Lawmakers send labor a stern warning with bargaining rights bill

You do not mind giving up something if they actually cut spending they are spending more and raises taxes to pay for it. Shared sacrifice where is it. Malloy is giving his buddies jobs to do these projects. You have no money where is the money coming from for all these projects.

jschmidt you are correct, but for any reasonable person that knows Malloy needs to cut these irresponsible projects it now feels like banging your head against the wall. Malloy and the Dems will not even consider cutting any of this garbage. Prague, Donovan and Bye are Dem sheep. All sense of any reasoning is gone, and insanity rules the day.

Isn't that what Christie and Walker did and got crucified for .. Didn't our union even send people to Wisconsin on our dues money to protest, storm the Capitol and cause a ruckus? why is there no outrage ffrom our own union leadership..no signs, marches, accusations...could it possibly be because our governor is a Democrat? naw, can't be.....could it?

They keep talking about this new Value Based Healthcare from what i read on the internet not many who have it like it one lady said she got a call saying she needed to get a procedure done she called they could not take her by the deadline she got socked with a big fine.
How much is the co-pay, what does it cover, who are the drs. how can you agree to something that seems invisible. People are saying i will vote for the contract and opt out of this for 1,550 but who knows next year the fee to opt out may be 3,000 there are no details. Its crazy to vote for something you know nothing about. The state cannot seem to run anything right now they want to run or ruin our healthcare.

I think it's going to be a lot harder to do that than they think. Once thousands of workers go in tomorrow they are going to be earning more per hour per the contract in effect. I think they will find a large and somewhat persuasive legal challenge awaiting them because of due process.

1) Those thousands of employees have a vested property right in those wages earned at a higher rate, they cannot just be given away after the fact back to the state without consent and/or some judicial review.

2) Not to mention the tax implications of earning more money, realizing that gain on paper, never getting to use the additional money, then getting taxed on it?

3) The TA would need to be completely re-written. It has specific dates that trigger certain events. Under TA, no employee is supposed to get any increase for 2011-12 fiscal year, however, that will not be the case starting tomorrow morning.

I do not see an easy way to salvage this TA at all.

Early retirement? take a hike. fix the healthcare! screw all you people that are ready to retire, you allready got yours. Fix the healthacre and pass sebac, don't listen to anyone who is getting ready to retire, they have their own agenda and don't give a dam about anyone but theirselves!

The same concession deal will not pass on a re-vote. All of this highly orchestrated, phony, transparent, insulting, nonsense by Malloy, the legislature and SEBAC is just aggravating members. It is causing some to rethink their Yes vote. The Nos will not change. No voters already knew and accepted the risks associated with voting No. Almost every clown in the Senate and House who plays a part in threatening to or actually harming state employee compensation will have a very tough time getting re-elected. Union members will not fund their re-election campaigns, but will oppose their re-election by supporting their opponents.

SEBAC reps can't change the voting rules and approve the deal themselves. According to Article 10(b), SEBAC cannot amend the voting rules regarding reopening the SEBAC Agreement unless (1) 4/5ths of the SEBAC reps vote in favor of changing the voting rules for reopening the current agreement and (2) not more than one bargaining agent votes against. In other words, the same super-majority threshold in Article 10 that was not met when the proposed 2011 SEBAC deal failed also applies to any attempt to revise Article 10 to lower the requirements for reopening the current agreement to accept the 2011 deal. If any 2 union reps vote No, the proposed rule change fails. It also fails if it is not passed by 80% of members' union weighted votes. So, if AFSCME votes no, it fails bc it is 33% of SEBAC. SEBAC cannot use Article 9 to change the Article 10 voting rules by a 2/3 majority vote. Article 10(b) provides the only method by which the Article 10 can be amended. For an amendment of Article 10 to pass, the reps of 3 of the 4 unions that voted No would have to vote Yes.

The only way out of this where everyone gets what they wants is to re-negotiate a deal that includes wage freezes for some years, many furlough days for some years, giving up longevity payments for some years, increased contributions and co-pays for the current health care plan, no changes to health care and retirement plans, and create new pay scales and retirement and health care plans for all new hires starting after this deal is accepted.

It seems to me that Section 9 is the mechanism that can be used to amend the bylaws.

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.

Article 10(b), talks about amending the voting rules regarding reopening of the SEBAC Agreement.

Sebac isn't talking about reopening the agreement. They are talking about amending the bylaws themselves, which article 9 allows them to do with a two thirds majority.

Of course I could be completely wrong on this.

@jschmidt

Just for the record, UBS is moving to New York because it's having trouble recruiting workers who would rather live in New York City. It isn't about taxes because they got a sweetheart deal from tax credits in the 90s.

You can say high taxes are a threat to job creation, but you're not entitled to create a narrative based on false statements.

actually dave it'll be "welcome to 2017" since the most damaging changes wouldn't occur til then.

The only answer is to CUT back spending in CT. The tax payers can not afford the massive taxation and spending. STOP spending!! Both parties show no regard for the tax payer...shameful.

There is a point beyond which the tax payers CAN NOT Afford to carry the burden of our states over speding. Both parties are at fault!

Many union members will continue to vote no based on the principals. WE CAN NOT AFFORD the spending in the current budget.

The sky is not falling. I am so sorry to see the postings of people who are being ruled by fear.

Most union contracts are in place for at least another year. The MOST IMPORTANT THING (and the thing they want most), our pensions and health care, cannot be touched until 2017--that's six year's from now! Why would the Governor raise the issues of changing sick days and collective bargaining issues during the summer of 2011? What would be the point? What is the urgency? Even if they were to pass (doubtful, but possible), they would not take effect until years down the road. Our legislature recently approved five sick days for even low level service employees in private enterprises. They are not going to take away every benefit that we have.

If members are going to be kowtowed into bending to the will of the administration every time they ask, truly, what is the point of being unionized anyway?

Remember, the decisions you make now may affect your retirement age and the amount of your pension Don't be impulsive. You may not think so now, but when you are at retirement age, those extra years will make a big difference to you.

Lastly, if the state strips away collective bargaining, cuts way back on benefits, etc., as they have threatened, they will get exactly what they deserve, a substandard workforce. If you take away the benefits and the pension, the draw for many of the intelligent, hard-working people who choose public sector work for those reasons would no longer be there. It would be very short-sighted on the part of the state and they would be reaping what they sow.

As someone with less than ten years in, I am a potential layoff candidate. However, I'd like to know that I will have a job worth coming back to.

These are certainly stressful times. Hang in there.

Connie, I think all the State employee union contracts end by June 2012 (a few expired last night). Therefore the sick time accrual could have changed when each unions contract expires.

Here is a clarifying point than some people miss. I know many have taken issue with the busway and UCONN Health Center re-build and I understand their concern (especially on the busway). But those are bonded capital expenditures, other than some small interest payments in the next two fiscal years, have little impact on the current budget hole. Therefore, if those two projects were cancelled, the State would be in almost the same budget mess we are in today. Some people seem to be under the impression that if those projects were cancelled, there would be a much lesser need for concessions. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Dear Richsobi:

Regarding your post in which you say, for instance that the $900M UConn plan is a "bonded capital expediture" with a "small interest payment each year." Your comment leads me to believe that you do not understand what a $900M bond is. It in fact is a DEBT, which would have to be paid back over, say 30 years (I do not know the exact time or interest rate.) Assuming the interest rate is at least 3%, which would make it attractive in the current bond market, and also considering Moody's latest negative outlook on Connecticut, the debt service on this bond would be in excess of $27M per year, hardly a "small interest payment." It is exactly this kind of thinking that got us in the mess that we are in.

I agree but would go further. End longevity altogether for everyone. My longevity is under $700 twice a year but some get upwards of $10,000 twice a year. WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS. We also cannot afford to think we as state employees "deserve" to be so better positioned than the private sector. Do those who voted NO to the SEBAC TA watch the news ??? I wonder how they watch the news and ignore the harsh realities of governments today. Our federal govt is broke, debt service is consuming our national GDP at an alarming rate and the current administration won't make the austerity cuts - they want to raise taxes. I say NO to raising the debt limit. Enough is enough. Here in Connecticut, we have double the taxes on gasoline and starting today, taxation of everything under the sun because pet projects could not be eliminated. That busway is a fraud and a complete waste of money. While I use UConn health staff as my healthcare providers, we cannot afford to carry a losing proposition in this economy and I'd hope that my doc would open a practice elsewhere. Someone in this blog wrote that they'd vote YES if there was a retirement incentive. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF INSANITY. WE HAVE NO MONEY for incentives or much of anything else. And to those who whine about "I can't ever retire" or "I refuse to accept less for my retirement", whose fault is that ? Did you live high on the hog and never save ? Did you charge on credit cards heedless of the fact that you could not pay the bills ? Did you decide to spend spend spend regardless of your ability to pay ? That's the mess that caused the mortgage crisis and led to this recession. If you want to be part of the solution, MAKE SOME SACRIFICES. There is one reason and one reason only that I voted YES to the SEBAC Agreement: Anyone who's been laid off would have taken the deal in a heartbeat. So I consider the NO voters to be selfish selfish selfish and thinking of no one but what THEY want. Consider that if you are among those to be laid off, and I might be among that group despite almost 22 yrs in state service ... that your fate was decided by coworkers who threw you under the bus. I cannot believe the selfishness of the NO voters. I also think that most of them are progressive liberals who yell loudly about the absolute necessity for social welfare, government largesse and hand-outs, etc. but when it comes to making PERSONAL sacrifice so that ALL can do better, well, then they run for the hills and it's each man for himself. What does "UNION" mean to them ? Certainly not solidarity for the betterment of all. It's only UNION to those folks when it suits their greed. Stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility. You are embarrassing the rest of us who don't want to be laid off, who would make just about any concession to stay employed. You should be ashamed of yourselves. This will not end well and the responsibility will be all yours.

Dave Z.
I did not say there was no cost to the State. At 3% Interest in year 1 is $27 million in your example and at 30 years, assuming an equal amortization rate through the life of thh loan, equals $27 million in principale Therefore a $900 million debt would be about $57 million a year to start if it was indeed a full year.

My point is that people who want to say that if the State did not do the busway or UCONN health center projects, employees would not have to given up $700 million in concessions is not at all correct and on point.

I believe the UCONN project has merit if it brings more jobs and improves their medical school and research facilities. Nothing has been done in 35 years, an infrastructure upgrade is needed.

"Some people seem to be under the impression that if those projects were cancelled, there would be a much lesser need for concessions. Unfortunately, that is not the case."

No, some people just cant stand the audacity of the governor to ask people for givebacks when these UNNECESSARY projects had hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at them. We are in a fiscal crisis; sometimes you have to put future project on hold and recover. Other states do this!!!!

And about UCONN "creating jobs"....I call BS. not in the next 2 years it won't. And theres no guarantee that an out of state contractor(s) won't get the job. So CT will be paying hundreds of millions of dollars to go get spent in some other state. Nice.

Malloy not only looks like, but he also seems to think and act like a pig-headed individual. He tried to bully the 45,000 count state work force and Newton's law came into effect (push back with an equal and opposite force as a reaction)immediately. He has foreclosed some options as if they are sacrosanct. For example, ERIP, which could have eased the problem. This clearly shows that he is a tactless person.

Malloy should change his mind set and use a pragmatist (and not a pedantic) as his teacher and advisor. After all, Malloy is still a baby in politics.