posted by: perturbed | July 6, 2012  12:42pm

THANK YOU UPSEU!!!

See you in court, SEBAC.

—perturbed

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 6, 2012  1:47pm

Hey SEIU/CSEA, we’ll see your labor board and raise you a judge, jury, and team of lawyers! it’s not too late to fold!

posted by: Edward Abbey | July 6, 2012  2:11pm

So once again UPSEU is more concerned about making this a protracted battle.  No surprise there.  They have never represented any state workers.  Now we will all spend time on these issues, as opposed to working on issues in our workplace. 

UPSEU seems to be about bottom-feeding as opposed to working hard.

posted by: Edward Abbey | July 6, 2012  2:24pm

By the way, I called the above numbers (on that green card above) just to ask some questions about what UPSEU stands for, and why they associate with anti Union legislators.  That’s crazy in the times we live in.

When I called the number, they answered UPSEU COPS!!  What is that?  The other number is a fax #?  There’s no way to know what they stand for. 

What do they know about state workers?  If they do take over the Contract, do we lose the current Contract?  Does anyone know?  If so, put some information up.

posted by: rankandfile | July 6, 2012  4:46pm

Edward, which union do you work for? There would be no effect on the current contract if any bargaining units were to choose new representation. They do represent state workers in other states, and numerous municipal workers in CT. Can you document any of the associations you are claiming? I know several of the current unions associate with legislators who threatened collective bargaining last year. The only ones spending time on these issues will be the lawyers, your stewards will still be around to handle workplace issues. UPSEU may use our dues more effectively, rather than just handing them out as campaign cash. And remember, they were invited in by current members who were disenfranchised by their current unions, who seem to care only about dues. It was the current unions who shut off all debate and censored their own members before the illegal and immoral second concession vote.

posted by: perturbed | July 6, 2012  4:59pm

Edward Abbey wrote:

“So once again UPSEU is more concerned about making this a protracted battle.”

Edward, Edward, Edward. What are we going to do with you?

Think about what you just said. Alright, let me help you.

Union members wanted to choose different unions for themselves, so they sought out other alternatives to their current unions. We found two of them who were willing and able to represent state workers. Union members signed petitions requesting the right to vote, they were certified by the Labor Board, and union members were poised to get that vote.

Then the Malloy administration, SEBAC, and our current unions joined together and objected to us having a vote.

Then a protracted battle ensued. A team of lawyers fought tooth and nail to keep us from getting a vote. (From the Unions’ perspectives, the longer the battle, the better. It keeps our dues flowing in for a little while longer.)

Throughout all of it, all it would have taken was for the state, SEBAC, and our own unions to simply stop objecting to our vote. They could have withdrawn their objections, and—poof!—no more protracted battle.

Mr. Abbey, I think you are very, very confused if you think UPSEU didn’t want this to end last fall, when the state, SEBAC, and our current unions first objected to allowing state employees the right to choose their own unions.

—perturbed

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 6, 2012  9:13pm

Eddie, wow you are everywere spreading lies?  Go to briefs and get the facts.  I did, and I am not even in this union…

UPSUE is on record, under oath, stating that they will honor the existing contract.  Some guy named Bob Kryss, from CSEA,  in his briefs noted, on the record, that CSEA is aware that UPSUE will honor the existing contract…  Please do everyone a favor and stop telling lies…...  Stick to the FACTS…Child…  Again, your ignorance irratates the Major!!!!!!  Remember the old saying….“It is far better to let people think you are stupid…than open your mouth and let them know you are stupid…”  STOP THE LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Sorry readers, I know my words are harsh, but,, wow…...You just can’t fix stupid….

posted by: tired of this | July 6, 2012  9:21pm

Hey, at least UPSEU didn’t change voting rules when the vote didn’t go their way….they didn’t insert phantom “attachments H & I” into contracts AFTER the members voted on a contract….Maybe this will bring to light the shady dealings of the SEBAC unions…one has to really wonder why unions who SAY they want our voices heard are working so very hard to keep up from having the right to vote for representation….

posted by: FeePayer | July 7, 2012  12:11pm

Thank you, UPSEU!  The fight should have been overly quickly, but it’s not easy to overturn an evil alliance (Governor, unions, legislature).  Does anyone believe that the Governor’s Office didn’t influence the Labor Board’s decision?!  Hell, the State hired their own attorneys.  One way or the other, we will prevail.  People yearn to be free.

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 8, 2012  1:21pm

THE GLOVES ARE COMING OFF!

Our site has instructions on how to become an Agency Fee Payer!  (Look under the WHAT TO DO WHILE YOU WAIT section .)

What does it mean to become an Agency Fee Payer?  You will be sending a message to your union that they suck and you will be giving yourself a raise!  You lose nothing!  You are still covered by our contract and have union protection.  What does SEIU/CSEA lose?  They will only be able to collect the amount of dues from you that directly relates to you and our contract.  They will no longer have extra monies to funnel to politicians who pretend to be our friends… You know how that turned out!

UC

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 8, 2012  1:50pm

Hey, how does Major Shmuck get one of those cards????

A quote for my child friend Eddie:

“Hierarchical institutions are like giant bulldozers — obedient to the whim of any fool who takes the controls”.

-A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

This is from the real Edward Abbey

Appears to Major Shmuck that Eddie is a bit clueless and intellectually challanged on all fronts….“And the truth shall set you free”  Booooo-Yaaaaaaaaaa

posted by: quikstix | July 9, 2012  8:27pm

As a P4 member who doesn’t work at DOT with King John it’s interesting that my co-workers and I were never provided with any of those green cards, have never received any info from UPYOURS, (sorry upseu) and basically know nothing about them.  The websites are crap, the CTN broadcast that I stumbled upon with Markley, Coutu and the UPSEU attorney was a joke.  Oh ya, It’s nice to know that UPSEU’s parent union is associated with organized crime.  This whole thing is a joke and a waste of money.  What does anyone expect to gain from this?

posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | July 9, 2012  10:23pm

Pixy Sticks,

Why do you bad mouth DOT? 

Trust me, there are so many P-4 members tired of the SEIU BS…. 

“King John”  hmmm that label is a little bit freaky on YOUR part.  What’s up with that?

Maybe you did not get any green cards because members dont like or trust you???  Maybe they know that you turn members in so charges can be placed against them??

OK, Just so I understand you correctly:  You have publically written that you (and I quote)...  “basically know nothing about them (UPSEU).  The websites are crap, the CTN broadcast that I stumbled upon with Markley, Coutu and the UPSEU attorney was a joke” 

Pixy Sticks, your comments show everyone that you are publically bad mouthing UPSUE yet you publically stated that You know nothing about UPSU???? LMAO   Dude, stay with SEIU, they need more mindless followers like yourself who just don’t get it….  Members do NOT work for the Union….The Union should be working for the members

Good luck at finger painting class tomorrow!!!!!

Oh before you go, do me a favor, Google SEIU and Corruption and let me know what you get….  SEIU has already taken an additional $200,000 from P-4 members.  This year they wanted another $200,000 again.  When some Executive Council Members asked what was this money was going to be used for…. We were told, well it is basically for the Obama’s Reelection Campaign.  An Executive Council Member of CSEA/SEIU noted that, using member’s dues for political purposes was… well…. ILLEGAL in the State of Connecticut??  The very next meeting, Executive Council Members were told, “Oh, well SEIU is taking the money from the Strength and Unity Fund….Which, I would think is still illegal

CSEA sends SEIU $1.7 million dollars of your dues money each year….

What have they done for you??????  Oh yes, some of you got a free trip to Denver where you picketed another bank….. Give me a break

posted by: rankandfile | July 9, 2012  10:27pm

Quikstix, you do know that most SEBAC unions are associated with organized crime, don’t you. Not to mention some of their officers being a target of the Donovan probe. If you didn’t get a green card, it’s probably because they didn’t have time. Since they can’t enter state property (one of SEBAC’s built in advantages) I’m sure it makes it difficult to distribute the cards. I think what people are trying to gain is the right to freely choose their union representation. They only want everyone to have the right to vote more often than every 30 years.

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 9, 2012  11:25pm

@quikstix

What agency do you work at?

 
We can get you some cards to fill out now.  Don’t feel left out, we only had two weeks last summer and in that short time we get got almost 2/3s of all P4!  Seriously, we would love to have everyone in P4 fill one out!  -They won’t count towards a significant showing at this point, but at least UPSEU will get your contact info and send you important updates.  How can they contact you if you don’t tell them how too…

What improvements would you like made to our website?

‘I know a guy…’ -He’ll get our team right on it!

You didn’t think the UPSEU attorneys were sharp?

 
Compared to our CSEA (under)staff(ed) reps who are not attorney’s I think they were great!  (Anyone looking for a temporary job? CSEA is down a staff rep or two… Clearly no knowledge or experience needed!  Just drop the grievances onyour plate when you need a break!)

UPSEU’s parent union associated with organized crime?

 
There’s a thing… It’s called Google… Check it out!  Compare ‘UPSEU crime’ and ‘SEIU crime’ or any combination of the union acronyms…  UPSEU is spotless!  Can’t say that about SEIU/CSEA!

This whole thing is a joke?

 
Who’s laughing?  What was the punch line again?

A waste of money?

Nah… Save a bundle, become a fee payer while you wait! 

(Oh, now I get the joke! The punch line is ‘Fee Payer!’ - That must have been King John and his hundreds of merry men and women laughing all the way to the bank!)

What does anyone expect to gain from this?

 
I’m tired of repeating myself… go to the site you want improved… it’s all in the archives…

UC

posted by: courchesne | July 10, 2012  5:37am

It’s frustrating but it’s clear that this issue won’t rest until UPSEU stops creating and perpetuating this false belief that employees are entitled to have an election to switch bargaining representatives whenever they want under the banner of “free choice.”  That idea—like it or not—is a complete and utter pipe dream.  The chaos it would cause and the headaches it would create for employers who would have to deal with a carousel of rotating representatives far outweighs any benefit in allowing rolling elections.

The unfortunate truth is that collective bargaining is a statutory right and the statute very clearly says employees can only petition to change representatives during a set window before their contract expires.  If the P-4 membership and UPSEU really wanted to petition for a change in representation they shouldn’t have ratified a new contract before submitting the petition since doing so closed the petition window under the old contract and pushed it back to the expiration of the new contract.  It may surprise some, but there’s nothing new about that rule; it’s been on the books for a long time and UPSEU should have known about it.  It’s frankly a little baffling that some employees are so eager to switch to a union that couldn’t even get the paperwork to have their election in on time. 

Nobody has to like the outcome of the Labor Board’s decision but it absolutely makes sense.  UPSEU is trying to divert attention away from their blowing the deadline to this nonsense about Attachment H.  The Labor Board recognized that Attachment H was not some devious ace in the hole for SEBAC nor did it fundamentally alter the foundation of CT labor law:

“In short, on August 22, 2011 Attachment H was consistent with and a codification of then existing law under SERA.” (p.13)

posted by: perturbed | July 10, 2012  7:12am

quikstix wrote:

“What does anyone expect to gain from this?”

Actually quikstix, this is a case of “less is more,” or “you get what you DON’T pay for.” The main idea here is to stop losing so much—pension benefits lost in trades for political favors, wages lost to exorbitant dues paid to huge national unions with national political agendas hungry for cash to bribe politicians, 3% of our wages lost to a phantom “health care trust fund” that instead simply fuels the state’s operating expenses while our trusty unions look on with approval, etc.

If you’re in P-4, you must be one of the poor slobs paying up to $73.67/month (soon to be $78/month?) to SEIU. Do you know where your dues are going?

Here’s a glimpse in a December 29, 2008 Wall Street Journal article: Illinois Scandal Spotlights SEIU’s Use of Political Tactics

From the article:

“But the scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has put a harsh spotlight on the SEIU’s methods ...

Federal officials allege Mr. Blagojevich sought to sell the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama in a scheme that potentially involved him getting a $300,000-a-year job at a group affiliated with the SEIU, in return for promising to appoint a pro-union official to the seat. The SEIU says that it doesn’t believe any of its officials engaged in any wrongdoing, and the governor on Friday denied wrongdoing.

The governor may have denied any wrongdoing, but where is he now?

Here are some more excerpts showing your dues money hard at work (seeing anything familiar here?):

“Home-care workers, who aid those with medical or physical problems, fall in a gray area for labor organizers. They aren’t state employees, but many are state subsidized. In many states, a governor’s executive order has granted collective bargaining rights to these workers, who also aren’t covered by federal labor law, opening the way for SEIU to organize them.

“Few places more clearly illustrate this than Illinois. The SEIU contributed about $1.8 million to Mr. Blagojevich’s two campaigns for governor, in 2002 and 2006, and was his top contributor in the second election. Critics have long charged that it is suspicious that several big SEIU contributions to Mr. Blagojevich occurred close to when he acted in ways that benefited the union.

In one example, the union contributed $200,000 to Mr. Blagojevich on March 3, 2006, according to data compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Six days later, the governor signed a labor contract covering SEIU home-care workers. Following the contract, membership at SEIU Local 880 in Chicago increased to 45,000 workers from 24,000, according to Labor Department records.”

“Later, the SEIU poured more than $800,000 into his first gubernatorial campaign. The previous governor, George Ryan, had refused to sign an SEIU-backed bill that would have given bargaining rights to home-care workers. Soon after being elected, Mr. Blagojevich signed an executive order in 2003 that enabled the SEIU to start organizing these workers.”

“In 2007, Ted Strickland, the Democratic governor of Ohio, signed an executive order giving collective-bargaining rights to 7,000 home-health-care workers. Workers later elected the SEIU as their union. Mr. Strickland had received about $100,000 in campaign contributions from the SEIU during his run for office in 2006, among the biggest amounts he took in.”

If none of that sounds familiar, you must have missed this: Malloy Keeps Promise To Unions By Signing Two Executive Orders

One difference here in Connecticut is that at least part of SEIU’s “contributions” to Malloy were in the form of our benefits, given up in SEBAC 2011.

Basically, quikstix, the most important thing for you to know about UPSEU is that they are not SEIU.

—perturbed

posted by: rankandfile | July 10, 2012  11:38am

Courchesne, it’s not “elections whenever they want.” Their hasn’t been an open window since at least 2006. This window was open for August 2011, but ratification of the deal apparently closed it early. If the deal had been ratified in July, SEBAC is claiming no window would have opened at all between 2006 and 2015. “If the P-4 membership and UPSEU really wanted to petition for a change in representation they shouldn’t have ratified a new contract before submitting the petition”. UPSEU never ratified the contract. P4 did, but only under extreme duress from the Governor’s office and SEBAC and the mega national unions. You might want to research the “rule of 3 years” among other things, unions are not permitted to keep a stranglehold on membership by continually renewing contracts early to prevent freedom of choice. And attachment H was devious, since it was added after the members voted and substantially changed what they were agreeing to.

posted by: courchesne | July 10, 2012  7:10pm

I’m familiar with the three year rule although what you’re actually citing is called the premature extension rule.  In any event, UPSEU raised both of these exceptions as grounds for an election but the Labor Board found that they weren’t applicable since neither exception existed under SERA at the time the P-4 contract was ratified by the legislature (and it’s not clear the Board could even apply the premature extension rule to contracts with the legislature).  But it doesn’t matter because the entire situation was avoidable anyway.  Once UPSEU was aware a ratification vote would be taking place in August that would have extended the current contract it should have immediately submitted its petition.  Instead, it waited until literally the last day of the _old_ window period to submit the paperwork. 

There is no reason to praise UPSEU’s policy of not donating money to political causes.  Republicans took several drastic steps during the current congressional term to derail labor rights at the federal level (such as by introducing bills defunding the NLRB) and at the state level we saw them significantly curtail or eliminate collective bargaining rights (e.g., Wisconsin).  If you want to keep your rights to collectively bargain, you’re going to have to make sure you have the support of some labor-friendly politicians, and to do that you need to help those labor-friendly politicians stay in office.  UPSEU, in typical bottom-feeding fashion, has opted to let the rest of the labor movement support these candidates while standing back and reaping the benefits of the collective bargaining rights they insulate.

posted by: perturbed | July 10, 2012  8:54pm

@courchesne—what’s really frustrating is when well-informed people choose to use that knowledge to misinform others, rather than enlighten. You obviously know enough to realize:

• nobody at UPSEU ever requested, expected, or led anyone else to believe state employees are entitled to have an election to switch bargaining representatives whenever they want

• the month-long window period was opened in August, 2011

• if AFSCME, SEIU, SEBAC and the state had any clue about what they were doing—and they really wanted to prevent the August 1 to August 31 window period from ever opening in the first place—they never would have negotiated a contract in May that was so horrendous it would take until the very last days of August to be ratified (and even then only after the ratification bar was lowered)

• even absent the window period (if deemed prematurely closed, once opened, by virtue of a “premature contract extension”), the Labor Board has the authority to order an election for “good cause”

• at least two of the long-standing federal labor laws often adopted by the Labor Board—the “three year rule” and the “premature extension rule”—apply in this case, and a more independent (honest, maybe?) Labor Board could have easily found good cause

• under the “premature extension rule,” the ordered election would be no more disruptive to the state than the contract expiration window rule

Is it possible you simply stopped reading the decision—CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS DECISION NO. 4606—on p. 13?

On pp. 15 - 17 you would have found a far more logical, straightforward, and reasonable judgment from the Labor Board.

From p. 15:

“In Wilton Public Schools, Decision No. 2104 (1981) the Board adopted the premature extension rule applied by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as a sensible means of preserving the contract bar rule’s accommodation of competing interests.2 Under this rule a prematurely extended contract will not bar an otherwise timely petition. The purpose of the rule is “to protect petitioners in general from being faced with prematurely executed contracts at a time when the Petitioner would normally be permitted to file a petition. . . . if a petition is filed during the open period calculated from the expiration date of the old contract, the premature extension will not be a bar.””

In adopting the premature extension rule previously under MERA, as quoted on p. 16, the Labor Board wrote:

“We believe the premature extension doctrine presents a sensible rule. It protects the employees’ right to choose their collective bargaining representative and the challenging union’s right to file election petitions. At the same time, the doctrine goes no further than the contract rule itself in its effect on the stability of collective bargaining relationships.”

More from the decision on p. 15:

“As the majority recognizes, MERA and SERA afford the Labor Board authority to determine what constitutes good cause for directing an election during the term of a collective bargaining agreement. The Labor Board has consistently made such determinations through sound rules it has adopted from long-standing federal labor law. The instant petitions are timely under two of these rules, the so-called three year rule and the premature extension rule.”

From p. 17:

“Labor Board case law in representation matters under SERA is sparse due to a paucity of past disputes. Both rules have a sound policy basis and have been observed by our federal counterpart for decades, let alone by the Labor Board itself under MERA where necessary to avoid indefinite delay of employee self determination. In other words, ‘[t]he rules simply “level the field” so that employees are allowed the legitimate right to choose their bargaining representative.’”

—perturbed

posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | July 10, 2012  9:02pm

courchesne, I really do not follow you? It was CSEA and the other unions in our state that shafted it’s members.  Not UPSEU. When members voted the first contract down, the union leaders changed the bylaws of SECRAP.  The majority of the members were against this. 

P4’s negotiation committee, who by the way is the only entity allowed to negotiate for P-4, as per state statute was never allowed to do so.  However certain state councils did get sweet deals. 

Next comes the 2nd vote.  However before the second vote, increased layoff threats come, targeting new and seasoned employees.  Which goes against our contract.

  Employees literally had a gun to their heads, but if that was not enough, in comes the Gov’s threat that “we will end collective bargaining if this vote fails a second time…  Now if that is not enough, Attachment H was added to the contract AFTER THE VOTE????  no employee knew about it.  it was not until these “LEADERS” had to admit under oath at the DOL that indeed it was added after the fact.  One leader said under oath after the UPSEU attorney asked, “Did you tell your members?”  He said “no”.  then the attorney asked, “Do you think your members had a right to know?”  Under oath, he says “NO!” 

A state rep testified that he and others never knew of this change was in the contract….  yes a Republican, siding with union members….go figure!!!

Again, I have never in my life seen a contract modified and all the affected parties not told…. 

The Dem’s, Union leaders, state and SECRAP were all knee deep in this crap. 

Don’t even try to tell me and all of my members that this BS never happed. 

I am voting for UPSEU because I don’t want unions to forget who they work for…  Members dictate to the Union’s….Unions do not dictate to the members…they work for us.  Go UPSUE GO UPSEU Go UPSUE….  The truth will surface and we will be allowed to vote

posted by: perturbed | July 10, 2012  9:11pm

Another opportunity to enlighten squandered, eh courchesne?

courchesne wrote:

“Republicans took several drastic steps during the current congressional term to derail labor rights at the federal level (such as by introducing bills defunding the NLRB) and at the state level we saw them significantly curtail or eliminate collective bargaining rights (e.g., Wisconsin).

You do realize how different CT is from WI, don’t you? Why are you attempting to mislead people?

The truth is, here in CT any threats to collective bargaining we witnessed last summer were only the efforts to threaten and manipulate state employees into submission, efforts orchestrated by otherwise labor-friendly politicians. By raising the specter of Wisconsin here in Connecticut, courchesne, you’ve simply exposed yourself as a partner in crime.

—perturbed

posted by: rankandfile | July 10, 2012  10:25pm

Kudos to you @Perturbed. You do a great job of fighting the misinformation that gets posted here. I know the only politicians in CT that I heard threatening collective bargaining last year were Democrats. I also think their wanton spending is a bigger threat to State employees than the Wisconsin boogeyman.

posted by: quikstix | July 10, 2012  10:26pm

Pixie Stix here, cool, great comments and you are right, all unions are run by felons.  Now to the nitty gritty, who is going to prove to me that a current known entity, namely our existing contract through 6/30/2016 with raises and a no layoff clause, will stay in place if representation is changed?  A simple question.  Also, how come UPSEU isn’t making the effort to contact ALL P4 members?  Can’t they handle it?

posted by: victory1 | July 10, 2012  11:10pm

You must be kidding, elect friendly politicians, and who might that be? To unions like seiu/csea it is always a left wing democrat. With friends like malloy and the rest of the demacraps, the State workers don’t need enemies. With rinker leading the cheering section, he conned State workers into working and then voting for malloy and company. Then before the ah ah ah man could get his can in the governor’s seat, he and the so-called labor friendly demacraps were telling us give him what ever he wants in concessions or else. As far as the myth of collective bargaining is concerned, IT IS ALREADY GONE. Just think about the facts, malloy and his buddies told the State employees that if we didn’t surrender, they the demacraps would introduce and pass a bill removing collective bargaining. You have got to love such a principled group of people. Non political unions like UPSEU are our only hope. If this nonsense of not letting us VOTE on who represents us, we will vote with our feet and become fee payers and then push for legislation to make joining unions voluntary.

posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | July 10, 2012  11:12pm

Well UPSEU is not allowed to contact members at State Agencies…but you know that already…..

This is a great contract with raises???  Really???  members will be paying 3% a year for 8 years after the .5% and 2.5% payments.  So please go ahead and calc. those raises for me…. Please…..

Mark my words, the 10 years of payment to our medical will NOT stop….  Once the polititions get funding, it will stay and probably go up.  The Question you should be asking is…..why are the retirees who make 2.5% raises each year, (with free medical and making 2% of their full time pay (plus UNLIMITED OVERTIME) during retirement, and the 2.5% raises each year…..  BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE….  THEY GET FREE MEDICAL….while members like me will get 30% of our retirement and pay our medical…..  Then ask yourself,with a POS deal like SECRAP got, why were most of the leaers TEIR 1???  They were left UN TOUCHED???????????? 

Say the lies you want, but the TRUTH WILL ALWAYS COME A CALLING

posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | July 10, 2012  11:24pm

OH PIXY….  Please sit down for this, because I am about to throw TRUTH at you…...UPSEU SAID UNDER OATH THAT THEY WILL HONOR THIS AGREEMENT… KRYSS FROM CSEA/SEIU IN HIS BRIEFS NOTED THAT UPSEU WILL HONOR THIS AGREEMENT.  I on the other hand am saying that this was a POS agreement and the parties involved, though maybe not legally, but surely unetically did questionable acts.  So I for one am psyched that this is going to court.  A court that hopefully will not have Mellon’s influence, nor SEBAC’s!  BTW, kind of ironic that the Commish of DOL resigned the day of the announcment that the DOL voted against UPSUE…..  Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…........

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 10, 2012  11:27pm

@quikstix

Our contract will go with us.  This is not the first time a union/chapter split off from CSEA.  CSEA was the first and only union in the state for a very long time… all the other unions represent other employees in the state are here now because those members left CSEA in the past and they have been better for it… For starters compare their contracts with ours… flex time, better pay, better bumping, better language for seniority protection, training, advancement, etc… CSEA got lazier and sloppier over time…

Did you fill out a green card?  How is anyone at UPSEU supposed to contact you if they don’t know who you are?  duh…

@Perturbed dude you nail it everytime!  Let’s do lunch, my treat!

UC

posted by: perturbed | July 10, 2012  11:43pm

quikstix asked: “Now to the nitty gritty, who is going to prove to me that a current known entity, namely our existing contract through 6/30/2016 with raises and a no layoff clause, will stay in place if representation is changed?  A simple question.”

An irrelevant question. Of all the things to worry about, that’s what’s bothering you? Seriously?

What, exactly, do you envision would be the means by which our existing contract could be threatened? Wouldn’t it require that one of the parties to the contract, the state or our new union, actually wants to void it? So, I ask you, in all seriousness, who do you think wants to void the contract?

Who on earth do you think wants to void the contract at this point?

Without someone actually wanting to void it, the contract will remain in effect.

Your question is the equivalent of asking, “Who is going to prove to me that state employees won’t decide to commit mass suicide tomorrow?” Well, ya know, honestly, I can’t prove to you that we all won’t drink the deadly Cool-Aid tomorrow, quikstix. But if that’s what keeps you up at night I feel sorry for you.

In reality, it’s a pretty good bet that you already know this,  and that you are just a union loyalist that doesn’t want us to change unions. And because you saw how effective the layoff threats were last year, you figured it’s worth another shot to scare everybody into submission again when we get to vote.

—perturbed

@rankandfile—right back at you! The truth will eventually win out, and we have that advantage. It is amazing the amount of garbage people are willing to throw out there, though.

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 11, 2012  2:52pm

Major Shmuck loves Angry Bunny….aka Vote Yes for UPSEU!!!!!!

posted by: perturbed | July 11, 2012  9:41pm

@courchesne, did Scott Walker ever do this:

Malloy pickets with striking nursing home workers

“Malloy briefly marched with strikers from SEIU 1199NE, a politically active union in Connecticut, outside the Newington Health Center, clapping his hands as workers chanted, “No work, no peace.”

“It is not Malloy’s first time on a picket line with SEIU: He marched with the union outside a Hartford nursing home on the day he won the Democratic primary in 2010.”

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman on the picket line—with SEIU!

What did SEIU spend on Malloy to warrant this little favor? (See Wall Street Journal article linked above.)

—perturbed

posted by: perturbed | July 11, 2012  10:07pm

Back to more serious matters.

What’s really perturbing—and more than a little ironic—is that the Malloy administration, SEBAC, AFSCME, and SEIU all joined forces and spent tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of dollars preventing a few thousand state workers from choosing different unions in an iron-willed determination to uphold the law, as codified by SEBAC 2011 and its Attachment H, yet another part of that legal agreement is being flagrantly violated, and not a single one of those unions or SEBAC has the slightest problem with it.

Think your union is “working hard” for you, Edward Abbey? Worried about your existing contract are you?

Think “this whole thing is a joke and a waste of money” quikstix? Think UPSEU won’t be effective at protecting our contract?

And you, courchesne, are you really that concerned about upholding the letter of the contract? Convinced backroom political horse-trading is the way unions should conduct business?

Well as far as I can tell, backroom political horse-trading is exactly the reason why our contract is being publicly violated, and our trusty unions are too entangled in their shady deals with Malloy and the legislature to do a damned thing about it. Their unholy alliances, it would appear, are rendering our mighty unions powerless. All they can do is sit tied up in the corner, hoping nobody will notice how pathetic they are.

What am I talking about? Section II. A. 3. Employee Contribution to Retiree Health Care Trust Fund (OPEB), which said of our mandatory 10-year “contribution” of 3% of our wages:

“The contribution would continue for ten (10) years for all employees or until retirement, whichever is sooner. Effective July 1, 2017, the State will begin to contribute into the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund in an amount equal to amount contributed by employees in each year. The trust fund shall not be used to pay the retiree health care costs of any employee already retired prior to the effective date of this agreement. THE OBLIGATION TO USE THE FUNDS SOLELY TO PAY THE RETIREE HEALTHCARE COSTS OF INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTING TO THE FUNDS (OR TO RETURN THE FUNDS TO INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTING BUT NOT QUALIFYING FOR RETIREE HEALTH CARE) SHALL BE PERMANENT AND IRREVOCABLE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT. The Trust Fund shall be administered by the State Treasurer.”

(That capitalized sentence was added as a “clarification” in the revised agreement—they were serious about this part.)

Well, at least one part of that provision is being complied with: the State Treasurer is “administering” the fund. How?

“As allocations to the fund from other sources increase and more cash becomes available, Nappier added, ‘my office will be prepared to employ a long-term investment strategy. Until then, any fund assets will continue to be maintained in the common cash pool with any positive balances earning interest at the common cash pool rate.’”

Holy cow! A roomful of union lawyers spent the better part of a year upholding “Attachment H”—an afterthought—so surely they must be gearing up for all-out war to uphold part of the main agreement, Section II. A. 3., right? The State Treasurer admitted to the press that she is willfully ignoring our contract!!!

What are our trusty unions doing about it? This: <_________> 

Nothing.

Nada.

Not a peep.

Surely SEBAC won’t stand for this crap, will they? Well…

...yeah, they will.

“The chief negotiator for the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition, the group that negotiates benefits for unionized state employees, Hartford attorney Daniel Livingston, wrote that ‘The Malloy administration has assured us they have been and will continue to comply with the retiree aspects of the 2011 SEBAC agreement, including the (retiree health care trust fund), and we will continue to monitor the situation.’”

That’s it? How is this possible? The only part of the agreement worth protecting is the part that preserves the flow of union dues to our trusty unions?

Can any of you union loyalists explain this? What about our trusty retired Tier I union shill SteveHC/NOW What? You got any answers here? They take 3% of our wages and they use it to pay the bills. How is that not a 3% wage reduction? Malloy pulls a bait-n-switch with our health care trust fund and our unions don’t have a word to say about it?

And there are people that want to stay with these guys?

—perturbed

posted by: courchesne | July 12, 2012  4:40am

1.  So UPSEU isn’t advocating for a general right to vote just because?  I recall that even before the SBLR decision was released UPSEU was encouraging the other parties to simply step aside and let it have a vote without going through the process of determining if UPSEU was even entitled to a vote.  Because hey, free choice, right?  Let’s all just forget about those pesky laws and regulations. 

2.  The SBLR found it beyond dispute that neither the premature extension rule nor the three year contract rule were applicable to SERA at the time the legislature approved the SEBAC agreement.  That is an important finding because it means that in the instant case the SBLR would have to create and attempt to apply these rules retroactively to an entity that has plenary power to make rules.  Do you really expect that the SBLR is going to tell the legislature what rules the legislature has to follow *retroactively* ?  The SBLR is an administrative agency.  It’s powers are delegated *by* the legislature.  Or put another way, the legislature makes the rules and directs them to the SBLR, not the other way around. 

3.  Your statement that a more “honest” Labor Board could “find” good cause reflects a serious misconception about the Labor Board’s role.  The burden for establishing good cause rested with UPSEU.  The Labor Board didn’t have to go “find” it.  UPSEU didn’t meet its burden, and for good reason: there isn’t good cause.  The mere fact that a percentage of employees wanted to change representatives isn’t sufficient to establish good cause.  If it was, all petitions would have good cause to proceed to election and the contract bar would be nullified.

4.  I did read past p.13.  That’s called a dissenting opinion.  As in it doesn’t set any legal precedent and isn’t binding on the parties.  It’s nice that one member found good cause to have an election, but on a three member board one member’s opinion doesn’t carry the day.  It’s entirely possible that the dissent’s opinion may sway the Superior Court to find in favor of UPSEU on appeal, but I would be surprised if it did, and in any event, we all know that this case is ultimately going to be resolved by at least the Appellate Court and possibly the Supreme Court.

5.  It doesn’t matter if CT is different from WI.  Many (if not most) of the labor organizations representing Connecticut employees are national organizations.  If they are weakened at the national level it is a given that they will be weakened at the local level as well.  National labor organizations are the closest thing pro-labor politicians have to corporate backers and even then it’s hardly a comparison.  Now that the leash is off on political donations it’s essential that labor organizations are able to protect their interests financially by supporting political candidates who will protect the rights of employees to bargain collectively. 

6.  You are basically attacking the idea of campaign promises and platforms generally as opposed to the specific relationship between unions and political candidates.  Unions typically financially support pro-labor politicians because these politicians do pro-labor things, like sign laws supporting labor rights.  That kind of quid pro quo isn’t unique to unions; most individuals and organizations financially support candidates because the candidates have promised to do something favorable to the individual or organization.  It may be something small like supporting an existing right or it may be something huge like promising to enact comprehensive healthcare reform.  Aside from outright criminal bribery, the idea that it’s somehow “shady” for someone to make an agreement with a politician to donate money in exchange for a promise for specific action is hard to justify.

7.  This rhetoric about “backroom political horse-trading,” “unholy alliances,” and “shady deals” it’s entirely speculative.  The fact that Rod Blagojevich *may* have had some arrangement with an SEIU official in Illinois in 2008 is hardly evidence of an ongoing conspiracy in Connecticut, or anywhere else for that matter.  Governor Malloy’s executive orders were pretty well publicized which kind of undermines any allegation that they are “backroom” deals.  His decision to “briefly march” with striking members of a *national* union (i.e. NOT state) isn’t much of an indictment either.  I mean really, so what?  Who cares?  What does it prove aside from the fact that he supports the striking employees?  Do you have some sort of evidence that SEIU bribed him to do this? 

8.  If you feel your representative isn’t policing your agreement as strongly as it should then file a DFR charge or wait until your next window and decertify.

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 12, 2012  5:58pm

@courchesne

1.  UPSEU is advocating for a general right to vote because we presented them with a significant showing of over 1/3 of our membership requesting them to represent us!

2. They had a gun to their heads like we did last summer…  Many of us had layoff slips… their boss was asked to resign.

3. More than 1/3 of the members submitted cards… cause enough, and yes, that alone is good enough.

4. It will make the difference and we will win…

5. What’s your point? (Other than when the person our union backs loses the winner will take it out on us!)

6. …and if I do not support this personally, my union can spend the money they take from me on this anyway.

7. nah… it’s as old as time… read the docs that leaked about Sal Luciano and Sustinet… go ahead… Google it… I’ll wait…

8. We are working on a class action DFR and have the decert papers ready!  (We don’t need to wait for any window to decert, that can happen whenever we pull the cord!) Thanks for the advice!

UC

posted by: courchesne | July 13, 2012  1:19pm

-Having 30% interest cards is *not* enough.  That you think it is is part of the problem.  You need to demonstrate 30% interest *and* petition within the appropriate window.  You had a window to petition and then you closed it by ratifying a new contract. Oops.

-Nobody had a gun to their head.  Not the Labor Board and not you.  You could have taken the concessions or the layoffs and you picked the concessions.  You don’t have to like the choice but you did have a choice.  The Labor Board’s decision is solid and any suggestion that Governor Malloy exerted pressure on it to side with the incumbent unions is pure speculation at this point.  Why would the State spend money to hire a private law firm to intervene in the case if the Governor could just order the Labor Board to decide the way he wanted?

-I don’t see how the Google document proves what you say it does.

-Good luck with your DFR.  I can’t even imagine what possible theory you could base it on but I’m sure it will be bursting at the seams with merit. 

-Again, you do need a window period.  Or at least the General Statutes, regulations, and Labor Board say you do.  I guess they could all be wrong, though.  Good luck with the Superior Court.  I’m expect that will be a hilarious spectacle to observe.

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 13, 2012  3:01pm

courchesne,  distort the truths as much as you want…..  Major Shmuck says….. “Pack your bags and get your freaky Occupy’ers together and Occupy yourselves at the courts. Because that is where we are heading…  UPSEU WILL WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Down with CSEA SEIU and up up up with UPSEU.  Booooooooo Yaaaa!

posted by: rankandfile | July 13, 2012  4:50pm

courchesne, didn’t the labor board decide because of the existence of the mysterious attachment H? Yet attachment H was never voted upon by membership, it was added after the fact. So it is certainly disingenuous to say “You had a window to petition and then you closed it by ratifying a new contract. Oops” The fact is the window was closed without the knowledge or consent of the membership, and had they known about attachment H in advance, it’s possible they might have voted differently. Oh, and you still haven’t told us which of the incumbent unions you work for. By the way, many members did feel they had a gun to their head (layoffs) not to mention the fact that SEBAC launched a massive scare campaign about what would happen with a no vote, and a huge PR campaign to vote yes. Yet never once did they mention the fact that they planned to close the window.

posted by: perturbed | July 13, 2012  9:54pm

@courchesne, still using your obvious insider knowledge to confuse people? That’s not nice. How do you rationalize that, the ends justify the means?

1) You’re not accurate here. My understanding—from witnessing first-hand the spectacle that the Labor Board hearings were in this case—is that the Labor Board had certified UPSEU’s petitions, and were preparing to authorize the elections, when the state, SEBAC, and our very own union bosses filed their objections.

That means—and this is a crucial point—that the burden of proof should have rightfully fallen on the objectors to justify their objections. Absent the objections, the Labor Board would have granted the elections.

As near as I could tell, the reason the Labor Board didn’t proceed on that basis was that the roomful of lawyers on the union boss’ side simply refused to mount a defense of their objections. They had no real case. It was a pathetic joke.

One by one, the Board went around the table asking for each objecting lawyer to call their first witness, and one by one, each lawyer refused to participate in the hearing by refusing to call any witnesses. They left it to the infamous Mr. Robert Krzys to finally state the opinion, aloud and in public(!), that the objectors needn’t justify the objections. It was really bizarre. The Labor Board was clearly not prepared for that strategy, and they ultimately caved to the manipulation of the 10 or so lawyers and the standing-room-only crowd of objectors. That hearing was effectively over, and the Labor Board had made clear to UPSEU by the end of it that UPSEU—not the objectors—would have to justify their position at the next hearing, apparently for no other reason than they needed something to discuss. It was either that or suffer the embarrassment of losing control of their own hearing.

A despicable but genius maneuver by Krzys.

So yes, up until that point, if the objecting lawyers had withdrawn their objections, the elections could have proceeded.

2) Clearly you are mistaken courchesne, because a member of the Labor Board disputes your claim. The Labor Board simply justified their ruling with Attachment H and SERA. However, as was clearly articulated by the dissent, a justification is not the same thing as a mandate. The Labor Board had no mandate to uphold Attachment H. They could have chosen, as they did previously under MERA, to order an election for just cause. The fact that no window period exists is precisely when the “three year rule” and the “premature extension rule” are used. (Are you sure you read the dissent? It’s very informative: “As the majority recognizes, MERA and SERA afford the Labor Board authority to determine what constitutes good cause for directing an election during the term of a collective bargaining agreement.”) The fact that two of three Board members were willing to claim no authority to invoke either rule completely undermines their credibility.

3) See 1) and 2). You wrote, “The mere fact that a percentage of employees wanted to change representatives isn’t sufficient to establish good cause.  If it was, all petitions would have good cause to proceed to election and the contract bar would be nullified.” True enough. What’s that got to do with this case, except that you’re trying to use it to obfuscate? In this case, the contract had been extended prematurely, and the petitions were filed during the previously scheduled window period. 

4) You are correct, the dissenting opinion is not legally binding, the majority opinion is.

5) What you fail to acknowledge is that the primary interests of the huge politically motivated national unions do not align well with Connecticut state employees’ interests. If SEBAC, AFSCME and SEIU want to fight for universal health care—and favorable executive orders that allow them to amass more members and their dues—more power to them. But they violated their fiduciary duty to their state employee members when they were willing to further those ends by granting Malloy unprecedented concessions with our contract. State employees are now minorities in these unions, and our numbers are fixed. Thus, we’re a low priority to the current union bosses.

6) You’re missing the point: the things our union bosses horse-trade for now do not benefit state employees. Health care reform is not exactly a top priority for state employees. Neither is the ability for SEIU to amass more members that don’t share our concerns. Yet those appear to be precisely what our union bosses gained in trade for our pensions (and 3% or our wages for 10 years, as it turns out).

(continued)

posted by: perturbed | July 13, 2012  9:58pm

7) It’s not entirely speculative, courchesne. I personally heard Roy Occhiogrosso describe the negotiations as “air-tight” (in an interview Christine Stuart participated in on the McEnroe show). I also saw the smirk and awkward utterances of our union president trying to explain why no bargaining unit heads elected by the members were allowed to participate in the negotiations, how they were “very different” this time. I also read how two Bargaining Units claimed they were kept out of the negotiating process.

First P-4:

P-4 Letter of June 13, 2011 to Patrice Peterson

And then AFSCME Local 387, an NP-4 Corrections Bargaining Unit:

“Unfortunately, during this entire period we were not consulted with regarding any of the issues that were later released to the public by the “Gang of 15”, otherwise known as SEBAC, who have failed to recognize that they serve at the pleasure of its membership and that their salaries and generous benefits are paid for through union dues derived from the hard work, sweat, blood and tears of the men and women who walk one of Connecticut’s toughest beats, at least as it pertains to our organization, AFSCME Council 4.”

Then there’s the fact that the political wrangling over health care reform took place at exactly the same time as the SEBAC 2011 contract negotiations. As made famous by Sal Luciano and his letter to Malloy, the health care reform negotiations and the contract negotiations overlapped. In an April 14, 2011 letter—at the very peak of the SEBAC 2011 contract negotiations in which Luciano was a central player, Luciano wrote this:

“Dear Governor Malloy…I respectfully ask for your leadership and your strong and broad support for SustiNet. As time is critical, I would appreciate it if you would agree to meet with those who continue to work for SustiNet’s enactment next week. Sincerely, Sal Luciano”,

Then put this all in the context of the end results.

SEBAC/AFSCME/SEIU got a pooling bill, health care policies in the SEBAC contract that are in nearly complete alignment with Rinker’s vision for health care reform in CT (aka SustiNet), and SEIU got two executive orders that lead to more dues and members (home health care workers). Oh yeah, and the unions got help from Malloy in holding their state employee members hostage to keep our dues flowing in.

What did state employees get?

► a 2-year hard wage freeze: no wage increases, increments, or lump payments

► a raising of the normal retirement age eligibility by three (3) years for everyone to 63/65—except Tier I and hazardous duty employees—effective July 1, 2022

► establishment of a new Tier III for new hires that includes: the 2% pension contribution of Tier IIa; the new higher 63/65 retirement ages for non-hazardous duty; higher age/service requirements for hazardous duty—age 50 with 20 years, or any age with 25 years; and benefit calculation for all based on a 5-year average, effective July 1, 2011

► a 100% increase (a doubling) of the current penalty for anyone qualified for early retirement—based on the “new normal” age when it takes effect later—from 3% per year to 6% per year early (add in the standard 1.33% per year reduction for each year early, and foregone raises, and the resulting reduction is close to 9% per year), now effective October 2, 2011

► a 20% reduction in the typical COLA, now effective October 2, 2011

► a mandatory 3% wage deduction (separate from any direct wage concessions) across the board for all employees for the equivalent of 10 years to be used to pay into a “Retiree Health Care Trust Fund”, phased in over 2 years beginning July 1, 2013

NOTE: NOW KNOWN TO BE A 10-YEAR 3% WAGE REDUCTION, BEING USED BY THE STATE TREASURER TO PAY BILLS.

► minor increases in co-pays, and nuisance “Health Enhancement Program” requirements

► a new Health Care Premium (Penalty) for early retirees, ranging from 2% to 40% of the cost of their health care, depending on years of service and years early, effective July 1, 2011

► elimination of the July 1, 2011 wage increases—with payback of any lump payments

As circumstantial as it may be, there is a preponderance of evidence that we state employees were betrayed by our own union bosses. I’ll stand by my rhetoric about “backroom political horse-trading,” “unholy alliances,” and “shady deals”. (Have any good arguments why it’s not justified?)

8) Better still, we’ll take this case above the kangaroo court known as the Labor Board, and decertify our existing unions far sooner than 2015. (Though if we have to wait until then, believe me, we will eventually decertify our current unions.)

—perturbed

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 13, 2012  10:08pm

@courchesne

You question our nuclear option…? How about a tour of our enrichment plant… 

It starts with a Google search - “how to decertify my union”

Our second stop is a lovely page describing the Decertification Election!
http://www.nrtw.org/decertification-election

Which then takes us to specific info for CT State employees!
http://www.nrtw.org/public-sector-decertification-laws-8-1-2010

Again, those are our nuclear options and this was just a sample tour…  There is plenty more!

We would like to stay in a union, UPSEU of course, but if we need to chew our own foot off to survive a bear trap (escape SEIU/CSEA) it’s an acceptable loss!

You can relax now as this will never need to come to pass… Decert entirely = minimum 30%! We had over 50% of our members fill out green cards. (I only used 30% in my prior post as it was all the law required!) A judge will declare our numbers to be enough reason alone to force an election, then we will vote UPSEU!

We will win in court!  We started immediate legal action against SEIU/CSEA by filling out green cards as a result of the UNDUE INFLUENCE they exerted upon us in assisting Malloy in the ECONOMIC DURESS he put us under when they teamed up against us to shove this deal down our throats!

I’m sure that last bit was tough to hear… Read it again… 

It didn’t get easier the second time did it?  LOL!

BTW: As for: “Why would the State spend money to hire a private law firm to intervene in the case if the Governor could just order the Labor Board to decide the way he wanted?”
Plausible deniability that you are using now, the dude loves to play mind games, and he is on a power trip not to mention spend crazy!  Why build a bus way to nowhere that nobody will ride at the cost of $1 billion? Hundreds of millions on first 5? They are all the same catagory… The real reason is not clear at first but it will be clearly short sighted after the fact!

UC

posted by: victory1 | July 14, 2012  8:03am

UC,
It was supposed to be a surprise, now they know we know there’s more than one way to skin a cat or get rid of a worthless union………… Oops……….

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 15, 2012  7:31am

@Victory1

What do I know , I’m just a foot soldier in this war discussing our options.   

Loose lips sink ships! 

It’s only a deterrent… we would never actually do it! 

Besides, I know for a fact our leaders in the move to UPSEU would not wish this to take place!  We will win in court and we are becoming fee payers in the meantime… 

UC

posted by: courchesne | July 16, 2012  3:22am

Upset.Citizen,

Maybe you didn’t notice but you already detoned your “nuclear weapon” and it was a dud (because, like I’ve been saying, you don’t have a window). UPSEU’s petition for representation was also a petition for decertification and you can plainly see from the recent SBLR decision that the petition was denied in its entirety. If you don’t believe me, look for yourself at the petition and take note of the conspicuous “X” next to the box requesting decertification of CSEA—> http://www.upseu.org/connecticut/P4/CSEASEIU Local 2001.P4..pdf

Perhaps instead of using the NRTW website as your source of Connecticut law you might want to look at some old SBLR decisions? They are all indexed on the agency’s website and there’s a comprehensive search function available for you to perform research. You’ll note several decisions interpreting MERA specifically reference the need for an open window before employees can decertify their bargaining representative. Decisions interpreting SERA frequently apply law developed under MERA regarding elections (see e.g., the most recent decision). The contract bar can be traced all the way back to the NLRA, which the SBLR also frequently uses to aid in interpreting both MERA and SERA. 

If you file another decertification petition before your next window period the SBLR is just going to dismiss it and cite the most recent decision as having already resolved that issue. Your only avenue if you want to get rid of your current union is to win in court and then convince your members to side with UPSEU in an election. Again, good luck with that.

posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | July 16, 2012  9:31am

:  already did that along time ago and believe it or not, Kryss is our biggest fan with his old cases.  The person who pushed so hard to keep us will be the same person who had set the ground work for us to leave….  I learn from my history.  CSEA SEIU 2001 is done…. And ironically,  they know!  Keep up the great work UC! 

courchesne, keep doing what u r doing… u r so off base it is funny and sad….but really funny, say’s da Bunny…...Go UPSUE!!!!

posted by: rankandfile | July 16, 2012  9:48am

courchesne, you are exactly why people want a change. Having their own dues money used to fight against them disgusts a lot of union members. If we ever get worker’s rights legislation passed in this state (i.e. elections every 3 years, no forced dues), your ride is over.

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 16, 2012  3:23pm

@courchesne

Reread my last post.  You don’t know what you are talking about… UPSEU will take this to court. They will win us the right to vote and we will vote to go to UPSEU!  Nuff said!  : P

UC

posted by: perturbed | July 16, 2012  7:22pm

@courchesne! I’m starting to wonder if you are merely morally challenged, or if you really do have some cognitive disability. What makes me suspect the latter?

Well, your comments here seem to have devolved into two main points, repeated over and over:

1) “We won! The Labor Board struck down workers’ rights of self determination! Me and my union boss buddies fought against the democratic process for state workers whereby the workers get to choose—by majority vote—which unions they want to represent them, and we won!”

Yeah, we know already, courchesne. We’ve even read the decision all the way down to the dissent. I guess you should be permitted to revel in this temporary delay of the inevitable. Enjoy it while it lasts.

2) “A vote cannot be allowed outside of a window period.”

Now this is where you have me concerned about your ability to reason. Are you denying the precedent cited in the dissent under MERA in which the CT Labor Board did just that? Do you believe the ruling never happened? Or do you believe the same principles couldn’t have easily been applied to this case if only one more Labor Board member—either Low or Battey—had a slightly stronger moral compass?

You cite (lately) the use of NLRA to uphold the contract bar. Are you not aware that the NLRA also provides the so-called three year rule and the premature extension rule?

Seriously, man, it’s like you’re holding your hands over your ears and yelling “la la la la la la la la la la” so you don’t have to face the inconvenient truth.

—perturbed

posted by: courchesne | July 17, 2012  4:46am

perturbed,

It’s utterly baffling that you keep citing the dissent as if its statement of the law is authoritative when literally everyone agrees that it isn’t.  It absolutely doesn’t matter that the dissenting Board member thinks that prior decisions make application of the three year rule or premature extension rule appropriate because the Board majority examined those prior decisions, as well as other decisions, and determined that the rules shouldn’t be applied. 

Since we seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that the Board majority actually did address this issue, I will quote the relevant portion of the decision so the matter is clear to everyone:

“It is, however, undisputed that neither [the premature extension doctrine nor the three year rule] had been adopted under SERA, nor had the petitions been filed, at the time the legislature approved the contract extensions at issue and the unambiguous language in Attachment H to the Revised SEBAC Agreement.  We conclude that absent the legislature’s approval of the Revised SEBAC Agreement and its attachments, the petitions would have been timely filed.  We are not at liberty to adopt retroactive rules which circumvent the legislature’s actions as to these specific contracts.  ‘This is consistent with our recognition that the legislature is fully empowered to modify the statutory schemes we administer and it does not violate those schemes merely by exercising this power.’” (p. 11). 

You’ll note if you read the decision that what follows that paragraph are citations to three cases supporting the SBLR’s position.  So to answer your question, yes, I deny that the “precedent” you cite is actually precedent for the instant case.  The Labor Board determined that the controversy in front of it was sufficiently distinguishable from the prior cases decided under MERA and that the circumstances were such that the proposed rules should not be applied. 

The language of SERA tracks the NLRA but diverges in one crucial area: the NLRA does not expressly provide a contract bar in its statutory language.  SERA does.  This is important because the contract bar under the NLRA is an entirely Board-created doctrine and thus the NLRB has plenary authority to modify it as it feels necessary.  Under SERA, the contract bar is a legislative creation and so the SBLR is limited in its ability to limit application of it. 

Now, I would like to briefly address your propensity for leading off your comments with pompous personal insults and your repeated speculations as to what motivated the SBLR to decide the way it did.  This kind of behaviour is not what one should normally expect to see from someone who is confident in the merits of his or her position.  It’s what you expect from someone who has exhausted all their other arguments and now has no other means for remaining engaged in the discussion aside from shallow name-calling.  In your most recent post alone you blithely asserted without any evidence whatsoever that the Board decided against you because they lacked a strong moral compass when the content of the decision reflects that it was plainly the result of genuine deliberative process.  You also accused me of holding my hands over my ears even though you are the one who refuses to acknowledge any argument not featured in the dissent. 

It’s time to be a little more circumspect and knock off the childishness.  This is not how grown-ups behave when they don’t get their way.  In the end, name-calling and rhetorical hyperbole are not going to change the fact that the primary reasons your petitions failed are: 1.) your champion union, UPSEU, could not get its act together and file its paperwork on time, and 2.) you closed your own window by ratifying a new contract.

posted by: rankandfile | July 17, 2012  11:57am

courchesne, regarding “2.) you closed your own window by ratifying a new contract”. You do realize that no rank and file members were aware of attachment H when they voted the 2nd time (since it did not yet exist) and that it was only added after members had already voted that 2nd time, and that members did not know that the agreement could be changed after they voted? So it’s disingenuous at best to claim they “closed their own window”. I hope you realize the damage you did to our unions with the despicable bylaws changes, the revolting revotes, the underhanded changes to the agreement after the votes. The chickens will eventually come home to roost. You have permanently alienated a third or more of your membership, do you find that to be acceptable damage?

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 17, 2012  12:01pm

@courchesne,

If this is really a lost cause then why is UPSEU taking it to court?

I’ll tell you why!  They know this whole process was corrupt! They know they have right on their side! They know we are oppressed and we will flock to them in droves!

Why are you, and SEIU/CSEA pushing your twisted opinions so hard? Because you know it’s true and you are afraid!

With truth, knowledge, sheer numbers questing for freedom, and our never give up attitude we will win in the end!

UC

P.S. Your attitude makes you one of the best players on our team! Thanks for the assist! Mind if we quote you on our site?

posted by: courchesne | July 17, 2012  3:01pm

I’m not sure Attachment H was all that relevant to the window closing.  Generally, the window period occurs during August prior to the year a collective bargaining agreement expires.  Therefore, your window was initially set for August 2011.  As soon as you ratified a new contract, however, your expiration date became 2016 (or somewhere thereabouts) and your window therefore moved to August 2015 (and the August 2011 window ceased to exist).  I don’t see how Attachment H had any impact on that except to state unambiguously what date the parties would be calculating the window from, which is what the law already said anyway, as the SBLR noted in its decision.

As far as the damage “I” supposedly did, I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.  I don’t work for SEBAC or any of the incumbent unions, and I’m not actually even a state employee.  In fact, I supported the legislature’s willingness to consider rolling back collective bargaining rights after the unions voted down the first concession package.  So out of all the people posting on here, I’m probably one of the few who can claim a completely disinterested position on this mess.  I think some of you just need to accept the fact that not everybody views your petition being denied as some horrible tragedy of injustice.

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 17, 2012  9:14pm

@courchesne

You’re right… King George deserved our tax money… it was such a bad idea to toss that tea overboard!

While we’re at it that civil war thing was a misunderstanding as well!

Oh, and the civil rights movement… MLK shouldn’t have bothered to back up his words with his life!

Forget about putting a man on the moon… Can’t be done!

Climb Everest… nah… too tall!

You can play armchair general all you want, this is the story of our lives. We will not give up! One step at a time.  Right now UPSEU is taking this to court! If that doesn’t work out we will try something else. If the law says we can’t change unions then we will get the law changed! We will try again, and again, and again… We will not give up we will not lose!

Get this into your head, the more we are told no and the longer we are oppressed the stronger we will become! We will stop at nothing until we succeed! People like you harden our resolve!

Got anymore know-it-all 3rd party responses?

ÜÇ

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 17, 2012  9:58pm

courchesne give it a break.  Members are leaving CSEA SEIU 2001.  Your union is through.  Operation Liberate is a GO….I say again….It is a go!!!!!

posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | July 17, 2012  10:04pm

I have heard that CSEA SEIU 2001 now knows that it’s members are serious.  Hey leadership, you had a good run, Now we are in charge of our own destiny.  I am leaving CSEA SEIU 2001 and I am a SOON TO BE FEE PAYER!!!!!  This Bunny is hopping for joy….......  You will have to pay big bucks to keep us now…..  I am voting YES for UPSEU and so are all of my friends.  It is sad that so many members have been harmed by an entity that was suppose to protect us.  Shock and awe people….shock and awe!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 18, 2012  5:52am

@Major Shmuck

Oh no! NOT Operation Liberate!!!   

It will surely break them!  SEIU will drop CSEA like a hot potato!  The humanity!!! 

Those poor, poor people…  They will be lost without their pupet masters… 

UC

posted by: perturbed | July 18, 2012  8:32pm

courchesne wrote:

perturbed,

It’s utterly baffling that you keep citing the dissent as if its statement of the law is authoritative when literally everyone agrees that it isn’t.

Let me try to assuage your bewilderment.

Perhaps it’s because I assumed reasonable people would agree that the opinions of a voting member of the Labor Board would carry more weight, more credibility, that some anonymous hack (all of us, courchesne, not just me and you) with an internet connection and a keyboard. After all, if just one more voting member of the Board agreed with the dissent, it would have been the majority opinion.

Perhaps it’s because the existence of the extremely well-reasoned dissent is a clear indication—to a reasonable person—that the decision amounted to a judgement call based on interpretations of the relevant laws and the authority of the Labor Board itself. Obviously, it was not clear-cut. The dissent, you must admit, is part of the official decision rendered by the Labor Board. As much as you’d like to portray the decision as black-and-white, it simply is not. The dissent is proof of that.

Perhaps it’s because the dissent is far more consistent with the spirit and intent of state and federal labor laws. It’s also far more direct, simpler, and logical than the convoluted rationalizations of the majority opinion. Thus, it’s more persuasive in defining justice than the majority opinion, even if the majority opinion is (temporarily) enforceable.

Perhaps it’s because the mere existence of two mutually exclusive opinions—the majority and the dissent in this case—is a reminder to reasonable people that Labor Board members are only human, and it it possible for them to get it wrong. In your opinion, the 2 out of 3 majority is proof that the majority opinion is correct. However, it’s far from conclusive proof that the majority opinion is, in fact, fairer and more justifiable than the minority opinion. For that very reason, there are avenues available through which the majority opinion can be examined, reconsidered and overturned. Those avenues will now be pursued.

Perhaps it’s because such a strong dissent based on existing laws and past Labor Board precedent could provide a solid basis for the court hearing an appeal, and overturning the decision.

—perturbed

posted by: perturbed | July 18, 2012  8:37pm

courchesne wrote:

In your most recent post alone you blithely asserted without any evidence whatsoever that the Board decided against you because they lacked a strong moral compass when the content of the decision reflects that it was plainly the result of genuine deliberative process.

I’m sorry, as informed as you obviously are on the laws (you must be a lawyer), it would seem I have a better vantage point than you on this question. I actually attended a portion of the hearings. Based on that first-hand knowledge, it’s far easier for me than perhaps it is for you to discern that the majority opinion was an effort to justify a decision, not a good-faith, honest effort to find justice. The hearings were an embarrassment to the state Board of Labor Relations. You don’t have to take my word for it; it really doesn’t matter to me. In my own judgement of the facts as I know them, it’s beyond comprehension that the majority arrived at their opinion honestly, whether it can be justified on technicalities or not. A “genuine deliberative process?” That’s laughable. The labor-lawyer-gone-to-the-dark-side (siding with the state against labor), Robert Krzys, fed the Board their weak justifications, and the majority dutifully reported them.

A justification for the majority opinion is not the same thing as a mandate for the majority opinion.

The majority attempted to justify their opinion; the court will now decide if they succeeded.

courchesne wrote:

I don’t work for SEBAC or any of the incumbent unions, and I’m not actually even a state employee.  In fact, I supported the legislature’s willingness to consider rolling back collective bargaining rights after the unions voted down the first concession package.  So out of all the people posting on here, I’m probably one of the few who can claim a completely disinterested position on this mess.

Okay, now it’s my turn to be baffled. By your own admission, you oppose workers’ rights—the rights to collectively bargain. And that is somehow supposed to be indicative of your impartiality in opposing workers’ rights to choose their own union representation more often than once in 8 years (or an indefinite period)?

I guess it’s that kind of reasoning that can make sense out of the majority opinion.

Sounds to me like you simply oppose workers’ rights. (Are you sure you don’t work for one of our existing unions?)

—perturbed

posted by: perturbed | July 18, 2012  8:38pm

@UC—I owe you one! Whoever said standing up for what’s right and fighting against the oppression of our own unions was a thankless job?

Many thanks to you,
—perturbed

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 18, 2012  10:08pm

@perturbed

Unlike our union I do the right thing and I keep my word!

You owe me nothing… You’ve done one hell of a job brother!  Enjoy!

UC

posted by: courchesne | July 19, 2012  9:03am

perturbed,

You are putting words in my mouth.  I did not admit to opposing workers’ rights anywhere in any of my posts.  I said I supported rolling them back—not eliminating them—under the circumstances.  Connecticut’s economy was damaged fairly significantly in the recession and it is taking far longer than many people hoped for it to return to its normal levels of productivity.  It was not unforeseeable that the state would need to lay off employees in order to meet its contract obligations.  I assumed that most state union members would want to support their brothers and sisters and would agree to accept concessions rather than see their colleagues put out of work and thrust into a terrible job market.  But I was not correct, and many union members had no problem seeing their co-workers get laid off if it meant keeping their wage increases. 

The right of employees to force bargaining with their state employers and reduce agreements to enforceable contracts should not supersede the welfare of a large percentage of workers.  If having the right to contract means that in times of economic crisis you can’t be forced to accept concessions then I don’t believe you should have that right in such a large scope.  The economy does not implode on a regular basis.  These dire economic situations aren’t regular occurrences.  I thought the concessions request was more than reasonable.  Fortunately, things worked out in the end.  But it’s frustrating to see some employees angrily try to punish their unions for ultimately doing the right thing.  UPSEU, in my opinion, feeds on and perpetuates that irrational anger.  They make promises they can’t possibly keep.  And to be honest, I am actually somewhat eager to see them take some of these state unions just so that the other unions can see how little will actually change with them at the reigns.

posted by: rankandfile | July 19, 2012  11:50am

courchesne, are you actually Dan Livingston? You said “These dire economic situations aren’t regular occurrences”. Do you know that we had concessions in 2009 (just two short years before these)? Did you know we had concessions under Rowland and Weicker as well? “The economy does not implode on a regular basis.  These dire economic situations aren’t regular occurrences” Apparently yes it does, and yes they are. The State hadn’t even finished honoring the previous concession agreement! As for doing the right thing, many members feel that changing the rules after the fact was not the right thing to do. Had you accepted your loss and moved on things might be much different now. Oh, and as far as “should not supersede the welfare of a large percentage of workers”, we both know that no more than %5 of the workforce was facing temporary layoffs (most of the job losses would have been taken up by roughly 3,000 retirements and 1,000 plus vacancies.

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 19, 2012  11:52am

Authenticate:

J Bird tweeted with his band
Go ahead & keep your heads in the sand

The ship is setting sale
So please listen to my tale

There is a new party crasher
Same as the old party slasher

Old Brine Man is his name
Same old beliefs just the same

He told too many lies
That his members would no longer buy

Lost in a battle, in such utter defeat
Please, let’s not have another repeat

Old Brine Man left P-4 in such ruin
Because all P-4 members were ah boo-in

In comes Big B
But sounds more like, King V

King later journeyed to Hotel De Eccentric
Now known as CSEA-SEIU Titanic

Puppet rapper to the meeting never came
He hid under his desk, in a ball of shame

“Piggy, Piggy”, He said in a freight
“I use to be da God of Light”

“P-4 knows I sold their members out
Now P-4 is ready for a legal bout”

“What other lies can I say that P-4 will believe
Oh snap, I’ll pull another attachment from my sleeve”

Man Hands reading from the CSEA Book of Scriptures
Learning how to press charges, by taking pictures

“Your turn Genius!” one bellowed with a roar
As Puppet Rapper and Man Hands ran out the door

King V stood tall &smiled;, as he straighten his Crown
Now I know why that dog poo was piled so high, on CSEA Ground

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 19, 2012  2:02pm

J Bird tweeted with his band
Go ahead & keep your heads in the sand

The ship is setting sail
So please listen to my tale

There is a new party crasher
Same as the old party slasher

Old Brine Man is his name
Same old beliefs just the same

He told too many lies
That his members would no longer buy

Lost in a battle, in such utter defeat
Please, let’s not have another repeat

Old Brine Man left P-4 in such ruin
Because all P-4 members were ah boo-in

In comes Big B
But sounds more like, King V

King later journeyed to Hotel De Eccentric
Now known as CSEA-SEIU Titanic

Puppet rapper to the meeting never came
He hid under his desk, in a ball of shame

“Piggy, Piggy”, He said in a fright
“I use to be da God of Light”

“P-4 knows I sold their members out
Now P-4 is ready for a legal bout”

“What other lies can I say that P-4 will believe
Oh snap, I’ll pull another attachment from my sleeve”

Man Hands reading from the CSEA Book of Scriptures
Learning how to press charges, by taking pictures

“Your turn Genius!” one bellowed with a roar
As Puppet Rapper and Man Hands ran out the door

King V stood tall &smiled;, as he straighten his Crown
Now I know why that dog poo was piled so high, on CSEA Ground

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 19, 2012  7:50pm

@courchesne

You don’t know what you’re talking about! When times are tough the state comes to the workers with its hand out looking for money.  When times are good the state doesn’t give us extra, it just puts it in a rainy day fund that it pisses away later! The state continually underfunds our retirement and medical even when we are the ones paying for it!

State workers have been helping out the state fix its mismanagement of its money for years now! How many hundreds of millions have we put back into the budget with furlough days alone?  A bunch!  How many 0% raises have we had?  Many, many years worth…

The economy is very cyclical!  Look up Economic Cycle Research Institute!  http://www.businesscycle.com/  Its implosions are equal to its peaks!  Duh…

Our issue is that a long term solution was imposed on us that did not fix the state’s immediate need and it really did nothing for any long term issues and our union did not take care of us in this.  You are right about one thing.  In a union shop seniority matters and the workers know it.  Someone with only one year expects to get laid off before someone with 5, 10, or 20+ years.  The state and our unions did not honor this!  People with 25+ years were being laid off when people with only 5 years were untouched!  All as a ploy to force our hands to vote the way that made Dano look like a winner and our unions helped…

Technically they did the right thing for the tier 1 people, who are the ones that are underfunded, at the expense of tier 2 & 2a people.  However, the latter are fully funded and only receive about half of the retirement of tier 1!  The problem comes in when they did not come up with a tier 3 that honors the state’s promises to tier 2 & 2a people with 25+ years in!  Our unions did not put any real effort into get us a better deal that focused on the short term problem.  They just wanted to protect their income stream by keeping the most people paying them!  AT THAT THEY RAISED OUR DUES RIGHT AFTER THIS!
You talk about not superseding the welfare of a large percentage of workers…  they did just that.  The largest percentage of employees took the hit for the smallest percentage!

This has not worked out.  The state is still in the hole…

Yup, we are angry… that we agree on!

We didn’t want to punish our union…  We just wanted to leave… They won’t let us leave…  Now we want to punish them.  Once they let us leave we will no longer be a problem for them will we?  It’s only business…  Like the agreement that you think is so great.  They have a choice.  Let us go and continue on business as usual or keep us trapped and go bankrupt!  I don’t feel responsible.  (Isn’t that how Dano put it?)

In your closing statement you sound like we should be on the same side after all!  Go UPSEU!

UC

posted by: perturbed | July 19, 2012  10:39pm

@courchesne,

It’s difficult to tolerate the degree to which you twist the facts. Are you doing it on purpose? Can that really be your honest perspective? (And are you really sure you’re not one of our union bosses?)

Putting aside the question of whether wanting to “roll back” collective bargaining is different than opposing it (you partially oppose it maybe? good grief!), you are putting words in an entire population’s collective mouth!

One of the biggest transgressions in your latest comment is this gem: “I assumed that most state union members would want to support their brothers and sisters and would agree to accept concessions rather than see their colleagues put out of work and thrust into a terrible job market.  But I was not correct, and many union members had no problem seeing their co-workers get laid off if it meant keeping their wage increases.”

Coming from a person who is not one of us—not a state employee—your characterization of our motivations is offensive. It takes a lot of nerve to presume what you do here. It’s time to be a little more circumspect, courchesne. (Did you know, for example, that some newer employees that received pink slips said they voted against the unprecedented concessions—twice?)

First and foremost, none of us—not one of us—wanted to see any co-workers laid off and we were all willing to accept concessions to avoid it. That you would leap to other conclusions tells us a little something about you, though.

Unfortunately, there were many, many reasons why the choice that was put before us was a false one.

The deal our union bosses cooked up in their “air-tight” negotiations had practically nothing to do with the immediate economic crisis, and nearly everything to do with making huge, long-term (permanent) structural changes to our long-promised benefits. Did you happen to notice that laundry list posted above of concessions that the Malloy/SEBAC team rammed down our throats? ( ► It’s bullet-ed.) How many of those addressed the 2-year budget crisis in any substantive way, two of them?

We were all bracing for wage reductions, increases in health care costs, and furlough days, and we would have accepted them. But what we were asked to concede was our pension promises instead. If the mission was to address the budget crisis, then the concessions should have been structured to save the state money over the next two years, not the next 20 years and beyond.

If you think losing 20% of a pension promised for over 25 years, within 5 years of a long-anticipated retirement year, is “more than reasonable,” where would you actually draw the line at unreasonable. 50%? Would you actually prefer it if state workers had no pension or medical benefits at all? Would that satisfy your phony sense of morality? (I wonder, does courchesne anticipate a pension? Would losing 20% of it not make courchesne perturbed?)

UPSEU doesn’t perpetuate our anger, courchesne. Your attitude does.

It’s the attitude of our union bosses.

By the way, they shared your support for the legislature’s willingness to consider rolling back collective bargaining rights. It appears that they might have helped orchestrate that charade to further their own need for us to bail them out in their failing deal with Malloy. No single group wielded that threat more often or more loudly than our very own trusty union bosses—that’s how much they liked it.

And if nothing changes except our union dues being cut from $73.67/month to $39.00/month and gaining new seats at the SEBAC table, it will all be worth it.

—perturbed

posted by: courchesne | July 20, 2012  3:53pm

-I’m fairly positive I’m not a union official.  I realize that when an individual’s objectivity becomes so thickly clouded as to render it practically absent—as it apparently has in your case—then the natural assumption is that anybody who disagrees with that individual MUST be working for the opposition. Still, I can assure you with reasonable certainty that when I wake up every morning and report to work it is not for a labor union.

-We’re not “putting aside” the question of whether or not I support collective bargaining.  This take-it-or-leave-it rationale you’re proposing is absurd and it’s not even a remotely fair standard.  An individual can support something in limited scope and still be “for” it.  I support an individual’s right to own firearms, but I don’t think you should be allowed to carry a machine gun in public.  That doesn’t mean I “partially support” gun ownership; it means I’m not a fanatic on the issue.  Likewise, I don’t think collective bargaining entails a labor union’s the right to further compound an economic crisis by forcing layoffs (because laying off employees—and therefore cutting government services and spending—only worsens economic conditions).

-It doesn’t matter that some new state employees voted against the agreement, if in fact they did.  Voting against your own self-interest does not grant you some moral authority nor does it lend credibility to the authority of others.  I work with numerous state employees, several of whom received layoff notices and were absolutely devastated.  One left a cushy private job to go into state employment and couldn’t believe he was getting laid off.  So please don’t lecture me on how you didn’t want to see anybody laid off.  You wanted it more than you wanted to give any concessions. 

-The concessions were proportional to the fiscal crisis.  That doesn’t mean they were objectively small. It means they were relatively small, as in they were what was necessary to mitigate the the threatened harm.  The pension fund in particular was a brewing catastrophe.  You couldn’t possibly fix it in 2 years.  You can’t just keep kicking that can down the road. 

-Where are you getting your 20% figure?  Are you talking about your premium share?  Do you have a citation?

-Consider this: if everybody in CT switched to UPSEU, then your labor rights would end up being curtailed.  UPSEU apparently doesn’t make political contributions, so they would likely have no political allies.  There’d be no reason for the legislature to support labor because the relationship would not be mutually beneficial and in fact the union would be a pain in the ass for the State.  Your joining UPSEU is only possible because other unions pick up their slack.  Enjoy your dues savings.

posted by: perturbed | July 22, 2012  7:00am

@courchesne,

You took offense to my use of an adjective or two, so I’m trying to refrain from using them. But you’ll have to be more respectful and responsible as well.

You wrote:

“So please don’t lecture me on how you didn’t want to see anybody laid off.  You wanted it more than you wanted to give any concessions.”

What in the world makes you think that is even remotely justified? How do you know how deeply I—or anyone else—was willing to sacrifice to prevent layoffs? You’re way out of line with that remark. You’re in absolutely NO POSITION to make such a bombastic claim. That demonstrates a completely twisted view of reality. The fact that the ► laundry list cited above was too long for us doesn’t indicate how many of those many, many concessions we could have accepted.

As I said above, I was prepared to give concessions—no one I work with ever opposed all concessions. It was getting my pension slashed that I could not accept, not so close to the promised eligibility date. Literally everything else—wage reductions, increased health care costs, plus furloughs—was acceptable; breaking the 27-year-long pension promises of Tier II was not. (Nor was it an appropriate tool for addressing the immediate crisis.)

Yes, courchesne, the day SEBAC 2011 took effect, my long anticipated pension was reduced by 20%, +/- 1%. I’m not prone to joke or be mistaken about that. Losing 20% of a long-promised pension at this stage in my career feels worse than the prospect of an imminent layoff ever felt in 1990 under Weiker, when I was just 4 years in. And that’s the truth.

Another element of the calculus in voting against SEBAC 2011 abomination was the secure knowledge that every single laid off state employee would eventually be offered re-employment—most likely at their old job. So the layoffs would have been temporary, while breaking the promises of our defined benefit plans are permanent.

You sidestep the little matter of the concessions not addressing the immediate fiscal crisis, though you still cite the immediate fiscal crisis as the justification for the concessions. (Our union bosses could never explain that one to us, either.) If the pension fund problem was to be addressed at all, it would have only been fair to have Tier I participate in those concessions. After all, it’s the Tier I pensions that are breaking the pension fund, not Tier II and IIa pensions, which are dwarfed in comparison. Yet Tier I came out practically unscathed. Where’s your sense of fairness on that little detail?

—perturbed

posted by: perturbed | July 22, 2012  7:01am

courchesne wrote:

“But it’s frustrating to see some employees angrily try to punish their unions for ultimately doing the right thing.”

The union bosses did the right thing? Maybe, if you’re Malloy, or if you’re a union boss trying to preserve member numbers at any cost. They didn’t do right by their members, not even the poor souls (aka political pawns) whose jobs were saved, not in the long run.

• Was it right to lock our elected bargaining unit leaders out of the wage negotiations? (Seems downright illegal.)
• Was it right to conduct the negotiations in absolute secrecy, with absolutely no participation whatsoever by the rank-and-file? How does anyone know we couldn’t have devised a concessions package that more effectively addressed the budget crisis, one we could have ratified the first time, without weakening collective bargaining and breaking the promises of Tier II and IIa? More importantly, it only adds to the circumstantial evidence (see previous post) of a shady, backroom deal.
• Was it right to bargain away our benefits to get other political favors from Malloy?
• Was it right to side with Malloy in ramming the concessions down our throats? Why, after the first vote shot down the concessions, didn’t our trusty union bosses use that as leverage to re-open negotiations instead of taking out their wrath on us?
• Was it right to change the rules after the fact to get the results they wanted?
• Was it right for our union bosses to weaken their own bargaining power now and in the future (by changing the SEBAC ratification bar to a simple majority)?
• Was it right to for our union bosses to actually prefer hitting us with major long-term structural changes to our existing pension promises over temporary concessions that could actually help close the two-year budget deficit? Our union president admitted they talked Malloy out of furlough days.
• Was it right for our union bosses to alter the agreement we ratified—after we ratified it!—and send a different agreement to the legislature?
• Was it right for our union bosses to spend our own dues money to prevent a democratic vote by the rank-and-file on our choice of unions?
• Is it right now that they ignore the Malloy administration’s flagrant violation of the contract by spending the 3% of our wages we contributed that, by law, must go into an irrevocable trust fund for our own future health care? Is it right that they are only willing to spend our money to defend the (altered) part of the contract that ensures our dues keep flowing to them?

Sorry courchesne, even people that voted for SEBAC 2011 to save their own jobs can recognize BS when they see it. No matter how people voted on the agreement, the vast majority of the rank-and-file recognize now how crooked our union bosses are, and we all want out from under their control. They’ve abused their authority and are completely untrustworthy. We really couldn’t do any worse anywhere else, so we’ve nothing to lose.

Consider this: with a Democratic governor that the legislature, SEBAC, and our union bosses can bargain with, we have no political allies anyway. That was made crystal clear last summer. With SEBAC and our union bosses, as long as a Republican was in office, the enemy of our enemy was our friend. When the governor is no longer an enemy of our union bosses, our union bosses are no longer our friends. And make no mistake, the votes and organizing by the rank-and-file was far more valuable than any of the union bosses’ monetary contributions. Those days are already over—no matter which union we happen to be in we won’t be organizing for those union bosses anymore, or even voting as they expect. So they cut their own throats when they betrayed us—both the union bosses and the *other* politicians that threatened our collective bargaining on their cue.

—perturbed

posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | July 22, 2012  8:44am

I will enjoy my savings as much as CSEA enjoys their 4000 new members pushed by the Gov.  Yes politics really is a great thing, when you are on the winning side of it.  State employees were not.  Leaders were left out of decisions and negotiations.  Again you can twist the truth all you want, but the truth will always be there.  P4 members have had enough, over half had signed cards to get out.  P-4 wishes CSEA the best of luck with their SEIU adventures.  P-4 it out of here!!!!!

posted by: Major Shmuck | July 26, 2012  6:47pm

Troops, Major Shmuck just spoke to the AG’s office at HQ….
Operation:  Legal Eagle Will Prevail
is a GO…..
I say again,
Operation Legal Eagle Will Prevail
is:
GO….GO….GO….
Command Authentication Code:  Victor, Romeo, Yankee, Sierra, FoxTrot, Charlie, Bravo

Verification Code:      The Finger Is In The Air – Tango Bravo

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 27, 2012  8:13am

Major Shmuck

Message received! I repeat message received!

The papers have been launched on Operation Legal Eagle Will Prevail!

See you in court SEIU/CSEA!

Vote UPSEU!

UC

posted by: Upset.Citizen | July 27, 2012  10:49am

Attention P4 Members!!

We will win the right to vote! 
UPSEU filed in court on 7/26!!!

Copies of the petition and writ are available on the following website!

http://sites.google.com/site/p4upseu/home

UC

@courchesne & @quikstix - you had nothin’

posted by: perturbed | July 28, 2012  9:44am

THANK YOU UPSEU!!!

See you in court, SEIU, SEBAC (and maybe you too, courchesne).

—perturbed