In response to a reader comment that compared the We Are One coalition’s deal with Cullerton to Neville Chamberlain and appeasement, former IEA President and pension activist (and friend) responded:
I disagree with your analogy TOTALLY!
NO!!!!! negotiations does not mean appeasement. I negotiated 15 contracts for my local -I never felt like Chamberlain or an “appeaser”!!! Sitting down and talking, working through differences, compromising is a time honored way to settle differences. Collective bargaining is a long, long held Union tradition, technique, right — not some form of appeasement!
Going to court is rolling the dice -that process is out of our control!
– Bob Haisman
Kudos to Hais for his outspoken willingness to defend the pension deal even more aggressively than the union leadership is. They are lucky to have him as a defender.
But I have to say to my union brother Haisman, this process has in no way been an example of collective bargaining as I understand the term and the process. It was not like any contract I bargained.
Collective bargaining is much more than just negotiating.
It is an approach to giving the bargaining process greater symmetry.
There should be membership input.
There should be give and take.
What did we get?
That SB2404 is not as bad as Madigan’s SB1?
And most importantly, there must be the opportunity for the membership to say no.
It is the ultimate power to say no that makes collective bargaining work.
Brother Haisman says that taking it to the courts takes the process out of our hands.
Does any rank-and-file member of the IEA, AFSCME, SEIU or any other member of We Are One feel as though this process was in their hands?
I ask the membership of all the coalition unions: Did this process feel like collective bargaining to you?
Fred Klonsky 
Okay, Fred, I am an outsider; but I negotiated a few contracts myself…perhaps twenty all told. And the time honored concept of negtotiating is BATNA. Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.
And, as an outsider, I’d need a pretty strong argument why the best alternative is not a Constitutional Amendment that agrees with my position.
You got me on that one brother Pablo. It is a stumper for me too.
I never negotiated a contact that the membership did not have the final say. But how is that done with so many unions involved? The IRTA is standing strong. No matter what happens if benefits are redused they will go to court. Send in your defense fund donations.
Fred do I understand this correctly, Hais is in favor of accepting SB2404. He agrees with IEA that this is the best we could do so accept the diminished benefits because it’s not as bad as SB1 ?????? Since when does IEA support giving away our Const. protected benefits ? I’m confused. Chuck ________________________________
Chuck. (Laughing) I do not speak for brother Haisman. And I don’t think you are confused.
This does not feel anything like collective bargaining. As I said in an earlier post–I get to VOTE on the contract my local negotiates. The deal that was made behind closed doors, that will impact the rest of my life, has not and will not be presented to me for a vote. Once again, I am supposed to be happy that ‘we (IEA) were at the table.’ When I hear these words I cringe. It means I have given up something. How much this time? Why don’t people listen to Glen Brown (following the rule of law, why a constitution needs to be honored) and Ralph Matire (fixing the REAL problem–revenue– that will not be solved with the new bill).
Thank you, Fred, for your blog and rational insight and thinking about what is right. If our constitution is meaningless, all is lost
One more thing. I pass by Mother Jones’ highway marker often. What would she think about ignoring the constitution?
No. Period. But, my experience with my IEA local never felt much like actual “bargaining” either most years. And, yes, I did get involved and do my part.
EXACTLY ………………………………….!!!!!!
Fred, Can IRTA take this to court alone? We retired irrevocably from our districts under one set of conditions, and now are being handed different rules. Also, were all five retirement plans protected by the state constitution? Finally, I read that Chicago teacher pensions are not included in these bills. Is that true? If so, it seems strange that we are being hung out to dry by Madigan, while his teachers in his district go on their merry retirement way. Just call me disillusioned on this whole thing.
Sent from my iPhone
I am not an attorney. So trust anything I say about the law with great skepticism. I believe that any member of a pension system has standing and can sue. They just need to afford a lawyer. Certainly the IRTA has standing. I believe all the state pensions systems are covered by the pension protection clause. Do not blame the Chicago teachers. They are in a separate pension system that is mainly paid for by Chicago taxpayers rather than by the state. There is nothing merry about dealing with Rahm.
I am not blaming the Chicago teachers. I am blaming Madigan and his friends who care so little about Downstate teachers. Didn’t these politicians take oaths to support the state constitution?
You are right about that Mary Katherine. And they don’t care about Chicago teachers either. Remember they voted for SB7 which attempted to take away the right to strike of JUST Chicago teachers. Our union went along with that too.
This is no time to give in. The mere fact that Cullerton says Madigan’s bill would lose because it would violate the state constitution means we have won. Won in the fact that we kept telling them if they cut any pension benefits they were violating the state constitution. We have to agree on it. Every single one of us. The very idea that the union negotiated behind closed doors tells me that we were sold out. I wonder if the union was bought out.
All of us need to hold fast and say no. WE ARE PROTECTED BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION, what part of that does hardly anyone seem to understand. Wake up and don’t give in. Hold fast to your rights. Don’t let anyone take them away from you, union or no union. Any deal in pension reform or cuts is just that – so why do we even agree to talk about it at any kind of forum or table with the state.
If it looks like duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… It’s quite safe to say that it’s a duck. If it looks like a “diminished pension,” the pols agree only to a “diminished pension,” the (math) figures say that it’s a “diminished pension”… It’s quite safe to say that the result is a “diminished pension.” What did We Are One Illinois get in its “negotiations” with that honorable and trustworthy pol, John Cullerton? Answer: a diminished pension
What does the Illinois Constitution say about “diminished and impaired pension benefits?” We’ve all seen it many times over the past several years but here it is again:
Article XIII (General Provisions), Section 5 (Pension and Retirement Rights) of the Illinois Constitution states: “Membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or any local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”
Is the Illinois Constitution just a scrap of paper?
Negotiating behind closed doors is not bargaining. It is agreeing to a gag rule that keeps members in the dark. The members can’t be happy when the unions give away their vested rights guaranteed by the Illinois Constitution for a promise to pay into the pensions that has been broken for decades and will be broken in the future. It will be broken in the future because the Cullerton/Union SB 2404 agreement does not solve the revenue problem at the heart of the state’s problems funding public services. Although the state claims the pensions are the problem; it is a false choice between other public services and pension funding. And it is a false choice given legitimacy by the unions who should clarify the revenue problems for their members and the public. Lying about the nature of the problem hurts everyone, public employees and the citizens of Illinois.
Appeasement is the act of giving concessions to an enemy in order to avoid conflict. I challenge Mr Hais when he says he was not an appeaser. Further, giving away something that is not yours is an unacceptable act. Negotiation is the act of getting for giving, it is not partial surrender. Succumbing to fear when we have a constitutional clause guaranteeing our pensions is cowardice. Yes, the courts could violate our rights, but that would be at their own peril and that of our nation. Finding “special” cases that warrant dismissing the rule of law is dangerous ground for any governing body.
Lastly, I sign on with those who point out that we did not have anything to do with this process. We had something. Now we’re being told that part of it has been taken away.
Sitting at a table with rats, pretending that you’re being respected, is a losing proposition. People who are gulled by rat masquerades into thinking that they are being recognized as people of importance are being played for fools.
Pensions are not part of collective bargaining
I wish to modify my previous statement by saying that we are “being told that part of it could be taken away”, rather than “has been taken away”.
Bob Haismann – you sound like your’e still in pretty tight with Klickna gang. We are being screwed and you know it. How is this not a diminishment or impairment of our pensions?
We are headed down a very slippery slope. In a short while they will come back to us and say that they need to take more away from us. They keep taking and our union just keeps gladly giving everything away – first our tenure now our pensions.
You got it, Beata. And…just what are “they” giving back to us in this “negotiation?” Nothing, really. I am also interested in what is going to happen with the graduated income tax structure. Some legislators said that before they can do that, pension reform would have to occur. Who wants to bet some of their “promised” pension (COLA or health insurance, anyone?) that the graduated income tax never passes muster in either House or Senate?
Well said Fred, I agree. We may have just waived our constitutional protections and set a precedent going forward for this to happen again and again statewide and nationwide in the future. As a people our rights and protections are being stripped by the power brokers and enablers that have sworn to serve our best interests. Time to take the bull by the horns! Regarding Lobby day, my main point of contention still lies in the fact that I don’t support any Bill!! So I would be Lobbying against IEA if I go down… There is no best of two evils, there’s just evil……. and as you said to die by the gun or the sword is not a choice. Curtis