Layoffs Averted; Labor Deal Approved
by Christine Stuart and Hugh McQuaid | Aug 18, 2011 11:00am
(29) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget
Michael Lee-Murphy Photo
Jordyn O’Donovan Council 4 Local 714 member
(Updated 4:25 p.m.) State employee union leaders made it official Thursday afternoon, announcing that 14 of the 15 unions easily voted to adopt the $1.6 billion savings and concession package.
The Connecticut State Police Union was the only union that hadn’t finished voting on the agreement but it is believed they will vote to reject it. The Correction Captains and Lieutenants bargaining unit rejected the agreement voting against both the benefits and the wage concessions, which means it doesn’t have layoff protection.
The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, the coalition of 15 unions representing more than 45,000 state workers, gathered at the CSEA SEIU Local 2001 union hall in Hartford at 12:30 p.m. to announce the deal had been ratified. The package will save thousands of jobs and spare state service cuts. It also put to bed the two-year, $40.1 billion state budget that depended on the savings from the state labor agreement.
State employees at the union hall hooted and hollered after rank and file members spoke to the media about the process and why they voted in favor of the agreement. Missing from the press conference was all but one of the 15 union leaders, who have been beaten up in the comment sections of websites by a minority of their membership over the deal.
“Nearly 26,000 members voted yes, that’s more than twice as many who voted no and more than five times as many who were threatened with layoffs,” said Dawn Tyson, of Local 538.
It was more than a 98 percent per-capita vote when the membership size of each union is accounted for, she said.
Both the unions and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said the second vote surpassed expectations by receiving enough support to be ratified under the old bylaws. The threshold for ratification was lowered by union leadership between the first and second vote. The move has been criticized mostly by the minority of state employees able to defeat the agreement the first time under the old bylaws.
“Our members ratified this agreement by a super-majority that would have carried under any bylaws,” said Connecticut Employees Union Independent President Ron McLellan.
In the end 32 of the state’s 34 bargaining units approved the package.
Members who spoke at the union press conference lauded the deal’s passage as a labor victory at a time when organized labor is under attack. They sought to put the new deal in a national context, in a year that has seen bargaining rights cut, layoffs, and protest across the country.
“This was a much bigger fight in a larger picture than I think what people thought at the beginning,” said CSEA SEIU Local 2001 member Roland Bishop, a correctional institution school teacher.
“The billionaires and the large corporations who have targeted public service workers across the country do not always win,” McLellan said.
While union members were still celebrating at the union hall, Malloy released a lengthy statement applauding the news and praising what the deal will accomplish in the future.
“As important as it is that we’ve closed the current budget deficit in a responsible way – by avoiding thousands of layoffs and hundreds of millions of dollars in painful spending cuts – the real value of this agreement lies in the $21.5 billion it will save taxpayers over the next 20 years in the form of lower healthcare and retirement costs for state employees,” he said.
By passing the agreement, Malloy said unions accomplished something skeptics said could never happen— a sustainable relationship between the state and its workforce. Unlike other states, he said Connecticut accomplished that “without going to war with public employees.”
If the deal hadn’t been ratified Malloy said “come 2017 there would have been hell to pay because we would have run up unpaid obligations, unfunded obligations.”
He said the legislation which took away some collective bargaining rights would have to be much more robust in 2017 in order to make the state’s relationship with its employees sustainable. He said the legislation the Senate passed, but the House tabled in June would been pennies on the dollar by 2017. The steps the state would have had to take would have been much more dramatic, Malloy said.
But state employees who saw their retirement age increase by three years and saw their pension calculations changed under the ratified agreement wanted to know when Malloy would be cutting the ranks of non-union management.
“In today’s vote, we took charge to improve the way the state delivers very vital public services,” said Robert Alves, a New Haven mental health worker with SEIU District 1199. “We will now hold the governor accountable to carrying out a commitment in this agreement to streamline wasteful levels of management and to empower frontline workers.”
Malloy said he will be holding up his end of the bargain.
“I’ve said for the better part of two years that I believe Connecticut’s management has too many layers,” Malloy said. “It needs to be flattened out and I can assure you over time that process will continue.”
“I have done everything in my ability to right this relationship,” Malloy said Friday at an afternoon press conference. “In creating this new class of employees we have dealt with many of the things that my fellow citizens of the state of Connecticut have complained about most importantly longevity.”
Under the concession deal new employees will not receive longevity payments and final pension calculations will be made on the last five years of service, not the last three years. Current employees will have to contribute 3 percent of their pay over the next 10 years to retiree health care benefits. Also their retirement age will increase three years, if they decide not to retire before Oct. 1 of this year.
Malloy called the deal “historic” but conceded it took more time than he would have liked.
“Sure, this agreement took a few extra months to achieve – but so what? Those extra months are a small price to pay for the billions of dollars that extra time will save taxpayers, the critical services that time will preserve, and the peace of mind that comes from understanding the state now has a sustainable relationship with its employee base,” he said.
The administration even identified some significant additional savings as a byproduct of the prolonged budgetary debate, he said. Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes will elaborate on those savings Friday, he said.
Malloy said the agreement is only the first step in his plan to re-make Connecticut state government.
“Let me also be clear that we are far from being out of the woods; we still have budgetary issues we need to address, and we’re of course focused every day on turning this economy around and creating good-paying jobs for Connecticut residents. So while this is a good day, and we should all be grateful to everyone who helped make this agreement happen, we need a lot more good days before any of us can feel satisfied,” he said.
As for the naysayers who doubted a deal could be reached, the governor had a few choice words for them too.
“There were many people who said we could not reach an agreement that we achieved here this day,” Malloy said at a Capitol press conference. “They were wrong. There were many people who said when the first agreement was rejected that I should renegotiate the terms of the agreement or it would fail a second time. They were wrong.”
Michael Lee-Murphy contributed to this report
Tags: SEBAC, unions, labor, Malloy
(29) Comments
posted by: Michaelreed | August 18, 2011 12:31pm
Why tally the votes? If the unions don’t like the results, they will find a way to take a re-vote? Members votes no longer matter unless it is what the unions want. They proved that.
All AFSME cares about is keeping our dues money to keep their benefits so they can chip away at our pensions and benefits.
AFSCME will make sure they keep their benefits with our dues money. So of course, as we have just witnessed with this revote, (opening up contracts; changing by laws), they will do anything in their power to keep their fully paid health insurance for employees and families including major medical, hospitalization, prescription drugs, vision, dental and orthodontist; health insurance for domestic partners; Paid long term disability; Defined benefit pension plan; 401(k) savings plan; fully employer paid life insurance and accidental death benefits; 3 weeks earned vacation per year; 12 days earned sick leave per year; 13 paid holidays per year; Holiday release between Christmas and New Year’s day with pay; Tuition assistance reimbursement plan; dependent care assistance plan.
By the time they open up this new contract and they will, we will have zero and AFSCME will be enjoying all the benefits we as state workers once had.
posted by: ... | August 18, 2011 2:02pm
It is almost funny the second round of voting would have made the grade for the original voting rules. Appears as though the agreement was finally clarified to many members, or that those who voted no got a wake up call. I’m not a mind-reader though, so I can’t fully predict or explain how/why many of those who voted no the first time changed the second time around.
Either way, glad to see this little saga over and that thousands of jobs were sustained. We can finally begin a serious line of reporting for the fall on creating jobs in CT.
posted by: Mo boss | August 18, 2011 3:41pm
it seems from adding the yes and no votes that a lot of employees didn’t bother to vote this time.
posted by: soldoutbytheunion | August 18, 2011 3:55pm
Well…looks like coersion, threats, malfeasance, dissemination of misinformation and deals forged in smokey back rooms win out…..for now. This isn’t over by a long shot. Can you say lawsuits?
posted by: Cavy Penny | August 18, 2011 3:57pm
Hooray! Job Security for all CT state workers right?WRONG…From Concession Agreement: a. Protection from loss of employment is for “permanent” employees and does not apply to: iii. “...temporary, durational or special appointment” workers, or end-date emps either. I’ve been a durational Sec 1 for almost 6 years and you wouldn’t believe the bureaucratic red tape preventing me from attaining a status change. Me, with 17 years of experience as an admin asst. Even UCPEA jobs are safe for 4 years. What a kick in the teeth for durational, temporary and end-date state emps. People with this status shouldn’t be forced to join a union. What the hell do they do for us? We can’t be vested, have no pension plan, tuition reimbursement or waivers, longevity pay or merit increases. I only stay, because I keep hoping, but I’m beginning to look elsewhere now. Well, good luck to everyone and I do mean that in the nicest way!
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | August 18, 2011 4:27pm
If there are 45,000 members and less than 26,000 voted Yes and that was more than double those who voted No, should I question the 98% per- capita statement (uness that pertained to the 32 of 34 which is still not 98%) or if the 80% threshold of the original agreement was actually reached?
Or should we not question the numbers?
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | August 18, 2011 4:31pm
N0….the saga isn’t over.
The Rowland lawsuits from 2003 are finishing up 8 years later.
I’m sure a CT jury will find the workers were harmed over the concessions and bylaw changes and award everyone huge checks come 2020.
It’s the CT way.
posted by: ... | August 18, 2011 7:41pm
While they are different situations GoatBoyPHD, it would be responsible to mention the results of that 8 year trial in your post (especially since the federal judge ruled in favor of Rowland).
Because I’m not too sure which ‘CT way’ you are citing in your post. But if you are citing Rowland’s union lawsuit as a parallel to any against Malloy, then you just stated any litigation would be pointless, as it would end up in Gov. Malloy’s favor.
posted by: Camperman | August 18, 2011 8:39pm
It is too bad that after all the CT state employees have been through there are still many negative comments being posted. The deal now stands and layoffs have been averted. Deal with it and take your negativity elsewhere, your 15 minutes are over!!!
posted by: interesting | August 18, 2011 9:15pm
Its a miracle it passed, ok its no miracle!! Hope all those yes voters enjoy the new medical plan, no raises, early retirement penalties, etc…etc…. The deal was not that good and fair No real shared sacrifice.
I hope all you Teir I’s enjoy your retirment and benefits.
I bet in two years time they are looking for more givebacks and we will play this game all over again. I bet we will see more pain in other ways. No sooner was the deal announced tonight and now they are talking a toll booth on 95, more money out of our pockets.
Take money out of my pocket to educate illegal aliens, that you cant hire, build up UConn Med., over priced not needed busway, $1,700 tax credit to the lower incomes.
I think I am going to change my post name to broke in ct., I might as well be unemployed.
posted by: Husky2012 | August 18, 2011 9:24pm
The new agreement takes my raise, delays normal retirement age eligibility by three (3) years for everyone except Tier I and Hazardous duty employees, effective July 1, 2022 and a doubles the current penalty for early retirement. A COLA reduction; 3% mandatory payment toward the Health Care Fund, Health Plan requirements (or higher premiums and co-pays), are huge changes to the pension and health care plans! I voted “No” to save jobs in Connecticut by keeping prescriptions filled at local pharmacists! These pharmacies often sponsor local organizations and have a close relationship with their customers.
It was an insult to state employees to have a revote. The SEBAC leaders should be ashamed! Employees voted to give away our benefits that took decades to build. SEBAC has been supporting themselves and not the union members. This should have been voted down based on principle alone (rule changes)!
The $750 million dollar concession was not even over before this package came up. We all had a medical contract that expired in 2017.Contracts should be honored. Get used to your paycheck. It will not grow for a long time. We will not see the 3% raise in 2016. The sheep have spoken.
posted by: le2011 | August 18, 2011 9:53pm
husky2012 you have a job, medical coverage and a pension stop whining
posted by: skydogct | August 18, 2011 11:07pm
The membership spoke and the YES vote was loud and clear! I’m sure they were happy to get a second chance. Lots of smiling faces in the pictures this time around. Of course there are the usual negative comments but it doesn’t matter, the deal is done. So Christine, is a vacation in order? Thanks for all your hard work throughout this process!
posted by: tier-1 st empl | August 19, 2011 12:30am
Why are all those State employees smiling? I am very confused.
Wages have been frozen, health care contributions have been increased, retirement benefits have been seriously reduced, and the 50,000 +/- State employees will take on 50% of the State’s deficit.
You would think that with the economy predicted to continue in a downward spiral, the 1.6 billion in savings unverifiable, reorganization and consolidation clauses nullifying the 4 year no layoff “guarantee”, the inevitable implementation of SUSTINET, and the probability of a SEBAC 2013 concession agreement, that their facial expressions would be displaying a look of great concern.
I am very very confused.
posted by: newview | August 19, 2011 6:01am
What a complete and profound PR scam put on by SEBAC! What happened to those tired, grumpy, long-faced, SEBAC Reps from the last vote and PR catastrophe??
I mean, look at the diversity of that group of folks hanging out around the campfire singing Kumbaya. Throw a couple attractive smiling faces, voting yes, who had everything to lose, and yes…look at our cohesive contingency of retirees, and our melting pot of a coalition and you have the almost-perfect PR stunt SEBAC has played out in quite some time. A photo-op not to shared with the masses.
SEBAC will stop at nothing, and here’s a perfect example of it…they should frame it.
posted by: perturbed | August 19, 2011 6:54am
“As important as it is that we’ve closed the current budget deficit in a responsible way – by avoiding thousands of layoffs and hundreds of millions of dollars in painful spending cuts – the real value of this agreement lies in the $21.5 billion it will save taxpayers over the next 20 years in the form of lower healthcare and retirement costs for state employees,” he said.
Congrats, fellow state employees. We’ve been had. Couldn’t think long-term.
“Under the concession deal new employees will not receive longevity payments and final pension calculations will be made on the last five years of service, not the last three years. Current employees will have to contribute 3 percent of their pay over the next 10 years to retiree health care benefits. Also their retirement age will increase three years, if they decide not to retire before Oct. 1 of this year.”
After all this time, those concessions are still giving you trouble? While it’s great you stopped reporting the increase in the retirement age is only two years, the effective date for that increase is July 1, 2022, not this October. Here, instead of just a tiny, inaccurate sampling of what we gave up, let’s look at more of it:
► 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
► 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
It’s done now. We’ve had our benefits slashed. (Does a 20% reduction in an anticipated pension qualify as “slashed”?) You can stop trying to downplay how much we lost—you don’t need our votes anymore. Now you can switch to “let’s-count-the-winnings” mode, though it might be tough after all those months of “this-deal-is-a-cream-puff” mode.
Elsewhere, it was reported Malloy said, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic agreement…It represents the most fundamental restructuring of the relationship between state government and state workers that has ever occurred in the state of Connecticut.”
See? Malloy gets it. (Too bad state workers didn’t.)
—perturbed
posted by: perturbed | August 19, 2011 6:58am
Are those Tier I retirees I see in the background of the top picture?
(SteveHC, Puzzled…, are you in there somewhere?)
—perturbed
posted by: EdLeadershipcrisis | August 19, 2011 8:50am
Few are smiling. The only ones smiling are the newest 5K employees and the heads of unions who need the sheer numbers to feel empowered. the other 30K employees are not smiling - just having been threatened and coerced into stupidity in the name of sheer numbers.
posted by: Disgruntled | August 19, 2011 10:03am
Clearly someone thinks that Jordyn O’Donnovan is photogenic. She won’t be with the state for long. My guess? Traffic and weather for a Fox affiliate.
posted by: Bill$Ratepayer | August 19, 2011 12:12pm
TO Goat Boy and Others Here is a link showing how they get to the 98% number in favor.
http://www.andr.org/New_Folder/News/votetally.pdf
The 98% relates to the votes attributed to the unions that voted in favor. Not sure about State Police, but only two individual bargaining units voted “NO”. That 98% is a kin to the 80% threshold previously required by SEBAC. Even if State Polic votes NO it is 14-1 in favor, (*% in favor.
The agreement passes the old threshold. Given that the vote passed the old threhold, I don’t see how someone could sue over the change, when it would have passed regardless.
To all the people questioning a second vote. Isn’t that like any other workers/union contract. If a proposed deal goes down, things get redone or clarified and the new deal is presented to membership (or their negotiating council, board etc)for a revote.
Furthermorerevoted.negoti i the by
posted by: state_employee | August 19, 2011 7:57pm
He has his 1.6 billion in concessions and finally the nightmare is over. But as far as a relationship with Malloy or the union, that is severed. I will not give my money to the union PAC, and I will not vote for ANY current elected official, especially Malloy. I am happy for those poor state employees who were used and abused by pink slips. Their nightmare is over. It’s been a very LONG 7 months.
posted by: Husky2012 | August 19, 2011 9:32pm
The first concessions deal required 80 percent approval by the unionized membership but received only 57 percent.
I do not see how it would have passed the old threshold.
posted by: NOW What? | August 19, 2011 10:17pm
There are NO grounds for any lawsuit, there’s no “settlement” to be paid out to ANYONE, the two units that rejected the deal will be subjected to layoffs that stick, and O’Donovan’s gorgeous (too bad she’s married, at least as far as I know). So all of you whiners and chronic complainers can go home now ‘cause it really IS all over and done with. Go ahead… scoot!
posted by: Unbelievable | August 20, 2011 5:18pm
See if they’re all smiling when they come to their senses and realize they have to work 3 years longer now. Or they can chose to have their pensions drastically cut if they dare decide to retire a little early. Someday, later in life, their smiles will turn to frowns and they will kick themselves as the state flourishes in the billions of dollars of surplus money that that King Dannel saved “us”. The “happy people” will be sorry.
posted by: Unbelievable | August 20, 2011 5:26pm
I personally know 3 of people in the photo, all of whom are Tier I employees. Of course their smiling, they gave up almost nothing. Us Tier II folk got to take the brunt of it. Shared sacrifice my butt.
posted by: Puzzled... | August 22, 2011 11:56pm
It’s important to remember that the Tier I contribution rates and “normal” pension pay-out formula(s) were set when State employees were getting paid DIRT for wages - most of those employees started out earning well less than $10,000/year, more like $4,000-$6,000/year - and so their pension benefit was considered to be a relatively affordable way for the State to compensate them for their slave wages (and absolutely HORRENDOUS working conditions). This continued until the FEDS allowed the creation of their Deferred Comp. plan and significantly increased the maximum amount of contributions TO that plan.
As newer employees’ pay rates began to rise to levels at least roughly comparable to the private sector’s (and the maximum allowable Deferred Comp.contributions increased to what they are today), the combination of employees’ salaries, the Tier I employee contribution rate and the Tier 1 pension pay-out formula became unaffordable to the State. In reaction to that development, the unions made the decision of agreeing to reduced contribution (Tier II) and a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced pension pay-out formula (Tiers II and IIA) - RATHER than keeping the Tier I pay-out formula and agreeing to a significantly increased employee contribution rate to sustain it - out of the belief that most employees would rather keep taking home higher pay rather than increasing their pension plan contributions.
*I* think this has turned out to be a *BIG* mistake. The OVERWHELMING number of State employees earn FAR less than $100,000/year, resulting in most Tier II and IIA employees having to retire on a pension that cannot possibly be lived on. Consequently, those employees now HAVE to supplement their pension contributions with the maximum allowable Deferred Comp. contributions - a relatively high-risk and inefficient way to “make up” the difference in order to be able to afford to truly retire.
I think the overwhelming number of employees would be FAR better served if the State reverted to the old Tier 1 pension pay-out formula, and INCREASED employees’ required contribution levels in order to afford it. Paying 5%-10% into one’s PENSION to enable one to collect a full 2% per service year on the 3 highest-salary years is a FAR better “bet” than having to put that increased number of dollars into a relatively self-managed Deferred Comp. account. I’m sure many employees would object to such a plan - because most people SEVERELY under-estimate what their post-employment financial needs will be and tend to want to be able to get their hands on as much money NOW as they possibly can - but that’s a HUGE mistake and most employees will not be fully aware of the magnitude of that mistake until they reach retirement age.
I REALLY hope that employees and our unions will SERIOUSLY consider this possibility, as an alternative to continuing increased reliance on a Deferred Comp. and/or 401(k)-styled plan. The State can - and does - have a MUCH greater ability to produce better investment results through its pension fund investments than any employee can hope to achieve over the years through their self-directed Deferred Comp. accounts. If anyone reading this agrees, you should be sure to inform your union of it. You will almost ALWAYS do better with a well-funded defined-benefit pension than you would with a defined-CONTRIBUTION plan. It CAN be done!
posted by: Unbelievable | August 23, 2011 11:28am
Puzzled is spot on. I am a Tier II employee being hired in August of 1984. I missed Tier I status by one month. The difference between the Tier level pensions is huge. For example, if I was hired a month earlier, my benefit right now (i’m age 57) would be around $54K per year. And I would have been eligible for retirement two years ago. If I decided to retire now, under the current concession agreement, I would receive around 36K PLUS have to take an 18% early retirement penalty on top of that. Knowing that, I started a 401K plan 25 years ago and have been aggressively contributing ever since. I had planned on “getting out” next year but the early retirement penalty will probably put a kabosh on that plan. And to think I voted for King Dannel.
posted by: Puzzled... | August 23, 2011 3:29pm
Unbelievable - I wouldn’t blame Malloy for the situation, as it’s not his fault at all. Since pensions are subject to collective bargaining, it’s been up to SEBAC to initiate and agree to changes in the plan(s)... and as far as I can tell, they’ve been oving in the wring direction in this regard. But I ALSO don’t blame SEBAC, because most people are too ignorant and impulsive to be willing to adequately invest in their retirement plan while working. In order to reverse the situation, the unions will have to educate their members on the advisability of substantially reducing take-home pay in order to appropriately fund a better defined-benefit pension plan.