Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Is “consideration” still alive?
Next Post: CET Survey: 113,918 Illinois Clean Energy Jobs, But Wind and Solar Jobs cut 6.9% in 2015. Time to fix our energy policy!
Posted in:
* From today’s back pay decision…
For all the reasons discussed above, we hold that section 21 of the Act, when considered in light of the appropriations clause, evinces a well-defined and dominant public policy under which multiyear collective bargaining agreements are subject to the appropriation power of the State, a power which may only be exercised by the General Assembly.
I could be wrong and I’m not a lawyer, but since there are currently no appropriations for any state employee wages, it sure looks on its face like the lower-court rulings which ordered (first unionized, then all) employees to be paid anyway are not going to be looked upon favorably by the Supremes if any of those cases ever reach its doorway.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:39 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Is “consideration” still alive?
Next Post: CET Survey: 113,918 Illinois Clean Energy Jobs, But Wind and Solar Jobs cut 6.9% in 2015. Time to fix our energy policy!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Agree.
Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:40 am
If the Superstars miss a paycheck, I’d imagine things would move rather quickly.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:45 am
oh yes and any mposed contract that affects retiree health.there is always another constiutional option for the GA if the Gov refuses to follow the constitution on his budget responsibilities
Comment by illinois manufacturer Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:45 am
The clock has run and the ship has sailed on those lower court rulings to be appealed. Is the AG going to bring a new suit to prevent employees from being paid? That’d go over well…
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:47 am
Rich
Curious if the Gov. or AFSCME would have a comment on that? Especially since any order requiring employees to work sans appropriation would be at the legislatures discretion to pay Eventually.
Wonder if any R’s can find a backbone?
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:48 am
almost all the vendors of the state have shut us off, so why not just shut down the state… I know this is draconian thinking here, but if there is no budget and we are not paying our vendors then what makes us, the workers so special to get paid in light of all that is going on… I know no one imagined this going past the new year… but it has… if the state were to shut it’s doors, something might just move the talking heads to action.
Comment by Allen D Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:48 am
There are some Federal labor laws that may preempt the appropriation clause of the state constitution. But generally I think those laws only require payment at Federal minimum wage.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:49 am
I agree the State shouldn’t be paying Allen /s
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:51 am
Federal labor law requires people to be paid for their work (not necessarily raises) but they have to get paid. If they stop paying employees for work they have already performed we are looking at federal violations.
The state vendors on the other hand are on their own.
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:54 am
The problem with not paying state employees, union ones that is, is that it would constitute an unfair labor practice and make the union’s position much much stronger regarding a strike.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:54 am
- Me too - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:51 am:
Thanks, but The State should not be paying anyone… that would force the state to get a budget if it all stopped, as it is it is all grinding to a halt slowly and just dragging it all out…
Comment by Allen D Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:55 am
=== If they stop paying employees for work they have already performed we are looking at federal violations. ===
Only if they continue working. The other side of it is the state would have to send everyone home.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:56 am
==- burbanite - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 10:54 am:
Federal labor law requires people to be paid for their work (not necessarily raises) but they have to get paid. If they stop paying employees for work they have already performed we are looking at federal violations. ==
Federal law doesn’t require everyone get paid at their current salary, only certain workers and only federal minimum wage. That was the original dispute in St. Clair county. The Governor and Comptroller argued everyone should get paid because they didn’t know who was eligible for federal minimum wage only. Now they’ve had 9 months to figure it out.
Comment by guh Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:01 am
Agreed Rich, based on this decision: any employees for which their is no allocation for their wages should be laid off immediately. Talk about pressure building.
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:02 am
I agree. While I don’t think the state should have to shut down just because there aren’t appropriations on July 1. Going the better part of a year governing by court order should never be an option. Playing chicken with our universities and social service providers to keep the lights on, well that’s just [banned]. I think the court ruled the way they did because they think so as well. This takes away the safety net (this year anyway). With this ruling, not having an FY17 budget is no longer an option. The State will have to shut down for real on June 30. No joke. I suppose “essential” employees will stay on, but the rest of the folks will be sent home. It is effectively a lockout. Public perception is going to be much different than a strike, and anyone saying the legislature needs to pass a budget can point to the Governor’s Constitutional responsibility to submit one, which he has never done, or at the very least sign one, line item reductions if necessary, before June 30. The legislature will send him a budget now, and it might be balanced, well no of course it won’t because it can’t be. If he doesn’t sign it then he owns so hard Willy is going to have a heart attack. People will be at the capitol with pitchforks when the state shuts down, and while they may not like the fact the legislature didn’t send the governor a balanced budget, they’ll be even more upset he didn’t make the cuts himself (because he doesn’t want to own them ironically) because he thought his pet agenda was more important than the function of the State.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:08 am
I believe the court has ordered employees be paid until June 30, 2016 at the end of FY16. IANAL, but no lower court would order the same for next year now that the high court has set this precedent. Kilbride is right that this is going to cause issues, but I think this is the court’s way of saying, “Enough!!!”
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:11 am
I think wage theft is still illegal.
Comment by NoGifts Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:11 am
Wait, I have whiplash. Retirement benefits can exceed the appropriations because of a contractual relationship but vendor and employee pay cannot. Am I missing something fundamental or is the ILSC on both sides of this Separation of Powers argument? /confused
Comment by Expletivedeleted Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:12 am
===t it would constitute an unfair labor practice and make the union’s position much much stronger regarding a strike.===
It’s tough to have an effective strike if you are already sent home. Just saying.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:12 am
But there is no 2016 budget Me too, so the magic date is today, not June 30. There has not been an allocation for many state employee salaries for 2016, some but not all.
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:12 am
With apologies to my friends who are still with the State, I think Rich is right to say the lower courts overstepped their authority. If those cases had been appealed, we might be looking at a ruling by now or in the near future that would prevent employees from being paid. While unthinkable in terms of personal pain to workers, the Rauner impasse and the personal pain caused by it to others would have been resolved or closer to resolution.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:12 am
This is so much scarier than I ever imagined. Why doesn’t Rauner just fold on the anti-union demands so that he can get a budget? Or is now when he doubles down to destroy AFSCME without forcing a strike? He just takes down the court order to pay the employees. My God, tens of thousands of State employees missing payments, financially drowning. The workforce will collapse. Why don’t people understand this? Those that can leave will leave. We’ll be crippled.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:12 am
ED-Retirement benefits are a Constitutional not a contractual issue.
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:13 am
Wasn’t Rauner the one who initiated the court ruling to pay employees?
Comment by Small Town Girl Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:14 am
Perhaps it’s time, again with apologies to my friends, for someone to appeal the lower court rulings. It may be awhile for the case to reach the Supremes, the impasse looks like it’s going to be going for long time.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:14 am
Its not as easy sending everyone home. The State absolutely must administer a number of programs subject to Federal “maintenance of effort” clauses. Medicaid (esp. Title XIX), Food Stamp (”SNAP”) benefits, child support enforcement services, Unemployment Insurance benefits, child welfare protective services, and others. It takes at least a year for new workers to become minimally competent administering any of these programs at an error free level that doesn’t expose the State to financial penalties and potential litigation. It took me a number of months of hard work and diligence to become an effective Medicaid caseworker a number of years ago.
Comment by kitty Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:16 am
The thing is that someone will have to challenge the lower court’s ruling.
I would guess any Illinois citizen that wanted to step up and sue the Comptroller for paying out unappropriated funds would have the legal standing to do so.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:17 am
Point taken. It is essentially an unintentional strike for purposes of forcing the State to pass a budget. At the same time though, contract negotiations could continue and the unions could exert more pressure by threatening to strike and not come back once the tap is turned back on. Seeing the destruction caused by everyone staying home, the administration’s back would be against a wall. Also, the strike would be an ULP strike and as such, the governor’s plan to break the union is foiled. No replacement workers can take strikers jobs.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:18 am
I know everyone was relieved back in July when it was determined that state employees would still get paid; I remember that meant the budget would drag on for months.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:19 am
What impact, if any, does this decision have on the Comptroller’s discretion to cut employee paychecks in the absence of a budget?
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:20 am
== It takes at least a year for new workers to become minimally competent administering any of these programs at an error free level that doesn’t expose the State to financial penalties and potential litigation. ==
Actually, there are some positions like this that take a year and a half or more to be certified in the job.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:20 am
== What impact, if any, does this decision have on the Comptroller’s discretion to cut employee paychecks in the absence of a budget? ==
Everything is fine untilsomeone sues, citing this decision.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:21 am
So, have the Supremes in essence issued one ruling that appears to make pensions ironclad, then issued ANOTHER ruling that essentially pokes a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through into the first ruling?
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:22 am
Rome has been burning and now is in a full five degree fire.
This time Mrs. Oleary’s Cow can not be blamed.
Comment by South side Irish Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:23 am
@burbanite. Not to be argumentative, but could you be more specific? The “Constitutional” issue re pension is that they are “an enforceable contractual relationship…” It seems to me that the decisions taken together point to a scenario where benefits must not be diminished on paper but don’t actually have to be paid in full. Ex: no money appropriated for COLAs. Hoping to hear from RNUG why I am way off base!
Comment by Expletivedeleted Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:24 am
MAP Students, you are out of luck.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:27 am
“appropriation power of the State, a power which may only be exercised by the General Assembly.”
This is chilling for providers who have signed contracts with the state that also lack appropriations. WOW.
Comment by Pawn Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:31 am
== So, have the Supremes in essence issued one ruling that appears to make pensions ironclad, then issued ANOTHER ruling that essentially pokes a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through into the first ruling? ==
Nope. Two totally different issues, albeit both are contract law related.
In the case of salaries and most state contracts, payment is subject to appropriation. That used to be normal in the state’s standard boilerplate contract language. No approp, no payment. I only saw it invoked once in 30 some years, but it was there. What the court said to AFSCME was no approp, no pay. Actually is consistent with past practice in that the union normally got the GA to pass a supplemental to fund such lapsed / past payments after the fact.
In the case of pensions, the approp is for the money going INTO the funds … and that is an ongoing appropr just like bond payments. Different rules, different kettle of fish.
But as for current employees getting paid … I’m still absorbing and thinking through all of that. Doubt it will affect FY16 since a case would have to be brought and fast tracked to get to the IL SC before July 15th and that is not real likely. Think the impact is more on what happens July 1.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:34 am
The key is the very end after the comma ED
SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the
State, any unit of local government or school district, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:34 am
== no money appropriated for COLAs. ==
Re retirees, it is an AAI, not a COLA … and it is not appropriated.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:35 am
===Retirement benefits can exceed the appropriations because of a contractual relationship but vendor and employee pay cannot. Am I missing something fundamental===
Yep. The Illinois Constitution. C’mon, man. Catch up here.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:36 am
Expletivedeleted @ 11:24 ==Not to be argumentative, but could you be more specific? The “Constitutional” issue re pension is that they are “an enforceable contractual relationship…” It seems to me that the decisions taken together point to a scenario where benefits must not be diminished on paper but don’t actually have to be paid in full. Ex: no money appropriated for COLAs. Hoping to hear from RNUG why I am way off base! ==
Your quote of the constitution leaves out “the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” Makes all the difference. The judicial pay article that says the state can’t “diminish” judicial salaries, which allowed the SC to order COLAs to be paid without appropriations. The prohibition against diminishing pensions would also allow the courts to order payment without appropriations.
Comment by Whatever Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:37 am
The Constitutional protection of pensions is that they are an enforceable contractual relationship. (Enforcement of contracts is done by the courts.) The benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired (It says those benefits go regardless of anything else).
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:38 am
I believe there is an issue with every state contract stating explicitly “subject to appropriation”. You can sue in the Court of Claims to get money you feel is owed, but guess what has to happen for you to get paid that money… An appropriation to pay claims including yours. I don’t think this ruling invalidates contracts. It is just saying that the contract language gives an out, so the State is entitled to take that out. As for employee pay, I don’t understand how the state can just appropriate less money and therefore not owe it. I’d have to read more of this decision. It seems to me that if you sign a contract with the state, and you hold up your end, you should be entitled to have the State hold up its.
I mean, who’s to say the governor can’t just agree to an unbelievably good contract with AFSCME, and then line item out the raises when it is budget time. AFSCME may give some things up in return for raises, but the State is under no obligation to pay them. ???
I think this ruling is the court stepping in to force everyone’s hand. I even think that the ruling will be reversed or clarified by the very same court if another suit arises whereby the State is intentionally welching on a contract. In the meantime, I don’t want to sign a contract with the State.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:46 am
Great excuse for a strike but they won’t do it.
Comment by Liberty Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:49 am
If a court rules that state employees should not have been paid because of a lack of appropriation, can the state then ask employees to return the pay they received?
Comment by Anony Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:51 am
The notion that if things just get bad enough the Il Supreme Court justices will just throw their hands up and invalidate a whole series of pension rulings reminds me of Tom Cruise (Lt. Kaffee) “strenuously” objecting to the judge’s ruling in “A Few Good Men”
Comment by Decaff Coffee Party Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:58 am
I have a baby arriving about July 14 and my health insurance is through state employment — what happens to my health insurance if the state shuts down June 30? I am terrified and my HR person is unresponsive. I’m too visibly pregnant for anyone else to hire me at this point.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:04 pm
“The Governor and Comptroller argued everyone should get paid because they didn’t know who was eligible for federal minimum wage only. Now they’ve had 9 months to figure it out.”
Does anyone know if the eligibility for federal minimum wage employees has been determined?
Comment by Mama Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:04 pm
I hope you’ve bern saving money Anon. This should be no surprise to any state employee.
Comment by State Employee Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:09 pm
==Anon - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:04 pm: I have a baby arriving about July 14 and my health insurance is through state employment — what happens to my health insurance if the state shuts down June 30?==
Talk to your doctor about this situation. I think your doctor will be able to help you.
Comment by Mama Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:26 pm
Would it be better for employees to take a lock out or go on strike?
Comment by Mama Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:30 pm
Anon 12:04, its going to cost some money, but you still would have the right to COBRA.
http://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:33 pm
Knowing how adamant IPI has been about unjustified state spending, I’d fully expect them to file suit to block payment of wages. Unless, maybe their benefactor on the second floor didn’t want them to.
Comment by A worker Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:34 pm
Thanks to those who answered! Makes me wish I was retired.
Comment by Expletivedeleted Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:35 pm
Mama, lockout is always better.
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:37 pm
- Decaff Coffee Party -
That was Lt. Commander Jo Gallaway, not Lt. (jg) Daniel Kaffee
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:42 pm
===take a lock out or go on strike? ===
If an impasse is declared, the governor has the option of submitting his final offer to the union. Union members then vote to either accept the offer or go out on strike.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:44 pm
What happens to the employees who already have their contract settled with the state?
Comment by Foster brooks Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:47 pm
Both cases ruling that state employees were entitled to be paid without an appropriation–AG v Munger (Cook 2015-CH-10243) and AFSCME v Munger (St. Clair 15-CH-0475)–are still pending, therefore the clock has not run out to appeal as Anon (10:47) contends. [The orders authorizing payment were interim orders, not final orders.] Both cases have been continued a bunch of times, presumably to enable the Comptroller to determine FLSA status of the workforce (which was estimated to take 9 months in July 2016).
In view of today’s ruling, both cases will probably start heating up soon, although the earliest status date in either case is an April 21 date in the Cook case.
Comment by Uptown Lawyer Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:53 pm
===If he doesn’t sign it then he owns so hard Willy is going to have a heart attack.===
I hope I don’t.
What, the health of the state will now reflect my health too?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:55 pm
- Foster brooks - Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:47 pm:
What happens to the employees who already have their contract settled with the state?=
Well is their an appropriation for those contracts?
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:57 pm
-OW-
I stand corrected on “A Few Good Men” Guess I don’t remember things quite as well as I thought. Thanks!
Comment by Decaff Coffee Party Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 12:59 pm
I sure hope not Willy. We’d miss you terribly. I apologize for the rhetorical flourish. I didn’t mean to scare you.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 1:03 pm
I have read the ruling & as I have read it it the backpay owed must still be paid, however the legislators must appropriate the money for that to happen.
Comment by justdoingtime Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 1:04 pm
That’s good to hear jdt. It won’t cause calamity then. Heck, with prompt payment interest, I’d like to forgo my pay for a bit. 9% the first year and 12% thereafter. I wish my deferred comp did that well.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 1:09 pm
- Decaff Coffee Party -
It’s all good, and note, the Navy doesn’t use yard arms anymore either.
- Me too -,
I’m relieved that my health doesn’t have the burden to the tied to Illinois’ health. No worries, it’s poetic license.
To the Post,
If/When the AFSCME comes to pass… more will be decided as to how AFSCME handles their strike business than anything else dealing with the public.
Rauner demands a strike, but what kind of strike will he get?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 1:14 pm
Folks I generally am just a reader but I have to ask if anyone has any idea how this would affect retiree health care since it is an appropriated line item ? (Or is it a line item ? Google it and think it is) thanks in advance for any insights.
Comment by the paleghost Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 1:22 pm
Mama, Rich is totally right. Sorry I misunderstood your question. It is better to be locked out but that is not what will happen.
OW- Navy and Coast Guard still utilize yard arms. USS Constitution and USCG Eagle. Sorry I couldn’t help myself. When I was at Chaplain school my shipmates and I had a “Dining Out” in full dress whites in Newport, RI. USCG Eagle had just sailed in. Poor night watch. After dinner and a visit to a local bar (I was with the Catholic chaplains after all and yes we were a bit lit) the 7 Navy officers show up at the gangplank of Eagle and demanded a tour and to be piped aboard. To the Coasties credit he politely declined our request to be piped aboard ( honors rendered only to those of high rank) but a good natured Chief gave the padres a wonderful tour at about 1 in the morning. I’ll never forget it!
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 1:55 pm
== Folks I generally am just a reader but I have to ask if anyone has any idea how this would affect retiree health care since it is an appropriated line item ? (Or is it a line item ? Google it and think it is) thanks in advance for any insights. ==
It’s protected but may have to be another lady suit to get it paid.
Right about now, I’m almost sorry I accurately predicted the amount of law fees this administration would generate.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:18 pm
lady suit, law suit … one of them things. Autocorrect still has a ways to improve with my typing.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:27 pm
“If a court rules that state employees should not have been paid because of a lack of appropriation, can the state then ask employees to return the pay they received?”
And they’ll get it just as soon as I make the corresponding appropriations…
Comment by Cubs in '16 Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:31 pm
How much have they spent RNUG? That’s a number that needs to be publicized and shared with friends and family.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:33 pm
Time for Rauner to hire some real superstars: Eric Madiar, Ralph Martire and the CTBA staff on contract … and then actually LISTEN to them. I’d bet Madigan and Cullerton would even sponsor a special appropriation bill for that!
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:38 pm
== How much have they spent … ==
I haven’t even tried to dug it out. I’d probably be scared of the number. Think at least part of it was pro bono from Rauner friendly law firms.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 2:40 pm
Wow. I just read the majority opinion, and it says the State isn’t responsible for paying that 2% ever. The majority shrugs off Kilbride’s suggestion that the legislature could impair all kinds of contracts subject to appropriation by saying that the Public Labor Relations Act is at the heart of this ruling and it would only have bearing on multiple year collective bargaining contracts. They don’t seem to be bothered by the idea that a contract could be negotiated in which raises were granted in exchange for something. The legislature could welch on the raise, but the union would be without recourse for the give to the State. This ruling also doesn’t limit itself to raises. This is indeed a slippery slope.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:18 pm
Looks like future labor contracts need to be year to year affairs pending funding by the GA. INA has a contract pending approval which may need to be reconsidered.
Comment by Phoenix Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:28 pm
I think I read someplace that the Gov, (budget ?) has no money for TRS health insurance .
Comment by Big Foot Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:29 pm
I guess we should change the law and negotiate our contracts with the legislature and the guv at the same time. I mean how do you come to terms when the lege can just say no years after the fact?
Comment by Me too Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:51 pm
Year to year contracts.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 3:53 pm
So with today’s ruling, will the vendors not receive interest per the Prompt Pay Act due to the “per appropriation” language that is included in all standard contracts?
Comment by Omay Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 4:18 pm
Looks to me Rauner is painted into a corner. Assuming the GA sends him an appropriations bill to pay state employess, and Rauner refuses to sign claiming lack of money, then he in effect has locked them out, ruining his claim of negotiation impasse. He would then take all blame as no one will work without being paid. Hence, lockout.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 4:56 pm
Big Foot - I’ve wondered the same. I’ve heard TRIP premiums were to double. Info anyone?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 5:45 pm
RE TRIPS, going to depend on what happens on the AFSCME contract and the proposed budget line item being zeroed. One of the proposals would clearly double things. Understand CMS is printing 2 sets of Choice booklets because they don’t know either.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 5:58 pm
Anon, if you are married and your insurance ends you are entitled to be added to your spouse’s insurance plan within 30 days of your loss of coverage if their employer offers spousal coverage. If the employer does not offer spousal coverage, your income may qualify you for the Moms and Babies program, and your hospital will help you apply. If your income is over that limit, you could always look at purchasing a Marketplace plan under Obamacare, as you would be eligible for a Special Enrollment Period. You would have to decide on the Marketplace plan in lieu of COBRA. As another person posted you also would have COBRA which could be expensive. Explore your options now just so you know what option you would need to exercise if the need arises. Bottom line don’t stress, you will be covered. Have a healthy baby.
Comment by illlinifan Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 6:22 pm
Will AFSCME sue the the state in order to force a shutdown with this ruling? Scary days ahead for all involved.
Comment by Borat Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:00 pm
== Will AFSCME sue the the state in order to force a shutdown with this ruling? ==
More likely they would go to federal court over the total negation of the debt. It was a valid contract, the services were delivered. The court was right in saying it couldn’t be paid without an approp, but IMO they were wrong to say it didn’t have to eventually be paid.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:20 pm
RNUG, with all due respect. Why wouldn’t AFSCME roll the dice and see what happens in state court? I get the immediate harm of such a maneuver…but what about long-term plan. Roll of the dice.
Comment by Borat Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:51 pm
Apologies. Should have added in state court.
Comment by Borat Thursday, Mar 24, 16 @ 11:59 pm
-Borat-
Right now I think AFSCME best serves their members by keeping them paid and employed. They’ve gone without the back pay this long; just make it another point in the proposed contract. Keep the state courts out of it; that would just make the court the scapegoat for the coming implosion / meltdown.
Better for the union politically that Rauner be seen as the sole cause. Or that the mess caused by Rauner is so bad the Federal Court has to step in.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Mar 25, 16 @ 12:35 am