‘That’s Not to Say That a Few Feathers Haven’t Been Ruffled’
by Hugh McQuaid | Aug 19, 2011 4:14pm
(26) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor
Just one day after the state employee unions and the governor both held press conferences celebrating the passage of a negotiated concession agreement, union leaders described their relationship with the governor as rocky.
The $1.6 billion agreement was touted as a victory by both sides Thursday but labor leaders said a lack of communication and the more than 3,000 layoffs issued by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy after unions rejected the first agreement in June have tarnished their relationship with him.
Union support was a crucial factor in edging Malloy into office by a slim margin over Republican Tom Foley. None of the labor leaders who spoke to reporters at the state Capitol Friday felt they would have gotten a better deal had Foley been elected, but they were critical of how Malloy handled the process
“I think when we worked so hard for his campaign, I thought the communication would be a little bit better,” said Council 4 AFSCME Executive Director Sal Luciano. “Being put in a corner and asked for $2 billion was a difficult situation.”
NEHCEU, District 1199/SEIU President Carmen Boudier said the unions’ relationship with Malloy has suffered over the last six months. Now union leaders will have to work to refocus their members and rebuild that relationship, she said. That may take time since a lot of union members spent the entire campaign actively pushing for Malloy, she said.
“Those members that gave all they had to make sure he got elected, we feel now we have to go back and rebuild it because there’s some people that are really still upset,” she said.
“I think this governor didn’t come in working that well with these folks,” said Dan Livingston, the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition’s chief negotiator. “His communication could have been better as a boss. The respect shown to front line workers as a boss could have been better and it would have made this process easier.”
There’s a learning curve to dealing with organized workers, he said. Hopefully next time Malloy will choose to work in a more cooperative way.
CSEA/SEIU Local 2001 President Patrice Peterson agreed. She said that it had been a rough few months but she and her members would prefer to look forward rather than backwards.
“We had a choice about either having a seat at the table or not having a seat at the table. This was a very rocky road it was very difficult, there were tough negotiations, tough debates about what we consider to be basic in terms of our rights and our benefits,” she said.
Even after those difficult debates, the unions still have a seat at the table, she said.
For his part, Malloy seemed less concerned with what effect the process has had on his relationship with the unions. In a Thursday statement he praised the agreement and said that, unlike most other states it was accomplished in Connecticut without going to war on public employees.
“We’ve shown what’s possible when management and labor work together in a respectful fashion,” he said.
Speaking to the media later in the day, Malloy acknowledged that some feathers had been ruffled in the process but said it was necessary. He said throughout he had been respectful, never questioning the unions’ right to organize and negotiate. Those rights are fundamental to maintaining the relationship he wants to have with the public sector workers, he said.
All things considered, Malloy said he was feeling pretty good about that relationship.
“Compared to how other states have done it, we in Connecticut can be proud,” he said.
Even if their rapport has suffered, the governor’s administration and labor unions will be continuing to work together in the coming months to identify $180 million in savings proposed by employees and management to find efficiencies in state government.
Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes acknowledged that those meetings will be taking place after a difficult period between the two parties but said he’s hoping any lingering animosity will pass.
“Clearly I, the governor and the administration are committed to having a positive relationship with our employees in which we’re all committed to and finding ways to make government more cost effective,” he said.
While both sides are hopeful their relationship will mend, the contentious process and ultimate ratification of the agreement highlight the diminished clout of the labor movement both in Connecticut and nationwide.
When unions initially rejected the concessions package, many members were hopeful that a trip back to the negotiating table would yield a more favorable deal. But Malloy refused to budge and in the end it was ratified anyway.
“You can draw two lessons from this, you can say to yourself that the labor movement is not as strong as it ought to be because the truth is there should have been much more sacrifices by the very rich and that working families are not strong enough right now to create a fair tax structure and we all have to work together to improve that,” said Livingston.
The state’s unions reluctantly agreed to the concessions, while last year wealthy residents were given an extension of the Bush tax breaks which were greater than their entire state income tax, he said. Working class families didn’t get anything like that, he said.
SEBAC spokesman Matt O’Connor said the decline of the unions has been a reality across the country for years.
“Today there are fewer workers in unions than there have been since before the Great Depression,” he said.
In order to strengthen the movement leaders will have to organize and educate workers about the value of having a louder voice when joined with others who share their interests, he said. In the absence of representation workers are on their own with their bosses, he said.
“It’s a mini dictatorship and employers like it that way,” he said.
Livingston said that the movement needs to rebuild and become a more powerful voice for the working class but he defended the state employee unions and the deal they reached with the governor.
“We’re alive and kicking, we’re strong and the members stood up and got themselves an agreement that is going to protect decent jobs and decent benefits well into the future,” he said.
Tags: Malloy, labor unions, labor agreement, Hugh McQuaid
(26) Comments
posted by: Mr.Kruger | August 19, 2011 6:19pm
I just love it when someone has a gun to my head threatening my family’s livelihood and my union let it happen. Give me a break. Union leadership has no clue and Malloy is delusional if he thinks he’ll have the union vote next election. The Senators the passed the “collective bargaining” bill will pay at the polls as will the House Reps that tried to raise the bill. We will not forget what has been done to
us. Viva la UPSEU.
posted by: RMC | August 19, 2011 6:38pm
Oh my God! What world do these people live in? Certainly not the real world. I am a state worker who proudly voted no, TWICE. The UNION leaders were hand in hand with the governor all the way. They did not try to negotiate anything for us. They met behind closed doors and never once told the members what they were ‘negotiating’ until it was too late. THEN they, along side their friend the governor, proceeded to bully and threaten us and tell us we have no choice but to vote yes. Or else. That was a big word in the ‘informational’ meetings. Or else. Vote yes, or else. I voted no. The no’s won. So they forced another vote and threatened and bullied and threatened some more—union leaders!!—until people got frightened and voted yes. The union leaders do not care about their members. At least not these guys!
posted by: solidarity | August 19, 2011 8:44pm
Gun to your heads? Proudly voting no? Senators not being re-elcted all sound so hollow coming from such negative view points. You have to be involved to effect change. I can tell you are not involved because those that are deal with facts. So 70% voting yes to reasonable terms to insure we have something in the future are scared? or realists. get a grip and thank the unions for protecting your pensions and benefits wether you like it or not. You’ll be thanking them in the future. great job Sal Luciano, the biggest and best union leader in the United States of America. And this vote and support of ALL his Locals show it! viva la Sal!
posted by: soldoutbytheunion | August 19, 2011 8:47pm
Two of the greatest cheats and sell outs (Livingston and O’Connor) in this whole debalce talking about the decline of unions? It’s almost too surreal. These two men just finished selling out the rank and file they were hired to protect and they’re issuing statements about the weakening of the union movement? They robbed us of any form of democratic process in this situation (no say, no inout, back room dealings, lies, manipulations, coersion, threats) and they engaged in illegal conduct. I really don’t know why the media isn’t all over this…it’s inexplicable.
Prediction: One or both of these turncoats will land a cushy Malloy administration job.
posted by: Truth, Justice and Karma | August 19, 2011 9:08pm
This is a Letter To Sal Luciano, Dan Livingston, Patrice Peterson and the other arrogant pompous clowns who dare call themselves our union “leaders”: You folks all need to go. The SEBAC and 15 unions’ rules also need to be changed to require mandatory notice and union member votes on certain important issues like agreeing to enter contract negotiations, entering new agreements and agreeing to change existing agreements.
Many state employees are happy that this several-month-long Summer of 2011 horror show is now over. We are happy that state workers can get at least some temporary relief from the extreme vilification, browbeating, “head games”, fear, duress, and stress, etc that was inflicted by the Governor, legislature, SEBAC and the unions. We are also happy that workers get to keep their jobs and that most state services will continue to be provided at current levels.
STATE WORKERS DESERVE ALL THE CREDIT FOR RATIFICATION, NOT UNION BOSSES. So, Sal, Dan, Matty O’, and the rest of Lost Touch With Dues Payers Inc. don’t hurt yourself patting yourself on the back congratulating yourself celebrating. You didn’t do squat. You are very lucky this deal passed in spite of the horrendous job you did. You really screwed this whole affair up from start to finish. Also, don’t even dare trying to shift blame by criticizing the Governor now after you teamed up with him from the start. You joined yourself at the hip with the Governor a long time ago when you developed this deal with him behind closed doors without consent or input from dues payers. You then colluded with him in forcefully jamming it down our throats after we told you once we didn’t want it. Yes. Yes. The majority has now spoken and ratified the deal after 3,700 strategically designated pink slips were handed out the most vocal naysayers and allowed to stew for a few weeks of slow play delay before a last minute, dramatic, 2nd vote. I accept the majority’s decision.
We will not accept and demand union members will demand are that 1) you be held accountable for your inexcusable nightmarish job performance and 2) SEBAC and voting rules be changed to require dues paying votes by all union member to decide important decisions, not votes by union representatives acting on their individual discretion or based on the decision of some smaller assembly or committee within each union.
UNION REP JOB PERFORMANCE RATING: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT APPROVAL OF THE DEAL DOES NOT MEAN DUES PAYERS APPROVED YOUR JOB PERFORMANCE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS DEAL. WE BELIEVE YOU HAVE FAILED AS REPRESENTATIVES.
Many of us really believe that you did not even come close to doing your job of carrying out your fiduciary duties to dues paying members. We believe you: 1) are grossly overpaid given your lack of talent, 2) acted extremely incompetently, 3) were dishonest by what you said and failed to say to union members, 4) behaved unethically by what you did and failed to do in your failed job of “representing” union members, 5) are power drunk and still power hungry, 6) believed you are not directly accountable to dues paying rank and file members under SEBAC Bylaws and that you could take whatever actions your small group decided to take, including changing voting rules effecting ratification of changes to an existing deal, on your own without notice to or a vote or any other form input from the 45,000 union dues payers. If we could give you reports card, most of you would get Fs.
REFORM TO VOTING RULES: We will spend some time reviewing SEBAC and unions rules. We will then try to propose modifications to put in place the mechanisms described above that give actual dues paying members control of important decisions through voting. If SEBAC and union representatives want to restore any trust, credibility, goodwill and support with members, they should promptly voluntarily develop and adopt such rule changes or face internal conflict with union members. This should not be a controversial action for union representatives to take. After all, don’t SEBAC and the unions exist to represent the majority view of the dues paying union workers as expressed by their votes?
posted by: Todd Peterson | August 19, 2011 9:17pm
RMC got it right. Although I’m a temp and I’m not a member I did go to a meeting after the first deal went down. “Or else” was the centerpiece of everything. People got scolded for not going along with the union spin. That went hand in hand with a good helping of Republican bashing - Wisconsin, Ohio and shots at folks like Larry Cafero. Republicans are just about irrelevant in Hartford now but the Union bosses need that straw man.
Public sector unions and Democratic politicians are joined at the hip. The Unions go all in getting Democrats elected which creates a situation where the Union bosses orchestate the election of the people they’ll be negotiating with. When you have this kind of collusion you will invariably end up with situations like what we just experienced. I hear my largely apolitical coworkers ask, “What are we paying union dues for?” I mumble under my breath, “To elect Democratic supermajorities and Governors.”
BTW, Sal, the $2 billion figure is nonsense. The $1.6 billion figure is nonsense as well. The “savings” of $1.6 billion is a flat out lie. We have a big surplus built into the budget to cover for the fact that the savings won’t materialize, period. Get people focused on the fallcious $1.6 billion number so that the tax increases won’t be from the center of attention.
posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | August 19, 2011 10:25pm
If only members really understood that they made a deal with the devil. First off, it is nice to see that Malloy’s ego is bigger than public safety…laying off state police…are you nutz Dano??? And to the rest of the state employees, please don’t let me hear you crying when Dano reorg’s and lays you off yet again. I am sure those leaders and all the others who made out on this deal will be there for you….... Now these same leaders are stopping members from retiring early. Hey we can’t have that, we need their dues money…......ka-ching…ka-ching
posted by: Vote Yes!!!!! | August 19, 2011 10:26pm
Major Shmuck salutes the State Police for having a pair and doing the right thing…..
posted by: Unbelievable | August 20, 2011 12:21am
I’m embarrassed to say that I’m a part of this union. Shame on our leadership for allowing this to happen.
posted by: Wakewhenover | August 20, 2011 8:09am
Spot on RMC. You said it all. And as for the now conciliatory “Sustinet Sal” - who was so vicious against Rowland whose concessions were 1/10th this disaster: You sold us out. You. You had the power to not allow a change in by-laws after vote #1. It is all on you, Judas.
posted by: andygayle | August 20, 2011 1:51pm
Major Shmuck, you are correct. It all about the dues, not the members. Start paying more in dues. Also, why would these leaders try stopping these early retirees? Aren’t they suppose to help their members get a better deal instead of stopping them. It’s all about the dues. DOWN WITH SEBAC AND SEIU
posted by: Unbelievable | August 20, 2011 2:23pm
Waddaya say we have a revote. Remove all of the threats. Best two outta three. Maybe this time my unit will let me vote.
posted by: Upset.Citizen | August 20, 2011 2:26pm
People please stop confusing the unions with the working class. The workers provide services to the public. The unions are paid by the workers to represent them. The unions failed. The workers still did their jobs.
Reporters please stop referring to the wages of the (miss)management class when reporting on the working class!!
For each state worker there are layers of managers above that person not doing anything productive! We need less managers! We need better coordination and less red tape holding the employees back!
President Kennedy said, “…ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” I work hard and I provide the best services I can based on this principle. Most managers spend all of their time getting in the way and building their empires rather than working with each other and their staff to get the work done!
Being in a union means that you pay someone to represent you on job security, health care, and wage issues. This allows you to focus on your discipline and be as adept as humanly possible at your work.
The statements and articles since the SEBAC vote ring of more taxes and layoffs one small group at a time!
We have no power over any of this right now except the ability to change unions! We already know our current union will not work for us!
P4 members - consider joining UPSEU, fill out a green card so we can talk to them and vote!
http://sites.google.com/site/p4upseu/
You will be listened too and there will be fair treatment for each member!
posted by: sharewhut | August 20, 2011 3:18pm
There was this state worker at a bar, just looking at his drink. He stays like that for half of an hour.
Then, this big trouble-making governor steps next to him, takes the drink from the guy, and just drinks it all down. The poor man starts crying. The gov says, “Come on man, I was just joking. Here, I’ll buy you another drink. I just can’t stand to see a man cry.”
“No, it’s not that. This day is the worst of my life. First, I fall asleep, and I go late to my office. My boss, outrageous, fires me. When I leave the building, to my car, I found out it was stolen. The police said that they can do nothing. I get a cab to return home, and when I leave it, I remember I left my wallet and credit cards there. The cab driver just drives away.”
“I go home, and when I get there, I find my wife in bed with the gardener. I leave home, and come to this bar. And just when I was thinking about putting an end to my life, you show up and drink my poison.”
Remember- Vote Malloy in ‘14!
Right!
posted by: h8t unions | August 20, 2011 6:52pm
Give me a break, do you really think something actually got accomplished here? I give it 6 months before the unions and the gov demand more from state workers. BTW looking for a new job.
posted by: unreal... | August 20, 2011 8:04pm
@wakewhenover…Sal was the only union leader to vote against the SEBAC by-law change. All the others either abstained or went along with that farce. Sal may not be perfect, but he did stand up and respect the first vote. That is a fact.
posted by: RMC | August 20, 2011 8:39pm
To Truth, Justice and Karma—Your post is fantastic. Even though I voted no, I am with you 100%. I think that the people who made an informed and thought out vote also deserve applaud. Yes or no, if you voted for what YOU believed, instead of what you were told to believe—congratulations. I hope we can do what Truth, Justice and Karma says. That will be a great day!!
To Solidarity—You are obviously a union leader, or at least you talk like one. DO NOT assume that those of us who are not happy with the leadership are uninvolved. You are the one who doesn’t know what they’re talking about!
posted by: tier-1 st empl | August 20, 2011 9:54pm
Lets all say a prayer for the “no” voters who will now be subject to the loss of benefits and wages that have been forced upon them.
Have pity on the “yes” voters who, due to ignorance, fear or misguided trust in their union leaders, will inevitably come to the realization that they have just voted for a lowering of theirs and their families standard of living for the remainder of their lives.
And lets just hope that the economy improves and our government and union leaders are never in a position to wreak such havoc on the State work force again.
GOD help us all.
posted by: Todd Peterson | August 20, 2011 10:55pm
To Truth, Justice and Karma - Great job! The voting and layoff dramas are over but the Unionistas are not off the hook yet.
BTW, I’m one of those pink slip recipients. I knew it was all blarney because of the “new and improved” bylaws but most people are apolitical and didn’t know it was political kabuki. Consequently my office was like a morgue because 9 of the 21 people there had received pinkslips and had to wait for this manufactured drama to end. There may be some folks that won’t be voting Democratic next time around…
posted by: perturbed | August 20, 2011 11:11pm
@unreal…,
You have it wrong. Wakewhenover stated it correctly. As it was relayed to me, Luciano cast two votes that day. He had the option of voting down the first modification to the bylaws—the suspension of the 30-day notification rule—which would have prevented the second modification to the bylaws—revising the ratification to a simple majority—from ever taking place.
He could have voted first to prevent what he disingenuously voted against later.
He is nothing more than a lying politician, playing his role in a twisted play, where all the actors have already read the script, and all know how it will end.
You’re just one of the very few suckers that bought into that obvious charade.
—perturbed
posted by: courantreader | August 20, 2011 11:37pm
Make a real statement to your union, go to your payroll officer and tell them you want to change from paying “dues” to “fees”. The money deducted will NOT be sent to your union.
posted by: perturbed | August 20, 2011 11:44pm
It’s truly encouraging to see so many honest and accurate comments here.
I fully support the ongoing effort to break out of our current unions and into new unions which will allow alternative points of access into SEBAC. We had no access, no voice, within SEBAC this time around.
As noted by others, multiple new state employee unions, each with its own new seat within SEBAC, will be needed to adequately dilute the power of the current oligarchy.
An incidental benefit will be that the dues and membership base of the existing unions will be cut. Even if it’s mostly symbolic, it would finally allow the union elite to share in our sacrifice in some small way. Their own benefits didn’t get cut, but maybe we can stop “subsidizing” their power addiction.
—perturbed
posted by: notasheep | August 21, 2011 1:05pm
Sal voted against the rule change because he had to..AFSCME overwhelmingly voted it down….BUT…it was his vote that allowed the 30 day waiver notice so this deal could be rammed through…It was all part of the sebac plan.
posted by: sharewhut | August 21, 2011 1:40pm
Yep, Sal was just like any politician in trouble. Once ‘victory’ was secured’ he was released from having to vote the party line to cover his own self.
The first vote, to suspend the 30 day notice had to be unanimous, to get to the one he could cast his symbolic ‘no’ on.
posted by: sharewhut | August 22, 2011 11:03am
Gotta luv Council4, they’re not afraid to be clear when they stand up for their people, even if it’s contrary to what they didn’t stand up for with some of their other people! Once again, from the highlights on their newsletter-
http://newbritainherald.com/articles/2011/08/19/news/doc4e4de2db1db2f186240780.txt
“But, Ed Thibodeau, staff representative for Council 4, said the Stewart proposal requested too much from union members.
They were asked to give up raises, have (five) furlough days and more insurance costs,” Thibodeau said after the vote. “He’s (Stewart) asking for more than we are used to seeing. This is a lot more than what is normally asked of a bargaining unit.”
Would think that statement coming from C4 would call for shared sacrifice by the workers, “how could they turn this down?”,”they just don’t understand” etc.
Instead, C4 will fight tooth & nail for these guys and any other non state units because they beat enough out of state workers to keep the municipal aid flowing that the $$ should be there to give them.