Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The last gasp of opposition
Next Post: African-American community college enrollment dropped 30 percent here
Posted in:
* It’s just a bill, of course, but kind of interesting…
State workers would be required to live within the state of Illinois under a new proposal by State Senator Laura Fine (D-Glenview).
“State workers’ salaries are paid by Illinois taxpayers,” Fine said. “It just makes sense that if you’re going to be paid by income, sales, and property taxes that Illinois residents pay, then you should be subject to those same taxes.”
Senate Bill 1639 establishes a requirement that to work for any state agency within Illinois, a person must live in the state. The measure would not affect employees who work for a contractor that has a contract with the state, and allows for a three-month grace period.
The bill passed the Senate Committee on State Government and now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
* The Question: Your position on this legislation? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 2:52 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The last gasp of opposition
Next Post: African-American community college enrollment dropped 30 percent here
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Overdue. Lots of people enjoying Illinois higher pay while not contributing to the state.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 2:55 pm
Awesome. But let’s go one step further - let’s make a hiring preference for Illinoisans, those born in Illinois. This will help keep people here rather than fleeing the state for work prospects.
Comment by IllinoisFirst Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 2:57 pm
Without a process for exceptions I would be opposed. If an agency wants to recruit someone who has a home and family and just happens to live in Gary, Indiana they shouldn’t have to uproot their entire lives just to work for the State. Or what if that same person has a spouse with a job that also has a residency requirement?
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 2:59 pm
I think it’s fine going forward but I think there may be a few employees with good logistical reasons they live across the border (splitting commutes for spouses who work in different cities).
Comment by Patty T Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 2:59 pm
==Overdue. Lots of people enjoying Illinois higher pay while not contributing to the state.==
This sums up my thoughts as well.
Comment by So_Ill Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 2:59 pm
Makes sense to me. As was already said, too many want to take the higher wages of this state but not pay their fair share of taxes.
Comment by The_Equalizer Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 2:59 pm
Sounds like a lot of administration work. Chicago and Springfield are the two major hubs of state workers. If you want to commute several hours to live somewhere else each day, godspeed. I’d want to see a study on how much we expect to reap in taxes, etc. versus how much it would cost to ensure compliance across tens of thousands of employees.
Comment by lakeside Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:00 pm
I’m in favor of this. The only carve out I might consider is for people whose spouse/partner is living in a bordering state due to a similar residency requirement for their job, and only for as long as that requirement exists for them.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:00 pm
Of course we should, we should also require those taking a pension to live in the State of Illinois. I know that probably wouldn’t pass because of all those lawmakers and union officials now retired in tax free states.
Comment by Great IDea Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:01 pm
=== I know that probably wouldn’t pass because of all those lawmakers and union officials===
Stop. It wouldn’t work because of the Supreme Court ruling on pensions being an unbreakable promise.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:02 pm
Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa are all hiring. If you want to live there, work there, with the lower pay. I think compliance will be much easier than most think. This makes sense.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:03 pm
No, it’s a free country, still. Hire the best available and if they do their jobs, mind your own business as to where they live and many other things.
Where did this come from, anyway? A real burning issue in Glenview?
It should be noted that residency requirements for municipalities were often the tools of control of political bosses and those attempting to stop “white flight” and integration of certain neighborhoods.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:03 pm
I don’t agree, why should you have to give up a home because it’s a few miles over a state line? Keep residency requirements for elected officials.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:04 pm
I lean toward yes, but I think those that already live out of state should be grandfathered in as they made major life decisions under existing rules, and at the very least, they should have more than a three month grace period.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:05 pm
Gee, that would be a long commute for workers at the State’s offices outside of Illinois.
Comment by Keyrock Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:06 pm
Voted yes, but doubt it would fly legally.
Comment by Rutro Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:07 pm
Opposed. Aren’t we more concerned about staffing the right people for the job? Just drop the state reciprocity agreements.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:08 pm
I was amazed for those couple years when the Executive Director of IBHE lived in Maryland while the Chair of IBHE lived in Indiana.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:09 pm
If you are going to be paid by the taxpayers of Illinois, Illinois should be good enough to reside in.
Comment by Give Me A Break Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:11 pm
I’ve heard of municipalities doing this - but have any other states done this? I can imagine constitutional challenges in terms of freedom of movement
Comment by Jamie VW Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:12 pm
The Department of Revenue has dozens of our of State Sales Tax Compliance Auditors. Better to enforce existing Tax and Labor laws.
Comment by Al Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:12 pm
Don’t like the rule for the City of Chicago, don’t want it for the state. Few people would be affected, but we would staff a monitoring unit. More cost with little value.
Do we want to force people to move? Singles can move with less effort. Moving families is hard. The employee could get tangled up in custody issues. The spouse may be unable to move. All sorts of bad effects. And all this to get 5% of a few salaries. Please, no.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:14 pm
Keyrock - Amen to that.
Equalizer @ 2:59 pm == As was already said, too many want to take the higher wages of this state but not pay their fair share of taxes.==
If they work in this state, they are taxed by Illinois on their wages.
Comment by Whatever Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:15 pm
I’m opposed but I might be inclined to support a bill that stops my legislators from flying away all the time (I’m looking at you, Senator Oberweis).
Comment by Dome Gnome Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:15 pm
So I work in a city across the Mississippi from St. Louis. There are a few who live in St. Louis. They are just as loyal and hardworking as any other IL resident public servant.
Why should I want them to lose their job?
Absolutely not
I just have to say, this is yet another manifestation of a fallacy
That because I pay taxes I get to decide what happens with my tax money.
No you don’t
We have a representational democratic government.
You get to vote
for representatives
who when elected
get to decide where and when our taxes are spent.
PERIOD
It’s like me getting to think that I get to tell Schnucks what to do because I buy groceries there.
Because I “pay their salary”
No you don’t
Your remitted taxes are appropriated by representatives
Elections have consequences.
I think it would be okay to give “preference” to Illinois applicants. But not forbid
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:16 pm
People, if you work in and are paid in Illinois you pay Illinois income taxes.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:16 pm
Absolutely not
They’d still be paying income tax
Comment by Nick Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:16 pm
Oppose. Passing laws on where someone may live is always a bad idea. I empathize with the intent, perhaps provide a small incentive for an employee to live in the state instead of a requirement.
Comment by Lt Guv Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:17 pm
Cook County should do the same.
Comment by Support Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:18 pm
No
Obviously they would pay income tax to Illinois regardless of where they live.
Comment by Nick Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:19 pm
There are dozens of places in this state where this is problematic; notably, the Quad Cities, St. Louis, Galena, South Beloit, Northern Lake County, Southeastern Cook County, etc.
It’s ironic our neighboring states don’t contemplate those kind of laws on our border?
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:20 pm
This is flawed the same way as any city’s residency requirement. Hire the best qualified people for the job. Where they live isn’t applicable to whether or not they can or will doa Good job. That’s their work ethic. People wanting this just want to make sure they get their hand in the employees paycheck. Because somehow the employees need to give their earning back to the state/city in order for the private sector to be satisfied. Income taxes pay for services used by residents. Services used are totally separate from employee work product.
Comment by thoughts matter Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:21 pm
Voted “No”
“Why?”
St. Louis, and NE Indiana.
Large urban areas like NY, Philly, Boston, even Hartford, face commuters from other states coming into those towns abd those states.
If a state employee wants to live in Shererville IN, or St. Louis, and it doesn’t effect their work, then, we may all be better off.
I’m not sold either way, so I’d be opposed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:22 pm
Current law makes people be a resident of Illinois. This bill simply removes a waiver process when there are less than 3 eligible candidates who apply. For instance, if you need to hire an attorney, there is gonna be plenty of applicants and it will always have to be a state resident. If you need a computer programmer to write code and who has 10 years of experience with database construction covering populations in excess of 450,000, etc. etc. And you have less than 3 applicants who live in the state, you may want to expand your horizons a bit.
Comment by Polpen Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:23 pm
I voted support before I read the bill (wrong order, I know); I now change my mind to oppose. Residency is already the default; she is just eliminating CMS’s ability to waive residency and eliminating the exception for when fewer than 3 Illinois residents are available from the list. Maybe a bill that puts some guidelines on when CMS can waive residency would make more sense.
Comment by Leslie K Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:23 pm
Some exception needs to be made to this. The Dept. of Revenue has Field Auditors in the NJ, NY, PA area as it is more cost effective than paying travel & per diem for the ongoing audits of Illinois Companies whose mothership resides in that area.
Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:26 pm
How about we focus on making Illinois a place people want to live in first.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:28 pm
Some of the adjunct professors doing online learning are going to have to start working through temp agencies, I guess.
Comment by Stuff Happens Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:28 pm
I support this for future hires. I would think that it’s well within the power of the state to dictate the rules of employment. However, there is no way this would fly for those currently employed. That just seems strange.
Comment by Harvest76 Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:28 pm
Works for me except the within 3 months timeframe, new employees are probationary employees for 6 months before they are considered certified. There could be some hesitation to make the move if you could be fired for no cause for 3 more months after you move.
Comment by Reserved Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:29 pm
Hire the best person for the job, period. Residency is not a legitimate qualification, unless you want to make sure that you can secure that person’s vote when it comes election time. Next.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:30 pm
I voted opposed. I was taught in Constitutional Law that these laws were valid if there is a legitimate state interest, like having police officers available, but invalid otherwise. I don’t know how Chicago gets away with its residency ordinance then. But, I believe the above reasoning is best. Yes if you are an employee that needs to live in state, like a State Trooper, but no otherwise.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:30 pm
Nope, this is a phony issue. Is there some type of rush of state employees leaving IL? I have a better idea. How about we mandate competent employees for state jobs. Given my experience with too many state workers we’d be better off with someone from out of state who knows what they’re doing as opposed to an Illinois resident who got the state job because they had a union protected position.
Comment by NeverPoliticallyCorrect Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:30 pm
Opposed. Several former colleagues of mine had to find other work when the layoffs occurred during the impasse. Some ended up in Terre Haute while their spouses are still here. It’s an easy enough commute that no relocation was needed. Interstate commutes happen in this day and age. No one should be forced to move because of it. If IL passes such a law, other states could as well. That could end up affecting a lot of people.
Comment by MSIX Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:34 pm
I believe this is also a mandatory subject of bargaining and would need to be negotiated with the unions that represent the vast majority of state employees. Good luck with that.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:34 pm
Support. If you want to work for the State, live here. Without this, you could live in a neighboring state, drive to work every day in Illinois, and pay nothing for the roads.
Comment by Smitty Irving Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:34 pm
== but have any other states done this? ==
A number of State’s have such a requirement. It is even written into Colorado’s State Constitution.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:40 pm
Illinois resident who got the state job because they had a union protected position.
Read about Rutan interviews and get back to us.
If you want better employees the state should do more to develop and enforce performance reviews. Look I know my union hates this but I was a Navy Officer. Fitness Reports were a fact of life. You didn’t get far with low evaluations. I’m fine with that as long as there are safeguards from management abusing it. And there is the problem and why the union opposes it prima fascia. I get it. But we leave open one of the main criticisms of state workers, that they’re bad workers. I understand. I’ve cursed my share of DMV,IDOR,CMS workers. Yet there are crappy workers everywhere in the private sector as well.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:42 pm
Strongly support. Colorado does this:
The Colorado Constitution, Article XII, Section 13 requires that applicants for state classified government jobs be residents of Colorado, unless this requirement is either performing work primarily 30 miles within the state border or waived by the State Personnel Director or the State Personnel Board.
Comment by Kayak Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:45 pm
It would probably be better to have a distance requirement, like within 30 miles of the State line, to accommodate some of the metro areas.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:46 pm
Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. What’s next paper’s to prove where live if you travel out of state. Do I have to stay in Illinois if I go on vacation? Get a grip people. WHY???…..Do the state workers have a target on their backs???
Comment by oldhp Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:47 pm
Oppose. We shouldn’t make recruitment of great state employees more difficult.
Comment by Earnest Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:48 pm
Hey…..I just realize something.
Where’s Sue?
ohhhhh…..
Is she BPIA™?
The free market worked out for her I hope.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:48 pm
Voted ‘no’. I get the concept, but as stated above this would only fly for new state employees.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:50 pm
This is really bad legislation. There are approximately 100 Department of Revenue auditors that live outside Illinois. Many of these live on the east coast, specifically New York. Many millions of dollars are brought in by these auditors by taxpayers doing business in other states. To pay travel expenses for an Illinois auditor to audit in New York would exceed any gains by making auditors live within illinois
Comment by Hemi345 Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:50 pm
Oppose for the same reason as 3D checkers and others, I believe it would be unconstitutional.
Comment by SpfdNewb Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:50 pm
If you live in another state and work outside IL you can be paid in the state of residence or the State your employer is registered in for taxes and workmen’s compensation. Designation.
Comment by bear3 Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:51 pm
Smitty
So what’s next if you live in Illinois you must buy gas in Iliinois
What about the people. Not state workers who live close to Missouri or other low gas tax state and buy gas elsewhere
They are driving on Iliinois roads and not contributing
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:51 pm
As stated above, Revenue has auditors stationed in other states.
Comment by A Jack Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:53 pm
Voted no. This is another one of those ideas politicians like to sponsor because it sounds good on the surface, but it really doesn’t solve anything. And if we really want our state workers to live here we should do things to make Illinois a more attractive state to live in, not pass a law to make it illegal to not live here.
Comment by Occasional Quipper Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:53 pm
Opposed. I think strictly limiting the talent pool serving the state is silly, especially two months after the new gov. made a big deal about attracting the best talent. For those complaining about higher state wages for people living out of state, we should consider tiered salaries that give in-state workers higher base salaries compared to out-of-state workers. This is a common practice in municipalities across the country, and I think it’s a reasonable medium.
The bill also makes me wonder: how many people with state jobs live outside Illinois? Is this really an issue, or is it just good messaging?
Comment by OutOfState Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:54 pm
I’m curious, just how many people work for the State of Illinois but don’t live here? Are there Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, etc state workers who live in Illinois? Maybe it all just balances out. I don’t know if this is really an issue or are we talking about a handful of people?
Comment by Chippy Dave Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:56 pm
Workers that live out of state still pay Illinois income tax and sales tax on Illinois purchases.
Totally oppose. State workers are not indentured servants. They are people who work and are paid for their work and they are taxpayers like everyone else.
Enough pandering, get to the real issues.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 3:58 pm
I’m opposed. I manage a small university unit that has statewide impact. We have some experienced employees who work from out of state home offices, mostly because spouses took jobs out of state. I could not have replaced them and would have lost a lot of dedicated experienced staff if the University did not allow for some telecommuting. It is becoming extremely common in corporate tech jobs and offering it in public sector tech jobs like ours, allows us to at least try to keep good staff.
Comment by SURS or Bust Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:03 pm
Cook County has this, Chicago has this, and many suburbs have this. It has repeatedly been upheld by the courts. And it is not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.
While out of state residents may pay Illinois income tax, they don’t pay our high property taxes and sales taxes when they spend at night and on the weekends. The only exemption that should be considered are for prisons who don’t have a large enough pool of local workers and are near a border.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:03 pm
Not clear why you’d intentionally limit the pool of qualified applicants. So long as they’re paying IL income taxes, this seems like a solution in search of a problem
Comment by The Doc Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:03 pm
“No.” As others have noted, this is a solution in search of a problem. Also, telecommuting may be desirable for some positions. Better to handle this through CMS rules, which can be more finely calibrated.
Comment by Not a Superstar Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:26 pm
I change my mind, based on reading people’s comments, to lean no.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:37 pm
I moved to Northwest Indiana in May after 10 years in Chicago, but still work in Chicago. I work for a nonprofit, not the government, but job prospects in my field are limited because Chicago is so large that many of the jobs that might have been in Indiana are in Chicago and expanded to cover NWI. One of my options would be to eventually work for the government.
My partner is a university professor in NWI. His hours vary in a way mine do not and living near his work makes MUCH more sense for us. I would HATE to have to limit my prospects when we should both be able to hold jobs in work we love.
Comment by Labotts Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:38 pm
I think a better idea would be applying an “out of state” tax to state retirees that live outside of Illinois.
People earn great retirements working in Illinois and then take all of that money out of the state. They retire somewhere they weren’t willing work because the wages and benefits there were junk. Because of this Illinois tax payers are subsidizing Florida.
Comment by The Mythical Middle Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:42 pm
Of course they should have to live here. They should also have to live here to collect a state pension.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:42 pm
Anonymous 3:51 -
Before deregulation, many states required semis to purchase diesel in their state. To pay for damage to the roads. AL / MS were the worst.
Comment by Smitty Irving Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:48 pm
The most expensive thing in life is lack of information. The fact is the IDOR has auditors all over the USA and they bring the state coffers hundreds of millions of dollars which is many times their cost to the State.
Another fact is that you can’t do a desk audit on a major company (or even medium size). It’s not practical. If it were, the IRS would have all of their auditors working out of Washington DC instead of field offices throughout the USA.
NY closed their office in Chicago and the estimate was it cost NYS over $100M. As with NY, our outside auditors don’t vote in Illinois (the reader can interpret the implications there).
Comment by Angelo Mysterioso Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:51 pm
My gut reaction was “yes” - duh. But I didn’t think about the telecommuters and other comments here made by folks. So, I’m a no.
Comment by view from the cheap seats Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 4:54 pm
For those who said “yes” I ask why only limit it to state employees? Shouldn’t it be extended to businesses that receive revenue from the state and therefore THEIR employees who receive salary in part based on taxpayer dollars?
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:22 pm
==we should also require those taking a pension to live in the State of Illinois==
Don’t be dense. That’s absurd.
To the post -
I voted oppose. I’m generally not in favor of telling someone where they must live. If you can do the job then I don’t care where you live and commute from.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:30 pm
Nothing dense, we need their fair share of tsxes.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:32 pm
Even public employees should be able to vote with their feet.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:33 pm
==Nothing dense, ==
Dense doesn’t even begin to describe it. Requiring those who receive public retirement benefits to live in the state is {banned word}. You’re being beyond silly.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:45 pm
Voted No.
Example: Working in Environmental Health. Work with individuals who hold CSP (Certified Safety Professional) & CIH (Certified Industrial Hygienist) designations.
Those folks are hard to find, and EXPENSIVE. Last numbers I saw was that there were less than 9,000 individuals with active CIH designations in all of North America.
There’s probably only a handful of these individuals employed in Illinois government. This legislation will do nothing but encourage more use of Contract employees.
But IF I’m voting my own personal economics, I’d prefer more use of outside contractors. Certainly will put more money in my pocket.
IMO, Case of bad legislation.
Comment by Anon Downstate Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:47 pm
I voted no. So you are saying its okay for statewide officials to live in Chicago and we pay for their commute plus them having a second residence in Springfield. But its not ok for someone in Gary, IN to commute to Calumet City for a state job?
Comment by Joe M Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:54 pm
Public employees should pay their fair share. Everyone needs too.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:55 pm
==Public employees should pay their fair share.==
Hey Mr. Wizard, if they are working in Illinois then they are paying Illinois income taxes regardless of where they live.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 5:57 pm
No
What Willie, J.S. Mills, and the Mythical Middle said.
Comment by Lynn S. Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:06 pm
Look at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=236
Sec. 8b.1. provides for the open competitive examinations to test the relative fitness of applicants for the respective positions. It says: The Director may, in his discretion, accept the results of competitive examinations conducted by any merit system established by federal law or by the law of any State, and may compile eligible lists therefrom or may add the names of successful candidates in examinations conducted by those merit systems to existing eligible lists in accordance with their respective ratings. No person who is a non-resident of the State of Illinois may be appointed from those eligible lists, however, unless the requirement that applicants be residents of the State of Illinois is waived by the Director of Central Management Services and unless there are less than 3 Illinois residents available for appointment from the appropriate eligible list. The results of the examinations conducted by other merit systems may not be used unless they are comparable in difficulty and comprehensiveness to examinations conducted by the Department of Central Management Services for similar positions.
Not saying this addresses the issue as once someone gets a job they could move out of state, but this makes it difficult to get on an eligible list unless you are an Illinois resident.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:07 pm
I voted for it. Of course there would be exceptions made for revenue auditors stationed out of state. But I think you need to live in a state to fully understand it and serve it well. For instance, it is talking to your neighbors about an issue they are having at your agency that may help you identify a problem that needs to be fixed. Staying in state also contributes more money to local economy with a multiplier impact. Plus it contributes to the local tax base. I’m sure the South Suburbs would love it if a lot of Indiana residents moved over the border.
Comment by City Guy Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:08 pm
The Department of Revenue has many Revenue Auditors living out-of-state. The purpose for having them live out-of-state is to reduce travel expenses for the state.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:10 pm
Public employee pensioners need to pay their fair share. Sorry.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:20 pm
==Public employee pensioners need to pay their fair share. Sorry.==
Nobody pays income taxes on pensions. Try again.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:23 pm
Just a quibble because it keeps being brought up: not all who work in Illinois pay Illinois income taxes. If they reside in a state with reciprocity (e.g.,, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Michigan), they do not pay Illinois income taxes even if they work in Illinois. Indiana and Missouri do not have reciprocity, so their residents do.
Comment by Anon324 Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:35 pm
I think there is nothing wrong with a residency requirement. Allow hiring from wherever, require residency within 6 months of hire.
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:49 pm
=But I think you need to live in a state to fully understand it and serve it well. For instance, it is talking to your neighbors about an issue they are having at your agency that may help you identify a problem that needs to be fixed.=
Congratulations on the goofiest reasoning yet. So, to be an effective IDOT mechanic you must “understand Illinois”? I guess understanding how to maintain a vehicle isn’t enough.
=Public employee pensioners need to pay their fair share. Sorry.= . That is “sorry” reasoning. As @ Demoralized points out, no one pays tax on pensions.
But pensioners did pay their fair share. All throughout their careers.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 6:53 pm
Article 4 Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
“The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”
Even if the public employee residency requirement was constitutional, any other residency requirements for non-governmental sector would be unconstitutional.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:00 pm
I voted no, and there will be major legal issues unless you grandfather in existing employees. For example, I don’t think you could fire a tenured faculty member at a state university for living out of state if the residency requirement was not a condition of his/her initial employment.
Comment by Andy S. Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:05 pm
I’m all for it, just leave pensioners alone. If you want to retire to sunny Florida or beautiful Alaska go for it, but you should be living in the state if you are working for the state, IMO.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:06 pm
Great idea - workers have a stake in their place,of employment
Comment by Flyer Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:08 pm
I voted yes but for future state employees only.
“Of course we should, we should also require those taking a pension to live in the State of Illinois.”
You need to re-read the post. The bill is in regards to state employees. That law would not apply to State retirees. Retirees are no longer employed by the state. The last time I checked, this is a free country.
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:13 pm
It’s only fair that everyone pay their fair share, including pensioners.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:14 pm
If public employee pensions are subjected to State Income Tax, 401K , IRAs and private employee pensions should be taxed as well.
Comment by Just Bored Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:17 pm
This bill seems to only apply to new hires. It’s already very difficult for a non-resident to get a job with the state. This would make it impossible, unless they move in 3 months. After your hired, move where ever you want. Plenty of workers in Chicago live in Indiana. There is a train that takes em right into the loop.
Comment by union proud Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:17 pm
Great Idea- Illinois doesn’t tax ANY retirement income. Do research before attacking union bosses and all…..
Comment by Wow Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:20 pm
Opposed. If any worker, not just a state employee, wants to live across state lines and receive less services than their income tax is paying for, we should be sending them a “thank you” card. Maybe we should even be encouraging it.
Comment by Stuntman Bob's Brother Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:39 pm
Lots of issues with employees living out of state such as response time or if they’re assigned a car so think they should live in state. The Personnel Rules give hiring preference which seems to be violated if someone moves out of state and seeks a promotion or transfer.
Comment by Sense of a Goose Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:47 pm
Pensioners need to pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 7:54 pm
JS Mill - the mechanic’s dollars still circulate in the economy. And there is I reason to exempt the position. The reality is most jobs benefit by sharing the same life as clients. For instance I would argue the crews that fill pot holes do a better job if they drive those roads than people who never do.
Comment by City Guy Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 9:58 pm
Any employee living out of state who commutes to an i. State job drives on Illimois roads or takes a commuter train. Arguing that they don’t care about doing a good job is stereotyping.
Let’s just erect big walls around our border- only allow Illinois residents in and never allow Illinois residents out. That solves the out migration along with all the arguments that state employees must totally spend their money in Illinois, and extends the rule to all private sector employees. Of course, tourism will take a big hit. But, hey, those tourists don’t pay Illinois income tax so how dare they use our roads and tourist sites. What’s next - making all Illinois gas station employees only buy gas at their own gas station and havingto haul barrels of gasoline with them if they take a vacation? Maybe telling restaurant employees they can only eat every meal at their restaurant and must haul coolers filled with food on vacation?
Comment by thoughts matter Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 10:41 pm
Why not?
Comment by Yeah, Sure Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 10:45 pm
Now, create follow-up legislation to do the same for privatized services.
Comment by Southsider Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 11:09 pm
For sure
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 11:24 pm
I’ve worked at the state with people who live in Indiana. They were some of the first out to catch their train. They never displayed any loyalty or sense of even liking to Illinois, it was just a job to them. They didn’t have any special skill set, they were your classic PSA. So why not replace them with someone who actually cares about Illinois, isn’t rushing off to a train, and will have their dollars circulate in the local economy
Comment by City Guy Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 11:31 pm
How many are there that do this?
Is it worth tracking?
Seems silly to me.
Sometimes people take jobs and spouses work in different states and so they live in different states or do not move for a while.
I say no.
Comment by lost in the weeds Wednesday, Mar 6, 19 @ 11:55 pm
“The Personnel Rules give hiring preference which seems to be violated if someone moves out of state and seeks a promotion or transfer.“
This only applies to the open competitive process. If you use the bidding process this language does not apply. Very few current employees use open competitive process. A few do. But most bid.
Comment by union proud Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 6:31 am
The govenors thanking mike for jobs was real
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 7:10 am
I’d give a longer grace period, up to a year, because selling a home, finding a new one, and making the move all take time. But this is hard to argue with otherwise.
Comment by Lord Voldemort Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 8:03 am
I will take back my comment about people leaving for trains because there were other people who had same issue.
Comment by City Guy Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 8:04 am
Long overdue, and should be public policy. If you want to work for Illinois, then you have to LIVE here and pay taxes here.
No exceptions.
Comment by Mycroft Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 8:09 am
Three months probably isn’t long enough of a grace period, although six should be. I would endorse this.
Comment by thunderspirit Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 8:22 am
=== They retire somewhere they weren’t willing work because the wages and benefits there were junk. ===
Or it could be they move South because it’s warmer, and because the property taxes won’t eat up all of their fixed incomes.
Comment by Occasional Quipper Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 8:36 am
“replace them with someone who actually cares about Illinois”
How would loyalty to and “caring about” be determined? Loyalty Oath? Illinois tattoos? Maybe an essay test?
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 8:50 am
Fact, Illinois does NOT have enough qualified employees to fill many of those jobs.
Chicago’s school system in it self generates people who can’t read, write, spell or do elementary math.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 9:02 am
Add an amendment to this bill Politicians must live in their elected district, not just maintain a residence.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 9:06 am
Did Sen. Fine or any other of the committee senators who voted for this identify the “problem” this “solution” will solve? The google provides no help.
What prompted this? Is there some personal beef somewhere, somehow?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 9:09 am
It’s a popular sentiment, but it’s still a bad idea. Period.
Limiting the talent pool is not the path to innovation or improved efficiency and effectiveness.
Comment by Hawkeye Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 9:29 am
Completely ridiculous. Hire the best employees possible, and it is non of our business where they live.
Comment by Ole' Nelson Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 11:08 am
Classic government overreach. Leave the workers alone.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 7, 19 @ 12:42 pm