Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s number: 1 out of 7
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* From AFSCME Council 31’s Facebook page earlier today…
IMPASSE UPDATE: The Illinois Labor Relations Board is holding a special meeting in Chicago TODAY at 1pm. The board is considering Gov. Rauner’s unprecedented request to bypass the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge who heard the case in which Rauner seeks approval for his refusal to negotiate a new contract with the union and a green light to impose his own terms on state employees.
* A text from the union’s spokesman Anders Lindall a few minutes ago…
The board voted unanimously to reject the administration’s request.
Updates are assured.
Also, I’m guessing this means that Rauner doesn’t have an iron grip on the ILRB after all.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From Jason Barclay, General Counsel to Governor Rauner…
“While we are disappointed in the result, we voluntarily agreed to these impasse proceedings with AFSCME and will continue to respect and follow the Labor Board’s decisions throughout. This will hopefully also put an end to the reprehensible attacks that AFSCME has made against the independence and integrity of the administrative law judge and the Board.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** From AFSCME…
The Illinois Labor Relations Board voted unanimously today to deny the Rauner Administration’s motion to bypass a recommended decision from the Administrative Law Judge who presided over hearings into the Unfair Labor Practice charges filed by Rauner and by AFSCME. This means that the board will now follow its established procedures of awaiting a recommended decision from the judge before making its final ruling. The Administration is asking the Board to affirm its refusal to negotiate with the union and to allow it to impose its own terms on state employees, while the union is asking the board to direct the parties to return to bargaining.
In response to the Labor Board decision, AFSCME Executive Director Roberta Lynch issued the following statement:
“We’re very pleased with the Labor Board’ s ruling. It maintains a process designed to allow for full consideration of the complex issues in this case.
“However, if the Rauner Administration is truly concerned about a timely resolution of this dispute, it should not have squandered the past six months by refusing to meet with the union bargaining committee. We have been and remain ready to return to the bargaining table, to do the hard work of compromise, and to reach an agreement that is fair to all.”
…Adding… AFSCME has at least twice claimed that the ILRB was too cozy with Rauner. For instance…
However, on the final day of the hearing, the Rauner Administration moved to bypass the judge entirely and have the case go directly to the Labor Board. As an indication of its excessive deference to the Administration, the board immediately called a Special Meeting for July 7 to consider this motion.
And…
FACT: Rauner appointed a majority of members of the Labor Board. There have been few disputes that have reached the Board since he took office, but in a recent case regarding an issue related to contract negotiations, the Board hastily rushed a decision and completely upheld the Administration’s position. Moreover, while Rauner says he will respect the decision of his Labor Board, he makes no mention of the Appellate Court which has review of any Labor Board decision and which is not appointed by him but elected by the voters.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:23 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s number: 1 out of 7
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
(Fainted)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:25 pm
Never had a doubt… lol, oh yeah I did. Thank goodness they were not swayed by teh guv. I think he thinks he can just buy people. Not so much I guess.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:26 pm
Wow. Totally, totally unexpected.
Comment by Formerly Known as Frenchie M Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:26 pm
Oh, that will leave a mark.
Honeybear - looks like a win for AFSCME.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:28 pm
Interesting. Buys us a couple months. See if this new found independence of the ILRB is fleeting or more permanent.
Comment by steward Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:29 pm
OW - hysterical!
Another win for us poor, lonely working folks!
Comment by BBG Watch Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:30 pm
So, what are the next steps?
Comment by Thoughts Matter Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:31 pm
I hope you didn’t hit your head Willy, we need you here.
Comment by kimocat Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:31 pm
Pleasantly surprised, but this is a procedural issue. Bypassing the hearing officer would have looked bad. Might have led to court issues.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:33 pm
Madigan and the collectivist Boards he controls.
Comment by Johnnie F. Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:33 pm
funning thing is, If I remember correctly, the administration was only using AFSCME written rules that state the Judge can be bypassed directly to the board… but I guess that only works if AFSCME is doing it…. not anyone else…. Hrmmmm….
Comment by Allen D Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:34 pm
If I was a Rauner-appointed board member, I think I would opt to not answer my phone tonight.
Comment by Ole' Nelson Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:34 pm
(Recovers, rubs eyes… )
To the Post,
The governing and functions of that governing and the law, and follow in the law and rules… that’s what Rauner many times sees as the problem.
Think on that…
Following the rules, the law, the realities, and understanding procedure IS governing too.
This isn’t a jab, honest. Seriously.
CEOs do not understand the functions and functioning of government(?)
That’s been an Achilles’ Heel.
Dear AFSCME,
Get your best deal, sign it, move on and learn this…
Elections have consequences.
Rauner was always going to be your problem as you walked away from Quinn.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:35 pm
My faith in humanity is now (at least partially) restored. I was sure that the “fix was in”.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:35 pm
AFSCME is no where near out of the woods yet but at least this buys a little more time.
Comment by Small Town Girl Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:38 pm
Woah. Did not expect that. I was getting my strike pants ready. Welcome news. The fix is NOT in. Heh-heh.
Comment by State Worker THX 1138 Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:38 pm
Why is the ALJ piece part of the process if it’s non-binding?
Comment by Anon Seven Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:39 pm
- kimokat -
Thanks, you’re very kind, I think I’m fine… I think I’m Everett Dirksen now, but no other damage to report.
(Tips cap to - BBG Watch - )
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:39 pm
I am stunned.
(In a good way.)
Comment by thunderspirit Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:43 pm
The Administative Law Judge’s ruling could be appealed to the whole labor board. I think Rauner wanted to skip hearing the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling all together and proceed to the whole Board for their decision??
Comment by Johnnie F. Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:47 pm
I am stunned like many others. The decision delivered by the administrative law judge should be very telling. I hope that decision is released very soon now that this nonsense is over. Also, as several others have said, this is but a delay before the case goes to the board for a final decision. I understand being happy and celebrating, but don’t view this as the board ruling there is no impasse.
Comment by anon Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:49 pm
*THUD*
Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:49 pm
Allen D, pretty much every Board has rules allowing them to hear cases directly. ALJs are used due to volume of cases and convenience to the board. No AFSCME rule involved as far as I know. Nothing out of the ordinary here. As others noted, this is just a temporary victory for AFSCME.
Comment by Original Rambler Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:51 pm
Sales of smoke and mirrors continue to go up in Illinois.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:52 pm
Madigan and the Rauner hand picked ILRB he controls…
Comment by Daniel Plainview Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:54 pm
FYI–
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/7/labor-board-denies-rauner-request-to-expedite-unio/
Comment by Nearly Normal Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 2:59 pm
Response from Jason Barclay: “We respectfully disagree with the decision of the Madigan-controlled Illinois Labor Relations Board. We look forward to a favorable decision from the ALJ on the merits. It’s unfortunate that AFSCME wasted everyone’s time with this needless delay.”
This stuff practically writes itself.
Comment by Otis P. Driftwood Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:00 pm
Well, happy to admit I was wrong about the board, at least so far. I’m sure rationalizations can be cooked up (and will be if they ultimately side with Rauner), but I think it’s clear Rauner wanted the ALJ to be skipped. Kudos for independence.
Comment by Threepwood Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:05 pm
“Owned”, huh?
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:07 pm
or he has an iron grip, and the ruling was done on this matter to shed the appearance of impropriety before the final decision. this is ultimately not very substantive so why not throw afscme an appearsnce of fairness bone.
/grabs tin foil hat and storms offf
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:07 pm
And, there you have it: the request to bypass the ALJ was a ploy to make the ILRB look independent.
Comment by Neveranonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:09 pm
“This will hopefully also put an end to the reprehensible attacks that AFSCME has made against the independence and integrity of the administrative law judge and the Board.”
Barclay, this is on a par with yesterday’s horse hockey from you: “And we have also heard that they have already selected a strike date of September 1.”
Comment by Nick Name Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:12 pm
Rented? Steve.
I’ll hold my crow eating for a little bit longer. If AFSCME gets a favorable ALJ ruling then the board reveres, then will be back to the own theory.
Yes, I really, really want to eat crow for you Steve.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:19 pm
To Barclay, when did AFSCME volunteer to go to impasse proceedings? Seems they were forced to go to me. Do you ever tell the truth?
Comment by Ihatepolitics Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:22 pm
Maybe the bit of sunshine and heat cast in yesterday’s discussion about Board fealty helped.
Certainly the admin. didn’t NEED to win this one, and the appearance of independence might be more helpful than a procedurally questionable shortcut.
Comment by northsider (the original) Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:23 pm
Kudo’s to Steve Schnorf whom tried the other day to remind all here that in his extensive experience appointed boards do work regardless of their appointer…Steve, you should crow a little more.
Hopefully, the remaining process - to simply answer the question “are the two parties at an impasse?” can be answered in a single word…No.
Comment by Captain Illini Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:25 pm
Good. Rauner was in no hurry to pass a budget by holding onto unrealistic proposals, which caused massive harm, but he wanted to quickly jam state workers with his harsh terms.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:26 pm
At least the ILB is showing some leadership and good judgement today.
Comment by Crispy Critter Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:27 pm
Here’s what I don’t get, if big brain is truly trying to save “tax payers” money, why not just meet in the middle and save what he can? A small win is still a win for the “tax payers”.
Comment by Trolling Troll Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:35 pm
How likely would it be that Rauner’s negotiating team violated Administrative procedure in negotiations with AFSCME? Well…if they are anything like Rauner…
Comment by Jimmy H Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:46 pm
===why not just meet in the middle and save what he can?===
Because it was never about saving money. It’s about busting unions.
Comment by Random Landing Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:48 pm
The Washington Post article above says the ALJ may rule in November. If the Dems pick up enough seats in the election and AFSCME can hold on until January an arbitration bill could get passed.
Comment by Otis Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:49 pm
Following up on Trolling: how much time and money has the administration wasted fighting for unrealistic goals? All for that 1.6%
(slow clap) well done…truly heroic stuff /s
Comment by WhatTheWhat Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:51 pm
I might be cynical but I don’t think that a unanimous decision is a positive. I believe that this is a false pretense leading to another unanimous decision against AFSCME on the next vote. It would have been more believable if there had been a split decision. It is my firm belief that this is an attempt to look fair as a facade with the real intent to declare an impasse and then force the last contract on the Union.
Remember that sometimes when someone pats you on the back they are looking for a place to put the knife.
Comment by Pale Rider Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 3:54 pm
opposite decision would just have meant more court proceedings. This will be in the courts for many months.
Comment by monkey47 Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 4:11 pm
“”makes no mention of the Appellate Court which has review of any Labor Board decision and which is not appointed by him but elected by the voters.”"
The courts do have this power, but they don’t normally intervene.
Comment by A Modest Proposal Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 4:16 pm
The delay until after the election may be part of a deliberate plan. State workers on strike before the election would have had lots of free time to walk precincts campaigning against Rauner.
Plus the longer the contract is in dispute, the longer you can claim $170m savings in questionable state employee health care.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 4:17 pm
Plus the “savings” gained in wage stagnation as long as the tolling agreement remains in effect.
Comment by Otis Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 4:26 pm
=== The ruling came after the judge, Sarah Kerley explained how long it would take board members to get up to speed on the complex case involving the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31. The labor board members decided that could actually take longer than waiting for Kerley to put together her recommendation to present to them. ===
From the Trib story.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 4:28 pm
Any win, even a small one like this, is good for morale. Also, Norseman, thanks for the heads up on the Trib story. Good info.
Comment by Fixer Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 4:41 pm
“The courts do have this power, but they don’t normally intervene.”
The appellate courts review ILRB decisions all the time. It just takes one of the parties to file a petition for review.
Comment by Pelonski Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 5:03 pm
The Appellate Court will only overrule the Laboor Board for an abuse of discretion.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 5:33 pm
Not surprised. When you cut through the legalese, what the ALJ produces is really the first draft of the board’s decision. The board reviews it, and then makes the true decision. If they bypassed the ALJ, the board would have to do all the work of digging the facts out of the exhibits and testimony, writing them down in a coherent manner, and then drafting an “opinion” applying the law to those facts. I suspect that, if they had decided to bypass the ALJ, they would have had to ask the ALJ to do the drafting for them, anyway. The only effect of bypassing the ALJ if the board is going to hold for the govenro is avoiding having an ALJ’s recommended decision holding against the Governor in the record. Legally, the ALJ’s recommended decision has no weight, but it looks bad if it is contrary to what the board decides unless the board can point to something in the ALJ’s decision that is obviously wrong.
Comment by Whatever Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 5:34 pm
Steve - I’ll say it… So far the evidence leads me to believe that you are right about the ILLRB. So far…
Comment by Triple fat Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 5:53 pm
“From Jason Barclay, General Counsel to Governor Rauner…”
What happened there CK?
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 5:58 pm
S/B What happened to CK?
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 5:59 pm
Oswego Willy-I’m curious to your thoughts….do think this is a prelude to the ILRB ruling that there is no “impasse” and sending both parties back to the bargaining table?
Comment by Cardsfan Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 6:52 pm
I guess they didn’t turn it around for him, eh?
Comment by retired guy Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 6:55 pm
- Cardsfan -
Thank you for your question, appreciate your inquiry.
Your very technical question, I have this respectful response.
The only thing I know about “Labor Law” is literally how to spell “Labor Law”. Any speculation on my part would be based on nothing that could be construed as “working knowledge” on the technicalities of process.
Your question really goes to the heart of the process and the procedures that I can only speak to by referring you to those here that really are knee deep in the weeds.
I hope you take my response in the humble, respectful way I truly mean it.
I was just “shocked” by the decision today on a purely political and orchestrated manner of process.
Thanks, and sorry. Like you, I’ll be keeping up here with Rich and those who do understand far more, and then I may have a better grasp to speculate.
With respect,
OW
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 7:04 pm
>Tips cap to OW
Comment by Cardsfan Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 7:18 pm
Somehow the rest of my message didn’t make it.
>Tips hat to OW
Comment by Cardsfan Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 7:20 pm
I fear there will be no strike or new contract during the Rauner administration. That’s great for some but I’ll be frozen at Step 2 the whole time. Ugh.
Comment by Don Verdean Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 7:31 pm
- cardsfan -
You’re welcome, and to be clear, my “note” to AFSCME was broad in nature, making a point that if/when they can get the “best” deal they can get, take it and move on. Elections ha info consequences directly relate to this entire episode, nothing specific in process.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 7:31 pm
—
That’s great for some but I’ll be frozen at Step 2 the whole time. Ugh.
—
Well, if the worst thing that happens during the Rauner administration is being frozen at step 2 — I’d take that any day.
What, you want a strike? Or, worse, you expect a raise?
Come on.
Comment by Macbeth Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 7:40 pm
If you are unhappy at Step 2 you are free to seek other employment.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 7:59 pm
don’t worry the nitwits rauner put in at IDOT personnel are still there
Comment by foster brooks Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 8:20 pm
Macbeth - your response to Don Verdean is quite odd. Surely one as knowledgable as you realIzes that Don is probably new to State employment. Possibly hired right out of college. Don is not overpaid. Mr. Verdean is contributing four percent of his salary to the States retirement system as a Tier 2 member. Rather than draining the system - Tier 2 members participation makes the pension fund financially stronger. They are sacrificing enough. To deny the lower wage workers step increases is nothing short of mean spirited and cruel. Your comment also smacks of envy. Envy is such an ugly thing.
Comment by Triple fat Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 8:24 pm
Thank you, Triple fat. I don’t want a strike but I’ve lived paycheck to paycheck at steps 1 and 2. I should be at 3 now. I knew the first few years would be rough but figured I could tough them out. Another 2.5 years of this, or 6.5 if Rauner gets reelected is really pushing it. And yes, I’m Tier 2. I believe the tolling agreement was a trick played by Team Rauner and AFSCME fell for it. Now Rauner will get the four year wage freeze he wants, just not by contracting for it.
Comment by Don Verdean Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 8:41 pm
You’re welcome Don. Please don’t let yourself become discouraged. I’d tell you to hang in there but that phrase has lost its meaning.
Comment by Triple fat Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 9:01 pm
Thanks, again.
Comment by Don Verdean Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 9:10 pm
I believe the bypass request was a planned manipulation, orchestrated simply to provide an example of the labor board not favoring rauner. It’s all moot, as the process has not been altered, but now folks can say “I guess this means rauner doesn’t have an iron grip on the labor board after all…” It was all a hoax.
Comment by Property of IDOC Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 9:27 pm
RNUG. Yes this is a political calculation.
Comment by blue dog dem Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 10:15 pm
Hoax or not, this is now an election issue since the ALJ decision doesn’t come until November.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 10:50 pm
At the very least, now AFSCME has more time to prepare for the inevitable final battle with Rauner.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 16 @ 11:54 pm
Macbeth is merely expressing his own economic oppression in an inappropriate way. Only the oppressed or oddly enough the oppressors lash out like that against someone elses wages and benefits. That’s on him. It shows his immaturity and callousness. People like him are easy to manipulate. Great line from LOTR Two Towers “The horse riders drove you your people into the hills to scratch a living off rocks!” Think of this part in the movie when these people post.
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Jul 8, 16 @ 7:08 am
I wish that Rauner and AFSCME would resume negotiations, but as we can see with the budget situation, Rauner has inflexibility on certain terms. That inflexibility is also demanded by his wealthy anti-union supporters.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jul 8, 16 @ 8:20 am
For anyone who thinks the labor board is suddenly our friend I would ask that they read their recent decisions on our step pay and us paying the full cost of health insurance while on strike.
This was to soften the coming blow so as to blunt a lawsuit. Use these extra few months to get yourself and your members ready.
Comment by steward Friday, Jul 8, 16 @ 8:53 am
Thanks, Honeybear.
Comment by Don Verdean Friday, Jul 8, 16 @ 1:14 pm
Honeybear, I’m worried Rauner will be ordered back to the table and then just get up and walk away again and go back to ILRB for another impasse ruling. Then he’ll keep doing that dance until he leaves office. What do you think?
Comment by Don Verdean Friday, Jul 8, 16 @ 1:17 pm