Dear Fred (and the IRTA)
Fred I have a lot of respect for you and your willingness to challenge ….
I understand the IRTA disappointment at not being at the table but they are not a union, they did not want to play the part of a union. I’m sorry they feel slighted.
I believe with all my heart that the IEA leadership “did the right thing”. Negotiations is the way to solve these things. “Just Say No” is just not a viable option – except to be run over.
Because it is a negotiated agreement not everyone will be happy. That often is the results in negotiations. I know you were a local negotiator — Criticism is to be expected — but just like back in our locals — criticize – ask tough questions — but support your union in the end.
I not only support our Union but I applaud it for making the coalition work, keeping it together, being persistent, continuing to reach out to “the other side” . It would have been so easy to give up and blame it all on Madigan.
I applaud President Klickna for her persistence and vision.
Bob Haisman – IEA-R and IRTA member
Dear Bob,
First, my friend. I don’t speak for the IRTA, of which I am a member, but not a leader.
I am not sure it is right to suggest that the IRTA opposition to the deal is rooted in feeling slighted. I believe they feel that it negatively impacts retirees in a way that violates the pension protection clause.
So do I.
There are a lot of issues here, but let me address two.
You are right. I was a long-time negotiator in my local. I was lucky (maybe smart) enough to have always been able to join the negotiating team in bringing back to our members a contract that was better than the one we had before it. Once it required a strike to do that. But sometimes it goes that way.
There are some ways in which this is like bargaining a contract. And ways in which it is not.
As I understand the law, it becomes a modification of a contract only when the union agreed to the deal. If the leadership had said no, we would have had the protection of the pension protection clause.
As for supporting the union.
I appreciate the respect you offer. As I respect you. But this is simply not a matter of union support or non-support.
I take second place to nobody as a union guy. My record, a record of a life-time of activism and a union member since I was old enough to get a card, should be evidence enough.
This should never be confused with support for wrong-headed decisions of the leadership.
In education, we know that every knucklehead claims they are acting “for the kids.”
And we know that usually is a red flag that something bad is about to come down.
In the union, every knucklehead in leadership claims they are acting for “the members.”
And if you challenge it, someone will claim you are anti-union.
And that is how we got Senate Bill 7.
And this lousy deal.
– Fred
Fred Klonsky 
As a member of the IRTA Legislative Committee I can tell you that the IRTA was not at the table of negotiations by choice. The position of the IRTA is there is nothing to bargain. The rights and benefits are protected by the Illinois Constitution and not subject to bargaining. A line has been drawn in the sand. No diminishment of the benefits of government retirees.
Yep. It’s a lousy deal.
Well said, Fred.
My sentiments exactly Fred. I am a long time IEA member and have had a history of fighting for a good contract. But this legislation is different. And the appeasement of the coalition works against the pension protection clause. I think the IEA sold us out. I am glad I also belong to the IRTA as at this time they are a hope of a lawsuit to defend our vested rights.
Re: “Coalition Reaches Pension Agreement with Senate President Cullerton”
The Madigan “Bad Cop” & Cullerton “Good Cop” Modus Operandi Worked Quite Well.
“The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: your victims feel they are in control but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma…
“Such is the power of giving people a choice, or rather the illusion of one, for they are playing with cards you have dealt them… For people who are choosing between alternatives find it hard to believe they are being manipulated or deceived; they cannot see that you are allowing them a small amount of free will in exchange for a much more powerful imposition of your own will.
“Setting up a narrow range of choices, then, should always be a part of your deceptions… It is always good to allow your victims their choice of poison and to cloak your involvement in providing it to them as far as possible… ‘For the wounds and every other evil that men inflict upon themselves spontaneously, and of their own choice, are in the long run less painful than those inflicted by others’” (Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469-1527).
from The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene
Let the unions settle for what they want. IRTA should go to court to defend retiree interests. It may well be that these unions will agree to a law that gives up employee pension rights They seem to want to give in. Anything to keep their “seat at the table”. (You know, Judas had a seat at the table, too)
Unions have have no legal authority to negotiate for retirees. Most of us are not members. We are not employed by anyone they negotiate with. Labor laws about representation do not apply here.
It may well turn out that retiree provisions of the law are found unconstitutional,while other provisions of the law are not (because the unions agreed).
It would serve them right. In many contract negotiations, provisions benefitting retirees are traded off for something active members want. Retirees seem to mean little to the State or to the unions that formerly represented them.
if this bill becomes law, we have nothing to lose and possibly much to gain with a court challenge. The General Assembly may want to consider severability of provisions about retirees if they don’t want to risk having the whole law thrown out as unconstitutional even with union agreement. Maybe we should sue the unions too.
In any case, we should file for an injunction to protect retiree interests. We need to show that we do NOT agree, and will not go quietly into the night.
I did not want to answer any more blogs — HOWEVER — you make such outlandish Comments …. I could not leave it go….
“Unions have no Legal authority to negotiate for retirees” — Really? Who would you have speak fro retirees? Mike Madigan? A former administrator? Somebody you appoint!
IEA has negotiated and implemented 50 years of pension changes and improvements — from credit for military leave, to sick days credit , to the ERO, to 2,2…..along with dozens of other improvements! IEA and the IFT acted for Illinois teachers then and were not challenged. IEA and The IFT have stepped into the breach and spoke for actives and retired teachers – They have the legal right to do so because they have done it in the past 100 ‘s of times. I for would rather have my Union and it’s elected President than some self-appointed savior or a committee of teachers appointed by Madigan or some former administrators.
I disagree with the IRTA tactics. They oppose any change to pension benefits – commendable. They are not a union and allow Administraors to call the shots – those guys (Administrators never did like negotiations and empowering teachers they wanted to be the center stage). However folding your arms — while repeating NO — while standing in front of Mike Madigan’s tank is a recipe for being run over. I know their strategy is then to sue. Last time IEA took a case to Supreme Court it cost us big bucks in legal costs and 2 and half years and WE LOST! We would not have gambled dues money if we thought we would lose! WE WERE SURE WE WOULD WIN! Ask any experience lawyer -going to court is always a toss of the dice!!! I wonder how much $$$ IRTA has on hand for legal fees ? They are not a union, small reserves, low dues, no lawyers on staff…..Hmmmmmm?
I think IEA approach is much better – sit down at the table , negotiate, talk, compromise,reach an agreement you both can live with — preserve the COLA but trade something for it! That is why its called negotiations – give and take! I think IEA’s negotiated compromise is better than being run over by a tank as you Yell — NO! NO!
I’m proud of the IEA and the Other Unions! I’m Proud of IEA President Cinda Klickna and Senate President John Cullerton! They sat down and talked and tried to understand and reached a compromise NOT a SELL OUT! I spend 30 years negoiating contracts for my LOCAL – I refuse to allow Collective Bargaining and Negotiations be compare to appeasement and selling out. It is How UNIONS settle differences and overcome challenges….it involves talking not yelling. Bob haisman
Dear Bob,
The IEA does not have the right to speak for those who are not it’s members. You shouldn’t be proud of how the IEA conducts itself. You should be ashamed.
I’m definitely NOT ASHAMED OF MY UNION! MOST DECIDEDLY NOT! They stayed in some of the most difficult negotiations imaginable!
Shifting Sand under their feet and Bombs blasting over their heads! They found a pro-Union partner and hammered out a very good deal!
When The IEA advocated for TRIP health Insurance, subsidy of TRIP premiums, Trip Prescription insurance (better than medicare), and ERO (55 and out) option, 5 +5 special early out, 2.2 pension enhancement , sick leave credit, Transportable Credit — and dozens of other improvements did you accept them? Or did you say I’m not an IEA member so I will pass on the 2.2 enhancement of benefits (the single greatest benefit enhancement in the History of TRS) – Did you No! NO! IEA YOU can’t bargain for me — I can not take it! I’m not one of your members! I paid no dues and yet I get the benefits — so I refusethem Tuen them back. It’s Only fair! Did you HUGH!!!???
ASHAMED??????? Are you kidding?? I’m Proud of My Union and My Union President Cinda Klickna!
BOB HAISMAN
Thank you Fred for putting it right…it is all about the protection we had with the constitution–not negotiating the best deal! Again IEA had it wrong & left us holding the bag!
Sent from my iPhone
There is also the 14th amendment to the US constitution section 1 if it should get that far. The diminishment on average for 10 years is about $30,000 or $233.00 per month! Contribute to the legal defense fund!
Cliff Olson
I, too, am disappointed in the IEA’s decision to bargain. I feel that I am left with choices which do “diminish” my pension. I would much rather see one of these bills subjected to judicial scrutiny. I do not feel that either of the bills would meet the constitutional guarantee. I would hope that teachers would work together in building a legal defense fund and if necessary pursue this problem to the Supreme Court .
I worry that our judicial courts in Illinois may be biased since the legislature saw fit not to touch the judicial pensions. It somehow smacks of bribery to me.
There is nothing to bargain, we have a clear cut constitutional guarantee. I think that is our best argument. By allowing the state to circumvent this test, we may be placing ourselves once again in a situation in which the legislature can continue to rob from our pensions systems and reduce our pension payouts. While they may pay in what they owe, there is nothing to stop them from also taking our more than they put in.
In this case, I am opposed to the IEA representation. I have always been a proponent of education and I do understand that the money which will be saved will be used to reinstate educational programs that were being reduced; however, I don’t think teachers should be the only ones to pay to keep these programs alive.
I will be sending my legal defense fund money to the IRTA.
Gee Bob, I must have touched a nerve. Whenever someone starts spouting off about how great they were in contract negotiations, you know that THEY know something is wrong.
Point 1: Unions agree to represent everyone, including those not members in return for the right to negotiate for everyone. You represent all employees because you have to by law, or you cannot negotiate.
Point 2: Many groups advocated for improvements in teacher benefits, not just the IEA. You speak as if the IEA singlehandly accomplished these items. They did not.
Point 3: I was a member of the IEA and watched my local union repeatedly sell out the rank and file in union contracts. Somehow the union leadership seemed to get special treatment they wanted in the contract, while others got reduced benefits as “concessions”. This process repeated itself over several contracts.
Point 4: It finally got to the point where everyone in our building resigned from the union in protest after the IEA came in to try to bully us into blindly agreeing what the union leadership wanted to do You don’t need to know what the plan is. We’ll let you know.
There will be no discussion. Trust us. We know what is best for you! You are disloyal if you want to know how we want to do things. Just pay your “fair share” if you don’t like it. (100% of dues). How is it a union when the members get no say?
Point 5: After the union leadership was voted out of office, we all rejoined the union. But the damage is done. The “concessions” had become “expected”, we had lost the support of our community, and the teaching staff was completely demoralized. I wonder how many “accomplishments” like that the IEA has? We didn’t fare too well.
My experience with the IEA is that the union looks out for the union, not necessarily the interests of the rank and file. The more bombastic the “union” response, the more likely something is wrong. The fact that you assume that you have the “right” to negotiate for retirees who do not belong to the union is as undemocratic as it gets.
To Hugh…..
You had a bad experience with IEA. Your feelings about the IEA are understandable I’m sorry it turned you into an IEA-haters. My experiences with my IEA affiliated local and then 45 years of involvement with the IEA organization have been totally opposite and my experiences with the IEA have turned me into an IEA cheerleader.
I really did not want to answer your response to my response – tit for tat – However! LOL!
I just can not leave a few points go on un-responded to! As much as I told myself ignore it Bob – I just can’t. LOL! I re-read my response — I guess the meaning of stuff like “spouting off about how great they were in contract negotiations” is in the eye of the beholder… but for the record!! I was not “spouting off” about my negotiating skills or achievements (no matter how legendary they maybe…) but I was “spouting off” about negotiations and collective bargaining in general as a good way to attempt to settle challenges and issues…. better at least than folding your arms and repeating “Hell No”! in a loud voice ….but that is just my opinion.
I also must return to IEA’s role in improving the teacher retirement program in this state going back to Con-Con in 1970 ( the inclusion of the pension protection language in the 1970 constitution) — The Illinois Education Association was the leading voice and force behind nearly ever pension benefit improvement that has come down in this state. And – again in my opinion — the IEA had help but led the way. That is why all this “sell out” talk and “how dare they assume to negotiate for me ” talk is so utterly without serious merit. Hugh — I know all about “the duty to fair representation” but I (granted it is my opinion) find it “interesting’ that among all the IEA “critics” — no one refused to accept the improvements in the system that the IEA and it’s members and staff (and yes the IFT) won with blood, sweat, tears and dollars.
In this crisis — I have to say – there has been much more of a shared burden between the IFT and the IEA but if not the two unions (which together legally represent the active teachers in all but about 10 school districts in Illinois) to take the lead… than who? IRTA preferred inaction and sitting behind its Maginot Line of the pension protection clause. The administrators (LOL!)? Some relative of Madigan? 10 random teachers appointed to a commission by Governor Python? The IEA assumed its historic and hard won leadership position on teacher pension matters. The IEA chose to act. I might be the only one on this blog page but I’m very pleased they were proactive. Those that hang back and wait for the smoke to clear rarely engender criticism — people who take action to solve problems are magnets for criticism – that is just the way it is.
Hugh our experiences with IEA apparently are diametrically opposed. I do not accept, in fact, I totally reject the conclusions you have drawn about the IEA. I do not believe your conclusions and opinions are universally applicable.
And just one more thing ….for the non-Hugh commentators …nobody is saying don’t sue!! Go ahead!! If individuals or if the IRTA wants to sue over SB2404 — if it gets enacted into law — Go Ahead! Knock yourself out!!
It is my opinion and I believe the opinion of the unions that the courts are always an option but the results are much less of a sure thing than commentators here – on this blog – think they are. My contention is the courts are a “roll of the dice” and an expensive roll of the dice.
The IEA reached out to President Cullerton and President Cullerton reached out to the eight unions representing contributors to Illinois public pension funds with an idea on how to constitutionally effect change in a system taking water. The attorneys for those eight unions felt he was right. The General Counsel for the IEA (a man I have HUGH respect for) felt that President Cullerton’s approach was constitutional. The eight Unions (cops to teachers) made a judgment — a considered judgment – that President Cullerton’s position on pension changes was constitutional.
Apparently many in this blog community do not agree with those legal experts (with about 160 years of legal experience) — but disagreement (at least in my book) does not mean or justify … “sell out”, theories of alleged conspiracies, disregard or weakening of the pension protection clause, etc,etc.
Bob Haisman , Retired Teacher
Why and how has this become an IRTA bashing issue? The IRTA stance is not one of burying our heads in the sand. It is one of fighting for the Constitutionally protected benefits. A contract is a contract! Would an IEA or IFT local sit back and wink or even give its blessing if a school board violated a contract? I think not. The reality is this is an issue worth fighting for. This is not the time to cave to the lesser of two evils.