Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** NRA wants “overdrive” against all of Chicago’s agenda
Next Post: Retiree wants his pension cut
Posted in:
* The State Journal-Register editorializes on the new AFSCME contract deal…
* Employee health care premiums will increase by at least 1 percent of salary, and AFSCME members took a fiscal year 2013 pay freeze followed by 2 percent increases in the final two years. Step raises will continue. It seems like employees will come out a little bit ahead of where they were, but it’s unclear by how much.
* AFSCME gave ground on retiree health care, a key part of the governor’s plan to cut state expenses. Today, state retirees with 20 years of service pay no premiums for their coverage. But how much did AFSCME give up, and how much will the state save?
Without those details, it’s impossible to declare this a good or bad deal for Illinois taxpayers. But it does look like the best deal the 35,000-member union, with roughly 8,000 living in Sangamon, Menard, Logan and Christian counties, is going to get. […]
If Quinn’s tactic was to send a message that the state’s finances are in shambles and there would be no giveaways this time, it seems to have worked.
He may have “sent” a clear message at the start, but AFSCME members clearly did pretty well, considering the state’s budget problems, with this new contract. Yes, they give up a point for health insurance, but they get 4 percent raises, plus step increases, plus some back pay.
This is classic Quinn. Talk real tough without thinking things through, dig heels firmly in place when the other side pushes back, then give in.
* Finke asks the right question…
Which brings us to the wild card in this whole thing. The net cost of the contract isn’t known yet. The state still has severe financial problems, and it’s the legislature that has to put together a budget that somehow pays for everything.
So what happens if the legislature again essentially doesn’t allocate all of the money needed to pay for the contract? Hopefully, we won’t have to find out the hard way.
* A hint of the future…
A reminder of who is in charge of how much spending eventually will be approved came last month at a low-profile legislative hearing. The governor’s financial team suggested the Democratic chairman of the House Revenue & Finance Committee would have to wait for Quinn’s budget address to get the administration’s best estimate of how much money Illinois would take in during the next budget cycle.
“Well, it may be too late then,” said Rep. John Bradley, the Marion Democrat who chairs the panel.
* Related…
* Durbin, Quinn fire up Kane County Democrats at annual dinner: In his Sunday speech, it was clear both the pending union deal and Quinn’s push for a hike in the state’s minimum wage will be key talking points for Quinn in the near term. “We just finished a negotiation, 15 months long, at the bargaining table with our government AFSCME employees,” Quinn said. “We came to a tentative agreement that has to be voted on by the members. I’m very hopeful they will vote yes in favor of that agreement and have a contract.”
* Quinn, state workers union reach deal with raises
* Many challenges as Quinn prepares budget: So far this fiscal year Illinois has spent $5 billion to pay down bills from prior years, according to Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka. The current backlog is more than $9 billion, and growing.
* Quinn to deliver budget speech amid ongoing state financial problems: The past two years, the House has gone its own path on developing a spending plan. “I think we will do a House-based budget process just like the last two years because, quite frankly, it worked,” said Rep. Frank Mautino, D-Spring Valley. “We have paid down quite a few of the bills, and we have made the pension payments. The backlog of bills is not getting deeper. We’ve got things moving in the right direction.”
* Lawmakers predict gloomy budget plans from Quinn: State Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, R-Okawville, is among those concerned Quinn will try to close more facilities. “He said he was going to,” Luechtefeld said. “Hopefully he doesn’t.”
* Students squeezed as Illinois college costs rise, aid drops: Over the past 15 years, state aid for Illinois’ public universities has declined 27.6 percent when adjusted for inflation
* Deadbeat Illinois: Schoolchildren lose out with lack of state aid
* Erickson: State needs a plan for unused property
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 9:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** NRA wants “overdrive” against all of Chicago’s agenda
Next Post: Retiree wants his pension cut
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The increase in employee healthcare costs is contingent on the raises being appropriated. In addition to the 1% of salary there are also increases in co-pays, deductibles & out of pocket espenses.
There was some confusing information given out about retiree healthcare premiums. What I was able to take out of it is that retirees with Medicare would pay 1% of their pension the first year & 2% the second year. For those not receiving Medicare the cost is 2% of the pension. I am not sure if there is an increase the 2nd year for those without Medicare.
There is also an opt out option. Retirees that wish to opt out of state insurance would receive $500.00 (I am not sure if this is per month or annually). Retirees may opt back in at any time.
More about the contract will be released this week.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:13 am
With both the executive and legislative branches continuing to play their games and one-upsmahip, why should union members ratify the contract? If the exective branch cannot execute the contract without the approval of the legislature the game hasn’t changed at all. If the proposed contract takes out a no-strike clause then there is some balance. Otherwise the union will have to keep going back to the courts which only delays the invitable and cost the state more money!
Comment by BMAN Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:15 am
–The governor’s financial team suggested the Democratic chairman of the House Revenue & Finance Committee would have to wait for Quinn’s budget address to get the administration’s best estimate of how much money Illinois would take in during the next budget cycle.
“Well, it may be too late then,” said Rep. John Bradley, the Marion Democrat who chairs the panel–
Meh, the executive proposes, the legislature disposes. The GA can get their work down using their own estimates.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:17 am
BMAN, there is no way Henry is falling for that “they didnt appropriate so I can’t give you the raises” nonsense again. They must have worked something out.
Comment by Raising Kane Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:18 am
I would like to think they are not going to fall for the ‘no more money’ thing again, just based off what I understand from the court rulings not sure they can protect themselves.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:31 am
Well, since the budget speech is also a campaign speech, how much gloom and doom can Quinn safely project. Those sky is falling tactics are getting a little old. Maybe a more optimistic approach would be a better path to re-election. We’re getting better because of me, and so forth.
I’ll be listening for hints as to what he’ll do with the “temporary” income tax. Will he advocate for making it permanent? extending it? Doubtful he’ll bring it up this speech but pretty soon he’ll have to say something about it in this campaign season.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:33 am
“I received substantial bonuses my last three years that boosted my average pay, and I received the full 75 percent of that inflated average.”
Another case for the cost shift.
Comment by capncrunch Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:35 am
The Democrats have a 3/5th majority in both House and Senate. Anything the Democrats want passed they have the votes. I am so tired of business as usual. Get elected and do anything to get reelected.
Comment by inker Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:52 am
there is no way that one General Assembly’s action can bind future General Assemblies. The closest this can be done is by amending the Constitution — which already supposedly holds state pensions as non-reducible.
I am amused that AFSME wants to let retirees take the brunt of pension costs cuts. I guess retired employees are no longer AFSME members!
Comment by Capitol View Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 10:57 am
*** …but AFSCME members clearly did pretty well, considering the state’s budget problems, with this new contract. ***
I still don’t get how one arrives at this conclusion. The back wages are the courts calling out Quinn on his “no funding” shennigans. Most state employees are stepped out, so that means nothing to little increase (assuming you qualify for a longevity increase). Everyone is going to give up at least one percent for health care costs. This assumes that the state will not come back again for more during the life of the contract. There are also increases in deductibles and copays. Then you have to factor in that the state employees worked for the last 18 months or so without a contract and the health care/retirement issue.
Put it all together and I am not sure how you can conclude that AFSCME employees “did pretty well”.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 11:00 am
“I’ll be listening for hints as to what he’ll do with the “temporary” income tax. Will he advocate for making it permanent? extending it?”
I support keeping the tax increase and predict that it will remain, but it’s not my first policy choice, because it’s regressive. I would rather see a progressive income tax, and ending some corporate tax breaks. I commend AFSCME for proposing closure of tax loopholes as part of pension reform. Some corporations continue to make record or near-record profits, while the economy struggles. It’s immoral to me to ask everyone else to sacrifice but to protect corporations whose earnings are at historic highs.
As far as the new contract agreement, I am happy with it and don’t foresee any problems with its ratification by members.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 11:05 am
I am thinking we are going to begin hearing,”I planned on the tax increase being temporary when I pushed for it before. I never intended it to become permanent. I would never have proposed it in the Land of Lincoln if I knew it was going to be permanent. Jobs. Veterans. But since the nasty state employees insisted that they get this good contract and since they have not given in on any pension deals I am forced, forced I tell you, to now ask that the tax become permanent just to save the programs that the at risk people in this Great State of Illinois need to survive. We have to take care of all the people of the Great State of Illinois, Land of Lincoln, bordered by the Great Mississppi River, Everybody in no one left out. So it is with a heavy heart that I find myself telling you that we need to make the tax increase permanent. Education. Kids. Safety.”
from Quinn.
Comment by Irish Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 11:50 am
AFSCME STEWARD
I hope the retiree health insurance premiums are dependent on the pending court case because technically, AFSCME has no right to bargain for retirees since they are no longer AFSCME members. Any thoughts on that>?
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 12:14 pm
==Put it all together and I am not sure how you can conclude that AFSCME employees “did pretty well”==
Given the state’s finances I don’t know how you can conclude otherwise with a straight face.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 12:24 pm
=there is no way Henry is falling for that “they didnt appropriate so I can’t give you the raises” nonsense again. They must have worked something out. ==
The Governor can’t speak for the legislature. And that “nonsense” is reality. The GA appropriates the money. I don’t know what so hard to understand about that. Yes the courts ruled that it had to be paid but Quinn can’t spend money he didn’t have the authority to spend. Sheesh.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 12:26 pm
We have yet to hear from MJM. Buckle your seatbelts, this contract is going to have a very bumpy road getting funded by the GA.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 12:34 pm
Demoralized, I appreciate your exasperation and your lesson on constitutional law; but really, I do know a thing or two about the state budget. My point is that Quinn does not have to get an increase in appropriation if he plans to get there through attrition or by using his 2% transferablity.
I am sure AFSCME made sure the resources were going to be there to follow through on this commitment. I doubt they want to have to drag him back to court to make him live up to his end of the deal.
Comment by Raising Kane Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 1:29 pm
I am waiting for AFSCME to set up the members only website (that was supposed to be up by noon today) for more details. The AFSCME rep at our local meeting Friday says the lawsuit won’t matter, but I believe he was wrong. I believe that if the state loses the lawsuit this section of the contract is moot. There is also the question of longevity (is there a reduced rate tied to years of service ?). Also, from what I am told, if the GA doesn’t appropriate money for the negotiated raises the new healthcare cost increases caqn’t be implemented. I do not know if this applies to retirees as well.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:21 pm
===I am waiting for AFSCME to set up the members only website===
When that happens, I would greatly appreciate a copy and paste email of any and all materials. Thanks!
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:23 pm
- Rich Miller - Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
=== When that happens, I would greatly appreciate a copy and paste email of any and all materials. Thanks! ===
Telephone.
Television.
TeleRich!
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 2:42 pm
Contact details are up. AFSCME has made it so you can’t right-click-and-save, but someone can view the source and download the individual images for each page of the contract. Unfortunately, I’m not able to do that right now.
Many increases — both to pay and received — but it seems like a pretty good deal. Not sure why Quinn suddenly flipped, though. I mean, many folks I know were preparing for a strike during the second week of March. So I think it’s safe to say that Quinn definitely gave in here.
Rumors are:
- Quinn didn’t believe folks would strike. Most agencies had 90+% strike “feeler” votes — so, no, most folks were ready.
- I’d also heard that someone finally talked with Quinn and explained the danger of strike in Illinois. Not sure whether I believe this, but given the sudden flip-flop — from “absolutely not” to “let’s deal” — that wouldn’t surprise me.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:04 pm
Frenchie - He only flipped if you believe everything the bargaining team was telling you.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:14 pm
Small Town Liberal — I realize that’s a dig against the union. And I realize it’s cool to dislike unions and make digs like yours. ‘Cause we’re all so ‘leet when it comes to armchairing this stuff.
But here’s the funny thing, Small Town: Quinn — or “the State” — was telling folks even less. So for the 40,000 AFSCME employees who were ready and willing to strike — you tell me: are we gonna listen to our union or are we gonna listen to the vacuum that is the “the State” (the same vacuum that periodically sends out equally propagandistic and narcotizing messages like: “We value the work of all state employees.”)?
Right. I thought so. For folks who were working in state government during these past few months — union and non-union alike — we were trying to get a sense of which way the wind was blowing. On the one hand, yeah the “uncool” union is saying, okay, Quinn’s a maniac, he’s looking to cut 10 grand, add more hours of work per week, and cost to upwards of a grand per month in health insurance.
On the other hand there was … nothing. Just the sweet siren song of Quinn’s brief but meaningless messages sent out the day after he took office from Blagojevich and then again a few months ago when he cancelled the contract letting everyone know that he values the work of state employees … but, ya know, can’t really pay them what they’re worth and, okay, I cancelled the contract, too. But, shucks, I hope you continue your good work anyway!
So you tell me. Who are you gonna listen to? Who are you gonna believe? You can armchair the strike all you want, but I know folks who are in the trenches and are doing the work expect both respect and cash. Let me say that again: respect and cash. Respect ain’t worth it if you don’t have the cash to back it up. And let me break it down even more: it’s the same way in the so-called “private” sector. You expect respect and cash. At the same time.
So, yeah, on the whole, I’d say Quinn gave the union pretty much what they wanted. Go AFSCME. Congrats.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:25 pm
- yeah the “uncool” union -
What on earth are you talking about? I’m a huge union supporter, public sector included.
I’m saying the union has an interest in firing up the members, which gives them a reason to tell those members the end of the world is coming with the administration’s proposal.
It’s how bargaining works, always has. In the end, this is a better contract for the state than the last one, and it’s not bad for the members either.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:34 pm
STL — I know that. And I figured from you’re handle that you’d understand what I just wrote.
Everyone knows the union gets folks fired up. Funny thing is: that’s their job. It’s a propaganda war — and the union won this one. Hands down.
Quinn, Madigan — or whoever — gave folks no credible alternative. Quinn lost most folks when he cancelled the contract. It was meaningless — I understand that — but it’s the principle of the thing — and it seemed a weird, angry move. I don’t know. Maybe it was strategy — or something.
Most folks assumed that at the next meeting after the contract cancellation, Quinn would give his “final offer” — a take it or leave it offer — which would force the union’s hand. Either take it — or strike.
But Quinn didn’t make the final offer. Why cancel a contract if you still hoped to bargain? Moreover, many AFSCME folks wondered why even bargain when Quinn — or the legislature — didn’t honor the previous contract?
So for a lot of folks — that’s when things turned strange — and strained. Enough was enough — and clearly the union took advantage of the information war and, yeah, amped it up.
Besides, the sessions were closed-door — so what do you think would happen? The union would play down the issue?
Come on. I know you understand it. And I know you know there was no other information coming from anywhere else — even here (which surprised me, actually).
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 3:46 pm
BTW — I know I’ve posted enough — but my thinking is that Quinn flinched — and AFSCME folks noticed it and took advantage of it.
If Quinn was serious about the draconian cuts and reductions for the union, then he should have cancelled the contract and immediately double-barreled with a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Folks at that point would have taken it.
It’s the same in poker: if you (a) three or four bet pre-flop, (b) bet the flop, and then double barrel the turn (and even triple barrel the river) — folks get the message. You either have to have a good hand to stay in — or you get the heck out.
Instead of double-barreling, the administration essentially three-bet pre-flop (came out big with canceling the contract), and then just kinda called the flop, turn, river. It was showing weakness — like you had a pair of aces pre-flop, but realized the flop was all the same suit and suddenly started to fear a flush — and then bet to show that, yep, you were fearing a flush.
I don’t know. If you play poker, you get it — but that’s immediately what I sensed when it all was going down. A weird, out-of-character pre-flop call — and then meek bets to the end.
I’d love to hear their strategy discussions and (even better) the post-mortem.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:11 pm
==I am sure AFSCME made sure the resources were going to be there to follow through on this commitment.==
Not unless they have a separate agreement with the GA to fund the contract. Look, I’ve been working directly on the state budget for 15 years. And I’ve worked directly on costing out contracts. I can tell you with absolutely certainty that if our agency budget is not increased to cover the cost of the contract in FY14 then we’ll either have to go back later to ask for a supplemental or the raises aren’t getting paid. I would hope that the GA wouldn’t make the issue have to go back to court since the answer was pretty clear, but who knows what they are thinking. In any event, I’m just stating the facts. I would pay close attention this spring to how agencies testify to contract costs and what they need.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 4, 13 @ 4:35 pm