Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x13 *** Dawn Clark Netsch
Next Post: Rauner announces “exploratory committee”
Posted in:
* AFSCME Council 31 has posted its tentative contract deal online for its members. I was able to secure a copy from a member. The most interesting part I saw while scanning through the documents…
So, if there are no legislative appropriations for step increases, COLAs, etc., then the health insurance premium language will be null and void. Here are the wage hikes negotiated by AFSCME…
* The full document is here. Because of the way it was originally saved, you may have to use your “zoom” tool to read it.
If you see something interesting, make sure to make note of it in comments. Thanks.
Also, any media organizations which use the file should give credit to this website.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 9:56 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x13 *** Dawn Clark Netsch
Next Post: Rauner announces “exploratory committee”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Here is an question kids, if the state fails to pay everyone under the contract the full raise are all employees then not subject to the healthcare changes or just those employees who did not get the full raise?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 10:08 am
Looks to me like AFSCME leveraged retiree health insurance hikes to ensure current wage hikes. Now you can argue that it’s still a good deal for retirees, but they were used nonetheless in an obvious conflict of interest, which was always my concern whenever someone talked about the union “representing” us. Giving up a hostage for financial gains leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 10:15 am
If both husband and wife are retired state employees can one of them take the 500 dollars and then go on the insurance of the spouse? Will this effect retired teachers? TRS is one of the systems that is part of this mess.
Comment by Nieva Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 10:15 am
Does the new post-65 retiree insurance provisions effectively get rid of the premium protections that retirees have had in the past when it states that they will be enrolled in an advantage plan? or will the retiree pay 2% and the state pay the remainder?
Comment by zing Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 10:18 am
This is a very good agreement. One of the best things for me is the restoration of Upward Mobility funding later this year. I was accepted into the program and would like to get back into school.
The restoration of step increases, apparently going back to day one of the agreement (07/01/12), would be good for my colleagues, who didn’t get their step increases in the last contract.
This agreement shows the value of having a union and being able to collectively bargain. The Dow Jones just set a record high, and some corporations are doing exceptionally well. It’s necessary that there is some good news also for wage earners, and I’m glad to be part of it.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 10:32 am
Nieva
There is already a rule against that; each retiree has to be on their own insurance
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 10:44 am
My understanding is that the retiree healthcare premium is still dependent upon the outcome of the Maag lawsuit. So if the state loses, there will still be no premiums for retiree healthcare. I don’t see how the state will win the lawsuit, but this is not a bad deal to fall back on, considering what CMS might have come up with if the state wins.
Comment by Rusty618 Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 10:59 am
RNUG, Are these new retiree insurance rates for themselves and dependents (spouse and children) more than health insurance rates being charged to active employees? Would a retiree and his teenage dependents be better off moving to a active SoI spouse’s health coverage?
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:00 am
Are retirees whom recently retired going to receive the back wages owed for the pay increases that were withheld and are they going to have there retirement benefit recalculated to reflect this increase. In some cases, like myself, this could result in a considerable amount of money?
Comment by slider Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:10 am
Public Servant - Not trying to stir anything up with this question, but you obviously feel the union has no right to negotiate retirees’ health ins premiums, since you are not a member, is that correct? But, when the union previously negotiated a no premium ins rate for retirees’, did they not represent you then? Again - just trying to see it from your point of view - not trying to say its right or wrong. I am a union member who is looking forward to retirement and I don’t know the lay of the land.
Comment by lincolnlover Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:18 am
If the courts rule in favor of the state what will happen to retirees after this contract is up? will AFSCME again be involved in negotiations for retirees? If so, when will the they start asking for dues from the retirees or at least”fair share” dues?
Comment by slider Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:27 am
Does anyone know if the Teamsters settled their contract with the state also?
Comment by boat captain Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:34 am
Public Servant,
I don’t know. I can’t zoom the above link in enough to read it.
This is what has been reported elsewhere:
Non-Medicare Retiree Dependent Premium
Managed Care Premium (blended rate)/ One Dependent –$113/month (effective 7/1/13)
Quality Care Premium/ One Dependent — $249/month (effective 7/1/13)’
Allowing for a bit of inflation, these are about the same dependent rates (HMO/PPO $80-$105, QCHP $196) as currently paid by both active employees and retirees. So I THINK the dependent rate is the same for both active and retired.
Unless it has changed because of this contract, last year I heard the CMS Bureau Chief say the rules CMS had created for SB-1313 prevented the retiree from becoming a dependent on another retiree’s health insurance. It’s been long enough that I don’t remember if anyone asked about a retiree being a dependent on an active member, but I suspect they plugged that also.
We won’t know any of this for sure until the new Benefits Handbook comes out.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:35 am
Lincolnlover, you have hit a major vein in the heart of this problem. The pension problem stems from members over the past 20 years bargaining for better raises and benefits while allowing the state to defer pension payments. Now, many of the people who took those raises are retired and insist on cuts to existing state employees and services to pay their pensions. In short, workers of the past took their cake and now want taxpayers and workers to pay for the ice cream too.
Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:36 am
Also Linc, as you can see by Patriot’s post above, it’s in the interest of the right wing libertarian ideologues to encourage conflict within different segments of the middle class here.
The workers didn’t get any cake here pal. There was a structural tax deficit for decades mainly due to the regressive flat tax we have here in Illinois. Taxpayers benefitted when the pensions were used as a bank for those decades. Don’t blame the bank. Pay back what was taken using Martire’s and Fortner’s plans.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 11:58 am
==But, when the union previously negotiated a no premium ins rate for retirees’==
“Free” insurance for retirees was in the statutes.
==The pension problem stems from members over the past 20 years bargaining for better raises and benefits while allowing the state to defer pension payments.==
“Allowing”? The Supreme Court held that nobody (including the unions) had standing to sue the GA to force contributions. The holding was based, in part, on the court’s finding that the state was absolutely on the hook to pay the retirement in any event, so the protection of an adequately funded plan was not needed. Got that part wrong, didn’t they?
Comment by Anon. Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:08 pm
===“Free” insurance for retirees was in the statutes.===
I may be wrong, but I think that was done to codify the contract and make it apply to all workers.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:17 pm
@the patriot-tell me where in society someone is offered by their employer to get a pay increase-in public or private working enviroments-from the common worker to the CEO-and then tell the employer no, I don’t want or need a raise. I, for one was living payday to payday with a family to raise as are many others. The media has done a good job in their editorials and articles of demeanizing the state worker and that argument is getting old. We are where we are. As for me controling what the GA did with the money I don’t recall ever having the magic phone number to the “red batphone” to keep the GA from bonding the money for the pension payment several years ago. That money was used for other things the the GA deemed neccessary. And now the bond payments are eating up the GA’s budget. That’s where the problem lies.
Comment by boat captain Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:20 pm
Rich,
That’s my memory also.
Having said that, I will note that the State chose to codify it in contract like language, not in gratuity language. And the one time it was changed (prior to SB-1313), from 8 year threshold to 20 years, it did not apply retroactively. If you were rtired with more than 8 and less than 20 at the time, you got to keep the “free” insurance.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:39 pm
Actually Boat, if they had bonded out the unfunded liability then it would be the bondholders that would be at risk, and the Republicans and others don’t want that. They revere those bondholders. They want to keep this pension bank debt unbonded, demonize the bank, and attempt to play off “greedy” public pensioners against current private and public middle class workers as well as the poor and children. There have been various plans put forth that would spread the pain for the mismanagement across a much wider swath of the populace thus limiting the damage to any one small segment, but that takes real “heavy lifting” and this legislature (our elected representatives), I’m afraid, doesn’t have the backbone to do that heavy lifting. Better to really stick it to a small group of people in an attempt to ensure their tenure in office.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:47 pm
=== The pension problem stems from members over the past 20 years bargaining for better raises and benefits while allowing the state to defer pension payments.===
Obviously “the Patriot” you haven’t been paying attention or you simply want to purposely deceive the readers. The state was sued for failing to make the payments. The court ruled that while their is an obligation to pay the benefits, there is no obligation to make payments to the funds. I’m away from home so I can’t source this for you. I’m sure RNUG could help.
It’s also ludicrous to imply that state workers can force the GA or Governor to do anything. If I had that kind of power, I have so many additional things I would like them to do.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:47 pm
The first suit re underfunding after the diminismnet clause was IFT in either 74 or 75 w/o looking it up …
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:49 pm
Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but all of the AFSCME stuff makes my head spin. Will the union employees who were supposed to get a raise beginning in July 2011 now get that money, retroactively? And is the 2% mentioned above, which goes into effect on July 1, 2013, in addition to those raises, or is that increase to cover those raises that the union employees were supposed to get but didn’t?
Comment by ??? Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Public - Yes, without judging you or your viewpoint, it does help clarify your stance. Thanks.
Comment by lincolnlover Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:53 pm
haven’t seen anyone post yet that according to the contract effective 1/1/14 any Medicare eligible retiree will be enrolled in a Medicare advantage plan. this means QCHP is gone for Medicare retires if I read this right. also on the $500 opt out bonus for pre-Medicare folks I wonder if this would apply to those of us under SERS who took the $150 opt out bonus?
Comment by Illinoisan Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 12:54 pm
@the Patriot:
NOBODY allowed the state to defer pension payments. That argument is bull and you know it. Unless you know of some special ability to make legislators do anything then you have absolutely no point.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:02 pm
A lot of griping about the retiree insurance rates AFSCME secured. I think the criticism is unfounded and I’ve never been a member. If the State loses the insurance lawsuit then the 20+ year retiree pays nothing. If the State prevails then it’s one or two percent which is a far better deal then what you would have got. What better deal do you think you would have got? Right, you wouldn’t have gotten a better deal.
Comment by Mouthy Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:18 pm
I do think that it is wrong that a retired state employee can’t go on a spouse’s, who is an active state employee, health insurance. But, if your an axe murderer and are married to an active state employee, and you are paroled out of prison, then u can receive health insurance from an your spouse. …Makes no sense!!!
Comment by I know labor Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:31 pm
No question about that Mouthy. I’ve raised Bob’s question from Monday to a union steward to ask the leaders. Hopefully I get an answer from the union leaders before the vote Thursday so I can make an informed decision.
It is not difficult to envision a scenario where members ratify the tentative new contract, the State loses the Maag case, resulting in PA 97-695 ruled unconstitutional (particularly when retiree health insurance premiums are being based on a percentage of pension income, which would appear to violate the pension impairment clause of the Illinois Constitution), the State being barred from charging current retirees health insurance premiums, but the State having the ability to charge future retirees health insurance premiums because the members agreed to it by ratifying this contract.
Comment by StayFree75 Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Looked it up. The exact citation is IFT v. Lindberg (1975)
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:37 pm
@boat captain-we were told in January the Teamsters were close but not there yet on our contract.
Comment by NMS Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:41 pm
I was there for 15 months listening to CMS and their drastic proposals. My hat off to Henry Bayer and his ability to get us a fair contract we can live with in these tought times.
Comment by pension is a promise Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:50 pm
So when a state employee retires, they cannot decline the insurance and be covered as a dependant on their spouses insurance, if they are an employee of the state or a university?
Comment by SmallTownGirl Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:50 pm
PublicServant-
Regarding your question on moving to an an active SoI’s health insurance.
Yes. If you have 2 or more children then you will save money (4% pre-medicare) to move everyone to the active SoI’s health insurance.
If you have 1 child then it will save you money unless your retiree premium is less than the difference between the active SoI Member+2 (new avg $113) and Member+1 (new avg $159)premiums. The difference is avg $46/month which works out to a pension of about $13,800 annually.
If it was just a retiree and their active spouse then the Member+1 is $113 which is equivalent to a 4% premium cost to a pensioneer making $33,900. If you made less, stick with retiree and if you make more jump to the active SoI if possible.
Comment by Gish Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:57 pm
Based on prior commentary, that is if you could jump to the active SoI member’s insurance.
Comment by Gish Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 1:59 pm
SmallTownGirl
See the CMS benefits handbook for when you can and (mostly) can’t under the SERS system.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:01 pm
Thank you Gish. I’ll continue to hope for Maag to come down favorably, but if not, I’ll have to compare college insurance costs for the 2 college age children against the costs if they were to go on my spouse’s CPS Health Insurance. My third child, a 16 y/o will definitely need to transfer to my spouse’s policy if I opt out of state coverage. The overall issue is that I shouldn’t have to be making these choices now post-retirement.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:05 pm
Per the CMS Benefits website: Annuitants can be covered under their spouse’s active SoI Health, vision and dental.
Annuitant Waiver
Public Act 93-553 changed the State Employees Group Insurance Act to allow an annuitant who is currently enrolled as a dependent of their State-covered spouse or civil union partner to remain a dependent and waive coverage in their own right. To qualify for this waiver, the annuitant must be enrolled as a dependent under their State-covered spouse or civil union partner for a year or more. The annuitant must indicate the election to continue as a dependent on the retirement system’s Participation Election Form. Annuitants who do not return the form within the required timeframe will have their coverage as a dependent of their spouse/civil union partner terminated. The spouse/civil union partner cannot carry Spouse Life on the annuitant; instead, the annuitant will have Basic Life coverage as a member.
Comment by Gish Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:06 pm
Let us all not forget last year when the Speaker put forward HJR 45 that attempted to tie any salary increases to the House Revenue & Finance Committee’s State revenue estimates. HJR 45 passed the House 84 to 29 last year. I suspect the provision Rich noted will not sit well with the Speaker and many members of the GA.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:18 pm
I must be missing something. If I am reading this correctly, in order to decline the health insurance and be on your spouses once you retire, you have to already be on the spouses insurance. But the system doesnt allow you to do this. I had my husband covered as my dependant for several years and when he took a job at a university, he had to sign up on his own and I had to remove him from my insurance. I guess if I left state service before I was able to draw my benefits, and was added to his insurance for a year, then once my benefits began, I could decline the insurance? Am I reading this correctly?
Comment by SmallTownGirl Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:25 pm
I have a question: If you opt out of healh insurance coverage, is the $500 payment on top of the fact that you would no longer have the origional premium deducted from your pension? Example, if your premium is currently $149 for plus 2 dependend would you have a net gain of $500 plus the $149 that would no longer be deducted?
Comment by facts are stubborn things Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:36 pm
Let’s look at this objectively. The legislators passed SB1313 which stipulates what insurance premiums would entail. Now, the Governor negotiates with AFSCME what the rates should be for retirees. So, the Governor has more power than our legislators? Didn’t the Governor pass off the pay raise situation on the backs of the legislators in the last contract? Looks like a quagmire to me.
Second, isn’t it set by contract law that when you retire, the contract which you retire under is the conditions of your retirement. You are only allowed to change conditions going forward, not going back. Supreme court rulings of other states have ruled this to be the case. I believe AFSCME wishes to get out of the current Maag case which will eventually go to the supreme court due to the cost of litigation.
Third, how can an entity pass diminishment of your salary without your input? AFSCME retirees have no vote on this contract. Explain to me how this is legal.
Comment by Mix_It_Up Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 2:58 pm
@public servant-thanks for correcting my mistake on the bond issue of the pension payment. My misunderstanding of what took place.
Comment by boat captain Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 3:12 pm
mix it Up
You make very good points. I would offer this — When the state passed SB 1313 the diminishment occured. The State was going to impose large premium increases. If you can take AFSCME at their word, they tried to midigate the damage while they work within the legal system to make the very typs of excelent arguments that you are making.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 3:12 pm
Upon review of the negotiated contract, my reduction in retirement will be $109 / month after 07/01/2013 and over $218 after 07/01/2014 with no compensation except for the COLA I get 01/01/2014. My COLA will not cover these costs. So, yes, it is a significant diminishment of my retirement. Especially since the legislators still wish to eliminate our retirement COLAs as that fight still continues.
Comment by Mix_It_Up Tuesday, Mar 5, 13 @ 3:39 pm
AFSCME and the IEA have known the pension payments were not being made for decades, yet they negotiated for raises instead of using their bargaining leverage to ensure pensions were funded. It was a choice, they made it, and they can live with the consequences.
Yes, it was a structural tax problem, but as far as the union member benefits are concerned, it was a system bargained for.
I guess the explanation could be union members had no idea the pensions were not being paid…really? If I paid union dues for 30 years and my union never told me my pension was not being funded, I would ask for my money back.
It is inherently unfair to change the benefit after you are “locked in.” but you should complain to your union who did not explain to you 20 years ago we should ask for pension funding not raises.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Mar 6, 13 @ 8:36 am