Bob Haisman is a retired Hinsdale social studies teacher and activist. He was president of the Illinois Education Association from 1993 to 1999. As IEA President he led the successful fight against the merger of the NEA and the AFT, the nation’s two largest teacher unions, and took part in the negotiations which led to the pension ramp.
Just so there is no mistake Fred! Just for the Record!! I also endorse SB2404! I so utterly disagree with your flawed “analysis” of SB2404 I hardly know were to begin!
I could not disagree with you more.
IEA and ken Swanson and Cinda Klickna have been representing member’s interests and fighting the Pension Wars for years and certainly this Spring! We have been fighting these “Pension Wars” for three and a half years (truth be told +50 years but I don’t want to date myself!) and we have been successful – amazingly successful at stopping bad pension-killer bills! Amazzzzing! IEA accomplished that — not alone — with the IFT and IRTA and with our members but in my opinion IEA led the fight!
But the drum beat in Springfield to “Do Something” is /was getting louder and louder. Good legislative friends of ours were saying — “Bob …PLEASE don’t tell me to continually Vote NO! Give me something to VOTE FOR! I “need” to Vote YES on some kind of Pension Bill!!!”
IEA tried to do that with the “original SB2404″ — IEA worked on it with a coalition of Public Unions. It attacked “the pension problem” in realistic terms as a revenue problem NOT A benefit problem…..our “original SB2404 included — a funding guarantee, graduated income tax, pension stability, closing some 36 tax loop holes, even altering “the 1995 pension ramp”! Unfortunately, Legislators were not ready for a revenue fix. Speaker Madigan after much drama came up with SB 1. A “Pension Killer” — it passed out of the House – despite thousands of calls and letters from teachers to Representatives. Those Representatives told our lobbyists and our members — It’s nice you are telling me to vote NO! You have told me to VOTE NO! for three years — Give me YOUR PLAN, The UNION PLAN!
IEA’s Lobbyists tried presenting “OUR ORIGINAL SB 2404″ — it just didn’t fly for a variety of reasons. Pension Reform was in trouble — Big Trouble and it’s name was Madigan’s SB 1!
President Klickna could have thrown up her hands — admitted defeat, given up — and rightfully blamed Speaker Madigan who had turned his back on the IEA, wouldn’t consider our ideas or suggestions, basically refusing to talk to IEA or any of the Unions. There was no doubt in anyone’s mine – Speaker Madigan had the Votes to pass his unconstitutional Pension Killer (SB1)! There was no doubt he was prepared to run over the IEA and the union pension coalition!
However — President Klickna and the IEA did not give up. “The Original SB 2404 ” didn’t cut it — despite months of hard work and number crunching and research — President Klickna and the IEA reached out to another Democrat. Now they didn’t have months. They had days before Madigan’s Train was going to roll us and every retiree over! In April, The IEA and President Klickna, and the Union coalition reached out to Senate President John Cullerton. President Klickna and the Coalition met a whole bunch of times with President Cullerton and his Senate staff. Negotiations were pressured backed, fast packed, high stakes , unprecedented, tough, changing, fragile, difficult, shifting and yet somehow — The IEA kept our Union Coalition together. Helped President Cullerton to channel his Union roots. President Cullerton, President Klickna and the other Union Presidents came up with a bill that Senators could VOTE for. A hard fought, fire tested, difficult compromise….but a compromise. The IRTA never a part on the coalition talks because it does not consider itself a union, was opposed. The IEA was disappointed over that decision but time was short. The IEA thought the new SB 2404 could be presented as an alternative to Madigan’s SB I. President Cullerton sponsored the bill, President Cullerton testified for the bill, President Klickna testified for the bill, the IRTA testified against SB2404. Thousands of IEA members called in support. It was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate!
President Klickna, The IEA, the Union Coalition, and President Cullerton came up with a hard negotiated compromise, A compromise Senators could Vote For!
By the way — all of the coalition Union’s — General Counsels — thought the new amended – Coalition – IEA – Cullerton SB 2404 was constitutional.
Was it perfect? NO! Was it a compromise? YES Did it stop Madigan’s SB 1? So Far Yes. Are the Pension wars over? NO! But we live to fight another day!
Did IEA serve it’s members ??? YES Heroically!
-Bob Haisman
Fred Klonsky 
The King of Cliches.
LIPSTICK!
Speaking as a retiree, I feel that the unions who agreed not to sue if SB 2404 passes really let down their retired people. They should have made sure current retirees were exempt from any “bargain”.
It is unconscionable that one would play games with the incomes of those who have already made the irrevocable decision to retire based upon what they understood they had paid for and were entitled to.
I have a document from the WeAreOneIllinois coalition that was sent out a few months back that stated the 4 tenets to their bottom line, in case we needed talking points for a conversation with neighbors or legislators.
1. A guarantee that the state pay its portion
2. With that guarantee there would be a promise that actives would pay more
3. Closing corporate tax loopholes that hurt Illinois taxpayers
4. No inclusion of current retirees, who are living on an earned and needed pension and cannot re-enter the job market.
That last one disappeared somewhere along the way. The coalition’s recent press release for support of SB 2404 only talked about how much better SB 2404 was than SB 1.
Think the coalition would have abandoned us retired folks if we were still paying our big dues $$ as actives?
I understand (but don’t necessarily accept) the “shared sacrifice” concept, but if the bottom line can constantly be realigned then of what value is a bottom line?
And, by the way, the funding “guarantee” in 2404 is not ironclad. The GA can still sidestep it. All they have to do is prove how bad things are. Sound familiar?
If I were a betting man (and I can’t afford to be now that my COLA is “diminishing”), I’d put my money on MAD-igan winning out. Sorry, but the GA will want triple the savings that SB 2404 offers, and that’s SB 1.
And you can bet they’ll remember this episode; it will repeat at some point in the future. If you can diminish benefits once, you can diminish benefits again.
Well said, Scott Mayer. I just wish people would wake up and listen!
Scott….. The IEA and the IFT sued twice in the last 30 years over the state’s poor contribution history to TRS. In expensive, long suits we went all the way to the Illinois Supreme court and to great shock and surprise to Union Observers we Lost BOTH suits! One was in the 1980s the other was concluded in 1998.
One of the major “considerations” in SB2404 (trade offs) was that we got a Funding Pledge and included in the pledge we have the right to sue to enforce the pledge! I know it sounds surreal but the reason we lost our previous two suits was that literally we didn’t have a right to sue the state on the funding issue. One of the positives of SB2404 is that bill if it becomes law allows us to sue for nonpayment of the actuarial pension contributions. That was a major “consideration” in SB2404 this historic assertion. haisman
How is requiring retirees to choose between the current COLA and healthcare or choosing to take a COLA freeze in order to keep healthcare, not an impairment or diminishment of benefits? While I appreciate all the effort that evidently went into negotiating this compromise, this bill is only a good deal if you believe that the court will not uphold the constitution. And how can we be sure that if this bill becomes law, that the attacks on our pensions will stop?
Bob, we love you, but please give it a rest! Thanks for all your hard work and updates.
Need to compare taxing scaffolds in other states
Adding to Scott’s comments. We retirees worked hard and fought hard for our pensions and put workplace rules in for those that followed us. We were united and looked out for not only those working at the time but also for those to follow. Very disappointing to see active (non retirees) members being so scattered that they not only cannot hold on to what we worked so hard for, but they also are dismantling the hard work we put in for them.
Thank you Bob for your summary of the past fights we have had. I also support SB 2404.
What benefits will anyone receive if the state is not mandated to make their pension payment every year? TRS will continue to have to sell assets to make the benefit payment to retired members.
SB 2404 has language mandating the state pay the systems, and allowing the systems to sue if the state doesn’t pay. Without funding, we jeopardize ever getting our benefits.
Unfortunately, Legislators were not ready for a revenue fix. I think the above line in Bob’s email needs an explanation. We gave up the revenue increase part during the negotiations so we could have a COLA decrease. I don’t think the reason was very clearly presented. Bob may want to elaborate on this. Jim
It is not ok to steal from old people. When did that become constitutional!??
Cliff Olson .
Giving retirees a choice berween two unconstitutional alternatives on the theory that the chosen option will magically become constitutional is illogical reasoning. The Court will surely find any diminishment of retirees’ promised benefits to be unconstituional.
Instead of seeking to take earned pension benefits away from retired senior citizens, our fearless leaders and legislators ought to have the courage to address the State’s longstanding revenue problems in a comprehensive, multifaceted, responsible way. When the original SB 2404 was offered, how is it possible that, to quote Bob Haisman, “legislators were not ready for a revenue fix”? If legislators were to be successful in reducing retirees’ benefits, do they really believe the State’s financial problems would be solved?
Illinois needs a plan to produce more revenue and reduce debt. It’s obvious that lots of people have worked really hard to come up with fair and reasonable proposals; it is not so obvious that our leaders have given those various proposals serious consideration.
Sue ….I disagree with your first paragraph. I thing it might be comforting but it is not based in reality to say …”The court will surely find any diminishment of retirees’ promised benefits to be unconstitutional…..”
One would hope so. It looks obvious. It seems logical. Not to give them to much credit but there has been a lots of very good lawyers buzzzzzing around this issue for years and they are not unanimous in their opinion by count. Don’t ever, ever count Michael Madigan out. he is a lawyer. He has the money to hire the best lawyers. He knows, He really knows the Illinois Supreme Court justices. At least four of them. Madigan is beating …OH about 150 Billion on “constitutional”.
I go back to a point I have made Time and time again. Going to court – with the anticipation of ending up with a reviewable case at the Illinois Supreme court — is not a short time line, it is expensive and organizationally draining, it is expensive, and there are NO slam dunks. No sure things. Each case is a “roll of the dice”. I know of what I speak – I was there in 1998. I was sure of a favorable ruling. The court ruled against every teacher in Illinois for sound legal reasons. Sound to every lawyer in the room – AFTER the ruling came down. 15 Years later those legal reasons still seem …”stupid” to me. But we lost. Its a roll of the dice.
HI FRED! I appreciate your tolerance for my posts. I appreciated you furnishing a little Biography because since I served as IEA right after the First World war the memories have faded–LOL!
I wanted to clarify one think in your kind biography of me ….”and (Haisman) took part in the negotiations which led to the pension ramp.”
YOU JUST HAD TO BRING UP Public Act 88 — 0593 from 1995 didn’t you Glen!! LOL!
I ran for the IEA Presidency in 1993 on the pledge to do something about the 9 Billion Dollar Unfunded Liability. I had been yelling about and against the UFL since 1980 — when as a delegate to the IEA Representative Assembly — I presented New Business Item #9 — entitled “Days of Rage” where I called for the IEA to conduct a state wide strike and have teachers “March on Springfield” to demand a solution to the then 5 Billion UFL!! (my NBI lost. overwhelmingly.)
In 1993 — in a three person race for the IEA Presidency I won 73% of the vote on the First ballot because I was talking PENSION REFORM.
“WE” — The IEA passed Public Act 88-0593 in 1995 to address the Unfunded Liability. I know PA 88 is roundly criticized in 2013 but it was a good faith effort to systemically fix the “REVENUE” Problem.
So GO AHEAD Fred — tie me to one of your top two IEA disasters — but we were well intentioned. We were trying to look forward 50 years. We had to get a bill passed that Governor Edgar would sign. We tried. I did my best to fix the problem. I failed. Go ahead Rub it in! My contention was PA 88 was working till PA 88 meet Blago — since it is safe to lay things on Blago now because he is locked away –it was Blago and the 2007 Recession that did our “ramp law” in.
We were so sure PA 88 was going to work we passed the 2.2 (third try) pension enhancement act. The greatest (biggest – it effected every annuitant – not just those about to retire) single pension enhancement in the history of TRS in 1997.
Haisman — President in 1995 when the — 45 year Plan to Alleviate the Pension Unfunded Liability
“So GO AHEAD Fred — tie me to one of your top two IEA disasters — but we were well intentioned. We were trying to look forward 50 years. We had to get a bill passed that Governor Edgar would sign. We tried. I did my best to fix the problem. I failed. Go ahead Rub it in! My contention was PA 88 was working till PA 88 meet Blago — since it is safe to lay things on Blago now because he is locked away –it was Blago and the 2007 Recession that did our “ramp law” in.”
The point is to learn from our past mistakes. It is ironic that you make the same argument for your role in the ramp as you are now making for SB2404.
A couple of questions for Bob Haismann:
First, let me say that I have always been a big supporter of yours, both when you were leading IEA as well as now during your continued advocacy efforts for retirees. I respect your knowledge about past battles that have been waged and I recognize the amount of effort you personally put into those battles on behalf of the membership. I also repect your willingness to continue the conversation on the merits of SB 2404. Having said that, please consider my thoughts which follow.
To me, having the right to sue if the state does not make its payments is not very comforting.
Last fall I asked IEA President Cinda Klickna what consideration we’d receive from any agreement that seemingly gives up something we already have. And why would we give up anything which was protected by our constitution? I received a similar response about acquiring the right to sue if the state defaults on its payment.
But that only leads me to more questions and it does not give me peace of mind. Why? Because I have seen the funding “guarantee” in SB 2404 characterized as less than ironclad. Critics of 2404 have said that the GA can still sidestep it. I don’t know enough about constitutional law to know whether that criticism has merit, but it concerns me.
Our coalition was apparently willing to accept Cullerton’s assertion that 2 bad options = constitutional reform because they feared losing a court battle on constitutionality. Then why is there not the SAME FEAR of losing in court in a suit for nonpayment in the future? What do you think the judge will be seeing differently in a state that professes to be nearly bankrupt? Looks to me like the judge will say the state is allowed to not make those payments that were guaranteed because of the dire financial circumstances and other higher priority obligations. What incentive does the GA have to clean up their act, ever?! So I’m not sure of what value the funding “guarantee” is to me. Worth a diminished COLA? Worth giving up access to affordable health care?
Isn’t there a way to structure a guarantee of state payments that is IRONCLAD? One that would not require a court battle (and a potentially unfavorable decision)? How about something similar to an escrow fund such that when an annual audit detects a shortfall it triggers an automatic payment from an account containing funds already set aside for just such a contingency?
That is something for which I WOULD be willing to pay.
To me the current proposals both look like short term answers where state employees bear the cost of the “solution” and which lay the groundwork for the GA to come back for more “reform” $$ later – once they see how easy this round went for them.
This romp thru memory lane should remind us all that nobody will look out for you unless you do it yourself. Remember your mother was not elected to the GA.