Fred,
We
both remember there was a plethora of union members (that the unions’
leadership did not acknowledge at the time of Senate Bill 2404 3 ½ years ago)
who did not support a decision to cut their benefits and rights already
guaranteed by the State and U.S. Constitutions.
Senate
Bill 2404 “attempt[ed] to extract a pretense of agreement from individual
public employees and retirees to the reduction of their vested pension
rights...; [SB 2404] force[d] a retiree to choose between pension rights and
health care coverage. [This] rested upon an assumption that the State ha[d] an
unlimited right to exclude a public employee or retiree from participation in a
health insurance program…”
Though
you and I and a few others had warned the IEA at the time not to negotiate its
members’ rights and benefits, the We Are One Illinois Labor Coalition’s
acquiescence to modify retirees’ and public employees’ rights and benefits in
May, 2013 was an example of the leaderships’ foolishness and inexcusable
capitulation of their members’ constitutional guaranteed rights and benefits.
Though
“rights may be modified via legitimate contract principles” (or by what is
commonly called consideration), we must insist that the leadership of the We
Are One Coalition will never exchange for reductions originally-vested
benefits assured by the Illinois Constitution.
We must also insist that the IEA pronouncement made a few years ago, “…Going forward, our union coalition repeats our longstanding commitment to work with anyone of good faith to develop a fair and constitutional solution to fund the state’s retirement systems,” means unequivocally a re-amortization of the pension debt and reform and modernization of the state’s regressive single-rate tax structure to sufficiently address the funding of the public retirement systems and the state's vital services.
“To
work with anyone of good faith” on the State of Illinois’ revenue and debt
problems is what the union membership expects, but without reckless concessions
and compromise. Your comments and concerns.
-Glen
Glen,
As
a union member my entire working life, I believe in bargaining and
negotiating. Because of that, some might wonder why I agree with you that
the IEA leadership must never be allowed to bargain our pension benefits.
I
believe it was at the Illinois Education Association’s 2010 Representative
Assembly that I as a delegate rose to the microphone and opposed then-IEA
President Ken Swanson’s proposal to allow leadership flexibility in negotiating
pension reform with Michael Madigan and the Democrats.
Previously,
IEA lobbyists were basically forbidden to even talk about pension changes with
legislators. But Swanson won the vote. A week later Michael Madigan - having
received our signal of flexibility - pushed through in 12 hours a bill that
created Tier 2. Tier 2 meant that after January 1, 2011 new teachers would have
to work longer to receive a pension and receive 60% less upon retirement. And
it served to further undermine the financial stability of the pension systems.
Negotiating
and bargaining require tactics that flow from principles. Years ago the IEA
laid out three principles for pension reform:
1.
Any changes to pension benefits must be constitutional.
2.
Any changes cannot be allowed to undermine the financial stability of the
pension systems.
3.
Any changes must benefit all the members.
I
believe that the bargaining and negotiating process must allow for tactical
flexibility. But tactics are never just tactics. Tactics and
principles are tightly bound together.
When
the IEA leadership sacrificed new teachers to Tier 2, they violated their
principles by sacrificing young teachers and young members of the union. When
they agreed to SB 2404, they sacrificed retired members as well as the interest
of current members.
How
can they be trusted in the future to bargain tactically based on their
own principles?
Trust
in leadership requires three elements:
1.
Leaders must be empathetic. They must keep the interests of the entire
membership in mind.
2.
Leaders must be competent. They must be counted on to be good at what they do.
3.
Leaders must adhere to principles. They must be considered reliable to do what
they have promised.
How
do current IEA leaders measure up?
As
I pointed out, they sold out young teachers, current members, and retired
members. They totally misjudged Madigan and the legislature in allowing
them to bargain Tier 2. Their tactics violated their own principles.
They
can't be relied upon to do what they promise. That is why we warn IEA members
not to allow those who claim to lead to sit at the table and bargain
consideration. The current IEA leadership cannot be trusted to bargain and
negotiate anything to do with our pension benefits.
For
that we would need not just new leaders, we would need an entirely different
kind of leaders.
-Fred
Fred,
No
doubt, the IEA leadership has had a poor track record for years. It was the IEA
that gave us the flawed “Pension Ramp” (Public Act 88-0593) signed into law in
1995 that exacerbated the unfunded liability.
The
current IEA leadership “proudly supported” Senate Bill 7 that was signed into
law in June 2011, the bill that ensured that teachers’ evaluations and their
tenure were tied to the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (Public Act 96-0861),
the bill that ensured a so-called “streamlined process for the dismissal of
teacher tenure,” the bill that required an authorization of 75% for a strike vote
in Chicago, to name just a few absurdities that confront today's teachers.
I
am sure you remember the Representative Assembly in April of 2015. The IEA
never talked about strategies for after the Supreme Court ruling -- no plan on
how to proceed in protecting our pensions again and battling the privatization
of public schools; no discussion about pushing the issue of a progressive
income tax again or preventing the possibility of the state transferring the
normal costs (to pensions) to school districts; no strategies were debated for
dealing with a despotic governor and his right-to-work agenda and vehement
attacks on unions; no thoughts about promoting a progressive candidate early on
for governor for the next election to avoid supporting another ALEC candidate
and a politician who signed the so-called pension reform bill; no tactics were
discussed for engaging the many liars and thieves of the Illinois General
Assembly, the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Civic
Federation, the Illinois Policy Institute, and the biased media... I agree with
you, Fred, categorically.
-Glen
Glen,
Thanks
for bringing up Senate Bill 7.
If
you remember it was my blog that exposed the alliance between the corporate
reform group Stand for Children and both the state’s teacher unions in drafting
the bill that destroyed seniority, tenure and linked teacher evaluation to
individual student performance on standardized tests like PARCC.
I
posted a video from the Aspen Institute where Stand for Children’s Jonah
Edelman praised IEA Executive Director Audrey Soglin for supporting Value
Added Measures and other corporate education reforms. The video went
viral.
It
was Audrey Soglin that drafted the law that brought the Performance Evaluation
Reform Act to Illinois (PERA). She put the jobs of thousands of teachers at
risk because as veteran teachers they could be easily replaced by cheaper,
less-experienced teachers. Unfortunately, Soglin remains as Executive Director
of the IEA.
This
goes back to the matter of trust. Where is the empathy? The competence? The
adherence to principles?
Glen.
Do you recall when the Supreme Court of Illinois issued their decision
upholding the pension protection clause? One of the points that the court made
was that if the state could use police powers to seize our pensions by
declaring an emergency that the state itself created, no one’s rights or
property was safe from similar confiscation.
So
it is with that we are able to connect the dots of the IEA leadership’s role on
pension reform, teacher seniority, collective bargaining, and education reform.
Most
recently, the IEA’s political arm, IPACE, endorsed Governor Rauner’s GOP Senate
Leader Christine Radogno for re-election. I tell you, Glen. On the one hand, I
don’t envy the young teachers coming into the profession and into the union
today. On the other hand, I wish I was still a young man in the thick of the
fight.
-Fred
A Case in Point: IEA-NEA Proposed legislative Platform Amendment #2, April 17, 2015
ReplyDeleteThe Association also remains opposed to any unconstitutional changes to the laws governing retirement benefits that diminish or impair current members’ benefits. However, the Association supports any proposal that otherwise creates fair, practical, and constitutional solutions which sustain the long term viability of the pension systems.
Proposed Language Changes to the above Decree:
The Association opposes any diminishment or impairment of the pension benefits for current and future members.
Rationale for the one sentence revision (submitted by ShiAnne Shively and seconded by Tim Allaire):
Senate Bill 1 is currently in the courts and hopefully will be ruled as unconstitutional. This change removes any ambiguity and clarifies what the IEA will oppose.
Unfortunately, the proposed changes to the wording was struck down by the majority of delegates of the IEA-RA Assembly (and to the delight of the IEA president) without thorough discussion. It took a calculated political manipulation by an ex-IEA president against the proposed legislative platform amendment, the IEA members' failure to remember any of the aforementioned IEA supported agreements in the past, and an outright fabrication by the IEA's lawyer meant to instill fear and doubt to make sure the majority of the IEA delegates voted against the new unequivocal language that was proposed in amendment #2.