The General Assembly is poised today to grant Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's request for additional budget-cutting authority in response to a failed labor concession deal, but his proposal to curb some collective-bargaining rights for state employees faces resistance in the House.
The budget cutting authority will come with strings: The legislature intends to retain the right to review Malloy's additional budget cuts, which would take effect automatically after a review period if lawmakers do not return for a second vote.
Rep. Toni E. Walker, D-New Haven, the co-chair of the Appropriations Committee, said there is a strong consensus for the legislature to retain the ability to shape the budget revisions after a review by her committee.
In an outline given to House Democrats, Malloy's rescission authority would increase from 5 percent to 10 percent of agency budgets, and he could cut municipal aid by 2 percent. The Appropriations Committee would have from July 15 to Aug. 15 to hold hearings on any adjustments.
But the wildcard Malloy introduced Tuesday--legislation that would limit sick days and redefine how pensions are calculated--took leaders and rank-and-file legislators by surprise.
At midday, with the House and Senate Democratic majorities beginning closed-door caucuses, the Senate was preparing its own bill making at least some of the labor changes sought by Malloy, a sign of the resistance in the House.
By voting on the expanded budget authority and the labor changes separately, disagreement between the House and Senate over the labor issues would not jeopardize the budget revisions.
A routine vote over the rules for the special session erupted into a debate over the scope of the session in the House, with Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, sharply questioning Majority Leader J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, over whether collective-bargaining laws would be germane.
Sharkey declined to say.
Outside the House, Cafero later called the proposals to change collective bargaining rules "a sham."
House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, refused to comment in any detail on the governor's labor proposals, which some lawmakers interpreted as an other nudge for the unions to reconsider the concessions. The unions announced Monday they will try to salvage the deal, without saying how.
"We left here believing that was going to take place," Donovan said of the concessions, valued by the administration as worth $1.6 billion over two years. "So we certainly encourage the unions to come to an agreement."
The fiscal year begins July 1, but there is a budget already signed into law, albeit one with a large deficiency. There is time to salvage the concessions, if the unions can figure how to do, before Malloy's plan to balance the budget with 5,500 layoffs fully takes hold.
With notice requirements, most of the layoffs could not occur until late summer, giving the administration and labor a narrow window to avert mass layoffs and other budget cuts.
Labor had a small presence at the state Capitol today. Fewer than a dozen union members wearing green AFSCME t-shirts stood outside the House, then sat in the gallery.
No question how Bethy Guiles-Smith voted
A no-vote by AFSCME Council 4, which represents 15,600 state employees, was pivotal in rejecting the ratification of the labor deal.
Sal Luciano, the executive director of Council 4, said they were present to urge legislators to avoid layoffs. Most of those who came to talk to legislators had voted to ratify the agreement, he said.
Nedra Pierce, an AFSCME member with 4½ years experience at Department of Social Services, said she voted to ratify. She described herself as a single mom with three children in college.
A layoff, she said, would be devastating.
Bethy Guiles-Smith, a member of an AFSCME clerical bargaining unit that voted to ratify the agreement, wore a sign that read, "I voted yes for concessions."
She said she wanted to remind legislators that a majority of her immediate co-workers voted yes.
The legislatures desire to hold final review, if they come back into session is a face saving ploy. They have no intention, and I doubt Malloy would call them back. Given there is a window for the unions to come back with a new deal and have it considered is also face saving for the union "leadership". The problem with that is, at that point everyone who is NOT going to be laidoff will know it, and therefore have no incentive to vote "yes" to concessions.
Having been through a few of these in the private sector,
Read MoreIn my opinion this is nothing but an epic attempt to get Sebac to ratify. It’s all one big effort to ramp up pressure on Sebac and union members.
Whether Sebac amends it’s bylaws and ratifies the deal or they amend the bylaws and revote. The mission by Malloy is to get the Sebac deal ratified.
That, my friends, is what this is all about.
If it is self interest then anyone who retires after 2017 should be wanting an agreement because Malloy looks like he will do his best to neuter collective bargaining after the current sebac expires. Even if the economy improves by then do you think he (or possibly foley) will return the collective bargaining to what it is now? I can't see Malloy coming back for more concessions or he wouldn't have offered the 4 years no layoff clause and if the next governor is republican then(hopefully) the democrats will be back in our corner. Sebac has left us in a
Read MoreMalloy is a democrat and a "fellow state employee".
Two months is an awfully long time in politics. Anything can and will happen.
I have always suspected Malloy will in the end layoff no-one.
You are correct. The people who were supposed to be looking at our best intrest just sold us all down the river. Now the campaign is to get the stewards out there spreading the fear and same bullying tactics that Malloy started. Every legislator better be looking at their careers and think long and hard about what this Governor is doing to the State. Everything he does is rush rush rush and give him absolute power. Why did we vote for you? Stand up and stop his bullying of the house and senate. He's picking on us because he thinks
Read MoreSEBAC hasn't left us in a no win situation. We left ourselves there. The membership voted no, they believed the hype and didn't do the research themselves. The membership didn't think this would happen. They didn't think people would lose their jobs. They took a gamble and this is the result. Granted leadership most certainly botched a few things, especially the healthcare piece, but they shouldnt be strictly to blame.
Actually Mr. Grinch sebac has left us in a no win situation because not only did they come up with these concessions without our input but THEY are the ones who came up with the whole healthcare plan on their own.
That is the main reason the concessions failed and it was their idea.
Why are people complaining about this deal being rushed? Malloy came in with six months to sort out a massive deficit left by the Rell administration. He conducted seventeen public meetings around the state to promote his plan, made adjustments, got the legislature to pass a budget on time, and conducted negotiations with fifteen unions on a basic restructuring of their contract with the state. And from day one he has been very clear about what he wanted to accomplish and what the consequences would be if a deal fell apart.
Many (perhaps most) of the people
Read MoreLong Hohn -he didn't negotiate with 15 unions. He negotiated with sebac which represented 15 unions.
Habs- your recomendation to no voters to "just quit" is stupid. Everyone had the right to vote yes or no depending on what they thought was best, not on what you thought was best.
You are correct Mo Boss in your statements. That was yesterday and this is today. I know that AFSCME went back to the local presidents and asked if they could come up with changes in the plan, especially around the healthcare(including eliminating the value add plan) and if they could do that, should they bring that back to the membership and would it change things? They asked how can we fix this, avoid layoffs and cuts to our rights in a fashion that the membership would agree with. The response was we will take our chances with
Read MoreI'm a state employee who voted "YES". I voted yes because I believe that Governor Malloy was very generous in his offer and SEBAC was gracious in their attempt to speak for the people while negotiating to meet the needs of the State of Connecticut (via Governor Malloy). Job Security for 4 years...HELLO people! Can you get that anywhere else in the United States workplace? For the nay-sayers aka "NO" voters - obviously you don't need your job - hence you don't cherish job security. For that reason my recommendation is to quit your job
Read MoreMr. Grinch I think we agree. At this stage we have Malloy saying take the agreement as it is or I will harm collective bargaining and maybe privatize some agencies. At what point do you just cut your losses? It's not always about winning the fight and principles don't pay the bills.
Donovan is running for U.S. Congress and he wants to surrender his responsibility as Ct. Speaker of the House. This is a constitutional crisis and the Ct.Supreme court needs to step in and prevent it.Donovan just disqualified himself to serve the people. This is tyrany.
Mo Boss- we do agree
Bluff beater- is that fact or rumor?
as union leadership to approve the vote as they promised they would on Friday
as of now they are asking us to change our vote
the answer to that is NO
so I for one will support Wisconsin like chages to make Connecticut a right to work state that legally allows all unions to be open shops
with open shops we will have the option of getging out
the lastest from my union about changing our vote, being I am unintelligant and uniformed
From: LoMonaco, James N. (SUOAF) [LOMONACO@easternct.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 7:20 PM
Subject: Please send to
besides this issue of state employeee, this surrender of power by the democrats needs to be stopped. Next time it could be you, gun control, higher taxes, concentrqation camps etc... call the house dems at 1800-842-8267 and politely urge Speaker Donovan to uphold Connecticut's constitution.This is an outrage!
Oh Habs, you, as so many of others before you just don't get it! I have read pretty much every single post out here and I would say that I've only seen 1 person I think, out of all of the "no" voters, say that they would still vote no, no matter what. Every other "no" voter has time and time again said that they were not opposed to giving back, especially to save jobs, that they were opposed to the healthcare and retirement portions, PERIOD! I'm really sorry that you "believe that that Governor Malloy was very generous in
Read Moremamiejane- I know Jim personally and was at the same meeting he was at. Although his email may have been vauge he was very vocal at that meeting and is very much in support of ratifying the latest vote under the current rules. What AFSCME was looking for was ways and ideas as to what could be changed in the TA so that if it was reworked and brought back to the membership it would be a "yes" TA. They were not simply looking to change it from a no to a yes, nor were they looking
Read MoreI voted no and will vote no again. i will take furloughs pay freeze. Do not touch my medical or Pension. I clear 22,000 a year. I could make that at Mcdonalds. I chose this cause of the benefits. Not for my huge salary. LOL
IRISH33- I'm guessing you're an older employee who is only looking for benefits and looking to take advantage of the system for a few remaining years in your career. If that's the case a no vote really doesnt affect you. On the other hand, if you plan on being an employee for years to come then your no vote possibly gets you laid off in the next few months(no $22k, no benefits) or if you manage to keep your job, after 2017 comes your no vote gets you severely reduced benefits or maybe none at all. So much for
Read MoreGrinch72 is correct....
The only problem is he's looking to legislatively remove stuff from future contracts and make it non negotiable.
As far as 2017 goes, if they make changes now that affect future sebac agreements then you need to hope the legislature or future governor is willing to repeal that legislation. It won't matter if Malloy is still governor or ambassador to turkey the damage will be done if he gets his way now. Also corrections isn't the determining factor in sebac unless a lot from the other unions vote no. They voted no in 09 and afscme was a yes then.
Buh Bye longevity;
(2) For any employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement expiring on or after June 30, 2011, employee longevity payments shall not increase after the expiration date of such agreement and shall be based upon the years of service such employee had on such expiration date. Any employee not receiving payments as of such expiration date shall not be entitled to contractual or statutory longevity payments. Except as provided in this subdivision, longevity payments shall be considered an illegal subject of bargaining and such payments may not be considered as a loss of wages in any interest
Contact your union leadership and tell them to fix the medical so we can pass the T/A and move forward. I voted no and feel terrible for anyone that gets a pink slip. I am willing to pay more for the healthacre that I currently have. Fix the healthcare and the T/A will pass. We have a lot to lose, lets get it done!
I just read the health insurance stuff on inthistogether.org, and I think it sounds UNBELIEVABLY good! What in it could anyone *possibly* think is "bad"??? It's a HELLUVALOT better than mine - or anybody ELSE's that I know, for that matter!
It seems like state employees are a pitiful bunch running around complaining after the concessions vote. If they were a real union then the members they would stick together in unity. Unions have one thing that the employer or state needs and that is the skills and ability to do the job. Since I don't work for the state I was just curious as to what would happen if ALL state employees walked off the job if the state legislature changes collective bargaining.
we have a no strike clause and we are supposed to honor our contract until a new one comes up..
For all you complainers that really don't know what you are talking about read "Irates" comments. The newspapers only talked about 4 years of no layoffs and a couple of minor concessions. How misleading.
1. Elkiminate a negotiated raise of 2.5 % due in July after 2 years of
0-0. How insulting.
2. Then 0-0- again..the maybe 3-3-3
3. Then take 3% from all current employees salaries for TEN years to help pay for retirees healthcare. Most retirees pay nothing so let them start paying 3%.
4. Charge 6% a
Read MoreSomeone figured over 7 yrs it amounts to a .75% raise not even 1% per year. And if anyone thinks in 2 years we will not be back giving that raise back they are crazy.
Someone figured over 7 yrs it amounts to a .75% raise not even 1% per year. And if anyone thinks in 2 years we will not be back giving that raise back they are crazy.
Truth Hurts -a "real union would have said no right at the beginning with losing the promised raise next month. And a real union would never have endorsed this plan especially with Mallot on a spending spree.
You are correct, Secrap is in bed with Malloy. They will stop at nothing to force thier Progressive agenda on the workeres of CT. The YES voters have no clue what is about to happen to them once this is forced through in 30 days. We might as well not even have a union, we had no input on the concessions. Whats the
Read More"If the state does not change its demographic trajectory, it faces a bleak future."
A Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis report, "Recovery Stirring, But Will Connecticut be Too Old to Compete?"
Get the latest headlines right to your mobile
Visit m.ctmirror.org on your mobile device
FOLLOW US ON: 
CT Mirror is now well into its 3rd year. Since our launch on Jan. 25, 2010, we've published more than 4,000 stories and had 3.5 million web visits.
From the start, our goal has been to offer readers information on Connecticut policies and politics - and the personalities behind both - to help residents make the best decisions possible about their lives and those of their families.
PROUD SPONSOR
CT JOBLESS RATE
January 2011: 9.3%
February 2011: 9.2%
March 2011: 9.1%
April 2011: 9.0%
May 2011: 8.9%
June 2011: 8.9%
July 2011: 8.9%
August 2011: 8.8%
September 2011: 8.6%
October 2011: 8.5%
November 2011: 8.3%
December 2011: 8.1%
January 2012: 8.0%
February 2012: 7.8%
March 2012: 7.7%
April 2012: 7.7%
PROUD SPONSOR
Printer-friendly version
Send to a friend