Rauner’s Collective Bargaining Proposal

I thought some might be interested in the legislative language that Governor Bruce Rauner has put forth to fulfill his pledge to freeze property taxes.

It is contained in Amendment 1 for Senate Bill 1046, which is sponsored by Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno and appears to be co-sponsored by all Senate Republicans.

There are several parts.

The one below concerns changes in collective bargaining.  Language which is underlined is proposal new law.  That which is not underlined is current law, except for the “Legislative Findings” on top.

ARTICLE 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.

5 Section 1-1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
6 Local Government Taxpayer Protection Act of 2015.

7 Section 1-5. Legislative intent. As of 2015, Illinois
8 taxpayers are paying the second highest median property taxes
9 in the United States. While property taxes are a critical
10 source of revenue for units of local government, school
11 districts, and other local governmental entities, the high
12 property tax burden hinders economic growth. The General
13 Assembly finds that freezing property tax extensions until
14 voters, acting by referendum, approve an increase in the tax
15 extension will return control of local tax and spending policy
p 2
1 to voters and, as property values begin to grow, reduce
2 property tax rates.
3 To ensure that units of local government, school districts,
4 and other governmental entities that depend upon property tax
5 revenue are able to continue providing critical services to
6 their residents notwithstanding this property tax freeze, the
7 General Assembly further finds that it is necessary to reduce
8 the State-imposed mandates on local governments that have
9 increased the cost of providing these services. These mandates
10 include the following:
11 (1) According to the United States Census Bureau’s 2012
12 report on state and local government finance, employee
13 wages and benefits are the largest operational expense of
14 local governments in Illinois. Although the Illinois
15 Public Labor Relations Act and the Illinois Educational
16 Labor Relations Act are intended to afford local
17 governments with discretion over their budgets, employee
18 costs remain a significant expense. The changes made by
19 this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly to the
20 Illinois Public Labor Relations Act and the Illinois
21 Educational Labor Relations Act are intended to empower
22 local governments to contain these costs.
23 (2) Despite critical infrastructure and capital needs,
24 the cost of capital projects is often higher for local
25 governments than for the private sector. In particular,
26 labor costs are higher due to the State’s mandated
p 3
1 prevailing wage, which often exceeds the wage required for
2 federally funded projects and the wage that actually
3 prevails in the market, and the use of project labor
4 agreements.
5 The purpose of this amendatory Act of the 99th General
6 Assembly is to alleviate the property tax burden. To offset the
7 property tax freeze, it is necessary to reduce labor and
8 capital costs incurred by units of local government, school
9 districts, and other local governmental entities as a result of
10 State mandates.

ARTICLE 5. AMENDATORY PROVISIONS

12 Section 5-5. The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act is
13 amended by changing Section 4 and by adding Section 4.5 as
14 follows:

15 (5 ILCS 315/4) (from Ch. 48, par. 1604)

16 Sec. 4. Management rights.

17 (a) Employers shall not be required to bargain over matters
18 of inherent managerial policy, which shall include such areas
19 of discretion or policy as the functions of the employer,
20 standards of services, its overall budget, the organizational
21 structure and selection of new employees, examination
22 techniques and direction of employees. Employers, however,
23 shall be required to bargain collectively with regard to policy
p 4
1 matters directly affecting wages, hours and terms and
2 conditions of employment as well as the impact thereon upon
3 request by employee representatives, except as provided in this
4 Section or Section 7.5.
5 To preserve the rights of employers and exclusive
6 representatives which have established collective bargaining
7 relationships or negotiated collective bargaining agreements
8 prior to the effective date of this Act, employers shall be
9 required to bargain collectively with regard to any matter
10 concerning wages, hours or conditions of employment about which
11 they have bargained for and agreed to in a collective
12 bargaining agreement prior to the effective date of this Act,
13 except as provided in this Section or Section 7.5.
14 The chief judge of the judicial circuit that employs a
15 public employee who is a court reporter, as defined in the
16 Court Reporters Act, has the authority to hire, appoint,
17 promote, evaluate, discipline, and discharge court reporters
18 within that judicial circuit.
19 Nothing in this amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly
20 shall be construed to intrude upon the judicial functions of
21 any court. This amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly
22 applies only to nonjudicial administrative matters relating to
23 the collective bargaining rights of court reporters.

[Underline language is new.]

24 (b) In any unit of local government or school district to
25 which this subsection applies, as provided in Section 4.5 of
26 this Act, public employees or a labor organization may not
p 5
1 bargain collectively on:

2 (1) the decision of the employer to contract with a
3 third party for any services, the process for bidding on
4 such a contract, the identity of the provider of such
5 services, or the effect of any such contract on bargaining
6 unit members, provided that this subsection does not limit
7 the ability of employees or a labor organization to bid on
8 any such contract;

9 (2) any pay increase, either through changes to the pay
10 schedule or as a result of accumulated years of service, in
11 excess of the amount specified by ordinance or resolution
12 of the governing authority of the public employer;

13 (3) the provision of any health insurance, including
14 the payment of premiums, the extent of coverage, or the
15 identity of the insurer;

16 (4) the use of employee time for business of the labor
17 organization, other than reasonable time provided to an
18 employee to attend a grievance hearing when his or her
19 rights are substantially affected by the hearing or his or
20 her testimony is needed for the determination of any
21 substantial factual question;

22 (5) required levels of staffing for departments,
23 divisions, shifts, stations, or assignments; or

24 (6) procedures, processes, forms, and criteria for
25 personnel evaluations, or the use of evaluations or
26 seniority in assignments, promotions, layoffs, and
p 6
1 reductions-in-force.

2 (c) Any agreement, understanding, or practice, whether
3 written or oral, and whether express or implied, between any
4 labor organization and any public employer made in violation of
5 this Section is hereby declared to be unlawful, null and void,
6 and of no legal effect.
7 (Source: P.A. 98-599, eff. 6-1-14.)

8 (5 ILCS 315/4.5 new)

9 Sec. 4.5. Adoption of limitations on subjects of collective
10 bargaining.

11 (a) The county board or board of county commissioners of a
12 county may by ordinance elect to apply the limitations under
13 subsection (b) of Section 4 to bargaining with that county and
14 with any other public employer whose boundaries are entirely
15 within that county.

16 (b) The corporate authorities of a municipality may by
17 ordinance elect to apply the limitations under subsection (b)
18 of Section 4 to bargaining with that municipality and with any
19 other public employer whose boundaries are entirely within that
20 municipality.

21 (c) The governing authority of a unit of local government
22 or school district, including a county or municipality, may by
23 ordinance or resolution elect to apply the limitations under
24 subsection (b) of Section 4 to bargaining with that unit of
25 local government or school district.

p 7 

1 (d) If a petition, signed by a number of registered voters
2 equal in number to at least 5% of the total number of
3 registered voters in a county or municipality, asking to apply
4 the limitations under subsection (b) of Section 4 to collective
5 bargaining in that county or municipality is presented to the
6 clerk of that county or municipality, the clerk shall certify
7 the question of whether to apply such limitations in that
8 county or municipality to the proper election authority, who
9 shall submit the question at the next election in accordance
10 with the general election law.

11 The question of whether to apply the limitations under
12 subsection (b) of Section 4 shall be presented in substantially
13 the following form:

14 Shall each unit of local government and school district
15 located within (legal name of the county or municipality)
16 be free to determine certain matters without negotiating
17 with employee unions, such as the use of service providers,
18 the decision to provide health benefits, caps on total
19 payroll, employees’ use of government time for union
20 matters, required staffing levels, evaluation procedures,
21 and, in the case of schools, curriculum?

22 The votes must be recorded as “Yes” or “No”. If a majority
23 of voters voting on the question are in favor of applying such
24 limitations, subsection (b) of Section 4 shall apply to
25 bargaining with that county or municipality and with any other
26 public employer whose boundaries are entirely within that

p 8

1 county or municipality.

2 (e) If a petition, signed by a number of registered voters
3 equal in number to at least 5% of the total number of
4 registered voters in a unit of local government or school
5 district, asking to apply the limitations under subsection (b)
6 of Section 4 to collective bargaining with that unit of local
7 government or school district is presented to the clerk of that
8 unit of local government or school district, the clerk shall
9 certify the question of whether to apply such limitations to
10 that unit of local government or school district to the proper
11 election authority, who shall submit the question at the next
12 election in accordance with the general election law.

13 The question of whether to apply the limitations under
14 subsection (b) of Section 4 shall be presented in substantially
15 the following form:

16 Shall (the legal name of the unit of local government
17 or school district) be free to determine certain matters
18 without negotiating with employee unions, such as the use
19 of service providers, the decision to provide health
20 benefits, caps on total payroll, employees’ use of
21 government time for union matters, required staffing
22 levels, evaluation procedures, and, in the case of schools,
23 curriculum?

24 The votes must be recorded as “Yes” or “No”. If a majority
25 of voters voting on the question are in favor of applying such
26 limitations, subsection (b) of Section 4 shall apply to
p 9
1 bargaining with that unit of local government or school
2 district.


Comments

Rauner’s Collective Bargaining Proposal — 5 Comments

  1. This would be completely devastating to municipal governments.

    And when you combine this with Rauner’s desire to slash LGDF (which is the Local Government Distributive Fund, where municipalities get money from the state income tax, it will literally cause towns, cities, and counties to go bankrupt.

    It might make for good political optics, but it is terrible, terrible fiscal and public policy.

  2. Oops… meant to clarify that I am referring to the freeze on property taxes.

  3. It may be terrible, and it may cause municipal bankruptcies.

    Blame the unions.

    Especially the teachers’ union, mainly for producing generations of inadequate citizens.

  4. I can already hear the Radio commercials paid for your tax dollars.

    The Illinois Federation of Teachers is likely busy writing the commercials now.

    Here is a post from their website:

    “During IFT LOCAL POWER WEEK, let’s show the Governor and our elected officials that our voice matters.

    “Talk to your local union or council leader to learn more about the Governor’s out of touch attacks.

    “Then be ready to contact your lawmakers to urge them to address our state’s real problems by passing the “Millionaires’ Amendment,” a measure that asks the wealthiest Illinoisans to pay a bit more in taxes to provide more than $1 billion in dedicated education funding and to alleviate other budget pressures.

    “If lawmakers approve the bill, which may come up for a vote on Thursday, voters will have the chance to weigh in on this important Constitutional amendment.”

    http://www.ift-aft.org/news/2015/05/18/be-heard-during-ift-local-power-week

    The IFT will be very influential in any Voter driven initiative.

    They LOVE to spend YOUR money!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.