Malloy seeking legislation to reduce employee benefits

The biggest longevity payoffs are to non unionized state employees lmao.....

Will Roy give his 4800 longevity pay back.

Malloy is a bully and a fool

GOTTA LOVE THOSE UNION FRIENDLY DEMOCRATS. YES THE UNIONS AND THE PEOPLE VOTING FOR HIM SURE GOT FOOLED!!! but we will all suffer with higher taxes and more spend spend spend.

Get rid of longevitity. who cares. we don't get thousands, he'll hurt all the big wigs in that deal. Overtime should have never been in the calculation either. Always abused never regulated. Blame the managers for letting it get out of control. The reason they did not stop it was because they had their hand in it.

I can't believe Cafero thinks that the time to cut taxes is when the State FAILS to get a money-saving agreement from the unions!

What a nut-job! He can't really be THAT crazy, can he?

No wonder the Democrats in Connecticut keep winning elections - the "bar" is set SO low...

Well what do all you No voters have to say now? It looks like the republicans & the democrats will be working together to start taking away certain collective bargaining rights and reducing certain benefits. This is only the beginning. Thanks to all the no voters all the tier2a employees(those whoe retire after 06/30/2017) will be getting screwed bigtime. Please read the article again! To all hazardous duty no more overtime in the pension calculations.(after 06/30/2017) They want to reduce sicktime also. This will probably be the beginning of the end for the state of CT public employees unions. Next target will be binding arbitration and retirees health care. All because a bunch of ignorant selfish workers spreading propaganda & lies(sustinet etc etc). fact: Malloy , most state elected officials, & a large majority of ct voters supported unions. That has all changed now thanks to the No voters. Many of the strong union supporters now feel that they have been stabbed in the back(and rightly so). Please remember these are the people that for the most part determine our paychecks & benefits(biting the hand that feeds you!).We(the state employees union) have now pissed off 90% of CT.Any support of any union state employees concerns&or issue is now a kiss of death! Many of you still think this is the nineties and the enenmy is John Rowland &or Lowell Weicker. Reality check: that was over 15 years ago! This is a whole different ball game ! Ct. and many other states are on the verge of bankruptcy. It is the worst economy in over 75 years. Ther are no jobs out there. (not even low pay entry level) As the saying goes We are are own worst enemy(sad but true) The only hope now is if a deal can somehow be worked out between The unions & the state. I hope and pray that there will be a positive outcome. Still think Malloy is bluffing? I would rather not findout.

"Maui-Wowy" - I've got news for you, eliminating OT from pension calculations will NOT be enough to get the DOC units to change their minds on the SEBAC agreement.

Not ONE SINGLE CO is going to be laid off via Malloy's new budget - all 1,000 or so position losses in DOC are through attrition! Unbelievable!

THAT'S why I say it's in ALL State employees' best interest to INSIST to Malloy and the legislature that they stick to a TRUE hard-and-fast hiring freeze. When you're TRULY down to rock-bottom staffing levels, they can no longer hold the threat of layoffs over your head and have any real credibility!

This is what happens when you RUSH to create a budget that isn't solid to begin with. Build a house on a shaky foundation and what happens? Guess Malloy doesn't know anything about construction.

Dear SteveHC,

I take it you have a Ph.D. in economics?

ANYTHING that puts money in peoples pockets will create jobs. That includes cutting taxes.

NYC is a wealthy city despite the taxes since it is a center of commerce and money pours into the city from around the world. NYC is not a wealthy city because of its high taxes!

Connecticut is NOT the center of commerce of the United States, although it is becoming the center of taxation for the United States. Money spent in the private sector is used more efficiently and creates more jobs than money spent in the public sector, which is wasteful (due in part to unions) and produces nothing.

SteveHC

Layoffs are not the issue it is the Pension. Don't you get that? Not just for DOC but the other lower paid unions that can get overtime who voted this down.

"Dave Z." - ONE of the things you said - "...money pours into the city from around the world" - IS the single-most important generator of jobs and a healthy economy. NOT lowering taxes.

Virtually EVERY state that has lowered overall taxation levels has seen their local economy CONTINUE to get WORSE, *NOT* better. Because they're focusing on the WRONG THINGS.

If CT wants to improve its statewide economy it's GOT to find ways to bring money INTO the state's economy - from *OUTSIDE *of CT. Then it has to get that money "swirling" within the state a bit, then "send some out" - keeping a good "cash flow" (so to speak) within and through the state.

Taxes have VERY little to do with any of it. I'm not saying they have NOTHING to do with it, just that they are one of the *smallest* factors. Unless of course you're talking about small businesses and PROPERTY taxes' effects on them. But as far as income and sales taxes - nope.

"Jeepman" - There are ALREADY about 1,000 EMPTY positions - at LEAST -in DOC still "on the books." It's a well-documented and reported fact. Most people have NO idea exactly HOW much the State plays games with its positions! It's like a "shell game." And Moises knows this.

Only in the State does a "layoff" NOT necessarily mean that somebody actually gets laid off LOL. In the State, "layoffs" means "position reductions." So if you ALREADY have 1,000 unoccupied positions "on the books" within an agency, and the governor then says that that agency will have its allocated positions "cut" by 1,000, that means nobody actually employed by that agency actually loses their job.

It's unbelievable. But it attests to the importance of a hard-and-fast HIRING freeze to State employees' REAL job security.

The people trying to make hayout of this are disgusting. State employees are ready to make concessions, just no these concessions. Malloy is bluffing, like the animals that huff and puff to expand their body size to try to intimidate opponents. Malloy is the worst kind of egomaniac politician. He is huffing and puffing and expanding his reach. He is far from a rattle snake that gives an entirely different message. Layoofs are attrition, no other possible way to actually shut down prisons and release the thugs. i know the outcome but you people are going through the drama for no other reason that i can think of except that you like the drama. Here is what is going to happen. pink slips will go out, probably more then needs to but that is to get the results they want on the next vote. Secret negotiations will occur between the no voting unions. Mysteriously the vbhc will be gone and the same plan as today will be available, but with higher co pays for dr visits and pharmacy medications. a new vote will occur and this time it will al happen for every union the same day and it will pass by a high percentage. cut to the chase people because this is what will happen. everything between then is just posturing and face saving.

And if the pension changes don't tale effect until 2017 why does it need to be Addresses tomorrow? Don't they have enough to do in the special session? They have SIX years to enact changes. This is either Malloy being angry or is geared to make us want a revote.

What a joke. The Governor’s proposal contains a contingency for SEBAC to still approve the concession deal it already rejected.

SEBAC needs to honor the results of the vote rejecting the deal. The voting rules in place for passage of changes to the SEBAC deal were well known before bargaining on the proposed SEBAC 2011 began. Any changes to the SEBAC contract required 14 unions in favor and 80 percent of union votes calculated using an electoral college type system with AFSCME weighted about 33%. Our negotiator, Dan Livingston, is a lawyer and was very familiar with this requirement as were the other few individuals privy to the negotiations. No effort was made to change the voting process or contract re-opening requirements before these negotiations began or before this concession package was presented to members.
SEBAC unveiled the concession package. To educate SEBAC members about the deal, it held numerous meetings, posted informational fact sheets and video clips on the union websites and YouTube for over a month.
Union members asked many questions and carried on a big dialogue of their own that included blogging on internet news sites and facebook.
A SEBAC vote was held and the deal was rejected. The deal failed to gain support of 14 unions; only 11 supported it. It also failed to gain 80% of the electoral college-style support, gaining only about 55%. The largest union, AFSCME, comprising about 33% of all SEBAC members rejected the deal as did the fourth largest union, comprising another 10% of all members.

Despite the clear rejection of this concession deal under the rules in effect at the time of the vote, SEBAC leaders are now trying to tamper with the legitimate voting outcome by engineering some type of “creative” attempt “to do everything we can to reach a different outcome.”
We are dealing now with issues of fundamental fairness, rule of law, integrity of the voting process and the duty to represent members within the scope of authority provided in the union rules. On June 27th, the 15 union presidents were supposed to show up and vote as their respective unions voted on the SEBAC deal. If the concession deal passed, these leaders without question would have done their duty and accepted the deal. As the deal was rejected, the leaders should have voted to reject the deal reflecting their unions’ votes. Although most of the SEBAC leaders and union presidents may have wanted the deal to pass, they need put aside those biases, reconvene and vote how each of their unions voted on the proposed concession deal, Yes or No, and reject the deal.
Members who voted No have legitimate reasons for doing so. The SEBAC leaders and union representatives cannot disregard their duty to represent the No voters voices and only represent the Yes voters. If anything, the voting requirement requires the union leaders keep the burden on the Yes voters to get enough votes in support of the proposal to change a SEBAC contract in 2011 that is still valid and enforceable until 2017. Union leaders trying to facilitate the re-opening and changing of the SEBAC contract contrary to past intent to make it difficult to do so seems like it may present legal and ethical challenges that could get SEBAC leaders sued and maybe appearing before grievance panels (who knows maybe even arrested depending on the facts) if they are stupid enough to try pull off a crazy stunt like not honoring the outcome of the vote.

The SEBAC leaders and union presidents ambiguous suggestions that they may in 30 days take some creative actions to pass the deal that failed under the rules in place at the time of the SEBAC members’ vote will destroy any members’ trust in the unions for a long time. Their will be chaos in and among the various unions and SEBAC. Legal actions will follow.

If I were one of the 15 leaders who is supposed to vote I would seek legal advice from some one other than Dan Livingston before I took any more action besides casting the vote I was supposed to cast on June 27. If I was Dan Livingston, I would pick up a copy of the Rules of Professional Conduct and reacquaint myself with its many rules such as duty to communicate with clients, duty to disclose potential conflicts of interest and obtain client waiver, duty of loyalty to client, etc. Also, all the union leaders should take a look at the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. You can’t take our dues and then make deals behind closed doors without our consultation, try to coerce us to vote for it, and then try to use bizarre undemocratic and unfair slimy tricks to get it through after SEBAC members rejected it under voting rules. All we need is Tony Soprano shaking the SEBAC leaders down to make the concession deal go through and we would have a perfect HBO movie.

Time to Do The Right Thing. Union leaders must reconvene immediately and cast votes reflecting the voting outcome in their unions and reject the deal.

If the value add healthcare was off the table, along with the $350 deductible and you simply had to pay an extra $1200 toward their existing healthcare plan do you think things would be different? If you voted no because you think it was sustinet or something else, would you now vote yes if those pieces were off the table?

Jeepman and your ilk, you fall right into their hands; divide and conquer. You blame the no voters when all they were trying to do was protect what they already have by contract. Malloy tells us he's our friend then tries to extort us. You tell me the difference between a mobster who comes into a business and tells the owner "you need to pay me for protection or something bad might happen." or Malloy's "give me your money and benefits for protection against layoffs or something bad might happen." Yet you blame the workers that stood up to the bully. You are a misguided fool. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe, even if there is risk.

"bswans" - EXACTLY. Which is why when Malloy and the legislature enact legislation cutting *current* employees' and/or retirees' pension benefits, there's likely to be some VERY long, protracted legal battle(s) over it - which is exactly what's going on in Wisconsin, Rhode Island and other states.

Part of the issue revolves around contract law; another aspect of it is whether or not pension benefits are legally considered to be "property" and thus subject to property law. It's very complicated, differs from one state to the next... AND has not been yet fully established or resolved through case law in ANY state (at least not as far as I know).

- And that's just the TIP of the pension iceberg, because there's even LARGER "economic guerilla warfare" going on all over the place, and government employees' pension money is the "spoils of war" to be grabbed by the victors.

"sickofit" - Yes, you're right. The Connecticut Republicans will say (and do) just about ANYTHING if they think it's to their political and PR advantage. And the Democrats are not much better. Connecticut NEEDS a third political party that represents the MIDDLE CLASS and middle-of-the-road economic and social policies.

Concerned: A re-vote would destroy the Union's credibility and make it seem crooked. Big mistake. Take the beating and move on. Craft a new agreement with input from rank and file members. 43% of membership voted no, this is quite a considerable number, the vote was 9% from even the standard 2/3 vote that many organizations including the State legislature for important votes. Almost all of the yes votes were motivated by FEAR. Is this how you want things decided, by fearful voters. In fact, the 80% & 2 of 15 Unions rule worked just the way it was designed. So that emotional and scared people could not vote away long term benefits because of short term panic and threats. People will come back from layoffs, always have, the benefits are lost for good.

go ahead governor malloy make my day

Patriot No Voter

voting No was even better than I thought, we even get entertainment value out of this!

they need to charge admission to listen to him, it's actually too hiliarous

SteveHC: Of course they will, ye of little faith. The economy is cyclical like the weather. I am sure that people thought the economy would never come back after the Great Depression and the 2 world wars, but it did and this recession is not as bad as either of them.

Reducing the amount of sick time earned happens to be an interesting proposal. At the agency, for which I toil at, I would say that the average amount of sick time banked is about 10 percent. This would mean that employees would either have to show up at work more often, or cheat more often.

And he's only been in office 6 months. Lots more to come!

Divide and conquer - that’s it in part. There is more to it than that though. Malloy seems to have a socialist tendency, and that is a recurring theme in his way of doing things. The way he keeps hammering at state employees for instance, and the continued insistence of ramming through this extravagant budget with complete disregard for reality. One of the basic tenets of the socialism is called the Big Lie. A quote from a socialist doctrine written decades ago says this of that idea -

" in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

A psychological profile of the author of that doctrine says this –

“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it”

This doctrine is part of history, and it is best to study that history well so that we may not repeat the errors made in the past. Malloy is using these tactics against the people of Connecticut, not just against the unions. He is vilifying the state employees as they are the group most likely to cause him to be exposed as the fraud he is. Now that the general public is convinced that state employees are as a whole lazy, overpaid, selfish and unintelligent, mostly an impudent lot who dared to defy Malloy, it won’t be hard for him to convince most of them that taking personal control of the state and doing what he pleases to get rid of those upstarts is a good thing. He is making sure he is constantly on TV keeping the publics ire focused on state employees, meanwhile he is pushing his budget through with all its ridiculousness without notice or complaint from the media or the public in general. Slight of hand some might call it, or misdirection. He is counting on the infighting, the name calling, the division between opposing viewpoints, and is feeding that in order to get what he wants and feed his enormous ego.
There is no real deficit, not if you were to remove the unneeded projects that would cost the state billions, things such as the $900 million dollar hospital upgrade, the magic bus and train to nowhere. Are these things necessary? Are they really even needed? Malloys budget is larger than ever and it will bring this state down. The people on both side of this argument need to wake up and see what is really happening so as to stop it before things get past the point of no return. Cutting state jobs is hardly the answer. 5400 more unemployed in a system that can’t afford to pay out unemployment checks now, with near 10% unemployment rate in this state. You think MVD is slow ? What will happen when they are operating on a staff reduced by 20%. What will happen to the agricultural industry in this state when there is nobody to man the Research Station? How will the West Hartford soccer moms get to the mall during a December snowstorm if there is nobody to clear the roads? What about calls for help that go unanswered because that service has been cut by 17%? What will happen to all the state parks if there is not enough people left in DEP to keep them open? That’s the way to a better economy? The budget needs to be cut where the unreasonable and unneeded spending is. If the people on both sides of this pointless argument would pool their energy and direct it where it would do the most good, this state would have a much better future ahead of it.

"nobody" and "bunny06" - You guys give politicians like Malloy AND Foley *WAY* too much credit!

Jeep - you are quite wrong – Tier II and Tier IIa share the same benefit formula – the only difference is that Tier IIa members pay contributions and Tier II is non-contributory. Look at the numbers - assume there are four State employees –a Tier I, a Tier II, a Tier IIA and a “hazardous duty” members – all are 56 years old, have 26 years of service and an average high three salary of $60,000.

If they retire the day before the proposed Agreement passed, the Tier I member will have a monthly retirement benefit of $2,600, the Tier II - $1,540, the Tier IIA - $1,540 and the HD member $3,100 per month. The day the Agreement became effective the Tier I member will have a monthly benefit of $2,600, the Tier II - $1,355, the Tier IIA - $1,355 and the HD member $3,100 per month. The Tier II and IIA employee loses about $200 a month in retirement benefits – the Tier I and HD remain the same. In addition, the Tier II and IIA members will have to pay 8% of their retiree health insurance cost until they reach 60 under this scenario: the Tier I and HD will not have to pay this amount.

It seems strange that the burden of this “shared” sacrifice is placed solely among the Tiers that already have a reduced benefit and perhaps explain why some members are not in favor of the Agreement.
If you still dispute the math – the Retirement website has a benefit calculator – go play with some numbers – it will show you that the benefit is the same. And if you use the numbers given in the Propsoed Agreement - it will show you the effect on "early retirement" for Tier II and IIA.

Perhaps we should look into what has been spent, at the Governors mansion since he took office?

There have been a least a couple of posts that have asked whether or not there is any truth to the rumor that SEBAC is planning to revise its voting bylaws so that they can subsequently to back and put the Agreement throuth....As I have said from the start of this process, this strategy was discussed by the unions going into the voting process in the event that more than 50% but less than 80% voted Yes..I heard this directly from a ranking union official..I have to admit that I discounted it until the SEBAC Agreement didn't pass...it is now clear that that is exactly what is going to happen..just look at what's evolved already - the Unions *abstained* from casting final votes for the agreement. During the summer they will be revising the by-laws and putting the agreement through as a "Yes"..By the start of September layoffs will be rescinded and state workers will be back at work....nonetheless, as I warned you, the damage long term will be done and most certainly the entire collective bargaining process that has evolved over the past 40+ years will be substantially weakened and health and pension benefits cut...I retired in 09 after 40+ years of state service and its sickening to personally see that the work I did over the years go down the drain..I know many of these players at all levels and I've said from day 1, if the agreement went down that everyone would suffer greatly in the end...the no vote becomes a yes vote but collective bargaining goes down....

mamiejane - unless I'm mistaken, and it wouldn't be the first time, that Bill never went anywhere and it died...

Jeepman: I think I might change my name to sickofyou! Talk about an emotional rant with no information... and whining... Read you post over again and you can hear the whine. I didn't whine about a thing, I voted no and stated my reasons. And Malloy is absolutely a bully and a liar. I was at the Union convention this year and he said no less than 4 times in his speech "If you want to know where I stand, I STAND WITH YOU!" He asked for and was given our help then he stabbed us in the back. When someone says to you to give him money or I will punish you, that is the definition of extortion. He is a two-faced, lying, bully.

One thing i find odd is why the people retired now cannot pay something for their HC i know they retired with free HC but we really cannot afford it anymore. Everything else is changing we cannot afford it.

First, Mark Pazniokas and Keith M. Phaneuf deserve some credit for actually being accurate in their reporting. (If only all alternative news outlets could be as careful.)

"Coalition leaders said they would review labor bylaws in hopes of finding an option to reconsider the deal, which received support from 57 percent of the workers who cast ballots."

There! That wasn't so hard, was it? Might the true support for the agreement be close to 57%? Sure. But the fact is, they only counted 21,415 "yes" votes, and as far as I can figure, that's less than half the membership. So no, SEBAC, 57% of your members didn't vote in favor of your little Frankenstein agreement. Add another distortion to the pile.

But here's the beautiful part of that same quote:

"Coalition leaders said they would review labor bylaws in hopes of finding an option to reconsider the deal..."

Are you laughing yet? First there was the "outside forces" joke, then there was the "information & belief" complaint to the AG's office, now this. Those SEBAC guys really missed their calling -- they could have made some real money in a stand-up routine.

Review the bylaws?? What the heck were they so busy with that they couldn't catch up on those over their morning coffee? Have you seen them? They're two whole pages long -- and only one of those pages covers anything applicable!

OK, now that you're chuckling, here's the real funny part. It looks like it will be easy for SEBAC to pass the agreement. Just provide written notice of a proposed amendment (that was last Monday), wait 30 days (sound familiar?), and then with a 67% majority of the unions (which they have) they simply amend Paragraph 10 to require a simple majority, cast their votes in accordance with their respective membership votes, and VOILA! It passes.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

That's our union dues, hard at work.

--perturbed

If you take early retirement and you are in tier II you have to pay a 7% penalty every single year. No tier II would vote for that. I say change the age and the penalty for new people hired its not fair you had agreed to those terms years ago and they change them. If i were going to retire in a year or 2 and if have to work 3 more years or pay 7% i would be ticked off.

Number 9 66% never gonna happen AFSME ruled TA AFSME will rule in amending will not come to 66% TA fails again.

Jeepman,
MALLOY IS SEEKING TO NOT ONLY STRIP THE UNIONS OF THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS FOR HEALTHCARE AND PENSION BUT ALSO SICK TIME, ETC...

Wow. I have been reading these forums since this all started and boy have we all gotten out of hand.

Everyone gets to vote as they believe. PERIOD. Welcome to America folks. Advance citizenship. For the record I voted YES. Not because I felt it was such a "great deal" but I would not willingly put myself out of work. That said.

Ending longevity sounds like a great idea and one that I have heard alot of the older rank and file support. Finally management would have to give up something real without a gimmick. As for the overtime calculation, it really isn't fair to DOC and State Police to eliminate it completely. A possible suggestion would be to weigh it over the length of state service. This would eliminate the padding it creates in a pension calculation.

As for SEBAC, too bad they didn't do a better job and what a crappy place to be stuck at now. Since everyone is so up in arms about the health care perhaps they should get some real documentation together (ie like we would see at open enrollment) so people can see what it is all about. Perhaps the better suggestion is to remove Value Added and just up the bi-weekly cost. Why not put that idea to a vote???

As for the pension, SEBAC did a really bad job of explaining the buy out to rank and file. Yesterday I heard a state employee saying it would cost him an extra 75 a pay period to buy out of the 63 rule. Based on the calculations providing by my union rep and confirmed this man would have had to be making 300K a year. Apparently no one in his union made sure he understood the max months in the calculation was 36.

The whole thing is so ridiculous and a lot of people are going to pay a very high price for this.

I believe that no one wants it this way but somewhere along the way the "compromise" has left the building.

TO JEEPMANS POST EARILER DURING THE DAY. Malloy claimed to state he was all for binding arbitration and did not want to lay off. But the first thing he did was order agencies to cut. Next he makes a statement that he wants to take away many of the unions rights.

Back in the day, the employer had no say in what a union wanted in a contract as that is what a union is for. TO FIGHT FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES. I am gonna have faith in the unions and hope that they want to prove that connecticuts unions are strong and fight for what is allready in our contracts. However, new hires should not get the same benes. Keep it simple. GOING FORWARD.... Let the employees have what they have. However, i do not feel that employees should be able to bank 200 vacation days. that is just plain wrong. they must use them or lose them otherwise, when one gets laid off, they can get paid for those days... It does not cost any money to give your employees sick days or vacation. Not for the state..

As long as SEBAC is finally looking at their own rules, they might want to review article 10, the part about reopening an agreement. The rules for reopening seem to be the same as the rules for closing, 80% and no more than one union dissenting. This is the per capita vote used for this agreement. As the same language is used in both paragraphs, doesn't it follow that the voting procedure should be the same? Should there not have been a per capita vote to reopen this agreement instead of a closed door meeting?

In addition, the agreement says voting is to be done according to SEBAC rules. Since the negotiations were concluded before the move to change the rules, it must be presumed that the rules for ratification are what was in effect at that time. Its not reasonably possible to change the rules after the vote has started.

I know that people who are retired do not have a vote but i guess the legislature could change that they may change other things like our sick time & pensions. Big changes are coming no matter what way it goes. With the price of healthcare if they had to pay $100 a month that is cheap my parents pay almost $700 a month a few hundred is a bargain.

perturbed is right about Sebac changing the bylaws and then ratifying the agreement.

Truth Justice, I think perturbed is correct about amending the bylaws themselves. That is what Sebac can do as specified in section 9. The exact wording in section 9 is below.

9. AMENDMENT: These by-laws may be amended provided all member units have been given written notice of the proposed amendments at least 30 days prior to the meeting at which the proposed amendments are voted on. Amendment for Article 6 or of this provision of this Article shall require unanimous consent of all representatives in good standing; amendment of any other article shall follow the process of Article 7 and shall require a two-thirds majority.

Has there been any conversations about the cuts that can be made to the legislature's salary, health care and pension? How can everyone be looking at unionized state employee's pay and benefits yet overlook the legislative branch of government...are they willing to share the sacrifice as well?

No surprise the mess the union is in. Voting no was a big mistake. The ones that voted no on the agreement well I'm sure Malloy's bargain isn't gonna be any better. And I'm sure if you had the choice old agreement or the new one that will be voted in today. Old agreement would get a vote of over 80% no problem.

EG, you're making my point for me.

The contract is designed NOT TO BE CONTINUALLY RE-OPENED. That's the whole point!

The super majority rule ensures that the contract can only be re-opened in cases where it benefits **ALL** bargaining units.

"EG, you're making my point for me"

So, you're saying that contracts should be re-opened when the MINORITY approves it????

You're point....is the problem, then.

No, EG... I'm saying that the contract shouldn't be re-opened AT ALL unless an overwhelming majority of union members agree to do so.

And it is a good thing that this provision was put into the contract! Currently it is the only thing preventing the corrupt SEBAC leadership and panicking union members from giving away the keys to the castle!

youre forgetting, the deal did not pass....so sick time and meeting the needs of the healthcare are moot

"No, EG... I'm saying that the contract shouldn't be re-opened AT ALL unless an overwhelming majority of union members agree to do so."

the 57% of voters voting "yes" comprise 11 unions.

11 Unions opposed to 4 is an overwhelming number. Almost a 3 to 1 ratio.

Don't take this wrong.

I find it hard to believe that something as simple as going to a doctor once per year for a physical and getting your teeth cleaned twice a year has some people actually voting no.

If you're out of a job through a layoff or your current place of employment gets privatized then getting mandatory root canal's five time a year will look like fun.

No = Layoff & Privatization (i.e. No Job).
Yes = Job security.

King Malloy is either going to get his way or he will begin the end of collective bargaining in ct.
The same people who say he's bluffing are the same ones that said he was bluffing on layoffs.
The only ones who will make out alright are the ones who retire before the current sebac expires(of which I am one).
Even though it looks like I may make it out more or less intact I don't think this fight is worth what will be lost in the end.
We're better off taking our lumps and returning to fight another day. The whole healthcare boils down to this: if Obama care gets repealed the sustinet idea will probably go away because the purpose for it is the fed reimbursement. If Obamacare isn't repealed then state employees will be on it in 2017 anyway.

DaveZ, go back to your job at walmart and don't worry about state workers!

Reply to bluffbeater: Bluff beater I have no clue what you are referring to? To say that I sent a letter to a union president then went to press is a damn lie! I have no idea what you are talking about! You better make good on a correction of your false statement! You are again lying and now attacking me! To all Bluffbeater is a LIAR and is spreading propaganda and is a scab!!! this is defamation of character. You act more liken inmate than a C/O! YOU ARE THE COWARD!!!