Cullerton’s pension bill. Something so bad even the Governor likes it.

Screen Shot 2016-01-22 at 7.13.23 AM

Let us not forget that the Cullerton pension bill that the Governor agreed to yesterday was SB2404. That was the “good pension theft” that the IEA and the We Are One coalition of state public employee unions agreed to in a cynical and hapless attempt to stop Madigan’s SB1.

The Governor tried to add his anti-union turnaround plan to SB2404. He surely knew that wasn’t going anywhere.

His eyes are on the next election.

Yet, think about this: The pension plan our union leadership bargained is now agreeable to the Governor.

They are all running away from it now.

This is what we said at the time:

“SB 2404 is an attempt to circumvent the “Pension Clause” by giving retirees and public employees a “choice” or “new consideration” to impair their own contract for a precarious state guarantee.”

For saying this we were attacked by the state union leadership and their toadies as anti-union.

Yesterday on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight I heard Elaine Nekritz defend the pension protection clause, Skokie’s State Representative Lou Lang saying the state must “pay up,” and the We Are One coalition distancing themselves from their very own SB2404 (pension theft light).

I guess we can thank the Governor for that, even if it is small favors.

11 Replies to “Cullerton’s pension bill. Something so bad even the Governor likes it.”

  1. Fred it isn’t 2404 it was more like Cullertons ramblings on a post kanerva New version . This idea was not to count any pay raises toward the pension so it has no effect on current or really the soon to be retired. Rauner then added the vs on collective bargaining making this another stunt which makes him look to all mentally unstable.The only threat to existing retirees is from the AFSCMe lockout when he could try to violate Kanerva on retiree healthcare and don’t worry our unions will sue.

    1. Of course it doesn’t include current retirees since the court precluded that. But it is 2404 in how it makes an end run around the concept of consideration.

  2. Elaine Nekritz defended the pension protection clause??? Is she sincere or is she still a rattlesnake? Unlike a leopard that can’t change its spots, a rattlesnake does shed its skin… Hmmm… but retains its fangs and venom.

    1. Elaine Nekritz, of Nekritz-Biss and Associates, “The Pension Theft Experts”, was involved in both 2402 and SB1. It appears even she has accepted the Illinois Supreme Court decision that unanimously threw out her public pension theft law. We should keep close watch on what she does though, rattlesnakes can sit still for a long time and then suddenly attack again!

  3. Worry if you have not retired or wont retire this year. Also worry if you are a retiree whose health insurance is tied to the AFSCME contract. Rauner is going to double premiums and co pays when he forces his final offer. While the 20 year retirees wont have to pay he may try to force them in a lesser plan and that will be in court along with other probably illegal stuff he has or will do. This affects all SERS and most SURS. Rauner will try to stick all these fake savings in his unconstitutional budget plan. ……Constitution requires he submits a balanced budget. Ther is plenty to impeach him on now but the dems appear to be willing to put us through this crap and that is What is really hurting the state…we look crazy with one crazy gov after another.
    The stupid cullerton consideration plan is part of this but its more a wat to attack collective bargaining. Madigan lost big on pension theft .I think he did it to get a large pot of money now…..Cullertons schemes dont do that so Madigan cant get any gain out of it. Rauners make belive world can get a billion a year so it hasno effect on the 2016 to 2017 budget…the income tax must come back. Anyway this last part is my speculation. The first part is who needs to worry now.

  4. Dear Fred,

    The latest effort at so called “pension reform” is all about dealing with unfunded liability in the state’s pension systems by taking away pension benefits from current state employees. However, the lawsuits that established benefit protections at the time of hiring might not be the only protection state workers could claim for these benefits. A protection that could nullify any so called “consideration” arguments.

    I seem to remember that in the Supreme Court opinion about Senate Bill 1 it was mentioned that it was unconstitutional (under the U.S. Constitution) to single out one group of citizens and force them to pay a debt that really should be paid by all citizens. (I guess it is probably an equal protection issue.)

    Shouldn’t that principle apply no matter HOW the government tries to force that one group to pay? Taxes are but one of many ways a cost can be shifted.

    Could a case be made in Federal court that one group of citizens (state workers) is being singled out by the State of Illinois General Assembly and Governor to pay this debt, which was incurred for the benefit of all state citizens?

    Every discussion of “pension reform” seems to begin with an admonition that the state has an “unsustainable debt” that must be addressed. The entire effort of so called “pension reform” seems to be to force state workers alone (through pension benefit reductions) to pay a debt all citizens should be paying (the unfunded liability).

    Pension benefit reductions forced upon state workers to try to reduce this debt (which was incurred on behalf of all state citizens) might well fit that “unconstitutional” criteria described by the court. Should state workers “pay down the debt” through reduced benefits, while everyone else pays nothing? Seems like unequal treatment to me.

    Something for our overlords in Springfield to consider as they look for ways to try to weasel out of their debts to us.

  5. The City made similar consideration arguments in its pension case before the Illinois Supreme Court. watched the videotape of oral argument and the justices weren’t buying it. Decision should be coming soon. Hope it nips this theft scheme in the bud.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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