Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

While I was away…

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

[Comments now opened.]

* AFSCME Council 31 press release…

A panel of appellate judges in the state’s Fifth District has unanimously upheld a temporary restraining order issued by a St. Clair County Circuit Court that has enabled public service workers in state government to be paid on time and in full even in the absence of an enacted state budget for the fiscal year that started July 1.

The case was brought against the State of Illinois by unions representing state employees. The unions argued that failure to pay state workers on time and in full would be an unconstitutional impairment of contract—violating the unions’ respective collective bargaining agreements that establish employee wages and pay schedules.

The appellate panel today upheld the TRO and remanded the case to St. Clair County Circuit Court for trial. The judges wrote:

“State employees have a protectable right to be paid for work they perform. … State employees will suffer irreparable harm if the TRO is not granted. As the unions stated in their motion requesting the TRO, no one knows when the budget impasse will end. … The loss of pay will, at the very least, cause State employees and their families a good deal of stress. Some may be unable to make payments on their homes, cars, or other debts.”

“Public service workers in state government keep us safe, protect kids, care for veterans and people with disabilities, and provide many other vital services, and it’s right that they will be paid on time and in full for the work they do,” AFSCME Council 31 executive director Roberta Lynch said. “Now instead of holding public services hostage, Governor Rauner should drop his extreme demands for policy changes that are unrelated to the budget and would hurt the middle class, and turn his attention to working with legislative leaders to pass a fair budget without preconditions.”

The ruling is here.

* Also from AFSCME…

Today the city of Chicago’s pension-cutting legislation was ruled unconstitutional and void in Cook County Circuit Court. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31, one of four unions joining 14 city employees and retirees as named plaintiffs in the suit (Jones v. MEABF) issued this statement:

“Today’s ruling that overturns city pension cuts and protects the life savings of city workers is a win for all Chicago. All city residents can be reassured that the Constitution—our state’s highest law—means what it says and will be respected, while city employees and retirees can be assured that their modest retirement income is protected.

“Public service workers in city government help children in our libraries and schools, provide health care in neighborhood clinics, keep our streets and water supply safe and clean, and do much more. Their modest pension benefit is just $32,000 a year on average, and they aren’t eligible for Social Security.

“In light of Judge Novak’s ruling and the recent state Supreme Court ruling that made clear there is no exception to the Constitution’s pension protection clause, we urge the city not to take up further time and expend additional taxpayer dollars on an appeal of today’s decision.”

* More…

But city officials made it clear they intend to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

“We have always recognized that this matter will ultimately be resolved by the Illinois Supreme Court,” Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton, the top city attorney, said in a statement. “We now look forward to having our arguments heard there.

“We continue to strongly believe that the City’s pension reform legislation, unlike the State legislation held unconstitutional this past spring, does not diminish or impair pension benefits, but rather preserves and protects them. This law not only rescues the municipal and laborer pension funds from certain insolvency, but ensures that, over time, they will be fully funded and the 61,000 affected City workers and retirees will receive the pensions they were promised,” Patton said.

While Emanuel is defending the laborers and city workers case, he’s already acknowledged the new legal landscape created by the state Supreme Court ruling in his proposed fix for the police and fire pension funds. His plan would not diminish benefits for police officers and firefighters. Instead, the city would stretch out the payment schedule so that initial increases in taxpayer contributions would be reduced. Police and fire pension funds are short about $10 billion and stand to go broke in less than a decade.

The approach also would provide the mayor with some short-term budget relief as the city considers new pension funding sources that could include a significant property tax increase. Lawmakers approved the city pension bill May 31 but have yet to send it to Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner amid the state government stalemate.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 24, 15 @ 6:07 pm

Comments

“Hi State Workers-

You’re getting paid. Ignore that Bruce thinks you’re overpaid and entitled. Bruce is your friend. Trust him.

Thanks!
ck”

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 8:45 am
Rahm wanted the job. Now he has it…again. Daley’s RipOff Administration bilked Chicagoans for decades. Rahm, Pensions are not a group right. They are an individual right. You’re “agreements” with unions are irrelevant and in no way represent the rights, or interests of city retirees. Due to the failure of the city to meet its obligations and pay into the pension funds as actuarialy required, the pension debt has grown, and you’ve been able to keep Chicago’s property rate ridiculously low (your welcome by the way) compared to surrounding communities. Time to pay your bills like the rest of us do.

Comment by PublicServant Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 8:52 am
“* Also from AFSCME….All city residents can be reassured that the Constitution—our state’s highest law—means what it says and will be respected” [except when it says a budget must be passed before certain spending occurs like in our lawsuit about public service workers’ full salaries.]

Comment by Just Sayin' Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 8:53 am
Yet another chance for Lisa Madigan to let this issue die out, with now two Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court giving her strong hints to do as much. Will she, or is the white whale too tempting to give up chasing?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:04 am
I must say, excellent comments on this issue this moning…..

Comment by Slippin' Jimmy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:21 am
Sorry, “to” should be “too.” Too much partying this weekend.

Comment by Elgin Guy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:33 am
Upon hearing “… workers in state government to be paid on time and in full even in the absence of an enacted state budget,” Gov. Rauner could be heard to say, “gee, this governing thing is easy.”

Comment by Cheswick Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:36 am
I’m becoming the tiniest bit uncomfortable with how much of the budget is being paid subject to court orders rather than legislative decisions. I don’t think any of the orders are WRONG (although I don’t think they can pay employees in the absence of an appropriation, but sure, let it be TRO’d until it gets to the Supremes), but it’s breaking down the walls between the functions of different branches of government and I’m not sure I’m going to like where it ends up. Makes me uncomfortable.

Comment by Educated in the Suburbs Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:37 am
Lisa Madigan looks more incompetent, with each ruling. Her dad can’t be too happy, either.

Comment by Apocalypse Now Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:56 am
I retired from State service several years ago (thank goodness). State workers at my agency did not belong to any union. There were (and still are) a LOT of contract workers earning more than the standard civil service pay scale. Are they (or the companies they actually work for) still getting regular paychecks because of this St. Clair court order? Just wondering.

Comment by Waldi Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 2:44 pm
Time for Lisa Madigan to go to the supremes. That way working families will better remember the democrat efforts to take food off the table of working middle class families while the other Madigan made sure the elected dems got theirs.

Comment by Not a dem Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 3:47 pm
==the city would stretch out the payment schedule so that initial increases in taxpayer contributions would be reduced==

The projected rate of return for Chicago pensions is 7.75%. Now they want to stretch it out further. Where will 7.75% come from?
Nominal GDP is growing at 4%. Add the 2% stock dividend yield and you come up with a 6% return for stocks alone, before fees. But the pension funds also invest in bonds, whose yields are near record lows. Taking this into account gives a projected return of about 5 to 5.5% per year.
Moody’s is among those advocating a projected return of at most 5.5%.
Forecasting a high rate of return allows the pensions to be as generous as possible and taxes to be as low as possible, until the results fall short of projections.

Comment by Anon Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 5:48 pm