Whatever the proposal you can be sure there will be a lot of back and forth, he said, she said.

—-

As far as the Rauner press release.

It does not define “employee election.”

Here is what it seems they are talking about, or something along these lines.

Right now two big problems with pensions are that salary hikes, and 3% COLA, cause overly generous pensions.

So the reform is to choose one, but you can’t have both.

And furthermore it’s the choice of each individual employee, not the union.

What are the unions going to say.

1. That diminishes pensions.

2. That’s an attack on collective bargaining (individual choice vs collective choice).

So you can be sure someone will sue.

In more detail.

If you choose to freeze salary hikes, you would still get salary hikes for take home pay, it’s just the salary hikes would not be used to determine starting pension. Instead salary for starting pension calculating purposes would be frozen, and that frozen salary would be used for calculating starting pension. With this choice you would get the 3% COLA in retirement.

The other choice is salary hikes remain to be used for calculating starting pension, but once in retirement, there is no COLA (or a reduced COLA).

——

Rauner does not want all charter schools and to privatize everything, where is that evidence, and Rauner’s name is not even in the SourceWatch URL.

The SourceWatch list of politicians in Illinois with ties to ALEC is massively shorter than politicians who receive campaign contributions, votes and election assistance from public sector unions in Illinois.

The public sector unions force public sector employees to contribute agency fees aka fair share fees aka forced fees aka mandatory condition of employment fees, to the union.

Fees which might be outlawed if Friedrich’s wins the US Supreme Court case in Friedrich’s vs California Teachers Association.

—–

Rauner is for more educational choices for students and so are a lot of other people, but along the lines of education reform, not eliminating public schools.

Talk to some parents and kids who don’t like the school they are forced to attend, and they don’t have the money to send their kid anywhere else, the money is tied up in taxes which go to the school irregardless if the parent sends the kid to another school.

That’s a monopoly to the detriment of the kids education and there are a lot of people fed up with that system.

—–

Since there was an injustice to taxpayers, a flat out scam by legislatively hiking pension benefits while pensions were underfunded, the best choice is to repeal the pension sentence.

The pension sentence which protects the benefit hikes to underfunded pensions.

Repeal the injustice.

—-

Those lucky enough to have a pension should stop being so damn selfish.

We need to stop agreeing to pay lavish pensions we cannot afford.

It would probably be more cost effective to just implement a pension policy that says, you get this flat amount a year as pension regardless of how much you are paid…

And be sued for it.

Rather than keep paying these outrageous pensions.

Pensions need to stop and other retirement options should be offered.

All that lawyer time and money on ‘language’?

How’s this Cullerton?

Convert to 401K’s what they’ve actually paid in, or get nothing!