Some in the IEA leadership want to blame me because people are starting to ask questions.
The leadership of the the IEA has pissed off large sections of the membership with the We Are One/Cullerton deal.
Check the IEA website comments.
And those are just the folks who bother to read the IEA website.
Lobby Day was down in attendance by two-thirds from the last one two years ago.
I’m getting dozens and dozens of comments a day and three to four thousand site visits a day.
A big divide between the leadership and the rank and file is not good for the union.
The leadership created that divide by agreeing to this deal.
Just like in the debate with the Republicans over the national budget, your polls may show that members are willing to find ways to compromise. They said that they were willing to give up some of their benefits.
But that is all an abstraction until they discover that what we have to give up is $6000 that they may now have to pay in addition to the $6000 a year they already pay for health care.
Or that their COLA freeze can amount to $100,000 over the time of our retirement.
Now that they know, ask them again.
Ask them if they want to give up tens of thousands of dollars over the next twenty years in compounded COLA in exchange for health care insurance that they can’t afford.
Ask them.
The constitutional issues are complex and hard for any of us to follow. Members may not get passionate about constitutional protections.
But ask those who may personally and immediately get screwed by the deal the We Are One coalition made with Cullerton.
Go ask them.
Sunday reads.
Chicago dramatically protests the dangers of school closings.
The Real News reports on the three-day march.
The Washington Post on the Chicago protests.
Huffington covers it too.
WGN this morning.
ABC News.
HUMBOLDT PARK — Just days before a vote that could result in the largest school consolidation in American history, opponents of the measures are taking to the streets in protests citywide.
The Three-Day March for Education Justice will take members of the Chicago Teachers Union and others opposed to the planned closures across nearly 38 miles on the city’s South and West Sides.
“We can’t sit still,” said Michelle Gunderson, a teacher at Nettelhorst Elementary School in Lakeview and a vocal opponent of the closures. “It helps people visualize where these schools are. It helps give people a vision of what these schools mean to their communities.”
A rally in Garfield Park is expected to take place early Saturday evening with a rally and demonstration slated for late Monday afternoon at Daley Plaza.
The marches start one day after sources indicated that some of the dozens of schools on the chopping block could get a last minute reprieve.
The news is encouraging to opponents of closures, but some say it still isn’t enough.
“We would be happy for any schools to be off the list,” said Francine Greenberg-Reizen, a teacher at Arnold Mireles Academy in South Shore. “But no school should be on a list to begin with.” DNAinfo
The flurry of E-mail, accusations and “misrepresentations” concerning SB 2404 and TRIP (retired teacher insurance) since Friday Night — 5-17 — has been amazing.
I was a supporter of SB2404 at Friday, May 17 at 5PM and I’m still a supporter of SB2404 on Sunday morning 5-19. There have been a number of charges, accusations, and “misrepresentations” subtly begun by the IRTA leadership and fanned, spread and promoted by the “Pension Bloggers” most notably Fred Klonsky’s Blog.
In my book the most grievous and incorrect “misrepresentation” was this one from Fred Klonsky’s Blog …..”There is no mention of JohnCullerton’s last minute addition to SB2404 which requires retirees to pay 100% percent of their health insurance……” Klonsky was referencing an IEA statement concerning SB2404. There was no reference to a increase in TRIP insurance because there was no such increase in SB2404. This is NOT TRUE.
These are important issues raised by the IRTA and subsequently trashed over by the ’pension bloggers’. No One is denying that. If questions arise they need to be answered. The issue in my mind is how are these questions asked and answered. It is my opinion that Fred Klonsky’s accusatory approach of ”when did it come about it and when did the IEA leadership sell us out?” Contributes to emotionalism and fear and uncertainty but not to a rational discussion of the issues (in my opinion!).
All the emailing and posting — I didn’t count but it seemed like Fred must have had a dozen posts on these supposed, alleged “revelations” about SB2404. They were caused by an amendment President Cullerton submitted shortly after the passage of SB2404 in the Senate clearing up some omissions in the bill. One part talked about retirees having to pay 100% of the cost of TRIP. That 100% language has always been part of the TRIP authorization language. We might not like it, It might make us uncomfortable but it was NOT NEW language — it was always been there (unsettling but true).
It was inadvertently left out of SB2404. President Cullerton was not trying to “sneak one past us” he was trying to mollify a few Senators who thought he had left that per-existing language out on purpose (maybe as part of an “IEA plot”!!LOL!). His amendment was aimed at alleviating another fear on the part of some Senators that a certain “funding mix” was being attempted to be placed by into the constitutional pension guarantee. He also was trying to make it clear that SB2404 added access to health care as a contractual right but not as a constitutional right.
IEA felt that added access to health care as a contractual right was a victory but knew it had never been granted constitutional status. Perhaps if the ’pension bloggers’ would have had more Springfield Capitol experience they would have known President Cullerton’s amendment was routine house keeping. The absence of a firestorm of controversy over the amendment filed days ago should have been a tip-off. The ’pension bloggers’ might be excused for overreacting but the IRTA leadership? This will be denied. But the IRTA should have known this was routine. They should have known who to ask.
All the commotion over the last few days was caused by the IRTA adding about nine words to their weekend summary of SB2404….” Access to state health insurance with the possibility of paying 100% of the premium.” Those few new words were — fueled by a ambiguous statement by the President of IRTA attempting to link The Civic Federation to this alleged “plot”. …..“It is safe to say that this amendment was revealed in committee, was discussed by Senate President John Cullerton, and was pushed by the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago and Civic Federation” – President of the IRTA.
None of that was true ….there was no secret plot……there was no “smoking gun” …..
- Bob Haisman
From IEA President Cinda Klickna on SB2404:
“There have been questions raised about language amended into SB 2404, the Cullerton-Coalition legislation. This amendment was not a surprise to the members of the labor coalition. The coalition remains committed to the passage of SB 2404. The amendment clarifies the law with regard to retiree access to health insurance through the State.
“Maintaining access to health insurance.”
“Under current law, access to state health insurance for retirees is not a vested enforceable contractual right. If SB 2404 becomes law, it would become, for the first time, an enforceable contractual right. The recent amendment is President Cullerton’s attempt to make it clear that, by making access to insurance a contractual right, SB 2404 does not make the cost of the insurance premium a contractual right. He also wanted to make it clear that while access would become a contractual right, it would not be a retirement benefit protected by the Illinois Constitution’s Pension Clause.
“No change in current law on cost
“To be clear, under current law, the legislature could vote to pass 100 percent of all health insurance costs on to retirees. If that came to pass, IEA would fight to protect the health insurance benefits of our members. In fact, there have been previous attempts to cut the state’s contribution to insurance, but intense lobbying by IEA and other organizations preserved the subsidy.
“SB 2404 is supported by IEA on the grounds that it:
· Is constitutional· Is fair to our members· Will stabilize the pension systems”-Cinda
John Dillon to Ken Previti. A translation of Klickna’s response:
A creative collection of contradictions:
“We knew about it all along.
“The law makes it clear that the state can do what it wants with refusing payment by state for health premiums.”
“Healthcare would be an enforceable contractual right (the right to pay for it all), but never any part of a permanent right via constitution.”
“But if these guys ever asked us (scratch that – demanded) that we pay for that, we’d scream holy heck after we agreed to it. It would make us look good in court while it made our constituency pay out the nose. It’s all about appearances…”
“I would promise you that this would be it, but the word ‘stabilize’ is so much more appealing and elusive, isn’t it? Can’t quite tell what that means. Can you? Maybe they’ll be back and I’ll be ‘shocked,’ or maybe they won’t. LOL.”
Courtesy: Ken Previti, John Dillon and Glen Brown.
What the IEA says about SB2404:
“Access to State-provided healthcare/insurance is currently not guaranteed by the constitution. If SB 2404 is passed, State-provided healthcare would become a vested and enforceable contractual right, a status it does not have today.”
What John Cullerton says about SB2404:
“The vested and enforceable contractual right to a program of health benefits is NOT offered as, and shall NOT be considered, a pension or retirement benefit under Article XIII, Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution, the Illinois Pension Code, or any subsequent or successor enactment providing pension benefits…”
If, as the the IEA says, nothing has changed, why did Cullerton add his amendment at the last moment to SB2404?
If nothing has changed, what are we getting as consideration for giving up our COLA?
Then in sudden shift, the IEA says SB2404 changes things by making it a vested contractual right? But Cullerton says no way. Not under the pension provision of the Constitution, the pension code or anywhere else.
Compare and Contrast. The truth about SB2404.
What the IEA says:
Choice A
- No change to 3% compounded COLA, except that COLA is subject to 2 non-consecutive 1-year freezes, and then return to 3% compounded COLA for life
- Receive retiree healthcare access
Choice B
- No change to 3% compounded COLA
- No access to state health care insurance
The reality:
“Choice” A
- The TRS COLA would continue to be 3 percent compounded annually calculated from the member’s currentpension.
- A staggered automatic two year forfeiture of the member’s COLA after the effective date of the bill.
- Access to state health insurance with the possibility of paying 100% of the premium.
“ Choice” B
- The TRS COLA would continue to be 3 percent compounded annually calculated from the member’s current pension.
- No access to state health insurance.
What Cinda Klickna doesn’t say about SB2404. Why we are not somebody else’s constituency.
Here’s is IEA President Cinda Klickna’s message to IEA members about Senate Bill 2404.
She attacks the IRTA as a “single constituency advocacy group.”
Of course, the single constituency she means are the retired members of the IEA in TRS. We are a rather important constituency when discussing pensions.
The stuff about administrators is silly.
IEA-Retired has retired administrators as well.
I was speaking at a luncheon of the IRTA last week. When I asked for a show of hands as to how many had been in the IEA or were IEA-Retired, half raised their hands. The other half had been in the IFT.
We are the same constituency, Cinda.
The real problem with this letter to members is what it doesn’t say.
There is no mention of John Cullerton’s last minute addition to SB2404 which requires retirees to pay 100% percent of their health insurance. It will more than double the cost of health care premiums to those who are already taking a two year freeze on their COLA.
Some might want to ask President Klickna and the other members of the We Are One coalition why she doesn’t mention this?
To: IEA-R Members
From: Cinda Klickna, Kathi Griffin, Al Llorens
RE: SB2404
By now you have heard about SB 2404, the pension bill negotiated and agreed to by the We Are One Coalition (WAOI), of which IEA is a member. The other members of the coalition are other public employee unions.
We would like to take this opportunity to clarify the agreement to help you understand why the coalition agreed to SB 2404.
SB 2404 is backed by IEA elected leaders, retirees
IEA leadership entered into negotiations with Senate President John Cullerton with the full approval of the IEA Board of Directors. The board’s direction to us was to negotiate, if possible, to get the best outcome for our members.
Secondly, after the details of the Cullerton-Coalition bill were made public, the IEA Retired Council reviewed the provisions and voted to approve the agreement.
We know many of you have dual memberships in both IEA-R and IRTA and have wondered why the two organizations have two different positions. We will explain.
Unions vs. single constituency advocacy groups
IRTA solely represents retired school employees, including administrators. IRTA is not a union. It is an advocacy organization for retirees.
IEA represents a much larger, far more diverse group, made up of retirees and active employees working in higher education and in k-12 education. We also represent ESPs.
We represent very few administrators.
Every day, IEA leaders are dealing with the impact of the state budget on our members; ESPs are losing jobs, k-12 employees are being RIF’d and/or taking freezes. Higher ed members have had their classes cut, affecting their take home pay.
No one can dispute that the pension systems are in financial trouble. There is simply not enough money to sustain them for the years to come.
We, as an organization, are committed to fighting to make sure both our active and retired members get their defined benefit pensions.
Constitutionality
SB 2404, the Cullerton-Coalition bill, is a choice model proposal that asks active and retired members to accept a benefit change in exchange for something of value. That concept is what gives the bill the greatest chance of being constitutional. And what retirees are getting in exchange for a two-year, non-consecutive freeze on their COLA is enforceable contractual access to state-provided healthcare.
IRTA and IEA have different views on its constitutionality.
The bill, which is 190+ pages, only became public on Monday, May 6. Immediately, IRTA claimed it had an opinion which says that that the bill is unconstitutional. And while opinions may differ as no court has directly decided the constitutionality of such a choice proposal, the IEA General Counsel, the WAOI attorneys and the Senate president’s attorney, who have had time to write and review every word of the proposal, however, have all agreed that the union-backed plan has the greatest chance of being found constitutional.
It is important to emphasize that enforceable contractual access to state-provided healthcare is not currently a contractual right.
The state could decide at any time to end access to state-provided healthcare. In addition, written into the bill is language that forces the state to fund the pensions, something they have not been required to do before, and makes that requirement a constitutional obligation.
This is the choice affecting current retirees (and Tier I Actives Already Set to Retire as of 1/1/2013)
Choice A
- No change to 3% compounded COLA, except that COLA is subject to 2 non-consecutive 1-year freezes, and then return to 3% compounded COLA for life
- Receive retiree healthcare access
Choice B
- No change to 3% compounded COLA
- No retiree healthcare access
We appreciate that retirees and actives are being asked to sacrifice, but we believe that this bill will help ensure that every IEA member will get the pension they have been promised.
We are a union. We must look out for each other.
It is regrettable that the IRTA won’t join with organized labor and support SB 2404.
As a union that is part of a labor coalition, we do not have the luxury of just saying “no” to any changes. A tremendous amount of work has gone into making sure this proposal is constitutional and fair to all.
Please tell your state Representative to VOTE “YES” on Senate Bill 2404, the Cullerton-Coalition pension bill. Stay informed about the latest developments by regularly checking the IEA website.
