Malloy takes big gamble on unprecedented labor savings

Keith,

"Pension fund contributions, which average 39 percent of workers' salaries according to the Office of Fiscal Analysis..."

This is a huge percentage, it that correct? I have heard civil servants brag that they pay their own pensions (i.e. 4 or 6%), so how could the taxpayer have a cost 6 to 9 times greater than the employee contribution?

Go to ctsunlight.org to look at pensions. I have a neighbor who is no more than 55 who retired from DEP as a ranger with a pension of 60K a year- that is a million dollar annuity if he lives to 85 and he would have had to save 30% of his pre-tax pay to put that away. If he contribute 5% then there is the additional 25% we are on the hook for. Look at school systems- in Bridgeport there are dozen of teachers making 90K and up- that will give them a 60K pension or a million dollar annuity. They live high on hog (SUV, Disney vacations) so are not saving - but we must do it for them?

OK Keith, since you are taking questions,: Where would that billion dollars a year in empployee concessions come from? Isn't it true that contracts and concessions for most unions are in place through the end of the NEXT fiscal year?

Shared pain? WHAT?

I am confused. All residents of the State of CT will contribute to the $1.5 billion in tax increases...I get that part and it seems balanced and fair. But, the remaining $2 billion will be absorbed by a mere 50,000 State employees??? Has sharing changed that much since I was a kid? It used to mean an even distribution or your mother took the whole bag of chips and you got nothing for being greedy. How is it that the bulk of the burden is being put on a group of people whos only "crime" was accepting a job with the State of CT? Twenty years ago nobody wanted a State job, the pay was low, there were no financial bonuses at years end when the State had a surplus, and you would never expect to get rich. Now, with the collapse of the financial system and the recession, every one wants to be a Statee. Could someone tell me why State employees should be held responsible for the recession, the State deficit, and 75% of the solution. Shared my ASS!

This state understands how bad Teacher are wasting taxpayer money, maybe we should be calling out all the Bad over paid DCF worker. We as a state have more than a 1000 children in state custody, which never should have been remove from their families but we still gave a kidnapped child back to her kidnapper. We waste million of tax payer money because our DCF is to Narcissist to change and understand that 20 year of federal mandate is a waste of our money

We are so broken!

I have been a state manager for a number of years after a long career in the private sector. My decision to change to public sector employment was driven by the desire to end my professional life on a positive note by working to help serve my fellow citizens. Being a public servant is a honorable thing and I enjoy encounters every day with like-minded employees, both management and the rank-and-file. My decision to move to the state required a "shared sacrifice" within my family because the salary cut was dramatic. Yes, I did factor in the state's employee retiree benefit package, but in all candor, I could have easily worked with my financial planner to craft a similar annuity benefit on my own while in the private sector. I came here because the work of serving the people is important.

As a state employee, I am tired of "Management vs. Labor" mantra. We are public servants, period. The notion of "the iron boot of management on the dedicated neck of labor" is a thing of the past. I would say that 80% - 90% of the state workers that I encounter on a daily basis are hard working and dedicated. This ratio isn't very much different than what I experienced in the private sector. So as a state worker, it's been difficult these past years to feel the disdain that seems to be directed toward state employees in response to a fiscal condition that we didn't initiate. Yes, I have a problem with the limitations imposed by collective bargaining, but considering the fact that our livelihood is in the hands of politicians, SEBAC is probably a necessary evil.

I have also read a great deal about "bonuses" in the responses here in the Mirror. Just so you know, these "bonuses" are pretty laughable. The last performance-based bonus that I received was a whopping $350.00. At my level in the private sector, performance based bonuses are usually 20% to as much as 100% of your annual salary. I don't mean to be caviler because I realize that for many workers that same $350.00 would mean a great deal. Truth be told, I'd rather see my "bonus" go to the staff who need it the most.

Here are the real issues as I see them:

1. Poor performing employees cannot be easily terminated. Yes, you can try to "performance manage" someone, but you'll only try that once. Between the grievance process and the sometime defensive move of making false HR accusations against the manager, it's simply not worth the trouble. As a result that state suffers under the financial overhead of a need to retain cross-section of managers and rank-and-file who are poor performers, yet cannot be removed. Look at the math behind that issue. Let's assume that we have 53,000 state employees with an average compensation (salary and fringe) of $75,000. Now let's assume a conservative view that 10% of the state workforce are are chronic under-performers and should be discharged but are not. The annual cost to the state for those individuals is just short of $400 million dollars. Let me say that again...$400 MILLION!! Sadly, the "system" protects these workers and the backlash that occurs when a manager starts an employee on the path toward progressive discipline can be so severe that most managers will never, ever try it again.

2. The state's employee headcount is driven by the state's program staffing needs. Therefore, if you want to trim the state's workforce, go back and look for programs that are not meeting their stated program goals. Cut these programs and the staff that were approved as part of that program. One of my observations about state government is that once a "program" is approved, it continues no matter what. Because of the political nature of government, cancelling a program because it failed to meet its intended objectives just doesn't happen. I find that because of politics, the "appearance of progress" is more important than actually making progress.

3. Privatize where it makes sense and in a way that retains jobs in the state. I know....gasp! Guess what, state government doesn't owe me or anyone else a job. Government is about serving the taxpayers. If the state can deliver a service for less cost through reasonable and selective privatization, then it would be fiscally irresponsible for the state not to pursue this option. This is one place where I part ways with our state's unions. If the state's unions cannot provide a competitive alternative to privatization, then you'll eventually become irrelevant. In fact, if you look at the state's Contracting Standards Review Board, it is pretty apparent that that program's underlying intent is safeguarding state jobs. We have no right to a job! What we do have is a responsibility to make sure that we can deliver services to the state in the most cost effective way possible.

4. Politics and good business management cannot co-exist in the same space at the same time. The cause of our fiscal crisis rests squarely with the decisions made by our political representatives. In some cases, these individuals do not possess the experience or professional credentials to make informed decision. The decisions made by our constitutional officers, representatives and even many of our appointed officials are viewed first through the lens of politics. "What does this mean to me?" It's an anathema to public service. In his book "The Purpose Driven Life" Rick Warren starts by saying "It's not about you." Perhaps that is something that needs to be engraved at the entrance to the state capital and the LOB?

My one final caution is that while it's politically expedient take issue with the compensation and benefits of state employees, there is a consequence to all of this. After all of the worker-bashing is done, how attractive do you think state employment will be to anyone who has options? After all, would YOU want to work for the state at this moment in time? What do you think the long-term impact will be to the quality of state services and state government when we are no longer able to attract high-quality workers? Over the next four years, the state is estimated to lose over 30% of its workforce to retirement. Who is going to replace them? I used to be proud to tell people that I am a state worker. Quite frankly, the feeling now is one of shame and embarrassment.

....and how was your day?

Hmmm...I studied economics in school, and never heard that "you just don't raise taxes in a recession". It sounds reasonable, but sadly it just isn't true. You need to look at the situation and the choices that the economy has.

Right now the state has a huge problem with 1/5 of its budget being a deficit. So, the choices are to cut spending, raise taxes, or a combination. Gov Malloy choose combination. with 1/2 being spending cuts and 1/2 being taxes. Let's think about what cutting spending only (and not raising taxes) would mean. We would have massive lay offs at the state level-from tax workers to DMV to the courts to the colleges-and also massive lay offs in towns and cities across the state--police officers, firemen, teachers. I mean right now we are seeing layoffs at both the state level and the community level. I am talking about massive lay offs of perhaps 1/2 or more of employees. And, frankly, the deficit is $3.5B, so I don't know if that would be enough. (You also need to consider the costs to the state of paying unemployment compensation). And, of course, with so much unemployment, people would reduce their spending in various shops and stores, and they would then lay off people.

In a recession you want people to spend money to boost employment at all those shops--so, taxes aren't a great idea, unless you consider the alternative...If you must raise taxes, the best thing to do is raise them on the rich, because they don't spend all their money, they save it. However, the Gov does not want to drive the rich out of the state and into the waiting arms of Mass and NY and NJ. He wants to keept he top rate lower than those states - and he has (just). He has raised the income taxes on everyone--and the more money you have, the higher your rate. And we have the nuisance taxes...haircuts, cigarettes, manicures. I don't think anyone will stop getting a haircut because there is now a tax on it. The state is flat broke and owes more money per person than any other state in the union (at least it was more per person last time I looked).

So, the thing to do in a recession is help people to spend money--hence the federal stimulus plan. This boosts jobs. Sadly, the state can't afford a stimulus plan. - but we can be honest with ourselves and face the situation. The Gov has decided to stop the appauling practice of borrowing for operating costs (which is like a head of household putting his weekly food bill, gas bill, clothes, and other expenses on the credit card for years and expecting his kids to pay it after he dies.) Right now, with this budget, the Gov has been honest with the people of CT-he has stopped the lies and the tricks and the pandering of Rowland and Rell. We aren't starting to pay down that huge hole they put us in, but at least we have stopped digging.

CT has a problem with job growth. The transportation infrastructure has not had the money spent on it that it should have and this has dramatically affected job growth. (Previous governors pandered to the uninformed crowds and didn't spend the money that needed to be spent.) Also, the education in the state has not produced workers with the type of skills that employers want. Again, the money wasn't spent, but also those making decisions in education made poor ones. If we get the job growth we need, we can start paying down the huge debt we have.

By the way, the income tax that Weicker imposed was absolutely the right thing to do. It took great courage...doing the right thing often does take great courage, eh?

(I realize that the above is not what is popular right now...the truth wasn't popular in 1937 either, and look what the popular policies did to us back then.)