Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives

Previous Post: CPS sells bonds, will make upcoming debt payment
Next Post: Today’s number: $1.107 billion (plus principal)

CMS on AFSCME: “This is bad faith in spades”

Posted in:

• Illinois
• Updated Posts

…Adding… The governor’s complete contract offer can be read by clicking here.

* The war of words continues…

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, on three separate occasions our CMS labor relations team negotiated and signed a Tolling Agreement with AFSCME leadership. The Tolling Agreement provided for a process, agreed to by AFSCME, that allows the parties to either agree that impasse in negotiations has been reached or, in the event one party does not agree, allows either party to ask the Illinois Labor Relations Board to decide if the parties are at an impasse-that is, the Labor Board would decide whether further negotiations between the parties would be worthwhile. On January 15, 2016, after weeks of no meaningful progress at the bargaining table, the Governor asked the Illinois Labor Relations Board to determine whether we are at an impasse in collective bargaining negotiations with AFSCME. In the weeks since, work in the State of Illinois has continued as usual. The Governor and the labor relations team at CMS are committed to respecting the Labor Board process, and we appreciate that members of AFSCME want to do the same.

There has, however, been a great deal of incorrect information circulated about our negotiation and proposals. We know that, in recent days, AFSCME has been conducting “informational sessions,” but we question how productive those sessions can be if AFSCME does not provide accurate information.

We cannot sit idly by without correcting the incorrect information being provided to AFSCME bargaining unit employees and the public. We have asked AFSCME to let you vote on our proposals, but we believe you must have accurate information to make a fully informed decision. As the State’s lead negotiator who sat across the table from Roberta Lynch and Mike Newman for the past year and explained the State’s proposals, I would like to take this opportunity to correct numerous incorrect statements. That information is enclosed.

Further, I believe that employees should not be satisfied with summaries and that they deserve a full picture. It is my understanding that AFSCME has failed to provide you with the State’s full proposal. I believe that is counter-productive. You should be able to read the State’s proposal in full, and determine for yourselves whether the State’s offer, which is substantially similar to those accepted by seventeen other unions, is fair and reasonable, particularly in light of the State’s fiscal condition. I am enclosing with this letter the actual language of the 2015-2019 collective bargaining agreement as proposed by the State in its last, best and final offer. That document shows all the changes proposed by the State from the contract that expired on June 30, 2015. You can now evaluate for yourselves the State’s complete proposal.

We have asked AFSCME to let you vote this proposal up or down. We hope you will ask AFSCME’s leadership to allow you to take such a vote. Seventeen other unions ratified similar terms and conditions by wide margins-often over 80% of state employees in those unions approved-and we think if provided a fair vote, this proposal will be approved as well. Thank you for giving it your consideration.

John Terranova
Deputy Director
CMS Office of Labor Relations

* And here’s his fact check…

Fact Check - Correcting Misinformation

Myth: The State’s proposal would give Illinois state workers the worst health insurance coverage in the nation.

Fact: False. In fact, we’re not even close. With retiree coverage included, Illinois pays nearly 3/4 of the total cost of coverage for its workers. In comparison, Indiana pays less than 45% of the total cost of coverage. Paying 100% of retiree premiums is a huge benefit to our workers-if current employees were responsible for those retiree healthcare premiums, they would need to be putting away $947/month now to cover that future benefit! Even if we only look at coverage for active employees-where the State is proposing to pay 60% of costs-the State’s proposal is still better than many other States and on par with the private sector.

Myth: The State’s current healthcare plans aren’t actually Platinum or luxury.

Fact: The average actuarial plan value (what federal regulations and insurance companies use to assess how rich a health plan is) for the State’s current plans is 92%. This means that out of every dollar in healthcare expenses, the insurance plan covers 92 cents and the employee pays 8 cents in deductibles, co-pays, and other such expenses. “Platinum” under the Affordable Care Act is defined as plans that are between 88 % and 92%. Platinum is the highest level under the Affordable Care Act-above Gold, Silver, and Bronze. And as mentioned, the State’s average plan value is 92%-the high end of Platinum.

Moreover, to be clear: under the State’s proposal, employees will have the option to continue this rich coverage at higher premiums, should they so choose. Alternatively, employees would have the option to have less-rich coverage and maintain current premiums. Employees will not have to both pay higher premiums and receive less-rich coverage.

Myth: The State’s proposal would wipe out all job security rights.

Fact: The State’s offer does not eliminate these rights. Layoffs would still happen in reverse seniority order. Employees would still have the opportunity to “bump” less senior individuals in the same position and qualifications. Employees would also still have the opportunity to transfer to other vacancies for which they are qualified.

Myth: If I have a major medical issue under the new insurance, there is no limit on what I could pay. I could go bankrupt!

Fact: The Affordable Care Act has an annual out-of-pocket maximum of $6,850 for an individual. While that’s a lot of money, it prevents people from being financially ruined due to a medical issue. You can go here to fact-check this for yourself: http://obamacarefacts.com/
health-insurance/out-of-pocket-maximum. The bottom line is no matter what coverage level employees select, there will be strict limits on how much each employee is going to be asked to pay in any given year.

Myth: Merit pay is just political pay.

Fact: Politics has nothing to do with it. In fact, the State would prohibit any Governor’s staff and appointees from being eligible for performance bonuses. The State has also proposed working with all unions to find fair, objective standards to measure performance. The program that’s now in place for Teamsters will give half of all their members a bonus. While we guaranteed that a minimum of 25% of members would receive a performance bonus (the same guarantee that we made in the Teamsters contract), that percentage is the floor, not the ceiling. In developing the program, the number could go up, just as it did for the Teamsters. And the total bonus payout would remain the same regardless of how many people receive a bonus, so the State doesn’t gain anything financially by giving it to fewer employees.

Myth: The Labor Board is biased in favor of the Administration.

Fact: A majority of the Labor Board was originally appointed by Governor Pat Quinn. Governor Rauner reappointed two individuals Governor Quinn had previously appointed or re-appointed. Significantly, all members of the Labor Board appointed or re-appointed since 2015 were confirmed by a supermajority-Democrat Senate. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Board is, hardly an “enemy” of AFSCME. For many years he was responsible for negotiating collective bargaining agreements on behalf of the State, including many of the prior state contracts that AFSCME now praises. Most importantly, both AFSCME and the Administration voluntarily signed a legally binding tolling agreement providing for the Labor Board to resolve any dispute over whether the parties are at impasse. For AFSCME to preemptively impugn the integrity of the Labor Board is puzzling.

AFSCME complains that “in a recent case regarding an issue related to contract negotiations, the Board hastily rushed a decision and completely upheld the Administration’s position.” Although AFSCME did not identify the case, we believe it must be referring to an FAQ on the State’s website, which can be found at http://www.illinois.gov/EmployeeFAQs. In that FAQ, the State responded that, during a strike, the State can charge striking workers the full cost of their health insurance. AFSCME filed an unfair labor practice charge. After carefully considering the parties’ written submissions, the Board’s Executive Director dismissed the complaint and acknowledged the State’s longstanding policy to charge striking workers for the full cost of their insurance. The well-reasoned decision was upheld on appeal to the full Board. That AFSCME brought and lost a baseless charge is no reason to doubt that the Board gives a fair consideration to every case before it. For AFSCME to suggest otherwise is regrettable, let alone begging the question why AFSCME would voluntarily enter into an agreement to submit the impasse dispute to such a tribunal.

Myth: The Governor is “now seeking to impose on state employees” his contract.

Fact: Under the terms of the tolling agreement, it is up to the Labor Board’s to decide if the parties are at an impasse and whether the State may implement its last, best and final offer. It is critical to mention that the last offer made by the State to AFSCME is substantially similar to the agreements signed by 17 other unions. These agreements were ratified in many cases by over 80% of state employees in those unions. This is not a radical or extreme contract as AFSCME has portrayed, but one that is fair, reasonable, and overwhelming accepted by several thousand State employees already.

By submitting this dispute to the Labor Board, the Governor did nothing more than invoke the very process to which both parties voluntarily agreed.

What the Governor is seeking, and AFSCME is refusing, is for AFSCME to submit the Governor’s actual proposal to employees for a vote. What better way is there to determine whether the proposal is deemed fair and reasonable by the very people whose work will be governed by that proposed contract?

Myth: The Teamsters’ agreements provide “far more generous health insurance terms.”

Fact: Comparing Teamsters’ health insurance to AFSCME’s is like comparing apples and platypuses. AFSCME employees’ health insurance is provided by the State, where the State charges premiums. Teamsters’ health insurance is provided by Teamsters’ own health and welfare funds. The State contributes to those funds but does not get to decide the level of coverage or premiums. It is entirely out of the State’s control. Teamsters can provide the bare minimum coverage under the Affordable Care Act or they can provide more. Either way, the State plays no role.

The most that can be said in comparing Teamsters and AFSCME for health insurance is that, unlike AFSCME’s demand for a guarantee of Platinum coverage at Silver prices, Teamsters received no such guarantee from the State. What Teamsters get is entirely up to Teamsters’ own funds. This is similar to the point AFSCME makes about the trade unions with whom the Governor signed twelve separate collective bargaining agreements. AFSCME claims the distinguishing feature is that the trades’ agreements do not include a wage freeze. But what AFSCME fails to mention is the trades get compensated on a wholly different metric, known as the prevailing wage. That wage is determined through a certification process administered by the Department of Labor and is not guaranteed to increase during the course of the contract. In fact, the prevailing wage could go down over the life of the contract. So, there too, while AFSCME is demanding guaranteed wage increases through general and step increases every year of the contract, other unions have received no such guarantees.

As against seventeen other unions that have ratified the State’s offer by wide margins, AFSCME stands alone in demanding guaranteed wage increases and luxury health insurance coverage at what could be characterized as garage sale prices.

Myth: Only union workers are being asked to sacrifice due to the financial circumstances in the State.

Fact: Everyone is making sacrifices. Non-union employees are also on the State’s health insurance and will be subject to any premium increases or plan changes. This includes the Governor’s staff and the labor relations people who made this proposal. It’s also worth noting that non-union employees haven’t received an across-the-board wage increase in ten years. Cherry-picking salaries of some in the Governor’s office-without noting that the Governor’s office payroll is less now than it was during his predecessor-is as uninformative as focusing on the compensation of AFSCME’s top executives.

Fact is, our employees tell us all the time, as Teamsters and other unions told us during bargaining, that they are ready to be part of the solution, not the problem. They recognize that state employees in Illinois make more than their counterparts in other Midwestern States. For example, Illinois state workers made, on average, over $20,000 more per year in 2014 than state workers in Indiana or Missouri. In absolute dollars, Illinois state worker pay was third-highest. The two higher-paying States, California and New Jersey, have significantly higher costs of living. After adjusting for cost of living, Illinois workers are the highest paid in the country. The Governor is proud of our state workers and has never proposed to cut their salaries. He only asked for true shared sacrifice as we, all of us, together right our State’s fiscal ship.

Myth: The Administration does not accurately report what is said at the bargaining table.

Fact: Here’s what AFSCME’s Executive Director Roberta Lynch said during bargaining: “People who came up with this [merit pay proposal] ought to go to f**king prison . . . fact that you want to give measly 25% to some who are doing the job already . . . 75% of people not doing their best - that’s a f**king lie. I think it’s an insult to every single person who works for the State of Illinois.”

Here’s how AFSCME interprets the above quote: “it wasn’t fair to leave out 75% of employees from getting a bonus, given the difficult jobs that employees do-and that whoever came up with that idea should try going and actually working in a prison so they’d know how hard the job is.”

We appreciate that AFSCME’s Executive Director regrets her choice of words when she reads those words on paper. Nonetheless, she does not get to rewrite the history of negotiations based on what she wishes she has said.

Myth: SB1229, the arbitration bill that AFSCME unsuccessfully lobbied last summer and fall, was an opportunity to resolve outstanding contract disputes in a fair and rational manner.

Fact: Make no mistake about it, SB1229 was AFSCME’s attempt to rewrite the State’s labor laws as they have existed for over thirty years to saddle the State’s taxpayers with a multi-billion dollar cost of AFSCME’s unreasonable contract proposal that it knew, under the existing laws, it could never get the State to agree to at the bargaining table. Outstanding contract disputes-like the current dispute between the parties as to whether they are at an impasse-already have a fair and rational forum, which is the Labor Board, a process to which both sides voluntarily agreed. SB1229, or the new HB580–another version of the same failed bill, which would strip the Governor of his constitutional authority–is as unaffordable and damaging now as it was then. Several other Unions have already negotiated agreements with the State under the existing labor laws. Why must the rules be rewritten to give AFSCME what it wants and the State’s taxpayers cannot afford?

We now know that AFSCME is urging its members to support HB580, to once more ask to strip this Governor-and only this Governor-of his authority to negotiate with employees. This is as clear a signal as any that AFSCME is not interested in negotiating. AFSCME is not interested in defending its unaffordable proposals. AFSCME is only interested in imposing its will through an unelected, unaccountable arbitrator. This is bad faith in spades, and why the matter is now before the Labor Board.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 8:46 am

Comments

1. Funny, no mention in that list of the removal of limits on subcontracting…

   Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 8:51 am

2. The letter states people should be able to read the full proposal by the state. Where can that be found? Given the record of half truths and misinformation, that is the norm for this administration, I really would like to see for myself and do my own fact checking.

   Comment by ash Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 8:54 am

3. Also no mention on the bumping limitations.

   Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 8:59 am

4. So, in sum: “We couldn’t convince your negotiators that the full proposal was any good, so now, in keeping with what the future holds when our great overl- sorry, “governor,” crus-, sorry, “turns around” the collective bargaining process in Illinois, let us directly tell you what’s true, without showing you the proposal itself.”

   Comment by Boooooooo Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:01 am

5. Full contract offer was attached to email. At 367 pages, it may be weekend reading.
   There should be a link to it somewhere.

   Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:02 am

6. “Fact: Comparing Teamsters’ health insurance to AFSCME’s is like comparing apples and platypuses.”

   Agreed.

   Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:02 am

7. This email included two attachments. One had the proposed contract.

   Comment by Trolling Troll Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:03 am

8. =So, in sum: “We couldn’t convince your negotiators that the full proposal was any good, so now, in keeping with what the future holds when our great overl- sorry, “governor,” crus-, sorry, “turns around” the collective bargaining process in Illinois, let us directly tell you what’s true, without showing you the proposal itself.”=

   Sounds like CPS’s negotiating strategy too

   Comment by Carhartt Representative Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:03 am

9. He said, she said. As an AFSCME member I’m really at a loss. I don’t know what to believe. Through all of the rhetoric, the one thing I keep coming back to is…if management’s proposal is so “fair and reasonable” why do they fear SB1229 and now HB580 so much?

   Comment by Cubs in '16 Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:08 am

10. Bad form for management to appeal directly to AFSCME rank and file. Members are likely to dig in further. Sending communications like this (and there have been several) are a miscalculation designed to drive a wedge between the AFSCME leadership and their members. I believe it will have the opposite effect.

    Comment by Stones Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:10 am

11. Cubs, they know that if an arbitrator picks the more fair proposal then the union one would win.

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:11 am

12. @Stones

    Amen.

    Comment by Boooooooo Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:11 am

13. how annoying it was to find this (another) blast attack email in my inbox this morning. the union has right to hold informational meetings. employer is abusing its email access to staff, again, to further its own agenda.

    Comment by Gobsmacked Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:12 am

14. == …unions ratified similar terms and conditions… ==

    Ahhh….THE operational word. — ’similar’!

    All that text? Looks more like obfuscation than tellin’ like it is? SuperStarts must have really been working’ hard.

    Comment by sal-says Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:14 am

15. Funny, for all their whining about roll call pay, they aren’t actually trying to change it…

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:15 am

16. The way I’m reading this is the letter and fact sheet are trying to get the Administration’s message out on a plan.

    Gov. Rauner does not like to negotiate in public, while berating his negotiatin’ partners.

    This, however, is making a case, around AFSCME to “set the record” straight, to peel off workers from the Union, and cause dissent in AFSCME from within(?)

    Governors need Labor Peace.

    They just do.

    You can’t “run a state” with Labor unrest and get a governor’s priorities done…

    … unless the priority is to break the Union.

    Rauner would love a strike, the picket lines, the chanting, the anger, the imagery of he, Rauner, standing up to destroy AF-Scammy.

    The “Administration” knows, “calling in the National Guard”, the limited state service still allegedly running without a state budget. Uniformed troops in agencies? Phones ringin’ off the hook… People wonderin’ why they hear “we’re doin’ the best we can, we’re in the middle of an impasse with workers… ”

    My point?

    This letter and attachment is tryin’ to put AFSCME individual members to question their leaders, and accept their fate, and “here’s why”.

    Rauner needs Labor Peace. Reality? All governors need labor peace. Strikes, even failed strikes, rarely help the Administration too. No one wins, that’s what this letter is subtly saying too(?)

    Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:15 am

17. What’s the purpose of the Lynch quote? She’s being incredibly assertive in standing up for her members. Do they think her members care if she has a potty mouth?

    Comment by Century Club Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:16 am

18. Stones - but then it begs the question of what exactly AFSCME leadership is telling the rank-and-file. This is not much different than the dynamic of a legislative leadership team possibly telling a their rank-and-file membership one thing when the truth is another. And if the Council 31 folks are purposely sabotaging things with and providing misinformation to their members, then this is actually a smart idea.

    Willy has hammered this point home several times, but AFSCME went 0-for-2 during the election cycle on elections that actually matter. Legislative races are important - and every House Dem and all but one Senate Dem were reelected - but they swung-and-missed on the big prize. And now they want a figurative do-over and want to force the Governor’s hand through legislation.

    Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:19 am

19. If you look at the actual contract, they did gut bumping rights. Sounds like a plan to lay off more senior people while leaving them no place to land.

    It also obliterates the entire section relating to cost comparisons between bargaining unit work and contracted out work. Doesn’t sound good for taxpayers, sounds great for consultants though.

    I’m not sure publishing the entire contract helps the administration.

    Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:22 am

20. “And if the Council 31 folks are purposely sabotaging things with and providing misinformation to their members, then this is actually a smart idea.”

    Quite a charge. Any evidence?

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:24 am

21. What does AFSCME have to gain by lying to it’s membership? Maybe I am being naive but AFSCME seems to have a lot to lose if a lot of these restrictions on collective bargaining are imposed.

    Comment by Small Town Girl Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:27 am

22. Third paragraph shod be “obscure”, not “observe”

    Darn phone …

    Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:27 am

23. OW - Your comment that governors need labor peace much like governors need budgets is rooted in the belief that there’s a desire to govern. There’s nothing to suggest that this is actually Rauner’s objective. He doesn’t want to govern he wants chaos which he sees as the only viable way to accomplish his objectives. And his objectives are based in an ideology that has little to do with running an efficient government.

    Comment by pundent Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:27 am

24. Great propaganda
    Leaves out the context and the discussion during negotiations. Especially, when the union asks what their proposal really means or how certain terms will be defined. Their proposal has plenty of weasel words and terms that they can interpret as the the Governor sees fit.
    In regard to the Teamsters medical what does the State pay now and what will it pay under their new contract. Answer: the state pays more

    Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:28 am

25. @ Team Sleep 9:19 -

    Union leadership will only submit a proposal to the membership when they believe there is nothing left on the table. No Union in their right mind would agree to some of the more subtle CBA concessions being sought by Management in these negotiations. And you are correct that AFSCME has not been particularly successful in recent elections although I would argue that PQ lost the Governorship more than BR won it.

    Trust me, I’ve seen this tactic used before and it doesn’t work. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of management who has negotiated numerous CBA’s. Some things work and others do not.

    Comment by Stones Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:28 am

26. Speaking to a close relative who is a member of AFSCME, there are some who question Lynch’s leadership. This is employees talking with employees, not being fed information by the Administration. I think the potty-mouth reference reflects what some of her own members are hearing about how she presents herself and represents them. This person does not want to strike but is concerned they will be forced to because of how AFSCME leadership is dealing.

    Comment by nonn Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:29 am

27. Happy to have this with all the changes, additions and subtractions, in place so one can read for themselves rather than have it spun by one side or the other to what they think you need to hear…

    This seems very fair and I agree with it, I wish AFSCME would just call a vote for this…

    Comment by Allen D Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:30 am

28. Ah the 17 unions agreed argument again from this administration. Let’s break it down again:

    17 bargaining units equal 5300 workers.

    5 of those are teamsters locals which number 4700 workers and got more money paid into their health insurance plan.

    12 of those are the trades which number 600 workers and got to keep prevailing wages.

    Afscme has not been offered what the other 17 were…

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:31 am

29. Allen, any worker who votes to be much easier to be privatized and laid off is shooting themselves in the foot.

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:33 am

30. “it begs the question of what exactly AFSCME leadership is telling the rank-and-file.”

    In a nutshell:
    1. AFSCME was continuing to offer counter proposals so the impasse declaration from the Administration came out of left field.
    2. There would be NO limit to the gov’s ability to contract out work currently being performed by State employees. Therefore, no job security.
    3. Do not believe ANYTHING this Administration says. They lie repeatedly and continue to do so.

    AFSCME leadership would have no logical reason to want to push rank and file towards a strike. It certainly isn’t in their best interest so….what motivation would AFSCME have to mislead members? These informational meetings are a result of the Administration declaring an impasse.

    Comment by Cubs in '16 Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:33 am

31. No prohibitions on outsourcing and no bumping rights. Looks like a plan to quickly eliminate Tier 1 employees 40 - 60 years old with 20 years of service. Will have a disparate impact on older employees, perhaps the basis for class-action age based discrimination litigation.

    Comment by kitty Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:33 am

32. @pundent +1
    well said!

    Comment by Ferris Wheel Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:34 am

33. Arbitration is used in almost every industry when there is contract issues.

    Why does the administration not want it?

    THE ONLY REASON is they want to take more than what is reasonable. THE.ONLY.REASON.

    Comment by Pip Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:34 am

34. -Allen D-

    When you read the proposed contract, just remember this administration will be like Bill Clinton when it comes to the actual meaning of the language; they will argue over the meaning of “is” and “did” and every otther term.

    Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:34 am

35. When reading this contract forwarded to Capitol Fax, keep in mind that this is supposed to be the prior contract ratified by AFSCME with Rauner’s proposed changes added. If any union members see that the prior wording has been tampered with, please point it out to all.

    Pay very close attention to the wording changes and then ask yourself, in a worse case scenario, “what could the Governor do to us?” under this new contract.

    So far it looks like the same old (bad) ideas that he has been trying to shove down our throats for months.

    Comment by Omega Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:35 am

36. Can someone publish the proposal? All we have here are the administration’s “summary” and “facts.” Since Rich works for Mike Madigan (snark intended), I’m sure someone should be able to get it posted.

    Comment by ash Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:35 am

37. My apologies — lack of coffee had me missing the link in the heading. Sorry!

    Comment by ash Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:36 am

38. Check article 20 section 2 subsection e.

    Basically means during a layoff the contractors all stay. That’s the ballgame…

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:38 am

39. I’d really hate to be AFSCME right now. We’re talking about a Governor who plugs his ears and stomps his feet while major social services agencies crumble all around him. I don’t believe he even cares about a strike. If they do, he’ll just let state services screech to a halt until employees have no other choice but to come back to work………and then he wins. That’s what he cares about, winning. With AFSCME, with the Turnaround Agenda, with Rahm.

    Comment by Get a Job!! Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:38 am

40. Is there any hope to cling to with HB 580? what are the chances of a different outcome this time?

    Comment by Small Town Girl Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:39 am

41. -kitty-

    You might be surprised to find out how little age discrimination laws apply to state employees. Federal law in that area does not apply when the State itself is the employer, just the State’s own laws. Anybody want to guess how the State agency, in today’s environment, would rule?

    Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:39 am

42. I got only this far into the “fact check” before calling BS.

    ==With retiree coverage included, Illinois pays nearly 3/4 of the total cost of coverage for its workers.==

    And what is it without taking into account retirees’ 100% of premiums paid, since that is NOT a subject of this bargaining but rather is set by a statute that the State cannot repeal for current employees? Let’s stick to what is being negotiated for current active employees, shall we? I expect more blatant BS as I read further.

    Comment by Whatever Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:39 am

43. I am not a pension expert, but in several instances, i suspect the language is quite self serving: health insurance costs combine retiree (fully covered, see court case) and employee costs; merit pay doesnt cover gov appointees-misses the point; state employees, on average, make $20,000 more than employees in other states-meaningless average; illinois workers highest paid in the country-show your work; governor has never proposed to cut salaries-just increase insurance costs for much less coverage.

    There is also the important element of context–how can you trust rauners intentions w afscme (afscammy), when he is deliberately inflicting so much lasting pain and damage on social services, higher education, etc. if it is ok to do that, as a political tactic, and given his hatred of unions, you realize the contract is the only protection union members (and retirees re health insurance) have.

    Comment by Langhorne Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:40 am

44. The link gives the basic contract, but I’m not seeing anything about specific health care dollar amounts. Does anyone have that information?

    Comment by ash Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:41 am

45. The amount per person the State spends on a Teamster’s health care under the new contract versus the amount the State has offered to spend on AFSCME’s health care is not an “apples to platypuses” comparison. What are those numbers?

    Comment by chi Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:42 am

46. - prudent -

    Remember, Rauner’s insanely ideas can run counter to the Administration knowin’ “At some point, we need to govern, and a deal is needed to do that.”

    That’s the truth.

    That’s also how Rauner rarely helps himself.

    That’s the rub Rauner refuses to see.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:42 am

47. -Langhorne-

    With respect to “20 year” SERS retirees, the Kanerva decision could not have been clearer …but they may have to sue again with this guy. He doesn’t care; it isn’t his personal money being spent on the lawyers.

    Your point is valid when applied to the rest of the retirees.

    Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:44 am

48. Small Town Girl@ 9:39

    If AFSCME is to be believed, several Republican legislators said off the record they were “with AFSCME” but would vote ‘no’ on SB1229 because Rauner had personally assured them he would bargain in good faith. AFSCME’s hope is now that they see he has not; they will vote ‘yes’ on HB580.

    Comment by Cubs in '16 Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:45 am

49. OW: as mrjm and others have pointed out, “he does not care.”

    Lack of budget IS the agenda. Labor unrest IS the agenda.

    Pain is the plan.

    Once you look at things through that cynical lense, this all makes more sense.

    With respect.

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:47 am

50. There’s also an unreported (underreported?) provision involving retiree health insurance on page 297 of the PDF that I’d really appreciate RNUG weighing in on. I’m not sure how to read it, but it almost sounds as if employees who keep their health insurance at the current level give up retiree health insurance. It may also be oulining an additional option, but the language makes it unclear (to me at least).

    Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:50 am

51. Just to clarify a point being discussed…there is a huge gap between Teamster Health Insurance and the health insurance offered to state employees.

    There is a reason the Teamsters offer their own insurance to their employees. It’s a money maker for them. Please don’t forget that.

    Comment by Stones Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:53 am

52. ===OW: as mrjm and others have pointed out, “he does not care.”===

    I am aware, and I have agreed. You know that, right?

    ===Lack of budget IS the agenda. Labor unrest IS the agenda.===

    I also have noted that as true.

    ===Once you look at things through that cynical lense, this all makes more sense.===

    Understanding Rauner? Yes.

    You are not reading what I have been saying here.

    Rauner is running counter to his Administration, at times, and the Staff and Crew are trying, often, to work to get things done, within the rants of their boss and how Rauner isn’t helping.

    You see that… right?

    You see how Staff and Crew oblige the governor, even working to please him, but still try to keep the governing from total collapse… right?

    This move is trying to get a “deal” by going around AFSCME Leadership and causing an internal push to cave… so governing can happen, while pleasin’ the boss.

    I see what you see. I’ve agreed too.

    At some point, even Rauner’s Staff and Crew know, governing has to happen, Labor Peace is important to the governing.

    With respect.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:55 am

53. you realize the contract is the only protection union members (and retirees re health insurance) have.

    Thanks for saying that! Appreciate it!

    Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:59 am

54. I thought republicans were generally against affirmative action, but there are provisions that allow the “bypass of the most senior employee” to “reduce underutilization” of a minority class. Not that I’m against the concept, but I can see this administration exploiting those provisions. When negotiating these contracts, one must look at the worst case scenario.

    Comment by DeKalb Guy Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:00 am

55. The current benefits booklet specifically states that Healtlink Tuer iii ( out of network) has no out of pocket max. So I beg to differ… An illness/accident occurring out of state could require me to pay 40% of the cost no matter how high it is.

    Comment by Thoughts Matter Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:01 am

56. I have not read the state’s contract proposal in its entirety. I did look over the sections dealing with health insurance and outside contractors.

    I can live with the health insurance costs, but my husband and I are DINKs. I would not be happy with the proposal if my income were lower and we had kids.

    I couldn’t live with the language regarding outside contractors. A great number of state services will be privatized before the ink dries on the contract.

    We’re I asked to vote today it would be a NO vote because of the privatizing issue.

    Comment by Red Tiger Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:02 am

57. The governor poisoned the atmosphere from the very beginning by saying we are overpaid even before contract negotiations started. Then his attitude towards unions in general would not lead one to believe that he wants to reach an equitable agreement.

    I don’t see why AFSCME would not be truthful, yet the governor has shown a willingness to bend the facts on numerous occasions

    Comment by A Jack Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:02 am

58. Tier III

    Comment by Thoughts Matter Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:03 am

59. Ash - Appendix A shows the amounts, starting on p. 277

    Comment by Curious Georgina Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:07 am

60. “In fact, the State would prohibit any Governor’s staff and appointees from being eligible for performance bonuses” Um… those weren’t the people we were talking about.

    Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:07 am

61. Out of Network could also mean a different hospital. That is our problem in the Metro East. I believe the best hospital in our region Barnes Jewish Hospital is outside our network. It is in Missouri but the only one that treats very serious stuff. Great catch Thoughts Matter

    Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:10 am

62. “In light of the state’s fiscal condition…”

    If you cut revenue by a massive amount, but fail miserably at cutting costs (and in fact are responsible for massive cost increases), perhaps the choice to ask for tax cuts was a mistake.

    Can anyone say that the fiscal condition of the state would be worse if the tax rate was made progressive, equal to our neighbors or even 2 to 3 times what the current rate is?

    Comment by Name withheld Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:10 am

63. If you read the proposed contract, there are no pay increases and health care premiums are doubled and more. Effectively a pay cut. This is a no go. To claim that this is good faith negotiating is a crock.

    Comment by No Kidding Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:10 am

64. Skeptic, superstars already get paid like superstars… /s

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:10 am

65. – RNUG - Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:34 am:

    I am well used to the arguing of “is” and “did” and any other term… That is want I work in now… no consistency whatsoever, changes every day on to whom is speaking. This spells it out much better… I agree with most of the changes, not all, but most… It is acceptable to me and should be especially in today’s economic situation…. From what I see, it is the Union who doesn’t want to bend. (and yes I am a member of the Union as I have stated many times) I want to vote on this…

    Comment by Allen D Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:10 am

66. To my fellow bargaining-unit members (both full-pay AFSCME Council 31 members and fair-share “fee payers”), please keep the following in mind as you consider whether or not to take the “deal” Rauner is trying to shove down our throats:

    1) The main issue here should be JOB SECURITY. Accepting the current “deal” means that the Governor will have the ability to fire you with impunity. That means no “bumping rights” that could allow you to transfer to another position that you might be qualified for and no right to be called back for any other opening in the future. Instead, you’ll have to go back to “square one” to apply for a state job, and we all know how hard that can be. Also, if you are lucky enough to get a job, you’ll have to start at the lowest end of the pay scale, with no further step-raises to look forward to and you can still be fired at any time for any reason. Remember - IF YOU DON’T HAVE JOB SECURITY, NONE OF THESE OTHER ISSUES MATTER.

    2) Accepting the current “deal” will mean that YOU HAVE GIVEN UP THE RIGHT TO BARGAIN FOR ANY FURTHER WAGE INCREASES, so YOU MAY NEVER GET ANOTHER RAISE. Ask any long-time Merit Comp employee about how many raises they have received over the last ten years.

    3) Accepting the current “deal” could mean that YOUR COST FOR DECENT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE WOULD GO UP EVERY YEAR. The only bottom to this would be when you hit the Obamacare minimum “Bronze Level” of coverage (60% State / 40% Employee). Imagine being responsible for the first $40,000 due on a $100,000 medical bill! Retirees need to realize that they are linked to this also because the retiree guarantee of “free health insurance” (or the pro-rated percentage if you retired with less than 20 years of service) only obligates the state to pay the (now-lower) premium, not the (now-higher) deductibles and copays. Ask any retiree about what’s been happening to these costs over the last decade.

    Even so, it looks like Rauner is serious about forcing this terrible “deal” on us. Once rank-and-file get a chance to read it and vote on it (and remember, only full-pay union members get to vote), I believe that it will be overwhelmingly rejected, giving our leaders the ability to call a strike at any time. For fair-share “fee payers”, this is your last chance to become a full-pay union member and be part of the decision-making process!

    If a strike is called, remember that Illinois’ labor laws make it illegal for Rauner to fire anyone who is on the picket line or is honoring the picket line. This includes both full-pay AFSCME members and fair-share “fee payers”. I’m sure that retirees will also be welcome to join us on the picket line. Remember, SUPPORTING THE UNION MEANS NOT CROSSING THE PICKET LINE!

    Also remember that persons represented by the union that do cross the picket line will be considered “at will” employees by the state. This means that the Governor can do whatever he wants with them and they will have no protections whatsoever. He might just send them far across the state to do something else that he thinks needs to be done. Forget about having time to learn the new job, as there will be little or no training. If they fail to come up to his high expectations of them as newly-minted “Raunerbots”, they’re fired!

    Now would be an excellent time for everyone to let their State Senators and Representatives know just how they feel about this!

    Comment by Omega Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:13 am

67. Kitty states what I’ve expected since the Governor’s proposal was first outlined: all remaining Tier I employees will have large targets on their backs. They should expect to have their positions/functions to be the first to be reviewed for outsourcing.

    Comment by Curmudgeon Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:14 am

68. Honeybear, I think the Barnes issue depends on who you have for health insurance. I know people with Health Alliance who live in Springfield and routinely go to Barnes for specialities available in Springfield.

    Comment by Red Tiger Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:17 am

69. Allen D, Friedricks can’t come soon enough for you I bet. It can’t come soon enough for me in regards to you. Which side are you on? I feel like you are willingly engaging in perfidy.

    Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:18 am

70. Well said omega man.

    To me the ballgame is the privatization. He wants no limits. None. He will bring in contractors. He will have us train them. Then he will lay us off while the contractors sit in our desks and wave goodbye.

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:18 am

71. The language about layoffs is why I am resigning and accepting a job elsewhere (in Minnesota). This is the poison pill that would prevent me from agreeing to this contract. I couldn’t care less about the money. You could cut my salary in half and I’d be fine. However, without any job security, there is no point in agreeing to this contract. This is heading towards a strike and I want no part of that.

    What motivation does AFSCME have in terms of misleading its members? What do they gain? They have successfully negotiated contracts for 40 years so they aren’t amateurs here. This administration has done nothing but lie and mislead in order to to break the union so I would not trust them one bit.

    Allen D. has to be a Raunerite troll. No one forced you to join a Union, Allen, so if you are unhappy with how this is being handled, be proactive and find another job. By agreeing to this contract, you can be laid off at any time, so good luck with that.

    Comment by Former State Worker Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:19 am

72. If one believes that state workers make more than private folks (several studies say the opposite) and make more than other state’s workers (maybe), then ok. However, a key point…Illinois has one of the lowest per capita state workers to population in the country. Is Rauner suggesting that we pay 10 workers $50,000/yr or 5 workers $70,000…for the same work (as is now)? It sounds like it. Rauner wants to break the state up like he does nursing homes and sell off the profitable parts.

    Comment by Not In Agreement Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:24 am

73. Allen, go around and tell your coworkers that they should all agree to be laid off soon…

    Good luck with that… /s

    Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:25 am

74. So 50 state workers on here don’t like the offer, even though they didn’t read it. How could you it’s 300 plus pages. I’m just gonna sit back and enjoy these comments as you butt hurt your way into a strike. Have fun.

    Comment by GoldwaterRepublican Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:25 am

75. Ash - Appendix A shows the amounts, starting on p. 277…. Thanks, Georgina!!!

    Comment by ash Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:30 am

76. I share Langhorne’s view about the context. Also, the Rauner trust level is extremely low.

    Curious to see the AFSCME response.

    Comment by Norseman Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:31 am

77. News flash Mr.Terranova…you’ve been at contract talks for many years as management for the State. As you very well know, the members elect the bargaining committee. The Union’s general membership votes only after the elected committee decides the offer is worth voting on. You are in negotiations with the elected committee not the members. This plan your administration has to try and divide the members will not work. A better use of Managements time is to come to the table with a fair offer.

    Comment by Jan Bradley Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:32 am

78. In excess of a 100% increase in premiums.

    Comment by ash Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:35 am

79. The common, non-AFSCME Illinoisans may be asking themselves “So what if Rauner privatizes state services? Won’t that save money?” Every example I’m aware of where states have tried contracting services out (especially social services) has been a dismal failure. You must remember that the contracting companies are FOR PROFIT so residents will get the smallest bang for their buck. You think renewing your driver’s license is a pain now? Just wait until the offices are staffed with skeleton crews who don’t know what they’re doing. At the risk of tooting the horn of state workers too loudly, there simply is no substitute for the education, experience, and expertise we possess. You get what you pay for. Office staff within DHS have been decimated in the past 10-15 yrs. yet we continue providing services to our state’s most needy. Food for thought.

    Comment by Cubs in '16 Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:36 am

80. @Goldwater Rebublican, we were sent this last night at 9pm which is plenty of time to read and reject this contract.

    Comment by A Jack Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:42 am

81. According to the Kaiser Foundation’s 2015 Employer Health Benefits Survey, nationwide, the premium contributions by covered workers average 18% for single coverage and 29% for family coverage. The study found the range was 13 to 24 percent for large public employers.
    http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2015-section-six-worker-and-employer-contributions-for-premiums/

    A March 2015 report by the Legislature’s bipartisan Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability showing that Illinois state emplyees pay 17 to 18 percent of their health insurance costs, depending on the plan they’ve chosen.
    http://cgfa.ilga.gov/Upload/FY2015GroupInsuranceReport.pdf
    In reality though, many Illinois state and state university employees are paying more like 19 or 20% of their premiums.

    The 55% employee / 45% state, insurance premium team Rauner cites for Indiana is off the grid and not a good comparison.

    Comment by Joe M Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:46 am

82. Allen D’s comments are quite hard to fathom.

    Comment by BumblesBounce Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:50 am

83. AC -i agree about the choose any option and we take away your retiree health insurance poison pills are in there. That probably makes it a DOA all by itself.
    what i really want to know is how long everyone is willing to let all this dsyfunctional gov thing go on? I dont think we should have to wait four years for our state to rejoin society and our nation

    Comment by Team Warwick Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:56 am

84. ==Trades get prevailing wage, which may well go down.==

    That’s one of Rauner’s stated goals, to end or drastically LOWER prevailing wages for trades.

    Comment by DuPage Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:56 am

85. In the war for public opinion (public opinion, not State employees’ opinion), this is a solid punch. AFSCME’s statements tend to be over the top - geared to whipping up its members, not presenting its side to the public. I hope the public hears from a more careful AFSCME.

    Comment by Sir Reel Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 10:59 am

86. @GolwaterRepublican
    The proposed changes are less than 20 pages, not 300.The rest is retained from a contract I have read many, many times. It comes down to the destruction of bumping rights for employees targeted for layoff. That and the healthcare costs which look to be about 240% of current levels by 3rd year. Plus the (additional?) 10% allowable under p292. We can all read 20 pages and do basic math.

    Comment by Expletivedeleted Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:02 am

87. ==our employees tell us all the time, as Teamsters and other unions told us during bargaining, that they are ready to be part of the solution, not the problem.==

    Which is why, as a taxpayer, I refuse to support a contract that eliminates the requirement for a cost comparison between employee and work being subcontracted. No employer concerned about costs should be fearful of such a comparison unless they want to spend more to subcontract services than they spend in employees performing the same function. (See Article XXIX, Section 2, Subsection c)

    Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:05 am

88. Am I understanding correctly that to choose to pay more and keep the same coverage as we currently have is to give up the no premium insurance when we retire? can this really be so or am I misunderstanding this portion?

    Comment by Small Town Girl Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:07 am

89. Team Warwick - that was my interpretation, but I look forward to RNUGs response if he has the opportunity. Agreed that if that’s the case that giving up health insurance on retirement is a poison pill. Imagine that, a poison pill in a Rauner proposal.

    Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:11 am

90. Page 173, so arbitration is okay when the governor wants arbitration?

    Comment by A Jack Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:17 am

91. I know this: the union never wanted me to have less vacation, lower my wages, decrease accessibility to healthcare, make it easier to get laid off, cut my dental plan or made it difficult to meet overtime requirements.

    Comment by Union Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:27 am

92. I should add that the higher premiums are probably how they’re going to deal with the Supreme Court ruling that pensioners continue to get health benefits.

    Sure, you can get them… But the premiums are going to be way higher.

    Comment by Stuff Happens Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:27 am

93. I don’t recall anyone saying Rauner’s healthcare would be the worst in the nation. Refuting unspoken myths is a Ted Cruz like tactic.

    Comment by Union Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:28 am

94. @Stuff, that’s the whole point of Kanerva…..free healthcare after 20 years means what it says, free healthcare. FREE.

    Comment by Get a Job!! Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:33 am

95. As a union employee I would never agree to this contract. I was in upper management for a number of years and I left because merit comp positions are abused by the state (no raises, excessive hours, furlough days). The union protecting its members is the only way working for the state is reasonable.

    If members are asked to vote on this, I predict around 90% would reject it, if not more.

    I hope hb520 passes and this time people vote to override, since the governor didn’t keep his word to not try to force a strike.

    Comment by Anonymity Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:38 am

96. Union man, I have said that. The way I was told is that 48states have Platinum plans and 2 have Gold. The current proposal would drop us to Bronze level which would be the worst in the nation. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. I’m big enough to admit it when I am. But this is my understanding. Am I an AFSCME official? No, I’m just a steward but this is what I got from our meetings. So I understand it that we would have the worst healthcare of all fifty states. Now I think they are saying that individuals could keep their current Gold plan but at twice the cost. I can’t afford that with a two state worker household. We both have to individually cover our healthcare. The estimate is 3100 dollars more per year. Times two for my family. We can’t afford that.

    Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:40 am

97. Let’s face it, even if the union somehow comes out on top, come June the Supreme Court will put the death nail in us. That is the cold hard truth and there is no protests of lobbying to stop it.

    Comment by AJones11 Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:09 pm

98. Started reading all of it. Going to comment as I go along.

    Section 4, page 79 - affects new hires, retirees will have to pay 100% of all dependent costs as opposed to just a small portion like today. And retiree insurance will be the same as employees, which implies paying for a portion of it instead of the 20 year premium free rule. Again, new hires after contract ratification.

    Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:10 pm

99. @Get a Job

    Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to things like dependent coverage, coverage for people with

    Comment by Stuff Happens Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:16 pm

100. Oops, my ‘less than sign’ truncated my post.

     Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to things like dependent coverage, coverage for people with less than 20 years, etc.

     Comment by Stuff Happens Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:17 pm

101. Looks to me like there are an awful lot of state employees who need to stop trolling around on the CapFax and get back to work.

     Comment by Jack Kemp Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:18 pm

102. Page 291 that was pointed out earlier sure makes it sound like if you op to keep the better plan you have now, then you have to keep paying the same in retirement AND you have to pay 100% of the dependent cost in retirement.

     Not only that, but the next paragraph goes on to say if the courts rule against that, then the retiree is STILL obligated to pay the State the difference between the chosen plan and the approved one. Talk about waiving your contractual and constitutional rights in advance. But it shouldn’t surprise us; Rauner and his lawyers are the type that find and exploit every loophole they can to their advantage.

     Definitely a poison pill or two there.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:21 pm

103. It was Rauner who walked away from the table. It was also Rauner who tried to unilaterally strip away fair share fees on the first day of negotiations. It’s Rauner who demonized hundreds of responsible and dedicated union leaders and called them corrupt. It’s Rauner who has caused major irreparable harm by his pathological refusal to drop anti-union budget demands. It was Rauner who wasted taxpayers’ time and money pushing a local RTW resolution that was soundly defeated.

     Good faith indeed.

     Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:23 pm

104. It goes on on page 291 over to 292 to give the State the option to create an ACA equivalent exchange for retirees and to limit the State’s contribution /support level to their ESTIMATED costs under the other proposed plans.

     Again, another poison pill designed to lower health insurance contributions by the State.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:25 pm

105. Someone help me out here, but once one side declares an impasse, aren’t they then supposed to shut their yaps while waiting for a ruling from the LRB? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to go?

     I can’t see even the most pro-Rauner LRB member being the least bit happy about this e-mail. I could be wrong but I don’t see how this helps the administration at all.

     Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:27 pm

106. At least on page 292 they kind of cap the increase of any cost savings panel changes to 10% per individual but, again, they don’t specify if that 10% cap is per recommended change, per year, or the length of the contract. Without context, the cap is worthless.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:28 pm

107. Hey.

     - Jack Kemp -

     Mind your business.

     Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:31 pm

108. the “informational sessions,” tonight should be interesting.

     Comment by working stiff Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:31 pm

109. Take a peek at Appendix B

     Deletes all the retiree only distinctions in the group health insurance plan(s).

     Deletes the opt-out / opt-out financial incentive program.

     More poison pill type stuff for some retirees.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:33 pm

110. Rauner thinks one person is worth 30k a month….. so how are proposals for less then that unreasonable

     about 90% of the gov proposals arent horrible. but he is wrong on the healthcare. The state of il, 5 largest state, has benefits comporable to Fl, NY, etc… and to State Farm, Blue Cross, and Springfield Clinic. He need to stop comparing a 70k employee workforce to Bobs burgers. apples and oranges. compared to large states and large prvt employers we are apot on. compared to google we are lacking

     Comment by Ghost Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:37 pm

111. Was somewhat annoyed to find this tripe in my state email acct this morning. Couldn’t wait to pop over to CapFax at lunch, and I wasn’t disappointed. I don’t totally trust AFSCME (due to potential conflict of interest) but I trust the Governor even less based his constant revisions of the truth and calling me lazy and overpaid. However, if my fellow state co-workers with much more experience say this is a bad deal, I trust that it is a bad deal. I can only hope HB 580 passes this time so we can put this behind us and concentrate on work.

     Comment by State Worker THX 1138 Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:44 pm

112. - Ghost - Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:37 pm: ..compared to google we are lacking …

     Anyone compared to GOOGLE is lacking… come on, the STATE is not “FOR PROFIT”… We still have one of the highest paid state workers of most all the states, not many are above us… Lets quit being greedy…

     Comment by Allen D Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:49 pm

113. -State Worker THX 1138-

     I’m non-union and GOP leaning, but even I will say this is an AWFUL deal for the union. No job security, no raises to speak of, increased health insurance costs resulting in lower net pay, forfeiture of premium free health insurance in retirement if you want better health insurance now, etc.

     I rarely agree with AFSCME but they are right to reject this deal. It is just an assisted suicide pact with AFSCME workers as the victim.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:51 pm

114. RNUG

     Question. After Kanerva what authority can this contract have even if it is approved to change to change a future retirees benefits?? That would seem to be an individual choice.

     Comment by State Engineer Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 12:51 pm

115. Bumping rights still there just 2 levels vs 6 and then go to vacancies. Anyone know how many vacancies are usually invoked? Around 1,000+. Retiree changes apply to people hired after ratification. Read it for yourselves rather than posts.

     Comment by Sense of a Goose Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:02 pm

116. Afscme members will not, I believe, vote to strike. Most of them will not want to lose pay during the strike, take the risk of losing their job for an extended period of time, and the politic environment is not favorable–including public sentiment. Not to mention it would be playing right into Rauner’s hands.

     Comment by Molly Maguire Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:05 pm

117. -State Engineer-

     It is kind of an option in the contract: pick better insurance now and give up future insurance or take the default worse insurance now and get retiree insurance. Note that it is described as an irrevocable choice which means it IS intended to apply to future pension benefits per IRS rules.

     That would be a mostly voluntary individual choice. I’m assuming this was structured on the contract modification / consideration model that Eric Madiar outlined as a possible means. I would guess this should pass a constitutional challenge but even if it didn’t, there is that backup clause that also needs to be overturned.

     I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again: the real prize is changing the health insurance going forward. That retiree liability isn’t even listed on the books anywhere. It is paid from GRF, so any “savings” there immediately translates to freed up funds or a lower increased revenue need.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:05 pm

118. @Allen, If you believe you make too much you can write a check back to the state for whatever portion of your salary you feel is over-generous. And if you believe your benefits to be too good, you can certainly opt out & save the state some money.

     Comment by Get a Job!! Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:07 pm

119. -Sense of a Goose-

     Read those choices about keeping current level of insurance. That retiree change applies to everyone, not just future hires.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:07 pm

120. Allen D:

     You sure are gung ho about making yourself financially worse off.

     I don’t know about you but I sure as heck cannot afford to forfeit $500 a month out of my take home pay (which is what it’s going to cost me to keep the same insurance).

     You keep saying you make too much and have it too good. Fine. Donate some of your pay back.

     Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:07 pm

121. RNUG

     Thank for answering.

     Comment by State Engineer Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:08 pm

122. Same issues prevail. Take it or leave it demands of Rauner. Taking mumbling rights away, no pay increase (or steps) and doubling insurance cost all around. That’s been the 3 big isdues all slong

     Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:08 pm

123. RNUG:

     The part on “consideration” has confused me. I read it as you could keep the insurance you have now at the rates you are paying now if you give up state paid insurance in retirement. You are reading it as keep what you have now, pay more AND give up your state paid insurance in retirement. Is that your reading??

     Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:09 pm

124. On health insurance; let’s just say I know a little bit about it. Yes, if you go out of network, the law does not limit your out of pocket costs to the $6500 cap mentioned. However, that’s how most networks keep costs down–by excluding certain higher cost providers. Going out of network is the patient’s choice, and the patient will pay for that choice dearly sometimes. And that is a feature of most insurance plans everywhere.

     Comment by Molly Maguire Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:10 pm

125. Unless HB 580 becomes law, it appears that there will be more health care litigation - part of the Rauner plan.

     Comment by skeptical Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:10 pm

126. Private contractors stay while union employees get laid off, that in itself is enough reason to reject this ‘contract.’ Nothing to stop the governor from hiring private contractors and laying everyone off.

     It’s a back door attempt at lockout, plain and simple.

     Comment by A Jack Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:12 pm

127. ==pick better insurance now and give up future insurance or take the default worse insurance now and get retiree insurance==

     Thank you RNUG!!! That’s what I thought. It still seems to be a diminishment because the option to keep retiree health insurance at the level that it exists now doesn’t seem to be available.

     Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:13 pm

128. –Demoralized-

     That was how I read it, but I will admit to reading it quickly while multi-tasking (on phone and editing a newsletter). I’m going to try to find time to re-read it later today to make sure I got it right.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:19 pm

129. FakeGovernorRauner: “Attention All Union State Employees! Throughout my reign I have always have had your best interests at heart. Take today’s email blast as an example. This will ensure that all future Union meetings will be Standing Room Only. The rest is up to you!”

     Comment by Omega Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:19 pm

130. The most important thing is changes - eliminations of management’s proposal under sub-contracting (p 186). I’ll highlight the following:

     1.) Takes the burden of proof off management that sub-contracting will save the state money and lead to greater efficiency.
     2.) Removes 45 day time period to notify state workers of layoff in the event their job is subcontracted.

     State workers will essentially have 0 job security if this contract gets ratified.

     Not only that, those who rely on State services - especially Human Services - will suffer due to lack of accountability over for-profit companies and de reased quality of services due to sub-contracted employees making minimum wage like they do for Maximus, a company contracted by the state to mail out medical redetermination forms.

     Comment by DHSJim Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:22 pm

131. RNUG:

     Thanks. I guess the key words in that paragraph for me were “employees will also be offered.” To me that sounded like this was meant to be another choice available.

     Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:26 pm

132. -AC-

     Don’t think it would be called a diminishment because you have no (future) contractual or (immediate) constitutional right to your current level of health insurance coverage as an employee.

     Yes, it is a partially coerced choice between “pay me now” or “pay me later”. That is where the gray area would come in and where the court might say the loss of the retiree insurance was incidental to the goal of immediate budget savings. Can’t guess which way a decision would be on that point.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:27 pm

133. Thanks again RNUG, your analysis is helpful, even if the potential is devastating.

     Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:34 pm

134. RNUG So where does the 20 year rule for free health insurance premiums fall into this? Is this gone? How can they make you pay the difference between the 2 plans after you retire when the deal was that the premiums would be free after 20 years of service?

     Comment by Question Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:35 pm

135. RNUG pointed out a really bad poison pill on page 291 for those who choose to keep their current coverage:

     “As consideration for this increase in coverage,
     employees who choose this option will be responsible for the premiums for their
     member and dependent health insurance coverage after retirement.”

     Comment by Joe M Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:37 pm

136. I noticed there is no expiration date or stated duration on the contract. (Pg 206) IT appears it continues in perpetuity until one party decides to amend or revoke it. In effect there is no period it’s state for as I read it the Gov. could declare next June he’s going to rework it.

     It’s possible this is because it’s a tentative and an official date will be inserted once it’s ratified/signed. with this Gov. hard to not expect a nefarious point.

     Comment by State Engineer Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:38 pm

137. -Question-

     I need to re-read and think about the language used, but it looks to me like current employees can take the reduced level health insurance as an employee and keep the 20 year premium free health insurance upon retirement. That’s why I phrased it as a pay me now or later choice.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:50 pm

138. How does the deletion of Appendix B affect current retiree’s?

     Comment by Tired of it all Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:50 pm

139. RNUG, my head was spinning before I got through with App. A and I see App. B is totally gone.

     Does all this mean if the employee is currently retired, of Medicare age, and has a spouse say 55 and a minor dependent say 15….is the spouse and the minor SOL and will not be offered any health insurance at any price?

     Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 1:51 pm

140. Page 291, second full paragraph. Just caught something that slipped past me the first time. Even though you are making an irrevocable choice to maintain higher health insurance coverage for an equal PERCENTAGE (not current dollar amount) that will require you to pay in full for retiree dependent coverage, the State’s commitment to hold to that level of employee premium support only runs from FY17 through FY19.

     You get 3 years of more or less current coverage at more or less current costs in exchange for paying the full dependent freight in retirement. 3 years of “savings” for 20 or 30 years of future payments. Such a deal.

     I really need to diagram these options tonight.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:05 pm

141. Omega Man, you are wrong about the $100,000 medical expense with a 60/40 plan. The plan would have an annual out-of-pocket maximum, which was stated in the email sent out to State employees. That maximum amount is much less than $40,000 you said a person would be responsible for.

     Comment by Say no to big government Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:09 pm

142. -Cindy Lou-

     Right now, subject to my reading it again tonight without distractions, it doesn’t affect most retirees.

     However, and it sounds like you would be one, it does somewhat affect people who have at least one person under Medicare age on the plan. The retiree should still have their premium free plan but it will probably be at the lower level coverage the State wants to impose on the employees (unless enough people get together, sue, and win in court which is a 50/50 shoot even with the Kanerva ruling). And you will probably have to pay higher dependent premiums on top of the increased co-pays and out of pocket. FWIW, I’m going to be in that same boat if this stands.

     Note: the less than 20 year people, TRS, and some SURS retirees will all see increased premiums and/ or out of pocket and co-pays.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:18 pm

143. -Tired of It All-

     I haven’t got that all sorted out in my mind yet. Maybe someone else has an idea?

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:20 pm

144. One thing is clear to me, pay and current employee insurance premium issues are the least damaging parts of Rauner’s offer. To put it another way, this remaining portions of the proposed contract would be a bad deal even if it included a 20% pay increase and free health insurance while employed.

     Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:23 pm

145. IF that’s how the Governor chooses to interpret the contract.

     IF the union is around to make sure that the Governor lives up to the contract.

     IF that’s how the medical coverage is offered by the insurance company.

     IF the Governor doesn’t decide to rewrite the contract later.

     IF the Governor doesn’t decide TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY FIRING YOU.

     As I’ve said before, THE MAIN ISSUE HERE IS JOB SECURITY. All other issues are secondary.

     Comment by Omega Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:28 pm

146. The CMS actually thinks that they have ANY credibility??? Rauner lost the trust ME battle months ago.

     Comment by Jimmy H Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:33 pm

147. Anyone have that old Rauner email to all state employees from a year ago where he promised to “put more money in our pocket?” /s

     Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:40 pm

148. It appears there is not an impasse. The governor is negotiating directly with the employees bypassing their union. I wonder if AFSME is preparing to file an unfair labor practice case against the state? Might explain their non-response thus far.

     Comment by Pacman Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 2:54 pm

149. Can anyone tell me where in the contract it says that the State can outsource a full time State job?

     Comment by Jeff Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 3:12 pm

150. Jeff, it’s the subcontracting article. Combine a couple of their proposals to get the intent.

     1.) they want no limits to subcontracting
     2.) during a layoff the contracted employee is protected
     3.) the employee has less bump rights and hits the street

     Total it up, a whole lot of people are about to lose their jobs…

     Comment by There is power in a union... Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 3:20 pm

151. Ok thank you

     Comment by Jeff Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 3:27 pm

152. @ Jeff. Page 181 under sub-contracting. Removes the clause that says burden of proof is on management to show that sub-contracting will save the state money and lead to greater efficiency. To add insult to injury, it removes 45 day time period to notify employees of a lay off.

     Comment by DHSJim Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 3:44 pm

153. I love how the troll have gone silent…..listen….hear the crickets? They can now see for themselves how Rauner is Screwing AFSCME. HUGE Rauner mistake HUGE! It’s now plain that the contract isn’t fair at all. Wow what a great day. GOD BLESS CAPFAX! Within hours the posters of capfax have eviscerated the Last Best and Final. God bless all of you who have contributed to the redemption of AFSCME. It’s crystal clear that Rauner has not been bargaining in good faith. Now to get the word out. I can’t wait to go the Informational Meeting tonight with EXACT PAGE NUMBERS AND QUOTES!!!!!

     Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 3:45 pm

154. “Take a peek at Appendix B
     Deletes all the retiree only distinctions in the group health insurance plan(s).”

     Isn’t that because that section is moot following the Supreme Court decision?

     Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 3:59 pm

155. “Indiana pays less than 45% of the total cost of coverage.”

     Where does this number come from?! From Pew data (http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/08/stateemployeehealthcarereportseptemberupdate.pdf), the 2013 actuarial value for Indiana public employee was 88% and the lowest was 80% (Georgia).

     “[Illinois] is proposing to pay 60% of costs-the State’s proposal is still better than many other States”

     Huh?

     Comment by Tier 2 Employee Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 4:02 pm

156. -Anonymous-

     Only section 2, B was negated by the Kanerva decision. Removing Appendix B removes ALL language about the support level for less than 20 year retirees, the premiums for dependents, the opt out, etc.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 4:15 pm

157. It’s obvious this bunch isn’t used to having their work checked or their claims fact checked.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 4:18 pm

158. “- Expletivedeleted - Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 11:02 am: @GolwaterRepublican The proposed changes are less than 20 pages, not 300.The rest is retained from a contract I have read many, many times. It comes down to the destruction of bumping rights for employees targeted for layoff. That and the healthcare costs which look to be about 240% of current levels by 3rd year. Plus the (additional?) 10% allowable under p292. We can all read 20 pages and do basic math.”

     Gee, maybe. Then again, this ‘administration’ is not know for its veracity. And, from what you say, sounds like you have an almost photographic memory regarding the expired contract.

     So, maybe you could use something like Microsoft Word to actually compare the ‘expired’ and ‘new offer’ contracts & post ALL the differences for CapitolFax readers to see. That would be GREAT. Thanks.

     Comment by sal-says Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 4:34 pm

159. AFSCME didn’t make it sound nearly this bad.

     Comment by PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 4:38 pm

160. The CMS message was intended to be PUBLIC. That is by definition a breach of negotiations. But in standard corporate style, the idea is do the known illegal action first because it take months before is declared illegal and ’tis no real consequence of having taken the action. Totally Gov Huckster Bruce’s attitude.

     Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 4:47 pm

161. “@Stuff, that’s the whole point of Kanerva…..free healthcare after 20 years means what it says, free healthcare. FREE.”

     No, it means you do not pay the premium for your health insurance policy. Your health care costs are determined by the copayments, deductibles, out of pocket maximums, etc. set by that policy.

     Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 4:58 pm

162. And the 7 IL SC justices in Kanerva were concerned about a back door attempt to negate the premium free health insurance by drastically increasing co-pays and out of pocket expenses.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 5:06 pm

163. Obviously John Terranova didn’t pass the state ethics training. Use of state property for political purposes is expressly forbidden.

     Is the Rauner administration going to offer the same free access to state employees to AFSCME to set the record straight?

     Comment by BeenThereB4 Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 5:29 pm

164. -sal says-

     “Maybe you could use something like Microsoft Word to actually compare the ‘expired’ and ‘new offer’ contracts & post ALL the differences for CapitolFax readers to see. That would be GREAT. Thanks.”


     The contract forwarded to Capitol Fax is supposed to be exactly that, the prior contract ratified by AFSCME with Rauner’s proposed changes added.

     Comment by Omega Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 6:09 pm

165. “AFSCME leadership would have no logical reason to want to push rank and file towards a strike. It certainly isn’t in their best interest so….what motivation would AFSCME have to mislead members? These informational meetings are a result of the Administration declaring an impasse.”

     Absolutely correct. AFSCME is kicking and screaming to not strike. That’s what SB 1229 and the big fuss was all about. Many believed this day would come. This is why there is another anti-strike bill.

     The purpose of the bill is to avert chaos and harm. Gov. Chaos is willfully allowing harm to happen so that he could leverage it and get his way. How many have already been hurt because of this?

     Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 6:56 pm

166. -BeenThereB4-

     In al proposed legislation / contracts, the changes are always shown as strike-outs for deleted language and underline for new / changed language. As others said, pretty easy to find what is changed. But it’s not always easy to see / understand the impact of the change, especially when it refers to related statutes, without a bunch of cross-checking.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 6:59 pm

167. RNUG, So what happens to SURS annuitants with less than 20 years service? Do we have to pay the full premium? Will the state pick up any of the premium, or none?

     Comment by up2now Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 7:03 pm

168. -up2now-

     Not clear to me at the moment.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 7:11 pm

169. -up2now-

     I should have qualified that by saying I expect re Kanerva that the already retired under 20 years will still have the 5% per year of service pickup on their premium but the unknowns are 5% of which plan / what amount and the dependent costs will probably be high.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 7:25 pm

170. Darn … I was hoping we weren’t going to have to see the Kanerva sequel.

     Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 7:28 pm

171. I don’t see how any of this health care stuff wouldn’t be litigated. Part of my retirement benefit was free health care premiums (for the employee) with 20 years of service. What constitutes health care is now at issue. The spirit of what healthcare is seems to be changing dramatically in the eyes of the current employer.

     Comment by Johnnie F. Thursday, Feb 4, 16 @ 9:57 pm

172. I don’t believe a word that comes from Rauner or his administration. He’s lied so many times, I don’t see how anyone could take him seriously.

     Comment by Hottot Friday, Feb 5, 16 @ 5:22 am

173. – Hottot - Friday, Feb 5, 16 @ 5:22 am: I don’t believe a word that comes from Rauner or his administration. He’s lied so many times, I don’t see how anyone could take him seriously.–

     Funny this came from CMS hoping to help clarify the two warring factions…. The Gov office did not send this. It is humorous to see all the fear and anger and sad at the same time…. Kennedy’s speech rings true with IL at this hard time… “My fellow ILLINOISANS, ask not what your STATE can do for you, ask what you can do for your STATE.”

     Comment by Allen D Friday, Feb 5, 16 @ 8:04 am

174. I agree. We should ask the taxpayers, especially the 1.4%, to step up to the plate and pay more in taxes to make up for the low taxes they have enjoyed since 1975.

     Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 5, 16 @ 8:18 am

175. ==It is humorous to see all the fear and anger==

     You find it humorous that people are fearful and angry that their take home pay would go down with this proposal? What in the heck is wrong with you? The more you say the more nonsense comes out of your mouth.

     ==The Gov office did not send this==

     Are you dense? CMS didn’t send this without approval from the Governor’s office. Why even say such a ridiculous thing?

     ==ask what you can do for your STATE.”==

     Go ahead. Do what you keep telling us. Give some of your paycheck back. You continuously tell us all that you make too much money.

     Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 5, 16 @ 8:26 am

176. - Demoralized - Friday, Feb 5, 16 @ 8:26 am:
     ==It is humorous to see all the fear and anger==

     I guess I should have wrote more to quantify since you pieced it out.. what I said was
     “It is humorous to see all the fear and anger and sad at the same time” it is sad because this only resonates of GREED and wanting more more more when the state is in such dire straights, when we are the highest paid public workers in most states…

     Most members seem not to care as long as they get more raises, more money on the backs of the taxpayers …. pay us more, you have too so we will work for you.

     That is how I see it.

     I think the wage and step freeze is a good thing as a minimum.. I would even go a step further and agree to a 10% cut across the board, every worker, until such a time as the State is solvent and can afford to put the pay back… That is what you can do for your STATE

     Comment by Allen D Friday, Feb 5, 16 @ 9:23 am

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: CPS sells bonds, will make upcoming debt payment
Next Post: Today’s number: $1.107 billion (plus principal)

Last 10 posts:

• Reader comments closed for the weekend (11-22)
• Isabel’s afternoon roundup (11-22)
• The Waukegan City Clerk was railroaded (11-22)
• Whatever happened, the city has a $40 million budget hole it didn't disclose until now (11-22)
• Manar gives state agencies budget guidance: Cut, cut, cut (11-22)
• Roundup: Ex-Chicago Ald. Danny Solis testifies in Madigan corruption trial (11-22)
• Open thread (11-22)
• Isabel’s morning briefing (11-22)
• SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password) (11-22)
• Live coverage (11-22)

more Posts (Archives)

WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.

powered by WordPress.