Rahm is not waiting for the courts to decide. He announces an unconstitutional agreement.


When I spoke with my State Senator Iris Martinez last November about her vote on pension theft, her answer was a strange one.

“I’m against the bill, but I’m voting for it. We should let the courts decide.”

Senate Bill 1 passed. Unions and organizations representing the state’s public employees and retirees have filed suit. Those suits have all been consolidated and will be heard in Sangamon County which is Springfield. No injunction is anticipated. The law will go into effect this summer and is expected to be heard by the Illinois Supreme Court in about a year.

You would think that any other attempts to contradict the pension protection clause of the Illinois Constitution would be put on pause until the courts decide.

You would think that. But you would be wrong.

Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel is not waiting for any stinkin’ court. Apparently Rahm and some city unions have come to a pension agreement to cut pension benefits.

But there remains no agreement with the city’s fire, police or teachers union.

In a statement, the We Are One Chicago union coalition said the framework is “an unconstitutional approach that makes onerous cuts to the pension benefits of nearly 50,000 active and retired public servants.”

Three of the biggest unions in Chicago are not part of this framework: police, fire and teachers. The police and fire unions stand to get a nearly $600 million increase in their pension payments next year.


6 Replies to “Rahm is not waiting for the courts to decide. He announces an unconstitutional agreement.”

  1. If unions agree is it still unconstitutional?
    I understand that park district union were said to agree but when the pension change was revealed union said they did not agree and we’re said to sue. Any updates on that situation?

  2. Agreed that it’s interesting that there’s no stay/injunction. Have to wonder why, especially if the decision might not be until next year after the time frame another COLA under the old law could be dispensed. Have to wonder if this lack of an injunction a common legal procedure or politics being played out Too bad the decision probably won’t come down before November’s elections. If the Supremes were to rule prior to the election, depending on the decision, it could have major ramifications on election results. I’d hate to think that the timing of the decision is intentional–guess my paranoia has been enhanced by pension politics!

  3. On the one hand, SB1 said the pensions were not subject to collective bargaining. (We can’t go on strike about pension theft).
    Yet the legislators think it is OK for them to say “we talked to the union, therefore it has been agreed to on your behalf.”
    Contradictory right from the get-go. Unless the judges are crooked, I don’t see how this will survive the court challenge.

  4. Its interesting that the only source of revenue that Rahm talks about is raising property taxes. What about a percentage of a
    Chicago casino profits. Or better yet, a very small tax on every transaction at the Chicago Board of Trade. Didn’t we give them a break to stay in Chicago? I don’t think a penny tax on every transaction is going to keep them from making millions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s