SB 1229 is a lousy bill.

It is the Democratic Super Majority General Assembly, financed by public sector unions, placing temporary 4 year collective bargaining legislation on a newly elected Republican Governor.

The bill temporarily changes the way state level collective bargaining is done in the State of Illinois during Rauner’s 4 year term.

Here are the contents of the bill.

“With respect to collective bargaining agreements, expiring on or after June 30, 2015 but on or before June 30, 2019, between the State of Illinois and a unit or units of employees of State agencies which are not resolved by the expiration date of the agreement, mediation of the outstanding issues shall be initiated within 30 days from the expiration of the agreement or the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly.

Should a mediator be unable to bring the parties to agreement through conciliation within 30 days of the
commencement of mediation, or such additional period as the parties may mutually agree on, either party may initiate the impasse arbitration procedures pursuant to Section 14 of this Act except that for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction or authority of the arbitration panel, arbitration procedures shall be deemed to have been initiated prior to the commencement of any fiscal year occurring after the expiration of the agreement.

The provisions of an expired agreement shall be in full force and effect and conditions of employment shall not be changed by action of either party without the consent of the other until a successor agreement is adopted.

The right to strike shall not be considered waived pursuant to Section 17 of this Act until the actual convening of the arbitration hearing.”

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/SB/PDF/09900SB1229lv.pdf

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is Rauner’s response to the lousy bill.

“July 29, 2015

To the Honorable Members of
The Illinois Senate,
99th General Assembly:

Today I veto Senate Bill 1229 from the 99th General Assembly, which would amend the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act to replace collective bargaining with binding interest arbitration.

For many months, I have advocated that local governments should have the right to determine which subjects are collectively bargained with their public employees.

The response from some union officials is that my proposal would “gut” the collective bargaining rights of those public employees.

Those same union officials proposed Senate Bill 1229, which goes far beyond my simple proposal.

It removes every subject of labor negotiations from the bargaining process and allows unelected arbitrators to impose billions of dollars of new costs on our taxpayers without any involvement of the Executive Branch, the General Assembly, or those taxpayers.

This legislation is undemocratic, it is bad for our budget, and it is unconstitutional.

Senate Bill 1229 is also based on a false premise that our Administration has been unreasonable in labor negotiations and wants to lock-out employees or prompt an employee strike.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have negotiated in good faith with AFSCME since shortly after I took office.

We came with our proposals ready on day 1, and we made significant concessions from our initial proposals, including revising our proposals on management rights, dues collection, holidays, subcontracting, layoffs, and employee pensions.

We asked AFSCME to schedule more frequent weekly negotiating sessions (which they declined), and we voluntarily agreed to extend negotiations even after the current collective bargaining agreements expired on June 30, 2015.

At my request, those “tolling agreements” contain express provisions that prohibit a strike or lock-out during our negotiations.

Today our Administration signed a new tolling agreement that extends negotiations until at least the end of September.

We are working diligently to reach an agreement with AFSCME.

Our proposals have also not been unreasonable.

In fact, the proposals we offered to AFSCME are similar to those recently adopted by state employees represented by the Teamsters.

It took only two weeks from the time our Administration first met with John Coli, the President of the Teamsters Joint Council 25, to reach agreement with the Teamsters.

The Teamsters, to their credit, were realistic about the State’s dire financial condition.

They cleared their calendars to negotiate around the clock.

They made no outrageous financial demands for large pay increases or new health benefits.

They had no problem agreeing to a 40-hour work week. We similarly sought to build a strong partnership with the Teamsters in exchange for their concessions.

We agreed to a large monetary bonus pool to reward employees for their exceptional performance.

Rather than have an unlimited subcontracting provision, we agreed to allow the Teamsters to bid on any project offered to a private sector company and share in the savings achieved by the State.

We also agreed to fund an educational program for their employees, a top priority for our Administration.

Given time and reasonableness, we can reach a similar agreement with AFSCME.

This legislation, however, prevents our Administration from doing so.

Many are unfamiliar with the concept of interest arbitration that replaces collective bargaining in this legislation.

It is not the same as arbitration in civil law, business, or other contract disputes. Interest arbitrators are not allowed to fashion a compromise that Illinois taxpayers can actually afford.

Presented with the State’s and the unions’ proposals, arbitrators will be picking winners and losers by accepting either side’s proposal in its entirety.

Because they are unelected and unaccountable, arbitrators can decide to impose on the State the unions’ proposals without regard to the dire impact those proposals will have on our fiscal stability.

As I write this message, if AFSCME seeks to impose its current proposal, it would cost our taxpayers an additional $1.6 billion in salary and pension costs and would eliminate $500 million per year in healthcare savings that were part of the overall healthcare savings included in both Democrat and Republican budgets.

If an unaccountable arbitrator awards AFSCME’s contract, the clear losers will be the State’s taxpayers.

And the already-difficult task of balancing the State’s budget in a constitutional manner will become insurmountable, hurting the beneficiaries of State programs and services that would no longer be possible.

We cannot afford Senate Bill 1229.

Finally, if enacted into law, Senate Bill 1229 would violate the United States Constitution by retroactively impairing contractual obligations.

In the last round of negotiations, the State and unions entered into collective bargaining agreements that spanned the period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015.

Negotiating those contracts in 2012, both sides knew, and bargained with the understanding, that any contractual obligations the parties undertake would expire on June 30, 2015.

Senate Bill 1229 changes that bargain by extending the terms of expired agreements beyond June 30, 2015.

The United States Constitution forbids the State from enacting a law that changes contracts retroactively.

Senate Bill 1229 is therefore unconstitutional.

Senate Bill 1229 would cede major financial decisions to unelected, unaccountable arbitrators.

This legislation is bad policy and would derail our efforts to honestly balance the State’s budget and enact meaningful government reforms.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 9(b) of Article IV of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby return Senate Bill 1229 entitled “AN ACT concerning State government”, with the foregoing objections, vetoed in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Bruce Rauner
GOVERNOR”

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09900SB1229gms&GA=99&SessionId=88&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=87589&DocNum=1229&GAID=13&Session=

I read in an earlier post a comment stating something like if any opponent of Franks brought a million dollars Franks would just bring two million.

The presumption being money is the final arbiter of who wins and who loses a political campaign.

The reality is there is a law of diminishing returns in any campaign.

Ultimately Frank’s area is too small to warrant unlimited spending.

There are only so many mailers, commercials and paper ads one can buy to some positive effect.

Eventually the person running actually must have something to say and some way to convey they are the best vessel to carry off their vision.

Franks is a proven craven minion of any and all wealthy and powerful people who will help him.

Were the right person to run with a beginning budget of 150k and the ability to garner 50-100k more the race would yield a Franks loss.

If you are thinking of running against Jack Franks know there would be a minimum of two excellent goals accomplished even in a loss.

If the campaign were serious and had a humble charismatic leader Franks would have to respect the challenge which would pin down his whole campaign fund keeping it from doing further damage to the county and our state.

If a campaign were serious and had a humble charismatic leader the full extent of Franks depravity could be exposed to his historic supporters which would further erode any possible support he may expect for other political aspirations.

Be the right person and garner a reasonable investment of serious political supporters and Franks will no longer hold a seat downstate, or anywhere.

You don’t need to be intimidated by a budget Franks can’t even fully use.

In my opinion, what Priest states:

“If the campaign were serious and had a humble charismatic leader” is the most important part of his position statement.

We had that with John O’Neil but did not have it with Mr. Reick imho.

The whole issue with Franks may be put to rest if he decides to run for County Board Chair against Gottemoller.

Franks is a ‘professional’ politician, Gottemoller is a neophyte.

Joe- Thank you so much for the thoughts.

There are many different ways to serve The People.

If you can think of the job in the world, particularly within the confines of military hierarchy, it exists within politics.

Being a candidate is one way to serve.

Supporting candidates is another.

Working within the system to effect change is possible while working hard from without to inject some accountability is also realistic.

I invite you to look into the political process and all the many fields of endeavor to find your niche today.

This niche may change tomorrow but anything done today is better than nothing.

By just reading and commenting on a political blog you are a participant in the process!

I’m excited to read all the incredible, well thought out comments of late.

I look forward to more.

Cautious- John was, and is, an incredible man with strong values.

He took a shot in total service to others with no money and garnered incredible grass roots support.

Unfortunately his message was lost with no money to promote it.
This is why wealthy people do best running for higher office.

They do not need to worry about feeding a busload of kids while getting publicly flayed (this is what the campaign process does to people, flays them alive. If they survive they are changed forever by this process).

Steve had more financial freedom and less popular support.

Find the candidate who possesses the attributes you have rightly identified as who I see as worthy of support and Franks will be given a run for his money.

Inish- The voters are happily ignorant.

This hardly means they are happy.

Most people will watch their neighbors being carted off by the brownshirts in the middle of the night, close their door while the neighbor screams for help and state to themselves “there but for the Grace of God go we”.

Just because the ignorant people are the majority doesn’t mean Jack is worthy of support.

When people are made aware of his sycophantic ways and where his money comes from they are shocked.

Whether they disagree with one vote or many the process of education is a long one and Jack enjoys primacy of position, as you’ve pointed out.

Incumbency traditionally means an 80-90% chance of return to office.

Just because an incumbent enjoys this advantage, and just because Jack has all the strengths I’ve stated in other posts which we completely agree on, does not make for an automatic return to office.

We can hope people realize he is completely and utterly controlled by the most important vote he makes, the vote for Mike Madigan as Speaker.

All his other actions stem from that vote.

I’m certain Mike has ordered Jack to use Weapons of Mass Distraction at the local level to take the sting of Jack’s betrayal of McHenry County’s citizenry downstate.

Being the dutiful and effective little minion Jack immediately returns to his home and effects his orders.

I admire Mike Madigan and his control over others.

This does not mean I, or the rest of the voters, admire and desire a Madigan sycophant as our representative.

It looked like the Sleazy Salvis spent alot more than that.

Later, his character was exposed with a solicitation article in the Herald.

If he had run a straight up campaign, he wouldn’t have had a primary opponent and his tactics drove off a large part of the Republican base.

He would be the State Rep today, instead of his sister, who hides that she is a Salvi.

Good idea.

Priest- The exact same comments could be made of every elected official in this county.

( Replacing Madigan with the appropriate name of their self serving power center.)

Most of the County board members run because they need the health insurance that to this day I don’t understand why it is even available.

Mileage to go to the meeting you were elected to attend. Show me where that works in the private sector.

Look at who is attending the Consolidation discussion- self preservation.

I get that you are against Jack base on his party but he is more Republican than many Republicans in the county- ask any Democrat.

That being said- I still believe a single party controlled area is dangerous, complacent and prone to corruption.

There is no difference between Cook COunty, Springfield or Mchenry.

Here is the state government website (Central Management Services) listing state union contracts.

http://www.illinois.gov/cms/Employees/Personnel/Pages/PersonnelLaborRelations.aspx

The AFSCME Master Contract is 196 pages.

SB 1229 would allow an arbitrator to make the final determination on that contract with AFSCME, not AFSCME and the Governor.

SB 1229 would allow the same for the other union contracts with the state listed on that page.

The Teamsters contract has already been settled.

Notice all the state contracts expire in 2015.

Also note the 31 pages of contract changes (separate document) that AFSCME negotiated with former Governor Pat Quinn after the original Master contract was signed.

On the URL above (on the Central Management Services Labor Relations / Labor Contracts website), RC = Recognized Certification, which is a collective bargaining unit, meaning the union has been certified by the State to represent that class of employees.

Senate Bill 14 references Section 14 of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA).

Section 14 of the IPLRA (5 ILCS 315/14) applies to, “Security employee, peace officer and fire fighter disputes.”

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=108&ChapterID=2

Peace officers and fire fighters have been able to extract very favorable contracts under Section 14.

In response to Charles Nelson: I thought Herb was the driving force.

More about Senate Bill 1229 (SB 1229), the bill to allow an arbitrator to decide on a contract between Rauner and AFSCME, rather than allowing Rauner and AFSCME to work out a deal themselves.

Illinois Policy Institute
Illinois Senate’s Support of AFSCME Arbitration Bill Cost Unions $5.8 Million
By Diana Rickert
August 22, 2015
http://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-senates-support-of-afscme-arbitration-bill-cost-unions-5-8-million

Illinois Policy Institute

Illinois Democrats revive union arbitration legislation that would cut Rauner out of contract negotiations

February 12, 2016

by Hillary Gowins

“Senate Bill 1229, which would have allowed Illinois’ biggest government-worker union to bypass Gov. Bruce Rauner in contract negotiations, died in September 2015.

But on Feb. 9 a reincarnation of the proposal emerged in House Bill 580.”

“When Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan pushed SB 1229 in late 2015, he fell three votes short of overriding the governor’s veto, though he announced publicly that he had the support needed to get his way.

The veto stood thanks to the willingness of three Democrats – state Reps. Jack Franks, Ken Dunkin and Scott Drury – to stand up to the powerful House speaker.”

http://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-democrats-revive-union-arbitration-legislation-that-would-cut-rauner-out-of-contract-negotiations

Illinois News Network

Binding arbitration bill resurrected in House; and more from

INN Radio

by Greg Bishop

February 12, 2016

“The governor said he can’t declare impasse and the tolling agreement between the union and administration allows for either side to request the Illinois Labor Relations Board to evaluate negotiations and determine if there’s an impasse, something Rauner did last month.

http://www.ilnews.org/7704/binding-arbitration-bill-resurrected-in-house-and-more-from-inn-radio