Unions Challenge New State Retiree Health Coverage Law

A class action lawsuit backed by a coaliton of powerful unions seeks to overturn an Illinois law that calls for retired state workers to pay more for their health insurance.
As part of union agreements, members with long careers in government had previous been assured nearly free health care upon their retirement.  The new law will make them pay a premium
The lawsuit argues that violates the state constitution because it goes against the union contracts.
Michael Powell is President of the Fraternal Order of Police lodge representing state troopers.
He says for retired state police, it’s a dramatic reduction in benefits that troopers count on.

“People retire under certain conditions.  It’d be no different than retiring knowing that your social security kicked in tomorrow, and then the social security agency calling you and saying ‘we’re going to significantly reduce your social security benefits.’ People wouldn’t stand for it.”

Powell adds that most state troopers … like many other state employees … are not eligible for social security.
There are two other lawsuits challenging the same law.  One from a handful of retired state workers, another from a retired judge.  But legal action from the unions may give it more weight.
The Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois Nurses Association, and AFSCME … the union representing most state workers … are also part of the suit.
***************************************************
AFSCME’s currently negotiating a new contract with Governor Pat Quinn’s administration.  Retiree health care costs are part of the negotiations.
A spokeswoman for Quinn says the lawsuit will have no affect on talks.  And she says Illinois still needs to stabilize its pensions by reducing retirement benefits.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Unions Challenge New State Retiree Health Coverage Law

  1. Tough Love says:

    Court actions (and DECISIONS) won’t matter when the money runs out.

    • J. Willis says:

      The Constitution requires that pensions be paid even if nothing else gets paid.

      • Tough Love says:

        Keep dreaming buddy.

        It a MATH problem …… you’ll never be paid, no matter WHAT the Courts decide.

      • J. Willis says:

        I’ll explain my thinking on this. Check my arithmetic. The State’s annual revenue is about 33 billion dollars. The State only needs about 6 billion per year to fund pensions. If the Constitution requires payment of pensions first, which it does, then the rest of the money, 27 billion, would be used to pay everything else until it runs out. Where am I wrong?

      • J. Willis says:

        Tough Love: Haven’t heard from you. Where is my arithmetic wrong? I think I got you! J.Willis.

  2. J. Willis says:

    There’s a lot of misinformation about this pension problem. The politicians like to scare the public with this talk about “unfunded liability”. All that means is they don’t have enough money “on hand” to pay future obligations. However, the annual State budget (33 billion) is more than adequate to pay annual pension payments(6 billion). Six billion per year times (2045-2012) 33 years equals 198 billion, way more than enough to meet current and future obligations.

Comment on this Story

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s