. v. DeBenedictis, 1987, Justice John Paul Stevens stated, “It is well settled that the prohibition against impairing the obligations of contracts is not to be read literally.” (p.502)

Comment by Air-Is-Total Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 3:12 pm
===It makes me very glad that most of my retirement is vested in 401ks or other accounts that are out of my employer’s control.===

Bet there are lots of state employees who wish they were in your shoes…

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 3:13 pm
Sick of the whining. Yesterday’s teachers protest (while not State employees) was the final nail in that. No more of the “we put in our share” slogans. The balance of the funds just aren’t there. Without cuts to pensions or revisions such as more years spent working, the State will have to cut off more aid to the poor be it through assistance, Link cards, Medicaid etc. This isn’t about who gets to keep their same piece of the pie any longer, it’s about how much smaller is my next piece going to be. When the money isn’t there, it isn’t there and closing further prisons, cutting medicaid further, eliminating job creation incentives etc aren’t great alternatives either, but that’s what it comes down to and it’s about time adults start thinking like adults.

Comment by Shemp Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 3:25 pm
I’d like to learn more about “job creation incentives,” what they REALLY are, how they’re used, and whom they benefit.

Like, for example, do the jobs that are created actually have to go to workers who are here? If the employer is getting a perk for hiring the unemployed, how long does that employee need to stay employed–and if the employee is terminated after that period, does the employer get another perk when he hires another person to replace that person for another short period of time?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 3:30 pm
Air-Is-Total - there’s a big different between not reading Article I, Section 10 literally, and giving the state an open license to nullify any contract it wants on the pretext that ‘not deemed in the best interests of the State’.

And what other way do you suggest Article I, Section 10 to be read? Figuratively? Parenthetically? What are the citations used which affect that clause in the Constitution. I’ll bet a nice shiny quarter they don’t provide for the wholesale nullification of contracts without some pretty big hurdles.

Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 3:41 pm
===No more of the “we put in our share” slogans. The balance of the funds just aren’t there.===

And why isn’t the balance of funds there? Because the money was taken by the politicians to keep their constituents happy…people like, well, like just about everyone posting on CapFax. So excuse my whining. In a nutshell…the taxpayers, and their enablers - the politicians - stole that money from retirees. Plain and simple. Seems to me that someone, probably a lot of someones, should be going to jail.

Comment by Deep South Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 3:59 pm
So yeah, if you’re you’re gonna stick it to the retirees…there damn well better be a provision in the reform package that prevents this theft from ever happening again. And the rest of you taxpayers outta be offering up a big “thank-you” to the retirees who were forced toput their money on the line when the rest of you didn’t want to….

Comment by Deep South Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:02 pm
I generally love to take your polls and thanks for keeping me informed. I’m a 36 year state employee. I work hard and do my best to be moral and earn my paycheck. I don’t understand today’s question.

Comment by dan Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:03 pm
Air-is-Total:

Where did you get your law degree? I would ask for a refund. Under your view a Constitution is irrelevant. Do you not see the ignorance of your statement?

**********

I voted “F.” It’s popular to pile on public sector employees. The General Assembly is doing a bang up job this session. And I don’t buy into Rich’s “once the situation was explained to him” nonsense. The situation is this: even though you are already retired we are going to change the rules and screw you. Change it for people still working. Fine. But it is immoral and criminal in my opinion to make changes to items for people already retired.

I know Rich hates the whining going on about this but I say that retirees have a right to whine and complain and moan as loud as they can. State - pay your damn obligations to those already retired.

(No, I’m not a retiree).

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:07 pm
Don’t understand the question. To He makes Ryan look like a saint: I plan to retire at rule of 85, less than two years from now, but if I have to wait until I am 67, I will have worked 47 YEARS. Let me tell you, if I have to wait that long, I won’t retire, I will just keep working until they put me in the grave!!!!

Comment by thunder Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:21 pm
Didn’t answer the poll because I’m still unclear on the question.

As a retiree, I spent over a half hour back in February talking to my State Senator about various concerns, including pensions, health insurance, gun control, taxes, roads, etc. … and he has voted pretty much in alignment with that conversation. I’m sure that is because he represents a lot of state employees and not just because of our conversation.

—

Ignoring Quinn’s recent selective awarding / withholding of contractually agreed to raises at various agencies, since that hasn’t been settled yet, either through arbitration or the courts …

As far as State contracts go, about the only time I have seen the State of Illinois successfully nullify an in-force contract is through the failure to appropriate clause that is part of the standard boilerplate in most State contracts … and even that was rarely used.

In terms of the pensions themselves, that ‘failure to appropriate’ language does not exist and the lack of funding on an annual basis has already been ruled by the Illinois Supreme Court to not negate the State’s requirement to make the actual pension payments when due.

The question is still out on some of the other benefit issues as to whether or not the courts consider them an issue of contract …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:23 pm
State workers are low priority. There was no money for raises but GA found over $70 million to pay day care providers. If there was money, why wasn’t money used to pay raises?

Comment by RSW Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:24 pm
For those of you who may think state employees have peace of mind because they won’t get fired, please think again. Maybe that is pretty close to true if you are union. But most professional employees that have been smart and hard working, advancing up through the ranks have no such protection. How many professional managerial employees do you think might survive 40 years of term appointments? If you do, you have to have nine lives. Because corrupt Illinois politicians are either going to be out for your job if you don’t help them out or a new governor is going to want to plant somebody he owes in it. Look what Blago and co. did to state workers after they came in — it didn’t matter if people were politically connected or not — they were just in the way. Peace of mind? Not even close.

Comment by Kimocat Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:38 pm
If the question is about State employees contacting the GA, I can tell you when I was working there was a ban on GA contact except through the agency spokeperson … and we had to report any GA queries so a “proper” response could be formulated.

Same thing as far as talking to the press also.

Doubt either the above were legal but people didn’t overtly challenge it. Covertly, stuff got leaked …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:40 pm
==If there was money, why wasn’t money used to pay raises?==

Because paying day care providers is more important than your raise.

Comment by Bill Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:41 pm
Bill,

Might be more accurate to say that not paying employees doesn’t generate the same type of newspaper headlines and lead stories as failure to pay day care would. It’s all about the PR image …

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:44 pm
Most state employees wouldn’t mind paying a bit more for insurance but are outraged at the legis & judges being elite when it comes to “cuts”. I personally don’t mind the cuts IF I can be fortunate to retain my employment, but what does …..is we do all these cuts, furlough days, and such AND THEY STILL WILL NOT PUT THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OF FUNDS INTO THE PENSION SYSTEM FROM HERE ON OUT. Then what? The state should have one pension system for employees, legis, judges, etc.

Comment by Ain't No Justice Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:53 pm
Air-is-total has a point. The state has the inherent right to default. That does not mean there are no consequences but you can’t compel the state to collect revenues or spend them. if the courts try and the legislature and exec refuses you will have a constitutional crises- so be it.

Comment by Fair Share Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 4:55 pm
Fair Share,

I believe, under current State law, the first obligation is the pensions, the second obligation is the bonds, and everything else comes after that.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 5:10 pm
Priorities can change.

Comment by Fair Share Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 5:15 pm
No matter what happens with the pensions, no state worker or teacher will have any say in the matter. Just like we didn’t have a say with our involvement in the current systems. The politicians whom benefitted from union funding while shorting the funds get the final say. The hostility towards teachers and others is misplaced and undeserved. We’re pawns in this game, the same as taxpayers, and guess what? We pay taxes, too.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 5:22 pm
In my department for some time “promotions” have been refused bc you’d be an idiot to become MC. If AFSCME membership thinks the union has done F grade work, by all means, take a MC position… Muhahaha… Yeah right!

Comment by Peter Snarker Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 5:54 pm
It still comes down to whether or not contracts are to be honored. If the State can unilaterally alter a contract, then none are worth the paper they’re written on. Vendors selling to the State via a contract, roadway contractors, material suppliers, consultants, hospitals, anyone with a contract with the State would be subject to the whims of the State and could see the agreed to contract terms unilaterally changed. Contracts are the basis of business, and business the basis of the economy. Once we allow negation of the efficacy of State contracts, the implications are hard to imagine. Contracts can be cancelled and changed, but only through the willing agreement of both parties, or through terms already in place in the original contract.

Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 5:57 pm
Wow, nice way to make absolutely no argument against what the writer said, just vague insults. He made many very cogent points and you just insulted. Nice way to take the low road there Rich.

P.S. Please list these friends of yours that moved from press to state work that are thrilled about the pension “reform” going on. I’m sure they are thrilled to see their pension under assault.

Comment by Flan Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 6:03 pm
Whole Truth:
Agreed, and that’s why AFSCME wins in court…. But does the IL Supreme court (elected, look what happened in iowa!) have a mechanism to impose and collect a tax?!

Comment by Peter Snarker Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 6:04 pm
I would not be opposed to the 3% increase in employee contributions. I would not be opposed to paying state income tax on retirement income. I am opposed to the age limitation of 67. I think the solution may lay in the taxing retirement incomes.

Comment by JPD Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 6:20 pm
Peter S.–
I don’t believe the court has authority to impose, let alone collect, a tax directly. However, their authority to rule on the legality of laws that may require imposing of taxes can indirectly give it that ability. Just depends on how a legal challange is prepared and presented to the court. If the pension contract question is brought to the court and ruled it must be honored, then in effect, the court may force the State to levy a tax. It would be up to the General Assembly and Governor how to pay the obligation, and a tax would be one possibility. I think that is the basic question here, and the sooner the GA actually does something so it can be heard by the Court, the better off we’ll all be.
On a side note, I would think the Court might take note of draconian cuts the State might make in trying to meet contract obligations, but we really haven’t seen any of those yet either. I realize the conventional wisdom is there isn’t enough fraud and waste to be cut to make a significant difference. I don’t agree. The most efficient way to root the fraud and waste out would be to reduce overall State funding to 2010 or earlier levels, including cutting salaries. The outcry would be loud, with many claiming extraordinary hardship. But it would force each agency to realistically review what they do and how they are doing it, and the end result would be a significant savings. I have seen enough first hand to believe a 10%-12% across the board cut is not only possible, but needed.

Comment by The Whole Truth Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 6:39 pm
I completely agree with Keith Pierce that there is an important distinction to be made between perks and benefits that should not be lost when considering union-represented contract workers versus workers who have not negotiated contracts for employment and are employed on an at-will basis. I believe that changes to this contract should be negotiated with state contract workers rather than implemented by contract negotiations rather than legislative fiat.

That said, Keith Pierce is astonishingly oblivious to the large number of workers (in the newspaper biz or otherwise) who have had their employer’s retirement contributions ripped away from them in the lousy economy, often in the form of the company completely withdrawing a 401k match with no charges brought up against private-sector management for doing so.

Having your benefits guaranteed by the Constitution is a much better deal than being an at-will private sector employee.

And if Mr. Pierce is a SJ-R reader, before he goes off the handle about what a cushy gig he thinks Doug Finke has that makes him completely unsympathetic to the plight of state workers, he really might find it worthwhile to educate himself a little bit more on what changes have been wrought on that organization following the GateHouse takeover from Copley. I would be shocked if every term of Doug Finke’s employment was exactly the same now as it was at his hiring, or as it was before GateHouse took over the SJ-R in 2007 and promptly imploded getting itself delisted from the NYSE.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 6:52 pm
Some rank and file are active, but from my own observations, I see far too many who wait to see if someone else will step up and save them.

I gave them an F.

Oh, and belonging to a union or not is no excuse for sitting out the fight.

Comment by Sunshine Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 6:56 pm
I voted F.

If state employees and retirees don’t care enough to pour out into the streets, flood the airwaves and bang those drums, why should they expect others to care?

You can whine all day amongst yourselves about the past and “whose fault it is” but it means oogots to the folks you need on your side right now.

By the way, I’m sympathetic. And I don’t think the “crisis” is as bad as many say. I think you could sell that, if you had made an effort.

But it’s late in the ballgame. Through your indifference and laziness, you’ve been out-hustled. And there’s no league in the world where you get points for being out-hustled.

You can rely on the courts and you might win there. But you’ve lost the battle for public goodwill. You never even took the field, and mediocrities like Ty Fahner ran it down your throat.

And he couldn’t convict the Tylenol dude, who bascically confessed on 60 Minutes.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 7:07 pm
By the way, Finke’s a champ. I read the SJR for him and Bernie.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 7:18 pm
And I always look for the great reporter and thespian John O’Connor, too.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 7:19 pm
@Flan: I just spent an hour reading through all the comments and I feel Flan has the most cogent response to Rich’s poorly knee-jerk post. I’ve viewed this site every day for years and have never posted before, but Rich, lately I’ve been turned off by your personal prejudices.

Comment by I'mWithFlan Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 7:23 pm
Word, I agree with your comments and your grade of F. It’s astounded me for awhile that folks like Ty and Larry Msall who enjoyed absolute mediocrity as public workers, later made a career out of bashing State employees.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 8:02 pm
Wordslinger - Honestly I think protesting employees in the streets is counter-productive here. I just dont see the public getting behind a zero-cost insurance plan. I dont see younger workers going all-out for the retirees, either. The younger employees know it isnt gonna be there for them at age 55 so what’s the point. My reading of the zeitegeist anyway.

Comment by Peter Snarker Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 8:10 pm
Rich: I take offense to your comments regarding Mr. Pierce. First off, private employees work under a completely different set of incentives than public employees. Public employees, generally speaking, start at a much lower salary than their private employee counterparts and stay at those salaries for many years. Traditionally, the incentives for public work is backloaded-you will get higher pay at the end of your career and a defined benefit. Private employees earn a higher salary from the outset.In addition, when times are good, private employees get bonuses, stock grants, higher raises, % matches to their 401(k)s, and greater chances for promotion that public employees never receive. Your reporter friends that now work for the state likely could care less about the defined benefits because they arrived late in the game, don’t have alot of time in and came to the state after the fall out from the 2008 recession having benefitted from all the perks above when times were good. Therefore, you in my opinion are comparing apples to oranges. Check out the DOL average salaries for professions and the entry level salary at the state is much lower–so please don’t take 20 years out of context. I think public employees are tired of the private sector employees complaining our benefits when their incentives were “uploaded” for the last 16 out 20 years.

Comment by Defender of Public Employees Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 8:53 pm
http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4288

Comment by Defender of Private Employees Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 9:14 pm
Legislator (F)both sides and the quality of legislators continue to decline.

State workers (A+) for having to endure the Illinois legislative incompetence.

Comment by Frustrated Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 9:36 pm
As a State employee posting from home … Employee anger, IMHO, comes from three causes.

First, let’s call a spade a spade - this is a “cut” pure and simple. The pensions and health care were negotiated with the unions (and non-union employees got the same thing) - it wasn’t “given” to them or a “perk.” Fully paid premiums (NOT healthcare) used to come with 8 years - AFSCME agreed to increase that to 20 years in return for a slight increase in the pension during the Edgar years. Yet politicians and agency directors, channeling the 2003 version of John Filan, won’t call it a cut and instead mislabel it as a “perk” or “subsidy” to con the voters into thinking this wasn’t earned, isn’t deserved, and no one who is deserving will be hurt.

Second, in return for negotiating to “fix” this issue the employees want pension contributions guaranteed. The response of the politicians? “After the hearing, Cross conceded there is no mechanism to make the legislature meet its obligations.”
http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x1355383674/Cross-pension-bill-spells-out-employee-contribution-levels?zc_p=2

So, sports fans, let’s recap. Private sector employer? Federal law requires pension contributions, or you go to jail. Employer whose employees belong to Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund? IMRF can get any payment you don’t make, or eject your employees from the pension system. Illinois State Legislator? Apparently you think you are a special snowflake who doesn’t have to comply with those provisions, and you think there is nothing that can prevent you from taking future pension funding and using it for your perks.

Third, Illinois newspapers. Nationally the newspaper industry IS hurting. However … take the coverage of government pension issues in St Louis by the Post-Dispatch. Fairly well reasoned, logically, even in tone. Compare that with the Chicago Tribune or the State Journal Register. The employees of the Tribune have the misfortune of working for Sam Zell … who utterly destroyed the Tribune financially. The result? Ray Long writes stories talking of the Illinois Constitutional pension guarantee (read Eric Madiar’s analysis) as “a widely held view that state pensions cannot be reduced”
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-27/news/ct-met-illinois-pension-1027-20111027_1_pension-systems-public-pensions-pension-overhaul

Doug Finke, who has the misfortune of working for Gatehouse, calls a collectively bargained item a “perk” … .

State employees and retirees know cuts are coming. IMHO, much of the over the top anger comes from listening to politicians who lie and call collectively bargained items “perks” or a “subsidy,” listening to politicians who openly state they don’t have to obey the law / Constitution and there is nothing that can stop them from doing this again, and newspaper reporters and columnists who let their own work situation influence their work and print lies of omission … .

Finally - has anyone figured out the why and when of non Chicago teacher pension pickup? Or why Chicago wasn’t included?

Comment by Frustrated Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 9:37 pm
Not the same as Frustrated 9:36.

Name hadn’t been used when typing started.

Comment by Frustrated 9:37 Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 9:52 pm
I wish that for just one day the SJ-R editorial staff would have to log onto their website and read “Cliick Here to Search Our SJR Employee Salary Database”. I get it. No one is interested in hearing State employees whine. Beating up on us is good sport. We need to do our part to fix the mess.
But there is a real consequence to what we have been put through over the last 9 years. The stress of being expected to continue to provide an even greater level of service with half as many staff is taking a physical toll. I don’t think the citizens of Illinois would be sleeping well at night if they understood how few of us there are left to do the work they count on to keep them safe and healthy.

Comment by Debbie Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 10:27 pm
AA, I didn’t ever know Fahner, but Msall and I worked together for 4 years, and I take exception to him being described as mediocre. First words that come to my mind are ‘bright” and “hard-working”.

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 10:30 pm
I have yet to hear the AFSCME recommendation on services, fuctions, departments or agencies that the state no longer needs based on the expert views of the workers in the trenches.

I keep hearing about how few employees there are in agencies, in departments and how they are overworked, overstressed and underpaid.

But the answer always seems to be: more employees.

How about putting together a union-authored government modernization plan that tells the public, Hey, I do a lot of stupid stuff that I really don’t think I need to do anymore and your tax dollars would be better spent if we stopped doing this so I can focus on this other thing that I think the taxpaying public would agree is a whole lot more important.

Face it, there’s not going to be 15,000 additional state employees added to the rolls. The level you’re at is probably where you’re going to stay. So make the most of it.

Just an idea.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 10:44 pm
Maybe a bit of history on how we got here should be mentioned …

The 6th Illinois Constitutional Convention (1970 Con-Con) had to pass the following hurdles:

1) An election to see if such a convention should be held. During a general election (11/5/68) where 4.7M votes were cast, the vote on holding a con-con was 2.9M in favor, 1.1M opposed … overwhelming approval for holding a convention

2) The election of delegates occurred during a con-con specific primary (9/23/69) and subsequent con-con specific general election (11/18/69) Voter participation was somewhat light, only 27% of registered voters.

3) Of the 116 elected delegates (2 from each Senate district), the occupational breakdown was listed as follows: 56 lawyers, 11 educators, 11 government officials, 5 farmers, 5 bankers, 4 public relations/advertising, 3 tax experts and 21 in various other occupations. Taking the analysis a bit further, 13 (11%) had previous been or currently were memebrs of the GA. Adding educators and government officials together, 22 (19%) might have been actual “state” employees. The overwelming majority (48%) were the lawyers (I assume an overlap with the current & former GA members).

4) Because of the controversial nature of some of the proposed changes, the final vote was broken into five sections:
(a) general changes (which included the pension clause)
(b) single member or multi-member Hosue districts
(c) election or appointment of judges
(d) elimination of death penalty
(e) voting age lowered to 18

5) After the changes were drafted and signed, they were presented to the voters in a special election 12/15/70). 38% of registered voters turned out; On adopting the basic changes, the vote was 1.1M in favor, 0.8M opposed.

Bottom line is that the drafters of the 1970 Constitution should have known what they were doing; at 48%, they definitely had enough lawyers to advise them. And while “state” employees were involved, they were just a large minority at 19% and couldn’t force anything through by themselves; it had to be sold to the other delegrates. Finally, the voters of Illinois were given at least 3 (4 if you count the primary) opportunities to vote on aspects of the Con-Con. Admittedly, what were considered non or only slightly controversial changes (including the pension clause) were all lumped together but there was the opportunity to vote on it. That lumping together is probably the reason for a closer margin on the quesiton for adopting the actual changes … but Illinois voters, in their (wisdom or stupidity, insert your opinion), did approve it a bit over 50 years ago …

So there has been a multi-generational (50 year plus) expectation the State will honor it’s pension commitments as declared in the revised 1970 Constitution. Given that record of expectation, the anger on the part of employees and retirees about forced changes is clearly understandable.

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:08 pm
I am really curious how state employee and teacher pensions in Illinois compare to those in say Iowa. Are they wildly more generous or is the issue solely that Illinois has failed to make required contributions through the years? Google is no help because the issue is so complicated.

Comment by wishbone Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:08 pm
I didn’t vote. I know Doug. Doug’s a good guy in my book.

Comment by Mouthy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:37 pm
wishbone,

I finally found the formula in the Iowa system retirement booklet. It’s mostly on page 58. After some reading, i think we can do a somewhat apples to apples comparison. I’ll summarize the results using their “regular” employee which appears to be same as a normal Tier 1 Illinois employee (Iowa recently cut things some also and has different classes; they also have the equivalent of our life / safety category).

In Iowa, the regular employee currently contributes 5.38% of salary and that state contributes 8.07%. It can change up or down 1% annually but until 1996 the employee share was capped at a maximum salary of $44,000. That compares to 4% employee / 4% state in Illinois with no salary cap.

In Iowa, they can retire as young as age 55 under their “rule of 88″ with no early retirement penalty. Illinois, with “rule of 85″ usually also means age 55 but there is no specific age required. Normal retirement in Iowa is age 65 or 62 with 20 years of service. Illinois normal retirement is also 65 or 60 with a minimum of 8 years. In all cases, actual pension is based primarily on years of service.

In terms of how benefits accrue, Iowa earns 2% per year for years 1 - 30 and 1% per year thereafter. In Illinois, it is a flat 1.67% per year. Here are a couple of examples. 30 years in Iowa gets you 60% of your final average; in Illinois, 30 years gets you 50%. 35 years in Iowa gets you 65% (their max) while 35 years in Illinois gets you a bit over 58%. To get 65% in Illinois, you have to work almost 39 years. Illinois’ max is 75% is you work just under 45 years.

I didn’t try to address salary differences between Iowa and Illinois, just what percentages you accrue and how long it takes to accrue them.

So I guess I would say Iowa gives a better benefit with less years but the employee pays a bit more for it and that state pays a lot more for it.

Don’t know if that answered your quesiton or not.

Here’s a link to the Iowa handbook http://www.ipers.org/publications/members/pdf/memberhandbook.pdf

Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, May 17, 12 @ 11:52 pm
Think about the collapse of the Steel Industry in the 80s. All those workers that had worked for pensions and benefits.

I understand the perspective of the state employees, but I do not understand what they believe the alternative to be. Cut the money from the schools that are educating their children and grandchildren?

Better to work towards a tolerable solution than fight for an outcome that benefits none.

Comment by Jade_rabbit Friday, May 18, 12 @ 7:53 am
@Retired Non-Union Guy: Thanks much!

Comment by wishbone Friday, May 18, 12 @ 10:59 am