It is expected that that political opportunists who have no legal or moral concerns (besides their own) will break contracts.
“One of the key unions in the We Are One Illinois bloc, AFSCME Council 31, said it would not favor the idea of pairing the two plans together so that if Madigan’s approach failed a court challenge, the Senate, union-negotiated plan would be the backup.
“There is a plan that has been developed with our union and others, and it has passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support. That’s [Senate Bill] 2404. It’s not easy for us to agree to the compromise embodied in that bill,’ AFSCME spokesman Anders Lindall told the Chicago Sun-Times.
The legality of a two-part bill: Click here.
“[Any] attempt to denigrate the validity of decades of judicial precedents about the binding nature of legislation establishing pension commitments to government employees and to motivate state courts to overturn long-settled premises about these commitments would impose its own, unjustifiable costs. The states and their instrumentalities have promised pension benefits to their employees; those employees have relied on those long-standing promises; and as a result the citizens of the states have benefited from the services provided by those employees.
“There is no sound public policy reason to conclude that promises – based on the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties – should not be fully protected by the laws prohibiting or limiting the impairment of contracts” (Greenfield, Douglas L., Lahne, Susan G. (2012). How Much Can States Change Existing Retirement Policy? In Defense of State Judicial Decisions Protecting Public Employees’ Pensions. National Council of State Legislatures Legislative Summit) ("The Illinois Constitution [should] impede pension reform").