FORBES: "Three Hard Lessons from Illinois Public Pension Reform"

I've been reading a lot about the gutting of the Illinois pension (my head hurts!). When I arrived here in 1995, I saw there was a constitutional guarantee and Madigan (who was there at the Con Con in 1970) said that the guarantee was "ironclad."

Flash forward to 2011. Unions occupying Wisconsin's assembly, Wisconsin Democrats fleeing the state -- it is a "fight to the death."

Then 2012, the Democrats' turn in Illinois. No occupation of the assembly. The unions will continue to get their members' dues--unthreatened by Madigan--and say "we will take this to court." If Wisconsin was a heat index at the level of 100 out 100, the heat from IEA, AFSCME, et al. is registering closer to 3-5.

(Yes, I know the differences between the issues in Wisconsin and Illinois but the pension reform in Illinois is arguably far worse. Besides, it is a matter of registering a reaction proportionate to the threat. I just can't take the IEA seriously any longer).

But enough useless ranting. One of the best pieces on the lessons learned this year is from Forbes. I encourage readers to pore over it. The root problem is "you can't sue the bastards" if the SOBs are in government, Yes, there will be lawsuits. Yes, they might win on one or two issues (I doubt). But we are living in the Clintonesque world of "what is 'diminish' or 'impair'?

And what about taking away benefits so major that you indirectly diminish the pension "guarantee"? They call this political action "crosscutting requirement." Think of the federal government forcing all states to adhere to a drinking age of 18. Ultimately, it is up to the states to write their own laws but Uncle Sam says "you may write your own laws but we take away highway funds. . . "

So keep your pension but lose retiree health care and future pension raises don't count toward retirement formula. (The latter is really beyond belief: if you are in your 3d year working for Illinois, then your final retirement formula is based not on the next 35 years of raises--including built-in inflation--but on a salary you earned 35 years earlier?!).

Democracy (small "d") is broken. More important, rule of law is gone, baby, gone. Welcome to post-constitutional America.

FORUM: "The Future of Faculty Unions"

Each week, the Chronicle of Higher Education sends me links to its feature stories. This week's email included many individuals active in labor relations "gathering" online to discuss "The Future of Faculty of Unions."

If this passes for a wide-open discussion in academia, God help us. Notice that there are many individuals offering their views but they are all pro-union. If you are pro-union, that is fine and dandy, but you aren't going to learn much. Even if the forum was explicitly, rather than tacitly, pro-union they could have discussed strategies, methods of pressuring administrations that face pressures from other sides, etc.

On my campus, for example, there is talk of a strike which is a classic union "tool." I haven't seen reference to strikes in any higher ed journals that circulate widely. Do you lose health benefits? (No, but you must pay the full premium and that might alert you to how lucky we are to have our health plans so heavily subsidized). Are you eligible for unemployment compensation? Does the union provide an financial assistance? Short of a strike, what else can unions do (other than file complaints)? The list goes on and on. This discuss has begun on a local blog devoted to faculty issues at my university but you have to burrow through the long threads of comments.


Until putatively pro-union writers put their chips on the table, it sure looks like they have nothing to shoot. No wonder administrations don't take these associations seriously.

AFSCME: Quinn "even lower" than Governor Walker

UPDATE: To their credit SIUC Unions United seem to have learned from 2011 and the run-ins with the Illinois Democratic establishment. See this latest story from their blog.

The Southern Illinoisan reports on Quinn's backpedaling on a deal negotiated with AFSCME, the union representing many local and state workers.

Here is another story on the union's response. Some choice excerpts:

“Today Pat Quinn has shown that his signature on such negotiated agreements is not worth the paper it’s printed on."

“Republican governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kasich of Ohio, Chris Christie of New Jersey and others have recently sought changes in law to eliminate the right of collective bargaining for public employees. By choosing to simply ignore a legally binding agreement, Pat Quinn has sunk even lower. Not only is Quinn’s assault on public employee collective bargaining unprecedented in the four decades of state employee bargaining in Illinois, given his repeated criticism of Walker and others, it is utterly hypocritical."

This past year union negotiations bogged down at SIUC. There are many factors at play but anyone watching Springfield knew that the vast right-wing conspiracy theories, the obsessive demonization of Cheng, and the Support Wisconsin rhetoric was distracting from a simple reality: politicians of either party "go where the money is" (the old bank robber quote). Illinois politicians (both parties) made a helluva mess and went first after pensions (look for that again; Quinn stayed silent during the whole effort to slash union pension benefits). A massive "temporary" tax increase didn't close the huge gap so our future will be determined in part by what happens with SIUC negotiations but the greater threat to our future benefits is from Springfield.

And, no, at last word the Koch brothers were not behind Quinn, Emanuel and Madigan's recent measures. Liberal Chicago billionaires supported these changes. Exhibit A: Penny Pritzker, national finance chair for Obama in the '08 election, doing her part for/with Emanuel in undermining the ability of unions to strike in Cook County. For more on the reliably Democratic billionaires, read this piece.

I'm "shocked! shocked!" to find that leading Illinois Democrats, from the governor on down, will back stab unions. Say it ain't so! Where is Obama to chide our governor? Welcome to Illinois politics."See no evil, hear no evil" as long as the Democrats are in power.

Rahm Emanuel Knows How to Handle Unions!

Rahm Emanuel was never a fan of labor unions (or anyone who gets in his way). Obama's former chief of staff, turned Mayor of Chicago, got a state act to raise strike votes to 75% aye required of unions in his jurisdiction. Imagine if an elected Republican executive did such a thing in neighboring Wisconsin. (Wait, we don't have to imagine).

The unions' response, since they are in a joint venture with the Democratic Party: "Isn't this wonderful that we can come to an agreement without getting nasty like unions have to do with Evil Meanie Republican Governor Scott in Wisconsin?"  From Chicago Tribune:

"In a recurring early theme of his tenure, Mayor Rahm Emanuel put the squeeze on organized labor Wednesday, telling City Hall unions he’ll lay off 625 workers unless they quickly get on board with money-saving changes to their jobs. . . .

The unions, caught off-guard by the mayor’s public throw-down, said the blame belongs on the politicians.

“There have been absolutely no negotiations between the city and the unions representing the city’s workforce,” said a joint statement by Jorge Ramirez, of the Chicago Federation of Labor. . . "

Rejecting furloughs as "hurting morale" (Daley's previous measure), Emanuel prefers layoffs:

“It is not necessary to do the layoffs if you agree to these reforms. If you don’t, that will be the choice left to me on behalf of the taxpayers,” Emanuel said. “So you can employ people and balance the budget. They have to be a partner to do it. I cannot do it without them. But if they don’t agree to it, 625 people and their families will lose that job.”