Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Union blasts Rauner’s contract proposals

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Doug Finke obtained an AFSCME Council 31 bargaining bulletin. Harsh stuff...

A May bargaining bulletin from the union obtained by The State Journal-Register, also said the administration is seeking “deep cuts to health insurance benefits” that the union said could drive up employee costs by more than 500 percent.

“This week the administration made all too clear how little value it places on the work we do,” the bulletin said. “The governor’s negotiators presented the AFSCME Bargaining Committee with a lengthy list of economic proposals that amounted to a massive assault on the standard of living of every state employee.” […]

* The administration wants a salary freeze for the length of the contract.

* Rauner wants to eliminate step increases available to workers during their first eight years on the job and wants to take back longevity pay that is awarded to workers who no longer qualify for step increases.

* The administration is seeking to reduce vacation and holiday time off.

* The governor also wants to eliminate additional pay for working in maximum security facilities, being called back to work and for continuing education.

* Meanwhile, from the Law Bulletin…

A state appeals panel rejected a union challenge Tuesday to a law that took collective bargaining rights from some state employees, such as general counsels and chiefs of staff.

In a 21-page opinion, a 1st District Appellate Court panel said the law was legitimately aimed at making government more efficient and did not infringe on employees’ due process or equal protection rights.

Affirming an Illinois Labor Relations Board ruling, the appellate panel also said the law did not violate state constitutional prohibitions against arbitrary legislation or delegations of power from one branch to another.

Concerned by the rising number of high-level state employees in unions, lawmakers two years ago gave the governor powers to prohibit thousands of them from joining unions.

Section 6.1 of the Illinois Labor Relations Act authorized then-Gov. Patrick J. Quinn “to designate up to 3,580 [s]tate employment positions collectively within [s]tate agencies directly responsible to the [g]overnor” and exclude them “from the self-organization and collective bargaining provisions” of the law.

* The opinion is here…

It was reasonable for the legislature to make a determination that the Governor’s participation was warranted to remove certain high-level managers from collective bargaining units so that he could effectively run his executive department as he sees fit. The Governor is in the best position to know which employees’ positions entail policy-related and discretionary responsibilities and which do not. Rather than inefficiently micro-managing the process itself or requiring the Governor and the ILRB to go through the lengthy classification process for each employee, the General Assembly gave the Governor an efficient tool to reassign employees whose positions he believed were incompatible with collective bargaining unit membership. Giving the Governor the authority to classify those from whom the State demands undivided loyalty as unsuitable for collective bargaining unit membership is a reasonable method to achieve the direct objective of section 6.1. […]

If AFSCME’s arguments are correct, meaning that the individuals are not actually managers, AFSCME has provided no reason why the individuals cannot simply file a clarification petition to be reclassified as public employees thereby reobtaining collective bargaining unit membership. It seems as though AFSCME is simply trying to have it both ways: for the individuals to keep their managerial status and the benefits that come along with that; and also to keep their collective bargaining unit membership and the benefits that come along with that. […]

AFSCME argues that section 6.1 unconstitutionally impairs the collective bargaining agreement that was in place when the statute was passed… [But] the established procedures for adding or removing positions from the collective bargaining unit have long been in place and a reclassification of employees does not constitute a breach or an impairment of an existing collective bargaining agreement. The individuals here had no vested right, constitutional or otherwise, to remain in the unit until the agreement expired and changes to their status were foreseeable. Once an employee is reclassified as a managerial employee, he or she loses the right to any benefits flowing from the agreement going forward.

Seems reasonable. Thoughts?

[The headline on this post was changed and the Finke story was added above.]

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 12:45 pm

Comments

Fantastic!

Comment by Tone Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 12:55 pm
I think the court was correct. Just from personal experience, I can tell you that the people I know who were removed from the union should not have been in it in the first place.

Comment by Honeybear Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 12:57 pm
Kinda undermines Bruce Rauner’s whole argument, doesn’t it?

Comment by Juvenal Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 12:58 pm
Tone, yesterday you were posting from a major New York bank, and today your IP address is listed as Chinese.

You sure get around, bub.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:00 pm
Contract negotiation first shots not all that surprising.

Court finding obvious.

Comment by walker Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:01 pm
Desperate times require desperate measures. And as Walker said, both initial offers by employers as well as unions in contract negotiations are always ridiculous. Opening salvos is all they are.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:05 pm
I’m not so sure that these are just “opening salvos”. Has Rauner seemed to be the type of person who actually bargains? Or has he shown that he’s more of a “take-it-or-leave-it” dictator?

Comment by CharlieKratos Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:12 pm
==Opening salvos is all they are==

Except it’s about a month and a week from the end of the contract.

Comment by AC Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:14 pm
99% of contract negotiations, especially contentious ones, go down to the last minute, if not beyond.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:17 pm
Least we forget, Quinn proposed similar union items and only got a modest increase in health care fees. Many state workers should not be in unions but were driven there by Blogo.

Comment by The Colossus of Roads Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:17 pm
@walker and Peoria: “First shots”? “Opening salvos”?

The very article you’re commenting on says the union “has been in talks for months with the administration”.

Comment by Reality Check Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:20 pm
Rauner can win this battle, only union he should be battling. He has majority of public on his side. AFSCME with their poor political planning and isolation from what has been happening in the private sector is in for a real wake up call. As OW says elections have consequences and this is a consequence.
I don’t know if this is possible but does anybody have exit polls from the 2014 elections on AFSCME member vote totals for the governors race? That would be fascinating to see.

Comment by Almost the Weekend Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:21 pm
Anytime you are in tough negotiations, neither side get serious until the end. It is the dance they do.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:21 pm
AFSCME is trying to defend it’s members and not lose any. I didn’t think managers were supposed to be in the union anyway. Quinn’s administration included in the union with union help so these politically connected people couldn’t be fired. I agree AFSCME can’t have it both ways but neither can Rauner. He might want to freeze pay but it has been my experience that people with connections with get their raises anyway. In those cases the freeze will be ignored. That’s how it is with the state. Just saying.

Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:26 pm
===Opening salvos is all they are. ===

lol

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:26 pm
I continue to say that individuals need to get their strike funds ready. Contract negotiations is one place that Rauner can make hay. The ISC put a stop to pension robbery, but tough labor negotiations is fair game. Where reductions in health care benefits for retirees starts to be a “back-door” diminishment of benefits may end up back in front of the ISC. One of the justices asked during oral arguments, in Kanerva vs Weems, if cuts in health care coverage is covered by the pension diminishment clause and the attorney (foe the unions)answered yes if they go too far.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:27 pm
-He has majority of public on his side.-

Cite any source for that claim.

Comment by Honeybear Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:28 pm
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:00 pm:

Tone, yesterday you were posting from a major New York bank, and today your IP address is listed as Chinese.

You sure get around, bub.

My guess is not really. Odds are you are being “spoofed” after your comment about the bank the other day. It’s pretty common these days to assume a false IP via a third party redirect. Trolls and lurkers use the technique more and more and it’s pretty difficult to trace route and find the real IP. Chinese and Eastern European IPs’ are commonly used in spoofs……..

Comment by Dazed and Confused Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:28 pm
===My guess is not really===

I was making a joke.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:29 pm
The point being, if you can not increase health care premiums for retirees, can you cut benefits so much that you achieve the same thing? I suspect the answer is yes and the ISC is going to continue to be busy.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:29 pm
So how soon does Rauner attempt to reclassify all state employees as part of his high level management team … and will they get the same pay levels as his superstars?

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:30 pm
The DEMS basically gave the go-ahead for Rauner to have more employees exempt from CB. No surprise that he has taken advantage of it and that the courts have ruled it constitutional.

The larger issue is the real attack on the CB employees. But this is Rauner. He will go after everything with a vengeance and see what sticks. And he will not back down until he absolutely has to. That’s the way he operated in his own business world and he is going to do that in Illinois government as well.

This will get very, very mean.

At a time when health care is being expanded for many, Rauner will make certain that state employees are cut. I imagine that premiums for dependents will skyrocket to actually 100% costs and they may even pad those costs to get more money (figures don’t lie, but liars figure.)

Will he try to cut health policies even more than this through much higher deductibles, co-pays etc.? How will this affect those already retired and totally dependent on state health insurance? Remember the ISC decision about ‘diminishment’?
Got me as to how this will play out!

Finally, will Madigan the DEMS covertly back him? There is a lot they can do or not do in the final analysis despite Rauner.

I do not believe that this is the typical we ask for more from the unions and the state says we will give less as they wink eat each other and try to compromise.

I beleive this is contractual WAR!

Comment by Federalist Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:30 pm
For those retirees that are not 65, it will be interesting if Rauner tries to divide and conquer by having two separate health care proposals — one for current works and one for those retired. IN the past, retirees younger then 65 have received the exact same health care benefit as current employees.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:32 pm
My thought about the court decision is that it opens up the possibility of more individuals being removed from the union. The legislation that passed limited the number of people that could be removed. Based on my reading of the decision the state could go for more removals.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:32 pm
==Will he try to cut health policies even more than this through much higher deductibles, co-pays etc.?==

The state’s proposal goes way beyond that. That’s all I’ll say.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:33 pm
OK, intermediate salvos.

Again, who thought that there would not be contentious negotiations? These negotiations are not being concluded until the last minute, if not later. That is how union negotiations go. Both sides, I would suspect, have their heels dug in.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:41 pm
Last contract Quinn had a 15% pay cut as his position on contract talks. Will see how this goes once the contract expires and they arrive at impasse.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:43 pm
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Lime ensuring that the Constitutionally guaranteed pensions have enough money to be paid. Shouldn’t be too hard for a “Good Businessman” to figure out how to do!

Comment by Jack Stephens Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:46 pm
Could pay cuts (furlough days) be seen as a backdoor diminishment of pension benefits if an employee is within the 10 year period of final compensation calculation?

Comment by Spidad60 Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:46 pm
exactly how would this request from Rauner to voluntarily switch to tier 2 from tier 1 pension system work? Why would anyone switch? Is he going to try and negotiate and tie tier 2 with a better contract? If employee A takes tier 2 they receive contract A and if employee A takes tier 1 they receive contract B? contract A being much better then contract B. ???

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:47 pm
bottom line for retirees is this…if large reductions in health care (outside the bounds of normal increases in copay etc.) get approved a law suite will be filed that will claim that the state has once again violated the pension clause of the Illinois constitution. Kanerva vs weem hear we go again.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:51 pm
Impasse. Letter from Governor that he will no longer adhere to former provisions of the passed, expired contract and implements his own wage and working conditions structure. Unions go on strike, Governor outsources work and presto, unions destroyed.
Does the Governor impress you that he’s going to go half way? Not when he sees the great, white whale on the horizon…..

Comment by Mouthy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:52 pm
For those that aren’t aware - the health care benefits negotiated by the Gov’s team with the unions actually impact ALL state employees, union AND nonunion.

Comment by NotYetRetired Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:59 pm
@ NotYetRetired - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:59 pm:

=For those that aren’t aware - the health care benefits negotiated by the Gov’s team with the unions actually impact ALL state employees, union AND nonunion.=

Yes, and I believe for retirees also — at least those under the age of 65.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:03 pm
@Mouthy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 1:52 pm:

=Impasse. Letter from Governor that he will no longer adhere to former provisions of the passed, expired contract and implements his own wage and working conditions structure. Unions go on strike, Governor outsources work and presto, unions destroyed.
Does the Governor impress you that he’s going to go half way? Not when he sees the great, white whale on the horizon….. =

Keep in mind that as each one of the steps unfold (you described above) the calculation and the environment changes — this does not take place in a vacuum.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:05 pm
@ facts are stubborn things - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:03 pm:

–”Yes, and I believe for retirees also — at least those under the age of 65.”

Also for retires over 65 who have spouse/dependents under medicare age.

Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:11 pm
The unions cannot walk out. They MUST have Bruce lock them out.

Comment by Jack Stephens Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:12 pm
Lock them out then. We can’t afford them anyway.

Comment by Tone Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:18 pm
Which Holiday is he trying to eliminate, Christmas or MLK?

I suspect there’s greater public support for pay cuts than holiday cuts.

Comment by Juvenal Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:18 pm
Well, this is lovely. I bring home a little over $1000 bi-monthly and am barely breaking even. A major rise to my insurance (which I wouldn’t be able to get a federal subsidy for because I work for the state) would pretty much break me. I can’t afford $600 a month for insurance for me and my child.

Comment by HangingOn Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:20 pm
- Tone -,

Breaking the Unions here in Illinois might be a but harder than saying Illinois can’t afford them.

Dorm room thinking is finding a solution.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:24 pm
==Lock them out then. We can’t afford them anyway. ==

Really? So you don’t enjoy having safe drinking water, criminals in jail, children and elderly being protected from abuse, and roads to drive on that won’t rip out the bottom of your car? I myself was rather fond of those things before I even started working for the state 2 years ago…

Comment by HangingOn Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:24 pm
==- HangingOn - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:24 pm:==

Not to mention that if locks them out we may end up paying a lot more in the long run.

Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:27 pm
RNUG

Any thoughts on the contract.

Should State Employees run for the door?

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:27 pm
“Desperate times require desperate measures. And as Walker said, both initial offers by employers as well as unions in contract negotiations are always ridiculous. Opening salvos is all they are.”

Negotiations have been ongoing since December. This is long past opening salvo stuff. And Rauner is not the negotiating type.

Comment by State employee Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:28 pm
@- Juvenal - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:18 pm:

-”Which Holiday is he trying to eliminate, Christmas or MLK?”-

I suspect it’s more about paid holiday off rather than eliminating the holiday. Holiday’s are set by the State. Employees can not work if the State id ‘closed for the holiday’. Currently under the contract workers get paid holiday x amount of times a year and extra pay if they actually do work the holiday. Such as DNR, the parks don’t ‘close’ just because it’s the 4th of July.

Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:30 pm
State employee, see my posts following the one you quoted.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:31 pm
How many holidays per year does a state employee get?

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:32 pm
If Merit Comp pay hadn’t been frozen for X years (going on 9 years now), most would not have sought union representation. At this point none of our elected officials care about employee morale or the quality of the workforce. Most have a “they’ve got a job” so shut up mentality.

It is no big deal to our elected officials. When a crisis happens because of human resource issues, they will deflect blame to their predecessors, the other political party or fire a scapegoat. If a bad audit comes forth, their managers will create another agency task force to reference in the audit response.

All I can say is that whenever someone complains to me about state services, I’ll remind them that they get what they pay for. You want cheap, you get cheap.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:36 pm
@ Peoria Guy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:32 pm:

==How many holidays per year does a state employee get?==

http://www2.illinois.gov/cms/xEmployees/Personnel/Pages/StateHolidays.aspx

Comment by anon Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:36 pm
“Quinn’s administration included in the union with union help so these politically connected people couldn’t be fired. ”

Actually it was Quinn’s administration that did the reclassification. The Illinois Labor Relations Board ruling was in 2013.

Comment by Bigtwich Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:36 pm
@ - Peoria Guy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:32 pm:

-”How many holidays per year does a state employee get?”-

http://www2.illinois.gov/dhr/pages/human_rights_calendar.aspx

Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:37 pm
I saw them. I know there’s always a lot of posturing. But this is still way beyond the time for opening salvos.

Comment by State employee Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:38 pm
It is people’s life’s that are being played with by Rauner.

This is not good.

I feel bad for the people who have both spouses wirking for The State.

There are many people leaving before they thought they would. State Employees are scared and worried.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:42 pm
Bruce wants to break all unions.

Comment by Jack Stephens Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:42 pm
==99% of contract negotiations, especially contentious ones, go down to the last minute, if not beyond.==

Not very often. Most contract language is agreed upon during earlier negotiations. Only the major issues where both sides are far apart end up in the news. Then, negotiations can sometimes last for months until strike dates are set. The ending contract date doesn’t mean you’ll lose everything; the original contract is still in effect until a new contract is agreed upon.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:42 pm
Working

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:43 pm
“Could pay cuts (furlough days) be seen as a backdoor diminishment of pension benefits if an employee is within the 10 year period of final compensation calculation?”

I know from the last time there were furloughs, that those people who were able, worked enough OT to not lose any cash.

Comment by Huh? Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:46 pm
- Wensicia - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:42 pm:

Unless Rauner declears impasse then he can have the lock out and do what he wants.

Most people that I have talked to think that he will not wait the 30 days and declears it on July 1st and then have the lock out.

The Ynion then will go to court to force him to reopen the State.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:48 pm
“The unions cannot walk out. They MUST have Bruce lock them out.”

Not correct. The contract contains a no strike/no lock-out section. So long as the contract is in force, management can’t lock CB members out, and the CB cannot go on strike. Employees who try to strike can get fired.

But if the contract is terminated, then those prohibitions are lifted. Like when Quinn terminated the contract back in 2012. That would be the Quinn who ended up caving to all the union’s demands. Who is now longer governor.

Something that Rauner should take under advisement. But for all his business success, Rauner has displayed amazingly little political acumen since being sworn in.

Comment by State employee Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:48 pm
So 12 holidays in a non-election year and 13 in an election year. Probably a bit high compared to the private sector. I think a drop of one or two holidays is fair, but that would be a dreaded “takeaway”.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:49 pm
Wensicia, that was pretty much what I said.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:50 pm
@ Cindy Lou - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:11 pm:

thanks

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:51 pm
Rauner may over play his hand….he may be in an echo chamber of his own making.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:53 pm
@Mouthy and others–don’t they have to go to arbitration before any lock-out/strike scenario can take place? Question for the experts. …

Comment by Crispy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:53 pm
- Peoria Guy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:49 pm:

Maybe we should cut your Vacation and Holidays.

Take from “them”. “They” are not I and my.

Forget it P Guy. This is one of the reasons that people came to work for the State. 12/13 days are not unreasonable. The private sector should have more.

This is called the race to the bottom.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:54 pm
@state employee:

I stand corrected. Thanx.

Comment by Jack Stephens Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:57 pm
Just about the only way to go after retirees now is to tax them (don’t see that one happening) or reduce health care benefits (not the premium but the benefits) and or increase their dependent’s health care premium. You go to war with the troops you have, so Rauner is going to fight hard where he can. How far he can go will have to see and then does he go far enough that he ends up right back in front of the ISC? Kanerva vs Weems 2 may be playing at a theater near you soon.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:58 pm
Anonymous, as a worker in the private sector, I have had my holidays cut and made other sacrifices in pay and benefits in down years. It happens.

Unfortunately, the state is in desperate times and most want cuts, but cuts that so not affect them. Everybody is going to have to sacrifice here.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:00 pm
@- Wensicia - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:42 pm:

==99% of contract negotiations, especially contentious ones, go down to the last minute, if not beyond.==

“The ending contract date doesn’t mean you’ll lose everything; the original contract is still in effect until a new contract is agreed upon.”

Correct unless either side gives notice (30 days I believe) that they will no longer the terms of the past contract.
Most, if not all, state contracts contain boilerplate language that stipulates that the state will not lock out employees and employees will not strike.

@- facts are stubborn things - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 2:05 pm:

I’m not hoping this will happen but I’m thinking about a governor who loathes unions, hence the Captain Ahab reference. With all the money he has stashed who do you think is going to win the PR battle if it’s framed as the governor who’s saving Illinois vs the greedy, no good, etc. state employee? Who’s gonna stop him?

Comment by Mouthy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:03 pm
Trying to instigate a strike?

Comment by Poster Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:08 pm
I think unfortunately the majority of Illinois citizens thinks state employees are mindless bureaucrats frittering their day away at their desk watching the clock. I do not think that is true.

I believe the majority of Illinois citizens think the pensions of state employees, including teachers, are unreasonably high. They may be, but are constitutionally protected, so that is a non-starter.

I think to get out of this mess, we all are going to have to sacrifice. I am willing to do so.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:10 pm
@Mouthy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:03 pm:

=I’m not hoping this will happen but I’m thinking about a governor who loathes unions, hence the Captain Ahab reference. With all the money he has stashed who do you think is going to win the PR battle if it’s framed as the governor who’s saving Illinois vs the greedy, no good, etc. state employee? Who’s gonna stop him? =

Good point and only in the fullness of time will we know for sure. I suspect that Rauner will overplay his hand in the end and since these things don’t play out in a vacuum the calculations will change with every move along the way. If Rauner is being seen as tough but fair then he may prevail. If he is seen as going too farm and hurting middle class working folks then it may back fire on him - he also has an optics issue. I think when you are trying to negotiate you stake our all sorts of positions and then have things to trade off later. I do think that Rauner sees contract talks as his best and legal way to make some hay and I do expect quite a struggle.

Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:11 pm
Last page of the current contract.

http://www.illinois.gov/cms/Employees/Personnel/Documents/emp_afscme1.pdf

ARTICLE XXXV
Termination
This Agreement shall be effective July 1, 2012,
and shall continue in full force and effect until
midnight June 30, 2015, and thereafter from year to
year, unless not more than 180 days, but not less than
60 days prior to June 30, 2015, or any subsequent June
30, either party gives written notice to the other of
its intention to amend or terminate this Agreement.

Comment by New Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:11 pm
If memory serves me accurately the counsel for Kanerva vs Weems stated that the courts would be revisited if the state made an attempt to recoup healthcare costs with over the top copays and deductibles.

Facts is right…..round 2 in court is inevitable imo.

Comment by redleg Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:14 pm
I’d think there’s no binding arbitration clause in any state contract so the two sides could agree to pay for arbitration but there’s no guarantee that any agreement will be found.

Comment by Mouthy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:14 pm
crispy: No, no mandatory arbitration that I know of. But there are some procedural steps you need to go thru so as to not fail to negotiate in good faith

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:16 pm
===But there are some procedural steps you need to go thru so as to not fail to negotiate in good faith ===

Yep.

Instead of saying “We want you to pick up 100 percent of the cost of X,” it becomes “We want you to pick up 99.5 percent of X.” And voila, you are most likely negotiating in good faith and the clock restarts. It can go on forever.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:22 pm
Usually a federal mediator is brought in before binding arbitration is considered.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:22 pm
@ - New Guy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:11 pm:

According to that clause the Governor or ASCME could give notice now and terminate the Contract on July 1, 12:01 am?

Comment by Mouthy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:25 pm
Sorry but having the state go to only fed holidays isn’t much to give up. Perhaps bend on that to keep vacation days the same.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:28 pm
- Mouthy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:25 pm:

@ - New Guy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:11 pm:

According to that clause the Governor or ASCME could give notice now and terminate the Contract on July 1, 12:01 am?

= = =

In my opinion, if this clause is the whole story (* IF *) then the current contract renews for an entire year.

Comment by Bill White Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:35 pm
Another thing people should keep in mind about State Employees: because people have retired/moved on to private employment (yes, it happens…we lost one of our engineers because she could get better terms/benefits and less stress outside of state employment) and people not being hired to fill those spaces, many workers are doing the jobs of more than 1 person. I am a clerical in a position that used to be done by 3 clericals. One of the Bureaus where I work has 2 guys to cover 14 counties; another has 3 but only because the feds cracked down and insisted we hire another to keep grant money. And the public is always surprised when they call to make a complaint and the guys are out in the field and can’t respond to the complaint right away. They have to respond to complaints and still do a minimum number of inspections as required by federal law each year. Believe me, the guys in my office are definitely earning their pay. I’m sure most state agencies are going through the same thing.

Comment by HangingOn Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:36 pm
Until the last few posts, there was very little in terms of informed opinion going on here. To terminate the current contract, the State would have to provide written notice to that effect prior to its expiration. It is true that neither the mediation nor the arbitration processes embodied in the Collective Bargaining law are binding, but the failure of either party to at least attempt a resolution of any potential impasse immediately places that party in an untenable position. This law is designed to more or less prevent just these sorts of showdowns and work interruptions in terms of both a lockout or a strike. The only legal way in which Rauner could get rid of AFSCME or SEIU in terms of the act would be to petition to decertify. The success of such a petition is highly unlikely if not impossible. Whoever observed that Rauner was way overplaying his hand is right about this. The entire process is designed to perpetuate the status quo.

Comment by E. Debs Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:39 pm
The foregoing being said, it is quite possible that notice to amend or terminate was given within the specified times, with the giving of notice being standard operating procedure.

Comment by Bill White Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:39 pm
@- Bill White - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:35 pm:

The way I read it notice can be given pretty much from the beginning of May to the end of the year..

Comment by Mouthy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:41 pm
Bill White, you are correct. Those termination notices are standard operating procedure in the private sector. I assume the same in the public sector.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:43 pm
Yeah, I doubt a petition to decertify would happen here.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:46 pm
- Mouthy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:41 pm:

@- Bill White - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:35 pm:

The way I read it notice can be given pretty much from the beginning of May to the end of the year..

I read it differently - notice cannot be given before a date around January 1st nor after May 2nd (60 days prior to June 30th). In other words there is a four month window, otherwise the contract renews for a full year.

That said, it would be a remarkable unforced error if notice was not given. And since such notices are routine, the giving of notice would not itself be newsworthy.

Comment by Bill White Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:49 pm
If the Governor’s goal is to destroy the unions the the issues of notice, arbitration, bargaining in good faith, etc are going to be covered. The Governor won’t let those minor obstacles get in his way of ultimately reaching his goal. Glad I’m retired. There will be no fun days at the bargaining table..

Comment by Mouthy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:50 pm
“Destroying the union” is not going to happen. That would be incredibly difficult here, if not impossible.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:53 pm
- Bill White - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:49 pm:

Went back and reread it carefully and you are correct. 4 month window.

Comment by Mouthy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:56 pm
Look, both parties intended to amend the contract. Notice got filed before negotiations started people.

Comment by me too Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:59 pm
Rich,
There are actually two cases and separate opinions, from different appellate districts, rendered on Decisions/Orders of the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel.

Each opinion affirms the decisions rendered by the Illinois Labor Relations Board.

Not sure why Law Bulletin did not say so.

1. from about a month ago
4th District (Justice Turner’s opin.)
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/4thDistrict/4131022.pdf

2. from this week
1st District (Presiding Justice Simon’s opin.)
http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/1stDistrict/1133454.pdf

Comment by zonz Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:00 pm
Not less than 60 days means must be more than 60 days

Comment by jazzy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:03 pm
or equal to sixty days

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:07 pm
- Mason born - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 3:28 pm:

Sorry but having the state go to only fed holidays isn’t much to give up. Perhaps bend on that to keep vacation days the same.

You must not be the one giving up time wig your family.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:14 pm
Over the past decade many private sector employees have given up holidays, had their wages frozen, paid an increase health insurance contribution, had their health benefits adjusted, lost a defined benefit retirement plan, seen their job duties increase as employees are not replaced, etc. It isn’t just State of Illinois employees who are asked to sacrifice. Nobody likes it, but it is what it is.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:20 pm
== Over the past decade many private sector employees have given up holidays, had their wages frozen, paid an increase health insurance contribution, had their health benefits adjusted, lost a defined benefit retirement plan, seen their job duties increase as employees are not replaced, etc. It isn’t just State of Illinois employees who are asked to sacrifice. Nobody likes it, but it is what it is. ==

And while correlation may not equal causation, that same period coincided with the decline of unions in the private sector.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:27 pm
I would agree RNUG. I would add that this union is not going to go away, but they will be in for a tough negotiation. One that is necessary in my view.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:29 pm
@Annonymous.

Do you really think Rauner is going to capitulate because AFSCME makes a scene at the state fair like Quinn did? Look at that list of proposals. Would you rather have to take
a vacation day the day after Thanksgiving or lose 5 vacation days? (Just quessing)

This is a contract Negotiation. If it goes well neither side is going to get what all that they want. Both sides are going to need something they can call a win. If it doesn’t go well AFSCME members may end up spending too much time at home and the whole State is hosed.

If AFSCME comes out if this with only a few holidays as a loss then the bargaining committee deserves free beer for the life of the contract.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:31 pm
PG, you know that the money is just going to your execs right? The more of us who roll over on stuff like this the less likely it is we’ll ever get those benefits back. Rather than saying state employees should take less like you have, you should be demanding more. The class war is all but lost because too many people are busy racing to the bottom. There is a labor market in this country, and if businesses were forced to compete over it you’d be much better off. Instead you think everyone should take table scraps like you do. Well not me. I’m not going to take less so that bonuses can be bigger for execs this year. I’m good at my job, and if they want me I want a decent healthcare and retirement plan. It isn’t so much to ask.

Comment by me too Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:32 pm
I know some of the people who got decertified under this action and they’re definitely not managers. They’re administrative law judge PSAs (not SPSAs) and don’t supervise anyone or have authority to do anything but decide appeals.

Comment by Anon Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:36 pm
me too—- You make some good points. That said, I do not “take table scraps”. I have a good job, good benefits and good pay. If I didn’t, I would move to another job. As a CPA, I also understand the pressures on companies to perform, stay profitable, make shareholders happy, etc. It is the world we live in.

The best individual solution is to obtain marketable skills, work hard and make yourself indispensable to your employer.

That said, the times do change and the State of Illinois is in a huge mess. We all have to pitch in to get it out of that mess.

I am more than willing to pay a higher income tax, service tax, etc. to stabilize state finances.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:39 pm
I would also like to add that there are many serious professionals with sought after technical skills in state government that will also be affected by these “drive by” attacks by the Rauner people. If the goal is to turn state employment into glorified Walmart work, you can kiss these folks goodbye. How in the world does anyone think the state is going to attract experienced engineers, chemists, software designers, modelers, architects, etc., etc.? And even if you are willing to throw your kids’ teachers under the bus, how will Illinois attract top professors, and doctors? I ‘m a Tier I retiree and the only reason I stayed with the state was to become one. And when I did leave I was offered private sector work at a higher salary with a great 401k match as well as year end bonuses and company stock. So enough with the “get their wages and benefits in line with the taxpayers” junk. The people you are going to drive away are not the ones you want to lose. I wish someone would recognize that.

Comment by kimocat Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:42 pm
My manufacturing company needs skilled workers in the worst way. You want a secure good paying job? Get a marketable skill, work hard and make yourself invaluable to your employer. If you can pass a drug test, are a hard worker, have the right skill and can come to work on time every day, you will have a good job.

Comment by Peoria Guy Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:42 pm
- Peoria Guy -

Yes, I agree it is going to be ugly and that AFSCME members don’t have a clue what is going to hit them and aren’t prepared for it.

My dad was a construction trade union member (mom worked with finances for a state agency) and there were good years and bad years. I remember my parents keeping a pantry full of canned food that would feed us for several months and rotating the stock; hated it when we had to use up the condensed milk. I even remember my parents asking the S&L to let them just make the interest payments on their mortgage during one lengthy strike.

Heck, these days I doubt most the AFSCME members have a clue why Mother Jones has a monument in Mt Olive. They’ve probably never heard any of Woody Guthrie’s union songs either.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:45 pm
It’s also the period showing the increasing disparity between the middle class and the wealthy. So instead of recognizing the sacrifice of middle class wages and benefits for the sake of profits, we see the effort to blame others in the middle class and poor for this predicament.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:45 pm
@Peoria Guy
Are you actually trying to propose a solution or are you here to complain? I have a masters degree and work for the state in a very stressful position. I also have friends that are in the manufacturing sector who have marketable skills. If your going to point to a problem, be specific- please don’t generalize.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:51 pm
This is what we are left with when we have 0 flexibility on pensions. We as taxpayers will have to pay more and contracts are going to look like this for state workers.

Comment by Very Fed Up Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:56 pm
I’m concerned with the Healthcare reductions. Non Medicare retirees get the same Insurance as current employee’s. I suspect we are also targeted with those same reductions. Surprised this isn’t being talked about in retireeland. I’ve got $1000 or so for a lawsuit …anybody got the other $2,000,000 ?

Comment by Anotherretiree Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:58 pm
== I’ve got $1000 or so for a lawsuit …anybody got the other $2,000,000 ? ==

Kanerva got started with a handful of retired employees who were mostly members of RSEA. I know one or two people in that group and one of the attorneys. At the $1,000 level you’d only need to get 2,000 people together to fund it.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 5:11 pm
Cindy Lou:

Most businesses that I know of that are closed for Christmas also pay their employees for their time off.

When Rauner said government needs to be run more like a business, I don’t think the voters realized he meant Ebenezer Scrooge.

Comment by Juvenal Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 5:11 pm
I expect the governor to terminate the contract, privatize where he can, and attempt to turn union members against their leadership and supportive legislators by taking food off their tables.

Comment by James Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 5:29 pm
Peoria Guy & RNUG and others,
This
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1c78

makes one thing clear:
the extent of self-delusion, and the pervasiveness of lies and propaganda by the corporate and media elites is simply mind-boggling.

zonz
—————————–
- Peoria Guy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:20 pm:

Over the past decade many private sector employees have given up holidays, had their wages frozen, paid an increase health insurance contribution, had their health benefits adjusted, lost a defined benefit retirement plan, seen their job duties increase as employees are not replaced, etc. It isn’t just State of Illinois employees who are asked to sacrifice. Nobody likes it, but it is what it is.

- RNUG - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:27 pm:

== Over the past decade many private sector employees have given up holidays, had their wages frozen, paid an increase health insurance contribution, had their health benefits adjusted, lost a defined benefit retirement plan, seen their job duties increase as employees are not replaced, etc. It isn’t just State of Illinois employees who are asked to sacrifice. Nobody likes it, but it is what it is. ==

And while correlation may not equal causation, that same period coincided with the decline of unions in the private sector.

Comment by zonz Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 5:40 pm
RNUG, unless things have changed in the past 12 years, they do. The last contract signing ceremony I was at, they sang Union Maid and several other traditional union songs while we awaited the gov’s arrival

Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 5:43 pm
- Mason born - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:31 pm:

You are not the one losing time with family.

No losing vacation and/or Holidays.

Why the day after Thankgiving? Why not MLK day? Because Rauner don’t have the guts to even think of taking that day away.

No loss of time, period.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 5:45 pm
- Peoria Guy - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 4:39 pm:

PG I am a CPA too

Many State Employees are well educated and know finances.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 5:48 pm
=== I’ve got $1000 or so for a lawsuit …anybody got the other $2,000,000 ? ===

That won’t cover the retainer. A coverage lawsuit is going to be far more expensive than the $1 + million it cost for the simpler Kanerva case.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 6:01 pm
The comparison btw State employee benefits to private employee benefits is confounding to me because State employee benefits have been so drastically reduced.

State employees used to have it made with the Tier 1 pension and health benefits. Now they don’t have those benefits.

I am a new state employee. Tier 2 pension benefits are worth less than social security. I pay $520.00/mo for family health care, which is $200 less per month than my last employer, but not really a big difference.

In terms of vacation and holidays? My last employer (private) gave me 18 paid vacation days compared with 10 from the State. At my last employer I had 3 days for Christmas (the state gives 1), 2 days for thanksgiving (same), 2 days for new years (state gives 1), the 4th, Easter, Memorial Day, Labor Day (same). Plus with a private employer you can just take days off that aren’t on the books for various reasons, like when your kid has soccer practice, or because your boss just wants to be nice. The State doesn’t do that. With the State I get a couple extra 3 days weekends (MLK, Presidents Day, Lincolns Bday) all pretty common with other states. I would rather have a longer Christmas vacation.

If we are comparing State employee benefits with Walmart employees, well there isn’t really a comparison, because working at Walmart isn’t a sustainable job that provides a self sufficient society.

Comment by Millennial Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 6:42 pm
Rich, from the court decision:”The Governor is in the best position to know which employees’ positions entail policy-related and discretionary responsibilities and which do not.”
With DOT in mind, do you think the judges got a jump on the marijuana legalization law?

Comment by Truthteller Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 7:25 pm
I don’t see how removing holidays from the calendar saves the state all that much money, unless it’s taking away paid holidays and we still don’t work, which would amount to a furlough.

Comment by Politix Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 7:48 pm
- Politix - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 7:48 pm:

I don’t see how removing holidays from the calendar saves the state all that much money, unless it’s taking away paid holidays and we still don’t work, which would amount to a furlough.

I will accept furlough days without complaint.

I will not accept less Vacation and/or Holidays without fighting.

In the end, I am well educated and can leave.

A lot of people are retiring and/or leaving this month. The State will lose everyone that can leave if they keep this up.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 7:55 pm
Politix

My guess would be that it affects IDOC and ISP where they have mandated staffing levels. If so no holiday pay for working Iir.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 8:04 pm
Annonymous

I am curious, not trying to stir anything up, but why the difference between furlough days and holidays? To me furlough days are much more onerous as they affect your take home pay.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 8:13 pm
- Mason born - Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 8:13 pm:

You get paid for Holidays and vacation days. I don’t want to lose any of them.

You don’t get paid for Furlough Days. I am willing to take Furlough Days then we get something for giving up pay.

I am not willing to give up Vacation and/or Holidays.

I used to work in the private sector and believe that the regular middle class workers need to stick together and demand good benefits and a living wage.

I have a graduate degree and am a CPA. I can leave and if they get too bad I will.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 8:37 pm
Annonymous

To me the difference lies in my assumption that you most likely will be able to use benefit time to cover an unpaid holiday whereas forloughs you take on the chin.

It is going to be rough this time. I don’t think anyone can predict how this will end. My fervent hope is that both sides approach this as adults and find the middle ground to sort this out with the least amount of pain to all of the citizens of our state. Not entirely optimistic.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 9:29 pm
My point is give us something in return for lower pay. Give us furlough days instead of just lowering our salary for nothing.

At the same time, we should not lose any Vacation Days and/or Holidays.

They are separate issues.

1) no loss of paid time off
2) furlough days in return for less pay

It is better then giving up days for nothing

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 9:46 pm
Plus I like my family and wasn’t to be with them

I don’t live to work but work to support my family

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 9:48 pm
Want to be with them

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 9:49 pm
Basically, we don’t get enough time off in this country already, we don’t need to lose any time.

People should get more time off not less

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 9:51 pm
===For those that aren’t aware - the health care benefits negotiated by the Gov’s team with the unions actually impact ALL state employees, union AND nonunion.=

AFSCME also negotiates health care benefits for all union and non-union state university employees.

Comment by Joe M Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 10:02 pm
== Should State Employees run for the door? ==

Having second thoughts on my earlier reply. If you are counting on retiring under the Rule of 85 (as opposed to age 60 with a minimum of 8 years), I would keep a very close eye on the negotiations.

Also, although this is not the best thing for the State, you can file your papers with SERS to retire with basically zero notice. The disadvantage to doing so is you might have to go 3 or 4 months before you get a pension check instead of the normal two months with proper notice. If you need income to span that gap and have not other sources to tap, once you have left State service you can take money out of your Deferred Comp fund without penalty regardless of your age. And route any money you are owed for vacation or sick time into Deferred Comp so you avoid paying income tax on it … even if you take it out a month later. Hey, the State is running you off with an unfavorable contract so why give them any more tax money than you have to?

BTW: double-check what I’ve said here with SERS but I’m pretty sure everything I’m said is still valid.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 10:14 pm
Steve Schnorf,

I bow to your greater knowledge. I’ve never attended any union contract signings.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 10:15 pm
== they sang Union Maid ==

LOL! I actually typed that song title in my post but then edited it out, figuring it would be too obscure for some people.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 10:56 pm
RNUG…sound like we were working together when we retired! I maxed my vac time and with sick, had a nice nest egg which I was able to max my def comp contribution for last year. (ret end of Dec ‘13). That nest egg helped me fill the lapse until I received my first payment.

I would agree on the Rule of 85, and to add to that, I’d watch anything that could affect current conditions of retirement. That would include accumulation of time also. I’m sure Rauner is looking at going after everything. If I hadn’t gone when I did, I would be going out the door now.

And you are correct on notification to SERS. I had a friend/co-worker that called them and went over two days later and filled out the paperwork. Was out of the office after his 2 week notice.

Two other things. If you have non-Medicare dependents, you can keep the same health coverage as active employees regardless of your age. Over 65, Medicare would be your primary, but you can have a plan such as Health Alliance as your secondary. Also, if you sign up for Soc Sec and have a dependent child, you may be able to draw up to 50% of your benefit for the child that is under 19.

Everyone’s situation is different depending on your age and dependents, so if anyone feels close to making that decision, stop by the SERS office and they’ll be glad to go over the numbers for you.

Comment by Finally Out (and now very glad to be) Thursday, May 21, 15 @ 10:57 pm
myself at 10:14pm

… avoid paying *STATE* income tax on it …

Comment by RNUG Friday, May 22, 15 @ 12:08 am
Annonymous

Thanks for answering the question. We will have to see if the bargaining comitee shares your priorities.

Comment by Mason born Friday, May 22, 15 @ 5:26 am
When you go non union your class of workers goes down, its a proven fact! Our Govt is so corrupt you can’t believe anything they do, and for any of you that believe King Rauner is the answer, a billionaire wanting to take this job, hmmm! How did he make his money? By taking it to the middle class We are his prey, no one is entitled to a decent living, and no one matters unless your big business

Comment by DOC1 Friday, May 22, 15 @ 6:33 am
re: Finally Out at 10:57 PM who said ” Over 65, Medicare would be your primary ”

No longer true. We now have a Medicare Advantage plan. If you want to feel real bad about medical insurance, go read up on that. Not just the insurance itself, but what happens to the money you paid into Medicare all your working life.

Comment by Late to the Party Friday, May 22, 15 @ 6:53 am
== No longer true. ==

Maybe, maybe not. If you have a dependent on your insurance who is under 65, then you still have original Medicare and one of the regular State plans. I’m in that situation myself this year … under 65 but the wife is over 65. You are not forced onto a Medicare Advantage program until everyone on the insruance plan is 65.

Comment by RNUG Friday, May 22, 15 @ 9:44 am
== sound like we were working together when we retired! ==

I retired back in the 2002 ERI exodus.

Comment by RNUG Friday, May 22, 15 @ 9:45 am
== stop by the SERS office and they’ll be glad to go over the numbers for you. ==

The SERS staff are real professionals and are there to help YOU make the right decision and maximize your benefits. I can’t say enough good stuff about them. They always get back to you and seem to always have the correct answers.

Comment by RNUG Friday, May 22, 15 @ 9:50 am