The in box. Bad bargaining.

Fred

As a recently retired individual who has ten years before Medicare kicks in, the health insurance/two-year COLA freeze is, for me, a false choice. I long ago quit searching for “fair” in life, but I see little logic in comparing my choices with those of someone who is currently employed. If I had known two years ago what lay ahead, I would not have given up my teaching position. But continuing to work a few more years is not a choice I have now.

Many people view the two-year COLA freeze as a rather benign concession, but, for someone at the beginning of his/her retirement, it is very costly. When I calculated the cost, assuming an average life expectancy, I was astounded. I wish that someone would put these figures out there so that retirees could see exactly what it is they are conceding.

– Kathy Wiersema

Kathy,

I’ve resisted comparing what the We Are One coalition has done to our pensions to collective bargaining.

As I have said, it in no way even resembles collective bargaining.

But you raise an important point in your letter having to do with the issue of consideration.

The leaders have claimed that choice for consideration would likely be found constitutional.

That is why the leaders should have said no.

When our local negotiating team bargained our local’s contract the results were generally strong on salary compared to benefits.

This was a strategic decision on our part, stretching over many negotiations and contracts.

We knew that increases in our base salary were used as a basis for compounding all future salary increases. For the most part we knew our salary could not be taken away. Benefits are a form of compensation. But it is compensation that does not compound over time. It is easier for the board to take back benefits than salary.

What the We Are One coalition agreed to was an exchange of compounded cost of living increases for a problematic access to health care. With no corresponding promise of what that health care would look like.

For retirees like you who have years before they qualify for Medicare, this is a bad deal.

Bad bargaining.

– Fred

6 thoughts on “The in box. Bad bargaining.

  1. Another issue comes to mind. It was always my understanding throughout my career that I had no choice but contribute to retirees’ TRIP insurance as well as paying toward my future TRIP insurance. What becomes of all that money should I not choose health care in my retirement, do I get reimbursement or will it be portrayed as the “price of doing business in IL or my additional gift to solving the fiscal mismanagement of IL’s pension system?

  2. In response to Kathy Wiersema’s statement, the cost of the 2 year COLA freeze to a retiree early in retirement based on a $40,000 per year pension is $104,579.00 over a 30 year retirement. Fred, I have sent you the spreadsheet under a separate email.

    1. WOW WOW WOW! What would the lost be if SB1 was passed early in his retirement and he was given $900 cost of living Non-compounded — What would happen if he collected social security and his “cola” fell to $700 a year. ?? haisman

  3. OK! OK! Fred you have convinced me — The negotiations that lead to SB 2404 were not traditional negotiations. They were a response to a potential disaster. I disagree with the label “bad bargaining”. Seating down a working toward a compromise is good – not bad!

    I call it heroic, emergency bargaining heading off a disaster bargaining. I think just saying No would not have held off SB 1. Madigan would have passed over our prone bodies! Prone because we were run over by a Juggernaut!

    I think we owe President Klickna a Thanks for adjusting fast to changing conditions – Rapidly changing. Fundamental, systemic changes in how our pensions, all pensions are looked at!

    I believe the flaw in your argument is that yelling NO at Madigan is a winning tactic. I think it would have been a mistake not taking a life line from President Cullerton because you have philosophical differences with him. I know this may be easily brought into question but accepting the deal that saved us from SB1 could be (relax I said “could”!) the beginnings of a new power alignment in Springfield.

    I Think two very significant considerations were gained in SB 2404 —

    * Contractual enforceable access to state-provided healthcare: Currently, access to state-provided healthcare is not a constitutional right or a contractual right. In fact, the state could remove it at any time. If SB 2404 becomes law, it moves access to state-provided healthcare to a contractual right. Giving people the option to have access to state-provided healthcare ensures that the state healthcare plan, or a comparable plan, be continued. Many members have mistakenly believed that state-provided retiree healthcare, such as TRIP, is something that the state must provide. Not so.

    * Funding guarantee: The state is not constitutionally required to fund the pension systems at any particular amount. Under SB 2404, it will be. More than 15 years ago, IEA was involved in a lawsuit to force the state to pay its portion to the pension systems. The court ruled that the state must honor the pension benefits but the state didn’t have to pay into the systems. Sad, but true. So, what we have put into SB 2404 is 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.

    Bob haisman

  4. Two things…

    First, to Kathy Wiersema & Gerald Berkowitz: the proposed COLA freeze is being defined as a staggered freeze. In other words the freeze would not take place in consecutive years. I can’t do the math on whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing yet since there are not enough details as to how that language would be implemented. Does the annuitant get to choose which years the freeze takes place? So I’m guessing the numbers on your spreadsheet may play out differently when we know more.

    Second, to Bob Haisman: I want a funding guarantee in whatever pension proposal passes that does not allow the state any wiggle room. Having to go to court to sue the state for nonpayment at some future date sounds like wiggle room to me. I fear that they will find a way to win that case. Isn’t going to court to sue exactly what the coalition leadership has feared all along regarding the question of a constitutional solution? So why would we welcome another court battle? Isn’t there a way to structure a guarantee of state payments that is IRONCLAD? One that would not require a court battle and potentially lead to an unfavorable decision? How about something where, 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. Possible? Or am I worrying too much?

  5. Kathy –
    I agree. For those of us too young for Medicare, the health insurance access / two-year COLA freeze is a false choice. As you stated it is not a benign concession! Looks like our household will be contributing additional dollars to the IRTA legal defense fund…

Leave a comment