Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Did they bring it on themselves?

Posted in:

Illinois

* QC Times editorial…

It was inevitable — at some point, the shameless gluttony of public employee unions couldn’t last forever.

That reality manifested Wednesday as a devastating — if unsurprising — U.S. Supreme Court ruling that could finally force Big Labor to ditch the fantasy within which it has existed for too long. It was a reckoning that had been building for decades, as private sector wages stagnated and pensions went the way of the dodo. […]

Unions exist for their own promulgation. And public unions, without any semblance of shame, demand private-sector workers — trapped in incessant wage stagnation — to foot the bill for annual wage hikes and gold-plated benefits packages that haven’t been available to most Americans for decades.

Welcome to the 21st century, union bosses. No, things aren’t great. And they haven’t been for most American workers for a long time.

* Crain’s editorial entitled “Illinois government unions brought their defeat on themselves”…

Public-sector unions in Illinois have been right to argue that their members have kept their end of the bargain, paying into their pension funds on a sustained basis even as the state shirked its responsibility to do the same. But as the deficit ballooned to the point where the state’s unfunded pension liability now is north of $130 billion, unions have done little to convince Illinois taxpayers and voters that they’re serious about helping to tackle the problem.

Yes, there’s a clause in the Illinois Constitution that declares pensions to be a contractual obligation that must be paid no matter what. But unions here have relied on that clause to push back against nearly every pension reform proposal that might fix a fiscal problem that threatens to swamp the state. Not so in Arizona, which has similar legal language and yet saw labor come to the table to amend the state constitution and allow a negotiated package of benefit cuts and tax sweeteners, a consensus-building approach that helped Arizona avert financial disaster and safeguarded pensions for those who worked a lifetime to earn them.

Janus may cause severe pain for public-sector unions for decades to come, but it didn’t have to come to this. If unions here had been more willing to discuss trimming the cost-of-living increases that inflate pension costs every year—just to give one example—then perhaps labor could have gotten out front of this issue and deprived pols like Rauner of the political oxygen that has turned anti-union sentiment from a spark to a bonfire.

* The Sun-Times has a different take, of course…

In a country where workers’ wages have remained largely flat for more than three decades, even as company shareholder dividends and executive paychecks have soared, collective bargaining by organized labor remains one of the few checks on dangerously growing income inequality.

Unionized workers earn more. The typical union worker in 2014 was paid $970 a week, compared with $763 for non-union workers, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Unionized workers typically enjoy better benefits, including health insurance and retirement accounts. They are treated with more dignity and respect by employers, and they’ve got an advocate in their corner when they are not being treated justly.

The Supreme Court’s decision poses a huge challenge to AFSCME and other public employee unions, but it also presents them with an opportunity. The challenge for union leaders is to dig down deep, engaging in one-on-one conversations with every union member and making clear the advantages of unionization — and why union dues are a relative bargain. The opportunity is to build a better informed, more socially aware and committed union membership.

Thoughts?

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:33 pm

Comments

The Sun Times took a pro soak the taxpayer stance? Based on who owns it why is anyone surprised?

Comment by Jones Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:36 pm
But wasn’t this about respecting people’s right to free speech, and not about trying to cripple unions to leave worker’s unprotected?/s

That being said, there is a lot of room for the union to give, and they should. I don’t think it needs to be as immediate and draconian as Rauner and others are demanding it be, but the math just isn’t there for business as usual and the union needs to accept that. Of course, that negotiation would require the union to trust the governor (Ha[banned punctuation]). And the problem continues to get worse as everyone puts there head in the sand.

Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:39 pm
Sun Times much more honest appraisal. Folks can rest assured GovJunk and his whack job, Koch Bros. allies will make some ham handed move inflame the other side and wipe out gains. GovJunk was declaring a victory for taxpayers. They don’t win unless less is spent. Maybe GovJunk thinks the anti-fair shares mooches are no longer covered by the CBA. Is there a plan to shaft them wages, benefits and conditions?

Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:40 pm
Particularly for those of us in southern Illinois who are union members…..the union needs to start advocating for us, and not just leaving us with the feeling they are collecting our money and heading back to Chicago.

Comment by Wondering Wendy Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:44 pm
It can be difficult for people entering a new job to appreciate what a union does for them. When someone starts a job, their employer informs them of their benefits and pay. Makes it look like the employer is offering it out of their own good will. The union negotiates for every inch in their contracts.

Bruce Rauner thinks he has dealt some sort of death blow to the union movement. His arrogance clouds his intelligence and understanding of history. The union movement has seen worse, it has been shot at, killed, harassed, threatened and beaten.

We are still here.

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:47 pm
Tax payers vs. tax consumers. A constant struggle on how to fund the public sector.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr4WN4vyevA

Comment by Steve Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:48 pm
Since the 2008 meltdown newspapers laden with debt have really suffered, and one result is editorial boards have become rabidly anti-public employee union. And those that secured the debt with employee pension funds (Sam Zell & Tribune) literally lie about public pensions.

Comment by Smitty Irving Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:48 pm
*But wasn’t this about respecting people’s right to free speech, and not about trying to cripple unions to leave workers unprotected?/s*
Sorry for the repost, my typo, making workers possessive for some reason, annoyed me.

Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:49 pm
Again, there were plenty of cases outside of Illinois that were already in the federal court pipeline, that were all asking the same thing. The Friedrichs case that would’ve done it two years ago save Scalia’s death was from California. Editorials blaming this on Illinois unions are disingenuous at best.

Besides, what is the correct amount of raises and benefits to ask for without upsetting the rich and powerful? Spare a penny guv’nor?

There is no amount of power the working class can have that is acceptable to the monied class. What a joke these editorials are.

Comment by chi Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:49 pm
They did not bring it on themselves. This is only about a small group of ultra wealthy rich old white men using there power to dismantle the middle-class. This is nothing more than that.

Comment by Real Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:49 pm
So basically these people are advocating for lower wages and that makes them happy? What happens when there’s less money being spent in the towns where these people live? Go north to the resort areas of the north woods of Wisconsin its. It as active as before.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:50 pm
Not active as active

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:51 pm
Is Tier 2 no compromise? There have been proposals that would help but have gone no where, not because unions opposed them. What about reamoritization of the debt. No go there.

But Tier 2 is a serious slash to benefits for workers hired under it. Is that no sacrifice?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:51 pm
Even Crains get it wrong. No union has standing to negotiate any reduction in my pension because it is an individual right. Health care costs, yes, AAI no.

Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:52 pm
=The union movement has seen worse, it has been shot at, killed, harassed, threatened and beaten.=

Janus is a pretty big deal, can you detail something worse that happened in the past 20 years, because right now this is all conjecture.

Comment by Iggy Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:53 pm
Translation: “Our private pension plans got raided while we were making good salaries in the 80s and 90s. Why should you have it better?”

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:54 pm
=as private sector wages stagnated and pensions went the way of the dodo.=

The QC editorial is exactly why we need unions. I doubt they see the irony in what they’ve written.

Comment by MSIX Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:54 pm
This is definitely one of the dumber takes possible. This case had nothing to do with Illinois - the money behind it has been gunning for fair share using a succession of Trojan Horse cases for years. If Scalia hadn’t died it would have been Friedrichs; when that case deadlocked, this happened to be next in the pipeline. You can be sure none of the justices voted on the basis of Illinois finances. And in any event, unions are far more popular than Rauner is in Illinois.

Comment by Reality Check Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:56 pm
Subtext to these editorials: Everyone, union or not, should just accept stagnant wages and declining benefits as the new normal. Well, almost everyone.

Comment by Nacho Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:57 pm
There was the union concession of foregoing COLA’s to work with Quinn to find taxpayer savings. We see how that worked out, with money still owed to state workers and lots of legal and political rigmarole to get it back.

Then there’s the willingness to make reasonable concessions for the new contract, but Rauner shut that down and is trying to force state workers to eat a [expletive] sandwich—while his income skyrockets to $279 million in two years.

Rauner cost the taxpayers more money, as worker concessions would have kicked in a while ago.

What is Rauner, being a multimillionaire, willing to give up, above the ordinary concessions? A flat tax increase and some service taxes for anti-union demands hits Rauner less hard than the government/private sector employees who would not only pay higher taxes but be in a position to lose collective bargaining on lots of stuff, lose the prevailing wage, eat the horrible state contract, etc.

So Rauner would practically give up nothing for massive concessions from workers. No way should that be acceptable to any worker with a shred of self-respect.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:03 pm
They certainly pulled more scrutiny to themselves through their approach. Private sector wages support public sector wages, yet the trend has been for public employee wage/benefit growth to surpass the private sector considerably over the decades…even during recessions. Public wages aren’t tied to the supporting private wages in any mathematically sustainable way.

Since it is mathematically impossible to sustain such a trend forever (infinity break formula), eventually the supporting financial base becomes too small to keep funding. That’s not personal, that’s math.

The question, though, was how long could public wages outpace the supporting private wages before either math or political pressure required a change to the system?

I expect the “millionaire’s tax” to continue as a big solution push, but that doesn’t fix the underlying math trend. If public wages are not tied to private wages, eventually the growth trend will eat that too. Rich folks, though, have more ability to push back.

And herein lies a big danger for public unions. If they had pushed the trend to its max, then locked in by tying it to private wages, it would have been very hard to undo. Instead, they kept pushing…and now the counter-push risks losing them ground.

Added to that is most regular union members have no idea the raises are unsustainable; they truly believe the whole formula makes sense. A since math is very personal when it involves your income, it’s very easy to believe your’e being slighted or lied to.

Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:04 pm
Speaking historically- unions rose to prominence during an era where there were no protections for workers and no voice for workers.

As legislation and attitudes move toward that era it is reasonable to believe that the union mov meant may take off again in both the public and private sector.

I am not in a union but I have to deal with their contracts so I am on the management side. At times I am vexed by unions but in general don’t have an entirely negative view or stance. I understand the history. A more aggressive union movement would not be unexpected going forward.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:06 pm
Crains is way over the top on this one. Compare Illinois public workers pension to those from most other states and you will find them comparable, yet Illinois pension fund is much more poorly funded. Crains says its because of greedy Unions who refuse to be willing to reduce their benefits. That doesn’t mesh with the facts. For years Illinois has had a lower state income tax than most of those other states. The biggest reason for the pension fund deficit is that for years part of or all of the annual pension payment was used to pay for other things and over time the pension fund deficit became huge. Is that the fault of the Unions or our politicians? For the past decade different ideas have been discussed in which the state could reduce their annual pension payment but the politicians instead introduce plans revolving around reducing benefits which are thrown out by the court, in effect just kicking the can down the road.
If the pension contract is an individual contract between employee and the state can the Union even negotiate a reduction in the pension benefit if they wanted to?

Comment by The Dude Abides Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:09 pm
==Private sector wages support public sector wages==

Ahh, the old “us vs. them” mentality. That’s pretty close to the argument that public sector workers aren’t really taxpayers isn’t it? Since you seem to believe the bill is all on the private sector. Nonsesne

==If public wages are not tied to private wages,==

There’s the “if I don’t have it neither should you” argument.

Don’t you think perhaps we should be working to raise private sector wages instead of complaining that others make too much?

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:11 pm
Iggy, my point being union members shouldn’t hang their heads. This is labor’s fight for this generation. If you want something that has been a big deal for labor unions in the past 20 years, worse than this, free trade.

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:13 pm
It is a bit comical and intellectually puzzling that those being expected to decrease their benefits/wages are the peon workers while multi millionaires earn ever more. Seems like logic isn’t being used here. Not thinking of taking away those plutocrats wealth, but it does seem disjointed thinking to punish a 50k/year worker while those who actually can contribute will not.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:13 pm
“…annual wage hikes and gold-plated benefits packages that haven’t been available to most Americans for decades.”

Yeah… that’s the point.

‘Don’t give me more, give them less!’ has got to be the dumbest American instinct. Going to be interesting to see if we can pull up out of this new Gilded Era.

Comment by lakeside Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:13 pm
The QC Times editorial is waaaayyyy over the top. If they want to talk about shameful behavior they ought to look in the mirror. Attacking public sector workers as “shameless gluttons” is wrong and it’s ugly.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:13 pm
==the thinking that public workers aren’t really taxpayers==

WHen you think about it, maybe they shouldn’t be taxpayers. If the taxes they pay are paying their income, they’re losing $

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:16 pm
The 2 in 5 households voting Rauner to teach Quinn a lesson is the genesis of Rauner feeling embolden to try abd then fail, then pretend it was Rauner, the champion, not Janus.

Madigan wasn’t always a fan of AFSCME, as noted, thinking JRT might be giving too much… the reality is, allowing Dems and labor, and even the GOP and labor before 2000… the public perception of union coziness was never put into a perspective, in a media way, that government and labor in Illinois, especially public sector labor, work together for everyone’s benefit.

What we’ve seen since 2000 or so, in Illinois, is this fractionalizing this idea that there are wealthy people, union people, and “the rest” (some small business owners, others in the workforce not touched by labor) fighting to live in Illinois, sometimes paycheck to paycheck. Three groups.

There are ads now with guys talking for the need of labor and buying beers for guts in union hats. Ok. That’s good. But that still is that three groups trying to make their side seem to be the “right” side. It may work, it could work, but it’s not being inclusive to all sides.

The critical mistake here in Illinois was labor deciding the GOP before Rauner, wasn’t worth the time necessary, and outlets like IPI and the Trib pouncing on “What are they up to? We need to fight for taxpayers.” and the GOP seeing that wedge issue works, instead of labor making the inroads and both being partners, and good PR for all. Had labor decided that a bigger tent, like the trades who look at the GOP at times far more favorably, was the avenue to keep peace and harmony and work to get both parties to see their worth as a partner… the public might’ve gotten behind GOP members with ties to labor on a wider scale, and more people would be less inclined to listen to IPI or the Trib pushing these three groups away from each other.

So, Blago, Quinn, and Rauner.

Who was before them?

Thompson, Edgar, Ryan.

Not terribly bad labor Republicans, but would they be considered, collectively, the way we want the GOP to approach labor today?

With the history of Blago, Quinn, and now Rauner… how likely can a GOP nominee for governor get strong labor support they can tout… and have strong GOP rank and file approval?

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:17 pm
Dude…for many years, I’ve thought about measures that public workers could take to try and help the situation, not wanting my pension to blow up completely. Unfortunately, there are none that could be taken because the right to a pension is guaranteed to individuals, not negotiated by a union. RNUG would say that Tier 2 fixed the problem for future pensioners, but there are no solutions for the decades of underfunding other than to pay it.

Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:21 pm
The Edgar Ramp didn’t help as it also highlighted things like the costs, then not following the ramp only exacerbated the idea of the cost of pensions as we try to catch up… and the chanting of “guaranteed”…

“We” (Illinois as a state) know they’re guaranteed. The Supreme Court even reinforced it. But causing the strife, that also caused the three groups to splinter further.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:25 pm
@Demoralized, not sure that’s fair, to say Liandro’s argument is “us vs them” and everything. Private sector wage growth ties directly to the income tax which ties to the State’s revenue. They’re pretty strongly correlated, and so to have the state’s expenses go up while revenues stay flat is not sustainable. Now we can argue about the statement about public wages increasing while private stays stagnant, I haven’t seen that data though anecdotally it makes sense, we can argue about whether that is “fair” or something we should strive towards, but he’s right about the general way math works.

Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:26 pm
=as private sector wages stagnated and pensions went the way of the dodo.=
Like this was a good thing. (?)
In the meantime the CEO’s, Wall Street scammers, and trust fund babies raked it in. Is so bad that a group of workers was able to slow thier own demise?

Comment by Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked yet?) Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:26 pm
What did they do in Arizona, re a constitutional amendment?

If they amended the AZ Constitution, did that do anything to get the state budget out of promises made -prior- to amending the Constitution?

The problem here in IL is even if they amended the Constitution yesterday and union leaders supported all the negotiations, it just takes one rank-and-file union member, anywhere, to file a lawsuit for anything previously owed. It’s effectively impossible for union leadership to bargain or negotiate anything that clashes with the Pension Clause, in terms of the pension debt already built up - right?

Did Arizona not have that problem? (I am crowd sourcing this if anyone can help quickly). I have a hard time believing every rank-and-file Arizona union member was so public-spirited, they all decided not to sue as individuals.

Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:36 pm
Real - Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 12:49 pm:

You have a problem with White Men? This is not about race.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:41 pm
ZC: reinforcing your thoughts, AFSCME made it very clear to me that they did not represent me once I retire (they would not assist in getting travel pay reimbursed even tho it was earned while I was a dues paying member) Basically told me to go pound sand, not their prob. Well I do not wish for them to represent me on anything related to my future pension income (that I earned)

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:43 pm
This was all about politics. Not inability to pay, not revenge, not geographical, not constitutional.

Politics. After 30 years of siding repeatedly with one party over another, politics won. AFSCME got lazy. Its leadership got biased. They lost 20% of their customer base, permitting a whiner to create a constitutional argument silver bullet, bought by the biased party, to triumph.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:54 pm
Democrats rail only rail against white, rich Republicans

They love hypocritical white tax dodging billionaire limousine liberals and their white male legislators who have run Illinois for the past 35 years

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:55 pm
Yes unions work tirelessly to increase wages and benefits for their member through
Collective bargaining
Bargaining
Management on one side
Labor union on the other
Bargaining
The results of bargaining
Do often result in increased expense for
The management side ergo local government etc
And yes, all tax payers
I get that
But it’s good faith bargaining

But let’s look at what management does
Unilaterally
Without bargaining
Tax incentives local like
50,000,000 to Rivian a car company that has never made a car
Or
Millions to a brewpub, marina, luxury condos in Rockford
Patronage hiring of unqualified managers
No bid contracts- Deloitte, Mackenzie
Add all these up

What you get with collective bargaining is a better workforce and better labor management relationships

What you get with unilateral management grift?
The bill for it.
Taxpayers get billed and they didn’t even know it

Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:56 pm
Public employee unions have failed to recognize that their counterparts in the private sector had a very difficult time the past decade. (Yes, public employees were laid off, but once they were laid off they were no longer dues-paying members.) That inability to understand what was happening to the taxpayers who paid their salaries led to resentment, anger, and the election of Bruce Rauner and people like him.

Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:56 pm
No rich people in Chicago… no new Porches and BMWs… no floatilla of yachts north of Navy Pier… no new luxury condos. Everyone is poor… and even if any one is rich they are “untaxable’. Now fight among yourselves for the crowd of “good people” at Mar a Lago.

Comment by James Knell Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 1:58 pm
==what was happening to the taxpayers==

They are all taxpayers.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:00 pm
== If the pension contract is an individual contract between employee and the state can the Union even negotiate a reduction in the pension benefit if they wanted to? ==

No, the union can’t.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:03 pm
=Public employee unions have failed to recognize that their counterparts in the private sector had a very difficult time the past decade….That inability to understand what was happening to the taxpayers who paid their salaries led to resentment, anger, and the election of Bruce Rauner and people like him.” - who rigged the economy and cheated private sector workers too. There, fixed it.

“Wrong and strong” seem to the carry the day for the anti-worker GOP base.

Comment by Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked yet?) Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:06 pm
Arizona changes aren’t quite what people think they were. There were additional benefits and funding guarantees provided in a constitutional amendment in exchange for some benefit reduction. It even changed their COLA from a grant (like Illinois’ prior to the AAI and guarantee) to a guaranteed benefit. I’ve written about it before. On average, it was probably a better deal for the employee / retiree than the State.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:09 pm
==They are treated with more dignity and respect by employers==

AFSCME state workers might have a different take.

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:09 pm
I want to know why people refuse to acknowledge that public employees pay the same taxes as private employees. And then why all public employees are lumped together as if one gets the same benefits as the next? The retirement requirements and benefits are very different amongst the 5 public pension plans. Learn about it.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:10 pm
Liandro,

It’s not that simple. Many professional titles in state government are underpaid. I would see a 30% to 40% increase if you tied my wage to the same job in the private sector.

Comment by Steve Polite Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:12 pm
This ruling just gave union workers more power and forces union bosses to fight harder for contracts no more back door deals or no union dues for the union

Comment by Wrong Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:14 pm
=Now fight among yourselves for the crowd of “good people” at Mar a Lago.=

Scott Walkers’ political success is a variation of the above. Unfortunately the rationale works, a majority of our electorate views we owe our existaance to the uber rich transaction makers.
It worked for Scott Walker, it’s working for Trump, and may continue to work for BVR and his GOP.

Comment by Deadbeat Conservative (Blocked yet?) Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:19 pm
The union does not negotiate my pension they have no say in my pension learn the facts before you print

Comment by Wrong Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:19 pm
By far the largest cause of the underfunding of pension funds is from the State’s failure to make the required employer contributions. If the pension participants are going to take a haircut, it seems to me that, at a minimum, they should be entitled to a refund of employee contributions that is proportional to the skipped employer contributions.

Comment by SAP Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:27 pm
“Employee Death Matches”… it’s the new dog fighting for the amusement “Maker Class”.

Comment by James Knell Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:27 pm
The problem isn’t that unionized public-sector workers get paid too much. It’s that many non-unionized workers get paid too little.

But of course, the wealthy will point to public employees with pensions and say, “See - they’re getting paid too much! If you’re not making enough, why should they? No, don’t ask if I could be making too much - I earned it fair and square!”

Comment by Techie Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:48 pm
Vanillaman- I would not say lazy. I know first hand how hard our leadership works. I got a call once from Council at 9pm asking if I could look over the changes they made to my resolution.
Here’s what I believe
Union membership is like a gym membership
You can be a Golds member
But if you don’t get in there
And do the work
You won’t see the results
We as frontline members are lazy, not leadership
Leadership has by and large failed to give frontline
Leadership the tools and support
To motivate and organize our frontline. Actually they gave some frontline leaders the tools but we failed together in actually getting members to take action.
CTU does a great job at this.
But mine has struggled
I struggle to do all I can do
That’s the battle now
To get folks involved.
Frontline leaders like me need all the help we can get in this fight.
But I have to personally accept blame
I didn’t work hard enough.
I failed my people in numerous ways
But in truth every member
Needs to fess up, knuckle down
And hit the gym
To secure our future.
No excuses

Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:51 pm
Council 31 AFSCME absolutely brought this on. They broke Abood.

When AFSCME decided to pass on fancy “chargeable” expenses for what is considered a “fair share” which were equal to 78% of union dues, all the while being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient with a specific political party and its agenda, they were choosing to abuse those that were not of like mind. Alito writes for several pages about this.

Now, here we are. The abuse has stopped. The shanghai has ceased. The one-sided political speech will be less richly funded.

AFSCME choose to push this too far. Read Alito’s well reasoned opinion at www.supremecourt.gov

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 2:58 pm
cdog: that should fire up some folks!! Honeybear: kudos for taking some blame (however misdirected) I watched union leadership look out for themselves and their cushy leadership positions in both AFSCME and a private union UAW @ caterpillar in Montgomery. Really do not like them much.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:08 pm
===Yes, there’s a clause in the Illinois Constitution that declares pensions to be a contractual obligation that must be paid no matter what. But unions here have relied on that clause to push back against nearly every pension reform proposal that might fix a fiscal problem that threatens to swamp the state.===

Gosh, Crains, do you think you could take the time to research the state Constitution? It’s more than just a contractual obligation. It’s one in which “the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”

That’s why unions push back against pension “reform” — because so far every proposal for “reform” is a proposal to unconstitutionally diminish or impair pensions.

=== If unions here had been more willing to discuss trimming the cost-of-living increases that inflate pension costs every year===

How about: if the legislature had been more willing to do its freaking job and adequately fund the pension — and raised adequate revenue to do so (tax brackets like Wisconsin’s maybe?) — then perhaps we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:21 pm
Divide and conquer.

Union members have fought for good pay and benefits while private sector workers have been losing theirs? Fight it out amounts yourselves?
It’s corporate greed, not unions who are keeping wages low.
The solution is to improve private sector pay and benefits, not to drag everyone down to the same low level.

Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:32 pm
correction - amongst

Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:33 pm
The dispute as to how to deal with Illinois pension reform will last up to the very day the State no longer has the ability to make the payments at which time those who are owed the money can regret not having come up with a compromise

Comment by Sue Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:33 pm
Remember that time the IFT and the IEA were proponents of a pension holiday because they got an early retirement option out of it?

Comment by Phenomynous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:38 pm
I’m sure most northern Illinois newspapers don’t care, but you take union-covered state jobs from southern Illinois (south of 64) and you basically have southern Mississippi with Carbondale as the only outlier.

Comment by efudd Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:43 pm
Illinois pension benefits have a 3% compounded cola

California is 2.1 percent

New York was 1.2 percent

Both states are in serious trouble funding these obligations but nowhere near as bad as Illinois

Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:43 pm
efudd: south of Route 64?? That’s about 7/8s of the state.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:45 pm
Sue, seriously, is the only argument you conservatives can make some End of Days proclamation?
Jeez, I bet your on the top of the list for party invites.

Comment by efudd Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:46 pm
Anon-what?

Comment by efudd Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:49 pm
“but he’s right about the general way math works”

The math problem was exactly my point. A pay model cannot keep giving raises at a higher rate than net income. It’s mathematically impossible to sustain; the only question is how long it lasts before the math breaks.

Likewise for public sector employees. If private sector wages are growing at (to invent a number) 2%, and public sector wages are growing at 2.5%, then each year there is a growing disparity that will eventually break the math.

That’s not “us vs. them”, that’s not ignoring that public employees pay taxes–no, that’s math. It works or it doesn’t. In the current government tax system, public sector wages outpacing private sector wages is mathematically unsustainable; the only question is what breaks first: political will, or the financial math.

Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:52 pm
c dog -
“fancy” … please explain, include links, show your work. Thank you.

Comment by Smitty Irving Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 3:54 pm
Sounds like the QC Times writers are jealous of union workers. I’d be too if I were a dinosaur going extinct in one of the most spectacularly failing industries of the last decade.

Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 4:05 pm
Precinct cap- you are becoming like Donald Trump- just attack the media when you don’t like what they publish. Illinois will NEVER be able to pay 100 percent of the pension liability unless you beneficiaries don’t mind living in a State no different then a third world country- Venezuela comes to mind

Comment by Sue Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 4:10 pm
The unions tried to get the state to fund the pensions years ago but the politicians did not want to do it, dems or repubs, and had it been funded as it should of been, the pensions would be fine; and people wouldn’t be blaming state employees. Blame the politiciancs for this whole mess. Had every governor the past 40 years been like Rauner, this state would be 10X worse off than now. Can the unions give a little? Yes. But Rauner offered Teamsters FREE health insurance and then wants to make The rest of us a 60/40 plan and say he is offering the same deal just to make AFSCME look bad. Gov Junk NEVER tells the truth.

Comment by Just Saying Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 4:12 pm
Great question, one I have been thinking about. First, big victory for Rauner, but it stops there as he is 9 points down in the election. The Union, which does have influence, should have lobbied that the pensions didn’t get to this point of underfunding.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 4:21 pm
Smitty, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
pgs 38-41

Comment by cdog Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 4:21 pm
efudd: I live due west of Chicago route 30 route 64 is north of here and runs through sycamore il don’t drive much in the southern regions since I retired (2011)

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 3, 18 @ 4:24 pm