Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Lisa Madigan boogies down *** Morning videos
Next Post: Governor’s bid to require Wi-Fi on trains barely survives as end of free rides program heads to his desk
Posted in:
* This bill has not yet been assigned to a Senate committee, but it’s expected that the chamber will call it for a vote…
The Illinois House pushed through a bill on Monday that would limit certain state workers’ rights to join a collective bargaining unit.
The bill, which is backed by Gov. Pat Quinn, passed on a 64-49 vote and now heads to the Illinois Senate, where it must pass before noon Wednesday in order to head to the governor’s desk.
The legislation, Senate Bill 3644, is aimed at 196 supervisory, independent and at-will employees, said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago. It would not automatically exclude employees from collective bargaining units, Currie said, but would make it easier for executive branch officials to seek to have the workers reclassified as non-union employees. […]
[GOP state Rep. Raymond Poe] and others who voted “no” said most of the workers joining unions were mistreated by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration and then Blagojevich and Gov. Pat Quinn did not fight their inclusion in the union before the Labor Relations Board. The board decides who is eligible to be in a union when workers petition.
I’ve been telling subscribers about the unusual legislation since Saturday. I reported last year that half of the governor’s legislative liaisons and a large number of administrators had joined AFSCME.
* More…
Ninety-six percent of state government workers are currently covered by collective bargaining agreements, said the measure’s sponsor, House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago. With more petitions pending before the state’s Labor Relations Board, that number could rise to almost 99 percent, she said. Those numbers are up from 80 percent in 2002, she said.
“What the bill would do initially would be to say that some 196 clear supervisory, independent, at-will employees will go from the collective bargaining contract into management positions,” Currie said.
Currie said that at some state government work sites, there is nobody able to discipline workers because everyone is in a union.
“There need to be managers,” she said. “There need to be supervisors.”
* And some more…
After the initial round of booting people from the union, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, Governor’s Office and others could petition the Labor Relations Board to remove other employees from the union if they are deemed management, Currie said.
Blame former Gov. Rod Blagojevich for the high number of administration workers joining unions, said Henry Bayer, executive director for AFSCME Council 31, the state’s largest public employee union. Employees sought out the protection of unions because of poor treatment by the Blagojevich administration, Bayer claimed.
“Their work was not valued,” he said. “They not only didn’t get pay increases, they got pay cuts, and they came flocking to the union(s) seeking representation.”
Because the state workforce was reduced under Blagojevich, many employees who once strictly were managers began doing more non-managerial tasks, leading to the current situation, Bayer said.
Braun said the reason this move is being pushed during the Legislature’s lame-duck session is because more than 700 senior public service administrators applied in December to join a union. The Labor Relations Board has 120 days to give the thumbs up or down on their applications.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 9:54 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Lisa Madigan boogies down *** Morning videos
Next Post: Governor’s bid to require Wi-Fi on trains barely survives as end of free rides program heads to his desk
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
AFSCME has become increasing arrogant and is living in a fantasy world of its own making.
This is a good first step.
Comment by Cassiopeia Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:08 am
Because of Blago’s abuse of the non-union managers throughout state agencies, many joined unions so they could get the sweet raises he gave the unions plus to be protected from his and the political hacks that infiltrated state agencies’ wrath. Plus Blago and now Quinn want as many of their political appointees allowed into the union so they are protected if the next governor wants to fumigate. State agencies’ are in shambles as a result of these two bozos and all the friends they have hired.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:11 am
Do we know what the vote breakdown was? Was there a roll call or anything?
Comment by John Galt Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:16 am
Good bill. Allowing legislative liaisons in the union in the first place was a joke.
Comment by Jaded Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:20 am
If I were a state employee in management, I would have voted to be in the union too. Those former merit-comp employees who were summarily abused by Blago’s administration and Quinn’s to some extent were driven to the union. But the liaisons and others who are political appointees should not under any circumstances be allowed to remain union members. That is not what the union is about. AFSCME should not have allowed them in nor should it fight to keep them.
Comment by Bitterman Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:31 am
I am one of the managerial employees who could be denied collective bargaining if this passes. One of the main reasons we petitioned to be in a union was that we were not managers as was defined. If you read the bill it states that those in policy making or decision making positions cannot be in a union. I had a seasonal worker that walked off the job and was gone for two weeks and he had a set of keys to my site. I filled out a termination sheet for him and asked our Law Enforcement to make contact with him to get the keys back as he was not returning my phone calls. I got a call from Springfield that I had no authority to terminate that employee. There are many similar examples all across the state. We could not make any purchase from our allotted budgets without approval from our immediate supervisor. We cannot impose discipline on any full time employee without first making contact with our immediate supervisor, and the HR Department, and getting approval and then we are told step by step what we must do.
However if we get a complaint on the condition of our site the complaint is routed from Springfield to us to answer. The answer is then sent up the chain of command so it can be edited before being sent to the complaintent. More often than not any answer such as we do not have the staff or the money to maintain the area/facility you are complaining about; is changed to thank you for your concern we will make sure this is fixed by the next time you visit. Never are we allowed to give the true reason why our facilities are in bad condition.
Twice our position on not being in policy or decision making decisions was upheld in court but the administration at the time refused to meet with us. The bottomline is that they got exactly what they asked for and now even though the way of doing business has not changed they want to lie and say it has.
I would like to ask Ms Currie if the bill passes will I be able to send in termination papers on a seasonal worker that quits without asking Springfield first? I doubt it because the seasonal workers are sometimes sent by the county chairperson of what ever party is in power and they do not want someone as lowly as I irritating their “Friends”.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:31 am
Union positions are filled based on seniority within broad job titles. Can you imagine the havoc created if the liaisons, general counsels, the bureau chiefs, the assistant directors, the deputy directors, etc., were all filled purely on seniority? How could any elected official or agency head manage his/her organization?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:37 am
Irish’s story is pretty persuasive, but it really just convinces me to weaken AFSCME job protections for poor performers rather than to allow managers to join.
As for the bill itself, I am all for anything to weaken the AFSCME stranglehold on the state, but do wonder why Quinn did not fight their inclusion in the union with the Labor Relations Board before the election. Coincidence, I am sure.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:37 am
I’m very much in favor of Currie’s bill. But forcing these bills through lame duck last minute legislation is wrong and begs for technical errors. It also doesn’t address the fundamental problem-the “sweet raises” that Anonymous refers to. Most of those raises won’t be recinded and they also impact the state’s pension contribution and liability.
Comment by Soccertease Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:38 am
Pretty amazing all the Dem-initiated challenges to public employee union power recently. Certainly doesn’t fit the stereotype.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:41 am
Thanks Rich for making this a topic today. I am one of those who after 7 years of no raises, in fact decrease in pay, my subordinates far surpassing me in pay and benefits and watching fat union contracts years after year petitioned to be allowed in the union. No problem they said. I’m not particularly fond of AFSCME but was a single mom putting 2 kids through college. After 22 years, I was making $40,000 while my subordinates were making $60,000. As I’ve said before I don’t mind sacrificing and going without raises but ALL employees should have to live by the same rules. I know, I’m living in dreamland. When I was making $40,000 I had to make alot of sacrifices for me and my kids but I did it and lived through it. If I can do it, I bet alot more employees can do, but there needs to be some equity and equality in our system and there hasn’t been for many years. If this bill passes, then there should be some major concessions by the unions until this crisis passes. I know that’s not popular but neither is the mess the state is it.
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:44 am
Revoking the certification of certain positions may open them up for layoffs.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:44 am
This may be directed at managers and supervisors, but the bill as written has redefined front-line workers with no supervisory or management authority as “policy-making employees.” People who have been in the union for 20 years. No serious thought was put into how this will actually affect the working of state government, or who it will actually impact. Quinn is losing the battle to keep PSAs and SPSAs out of the union, so they’re doing the last-minute end run. Poor leadership and poor government.
Comment by Doubtful Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:46 am
Word- My thought is that this is Madigans way of trying to placate the Republicans in hopes of gleaning some support for the tax hike.
I think Mikey made the mistake of letting this go too far. He figured he would kick the can down the road, blame public employees in the interim, and once he got ready to push the tax hike it would just go through.
I think he waited too long. It seems as though he does not quite have the power over some of the younger members, and the GA have blamed the problems on the public sector employees for so long and loud that they can’t pull that back. They can’t change their tune in this short of time without re-educating everyone that the pension problem is really the GA’s and past administration’s fault. And that ain’t gonna happen so they are stuck with the reality of their own making.
If they had told the truth at the beginning and the public understood that taxes weren’t raised in thew past because the State was borrowing from the employees pension to meet their obligations this might go down easier.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:53 am
The state has some legitimate concerns, but this bill slashes collective bargaining rights for state employees who have a legitimate right to be in the union. This bill is so poorly written, it will allow the state to go after whomever they chose.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:57 am
Could SEIU employees at the SOS be affected by this?
Comment by Heartless Libertarian Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:00 am
I agree that supervisors and management positions should not be in a union. The problem with the current system is the inequity in compensation between union employees and management. In many cases, supervisors are paid less than the people they supervise and they also do not receive compensatory time or overtime pay. Employees who are currently in a union have no interest in moving into management positions because they would lose their automatic raises and other benefits. This is a shame because many of the employees in the union would make excellent managers. In addition, the performance evaluations have become a joke because raises are guaranteed and not tied to work performance. They need to bring some equity back into the pay scale and tie raises to work performance. This legislation does not address the root of the problem….
Comment by Holdingontomywallet Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:00 am
to heartless: Yes!
Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:02 am
Irish, this is the governor’s bill.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:03 am
I am currently an SPSA. I supervise no-one; my job was reclassified 5 years ago to a PSA. Job descriptions re-written. No movement has happen since that time.
No raises for almost 9 years, plus the 1% taken for retirement, plus furlough days. I am not sure what else can be said other then after 26 years I really hate coming to work. I agree nobody was paying attention.. We truly need a governor who cares about running state business and hold senior staff accountable including him
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:05 am
Obviously, the Blago folks want all the perks of being at-will: higher pay and less accountability; but they want the lifetime security AFSCME (or any other sub-group) gives them. That’s easy enough. Quinn and the Dem leaders are smart to tackle this now, but who knows whether they have the wherewithal to get it done. It’s one thing to posture like you’re taking on labor, it’s another to pass a bill in both houses and get it signed. Big task, but the right idea. Enough is enough.
Comment by Droogie Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:08 am
FMSC and Soccertease,
I would also forego raises in a heartbeat if that means that you and so many others have to sacrifice part of your incomes. There is an extreme-leftist element in AFSCME that I’ve come to disagree with–the tax the rich position with no sacrifices by us. That to me is ironic and hypocritical, because we would be demanding something exclusive but would give nothing ourselves.
As an AFSCME member, I agree that we must make sacrifices. We’re all in this together. I don’t know what sacrifices to make, but I would want them to be commensurate with what others might have to give, on the whole. I confess that I don’t know much about corporate taxes, but when I saw the first proposed increase, it seemed to me like a very bad idea.
With this being said, I believe that if Brady won, there would be no mercy for AFSCME. I can envision us being called the “haves” and the rest of you the “have nots,” like the new Wisconsin governor was quoted as saying. I don’t think this is right either, because the majority of us are stuggling to make ends meet, like many of you, and we’ll have to work for many years to get a decent pension.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:13 am
I have somewhat the same story as Irish. Cant Dicipline, cant administer performance reviews without approval from upper management. I do the same work as my coworkers except I send the timeoff and ot slips up the chain.
This set a bad precedent, they have the ability to pick any title and write it into an amendment and poof they are out of the union.
Quinn is going to keep his promise to the union, he is not going to wack union employees, but simply pull them out of the union THEN wack them.
Comment by He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:15 am
This is bad. The union is the only reason some of the hardest workers in the State do not have to take away 1/12 of their pay due to the furloughs. Bad bills and rushing to get it signed makes for awful laws. The ramifactions are going to be bad if this gets through. Plus, these aren’t the people you want to lose in the State. The big wigs that bring in their teams don’t qualify for the union. Those people will stay.
Comment by spartan Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:27 am
As much as many folks seem to not like State employees and what some of them work hard for, Irish and Former Merit Comp Slaves stories are just 2 good examples of what can and does happen in some state agencies.
“Supervisors” who don’t really wield supervisory powers, but will get the blame for problems. “Supervisors” who make less than what those they supervise make. “Supervisors” who, due to the perpetual hiring freezes, must now also do subordinates work, sometimes working overtime, for little or no extra money.
And another good point by Irish, “If they had told the truth at the beginning and the public understood that taxes weren’t raised in the past because the State was borrowing from the employees pension to meet their obligations this might go down easier.”
Comment by Concerned Voter Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:28 am
AFCSME once again, gets in bed with the Dems thinking they are their very best friends because they are scared to death the GOP might tell them what they can’t do in the bedroom, and once again get stabbed in the back. They never ever ever learn. Next thing you know they all will be saying “thanks may I have another?” They don’t EVER learn.
Comment by Segatari Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:31 am
Does Quinn want this to make it easier to terminate Blago’s workers?
Comment by Pink Girl Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:33 am
I’m a former merit comp employee. I went without raises for years, lost pay because I took the required number of furlough days, etc.
When the union push came, no one in management told me it would be a mistake to join AFSCME. In fact I was told it was one way to get a raise.
The State of Illinois has no loyalty to its employees. I worked in the private sector before coming to government. The unwritten contract between employer and employee has been broken many times by the state. Not by my immediate supervisors, not by my agency, but but by the elected officials. But those are the breaks.
Did AFSCME bite off too much here? Sure. Why did they try to unionize the SPSA’s? Bad move. There has to be someone in management.
Quinn has stuck it to the union that helped get him elected. Why didn’t he negotiate first?
Comment by Where's the loyalty? Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:36 am
I’ve started to see calls (in some business oriented media) to go to a system where public employees are not permitted to unionize at all - regardless of job title or classification of work.
Comment by titan Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:36 am
Segatari, check the roll call.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:37 am
Thanks Rich,
I did not know that.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:38 am
Quick observation:
Some of the union folks are saying that if they weren’t in the unions, they’d be taking it on the chin as badly as the non-union employees (unpaid furloughs, wage freezes, etc.). Depending on the union/non-union mix, this need not be the case.
The reason non-union types have been taking it on the chin so hard is because the state is forced to tamp down on rising costs from a very small (and shrinking) pool of employees. If a larger percentage of the workforce were non-union (say, 20% or 30%), then there’s a larger pool of people with which to spread any financial pain.
And for the person who was decrying the quasi-reverse class warfare argument: when your supervisor is making $40K and the workers are making $60K with far greater job security, you can’t be surprised about the change in tone. There’s already a buffer between government employment and the economic realities of the private sector. It isn’t shocking that when you get a larger disparity of a two-tiered employent system (union employees and second-class non-union employees), people are going to squawk.
Comment by John Galt Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:49 am
Food for thought: Just got a union newsletter in the mail today - AFT. The cover story is about myths and realities regarding public employees defined benefit pensions.
According to the National Association of State retirement Administrators, the AVERAGE public sector defined benefit pension pays $22,600 annually. Yes, average means some get way more, but others get much less. And some public secotr jobs do not get Social Security when retiring.
Comment by Concerned Voter Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 11:59 am
If Irish is right, and I think he is, then this is in some ways a structural problem. If the bright line is policy-making and disciplinary responsibility, I suspect the employees who actually have this responsibility are very, very few in government. On the other hand, if you allow, say, front line supervisors to make significant discipline decisions (loss of pay, loss of job) then you are almost certain to have inconsistent discipline. If they get to make policy, you are almost certain to have inconsistent policies as well–policies that directly affect the public.
Comment by cassandra Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:04 pm
Many supervisory/management job descriptions were rewritten exempting them from Rutan thus making them “at will” employees. This is how Blago circumvented veterans preferance and Rutan. Blago then put his people in those positions, but not at the bottom of the pay scale. 25-30 year olds were brought in making $70,000 a year. Now the majority of those “at will” positions have been moved to the Union. With all the raises they will get with their bloated starting salary, by the time they retire in 35 years they should be making well over $100,000 and will be able to reap a fine pension.
Comment by Can't Say My Nickname Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:06 pm
The state is being totally disingenuous with this bill. They claim it’s about legislative liasons and some administrators, but it goes after many more state employees. Why else run it so quickly without real discussion, negotiate and debate? It’s a creepy move by the Governor.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:13 pm
SB3644 does not repeal all PSAs, the intent is to repeal any future SPSAs, Legislative staff, and those PSAs that were previously coded as 4d3 employees, not those PSA that were includedd and coded as BBR.
Comment by Just for clarification Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:16 pm
The bottomline is that the powers that be do not want any decision made that could cost a vote or harm a patronage employee. (And rest assured Rutan did not end this.) So micromanaging has become the system we live in where every move can be scrutinized and spun to the advantage of the elected officials. In this system there is no room for anyone out side of the Inner Circle to make a mistake that could cost a vote or a friend. So no matter what is coming out of their mouths to get this bill passed the truth is they don’t really mean it.
We used to be able to provide our input into hiring our subordinates. We now are not allowed to even attend the interviews. Management? Policy Making? Decisions? Never happen!
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:22 pm
Wow… where do I start? The most important position in just about any organization is the front-line supervisor. They train, review work, assign work, and make sure the job gets done. If they have been chosen on ability, and get the support (resources, direction, tools) from upper management they need, the organization will almost always succeed. Can’t even begin to detail how the current model of state government has failed in this regard, but the current sitation (filling supervisory positions via seniority or political connections; front-line staff being paid more than their supervisors; forced furlough days; unpaid overtime; etc.) makes for a disfunctional organization. Will this bill fix all that?
Comment by wordonthestreet Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:31 pm
In the state police it got so bad that Sgts won’t take the M/Sgt test because vacation time was less, salary was less and got no OT, did anybody think that this was the plan all along between Blago and the uhion that if you screwed non union people bad enough that you would have more employees in the unions thus raising the amt of dues the union gets.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:32 pm
Isn’t this just a fumigation bill under another name? A number of Blago management hires have yet to take the hint.
Comment by Newsclown Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:52 pm
“There’s already a buffer between government employment and the economic realities of the private sector.”
I kinda see what you’re getting at, but I must beg to differ. Yes, I work for the state but that doesn’t mean I live in a bubble or have no concept of what a “real job” is. I have to pay the same taxes as everyone else, buy the same stuff, etc. I have the same bills and debts to pay as others do. I have a spouse who had a “real world” job that he has since lost, not to mention some health problems. I used to work in the private sector too, and I was once laid off with only two hours warning. So if I’m “insulated” from economic reality, well, that insulation feels pretty thin to me!
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 12:52 pm
Just for Clarification wrote:
“SB3644 does not repeal all PSAs, the intent is to repeal any future SPSAs, Legislative staff, and those PSAs that were previously coded as 4d3 employees, not those PSA that were includedd and coded as BBR.”
If this is the case, why doesn’t the Legislation just say it? The interpretation we’re receiving is that this bill could strip union representation from thousands of employees. It’s open ended. If it passes maybe Quinn won’t strip everyone of union membership but the law will still be on the books. Maybe the next governor will take it many steps further.
I’m not a rabid union person. I understand the need to have clearly defined lines between management and union members. I’ve seen how difficult if not impossible it is to remove bad state employees.
The truth is this is a sneaky bill that came out of nowhere. It could potentially harm a lot of hardworking, honest people. Sure there are some bad apples in there but the Governor’s using an awfullt big hammer to hit one nail on the head.
Comment by Where's the loyalty? Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 1:01 pm
As a former non-management MC employee whose title was eliminated / merged with the creation of the SPSA title, I would have joined the union if I could have. The only reason I had a SPSA title was to pay me between 1/2 and 2/3 of what I could have earned in the private sector. I’m not complaining since I chose to stay here near elderly parents but that was the facts. A lot of the MC employees got the short end of the stick quite often … and this was before Rod became gov. It got much worse with Rod. Don’t blame them for wanting to be in the union.
The problem, as I see it, is figuring out who REALLY has any management authority. Those people should not be in the union. But a lot of the so-called managers have no authority so why should they be called management?
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 1:02 pm
Lots of good comments by lots of folks. Non-union professional & career employees have been abused for the last 8 years as recounted above. Political patronage hacks have infiltrated state agencies in depth under the guise of being Rutan-exempt “policy-making” employees. When the abused managers flock to the union, the so-called “policy-makers” climb on board…best of both worlds. And it’s not just AFSCME…there are other unions. What a mess.
Comment by Justa Joe Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 1:09 pm
Irish 12:22
Right you are about the paranoia and micromanaging of the Blago era. I thought it would get better without him, but it didn’t. So many departments have circled the wagons for so long—everyone is just going through the motions.
Comment by Way Way Down Here Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 1:30 pm
Bill still has not been sent to the senate. Anybody know why?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 2:30 pm
“I kinda see what you’re getting at, but I must beg to differ. Yes, I work for the state but that doesn’t mean I live in a bubble or have no concept of what a “real job” is.”
Didn’t mean to imply that you (or any other government worker) didn’t. I’m sure most government workers are exposed the economic realities outside the bubble on a personal level. What I’m getting at is the more broad macro-economic or macro-employment decisions.
Economic realities in the real world can be reflect in government, but it’s often a very muted & lagging response. If the economy goes to heck and companies slash their budgets/employment costs by 15%-20%, government might get around to it a year or two later once tax revenues sink–and even then only cut by 5% or 10%. And that’s a MIGHT. Sometimes when the economy tanks, policy makers will make the argument that we need to swell the ranks of government to take up the employment slack–case in point is the federal government right now. Or here in Illiois where our receipts are down but we want to keep spending anyway.
So in some political circles you have a permanent upward trend of government growth–the only thing that changes is the reasoning. Grow or maintain government jobs in the good times because we can afford it/have the revenues. Grow or maintain the government jobs in the bad times because the people need the social services or government employment or stimulus is needed to keep contractors employed.
Comment by John Galt Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 2:54 pm
I was a front line supervisor in a state agency for at least 25 or my 35 years on the job, and never belonged to a union and never wanted to belong to a union. Yes, the union people ended up with salaries very disproportionate to their responsibilities, but they were also stuck in whatever track the union wanted them to be in, and the union did everything it could to block upward mobility based on merit. This is a good move, and in the long run will promote better managers by making them competitive for promotion and not dependent on a union whose goal is mainly to protect mediocrity. As for blaming Blagojevich, I think you have to also blame the previous administrations for managerial discontent in some agencies. My wife was a manager who invariabley got superior ratings and had no raises for 5 years because her agency was chronically underfunded, mostly by indifferent Republicans. Discontent among state supervisory personnel was far advanced before Blago came on the scene.
Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 2:59 pm
Public sector unions thatbargain for pay and benefits and have the right to strike was a mistake when FDR opposed it in the 1930s, a mistake when the Little Wagner Act passed in NY, and a mistake when IL climbed on board.
On the other hand, Blago really treated some people abominably and you can hardly blame them for seeking such protection as was available.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Both sides.
Comment by Marty Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 3:11 pm
This storm has been brewing for some time. As related by others, it picked up steam in the Blago admininstration as SPSA positions were downgraded to PSA positions and made exempt/at will. In our agency, senior managers complained about what this was doing and could see that long term, more and more people would petition to get into the union for both protection and raises. Most of those who have supported unionization would never have done so had they been treated fairly compared to union employees. Instead, the Blago and Quinn administrations sat on their hands and allowed this to happen. Our director couldn’t understand why no one in a union position will apply for a merit comp position when they open up. You reap what you sow but this bill is an attempt to undo that and it’s no coincidence it’s after the election rather than before.
Comment by Regnad Kcin Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 3:40 pm
this is nothing more than them trying to protect the patronage jobs. They were losing them left and right. The union contracts are open for the public to see what the employees get but not with merit comp raises.
Comment by tipster Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 4:20 pm
History lesson — many PSA’s were allowed in the union during the Blagojevich admin. Initially, the ILRB ruled against most positions entering a union, but all of the sudden a call from the Governor’s office comes down and they are approved.
This was set up as a legalized pay to play by Blago. State workers on payroll join a union (ISEA) and pay dues. Union supports Blago campaign with sizable cash doantions. Sweet deal. The problem is that this opened the door for other titles to be considered and AFSCME saw an opportunity and pounced on it.
The reality is that most agencies have been so poorly managed since 2004 that it doesn’t really matter that there are no managers. This started with Blago and has continued under Quinn. Common denominator = Democrats. They created this mess and now they are trying to clean it up w/o accepting the responsibility. And the sad part is that they can get by with it because the majority voters don’t want a change as evident from the last election.
I agree with Rep Currie’s statement that there needs to be managers for state agencies to run effectively. But they also need to be qualified instead of political hacks, and she knows better than to talk about that problem when you are the party in power. So go ahead and kick these employee’s out of the union. They are used to the abuse since 2003. Sad, very sad.
Comment by southern illinoisan Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 4:59 pm
There’s a few posts that come close (southern illinoisan, wordonthestreet) but otherwise a bunch of historical misinformation here. Blaming RRB for mistreating merit comp employees which led to mass unionization petitions is not as much of a cause as many here seem to think. The changing composition of and philosophical 180 the ISLRB did on these petitions once RRB took over is. Whether that was at the specific request of RRB is unknown to me, but petitions for inclusion that were denied in the Ryan years (and presumably before Ryan also) all of a sudden started getting approved. Funny, I don’t recall any changes in the IPLRA in the interim that loosened the criteria.
Comment by Original Rambler Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 5:25 pm
What strikes me as really odd about this, is that it comes at a time when Assistant Wardens are in the process of joining the Laborers Union. The State is backing adding the A/W’s to the Union. Check who testified for the State, and what their testimony was if you need proof of this. They are doing this, just as Majors, Superintendants, Chief Engineers, and other Management and Administrative Personnell did in the past. They got their job based solely on being a political insider, and in order to protect themselves afterwards, they petition to join a Union, so that they cant be removed under a new Administration. It does not matter if they were actually qualified to perform the duties of the job they were handed, and as there is abundant evidence, many were not. But, that does not matter, if they get in the Engineers, or Laborers, or AFSCME. What seems curious to me is, why be supporting Management and Administrative positions in joining a Union, and at the same time backing a bill that would outlaw this? What is the left hand doing while we are watching the right hand? Or, will this just be batted back and forth while The Gov and Legislative Leaders claim they are trying to fix it, and let to die so that they really dont have to, and let things go as they are on the path to go?
Comment by So IL M Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 5:26 pm
I agree with So IL M.
Looks like a misdirect.
“Look at this.
No tax increase here.”
“Oh, we don’t have the authority to kick people out of the union. My bad.”
Comment by gg Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 5:33 pm
This bill won’t save much money. This administration is having trouble replacing merit comp workers who leave or retire now. Unionized employees won’t accept promotions because,if they aren’t already making more than their departing supervisors, they soon would be and they know this administration won’t do anything about it. Nor do they trust the administration to treat them fairly in other areas. Also, in many professional positions, the pay rates are too low and the distrust of the administration is too high for outsiders to take the jobs. This administration has been living off a decent body of professionals and management employees built up before 2003, and destroying more of it every year. Given its history, this administration will eventually have to pay union rates for employees or offer above-union rates to fill the jobs. Or just hire more hacks. Where’s the savings in that? This bill is just a speed bump along that road.
Comment by Pat Robertson Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 5:40 pm
AMEN! Pat Robertson. You nailed it.
Comment by southern illinoisan Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 5:55 pm
I just read the bill in regards to how it would effect me. Correct me if I misread the bill, but the language appears to not target persons currently with union representation. The bill applies, if passed, to new job fillings & positions currently under review by the Labor Board.
Comment by Proud AFSCME Manager Steward Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 6:27 pm
the question was asked on another board who would run the prisons when the wardens and a/w’s get in the union…my joke was apparently the aa2’s as they are never getting in a union. Afscme owns the title but they aren’t in at IDOC…so they can’t join afscme because they recommend discipline and they can’t join isea b/c the title is in afscme at other agencies (soon to be at concordia). meanwhile they take the 24 fd’s that upper management making 70-100+k while they make half of that
Comment by jimmy james Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 6:47 pm
proud steward..that is how i read the bill as well. i’m thinking once the protected liaisons leave the job it will be mc again. essentially protecting their hacks while allowing themselves the ability to hire more in the future without afscme getting in the way
Comment by jimmy james Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 6:48 pm
Proud AFSCME Manager Steward:
It does effect current membership. It redefines the definition of a manager. Currie even admitted that it would open the door to have positions pulled out!!!!
Comment by IFT Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 6:54 pm
Who will run the prisons you ask? The Laborers Union will. They already have a lot of influence, and will be able to tell all their “Members” what to do. One quick question: Is there still a Dep. Director of IDOT who is also an Organizer for ISEA? There was a few years ago, but dont know if he still is or not.
Comment by So IL M Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 7:28 pm
While I agree the bill di\oes redefine the definition of managers, the bill specifically limimits that redefinition to new position fillings & positions currently under review by the Labor Board. I think if there was any attempt to include already existing union employees in this new procedure it would not withstand a court challenge.
Comment by Proud AFSCME Manager Steward Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 7:46 pm
I agree with S. IL M and Pat R. This is a mess that get’s deeper and deeper! Many problem employees are already in the union and will be “safe” from the effects of this bill AND it will open more “rutan exempt jobs for political appointments in the future. I am tired of people being appointed to positions in state management that have NO CLUE how to do the job! It is frustrating to be a state worker right now-union or not!
Comment by frustrated Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 7:52 pm
Mike Lawrence wrote an astute article about Blagojevich’s legacy of administrative chaos at the SJR: http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1351156245/Mike-Lawrence-It-will-be-tough-to-recover-from-Blagojevich-era.
Comment by Emily Booth Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 8:03 pm
Here is an idea for the GA who obviously lack any common sense or stewardship ability,
LET YOUR SUPERVISORS SUPERVISE AND GIVE THEM A RAISE
then they wont want to be in the union.
I know too hard to comprehend.
GEEZZ
Comment by Rick Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 8:42 pm
So IL M, yes I believe the individual at traffic safety is still prominent in isea.
Comment by jimmy james Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 8:43 pm
So, here I am. A PSA who hasn’t had a pay raise in years. A little bonus here and there under Blago’s lame attempt to placate merit comp employees. I took my share of furlough days. I was willing to give some back to protect my job and the jobs of others. I came from private industry so I knew sometimes you’ve got to tighten the belt for the common good.
Along comes AFSCME. They want to unionize my position. I talk to my superiior and I’m told there’s no downside. At least you’ll get a rise if I get into AFSCME. Also I’m told you’ll get some protection from the powers that be if one party replaces another. (I’m a Democrat who came in under Ryan.) So if I’m in the union I can start voting again in the primaries. As a merit comp employee I never voted in a primary. Why announce what party you lean toward if someone decides to check your voting record?
So my option votes. We don’t hear anything for a long time. Eventually we’re certified and get a pay scale. It tops out at well over a $100,000 a year. I know that’s good and I’m not complaining.
Pretty good I think. But then there’s that liitle voice that says it’s too good to be true. I guess that little voice was right.
I understand the need for a clear line between management and employee. I know the public hates unions and government employees in general. But there are a lot of decent, hard-working state employees in the unions whose lives are going to be up ended by this bil if it passes.
We’re nothing but pawns in this political game. We pay into our pensions but the Legislature diverts the cash in order not to raise taxes. State employees are blamed in part for the budget mess.
The Governor courts the unions for political support, AFSCME helps get him elected and then he stabs the union in the back.
I’ve always gotten a fair shake from my superiors and my state agency. The ones who stick it to the employees are the ones we vote for. I’m not going to forget this. Ever.
Comment by I knew it was too good to be true Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 8:54 pm
As an SPSA with no pay raise for 6 years, I love and appreciate all my union staff. They work hard and deserve the 25% more than my salary (more considering the 24 unpaid furlough days per year I give up). My annual performance evaluations for them are moot … they get their union raises regardless. I would go ‘union’ in a heartbeat because the State is losing my loyalty and respect by taking advantage of me.
Comment by PatriotUSA Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 9:01 pm
The change to the definition of “public employee” (i.e., a person who can be unionized on page 12 of the house amendment adds “policy-making employee” to the list of those who cannot be public employees. Policy-making employee is defined on page 8 to mean one of 3 different categories, the last of which is “whose position authorizes, either directly or indirectly, meaningful input into government decision-making on issues where there is room for principled disagreement on goals or their implementation.” That’s it. The whole definition. If you can tell your boss you think his desk should be on the south side of his office, so the sun shines past him into the eyes of visitors, you’re a policy-making employee and are not eligible to be in the union. Your advice doesn’t have to be followed, just listened to. And God help you if you take it upon yourself to turn the lights on when you come in or off when you leave, because there can be a principled disagreement on whether Blago and his newly-crowned heir want you to work in the dark or give the impression to citizens that their government is still working into the night to solve the problems of this state.
Comment by JustMe Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 9:11 pm
I am one of those “Lucky” MC 24 furlough taking days soi employee. I do NOT have any policy making authority nor have I had a raise in over 6 years. I want to be in the union as the union scale for my position pays five hundred dollars more at the starting salary then what I am making currently without the 24 forlough days taken out. I have the years of service watching people “appointed” into MUCH highter paying MC positions then myself yet have no IDEA what their job is…when is this nonsense of hiring “friends” going to stop in this state??? Illinois citizens and state workers deserve BETTER…..MUCH BETTER
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:32 pm
This whole conversation is sad, really. The people of the state deserve competent public employees. I cannot honestly imagine why a person would want to be a state employee right now. Apparently it is the employees’ fault that the GA hasn’t funded their pensions in the last 30 years (including the part the employees have paid out of their checks). People talk about incompetent management in many departments, but my question is how does this bill help the situation? Exactly which part of having to take furlough days, sitting back and watching your employees make more money than you, and not being protected from losing your job to the daughter of a politician’s friend do you expect to bring in the kind of quality employees necessary to end the mismanagement that seems to be a common theme? Does anyone who has watched politics in this state honestly believe this will lead to fewer “political” jobs?!?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 11, 11 @ 10:50 pm
anon i’m with you starting salary for my job is 10k higher at step 1 in afscme
Comment by jimmys twin Wednesday, Jan 12, 11 @ 7:11 am
I am an MC employee with over 25 yers experience in the private sector before taking a position with the state that keeps me close to home. I am not a hack - I am very highly qualified and make about 20% less than if I was in the private sector. Some of that is compensation for not havbing to be on the road constantly or away from family 1 to 5 nights a week. That being said, I have observed that many of the unionized employees have a skewed view of their worth and what is fair or unfair. There are people where I work who would be making minimum wage in the private sector probably with no benefits who have made over $65K the last several years. These are people who have been in teh state system for so long they don’t understand or appreciate what they have. Part of me does resent that they are making about 80% of my salary while my responsibilites are much higher; but, that is the “game” and I understand it. The PSAs in my agency that went into the union had multiple supervisory responsibilities including developing policies within their departments, recommending disciplines, and doing performance evaluations. As the person in charge of a site with less than a handful of MCs with over 200 employees, the amount of duties that have fallen to me is astounding. I am all for getting the PSAs out of the bargaining units, and keeping the SPSAs out. I am an SPSA, and I will not go into the union because I don’t want to go into a system that rewards mediocrity. That is what it does, it rewards all who manage to stay employed. Well, anyone should be able to stay employed as long as they are performing at the D+ level. I am putting as much of my own money as I can into the 403B retirement system as I can because I have more confidence in my own ability than in the state pension system. Also, I am philosophically oppposed to Public Sector unions. By the way, before you go off thinking I am some rich cat who never had to do a hard days work in his life, you should know I grew up in a proud US Steelworker Union household, and grew up on the wrong side of the tracks where the economic pressures that state employees are reltively immune from was reality. So, I am for the bill, and I know others are in, and that is okay. I know the bargaing unit people I work with find me fair, empathetic, and knowlegeable.
Comment by pizzajohnny Wednesday, Jan 12, 11 @ 11:09 am
so what happened with the bill…
Comment by jimmy james Wednesday, Jan 12, 11 @ 4:37 pm
i looked…so the senate did nothing with it lol…
Comment by jimmy james Wednesday, Jan 12, 11 @ 5:24 pm