Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: More of the same
Next Post: Shot down in flames
Posted in:
* The Tribune editorial board has some details on the tentative contract agreement between AFSCME and Gov. Pat Quinn…
State retirees would no longer get free health care coverage. About 90 percent of retired state employees, university workers, judges and lawmakers now pay nothing toward their insurance premiums. Instead, the state pays nearly $800 million a year for retiree coverage.
Lawmakers passed a bill last year ending the freebie, but Quinn’s lawyers insisted the issue of how much retirees would pay had to be bargained with AFSCME. Depending on how much retirees end up paying — if, for example, their contributions keep pace with the rising costs of health care — the state could see significant savings going forward. That would be good news.
Also good news: State workers who are not yet retired would pay more toward their current health care costs. Those workers pay roughly $300 a month in premiums for top-notch family coverage, a better deal than what most private-sector workers get.
So what did AFSCME get at the bargaining table? We’re told its members would receive no wage increase the first year. In 2014 and 2015, they would receive 2 percent each year for an average of 1.3 percent each year of the three-year contract.
Sounds like an austerity plan. But there’s a potentially costly catch. Unionized employees work under a “step” system that rewards them with automatic promotions based on years on the job. Not all state workers will be eligible for step increases during the life of the contract. The roughly 40 percent who are eligible would receive step increases, in addition to their wage hikes.
It’s unclear how the Gordon Maag lawsuit over a state law eliminating the 100 percent subsidy for insurance premiums will play into this, but I’ve contact Maag’s attorney and I’ll let you know.
Anyway, discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:00 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: More of the same
Next Post: Shot down in flames
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
And again I ask what gives any union the right to bargain away a retirement benefit that I worked for. When I retired the Teamsters was the union that represented me. After retirement I am not represented or do I want to be.
Comment by Nieva Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:12 am
I’m glad the Tribune thinks it’s good news that I have to pay more for my healthcare. By the way, I’m not in the union so that’s a net pay cut for me. Thanks Tribune for being happy that people have to take a pay cut. Of course I take what you say with a grain of salt. Your management has been less than stellar. I hardly think your advice on economic matters is worth much.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:12 am
By the way Tribune, the “step” system does not equate to a “promotion.” At least get the facts right. It’s just another form of salary adjustment.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:15 am
This will cost a retiree the following amounts per year if they have the Cigna Healthlink Quality care plan:
Not on Medicare = $993 per month or $11,916 per year.
If on Medicare = $360 per month or $4,320 per year.
Comment by Cassiopeia Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:20 am
–Those workers pay roughly $300 a month in premiums for top-notch family coverage, a better deal than what most private-sector workers get.–
A Blue Cross PPO family plan runs about $1K a month employee contribution in the private sector, from my experience.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:20 am
So the Trib is happy that retirees are getting kicked to the curb…No news here until Rich talks to the Magg lawsuit lawyer.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:21 am
so, a retiree getting 27k in pension benefits annually will now have to pay almost half in health care? i am positive the retirees will not let afscme barter away our benefits. will definitely go to court
Comment by wizard Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:22 am
- Thanks Tribune for being happy that people have to take a pay cut. -
I’m not defending the tribune, and I hate seeing people take pay cuts, but are you under the impression the state has a lot of extra money right now? There are vendors going out of business and laying people off because of the backlog of bills, but you can’t sacrifice anything so that the state can hopefully get back on firm financial footing?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:23 am
If Casseopia is in the ballpark, this cost is outrageous for retirees - even those on Medicare. As I recall, Medicare isn’t “free” either.
Comment by Former State Employee Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:24 am
Given that the Trib can’t even get the contract COLA dates right, I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on what they say. My understanding is that the contract begins when the last one ended, and that the ending date would be June 30, 2015. So that means the COLAs are 2013 and 2014.
Cassie, we don’t know what the retirees will have to pay. The figures you are quoting are the total cost. I’m pretty sure we will stil have some kind of sliding scale based upon years of service, medicare eligiblity, and pension amount.
Comment by mythoughtis Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:25 am
for the sake of discussion, am I correct in thinking that if the Maag lawsuit goes the State’s way, that the State could make retirees pay the entire health care premium, or drop insurance coverage for them completely?? Obamacare only mandates health care coverage for current employees, correct? Isn’t it then beneficial for retirees that AFSCME would be able to bargain on their behalf for health care? I wouldn’t be surprised to see the State totally drop health care coverage for retirees as a means to cut the budget. Set me straight if I’m wrong.
Comment by huggybunny Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:26 am
Somewhere I read that the health insurance premium for the employee is going up by 1% of salary. For me that would be about $40 a month (I assume this means gross salary), which I can live with. Has anyone heard, however, how much the DEPENDENT coverage is going up?
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:28 am
I have been told Police officers and Fire fighters have no healthcare coverage when they retire. They are required to purchase it at a cost to some over $18,000 per year for a retiree and spouse. Welcome to the real world!
Comment by Look around Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:28 am
cassiopeia, what’s makes you jump from 0 for retirees (with 20yrs) to 100% of monthly premium?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:29 am
For sure I know of at least one person who will be overjoyed by the news of retirees being forced to make post-retirement contributions and that person would be the welfare queen that lives across the road from me. She won’t have to give up her 2 - 30 packs of Natty Light a week, cigarettes. cellphone, a trip once a week to the salon and oh, her free health and dental care. Not to mention her spot at the taxpayer’s teat. More contributions from retirees will make her feel safer in her welfare environment. For now anyway.
But seriously, NO ONE should feel fiscally safe right now. Especially a healthy welfare recipient.
Comment by redleg Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:30 am
look around-”welcome to the real world” the deal was 5% for each year and retirees took that into consideration when selecting a time to retire. now they want to change the rules? bs. if there were to be a cost, then my retirement plans might (would) have been different. if the state gets a do over, then so should i and in that case give me my job back and i will work longer.
Comment by wizard Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:33 am
1. My source is directly from 2 retirees latest reports from the Comptroller.
2. CMS has the option to have retirees pay whatever they want up to 100%. Fairness would say they shouldn’t but they can.
3. AFSCME may have used the millions going for retiree health as the offset to members getting a COLA. The retirees don’t have a vote but members do.
4. Keep in mind that logic and fairness are not necessarily values to the Quinn administration.
Comment by Cassiopeia Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:35 am
Look at the whole picture, AFSCME threw retirees under the bus! But they have agreed to let current members pay for health care coverage when they retire. If Maag or anybody else who has filed lawsuits win. Current retirees, will not have to pay. But if the new contract gets ratified. current members will pay when they retire. Current members where given a choice and that is a contract that says retirees pay part of health care cost. It may not mean much now, but when the state wants 20% in three years? Just remember current members you have a choice. If it was all about saving money. The state could just raise deductibles to get the ONE percent from current members. Its about getting current members to agree to pay health care cost during retirement! SO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE!
Comment by Bob Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:35 am
It is rumored that state employees will have to pay an additional one percent of their salary towards health care coverage and also pay higher co-pays and deductibles. If this is true, then the two percent annual raises are likley to be a wash. This is especially true if the employee is not recveiving any step increases.
Comment by Slick Willy Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:36 am
cass-afscme does NOT represent me and does not have the legal authority to represent me by labor law. as i mentioned before, when i left the state, the state tried to renege on some travel pay. i asked the union for help and they basically told me to go pound sand as they no longer could or would represent me as i was retired and no longer a union member. why then should the union have the right to “represent” me in this case? as i said BS.
Comment by wizard Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:38 am
oh, so cassiopeia, you’re merely speculating and running with it as fact, no?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:40 am
@STL:
I have sacrificed quite enough. No raises for nearly a decade. I took 36 furlough days over a two-year period a couple of years ago. I’m affected by the increase in the income tax just like anybody else. Do not lecture me about sacrifice. I’m not in the union but will be subject to the same healthcare changes negotiated in the contract (assuming they follow precedent). I have no idea what the agreement contains. I know the proposal on the table by the state would have doubled what I pay per month. I don’t consider that an acceptable sacrifice. I’ll reserve final judgement until I see the details. But not being in the union and not getting step and COLA, like apparently they are getting which will help offset the increased costs, is a NET CUT to my pay. I’ll thank you kindly to withhold your lectures about sacrifice until you can show me that ALL are sacrificing in equal amounts.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:45 am
I don’t know why folks think that the Cigna plans are so great - out of pocket for meds alone costs me over $250.00 per month - and medicare does not kick in to cover anything
Comment by Elise Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:47 am
This is from an e-mail forwarded to me. The original came from Henry Bayer. As for the retirees Health care i have nothing solid but i was told the payments would only count if the Maag case was won by the State.
• Pay increase effective July 1, 2013 – 2%
• Pay increase effective July 1, 2014 – 2%
• Step Increase effective July 1, 2012 (including retroactivity)
• Step increase effective July 1, 2013
• Step increase effective July 1, 2014
• Enhanced longevity increases – additional $25/month at each level
• Health care premium increase (individual) effective July 1, 2013 – 1% of salary
• Health care premium increase (dependent) – will vary based on plan and number of dependents
• Increases in co-pays and deductibles
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:50 am
=Those workers pay roughly $300 a month in premiums for top-notch family coverage, a better deal than what most private-sector workers get.=
This is because the union negotiated the deal, and why it’s beneficial to workers overall to belong to a union. Nowhere ever do you see in a Trib editorial the suggestion that private-sector workers should form or join unions to get better benefits.
I saw a bit of Bruce Rauner on Chicago Tonight the other day, and he was saying what other wealthy anti-union conservatives are now saying, that union leadership does not represent the best interests of its members. That was very untrue in the CTU strike. I’m quite happy with Henry Bayer and other AFSCME leaders. If there would be any unhappiness with union leaders, it could be in the other direction, that they negotiate too much away. The Rauner types are just trying to find a new way to divide us.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:51 am
If your a union member you probably should be happy right now. considering how bad this could maybe should have been this looks pretty good for you.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:52 am
The Maag suit is AFSCME in only one case. The other 3 participants are not. It is a contract case in 2 respects. 1 union and 2 the individual and the state at time of retirement who accepted a contract to retire under conditions in place at the time. If stste wins, ALL will pay. If Maag wins participant and/or groups will not.Current employees have a STRONG case IF union is telling them they will pa at retirement. Case law has it that that the employer must abide by the rules at time of hire. This is far from over.
Comment by pensioner Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:53 am
Demoralized - I don’t envy your situation, but what do you propose? What gets cut so you get a pay increase? Where else can the state save money so they can continue current benefit plans?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:55 am
Will the proposal for retirees to pay something for their health insurance coverage (which now the retiree does not pay but must pay for dependent) become effective for all CURRENT retirees or is this proposal going to be for only FUTURE retirees? I’m thoroughly confused. Also if Maag wins the lawsuit and current retirees see no change in payments for their health insurance, will that nullify the new contract the State will be entering into with AFSCME?
Comment by Little Egypt Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:58 am
the ill state empl assoc sent an email yesterday that contained this:
We also understand that AFSCME and the State have agreed on a contract for the next three years. Within this agreement was a provision for retirees health care cost. We understand that the retirees who are currently on Medicare would pay 1% of their monthly benefit for their health insurance. Those not on Medicare would pay 2% of their monthly benefit. We have not seen anything in writing to this effect, and are only reporting this information as supplied to us by our sources.
—-
i like a flat rate better than a sliding scale bec no one could tell me the approach cms was taking–those who worked long and hard should pay more, bec their annuities are higher; or, those who worked long and hard should pay less as a reward for longer service (similar to the diminishing cost to get to “free” health care).
Comment by langhorne Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 10:59 am
Pensioner
The current members where given a choice. If they decide to give away something it was there choice. I see your point that they must abide by rules when they where hired. But if they vote and ratify that retirees pay part of health care cost. They have agreed to a change in the rules. The state is not forcing the rule change. The members will have a choice.
Comment by Bob Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:03 am
As far as I’m concerned, we should take the deal, and let the lawsuits determine the ultimate fate of the insurance stuff, since even current employees who’ve already made the required 20 years would be included in a win…the rest of the issues seem reasonable.
Comment by Captain Illini Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:04 am
*** If your a union member you probably should be happy right now. considering how bad this could maybe should have been this looks pretty good for you. ***
Not so sure I would agree. While the agreement avoids a strike (where everyone loses), that benefit is relatively short-term, especially when you consider that current workers are willingly (potentially) giving up their health care benfit when they retire.
Comment by Slick Willy Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:11 am
@STL:
First, how about we start with a bit of fairness. I am being asked to sacrifice a lot more than those union members receiving step and COLA increases. How about some of your rigteous indignation towards those increases for AFSCME. How exactly do increases in pay help to solve the problem. Perhaps you could comment about making that sacrifice to help the state out. I don’t live in fantasyland. I fully expected to pay more. How much more is the key. Oh, and let me come and take some money out of your paycheck. After all, are you telling me you can’t sacrifice for the state?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:21 am
@STL:
And I don’t get a pay increase. Not in the union. I believe I stated that.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:23 am
Grandson of Man - It’s the taxpayers footing the bill for your free insurance. We are tapped out! Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with the unions.
Comment by Look around Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:24 am
Wizard
The retirees paying for health care premiums is due to a change in state law, not as a result of a contract negotiation. It is currently under litigation. Should the state win, CMS has the right to determine any amount it felt necessary for you to contribute towards your healthcare premium. Think about this, who do you want making this decision, CMS or a group of state employees negotiating for a fair deal ? The AFSCME contract was not negotiated by Henry Bayer, it was done by state employees, most of whom will retire one day and be subject to this cost. My understanding is that the amount of the premium will be reasonable, nothing like what we were hearing CMS was proposing.
“cass-afscme does NOT represent me and does not have the legal authority to represent me by labor law. as i mentioned before, when i left the state, the state tried to renege on some travel pay. i asked the union for help and they basically told me to go pound sand as they no longer could or would represent me as i was retired and no longer a union member. why then should the union have the right to “represent” me in this case? as i said BS.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:26 am
- Perhaps you could comment about making that sacrifice to help the state out. -
I believe I’ve made that point many, many times in discussions about the contract and pensions. I understand you don’t get an increase, and I empathize with you, and would support a plan to make compensation more fair for non-union employees. I just don’t see where the money would come from.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:29 am
Slick
Again my comment was made with the assumption that as i was told the Retiree healthcare thing only goes into effect if the Maag Case is won by the state.
However take a look at that you are getting no pay cuts, very minimal healthcare increases, Not even cuts in vacation or holidays all of that would make you a good contract but on top of it you are getting pay increases. Again providing the stipulation from the first paragraph how is this not a sweet deal for AFSCME members??? It’s better than i can give my guys right now and believe me i am doing all i can to keep them from moving to North Dakota. I think most of them are staying out of loyalty only.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:30 am
@STL-I worked as a temp foreman for a while and it was at the end of the fiscal year. We were told to spend all of the money in our account or we would not recieve the same amount in our budget for the next year. We did not really need anything but spent the money. That would save some, and then CMS had a rule that you had to get your parts from them. We could buy the same part or supplies at half or more of the cost at retailers but were not allowed to and had to get them through CMS. If that happens all over the state with all agencies I have always wondered how much money that would save alone. That’s one place they could start. We complained to our superiors about the process and wanted to save the state money but fell on deaf ears. Check CMS figures and see how much they are in the plus money catagory.
Comment by boat captain Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:32 am
Bob - No recent retiree has been ask to make the choice of healthcare premiums paid or annual 3% COLA compounded. I would bet that the state is waiting for the Maag decision before they try to enforce this.
Comment by Rusty618 Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:35 am
=Grandson of Man - It’s the taxpayers footing the bill for your free insurance. We are tapped out! Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with the unions.=
I never said I am opposed to paying for my health insurance. Stop putting words in my mouth. Your comment is totally off-topic to what I wrote.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:36 am
Look around, you should realize that health insurance and pensions are not added perks or gratuities. They are part of the overall compensation package that the state agreed to for each new employee they hired.
And it is not just a union issue. For example, the state universities are a mixed bag when it comes to employees and union representation. There are many state university employees who are not part of any unions - and the state still offered them a total compensation package that includes the same health insurance and pensions.
Union or not, many of the faculty at the state universities would not have accepted employment in Illinois if decent health insurance and retirement benefits had not been offered to them as part of their total compensation package. If those parts of the total compensation package are reduced, state universities, community colleges, state government agencies, and school districts will have a hard time recruiting good people to come work for them.
Comment by Joe M Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:37 am
- We could buy the same part or supplies at half or more of the cost at retailers but were not allowed to and had to get them through CMS. -
Believe me, I understand that procurement rules end up costing the state more money. However, those laws were put in place because of fraud and abuse, like what went on in the previous administration. It’s a sad fact, it costs money to prevent fraud.
I would wholeheartedly support reforms to these rules, but it’s a complicated mess, and I don’t see any major changes happening any time soon.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:40 am
I don’t know why everyone is so worried about health insurance. Illinois will throw their employees and retirees in Obamacare as fast as is humanly possible. Everything is free there, “Not one dime” remember? Grrrreat deal!
Comment by Joe from Joliet Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:41 am
Grandson - If you are tapped out, it isn’t the employee or retiree who has done that to you - its the people you elected to represent you. They gave you free bus rides, free cell phones, free internet (if you have students in the house) insurance coverage for all children, free day care, drug and alcohol rehab services, free college education (MAP grants), free utilities and, in some cases, free housing. These may be wonderful and necessary services, but if you didn’t ask where the money was coming from when these services were being created (much of it came from diverting funds for pensions and not paying other bills), you really don’t have a right to complain now, when the bill is due. As an employee, potential retiree, and taxpayer, I am tapped out too.
Comment by lincolnlover Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:42 am
@Joe from Joliet 11:41 am
Exactly, if the State wins the Maag lawsuit, the State will provide “current” employees with the least expensive health care they can find and still follow the Obamacare mandate. Retirees will be made to pay the entire health care premium, or have health care totally dropped for them. If I was a retiree, I’d be shopping around to see what health care is out there that I could afford just in case the State wins the lawsuit.
Comment by huggybunny Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:53 am
lincolnlover-my thoughts also.
Comment by boat captain Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:54 am
==Grandson - If you are tapped out, it isn’t the employee or retiree who has done that to you - its the people you elected to represent you. They gave you free bus rides, free cell phones, free internet (if you have students in the house) insurance coverage for all children, free day care, drug and alcohol rehab services, free college education (MAP grants), free utilities and, in some cases, free housing. These may be wonderful and necessary services, but if you didn’t ask where the money was coming from when these services were being created (much of it came from diverting funds for pensions and not paying other bills), you really don’t have a right to complain now, when the bill is due. As an employee, potential retiree, and taxpayer, I am tapped out too.=
“Tapped out” is Look around’s comment, not mine.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 11:57 am
All those private sector whiners, if the total compensation package (salary, pension, health care) for government employees was such an unbelievable sweet deal, why didn’t you go after those jobs? Because maybe the total package never was better than your private sector gig.
Comment by qaz Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:03 pm
so when and where can retirees see a copy of the contract?
Comment by The Ghost in The Darkness Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:04 pm
@STL-I understand the reason why that CMS was created to eliminate the fraud and abuse but there is no reason for them to charge four times the cost of an item just for administrative costs. I have seen that many times in my years of state employment and it is still going on today. NO reason for it.
Comment by boat captain Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:07 pm
Sorry Grandson! My bad.
Comment by lincolnlover Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:09 pm
afscme steward-if the union is going to represent retirees then give retirees the right to vote in union elections (like that would ever happen). regardless who negotiated for the union positions, they are NOT retirees and do not have the right to bargain away any current retiree rights. and yes, i am very aware of the litigation on this issue, probably much more aware than yourself as i AM retired and you are not, therefore the decision affects me much more than yourself unless you are retiring in the immediate future. am i saying i do not have much faith in the negotiators? yes, that is exactly what i am saying.
Comment by wizard Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:12 pm
boat captain-cms over charged in my agency also, and continues to do so. it was a way to get at dedicated funds. funds they failed to get using other methods. costs thousands of dollars.
Comment by wizard Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:14 pm
Please correct me if I’m wrong but it is my understanding that the state is self insured and Cigna is hired as the administrator of the claims to those in the quality care plan. If this is true then how does the state pay a premium. We pay a premium, and if we stay healthy with no claims filed, the state would therefore make money.
Comment by Perplexed Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:34 pm
@STL - “would support a plan to make compensation more fair for non-union employees. I just don’t see where the money would come from”
Where is the money coming from for the increase for the Union members? This is Demoralized’s point. Somewhere along the way there should be some fairness in compensation - for ALL!
Non-Union members have to live by the standards negotiated by the Union in regards to health insurance, retirement, etc. BUT we don’t/haven’t gotten any increases in pay for multiple years and have been required (not asked nicely/requested as in the Union) to take Furlough Days that at times have accounted to more than a month’s salary! Those that I supervise make more than me, though they don’t have the degrees, life-skills or experience that I do. And just for clarification, NO, I didn’t get my job by political connections and like many others, am in this position because of decisions I didn’t make.
Frankly, (and I believe most of the state employees in my situation agree) I don’t mind that Union members are getting a raise, I just want to know, WHERE’S MINE?!
Comment by Both Sides Now Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:40 pm
Retirees, if the law stands, will have to pay premiums in line with the amount of their retirement check as I understand it. If one of Cullerton’s pension bills passes then it’s going to be a choice of Insurance or reduced COLAs. I’ve negotiated state union contracts and didn’t bother with the step increases because over 90% of the bargaining unit was stepped out. 40% sounds mighty high. From what I’m reading it looks like the union members are getting a pretty good haircut when you take in Cost of Living increases over the years. Hope I’m wrong.
Comment by Mouthy Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:40 pm
Perplexed
The State offers a number of health insurance plans.
One of those plans is Quality Care, a traditional “fee for service” plan. That is the State’s “self insured” plan. They do pay Cigna to administer it for them. For a number of reasons, it is the most expensive of all the plans. It is also the most popular plan for retirees because it is the only plan that offers complete coverage out of state.
All the other plans are either HMO’s or PPO’s. They have various restrictions, primary by limiting your choice of doctors and hospitals. They also are only available in limited service areas, basically in-state although there are a few that lap over the state borders a bit.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:55 pm
Let’s not forget, those of us not retired will likely be contributing the remaining COLAS we receive 2-3 percent or more to help fix the broken system that sends out the pension checks. Everyone is gunna pay here, and so much else is dependent on litigation. I will be voting yes on,this contract, and I will not be throwing anyone under the bus. We are all speed bumps on the Illinois governance highway.
Comment by Johnnie F. Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 12:56 pm
Okay so if Merit comp is getting hosed as it appears they are. Maybe it is time for a bill that requires Public sector workers pay to be no higher than 10% of private sector average and no lower than 10% of private sector average for the state. Use National Average for jobs with no Private corrolaries.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:09 pm
“Sorry Grandson! My bad.”
No problem, friend.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:12 pm
Should have said no higher than 10% more than average and 10% less than average.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:12 pm
qaz, mmaybe we didn’t know the right people? demoralized, stop being selfish. We taxpayers have a stake in this too.
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:14 pm
Wizard
So you would rather have CMS decide for you.
“afscme steward-if the union is going to represent retirees then give retirees the right to vote in union elections (like that would ever happen). regardless who negotiated for the union positions, they are NOT retirees and do not have the right to bargain away any current retiree rights. and yes, i am very aware of the litigation on this issue, probably much more aware than yourself as i AM retired and you are not, therefore the decision affects me much more than yourself unless you are retiring in the immediate future. am i saying i do not have much faith in the negotiators? yes, that is exactly what i am saying.”
Comment by AFSCME Steward Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:36 pm
Are state employees taxpayers as well? Or does an income tax hike not impact them?
Comment by mid-level Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:39 pm
I participated in the bargaining in 2004 and was on my locals exec board. AFSCME is part of the Maag case and I dont believe would agree to retiree HI give aways r/t that case. As someone stated the union did not bargain for them. That issue will be part of the Maag case also. IF contract action is related to conclusion of Maag case AND union sees it thru appeals, I have no prob with language tying contract with results. Just have seen no verification of that.
Comment by pensioner Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:39 pm
On the CMS issue, I would agree, they charge high prices and you can not buy anywhere else. Cost-recovery departments in an monopolistic environment are, by the rules of economics, inherently inefficient.
House bill 2416 wants to abolish the Department of Central Management Services (CMS).
Comment by Rufus Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:44 pm
mid
Don’t take this the wrong way but no you aren’t. I will explain. Every dime you get is from tax money either State or Federal so 100% of your income is Tax money. you pay 5% so you are a 95% tax consumer and the 5% is best described as a refund to your employer. I receive 0% of tax money (Stopped working with State IL when they stopped paying bills) so the 5% i pay is all private money. I have no problem paying my 5% to go to your salary but your 5% is a lot different than mine. Not trying to be a d!ck it’s just math.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:50 pm
afscme steward: you miss my point which is that it could be a conflict of interest for a union member to negotiate for a retiree. what may be good for the working member may not be good for the retiree. different areas of primary concerns. as far as cms-see rufus at 1:44pm. would dance in the street (not neked however, because i do not want to make people ill) if cms was eliminated. very evil org.
Comment by wizard Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 1:55 pm
I was told the retiree healthcare part of the new agreement was contingent on the outcome of the lawsuit
Comment by milkman Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:03 pm
Google>>>> Overview of Retiree Health Insurance Lawsuits July 26 2012 >>>> for Maag case. May be additional plaintiffs now.
Comment by pensioner Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:03 pm
Meaning if the state wins these are the rates. If the state looses this part of the agreement is mute
Comment by milkman Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:04 pm
Mason
Just because my paycheck comes from the state coffers does not make it a welfare payment, charity, or a gift. I did not take a vow of poverty when I accepted a state job. I agreed to do a days work for a days pay. I earn my paycheck doing work which benefits the residents of Illinois. Or at least doing work that has been deemed necessary by the legislature and executive branches (present or past).
The fact that my paycheck comes from the state does not give you the right to consider my paycheck any more fair game for you to gain access to any than you would consider gaining access to a paycheck earned from a private employer. Nor should I be villified to wanting to be paid similar to what a private employer would pay me (I make less now actually).
The money withheld and returned to the state in the form of taxes is for services that the state says all taxpayers are responsible for…. which include pensions. It makes no difference who paid it to me.
Comment by mythoughtis Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:09 pm
-Mythoughtis-
Finally… I agree 100%!!!
Comment by I know labor Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:23 pm
Mythoughts
you completely miss the point see my suggestion for tying Public sector pay to Private sector. 1:09 pm. What i am saying is i have a direct interest in how much you are paid because i am paying your salary. Now i want you to be paid an appropriate amount that amount is best determined by the market. you may be paid less than the private sector but there are Public Workers who are payed much more than private sector. for example in the last contract an Executive Secretary had a salary of 72k look up RC-14-16 with full benefits. Now private sector for the top 10% of Secretaries is 45k most with no benefits. I do not know what it is you do for the state however a tax increase has more effect on the people who do not receive Tax money then those that do. I want no access to your check i just want to keep your check and mine in line with the market cost.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:27 pm
Pensioner, thanks very much for that URL re: the “Overview.” Going to sit and study it right now.
Comment by Wallendar Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:34 pm
Except for the increased payments for health care coverage, sounds like a really fair deal, with a 1.33% Average, annual Salary increase over 3 years–just given the brutal Recession that Illinois has gone through for several years with all of the negative financial reverberations still being felt. In some ways, it’s utterly amazing that 90% of State Retirees had gotten by for so long with paying NOTHING for health care costs up until recently–they really should’ve been countin’ their lucky stars that Springfield didn’t act against THAT hefty perk sooner–at least in the many years intervening since the Recession hit!
And, as a side Political development to ponder, granted, all in all, it may indeed have taken a longer time to negotiate than most involved would’ve wanted and, like it or not, Gov. Quinn deserves a lot of the Credit, even Praise, for pulling this REAlly Hot Iron out of the fire–certainly there’s more for Lisa to chew on before she arrives at a decision whether to start mounting a challenge to one (the Governor) who’s proven himself in more than one Past Election to turn into a real “Comeback Kid”–and fast! Who knows? Having just greased what had been one REAL-Loud “Squeaky Wheel,” this may indeed be the start of Pat Quinn’s Comeback! There is SO much time to go until next year’s Primary, after all…
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:39 pm
“I have a direct interest in how much you are paid because I am paying your salary.”
Well, couldn’t your business customers say the same thing? Aren’t they paying YOUR salary?
The difference, of course, is that the business customer who pays the private employer’s salary is doing so voluntarily and can take his/her money elsewhere if he/she feels the business owner is being greedy and overpricing goods and services. The taxpayer has no such alternative, short of moving out of state.
That said, I think the notion that the private sector generates wealth entirely on its own while the public sector is merely parasitical is, to say the least, highly exaggerated.
Comment by Secret Square Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 2:58 pm
just-”they really should’ve been countin’ their lucky stars that Springfield didn’t act against THAT hefty perk sooner” thanking my lucky stars for an earned benefit granted under a legal contract?
Comment by wizard Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:07 pm
==no higher than 10% more than average and 10% less than average==
Are you talking overall averages or averages by title? I know quite a few professionals who would be more than happy to have their salaries tied to private sector wages. Accountants, lawyers, engineers, etc., could make a lot more, in many cases, in the private sector than they do in the public sector.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:11 pm
@just-i earned my benefits-they were not just given to me, and I pay deductibles and copays also, as for the comeback kid, I’ve had people tell me they’ve seen Elvis yesterday too.
Comment by boat captain Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:11 pm
Mason - I suspect theat Executive Secretary you refer to is actually someone who would better be referred to as an Executive Assistant. No way is that public position equivalent to the common title of secretary in the private world. I also suspect that Executive Secretary did not start their career in that position at 72K. That may be the salary they are getting at the end of a long, 36 year career. You need to make sure you are comparing apples to apples. State job titles often do not tell you what that job really does.
Comment by lincolnlover Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:12 pm
@STL:
I believe you missed my point entirely. The point I was trying to make is that you have said absolutely nothing on where the state is getting the money for the AFSCME raises. Sure I would like a raise. But if there is no money for raises for a miniscule amount of non-union employees then I would like to know where all the money is coming from for AFSCME raises. We are on the same page. You can’t on the one hand bemoan the lack of funds for healthcare without on the other hand bemoaning the lack of funds for union raises. Be consistent.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:14 pm
As a taxpayer, am I not helping pay the salaries of all the private sector company employees when the state of Illinois purchases goods and services from them. As some have mentioned above, there are a lot of ”overpayments” that go from the state to private sector vendors in the name of fraud protection…not to mention sweet-heart deals.
Comment by Johnnie F. Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:17 pm
@lincolnlover:
I can provide you with a specific example of a secretary (yes, an actual secretary doing secretarial work) that is making $82,000 per year. The length of service of this individual is irrelevant. I don’t begrudge this person for making that money. They played by the rules. But there isn’t a secretarial position (a true average secretary) that should be making that kind of money. That person makes more than many, many professionals in our office, including her boss.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:17 pm
It will be interesting to see how the decision to no longer provide state employees with free healthcare will affect the “consideration” provision of Senate President Cullerton’s pension reform bill.
Comment by GA Watcher Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:27 pm
Demoralized
I mean per title and experience for instance if you are a professional engineer with 6yrs of experience you can expect your pay to equal X. So the state should be able to offer a range of between .9X to 1.1X. This leaves a premium to be offered to get better applicants as well as a low end for those who are inexperienced.
That is precisely my point. Merit Comp supervisors on here are telling how they are getting screwed. I am not arguing with them but IMHO because of AFSCME the salary for professionals is below average while other positions are above. Take the benefits into account i get the same benefits as State workers but paid higher than my fellow Engineers i graduated with. Yet the Secretary(Admin Assistant is a different classification) is receiving a benefit package well above the private sector. At some point the State is setting itself up for a crisis in keeping professional staff. As well as Contracts that are getting farther and farther out of line with the salary of the people who are paying them.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:29 pm
Johnie
Then that fraud needs to be investigated and the culprits should share a cell with Blago.
At one time my firm performed contract services to the state. We bid and were selected because we had the best bid to save the tax payers of the state cold hard cash.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:32 pm
bc–only the facts, partner. Polls left ‘n right predicting defeat to Hynes AND Brady no one much would like to talk about anymore ‘cuz they were about as useful in predicting his future as some old newspaper thrown into the flames of the family’ fireplace…and nobody said folks didn’t earn their benefits–chill. But they should be counting their lucky stars that the Legislature didn’t insist they start paying more sooner!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:40 pm
- But if there is no money for raises for a miniscule amount of non-union employees then I would like to know where all the money is coming from for AFSCME raises. -
I assume it would have to be appropriated by the GA. I wonder if they will.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:47 pm
@just-I am very appreciative and thankful for the benefits that I have. Quinn has been Gov for a while now and has a track record to run on, I agree, some good and some not very good, but that is with every politician. Not counting him out, he has just had a string of things not going his way for a while. Maybe this afscme contract will be his new start on bigger and better things for all.
Comment by boat captain Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 3:51 pm
If the courts rule that we retirees have to pay… Then my apologies to Henry Bayer for jumping to conclusions yesterday. I believe you negotiated a fair deal for all retirees.
Comment by I know labor Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 4:20 pm
Just the Way
Retirees do not pay NOTHING for insurance. They still pay a premium for a spouse (around $150/month), copays ($20 for office visits, $12-48 for meds) and have a $500 deductible. These can vary depending on which insurance carrier the retiree is signed up with.
Comment by Rusty618 Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 4:29 pm
I hope that the courts ultimately rule against the state’s decision to force current retirees to pay what could be onerous premiums for health insurance. I am not optimistic, however, since private sector businesses have been allowed to opt out of any contractual promises made to their retirees. Promises are made to be broken. Contracts are written to be shredded. Can Soylent Green be far behind?
Comment by lovecraft Friday, Mar 1, 13 @ 4:36 pm