Author: local1001news

Once again the ShoeMobile for DSS employees will be coming to work locations over the next several weeks.

DSS employees are encouraged to take advantage of the Shoemobile to fullfill your 2017 boot alowance negotiated in your CBA.

The full schedule is available below and all dates, times and locations have been posted in the Events calendar on our app. Just another reason to download it now in case you haven’t done it yet.

LiUNA Laborers’ Local 1001 scores another decisive victory in keeping and expanding it’s work for the City of Chicago, the hardworking men and women of Local 1001 do it again. 

By Sam Charles – Chicago Sun-Times

After the city switched from ward-based garbage collection to a grid system in 2012, the Department of Streets and Sanitation kept looking for more potential inefficiencies.

After its latest examination, dubbed “Grid 2.0,” the department is now using 292 garbage trucks, down from 352 in 2011.

It has also “reduced refuse collection spending” by $30 million, money that is now being diverted to other areas of the department, according to spokeswoman Anne Sheahan.

The extra resources have allowed the department to expand the Residential Blue Cart Recycling program across the city and develop the first refuse and recycling cart inventory system, according to a statement from the department.

Additionally, with reduction in collection trucks, the department has reassigned 10 three-person crews to its Bureau of Forestry and an additional five crews to the recently resurrected Bureau of Rodent Control, Sheahan said.

While the switch from a ward-based trash collection system to the grid has already revealed areas that could be improved, there is still more to do, Sheahan said.

“For sanitation and garbage collection, we’re always looking at how we can make it better,” she said. “I don’t think we’re hanging it up after Grid 2.0, but we feel like we’re in a good place.”

Bid/Job Announcement

FIELD SERVICE SPECIALIST II

Job Nmber:275954 

Department of Transportation

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 County, Municipal Supervisors and Foremen 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-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 BARGAININGUNIT WILL RESULT IN A REJECTED BID APPLICATION.

Number of Positions: 1

Under supervision, performs at the fully functional level, conducting traffic surveys and field inspections of construction activity in the public way, and performs related duties as required

ESSENTIAL DUTIES:

• Inspects complaints from residents, aldermanic offices, and other departments regarding traffic impediments and roadway signage
• Conducts traffic surveys to identify current conditions (e.g., traffic capacity, parking restrictions) in connection with traffic engineering, traffic control, and parking studies
• Collects field information including the location traffic signs and markings and the direction and volume of traffic flow for use in determining the need for traffic signs
• Reviews field notes on current conditions and traffic accident data to recommend the removal or replacement of worn or damaged traffic signs
• Prepares work orders to replace worn or damaged traffic signs, pavement markings, and guardrails
• Prepares field sketches and charts to illustrate construction, current traffic conditions, and activities to support other survey data
• Maintains daily activity reports  

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: 3458 S. Lawndale

Shift:        Varies

Days:        Varies 

THIS POSITION IS IN THE CAREER SERVICE

Qualifications

• Two years of work experience inspecting public way construction and demolition projects, or interpreting blue prints for public way construction and demolition projects; or equivalent combination of education, training, and experience.

• A valid State of Illinois driver’s license is required

• Must have the permanent use of an automobile that is properly insured, including a clause specifically insuring the City of Chicago from accident liability

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 the City of Chicago cannot verify this information, any offer extended to you will be withdrawn and you will not be hired.

NOTE: Persons hired into this title must have the permanent use of an automobile that is properly insured including a clause specifically insuring the City of Chicago from accident liability.

You must provide your valid U.S. driver’s license AND proof of automobile insurance 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.

Selection Requirements:

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

Preference will be given to candidates possessing the following:

· Previous work experience with drafting

· Previous work experience in the field with roadway signage and safety regulations

· Previous work experience with the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices)

Application Instructions:  Interested applicants should apply at the City of Chicago’s application website: www.cityofchicago.org/CAREERS

VETERANS PREFERENCE NOTE:  The City of Chicago offers Veterans Preference to both current, active military personnel ANDmilitary personnel who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States and have received an honorable or general discharge.  Eligible candidates must have at least six months of active duty documented.  In order to receive the veterans preference, candidates need to indicate whether or not they are a veteran by answering “yes” or “no” to the question on the online application that asks, “Are you currently serving on active duty for at least six months in the Armed Forces of the United StatesOR have you served in the Armed Forces of the United States on active duty for at least six months and received an honorable or general discharge?”  In addition, you must attach documentation to verify your military service.  For veterans, you must attach a copy of your DD214 to your online application which includes character of service status OR a letter from the United States Veterans Administration on official stationery stating dates of service and character of service.  For active military personnel, you must attach a letter from your Commanding Officer on official stationery verifying your active duty, length of service, and character of service in the Armed Forces of the United States AND a copy of your military ID to your online application.  Failure to answer the question and attach the required documentation will result in you not being considered for the Veterans Preference

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 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.

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 Opportunity and Military Friendly Employer

Job Posting: Dec 28, 2016, 12:00:00 AM |

Unposting Date: Jan 13, 2017, 11:59:00 PM

BU: 54

Salary: $54,972 |

Pay Basis:Yearly

From its humble beginnings in 1937 Laborers Local 1001 has always represented the hardworking men and women who work for the City of Chicago.

In the early days “City Workers” were looked upon as not only public servants but also political soldiers. Most, if not all, of the members were hired through political organizations and for very modest wages. Because collective bargaining agreements were prohibited by law, the members of Local 1001 were all “at will” employees and their bargaining power was very limited.

As the Union became more and more involved and the members began to realize the potential of what a Union could be, Local 1001 became an integral part of what is today’s City of Chicago municipal workforce.

In the mid 90’s the Leadership of Local 1001 had the foresight to work with the City to create an entry level position called “Junior Laborers”, which eventually morphed into what many of our current members may remember as “Hand Laborers”. These positions created an opportunity for many to join the City workforce on an entry level as “at will” employees, without any promise of ever having a permanent Career Service status and having limited health-care, no paid holidays or paid vacation. Hundreds of the current Sanitation Laborers were hired this way and were limited to advancement only through negotiations.

In January of 2011 the City was in dire financial trouble and began the process of privatization of residential Recycling trash pickup, opening the door for further privatization in areas of residential trash pickup, forestry and many other positions represented by Local 1001.

Unfortunately, even with a new Mayor of the City of Chicago in early 2012, the cost of regular residential trash pickup was becoming cost prohibitive. Non-Union vendors were circling like vultures waiting to swoop in and with no financial rescue in site most observers knew it was only a matter of time before the City would have no choice but to privatize the work. Friendly political forces began to talk to Local 1001 about the not so bright picture of what may be on the horizon and the fact that our members may now be facing the inevitable, permanent layoffs.

Over the next several weeks the City and the Union met to discuss what could be done to save the hundreds of jobs that would be on the line if household trash pickup were lost.

The City’s position was that although a temporary furlough and or freeze may have worked just a few years earlier it unfortunately was not a long-term solution and would not work this time.

Local 1001 had always been known as one of the Local’s in Chicago that thinks outside of the box so the wheels began turning. Almost three months into the process Local 1001 brought an idea to the City, “What if you could continue to offer the same level of service, continue to hire employees that were not only Veteran’s but Chicago Public School graduates and best of all lower operating costs by a total of almost 30 million dollars over the next 5 years, would you do it?” The City’s Budget Director and the Mayor himself had a unified response “We will sign today”.

And so was born the General Laborer. Over the next few weeks the language was finalized and on May 1, 2012 Mayor Emanuel and Local 1001 jointly announced a plan to hire at least 300 new General Laborers in the Department of Streets and Sanitation over the next 5 years.

In the fall of 2012 the City’s Bureau of Forestry began the process of bidding out a good portion of the City’s forestry work to private contractors. Because of what the new General Laborer title had brought to the table the work was kept in-house. Thus, eliminating the proposed privatization in the Bureau of Forestry and keeping every one of Local 1001’s members working.

In the months to come the City received a $5 million grant to do tree inoculation and was in the process of issuing a RFP. With such a proven track record, Local 1001 contacted the City’s Budget Department and asked to take the work in-house and have it done by the new General Laborers. We are proud to say that we were awarded the work and there are now over 60 General Laborers who are certified in the inoculation process.

Today, as some of our initial General Laborers now reach Career Service status, we would like to congratulate them and thank them for all their hard work and service that has transformed a concept to save hundreds of jobs, into a reality that has not only preserved jobs, reinforced all our pensions, and helped create hundreds of jobs for our brothers and sisters in one of the worst economies of our lifetime.

We are also proud to report that since the first class of General Laborers was graduated from the Chicagoland Laborers Training Center, your Union has created over 50 new prevailing wage positions for the General Laborer’s to advance to prior to even becoming Career Service. And as of August 2016, we have now surpassed the 300 General Laborer hire, more than a year ahead of schedule.

It is because of you, the General Laborer, that our Union and our City has stayed on course and with your continued hard work and support there is a bright future ahead for all the members of LiUNA Local 1001.

We know this does not get said enough but, Thank You General Laborers!

2016 in many respects has been a good year for us even though we suffered some political setbacks in the later part of the year.

Local 1001 has seen a good amount of movement for our membership and we hope to continue the momentum into the new year.

With the capturing of the cart repair work from the private contractor we saw an influx in positions into the Cart program along with over 90 interdepartmental transfers in Sanitation during 2016.

We were able to negotiate an overall reduction of seasonal layoffs in CDOT raising the cutoff date in Concrete from 2002 in 2015 all the way up to 2011 in 2016, a pretty significant step forward for our new brothers and sisters. In addition we saw, for the first time in recent history, the layoff in the Asphalt section limited to only the seasonals who were  hired in the last 6 months.

And with the help of our Brothers and Sisters at Local 1092 we were able to place 12 seasonal Concrete Laborers, who would have otherwise been laid off, into temporary positions at the Department of Aviation for the winter season.

We have also seen the rewards of the General Laborer program and how it has not only created good entry level positions for our new brothers and sisters but it residual effects on how the City addresses vacancies in Local 1001’s jurisdiction. The Mayor himself has crowned Local 1001 the fastest growing Municipal Local Unin in the City.

This year we have seen over 180 new hires and promotions in our Local. Including: 90 General Laborers, 20 Asphalt Laborers, 15 Concrete Laborers, 15 Foreman of Concrete, 10 FVI’s, 5 Dispatchers Concrete, 5 Laborers Transportation, 5 Airport Operation Supervisors, 4 Asphalt Foreman, 3 RCC’s, 3 Sanitation Clerks, General Foreman Asphalt, Foreman Bureau of Electricity,  Field Service Specialist II,  Training Agent and more.

So as you can see 2016 overall has been a pretty good year with a total of almost 300 combined, transfers, promotions and new hires in our Bargaining Unit.

But our work is far from over, with a new President being sworn in shortly and our own Contract negotiations coming up, along with our prevailing wage fight, public employee bargaining rights challenge and the myriad of anti-union anti-worker organizations out there, we will have our work cut out for us in 2017.

With your help and the understanding that we must ALL work together to keep this Local Union moving forward, we are confident 2017 will be another positive year for Local 1001.

Merry Christmas to all of our brothers and sisters of our LiUNA Laborers’s Local 1001 family.

Although we may be celebrating the holidays seperately we will keep in our minds and our hearts that as a family and as a Union we will always be stronger together.

Have a happy and safe holiday!

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Republicans are poised to use their newly attained capitol dominance to make Missouri the 27th right-to-work state prohibiting mandatory union fees. That is unless Kentucky’s recently crowned GOP majorities can beat them to it.

The race to expand right-to-work laws is just one of several ways that Republicans, who strengthened their grip on power in the November elections, are preparing to reshape state laws affecting workplaces, classrooms, courtrooms and more during 2017.

As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors’ offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor’s office and legislature in 25 states — their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor’s office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments.

“Really, the sky’s kind of the limit,” said Sean Lansing, chief operating officer at Americans for Prosperity, the conservative group bankrolled partly by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. “It’s really the best opportunity in quite some time to accomplish a lot of big ticket items — not just in one or two states, but in five, 10 or 15.”

Democrats did make some gains in the recent elections, most notably by defeating Republican North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory and winning both chambers of the Nevada and New Mexico legislatures. But in all three of those states, Republicans still control at least one branch of government.

While officials in Democratic strongholds such as California and New York pledge a vigorous fight against Trump’s agenda, some Democrats elsewhere seem resigned to get steamrolled on policies they long have opposed, such as right-to-work laws that undercut the financial strength of unions, a traditional Democratic ally.

In Missouri, term-limited Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon previously vetoed a right-to-work measure passed by the Republican-led Legislature. But he’s being replaced Jan. 9 by Republican Gov.-elect Eric Greitens, who promised to sign a right-to-work law. GOP legislative leaders have placed it atop their agenda. And their ranks are strengthened following a campaign season in which businessman David Humphreys poured more than $12 million into Missouri candidates and political committees that backed right-to-work.

“Oh, it’s going to happen,” said Senate Minority Leader Gina Walsh, a retired union laborer who is president of the Missouri State Building and Construction Trades Council. She added: “I’m not willing to lay down on it yet, but I’m also a realist.”

Assuming right-to-work will become law, Missouri AFL-CIO President Mike Louis already is preparing for the next battle. He has filed several versions of a proposed initiative petition that would ask voters in 2018 to approve a constitutional amendment reversing right-to-work by ensuring that unions can negotiate contracts requiring that employees pay fees for their representation.

Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin also hopes to sign a statewide right-to-work law in 2017, now that Republicans who already hold the Senate also have won control of the House for the first time in nearly a century. A dozen Kentucky counties already have passed local right-to-work laws.

Right-to-work supporters also are targeting New Hampshire, where Republican Gov.-elect Chris Sununu will be paired with a GOP-led Legislature. And collective bargaining restrictions for public employees could be on the agenda in Iowa, where the Republican governor will work with a Legislature that will be under full GOP control when lawmakers reconvene in January.

Bevin said Kentucky Republicans will pursue “things that have been bottled up for years and need to at least have votes on them,” citing school choice measures and “reform” proposals for pension, tax and litigation laws, among others.

The aftermath of the November elections has particularly raised the hopes of school choice advocates. They support tax credits for families who opt for private over public schools and vouchers that allow public tax dollars to pay for private-school tuition. They also want to expand public charter and magnet schools to give parents additional choices.

Trump pledged during the campaign to spend $20 billion during his first year in office to help states expand school choice programs, and he wants states to divert an additional $110 billion of their own education budgets toward the cause. His pick for education secretary is Betsy DeVos, chairwoman of the school choice advocacy group American Federation for Children.

The federation’s political arm backed 121 state and local candidates this year, winning in 108 of the races, said spokesman Matthew Frendewey. Now it’s focusing on at least a dozen states— nearly all of which have Republican-led legislatures — where it believes school choice laws could be enacted or expanded in 2017.

“The environment is ripe for this, and there’s a hunger for expanding choice and creating more educational options for families,” Frendewey said.

Republican leaders also are planning to use their statehouse power to pursue a variety of pro-business proposals, including reduced regulations and taxes. Imposing limits on lawsuits that seek damages for product liability claims, injuries, medical malpractice and workplace discrimination is another priority.

Since Republicans swept into control of many statehouses in the 2010 elections, the so-called tort reform movement has touted the passage of 170 bills in 38 states, including some where Democrats were at least partially in control.

“We’re very bullish about our prospects,” said Matt Fullenbaum, the legislative director for the American Tort Reform Association.

Republicans still could grapple with some internal dissention, because such issues as lawsuit limits, union powers and school choice don’t always split along party lines. But in states where they now control both the legislative and executive branches, Republicans no longer will have an excuse if their agenda stalls.

“You could always blame it on a Democratic governor for killing it before,” said Republican state Sen. Brian Munzlinger of Missouri. Now “it’s up to us to get it done.”

___

Associated Press writers Adam Beam in Frankfort, Kentucky, and Kathleen Ronayne in Concord, New Hampshire, contributed to this report.

BID/JOB ANNOUNCEMENT   Job Number:6138-CDOT-2017

FIELD SERVICE SPECIALIST III 

Department of Transportation

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 County, Municipal Supervisors and Foremen 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 SITEAT: 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 BARGAININGUNIT WILL RESULT IN A REJECTED BID APPLICATION.

Number of Positions: 2

Under supervision, performs at the fully functional level, conducting traffic surveys and field inspections of construction activity in the public way, and performs related duties as required

ESSENTIAL DUTIES:

· Conducts larger, more complex field inspections of construction, demolition, and excavation sites to ensure the placement of proper barricades and signs for the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic 

· Assists lower level staff with unusual or complex surveying and inspection problems 

· Assists in developing and implementing training programs for new staff  

· Inspects construction staging areas to ensure compliance with relevant regulations (e.g., checking permits, confirming compliance of safety buffer zones with City ordinances) 

· Inspects work sites to ensure the public way is safe and clear of obstructions and issues tickets for violations observed  

· Inspects the public way in response to complaints from residents, aldermanic offices, and other departments regarding traffic impediments resulting from construction activity  

· Interprets applicable City codes and ordinances to contractors and complainants  

· Conducts inspections in regard to pending legal action and testifies in court on violations observed  

· Prepares field sketches and charts to illustrate construction, current traffic conditions, and activities to support survey data  

· Confers with aldermen on the status of traffic sign requests  

· Maintains daily activity reports  

· Develops detour and sign plans for streets under construction, as needed  

· Prepares sign work orders for various traffic control devices and regulatory signage

· Reviews traffic flow ordinances prepared by City Council committee for accuracy and proper language and makes corrections as necessary  

· Responds to reports and conducts safety inspections of safety hazards in public ways (e.g., streets, parkways, sidewalks)  

· Directs work crews in the placement of street signs 

· Supervises the unit in the absence of the Field Supervisor, 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:  2451 S. Ashland

Shift: 7:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Days:  Monday – Friday

Shift: 6:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.   Days: Friday – Monday

THIS POSITION IS IN THE CAREER SERVICE

 Qualifications

Three years of work experience inspecting public way construction and demolition projects, or interpreting blue prints for public way construction and demolition projects; or an equivalent combination of education, training, and experience

A valid State of Illinois driver’s license is required

Must have the permanent use of an automobile that is properly insured, including a clause specifically insuring the City of Chicago from accident liability

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

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:  You must provide your transcripts or diploma, professional license, or training certificates at time of processing, if applicable.

NOTE: Persons hired into this title must have the permanent use of an automobile that is properly insured including a clause specifically insuring the City of Chicago from accident liability.

You must provide your valid U.S. driver’s license AND proof of automobile insurance 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.

Selection Requirements: 

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

Preference will be given to candidates possessing the following:

· Proficiency operating a computer

· Previous experience with Microsoft Office

· Previous experience with public way inspections, construction and demolition projects

· Previous experience preparing detailed reports and maintaining operational records 

· Previous experience using surveying equipment 

· Previous experience reading plans and civil drawings

· Knowledge of the Municipal Code Title 10 

VETERANS PREFERENCE NOTE:  The City of Chicago offers Veterans Preference to both current, active military personnel AND military personnel who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States and have received an honorable or general discharge.  Eligible candidates must have at least six months of active duty documented.  In order to receive the veterans preference, candidates need to indicate whether or not they are a veteran by answering “yes” or “no” to the question on the online application that asks, “Are you currently serving on active duty for at least six months in the Armed Forces of the United States OR have you served in the Armed Forces of the United States on active duty for at least six months and received an honorable or general discharge?”  In addition, you must attach documentation to verify your military service.  For veterans, you must attach a copy of your DD214 to your online application which includes character of service status OR a letter from the United States Veterans Administration on official stationary stating dates of service and character of service.  For active military personnel, you must attach a letter from your Commanding Officer on official stationary verifying your active duty, length of service, and character of service in the Armed Forces of the United States AND a copy of your military ID to your online application.  Failure to answer the question and attach the required documentation will result in you not being considered for the Veterans Preference

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 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.

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 Opportunity and Military Friendly Employer

City of Chicago                                                                    Department of Human Resources

Rahm Emanuel, Mayor                                                            Soo Choi, Commissioner

Job Posting: Dec 22, 2016, 12:00:00 AM | 

Unposting Date: Jan 12, 2017, 11:59:00 PM

BU: 54

Salary: $60,372 |   

Pay Basis:Yearly

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE CITY OF CHICAGO WEBSITE TO APPLY ONLINE!

With temperatures just one degree shy of a record, a chilling -13 recorded at O’Hare Airport this morning, right about the time the hard working men and women of Local 1001 were getting up to report to work.

By 7am the temperature had risen to a balmy -7 and ultimately hit +16 when most of the work was done for the day.

Schools were closed or delayed opening, flights were cancelled but you, the hard working men and women of Local 1001, were out there doing your job and getting it done no matter how brutal the weather.

That is why we are proud of each and every one of you, because of you we can say we have the best group of Public Employees in the country and we just wanted to say “Thank You” for not only what you did today but for what you do day in and day out for our city and your Union.

Great job today everyone, stay warm and stay safe!

2016 in many respects has been a good year for us even though we have suffered some political setbacks in late 2016.

Local 1001 has seen a good amount of movement for our membership and we hope to continue the momentum into the new year.

With the capturing of the cart repair work from the private contractor we saw an influx in positions into the Cart program along with over 90 interdepartmental transfers in Sanitation during 2016.

We were able to negotiate an overall reduction of seasonal layoffs in CDOT raising the cutoff date in Concrete from 2002 in 2015 all the way up to 2011 in 2016, a pretty significant step forward for our new brothers and sisters. In addition we saw, for the first time in recent history, the layoff in the Asphalt section limited to only the seasonals who were hired in the past 6 months.

And with the help of our Brothers and Sisters at Local 1092 we were able to place 12 seasonal Concrete Laborers, who would have otherwise been laid off, into temporary positions at the Department of Aviation for the winter season.

We have also seen the rewards of the General Laborer program and how it has not only created good entry level positons for our new brothers and sisters but it residual effects on how the City addresses vacancies in Local 1001’s jurisdiction. The Mayor himself has crowned Local 1001 the fastest growing Municipal local in the City. This year we have seen over 180 new hires and promotions in our Local. Including: 90 General Laborers, 20 Asphalt Laborers, 15 Concrete Laborers, 15 Foreman of Concrete, 10 FVI’s, 5 Dispatchers Concrete, 5 Laborers Transportation, 5 Airport Operation Supervisors, 4 Asphalt Foreman, 3 RCC’s, 3 Sanitation Clerks, 1 General Foreman Asphalt, 1 Foreman Bureau of Electricity, 1 Field Service Specialist II, 1 Training Agent and more.

So as you can see 2016 overall has been a pretty good year with a total of almost 300 combined, transfers, promotions and new hires in our Bargaining Unit.

But our work is far from over, with a new President being sworn in shortly and our own Contract negotiations coming up, along with our prevailing wage fight, public employee bargaining rights challenge and the myriad of anti-union anti-worker organizations out there, we will have our work cut out for us in 2017.

With your help and the understanding that we must ALL work together to keep this Local Union moving forward, we are confident 2017 will be another positive year for Local 1001.

Happy Holidays to you and your family for all of us at your LiUNA Local 1001 family!

Applications for this year’s William A. Lee Memorial Scholarship are now available.

The Chicago Federation of Labor will award 10 scholarships to high school seniors, valued at $2,000 each, to five winners of the Academic Competition and five winners of the Random Drawing. The funds may be used at any accredited college or university in the United States.

NEW THIS YEAR — PERSONAL ESSAY

Applicants will submit a 500-word essay that answers the question: How has the Labor Movement impacted my life?
Complete information is available in the application.

DEADLINE — February 15, 2017

We are proud to announce that the Local 1001 News app now has over 1,200 downloads.

That means that over 50% or our members have downloaded the app in less than a years time.

But our work is not over yet, let’s make it 100% by June 1, 2017, so we need your help.

Tell your co-workers if they haven’t downloaded it yet to do so today.

It’s packed with useful news, updates, meeting notices, job/bid announcemnts, the CBA and lots of other info and phone numbers, and for those real urgent messages there are even push notifications.

So there is no reason to wait download it today.

Versions are available for Android and iOS and best of all it’s FREE!

BID/JOB ANNOUNCEMENT  – Job Number: 275561 

DEPARTMENT:  FLEET AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT

WATCHMAN

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-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. 

 VACANCIES: 4

Under supervision, positions are responsible for protecting and maintaining the security and safety of various city-wide facilities including multi-level warehouses, office buildings and parking lots, on a 24 hours seven days a week (24/7) basis, working assigned shifts and weekends, and performs related duties as required.

ESSENTIAL DUTIES:

 Monitors security cameras and alarms from a central location (i.e. Command Center), viewing designated sites via cameras and responds to alarms system wide to ensure premises are safe and secure from unauthorized entry, vandalism and other security risks

 Receives calls from Watchmen in the field reporting security and safety incidents, and initiates appropriate level of response by calling 911 for Police or Fire emergency response or contacting supervisors or other department managers

 Patrols the interior and exterior of designated facilities and locations during working and nonworking hours, to protect premises from unauthorized entry, vandalism, fire and other potential security and safety threats

 Walks through the interior of facilities, ensuring that only authorized personnel are in buildingWalks the exterior of buildings, checking that doors are secured, fence lines are intact, vehicle gates are secured, and that exterior lighting is in working order along with other security checks

 Mans a guard post at the entrance of a facility or warehouse, checking for proper identification of personnel seeking entry and monitoring the entry and exit of vehicles, supplies, materials and personnel

 Reads and writes reports. Prepares incident reports documenting safety or security violations for review and use by management

 Checks in with the Command Center on an hourly basis as part of work procedures

 Drives to various locations as part of a roving or mobile patrol, performing security and safety checks around the exterior of facilities including large parking lots

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:  Citywide

SHIFT/HOURS:  Afternoon shift (3pm-11pm) and night shift (11p-7am) only

THIS POSITION IS IN THE CAREER SERVICE

 Qualifications

 Willingness and ability to perform the duties of the job

Valid State of Illinois Driver’s License

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS

Ability to stand and walk for extended or continuous periods of time

Ability to climb staircases

SELECTION REQUIREMENTS

This position is willing and able.  Applicants who successfully apply for the position will be hired in a seniority/random order. 

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.

VETERANS PREFERENCE NOTE:  The City of Chicago offers Veterans Preference to both current, active military personnel AND military personnel who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States and have received an honorable or general discharge.  Eligible candidates must have at least six months of active duty documented.  In order to receive the veterans preference, candidates need to indicate whether or not they are a veteran by answering “yes” or “no” to the question on the online application that asks, “Are you currently serving on active duty for at least six months in the Armed Forces of the United States OR have you served in the Armed Forces of the United States on active duty for at least six months and received an honorable or general discharge?”  In addition, you must attach documentation to verify your military service.  For veterans, you must attach a copy of your DD214 (Member Copy-4) to your online application which includes character of service status OR a letter from the United States Veterans Administration on official stationary stating dates of service and character of service.  For active military personnel, you must attach a letter from your Commanding Officer on official stationary verifying your active duty, length of service, and character of service in the Armed Forces of the United States AND a copy of your military ID to your online application.  Failure to answer the question and attach the required documentation will result in you not being considered for the Veterans Preference.

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 Opportunity and Military Friendly Employer.

By Chiristian E. Weller, David Madland, and Alex Rowell

A secure middle class depends not only on workers earning fair and stable incomes but also on their ability to sufficiently save for the future. When families live paycheck to paycheck, unexpected sickness or layoffs can spark years of compounding hardships. But when families can build up savings, they not only are able to prepare for such emergencies but also to plan to buy a home, send their children to college, start a business, or switch to a career better suited to their skills and needs, all of which help ensure an economically more secure future.
A new Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, or SCF, shows that unions can play a role in increasing wealth for middle-class Americans. Union members generally have higher wages and better benefits than nonunion members, but these things alone do not explain why union members have more savings relative to their incomes than nonunion members. It is possible that stable union jobs that offer access to training and career opportunities make it easier for middle-class families to plan for their future and thus increase their savings. In that sense, union membership can create a virtuous cycle for middle-class stability.

As middle-class wages have effectively stagnated over recent decades—while the costs of important goods such as housing, health care, child care, and higher education have risen rapidly—it is not surprising that Americans are struggling financially. But the state of their balance sheets is shocking: Nearly half of all Americans who participated in a recent Federal Reserve survey reported that they could not pay for a $400 emergency expense without borrowing or selling assets, and 22 percent have zero or negative net wealth—meaning that they owe more than their assets are worth. And the degree of wealth inequality is much greater than income inequality: The top 1 percent of the United States, ranked by income, owns 37 percent of the country’s entire wealth, more than the bottom 95 percent of Americans’ holdings combined. Wealth inequality is also notable when measured along demographic lines such as race: In 2013, the median white household had a net worth 13 times higher than the median black household and 10 times higher than the median Hispanic household.

One would expect that all of the good things that unions do to strengthen and grow the middle class—from raising wages to increasing benefits to encouraging economic mobility—would lead to more wealth for the middle class. Surprisingly, only a handful of researchers have explored the possible connection between union membership and wealth inequality. Jake Rosenfeld, professor of sociology at Washington University in St. Louis, the co-author of seminal research, has shown that the decline of unions has caused about one-third of the rise in wage inequality over recent decades. However, Rosenfeld explained in a blog post that there is much less information on how unions affect wealth, not income, inequality: “The comparative lack of evidence [about the possible relationship between unions and wealth disparities] does not mean connections do not exist, however, and a scattering of case studies and studies suggest that the destruction of unions in the U.S. may actually lie near the center of today’s yawning wealth chasms.”

This CAP Action analysis of Federal Reserve Board data, however, connects unions with more wealth among workers. The following data analysis provides some of the first empirical evidence that unions are associated with more wealth and thus more economic security for middle-class Americans. The data strongly suggest that strengthening unions is key to improving Americans’ financial well-being.

Data

CAP Action’s analysis uses data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances, a highly detailed and nationally representative survey of U.S. households that is conducted every three years and designed to capture all household assets and debts. The total amount of assets and debts calculated on the basis of the household information in the SCF captures the total amount of assets such as houses and stocks in the entire country and shows the distribution of these savings across population groups—for instance, between union and nonunion members.

For this analysis, workers are treated as union members if they are covered by a union contract. Wealth is defined as the difference between marketable assets—including financial assets such as checking accounts and mutual funds, primary residences, other real estate, and ownership in small businesses—and debt such as mortgages, credit cards, car loans, and student loans. Importantly, this measure of wealth does not count the expected value of income that people expect to receive from a defined benefit, or DB, pension.

The analysis only includes households with at least one wage and salary employee to make sure that it focuses only on households where members are working for an employer and could actually join a union. This allows for appropriate comparisons between union and nonunion households. The analysis further restricts the sample to middle-class households, defined as the middle 60 percent of the income distribution of families with nonretired heads of household between the ages of 25 and 64. Wealth is highly skewed, meaning that a disproportionate share of U.S. wealth is held by the wealthiest group, so that wealth comparisons for the entire population can be heavily influenced by the wealth held by the rich. By restricting the analysis to the middle of the income distribution, the data more accurately show the impact that union membership has on the wealth of typical workers.

Key findings

The data show that the median middle-income union household—meaning half of all union households have more and half have less wealth—typically has more wealth than the median nonunion middle-income household. This gap is apparent in each year since 1989, the first year for which consistent SCF data are available. (see Figure 1) In 2013, for instance, the median middle-class union household held $50,800 (in 2013 dollars) in wealth—nearly 90 percent more than the median middle-class nonunion household’s $27,000 in wealth. And this gap is not just an artifact of union households having higher incomes: The median union household has a higher wealth-to-income ratio than the typical nonunion household in every year analyzed. Put another way, union households have more wealth even after accounting for differences in income. Importantly, the CAP Action analysis also finds in every year that union households are less likely to have zero or negative net worth.

Housing makes up a large portion of the typical middle-income household’s total assets. The analysis summarized here finds that union households are more likely to be made up of homeowners than are nonunion households. In 2013, 71 percent of union middle-income households were made up of homeowners, while only 63 percent of comparable nonunion households were made up of homeowners. (see Figure 2)

While owning a home can be important for building wealth—in large part because it offers stability, access to strong communities, and eligibility for important tax incentives—families also need access to liquid short-term savings that they can access quickly in an emergency. These assets, stored away in easily accessible checking and savings accounts, for instance, help households deal with emergencies such as a broken-down car, a family member’s illness, or a lost job. CAP Action’s analysis finds that union households are more prepared for such emergencies, even though both union and nonunion households fall behind financial planners’ recommendations. The median union household in our sample built up $3,200 (in 2013 dollars) in 2013 in liquid savings, 28 percent more than the median nonunion household’s $2,500.

One of the largest—if not the largest—reasons for workers to save is to be able to enjoy a secure retirement that does not require them to choose between necessities, such as heating their homes and paying for their medications. The measure of total wealth used in this analysis only includes marketable wealth and thus actually understates union households’ retirement readiness, as it does not take the value of defined benefit pensions into account. The imputed lump-sum value of DB pensions is not readily available in the Survey of Consumer Finances and is often difficult to calculate. DB pensions guarantee a lifetime stream of income to people once they retire, reducing the necessary amount of other savings that people need to have to maintain their standard of living in retirement. As shown in Figure 3, the data show that union members are much more likely to have a DB pension from a current or previous job; these pensions substantially increase workers’ chances at a secure retirement. In addition to being more likely to have a DB pension, the median union middle-class household held $13,000 (in 2013 dollars) in savings in retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts in 2013, or more than three times as much as the median nonunion middle-class household. This means that the typical middle-income union member is better prepared for retirement than the typical nonunion middle-income worker because they have greater retirement savings and are more likely to have a DB pension.

It is important to note that the above figures do not incorporate controls to compare middle-class union and nonunion households, holding other important demographic characteristics such as age, race, ethnicity, gender, and family status of the head of household constant. “Family status” refers to whether the head of household is married, a single man, or a single woman. However, the authors conducted supplemental analysis of household wealth that controlled for a host of factors—including age, race, education, family status, risk tolerance, and occupation. This analysis found that union status is associated with a statistically significant increase in total wealth, increased homeownership, and increased DB pension participation among middle-class households. Still, additional study will be important to determine the mechanisms by which union status and wealth correlate with each other. It is possible that increased job stability or better fringe benefits—such as family health insurance for union members compared with nonunion members—could contribute to more wealth.

Conclusion

Many Americans do not have enough wealth to pay for an emergency or to afford a secure retirement. The gap in wealth between the top and everyone else is staggering, vastly larger than the gap in income that often occupies policy discussions. And the chasm in household wealth has been growing alongside an increasing inequality of income and economic security. As a result, policymakers need to focus more attention on building the wealth of middle-class families. They can do so by instituting policies that directly help workers build wealth, such as by ensuring that all workers can access high-quality retirement savings accounts at work no matter their employer. Policies to help build wealth also can be more indirect, such as through incentives in the tax code. But policymakers need to create better-targeted tax expenditures to encourage middle-class wealth in areas such as housing and retirement because current U.S. policies to encourage asset building through the tax code are expensive and predominantly help higher-income taxpayers.

These changes are not enough, however: Policymakers also need a broader conception of how to help families build up their wealth. That means working to raise incomes and control costs of key goods such as higher education and child care. And it also means protecting and encouraging workers’ right to join together in a union. CAP Action’s analysis shows that unions can help working people build their wealth and reclaim the American Dream of economic security during their lifetime and upward mobility for themselves and their children.

Christian E. Weller is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. David Madland is a Senior Fellow and the Senior Advisor to the American Worker Project at the Action Fund. Alex Rowell is a Research Assistant with the Economic Policy team at the Action Fund.

Paul Egan, Detroit Free Press

LANSING — Lawmakers may take action during the lame-duck session to force school workers and other public employees out of defined benefit pensions into 401(k)-style plans, though Republican leaders say no plans are finalized about what bills will move.

Action on bills already introduced to force new school employees into 401(k)’s is one possibility. But some public employee unions are worried the Republican-controlled Legislature could go further than that before year’s end, possibly closing some public pension systems at the state and local level, and curbing health care benefits for local government retirees.

Unfunded liabilities in public pension plans in Michigan remains a huge issue, despite efforts at the state level in recent years to address shortfalls in pension plans set up for state employees and school employees.

Michigan municipalities owe $9.5 billion in unfunded pension and post-retirement health care costs, according to a 2016 report by a team of MSU local government finance experts led by Eric Scorsone, who in September joined the State of Michigan as senior deputy state treasurer for finance. For many cities, trying to keep up with these commitments are cutting deeper each year into money that once paid for municipal services such as police and fire protection.

Bills to address local government pensions have not been introduced, but conservative groups such as Americans for Prosperity and the Michigan Freedom Fund have been pushing for action. Legislation could be introduced — and possibly passed — during the post-election lame-duck session that resumes Tuesday.

“The first rule to get out of a hole is to stop digging,” said Tony Daunt, executive director of the Michigan Freedom Fund, as a rationale for ending further unfunded obligations for defined-benefit pension and retirement health care plans.

Complicating the issue is that unlike pension plans for state and school employees, local pension plans are diverse: Some are underfunded, but others are adequately funded or even overfunded; Some offer retirement health care, others do not.

Gov. Rick Snyder has had a work group studying the issue of unfunded liabilities in local government. But the group, headed by director of strategy John Walsh, has not met since March, Snyder spokeswoman Anna Heaton said.

Snyder told reporters Tuesday it’s up to lawmakers whether they want to tackle the issue during the lame-duck session.

“We’re not putting forward big proposals at this point in time,” Snyder said. “We’re really waiting to see how the Legislature would like to handle it.”

Snyder said “some communities are doing well, others are struggling with these liabilities,” and “there could be better standards and better practices, potentially” to assure the benefits local government workers are promised get paid.

Nick Ciaramitaro, legislative director for American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 25 and president of the Michigan Coalition for Secure Retirement, said one option that has been discussed is forcing retirees younger than 65 into health care exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. But that option is in doubt with President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican Congress pledging to make repealing Obamacare a first priority, and no clarity about what they will replace it with, he said.

Given the variations in municipal retirement plans, a state-mandated “one-size-fits-all” solution “doesn’t seem to make sense,” he said.

At the state level, Senate Bill 102, sponsored by Sen. Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair Township, and House Bill 5218, sponsored by Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Saginaw Township, would force new school employees into 401(k) retirement plans. Under changes that became state law in 2012, school employees are now in a hybrid plan that combines a smaller defined-benefit pension plan with a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan.

Ciaramitaro said it’s a mistake to stop new workers from entering the plan to help support school retirees, and doing so will require the state to make significant annual contributions to shore up the plan to comply with Government Accounting Standards Board requirements.

Starting in 1997, all new state employees were forced into 401(k) plans, and studies have shown the state is now paying a similar amount to obtain much smaller benefits for its retirees, he said.

Snyder said Tuesday he doesn’t want to prejudge what the Legislature might do, but “the hybrid system has been working and I don’t have any intention to really talk about changing that at this point.”

The State Board of Education recently came out against the legislation, saying “we fear that this move will lead to higher liabilities in the current pension system and cost the state taxpayers billions of additional dollars.”

Gideon D’Assandro, a spokesman for House Speaker Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, said Tuesday “there are a lot of ideas out there, and we’re going to take a look at them,” both at the state and the local level.

Pete Lund, a former Republican state lawmaker who is state director for Americans for Prosperity of Michigan, an organization with ties to the Koch brothers and the tea party movement, released a poll Tuesday suggesting support beyond 60% for moving new teachers and local government workers into 401(k) plans.

“While pensions have long been touted as the hallmark of a secure retirement, public opinion has correctly moved toward individual retirement investment accounts as a better option,” Lund said in a news release.

Per 1st Deputy Comissioner of Streets and Sanitation John Tully, the deadline for 1001 Transfer Requests in DSS has been extended until the close of business 4pm, on Monday November 28, 2016.

Thanksgiving is a holiday that we get to enjoy and remember family. It is a day that we can be thankful for all we have both physically and spiritually.

2016 has been a year of lessons learned, knowledge gained, and wanted and unwanted change for us, but we should not forget to be thankful for all of the hard work and dedication that brought us to where we are today. We woud like to ask everyone as they sit around the holiday table to remember, just like it is with family, as a union we are stronger together.

On this day when we eat too much, laugh too much and even cry too much, we the Officers and Staff of LiUNA Local 1001 would like to wish everyone a very safe and Happy Thanksgiving.

In Unity,

The Officers and Staff of LiUNA Local 1001

Dear LIUNA Brothers and Sisters,

As the Thanksgiving holiday approaches, I ask that you join me and all our brothers and sisters in showing through words and actions that for which we are thankful: the security of our families and our nation, the strength of our union, our pride in building our country, and our willingness to help those in need. 

As many of us take well-deserved time off with our loved ones, many are serving abroad and facing danger far from home. In our own nation, too many will go without basic necessities. So let us cherish the holiday, but also rededicate ourselves to helping others and saluting those who do the everyday work of making our country great. 

On behalf of our General Executive Board, I wish each and every one of our half-million strong members and their families a safe, meaningful and enjoyable holiday.

With kind regards, I am 

Fraternally yours,

TERRY O’SULLIVAN

General President

The Washington Post – By Lisa Rein

President-elect Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are drawing up plans to take on the government bureaucracy they have long railed against, by eroding job protections and grinding down benefits that federal workers have received for a generation.

Hiring freezes, an end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, a ban on union business on the government’s dime and less generous pensions — these are the contours of the blueprint emerging under Republican control of Washington in January.

These changes were once unthinkable to federal employees, their unions and their supporters in Congress. But Trump’s election as an outsider promising to shake up a system he told voters is awash in “waste, fraud and abuse” has conservatives optimistic that they could do now what Republicans have been unable to do in the 133 years since the modern civil service was created.

“You have the country moving to the right and being much more anti-Washington than it was,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a leading Trump adviser who serves on the president-elect’s transition team.

“We’re going to have to get the country to understand how big the problem is, the human costs of it and why it’s absolutely essential to reform,” said Gingrich, who urged Trump to shrink big government and overhaul the “job-for-life” guarantee of federal work.

Gingrich predicted that Stephen K. Bannon, a former Breitbart News chief who helped steer Trump’s campaign and is now one of his most influential advisers, would lead the effort. “It’s a big, big project,” he said.

The project aligns with Bannon’s long-stated warnings about the corrupting influence of government and a capital city rampant with “crony capitalism.”

Breitbart headlines also provide a possible insight into his views, with federal employees described as overpaid, too numerous and a “privileged class.”

“Number of Government Employees Now Surpasses Manufacturing Jobs by 9,977,000,” the website proclaimed in November. There are 2.1 million federal civilian employees.

Top Republicans on Capitol Hill say their first priority will be making it easier to fire employees regarded as incompetent or who break the rules.

“It’s nearly impossible to fire somebody,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “When the overwhelming majority do a good job and the one bad apple is there viewing pornography, I want people to be held accountable.”

Chaffetz said he plans to push through wholesale changes to the generous retirement benefits that federal workers receive, by shifting to a market-driven, 401(k)-style plan for new employees.

He said the model would be his home state, which six years ago replaced the defined benefit pensions that have disappeared at most private companies with a defined contribution plan for new state and municipal workers.

“We have a Republican president who will help us drive this to the finish line,” Chaffetz said.

The promises go hand in hand with Trump’s promise to shrink the size and reach of government, from eliminating some agencies outright to lifting regulations and running the bureaucracy with fewer people.

Gingrich said the Trump administration probably would look for guidance from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who stripped public employee unions of most of their collective-bargaining rights and forced workers to pay more into their pensions and for health care in what became a bitter political fight.

The White House also can look for lessons from policies advocated by Vice President-elect Mike Pence.

As Indiana governor, Pence battled public employee unions and approved pay increases for state workers who receive good performance reviews, a strategy tried at the Defense Department under President George W. Bush but which was poorly managed and eventually abolished. The pay-for-performance idea is nonetheless a rebuke to the government’s system of raises based on longevity.

“We’re going to be playing defense for at least a couple of years,” acknowledged William R. Dougan, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, the third-largest federal union.

“The most immediate worry is: How are we going to shrink government?” Dougan said. “Are we going to lay people off? Eliminate whole agencies or do it through attrition?”

Trump has promised that in his first 100 days in office he will freeze hiring by not replacing employees who leave. The military and employees in public health and safety roles would be exempt, according to the president-elect’s Contract with the American Voter.

He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one passed and shut down the Education Department and parts of the Environmental Protection Agency.

But he also wants a military with more ships, planes and troops. He has said he wants to triple the number of immigration enforcement agents and beef up the Border Patrol by thousands.

So a selective hiring freeze may be more realistic, Trump advisers say, where agencies that Republicans dislike shrink and ones they like grow.

Trump can freeze hiring without Congress’s approval, with an executive order or less formal instructions to federal agencies.

Democrats and federal employee unions are preparing to fight the image of government workers as a privileged class and the bureaucracy as a bloated mess.

Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D), whose Northern Virginia district includes thousands of federal workers, said: “What study are they citing saying there are too many federal employees? Are you going to make a bunch of exceptions, in which case your plan looks like Swiss cheese?”

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the oversight committee, said in an email that he would “fight any effort to roll back civil service protections” — and worried that whistle blowers could lose their legal right to be immune from retaliation.

Others raise the specter that Republican proposals could allow political favoritism to creep into a system Congress created in 1883 to remove federal jobs from patronage ranks.

“Of course we want accountability,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who will enter the Senate in January, “but we also want to protect against political favoritism. It’s important that we not allow the civil service to be politicized.”

Congressional Republicans have clamored for years for a smaller bureaucracy and a workforce that resembles the private sector. The calls quickened after a string of scandals, particularly at the Department of Veterans Affairs, where managers instructed employees to falsify patient wait times to cover up delays for medical appointments.

But much of this GOP-written legislation was opposed by the Obama administration and blocked by Senate Democrats.

Now, with a Trump White House eliminating a veto threat, conservatives see their vision within reach.

And Democrats acknowledge that senators who are nervously looking to reelection bids in 2018 and represent red states friendly to Trump may not fall on their swords to defend federal employees, whose presence is more diffuse outside the Washington area.

Many inside and outside government agree that change to the way federal workers are hired, promoted and disciplined is long overdue. Employees under investigation for breaking the rules can sit at home for years — collecting paychecks and benefits — while their cases drag on. Performance rankings are widely panned as a joke, because the vast majority of workers are rated as exceeding expectations or doing outstanding work.

Federal workers are seldom fired for poor performance — and it can take years for managers to make a successful case for dismissal for misconduct. About 0.5 percent of the civil service gets fired every year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“The civil service system fails at almost everything it was designed to do,” said Paul Light, a civil service expert at New York University. “It’s very slow at hiring, negligent in disciplining, permissive in promoting.”

“There’s a private awareness among Democrats and Republicans alike that we need to do something about this,” he said.

Trump says he wants to freeze hiring to clean up corruption in government — but not necessarily to save money, a connection roundly dismissed by critics.

“Look at what’s happening with every agency — waste, fraud and abuse,” he said on the campaign trail. “We will cut so much, your head will spin.”

Other presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, have frozen hiring to shrink government — but rarely succeeded for long periods. Reagan imposed a freeze the day he came into office in 1981 that was retroactive to Election Day, forcing managers to renege on job offers to hundreds of people. But the government soon ballooned with active-duty military and civilians as he began a massive defense buildup.

The civilian workforce is the smallest it has been since Reagan left office, after plummeting under Clinton and expanding under Bush and President Obama.

Yet Republicans say a leaner government goes hand in hand with a more accountable one in which managers and rank-and-file employees who’ve failed should not get to keep their jobs.

These changes have taken root, with a bipartisan law in 2014 to limit the appeal rights of senior executives at Veterans Affairs who face discipline for wrongdoing.

Since then, similar restrictions for employees across government have stalled in Congress, in part because the Obama administration made little use of its new authority — and this year stopped using it altogether in the face of a court challenge alleging that it violated employees’ right to due process.

Other changes could result in longer probation for new employees, with the goal of making it easier for managers to let poor performers go since they would have little job protections. This has started at the Defense Department, where the current standard has doubled to two years.

These changes are vigorously opposed by unions, which could be severely weakened under GOP plans to eventually wipe out what’s known as “official time,” union work done by employees who continue to receive full salary and benefits.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in an email that he will reach out to federal employee unions as his panel works to enact “long-overdue reforms to our civil service.”

Said Johnson: “If we start with areas of agreement, I am confident that we can make continuous improvements to the functionality of the federal workforce.”

From the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune

The nearly 40,000 state workers who belong to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees have some soul-searching to do. Their union got smacked down in a recent labor ruling. What happens next is up to them.

On Tuesday, the Illinois Labor Relations Board sided with Gov. Bruce Rauner on a critical bargaining issue, allowing him to begin implementing the terms of his contract proposal for AFSCME workers. They have been working without a contract since July 2015. Rauner’s terms for a four-year deal include a salary bonus system based on work attendance, along with a broader wage freeze and stricter overtime rules. Union members are frustrated. AFSCME is likely to fight the changes in court and a strike is a possibility.

Whatever the outcome, it’s important to remember how the two sides arrived at this crossroad.

For more than a year, representatives of Rauner’s team have been meeting with AFSCME’s leaders, trying to find common ground on a new contract. If you’re imagining a table of stuffy lawyers in a brightly lit conference room, you’re not quite nailing it.

The two sides usually met in a rented hotel ballroom with a dais up front and hundreds of chairs in rows to accommodate union reps. Negotiating sessions — almost 70 total in Chicago and downstate, with hundreds of proposals traded back and forth — were punctuated by AFSCME-induced pro-labor chants to rile up the membership. There were occasional outbursts of profanity. The schedule included late starts, lengthy caucus breaks for AFSCME members to regroup and long lunches. Oh, and little to no progress.

Rauner sought a ruling from the labor board that the two sides had reached an impasse. AFSCME didn’t want an impasse declaration. It wanted to continue stalling. The terms of the old contract were in place, by agreement with Rauner, so the union liked the status quo just fine.

That process wasn’t productive. It’s a waste of taxpayer time and resources. So the labor board agreed that the parties were at an impasse.

The ruling allows Rauner to implement what was his final offer. If the workers decide to strike, they could lose their jobs.

It didn’t have to be this way. Had AFSCME leaders come to the table in good faith, they might not be forced to accept Rauner’s terms. Perhaps there would have been legitimate give and take. But we won’t know because AFSCME, for more than a year, preferred theatrics.

Rauner and his rhetoric certainly played a role in agitating the union. The labor board acknowledged both sides shared some blame for the gridlock.

But the board ruled unanimously for Rauner, not AFSCME. Three of the five board members were holdover appointees from Democratic governors. This was not a political decision.

A gentle reminder to state workers: State finances are bleak. New calculations show the state’s unfunded pension liability is at $130 billion, up from about $40 billion just 10 years ago. Illinois owes its vendors roughly $10 billion in backlogged bills. It has the worst credit rating of any state. The blame for all that cannot be pinned solely on a governor who took office 22 months ago. AFSCME and the Democratic politicians it has financed and supported over the years bear much responsibility for the state’s finances.

AFSCME leaders repeatedly have said their members don’t want to strike. We hope they don’t. State workers are taxpayers, too. They have to realize the union’s grip on day-to-day government operations is too tight. They have seen firsthand how the grievance process can be costly and abused. They must realize employment rules based on seniority, not individual achievement, are inefficient and outdated.

They must see that the state needs a new direction — for Illinois’ government, but also for its economy, already taxed by high demands from the public sector.

So we ask: If you’re an AFSCME member, do you believe your union leaders came to the table to bargain with Rauner fairly or to obstruct him no matter what? Did they choose rational behavior over melodrama? Progress over stalling? Prudence over theatrics?

Or were they willing to risk your job via a strike to make a power play?

That’s the soul-searching for 40,000 workers whose jobs could now be on the line.

From the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune 

“If you’re in this country and you’re a criminal — if you’re a drug dealer, if you’re a murderer — then you should be deported from the United States of America.”

No, that’s not President-elect Donald Trump talking. It’s U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Chicago, who has advocated longer and louder than anyone on behalf of immigrant communities. His point? Chicago and other so-called “sanctuary cities” are not in the business of sheltering the people Trump calls “bad hombres.” The goal is to protect everyone else.

Trump says as many as 3 million criminal immigrants are in the U.S. without permission. He has promised to deport them, and he’s prepared to play hardball to secure the cooperation of local police departments. He’s threatened to block federal funding to governments with sanctuary policies, which shield immigrants who are in the country without permission but are otherwise law-abiding from being deported. That includes Chicago, Cook County and dozens of other jurisdictions around the country.

Since Trump’s election, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has joined the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and others in reaffirming that their police officers won’t become de facto immigration officers.

It could be a costly impasse. Chicago got more than $1 billion in federal funding this year for all sorts of programs — transportation, health care, education, law enforcement and others. Next year, it’s counting on $1.3 billion.

Many of Chicago’s immigrants who are in the U.S. without legal permission express concern for the future following president-elect Donald Trump’s pledge this week to immediately deport as many as 3 million people. (Chicago Tribune)

Trump couldn’t shut off the funding without backing from Congress, and Emanuel brushed off the threat, saying he doubts Trump is serious about targeting “every major city in the United States.” U.S. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Chicago, said he hopes Trump won’t risk alienating lawmakers who represent those cities.

We wouldn’t place any bets on what Trump will or won’t do, but lawmakers are likely to think twice. Last year, House grandstanders passed a bill to cut off federal law enforcement grants to sanctuary cities, but the Senate wisely let it die.

Police in sanctuary cities typically won’t detain people based on immigration status if they would otherwise qualify for release. A driver who’s here illegally doesn’t risk being deported over a speeding ticket. An immigrant arrested on suspicion of shoplifting can be released on bail pending a court date. The reasoning: Public safety suffers when local police are viewed as immigration agents. Crime victims or witnesses are less likely to cooperate if they fear they’ll be deported. Sanctuary policies also spare local taxpayers the cost of holding people until the feds get around to deporting them.

In Chicago, an executive order signed by Mayor Harold Washington in 1985 prohibited city employees, including police, from asking about immigration status when providing services. A 2012 ordinance sponsored by Emanuel allows police to cooperate with federal immigration agents only if the person in custody has been convicted of a serious crime or is the subject of a criminal warrant.

Emanuel has sought to reassure immigrants that “you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago.” On Wednesday, dozens of aldermen signed on to a resolution that reaffirms the city’s ordinance. It rejects the idea of a religious litmus test for immigrants or the creation of a government national registry based on religion or ethnicity. And it says Chicago will resist “any attempt by the president-elect to hold federal funding to the nation’s economic centers ransom to an inhumane immigration agenda.”

We hope Trump’s threat is an empty one. There are 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. without permission. Most of them are leading peaceful, productive lives. Study after study shows they are less likely to commit crimes than the population at large. Our communities are safer when they are able to interact freely with police.

By Ronald A. Klain – The Washington Post

Ronald A. Klain served as assistant to President Obama and oversaw the team implementing the American Recovery and Renewal Act from 2009-2011. He was an adviser to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign. The views expressed here are solely his own.

As the White House official responsible for overseeing implementation of President Obama’s massive infrastructure initiative, the 2009 Recovery Act, I’ve got a simple message for Democrats who are embracing President-elect Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan: Don’t do it. It’s a trap. Backing Trump’s plan is a mistake in policy and political judgment they will regret, as did their Democratic predecessors who voted for Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981 and George W. Bush’s cuts in 2001.

First, Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton’s 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects.

Moreover, as others have noted, desperately needed infrastructure projects that are not attractive to private investors — municipal water-system overhauls, repairs of existing roads, replacement of bridges that do not charge tolls — get no help from Trump’s plan. And contractors? Well, they get a “10 percent pretax profit margin,” according to the plan. Combined with Trump’s sweeping business tax break, this would represent a stunning $85 billion after-tax profit for contractors — underwritten by the taxpayers.

Second, as a result of the above, Trump’s plan isn’t really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there’s no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring. Investors may simply shift capital from unsubsidized projects to subsidized ones and pocket the tax breaks on projects they would have funded anyway. Contractors have no obligation to hire new workers, or expand workers’ hours, to collect their $85 billion. To their credit, the plan’s authors don’t call it a jobs plan; ironically, it is Democrats looking to align with Trump who have given it that name. They should not fool themselves.

Third, because there is no proposed funding mechanism for Trump’s tax breaks, they will add to the deficit — perhaps as much as $137 billion. Yes, some economists think more deficit spending will boost growth. But you can be sure of this: In Trump’s hands, rising deficits will be weaponized to justify future cuts in health care, education and social programs. Just as David Stockman used deficits caused by the Reagan tax cuts as a rationale to slash social programs three decades ago (the “starve the beast” theory), the deficits caused by Trump’s infrastructure tax cuts will be used to justify cuts in programs. Thus, Democrats should know that every dollar spent on the Trump tax scheme to enrich construction investors and contractors is a dollar that will later be cut from schools, hospitals and seniors.

Fourth, if the Republican approach to the Recovery Act is any indication, the Trump plan will come chock-full of policy changes that undermine core Democratic principles. Buried inside the plan will be provisions to weaken prevailing wage protections on construction projects, undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers’ earnings. Environmental rules are almost certain to be gutted in the name of accelerating projects.

I understand why Democrats are searching for areas where they can make progress under a Trump presidency and why some Democrats say they won’t follow the Republican example of 2009 — when the GOP minority unanimously opposed the Recovery Act, even after intense negotiations with them diverted one-third of the plan to tax cuts. It is possible that Trump may modify the plan he released in October, and some Trump advisers are talking about sweetening the deal for Democrats by adding an “infrastructure bank.” But even with such an addition, the Trump plan would not be a reasonable compromise — acceptance of its huge tax breaks for construction investors and profits for contractors would be a wholesale concession. Democrats supporting such a deal in the moment will find that their votes will wear poorly in the future.

After the disappointing election results, Democrats are looking for ways to connect with working-class voters — and Trump’s plan appears to offer that. But when the plan is passed and those voters see that it fattens investors’ and contractors’ pockets (but not workers’), creates few jobs, depresses wages and damages our environment, they will sour on it and turn against its backers. Democrats may lack the votes to stop Trump’s plan, particularly if the GOP uses extraordinary legislative vehicles or processes to pass it. But Democrats should not add their votes and credibility to this poorly designed initiative.

Nice work, Rust Belt! Trump’s high court is almost certain to undercut labor organizing and workplace rights #local1001 #labor #liuna #unions #publicemployees

By Amanda Marcotte – SALON.COM

Hillary Clinton’s loss in Rust Belt states that Barack Obama won handily — like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — has resulted in widespread hand-wringing about why Democrats struggle to capture the votes of the white working class. There’s a lot of discourse about the need of coastal professionals to reach out more, emphasize more, “feel their pain.”

This will supposedly lure back voters who started breaking off from the Democrats decades ago to vote for candidates who offered race-baiting or — as in the case of Donald Trump — openly racist rhetoric rather than economic solutions.

What is being talked about much less, however, is the role played by labor unions in protecting workers’ rights, and in the American economy more broadly. In a widely shared article in the Harvard Business Review, “What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class” by Joan C. Williams, the word “union” appears only once, and the context is negative.

This oversight is particularly troubling when one considers that Republicans certainly don’t think unions are a minor issue. On the contrary, Republicans see labor organizing as a major impediment to their electoral prospects. So they have done everything in their power to dismantle the ability of unions to organize workers and bargain collectively on their behalf. Now that Trump will have the power to appoint federal judges, especially Supreme Court judges, these efforts to destroy organized labor will get a big assist in the courts.

“One of the reasons that Republicans [in Wisconsin] were trying to gut collective bargaining rights for public sector unions” was that they wanted “to defeat Obama in 2012,” explained Joseph Slater, a law professor at the University of Toledo in Ohio who specializes in labor law. 

While the effort to constrain or destroy labor unions in Wisconsin didn’t lead to Obama’s defeat then, “it may have well have helped defeat Clinton in 2016,” Slater added in a phone interview.

Considering how narrow Trump’s general election victory was in that state — Politico currently has his lead as smaller than 30,000 votes — it’s safe to bet that the decline of union power in that state was a major factor. But conservative forces have even bigger designs on public unions — plans that they will almost certainly be able to bring before the Supreme Court. That prospect should terrify the labor movement and its supporters because filling the seat left vacant by former justice Antonin Scalia with a conservative judge will likely result in a majority hostile to labor unions.

“Justice [Anthony] Kennedy is not going to be the savior of the organized labor movement before the Supreme Court,” Charlotte Garden, a labor expert and associate professor at the Seattle University School of Law, said over the phone. 

“Kennedy has been quite hostile to organized labor,” she said. “In fact, in some of the major union cases that have been in front of the Supreme Court in recent years, it was Justice Scalia that was in the unusual role of being the potential swing justice.”

In January, when Scalia was still alive, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case, which challenged the practice of “agency fees,” whereby unions charge all the workers they represent in a given industry, whether individual employees want to join the union or not. When unions bargain for higher wages and better benefits, that helps all the workers not just the union employees. By charging this fee, unions are able to avoid the “free rider” problem, by which workers benefit from labor organizing without participating in it.

“The analogy I always use is that I like my cable provider fine — good selection of channels, not too expensive,” Slater explained. “But if they were legally obliged to provide me cable service without me paying them anything, I might not pay them anything.”

In 1977, in the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education case, the court upheld the practice of agency fees for public sector unions. It seemed like settled law, but for this case, the plaintiff argued that such agency fees violate the First Amendment because people paying for them are subsidizing forms of speech — such an union organizing and pamphleteering — that they may disagree with.

Scalia died before the court could render a verdict, and the court split 4 to 4, which means that agency fees practice continues. It’s likely, however, that this case or one similar to it will be heard in the next year or so.

It’s widely assumed that President Obama’s pick to fill Scalia’s seat, Merrick Garland, would have sided with the union. It’s also safe to guess that whomever Trump puts in that seat will take a different view. If the high court rules against agency fees, it will be devastating for the financial health of public sector unions, crippling their ability to fund the level of representation needed to protect workers.

To make it worse, Slater argued, there’s a chance that conservative justices on the court, especially Justice Samuel Alito, are eyeing opportunities to rule that agency fees are unconstitutional — not just in public sector unions but in all unions.

In the 2014 case Harris v. Quinn, which centered on agency fees for a home health care workers union, Justice Alito wrote a digressive passage in which, according to Slater, he hinted that he believed “union security clauses in the private sector create a constitutional issue.” Slater is worried that there’s a substantial chance that, with a new Trump appointee on the bench, anti-labor forces will seek an opportunity to make it illegal for any union anywhere to negotiate for agency fees from workers it represents. 

While this agency fee debate is the biggest one facing labor in the courts right now, Garden outlined a number of other issues of major concern.

Another big one is compulsory arbitration agreements. Beginning in 2012, the National Labor Relations Board began taking the position that agreements requiring workers to pursue any and all legal claims against their employers in individual arbitration — rather than through a union process — were violations of labor law, Garden explained. Existing law “protects workers’ rights to try to remedy those grievances on a collective basis,” she said.

Garden expects that some business owner  will be able to go before of the Supreme Court soon to argue for his or her right to force employees into individual arbitration, rather than allowing unions to handle such disputes. As with the agency fee issue, odds are high that the four current conservatives on the bench, plus a new Trump appointee, will side against worker rights to union representation in these cases.

“I think we’ve seen, in this election, the effects the weakened labor movement can have on electoral outcomes,” Garden added. “The decline of good jobs in the Rust Belt and the decline of unions have gone hand in hand.”

That’s the vicious cycle that Republicans have set up and one we have every reason to believe that Trump — who has tried to squelch union organizing at his Las Vegas hotel  will continue. They generally have undermined and weakened union and labor standards, which negatively affects the ability of Democrats to organize workers. That lowers Democratic turnout at the polls, which helps elect Republicans, who in turn continue to attack labor organizers and erode workplace rights.

And while it’s fun to focus on personality and cultural issues and blame those things for low voter turnout in the Rust Belt states, these Republican actions strongly suggest that GOP strategists believe the decline of organized labor is to blame. From their point of view, it’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Transfers for Local 1001 members in Streets and Sanitation are due no later than close of business on November 25, 2016. Click on the notice below to view.

By Kim Geiger – Chicago Tribune 

An Illinois labor board declared Tuesday that Gov. Bruce Rauner and the state’s largest employee union are at an impasse in negotiations, clearing the way for the Republican governor to attempt to impose his terms on a new contract.

The unanimous ruling puts an already wobbly state government in uncharted territory. The union has never gone on strike. But that will become an option if Rauner enforces the offer he left on the table.

There’s still some time, however, for the two sides to plot their next moves.

The Rauner administration and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 31 are awaiting a written ruling from the Illinois Labor Relations Board, but spokesman Anders Lindall said the union already anticipates appealing the decision in state court. In the meantime, the union called on the governor not to implement the disputed contract and instead to restart negotiations.

“Nothing coming out of this decision compels the governor to seek to impose (his terms),” Lindall said. “He is free to come back to the bargaining table, and we think that in the public interest, in the interest of every Illinoisan … that he should do that, that he should come back to the bargaining table and join us in doing that hard work of compromise.”

The Rauner administration, meanwhile, suggested the union should “partner with us as we consider how best to implement the contract.”

“Today’s decision is fair for taxpayers and state employees,” Rauner spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said in a statement. “As a result of this agreed-to process, the state can now implement its contract, saving the taxpayers more than $3 billion over four years.”

Rauner’s last, best and final offer included no across-the-board guaranteed salary increase, but provided for $1,000 bonuses linked to work attendance, a series of new health care options with premiums ranging from $188 per month to $427 per month depending on employee salary, new rules that prevent overtime from kicking in before an employee has worked 40 hours in a week, and reduced holiday pay, among other things.

The labor board, which is made up of five political appointees, determined that the parties were at impasse — a technical stage in negotiations that allows the governor to attempt to impose his final offer. In doing so, the panel rejected a recommendation from an administrative law judge. The judge, citing a failure by Rauner’s negotiators to provide AFSCME with information about a number of its proposals, had suggested allowing Rauner to implement his terms on some items while sending the state back to the negotiating table on others.

Although the labor board agreed that the state had erred in not providing AFSCME with the requested information, its members were quick to dismiss the judge’s two-part solution. Instead, they chose to employ a legal approach suggested by Rauner’s lawyers, in which deadlock over a single issue could be considered enough to put a stop to the talks.

That issue was subcontracting. It was the first issue the two sides broached in the contract talks, and it was the last issue to come up in January before Rauner’s team declared that it would seek the labor board’s opinion on impasse. A Rauner negotiator cited the disagreement over subcontracting as a reason for referring the matter to the board.

At the crux of that dispute is Rauner’s desire to make it easier for the state to subcontract to the private sector for services ordinarily performed by state workers. Rauner’s team initially wanted unlimited ability to subcontract, saying it needed flexibility to find cost savings to get the state’s finances in order. AFSCME rejected that proposal outright.

The Rauner administration came back with a modified proposal for what’s known as “managed competition,” where the union would compete with private companies in bidding for contracts. The two sides spent months trading language on the idea, discussing it over the course of 21 bargaining days.

On the day that the Rauner team decided the talks were deadlocked, AFSCME had proposed adding language requiring that bids from private contractors would have to “meet the standard of greater efficiency, economy or other related factors” — language that the administration already had made clear it opposed.

“Subcontracting was the insurmountable issue that really got to the heart of the beliefs of both parties,” said labor board member Keith Snyder, a former mayor of Lincoln appointed by Rauner last year. “Dealing with what the state is trying to deal with in terms of financial crisis, and AFSCME trying to deal with protection of jobs and members’ jobs and things like that.”

While the state labor panel is comprised of five people appointed by the governor, Snyder is one of just two who joined the board after Rauner took office. The others were first appointed under past administrations.

AFSCME’s Lindall criticized the board for going against the recommendation of the administrative law judge. The union spokesman accused the Rauner administration of having “sabotaged the collective bargaining process” but reiterated the union’s long-held public position that it does not want to go on strike.

“We have long contended that the governor is trying to impose his unfair terms or force state workers, if they don’t want to accept those, to go out on strike,” Lindall said. “We think that a strike would be harmful to the people of Illinois, and Gov. Rauner’s path of chaos and confrontation is not in the public interest.”

The animosity between the governor and AFSCME dates to the 2014 campaign, when candidate Rauner made it known he would be willing to shut down the government and fire public workers if that’s what it took to achieve his objectives. His disdain for AFSCME also was apparent in his preferred nickname for the union: “Af-scammy.”

Rauner’s opposition to the union is both ideological and political.

AFSCME has long been allied with Democrats in state government, helping fuel their political campaigns with donations and on-the-ground help from its army of members. The union’s key function is to negotiate a master collective bargaining agreement that covers roughly 40,000 state government workers and sets the terms for the health benefits offered to current and retired state employees.

It’s a dynamic that Rauner has derided as a conflict of interest because the union can work to influence the outcome of elections, then sit across the negotiating table from those it helped to elect.

Rauner’s personal fortune allowed him to self-fund much of his 2014 campaign, and he ran as someone who would not be beholden to organized labor, which he blamed for much of the state’s financial woes. That raised the stakes on the contract talks as Rauner set out to make good on the promise that electing an “outsider” would make it possible to weaken the union’s influence on state finances.

From the beginning, AFSCME viewed the contract negotiations as just one piece of a broader Rauner-led assault on union power in Illinois. In one of his first acts as governor, Rauner tried to halt the practice of unions collecting fees from nonunion workers. He also called for banning campaign contributions by unions and called for the creation of “empowerment zones” where voters could decide to limit union influence.

All of that formed the backdrop for negotiations. AFSCME Executive Director Roberta Lynch’s opening remarks on the first day of contract talks made reference to Rauner’s past statements about “corrupt union bosses” and “sweetheart deals,” and she repeatedly questioned whether the state intended to bargain in good faith.

For a total of 67 days over the course of nearly a year of contract talks, AFSCME’s more than 230 bargaining representatives, led by Lynch, sparred with the Rauner administration’s negotiators in meetings that often were overseen by federal mediators.

In her 400-page retelling and analysis of the negotiations, Labor Board Administrative Law Judge Sarah Kerley described the talks as “atypical” from the start, and marked by a “battle mindset on both sides of the table.” Even the process of establishing ground rules for negotiations was contentious and took weeks to resolve. At times, the disagreements turned profane, with Lynch at one point telling a Rauner negotiator to “get the (expletive) out!”

AFSCME’s distrust of the Rauner administration ran so deep that the union spent much of the year waging a parallel effort to take the matter out of Rauner’s hands by pushing legislation that would allow an independent arbitrator to step in. Twice, the Democrat-led General Assembly passed legislation allowing for the arbitrator, and twice Rauner vetoed the measure.

So by the time Rauner referred the dispute to the labor board in January 2016, two shadows were looming over the talks: the governor’s anti-union political stance and the union’s efforts to get around him in the midst of negotiations.

As is standard in any negotiation, both sides started out with wish lists that were unacceptable to the other side.

Rauner wanted to delete a number of provisions in the expired contract, including restrictions on subcontracting and rules for filling positions after layoffs. He took aim at the state workers’ 37.5-hour workweek, saying overtime shouldn’t kick in until 40 hours had been worked. The administration wanted to freeze wages and institute a merit pay system that would reward high performers with nonpensionable bonuses. And it sought to increase the worker-paid share of health care costs.

AFSME wanted a 2 percent pay raise in the first year of the contract followed by 3 percent increases for the following years. The union also wanted to add bereavement leave and expand parental leave for state workers. On health care, the union wanted to add benefits without increasing the cost to workers.

In bargaining sessions, the two sides moved slightly, but some lines were clearly drawn. Kerley concluded that there was indeed a deadlock over certain issues, including subcontracting, holiday scheduling and vacation. But she reasoned that there was still room to negotiate on other issues, including wages and health care, since the administration hadn’t provided requested information and was seeking to make changes that can’t be imposed unilaterally.

But Kerley also provided commentary on the process that called into question whether either side had good reason to believe they’d ever reach a deal.

“After weeks and weeks hearing testimony of the parties on the status of negotiations and reviewing the record in this case, I am left with the firm impression that the state felt an urgency to reach a resolution while the union was content to negotiate by infinitesimal increments,” Kerley wrote in her recommendation to the labor board. “There is certainly evidence in the record to support that the union did not believe it would reach agreement at the bargaining table. From the very early days of negotiations, the union accused the state of seeking to destroy the union, pointing, in part, to many proposals the state ultimately withdrew.”

AFSCME contends that even given the labor board’s ruling, Rauner can’t implement all of his contract changes since some, like the merit pay system, would require employees to voluntarily waive their legal rights to have their pay count toward their retirement pensions.

The labor board decided to sidestep that issue. In a nod to the likelihood that the contract dispute will land in court, board Chairman John Hartnett declined to let the board weigh in. “It may be for some other body to determine,” Hartnett said.

Dear LIUNA Member,

On behalf of the LIUNA General Executive Board and the 500,000 men and women of LIUNA, I would like to use this Veterans Day and Remembrance Day to salute the men and women who serve, and have served, in the armed forces across the United States and Canada.

We recognize the incredible achievements and the sacrifices our service members and veterans have made for us all. We honor those who gave their lives to protect the freedom enjoyed by their fellow citizens, and we honor those who were wounded or taken prisoner. The courage of these men and women will never be forgotten.

LIUNA is extremely proud of its brothers and sisters who are veterans. In the 113 years since its founding, our members have time and again answered the call to defend freedom and democracy, not just for the United States and Canada, but for people across the world. They have inspired generations of people, and for decades they have helped strengthen this International Union. Through Helmets to Hardhats and other means, we will continue to recruit veterans and do everything we possibly can to help them as they build rewarding careers. 

Let us thank the veterans in our lives and our LIUNA brothers and sisters who have served. Let’s tell them how much we honor and respect them, not only on this day, but every day. Let’s vow never to forget all those who have served our countries and sacrificed their lives to protect us. We are in their debt. 

With kind regards, I am

Fraternally yours,

TERRY O’SULLIVAN

General President 

November 9, 2016

LIUNA 2016 Election Efforts Second to None
A Message from General President Terry O’Sullivan

The surprising and disappointing results of last night’s election are a wake-up call to Washington and quite frankly to the country.  The results convey a deep concern with the direction our country is headed and emphasize the need to make our economy work better for working class Americans everywhere. LIUNA is prepared to work with the next President and Congress. And, as always, we will continue to defend the founding principles of our nation and our union to ensure that regardless of race, heritage, or gender every working woman and man has an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper.

While we are disappointed, we cannot measure our success or failure solely on election results.  I couldn’t be more proud of the efforts of LIUNA members during the 2016 election. LIUNA’s election efforts were second to none and set us apart as an activist organization.  LIUNA doubled-down in our election efforts making sure everyone could feel the power of LIUNA orange.  Members were front and center in rally after rally and boots on the ground for tens of thousands of hours of volunteer door-knocking and phone banking.

Now that the election is over and we will work with a new White House and Congress, there is much for us to do. The strong, proud, and united members of LIUNA will not be deterred in our efforts to fight for an aggressive agenda to increase infrastructure investment, define smart energy policy, defend prevailing wages, repeal the Cadillac tax, enact pension reform, protect Federal employees, enact meaningful postal reform, and win comprehensive immigration reform.

It will take the efforts of every LIUNA member to accomplish our progressive and aggressive legislative agenda to provide a middle-class way of life for our members and their families.  With the strong, proud, and united brothers and sisters of LIUNA, I couldn’t be more confident of our ability to move our organization forward. May you continue to feel the power, may you continue to use the power, and may you continue to be the power.