Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Audio, notes from labor press conference re pensions (use all caps in password)
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Labor unions representing state government workers and teachers are obviously not happy. Yesterday’s announcement by the IFT that it would withhold endorsements from anyone voting for the “pension cuts” was a hugely controversial post here. We have more today…
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said Quinn is trying to balance the state’s budget problems on the backs of rank-and-file workers. The combination of Quinn initiatives would cost an employee earning $35,000 a year more than $2,500, AFSCME said.
* AFSCME says the pension changes are subject to negotiations…
Quinn chief of staff Jerry Stermer indicated some of the changes could go through even despite union opposition. […]
State employee unions insist the Quinn administration needs their approval for the changes. Stermer said the administration wants to negotiate with the unions, but administration officials believe the pension changes can go ahead as long as lawmakers approve them.
The same question is under examination for health insurance, Stermer said.
“If I were AFSCME, I sure wouldn’t open up the contract for negotiations,” said James Nowlan, a senior fellow for the Institute for Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois. “What do they have to gain by doing that? This is a nonstarter.”
* A week ago today, Gov. Quinn spoke to the Illinois Education Association and was greeted with a loud standing ovation…
“I think you will see from the budget address next week that I’m willing to stick my neck out and take big chances on behalf of the kids of Illinois, their parents, their teachers …” he said.
Ken Swanson, the IEA state president, responded…
“If you’re willing to stick your neck out and take the lead, we’ll have your back,” he promised.
What a difference a week makes. From a press release entitled: Statement by Illinois Education Association President Ken Swanson on Gov. Quinn’s Proposed Budget…
“Instead of making certain the state meets its obligations to the state pension systems, the governor is asking that the scheduled funding request will be reduced by two-thirds, exacerbating the underfunding of the Teachers Retirement System and the other state systems.
“Instead of offering a plan to fix the state’s broken school funding system, Gov. Quinn allows the current system to stand, even though children in every part of the state are being denied the opportunity for a high quality education due to inadequate funding.
“Instead of directing that the federal stimulus funds be used as President Obama intended, to preserve jobs and programs in public education, Gov. Quinn would use these one-time funds to balance the state budget.
“Instead of supporting efforts to make sure the best and brightest continue to choose education as a career, Gov. Quinn is proposing retirement disincentives that surely will drive some highly qualified young people away from a career in education.
“The governor’s proposal is unacceptable to the 133,000 members of the Illinois Education Association.
Skimming all but about $200 million of the $2 billion in federal education stimulus money is the most underreported aspect of this budget, by far.
* The IFT blasted the governor’s plan to skip billions in state pension payments…
“When the people of Illinois removed Gov. Blagojevich from office, they expected to bid farewell to his budget gimmicks,” IFT president Ed Geppert Jr. said.
Oof.
* The Sun-Times was also critical of the pension skim…
Switching to a two-tiered system would reduce future pension costs but it wouldn’t lower the $73 billion already owed.
For that reason, we were disappointed to see that Quinn wants to make only a $1.5 billion pension payment for next year. Under a 1995 law, the state is supposed to pay $4 billion. That’s unfair to state employees who have faithfully paid their share. The state must either pay that bill or revise the payment schedule. A more reasonable schedule might lower the annual payment to a flat rate — it increases each year — and extend it over a longer period of time.
Quinn, you’ll recall, promised a budget free of gimmicks. That didn’t happen.
But the Tribune was happy to ignore the pension skim, at least for now…
State government’s greatest problem going forward is its huge unfunded pension burden. Quinn’s proposals to raise the retirement age for new hires, and to ask current employees to pay an additional 2 percentage points toward retirement, are a good start on pension reform. But he’s going to skip some payments into the pension system, and we need to know what burden that puts on the state in the near future. Grade, including extra points for having the courage to go there: A-.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 11:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Audio, notes from labor press conference re pensions (use all caps in password)
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As one who lost a corporate gig and started their own business several years ago… in this economy if all I had to give up this year was 2500 dollars I would be grateful. Sorry for the sour grapes. I have lots of friends who ARE overworked and overstressed but I would be happy to trade places with them. I have to make payroll tomorrow and it is gonna be tight.
Comment by Whizbang Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 11:41 am
The pension funding problem is never going to get any better as long as the state continues to ignor the law and underfunds the pension. State employees have always contributed our share, we have no choice it is taken out of our checks automatically.
Comment by tanstaafl Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 11:43 am
Well, I know there would be days Gov. Quinn annoyed me. Being this is the first step of the budget process, I’m not gonna waste lots of time getting overly excited (nor annoyed) by it. While I’m not in favor of it, I do think the state can make some changes to the future state employee pension programs without my blessings. It was the GA that made the last changes back in the 90’s.
Healthcare will depend on exactly what the proposal meant. My take from going crossed eyed in the FY 10 operating budget proposal was they are going after QC. There was something in there about subsidy be given only to HMO selection. While the state is locked into negotiated contract for FY 10, premiums and discussions were to be brought to the table again in the 3rd year. But if what was really meant was the the state was thinking of doing away with QC or the subsidy of premiums to offer QC when not locked into the contract, yeah, they might get away with that.
Comment by Princess Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 11:53 am
I can’t speak for all state employees but I don’t have a problem with the tax increase, pension contribution increase or even the furlough days. My problem is these sacrifices should be fair with no exemptions and should also include judges, house and senate, etc. Fair is fair.
Comment by always anonymous Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 12:26 pm
I would agree to an across the board state tax increase 1/2 percent higher than what Gov. Quinn is requesting, but leave regular state employees pensions alone. In fact, I think all state pensions should have the same pension formula. I think it is unfair for a legislator to only have to work 20 years to get 80%, while most of us at 35 years get 58%. I don’t think that DOC should have a higher formula (2.5%), or if they do, only guards, not any individuals that don’t work directly with inmates. Our legislators have one of the top 10 in the nation, and regular state employees are ranked either 49th or 50th, and then they want to make it worse.
Then the furlough days. We have people working overtime, so in other words they will take furlough days and then work OT. How is this going to help the state?
It is time to clean house at agencys that now have just an additional layer of bureaucacy (high paying people that do little) that we did not have prior to Blago. That would save millions of dollars.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 12:28 pm
ALong the line of Princess comment. Budget talks or negotiations ned a foundation from which to start. I think Quinn gave us a good foundation for the GA to debate and adjust. He through out some creative ideas to address various issues, including our outdated tax system. It has problems, but it was good leadership.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 12:35 pm
Geez, I don’t know, would the unions prefer $350 million in layoffs? I don’t think there’s a layoff in the budget. That’s pretty amazing.
I’m not a public employee basher and I certainly don’t worship at the feet of the private sector corporate “geniuses.” But unless you’re a former AIG swapper living in London, times are pretty rocky out there in the private sector.
Plenty of layoffs, as we know. Plus, raises and bonuses, when you could get them, have been eaten up for years by increased health insurance costs.
State employee pensions are guaranteed by the Constitution, right. They’ll be paid. Corporate types that offered employee pensions have had a great deal of luck running through bankruptcy court and knocking them down. Next up to bat? Automakers.
As for those who had their retirement “savings” in 401ks, well we know where that went.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 12:55 pm
Wordslinger, I’m not sure exactly what is planned or proposed for any layoffs, but according to the article over on AFSCME 31 they state that part of the proposal was “cutting staff in agencies that are already severly understaffed”
I did not listen to all of Gov Quinn’s speech as the kids were around for lunch but I would be willing to assume that some layoffs would have to occur to meet the budgets in the agencies.
Comment by Princess Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:09 pm
I would wager if all the unqualified Blago goons that were hired in the last year were let go, the money that was freed up could more than make up for the extra “needed” furlough days, and maybe even reduce the need for an extra pension contribution from those who actually add value to the state workforce.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:26 pm
Highly doubtful, Six.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:35 pm
Shut up! I am tired of these unions pretending like they won’t vote for a Democrat. Blago hosed the state employees for 4 years like no other governor in 190 years and they still would not endorse a repubulican.
Unions are free votes the Democrats will get regardless of how bad they put it to the union. The Democrats have essentially eliminated any UMWA jobs in IL, yet the UMWA votes democrat. It is the same for AFSME and the IEA/NEA.
Under no circumstances will any union support a republican in a state wide election. Until the unions are willing to punish the democrats for their lack of loyalty, they need to shut up.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:38 pm
Six degrees is living in a dream world. Wordslinger says that the pensions are guaranteed by the consitution. If the state goes bankrupt, can that provision be overturned? Are there no conditions under which the pension obligation can be dropped
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:45 pm
Other than at-will employees, how would anyone know who to let go? Blago patronage hires don’t have signs on them…they are likely burrowed into the civil service bureaucracy, with all the rights that entails. At will positions tend to be high-level, high-pay jobs and I’m sure Quinn knows who they are but how many can there be? Not much savings there.
I have changed my mind since yesterday and decided that perhaps the Quinn budget’s multiple moving parts are a strength. If any substantive sources of cash are removed from the plan, somebody else would have to pay even more. I don’t think that’s going to be the taxpayer. I don’t think AFSCME is going support state employees taking more furlough days because the corporates resist their part of the tax. And so forth. Each interest group may find his best chance in simply going along, with the usual expressed outrage for their constituencies.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:48 pm
How due public universities get off so easily. Talk about bloated administration.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:48 pm
Unions, in my opinion, instead of accepting furlough days, will protect those with longevity and permit the newbies to be laid off. They protect tenure. The ensuing bidding for jobs will be costly. I don’t see the state employees as the problem. IMHO it is our elected part time legislators. When you get paid for two jobs and are loaded down with perks, it’s pretty easy to spend some others money. Our problem is trying to do entirely too much with too little cash and trying to keep promises made to programs that have no sunset clauses, duplication of programs, and a badly needed overhaul of our medical system, education system, and pensions. Going after state employees might be popular with the private sector, who thinks these folks are overpaid, is simply wrong. Government is working just like our permissive finance system….borrow more than we have but defer the real obligation till later. We have wrecked our national economy this way and now are hell bent to do it to our state economy, if not already too late?
Comment by Justice Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:52 pm
Rich- Every $100,000/yr. goon who is let go would pay for 120 $50,000/yr. employees’ furlough days (assuming 4 furlough days per employee per year). Enough to make a difference. Of course, some were shifted into union jobs and are protected that way.
DuPage-I am not in dreamland, I just like to have fun once in a while and bring some of the absurdity of this state to the surface. Here is what our state constitution reads.
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.
It’s an enforceable contract, dude, backed by the full faith and credit of the state.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:01 pm
Here is a suggestion. Take all the small town school districts and make them merge with one of them that cuts the administration cost in half. If they even save 100,000 k (superintendents salary) and they cut 200 districts to 100 that saves education 10 million annually. I am sure there are more cost savings. I realize you can’t do it in the larger cities but it is a good way to strengthen the smaller community districts.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:03 pm
6 Degrees,
I appreciate your humor - I like to keep it respectful. Call me on it if I don’t. That quote should make me feel better. The problem is that when you say it is backed by the full faith and credit of the state, that makes me quake in my boots. Have you seen the state’s credit rating recently? If the state goes into receivership (admittedly unlikely) then contracts could possibly be nullified……just sayin’.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:09 pm
Cassandra - the Blago people don’t need signs to be known to each agency.
Comment by Belle Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:14 pm
He Makes Ryan-
Some admin costs go down, but at the cost of more diesel fuel, buses and drivers from hauling the little darlin’s to the next town 10 miles away. And more driving by parents, teachers and relatives for all those classes, conferences, and activities.
Maybe we should go back to the one-room schoolhouses that didn’t need “administrators”:)
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:17 pm
Rich-
Just think about it this way. 500 goons axed = 60,000 state employees’ furlough days restored.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:21 pm
OK, I defer.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:22 pm
If the state goes into receivership (admittedly unlikely) then contracts could possibly be nullified……just sayin’.
When the state sells all its surplus property, there will be plenty of booty to divide up.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:24 pm
How can we be sure that the booty gets divided up and put into the right places? To assume that the proceeds of the sale of the surplus property would automatically be used to eliminate the furlough days may be wishful thinking. Personally, I would rather take the furlough days if I saw that the state was serious about the black hole pension deficit.
I like your math about the 500 goons. I know where a couple of them are.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:28 pm
DD, calm down. Under federal law, a state cannot seek bankruptcy protection — municipalities can.
A state defaulting on a constitutional obligation (as opposed to stringing along vendors for 120 days) is highly unlikely because it would hurt its credit rating or some time.
If it did try to default on a pension obligation, the state would be hauled into court and ordered by a federal judge to cure it forthwith. The state has a whole lot of untapped taxing power at its disposal to do so.
By the way, the state’s credit rating is AA- (stable) after the downgrade from AA earlier this month. From the S&P report then:
–S&P noted that Illinois enjoys a “deep and diverse economy, which is anchored by the Chicago metropolitan area and is the nation’s fifth largest in terms of personal income; above-average income levels” and other advantages.
Offsetting those, however, S&P listed the state’s large general-fund deficit and other negatives, including a “fairly high debt burden” relative to other states.
Despite the looming 2010 budget gap and limited financial reserves, S&P said, the outlook for the Illinois GO bonds is “stable,” because “we believe that the state has capacity to restore budget balance” though that likely will “require difficult and possibly politically unpopular measures.”–
And here we are.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:33 pm
DPD, I was referring to the worst case scenario where the state went into receivership and pension obligations were due. A court would apportion the creditors’ receivables, and the constitutional weight of the pension obligations would mean they would be skimmed off the top in full, leaving creditor pharmacies, nursing homes, consultants and others holding the bag for 10c on the dollar, so to speak. Hope this makes you sleep better tonight.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:35 pm
Quinn said not to bet on a gaming bill. But I think an increase in gaming (new boats, slots at tracks, Chicago) could be used to help fund pensions. It is actually a natural. Gaming revenues tend to fluctuate which makes it difficult to tie it to other expenditures such as general revenue programs or capital projects. But if you come up short with a pension payment there is no immediate effect such as having to lay off people. The payments need to be made up eventually but they can come up short every once in awhile.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:52 pm
==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.
It’s an enforceable contract, dude, backed by the full faith and credit of the state. ==
And the “contract” wording there is significant, because the US Constitution provides in Article I, Section 10, that, “No State shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”
The US Constitution prohibits the State from passing a law breaking the contract.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 2:55 pm
Raising current participants contributions to their pension plan without any increase in benefits is an impairment and, as such, is unconstitutional, particularly if instead of depositing the contributions the state steals them to fund its budget as proposed.
They can constitutionally screw new employees however they want but that does nothing about their current $75 billion debt. They want to spend the so-called savings that they won’t realize for 30 years today. This is Rodonomics at its worst.
Fooling around with tax exemptions is also an attempt to circumvent the constitutional mandate for a flat rate. Didn’t they impeach Rod for that kind of thing?
Quinn is a goofball.
A lot of lawyers are going to do very well next year if this nonsense passes.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:26 pm
We could change the constitution to remove that clause. That is one reason why the unions were so worked up about not having a concon.
Comment by anonymouse Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:35 pm
==Raising current participants contributions to their pension plan without any increase in benefits is an impairment ==
But your benefits do increase with each year of service, so there is no problem changing the terms under which you will earn that additional benefit.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:35 pm
“how would anyone know who to let go.” Uhh…try anyone hired in the last 6 years. As I suggested yesterday. Fire all of them as budget cuts. They are low on the seniority lists anyway. Then figure out which positions you have to fill and hire the most qualified candidate. If you were a legite hire the first time, you should have no worries. But people makeing 80K per for IDOT as administrative directors who cannot tell the difference between concrete and asphalt may have some problems.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:37 pm
I doubt that the court will agree.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:39 pm
Six, I understand the fuel cost. But the total cost savings is there. I just put in (very conservitive i might add) a 1 year Supt. salary. You have many more admin cost that can be saved. Not to mention consolidating schools thus cutting back on the maintenance, electric/gas bills etc. Plus you get into the situation where many of these small districts are not able to provide some of the subjects that bigger schools are able to provide. I am just saying they ought to really look at it. Of course the Superintendents will be against it because some of them will loose thier jobs. But if you want to get more money to education this is a way to get some more money AND strengthen the School districts.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:44 pm
Bill - didn’t the state toy with employee contributions a few times over the last 20 years? Some people are paying more into the system than they were…granted it was employees picking up the state’s former share.
No doubt there is a threshhold where a court would find a raising in employee contributions an impairment…like, if it was an un-payable sum of 50% of an employee’s current salary. I’m not sure a 2% employee contribution raise would do it.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:45 pm
Bill, the employee doesn’t even have a contractual right to be employed next year (or whenever the collective bargaining agreement expires, for union employees), so how could adjusting the terms of employment for next year be an impairment of contract? Even an Illinois judge won’t have a problem with that, any more than they would have a problem with increasing the exemption amount, which the Constitution expressly allows the General Assembly to do as long as it is “reasonable.”
Comment by Anon Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:53 pm
SIX DEGREES
————–
I could be way way off, but you think there are 500 people hired in the last 12 months at $100K or more that were not legitimate/qualified hires, or hired to replace someone that was in the position previously?
That may be the case, I’m seriously just asking. That seems shockingly high to me?!
Or were you just throwing out a number for argument’s sake/illustrative purposes?
Comment by Mike Anon Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:55 pm
It’s in the contract what contribution we pay. As long as it is stated in the contract the % contribution, the state can not just decide to up it another 2 %, least not without Henry tossin’ a fit. They had at one point in talks last spring brought up pension contribution increase, but it didn’t stay in long. It was wages and healthcare that were the real ‘hot’ topic. There were some real flying oral ‘birds’ at one point.
Comment by Princess Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:57 pm
Anon - The current AFSCME contract is in effect until June 30th, 2012.
Comment by Reality is Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:10 pm
Very interesting discussion - I appreciate the responses from those who have info that I don’t. I will sleep better at nite knowing that the state can’t walk away from my pension. I am not so secure in the knowledge that the pension problem can get so severe that many in this state will suffer when the cost of meeting that obligation can’t be pushed off into the future and the result is horrific cost to the state. That would be devestating.
Mike Anon,
I am a state worker and have seen many hires over the last 19 years that political in nature. Wouldn’t be hard to hire 500 and stick ‘em somewhere. That amount is small potatos. Cook County does that sort of stuff routinely. Don’t have the numbers but not hard to do.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:11 pm
I would like to mention that reading this thread has informed me more than all of the newscasts and editorials coming out in the past 2 days put together. Thanks, everyone.
And as an avowed left-winger, I have to state unequivocally that the Democrats in Springpatch are mostly to blame for this mess. I hope the new boss can really lead better than the old boss.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:23 pm
DUPAGE DAN
——————–
Interesting. 500 in 12 months would be about 40 per month (slightly more). Let’s say average of 20 business days in a month - looking at about 2 hires per day, every business day of the year, at $100K or more. I mean to me that is shocking, even for a large employer with a lot of places to “stuff” people, it seems like a shockingly high number. But hey, what is not shocking about all the revelations of late, eh?
Comment by Mike Anon Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:31 pm
On a five day vacation in the west, I played golf yesterday with a 70-something retired school principal on a course fit for mountain-goats. He was fit and mentally alert. He retired at 55, and for about twenty years he has been paid his pension by a western state. He ownes two homes.
Professionals not in government employment today work into their seventies. Retirement at 55 with a 75 plus life expectancy is just absurd.
For those who want to compare themselves to compensation in the private sector, consider what real retirement is in the private sector.
I’ll ba back in my office on monday, and I’m well over 55.
Comment by Anon III Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:34 pm
Mike Anon-
I don’t have tons of inside information, but let’s just say…I counted 77 agencies at the state’s website. It would just take losing about 6 or 7 people per agency to get to 500. Could every agency axe 6 non-essential patronage positions? Then, when a citizen needed a state service over the next year, they would get that phone call answered, that form filled out, that drivers license renewed…instead of having to wait for someone to return from their furlough day.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:42 pm
SIX DEGREES
——————–
Look, everywhere I have worked except for relatively small companies (where there is simply nowhere to hide and you have to perform from day 1, more or less), sure, there are positions that are redundant or little value-added.
I have no doubt whatsoever, none, that the state is no different. Perhaps worse. I do not have an argument there. I just dont see it though, I dont buy that 6-7 people at every agency in the state in the past year were replaced by someone making over $100K (and, even if that were in fact the case, that’s not $100K in new salary that was not spent before, but rather $100K minus the retiree’s salary and benefits).
I guess we can agree to disagree on some of the details there.
Why someone has not suggested that “routine” state functions, such as, oh, I dont know, doing FOID card background checks, or, um, I dont know, processing business licenses, are not farmed out to India yet to save money, is beyond me.
I mean, that’s the corporate America example… why dont we just farm out behind-the-scenes work to Inida? Or wherever. Shrug. Seems like the logical next suggestion.
Comment by Mike Anon Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:50 pm
People don’t understand that the pension skim is far and away the most challenging part of the entire problem, and continuing to kick the can down the road only makes it worse.
By under-funding the pension funds the un-funded liability grows exponentially, because a significant portion of the funded ratio is determined based upon the real (and projected) return on investment from funds held and invested.
When you continue to under-fund each year, the associated un-funded liability compounds itself because the ROI is measured on a significantly smaller amount of funds invested. Under-funding the pension funds does not result in a 1:1 ratio of under-funding for each dollar not paid in, the ratio can be as 25:1.
This will compound itself even worse right now and in the near term ahead as well because there are a significant number of investment opportunities out there that are substantially under-valued when viewed with a medium and longer term time horizon.
I am not a state employee; nor do I pretend to be one on TV, but I can tell you that the state pension funds for existing employees should be fully funded annualy as required by the established schedule. Failing to fund the pension plans will destroy the future in this state for every one of our kids and grand kids, because just as the housing bubble burst, the age wave of retirements is going to come crashing up on the shores of reality in Illinois over the next 13-15 years and when it does, its going to completely wash away any sand castle you thought you might have had to look forward to as a tax payer here.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:56 pm
Mike Anon-
This may be be shocking to you, but…
I will defer to the rank and file state workers here, and I know Rich doesn’t want into a “name the loafer” outing exercise…but it has been known to “create a position” for someone “somebody sent”, with vague or nondescript job duties, without a prior person occupying the position. Or, for someone to get hired into one of those vague or nondescript positions to replace another vague or nondescript similar position, after a change in administrations.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 4:57 pm
Quinn-
Or, as long as we are in an investment mode…we could just take the entire state budget this year, fly to Vegas, and put it on the black:-)
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 5:00 pm
SIX DEGREES
————–
That’s a total “straw man” argument you are making there. I have agreed already there are “loafers”, there are political hires, appointees, overpaid people. I agree that there could be cuts that would not bring the state to its knees and cripple the state. So to say that finding out about such “might be shocking to me” - please. That’s a cheapshot and arguing against something that you have constructed yourself, not what I was saying.
I wasnt even saying that there werent “500 political hires at $100K” per year that came on in the past 12 months. If you look at the original post I simply asked “is that close to reality or just someone throwing a number out there”. For asking that a few people on here are explaining that it might be plausible given the number of agencies and so forth.
Again, I was not inquiring whether it was theorhetically plausible, but whether someone with knowledge could actually say “Yeah, look, I dont have the exact numbers but that is par for the course” or “Yep, at least that many people came on”.
Anyway - the real point, and the real time bomb here, is as Quinn T. Sential says above, IMHO. The furlough days are window dressing for the bomb that is tick-tocking away (the pensions).
Comment by Mike Anon Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 5:08 pm
Mike Anon-
I didn’t mean it as a cheap shot, although it coulda come across that way. There is enough anecdotal evidence, from paging through 6 years of CapFax during Blago’s reign, to reasonably suspect there are 500 (or more) folks somewhere in the system (not necessarily hired within the last year, but who are still employed) who are basically unaccountable and have no particular mission that benefits the state except to draw a paycheck, or are so inept at their on-paper positions that the rest of their department essentially covers all their useful functions. I suspect nobody knows the exact number; it would take comprehensive inside knowledge of 77 or so agencies, and would be subjective judgment at best. There is also enough anecdotal evidence in these pages to reasonably suspect there are state employees who are doing the work that 2 or 3 “average” employees would be expected to do, who are real heroes.
And this is not aimed at a particular administration or party, as there are plenty of stories about similar situations in the pre-Blago years, although many who know claim that Blago’s folks raised it to an “art form” many shades worse than any R or D administration prior.
Front-line state workers just might be steamed that they are being asked to make a sacrifice during hard times, so that do-nothing positions can be saved.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 5:39 pm
the Patriot - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:38 pm
You are correct except that the unions have done really well under blago. Last contract which was just ratified gave them almost 30% increase over the last 4 years including midpoint bumps.
It is the non union management that have really suffered. First 4 years under Blago -4% next 3 years total of about 6%. So for the last 6 to 7 years non union state employees have gained only about 2 to 3% and all this while the inflation curve has steepened.
Under Ryan non union employees took a furlough day while union employees either did not or were reimbursed.
Comment by Rick Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 6:58 pm
The 50% increase in employee pension contribution (i.e., from 4% to 6%) is a travesty and completely sours me on Quinn. As others have noted above, the pension funding gap is NOT THE FAULT OF THE EMPLOYEES. We have paid our share as required by law.
To raise the contribution and keep the same benefits may or may not be unconstitutional (per the discussion above), but it is a cruel move by a person I previously swore was a “good guy”.
This is just plain wrong, Pat. Shame on you.
Comment by DuPage Dave Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 7:34 pm
DD, what if our contribution was too low all along? If I’m roughly right about what employees contribute annually, and about what the state’s “normal” contribution would be, the state has to out-contribute employees by a ratio of 5 or 6 to 1.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 8:23 pm
He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint -
Why don’t we do like Nevada and Florida and have one school district per county (same boundaries, but different governments)? Granted, this might not work in the Chicagoland area, but in the other 90+ counties, how many school districts would we eliminate? (Right now there are about 900 in Illinois.)
Comment by Smitty Irving Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 8:34 pm
Steve Schnorf-
State employees, teachers, etc. can’t cry over spilt milk too much. But the fault of underfunding has to be apportioned somewhere. Don’t the teachers already pay 8 or 9%? It doesn’t seem logical that their annual share, plus the state’s, should be over 50% of a person’s annual salary just to fund a simple pension.
As usual in these affairs, we should see what other states or units of government are doing, how much the state/employee contribution mix is, what the terms of retirement and payout are, and which plans are solvent and which are tanking.
Bad pension management is not necessarily an IL affliction. If the state had just managed its funds like IMRF, there would be a much smaller crisis, if any. The main difference between IMRF and the state employee and teacher funds seems to be that the municipal fund made all its employer payments on time and as scheduled, and offered less sweetheart “deals”.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 9:26 pm
what if our contribution was too low all along..
That would be true except me thinks you are starting with the wrong premise steve. With the regular employees state pension being rated at around 49th in the Union it is hard for you to make the case that the state’s contributions are too high. My question is too high based on what standard?
The real issue as raised previously is that the state of illinois has not met its obligations to its employees by underfunding the pension plan. It sits squarly in their laps for years of neglect and budget games.
Comment by Rick Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 9:27 pm
What really gets state employees that have been around a while is the pension mess. Years ago in lieu of a raise in the contract, the state agreed to start paying the employees contribution into the retirement (either under Thompson or Edgar).
Then a few years ago (under Blago) we started to have to start paying in again. Originally the state wasn’t going to give anything, but eventually did give raises to help offset the increased money coming out of our checks. Like many others, our healthcare also went up basically negating any raises for some.
Now think about someone under Big Jim or Edgar who during that contract period didn’t get a COLA, but did take home more because of the State paying the pension contribution. Now consider if they did get a cola of whatever was average at the time 1, 2, or 3 %, then that increase would have compounded over the last 20 or so years, and their pay would be higher.
Which would make it slightly easier to swallow taking 4 furlough days, ever increasing health care costs, increasing pension costs, increasing taxes, and user fees.
Remember, most state employees don’t get to decide if we want to pay into our retirement every month, they just take it out. But the state gets to play with the money they are supposed to be paying in for us under the contract.
I know, lets all have a pity party for the state employees right. Imagine how non employees would feel if money obligated to them by the state wasn’t there when it was supposed to be. Lets say you got a letter in the mail that said, due to tough times, the state will be holding on to your income tax refund, until we can make it up at a later date. I think a few people would be pretty ticked at that.
Comment by Somewhere to start Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 9:30 pm
When doses the fumigation start that we were promised? Did I miss it?
Comment by Hack Slacker Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 7:27 am
Rick, you don’t have to sell me that the greatest underlying problem is the failure by the state to contribute in the past. That’s not even debatable. I’m just ruminating that if the intent all along was for employees and the employer (state) to jointly fund the pensions, our contributions might be too low and the state’s too high (if my numbers are approximately right).
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Mar 20, 09 @ 8:40 am