Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives

Previous Post: Is your checking account free?
Next Post: Environmentalists Urge Illinois to Pass Comprehensive Energy Legislation

Another union agrees to contract with state

Posted in:

* This local is only about 50 members, but a four-year wage freeze and other stuff in this deal is on the table in the AFSCME negotiations. It’s also notable because today is the big labor rally…

Governor Bruce Rauner issued a statement [yesterday] following the Illinois Federation of Teachers ratification of four-year collective bargaining agreement:

“We are proud to announce that the Illinois Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Local #919, representing educators at the Illinois School for the Deaf, ratified a four-year collective bargaining agreement with our Administration. This group of educators is dedicated to the School and the Administration’s shared mission “to educate students who are deaf or hard of hearing to be responsible, self-supporting citizens.”

“Through negotiations, our Administration created a lasting partnership with the Illinois Federation of Teachers that will benefit the parents and students we serve. The end result is a labor contract that is consistent with the contracts previously ratified by 17 other bargaining units representing over 5,000 state employees and is a testament to what can be accomplished when both sides are willing to compromise and negotiate in good faith.

“We are excited about the new day in our relationship with the Illinois Federation of Teachers.“

BACKGROUND
The agreement includes the following terms:

The Rauner Administration has reached collective bargaining agreements with the following unions:

Discuss.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:05 am

Comments

  1. As context, it would help to know how large those unions are.

    Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:08 am

  2. but do they get steps? teachers call strps something else. If Rauner proposed a freeze on salary caps but allowed steps, which is what he gave teamsters etc, we might have a different scenerio. Same for his health insurance proposal, thisnis not what Rauner offered AFSCME.

    Comment by Ghost Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:10 am

  3. 50 people. Wow add it to the 4500 others and you almost are at 1/20th of the total people being bargained over… /s

    Comment by steward Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:10 am

  4. I was wrong. Teamsters are 4700. Trades are 600.

    He is up to a whopping 5350 now…

    Comment by steward Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:15 am

  5. Ghost, just checked contract, the only way I get anymore money in my paycheck is to get a promotion and/or take the union health insurance. My salary is frozen for 4 years. There is no guarantee of a bonus.

    Comment by 916UG Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:16 am

  6. Sellouts.

    Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:16 am

  7. The difference between the unions which have reached agreements with the state and those which have not is that the ones which have are non-essential workers, who have other means at their disposal to coerce the state to bargain, i.e., THEY CAN STRIKE.

    As for those that remain? The are, as essential personnel (such as prison workers) forbidden - BY LAW - from striking.

    That is why arbitration is necessary.

    They are civil servants, NOT civil slaves.

    Comment by Del Wasso Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:22 am

  8. Yeah…Does their contract have the “we get what AFSCME gets” clause? If so they just opted to have AFSCME be their new bargainning team.

    Comment by Johnnie F. Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:23 am

  9. It’s all about the insurance and notice how slippery the wording is. It doesn’t exactly say they agreed to the Governor’s plan. I suspect the reason for the tricky wording is they agreed to take whatever AFSCME ends up with? And I am noticing the absence of a 40 hour work week that the administration acts so proud of.

    Comment by Bibe Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:24 am

  10. Is it subject to appropriation?

    Comment by Tch02 Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:25 am

  11. 18 unions are wrong. 18 unions were decimated. 18 unions were destroyed. 18 unions were sellouts. 18 unions are . . .

    This is starting to sound like a drinking contest.

    Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:27 am

  12. Oh - Louis G Atsaves -

    How do explain the ending of collective bargaining and prevail wage poison pills Rauner REQUIRES.

    “Who” are you trying to fool? Remember Decatur?

    Are these contracts the exact same parameters that AFSCME is being offered.

    Pathetic.

    Ignore reality - Louis G Atsaves -, union members know better… Including Local 150, a trade union that would support Republicans, but know full well Raunerites want Unions destroyed.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:31 am

  13. Always cut the weakest ones from the herd first.

    Comment by Rollo Tomasi Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:35 am

  14. About 5000 TOTAL state workers are represented by those now 18 unions.

    AFSCME and SEIU Healthcare represent somewhere between 80-100k state workers.

    Just saying…

    Comment by AlabamaShake Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:36 am

  15. Wonder when members of the 18 unions will file lawsuits challenging the agreements.

    Comment by GA Watcher Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:37 am

  16. Is there some more information on this? I really can’t understand how a union and its members would allow this.

    Comment by Niblets Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:39 am

  17. Everyone should realize that each of the smaller the unions that have agreed to contracts with Rauner to this point were threatened with “extinction through privatization” if they did not sign.

    In addition, while their contracts were not good, none of them had to agree to the total package of garbage that AFSCME is being asked to agree to.

    Come to the Rally! Let the legislature know that IT IS TIME TO PICK A SIDE IN THIS BATTLE!

    Comment by Omega Man Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:45 am

  18. AFSCME is a state union none of the rest of them are is that correct or am I wrong?

    Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:45 am

  19. So because these unions are few in numbers, that somehow makes them less of a union than the big unions?

    Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:46 am

  20. To those who are labeling these folks as “sellouts”, the reality is that they likely struck the best deal that they could with the bargaining power that they had.  If AFSCME can’t do more with 40,000 members than a unit of 50 can, that’s on them. 

    AFSCME leadership has painted themselves in a corner from the beginning and now can’t go backwards without losing face with their members.  If they had the support that they claim to have from their rank and file, they wouldn’t keep pushing a failed arbitration bill and  wouldn’t be fighting a declaration of impasse.  They’d put their members on the street and get it done.

    AFSCME needs to stop worrying about other unions whose members have chosen a different path and bargain their contract at the table instead of in the legislature and in the courts.

    Comment by Realist Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:46 am

  21. Louis G. Atsaves– +1

    18 unions signed new contracts with the Administration versus one holding out. Yeah, Rauner’s unreasonable.

    Comment by Georg Sande Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:47 am

  22. Not the same contract offers… Can’t compare contracts that aren’t comparable

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:48 am

  23. -AFSCME needs to stop worrying about other unions whose members have chosen a different path and bargain their contract at the table instead of in the legislature and in the courts.-

    Realist, AFSCME didn’t walk away from the negotiating table, the Governor did. AFSCME has no choice about this. How can they bargain at the table as you suggest?

    Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:54 am

  24. Sellouts? I get wage increases thru the term of the contract, Possibility of a merit bonus, and the opportunity to opt out of the states insurance and go with the unions which will save me thousands a year. I’m more than happy.

    Comment by seenthebigpicture Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:58 am

  25. How many of you would be surprised if Afscme ultimately accepts a wage freeze as part of a 4-year deal?

    Comment by Molly Maguire Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:06 am

  26. ===…the opportunity to opt out of the states insurance and go with the unions which will save me thousands a year.===

    Does AFSCME have that option in any form you may want to discuss?

    Put a think on that those “who” wonder why all these “same” contracts aren’t agreed to with AFSCME…

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:06 am

  27. I know zero about AFSCME and there ability to provide health insurance to their members. Surely someone does.

    Comment by seen the big picture Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:10 am

  28. ===How many of you would be surprised if Afscme ultimately accepts a wage freeze as part of a 4-year deal?===

    Wages versus Health insurance… That’s part of the problem

    ===I know zero about AFSCME and there ability to provide health insurance to their members. Surely someone does.===

    I bet - Louis G Atsaves - can speak to that… lol

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:14 am

  29. And lets not forget that whatever health insurance AFSCME negotiates for state employees is also the health ins plan that all state university employees get. That adds quite a few people to the AFSCME negotiations.

    Comment by Joe M Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:22 am

  30. ===Not the same contract offers… Can’t compare contracts that aren’t comparable===

    Under hobbies OW has listed, “Voice of reason against the howling mob.”

    Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:29 am

  31. @Oswego Willy, not the same contract offers? So every single state union contract has to be identical? Because the workers who are members of the various state unions are all identical?

    Who are YOU fooling?

    Let’s insert a little reality here. 18 unions have agreed to terms with Governor Rauner. It doesn’t matter how big or small they are. It doesn’t matter if the terms of each agreement are identical or not.

    Agreements were reached by the 18 with Governor “Decimator” or Governor “I hate Unions” or Governor “Destroyer of the Middle Class” or Governor call him whatever you want.

    And that number keeps on growing. Those are facts. Deal with them.

    Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:30 am

  32. ==
    And lets not forget that whatever health insurance AFSCME negotiates for state employees is also the health ins plan that all state university employees get. That adds quite a few people to the AFSCME negotiations. ==
    Plus non Medicare retirees…even though the union doesn’t have standing, everyone continues to pretend they do until a lawsuit settles otherwise.

    Comment by Anotheretiree Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:34 am

  33. Rauner should give in to all of AFSCME’s demands. And, then layoff a sufficient number to make up the difference in cost.

    Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:38 am

  34. Oh - Louis G Atsaves -… LOL

    What about those poison pills to decimate collective bargaining and prevailing wage you ignore time after time…

    We’ll get back to that…

    ===Let’s insert a little reality here. 18 unions have agreed to terms with Governor Rauner. It doesn’t matter how big or small they are. It doesn’t matter if the terms of each agreement are identical or not.===

    You can’t compare agreements with 17-18(?) Unions and then say to compare the reasons they are agreed to or not don’t matter…

    That’s pathetic. That gymnastics doesn’t work, Counselor.

    “If you gave an order that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why would Santiago be in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?”

    Either it matters that the contracts ARE the same, or it doesn’t matter… and if it doesn’t matter, why “ask” why won’t AFSCME just take a contract like “everyone” else?

    “Counselor?”

    Please, - Louis G Atsaves -, explain how the poison pills decimating Collective Bargaining and Prevailing Wage makes Rauner “Labor’s Champion” too…

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:42 am

  35. Louis G. Atsaves– +2

    And Mr. Atsaves, you know that adage about arguing with a fool, yes? So don’t do it. ;)

    Comment by Georg Sande Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:49 am

  36. “What about those poison pills to decimate collective bargaining and prevailing wage you ignore time after time…”

    Why are you now changing the subject? 18 agreements. 18 different unions. 18 different agreements. 18 unions that were not “decimated” or “destroyed.” 18 unions that came to agreements with the State.

    Reality bites sometimes . . .

    Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:50 am

  37. Louis:

    You can argue until you are blue in the face that the Governor is not anti-union. You are absolutely, positively wrong in that assumption. You can buy into the kool aid Rauner is giving you with the “look at everyone who’s agreed to a contract” but the fact is that none of these contracts are comparable to what has been offered to AFSCME. They aren’t. And you can continue to spout off nonsense about how contracts don’t have to be the same. Well, duh. That’s the whole point of the argument. What is being offered to AFSCME isn’t the same. Those are the FACTS.

    Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:51 am

  38. A little bit of unpublished FYI: the Illinois State Police Master Sergeants, while working get Teamster Health Insurance, BUT when they retire they go back onto the state group health plans. How is that fair? Once you leave, you should leave for good.

    Comment by Yukon Gold Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:55 am

  39. ===Why are you now changing the subject? 18 agreements. 18 different unions. 18 different agreements. 18 unions that were not “decimated” or “destroyed.” 18 unions that came to agreements with the State.===

    Um, - Louis G Atsaves -…

    You wrote…

    ===Agreements were reached by the 18 with Governor “Decimator” or Governor “I hate Unions” or Governor “Destroyer of the Middle Class” or Governor call him whatever you want.===

    I’m pointing out your purposeful ignorance that the poison pills prove, without a shadow of a doubt, Rauner wants to decimate unions.

    Without those poison pills, Rauner requires “Red” of Raunerites. “Why?”

    Gotta destroy unions.

    You know it - Louis G Atsaves - You won’t say it aloud, or admit it. That’s why pointing it out is comical.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:57 am

  40. AFSCME represents tens of thousands of workers, so the impact of Rauner’s cuts would be that much more hard. The number of those who ratified is very small, and what Rauner agreed to is not the same.

    Rauner has animus against AFSCME and thus thousands of workers who voluntarily joined the union. That’s very wrong–coming from someone who made so much money from unionized public workers, through pension investment.

    Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:58 am

  41. 18 unions were offered job security and a health insurance deal as good or better than what most State employees / retirees currently have.

    AFSCME was offered neither of those. That is the big difference. If the Governor was to put that on the table with a wage freeze, he could get a deal tomorrow.

    Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:59 am

  42. Seems plausible that the better deal offered these unions will disappear next time after AFSCME is decimated. Kind of like a lost leader in retailing,

    Comment by Anotheretiree Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:12 pm

  43. @Demoralized: I am not arguing the Governor is pro-union. I don’t think anyone is arguing that. It is just his actions in reaching agreements with 18 other unions belie the “decimation” of unions arguments.

    Once way back in my legal career, I helped negotiate labor contracts with employers, the overwhelming number were strongly anti-union. The pattern was always it was in the best interests of all concerned to reach an agreement. Not blow up the union. Not blow up the company. Often reality kicked in when the company was struggling. Negotiations were easier when the company was making good money. It takes two sides to agree.

    And we now have 18 examples of agreement.

    Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:25 pm

  44. “I’m pointing out your purposeful ignorance that the poison pills prove, without a shadow of a doubt, Rauner wants to decimate unions.”

    Those poison pills appear in the contractual agreements reached with the 18 unions? Where?

    Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:28 pm

  45. ===Those poison pills appear in the contractual agreements reached with the 18 unions? Where?===

    Two different thibgs that aren’t mutually exclusive…

    … but you already know that.

    Wanna try again?

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:31 pm

  46. Louis, Gov. Rauner currently is required by law to negotiate contracts with unions bargaining collectively.

    He is also pursuing legislation that would greatly reduce or end that requirement on both the state and local levels.

    Is that really such a brain-teaser for you?

    Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:39 pm

  47. =18 unions are wrong. 18 unions were decimated. 18 unions were destroyed. 18 unions were sellouts. 18 unions are . . .

    This is starting to sound like a drinking contest.=

    Oh a drinking contest, that’s fun. How about this, 60 reps don’t agree with the narrow view of 1 ideologue. 60 reps are….

    Comment by pundent Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:42 pm

  48. Rauner’s people sure have been vague about the details when they “offer” this to people who have no choice except to sue (retirees)

    “Joining the health insurance program agreed to by other unions and offered to the state’s nonunion employees that will offer employees a variety of new options, allowing them to either maintain their current premiums, maintain their current coverage, or mix and match in the way that is most beneficial to them;”

    Comment by Liberty Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:44 pm

  49. According to Louis’ logic, yesterday’s rally (compared to todays’) demonstrates that people support Rauner and he isn’t unpopular.

    Comment by What the What Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:54 pm

  50. ===”Louis, Gov. Rauner currently is required by law to negotiate contracts with unions bargaining collectively.”====

    So you are saying the Governor is following the law and uh, governing? What kind of horrifying behavior is that? :-)

    ====”He is also pursuing legislation that would greatly reduce or end that requirement on both the state and local levels.”===

    All of which is illegal in the eyes of the federal government and the NLRB? Especially the NLRB during the Obama administration? Hardly.

    ===”Is that really such a brain-teaser for you?”===

    Ask me that question when the 19th, 20th, 21st unions reach an agreement with the so-called evil “decimator.”

    Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 1:10 pm

  51. - Louis G Atsaves -

    You seem to be a smart guy, is two non mutually exclusive things too difficult for you to grasp?

    You’d mak a great Col. Jessup. You can’t even see your logic is completely flawed. At least Jessup didn’t double-down on the complete ignorance when questioned about it.

    I am really, honestly, embarrassed for you.

    You’re better than this, bud.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 1:16 pm

  52. Louis:

    The Governor doesn’t particularly care about the other unions. He always had his sights set on AFSCME, which is why that contract offer was so much different than what has been agreed to by other unions. He is indeed trying to decimate that union. He’s even admitted to it.

    Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 1:26 pm

  53. ===”Louis, Gov. Rauner currently is required by law to negotiate contracts with unions bargaining collectively.”====

    So you are saying the Governor is following the law and uh, governing? What kind of horrifying behavior is that? :-) –

    I’m saying he currently has to, but he is trying to change that. I thought simple English was the proper language here for clarity. Should I try Esperanto or Urdu, for your sake?

    ====”He is also pursuing legislation that would greatly reduce or end that requirement on both the state and local levels.”===

    All of which is illegal in the eyes of the federal government and the NLRB? Especially the NLRB during the Obama administration? Hardly.–

    Louis, I think you need a nap.

    The governor has been quite open and public about his desire to pursue policies to limit or eliminate collective bargaining at the state and local levels.

    Those policies certainly are in place in other states, despite your left-field Obama Derangement Syndrome play.

    Keep pounding the table, legal-eagle.

    Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 1:34 pm

  54. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:31 pm:

    ===Those poison pills appear in the contractual agreements reached with the 18 unions? Where?===

    Two different thibgs that aren’t mutually exclusive…

    … but you already know that.

    Wanna try again?

    - wordslinger - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 12:39 pm:

    Louis, Gov. Rauner currently is required by law to negotiate contracts with unions bargaining collectively.

    He is also pursuing legislation that would greatly reduce or end that requirement on both the state and local levels.

    Is that really such a brain-teaser for you?

    ——————————————————

    Are you two arguing that AFSCME should refuse to deal with the Governor on this contract, all because they don’t like various proposed reform ideas? Is there some sort of time limit to when those can be discussed again, or is this a lifetime ban in order to move the process along?

    Side-note: seems somewhat similar to the Governor demanding that budget-affecting reforms affect the budget process, no? Wasn’t there was wild opposition to such relationships?

    Comment by Liandro Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 1:53 pm

  55. –Are you two arguing that AFSCME should refuse to deal with the Governor on this contract, all because they don’t like various proposed reform ideas? –

    Do you see anything remotely like that in anything I wrote? I’m not even sure what that means. Where does that even come from?

    Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 2:01 pm

  56. Mayor, Your Honor…

    ===Are you two arguing that AFSCME should refuse to deal with the Governor on this contract, all because they don’t like various proposed reform ideas?===

    No. The point is… selling me that “18″(17) unions accepting a deal, not similar to the AFSCME deal isn’t a compelling argument on its face.

    Further, the dual tracks of decimating unions and Union agreements are not mutually exclusive, but does show Rauner in one instance doing what is required, and doing what he wants… with unions.

    Hope that clears that up.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 2:02 pm

  57. Fair enough, that is simply the impression I got from both of your responses. The implication seemed to be that the reform proposals were related, not just to the governor’s general inclinations, but to the AFSME negotiations specifically. I wanted to parse that out a bit.

    I certainly agree that union contracts can be vary different, but I don’t think Louis is so very wrong. The Governor is obviously able to come to agreement with unions in general. I note that some here are arguing that he has a special antagonism for AFSCME, and I certainly can’t speak to that.

    Comment by Liandro Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 2:13 pm

  58. ===The Governor is obviously able to come to agreement with unions in general.===

    You just made the point of each contract can very different. Realizing that, Rauner can also disagree with EVERY Union but one and make the same, “he can cone to an agreement” statement, but that is irrelevant to all the others, but one, in that argument too.

    It’s specific to isolating AFSCME, while not bargaining within the same contract, while seeking a similar result.

    Also..

    The Governor obviously wants to destroy Collective Bargaining and Prevailing Wage… too. The poison pills tell me it’s so.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 2:18 pm

  59. - seenthebigpicture - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 10:58 am:

    “Sellouts? I get wage increases thru the term of the contract, Possibility of a merit bonus, and the opportunity to opt out of the states insurance and go with the unions which will save me thousands a year. I’m more than happy.”

    Haven’t heard about any wage increases for the various unions that have “settled”. So, this is a first. 916 didn’t get raises only performance bonuses that require appropriations (which will never happen) and the whole state paying for our healthcare thingy.

    RNUG & DEMORIALIZED have hit the nail on the head; Rauner doesn’t care about the unions that have “settled”…small potatoes….he wants the big fish!

    Comment by BumblesBounce Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 2:25 pm

  60. ===”I’m saying he currently has to, but he is trying to change that. I thought simple English was the proper language here for clarity. Should I try Esperanto or Urdu, for your sake?”===

    Try Greek. Nice to see you admit the Governor is governing! :-)

    Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 4:37 pm

  61. I find the fact that the contract says they will agree to the same insurance that the Gov offers the non-union state employees interesting… since, as far as I know, they get the same insurance that the unions get. If you go to the Benefits Choice Website right now to look at the insurance choices for July 1st, there is one booklet for all employees. So, exactly when is he going to force the non-union employees onto his great new insurance plan?

    Comment by thoughts matter Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 5:33 pm

  62. Louis @4:37

    here ya go.
    είστε μια ανεξέλεγκτη ηθικός αυτουργός

    Comment by anonlurker Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 5:50 pm

  63. It’s not about insurance. The unions that have agreed are not SERS members.

    Comment by PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:04 pm

  64. Oswego, I like what you’re saying, but insurance has nothing to do with it. Employees WILL pick up the added insurance costs, but this is all about the wage freeze. No increase in wages = Stable unfunded liability. (On paper). This guy is the last thing we need right now.

    Comment by PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 11:10 pm

  65. == It’s not about insurance. ==

    Everyone I’ve talked to, insurance is one of their big issues …

    Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 6:50 am

  66. With respect.

    I’m with - RNUG -… while there are many issues still to be determined, health insurance is a big one where both sides are having a difficult time.

    Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, May 19, 16 @ 7:10 am

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Is your checking account free?
Next Post: Environmentalists Urge Illinois to Pass Comprehensive Energy Legislation

Last 10 posts:

more Posts (Archives)

WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.

powered by WordPress.