CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question(s) of the day

Re: Question(s) of the day

Emily Booth — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:14:00 -0000

I meant to elaborate but the screen froze and my post posted.

I already gave 1 furlough day to balance the state budget during the Ryan admin and went without a raise for 4 yrs during the Blago admin to balance the state budget.

So, my answer is no. I already gave.

Re: Question(s) of the day

Emily Booth — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:10:24 -0000

NO.

Re: Question(s) of the day

wordslinger — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:19:36 -0000

==No. They should cut entitlements across the board by 25%. Working people should not have to pay so much for those that donâ€™t work.--

Working Man, you stole the handle, but you're no Merle Haggard.

What exactly are you talking about, anyway, in relationship to the questions? This Sean Hannity bloviating is for the kiddie shows on cable, not here.

While you're figuring it out, I'll drink my beer in the tavern, sing a little bit of them working man blues.

Re: Question(s) of the day

Don't Get It — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:51:52 -0000

I'm confused just a little bit here. So we don't fill open state jobs because there is no money to pay them, but we ask others to work OT to do the work those workers used to do and then some think that furlough will save money? I guess the only way that works is if those furlough people end up coming in and work for free. I concur - contract shouldn't be opened. Pension situation is not unsustainable, just mismanaged.

Re: Question(s) of the day

long time state worker — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:47:05 -0000

Anyone have any stats on layoff savings? For example, if x are layed off July 1, then when will actual "savings" take place? Probably not for about 6 months. And what about the cost of administering these by HR staff (bumping etc?).

What percentage of the budget problem are salaries and benefits?

Re: Question(s) of the day

PalosParkBob — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:29:31 -0000

Get ready for a schock.

No, I don't think the contract should be re-opened, despite the fact that it was very poorly negotiated on behalf of the state.

We should learn from this mistake and take action so that it will not be repeated.

There should always be an "escape clause" in public labor contracts, including those in schools and municipalities, that limits all increases in salaries and benefits to a ooercentage of revenue growth.

No revenue growth, no increases in salaries and benefits.

It's fair, and it's the only way to avoid catastrophes like our current situation when long term contracts are negotiated.

The GA can pass legislation making this a REQUIREMENT in all public labor contracts.

For years spineless bureaucrats and politicians have been giving away the store to the public employee unions and campaign contributor contractors.

Legislating the ability of the state and local governments to make responsible adjustments to compensation based on economic conditions MUST be done to fix the structure that created the "structural deficit".

"Let all the poisons in the mud hatch out"-Old King Log

Re: Question(s) of the day

anon — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:07:47 -0000

Single mom state worker who has not had more than a 1% raise in 8 years says, keep the contract closed, we didn't cause this mess. Get rid of the hacks and the political bs first.

Re: Question(s) of the day

dumb ol' country boy — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:49:43 -0000

No AFSCME should not open their contract, however there is a little clause where it gets opened up next year, I believe, to re-negotiate health care. Once it's open it's open to everything.

The govennor still has not streamed lined the upper management jobs, thats what is draining agencies budgets. When I hired into an agency 20 plus years ago we had 4-6 pictures hanging on the wall, the who's who of the department. Now we have over 18. I believe the front line workers are tired of the mismanagment and misspending of state dollars by political hacks.

Yes there needs to be a two tier retirement system, the quicker AFSCME conceds this the better off the state is going to be.

Re: Question(s) of the day

thunder1 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:31:20 -0000

I agree with Prowler. No AFSCME should NOT reopen the contract. We are NOT the cause of all these budget problems. I would take voluntary furlough days but no cut in pay or freeze my wages. Our contract is fair.

Re: Question(s) of the day

southern illinoisan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:15:46 -0000

I am not a labor relations lawyer, and please correct me if I am wrong, but if the union opens the contract for negotiations then I believe everything in the contract is fair game. I have read a lot of good ideas here and they sound nice. But the reality is the contract is a legally binding contract and it must be adhered to.

I am a state employee who is not a union member and I will answer both questions as a resounding NO! AFSCME made concessions in negotiating the deal. If they open the door there will be more than wage freezes and furlough days. And attempting to get a guarantee of no layoffs will not happen. The state will not agree to those terms even for 1 year.

I agree that there must be some shared sacrifice in tough times. But other than still having my job the last few years have not been a picnic. We have sacrificed enough already!

Re: Question(s) of the day

Pelon — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:05:54 -0000

While I can understand and agree with the feelings of those who say the legislators and governors are responsible for this mess, I don't see how blaming them solves the budget problem. The money has to come from somewhere, and right now, most taxpayers are insisting that they don't want to pay more taxes. The best hope to get a tax increase to prevent massive layoffs is to convince the taxpayer that the State is making an effort to cut costs. Right now, that hasn't happened. An AFSCME give back in a few areas might help. I'd rather give that a try than watch 10,000 state workers get the axe. It has nothing to do with what's fair. It's about what is in our best interest. Sometimes an unfair solution is better than no solution at all.

Re: Question(s) of the day

Gish — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:00:34 -0000

1) No, mostly on the argument that it doesn't get re-opened in times of largesse to the Union's benefit.

2) AFSCME could and should offer mandatory furlough days so as to negate to wage increases still to come. The increases still happen on the books which helps employees. Management saves money which helps strained budget. Employees should be fine since wage increases haven't occurred and there ideally would be no reduction in check size.

Re: Question(s) of the day

wizard — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:35:45 -0000

Thank you VM, could not say it better.

Re: Question(s) of the day

lincolnlover — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:32:07 -0000

Well said Vanilla Man.

Re: Question(s) of the day

VanillaMan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:29:23 -0000

What are you people, nuts?
We have two kinds of people here in government, the politicians and the workers. The workers do the work, and the politicians make the promises, passes the legislation and runs for office.

So what we have here are politicians who ran amok for a decade. They really, really, screwed us royally. They are the ones responsible. They are the ones that need to fix the messes they created and ignored while most of us listen to all the alarms.

To expect the workers to shoulder both a tax increase and a salary decrease after a decade of dealing with our politician's whims and stupidity is blatantly unfair. It is dead wrong.

Worse, it is the wrong way to solve this problem. Asking AFSME to break their contract is a selfish thing to do.

This people who claim that state workers should "share the sacrifice" fail to acknowledge the sacrifices that have been already made by our state workers.

It isn't a matter of politics. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, state workers do their jobs regardless. To expect them to take it from both ends is not shared sacrifice - it is human sacrifice.

Re: Question(s) of the day

Cheesehead Girl — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:25:35 -0000

Sec. of State employees for the most part are SEIU. There are some IFT employees, mainly IT people & the Archives. Then there are various others, i.e. Teamsters, Electricians, etc. And yes, SoS employees (from the Secretary on down) took furlough days last year.

Re: Question(s) of the day

lincolnlover — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:19:51 -0000

I work for Historic Preservation. I am an AFSCME member and proud of it. At IHPA, we lost 50% of our employees last year in Blago's evil slashing of our agency. Most of us have already lived through a 4 month layoff. We've paid our dues and done our part to balance the mess that Madigan allowed to happen. Which one of you "ordinary taxpayers" is saying thank you to us for our sacrifice? I WILL NEVER, EVER AGREE TO ANY CONCESSIONS!!!!! I had to take my daughter out of college, and a fellow employee had to take his mother out of her alzeimer's facility, two of our people lost their homes to foreclosure, and those are just the ones I know about. I hate Blago and Madigan. When someone attacks you personally and threatens your ability to provide for your family, just for their own political games, they should be jailed. This isn't what Madigan was elected for. He should stop playing games, sit down with Quinn and Cross and get this thing settled. My family has suffered enough from this stupidity and I will fight tooth and nail against any concessions. Let the GA members suffer like our families did. If they can't settle this, they shouldn't be paid: they should be laid off.

Re: Question(s) of the day

Arthur Andersen — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:48:19 -0000

Although pressure may ultimately get them there, my position were I AFSCME would be a resounding NO. It always pains AA to say this, but (choke) Bill is right.

AFSCME didn't foist Filanomics upon the State; the Blago/Quinn administration did. Most of the commenters here who say AFSCME should reopen couldn't handle most AFSCME bargaining unit jobs, regardless of the pay.

It's not unreasonable to ask all State employees- and State-funded employees-(hello SEIU) to share in the solution to the State's financial problems.

However, as long as Filan and other fumigees are still drawing a check, a legislative pork bill stays alive, and Peotone Airport still has lift, it's most unreasonable to ask AFSCME, or the FOP, or any bargaining unit, for concessions.

Re: Question(s) of the day

Bill — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:53:37 -0000

So Ill,
Now you're talkin'!

Re: Question(s) of the day

Six Degrees of Separation — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:32:15 -0000

Carl,

The state's on the hook for the pension payout whether they fund it well or totally mismanage it. Hard to see an upside for the union there, to bargain for what's already yours.

Re: Question(s) of the day

So. ILL — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:28:52 -0000

No. They should be allowed to get a raise while they demand every one else pay more in taxes and threaten legislators' jobs. Why should they have to sacrifice when they can just demand it of every one else and still receive their pay raises? If everyone else gives a little more its less that they have to give up. Power to the unions.

Re: Question(s) of the day

JaySeaBee — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:25:19 -0000

No, the contract should not be opened up. It will have no effect on solving the budget mess. Quinn can layoff EVERY state employee and shut down EVERY agency and program and the state will still be $5 billion in debt!! This contract tall is a red herring from Quinn. If the contract says layoffs can happen, start laying off and see how long the public endures even longer lines and wait times for state services. Cut the 3,000 mid-level people for starters in good faith governor.

Re: Question(s) of the day

wizard — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:13:30 -0000

For once I agree with Bill, never thought that would happen. Pelon, why would we want to give the GA "cover"? They caused much of this problem by not delivering what they promised, and deficit spending. They shouldn't get "cover", they should get replaced, and I mean both sides of the aisle.

Re: Question(s) of the day

Carl Nyberg — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:56:47 -0000

What if AFSCME made the concessions conditional on the state fulfilling its pension obligations?

This way the union leadership could say to its members it got something for the workers in exchange for the concessions.

And Quinn would have some leverage to negotiate with Republicans.

Re: Question(s) of the day

Whatchoo Infer — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:46:50 -0000

I remember the Furloughs under Ryan, we were still expected to come in to work for zero pay. I wouldn't have minded taking a day home without pay, but taking several days and still coming in to work made me grumpy.

I would be okay with a voluntary freeze for one year, it is more symbolic than anything but it will help the deficit a little and show AFSCME is sympathetic to taxpayers. And the poor Merit comp people can count the years they DIDN'T have a wage freeze on the fingers of one hand.

The pension debt is the biggest lump to deal with, and while a union member and supporter, I believe it is time for a 2-tier system. The reason for it is that generally in the world of work, and not just in public service, we no longer have "lifers" that put in 15, 20, 30 years on a job. That's not the world we live in any more. Nowadays, people change entire careers several times over a lifespan, so new hires might be based on a 10-year work span instead of 30.

For those people, they are not going to see much of a pension for a 5-10-year stint with the state, so it makes sense to give them a "streamlined" benefits package that rewards them differently but adequately, and in a reasonable manner commensurate with their service. If you initiate the second tier for new hires, you can let the old timers age-out of the system gradually and still put the brakes on the growing pension interest debt.