Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn compares Republican opponents to Mr. Burns
Next Post: Rauner kicks in another million bucks
Posted in:
* The specific local might not be willing to back Gov. Quinn any more because of this signature, but I highly doubt that SEIU as a whole is gonna walk away anytime soon…
Picking a fight with one of his most important union supporters, Gov. Pat Quinn Tuesday signed legislation to raise the retirement age for Chicago Park District employees and cut post-retirement benefits for park district retirees. […]
The law would cut annual cost-of-living increases for current retirees from 3 percent to the lesser of 3 percent or one-half of the rate of inflation. Under the plan, the retirement age for existing employees under 45 would jump from 50 to 58. It also would require current employees to contribute up to 2 percent more out of their paychecks by 2019 while the park district would up its contributions to the system by $75 million during that period. […]
The measure was opposed by SEIU Local 73, which has donated $28,677 to Quinn. That is part of $4.5 million that SEIU as a whole has given the governor during his career.
“We’re incredibly disappointed in what Gov. Quinn did,” union spokesman Adam Rosen told the Chicago Sun-Times. “We did not know he’d be signing this today. He did not tell us. We found out about the same time you did. […]
“Now that those two bills are signed, the possibilities of financially supporting him are dwindling,” Rosen said. “Right now, it doesn’t look good from our view of Gov. Quinn. He has signed two very unconstitutional bills that impact thousands of workers and didn’t seem to consult with the public on it. That’s two major strikes against him.”
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 11:14 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn compares Republican opponents to Mr. Burns
Next Post: Rauner kicks in another million bucks
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It affects a fairly small group, so Rich is right that SIEU isn’t going to walk away over this specific bill. But if the pattern continues at other municipalities, it could start to add up and cause a re-evaluation.
Since this bill has the same basic pension clause problems as PA 98-0599, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. IMO, there is a rush to sign these things so the district gets one year or so of relief … but what are they going to do if the bill gets tossed out?
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 11:20 am
I guess the question I would have as a SIEU member of this local is how many folks do they have to jerk over before it becomes a problem? If the bigger SIEU just lets this slide, then why be a member of the SIEU?
Also the lesser of half of inflation or 3%, man those folks better pray real hard serious inflation does not return…
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 11:30 am
why would anybody support a gov who says”people who work hard and play by the rules should be rewarded ” and turns around and does this…the guy needs to be sent packing instead of running for re-election!!!!!!
Comment by concern1 Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 11:38 am
So may we surmise that SEIU 73 will not be participating in the anti-Rauner campaign? Guess Quinn isn’t really a shill for the “union bosses” afterall. For that matter, what does the Rauner camp have to say?
Comment by Polk Field Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 11:43 am
The reason the unions can’t “take on Quinn” is because Pat has power. If SEIU, AFSCME and the IEA don’t like Quinn’s vote fine, but they will fair better under Quinn than Rauner! If Labor forgets who brought them to the table, then they may well find themselves standing outside. Unless of course, labor supports “the new minimum wage” proposed by Rauner.
Comment by Drallid Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 11:59 am
If Rauner wins the primary, the Unions will have to hold their nose and support Quinn. It doesn’t matter how bad Quinn is, Rauner would be worse. Politics ain’t beanbag, and sometime they Unions need to make unpleasant choices. Quinn appears to be counting on having a Republican opponent the Unions can’t stomach.
On the other hand, Rutherford in particular is positioning himself to be an attractive alternative to Quinn. If Rutherford is Quinn’s opponent, Quinn might well lose most union backing. The Unions need Rauner to lose (and Rutherford to win) if they want any leverage with Quinn.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 12:56 pm
What can Rutherford do for the unions? What was his record as a legislator?
Comment by Polk Field Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 1:06 pm
Pat Quinn’s campaign email today says:
“People should be rewarded for their work, not punished.”
Well you know, unless you’re a public employee. Then you can go to hell.
Quinn must be praying Brauce Rauner gets the GOP nomination. He’s the only opponent who will make Quinn’s populist act halfway believable again.
Comment by W Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 1:14 pm
I second OneMan’s point.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 1:31 pm
Reduction of lesser of half of inflation or 3% is better than what long term employees with salaries of above $30K will receive under SB01.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 1:45 pm
I’m a long-time Park District employee, and while I’m not at retirement age yet that pension will be my biggest source of income– especially since Social Security is currently projected to run dry between my retirement and my death. Assuming the Fed’s artificially low rates don’t hold forever, this legislation is likely to cost me lots of money. Still, I support it. Why? Because the alternative is that the fund is likely to be insolvent, just as Social Security will be. Waiting until a crisis erupts doesn’t avoid it, it simply exacerbates it. I really don’t see this as a Republican vs. Democrat issue like several posters here– just a mathematical problem which demands a policy fix.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 9, 14 @ 2:18 pm
If the State of Illinois and Chicago had funded pensions like the municipalities funded IMRF, there would be no need for these pension discussions. The pensions are not the problem, the politicians are the problem.
Comment by Crispy Critter Friday, Jan 10, 14 @ 8:04 am