Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Video | iPhone 6 Review - Is it worth the upgrade?
Sep 20, 2014 8:26 am
The release of a new iPhone has almost become an Autumn holiday — especially for the hundreds of eager customers who more »
Hartford Entrepreneur is Crunching Numbers for the Greater Good
Sep 18, 2014 6:59 am
Data is vitally important to most nonprofits. It is a key component for seeking grant funds, gives a clear picture of...more »

Our Partners

˜

Longevity Bonuses Lowered By $10M Between April and October

by Christine Stuart | Oct 14, 2011 1:38pm
(9) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget

The amount of longevity bonuses given to state employees today was less than it was in April when payments over $20.25 million were given to 32,239 union and non-union employees. This month $10.26 million was given to 8,337 state employees.

The drop in longevity payments was due to most union members forfeiting their October payment. The number is expected to rise again unless lawmakers eliminate the payments permanently.

About 5,250 of the employees to receive an October payment were union employees in the higher education and judicial branch system and 3.087 were non-union employees across state government.

Click here for a list of union members and here for a list of non-union members.

The controversial payments given on the 10th anniversary of state service grabbed headlines recently when lawmakers and union officials were surprised to learn the legislature failed to eliminate them when it passed language June 30 to codify the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition agreement.

Most union members, aside from the 5,250 who received the payments this month, forfeited theirs as part of the SEBAC agreement. Last week union officials filed a grievance against the state for failing to do the same when it adopted this legislation.

There had been language to make the payments comparable to what was in the SEBAC agreement—which would have essentially eliminated them—but that language mysteriously disappeared in Section 11(c) of the final draft of the bill passed by the General Assembly in special session June 30. There was language in the May budget bill to eliminate these bonuses, which is why so many lawmakers were surprised to learned they will still be given out in mid-October.

Union officials say the decision to hand out the biannual longevity payments creates an inequity and is not consistent with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s message of shared sacrifice or with language in the SEBAC agreement. Republican Senators contend Malloy has the power to lower and limit the payments without legislative approval.

Malloy has said he wants to get rid of them too, but needs it to come about legislatively.

Tags: , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(9) Comments

posted by: Disgruntled | October 14, 2011  2:32pm

The amount paid out dropped but it does not seem to have dropped in proportion to the numbers receiving money.

$20.25M to 32,239 workers
vs
$10.26M to 8337 workers.

It seems like sort of an increase to me but I was always horrible with numbers.

posted by: Noteworthy | October 14, 2011  5:25pm

These bonuses just for occupying a chair have always been stupid. That Malloy and this hapless, do nothing legislature should have eliminated them long ago. At very least, when you are ripping $3 billion in new taxes from the citizens, have some shame and some decency and end this abuse. That this hasn’t been done is a testiment to the nitwits and ninnies that inhabit the halls of powers - including the governor’s office.

posted by: Victoria1555 | October 15, 2011  6:58am

The wagon pullers are leaving the state….where will the money come from??

posted by: NOW What? | October 15, 2011  3:24pm

The ones still receiving longevity are the ones who on average have some of the highest base pay positions, and thus their longevity payments are larger. Managers’ longevity pay should be eliminated and the equivalent funds (or at least a portion of them) should be placed into their management incentive plan instead of longevity payments.

posted by: and 1 | October 15, 2011  4:41pm

Are you absolutely certain that the employees you have listed as union employees are in fact all union employees?

posted by: Victoria1555 | October 15, 2011  5:42pm

So…...Amen.. enough is enough.

posted by: tier-1 st empl | October 15, 2011  10:11pm

To all the State employees that voted for SEBAC ‘11:

Are you beginning to understand the Gov’s definition of “shared sacrifice”?
If not, more opportunities will be presenting themselves to enhance your comprehension.

posted by: state_employee | October 16, 2011  12:15pm

Mark Ojakian needs to be held accountable for this.  He is the cheif negotiator for the state.  He ensured his own payment of almost 4000,00 twice yearly would not change.
Illegal.

posted by: sickofit | October 16, 2011  1:17pm

Read Pelto’s Op/Ed piece in the Courant or at his Wait, What? website. It is a little more in depth and more direct in asking who is responsible in the change in wording in the 2nd “essentially unchanged” agreement. He does mention my guess, Ojakian, the State’s chief negotiator who is getting his biannual $4100 longevity check. I can’t believe that he wasn’t aware of the change. Shared sacrifice anyone?