Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Cows before kids
Next Post: Governor’s Day
Posted in:
* The setup…
A legislative review panel unanimously rejected Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s idea to move about 140 state jobs from Springfield to Harrisburg, three hours apart. But the vote isn’t binding, and the governor maintains that he intends to move the jobs as an economic boost to the southern Illinois town.
But the bipartisan, legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability’s six-hour hearing last month and the “pounds of evidence” generated might not go to waste, says Sen. Jeff Schoenberg, an Evanston Democrat chairing the commission and author of the law setting a review process for closing state facilities. The legal and economic data provided as a result of this process could be used as evidence in court.
Legal challenges could come from the state legislators representing the Springfield area, as well as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 or the local Teamsters union representing the affected employees in the Illinois Department of Transportation’s Division of Public Safety. […]
Sen. Bill Brady, a Bloomington Republican on the commission, said the process has highlighted questions about the fiscal merit, the political motivations and the human impact on the employees.
The administration, however, is looking at other evidence to the contrary, suggesting the move will save money and help out an economically depressed area. Here’s the governor’s statement, provided by e-mail this afternoon: “We will be moving forward with the geographic relocation of IDOT’s Division of Traffic Safety to Harrisburg, as previously mentioned. We’ll be working with the employees who do not choose to relocate, within the terms of their contracts, to find positions for them in Springfield. We will follow all appropriate timelines and guidelines as we move forward.”
* The question: Where do you stand on this concept of moving state jobs out of Springfield to economically depressed areas of the state? Please explain fully. No drive-bys. And try not to focus solely on Gov. Blagojevich. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Cows before kids
Next Post: Governor’s Day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
it’s not such a bad idea, but again, the way it was handled by the Guv doomed it from the start…having been a resident of southern IL for a few years in the 70’s, things are alot better and economically diverse now versus then…our Congressional delegation needs to push Future Gen project should Obama win for a real kick in the pants for that region economically speaking…clean energy in abundance right here in IL…
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:09 am
Totally against this move and any others that Blago has up his plot and plan agenda. First saying, if he were to move the mother office of my family’s department, it would not affect my family in a move, driving distance ect , so my feelings are not based on that.
Springfield is in my opinion where the base of our government should be. It’s my capitol of my beloved state. Why branches of government are already dished out around the state (prisons, driver’s lic., IDOT, human servces, ect) the overall organization aka main office should remain in Springfield. Central location.
IF our governor is interested in bringing new economy and jobs into the state, I’ll cheer him on (on that point) but moving offices around creates neither new jobs or additional economy for the entire state, just shifts it around.
Going by the terms of AFSCME contract on this TS move, you can bank that there will be some employees who end up out of a job.
Comment by Princeville Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:18 am
He’s already moved the gov job from Springfield to Chicago.
This is a good idea, the gov is there to serve the entire state, so why not let a depressed community do some of the work. With the days of email and such, it is easy to stay in touch/conduct business.
Of course, it won’t get done because they cannot get along. Loop Lady is right when the implementation/handiling stinks
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:22 am
I don’t have problem with it if it doesn’t detract from productivity or the mission of the department.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:23 am
It is a foolish notion. It is a net-zero game for the State. Simply moving people does nothing for the benefit of the state.
You provide jobs for one area by removing jobs from another.
The exception might be if there was an economic gain in some fashion such as lower rent/lower expenses. However, in this case it doesn’t appear to have an economic gain for the state in expenses.
This is purely political payback for Harrisburg helping kill recall.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:25 am
When I first heard of the move, I thought it was a great idea. Southern Illinois can use the jobs and I like the idea of spreading some of the state jobs around. But, the evidence just doesnt support the move. I was under the belief that the legislative review panel would look at the facts of the move and its impact on the state. They would then make a decision based on those facts and leave politics out of the decision. I believe they did that. I would love to see Southern Illinois get more economic development and jobs but I also want what is best for the state as a whole. This move doesnt seem to be in the best interest of the state.
Comment by Southern Illinois Democrat Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:28 am
Springfield is the seat of Illinois government. Many state jobs have been de facto moved to, or re-based in, Chicago in the past 6-7 years. Those decisions have probably cost the state more money due to increased cost of living, transportation/lodging/parking costs for meetings. Parts os the city are depressed, so maybe that is a rationale, but not one that holds much water.
Moving state jobs out of Springfield should be done for strictly logisitical reasons. Moving them to boost the economy of a region while damaging the economy of another maybe little sense unles maybe you are a socialist. Moving those jobs is just moving around taxpayer dollars that will as likely cost the state more in the long run due to extra travel expenses by personnel. If you want to help an area’s economy, woo private business and industry, don’t cut tourism dollars, devote tax dollars to long-term infrastructure improvements like education.
Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:28 am
sorry for all the typos
Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:31 am
I think a well thought out plan to spread state jobs when possible to portions of the state in need of some economic stimulus makes great sense. I am not convinced however that this IDOT move was anything other than a political hack job.
Comment by Leigh Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:33 am
Governor Ogilvie began regionalizing the State, creating seven districts. Each state agency was supposed to structure its programs and services along those regional lines, making state government more locally sensitive and responsive.
My question is: why is there one Division of Traffic Safety, based in Springfield? Why hasn’t this function been distributed across the various IDOT district offices?
Moving all the IDOT Traffic Safety employees to one location in another city simply exposes the silliness of the status quo of having all those jobs in Springfield. They should have been scattered years ago across the IDOT district offices, and that should be done now.
The IDOT region in the Harrisburg area gets a few new jobs, as does every other region. Springfield keeps a few, appropriate to their share of the workload, plus the unit managers.
Unfortunately, this is too logical to ever be implemented…
Comment by Capitol View Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:37 am
Is it acceptable that one Illinois community will be hurt so that another Illinois community will benefit? I don’t believe it’s possible that all the employees choosing to remain in Springfield will be still employed with IDOT. This will result in more job loss for Springfield.
Comment by still wondering Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:46 am
Making unemployment go up in one area to decrease it in another area does not make any sence. Why not actually create NEW jobs in an economically depressed area? Consolidate the IDOT jobs into the Hanley Building and then use the $4 million it would cost to move the Department and the employees and use it to intice private investment and tourism dollars in Southern Illinois. This is such an easy solution, leave it up to Illinois to make things hard.
Also, this move was about breaking up a downstate coalition against the governor. It had nothing to do with the southern Illinois economy.
Comment by ahoy! Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:52 am
Isn’t moving jobs from Springfield or where ever to “an economically depressed area” of the State the same as moving deck chairs around on the Titanic?
It’s not adding more jobs that will pay more income taxes. Its not creating more wealth. What economic benefit to the receiving region will be offset by the losses in Springfield?
From an economic standpoint its a deck chair move. It makes little or no sense.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:55 am
My worry is do we then start shuffling jobs around based on current economic conditions, or are we doing something as a long-term benefit? Would the jobs be moved back to Springfield if the Harrisburg area soars? I just don’t see how this makes economic sense if we have to spend nearly a million dollars for half of a building to house workers every time we move them….
to loop lady who wrote ==things are alot better and economically diverse now versus then== I disagree. I don’t think the collapse of the coal industry has been good news for southern Illinois. A friend I met in college from my hometown said her mother broke down in tears when she saw their old home for the first time in 20 years due to the decay of the town and neighborhood. There are many challenges facing southern Illinois, and awarding these ‘lucrative’ state jobs will do little to solve them.
Comment by Vote Quimby! Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:56 am
An agency should be located where its operations will be most efficient and most accessible to the public. Whether an area benefits economically should be secondary.
Some agencies, such as the Gaming Board and Racing Board, are headquartered in Chicago — that makes sense for them since most of the state’s racetracks and casinos are in or close to the Chicago area.
An agency that does business statewide and benefits from being centrally located, or from being accessible to legislative and executive offices, should stay in Springfield. Regional or branch offices in Chicago or other parts of the state are OK if we have the means to establish them.
I don’t necessarily believe EVERY state office has to be headquartered in Springfield. I also believe more needs to be done to diversify the economy of Springfield and make it less dependent upon state employment.
That being said, however, this IDOT move was completely unjustified and done purely for political reasons. When added to the 2,000 + state jobs that have already been moved out of Springfield or not filled in recent years (which went unnoticed as they happened only a few at a time), and Blago’s threat to move more, it’s hard not to see it as anything other than a declaration of economic war upon the capital city by a vindictive governor.
Comment by Bookworm Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 10:59 am
I looked at the description of what the Illinois Division of Traffic Safety is charged to do.
“The Division of Traffic Safety is responsible for highway safety activities. The division compiles crash data and evaluates and analyzes the information which is used to identify highway improvements in problem areas. The division is also responsible for inspection of school buses, trucks and ambulances; and overseeing the transportation of hazardous materials. The division also provides funding for the enforcement of impaired driving and seat belt laws and for numerous traffic safety public information and education programs.
It appears that a portion of their duties appears to be independent of geography. However some of what they do appears that it would require their presence at various parts of the state.
Relocating State jobs is a zero sum game. What is a gain for one community is a loss for another. This should not be done for any capricious reason.
If the aggregate costs including rent and transportation (including per diem, housing and food allotments) is lowered by moving the employees to the southern extents of the state without a degradation of services, so be it. Then there should then be a wholesale move of as many departments as possible to that part of the state as a cost cutting move.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:01 am
While I understand the rational, I am against such moves. Springfield is the capital for a reason. It is central. People can come to Springfield in a few hours, but if someone needs to attend a meeting in Harrisburg, who lives in Chicago, or the Northwestern part of the state, it is an all day drive with possible one or two nights stay, at taxpayers expense. Like wise, if people in Harrisburg need to go examine a sight in the Quad cities, for example,it is an all day drive, with a possible overnight. It doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by Cookie Monster Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:09 am
Bookworm is right, the economic benefits should be secondary.
That being said, I support the concept by starting a new agency in a new location, or slowly, through attrition, move jobs to a new location, but to just force all those workers and their families out of town is not right.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:11 am
Overall I think it is a bad idea, with certain exceptions. ISP, SoS driver license faiclites, IDOT sign and rapir yards and certain other functions need to be located in districts. But scattering government operations about the State creates two major problems. First, ultimately the public should be watching govt and govt operaitons. The more decentralized and scattered govt operations become, the harder it is to keep an eye on them. As an example, with jobs centarlized in Snagamon county, it is much eaiser to observe if the State is applying the required verteans preference to hiring decisions. We have already seen instances where jobs were created in counties with no veteran applicants to avoid the preference, but the employee actually worked in a different location with veteran applicants who did not get considered. More simply, its a lot easier to hide corrupt hiring and spending if you scatter govt operations then if they are centralized. Imagine the ghost payrollers you could hide if the State splintered its operation through the State.
Secondly, overhead for buildings, maintenance, repairs, costs of space etc increase with the number of facilities. Ultimatley a few large buildings are more economical then hundreds of small buildings. And since the State will be around forever, we should be replacing “leases” with owned property. Also employee deficiency is diminshed if you scatter resources. many times the operations of one department are improved by having access to personal or services in another department. By splintering off offices you reduce their effectiveness.
Also by creating multiple offices you increase the need for certain specialized employees who might otherwise be shared. Each office requires somone to handle employee payroll, time management, medical and leaves, hiring, firign and discipline. With a more centralized operation you can use a small group of employees to cover these services. With far flung offices you will need a larger staff present in each faiclity to cover these same services. Also consider things like printing services and temporary personnel. with more centrally located operations you can have full time employees who function as floaters to cover for absent employees; a local in house printing operation etc. create lots of far flung offices and you will have to outsoruce pirnting and temp work, oftent at a much higher cost. In short, the reason large companies centralize operations to reduce costs also applies to the State. It is not cost effective to create lots of small offices all over.
Using the State as employer to create jobs all over the State is a bad idea; The State creating incentive programs, providing favorable loans etc to encoruage job development in certain areas is a smarter approach. it increase net jobs and does not just shuffle them around.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:14 am
Going back to the beginning of this escapade, why haven’t we heard more about the previous lease for the Sfield bldg. It seems it should have prompted a review of all State building leases. The $$ that the State overpaid are mute? Many, many buildings are leased for political patronage and campaign donation profits. The ethics bill should include a section that thoroughly explores the benefits given to the building owner and excludes leases to the same individual over and over. All building owners should have the opportunity to lease their bldgs to the state. Donations by bldg owners should be prohibited before and during the lease.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:18 am
Blagojevich and his staff have had an incredible disrespect for professional civil servants and unlike other governors, have made it a point that they are partly to blame for the situation we currently face regarding Illinois state government. While other governors have praised civil service, Blagojevich condemns it for personal political gain.
So it isn’t surprising to see Blagojevich gut Springfield over the years to move senior staffing positions to Chicago. Each Chicago area job costs more than if it had remained downstate, costing citizens millions more with no noticable increase in productivity or benefit. Instead of taking advantage of the talent pool of professional civil servants within Springfield, he brought in contributors and contractors at higher salaries. In supposedly rare instances, it appears that some of these jobs were bought by their holders.
If properly staffed and funded, a government can grow into new communities to assist in their development. Instead, Blagojevich has cut and understaffed state government. To offset the problems that have impacted Illinois due to his poor administration skills, cities such as Springfield have already felt negative economic impacts.
Moving existing state jobs in a claim that there would be economic benefits is a ridiculous claim, based on boldfaced lies. Whatever economic growth that could be gained in one city would not offset the negative impact felt in the other city. There wouldn’t be a wholesale swap, as Blagojevich already has been forced to admit.
The very idea that state jobs could be moved as easily as cogs in a machine reveal an insulting attitude uncommon for a Democrat administration, reveals an ignorance of state governance that is breathtaking, and unsurprisingly reveals a lack of engineering prowess.
Coupled with a public disgust towards this governor in historically low approval ratings, Blagojevich’s demand against all impacted groups and oversight committees, against all recommended and tested government procedures, and against all managerial common sense, rips off any facade Blagojevich set up to reveal an intense dislike and disrespect towards those he governs.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:19 am
I can’t believe the Governor has backed off of his public promises to the IDOT employees who choose not to move so quickly. It is stunning really.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:31 am
Somebody, somewhere has probably done some research on this issue. States have a long history of offering incentives to businesses in order to
influence their decisions on where to locate. Why
shouldn’t state offices be in that mix, assuming
there is in fact an economic benefit. What is the best use of our money. And it is our money, all of it.
Communication should not be an issue because of theavailability of increasingly improved videocommunication technology, which is likely to get cheaper as time goes on.
Convenience of employees should not be an issue
either, especially if, as I believe I read somewhere, Blago has agreed that they can get equivalent state jobs if they decide not to relocate. We taxpayers understand that we have to employee people in state government. But we don’t need to go overboard on protecting them from the
rigors of the normal marketplace. How excited do we get when we hear that some company is relocating employees from one state to another.
Not very.
State employees need to get over themselves.
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:31 am
The State Journal ran a chart a while back claiming there are 3,000 fewer state jobs in Sangamon and Menard counties since Blagojevich took office. That’s a huge hit to a community the size of Springfield. Helping an economically depressed region by creating a new one makes no sense.
Comment by Will Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:36 am
This is how I look at, not only will Blago take the x amount of jobs from IDOT in Springfield he also has already taken over 2,000 jobs from spfld by downsizing govt to pay for healthcare. You can argue that he didn’t fire anyone, which is true, they were from “attrition” (that’s another discussion all together), but in years past those jobs would not have been lost through attrition, they would have been filled. This year the Gov took it upon himself to slash hours at state tourist attractions. These reduced hours result in a huge hit to the Spfld economy, since we have more state sponsored tourism then almost all counties in the state (and its not the first time he has done this as Gov, remember he did this at the beginning of his first term). You combine the lost revenue form these sites being closed along with the lose of jobs through downsizing; I think Spfld had done more than its share of sacrifice without even talking about the IDOT move.
Comment by Moderate Repub Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:39 am
The purpose of having a Capital is to centralize the workings of government. Having the heads of agencies in that Capital makes it easier for them to work with other agencies and with the Legislature and the Governor. I know that the heads of my own agency occasionally are called to the Governor’s office to explain why a certain appropriation is needed for a program the Governor’s office might not fully understand.( Well, used to be called when the Governor was in the Capital.) I know that with today’s technology you don’t need to be in the same room to communicate. However, it has been my experience that much more communication can be done in a face to face meeting than a conference call.
This move would be the same as if Boeing made their headquarters in Chicago and then decided that their safety department should be located in Pembroke because that is a economically depressed area. There is just no feasible explanation for it other than political payback.
The general trend should be streamlined more efficient government. This has been a campaign goal of this very Governor. You can’t get there by spreading state agencies to the four winds. This fits more into the divide and conquer scenerio.
We should have expected this when Blago decided he could movwe the Governor’s office to Chicago, and we see how well that is working to get things accomplished.
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:43 am
It makes no sense to move state jobs from one area to another to improve the economic situation of another area of the STate. Our leaders should be focusing on developing new jobs and industries, not playing these kinds of games, especially in light of the evidence that this won’t save the State any money.
Comment by ChampaignDweller Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:55 am
Cassandra states “State employees need to get over themselves”. —-yeah, just wondering since you think the communication system is so hunky dory if I can send you my cell phone bill which is provided and paid for by me? You’re the taxpayer, right, the one who be be funding these things? Radio’s are so old and broken and past fixing that I have to provide husband with phone for communication while out in the field. And the email system? Right. It works swell 24/7? One would think that with the available tech. communications would not be an issue, but then, the state has to be willing to put the money out for the better tech. I’ll ‘get over myself’ when I run out of honest concerns to consider.
Comment by Princeville Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 12:06 pm
Casandra-I agree i hear an afscme ad about there health care costs going up, healthcare costs are going up for everyone i will trade any state worker my health ins cost in private industry to theirs anyday and i kick in an extra $50 for gas my plan from a medium size corporation to cover my wife and 2 kids cost me around $550 a month do i have any takers afscme workers you need a good dose of the real world we do not owe you anything
Comment by Anon Again Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 12:20 pm
almost forgot my plan does not cover eyeglasses or kids braces
Comment by Anon Again Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 12:21 pm
Boeing’s an interesting example. It’s headquarters are in Chicago, but virtually all of its jobs are scattered elsewhere. I think Springfield should be the same. The legislature and the core administrative offices in Springfield, everything thing else should be scattered around. 75% of the taxpayers live in and around Chicago - 75% of the state jobs (minus the core mentioned above) - should be there, too. I’m with Cassandra - Springfielders, get over yourselves.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 12:26 pm
The 3,000 or so jobs already lost by attrition or otherwise from Springfield are equivalent to losing a factory the size of Maytag, Mitsubishi or a major Caterpillar plant — it just didn’t happen all at once like a factory closing does. It also has ripple effects in the community like a factory closing does, in that other businesses in town start to close up. Has anyone else in Springfield noticed the number of vacant or only partly occupied state office buildings downtown? Or the number of restaurants, mall shops, etc. that have closed in the last 2 years or so?
Also, if one is going to subscribe to Blago’s notion of spreading state jobs around for economic reasons, then there ought to be at least as many or more state jobs “spread around” from Cook County, which has 20,000+ state employees, as from Springfield, which is down to 17,000.
Comment by Bookworm Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 12:49 pm
I think I read some vague mention in one story a few weeks ago about some unnamed state office possibly being moved from Chicago to Rockford, but that’s the only mention I have yet seen of state jobs being “spread around” from anywhere other than Springfield.
Comment by Bookworm Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 12:57 pm
Good idea. We need more government employees located throughout the state. With technology now available, these people should be able to function efficiently and effectively. Of course, the motive behinds Blago’s decision is another question.
Comment by Lee Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 12:58 pm
Anonymous,
If you read closely you will notice that I did not say all the workers should be in the headquarters but the heads of departments should be. How do you propose taking care of roads, facilities in Southern Illinois if 75% of the workers are in Chicago. Some Chicagoans need to get over themselves.
Cassandra,
It is one thing for jobs to be moved for legitimate reasons. It is quite another to have real families who are used as pawns in games played by short term politicians who have no stake in the system or the organization other than personal gain. State Workers have been the scape goat of this administration since it’s inception. Our pension fund was raided, payments that are called for by law to that pension system have not been made. We somehow are second class citizens when it comes to health care. Goofy Rod can give health care to everyone in the state but he funds it by making his employees pay more for it. Yes some state benefits are better than some private industry benefits but if you look at sate jobs and their counterparts in the private sector you will find that the same position in the private sector is paid more than the same job in state government. So if you want to take some of my benefits then you can pay me more. BTW - braces are not paid for by our dental plan I paid for my daughter’s myself.
Comment by Irish Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 1:02 pm
Also, if an agency move like IDOT were proposed by a rational and RESPECTED governor or agency head who had carefully examined all the possible alternatives, consulted the employees themselves, and had all their “ducks in a row” to explain exactly how this will benefit the agency itself, it would not be nearly as controversial.
Comment by Bookworm Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 1:12 pm
The idea of ’sharing the wealth’ of state jobs is a good one. The problem is that the governor appears to be moving the IDOT jobs as a vindictive act. The difficulty with this move was that it is a ready, fire, aim reaction. Traffic Safety coordinates closely with many other state and private personnel and the proximity to the center of government is important. So much so that the move will hamper the efficient functioning of this group. That said, it makes sense to have jobs that affect individual communities, in those communities, but government works best when all agencies that are arm in arm with each other stay centrally located, with divisions operating in larger communities, where it makes sense, as it presently does. Oops….there goes that “makes sense” comment.
Comment by Justice Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 1:20 pm
I think it’s a good idea. First of all, all residents of the state are taxpayers and all regions should benefit from the side effects of the state’s normal operation. Secondly, Springfield desperately needs to broaden it’s economic horizons and see if it can attract some more private industry. Weening it off public employment might be a good start.
As for the employees, I agree with Cassandra. I’ve worked jobs where there was a sudden relocation expected. I walked from the job and got another, I didn’t consider it to be some grand affront against workers of the world everywhere or myself specifically.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 1:22 pm
Irish - Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 11:43 am:
“Having the heads of agencies in that Capital makes it easier for them to work with other agencies and with the Legislature and the Governor”
Well the Gov is not proposing that the IDOT Director, or the heads of Traffic Safety be moved. They would stay here and everyone else in the Dept would be slated to move.
Comment by Moderate Repub Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 1:28 pm
Unemployment rates:
Harrisburg (Saline County): 9.2%
Higher unemployment rates:
Franklin
Perry
Hardin
Pope
Alexander
Pulaski
Sangamon County unemployment rate: 6.2%
Counties with higher unemployment: 60+
The primary role of state employment is to serve the people of Illinois, not “create jobs.”
I’d love to hear the Gov’s argument for how this move makes sense for TAXPAYERS.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 2:09 pm
Cassandra and Anonymous it is scary when i find two people on here i agree-with give em hell
Irish-what about the pawns that were never given jobs under the rpub admin you guys kill me you want one set of rules when you are in charge and then when the other team takes over you claims the rules/ways/reality should be fair to all give me another break
Comment by Anon Again Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 2:21 pm
Cermak, I agree with the need for Springfield to “broaden its economic horizons” but I think you have it backwards when it comes to “weaning” us off state employment… we need to get more private industry in place now, BEFORE things get too economically desperate, and then start “weaning” off state employment gradually.
Comment by Bookworm Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 2:21 pm
Completely against it. Let me approach this from the angle of the engineers (I’m a former one) trying to get something accomplished, often times on behalf of a County or City.
When you need to get some design decisions on a project, and traffic is involved, what is going to happen with the move? Are those guys (and gals) going to have to constantly come back and forth to Springfield? Will there be teleconferences? Is the IDOT headquarters going to have to be revamped to include the videoconferencing? Just a major pain.
Also too, think about the employees. There are certainly a number of IDOT employees that don’t make an incredible amount of money. Are they going to have to move their families at a time when home prices are pretty darn goofy? Remove their kids from their school? What if their spouse works in Springfield?
It just strikes me as a ham-fisted way of trying to help economically.
Comment by trafficmatt Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 3:05 pm
No. Productivity will suffer. The bosses will be in Springfield, with the employees in Harrisburg. Plus, employees won’t be able to work with all the other Springfield IDOT staff they routinely work with. Phone calls and e-mails will not cut it. Face-to-face meetings are always better. Imagine trying to stay on the same page discussing a complicated accident, with maps, engineering plans, etc. on the table, versus as e-mail attachments.
Travel costs will increase. Springfield’s centrally located, in terms of the rest of the state, while Harrisburg is not.
Remember folks, this is Traffic SAFETY. Do you want those responsible to be disconnected from their bosses, disconnected from other IDOT staff, too far from places they need to go, miscommunciating because they are not in thesame room, etc., etc.?
Comment by Sir Reel Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 3:44 pm
we should maximize the increase in job across the state.
Il has 102 counties. Traffic sfatey has roughly 130 employees or so. Put one employee in each county, perhaps in undertilized outdoor telephonic communication privacy enclosures if aailable. the excess safety employees can be placed in van offices which travel from county to county evey week allowing for temp increases in employement when the mobile offices are in town.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 4:17 pm
I could go along with this notion if he had attempted to move some Chicago state jobs to Southern Illinois. However, I don’t see him running over mayor Daley the way he runs over mayor Davlin. In addition, why not move the top brass at Traffic Safety to Harrisburg also?
Comment by just wondering Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 4:26 pm
Cassandra, the reason why states provide incentives for business relocation and expansion is because those businesses bring NEW wealth to the state. Moving state workers around generates no new wealth, it just moves it around. In fact it most likely generates new costs, at least on the short-term, that the taxpayers have to make up. There was a “job shed” analysis done for Springfield in about the second year of the Governor’s first term that found that if Springfield continued to shed state jobs through the second two years at the same rate as the first two, Springfield would lose about as many jobs as GM took out of Flint, Michigan.
The larger story is not whether state employees should be spread around, it is that after six years of this Governor our state’s economic development strategy has been reduced to moving existing state jobs around.
Maybe if the Governor wasn’t passing out money on a whim or mistakenly giving it to the wrong people, that money could be used to support the development of private sector jobs in Saline County.
Comment by Cogito Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 4:36 pm
Nothing against the hard-working folks in Springfield. I lived there for two years. I want it to shine. But cry me a river.
Springfield has been the state capital since 1837, with the stable payroll that entails. It has the Lincoln sites, which should be a worldwide tourist attraction. Same with Route 66.
You guys have assets. What have you done with them? Somehow, the Lincoln sites continue to be a nocturnal home for all sorts of illicit activity. What a metaphor — what a disgrace.
What;s going on with that East Side? When you drive down from the north on I-55, the tourism signs make you exit 10 miles out of your way for the Lincoln sites and Capitol. You know why? Because they don’t want you getting off on South Grand and seeing the state the city is in.
A metro area of 200,000 and you have 17,000 state jobs. Not bad. I bet Rockford, Rock Island, Peoria, Decatur, Quincy, etc. would like to have that problem
The truth is, just as much as Chicago looks down it’s nose at the rest of the state, so does Springfield.
Springfield should be Bedford Falls — instead, it’s CelliniVille.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 4:37 pm
Word, do you really think that allowing potentially hundreds or thousands more state jobs to be taken away from Springfield is going to make the situation any better? (Not to mention cutting back on the hours and staffing of the very tourist sites you mention.)
Yes, by all means use the assets we have (Lincoln sites, medical facilities, UIS and Springfield College) to attract private industry. Maybe try to become an arts and educational hub, like Austin or Madison or Nashville — state capitals with such diverse economies and other attractions that people probably wouldn’t even notice if the state government packed up and left.
Ideally, that is what Springfield should be. But it’s probably not going to happen under this governor, or under this mayor, I’m sorry to say.
Comment by Bookworm Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 4:58 pm
Pardon me, Cassandra and Anon Again, if I don’t “get over myself” as soon as you’d like. I obviously oppose the move. With that in mind, I hope there’s some way that good state jobs can come to Saline County . . . just not mine. I’m sure that he can unfreeze certain positions that have been frozen down there for years, or create new ones.
And this “promise” that we’ll get to stay here if we want? Well, it’s been over 3 months now, and we haven’t heard squat about it.
I’m grateful (VERY) for the job I have with the state, and I’ll move if need be. I just have a hard time being convinced that he’s doing this for altruistic purposes, and I resent being used as a pawn by someone who won’t move his own family.
Comment by IDOT Traffic Safety Worker Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 5:02 pm
I have a couple of thoughts on this. First of all, if Dudley Do-Right were to establish a regional office in Harrisburg with, say, a dozen or so employees, leaving the bulk of the TS jobs in Springfield, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if there were 12 takers who would want to transfer because they could possibly have roots in southern Illinois.
Secondly, let’s talk about casinos. If the state is talking about putting a casino on Lake Michigan, well let’s consider Rend Lake, which is near the confluence of I-64 and I-57 in Mt. Vernon. That area is growing rapidly, to the point of adding a third interstate lane in each direction. Or go further down to I-57/I-24 in the Marion area near Crab Orchard Lake, putting it much closer to the Harrisburg area. This would bring spin-off industries such as lodging and eating and would definitely CREATE jobs. Gee, wonder why someone hasn’t thought of something like this?
Comment by Just My Opinion Wednesday, Aug 13, 08 @ 8:02 pm
Has IDOT looked at how the computer programs will be serviced when Traffic Safety moves to Harrisburg? How much support is there now from IDOT IT staff and will they be moving too?
Comment by Shawnee Thursday, Aug 14, 08 @ 6:58 am