Quality of Life Training Session

Local 1001 has worked in conjunction with the City of Chicago to offer another opportunity for all Sanitation Laborers and General Laborers. The Department of Streets and Sanitation will be conducting Quality of Life qualification training sessions at the Laborer’s Training Center in August. Please see the flyer below and if interested make sure to sign up no later than July 25, 2018. 2018 Quality of Life Training Sign up

IT’S LOCAL 1001 SCHOLARSHIP TIME

To be eligible for these scholarship awards applicants must be children of members in good standing of Laborers’ Local 1001, and enrolled in an accredited college or university undergraduate program in the fall semester of 2018.

Only one entry per student applicant and one scholarship will be awarded per family.

All information will be verified prior to awarding a scholarship.

You can fill out the application on our app or by submitting a paper copy that has been mailed to all eligible union members.

3 ways unions can stay strong after Janus ruling

Chicago Sun-Times

Ahighly politicized conservative Supreme Court majority in Janus v. AFSCME Illinois has fulfilled the goal of wealthy corporate interests and struck a blow against government workers’ collective interest in fair and productive working conditions.

In a 5- 4 decision, the court found that collectively bargained “fair share” fees in the public sector are unconstitutional. The outcome of this action may reduce public sector union membership nationally by more than 700,000, annually cost workers $ 1,800 in earnings and shrink gross domestic product by $ 33 million. So what happens now? Here are three ways that unions are attempting to convert retrenchment into renewal:

First, unions are having a genuine internal conversation on what union membership demands. Each of the public sector unions directly in the line of Janus’ fire has held one- on- one meetings with their membership. This mission involves a commitment to constantly reach out to the rank and file and cease relying on the union security clause to maintain a level of stability. The objective is to build sustainable workplace labor organizations that are not creatures of political machinations or judicial interpretations. This is old school labor organizing.

Second, in perhaps a harbinger of things to come from states where labor has some political influence, New York recently amended its state public employee’s law. It allows public employee unions to deny representation to nonmembers in any disciplinary cases as well as any legal, economic or job related services beyond those provided in the collective bargaining agreement, without violating the duty to fair representation. The court majority opinion endorsed this approach by stating that individual “nonmembers could be required to pay for the [ grievance] service or could be denied union representation altogether.” In a footnote, Justice Samuel Alito cited a California labor relations law as an example. Other states including Oregon, Hawaii, New Jersey and Florida have passed or are considering postJanus measures. Illinois could do the same.

Third, it is not coincidental that the legislative and legal challenges to public employee unionism have coincided with an equally draconian diminishment of public services. As a result, revenue has drained from public budgets, leading to devastating government cuts to services, underfunding of education, surging inequality and the scapegoating of public sector workers.

In this environment, the very substance of bargaining in the public sector has to be re- conceptualized. Instead of a union bargaining as merely an economic agent for the financial good of its members, it must reorient contract negotiations around the public interest, with the union bargaining on behalf of the community and fighting for the services it needs. Unlike conventional transactional labor- management relations, the bargaining demands are broad and inclusive. Most important, unions are able to transform the aim of bargaining into advocacy for the common good.

Janus may shrink the resources available to effectuate public sector collective bargaining, but it cannot prevent citizens and workers from finding a common voice. Contrarily, the decision is a powerful inducement to give fresh meaning to a cliched belief that “an injury to one is an injury to all.”

A short summary of what happened in Janus….

LIFE AFTER JANUS: Public employee unions were dealt an entirely expected but nonetheless massive blow Wednesday when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Janus v. AFSCME that they may no longer collect mandatory “fair share” or “agency” fees from non-members to cover their portion of the cost of collective bargaining. The court ruled broadly for the plaintiffs, requiring the unions to adopt an “opt in” system to join up and pay dues rather than merely allowing workers to opt out of doing so. “Nobody out there is going to be paying money to a public sector union unless they affirmatively want to,” said Charlotte Gardner, a law professor at Seattle University.

Plaintiff Mark Janus and his lawyers say their next step is to ensure that the ruling is implemented. “We’re going to have make sure states and unions respect this decision,” said Jacob Huebert, a lawyer for Mark Janus from the Liberty Justice Center. “If they’re imposing unfair unconstitutional barriers, we’ll be prepared to challenge that in court.” AFSCME President Lee Saunders said on a phone call with reporters that the union was ready to make “the necessary adjustments” to fee collection.

Does Janus invite future challenges to unions? In his decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that designating any union an exclusive workplace representative “substantially restricts the rights of individual employees” and was “a significant impingement on associational freedoms that would not be tolerated in other contexts.” Alito, Garden said, may be seeding the ground for plaintiffs who might wish to challenge the constitutionality of exclusive bargaining rights.

We’ve been here before.. Back in 2012, the conservative justice questioned the legality of fair-share fees, writing in Knox v. Service Employees that “acceptance of the free-rider argument as a justification for compelling non-members to pay a portion of union dues represents something of an anomaly” and that enrolling workers automatically in unions unless they opted out “represents a remarkable boon to unions.” Alito quoted repeatedly from Knox in yesterday’s case. “Janus isn’t the first time that Alito has opined on the viability of Abood ,” said Sharon Block, a former Obama DOL official now working at Harvard University. “He put that marker down before. I think you have take him very seriously.”

The planned retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, and his likely replacement by a more conservative jurist, only increases the likelihood of future legal challenges to labor rights. “Alito is playing a little bit of a long game here,” said Dan Epps, former clerk to Justice Kennedy and now associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “He seems quite hostile to unions generally.”

A Message from Your Business Manager

Good afternoon my brothers and sisters, today the Supreme Court just ruled in favor of Mark Janus vs AFSCME which effectively made all public employees in this country right to work. We have one advantage we already possess all the work rules benefits that they are trying to accomplish in right to work states all we have to do is stick together and stay together and we will be fine, thank you.

Sincerely

James Ellis

Business Manager Local 1001

The beginning of the end or just a new beginning?

The Janus decision is in and as expected it puts Public Employee Unions back 40 plus years, to say the least. Most of us have known for months that this day was coming but we have tried to stay optimistic and hope for the best. Well the best won’t do today.

I find myself asking this question, is this really the beginning of the end or just a new beginning?

The more I think about it, and trust me there have been plenty of sleepless nights that I’ve had plenty of time to think about it, the more I believe it truly is the latter.

We have been through this before as an International, as a District Council and even as a Local Union.

Our history as a Union has proven that the Laborers’ are a special breed. We are tough and resilient and most of all supportive of our Union and what it stands for.

From a consent decree at the International level, to trusteeships at both our District Council and our Local Union, we have stood together and made this a better, stronger, prouder Union than anyone ever expected.

Twenty years ago, if you would have told me we as a Union would be where we are today I would have said you were dreaming. A lot of people had the Laborers’ Union on its way out, no way to survive, but they were wrong. We survived, we rebuilt, we grew stronger and today we are on the forefront of everything Organized Labor stands for.

Just 15 years ago our Local Union went through the same disheartening scenario but through it all we stood strong, united in making sure our Local would survive, and it did.

And since then we have been hit with a financial crisis which could have resulted in massive permanent layoffs, a changing of a long standing administration on the City side and even three administration changes right within our own Local Union. But we as members know how important it is to stand together, keep focused, and keep moving forward in order to ensure that what we, and all of those who came before us worked so hard for, remains intact.

We have one of the highest pay and benefits packages of any Laborers’ Public Employee Unions in the Country. And there is one and only one reason for that, and it’s you the members of Local 1001.

Together we have expanded our jurisdiction, added hundreds of new jobs and promotions, given the opportunity to those who would otherwise not had the chance to become a member of our Union family the chance to, and we must and we will continue to do so, standing together as proud Union brothers and sisters.

I know this membership, I know your character, your devotion, your passion and your dedication to move this Union forward. I am confident that all of us will work together to keep our membership intact, to dismiss the anti-union propaganda that all of us will be hit with shortly and to stand together and stand strong because that is what Union is all about.

They say history repeats itself, we will survive, we will stand united and we will engage this new beginning and move forward and upward as we have always done.

Union Proud, Union Strong, Union Forever, LiUNA Local 1001 – Feel the Power.

My name is Bob Chianelli and I am a Proud 40 year LiUNA Local 1001 member.

Gov. Rauner making victory plans while awaiting Janus court ruling, expected today

SupremeCourt’s Janus decision expected today, and Rauner, waiting in D. C. since Sunday, has victory plans

WASHINGTON— This is a city Gov. Bruce Rauner hasmostly avoided since taking office, but in this election year he’s been here since Sunday, waiting for the Supreme Court opinion on the anti- public sector union case he started, Janus v AFSCME Council 31, with the decision expected onWednesday, the last day of the term.

Rauner, in an interview with the SunTimes on Capitol Hill, said that with a victory, the state of Illinois will launch a website telling state workers how to opt out of paying fees to government unions and predicted that outside groups will launch opt- out drives.

The Supreme Court does not announce opinions in advance. With the justices working through their docket this month, it was clear heading into this final week the justices were going to get to Janus sooner or later. It’s turning out later. On Monday and Tuesday morning, Rauner was in the Supreme Court courtroom, sitting with Mark Janus, the child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services in Springfield who became the name plaintiff after a lower court judge ruled in 2015 Rauner did not have standing to bring the case.

If they win, Rauner and Janus will head to the Supreme Court steps to take a victory lap, making statements with the iconic building as the backdrop. That’s what they did on the steps in February, after the justices heard the Janus oral argument.

Given the conservativemajority on the court, Rauner is highly likely to prevail in a 5- 4 ruling, overturning a precedent that for decades has allowed government unions to collectmandatory fees fromworkers who chose not to join the union representing them.

Republican Rauner has made weakening Democratic- allied Illinois public sector unions a crusade, and the Janus case will play into his bid for a second term, where he is locked in a battle with Democratic nominee J. B. Pritzker.

A Janus win means government workers in 22 states, including Illinois, will have the choice to opt out of paying fees to unions representing them, even if they are notmembers.

That will cut into union revenues, membership and potentially diminish the local and national political power of government unions.

Rauner told the Sun- Times, “If we win the case, we will notify the state employees of their rights, the outcome of the case. We will inform them of their ability to choose whether to pay the dues or not and direct them to a website or other information where they can implement their choice.”

Government unions have been bracing for a defeat and expect groups bankrolled by megadonor anti- union conservatives running campaigns to persuade government workers to opt out of unions.

Rauner said the state will not mount a campaign; he expects outside groups will, telling the Sun- Times, “I believe that folks outside of the government both in Illinois and around the country will be working to advocate for an opt- out campaign, I believe.

“And I believe that there will be forces including the union and other forces that will be pushing government employees to stay in the union or join the union.”

I asked Rauner, spending millions of dollars in his bid for a second term, if he would put some of hismoney into an opt- out campaign. “I haven’t thought about that,” he said. Opt- out and stay- in drives related to Janus have already started.

Formonths now, unions have been stepping up appeals to retain members. The conservative Freedom Foundation has been running what they label a “Pre- Janus Opt- Out campaign” in California and four other states.

Pritzker communications chief Galia Slayen, noting Rauner’s stay here said, “It’s kind of crazy that the governor of the sixth- largest state in the country, who says he doesn’t like spending time inWashington, is now just camping out in D. C. waiting for a photo op.”

There is nothing to fight about, unless you let them take everything away from you.

My name is Bob Chianelli and I am a proud 40 year LiUNA Local 1001 member.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about why we pay union dues.

I have to admit the response and sheer number of members who read it amazed and invigorated me.

Please don’t take it the wrong way, I was very happy that the message was getting out there and even happier that what I said might have made a difference.

Now we are at the day of reckoning with the Janus decision, and I once again cannot sit idly by and be a spectator when our lives and our family’s way of life are at stake.

You may have been hearing recently that we have to fight for what we have and to keep on fighting. But who are we fighting? The Supreme Court? The President? The Government?

The only reason any of us would need to fight the Janus decision is if we let everyone around us give up, if we let our fellow Union brothers and sisters walk away.

NO ONE can take away what we have, what this Union has worked so hard to get for each and every one of us unless WE, that’s right WE, voluntarily give it up.

If you want to keep your wages, your health care, your pension, your seniority, you job security, then it’s simple, don’t you or your fellow Union brothers and sisters give it up.

There is NO ONE to fight but you.

If we stand together, keep doing exactly what we were doing yesterday, last month, last decade, then we win. If WE let our ill advised and ill informed Union brothers and sisters walk away from our great Union then and only then, do we lose.

It’s up to each and every one of us, now more than ever, to stand together and demand that each and every member of our Union stay strong and stand united.

Union has never been about standing alone, and like families we have our differences but in the end, we must realize that together we can and we will win.

There is NO fight unless we give up, unless we let our brothers and sisters get swept up in the anti-union propaganda and leave behind what they have come to expect and enjoy as being part of our family, our Union family.

I have said this before but this chapter in our Union’s history is not for the faint of heart, none of us, and I mean none of us can or will be able to get through this alone.

Don’t let one of our Union brothers or sisters walk away just because they are angry or hurt or ill informed, it’s up to you, it’s up to us, to keep our family together.

Letting our Union brothers and sisters walk away will force us into a fight for everything we have worked decades and decades for.

It’s time to step up and stop the race to the bottom before it begins, and quite frankly it’s easy and it’s up to you.

If our membership sticks together, stays intact as it is today, the only changes that will be guaranteed are continued pay increases, pensions, health care, seniority, representation and the stability and job security this Union has brought to our members since it was founded in 1937.

Please stand with me, stand united, and stand proud. Feel the Power LiUNA Local 1001.

It’s Hot out there today…

With today’s hot and extremly humid temperatures please remember to work smart and work safe. Dehydration comes quickly remember to drink plenty of water.

When you have a minute please review the heat related material we included below.

Happy Father’s Day!

FathersDay18

Happy Father’s Day to all of the hard working LiUNA dads that make our Union Proud.

To all the LiUNA Local 1001 dads who are the coaches, mentors, leaders in our neighbothoods, wards and city,  we wish you a Happy Father’s Day!

Keep up the great work both on and off the job, you’re strength and dedication to your family, community and your Union will continue to move us forward.

Job/Bid Announcement – Watchman

Another reason why your Union is so important. After a recent meeting with the Department your Union was able to come to resolution and curtail the privates from doing our work and actually increase the number of shifts covered by our members, by having the City accelerate the hiring of 7 new watchman in 2FM. The info and bid are on our app in the jobs section and online at local1001.com


WATCHMAN

Job Number:307162

DEPARTMENT:  FLEET AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT

These positions are open to the general public and to all current city employees covered under the terms of the City’s collective bargaining agreement with the Laborers International Union of North America, Local 1001, Bargaining Unit 54.

IF YOU ARE A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE AND WANT TO EXERCISE YOUR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS TO BID, YOU MUST APPLY ON THE BID ONLY SITE AT: www.cityofchicago.org/CAREERS  

(Once the website opens, scroll down and click on the button titled “Bid Opportunities.”)

IN ADDITION, YOU MUST CHECK THE BOX ON THE CAREERS APPLICATION TITLED “ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THIS COMPANY”, CORRECTLY ENTER YOUR EMPLOYEE ID, AND SELECT THE CORRECT BARGAINING UNIT.  YOU MUST USE THE EMPLOYEE NUMBER FOUND ON THE UPPER LEFT-HANDCORNER OF YOUR PAY CHECK STUB LABELED “PAYEE/EMPLOYEE NUMBER.”

(NO OTHER FORMAT OR SYSTEM CAN BE USED TO OBTAIN YOUR EMPLOYEE NUMBER). 

FAILURE TO CHECK THE “ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THIS COMPANY” BOX, ENTER YOUR EMPLOYEE ID, AND SELECT THE CORRECT BARGAINING UNIT WILL RESULT IN A REJECTED BID APPLICATION. 

VACANCIES: 7

 

Is not being in the Union a good idea?

My name is Bob Chianelli and I am a proud 40 year member of LiUNA Local 1001.

The more and more I talk to members of our union the more and more I hear “the union is trying to scare us into paying dues…..nothing is gonna happen if we stop paying”.

Another common response has been “I’ll keep the dues money in my pocket and if something happens to me then I will use it for myself.

Honestly, some really good points.

First about the money in your pocket theory, they are absolutely correct but does anyone know what an arbitration cost to fight a basic contract violation? Would you be surprised to know that in most cases over $10,000. So, if you get passed up for overtime be prepared to go to the bank and get $10,000 to get your day of overtime. Transfers out of seniority order, again go to the bank and withdraw another $10,000. Vacation pics, promotions, work rules, I think you get the picture. You alone won’t be able to fight the fight, time after time year after year no matter what you think you are saving by not paying Union dues.

Some say “I don’t use the Union”, and once again they are right, they don’t use it because they don’t have to, it’s automatic. The Union is there every day protecting things like wages, healthcare, jurisdiction and all the other perks that most of us have come to take for granted.

I often ask members “when was the last time you had to ask the City for a raise, or an improvement in health care or paid vacation time or paid parental leave?” And of course you know their answer “well…..never”.

So if there was no Union because everyone stopped paying dues and the City said we are not paying that salary any longer, and your healthcare is too expensive, and why should we pay you for vacation days, you are going to do what? Go to your bank and withdraw the money you saved to make up the difference in pay, the cost of your healthcare, the days you miss being paid because you want to take your family on vacation? I’m not an accountant but i can pretty much tell you that not being in the Union hasn’t saved you nearly enough money to pay for all of that.

Now back to the initial statement, “the Union is trying to scare you…..” yes we are, because if that’s what it takes to save your pay, your healthcare, your paid vacation, your safety, your seniority and the standard of living you and your family have now, and will continue to have well into retirement, then yes I am, yes I am.

Union today, Union tomorrow, Union forever, Feel the Power!

BID/JOB ANNOUNCEMENT – CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION – AIRPORT OPERATIONS SUPVSR I 

The full bid description and qualifications are in the Jobs section of our app. 

————————————————————–

AIRPORT OPERATIONS SUPVSR I

Job Number: 307374

CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION

IF YOU ARE A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE AND WANT TO EXERCISE YOUR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS TO BID, YOU MUST APPLY ON THE BID ONLY SITE AT: www.cityofchicago.org/CAREERS  

(Once the website opens, scroll down and click on the button titled “Bid Opportunities.”)

IN ADDITION, YOU MUST CHECK THE BOX ON THE CAREERS APPLICATION TITLED “ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THIS COMPANY”, CORRECTLY ENTER YOUR EMPLOYEE ID, AND SELECT THE CORRECT BARGAINING UNIT.  YOU MUST USE THE EMPLOYEE NUMBER FOUND ON THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER OF YOUR PAY CHECK STUB LABELED “PAYEE/EMPLOYEE NUMBER.”

(NO OTHER FORMAT OR SYSTEM CAN BE USED TO OBTAIN YOUR EMPLOYEE NUMBER). 

FAILURE TO CHECK THE “ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THIS COMPANY” BOX, ENTER YOUR EMPLOYEE ID, AND SELECT THE CORRECT BARGAINING UNIT WILL RESULT IN A REJECTED BID APPLICATION.

These positions are open to the general public and to all current city employees covered under the terms of the City’s collective bargaining agreement with LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF N.A., LOCAL 1001 (BARGAINING UNIT #54). 

NUMBER OF VACANCIES: 6

JUDGMENT DAY NEARS ON‘ FAIR SHARE’ FEES

Unions representing government workers bracing for Supreme Court ruling in case of Janus v. AFSCME Council 31

LYNN SWEET  lsweet@suntimes.com | @ lynnsweet

Screenshot 2018-06-04 08.25.05.png

WASHINGTON— The U. S. Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday the landmark Illinois public employee union case, Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, a ferocious legal battle triggered by Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Unions representing government workers in 22 states, including Illinois, are braced for an adverse ruling, expecting to lose the long- standing ability to collect fees from non- members to cover the costs of collective bargaining and enforcing the contract.

The justices are being asked to overturn a 1977 Supreme Court opinion that public employee unions could, without violating First Amendment free speech rights, collect “fair share” or “agency fees” since the unions have a legal obligation to represent all workers, whether or not they chose to be members.

The human face on this case is Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the State of Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

Employed with the state since 2007, Janus is represented at work by AFSCME, though he is not a union member. His paycheck deducts “fair share” fees, about 78 percent of full union dues.

The timeline details the legal and political events and turning points leading to Janus, providing the context for how one of the most significant labor law cases of the decade ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

The Janus Timeline

The Janus battle did not come out of the blue.

Since 1977, there have been a series of Supreme Court cases dealing with “fair share” or “agency fee” payments. The challenges have been pursued by GOP- leaning conservative legal teams against Democratic allied public sector unions, among the most liberal and politically active in the organized labor family.

May 23, 1977— The Supreme Court established the current law in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, allowing the collection of fees from union non- members for contract- related costs, excluding lobbying and political expenses.

June 30, 2014— In Harris v. Quinn, an Illinois case, the Supreme Court chips away at Abood during Gov. Pat Quinn’s watch.

The court found home health care workers represented by the Service Employees International Union ( SEIU) were not full public employees covered by Abood.

Jan. 12, 2015— Republican Rauner takes office, replacing Democrat Quinn.

Feb. 9, 2015— Rauner issues an executive order directing the state to suspend deducting “fair share” fees from paychecks and sending the money to the unions. On same day, he files a federal lawsuit in Chicago challenging the constitutionality of the law allowing “fair share” fee collections.

Feb. 13, 2016— Justice Antonin Scalia dies. Senate Republicans block the replacement nominated by President Barack Obama, Merrick Garland.

March 29, 2016— The Supreme Court deadlocks on a “fair share” case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. With the Scalia vacancy, the court at 4- 4 leaves Abood intact.

Sept. 13, 2016— U. S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman, sitting in Chicago, dismisses the Rauner/ Janus case.

As the case progresses, a judge rules that Rauner does not have standing to bring the case, and eventually Janus is allowed to intervene. The Janus lawyers include the National Right toWork Legal Defense Foundation and the Liberty Justice Center in Chicago.

March 21, 2017— With Attorney General LisaMadigan now also a defendant, a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel— Richard Posner, Diane Sykes and David Hamilton— affirms the district court was correct in dismissing the Rauner/ Janus complaint.

The Janus legal team appeals the Seventh Circuit ruling.

April 7, 2017— The Senate confirms President Donald Trump’s first Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch.

Sept. 28, 2017— With a full ninejustice bench, the Supreme Court agrees to consider the Janus case.

In taking the Janus appeal, the Supreme Court said, “This case presents the same question presented in Friedrichs: should Abood be overruled and public sector agency fee arrangements declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment?”

Feb. 26, 2018— Supreme Court oral argument

The Janus v. AFSCME legal arguments

Is everything a union does political and related to First Amendment rights because the employer is a state or local government setting policy, budgets and taxes impacting union contracts? Janus says yes. AFSCME says no.

Janus said in lower court pleadings that he “objects tomany of the public- policy positions that AFSCME advocates for in collective bargaining and that the union engages in “one- side politicking.”

Also, Janus, in his pleading, said AFSCME “does not appreciate the current fiscal crisis in Illinois and does not reflect his best interests or the interests of Illinois citizens.”

“Abood is offensive to the First Amendment,” Janus’ lawyers write in their Supreme Court brief.

“It permits the government to compel employees to subsidize an advocacy group’s political activity: namely speaking to the government to influence governmental policies.”

“. . . Abood was wrongly decided because bargaining with the government is political speech indistinguishable from lobbying the government,” the brief said.

The Janus brief addresses the current law which calls for the state to bargain with unions.

“To prevail in this case, Illinois must prove it has such a compelling need to bargain with exclusive representatives that the need overrides employees’ First Amendment right not to subsidize those representatives advocacy.”

AFSCME

The AFSCME brief said the Janus assertion that “all collective bargaining is inherently political” is “false— and unsupported by an evidentiary record.”

What, exactly are the AFSCME public policy positions Janus disagrees with?

AFSCME notes that Janus has never said.

On the free speech issue, the AFSCME brief argues, “agency fees pass First Amendment muster because they prevent freeriding, support workplace fairness and maintain labor peace.”

The distinction in Abood “between collective bargaining and lobbying is sound.”

Noting that the unions represent everyone, “the suggestion that collective bargaining is no different from political lobbying cannot be squared with the fact that state law literally requires bargaining to set employment terms.”

As for everything a union does being political, the AFSCME brief disputed that assertion in arguing, “many collective— bargaining topics are ( about) mundane employment conditions . . . generally do not raise matters of public concern, yet consume significant union resources.”

As “public citizens,” they can “express disagreement with the union in public meetings, newspaper editorials, or any other public forum.”

Honoring our Brothers and Sisters on Memorial Day

Let’s all remember the reason Memorial Day is a holiday in this great country of ours.

Its’ because of the brave men and women who have served that we get to celebrate this holiday, so to each and every one of them we can not thank you and your familes enough for the sacrifices you have made.

On behalf of all the members of LiUNA Local 1001 we thank you for your service and sacrifice.

memorialday

White House Cracks Down on Unions with Executive Orders

President Trump issued a series of executive orders Friday that could gut federal employee unions’ ability to negotiate with agency leaders and represent workers, as well as reduce the time it takes for an agency to fire people for poor performance or misconduct.

Billed as the first step toward broad civil service reform, senior administration officials announced in a call with reporters on Friday afternoon three executive orders aimed at making it easier to fire poor performers and ordering harsher treatment of union representatives.

“Today, the president is fulfilling his promise to promote a more efficient government by reforming civil service rules,” said Andrew Bremberg, director of the president’s Domestic Policy Council. “Every year, the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey shows that less than one third of federal employees believe poor performers are adequately addressed by their agency. These executive orders make it easier to remove poor performing employees, and ensure that taxpayer dollars are more efficiently used.”

The first order, as described by a senior administration official speaking on background, would reduce the time it takes to fire poor performers and employees suspected of misconduct by standardizing the length of Performance Improvement Plans at 30 days across government. Currently, PIPs vary from agency to agency, and generally run between 60 to 120 days.

“A GAO report shows that it takes six months to a year to remove someone from government, and can often take another nine months on appeal,” the official said. “[This] also encourages agencies to fire someone for misconduct when they’ve been engaged in behavior that warrants it, instead of just suspending them.”

Another executive order significantly curbs employees who are union representatives from using official time, a practice where the federal government compensates a worker for performing representational duties instead of their standard work. Official time recently has come under fire, both from an Office of Personnel Management report and a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The order stipulates that union officials can spend no more than 25 percent of their work hours on official time. Additionally, it stipulates that official time can no longer be used to lobby Congress or to represent employees who have filed a grievance or are appealing an adverse personnel action, and it orders agencies to charge rent for union use of federal office space and cease covering expenses for official time-related travel.

The last order directs agencies to renegotiate collective bargaining agreements with federal unions, and to ensure that process concludes within a year. It also orders OPM to develop a Labor Relations Working Group to analyze CBAs for what the administration described as “wasteful” provisions, and it requires that CBAs be published in a centralized, public database for public scrutiny.

Administration officials said they estimate the changes to labor relations policies could save “at least” $100 million in taxpayer money. When asked about potential increased costs as a result of the decrease in official time, which is often used to mitigate disputes before a grievance or civil litigation is filed, an official claimed such actions would actually decrease.

“Litigations and grievances, we expect those to be reduced quite substantially, although our cost savings estimate doesn’t factor that in,” the official said. “Once those are factored in, the savings would only be increased, not decreased.”

American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox said in a statement that the executive orders are a “direct assault” on union members’ legal right. “This is more than union busting—it’s democracy busting,” he said. “President Trump’s executive orders do nothing to help federal workers do their jobs better. In fact, they do the opposite by depriving workers of their rights to address and resolve workplace issues such as sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation against whistleblowers, improving workplace health and safety, enforcing reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, and so much more.”

Prevailing Wage/Area Standard information

The Chicago Laborers’ District Council is the umbrella organization that services the 15 LiUNA Local’s in the greater Chicagoland area.

Your Delegates to the District Council are a part of the team that negotiates the prevailing wage/area standard rate for positions covered under current prevailing wage laws.

As your Delegates, it is their responsibility to ensure the “outside” benefits are maintained at the best level possible by supporting your brothers and sisters on the “outside” and at the same time making sure the members of Local 1001 are represented to the fullest.

Just a FYI, these benefit funds are not the same as the “City” benefits funds, the Laborers’ on the “outside” have different pension and benefit funds which are administered by both labor and management trustees.

Your Delegates, along with all the other Delegates of the Chicago Laborers’ District Council, have done a pretty good job of keeping these funds healthy and in fact in the “green” zone for some time.

With that, the “outside” laborers covered by the prevailing rate this year will see a $1.52 per hour increase on their checks as will our members who are covered by prevailing wage.

There were times your Delegates have had to make difficult decisions such as taking a zero on the check two consecutive years, in order to make sure our brothers and sisters on the outside have benefits such as pension and healthcare. Fortunately, this decision was the exact opposite.

It’s always great to be able to achieve an increase such as this but there have been sacrifices to get here and a lot of hard work by both you and your brothers and sisters of the Chicago Laborers’ District Council to make our Union as strong as it is today.

As always, we appreciate your continued support.

LiUNA Local 1001 Feel the Power!

Divided Supreme Court rules for businesses over workers

By Mark Sherman | AP

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says employers can prohibit their workers from banding together to complain about pay and conditions in the workplace.

The justices ruled 5-4 Monday, with the court’s conservative members in the majority, that businesses can force employees to individually use arbitration to resolve disputes. The outcome is an important victory for business interests.

An estimated 25 million employees work under contracts that prohibit collective action by employees who want to raise claims about some aspect of their employment.

The Trump administration backed the businesses, reversing the position the Obama administration took in favor of employees.

The court’s task was to reconcile federal laws that seemed to point in different directions. On the one hand, New Deal labor laws explicitly gave workers the right to band together. On the other, the older Federal Arbitration Act encourages the use of arbitration, instead of the courts.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the contracts are valid under the arbitration law. “As a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable. But as a matter of law the answer is clear,” Gorsuch wrote.

In dissent for the court’s liberals, Justice Ruth Bader called the decision “egregiously wrong.” Ginsburg said that the individual complaints can be very small in dollar terms, “scarcely of a size warranting the expense of seeking redress alone.” Ginsburg read a summary of her dissent aloud.

The National Labor Relations Board, breaking with the administration, argued that contracts requiring employees to waive their right to collective action conflict with the labor laws. Business interests were united in favor of the contracts.

Lower courts had split over the issue. The high court considered three cases — two in which appeals courts ruled that such agreements can’t be enforced and a third in which the appeals court said they are valid.

Happy Mother’s Day!

mothersday2018

We would like to wish all the hard working mom’s of LiUNA a Happy Mother’s Day and especially the mom’s of LiUNA Local 1001. We recognize and apprectiate your dedication to your family and to this great Union of ours. Enjoy ladies you’ve earned it!

 

JOB/BID ANNOUNCEMENT – DISTRICT SUPERVISOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES

DISTRICT SUPVSR – GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES

Job Number: 305054-1        BID ANNOUNCEMENT

ATTENTION IF YOU RECENTLY APPLIED FOR THIS POSITION YOU MUST REAPPLY USING THIS BID AND JOB NUMBER. 

DEPARTMENT:  STREETS & SANITATION

These positions are open to all current city employees covered under the terms of the City’s collective bargaining agreement with LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL 1001 (BARGAINING UNIT 54).   Only employees in City job titles in this bargaining unit are eligible to bid on this position.

IF YOU ARE A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE AND WANT TO EXERCISE YOUR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS TO BID, YOU MUST CHECK THE BOX ON THE CAREERS APPLICATION TITLED “ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THIS COMPANY”CORRECTLY ENTER YOUR EMPLOYEE ID, AND SELECT THE CORRECT BARGAINING UNIT. 

YOU MUST USE THE EMPLOYEE NUMBER FOUND ON THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER OF YOUR PAY CHECK STUB LABELED “PAYEE/EMPLOYEE NUMBER.”

(NO OTHER FORMAT OR SYSTEM CAN BE USED TO GET YOUR EMPLOYEE NUMBER). 

FAILURE TO CHECK THE “ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THIS COMPANY” BOX, ENTER YOUR EMPLOYEE ID, AND SELECT THE CORRECT BARGAINING UNIT WILL RESULT IN A REJECTED BID APPLICATION.  

Number of Positions: 1 

Under general supervision, supervises work crews and coordinates and directs graffiti removal operations within an assigned district, and performs related duties as required

ESSENTIAL DUTIES                                 

  • Assigns and directs various work crews of laborers, hoisting engineers and painters engaged in using mechanical sprayers and related tools to paint over graffiti or chemical power washing and/or operatins soda blasting equipment for the removal of graffiti
  •      Plans and schedules the use of work crews using specialized chemicals and materials for the removal of graffiti from specific surface types
  • Reviews computerized service request and makes daily work assignments to crews, prioritizing and scheduling graffiti removal services to maximize efficiency of operations
  • Authorizes the requisitioning of needed materials, supplies and equipment to ensure trucks are properly equipped for crews to complete job assignments
  • Oversees and directs the training of staff in the proper and safe use of graffiti removal tools and equipment and the proper cleaning and maintenance of equipment and vehicles
  • Drives a vehicle to inspect work completed or in progress, monitor individual crew productivity and ensure that proper work methods and safety procedures are followed
  • Inspects buildings and structures to assess extent of graffiti and whether available resources and equipment can access and/or remove graffiti; confers with property managers and owners to explain city’s graffiti removal methods and to schedule graffiti removal services
  • Prepares various management reports on work operations including program initiatives, number of jobs completed, work crew productivity levels, and materials and supplies used
  • Coordinates work efforts with management to plan new initiatives and to effectively respond to emergency or high priority requests for graffiti removal services in the district
  • Schedules and conducts safety meeting with district staff as required; prepares and signs off on injury and accident reports
  • Monitors subordinates work performance and initiates and enforces disciplinary action as required
  • Uses bolt cutters to cut locks and gain access to areas to remove graffiti as required
  • Maintains vacation schedules, and monitors reports for absenteeism

NOTE: The list of essential duties is not intended to be inclusive; there may be other duties that are essential to particular positions within the class

 Location:   Varies

 Hours:  6:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. Monday – Friday

THIS POSITION IS IN THE CAREER SERVICE.

Qualifications

Five years of direct operational experience working in a crew related to municipal service delivery or infrastructure repair/construction;  A valid State of Illinois driver’s license is required

Physical Requirement

Substantial lifting (up to 50 lbs) is required)

Knowledge

*Proficiency using Microsoft Office Word and Excel

NOTE:  You must provide a valid US Driver’s License at the time of processing. 

NOTE:  To be considered for this position you must provide information about your educational background and your work experience.  YOU MUST include job titles, dates of employment, and specific job duties.  (If you are a current City employee, Acting Up cannot be considered.)  IF YOU FAIL TO PROVIDE this information at the time you submit your application, it will be incomplete and you will not be considered for this position.  There are three ways to provide the information: 1) you may attach a resume; 2) you may paste a resume; or 3) you can complete the online resume fields.

Education & Employment Verification – Please be advised that if you are selected to be hired you must provide, upon request, adequate information regarding your educational and employment history as it relates to the qualifications of the position for which you are applying.  If you received your degree internationally, all international transcripts/diploma must be accompanied by a Foreign Credential Evaluation.  If the City of Chicago cannot verify this information, any offer extended to you will be withdrawn and you will not be hired.

SELECTION REQUIREMENTS

This position requires applicants to successfully pass a skills assessment test(s) and complete an interview.  Test results will be sent out by the Department of Human Resources after test results have been analyzed and compiled.  Applicants who receive a passing score on the test(s) will be selected to interview. The interviewed candidate(s) receiving a passing score on the test(s) and possess the qualifications best suited to fulfill the responsibilities of the position, based on the oral interview, will be selected and hired in seniority order.

Evaluation:  Your initial evaluation will be based on information provided on the application form and documents submitted with the application.  Applications must be submitted by the individual applicant.  No second party applicants will be accepted.

Residency Requirement:   All employees of the City of Chicago must be actual residents of the City as outlined in 2-152-050 of the City of Chicago Municipal Code. Proof of residency will be required.

If you would like to request a reasonable accommodation due to disability or pregnancy in order to participate in the application process, please contact the City of Chicago, Department of Human Resources, at 312-744-4976 (voice) or 312-744-5035 (TTY). Please be prepared to provide information in support of your reasonable accommodation request.

ALL REFERENCES TO POLITICAL SPONSORSHIP OR RECOMMENDATION MUST BE OMITTED FROM ANY AND ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR CITY EMPLOYMENT. 

The City of Chicago is an Equal Employment & Military Friendly Employer.

 

Unposting Date: May 22, 2018, 11:59:00 PM

BU: 54  Salary: $81,300.00 |   Pay Basis:Yearly

 

Iron Barricade Certification Class Information

The Department of Streets & Sanitation, in conjunction with Laborers’ Local 1001, will be offering a training session for Sanitation/General Laborers to gain certifications in handling iron barricades. This certification will be a necessary requirement for Sanitation/General Laborers seeking an opportunity to participate in straight time and overtime iron barricade set-up/removal operations as well as to qualify for transfers to Traffic Services. The training session will take place at the Laborers’ Training Center, 5700 West Homer Street on Saturday, June 9, 2018 for interested Sanitation/General Laborers to attend on their own time. Additional dates may be added depending on the level of interest. You must sign-up to attend this class as there will be no walk-ins.

If interested, please inform your Superintendent ASAP but no later than Monday, May 21, 2018 14:30 hr.

PROPER WORK ATTIRE IS REQUIRED INCLUDING DURABLE WORK PANTS, SHIRT WITH SLEEVES, SAFETY BOOTS AND SAFETY VEST. THOSE SHOWING UP WITHOUT THE PROPER PPE AND WORK ATTIRE WILL BE TURNED AWAY AND NOT ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE OR RESCHEDULE.

JOB/BID ANNOUNCEMENT – REFUSE COLLECTION COORDINATOR

To apply for this or any other open positions please see the jobs section of our app.

BID ANNOUNCEMENT

REFUSE COLLECTION COORDINATOR

Job Number: 306496

IF YOU ARE A CURRENT CITY EMPLOYEE AND WANT TO EXERCISE YOUR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS TO BID, YOU MUST CHECK THE BOX ON THE CAREERS APPLICATION TITLED “ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THIS COMPANY”, CORRECTLY ENTER YOUR EMPLOYEE ID, AND SELECT THE CORRECT BARGAINING UNIT. 

YOU MUST USE THE EMPLOYEE NUMBER FOUND ON THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER OF YOUR PAY CHECK STUB LABELED “PAYEE/EMPLOYEE NUMBER.”

(NO OTHER FORMAT OR SYSTEM CAN BE USED TO OBTAIN YOUR EMPLOYEE NUMBER). 

FAILURE TO CHECK THE “ALREADY EMPLOYED BY THIS COMPANY” BOX, ENTER YOUR EMPLOYEE ID, AND SELECT THE CORRECT BARGAINING UNIT WILL RESULT IN A REJECTED BID APPLICATION. 

DEPARTMENT OF STREETS & SANITATION

This position is covered under the City’s collective bargaining agreement with the Laborers International Union of North America – Local 1001 (BU #54).  Only employees in City job titles in this bargaining unit are eligible to bid on this position. 

NUMBER OF POSITIONS:  1 (two additional position pending budget approval)

ESSENTIAL DUTIES 

Under general supervision, assists in supervising and coordinating refuse collection, rodent control and recycling operations citywide to ensure efficiency of operation and proper allocation of resources.

  •  Ensures maximum utilization of manpower and minimum disruption of service
  •  Prepares and maintains daily activity reports
  •  Prepares and analyzes citywide activity and status reports
  •  Identifies trends, potential problem areas and opportunities for improvement in refuse collection services
  •  Recommends alternate staffing for emergency weather situations and other program changes
  •  Investigates and responds to complaints regarding sanitation services
  •  Write and issues citations for violations of respective municipal codes
  •  Assists in street-sweeping and snow removal operations
  •  Supervises rodent baiting and cart distribution as needed
  •  Performs related duties as required.

NOTE:  The list of essential duties is not intended to be inclusive; there may be other duties that are essential to particular positions within the class.

LOCATION:    Bureau of Sanitation   DIVISION:    TBD

 DAYS OFF:    Saturday & Sunday

 HOURS:    6:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.  Monday – Friday 

THIS POSITION IS CAREER SERVICE.

Qualifications

Four years of progressively responsible experience relating to refuse collection, or four years of progressively responsible clerical experience relating to refuse collection, or an equivalent combination of training and experience.  A valid U.S. driver’s license is required.

Disclaimer – “Accredited” means any nationally or regionally accredited college, university, or law school where the applicant is enrolled in or has completed an Associates, Bachelors, Masters, or Juris Doctorate degree program.

NOTE:  Your must provide your valid U.S. driver’s license at time of processing. 

NOTE:  You must provide your transcripts or diploma at the time of processing, if applicable. 

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS

  • Moderate lifting (up to 35 pounds) is required
  • Ability to stand and walk for extended or continuous periods of time
  • Ability to operate automotive vehicles and associated equipment
  • Ability to withstand extreme weather conditions

NOTE:  To be considered for this position you must provide information about your educational background and your work experience.  You must include job titles, dates of employment, and specific job duties.  (If you are a current City employee, Acting Up cannot be considered.)  If you fail to provide this information at the time you submit your application, it will be incomplete and you will not be considered for this position.  There are three ways to provide the information: 1) you may attach a resume; 2) you may paste a resume; or 3) you can complete the online resume fields.

Education & Employment Verification: Please be advised that if you are selected to be hired you must provide, upon request, adequate information regarding your educational and employment history as it relates to the qualifications of the position for which you are applying.  If you received your degree internationally, all international transcripts/diploma must be accompanied by a Foreign Credential Evaluation.  If the City of Chicago cannot verify this information, any offer extended to you will be withdrawn and you will not be hired.

SELECTION REQUIREMENTS

This position requires applicants to complete a written skills and supervisory assessment tests.  Test results will be sent out by the Department of Human Resources after test results have been analyzed and compiled.  Bidders who receive a passing score on the test will be hired in seniority order according to the collective bargaining agreement.

Evaluation:  Your initial evaluation will be based on information provided on the application form and documents submitted with the application.  Applications must be submitted by the individual applicant.  No second party applicants will be accepted.

Residency Requirement:   All employees of the City of Chicago must be actual residents of the City as outlined in 2-152-050 of the City of Chicago Municipal Code. Proof of residency will be required.

If you would like to request a reasonable accommodation due to disability or pregnancy in order to participate in the application process, please contact the City of Chicago, Department of Human Resources, at 312-744-4976

(voice) or 312-744-5035 (TTY). Please be prepared to provide information in support of your reasonable accommodation request. 

ALL REFERENCES TO POLITICAL SPONSORSHIP OR RECOMMENDATION MUST BE OMITTED FROM ANY AND ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR CITY EMPLOYMENT.

The City of Chicago is an Equal Opportunity & Military Friendly Employer.

Unposting Date: May 17, 2018, 11:59:00 PM

BU: 54

Salary: $61,584.00 |   Pay Basis:Yearly

City Hall entertained privatizing water in 2015 but passed, top Rahm aide says

LiUNA brothers and sisters we are by far not in this alone. Recycling, refuse collection, water, sewer, asphalt, concrete, no one is safe. In fact in the article below you will see a quote from Carole Brown, Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s chief financial officer which puts it all out there for all of us  “We’re not looking for ways to privatize our water and sewer systems,” Brown said. But officials “will listen” to ideas, she said. “We seriously consider all those that we have time for.”

If you still think it can’t or won’t happen without your Union and it’s members standing together as proud, hard working, union brothers and sisters you may be in for quite a surprise.


By Robert HerguthChicago Sun-Times

In 2015, as Mayor Rahm Emanuel was in the thick of dealing with a multibillion-dollar pension shortfall and other serious financial troubles, the investment firm Goldman Sachs made an unsolicited pitch to City Hall, according to a top mayoral aide:

How about privatizing the city’s water and sewer systems to get a quick splash of cash?

The thought seemed to be along the lines of what former Mayor Richard M. Daley orchestrated in 2008 for Chicago’s parking meters: Sell or lease the infrastructure, collect a big payout to deal with budgetary issues — and brace for rate increases at the hands of the private investors who would now be in control.

City officials vetted the Goldman proposal but ended up taking a pass, believing there were too many potential complications and too little money — in the end, Carole Brown, Emanuel’s chief financial officer, said in an interview, maybe only a “couple billion” dollars.

“It wasn’t compelling enough,” said Brown, who was hired in May 2015 and “inherited the idea,” which she said was floated a couple of months before her arrival.

While the city’s financial picture is somewhat improved — thanks largely to tax increases aimed at dealing with a now-$36 billion pension shortfall — City Hall isn’t ruling out water privatization if a viable plan is offered.

“We’re not looking for ways to privatize our water and sewer systems,” Brown said. But officials “will listen” to ideas, she said. “We seriously consider all those that we have time for.”

The details of what Goldman was proposing aren’t clear. The Emanuel administration wouldn’t release Goldman’s proposal. The Chicago Sun-Times tried for months to obtain it under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, the law promising public access to most official records.

City Hall said the records are exempt from the law “because they reflect proprietary information prepared by a potential vendor and were submitted under a claim that they were proprietary, privileged and confidential.”

Brown said the conversations with Goldman ended before things got too far — including possible rate hikes and whether there were investors, though she said, “I would expect they had potential investors in mind.”

Jeff Scruggs, managing director of Goldman’s public sector and infrastructure group in New York, wouldn’t comment. A Goldman spokesman said the company “is confident the city conveyed the facts” accurately.

Brown said the city’s outstanding borrowing to cover water and sewer infrastructure improvements in recent years — the debt from which now totals $5.4 billion — would need to be covered by anyone buying the system.

As a result, the city’s take — based on Brown’s “back-of-the-envelope” understanding — after covering those loans would have been no more than a “couple billion” dollars, she said.

Which isn’t much given that the water system — which includes a water-intake “crib,” two purification plants, a dozen pumping stations and 4,400 miles of water mains that help deliver nearly a billion gallons of water each day — is probably the city’s most important resource, along with O’Hare Airport, according to city officials.

Daley, who retired in 2011, once toyed with privatizing O’Hare and raised speculation that the water system also might be on the table.

And, nearly a decade ago, Daley drew the ire of many Chicagoans by privatizing the city’s 36,000 parking meters in a deal with a Morgan Stanley-led investment group that paid City Hall $1.15 billion upfront in exchange for meter revenues for 75 years. One of Daley’s nephews worked at Morgan Stanley — though the firm and City Hall have said he had nothing to do with the deal.

Steep rate hikes followed the meter deal. Parking went up from $3 an hour in 2008 in the Loop to $6.50 by 2013.

Vowing not to repeat that type of deal, Emanuel and the City Council embraced a “privatization ordinance” that requires more scrutiny before valuable city assets can be sold or leased.

The Bond Buyer, a financial publication, said the measure puts “in place a detailed public review of the cost effectiveness, impact and value of any proposed deal and requires more review, analysis and debate on any future deals. It also puts in place safeguards on the use of proceeds.”

Brown said any privatization of the water and sewer systems would be subject to that ordinance, and officials also would have to clear other legal hurdles.

Many communities around the country have turned over their water supplies to private firms. And many have regretted that when faced with soaring rates and a lack of control. In 2017, 36 municipal water and sewer systems across the United States were sold to private companies or investors, according to Bluefield Research, a Boston market research and consulting firm specializing in water issues. In 2016, there were 13.

If a government sells its water system, “having some regulatory oversight . . . is worth considering to protect rate payers and, in some ways, all parties,” said Janice Beecher, director of Michigan State University’s Institute of Public Utilities.

City officials said they’d want to maintain some control over the water and sewer systems if they ever were privatized.

In 2017, the city collected $732.7 million in revenue from water fees and $366.3 million in sewer charges, city officials said.

The city’s current water rate is $3.88 per 1,000 gallons. The price will rise June 1 to $3.95.