There’s A Tentative Labor Deal
by Christine Stuart and Hugh McQuaid | May 13, 2011 2:20pm
(34) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget
(Updated 6:12 p.m.) Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said that after months of negotiating he has reached a deal with labor that saves the state $1.6 billion over the next two years and $21.5 billion over the next 20. However, at a 3 p.m. press conference there was little Malloy could say about the agreement until negotiators have had time to brief union members.
“These savings were achieved in the areas of healthcare and pension benefits, and wages. Our fellow state employee leaders have asked us to refrain from discussing the specific details within each of those categories until they’ve had a chance to communicate them to their members,” Malloy told reporters at a 3 p.m. press conference. “We’re happy to comply with that request.”
At that same press conference Malloy announced he was rescinding the layoff notices already sent to at least 182 of the 4,742 employees expected to receive those notices over the next few weeks. He said the agreement guarantees job security for four years, but refused to give the length of the agreement, which was inked at 2 p.m. Friday afternoon.
“One more point: there are no furlough days in this agreement, nor is there a reduction in the 40-hour work week,” Malloy said. “This means we’ve achieved these savings without reducing government’s ability to serve its constituents, and without reducing employees’ productivity.”
The $1.6 billion deal is just shy of Malloy’s $2 billion goal, but Malloy reiterated his commitment to find the $400 million in spending cuts and not tax increases.
“I’ve directed Ben Barnes [Malloy‘s Budget Director], who I’ve actually given the weekend off to, to work on that next week. But we’ll have a plan,” Malloy said. That plan includes “spending cuts and budgeted revenues.”
Asked how he’s calculating the deal saving $21.5 billion over the next 20 years, Malloy said he will discuss that when the unions have had time to convey the details of the deal to their members.
Matt O’Connor, spokesman for State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, said he was also unable to discuss the details of that number until members are briefed on the deal and there’s a challenge in reaching all 45,000 workers.
“I can’t say. We don’t have the freedom to discuss that level of detail at this point,” O’Connor said.
Sources say it’s a five year deal, which includes no wage increases in the first two years and three percent wage increases in the following three. There’s also expected to be big changes to the health insurance plan, but specifics of those changes were not available Friday. CTNewsjunkie was told by union sources that all employees, not just new employees, will be asked to contribute to the state retiree health benefits.
Sources said the past six days of discussions revolved around the percentage workers would need to pay in order to buy time and retire from the state without a penalty. The Malloy administration had pushed for a six percent penalty, but union negotiators were able to get that down to 4 percent. Also the retirement age will be raised from 60 to 63 for Tier II employees and 62 to 65 for Tier IIa employees, however, those changes won’t kick in until 2022.
A communication sent out by SEBAC says they understand the process has been difficult and “anxiety-producing” for some members, but given the “extraordinary stakes involved, we sought to avoid the speculation and misunderstandings that would hamper our ultimate goal of reaching a mutual settlement by keeping our discussions out of the media.
The deal will still need to be approved by 14 of the 15 SEBAC member unions. And each of the 34 bargaining groups will need to vote on changes to wages and working conditions specific to each of their unions.
In 2009 the last time the SEBAC contract was reopened it took the state employee unions three weeks to complete the ratification of the contracts.
O’Connor said it’s possible more details will be released early next week.
But keeping 45,000 state employees quiet may be difficult.
Republican lawmakers were quick to criticize Malloy for touting an long term agreement when he was critical of former Gov. John G. Rowland for inking a 20 year deal with labor back in 1997.
House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney told reporters this agreement does nothing to change size and shape of the state workforce.
“Having a government tomorrow that’s the same size as the government today does not get the economy moving. That’s the been the point,” McKinney said.
As for the sacrifices this agreement demands of state employees, Cafero said he doesn’t see it.
“How many people do you know that would scoff at this idea—for the next four years you are guaranteed a job, you will not lose a nickel in pay, in fact we will increase it by 9 percent for next five years, you have the best health insurance package in the United States of America, that’s my deal—Would you sign? In a heartbeat you would,“ Cafero said. “Would there be CEOs and other business people who would be in a position to afford such a thing? I doubt it.”
Malloy said he intends to reduce the number of state employees, “but rather than layoffs, we will do it by attrition, and by eliminating managerial positions.”
Tags: union, concessions, budget, deal, agreement, Malloy, SEBAC
(34) Comments
posted by: Frankly | May 13, 2011 3:34pm
I think this sounds promising. Because of the no layoffs, I’m betting it will pass.
posted by: BMS | May 13, 2011 4:24pm
1,8 billion divided by 50,000 employees is about $15,000 per employee for the first 2 years and about $20,00 per year for the next 18 years. Why no details? How long will it take to put lipstick on this pig?
posted by: ... | May 13, 2011 7:16pm
This is finally great news coming from the deal between state workers and the unions. I am certainly surprised the reduction of hours or furlough days were not apart of the agreement, but it appears the details will come out in the coming week or so.
Republicans trying to compare Rowlands ‘deal’ with Malloy’s deal are doing apples and oranges to say the least. There is a difference between setting a contract that gradually increased spending/benefits for state workers and reforming the delivery of these benefits and their services to reduce spending in the long term. Especially when it is reductions int he overall spending and not salaries (so BMS, its not this mythical ‘15,000 from each employee’ or whatever number the unions try and spin to make it look like we’re robbing from their pockets).
My biggest question though leaving this article is this: Do the 182 layoff notices out of over 4,700 that were planned to go out now being retracted? Or will they be apart of the final cuts to the budget?
If so this is once again another facet of the budget Republicans criticize (not seriously reducing the size of government) they are getting wrong.
posted by: ASTANVET | May 13, 2011 8:46pm
Smoke and mirrors! Does the governor expect us to believe that raising retirement ages, wage freezes and hiring freezes will save the state 2B over the next two years??? really??? Jeez, i wonder if there is a back door to getting raises in the state classification system… oh wait, reclassification - right, i almost forgot. We will be in worse shape in two years… thank you Danno
posted by: Disgruntled | May 13, 2011 8:49pm
21.5 billion over twenty years.
Talk about smoke and mirrors!
Dan is using some of that Regan fuzzy math.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | May 13, 2011 9:01pm
it seems the health care cuts may be too large, otherwise it would have leaked out. if the changes are major, i don’t see it passing. not even close - those are benefits you never recover.
HST
posted by: newview | May 14, 2011 6:38am
Well…“the devil’s in the details”! It’s hard to believe that 1.6B was saved through simple wage freezes, additional health insurance and retiree co-pays for active members. And no furlough days???.. The easiest sell the State and Union could agree to ...and it doesn’t fly? You have to be kidding me! Something doesn’t meet the eye here. So what state employees lose in health and retiree’s co-pays ..they make up in no furlough days…ok. Loss of longevity is minimal for union employees… managers and appointees aren’t too happy, but they will find another way of compensation.
I’ve seen two different reports now, re: raising the retirement age..one said 2017, this one says 2022. Depending on this “long term restructure”...as opposed to “decimation” of benefits, we shall just have to wait and see how the membership votes. If it’s “NO”...you can be sure SEBAC bailed on employees to keep the dues coming in. Double edged sword.
The State doesn’t have to worry about laying off at this point, because attrition just got a good kick in the pants with the threat of health ins. modifications for retirees come July ‘11. Everyone who was thinking about retirement will be leaving in droves asap.
Does that mean sections of the contract and binding arbitration were opened up? Is that legal without membership consent? hmmm
posted by: Wakewhenover | May 14, 2011 10:20am
Christine: Your article has more details than most, to include the buy-back amounts and that “it won’t kick in until 2012”. (retirement from 60 to 63)
Is this correct? All rumors are 2017. maybe the 5 yr extension? This would benefit many, those who will not be of age in 2017. Can you or any readers confirm or clarify?
posted by: Wakewhenover | May 14, 2011 11:11am
Typo, 2022 date, not 2012. Are there penalties after 2017 or 2022?
posted by: hawkeye | May 14, 2011 12:11pm
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s deal with state unions reinforces the fact that our Governor is a poor businessman!
He GUARANTEES Connecticut Union employees NO LAY-OFF’S FOR FOUR YEARS!
Our Governor “has sold his soul”—for continued state-union-political favor!
Who knows how badly our political climate will fall in the next dour years? How can the State of Connecticut be guaranteeing state jobs—for the next four years—when even the Federal government, nor private industry—cannot do so?
Malloy is acting like a TRUE SOCIALIST!
posted by: Disgruntled | May 14, 2011 12:30pm
It was all a game played by The Nutmeg King to make himself look like he is “fiscally responsible”. It got a little dicey since he could not come up with two billion so he jams through his “fuzzy math” agreements and moves on. He looked tough and will bark on the stump about how he “saved” Connecticut but,as I said at the beginning, it is pretty much all show and taxpayers will have to cough up more dough.
Ever see the movie The Rainmaker? Dan could have starred in the new version.
posted by: Frankly | May 14, 2011 1:32pm
If this doesn’t pass the unions, then it all plays into Malloy’s strategy to make the unions the “bad guys” no matter what. I’m beginning to trust Malloy about as far as I can throw him.
Will some of the bloat among the managerial ranks be cut? And when?
posted by: tier-1 st empl | May 14, 2011 1:53pm
Looking at this great deal that has been negotiated (just those provisions that have been revealed anyway) I can look forward to not receiving the 7/1/11 wage increase that was part of the previous concession package. We will now, in addition to the health care concessions agreed to less than 2 years ago, expect more cutbacks yet to be announced. We can look forward to a mandatory 3 additional years before retirement (till 65 in most cases), giving us more time to thank the powers that be for the privilege of serving all the wonderful citizens of CT who would prefer that all state employees be crucified. Come to think of it, this will also translate to three more years of union dues. Thanks SEBAC.
I will also be working 3 years without my contracted longevity goldmine (averaging less than $500/yr for us overpaid State employees), no chance of a promotion (unless I have some political connection) and being subject to agency consolidations and reorganizations that could relocate me to where only God knows (whoops, did I say God).
And with all of these concessions, plus those I have yet to be informed of, I will also have to bear all the other tax increases that our poor poor poor private sector workers will be forced to pay because of the huge salaries and extraordinary benefits lavished on us unproductive, ungrateful and selfish State employees.
Well, to live up to all of the negative opinions the wonderful citizens of CT have toward us State employees, I will be voting NO to any agreement that requires more from State employees than it does from the rest of the CT citizenry.
Everyone wants shared sacrifices, then lay off those thousands of employees as threatened by the Governor. This will give the CT citizens what they want, and also give them a taste of the compromised “safety net” that will result. I wish all you private sector citizens the very best while you wait in the long lines at various State agencies, while you wait for emergency assistance at home or on the highway, while you wait the additional amount of time it will take for the highways to be cleared of snow and ice, while you watch all those proposed boondoggle, overpriced, wasteful and filled with corruption projects (the bus way, “high speed rail”, etc.) being built with “unanticipated” cost overruns and delays, while you watch thousands more receive unemployment benefits and other State funded entitlements and while you watch the CT politicians somehow increase their assets way beyond any visible or reported income sources.
GOD (whoops, I did it again) have mercy on all of us, even the despicable State employees.
posted by: WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot | May 14, 2011 5:02pm
This will never pass the rank and file. He’s gonna have a lot of splainin to do when it fails and has to start from square 1 with layoff notices.
posted by: ... | May 14, 2011 11:37pm
Hmm, I remember too many people saying over the course of the months he would never even be able to broker a deal and have a negotiations of even 1 dollar with the unions, let alone 1.6 billion.
Now that so many have been proven wrong they switch to the next negative. ‘Oh, they’ll never agree to it. It will never pass!’ Lets this is just a wait and see series of events.
posted by: CTisFUBAR | May 15, 2011 10:57am
I am hopeful my fellow AFSCME brothers and sisters will be joining me and so many from the other bargaining units in voting NO to this mess. We already gave up our raises for two years, took a pay cut in the form of furlough days, watched our newest members pay 3% of their salaries towards their retiree health insurance while management ran wild creating and filling NEW positions. Now, our Union leadership gives in and lets the retirement and retiree health insurance be decimated?? All that has happened here is the politicians get to keep increasing the size of State government while the unions keep receiving the same amount of dues. The losers here are ALL taxpayers (including us). JUST VOTE NO!!!!
posted by: johnnyb | May 15, 2011 7:27pm
There is no way I trust the counting of the votes. Last time there was no report given of the tallies by union. Spoke to many who voted no and yet it all passed. There needs to be a third party in charge of this process. Sticking slips of paper in a cardboard box with a slit cut in the top is no way to hold this vote. Why wasn’t the full agreement released to the press already? What is gained by waiting till sometime next week for us to find out? All this secrecy is very troubling. To make a deal means both parties know what the deal’s facts are and yet the employees are kept in the dark. There is no way this will pass every union and if it does the vote is a fraud.
posted by: ASTANVET | May 15, 2011 7:35pm
Tier-1, i understand your frustration, i do, but the reality is that i see no difference in your argument of the state cannot guarantee no layoffs any more than they can guarantee your longevity, your raises, your unchanged benefits. We are in this situation for a variety of reasons, weak politicians who pay for votes to stay in power and do little to govern, greedy do-gooders who spend your and my taxes on non-essential services. Greedy politicians who used your pension funds in the general assembly to pay for pet projects instead of saving retirement contributions to pay for the people who were owed money. This “budget” does nothing to address the change in our overall economy, or the out of control spending. The “poor private sector” employees have to deal with that every day, why should state employees get a false sense of security that no one else enjoys. They get that security at the same time as they earn more competitive wages than the private sector. So, while i empathize with your frustration that State employees are getting poked with a stick, that too is a cost of public employee unions. This is a primary reason that we should not have public employee unions. When times are good, no one notices when your salary and benefits go out of control, but collective bargaining is about negotiating between production and productivity… the state or public servants do not produce or can they effect a bottom dollar productivity… so the essence of “bargaining” is with whom? Who is there to protect the ‘profits’ or in this case tax dollars… the short answer is no-one… so there can be no true bargaining with the tax payers because no one protects or manages the tax payers interests. It is however interesting that you are willing to embrace the lay offs… if you are indeed Tier-1, you no doubt have mountains of seniority and will not be effected by layoffs..but you seem perfectly willing to throw the new guys, junior employees, under the bus to protect your assets.
posted by: hawkeye | May 15, 2011 9:13pm
Gov. Malloy is playing games with the unions—after he failed to make some gutsy budget cuts and resorted to massive taxation, instead. A life-time politician in action!
And his is $400,000. short, to boot! Mzlloy would make a better actor -than Governor!
posted by: tier-1 st empl | May 15, 2011 11:37pm
To: ASTANVET
I’m not sure if I agree or disagree with your comments, or if I am just confused with your logic.
Even the politicians in this State are not guaranteed that they will hold their offices forever. No working stiff expects, or will receive any job guarantees except those the laws of the land dictate. Now that I think about it, even the law is subject to change as the politicians see fit. Politicians are here forever. They are a fact of life. And I am of the opinion that not one of them can be trusted.
Another point I would like to make is that the private sector, run by businesses large and small, are all profit oriented. Although the public sector, controlled by politics, collects funds in various ways, government agencies are, or should be service oriented. The difference being that productivity cannot be measured in the same manner. Speaking for myself, my primary job function is to assure that those private sector establishments that the State employs provide the materials and services that our tax dollar is paying for. That they stay within all the laws and regulations and that they are paid promptly.
I am not on a production line, but I am responsible for diligently overseeing the proper expenditure of your tax dollars. That being said, all employees who make up the labor force (public and private) must be protected from managerial abuses and be given a forum to argue for fair wages and benefits. As to your question about who is protecting taxpayers interests, it is or should be the politician that you and I put into office.
In conclusion, I have endured many layoff threats over the years without “mountains of seniority”. This is a fact of life for all workers. And now that I have reached a comfortable seniority level, I will let the junior employees take their turn at experiencing the working world. After giving this additional thought, I am even more convinced that this proposed agreement is trash, and that in a very short amount of time the Governor will be returning with more demands for additional concessions (and more tax increases) due to the failure of the Democrat’s budget. God have mercy on all of us.
posted by: steve wolpo | May 16, 2011 9:22am
$400,000,000 is not a little away from 2 Billion it is 25% away. This spineless jellyfish of a govenor has failed the citizenery of CT. He should have laid the state workers off. My business and many others are down over the last three years. Where is the shared sacrifice of the state employess as well as the municipal workers.The waste of the gov’t will not stop after the addition of the income tax and the two casinos this state acts like a herion addict and just feeds its habit by taxing us to death. If we were not a neighbor of NY we would never be able to approach this level of taxation. Promises to unions just to get reelected is political business as usual. malloy needs to be turned out at the next election cycle. Then our state will truly be able to turn this upside down situation around. I can hear the sound of seniors packing for florida and texas to sheild their money and no new businesses will come tio this state. NJ and Wisconsin were the models to follow. Instead we have King George here in Hartford taxing the colonists.
posted by: ASTANVET | May 16, 2011 1:51pm
tier-1, well… you’re absolutely right, it is suppose to be the politicians looking out for our tax dollars… which doesn’t happen… EVER. You are also right that you can’t trust a single one of them! You are right again that they are lifers (mostly due to our lack of political will in the public to hold them accountable).
Perhaps it was late and my stream of consciousness post wasn’t clear, but the bottom line is that the “security” of the union contracts is only as secure as our financial health. So, no matter what promises, no matter what benefits, if we cannot pay for it, it’s gonna get cut. Negotiating it or overly politicizing it by way of union rabble rousing doesn’t change the underlying fact. All those programs that are ‘nice to have’ should be cut before we demonize the state employees. But that’s another argument
I still do not believe in collective bargaining for public employees - it just defies logic. Those big union bosses have been taking your dues for a long time and have produced nothing, helped no one. They seem very willing to sell you down the river to get more dues. (just my two cents - which is heavily taxed)
posted by: Matt W. | May 16, 2011 3:20pm
I wonder how these proposed cuts would look under GAAP. I give them credit for gettting something but I agree that it is mostly parlor tricks and slight of hand.
The real question is where they get the last $400M. The Busway or New EIC handout could cover it. But I don’t see Malloy sharing the sacrifice here. More likely you and I in one form or another will kick in to cover the shortfall.
posted by: NOW What? | May 16, 2011 6:05pm
I JUST had the opportunity to read the tentative agreement; SEBAC is presenting it to its member unions as a “framework,” the REQUIRED adherence to which WILL be necessary if a given union’s members want the no-layoff guarantee and other provisions applicable to them. A “fine-tuning” of the agreement’s wording, and the tailoring of it to the various unions’ particular contracts, is now being undertaken.
I must say that the projected savings appear to be REAL. I must also admit that much of what has been agreed to appears to be just plain common sense and which had been recommended throughout State government and which *should* have been in place YEARS ago but which wasn’t due to previous administrations’ irrational and downright CRAZY inflexibility. The agreement SO far seems to *genuinely* be in taxpayers’, employees’ and retirees’ best interests - both in the short and longer terms.
The “final” written presentation of the agreement is expected to be ready for EVERYONE’S “consumption” over the next couple of days… but I CAUTION you that it IS a bit complicated, so don’t expect to simply glance through it and be able to claim a complete understanding of it. It WILL require some financial sacrifice of employees, and possibly a bit of inconvenience for retirees (both current and future), but from what I’ve seen so far I give it at least a tentative “thumbs-up” for all.
posted by: Born in CT | May 16, 2011 7:40pm
Tier II does not pay into the pension plan and according to this tentative summary they will continue to not pay into their retirement unlike tier I 2% and Tier IIa 2% this would be be the unions best selling point for passage!
posted by: NOW What? | May 16, 2011 9:11pm
“Born in CT” (me too, by the way): The agreement has a LOT of positive things going for it, for both employees and taxpayers alike. In fact, so far I’d go so far as to say that I don’t really see any reason that it SHOULDN’T be voted in by both union members AND legislators.
When the agreement was first announced (with almost no details provided), I couldn’t figure out why everyone involved was all smiles about it. But now that I’ve read through what was just released I understand why. The fact that it was arrived at after only 2 or 3 months of banging heads together - rather than the usual YEAR or so that’s been necessary ith past incompetent administrations - is a testament to the fact that when people REALLY make the effort to think “out of the box” and stop viewing each other as “enemies,” some pretty amazing results can be achieved… results that, if you ask me, we should’ve seen a long, LONG time ago.
Congratulations to both the Malloy administration and SEBAC for doing a TREMENDOUS job!!!
posted by: ... | May 16, 2011 10:08pm
Totally agree with you SteveHC. So many people didn’t even think he could get 300 million a year from the unions in an agreement, let alone 800 million per year. To put forward 2 billion and only loose 1/5 is a celebration for negotiation and compromise.
posted by: ohmygoodness | May 17, 2011 5:37pm
First, since when does the State of CT or any employer want you to sign a contract to be able to know all your MEDICAL issues when and how you are treated??????? You don’t have the right to my personal medical records. Oh, and by the way…. if employees don’t sign the contract…we need to pay a lot of money out-of-pocket… how can anyone afford this when you are taking more and more from us. Does anyone know if this is even legal??
posted by: ohmygoodness | May 17, 2011 5:39pm
Second, if the State is in such a budget turmoil and Unions have not even voted on the agreement, why is it that MILLION$ of Dollar$ are going to UCONN Medical Center??
posted by: ohmygoodness | May 17, 2011 5:41pm
Third, if there is a hiring freeze, why did someone just get hired as a 2nd shift supervisor for CSSD???? Big Buck$ there… and no one even saw the job posting for this position… hmmm???
posted by: ohmygoodness | May 17, 2011 5:45pm
Unions need to vote NO - No - No !!! Some contracts aren’t even up until 2012 and now they want to reopen them and take everything away???? VOTE NO
posted by: Wakewhenover | May 17, 2011 7:15pm
SteveHC…..a low time statee or a plant. This deal crucifies tier 2 employees with 20 plus years…to double the penalty for early retirement? SEBAC got its head handed to it, we got hosed. Yeah, go to your 2 physicals Steve, you’ll need them to work into your 60’s for a gutted pension.
