CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

SEBAC Leaders Vote To Change Bylaws, Allow For Another Vote

by | Jul 18, 2011 1:01pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: Labor, State Budget

(Updated 6:21 p.m) The 15 leaders of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition voted Monday to change its bylaws and allow for another vote on a “clarified” concession package, which it hopes will save thousands of jobs.

The new language changes the number of unions that it needs to ratify the agreement from 14 to 8 and reduces the threshold of voting members from 80 to 50 percent.

“The change would require a majority of per capita votes cast and a majority of the SEBAC voting unions voting to conclude negotiations,” a statement on the union’s website said. 

Click here to read the new bylaws.

In order to change the bylaws 10 of the 15 union leaders had to vote in favor of the changes. The vote on the bylaws Monday was not unanimous. At least one union leader, Sal Luciano of AFSCME Council 4—who drew fire from union members for his volunteer work with the SustiNet Board of Directors—voted against the changes.

“The ‘NO’ vote was out of respect to the majority of AFSCME members that voted ‘NO’ on the latest Tentative Agreement. The bylaws do need changing but I did not feel that they should have been changed at this time for this agreement,” Luciano wrote in an emailed statement.

Luciano did vote in favor of waiving the 30-day notice period to change the bylaws. That vote needed to be unanimous in order for Monday’s vote to take place.

If the bylaw changes made Monday were in place prior to the first vote on a concession package, the deal would have been ratified since 11 of the 15 unions and 57 percent of the voting members voted for it. The bylaws, which hadn’t been changed since 1996, required 14 of the 15 unions and 80 percent of the voting members to ratify the deal. 

The news was welcomed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who is traveling back from the National Governors Association meeting in Utah tonight.

“It’s good news that the unions have changed their ratification process to one that respects the will of the majority,” Malloy said in a statement. “Over the next few days Mark Ojakian will be speaking with SEBAC leaders to understand which issues in the agreement need to be clarified. Given the limited number of issues that have been identified as problematic, it shouldn’t take more than a couple of days to have a clarified agreement that’s ready to be voted on by all state employees.”

It’s still unclear after more than a half-hour press conference with union spokesmen, what a new “clarified” concession deal will look like.

What was clear was they want an agreement they can bring to their membership very quickly before the layoff notices start taking affect and the savings opportunities disappear.

Leo Canty, vice president of AFT-CT who was filling in for Larry Dorman Monday, said they’ve gathered information from unions members about the failed concession package and plan on bringing them forth for discussions with the Malloy administration.

“We hope that with the amount of heat that was generated by some of these particular issues, we can find a way to fix those problems,” Canty said Monday.

He said they have to move faster on a vote than they did last time, but they’ve also had a few months, and their members have had a few months to digest the package and look at all of these issues. The voting in June lasted for two weeks and was defeated after more than a week.

“We admit. Clearly we did not have a way to get out to 45,000 people in as rapid a process as we possibly could. We’re going to work to fix that,” Canty said.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. With nearly 5,000 state employees receiving layoff notices and numerous state services coming to an end, including closures of courthouses and Department of Motor Vehicle branches, the reality of reaching a concession package is more important than ever, Canty said.

“I think people are paying a little bit more attention…if we can get a proposal to come out I think they’ll be willing to move faster and we’re willing to give them more information,” Canty said.

But with the 2.5 percent raises negotiated under SEBAC 2009 about to go out to more than 40,000 state employees on July 29, the clock seems to be ticking ever faster.

“Every day that goes by there’s a little bump in the complexity circle,” Canty said. 

Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, has said statistics he received from the governor’s office inform them that every day past July 1 they wait to balance the budget the number of layoffs increases to 29 layoffs per day or $1.6 million per day they will have to cut.

So while the unions may hope to save every job, it’s possible some state employees won’t be called back to state service unless Malloy rescinds the notices.

Click here and here to read the concerns of some state employees who received the layoff notices.

In the absence of an agreement the General Assembly increased Malloy’s rescission authority from 5 percent to 10 percent in order to allow him to make the necessary budget cuts and close the $1.6 billion gap. This week Malloy handed his detailed budget cutting plans back to the General Assembly. When the dust settled Friday there were 57 fewer state troopers, fewer group homes for the disabled, fewer Department of Motor Vehicle offices, fewer social service offices, fewer teachers, fewer courthouses, and fewer prison guards.

The picture painted by the budget cuts wasn’t pretty and Democratic lawmakers were less than thrilled.

“This plan would harm our state in significant ways. That is why I am urging the Governor and SEBAC to reach an agreement - that is the most responsible action available,” House Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, said last week in a statement.

On Monday he was breathing a sigh of relief.

“This is the responsible course of action, as we look to avoid the terrible cuts and layoffs that would do so much harm to our state,” Donovan said in a statement.

Republican lawmakers never believed Malloy’s budget cuts and layoffs would come to fruition.

“This entire process - with its proposed cuts to public safety, transportation and education - has been orchestrated to scare the public,” Sen. Leonard Fasano, R-North Haven, said in a statement. “It’s all been a big game and that’s wrong. This was about pressuring the unions to revote and ratify a new deal. The legislature will not get a vote on this and there will be no oversight on where $1.6 billion in concessions come from. The numbers didn’t add up before and they will not add up now.”

Fasano argues that if the numbers didn’t add up in the first place it’s unlikely they will add up now, three weeks into the fiscal year.

Tags: , , ,

Share this story with others.

Comments

(72) Archived Comments

posted by: Todd Peterson | July 18, 2011  1:31pm

The fix is in. The next vote will come soon just as Pat Sculley said and the deal will be done amidst pomp and circumstance with the Gov. doing his victory lap.

The layoff notices will have served their purpose - scaring the rank-and-file to death.

To Matt O’Connor : If your moronic bosses had actually took the time and effort to talk to “the hired help” before the first vote maybe this morass could have been avoided. Yes, I’m bitter because Sal Luciano and the rest of the brain trust didn’t do their homework.  Call it imperial hubris…

posted by: StunningContradiction | July 18, 2011  1:35pm

“Multiple sources are confirming the 15 leaders of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition voted Monday to change its bylaws to allow for another vote on the concession package.”

This is morally unforgivable!  The union membership voted DOWN the agreement under rules that were considered beneficial and appropriate for that last 15 years, and now that ONE vote goes against their recommendation they want to change the rules and vote again?

Why vote at all if the leadership is just going to call RE-DO every time they don’t get the answer they want?


Malloy’s demanding a “path forward” is a tyrant’s code phrase for “deliver me the vote I want or I’ll do bad things to you!”

It’s understandable that there are many people who disagree with the result of the vote, but the people who voted No did so for their own reasons. They exercise their *right* to say no.  This rules change/re-vote is nothing more than a slap on the wrist of a naughty child followed by a demand to do what your superiors dictate.


If our overlords (the Guv and union puppet leaders) produce a set of bylaws that guarantee the vote result that they want, then what is the point of voting at all?


And what happens in the future when another governor, legislature or union puppet-leaders want to pass another agreement that the membership dislikes?  Will we have lost the ability forever to make our votes count?


Some votes require a super-majority for a perfectly good reason.  Let’s not give up that protection lightly simply to appease our tyrannical, power-hungry leaders.

posted by: StunningContradiction | July 18, 2011  1:43pm

“CT News Junkie | BREAKING: SEBAC Leaders Vote To Change Bylaws, Allow For Another Vote”

The 15 Leaders should be tarred, featherd and run out on a rail.

Don’t like the results of a vote? No problem!  Just change the rules and vote again!

posted by: Disgruntled | July 18, 2011  1:48pm

Good comment StunningContradiction!

The members who voted no will now be the first to go. “Management” will not stop at this package of concessions.
OK. Another vote might get them the outcome they desire but job security will not be high on the list. Better start looking for work outside the system,and quick! Try getting one of the many FIRST FIVE JIVE jobs,created with labor savings.

posted by: miketcha | July 18, 2011  1:58pm

As a retired state employee with 33 years in 1199, the change in by-laws leaves me with mixed thoughts.
On the one hand unions have prided themselves on a democratic process albeit not perfect. The changing of the by-laws in that light seems unethical and undemocratic - shouldn’t all members vote on the changes to the by-laws?
On the other hand,preserving union membership and jobs, as well as maintaining our state’s infrastructure (which are the state employees and their agencies)and not exacerbating a very fragile Connecticut economy especially regarding job growth seems like the politically expedient way to go for the state unions. Yes, they have given the state a lot of concessions in the past few years, and now will have to give more, but this isn’t the time to draw a line in the sand. Maintaining the strength of public sector unions i.e. # of members and prioritizing how best to protect workers rights through this economic storm should be foremost for present day union members

posted by: jeepchick | July 18, 2011  2:06pm

After I vote again, can I then recast my vote for Governor?

posted by: Noteworthy | July 18, 2011  2:15pm

Currption continues. This is what is known as the big fix. The cram down. And it’s corrupt.

Membes voted. The results are certified. These junior mobsters don’t like the outcome? Change the rules and vote again. What a crock. Your membership spoke. If this goes forward, the entire “leadership” team of these unions ought to be thrown out on their ass and the rules changed, to bar them from collecting pensions from the union.  Tell them to turn in their cars and credit cards too. All bums.

posted by: bgenerous | July 18, 2011  2:33pm

If at first you don’t succeed, change the rules.  If income taxes have to be raised again in the next 4 years, you can thank Gov. Malloy for the 4 year no layoff provision.

posted by: DirtyJobsGUy | July 18, 2011  2:47pm

If SEBAC were a corporation, any change in Bylaws would be subjected to a shareholder vote.  Obviously, in the Peoples Republic of Uniondom,  only the leadership votes count.

posted by: Leaf in the Wind | July 18, 2011  2:52pm

I am a YES voter from the original vote. And now I would like a YES vote to fire our leadership. Is it possible for no-confidence votes and usher in new leadership?

posted by: aimnegs | July 18, 2011  3:03pm

I’m the conservative republican and voted for Malloy to avoid this. I should have voted for Foley instead. Do be strong armed into changing our most sacred collective bargaining rights…I thought Malloy was in the unions pocket.

posted by: OutOfOutrage | July 18, 2011  3:05pm

OutOfOutrage

A look back through the old budgets is interesting.  In 1991 we were around $7B. We’ve tripled that in 20 yrs and somehow a reduction of 10% will invoke “CHAOS”.  Maybe we should be spending 50B so that we can afford to dial it back once in a while.  Or would that be irresponsible?  HAHAH!

posted by: skydogct | July 18, 2011  3:08pm

Great news! Going back to the bargaining table makes sense, and allowing majority to rule is the fairest way to vote on a contract. It’s the way most unions vote on contracts, new or reopened. However, beware the dark side. Stateworkers, the purveyors of evil with motives other than yours will do what they can to kill whatever deal comes along. Don’t believe me? Check out some of the comments on this page. Do they sound like any co-workers that you know? The number one motive for this group is to kill collective bargaining for state employees so they will impersonate state workers and post any kind of bs that might convince you to vote no. Like the devil, they will mix truth with fiction. Other motives include those who may feel insulated and want to use a no vote as a means to decertify. There will be new rumors of collusion with Communists, with some suggesting that the new health care proposal has Maoist roots.  I suggest a press blackout for state workers until they vote. Talk it over with your co-workers and union leaders, and then do what’s best for you and your family.

posted by: le2011 | July 18, 2011  3:34pm

if the no votes win again will they change the by laws again?

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | July 18, 2011  3:47pm

This is about union dues. And it is very sad day, a day to discuss the revolution, a day for action.

Just say NO!

posted by: sarc232 | July 18, 2011  3:59pm

The fact that they changed the vote to get this agreement through just shows you how corrupt the unions are and that all they care about are the dues they get every 2 weeks.  I voted yes for the deal only to try and save the younger workers from getting sacraficed but now I’m voting no because I don’t trust the unions to do what is best for it’s members.  They never even bothered to ask us what we wanted until after the deal was rejected and the by-laws changed.  It’s a 2 year budget deficit not one that requires programmatic changes the will be around until the unions and governor feel like they need to change things.

posted by: sickofit | July 18, 2011  4:01pm

So the crooked %#@$& have done it. The SEBAC “leadership” has changed the bylaws so that they can change a legal vote by a bare majority. Now they want to vote again. I guess it’s official, SEBAC & SEIU are nothing but an arm of the Democrat Party. Mostly fund-raising but now crooked political manipulation. When the Republican Gov. of Wisconsin tried to bust the Union, the SEIU sent troops and Money. When Republican CT Gov. John Rowland laid-off a modest (by Malloy’s numbers) 2500 State Workers, we marched on the Capitol. When the Democrat candidate Malloy ran for Gov., we endorsed him, gave him money and help and invited him to our convention. When he stabbed us in the back, and we fought back, our SEBAC “leadership” turned it’s back on dues payers and supported the Gov. who is laying off 6500 State Workers and has introduced legislation to remove collective bargaining rights. After the failed vote, when the Malloy told SEBAC to change their long establish voting rules, SEBAC said “Yes Boss.” And instead of making a minor change, say to 2/3 vote to keep a super-majority, they decided they still couldn’t win the vote so they changed it to a bare majority. Nice going, you should all do the honorable thing and resign, but no chance for that, you have no honor. Let the lawsuits, NLRB petitions and desertification petitions begin.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS TES | July 18, 2011  4:02pm

If the union trys this.See them in court!!!

posted by: NOW What? | July 18, 2011  4:14pm

“Todd Peterson” - “The fix is in”??? Give me a break, you sound like someone out of a 1940’s mobster movie.

“Disgruntled” - Management WILL stop asking for “concessions” ONLY if we FORCE it (and the politicians) to adhere to a strict, hard and fast hiring freeze resulting in the eventual reduction (through attrition) in FILLED FTE’s of about 4,000 - 6,000. Until then, we’ll ALWAYS have threats of layoffs etc. hanging over our heads.

“miketcha” - There really wasn’t anything unethical about the change in SEBAC’s by-laws. Individual employees are not members of SEBAC, only their unions are. SEBAC is a separate organization that serves as a union coalition, and its official membership can change its rules as they see fit. Individual employees can only have an *indirect* effect on SEBAC’s procedures and voting outcomes, by making their voices heard by and voting on issues relevant to their specific bargaining unit’s union.

posted by: Very Concerned | July 18, 2011  4:42pm

Situation Ethics - How convienent, just change the rules without a vote by the Union Membership in order to get the outcome you want!

By the way, if you are worried about a safety net for the state don’t worry! How about not-for-profit agencies which can provide the same servies for 40% of the cost? Oh ya, the non-profit employees do not get pensions and covered healtcare when they retire - but they do have to work extra years in order to pay the taxes to porvide for the state employee outragious benefits!

posted by: word_nerd | July 18, 2011  4:54pm

so, reading many of the comments, let me get this straight:  it’s only democratic if a vote requires 80% yes votes.  nothing can ever be clarified to avoid confusion (have any of you read the bylaws?).  And, nearly 60% (a healthy majority) of voting members voted yes, but somehow this is being forced upon state workers by corrupt and unethical leadership.  The logical fallacies of this comment thread are astounding. 

an 80% threshold allows for a tyranny of a minority.  of course folks like state police and corrections don’t want to give up retirement bennies in exchange for job security.  their jobs are safe, right?

posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 18, 2011  5:14pm

GoatBoyPHD

The vote will be interesting.

I haven’t read one post that says “I am so happy to vote yes. I finally get it! I was so wrong before!”

As far as those who now know they are safe and switching to no vote…..

posted by: Chuck | July 18, 2011  5:36pm

Please be very careful of people inpersonating state employees and making comments to sway your vote. Many people will do anything to convince us to vote no. These same people would love to see our Collective Bargaining Rights eliminated. There is a small but     aggressive movement in this direction. Be careful with what you read.

posted by: Hebee | July 18, 2011  5:50pm

“I am so happy to vote yes. I finally get it! I was so wrong before!”

posted by: le2011 | July 18, 2011  5:53pm

I hope that after the re vote that this budget is balanced. Property tax bills have been received and as usual it is higher than last year. We are now taxing clothing under $50 and income tax increases are retro active back to January. The tax payer is broke.

posted by: le2011 | July 18, 2011  5:57pm

word nerd   I wonder what you would be saying if you were a no voter.

posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 18, 2011  6:03pm

GoatBoyPHD

So they’ve set up a bi-cameral legislature with a Troika on top.

The 15 bargaining units are the Senators and the House is a direct referendum vote of members.

I expect this will last until the day 9 union heads vote yes and 51% of the members vote no creating another crisis. Gridlock.

Until then the Dorman, Livingston, and O’Connor Troika will reign in peace and pontificate on the sacred and inviolable nature of the CBA between union workers and state citizens.


If Dan Malloy caves in as I now expect I think we know where education reform is heading next year. The Teachers no-layoff CBA will come first, results will come second.
Look forward to NYC-style rubber rooms littering every school district as Malloy’s biggest innovation.

posted by: illogicallylogical | July 18, 2011  6:14pm

The leaders of the Bargaining Units that voted “No” should be ashamed.  They didn’t even vote “no” to the 30-day notice period to change the by-laws.  And Sal Luciano can go take his “pity vote” elsewhere.  This concludes that SEBAC and Malloy are just trying to ram this concession deal down everyone’s throat.  I have not met one co-worker that was excited to hear this news…not one.  Could everyone imagine when Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency and asked for a re-vote?  What a joke.  Now, the hazardous duty Units are screwed because they are the minority.  For example, SEBAC could introduce new concessions in two years stating that HD employees have to work 30 years instead of twenty, forfeit all their medical, and donate their next-of-kin…and they would be powerless to stop the other bargaining units from voting yes.  I know those are extreme examples but you get the idea.  And to “SKYDOGCT”, you constantly troll on this blog with nothing but hate against state workers.  I have heard co-workers speak just as those who are posting here, and I have heard state workers from other unions expressing the same sentiment so your belief that the thoughts posted here and what’s going on in the workplace are false.  And to everyone else that constantly trolls, have you actually read the ENTIRE concessions contract that was put out?  Not what the media feeds you, but the ENTIRE contract?  Hmm…didn’t think so.

posted by: Truth, Justice and Karma | July 18, 2011  6:31pm

SEBAC and the unions voting to change the By-Laws made huge political and legal blunders of the first degree.  The first lawsuit seeking an injunction to block a revote will be joined by thousands if not tens of thousands of union members.  100% guaranteed SEBAC will lose in court.  The lawyers who gave SEBAC the extremely bad legal advice regarding making these By-Law changes are arrogant, pompous,grossly incompetent, self-serving jerks who need to be called out to answer regarding the legality of the farcical attempt to explain how the changes to the By-Laws followed correct procedures outlined in the By-Laws, past union voting practices, and make any legal sense.  For example, what the hell does the new Article 10(d) mean? And, where does it say in the amended By-Laws that only 8/15 union or 51% of the per member votes is all the is needed to change or replace the current deal.  Politically, SEBAC has miscalculated its member support.  If the deal is simply a clarified version of the rejected deal, it will be voted down.  SEBAC lost many YES votes with its outrageous disregard for rank and file information sharing and input.  There are other alternative plans that members would vote for next week that would achieve the same savings as the plan submitted by the Governor on July 15.  Why is it imperative to SEBAC and the Governor that we accept the rejected deal?  Why are no other options with the same savings dollar value on the table?

posted by: nobody | July 18, 2011  7:49pm

There is no provision in the bylaws for suspending the 30 day period before the vote. The vote requires that if one of the members does not wish a change, a formal vote should be taken, which requires per capita vote. Obviously the SEBAC board is not acting in good faith in regard to the wishes of the membership.
SEBAC, you are fired, get out.

posted by: word_nerd | July 18, 2011  8:21pm

@le2011 - would you prefer 20% of the people controlling the fates of the other 80%?  oh wait, that’s how the whole country runs, only it’s more like 5%.

posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 18, 2011  8:24pm

GoatBoyPHD

What peopla aren’t considering is that SEBAC could fracture and the changes are a last ditch attempt to keep it together as one bargaining unit rather 2 or 3.

The day 9 approve and 53% vote against we will see another crisis. It’s inevitable or as suggested 51% vote to take away a perk rather specific to another union such as haz duty pensions.

Crisis? What Crisis?

posted by: SJAY | July 18, 2011  8:26pm

Sal Luciano voted to waive the 30-day requirement but voted “no” to change the bylaws…politically astute…???? Let’s just say a new vote approves a concessions package and yet many/most of the DOC and state police layoffs go through anyways, for any number of reasons, what would you think about Luciano’s ‘no” vote??

posted by: perturbed | July 18, 2011  8:52pm

perturbed

Glad to see I wasn’t the only one that thought of the 30-day notice requirement issue.

Does this mean they had sent out a notice of the proposed bylaw revision by Saturday June 18, nearly a week before the majority of votes had been cast? Was the first vote just a trial balloon to see how low they would eventually need to drop the ratification threshold? Would 70% work? Maybe 67%? Would they have to swallow their pride and institute a mere 60% super-majority requirement?

Son of a gun, based on the actual vote, looks like they had to drop the ratification threshold all the way down to the rock-bottom 50% + 1. That’s the only way their measly 57% could be guaranteed to hold up to a second vote, without any repairs to the proposed pension damage.

Maybe there is a method to SEBAC’s madness after all.

These people have no shame.

—perturbed

(Anyone else catch the new typo in Article 9—“Articles” instead of “Article 6”?)

posted by: illogicallylogical | July 18, 2011  9:13pm

At least this article reads “57% of the voting members voted for it”.  Most people who blog on this site know that less than 50% of all union members voted for it.  What I am wondering is what if (by some slight chance) the people that didn’t show up to vote before, get angry at this turn of events and vote “no”, thereby bringing the “no” vote to above 50%.  What would happen then?  A RE-re-vote?  Maybe they should have written the by-laws for just one “yes” vote from just one person…
Anyhow, SEBAC couldn’t push this vote through without dramatically altering the by-laws because for hazardous duty employees with 14+ years, there was absolutely no incentive to vote “yes” for this contract in the first place.  They weren’t going to lose their jobs and they certainly were not going to sacrifice their health care.  Now, these employees better hope that they can make the end of the 2017 SEBAC contract and retire before they open up the SEBAC contract again…oh yeah…that will happen in 2013 and in 2015…with the majority of the other bargaining units holding all the cards.  So much for democracy…

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | July 18, 2011  9:18pm

who do these union people think they are?  i don’t recall getting a phone call asking my opinion.  i dont recall being asked if i am willing to lower the threshold on matters that affect my retirement.

wages are a simple majority by bargaining unit - that’s fine.  but i will not stand for a simple majority to change a contract that i have been working under and planning my future for more than 20 years.

this is BS.  this won’t be over for a long time.

posted by: SaveCT | July 18, 2011  9:51pm

I’m excited to see that “tens of thousands of stateworkers” are planning legal action. Oh yeah, the “fix is in” and doesn’t it suck that the majority may call the shots, how unfair is that? And what about that typo? And how many nasty names can one come up with when referring to SEBAC? Such persuasive arguments in these comments, I’ll be totally surprised if anyone votes yes, won’t you?. There is only one thing I learned after reading these comments. You can certainly tell the Yankee Institute isn’t involved. Not quite up to their level,not quite their cup of TEA. Where are the pros when you need them?

posted by: HartfordPaul | July 18, 2011  9:53pm

Don’t like the results?  Just change the Rules, at least for Union bosses who ignore the will of it’s membership.

The old bylaws stated that a 30 day written notice be given before amending the bylaws - I guess they ignored those rules too.  I don’t recall any notice by the leadership of any bylaw amendments being proposed?

Let’s do the math - My union A&R didn’t vote until June 24th so if a written notification was done within the 30 days… That means the leadership had planned on changing the bylaws if the vote was no before the vote was even held.  Sounds like they have been in the Governor’s pocket from the outset of this charade.

Time to Decertify the union and get out of SEBAC -  they only have their own best interest at heart and screw the membership and what the people want.

I got a pink slip and will still vote NO just as I did last time because it is a rotten deal.

I urge the 40,000 who did not get a pink slip and their job is safe to vote NO as well because it is a garbage deal for your family.  And when you go vote AGAIN… Vote for what is best for your family.

posted by: Bill$Ratepayer | July 18, 2011  10:48pm

hartford paul,

That is why I will vote yes, for what is best for my family.  A four-year no layoff guarentee, no major change in my healthcare, no major increase in co-pays and pension and healthcare benefit guarentees until I am almost ready to retire in 2022.  While no raises for a couple years, no major cuts in salaries (ie. 5 hr cut in pay or numerous furloughs) that some have proposed.  So paying .2% of my salary for the ability to retire in 2023 at 60 and knowing that some retiree health care will be there.it is a no brainer for me.  YES! YES! YES! And proud of it!!

And yes my vote helps the State economy, it keeps my union brothers and sisters in jobs and keeps my clients with needed State services.  That is in my family’s best interest!

posted by: Truth, Justice and Karma | July 18, 2011  11:05pm

The By-Laws are a contract.  SEBAC followed none of the rules it needed to follow to properly change the ratification voting requirements contained in Article 10(a).  A motion to amend to the By-Laws needed to be moved and seconded,  Notice of the proposed amendment(s) needed to be given in writing to members 30 days prior to the vote.  SEBAC needed to conduct a vote pursuant to Article 10(b).  It sounds like SEBAC improperly voted under Article 9 and passed its amendment(s) by a 2/3rds vote.  All these deficiencies are fatal and render the By-Law changes illegal, invalid and unenforceable.  SEBAC leaders are breaching their ethical and legal duties to all dues paying members.
Article 10 only permits changes to the existing agreement, valid until 2017, that are supported by a supermajority of members.  The agreement cannot be changed without satisfying the Article 10(a) requirement that 80% of members and 14/15 unions vote in favor.  SEBAC 2011 failed to meet this test.  If SEBAC wanted to lower the ratification threshold, Article 10(a) can only be amended to lower the voting requirements for allowing changes to the agreement if 80% and 14/15 unions agreed to lower the threshold for amending the Agreement.  Article 10 is in place to stop the very game that SEBAC is trying to play right now, i.e. change or replace the agreement but without support of a supermajority. 
Corrections and State Police stand to suffer the most harm from the new voting structure.  They should challenge it.  Really every union member should support a lawsuit to declare these actions illegal and stop a re-vote.  If a re-vote is held, vote NO.  Force SEBAC and the Governor to make a new deal rather than supporting this complete abbdication of union rights to renegade union leaders run wild and the Governor.

posted by: skydogct | July 18, 2011  11:51pm

Hey Illogic, what do you suggest? Let the vote stand and minority rule? That’s unfair, un-democratic, and un-American.  The fact that you may get another offer to vote on is not a “joke”. That’s what most unions do when the first offer is voted down, or you go on strike. I wonder what the vote would have been if the no vote was also a strike vote. Would you be willing to go on strike? It’s a bit different than just going back to work and letting the junior people take the hit.
I have friends and family who are state workers and I never heard any talk like you. I think you’re confused.  Where exactly did I show “hate against state workers”? Was it when I suggested that state workers “talk it over with your co-workers and union leaders, and then do what’s best for you and your family?” 
SEBAC isn’t trying to ram anything down anyone’s throat; they are trying to save jobs, including yours. So why not help the effort? I don’t believe it helps to have all these negative posts. They’ll be another time to fight for more, this time you’re fighting for survival. Don’t you understand that?

posted by: Truth, Justice and Karma | July 19, 2011  12:23am

Can you say CT Unfair Trade Practices Act suit?  Where is the Attorney General?  Got a perfect case for you.  Help?  45,000 state workers who are required to pay dues to alleged union leaders who are not following union rules but rather improperly manipulating the union voting process to overturn a prior vote and reopen and disturb a long-term health care and retirement plan contract.  This is a perfect case for the AG to bring suit (or appointed counsel to do the same if the AG has a conflict).

BURKE v. IPSEN
Peter A. BURKE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven J. IPSEN et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Nos. B218286, B221436.

—October 29, 2010


Monforton Law Offices and Matthew G. Monforton for Defendants and Appellants.Katzenbach and Khtikian and Christopher W. Katzenbach for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A member of a union filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court, seeking to compel the union to conduct an election of officers and directors and to set aside the union’s recently amended bylaws. The petition alleged violations of the Corporations Code and the union’s original bylaws.

The union opposed the petition on the ground that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not presenting his claims to the local employee relations commission.

The trial court concluded plaintiff did not have to exhaust administrative remedies because his claims involved internal union affairs, which the employee relations commission did not have the authority to resolve. The court granted the petition and issued a writ of mandate directing that an election be conducted and declaring the amended bylaws invalid. In subsequent proceedings, the court awarded attorney fees to plaintiff under the private attorney general statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The union appealed.

We agree with the trial court that plaintiff did not have to exhaust administrative remedies because the court was the proper tribunal to enforce the Corporations Code and the union’s original bylaws in a dispute involving internal union affairs. We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees under a private attorney general theory.

posted by: perturbed | July 19, 2011  1:28am

perturbed

“The 15 leaders of the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition voted Monday to change its bylaws and allow for another vote on a “clarified” concession package...”

What, exactly, is a “clarified” concession package?

Do they plan on telling us what each of the concessions was for? Did they take such detailed notes during the SEBAC/Malloy Coalition® meetings? Maybe we’ll get some footnotes added to the Revised Tentative Agreement?

They could look something like this:

► Hard 2-year wage freeze: This goes to help balance the budget—we really did need to give some help in closing the two-year budget gap. This is about all we could come up with to address that directly.

► New Tier III for new employees: Tier I is breaking the pension fund bank—we needed some long-term structural change to keep Tier I retirees from being impacted (some SEBAC negotiators will receive a Tier I pension, after all).

► delaying normal retirement age eligibility by three (3) years for everyone except Tier I and Hazardous duty employees, effective July 1, 2022: This was needed to secure Malloy’s grudging support for the pooling bill in the legislature, opening up the state employee health plan to municipalities and some non-profits. The savings will help Malloy make the transition to GAAP overnight. Malloy wanted 6 years more work out of you in return for the public option, but we guessed state workers wouldn’t vote for that. (See, even SEBAC shared the pain, and we did without the public option for you state employees.) [April 20, 2011: SustiNet deal reached, but without a ‘public option’]

► a 100% increase (a doubling) of the current penalty for anyone qualified for early retirement—based on the “new normal” age—from 3% per year to 6% per year early (not including the standard 1.33% per year reduction for each year early, and any wage increases between early and normal retirement dates), effective July 1, 2011: Even though this will mean early retirees will now be effectively subsidizing the pension fund, this was needed to secure language in the pooling bill that would develop a business plan for implementing state and federal health reform. These savings will also help Malloy make the transition to GAAP overnight. (That Malloy drives a hard bargain!) [May 16, 2011: SustiNet backers, Malloy administration reach agreement]

► a 20% reduction in the typical COLA, effective September 2, 2011: We had to throw this in to get our name first in the SEBAC/Malloy Coalition®

► a mandatory 3% contribution (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: When it’s finally created, SustiNet will be needing some seed money while it gets up and running. This fund will help out greatly in that regard.

► a 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: Hey, health care costs really are going up. This will help fund retiree health care costs—this will not be used for SustiNet, we promise. Rather than hitting everyone, we stuck with the theme of sticking it to early retirees.

► Health Enhancement Program: When SustiNet is finally a reality, state employees will help to provide the “critical mass” of participants that will allow us more leverage with health care providers. You will be joining it. This gradually gets you used to some of the “look and feel” of SustiNet, so you won’t be so shocked later.

Well, needless to say, I look forward to the “clarifications,” however detailed they end up being.

—perturbed

posted by: Tom Burns | July 19, 2011  2:09am

Who cares about the process at this point which was flawed from the beginning—who can get 80% of people to vote for anything—
Thank God your union leadership has the gumption to change the bylaws and save union jobs—-and for those of you selfish no voters—-please quit the union (for you dont care about your fellow workers)—and that hurts us all—Tom Burns NHFT Local 933

posted by: debunkyou | July 19, 2011  5:11am

SEBAC’s “80% rule” was created to give a former executive director of AFSCME the veto power he demanded before AFSCME would join SEBAC. Only AFSCME represents over 20% of state employees. The rule was anti-democratic and shame on SEBAC for letting it persist until yesterday.

posted by: CTPilgrim | July 19, 2011  5:18am

Everyone need only get the agreement, READ IT CAREFULLY, decide for themselves if the agreement suits them well, and then vote. DO NOT accept the Union leadership statements at face value. Know what you are voting for. This is a contract, your employment, and your future. You have only yourself to blame if you don’t like the result, unless they change the rules (again).

posted by: CTPilgrim | July 19, 2011  5:58am

There is no such thing as a gaurentee no layoff - a layoff can occur for cause determined by the Governor. Next thing you know, someone will think they have a gaurentee on ther pension.

posted by: NotScared | July 19, 2011  7:48am

SEBAC makes me sick to my stomach… spineless cowards!!!  The so-called “leaders” couldn’t lead a rat into a cheese factory!  Get ready state employees, every two years you get to vote yourself a cut in benefits and pay or get bullied and villified…

posted by: Shrevmo | July 19, 2011  9:03am

I have a question…..how can the no vote not pass again this time?  Out of all employees, about 10% got layoff notices correct?  I’m not a state employee and I do not know the exact figures, but why would the remaining employees (a super majority of the total employees) vote yes to reduce their benefits when their jobs are considered “safe”.  I get the brotherhood thing…but really…“sure, I’ll vote yes to concessions even though my job is safe and the budget is balanced for the next 2 years…”  That makes no sense.  I know future layoffs could be a possibility and bumping, etc…..but why a yes vote now especially after many are upset about the changes in the by-laws?  Am I missing something?

posted by: interesting | July 19, 2011  9:03am

The “fix” does not stop at them changing the bylaws…Hay state employees if you think you will have a chance to revote on the “new deal” than think twice if your union “approved” it the first time…You may not get a chance to cast your vote in the second “deal or so called clarification” Under the title of “Important Victory”
I received the followng email from my union VP, I have quoted only a portion..“Only a significantly different agreement, with significantly different implications for the bargaining unit, would constitute a need to revote the agreement in August. As Acting President, (name removed) is alone responsible for that decision, and she will make her decision as the SVFT Constitution dictates.”

I am glad that I voted for a deal and they are going to count that vote for the “new or clarified” deal. I am glad my dues go to “union” so 1 person could decide for what is “significant and has implications” for me, and all the other members. I am glad she is going to excesize MY deomcratic rights and vote for me….NOT! This the same person who decided for me, and all the other union members, the ones who pay dues, and her salary, that the bylaws change was in my, the unions best interest or is it the unions & governors? Why do I pay dues?? Thats is right for them to my thinking and voting that way they will get what they and the governor want!! Fellow brothers and sisters remember how we are being treated when union elections come up, that the same people you pay to represent you are talking your rights away!

posted by: [email protected] | July 19, 2011  10:36am

Wonder if we can change how we vote for Governor also?  I suggest who wins the most towns gets the nod.

posted by: illogicallylogical | July 19, 2011  10:48am

@Skydogct…again, Gore’s presidential run.  It’s the same scenario.  Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral vote.  Bush gained the presidency.  Yes it does stink that he won based on the weight of the electoral college, but the rules were adhered to.  There was no re-vote.  This is a similar situation.  First, the “majority” as you call it did NOT win.  Less than 50% of ALL union members voted yes.  If this vote wasn’t important enough for the other thousands that didn’t show up, to me that’s a “NO” vote.  Voting is their right but also obligation (especially since this is so important) but these abstainers chose not to show up…they chose to vote “no”.  And if you read the ENTIRE contract, you will see the junior people ARE getting screwed AGAIN just like in the SEBAC 2009.  They gave the upper echelon a 6% handshake to retire on the backs of the junior workers who are forced to take a paycut in 2009 (3% until their tenth year of service) and in this contract the juniors are taking yet another hit while the seniors aren’t paying their “fair share”.  And finally, I am all about SEBAC saving jobs, I don’t gain by seeing anyone fired.  However, the “no” vote was based on the rules that were already in existence.  SEBAC had plenty of time prior to this vote to change the minimum requirements for a “pass/fail” if they thought this vote wouldn’t go through.  Yet in their arrogance they held the vote first and when it didn’t go their way, they are illegally changing the rules of the system to support what THEY want as opposed to what their constituents want.  The majority should rule, but in THIS system and rules that have been in existence for YEARS, the “majority” (as you describe) lost.  That’s not my fault or yours, that’s SEBAC’s.  They made the by-laws and we have had prior concession votes with no issues based on these by-laws (no issues because all the prior concessions passed).  Maybe if the rank-and-file of all the bargaining units were actually asked their opinion, this issue could have been resolved earlier.  What if the vote was “Yes”?  Would the by-laws have been changed?  The answer is “no” because Malloy and SEBAC would have succeeding in passing the POS package that they label a “concessions package” that does not help out hard state workers but benefits greedy politicians and SEBAC leaders.

posted by: Unbelievable | July 19, 2011  11:51am

So our “Acting President” becomes the voice of over 1300. Did anyone ever think that our unit overwhelmingly approved the concessions because we had a gun to our heads to do so? If we voted no, The Dictator would have tried to shut down the entire Vo-Tech system. Hey Hartford, why not STOP SPENDING and leave our pensions and health care alone.

posted by: Disgusted | July 19, 2011  12:30pm

EXTORTION:  The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority:  The act of securing money, favors, etc by intimidation or violence:  Blackmail

posted by: Frankly | July 19, 2011  1:29pm

All this vitriol makes no sense!  Clearly haters of unionization, haters of government workers, and haters of government itself are at work here.
The concession agreement should have passed the first time.
I’ll vote yes again, and hope all my fellow union members vote yes, too.  It’s the best option for the greater good.

posted by: Commonsense | July 19, 2011  1:34pm

Here’s a thought…if you don’t like a job, or the conditions…quit.  And go get another job.  How bad is it when such a simple solution is beyond the reason of the employee?  This is why words like “spoiled,” “entitled,” and “jerks” have been thrown around to describe Connecticut’s public workers.  The sad thing is this is ANOTHER example of a minority (few) ruining it for the majority (many).  Not all state workers feel this way, are represented by these comments, or share this attitude. But they are suffering because of it all the same…

posted by: Puzzled... | July 19, 2011  1:58pm

Folks, as “Chuck” has said - Be VERY careful of people attempting to “pose” online as state employees - when they in fact are NOT state employees - making comments to try to sway your vote. It really IS true that there are a LOT of people, both within Connecticut and from OUTSIDE of Connecticut, who will do ANYTHING to try to get you to vote AGAINST ratification of the deal. These people WANT you to get LAID OFF *AND* have your Collective Bargaining Rights TAKEN AWAY. Try to ignore them, make up your own mind based on the facts and based on what you believe would be in your own, your family’s, your co-workers AND your neighbors’ best interests.

posted by: perturbed | July 19, 2011  3:30pm

perturbed

@Puzzled…

After all these weeks, I’d recognize that rant anywhere.

(Don’t worry, your Tier I retiree COLA will be safe.)

What would be in everybody’s best interest is a re-negotiated agreement—one that actually saves as much money in the next two years as this one only pretends to, and one that doesn’t attempt to right all the fiscal wrongs of the last 20 years in one fell swoop, on the backs of Tier II/IIa pensions.

Got any bright ideas on how we can prevent a re-vote on the same agreement with the same phony savings?

—perturbed

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | July 19, 2011  3:35pm

If the new offer includes the phantom savings as a result of healthcare value plan or if the pension changes are still present, I will vote NO!

I suggest we forget the sebac agreement and talk wages and furloughs, union by union.

posted by: Truth, Justice and Karma | July 19, 2011  4:08pm

Contrary the best thinking Steve HC, puzzled (are they the same person?)and the incompetent and/or unethical lawyers representing SEBAC, there is plenty to sue over here with respect to this joke of an attempt to change the By-Laws and hijack the voting process.  Folks that sound like they are union reps trying to convince everyone to take the failed deal or else, like Steve HC and puzzled, need to wait and see about the viability of legal claims as they are filed. 
The By-Laws are a contract. SEBAC followed none of the rules it needed to follow to properly change the ratification voting requirements contained in Article 10(a). A motion to amend to the By-Laws needed to be moved and seconded, Notice of the proposed amendment(s) needed to be given in writing to members 30 days prior to the vote. SEBAC needed to conduct a vote pursuant to Article 10(b). It sounds like SEBAC improperly voted under Article 9 and passed its amendment(s) by a 2/3rds vote. All these deficiencies are fatal and render the By-Law changes illegal, invalid and unenforceable. SEBAC leaders are breaching their ethical and legal duties to all dues paying members.
Article 10 only permits changes to the existing SEBAC agreement, valid until 2017, that are supported by a supermajority of members. The existing SEBAC agreement cannot be changed without satisfying the Article 10(a) requirement that 80% of members and 14/15 unions vote in favor. SEBAC 2011 failed to meet this test. If SEBAC wanted to lower the Article 10(a) ratification threshold, a vote needed to be conducted under Article 10(b) and 80% and 14/15 unions would have to vote in favor of lowering the threshold to 51% and 8/15 unions. Article 10 is in place to stop the very game that SEBAC is trying to play right now, i.e. change or replace the agreement but without support of a supermajority.
Here is an example of a similar lawsuit filed in California last year.

BURKE v. IPSEN
Peter A. BURKE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven J. IPSEN et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Nos. B218286, B221436.
—October 29, 2010

A member of a union filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court, seeking to compel the union to conduct an election of officers and directors and to set aside the union’s recently amended bylaws. The petition alleged violations of the Corporations Code and the union’s original bylaws.  The union opposed the petition on the ground that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not presenting his claims to the local employee relations commission. The trial court concluded plaintiff did not have to exhaust administrative remedies because his claims involved internal union affairs, which the employee relations commission did not have the authority to resolve. The court granted the petition and issued a writ of mandate directing that an election be conducted and declaring the amended bylaws invalid. The union appealed.  The appeals court upheld the trial court finding that the court was the proper tribunal to enforce the union’s original bylaws in a dispute involving internal union affairs.
Corrections and State Police stand to suffer the most harm from the new voting structure. They should challenge it. Really every union member should support a lawsuit to declare these actions illegal and stop a re-vote.
Not every rank-and-file worker is in a position with the time, money, energy, etc to hire counsel and prosecute a much deserved legal action against SEBAC.  So, the best we can do is vote NO if a re-vote is held. This will force SEBAC and the Governor to make a new deal rather than supporting SEBAC’s complete abbdication of union rights to renegade union leaders run wild and the Governor.
If SEBAC thinks it did the right thing by changing the By-Laws, the voting tally to change the By-Laws should be revealed to SEBAC rank and file so we can see who voted and how they voted and know the names of the persons who provided legal advice regarding this By-Law amendment process and the anticipated re-vote.  There needs to be accountability to SEBAC members for the actions taken.  Who made these decisions?  What was their thinking?  Each SEBAC leader involved owes the dues paying members an explanation.

posted by: newview | July 19, 2011  4:11pm

Truth, Justice, Karma….HA!  Was it not you who wrote to me and suggested SEBAC would not be changing the by-laws??  Well guess what??/ Ya like apples???  How ya like them apples? 

I told everyone on these boards how it’s going to play out…change the by-laws…tweek the fluff in the agreement..just a hair ..just enough to call it a new agreement…and vote..simple majority.  Done deal!

People are so nieve to the actions taken by unions.  They will fight to the death to save themselves, even in the face of such questionable conduct.  I’m not going to get into the things I have seen and experienced first hand, because I know the retribution that these people are capable of.

Suffice to say this entity is playing state employees again to the tune of 300K a month in union dues.  That’s the only reason this is happening…and they are selling state employees out.  It’s disgraceful…and they are lying in your face with the new questionaire that’s now floating around about why..what concerns you about the old deal…What do you want to see…..BS…like they really care???  HA!! How about adding insult to injury.  These people know no bounds…none..it’s pathetic.

posted by: Disgusted | July 19, 2011  4:13pm

Yes folks, beware of right-wing conservatives posting, like the one who hacked into Anthony Weiner’s computer.  Oh, wait, he cheated and lied and lied and lied.  Then there was the right-wing conspiracy that labeled Bill Clinter a womanizer many years ago.  Oh, wait, he cheated and lied and lied and lied.  Never mind.

posted by: NOW What? | July 19, 2011  5:14pm

“illogicallylogical” - You said “Maybe if the rank-and-file of all the bargaining units were actually asked their opinion, this issue could have been resolved earlier.  What if the vote was ‘Yes’?  Would the by-laws have been changed?  The answer is ‘no’... “

- I agree with you on both counts. But I am quite confident that the unions’ leadership (and Malloy) realize that they screwed up the “process” BIG time - a pretty good example of “haste makes waste” for sure. I’m also pretty sure that up until now NOBODY thought that we’d find ourselves in the situation that we’re now in, or that State employees would ever be so divided in their positions on things… so naturally the “super-majority” concept made sense, at least up until now. But now it’s NOW clearly no longer a viable way for SEBAC to conduct its business.

But you *also* said “The answer is ‘no’ because Malloy and SEBAC would have succeeding in passing the POS package that they label a ‘concessions package’ that does not help out hard state workers but benefits greedy politicians and SEBAC leaders.” - When *I* look at the total “tax and spend” package - which is what it really is - I see a “package” that doesn’t really benefit the politicians OR SEBAC… I see a package that if it “benefits” ANYONE it benefits the ultra-wealthy. But I nevertheless agree with Malloy that *strategically* speaking now would not be a good time to raise their taxes any higher than he proposed.

posted by: AntonK | July 19, 2011  5:25pm

You’d have to be a drooling moron to vote Yes, now that the Governor has shown his hand regarding layoffs. Add to that the fact that you’d be reversing the recent 2-1/2 % raise, PLUS taking on an additional 3% cut (for a total 5.5% pay reduction), and you’d be silly to vote Yes.

Yes voters from the 1st vote, vote No on the 2nd vote!

posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 19, 2011  5:33pm

GoatBoyPHD

If the CT Mirror is correct there won’t be a revote.

Revotes are optional based on Bargaining Unit. The pact is approved. It will be rubber stamped.

I wasn’t surprised at the attempt to revote or modify the bylaws a little. I’m amazed at the 51% and 8 of 15 proposal and now to hear revotes are optional and it’s ready to be rubber stamped.

So now it’s on Sal? They can revote and hope to get more No votes or just bag it and accept they can’t come up with enough No votes to make a difference and put it into gridlock.

posted by: Puzzled... | July 19, 2011  5:56pm

perturbed - I fully admit that I cut and paste from others’ posts, and I don’t see anything wrong with it. If I agree with what’s been said or if I find someone else’s phraseology, I’ll use it in my posts.

But as far as alternatives to re-voting on the essential parts of the currently rejected deal - no, I see no alternatives given Malloy’s refusal to renegotiate and the legislature’s apparent backing of him on that matter.

posted by: hawkeye | July 19, 2011  7:50pm

aimnegs:  If you voted for Malloy—you are no conservative Republican.  At least you admit that you MADE A MISTAKE!

posted by: interesting | July 19, 2011  8:03pm

AntonK, I agree with you vote NO. Again only if your unit did not approve it will your unit be able to vote again. If your unit voted yes you wont even have a chance to vote NO. “They have set the rules of the game in their favor” even if you voted yes before you cant change your mind on the revote, regardless why.

Hay Hartford stop the bus way to no where & over paying for land for it, UConn med $$, free money for businesses that bring 200 jobs here, etc… etc… waste waste waste.

The man does not care who he hurts he is in the fast track to DC, hes just gotta remember to get there he needs votes….

It took a long time to get into this $$ hole why do we ALL and I mean ALL state taxpayers have to make this go away in two years…here is a thought spread the pain over 4 yrs not 2 and we all would be a little better off..

posted by: newview | July 19, 2011  8:15pm

“Let me state clearly and unequivocally:  I do not and will not support, in any way, any efforts by my fellow SEBAC leaders to change our by-laws.” 

Sal Luciano in a letter to Council 4 members dated July 12, 2011

well…Sal…thanks for standing up, but, I don’t know if it’s too little too late…or what but…I want to know…have they a gag order on you yet?  It would never come out in any gracious manner.  It’s been pretty quiet on that front. 

Did O’Connor and Dorman support this move by SEBAC??  I want to know what these spokespersons really stand for.  In case they didn’t notice, the coalition is crumbling under their feet.  And in fact, the only reason there is any level of consideration for SEBAC at this point, is that State Employees, vile as some would portray, really do care about the condition of their co-workers.  Despite that, I can only imagine there are fewer people willing to vote yes to this altered state the union has bestowed upon its’ members.  This is not good…and can only hope for some legal miracle to pounce on this catastrophe.

posted by: SBurke | July 19, 2011  9:20pm

We may as well use ballots for toilet paper for all the good it does us.

posted by: Disgusted | July 20, 2011  9:28am

Prior to the original vote, a SEBAC rep and another union rep FREELY ADMITTED to me ( both a little too cheerfully ) that our medical insurance would be morphed into a type of Obamacare, but that it would be phased in and eventually the public would be allowed to join.  Then after the vote the official position of the unions was to deny this. They are lying to us all.  Once the door is opened to alter the medical ins there will be no going back.

posted by: Disgusted | July 20, 2011  12:16pm

Prior to the first vote, a SEBAC rep and another union rep freely admitted to me that our health insurance was to be changed to some sort of Obamacare ( my description that they agreed was accurate) , but that it would be phased in and that the public would eventually be able to join.  After the vote, the official union position was to deny such a plan.  They are lying to us all.  Once our health insurance is open to alteration there will be no turning back.

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

Sponsored Messages