Union Expresses Concern With Early Retirement Offer
by Christine Stuart | Apr 23, 2010 6:11pm
(19) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget
The legislature’s Democratic majority and the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition remain wary of Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s offer of another early retirement incentive to close the 2011 budget deficit.
Following a closed-door meeting with Rell Friday, Sen. President Donald Williams said he doesn’t think an early retirement plan can be offered without an agreement to reopen the state employees contract.
Rell’s Budget Director Robert Genuario disagrees. While waiting to be vetted for a judgeship Friday, Genuario said he rather negotiate a deal with union leadership, but believes the legislature has the authority to adopt a plan without a negotiated agreement.
“The better approach would be to negotiate with SEBAC,” Genuario said.
And it looks like plans to do just that are moving forward next week when the coalition of union leadership meets with the governor’s administration. Genuario said the administration is not planning to present the union with further concessions, it just wants to talk about an early retirement plan.
Last year the union’s agreed to a package of close to $750 million in concessions, which included salary cuts, reductions in health and pension benefits, and a specific number of furlough days. In exchange the unions receives a two-year no-layoff provision which expires at the end of 2011.
House Speaker Chris Donovan said he would encourage the governor and the unions to get together and talk about the possibilities. “I understand that would be the preferable way to do it and I don’t know if legally it can happen without their agreement.”
House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero said it’s his opinion the early retirement package can be offered without the consent of the unions because in his opinion “it’s not a concession.”
“It is not a diminution in their benefits, it is an extra offer that is voluntary to take,” Cafero said.
Matt O’Connor, spokesman for CSEA/SEIU Local 2001, said in a phone interview Friday that the unions take issue with the belief the legislature could impose an early retirement.
“We have a lot of concerns about an early retirement,” O’Connor said. “A well-thought out plan needs to take into consideration the impact it will have on state services.”
The 2009 early retirement program saw close to 4,000 workers leave state service. A fair number of those positions were refilled, but Rell’s recent proposal would call for another 3,000 early retirements and only about half of those would be refilled, O’Connor said.
The relationship between the unions and Rell has been strained by her administration’s attempt in March to obtain further concessions, as the budget gap continued to grow. The union’s fired back a strongly worded letter calling the attempt for more concessions “cynical scapegoating which masquerades as leadership.”
Backing off from that stance Friday, the unions have agreed to meet with the Rell administration next Wednesday. At the meeting the unions will again ask the administration to take a look at some of the ideas frontline state employees have for improving efficiencies and saving money.
In 2008 Rell solicited the help of state workers in coming up with ideas to save money, however, O’Connor said those efforts never went anywhere.
“Nothing happened beyond that initial press conference,” O’Connor said. He said state employees submitted ideas and received a form letter in response.
Since then the union’s proposals continue to be ignored by the administration, O’Connor said.
Genuario said the administration has been open to ideas, other than concessions. At Wednesday’s meeting the only thing the administration plans on putting forward is the early retirement plan and would welcome any cost cutting measures the union presents, he said.
(19) Comments
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | April 24, 2010 2:19pm
well, the truth of the matter is that the State does not need the unions to offer the ERIP. But it is true, their blessing may help in the long run.
the unions do not want to see the ERIP because it will reduce the number of paying memebers and therefore reduce the amount of money they will have to influence the next election.
leadership in SEBAC does not always have it’s members in mind when they make decisions. it is frequently about self-preservation.
one of the best paying, most autonomous jobs is with a union. if their members only knew how much they were paid ......
HST
posted by: CT Jim | April 24, 2010 10:05pm
Gee Doc most of the time you seem to know what your talking about but in this case you don’t know didley.
Fact is members do know EXACTLY what the staff of their unions make right to the penny.
They are an open book controlled by the membership.
Another fact is the unions political operations are controlled by the MEMBERS not some back room dealers.
You must have the unions confused with corporate politics like when CL&P spends millions of rate payers dollars for full page ads so they can increase rates!
And you talk about spending money in elections well in the last election cycle unions were outspent 19-1 and look for that to go up with the recent supreme court ruling opening the flood gates.
Also its a joke when you guys talk about the dems being controlled by unions, why dont you look up at how many lobbyists work at the capitol. Out of the hundreds of them maybe 10 work for a union.
most people that work for a union work 10-12 hour days 6-7 days a week all so that their members could work for a living wage, have decent benifits and be able to retire with dignity.
Believe me most people that work for unions can get jobs elswere for a lot more money but for some strange reason they believe in social and economic justice and not how much can I get out of it.
You probably think I work for a union and you would be right and the facts show I make way LESS than my members do and I have the checks to prove it!
posted by: CT Jim | April 24, 2010 10:18pm
One other thing DOC,
Unions are forbidden by federal law to spend dues dollars on politics and the monies they do spend are voluntarily giving to the union by the members for the explicit purpose that it is used on politics.
And the distribution of those funds are done by the MEMBERS not the union leadership.
But corporations are allowed to spend shareholder dollars as they please when it comes to politics and I am sure you don’t have a problem with that as corrupt as it is.
posted by: Todd Peterson | April 25, 2010 2:16pm
I’m a temp employee working in the Judicial Branch and I can tell you that there are benefits that union workers for the state get that are unsustainable.
Longevity bonuses given to state employees that reach 10 yrs. service are close to one third of a year’s base salary. Retiring employees get hefty checks for accumulated sick/vacation pay which often runs over 100 days (20 weeks) pay in addition to their pensions and health benefits to the age of 65. Most private sector workers or entrepenuers don’t have anything like this and can’t relate to this level of benefits.
I’m not saying that curbing these extravagant benefits will balance the budget. I’m not saying that state employees are lazy or second-rate either. What I’m saying is that we can’t afford to pay benefits like this a) in a crummy economy and b) when our revenue stream is so volatile due to our reliance on the state income tax. Union bosses have to get their heads out of wherever they’re at unless they really want for thousands of their members to lose their jobs.
posted by: bswans | April 25, 2010 6:02pm
Hi State Employees do not get 1/3rd of base pay for longevity some get a couple of hundred dollars. The most important piece of employee salary is that it takes years of steps to reach max earnings some unions have 8 9 10 steps so A collegecgraduate hast yo wait 10 yeats to earn what another graduate with same job in private sector may earn in a compamy job. Whats more important is what state employees have given back for years. The starting salary of many state workers were very low 35 years ago. The Governor is offering a modest solution allow ERIP to age or years let the employee’s decide if they want to help Have a nice retirement
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | April 25, 2010 10:34pm
Jim, easy boy ...... easy on the red meat.
perhaps saying “how much they were paid” was a little soft. what i really meant was how much they “made.” check the “other expenses” and “expense acccount” numbers. tell me, could you live on a little less if you never had to pay for a meal or your gas? or your laptop? your car insurance? cell phone? cocktails?
common, Jim - you’ve got more than that, no? you are not that naive…
HST
posted by: Amazed | April 25, 2010 11:12pm
Not all state workers are in a union.
Many are “at will” employees, which means they can be fired with no warning, etc.
Many are covered with decent benefit packages but as it’s been said previously the salaries are usually lower than the private sector.
That being said I think the longevity bonus system is a days-gone-by idea that needs to go.
posted by: CT Jim | April 26, 2010 6:22am
Doc,
I get Mileage based on IRS standards which today is .50 per mile look it up and you will see I am right. I pay for my own car insurance my own meals and my own laptop!
I get $60 a month for my cell phone.
So let me know doc am I over paid? Should I write a check to my members to reimbuse them for the cell phone which by the way averages about $100 a month.
And I have the checks to prove this also!
Are you really a doctor or do you just play one online?
Because you are really having a tough time with the truth here.
posted by: CT Jim | April 26, 2010 6:33am
Doc, I also pay for all my meals and recently went to DC on business and instead of flying into DC at$275 I flew into Balt for $80 and price lined a hotel at $78 a night and only had to walk 4 blocks to get to the conference. Would you have done that? Didn’t think so. I hate wasting dues paying members dollars.
posted by: Todd Peterson | April 28, 2010 12:39pm
One of my coworkers got her longevity bonus and it was nearly 1/3 of her salary. Longevity bonuses amount to about $43 million annually. The windfall payments that retirees get for back sick/vacation are real as well.
While state employees accepted a wage freeze for a year, non-profit orgs. who that state subcontracts work to saw the amounts that they’re reimbursed get cut. Nonprofits pay less and offer less generous benefit packages than the state does. That was simply unfair. We can sub more work out to these folks and not shortchange them and still save money.
posted by: and 1 | April 28, 2010 5:30pm
PEOPLE! You are falling for the divide an conquer plan again.
They talk about unions and early retirement- WHAT ABOUT MANAGEMENT? Again- for the Judicial Temp- check out the Judicial Directory and then go to ctsunlight.org . The fact is the administration employees on 90 Washington Street make much more than the union workers- they are just nicely hidden up on the upper floors- where nobody really gets to view the waste. In addition- Deputy Directors (my last count was 35 of them) now have 3 steps of pay and personnel managers (the count is more than 40) have a few themselves. Now please tell me how many steps there are for assistant clerks and other union listed jobs! As long as they can keep you at each others throats- they remain, safe, unaccountable, comfortable and with more in their pockets than any of you.
posted by: Todd Peterson | April 29, 2010 12:21pm
Management needs to be thinned out. Management is where patronage jobs are created. For every cushy patronage job that’s axed there’s resources to pay 2 or 3 people who really do work hard. We’re not on opposite sides of the fence here. I’m for looking at every line of every department.
The upper levels need to be looked at first for cuts. Besides, who got the 120-day contracts at 75 percent pay after the golden handshake? The big dollar upper-management positions did.
posted by: Todd Peterson | April 29, 2010 6:43pm
Just to clarify - the Judicial temp is all for clearing the decks of deputy directors and others who have been added as patronage jobs in the last 10-15 years. They can try earning a living in the private sector if they’re so darned talented…
posted by: and 1 | April 30, 2010 6:44am
I have 2 things to add. 1) Longevity is in fact given to state employees who work past 10 years. This part is IMPORTANT- in the Judicial Branch after the 10 years you do receive the longevity but only 1/4 of it. Please keep in mind that in the Judicial Branch most union positions stop the pay raises after 8 or 9 years. The longevity is not as much as a yearly pay raise for these people and really amounts to much less than the step pay rate increase. 2) And this is really very important- Most management positions will pay for more than 2 to 3 union workers pay. Go to: http://ctsunlight.org/Payroll/tabid/56/Default.aspx
The position of this state employee is not disclosed, but if you go to the Judicial Directory you will see he is a deputy director making over $150,000.00 per year- that would cover (in most cases) more than 3 of the AFSCME starting salaries for the people this man is Deputy Director of and that is just one of the 35 cases listed in the Judicial Directory. Please stay fired up- just remember where the heat should really be applied.
posted by: Todd Peterson | April 30, 2010 10:41am
and 1 and me are on the same page here. The money to paythe Judicial director position that and 1 speaks of would cover the pay and limited benefits of Six temps like me. That’s right, six. I’m a bit cynical in that I think that canning six of me would be easier than one big dollar patronage position.
At a gubernatorial forum I attended Mary Glassman (D) was pretty emphatic about getting rid of patronage jobs. I hope both eventual nominees share that sentiment…
posted by: and 1 | April 30, 2010 5:45pm
Todd- did you know that for the rest of state government, after 6 months you are no longer a temp? The Judicial Branch has been violating this law for more than 30 years now. This is just another example of how management uses the little guy and then is able to keep their own staffing high. Oh- I needed to correct one thing in your statement- the position I listed in my previous post was for a Deputy Director- a Director is above the Deputy Director and may have numerous Deputies reporting to them.
posted by: Todd Peterson | April 30, 2010 8:59pm
and 1 - Can you tell me where this law is? If you’re correct then I’ll go after it. I’ve been a temp for 22 months and I work with people - including attorneys! - who’ve been temps for much longer. Years longer in fact! Now I’m flustered…
posted by: and 1 | May 1, 2010 6:23am
Todd- I first want to tell you that I learned of the law during a hearing where Judge Lavery was questioned about the temps by the Judiciary Committee.
At that hearing one of the committee members pointed out that DAS had gotten into trouble for violating the law.
I asked about it and was told to look at Connecticut General Statutes 5-196. That section can be found here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap067.htm#Sec5-196.htm
I do want to warn you of something- I know from personal experience that if the Branch finds out who you are- they will deal with you and if you are an attorney please remember that the same people who will deal with you also oversee attorney grievance procedures in this state. In other words, they can harm you (personally I have suffered greatly at their hands and am not an attorney)- so please be careful.
posted by: Amazed | April 24, 2010 12:19am
Are we surprised by this?
The unions are always against helping the state, and they have fallen back to their tried and true scare tactics to keep their top level fatcat jobs safe.
Same old story IMO.
The Gov. offers a plan (perfect? no, but a plan) and the Dems and their true bosses, the unions, decry how the sky will fall if they consider talking about it. They basically dare the Gov. to make a legal move when all she is asking for is a meeting and for them to consider a VOLUNTARY retirement package as a way to alleviate the budget crisis we’re still in.
Shameful.