$7M In Bonuses Out The Door, Fingerpointing Ensues
by Christine Stuart | Sep 30, 2011 6:50pm
(7) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget, Special Session
The state’s decision to hand out an estimated $7 million in longevity payments to about 3,600 non-union state employees is like a hot potato that no one seems to wants to touch.
The payments which are received by state employees on their 10th anniversary of state service are made twice a year regardless of performance. The payments used to increase on the 15, 20, and 25th anniversary, but an executive order signed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy in January capped them at last year‘s level and eliminated them for any of his new appointees who previously didn’t work for the state.
The state was able to cap the payments for some unionized state employees and eliminate them for new unionized state employees, while others will forfeit theirs through the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition agreement adopted in August, but has made no progress in eliminating them for non-union state employees.
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.
“I would support it being taken on legislatively,“ Malloy said Friday. “I think there are some nuances which are sometimes hard to explain, but I’ll take a start and probably be blamed for it.”
He said the longevity bonuses for non-union employees were substantially higher than ones given to union employees because the state for many years wasn‘t adjusting the salary base for managers, who sometimes were making less than the people who worked for them.
However, having said “I don’t believe we should have longevity payments,” Malloy said.
While that was music to lawmakers’ ears, some already believe Malloy has the power to eliminate them without legislative approval.
“I am calling on you to exercise your executive authority and stop this practice,” Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney, said in a letter he wrote Malloy Friday. “While you have repeatedly stated you would support legislation reforming the longevity system, the reality is that you already have the authority to make significant reductions in longevity pay.”
McKinney argued Malloy has the authority to limit the payments of some non-union employees to $75 to $300. There are exceptions to the rule, such as judges and state attorney’s, whose contracts require the longevity payment to be a percentage of their salaries.
Malloy’s administration has expressed concern that eliminating the payments completely would be cause for legal action.
“I strongly disagree with the proposition that non-union employees have some kind of constitutionally protected vested property right to longevity payments,” McKinney wrote.
House Speaker Chris Donovan said Friday that if the governor thinks they should be eliminated then he should come talk to lawmakers about it.
Union officials say the decision to hand out the biannual longevity payments creates an inequity and is not consistent with Malloy’s message of shared sacrifice or with language in the SEBAC agreement.
“‘Shared sacrifice’ should mean that state managers are treated the same as the unionized workforce,” Bob Rinker, executive director of CSEA/SEIU Local 2001, said. “The members of our unions just agreed to concessions believing that that the budget would not be balanced on their backs alone. The issue is one of fundamental fairness, and the managers’ longevity bonuses should reflect the same sacrifice as the front-line workers’ reduced payments.”
As part of the SEBAC agreement the state and the union capped longevity bonuses for some unionized workers and eliminated them for new ones, while still others will forfeit theirs this October as part of the agreement. Those union bonuses amounted to $13.25 million in April. Most of the union bonuses, unlike the ones for managers, were under $1,000.
And even though Malloy eliminated the longevity bonuses for his new appointees many in his administration will still be receiving them.
According to information released in April, the last time the bonuses were handed out, Banking Commissioner Howard Pitkin will receive $4,800, Correction Department Commissioner Leo Arnone will receive $5,600, and Office of Policy and Management Undersecretary Mark Ojakian will receive $4,800.
Jeffrey Beckham, spokesman for the Department of Administrative Services, said Friday that October’s payments are still being verified and no information was available.
Tags: longevity, bonus, SEBAC, legislation, sacrifice, budget
(7) Comments
posted by: Disgruntled | September 30, 2011 7:21pm
In a word—sickening.
You mean the DMV clerks that I have seen doing nothing over the years get a bonus just for taking up space in a state office?
“...but that language mysteriously disappeared in the final draft of the bill passed by the General Assembly in special session June 30”
Even more sickening!
Come on Dan! Share the sacrifice!
posted by: newview | September 30, 2011 9:00pm
I don’t know why anyone would expect anything else from this administration. Beat up on the working slobs and treat the upper levels of management with lavish gratuity. How is this unlike Wall Street and the very ideals and methods by which we have been victimized by the financial crisis…globally!?!
And then to have Rob Rinker stampeding all over the place….all huffed and puffed up ....oh please..what a show! As if the Union’s negotiating team didn’t see this one coming…give me a break. And then, to attempt to pull this rally off and treat union employees like a bunch of idiots. After changing the by-laws to affirm the concessions, how much more insulting is this supposed to get?...really! I hadn’t realized adding insult to injury was the modus operandi for CSEA/SEIU. Who the heck approves this stuff anyway? Doesn’t the union know to quit when they’re down and out? Just lay down already!!
Whoever is falling for this charade really needs to take a look behind the curtain! (or at least make some attempt to pull your head out of the sand)
posted by: perturbed | October 1, 2011 1:14am
Although the article claims—three times—that longevity payments have been eliminated for union members, that’s not correct.
Longevity has been eliminated for new hires only, if they don’t have military service.
Longevity payments were not eliminated for existing unionized state employees. A single longevity payment, due in October 2011, was eliminated, and service time that counts towards longevity will be delayed for two years. Otherwise, longevity payments will be made in April 2012 and every six months thereafter.
Apparently, managers don’t lose even one payment.
The thing is, those payments to us unionized (non-management) employees are literally one-tenth (1/10) the size of the payments to non-unionized workers, typically in the $150 to $300 range.
And we couldn’t have cared less about them. Go ahead, eliminate them. We would rather:
► retain our previous retirement ages;
► retain our previous penalties for early retirement—before they were doubled, and without the added health care premium penalties;
► retain the prior minimum COLA; and
► not lose 3% of our pay to a “Retiree Health Care Trust Fund” for 10 years.
Bob Rinker is just grandstanding in an attempt to look like he gives a s#!t, before he loses some of his state employee union members (cash cows) to another union. I didn’t read where it reported Rinker was perfectly happy—as a SEBAC negotiator—to trade our meaningful retirement benefits for Malloy’s support for portions of SEBAC’s prized health care reform legislation.
Sorry, Bob, it won’t work. We remember what you did to us in your “air-tight” negotiations.
—perturbed
posted by: state_employee | October 1, 2011 8:28am
Just another CLEAR example of Malloy funneling money to his high paid friends. He is a disgrace.
posted by: ... | October 1, 2011 9:16am
Wow, for once McKinney actually ‘wants’ Malloy to overstep legislative action and make executive orders without their consent.
posted by: perturbed | October 2, 2011 11:45pm
Well, the article has now been revised, and is closer to being correct, but the revision leaves me confused. I never read anything about a cap on longevity for unionized workers—not a permanent one anyway.
As stated earlier, a single longevity payment, due in October 2011, was eliminated, and service time that counts towards longevity will be delayed for two years. During those two years, longevity will be capped for current employees at the level they were when SEBAC 2011 took effect (I think retroactive to July 1, 2011), but the payments will still be made. After those two years, longevity service time will be credited for the two years during which the accrual was suspended. All future payments will be made as if the two year service time delay had never happened.
Anyway, that still misses the point: longevity is a joke for unionized workers, but it is valuable for non-unionized (management) workers.
The other thing that remains a joke is Bob Rinker acting surprised by the deal he cut with Malloy on this just a few months ago. He is attempting to show his state employee union member minority how much he cares about them, right before they vote to escape his rule and join a different union.
Too late, Bob. You should have allowed the rank-and-file’s elected leaders to represent their members during the negotiations. You got your pooling bill—in the absolute secrecy that required—but it will cost you a big bloc of your dwindling state employee membership.
The very same guy that locked his own union leaders out of the SEBAC 2011 negotiations wants to lecture about “fundamental fairness”?
Bob Rinker is an embarrassment.
—perturbed
posted by: Upset.Citizen | October 7, 2011 7:15pm
Ever hear of Article H of the SEBAC agreement? No, you never saw Article H and never even heard of it! You can’t find it anywhere you search? The SEBAC agreement you voted on ends at Article G…
Nope! The state and SEBAC added Article H and you never saw it! Rumor has it that there were a number of changes made after the vote… Article H says the state and SEBAC hold each other harmless for anything to do with the agreement! Our fraudulent union leaders are trying to make themselves look like they care about the members to save face and keep them from going to different unions!
Hey Rinker Nortz, Peterson, etc how about that debate your members want? http://sites.google.com/site/p4upseu/
Typical! Change the rules, screw the working man, give the overpaid do nothing managers more money! The unions are in bed with the politicians!
2014 baby! VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY! Until then I have my popcorn ready and a ring side seat for this never ending drama! (What are we up to, Act 22 or 23?)