Layoff Protection May Not Apply to All State Workers
by Hugh McQuaid | Jul 27, 2011 5:13pm
(15) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget
If the union vote on the clarified labor agreement is anything like the vote on the original deal, the governor will be left with far more leeway to lay off state employees than he would have under the original.
Should unions ratify the clarified agreement, bargaining units that vote to approve a negotiated two-year wage freeze will be protected from layoffs for four years. However, those that do not approve the wage concessions will not be protected.
Due to a change in the bylaws of the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition that allows a simple majority to ratify a concession deal negotiated over pension and healthcare benefits, an agreement could be in place with a large minority of state employees vulnerable to pink slips.
When unionized state employees voted on the original $1.6 billion deal in June around 17,300 members rejected that wage freeze, according to SEBAC spokesman Matt O’Connor.
But at that point the bylaws required 14 of the 15 unions and 80 percent of voting members to approve in order for ratification. So when only 57 percent of voting members voted yes, the deal was rejected.
The bylaws have changed and if the results of the new vote were the same as the original, a deal would be in place and 17,300 state workers would still be without any protection from layoffs.
As of Tuesday at 9 a.m., the Office of Policy and Management reported that 3,008 layoff notices have been issued in an attempt to close the budget gap left by the failed agreement.
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said that if an agreement is adopted, most, if not all, of the layoffs issued will be rescinded. But the governor and his administration have been reluctant to comment on how, if at all, he would take advantage of an ability to layoff a large minority of state workers.
“I think he wants to wait and see how this turns out and deal with it at that point,” Malloy’s senior communications adviser Roy Occhiogrosso said after a press conference about the most recent wave of layoffs.
Before a Wednesday meeting with the Connecticut Hydrogen Fuel Cell Coalition in East Hartford, the governor implied bargaining units voting against the clarified agreement should expect their layoffs to stick.
“If people chose to reject it, either by local or in total, that’s their decision and the consequences will be what they’re already outlined to be,” he said.
Later he said he’s not making any presumptions about whether bargaining units will find themselves exposed to layoffs.
“Listen, I prefer to hope that they’re all going to pass the agreement and that that’s not an issue,” he said.
In a letter to members O’Connor stressed that the change in the bylaws did nothing to change the requirements for layoff protection.
“If members of a bargaining unit want protection from layoffs for four years, a majority needs to approve their individual unit agreement, which extends their current contract for five more years. That’s the same as was the case under the previous tentative agreement, and is not changed by the coalition’s amended bylaws,” he wrote.
Union leaders are now preparing their rank and file to vote on the clarified agreement. He said they are “making the case for members supporting the revised tentative agreement in light of the very real threat of job and benefit losses.”
On Friday night they began distributing fliers outlining the benefits of the package, which call the four-year layoff protection “the most substantial layoff protection for a states’ workforce anywhere in the country.”
Corrections Local 391 President Jon Pepe said requirements for layoff protection will be one of the things discussed when his members meet for informational sessions. He said he has been encouraging members to vote for both the SEBAC agreement and the wage freeze.
Tags: labor agreement, layoffs, malloy, Hugh McQuaid
(15) Comments
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 27, 2011 5:44pm
In Ohio they are going vote to end Collective Bargaining by referendum.
In CT, SEBAC will ratify the end to Collective Bargaining as part of this agreement.
What an incredible attempt by SEBAC Management to protect their positions.
What advantage is there for a major CBU or Job Classification to be a part of SEBAC with those rules?
This gets more bizarre daily. I can’t read it as anything but an attempt to split SEBAC into 3 or 4 large CBUs representing Higher Ed, Public Safety, Blue Collar Workers, and Administrative.
posted by: Major-Shmuck | July 27, 2011 9:09pm
Major Shmuck says, READ THE CONTRACT…. People please, please, please read the contract. Of course Malloy can lay off, it says it in black and white in the contract….READ THE CONTRACT….take 1/2 hour out of your busy schedule and just sit down with a pencil and a highlighter for notes and read it. If you read it, you will see all the bad stuff that members here have been telling you about. This is not a good contract, it is not a fair contract. Malloy is taking 1.6 BILLION (yes BILLION, with a capital “BILLION” from us state employees, while he pays Doctor’s student fee’s for UCONN, $51 Million to Cigna to bring 200 people to CT. $7 Million to a CT firm who is moving business location from CT to CT. Paying the Doctors fees is like Major Schmuck walking up to you and paying off your mortgage, while I lay off thousands of State workers….READ THE CONTRACT. Major Schmuck would not tell you how to vote, but Major Schmuck will say, A smart soldier is better than a dead soldier…..Meaning Major Schmuck would rather see a smart state employee than a laid off state employee…READ THE CONTRACT…...
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | July 27, 2011 9:55pm
The good Doctor heard today that Jon Pepe has been offered a job by AFSCME if the agreement passes and will retire prior to October 2.
Now, someone try to tell me leadership is looking out for us rank and filers.
Rat.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | July 27, 2011 10:04pm
What do you suppose Nancy Wyman is really thinking after be a good supporter of the hard working state employees all these years?
She must not be getting much sleep.
posted by: Truth, Justice and Karma | July 27, 2011 10:59pm
FACTS = First, the deal does not provide 100% protection against layoffs. The Governor said, and this paper reported in earlier stories, that not all layoff notices will be rescinded. Second, if the deal is ratified, the Governor may lay off workers in those units that did not ratify the wage component or who voted against the health and retirement concession components. Third, and most important, no one (Skydog, pizzled, SkysScreecher, etc) can answer my question regarding where the workers whose positions are “eliminated due to lack of work” caused by a reorganization are going to be re-assigned to work. There are hundreds of workers in several agencies that are being reorganized that have received lay off notices saying that their job is “eliminated due to lack of work.” Don’t just quote the TA language and say that everyone will still keep a job and be paid. Unless you know the Governor’s specific plan for what, if any, work will be provided to these workers, you should act responsibly and admit you don’t know the answer. Its okay for you to admit you don’t know the answer to this important question rather then trying to pretend you have the answers when you are really in the dark. As far as the chicken game goes, that is what the Governor is playing with state workers - “Take this deal or risk that you or your co-workers will lose their jobs!” This is not how this peace lover wants to do business.
Besides, the deal stinks because of the drastic pension and health care changes it proposes to vested veterans plans.
The good news is that state workers are willing to negotiate, after this deal fails again after this new vote, and give back like we did in 2009 to help address the next two to three years of the short-term budget crisis with a combination of wage freezes, furlough days, higher co-pays, and giving back longevity payments. After a deal is made to address the short term crisis, we could also work with the Governor to develop a longer-term restructuring of health care and retirement plans for existing employees that addresses the states’ financial concerns and that is fair and equitable to vested veteran state employees.
posted by: Hebee | July 28, 2011 5:39am
Truth, Justice and Karma, Pension reform is the ONLY issue for long term stability, NOT wages. You Tier 1 and Older Tier 2 State Workers keep posting the same remarks over and over. Stop blaming the Gov and everyone in the State for your bad luck. Place the blame where it truly belongs: Blame your Mother! She had you 5 years too late. Unless Doc Brown picks you up in the DeLorean and brings you back to Rowland’s or Rell’s era, your ERIP Dreams are toast.
posted by: Mr.Kruger | July 28, 2011 6:13am
Major Smuck-you should be promoted to General. Again your points are well presented and that’s the sign of true leadership, unlike the very poor leaders in SEBAC that have us all in the fog in such an untennable situation that we are all damned if we do and damned if we don’t vote this POS agreement in. I have read this revised POSA and compared it to the first. With the exception of dates that needed to be changed and the raise giveback that needed to address the first zero in wage concessions, this is verbatim the same agreement. Union leadership has admitted this. Leadership has just handed yet another justification for filing a complaint with the labor board that I hope that brave state prosecutor adds to the current complaint. I’m not sure if the hearing on August 3rd is open to the public, but if it is, we need to support her. Hoorah Major
posted by: soldoutbytheunion | July 28, 2011 6:27am
SEBAC bargained illegally and without any form of democratic process…..and they couldn’t even get it right after changing the rules! This enire process is chock full of malfeasance and interference of contract…..Mr. Livingston and his cronies really screwed this up and about 7000 families are going to pay the price, great job SEBAC and Goc. Malloy! Thanks for robbing the rank and file, the state government and Connecticut taxpayers of an opportunity to bargain legally and effectively.
posted by: CTPilgrim | July 28, 2011 7:12am
If Malloy’s intent is to “rightsize” Connecticut government, then hip hip horay - he is doing a good job. As a taxpayer I gladly applaud his efforts. If his intent is simple political gesturing, then Malloy is no more than a cruel spirited person in the wrong place at the right time. It’s not a union issue ... or is it?
Yes, READ the TA, and decide for yourself. Malloy, SEBAC, and the Union leadership do not represent anyones best interest. I just wonder if SEBAC has a means to ratify the TA if the Union membership vote No.
Personally, I will be selfish, I will vote No. I read the TA, I don’t like anything in it or about it. I especially don’t like the fact that our last concession has been disposed of without any concern. Why would I think now, that if we ratify the TA, that Malloy will not come back next month to get more.
Or that three years from now, we get another pay freeze as well.
Where is the union leadership? Why have they given up? Why isn’t any leadership outraged and fighting mad?
I vote no, but that’s just me.
posted by: Scott2014 | July 28, 2011 8:16am
Look long term folks. This agreement keeps us in collective bargaining for 11 more years. That means we will be at the table for discussions. If this is voted down, there are going to be layoffs and collective bargain will be removed for pensions and healthcare. Then our benefits will be decided by the general assembly and governor and there will not be anything we can do about it.
posted by: ALD | July 28, 2011 9:10am
I am not a state worker so I will limit my comments to one particular area…. SEBAC leadership seems to be making up the revoting rules here with Malloy as we go along. In other words stack the deck to make sure this deal “passes” this time. For example are there still plans to not let the members revote in some unions, but instead just have that union boss cast a single vote speaking for that union? In particluar those unions that already voted yes?? If so, are all those votes from those unions now counted as YES, even though many may actually have been No, the first vote? If this is still SEBEC’s plan are there any plans by the actual union members to regain control of their unions? Or just let SEBEC rubber stamp this “deal”?
I admit my understanding of how this might go could be all wrong but from the sidelines that’s how it looks to me…... Any thoughts?
posted by: What what what? | July 28, 2011 10:57am
I have news for you Scott2014…
By continually voting “yes” to concessions THE UNIONS ARE ALREADY ALLOWING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND GOVERNOR DICTATE THEIR BENEFITS.
The only way to break the vicious cycle of concession is to vote “no.”
posted by: Ben Dover | July 28, 2011 11:01am
This entire vote; rejected; lower the threshold; re-vote is a JOKE!!!
What is SECRAP doing for us other than keeping us in the dark and strong arming us to keep the union dues coming in???
This whole fiasco has made us the laughing stock across the nation.
The deal was REJECTED! Move on already.
Go thru with the layoffs if that’s what the BULLY wants to do. He’s no friend of Labor any longer and will be a 1 and DONE Governor. ANYONE can improve on him he’s set the bar so LOW.
REJECT this POS “Revised” TA AGAIN already and vote out the SECRAP leadership as they come up for re-election!
posted by: Bill$Ratepayer | July 28, 2011 4:07pm
Scott you are right on the mark. Keeping and extending our benefits and and collective bargainning are two of the most important parts of this agreement.
If democratic legislarors are calling for a review of State employees pension and benefits and others are calling for an end to longevity pay, cuts to sick and vacation time, and teh end of collective bargainning, how can anyone think rejecting this package and letting the chips fall where they may will put us in a better place? The only ones thinking that are people who want to retire early without penalties or those that are out of here pre-2017.
BEN DOVER, CT is no laughing stock. The opposite is true. OUR DEAL WAS THOUGHT OF BY MOST STATES IN SIMILAR FINANCIAL POSITION AS ONE OF THE MOST GENEROUS AND BENEFICIAL TO ITS MEMBERS. THE NATIONAL UNIONS WANT OUR DEAL APPROVED. THERE IS NO WONDER THE LOCAL UNIONS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO WHATEVE IS NECESSARY TO GET THIS PACKAGE APPROVED.