Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Tweet of the week
Next Post: *** LIVE SESSION COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* I’ve been telling subscribers about this over the past several days. I didn’t want to point it out when I posted the Speaker Madigan video because of that. The SJ-R watched the video and filed this report based at least partly on that…
[E]mployees will be offered a stark choice: Take a lesser COLA or you will not receive access to the state’s health care plan for retirees and your pay raises will not count toward your pension.
That’s different than Gov. Pat Quinn’s original plan, which would’ve simply cut off government subsidies for retiree health insurance if an employee didn’t move to the newly created, lower-tiered pension plan. This plan would mean employees would not be allowed to purchase state health insurance when they retire if they stay in the current retirement plan.
More…
For employees that began work before Jan. 1, 2011 who are in the tier 1 set of retirement benefits, they receive an annual, 3 percent compounded COLA.
Madigan said the new COLA would be the same as it is for those employees who began work after Jan. 1, 2011 and receive tier 2 retirement benefits. They get the lesser of 3 percent or one-half the urban consumer price index and their COLA is not compounded.
That means if a retiree has a $50,000 pension and the consumer price index is 2 percent, they would receive a COLA adjustment of 1 percent, so their pension would be $50,500 the next year. If during the next year, the consumer price index was 4 percent, they would receive $51,000 the year after that.
The plan will also phase-in a shift of the pension costs to local school districts, universities and community colleges, an idea staunchly opposed by legislative Republicans.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:12 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Tweet of the week
Next Post: *** LIVE SESSION COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So that’s it? Take the lower Cola and still get subsidized insurance?
Comment by lincolnlover Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:19 pm
It figures to be litigated…
Comment by titan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:22 pm
Just another way of taxing, making homeowners pick up the cost of pensions, by raising property taxes! Hope the Republicans kill the shifting costs to homeowners!
Comment by Billy Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:22 pm
Billy,
The employees you’re talking about work for the locals, are paid by the locals, have salaries negotiated by the locals and serve the locals. Why isn’t it fair for the locals to pick up the cost of their pensions, too?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:31 pm
Are state retirees entitled to participate in Medicare? If so, does this just impact those who retire before Medicare age?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:32 pm
Notice that there is no mention of how much the subsidy will be. If the subsidy is calculated according to SB 3919, you still pay a lot out of pocket.
This is their way of side stepping the constitutionality issue by offering a choice. The problem is that both options take money out of the pockets of state retirees.
Comment by seriously? Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:35 pm
====If the subsidy is calculated according to SB 3919===
Dude, that bill was tabled.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:39 pm
What happened to raising state employee contributions to the pension system? Does not seem current plan will do much to reduce pension costs!
Comment by Billy Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:40 pm
I honestly think in the end, if this is the plan for state workers, that this is a fairly painless change. Yes it stinks not to get a guarnateed 3% compounded COLA, but you still get a COLA AND access to group health insurance, plus no additional payments from employees towards retirement. I understand if you are already retired this stinks and I would hope it doesn’t apply to you. But for those of us still working I would almost consider this a big victory compared to what has been discussed previously. I can live with this.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:43 pm
Billy:
Have an actuary compound a 3% COLA for somebody retiring in their 50’s and see how much they come up with. I think you will be surprised at how much is saved.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:45 pm
What I am still not clear on though is what exactly the ‘choice’ is. Meaning a retiree would pick to have access to health care and just elect the lower cola OR does it mean the retiree (a current one) get less pension figure than he/she currently does. Tier 2 pension is figured less than tier one besides the cola cost, correct?
Comment by Cindy Lou Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:48 pm
There is the separate SURS issue from the earlier post. SURS are paying more for a COLA now
Comment by western illinois Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:50 pm
Does it really matter what is being proposed at this point? It seems pretty clear cut that the courts are going to strike down all of these proposals. So let’s cut to the chase: Why not strike a deal with Afscme, whereby members get to vote on whether to increase their contribution into the pension system or risk losing their pension completely. I guarantee it’ll pass if the union leadership supports it.
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 4:59 pm
Sox fan - the courts would likely throw out the “losing the pension completely” part there
Comment by titan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 5:18 pm
I think the courts will throw all of this out because these are all contractual and contracts are protected by the US and Illinois constitutions.
I just pointed out that SURS seems to have an explicit agreement to pay more for its COLA really looks clear. If that did not hold in cours no contract anywhere would be safe and that would be a real economic disaster
Comment by western illinois Friday, May 25, 12 @ 5:37 pm
Nope- these options don’t look like a “diminishment” or an “impairment” at all. I’m sure the judge who gets the resulting lawsuit won’t see it as one either. Sure….
Comment by roadiepig Friday, May 25, 12 @ 5:42 pm
So then this basically will confirm the stampede to the door. Employees are basically being given a choice between one or the other diminishments of the benefits they were contractually promised. The solution is not to be an employee of a state where contracts mean nothing.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:00 pm
I heard the “Americans for Prosperity” (Koch Brothers) ad yesterday to call your legislators to save the vtal state programs from being cut because of the penions. I was facinated to find AFP found there were any government programs worth saving.
Actaully PS the Koch brothers are getting exactly what they want a Democratic Party Civil war and another undermined state government
Head they win tails they win.
I assume that AFP will become a big funder of the Illinois Democratic Party and Friends of MJM now right?
Comment by western illinois Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:07 pm
Despite all the chest thumping by Quinn et al this shows the relatively weak position they had to bargain from. Cullerton and Madigan know full well that any legislation is likely to be found unconstitutional. They are trying to lessen the pain as much as possible but a diminishment is a diminishment no matter how big or small. The Courts are going to boot this thing right back at the GA
Comment by Generation X Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:08 pm
As a state employee who is (was) set to retire on 12/31/13, I am going to have to do some math. Being a veteran, I qualify to use the VA for my medical. I am going to have to look at the cost of the VA medical vs the cost of what I have to pay for the state insurance when I retire. For my spouse it is a no brainer. She is a vet over 50% disabled, so she gets medical from the VA at no cost. Since contractual raises mean nothing to the state, It looks like I can accept to stay where I am. The raises aren’t coming anyhow.
Comment by Dave Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:10 pm
Dave I’m a 10% service-connected disabled vet, so I’ll head over to the VA for my free coverage too. The question I have is whether my wife and kids (till 26) can still get the state plan if I opt out.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:19 pm
Get used to it, folks.
Health care ain’t going to get any cheaper in the short run.
You can moan and groan all you want, but outside of the Pentagon, that’s where the money is.
Start shaving those zeroes off the right side, and know we’re talking.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:27 pm
Titan, what I meant was this: Say the courts, as expected, throw out all these diminishing clauses, what are we left with? Will the bankruptcy court magically create more money to pay my future pension?
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:37 pm
Why would anyone choose to change their pension plan for the promise of state subsidized health insurance which could end a year from now anyway? Our state paid health insurance MAY not be constitutionally protected, but our pension is, so why trade a protected pension for an unprotected benefit? Because Quinn tells us he’ll keep his word about continuing to provide affordable health insurance for retirees? No thank you very much. Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me.
Comment by Old Timer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:50 pm
Exactly OT. Plus with more and more people uninsursed because the premiums being paid are simply unsustainable, we’ll be headed very soon to single-payer like all the other civilized democracies, regardless of what republicans want. The affordable care act is just the first necessary step. The argument is rapidly changing from “Guns or Butter” to “Guns or Civilized, Societal Healthcare”.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 6:57 pm
Billy…didn’t homeowners elect the politicians to represent them? You might not like the job they’ve done, but they’re yours. Write the check and be more careful who you vote for!
Comment by Steamer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:04 pm
As for OT’s comment that paid health insurance “may” not be considered a diminishment, well the judges themselves said they may sue! Yes, I understand who got them elected, but I also understand who they will take care of if push comes to shove.
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:12 pm
This should seal the deal for many employees. The exodus will be huge in the next week as everyone leaves before having to make this bargain. We’ll see thousands leave state employment before the bill gets signed.
Comment by Budget Watcher Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:22 pm
Sox: personally, I believe it is a diminishment hence my use of the word “may” in all caps. My point is that no current state employee should buy into this and elect to choose a lesser pension in the belief that it will ensure a state subsidized health plan upon retirement. Just in case the honorable judges don’t agree with us, I’m certainly not going to be bullied into it.
Comment by Old Timer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:28 pm
I’m confused. Is this being proposed by Governor Madigan or Governor Quinn. I keep getting these two guys confused and can’t figure out which one is the actual Governor.
Comment by Jechislo Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:37 pm
Jech: that’s easy - just follow the puppet strings. They’re hard to see sometimes, but they’re there all right.
Comment by Old Timer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:41 pm
Totally agree, OT, and that’s why I put “may” in quotes. But keep in mind, for this plan to work, the legislature is banking on state employees choosing the state-funded health insurance as a way to get us to “voluntarily” diminish our pensions.
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:47 pm
As for who is running the show, it doesn’t really matter. As someone mentioned earlier, there aren’t a lot of choices out there regarding pensions because past case law regarding their constitutionality.
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 7:54 pm
Budget Watcher and others - I hope your take on this is correct - that it only applies to current employees. As I listen to the Madigan video, I believe he also includes current retirees and their healthcare options.
Comment by Nilwood Northsider Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:00 pm
I absolutely agree, Sox. I, for one, will not be part of the 75 percent of state employees whom Governor Quinn is counting on to buy into this unreasonable “choice”. It will be interesting if 95 percent of us decide NOT to “voluntarily” diminish our pensions. What then, Q?
Comment by Old Timer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:02 pm
OT, really the only choice is to retire if you can, otherwise start looking and get out as quickly as possible, because if current employees don’t fall for the current choice, expect no raises, increasing premiums and rising deductibles for a long time.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:11 pm
That being said, my original thought still stands: Let’s get Afscme to the bargaining table now before the debt cost and our credit gets even worse than it is. I don’t blame Quinn for this; in fact, I commend him. We finally have someone who is willing risking his political future to do what is best for state.
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:13 pm
Debt cost? You mean the same rating firms that so properly rated those credit default swaps and derivitives? Please, bondholders are lining up to but Illinois bonds at the lowest rates on record. They should bond out the pension debt in POBs now, instead of trying to stick it to the employees. They had no problem selling the last batch of bonds regardless of the right wing rhetoric. Don’t fall for their BS sox.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:18 pm
The E-mail I received from Henry Bayer says it applies to crrent retirees as well. Additionally, there would be no COLA until the retiree reaches age 67 or is retired 5 years. Additionally, if you opt out of the COLA plan, future raises will not count towards calculating your pension.
“Budget Watcher and others - I hope your take on this is correct - that it only applies to current employees. As I listen to the Madigan video, I believe he also includes current retirees and their healthcare options.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:21 pm
PS, it took us 40 years to get to this point, so our debt load is not going to disappear anytime soon. At some, inflation will inevitably kick in. Now is the time to get our house in order, while the rates are low.
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:25 pm
I don’t see how it can…how can retires give up future raises counting towards the pension? They’re already annuitized. But, I agree, it’s not been clearly stated. We should know in short order though.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:25 pm
Sox: What political future?
PublicServant: What raises?
Comment by Old Timer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:28 pm
Sox, you’re right, so why not give the state 40 years to pay up, since THAT’s been the problem these last 40. Dump the current pension ramp law that’s forcing all these current huge “costs” when the state is in the Great Recession. Borrow while the rates are at historic lows. Then the state can’t continue to short the pensions.
P.S Let me know when that inflation you mention is going to get here. I can make a fortune. Don’t let right wing FUD influence any rash decisions now.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:31 pm
Retiree’s can certainly trade their compounded COLA for access to healthcare.
Comment by Nilwood Northsider Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:32 pm
OT: Exactly, the Guv could be doing the politically expedient thing and kick the can down the road like all his predecessors. And PS, I somehow lost a sentence iin my last post which was this: Rates are so low right now that any rating downgrade will have minimal effect. So borrowing now will keep us from paying huge borrowing costs later (when inflation kicks in).
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:37 pm
Then you need separate consideration for retirees spelled out. Even so, as OT says, who would trade a constitutionally protected COLA for health care who premiums can and will rise at an unknown amount every year in the future. Then what? People have other options for health care. They’ll evaluate the costs and choose if they have to, but since the judges have already threatened to sue, I’m pretty sure that particular false choice is going to be shot down. If not, I’ll deal with it then. But to give up the COLA now, and choose the uncertainty associated with unknown health insurance premiums in the future? No way.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:47 pm
So the “group thought” is for any current State of Illinois employee is to ditch the promised future healthcare benefits and stick with the retirement? Just asking…
Comment by SLICK NICK Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:54 pm
Public
The problem is that if you opt out of the healthcare you lose having any raises received being used to calculate your pension.
“Then you need separate consideration for retirees spelled out. Even so, as OT says, who would trade a constitutionally protected COLA for health care who premiums can and will rise at an unknown amount every year in the future. Then what? People have other options for health care. They’ll evaluate the costs and choose if they have to, but since the judges have already threatened to sue, I’m pretty sure that particular false choice is going to be shot down. If not, I’ll deal with it then. But to give up the COLA now, and choose the uncertainty associated with unknown health insurance premiums in the future? No way.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:58 pm
No, each employee would have to evaluate their own situation and make a decision, if the bill is ever passed and is found to be constitutional. Bottom line, I think, is get out now if you can retire. Look for a new job otherwise, and get out as soon as possible.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:58 pm
Yes, I’m with PS and OT, why would anyone give up something now for a future uncertainty?
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 8:58 pm
A lot of lawyers are rubbing their hands together and grinning about now.
Wordslinger you are quite correct, Healthcare costs are headed north. The medical profession would be wise to learn from what has happened to organized labor. How long before the masses want their heads on a pike.
Comment by Bemused Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:00 pm
Sorry, didn’t mean to speak for others.
Comment by Sox fan Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:00 pm
I’m retired as of February 1st AFSCME. I get a 3% constitutionally guarenteed raise each year, and I’m not giving that up for anything. They can do their worst. I’ll wait to see what the court says, and get the law’s effects stayed until the courts make a decision.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:02 pm
Retirement handbook (SERS) notes “your benefits are based on the laws in effect your last day of employment.” SRS Retiree & Survivor Handbook Tier 1 printed 1/1/11 pg.7. I’d think making tbe change for a retiree wouldn’t be kosher. Perhaps wishful thinking here.
Comment by whatnext Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:11 pm
AFSCME: don’t think we’ll need to worry about raises playing a big part in this decision. My salary has not changed dramatically over the last 5 years nor will it do so any time soon, I’m sure. I can’t speak for others who may benefit from raises and title upgrades more than an average Joe like me.
Comment by Old Timer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:17 pm
Slick Nick: exactly - no other choice at all.
Comment by Old Timer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:21 pm
Kind of makes one wonder why any “new” employee would want to work for the State of Illinois. The lure of State employment was never to get rich but to have a secure retirement and healthcare. Through the abuses of the few well connected is now hurting everyone. (Every politician has a goofy kid or nephew that “needs a job” or a relative that cannot get health insurance and “needs a state job”.) Both Repubs and Dems are to be “strung up” for the abuses that they brought upon this State.
Comment by SLICK NICK Friday, May 25, 12 @ 9:22 pm
Slick Nick: If the state cant get enough employees, they will hire consultants at 3 - 4x the price.
Comment by AC Friday, May 25, 12 @ 10:00 pm
If the new plan says my raises don’t count, then if I started with the state as a new employee right before the tier 2 cutoff date and earned $2500 a month and never changed jobs, when I retire 40 years later my pension would be calculated at the $2500 rate. Not good.
Comment by anon Friday, May 25, 12 @ 10:06 pm
If changing COLA is found to be legal over time everyone in the system will have their COLA reduced, better take madigans deal.
Comment by foster brooks Friday, May 25, 12 @ 10:55 pm
Foster: come on now - you call that a deal? I’d rather keep what I have than opt for what might lie behind door number 2, but thanks.
Comment by Old Timer Friday, May 25, 12 @ 11:13 pm
Just Say No to “voluntary” pension reductions. Remember, they can’t take it away if we don’t let them.
Comment by JustSayNo Friday, May 25, 12 @ 11:42 pm
And the decision is being made by the same fat cats that failed to make the payments to the pension system year after year. I see there is nothing in the plan to force them to do so going forward either. Mike Madigan can go home with his big fat war chest when he’s done. He can be nice a cosy in his nice house with all his money and know he’s screwed people that have given much more to the state then he ever did.
Comment by MyLife'sWorkForTHis Saturday, May 26, 12 @ 4:37 am
Just work till you get on Medicare. Right now the state is still making payroll and has good benefits.
At Medicare age the State Insurance is secondary and you can find a supplement to cover the difference. At that point your pension is much larger. If there is a choice the compounded cola is the prize that you cannot buy somewhere else in the future.
Comment by Rick Saturday, May 26, 12 @ 6:09 am
MyLife’sworkForThis; your right, nice right they rob the state employee’s (of what would be their SSI payments)now they will dump the future costs of the pension’s on local taxing body’s for those employees and their neighbor’s to pay again on limited income.
Comment by Anon Saturday, May 26, 12 @ 6:46 am
If AFSCME signs a contract which agrees to all this, then I do not know how they can file suit in court and if they do not, then who can and who will file suit?
Comment by John Saturday, May 26, 12 @ 7:52 am
The Union cannot represent the currently retired members in court. The Union is not our collective bargaining agent.
Comment by Rich Saturday, May 26, 12 @ 7:57 am
===If AFSCME signs a contract which agrees to all this===
State law prohibits collective bargaining on public employee pension benefits. So that statute would have to be repealed first.
Comment by Rich Miller Saturday, May 26, 12 @ 8:14 am
A little late to the party, but I ran the COLA figures on the amount shown above and printed in the paper. Rounding down to a $4150 monthly pension ($49,800) I calculated a 3% compounded and a 1% added yearly based on the first year. This was done in a spreadsheet with no rounding so they are not precise, but very close. After 20 years, here is the monthly and annual pension.
3% compounded: 7,495 monthly, 89,940 annually
1% on first year: 4,980 monthly, 59,760 annually
Cumulative reduction in pension around $275,000 over 20 years.
It will be up to each person to make that decision, I’ve made mine.
Also agree that future raises not being calculated shouldn’t be a factor in the decision, don’t see that happening soon.
Comment by Ready To Get Out Monday, May 28, 12 @ 11:51 am