Wednesday, November 1, 2017

The Continuing Demoralization of University and College Adjunct Faculty by Glen Brown



It is well known that adjunct faculty work without job security, without the benefit of healthcare, and without an ethical living wage. Most universities’ priorities are their development of building projects and technology, renovation of infrastructure, management of revenues and investments and reducing operating costs, administrative/bureaucratic positions and salaries, and athletic programs and their resources. “…The truth is that teaching is a diminishing priority in universities. Years of American Association of University Professors (AAUP) reports indicate that budgets for instruction are proportionally shrinking. Universities now devote less than one-third of their expenditures to instruction. Meanwhile, administrative positions have increased at more than 10 times the rate of tenured faculty positions. [Of course], sports and amenities are much more fun [and profitable]…” (Birmingham).  

There is no equity for adjunct instructors. Courses staffed with contingent adjunct faculty cost the same student tuition and provide the same credits staffed by tenured full-time faculty. Adjunct faculty grade compositions and tests, write recommendations and advise students, devise and develop classes, create lesson plans and course materials and improve curricula, among other unpaid responsibilities. 

There are no due process protections for adjunct faculty. There is no equal pay for equal work. There is no professional advancement. There is no equity in the lack of health insurance and retirement benefits available for adjunct faculty. There is little to no inclusion in the way higher education’s formal decision-making procedures and structures are made. Indeed, adjunct faculty are simply part-time contractors, “lecturers,” or non-essential “marginalized” hires who are disenfranchised from high-level governance and required to carry out most of the responsibilities of the full-time faculty (and sometimes at multiple institutions), but for less than one-fifth of the salary of the full-time faculty and without meaningful job security from one semester to another. “The insecure, overworked adjunct lecturers employed en masse at most institutions of higher education… have been reduced to an army of indentured wage slaves, with little or no power [and] benefits” (Giroux, “Why Teachers Matter in Dark Times”).  

“The abysmal conditions of adjunct faculty are not byproducts of an economy… They are intentional. Universities rely upon a revolving door of new [M.A.s and] PH.D.s who work temporarily for unsustainable wages before giving up and being replaced by next year’s surplus doctorates” (Birmingham).  

It is unfortunately verifiable that universities and colleges do not make long-term commitments to adjunct faculty. “Based on data from the American Community Survey, 31 percent of part-time faculty are living near or below the federal poverty line. [Moreover], according to the UC Berkeley Labor Center, one in four families of part-time faculty are enrolled in at least one public assistance program like food stamps and Medicaid or qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit” (Fredrickson). 

“Adjunct professors earned a median of $2,700 per semester-long class during the 2012-13 academic year, according to an AAUP survey of thousands of part-time faculty members. [Most adjunct faculty at Benedictine University, where I have taught part-time for 8½ years, currently earn $2,700 per semester during the 2017-18 academic year]. While varying class loads make it difficult to calculate the typical adjunct’s annual earnings, NPR reported in 2013 that the average yearly pay for [cheap contingent appointments] was between $20,000 and $25,000, and a March 2015 survey conducted by Pacific Standard among nearly 500 adjuncts found that a majority earn less than $20,000 a year from teaching…” (McKenna).  

Though it is said that this economic privation is the result of budget rationalizations, what undoubtedly exists is the perpetuation of academic, corporate welfare. Most recent data reveal that “in 2016-17, the average salary for presidents [at a typical corporatized university] was $334,617… The average salary for chief academic officers in 2016-17 was $202,048… [Conversely], the average salary for full professors in 2016–17 was $102,402; the average salary for associate professors was $79,654, and the average salary for assistant professors was $69,206. Part-time faculty members—the largest segment of the academic labor force—saw their average total pay from a single institution [at] $20,508 in 2016–17…” (“Visualizing Change: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2016-17”).

Equally demoralizing is that most full-time faculty do not sympathize with the adjunct faculty’s plight. Adjunct faculty are generally without help in their hardship. The “tenure-adjunct divide has bifurcated the faculty between the older craft producers and… [low-] waged laborers. [Privileged] tenured faculty, whatever their stated level of solidarity or sympathy for the struggles of… proletarianized academic workers may be, are reluctant to directly intervene or ally with them…” (Siegelbaum). What is more, most tenured faculty are unconcerned about the slow moral dissolution of higher education and the threats to their own security, even though these debasing administrative trends and practices persist. 


Not surprisingly, at Benedictine University where there is declining student enrollment but increasing student tuition ($33,900 a year—though only a fraction of this amount pays for college adjunct instruction), full-time tenured faculty are given priority for available classes each semester; thus, an adjunct faculty member’s originally-designed course will be dropped from the core curriculum, no matter how competent and dedicated the adjunct instructor is and respected by students. 

 Nevertheless, if the reduction of courses taught by adjunct faculty is one of Benedictine University’s severe budgetary constraints, “when contingent appointments are used, they should include job security and due process protections. Contingent faculty appointments, like all faculty appointments, should include: the full range of faculty responsibilities (teaching, scholarship, service); comparable compensation for comparable work; assurance of continuing employment after a reasonable opportunity for successive reviews; inclusion in institutional governance structures; and appointment and review processes that involve faculty peers and follow accepted academic due process. 

“The proportion of faculty appointments that are on the tenure line should be increased. This can be done by changing the status of faculty members currently holding non-tenure-track appointments. Individuals holding contingent appointments are offered tenure-eligible reappointments. Creating new tenure-line appointments. New tenure-line positions are created and open searches are held for candidates to fill them. 

“In both cases, transition to a higher proportion of tenured faculty should be accomplished primarily through attrition, retirements and, where appropriate, ‘grandfathering’ of currently contingent faculty into tenured positions. Faculty in contingent positions should not bear the cost of transition…” (Background Facts on Contingent Faculty). 

It is reprehensible that universities are becoming “increasingly oblivious to the demands of a democracy... [Universities]… disregard [their adjunct] faculty and resemble institutions governed by myopic accountants who should be ashamed of what they are proud of. The university needs to be reclaimed… where administrators… can imagine what a free and substantive democracy might look like and what it means to make education relevant to such a crucial pedagogical and political task. This could be the first step in taking back higher education as a precondition for developing a broad-based social movement for the defense of [any university’s mission for ‘Dignity and the Common Good’], one capable of both challenging the regime of casino capitalism and re-imagining a society in which democracy lives up to its promises and ideals” (Giroux, “Beyond Neoliberal Miseducation”). 

It is stated in the Benedictine University Center for Mission Identity, “[that the university’s] curriculum, policies and activities draw on the wisdom of the Church regarding ways to build a just society and live lives of holiness in the modern world. To that end, the university engages key themes of modern Catholic social teaching identified by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: life and dignity of the human person; call to family, community, and participation; rights and responsibilities; option for the poor and vulnerable; the dignity of work and the rights of workers; solidarity; and care for God's creation…” (University Mission, Vision and Commitment Statements).  

Indeed, “[f]or the [Catholic] Church, there is no distinction between defending human life and promoting the dignity of the human person. Pope Benedict XVI writes in Caritas in Veritate [Charity in Truth] that ‘The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that a society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or marginalized’” (no. 15) (Human Life and Dignity).  

Surely, flagrant indifference to the mental and physical well-being of adjunct faculty is incompatible with the adage “cura personalis” (care for the entire person). What remains to be seen at universities like Benedictine and across the nation is the rejoinder to an essential ethical question: “To what extent can universities be considered [moral and just] while engaging in practices or ideologies that run contrary to [their Mission, Vision, and Commitment Statements]? ...Catholic universities have to decide whether or not running a [consumerist/capitalist academic structure] that utilizes [and exploits their core adjunct faculty]… fundamentally contradicts Catholic teaching [and its ideals]. Adjunct pay, [their lack of benefits and precarious job security… are] not just a [Benedictine] issue — it is an industry wide issue...” (“The Fordham Ram Unfair Adjunct Wages Go Against Jesuit Values”).

-Glen Brown
Adjunct Faculty Instructor


Works Cited:

“Background Facts on Contingent Faculty.” American Association of University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts.  Accessed 26 Oct. 2017. 

Birmingham, Kevin. “The Great Shame of Our Profession.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 Feb. 2017, http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Great-Shame-of-Our/239148. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017. 

Giroux, Henry A. “Beyond Neoliberal Miseducation.” Truth-Out, 19, March 2014,  http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22548-henry-giroux-beyond-neoliberal-miseducation. Accessed 28, Oct. 2017. 

Giroux, Henry A. “Why Teachers Matter in Dark Times.” Truth-Out, 10 May 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35970-why-teachers-matter-in-dark-times. Accessed 26, Oct. 2017. 

“The Fordham Ram Unfair Adjunct Wages Go Against Jesuit Values.” Editorial. Fordhamram.com. 5 Oct. 2016, 

Fredrickson, Caroline. “There Is No Excuse for How Universities Treat Adjuncts.” The Atlantic. 15 Sept. 2015, 

“Human Life and Dignity.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/index.cfm. Accessed 25 Oct. 2017.

McKenna, Laura. “The College President-to-Adjunct Pay Ratio.” The Atlantic. 24 Sept. 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/09/income-inequality-in-higher-education-the-college-president-to-adjunct-pay-ratio/407029. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017.

Siegelbaum, Sami.  “Once More the Values of the Humanities.”  Counter Punch. 21 Oct. 2016,  https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/once-more-the-value-of-the-humanities/. Accessed 23 Oct. 2017.  

“University Mission, Vision and Commitment Statements.” Benedictine University Center for Mission Identity. http://www.ben.edu/center-for-mission-and-identity/identity/index.cfm. Accessed 25 Oct. 2017.

“Visualizing Change: The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2016-17.” American Association of University Professors. March-April 2017, https://www.aaup.org/file/FCS_2016-17_nc.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct. 2017.


This essay has been published on the following websites:

 Brown, Glen. “The Continuing Demoralization of University and College Adjunct Faculty.” Web blog post. teacherpoetmusician. 1 November 2017, https://teacherpoetmusicianglenbrown.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-continuing-demoralization-of.html
 
Facebook: “Adjunct Professors United for Justice.” 19, November 2017, https://www.facebook.com/groups/AdjunctProfsUnited/

Facebook: “Badass Teachers Association.” 15, November 2017, https://www.facebook.com/groups/BadAssTeachers/

Facebook: “The California Part-Time Faculty Association.” 27, December 2017,

Facebook: “Con Job: Stories of Adjunct and Contingent Faculty.” 19, November 2017, https://www.facebook.com/groups/conjobdoc/

Facebook: “Kalamazoo Valley Community College Federation of Teachers (KVCCFT),” 27, December 2017, https://www.facebook.com/KVCCFT/?hc_ref=ARRT75d8s6EtijiAZu-plcwTTCcqg8lCFIYol3ViJ7RqWD8-jB-rDUF7D0py_r4eOwU


Facebook: “Precariat, Contingent-Adjunct-Labor Under Siege.” 16 November 2017, https://www.facebook.com/AdjunctContingencyPlan/?hc_ref=ARTankMrSDdcmyTWGBXwmEo-W6MV3Wa54YEp9DLsxClNHpOULFe9Xz__So4qgQF5Qcw

 Facebook: “Precarious Faculty.” 22 January 2018,

Facebook: “Remaking the University.” 16, November 2017, https://www.facebook.com/groups/RemakingtheUniversity/

Facebook: “Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor.” 16, November 2017, https://www.facebook.com/groups/217153971653241/

Substance News: “Adjunct Faculty Exploited… The Continuing Demoralization of the University and College Adjunct Faculty,” 23 November 2017, http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=6839&section=Article




Posted by at 18 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

From Attorney John Fitzgerald’s Power-Point Presentation at the IRTA Biennial Convention on October 30, 2017



Kanerva v. Weems: Health Insurance Benefits Are Protected
•       This was a constitutional challenge to an amendment to the State Employees Group Insurance Act which reduced State contributions toward health insurance costs for retired public pension system members and their survivors.
•       The Court held that this amendment was unconstitutional.
•       The Pension Protection Clause protects more than the pension annuity.  It protects all “benefits” of membership in a pension system, including health insurance benefits.
•       If there is any doubt about the scope of a constitutional protection for pension rights, those doubts are resolved in favor of the pensioner.

Kanerva and your health insurance benefits
•       In Kanerva, the Supreme Court ruled that the Pension Protection Clause protects not only pension annuities but also “health insurance subsidies.”  (Kanerva, par. 49.)
•       In Kanerva, the Supreme Court invalidated amendments to the State Employees Group Insurance Act that “altered the State’s obligation to contribute toward the cost” of coverage by increasing retirees’ premiums and reducing the State’s contributions.  (Kanerva, par. 12-13.)  Importantly, the amendments challenged in Kanerva didn’t abolish a health insurance program.  They just made the benefits more expensive and pushed more costs onto retirees.

Doris Heaton v. Pat Quinn: Crisis is no excuse to violate the Constitution
•       The IRTA’s own Doris Heaton and Pamela Keller were plaintiffs in this challenge to Senate Bill 1.
•       Senate Bill 1 reduced automatic annuity increases (AAIs), placed caps on pensionable salaries, increased the retirement age and made other changes that diminished pensions.
•       The Court unanimously ruled that Senate Bill 1 was unconstitutional.
•       “The General Assembly may find itself in crisis, but it is a crisis which other public pension systems managed to avoid and . . . it is a crisis for which the General Assembly itself is largely responsible.” 
•       “Crisis is not an excuse to abandon the rule of law.  It is a summons to defend it.”

Jones v. Municipal Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago
•       The Supreme Court unanimously invalidated other amendments to the Pension Code that were similar to the amendments contained in Senate Bill 1, but which affected members of a public pension fund for City of Chicago municipal employees.
•       Take home lesson:  It means nothing that a union gives political support to legislation affecting pension rights, if that support did not result from collective bargaining.

Matthews v. CTA: Collective bargaining does not bind retirees
•       The Supreme Court held that constitutionally protected pension rights can be waived through collective bargaining.
•       But collective bargaining does not bind retirees.
•       The plaintiff in the Matthews case who was already retired when changes to pension rights were approved in collective bargaining was not bound by that decision and kept his pre-existing pension rights.

City of Harvey Firefighters Pension Fund Case: First court ruling that mandates funding
•       The Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Pension Protection Clause guarantees benefits but does not require any particular level of funding -- unless a pension fund is on the verge of default or imminent funding.
•       For the first time, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a public pension system was on the verge of default and mandated a certain level of funding. 
•       See Board of Trustees of City of Harvey Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. City of Harvey, 2017 IL App (1st) 153074 (August 4, 2017).
•       As of May 2015, Harvey had 47 active firefighters and 67 retirees or beneficiaries.
•       2005-2013: The City was required to contribute about $11.6 million to the fund, but only contributed $1.4 million.  During that time, the fund paid $13.6 million to beneficiaries. 
•       The fund was only 27.18% funded as of May 1, 2014.  By comparison, TRS has a funded ratio of 39.8% and its fiduciary net position is 36.4% of total pension liability.  (See TRS Annual Financial Report for FY ending 6/30/16.)
•       Experts testified the fund would go bust in approximately 5 years. Harvey, an economically distressed city of 25,000, offered no plan to solve the problem.
•       The trial court judge said Harvey’s situation was a “sort of microcosm of what’s going on with the pensions throughout the state.”
•       Appellate Court: “In essence, Harvey is robbing Peter to pay Paul, but what happens when Peter retires?”
•       The Appellate Court affirmed an order requiring the City to:
•       pay the Fund about $11.6 million;
•       comply with statutory funding formula; and
•       annually approve a line-item property tax levy ordinance for the benefit of the fund.

City of Harvey: The Bottom Line
•       This area of law is developing rapidly. 
•       The Courts are taking their constitutional role very seriously.
•       We must continue to carefully monitor the fiscal health of TRS and also monitor the development of this area of law.
•       The State should be on notice that funding can be mandated by court order.  
Future Challenges: Threats to Health Insurance Benefits
•       The current governor, the previous governor and our legislative leaders have repeatedly taken aim at your health insurance benefits.
•       Our Supreme Court stopped similar efforts in Kanerva v. Weems.
•       This is where the fight to protect your pension rights will likely continue.

The path forward
•       For the reasons explained in Kanerva, we believe any attempt to take away your health insurance benefits will ultimately fail. 
•       We are ready, willing and able to fight any further efforts through litigation if necessary. 
•       “Crisis is not an excuse to abandon the rule of law. It is a summons to defend it. How we respond is the measure of our commitment to the principles of justice we are sworn to uphold.”  (Heaton v. Quinn, par. 87.)
•       You should be proud of how your Association has responded and will continue to respond to the crisis.



Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, October 30, 2017

Fred Klonsky’s Notes on Attorney John Fitzgerald’s Speech at the IRTA


“Fitzgerald pointed to four legal cases: Kanerva v. Weems, Heaton v. Quinn (Yes. THAT Quinn), Jones v. the Municipal Employees Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago and Matthews v. the Chicago Transit Authority.

“What were the significant legal conclusions of each as they concerned the pension protection clause, Article XIII, Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution which states that benefits are a contractual obligation that cannot be diminished or impaired?

“With Kanerva v. Weems, the court established the principle that protected benefits went beyond annuities and included such things as health insurance benefits.

“With Heaton v. Quinn the court confirmed that a crisis, particularly one created by the state, is not an excuse to violate the constitution. ‘It is a summons to defend it,’ wrote the court in its unanimous opinion.

“With Jones v. the MEABF of Chicago, the court said that it means nothing that a union gives political support to legislation reducing pension rights if that result does not result from collective bargaining and a vote of the members.

“In Matthews v. the CTA, the court wrote that constitutionally-protected benefit rights can be waived through collective bargaining but cannot be retroactively applied to those already retired.

“While the 1970 Constitution does protect pension benefits, it is less clear on how the benefits are to be funded. Fitzgerald explained that those at the convention discussed it, but they did not anticipate the degree to which the politicians of the state would allow the funding to be diverted. They believed that action would be taken before a system would go into default.

“But what constitutes default? Fitzgerald pointed to the case of the City of Harvey and the Harvey Firefighters Pension Fund. In that case, the pension fund was only 27% funded, and actuaries anticipated it would go belly up within five years.

“An appellate court judge ruled in summary judgment that this constituted impending default and ordered the City of Harvey to implement a time-line levy to make the pension system whole.

“Some have wondered what might happen if the state pension funds were to go into default. Fitzgerald believes the Harvey Fire-fighters’ case gives us some clues.

“In that case the judge found that there is a legal threshold for what constitutes default. In spite of what Governor Rauner has suggested, Congress cannot amend the state constitution and eliminate the pension protection clause. The pension debt must be paid. The legislature can do it. If it refuses to act on their legal and moral obligation, a court can and will order it done.

“To those who have threatened state bankruptcy, as happened with the City of Detroit, Fitzgerald argued that bankruptcy cannot be applied to just one debt, like the pension debt. Bankruptcy is applied to all debts. And states cannot file bankruptcy anyway as long as they have the power to raise revenue.

“These were my notes. I am not an attorney. If I did not represent John Fitzgerald’s presentation with perfect accuracy, I apologize. That’s why they make the big bucks”—Fred Klonsky. 

Commentary:

2014   Kanerva v. Weems (July 3):

The Pension Protection Clause makes it “clear that if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired… [The State of Illinois or anyone else] may not rewrite the Pension Protection Clause to include restrictions and limitations that the drafters did not express and the citizens of Illinois did not approve... [P]ension benefits are insulated from diminishment or impairment by the General Assembly…” (Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 IL 115811).

“…Under Kanerva, it is clear that the Illinois Constitution protects pension and retirement benefits from the diminishments and impairments that the Act imposes, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to their benefits without any diminishment or impairment from the respective State retirement systems. The very purpose of the Pension Protection Clause was to constitutionally guarantee the payment of pension and retirement benefits, to remove from the General Assembly the power to impair or diminish those pension benefits, and to eliminate the very argument that the defendants raise by their affirmative defense. There can be no ‘reserved sovereign power’ to do something that the Illinois Constitution expressly prohibits…” (from Update for Pension Lawsuit: Motion Filed Today, August 21st, in the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Sangamon County, Illinois).

“Applying this constitutional rule, our courts have repeatedly invalidated amendments to the Illinois Pension Code that would change the calculation of a pension system member’s pensionable salary so as to diminish that member’s pension benefits. In Heaton, the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated legislation which, among other things, ‘cap[ped] the maximum salary that may be considered when calculating the amount of a member’s retirement annuity.’ Heaton 2015 IL 118585, ¶ 27 (describing P.A. 98-0599) (Lawyer and Lobbyist Eric M. Madiar Believes Cullerton's Senate Bill Is Permissible/Lawyers Gino L. DiVito and John M. Fitzgerald Disagree).
  

2015   MARY J. JONES et al., Appellees, v. MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ ANNUITY & BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO et al., Appellants (March 24):

“…In this case, it is undisputed that the unions were not acting as authorized agents within a collective bargaining process. Thus, we need not resolve whether the vote taken by union representatives as expressed in the Brandon affidavit bound members of the Funds in a collective bargaining process. Rather, we agree with the trial court that ‘these negotiations were no different than legislative advocacy on behalf of any interest group supporting collective interests to a lawmaking body.’ The individual members of the Funds have done nothing that could be said to have unequivocally assented to the new terms or to have ‘bargained away’ their constitutional rights. Accordingly, nothing in the legislative process that led to the enactment of the Act constituted a waiver of the Funds members’ constitutional rights under the pension protection clause… The judgment of the circuit court declaring Public Act 98-641 to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoining its enforcement is affirmed.”

“[Furthermore, consider that] in the context of the collective bargaining process for public employees, employees designate a particular union as their exclusive agent for collective bargaining negotiations. See 5 ILCS 315/6 (West 2014). The cases that defendants rely upon to support a bargained-for exchange argument involved agreements reached through the collective bargaining process. See Ballentine v. Koch, 674 N.E.2d 292, 296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996) (“[B]ecause plaintiffs designated the PBA as their agent for the collective bargaining negotiations at issue here and were thus bound by its actions taken on their behalf during the negotiation process [citation], the PBA’s waiver of the constitutional protections of [New York’s pension protection clause] is valid as to plaintiffs ***.”); Schacht v. City of New York, 346 N.E.2d 518, 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976) (“Plaintiff, having designated the union to be her agent for collective bargaining purposes, is bound by agreements made by that union on her behalf”)…” (Jones v. Municipal Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund, Circuit Court). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the decision on March 24, 2016: (Jones v. Municipal Employees' Annuity &Benefit Fund, 2016 IL 119618).

2015   Doris Heaton, et al. v. Pat Quinn, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Illinois, et al. (May 8):

“…The concerns of the delegates who drafted article XIII, section 5, and the citizens who ratified it have proven to be well founded. Even with the protections of that provision, the General Assembly has repeatedly attempted to find ways to circumvent its clear and unambiguous prohibition against the diminishment or impairment of the benefits of membership in public retirement systems. Public Act 98-599 is merely the latest assault in this ongoing political battle against public pension rights. As we noted earlier, through that legislation the General Assembly is attempting to do once again exactly what the people of Illinois, through article XIII, section 5, said it has no authority to do and must not do… The judgment of the circuit court declaring Public Act 98-599 to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoining its enforcement is affirmed” (Heaton v. Quinn, 2015 IL 118585).

“…As the Illinois Supreme Court has explained, ‘once an individual begins work and becomes a member of a public retirement system, any subsequent changes to the Pension Code that would diminish the benefits conferred by membership in the retirement system cannot be applied to that individual.’ In re Pension Reform Litigation (Heaton v. Quinn), 2015 IL 118585, ¶ 46; see also Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 IL 115811, ¶ 38; Jones v. Municipal Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 2016 IL 119618, ¶¶ 36-47. 


2016  JERRY MATTHEWS et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al. (Retirement Plan for Chicago Transit Authority Employees et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees) (May 5):

“…[A] contract right becomes vested when the employee has fulfilled all of the necessary qualifications and obligations for enjoyment of the right, [as in the case of retirees]. Lawrence, 152 Ill. App. 3d at 197-98 (quoting Kulins, 121 Ill. App. 3d at 525-27); see also Navlet v. Port of Seattle, 194 P.3d 221, 237 (Wash. 2008) (en banc)… Where all of the requisite specifications for the present or future enjoyment of a right have been achieved, the right is considered to be vested…” Black’s Law Dictionary 1699 (9th ed. 2009). (qtd. in Matthews v. CTA, 2016 IL 117638).

Can the Unions and the Illinois General Assembly Bargain Away Constitutionally-Guaranteed Benefits through Consideration for Retirees? The answer is unequivocally NO regarding retirees. Retirees are not part of the collective bargaining process, only active employees are. However, some people believe that the Illinois Supreme Court had suggested that a consideration supported by collective bargaining for current employees is a possibility (Matthews v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2016 IL 117638). 

Some people believe that a legitimate consideration means not diminishing an already existing constitutionally-guaranteed benefit. I am one of those people; however, my strongest beliefs have always been based upon moral perspectives reinforced by the most current legal analyses.


-Glen Brown


Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)