 That’s the question in Springfield, where Gov. Bruce Rauner’s administration on
Friday asked the Illinois Labor Relations Board to determine if talks between
the state and its biggest employee union have hit an impasse.
If that board agrees that talks are at an impasse — a point where further
progress isn’t possible — the Rauner administration might implement the terms of
its final offer to the union, opening the possibility of a work stoppage.
The two sides are taking aggressive and opposite public stances, with the GOP
and its supporters painting Rauner as the taxpayers’ watchdog and Democrats and
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees depicting the
Winnetka Republican as a union buster.
The talks between the governor’s team and AFSCME Council 31 negotiators
apparently broke down late last week, when the union claimed Rauner’s team
unilaterally declared an impasse and left without scheduling further meetings.
Rauner disagreed with that characterization, telling Illinois News Network his
people simply asked whether the talks were at impasse because it was obvious
progress wasn’t being made and hadn’t been made for dozens of sessions.
Questions for ILRB
On Friday, the governor’s office put the question of impasse to the ILRB for a
decision.
Although talks began in January 2015, the contract between the state and AFSCME
— which represents about 35,000 state workers — expired at the end of June.
Employees have been largely working under the terms of their previous contract
by way of “tolling agreements,” or deals to keep talking while both sides pledge
not to force a work stoppage.
In a question-and-answer document prepared by the administration, it says it
still has not unilaterally declared impasse but is honoring the tolling
agreements struck with AFSCME.
To that end, Rauner says, his action on Friday puts four key questions before
the Labor Relations Board:
— Whether the parties are at an impasse;
— Whether they have been negotiating in good faith;
— Whether the governor has presented a reasonable last, best, and final offer;
— Whether that offer can be implemented.
A bitter fight
AFSCME disagreed with the governor’s actions.
“We reject the claim that the bargaining process is at an impasse,” AFSCME said
in a written statement. “It’s regrettable and damaging to the public interest
that the governor has chosen a confrontational path.
AFSCME said Rauner is making “‘my way or no way’ demands of state employees
(that) are the obstacle to a fair agreement.”
As might be expected, the administration says otherwise. It cites a long list of
what it says are concessions to the union, which the governor’s team argues is
trying to maintain the status quo on terms and gain across-the-board raises the
state can’t afford.
AFSCME says Rauner’s proposals would leave most members without raises for the
life of a new contract, while Rauner counters that his proposals make raises
reachable for employees with good attendance and without work-rule violations.
AFSCME also says proposed increases in health insurance costs coupled with a
lack of scheduled raises mean its members will see their earnings go down. The
Rauner team says Illinois state employees enjoy generous medical benefits at
contribution levels well below those of comparable private-sector workers.
Rauner cites a need to reduce state spending as Illinois grapples with
financials that included projected deficit spending at $4 billion to $5 billion
for the current year, a stack of past-due bills of about $4.4 billion and
growing, and more than $110 billion in unfunded pension obligations.
Sen. Christine Radogno, leader of the state Senate Republicans, said Rauner has
shown himself “a true advocate for taxpayers at the negotiation table —
something AFSCME may not be accustomed to — but it’s the undisputed reality of
our financial crisis.”
Some Democrats, however, say the governor always has intended to force a strike
and wants to bust AFSCME.
“Today, we see Gov. Rauner’s true intentions,” said State Rep. Rob Martwick,
D-Chicago. “His rhetoric during his campaign for governor was about forcing a
strike, and today it is clear that he’s been on this path all along.”
State Sen. Gary Forby, D-Benton, called Rauner’s decision to seek an impasse
ruling “just another step in his plan to make Illinois a right-to-work state.”
State Rep. Ron Sandack, R-Downers Grove, said he thinks the picture is more
complicated.
[to top of second column] |
 “The question is, ‘Has the pendulum swung too far (and) for too
long in state employees’ favor?’” Sandack asked. “Now, I don’t know
the answer to that definitively, but that has been part and parcel
of the bargaining process between the governor’s staff and the
representatives of AFSCME, and that bargaining has been going on for
the better part of a year.”
“Sometimes people of goodwill just don’t see issues eye to eye,”
Sandack said. “It just could be there are fundamental disagreements
over what constitutes a fair wage and fair benefits (and) what the
state can pay or what the state should pay.”
A fair referee?
The governor’s office used its Q&A document to address the question
of whether the Labor Relations Board could be fair, as its members
are gubernatorial appointees.
Rauner’s office said the majority of the board members (three of
five) were originally appointed by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn. More
importantly, Rauner’s staff said, the governor is sending the
impasse decision to the body designated in the state’s legally
binding agreements with AFSCME.
Interest arbitration revived?
The spectre of impasse, the imposition of terms and a possible work
stoppage initiated by either side may rekindle one of the hottest
legislative issue of Rauner’s first year: whether an arbitrator
should be injected into the mix by the General Assembly.
Last fall’s Senate Bill 1229 would have allowed mandatory
arbitration should either the state or AFSCME declared a bargaining
impasse
Once that binding arbitration began, a strike or lockout would have
been prohibited. In the end, a panel of arbitrators would pick from
either the state’s or the union’s final offers on economic-interest
items, such as pay and benefits.
The GOP painted the bill as an expensive, taxpayer-funded gift to
AFSCME and said it would take a tax increase to fund a $1.6 billion
or larger raise for some of the country’s best-paid state employees.
Democrats, on the other hand, argued the bill only gave unionized
workers a chance at equal footing with Rauner.
An attempt by House Democrats to override Rauner’s veto of the bill
fell three votes short in September but, as the administration noted
on Friday, the contents of the bill still exist in House Bill 580.
The administration continues to call the concept bad policy and a
union power play.
“A bill to strip the governor of his constitutional authority is as
unnecessary now as it was then,” Rauner’s staff wrote in Friday’s
documents.
“If AFSCME returns to the General Assembly to once more ask to strip
this governor — and only this governor—of his power to negotiate
with employees, then it will be as clear a signal as any that AFSCME
has been acting in bad faith all along,” the administration said.
State Rep. Mike Smiddy was the House sponsor of SB 1229 and is the
lead sponsor of HB 580.
Bringing HB 580 for a vote is “something we’re definitely taking a
look at,” he said Friday.
Gov. Rauner “said he would be staying at the bargaining table and
negotiating in good faith and the bill was not necessary,” Smiddy
said
“Well, we’ve come to find out maybe the bill was more necessary than
most people first thought, because now we’re here a few months later
and impasse is being declared by him and not members of the labor
community.”
What’s next
The governor’s office said it is now up to the Labor Relations Board
to determine whether the administration’s plea belongs before it
and, if so, whether a hearing before an administrative law judge is
merited.
The process might take months, the administration said, and either
party has the right of appeal to the board.
Additionally, AFSCME has indicated it is considering legal action.
The governor’s office said it will comply with the tolling agreement
and will accept the ILRB’s directions, including on whether it can
implement terms of a final offer. It also said, “There is not now
and never has been a plan to lock out state employees.”
The union says it’s not walking away from the negotiating table and
that it has “consistently responded to the administration’s demands
with fair counter-proposals. We’re committed to continuing to do so,
and we don’t want disruption of the public services we provide.”
Should a work stoppage such as a strike occur, essential workers
including state prison guards would still be required to report to
work under Illinois law.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
