Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rauner admin claims it wants Teamsters-like bargain with AFSCME

Posted in:

Illinois

* The SJ-R follows up on a story here about how the Rauner administration is attempting to recruit retirees to take over for state workers in case of a strike…

Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly didn’t deny that the calls are being made.

“We are actively pursuing all options to continue important services in the event that AFSCME chooses to strike, rather than agree to proposals similar to those recently ratified by the Teamsters,” Kelly said.

A Teamsters local representing about 350 workers in Cook County recently agreed to a new contract that included a four-year wage freeze, but incentive bonuses.

AFSCME said the fact the administration is contacting retirees about returning to work “is the smoking gun that shows Gov. Rauner is seeking to cause a crisis.”

“It echoes his repeated threats on the campaign trail to shut down state government and the public services it provides in order to strip the rights of public service workers and drive down their middle-class standards of living,” said AFSCME spokesman Anders Lindall. “Our union has never had a strike in state government. State employees don’t want to be forced to strike.”

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 8:54 am

Comments

Oh “ck”,

which do you do first; email state workers that Bruce is “fightin’ for you and your pay”, or the email “Bruce is lookin’ to replace you, so…”

“It’s important that Gov. Rauner pays the overpaid, lazy state workers before they go on strike and then he can gleefully replace them as soon as possible.”

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:02 am
That would be good for AFSCME. The Teamsters didn’t get hosed on their healthcare.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:05 am
Well, put, OW…

Comment by W.S. Wolcott Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:05 am
AFSCME is taking their usual potshots at the Governor, but have they indicated that they would be willing to follow the Teamsters blueprint?

Comment by SAP Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:06 am
Always good to have a back up plan. Love watching the unions go nuts.

Comment by William Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:08 am
SAP

The Governor’s proposal to AFSCME looks nothing like the Teamsters agreement. You have to put something in front of the union for them to say anything about it. All they have right now is what has been given to them. It ain’t close to the what the Teamsters got.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:09 am
AFSCME Needs to come down off their talking points and cut a deal like the Teamsters did.

Comment by Cassiopeia Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:09 am
==Love watching the unions go nuts.==

Meaning what?

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:09 am
The “Teamster Blueprint” has not been offered.

Comment by tired of politics Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:10 am
==AFSCME Needs to come down off their talking points and cut a deal like the Teamsters did.==

You can’t cut a deal when you are being given proposals so far out there that there isn’t anywhere to negotiate. AFSCME and the Governor aren’t even on the same planet right now. Kind of hard to negotiate in that kind of atmosphere.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:10 am
From what I see of the Teamster’s contract… AFSCME should take it and run. I would hope the step increases remain in operation for the 4 years and the “Freeze” only applied to raises… but if it doesn’t, at least people have a job to pay the bills and healthcare doesn’t spike. Status quo with this governor is a win for AFSCME.

Comment by SoILL Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:10 am
- William -

When you breathe through your mouth, not many understand you, so thank goodness you can type your useless drive-by

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:11 am
Demoralized,
Well maybe AFSCME should propose the Teamsters’ deal to Rauner and see if they bite. Last I heard AFSCME is proposing huge salary increases together with Cadillac health benefits and no changes to work rules. Have a funny feeling AFSCME forgot there was an election.

Comment by phocion Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:14 am
Truly don’t know who to believe. AFSCME’s press releases are ridiculous and only truly believed if you live in a bubble.

Then there is Rauner who hasn’t governed, but just bickered since his inauguration.

Be interesting to see which incompetent party comes out on top. If AFSCME goes on strike Rauner wins. Especially if he wants something similar to the Teamsters deal. You bet on the wrong candidate deal with it. If you lose at the casino, you can’t yell and demand your money back.

AFSCME leadership with all their exaggerated press releases (if Rauner does want deal similar to Teamsters) are putting their rank and file in a corner that they can’t get out off.

Comment by Almost the Weekend Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:17 am
tired of politics raises the key point that despite ck’s inference we haven’t heard that a Teamsters deal has been offered.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:18 am
AFSCME has not received any proposals from Rauner’s bargaining team that is anywhere on the same planet as the deal that was struck with the teamsters. If the same proposal was put in front of AFSMCE as the teamsters received then there would be an agreement reached very soon after this happening.

Comment by Bulldog58 Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:18 am
===Have a funny feeling AFSCME forgot there was an election.===

In some aspects, I competely agree. In other aspects, the consequences of that election beg the question;

“What are you prepared to do?”

Don’t strike, get locked out, let the Administration understand the Agencies belong to governors, as it always was, and will always be.

Elections have consequences.

So do agencies not fulfilling their missions… just sayin’.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:19 am
“…rather than agree to proposals similar to those recently ratified by the Teamsters,” Kelly said. Hmmmm, curious! What’s her meaning of “similar”?

Comment by WeeblesWobble Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:20 am
Anyone else (besides me) surprised the Teamsters cut their deal before AFSCME?

Comment by Stones Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:20 am
phocion:

AFSCME proposed something ridiculous in response to the Governor’s ridiculous proposal. Why wouldn’t they? If you both start ridiculous maybe you end up at reasonable. Unfortunately neither side is in the mood to negotiate.

And I have no idea what you mean by “Cadillac health benefits.” For the most part AFSCME proposed the status quo on that front.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:21 am
I’d be interested to know what, if anything, is going on behind the scenes with this negotiation. Being in the ridiculous position of having no strike fund, it seems to me it would be much more critical to AFSCME than the Governor to strike a deal quickly.

On a parallel note, if the courts say state employees have to be paid, but they go on strike, would the striking employees or the state somehow be in violation of the court order? I assume you only get paid if you show up to work, but in this environment, logic hasn’t seemed to necessarily carry the day. What a mess…

Comment by Anon Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:21 am
Almost the Weekend

The hyperbole in the releases leaves something to be desired. The info on the proposals are factual. The Administration has not proposed anything to AFSCME that is remotely similar to the Teamsters agreement. CK is talking out of her rear end right now.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:22 am
Go Afscme! We see how much the Gov cares about the working class.THere may be some compromises..but Afscme should stay strong..and not give up the ship..maybe an oar or 2.

Comment by cez Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:23 am
You can’t just take the Teamsters deal guys. It’s not what is being offered by management. Rauner wants to force a strike. The Teamsters are being used as a pawn to show reasonableness, bargaining in good faith. But it’s not what is being offered to AFSCME. Only a simpleton would think this whole thing is simple. “Just take the Teamsters deal” b—- please

Comment by Honeybear Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:28 am
Retired persons can only come back for 75 days or their pension will be stopped. We do have a few 75 day contracts already at the state and those days already worked would count against the days left available. So even if enough retired people did come back and the state hobbled along for a couple months, a long lasting strike will result in the state shutting down eventually. So the retired person plan has a rather limited timespan and effectiveness.

And really will the retired employees support a governor who will likely triple their health care costs if he wins this fight? Those 75 days of wages won’t make a dent in those increased health care costs.

Comment by A Jack Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:35 am
From experience I would guess even though the public and local union reps/stewards may believe that there is no communication between the Gov office and Afscme. ..there is actually regular communication going on between the State Exec board of Afsme and the Gov ‘ s office and CMS head of Labor.Press releases may show a different appearance.
Relations.

Comment by cez Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:36 am
Just a reminder to AFSCME members, we are approaching Gov’s Day at the State Fair. Do you recall the stunt you pulled on Gov’s Day a couple of years ago? How did that work out for you? Happy now?

Comment by Give Me A Break Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:36 am
Maybe Gov. Rauner can get AFSCME to take over the Pensions of the State workers they represent like the Labors, Carpenters and Teamster Unions do.

Comment by Jolly1 Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:38 am
It is my understanding that a deal was reached with a very small faction of the Teamsters and that this group does not have the state of Illinois insurance. Is this true?

Comment by Small Town Girl Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:39 am
A negotiation is proposals and counterproposals. What has AFSCME countered with? It is easier to measure the magnitude of the Gov proposal when we see what the counter is? Is the counter status quo? Although not as crazy as Gov proposal status quo for AFSCME is not reasonably either. I don’t think many in the public would support the Governor’s proposal or no change at all from AFSCME.

Comment by Hoping for Rational Thought Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:40 am
I’d be thrilled with a pay freeze, if that is what was offered. The State is in a horrible situation financially, so I’m happy just to have a job right now. I wouldn’t even care if my insurance premiums went up.

However…….

Bruce’s greatest victories have been achieved through inaction, unless you call filing appeals for payroll to be continued an action. All of his other actions (I.e. withholding Union fees, pension reforms, the TurnSidewaysUpsideDown Agenda) have all failed miserably. I can buy into the fact that his approach to the union contract is similar to his approach with the budget, which is to do nothing.

Our best hope is that SB 1229 becomes the law. AFSCME has backed the passage if this and clearly does not want to strike. Rauner’s actions/inactions lead me to believe that he wants a work stoppage. Bring in an independent arbitrator that will get something done.

Comment by ihpsdm Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:41 am
Yes Small Town Girl. They Teamsters that settled the contract was for 350 employees and they do not have the same health care package as other state workers. AFSCME bargains for the health care of 363,000 state employees and retirees. The offer to us was the bronze package of obamacare. The very least amount of health care he could offer us as a matter of fact. So it would only cover a major medical event. So CK is talking out her rear end when she hints that they offered us to stay the same that is a bold face lie.

Comment by Onlooker Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:47 am
I doubt the list of demands by the Governor published last week by AFSCME, if accurate, have been rescinded. In effect the majority of those listed provisions are benefits that have been fought for over decades by the union. Asking them to give them up and offering the union nothing in return would be suicide for the union negotiators to accept. There is no mention I’ve read of what contractually the Teamsters gave up beside the wage freeze which is a whole different thing. To truly compare the Teamster’s contract with the proposals set forth in the ongoing AFSCME contract negotiations you must know the Teamster contract language.

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:50 am
And omitted in the set up are facts that TeamBungle AGREED to continue collecting fair share payments AND got $0 in health care savings. U-Turn —– aw not really tee hee.
Don’t the Team Bungle FY16 budget had $800 million in employee health care “savings”
Great bargainin’

Comment by Anonin' Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:52 am
===- Give Me A Break - Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:36 am:

Just a reminder to AFSCME members, we are approaching Gov’s Day at the State Fair. Do you recall the stunt you pulled on Gov’s Day a couple of years ago? How did that work out for you? Happy now?===

I’d triple the effort since they’re in a war for their well being and survival..

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 9:56 am
i am sure afscme would accept a deal that mimics the teamsters. Too bad there is no such deal on the table with afscme. Rauner still wants that 500% insurance increase and to require all employees to voluntarily enter the tier II (from tier I).

Comment by Shanks Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:01 am
Give me a break from Give Me A Break @ 9:36

Comment by Union Man Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:08 am
(1) AFSCME could put a teamsters style blueprint on the table if the administration hasn’t, and it would be put up or shut up time for the administration. I suspect that AFCSME has not yet made this proposal because they cannot get membership to sign on.

(2) The 75-day return to work cap applies only to retirees who took the 5 and 5 early out that was offer back around the turn of the century. Other retirees could work as long as they wish if they agree to suspend their pensions while they are working.

Comment by SAP Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:13 am
It’s called a contingency plan.

Comment by Jimmy Hoffa Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:15 am
If he can make a deal with the Teamsters and others, is the problem him or is the problem AFSCME?

Some of both?

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:19 am
I read this page abt identifying sociopaths on line: Most not all sociopaths become angry when their integrity is checked by facts, they don’t answer facts instead they attack the messenger and they have a small circle of followers who repeat what has been said as if it were true. Interesting. http://m.naturalnews.com/news/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html
Anyone come to mind?

Comment by Union Man Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:20 am
“The 75-day return to work cap applies only to retirees who took the 5 and 5.” That’s not true. That applies to all retirees.

Comment by Skeptic Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:27 am
The Teamster contract had no reductions in health insurance. Rauner’s health ins proposal for all state and state university employees and their dependents, has huge diminishments in health insurance. Also, Rauner’s proposed “voluntary” [forced] switch of state employees to Tier 2 pension system seems to violate the recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling.

Comment by Joe M Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:38 am
“AFSCME and the Governor aren’t even on the same planet right now” It has also been said that Cullerton & Madigan are on a different planet than Rauner. The governor must be on the 1% planet while everyone else is on the 99% planet.

Comment by Mama Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:45 am
Ain’t no “seems” about it. Every portion but SERS is blatantly unconstitutional and the SERS portion demonstrates he is negotiating in bad faith and using coercive measures to get a change in contract terms. This may not be UC but it is completely in violation of contract law .

Comment by Me too Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:47 am
I think that AFSCME institutionally can’t propose a Teamsters-like agreement. I think they have to begrudgingly acquiesce to it, after much moaning and gnashing of teeth. However, behind the scenes they can talk to the administration about whether and how a deal like this can be done. I doubt very much that ck’s comment was a random one

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:47 am
“The 75-day return to work cap applies only to retirees who took the 5 and 5.”

Not true. All retirees are subject to the 75 day rule. They can work 23 hours in one day and that only counts for 1 day of the 75 days… but they are all subject to the 75 day rule.

Comment by SoILL Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:48 am
==I doubt very much that ck’s comment was a random one==

Then she might want to clue in those doing the negotiating on behalf of the state that it wasn’t. We only have actions to go on. Her words are empty without that translating into something at the bargaining table. That ain’t happening right now. Maybe that will change since she’s let the cat out of the bag.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:52 am
“Other retirees could work as long as they wish if they agree to suspend their pensions while they are working.”

This is true despite several saying it is not. The last seven words are being overlooked. Basically it means you can double dip for 75 days before you have to suspend your pension.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:52 am
The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2014 survey of employer health benefits found that an average worker contributed 18 percent of insurance costs for single coverage.

The Illinois legislature’s bipartisan Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability that showed workers pay 17 percent to 18 percent of their health insurance costs, depending on the plan they’ve chosen. In the current budget year, AFSCME contends, the figure is 19 percent.

I just checked on my state health insurance premium for health and dental. Out of to total annual premium of %9,605, I am already paying $2364 annually, or 25% of the premium. For Rauner to demand that state employees pay alot more, than what they are paying, would be way out of line with national averages. And it would show that Rauner he is again operating in the extreme. He needs to act in moderation. Then a contract could be negotiated.

Comment by Joe M Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:54 am
Skeptic: Actually, it is true. Take a look at Section 14-111 and Section 14-108.3 of the Pension Code. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=004000050HArt%2E+14&ActID=638&ChapterID=9&SeqStart=153300000&SeqEnd=167175000

Comment by SAP Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:54 am
== Maybe Gov. Rauner can get AFSCME to take over the Pensions of the State workers they represent like the Labors, Carpenters and Teamster Unions do. ==

That will happen right after the check for the $110B shortfall clears the bank. /s

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 10:55 am
@RNUG - how did you like the Chicago ruling on Friday?

Looks like a clean sweep is in the making!

Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:01 am
Yes, D, I suspect that sometime this week she
ll put forth a full contract ready for signatures. Duh!

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:02 am
==I doubt very much that ck’s comment was a random one==

Smart comment steve Schnorf. Things can begin to move at various levels, in various locations.

Kinda like Rich’s “I’m not saying this in a vacuum.”

Comment by walker Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:03 am
SAP: ”
(2) An annuitant who accepts temporary employment

from such a department for a period not exceeding 75 working days in any calendar year is not considered to make a re-entry after retirement within the meaning of this Section. Any part of a day on temporary employment is considered a full day of employment.” What part of that says 5 and 5?

Comment by Skeptic Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:09 am
@SAP — see FAQ Q1 under retirement on the SERS site. Seventy-five days is all you get if you wish to continue getting a pension. Otherwise you would become a permanent employee and would have to go through the retirement process again and I suppose your pension might get recalculated at a less favorable rate if your average final compensation went down.

Comment by A Jack Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:10 am
== (2) The 75-day return to work cap applies only to retirees who took the 5 and 5 early out that was offer back around the turn of the century. Other retirees could work as long as they wish if they agree to suspend their pensions while they are working. ==

If you left under the 2002 ERI, the most you can work is 75 days. If the agency offers to hire a 2002 ERI employee directly on a personal services contract, the agency loses the funding proposed for the contract and the pensioner loses their pension and has to repay certain funds. I’ve had to explain that rule to people at CMS when they tried to hire me back improperly.

The one legal way around that and any other restrictions on return to work is for the retiree to be hired by a personal services “body shop” and for the body shop to secure a contract with the State and then assign the retiree to fulfill the body shop contract. Meets the letter, if not the spirit, of the various laws because the retiree is employed by the body shop, not the State.

However, the typical skilled services body shop contract ends up with an hourly rate that is between double and triple the rate the State would have to pay under the 75 day rule (the hourly rate as when the retiree was last an employee). Why, from a State perspective, you would do that instead of the 75 day rule for short term labor makes no sense. That’s a very expensive way to obtain temporary staffing and there would need to be an appropriation for those contracts.

And I also question whether the 75 day contracts could be signed without a valid appropriation, since they do not come out of payroll.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:15 am
== Looks like a clean sweep is in the making! ==

I expect so.

I also think the Springfield City Council will get a surprise on their pension claw-back if anyone sues over it. The city granted that loophole and there is a very similar previous ruling against taking it back.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:18 am
Schnorf:

You continue to think as you did when you worked for the state. Too bad for the state that isn’t how things happen anymore. We would all be better off if it did.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:20 am
If the basis for the court order to continue paying employees is that it would take too long to determine whether current employees are subject to FLSA or not, I’m not sure that you could extend that reasoning to either retirees or to temp workers. In other words, I wonder whether the scheme for replacement workers is even possible without a budget.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:25 am
Can we please stop with the “sociopath” crap.

It doesn’t get us anywhere, and it’s bush league.

Comment by walker Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:26 am
Going back to my earlier comment, I said that retirees could work for more than 75 days IF they suspend their pensions. People who took the Early Retirement Incentive who go to work for more than 75 days/year would lose the benefits of the ERI and would have their retirement benefits recalculated as though they did not earn the early retirement incentives. To the post, it does not appear that either side has put anything on new on the table in a long, long time.

Comment by SAP Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:32 am
Do past employees want to be scabs? Perhaps we shall see.

Comment by Federalist Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 11:44 am
retirees have a stake in the afscme contract negotiations, because historically health care is negotiated, by AFSCME, for retirees at the same time. Retirees might want to consider the tradeoff of going back to work on a contract (if a strike) or not accepting employment in support of AFSCME.

Comment by Facts are Stubborn Things Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 12:15 pm
“Do past employees want to be scabs?”

This one says “never”..

Comment by Mouthy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 12:16 pm
Unless they are recruiting from retired supervisory personnel who were non-union, I don’t think they’ll find many who are willing to be scabs.

Comment by SAP Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 12:33 pm
=== Unless they are recruiting from retired supervisory personnel who were non-union, I don’t think they’ll find many who are willing to be scabs. ===

There’s not a lot of supervisory personnel who are non-union. Those who aren’t didn’t get a pay raise since Blago’s re-election campaign. Many folks I know retired because they were fed-up with state government: no raises, insufficient staffing and incompetent political appointees. Most of those factors will not have changed so I agree that many will not want to put their retirement on hold (or take the 75 days) to become scabs.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 12:46 pm
I work for the state and believe me I would be more than happy to take a four year freeze on my wages just to keep my insurance where it’s at. No one has give me that choice at this time. At this time the Gov has not even offered the choice to AFSCME, or we would have been advised of it through one of AFSCME notices to state union members.

Comment by upfront Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 12:57 pm
I could have some fun if they try to job shadow me…lol

Comment by foster brooks Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 12:57 pm
I don’t mind you attacking me Oswego Willy. Says more about your character than anything. And since this is where you spend all your time to feel better, I’ll continue to ignore you. Cheers.

Comment by William Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 1:10 pm
Oh - William -, if you ever could get beyond a drive-by, that would be something to “cheer” about.

Cheers!

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 1:14 pm
Has anyone seen the teamster CBA? Just asking. Wondering if it has a provision that says if anyone(i.e. Afscme) gets a better deal regarding wages//health insurance, the Teamster get it too?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 1:35 pm
Has the local voted on the contract?

Comment by foster brooks Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 1:56 pm
There are a lot of comments stating the current negotiations with AFSCME and Rauner administration are nowhere close to the Teamsters agreement. Why is this only being made public now?

The Teamsters agreement has been in place for weeks. And this was a key to curb expectations from what was possible and achievable.

However, AFSCME arguing for 11.5% pay increase over four years (Quinn gave 12%) and exaggerated press releases makes it hard to believe what is accurate and what is not.

If the Teamsters agreement was what AFSCME wanted why didn’t they come out and say that? Now they are preparing for a strike with the Illinois State Fair looming, which is a no win situation.

*A clear hot August day during the Illinois State Fair. Bruce Rauner takes the stage to loud boos from AFSCME protesters just outside the stage area. Rauner who is relishing this opportunity to gain the National spotlight sticks to his talking points (Madigan, corruption, waste, need reform) before introducing Scott Walker. Scott Walker takes the stage feeding the supporters red meat rhetoric stating he took public unions on in Wisconsin and won. Walker says he has faith Rauner will win the battle in Illinois.

Cue the AFSCME rank and file members sweating and carrying signs wondering why the hell they were protesting Pat Quinn at the Illinois State Fair exactly three years ago.*

A scene that will probably take place next month, giving Walker and Rauner national spotlight. Do not give Rauner national spotlight this is what he wants!

Bite the bullet with this administration and come back with a long term plan. I feel bad for the tier two employees this will affect but the reality is if AFSCME doesn’t have a long term plan they won’t exist four years from now. Read the article in the Tribune about AFSCME in Wisconsin today. AFSCME leadership needs to step up and worry about the long term battle not short term. Something they haven’t done in the past ten years.

Comment by Almost the Weekend Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 2:33 pm
A wage freeze seems pretty fair for those that are already stepped out.

Comment by Jerch Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 3:15 pm
@Almost the Weekend
Walker pressed the state legislature to pass Act 10, which stripped collective bargaining rights away from the majority of state employees except firefighters and police officers. Rauner wants to go the whole nine yards, which is not going to happen anytime soon. There is a huge difference between this state and Wisconsin, even union wise. Their economy isn’t even close to ours.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 3:55 pm
Yea and I don’t think the union is actually expecting 11.5% but if they haven’t came down any yet it’s because neither has the administration. In fact I believe their first offer was a 3 year contract with everything kept the way it is. But when it became clear rauner wasn’t willing to agree they changed the offer to 11.5% over 4 years to give room for negotiation. I could be wrong on this but that’s my understanding. It’s so hard to keep track of everything. Almost need a score card to keep up.

Comment by TRH Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 4:06 pm
== Unless they are recruiting from retired supervisory personnel who were non-union, I don’t think they’ll find many who are willing to be scabs. ==

This former SPSA has no plans to go back.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jul 27, 15 @ 5:27 pm
When I saw this headline in the news I thought it must be Illinois’ version of the onion…

Comment by Boone's is Back Tuesday, Jul 28, 15 @ 10:03 am
I hear that administration team does not even show up to the bargaining table until a couple of hours after the agreed upon start time. My guess is they are trying to provoke union to leave. That does not sound like bargaining in good faith

Comment by gruntled employee Tuesday, Jul 28, 15 @ 12:48 pm