State Workers Open-Minded On Labor Agreement
by Hugh McQuaid and Nicholas Rondinone | May 18, 2011 3:37pm
(29) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Capitol
As state workers gathered at the Capitol Wednesday to lobby for a fairer tax structure, an affordable health care system, and retirement security they also offered frank assessments of the tentative agreement reached last week by State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition.
Larry Dorman, spokesman for SEBAC, said the timing of the Capitol visit, which was scheduled back in January, was coincidental but the workers present were happy to give their takes on the recent agreement.
Deanna Chaparro, of Local 538, said she’s still in the process of digesting the agreement’s rather dense health care sections. Overall, she said she was confident union negotiators came to the agreement in good faith with the welfare of workers in mind.
Chaparro said she was happy to see that, though changed, employee pensions were still intact. She said she was concerned retirement plans would be changed to 401K type plans, which are risky in tough economic times.
She was not particularly sad to see that there were no furlough days included in the agreement. Last year she said her two furlough days were timed inconveniently—one near Thanksgiving and another near Christmas. Both are tough times to be taking home a reduced paycheck, she said.
Is the agreement perfect? Chaparro said no. She said the feedback she has been hearing from her co-workers has not been completely positive either. Many are wary of changes to their health care plans. In the end she said she would rather give up some than lose her job.
“I’m willing to give back something fair but we don’t want to give away the farm,” she said. “My only hope is that in two years they don’t come back and ask us to give up more.”
Godfrey Ferguson, of Local 2663, said that he was generally happy with the agreement but said he has heard co-workers criticize its Value Based Health Care provisions. That part of the plan would, among other things, require employees to sign a form pledging to attend annual physicals, age-appropriate diagnostics, and two free dental cleanings per year.
Ferguson said some of his co-workers interpret that plan as the government essentially telling them how to live. But he said they may come around after they are educated about the program. Ferguson said he tries to live a healthy life and would like to see his colleagues do the same, especially if it saves taxpayers money.
He said some members have been put off by an “aggressive” media campaign Gov. Dannel P. Malloy launched, pushing negotiators to quickly arrive at an agreement. He said colleagues have called that effort vicious. But he gave Malloy credit for doing what former Gov. M. Jodi Rell did not—fund pension obligations.
Like Chaparro, he said he was happy to see that the agreement protects employees from layoffs for four years. While there may be complaints, he said he believes that his union will eventually ratify the agreement.
“That will settle a lot of nerves,” he said.
Lillian Sewell, an AFSCME Council 4 retiree, said she was concerned with the priorities evident in the agreement. Sewell was part of the negotiating committee for AFSCME before she retired in 1997, and said back then state employees focused on benefits rather than wages.
She was critical of the agreement, saying a three-year increase in the retirement age will be bad news for her son, who is also a state employee.
“What really saddens me is when I hear my youngest son saying to me, ‘Mom, I don’t know if I can do my job if they raise the age, I have really physical job,’” she said. “The state workers always had the best benefits, my husband retired from Pratt and Whitney and I had to put him on my insurance.”
In order for the agreement to be adopted, 14 of 15 unions, or 80 percent of those voting, will need to ratify it. The voting process could take as long as three weeks, as it did back in 2009 when changes to the 1997 agreement were ratified by SEBAC members.
Dorman said it’s important to look at the agreement within the larger context of what it means to the middle class. Many of the workers saw the fate of unions and fate of the American middle class as inextricably tied.
“Just as Henry Ford gave the United States of America the motor car, unions gave America the middle class,” Ferguson said.
Dorman said the union’s “Campaign for the Middle Class” hinges on three tiers—a fairer tax structure, an affordable health care system, and retirement security for workers.
The campaign is throwing its weight behind several bills in the General Assembly including a measure which would require employers with more than 50 employees to offer paid time off for sick days. It is also endorsing SustiNet, a health insurance pool for municipalities and nonprofits.
After a brief press event, over a dozen members of AFSCME marched from the Capitol building to the Legislative Offices to drop off around 2,000 postcards sent in from members across the state.
The postcards, collected over the past six weeks, outlined the principles of the campaign for lawmakers.
Tags: unions, labor agreement, middle class, health care
(29) Comments
posted by: pdm68 | May 18, 2011 4:37pm
What is this new health program ? people callede Anthem today and nobody has heard of it. So,there going to make it up in a few weeks ? Do we pay or don’t we pay ? Which doctors/dentists take the plan—- is it just for you or your family ? Its basically giving your faith—IF YOU VOTE YES WHICH YOU SHOULDN’T—- Your giving your faith to the union heads and politicians and your basically giving them access to you ban k information because we have NO CLUE what it costs !! I work for Local 387 the Cheshire Prison Complex and most of us are voting NO !!! We have no real information given to us at all !! E verything says one thing on 1 page and on the next it says another !! What is the state and our nion negotiators HIDING from us ?? Why are they giving us only a SUMMARY of the agreement and not the FULL agreement ? Something stinks in this agreement but they don’t want to let it out at all—VOTE NO !!!!
posted by: Mansfield1 | May 18, 2011 4:48pm
Overall this is a good deal for employees. To have job security and keeping good contract language intact in bad times is worth a lot. If anyone thinks that by voting this down that they could do better at the negotiating table this summer they’re mistaken. The State will be looking for payback and there will be 3 or 4 zeros for wages and no job security. Arbitrators in New York (who also work in Connecticut) are giving 4 zeros in a row in awards there. So don’t think an arbitrator will help you.
Property taxes will also go up since the cities and towns will get hit badly. And having to take care of oneself? What’s the problem with that? If you don’t want to you don’t have to, all you’ll be required to do is pay more. Vote Yes on this, it’s a no brainer.
posted by: SJAY | May 18, 2011 5:36pm
“Last year she said her two furlough days were timed inconveniently—one near Thanksgiving and another near Christmas. Both are tough times to be taking home a reduced paycheck, she said”. Sometimes some things are better left unsaid, Ms. Chaparro. Of course it may better to have more $$$ than less, but come on…you had four-day weekends with your family. Is there some value to that? What’s the big deal with sacrificing one day’s pay at Thanksgiving and another day’s pay a Christmas??? Some people, myself included, haven’t had that option/privilege for 3 years now. Be thankful. Comments like that don’t help the image of state employees, whom I am generally very supportive of.
posted by: wmwallace | May 18, 2011 6:13pm
In this economy where jobs are still hard to come by I can’t see how the union can vote against this. Now if they are unhappy with leadership then do something about it, but job security and raises three of the five years is pretty good.
posted by: pdm68 | May 18, 2011 6:14pm
So Mansfield1—You will vote yes on this and you honestly have only seen a summary of the things in this agreement ? Your gonna vote “yes” and get stuck in this NEW “Value Based Health care ” program” and people have called Anthem and no program exists with them—- the state is making a new program ..managed ny the state .. you have no clue how much it costs,what is in it ..wheres the list of doctors ...so if they see you limp at work they can say you need an mri and then they want to give you a fitness for duty test based on that ? Same senario .. you give a mortgage company full access to all your banking info so they can take what they want—- you buy a house from them .. you don’t know whre it is ... how much it costs ... how long you pay for it—- BUT you will buy it ??? Are you really that foolish ? People aren’t dumb ... you don’t make a medical program up with rules and regulations in the last 4 months—- people should honestly look at it because its a scam !! Where is the FULL Agreement at between sebac and the state ? How come only a summary and only framework has been given to the 45000 workers to see—- they know people aren’t gonna like the full agreement—- Wise Up People—- Vote NO !!
posted by: pdm68 | May 18, 2011 6:20pm
People from the LAST 750M giebacks only 2-3 years ago were due there raise this july 1—- and its been cancelled—- people who forget the past are doomed to repeat it !!!
posted by: NOW What? | May 18, 2011 6:28pm
“pdm68”: The health insurance plans’ coverages, their company providers and their participating doctors etc. WILL NOT CHANGE. And the FULL AGREEMENT is posted on the SEBAC website.
Anybody who votes against this agreement is only shooting themselves in the foot… ESPECIALLY people who work for DOC!!! - If Corrections doesn’t ratify this agreement you can FORGET about the rest of the state rushing to save your butts like last time - Mark my words!
posted by: ... | May 18, 2011 7:33pm
Glad to see an article that presents the more middle of the road union members.
Visiting some other CT blogs, all I hear is “VOTE NO!” or “It will never pass and I won’t vote for it” from union members. They strongly believe not even 5% will vote in favor.
But considering the amount of time given to calm down, read the material, and talk with others, this seems more than passable.
posted by: ko4478 | May 18, 2011 8:04pm
Having done some very informal polling among correctional employees, It seems a forgone conclusion that just like in 2009, the vast majority of the DOC will be voting no to this deal.
Personally having worked four consecutive years in the mid-nineties as a Correction Officer with ZERO raises only to see management get HUGE raises (8,10,10), I am thoroughly disillusioned with this process. Of course you’ll remember honest John Rowland was running things then. Still,at least in Corrections, it seems to be, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I guess a sense of history (even recent history) is helpful in making a decision on this. It seems whenever you give something up in good faith that you worked hard for and may have taken decades to get into your contract, THEY JUST KEEP COMING BACK FOR MORE.
posted by: hawkeye | May 18, 2011 8:21pm
Gov. D. M. Malloy sold out to the state unions by guaranteeing state workers—no lay offs—for the next four years—and they are still not happy, because they can’t have everything they had!
Shame on Malloy for binding the state for the next four years, to no lay-offs, and double shame on union members for being greedy—when people in the private job sector, are losing their jobs—every day!
posted by: ko4478 | May 18, 2011 11:05pm
You know “HAWKEYE” it’s called a contract. An agreement, between an employee(s) and the employer and like any contract it is (should be) legally binding.
So the fact that many in the private sector are now without unions, and if fact serfs in a neo-feudal economic system and forced to kneel before their corporate master is sad indeed.
Fortunately, State employees still have collective bargaining rights and the dignity of a decent living that affords.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | May 19, 2011 5:39am
I really don’t know what people are thinking - the public, republicans, democrats, etc. - this offer is awful. Let’s not forget that there is a contract valid until 2017 and the governor is asking state employees to consider modifying it. The problem is…......he is not offering anything of value in return.
This will never get ratified. I have no idea what everyone is thinking about, great deal for employees? Huh??
posted by: Frankly | May 19, 2011 7:31am
As a state worker, I’m generally hearing a sigh of relief from most of my fellow employees due to the no-layoffs clause. This is not a time to layoff thousands of state employees and thus create thousands of more houses in foreclosure—- the ripple effect of that will hurt everyone.
No agreement will make everyone happy. Everyone has to compromise a bit. This agreement is reasonable and pragmatic in these dire times when CT is in real trouble (thanks to Rowland/Rell and to the financial debacle—- which was the fault of the big banks and Wall Street, etc.——and not the fault of the Dem. CT. Legislature. We all have to roll with the times. We’re in a depression. Let’s not throw more workers to the dogs—it’ll just pull the state and home-owners further down. Do you want state-workers in YOUR neighborhood to have to let their house go into foreclosure? This hurts YOUR property values.
The agreement is good; members will probably vote yes in great numbers. People are not narrowly foolish and ignorant regarding the reality of the economic climate.
posted by: Matt W. | May 19, 2011 9:56am
The dishonesty of this agreement is not an ideological position. Jon Pelto presents an equally dim view of it from the left. http://jonpelto.wordpress.com/
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | May 19, 2011 10:24am
There are roughly 40000 union state workers, for 35,000 of them this is a no-brainer NO vote. You know why?
posted by: ohmygoodness | May 19, 2011 1:28pm
I can’t believe anyone would want their medical ‘problems’ disclosed to their employers…. where will it stop?!?!? Medical issues should be between an individual and their Doctors… THEY decide their course of action. What about that 3% we will have to start paying in 2014?..... just when we start to get an increase of 3%... it will be taken out… a complete wash !!! We get nothing. Let ‘them’ have massive layoffs…. they won’t be able to run the state…and they’ll have to start calling back. Then let’s see that smug smile removed from the Gov’s face!!!
posted by: wmwallace | May 19, 2011 1:47pm
If state workers vote no on this contract then they should be laid off by the thousands. I am sorry but getting a pay raise after a two year freeze and no layoff and you say vote no. You are not living in the real world if that is your beliefs.
posted by: Hebee | May 19, 2011 1:58pm
DrHunterSThompson must share his namesake’s love of reality alteration. The tally will probably be 35,000 Yes votes. It is the mid-50 year old Tier 2s (like Dr H S T?) that will cry and moan and vote No. They would have 5,000 Union “Brothers” thrown out on the street rather than alter their little part of the neighborhood. “In This Together CT” is a saying for the Chumps! Right Doc?
PDM68: Value based health care is the future. Do you still own an analog TV or a car with a carburetor?
ko4478: You are right about the zero raises. I guess you would rather be on unemployment where you get a similar zero raises EVER program.
posted by: HartfordPaul | May 19, 2011 3:17pm
Some Ignorant people on all every message board. Frankly is just one of them!
Really, blaming Rell/Rowland for the state’s fiscal troubles and lack of funding for state employee retirements? A history lesson - Democrats took control of the General Assembly in 1940 and have had controll all but two years in the ‘70s. The legislature is the political body that PASSES the budget, not the Governor. Hec, Rell didn’t even sign the last budget, she let it go into law without her signature.For 70 years, the Democrats have been in controll and running and ruining this state. No matter how you slice the pie in CT, you come up Democratic garbage. Now vote NO like I will and watch this Democratic controlled leadership do nothing to the state employees. Anyone who thinks there is going to be massive layoffs, Have pink slips gone out? NO! So if you vote NO, you will get your pay raise on July 1st, the Govenor cannot lay you off before the pay raise hits your paycheck because he hasn’t given you the 6 or 8 week notice.
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | May 19, 2011 4:17pm
hebee, of what do you speak and why? bad day perhaps? or bad life? methinks you are sarcastic well enough. but come to the party without favor or sense.
posted by: Husky2012 | May 19, 2011 5:35pm
Fellow employees:I have heard the details. Please vote NO on this offer! I would take a layoff before this lousy offer. We have a contract through 6/30/12. We have had zero & zero for the past two years. This offer is for 0-0-3-3-3 but the 3-3-3 won’t even pay for the 3% medical payments! I am not willing to go 7 years (or more) with basically no pay increase. I would not be surprised if the state asked for concessions again in 4 years. Retirement and medical changes are also not reasonable. Do not be foolish & suckered again. We can do much better than this with Plan B,C or D. VOTE NO PLEASE!
posted by: ohmygoodness | May 19, 2011 5:42pm
As a State worker for almost 25 years, I don’t mind having ‘some’ concessions…which we have done for over 2 years now. The real problem is seeing other things which should have been considered in the ‘savings’ and they weren’t. Does the non-State worker even know how many State workers are getting paid mileage to drive to their jobs EVERY day??? And, what about the State worker who has a ‘home base’ in one town…but doesn’t report to work there….they drive to another location EVERY day…and get mileage to do that. Does anyone realize how many thousands of dollars that amounts to…. and ... to top that off…. the State is including those payments…which are really Re-imbursements… into figuring out their retirement figures. That is crazy… and just not right.
posted by: allpolitics | May 19, 2011 8:58pm
As a state employee, I support doing my fair share in shared sacrifice. But I don’t think this agreement spreads the sharing “equally”. THIS PLAN MAKES TIER II AND IIA PAY TO KEEP THE ALREADY GENEROUS TIER 1 AND HAZDUTY PLAN VIRTUALLY UNTOUCHED.
For years we have heard people describe the Tier 1 and Hazardous Duty retirements as the most “generous” plans and they haven’t been far from the truth. Yet the Tier 2 and 2A members will be making the biggest sacrifice of all! Think about it like this: Current HD members can still retire at any age after finishing 20 years of service. For most of them this is in the mid 40’s, and their pension is ½ of their pay (and a high pay due to working a lot of overtime in their last three years). Tier I members can retire at 55 with no penalty if they have 25 years of service, also with half of their pay. Tier II members can retire but they will never see half of their pay (you can play with the calculator on the comptroller’s website, you’ll see it doesn’t hit ½ of their pay).
So what is Tier 2 and 2a? Well, they are the only ones WHO ALREADY HAVE a penalty if they retire early. CURRENTLY if they leave before their 62nd birthday, they receive a reduction equal to 3% a year (if leave exactly at age 55 like the Tier 1 member above, their pension is currently going to be reduced by 21% from the amount the same pension would be worth if they had been age 62. This plan DOUBLES that reduction to 42% for leaving early IN ADDITION TO making them pay a higher health insurance premium). HazDuty and Tier 1 will see no increase in their premiums (no GRID as it is called in the agreement).
IF THE HAZDUTY AND TIER 1 PLANS ARE SO GENEROUS, WHY ARE THEY BEING LEFT UNTOUCHED? IF THE GOAL IS TO MAKE PEOPLE WORK LONGER BECAUSE THE COSTS FOR THEM TO RETIRE EARLY IS SO EXPENSE, WHY ISN’T THERE A PENALTY BEING ADDED TO A TIER 1 PENSION?
I think the sacrifice should be shared. Two years ago Corrections didn’t make any sacrifice. They continued to make all the overtime they want, had no furlough days, and got raises while we elected to take furloughs and defer our raises. Now they get to do it again while we continue to suffer for 3 additional years. This plan should spread the pain more equally, it doesn’t, and so I’m afraid I will be voting no.
posted by: TJY | May 20, 2011 8:36am
Anyone who votes yes for this is insane. We are basically signing up for no COLA for 10years. The best we ever get is 3 percent and that is exactly what they are going to take from us for retiree health care for 10 years. How much will your house taxes be 10 years from now? How much will a gal of milk cost? Not to mention that right now we have great medical and we really have no idea what we will be getting. One last point Malloys budget has a $1 billion surplus in it yet he is going to wack us as tax layers and with these ridiculous concessions? Just vote no and we will deal with the medical and retirement in 2017.
posted by: WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot | May 20, 2011 10:31am
Saw this post on another board and it makes a lot of sense:
ANYONE who plans on retiring by 7/1/2017 will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your existing Pension language including the COLA and your healthcare choices.
ANYONE in TIER II & TIER IIa who PLANNED on retiring at 55 will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your exising Pension language regarding the EARLY RETIREMENT Penalty and other language including the COLA and your healthcare choices.
ANYONE in TIER II & TIER IIa who PLANNED on retiring at 60 or 62 and NOW will have to work the extra years will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your existing Pension language including the COLA and your healthcare choices.
posted by: RDKING | May 20, 2011 12:06pm
As yes vote for this contract proposal, will destroy our union rights that we have fought for many years. Shame on sebac for agreeing to these proposals. I will be voting no, sorry but , after digesting this proposal I can’t live with no raises for 10 years. And the ridiculous health plan that will subject me and my family to scrutiny by the goverment. I am totally disgusted with proposal, It a sham to force people to retire sooner.
posted by: ko4478 | May 21, 2011 9:34am
This sounds cynical but, as Joe Stalin said, “It’s not who votes that matters but WHO COUNTS THE VOTES that matters”. A lot of people who count the votes want this to pass. enough said.
posted by: NOW What? | May 21, 2011 4:13pm
TO THOSE WHO SAY “NO” -
In deciding whether to vote for or against the new SEBAC agreement, it’s INCREDIBLY important to understand Connecticut’s overall political and economic situation and the consequences of the voting’s results.
WHAT HAPPENS IF IT GETS ACCEPTED: Everyone gets to keep their jobs for *at least* 4 years. With resumption of step increases, longevity payments and the 3% across-the-board increases in the last 3 years, and no more unpaid furlough days, you actually get RAISES in spite of the 3% contributions to your retirement health insurance fund. You get improved on-the-job IT support to help make your jobs EASIER. Your options for *transfers*changes INCREASE should future program eliminations or downsizing occur. You get to KEEP a defined-benefit retirement pension along with your current health insurance benefits and virtually ALL of your prescription benefits - all of which are FAR better than what 99.99% of the REST of the population has ANYWHERE. The chances of extremist, anti-government employee politicians being elected in Connecticut diminish CONSIDERABLY over the next couple of elections.
WHAT HAPPENS IF IT GETS REJECTED: At *least* 5,000 employees get laid off within a year. PRIVATIZATION of programs and services will increase DRAMATICALLY, resulting in even MORE layoffs. Public animosity towards State employees will grow out of control, resulting in right-wing anti-government and anti-government employee politicians winning the governorship and both houses of the legislature. Consequently we’ll see the LOSS of the right to bargain collectively over pension and health insurance benefits PERIOD. Contracts currently in effect will NOT get renewed upon their expiration, and arbitrators will side with the STATE - resulting in NO pay raises AT ALL for the foreseeable future, defined-benefit pensions for active employees will be REPLACED with a defined-contribution 401(k)-style plan, health insurance coverage will be REDUCED to what typical private businesses offer (the most basic plan with sky-high deductibles and co-pays), and transfer-in-lieu-of-layoff opportunities will be SHARPLY curtailed from what they currently are. Of course, government employees will continue to lack the legal right to strike. Needless to say, the financial losses to State employees would be CATASTROPHIC, and the ONLY people likely to not see financially catastrophic losses would be those State retirees who are CURRENTLY collecting their pension.
If you *really* think this “rejection doomsday scenario” is unlikely, you’d better think again. Virtually every major newspaper in the state - both “liberal” and “right-wing” alike - are urging union members to vote “YES” for good reason… the alternative is the destruction of the State, its politics and its government employee collective bargaining rights as we know them.
A vote of “No” is a vote for your own political, financial end economic suicide. If you’re not willing to vote “yes” for the benefit of the State of Connecticut and its citizens, at least vote “YES” for your own self-interest.
posted by: ohmygoodness | May 23, 2011 6:31am
How can Sal Luciano, a top-dog of Council 4 Union…be a board of director on the new value-based health care package the State is trying to pass in these concessions. Isn’t that a conflict of interest??? In any case, we should all Vote NO..No…NO !!! Some of us have already checked with Doctors in our area… they are not likely to go along with this health care plan.