Without new offer, unions ask Malloy to reopen talks

I'm afraid that there is absolutely no confidence in the Union at this time, especially in light of today's revelation that they had lied to us continually about the inclusion of State Workers being included in Sustinet. Over and over they swore it wasn't so, now Kevin Rennie revealed a letter from Sal Luciano to Malloy asking him to support Sustinet and in no uncertain terms states "State employees will be included in Sustinet." It's time for Sebac leadership to step down. They and the SEIU have had a national Democrat/Socialist agenda from the beginning. Ct. employees and dues payers have been nothing but a cash cow for them. They take our money and never ask for our input as to what should be done with it. We need new leadership and a new agreement with the State, not just a reworded one as the Governator would like. Sal Luciano, Bob Rinker, Dan Livingston and Patrice Petersen should all resign or there will not be an agreement.

o.k. union leaders

u want to hear from the rank and file

same health care, same vote, same result

u make the call

respectfully
mamiejane

Union Leaders are looking for a face saving way out. I don’t think the Gov is going to participate in prolonging this fiasco any longer than necessary. Today’s News Stories claim that the SustiNet misinformation rumors originated from Union Leader Sal Luciano and not The Yankee Institute. The claim is also that Union Leaders were aware of Luciano’s letter to the Gov for some time now. It is hard to believe that the Union Leadership didn’t know about this while they were initiating the law suit against the Yankee Institute for sabotaging the concession package. Luciano has lost all credibility and the rest have some serious explaining to do to their rank and file members. What a Soap Opera. You just can’t make this stuff up.

Either stick to the present position and lose 7,500 thru layoffs or move with ERIP as a new measure and save those 7,500 jobs. Something must happen to alter the present stalemate within the next 15 days.

IT IS NOT SUSTINET! Our healthcare plan is not sustinet. We were assured by both union and governors office that if legislation tries to put us through sustinet, he will veto it.

Those who keep bringing up Sal Luciano's letter need to understand that that was OLD business. However, I am guessing that most of you want to see the state crumble???

READ THE AGREEMENT FROM SEBAC, ASK NANCY WYMAN TO FORWARD THE LETTER TO YOU THAT SHE SENT OUT REGARDING SUSTINET AND UNION NEGOTIATIONS.

If sustinet were ever to come up, the state could be sued at this point. OK, so go on with the next issue on to why EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE VOTED NO.....

I would like to thank the unions for trying to keep us working! Go Connecticut!

I see now that the 6 o'clock hour is gone the Rowland/Marotti crowd has taken to a different set of airwaves with their party line...the good ole Luciano "smoking gun". Problem is the law formally establishing Sustinet was not passed. I'm not going to defend the union leadership, but Luciano's letter clearly was asking for the Governor's support for passage...and it did not reach that goal. So quit beating a dead horse in order to justify your self-serving goals. This is/is not about Sal Luciano as it is about the thousands of other responsible state employees who could lose their jobs...due to Sal Luciano and his ilk as well as to those who voted to reject the concessions for their own self-serving reasons. Also, I think Cafero and McKinney ought to get their act together and decide which do they really, really want - villify state employees or concern about state employees losing their jobs in this economy. Can't have it both ways guys! One week you sympathize with them and the other week you blame them for "holding the state hostage". When will you seriously become part of the solution and stop being part of the problem?

Ok folks - It is totally beyond comprehension that the Sustinet myth is still out there among active state employees...Yes it was alive during the first 4 months of the year when there was what was to ultimately be a FAILED attempt to expand the state's cadillac health plan and offer it to other parties....IT DIED FOLKS! GET OVER IT!! I'ts been dead for two months now!! SHAME on the unions for not making that point crystal clear in the educational period leading up to the vote...don't let the unions failure to clearly answer your questions be the cause for a possible no vote should you be given a second change to vote on some sort of an alternative package this summer..Obviously there are other elements in the old, perhaps another "clarified" package that might justify consideration of a no vote and if thats the case, so be it. If would be tragic however if you blew a second chance by still believing in the Sustinet myth...Again, Sustinet died when the relevant bill failed in Spring after Luciano's vote....I am soo glad I got out after 40+ years of this stuff in 2009...

Boy what a mess. Hopefully there is a way out of this.

Actually Malloy wanted structural change for savings in the future. Why not a tier III? that would give him what he wants. He would just have to wait a bit longer. Worst case-only affect non vested under 5 years. They still have plenty of time to adjust as opposed to the changes the way they were with the failed concessions.

B Huckabee, where did you hear that sal luciano was the one creating the sustinet rumor??? I really want to read this. However, if it does not come from a reliable source, it is not worth listening to. Not being rude, i just want it to come from a reliable reporting agencyy.
:)

Not Sustinent? Really, then explain this.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/Content/ActsEffective0711.asp

Legislation Effective July 1, 2011*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUSTINET PLAN.
Public Act No. 09-148 (See Sec. 13-15)
Summary
House Bill No. 6600

Sec. 9. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2009) (a) The board of directors may develop recommendations that ensure that on and after July 1, 2012, nonstate public employers are offered the benefits of the SustiNet Plan. The board of directors may develop recommendations that permit the Comptroller to offer the benefits of the SustiNet Plan to state employees, retirees and their dependents. No changes in health care benefits shall be implemented with regard to plans administered under the provisions of subsection (a) of section 5-259 of the general statutes unless such changes are negotiated and agreed to by the state and the coalition committee established pursuant to subsection (f) of section 5-278 of the general statutes, through the collective bargaining process.

If its not Sustinent, then why lay the foundation?

Anyone else feel like the union is a joke, they are cowards, we need new faces in our union, get rid off all union faces and put people there that will fight and use our dues the way they should be used.

@Bob in Glastonbury -- Sorry, Bob. The myth of the debunked myth has now been debunked.

http://www.dailyructions.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SustiNet-Letter-...

The negotiations were all but concluded by May 17. There were still SustiNet rallies going on as late as April 27. The governor's support for the remnants of the SustiNet bill were part of the SEBAC negotiators' motivations throughout. The "pooling" bills passed the house and senate AFTER the agreement was signed.

Could you please explain how my suspicions outlined here are not justified? (Just click and be patient to let the page load to the post.)

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/12909/malloy-unions-clarify-concession-dea...

Please be as specific as possible.

Thanks,
--perturbed

It's time to address another myth that has been discussed herein as well as in response to other related articles..that is that managers have traditionally have not made sacrifices in step with those of the unions...I retired in '09 as a state manager (MP pay plan). Prior to my time in state service I was belonged to a union..I was actively involved in the establishment of the collective bargaining process in the 70s..Been through it all..good times and bad times...one thing for sure, during the years I was a manager, AT BEST, I got generally whatever P-5 (A&R) got..if they got nothing, I got nothing...If they experienced layoffs, management got hit - the exception begin when Rowland left managers alone because we gave back whereas some unions did not...you can choose to believe whatever you wish but the plain, simple fact of it all is that because management is not unionized, we were an easy target and many times we got NOTHING when the unions DID SEE SALARY INCREASES, etc...Finally, management will get hit just as hard as the unions will in the event of layoffs..it will be a matter of record! There are plenty of things for union members to be angered about, but complaining that management is immune to salary freezes, etc. is just a myth...I readily agree that in some agencies, there are too many managers but I also have seen first hand, for 40+ years that the same can be said for the rank and file...one big gripe of mine over the years was that as a manager, my fate was determined by the unions..

Furlough days?????

I am a state employee and I have yet been able to figure how furlough days save $, yet people keep bringinging them up. I work in a state run healthcare type of facility that runs for 24 hours, and every single time I took a furlough day, someone else had to cover it with over time, and a sometimes these people even had to get paid time and a half, for the furlough day that i took. I work for DDS and DDS like DOC, and sometimes DHMAS, and sometimes even DOT, and the Troopers have to run for 24 hours. All of these agencies have to have a required number of staff on duty at all times, meaning that if someone takes a furlough day then someone else will have to work in their place.For people who work in a office somewhere where they might be able to work with a reduced amount of staff then furlough days might be okay, but for a lot of other state employees they make no sense at all, and they will save no $ at all.

We need to wake up, all of you that want a new deal but don't want to give up anything make me laugh. You don't want to budge on healthcare or the pension and you want early retirement, are you serious? There has to be some give and take, but people close to retirement just want to take. Too many greedy selfish people, thats why we need to change the by laws from 80% to 66% only then will we have a chance of getting anything passed.

Jackie - I spent many years interacting with the state legislature on numerous bills..been there, done that...I understand it all...Sustinet is dead for any and all purposes of a SEBAC agreement..the grand irony of it all is that if SEBAC was passed, active state employees would have had the SAME health benefits they have had for many years till 2022..NO BENEFITS WOULD HAVE CHANGED...not that it is voted down, things could very well be quite different for active employees after 2017. Sadly, I think that collective bargaining will be quite different, if it even exists at all (at least as far as health/pension benefits are concerned) as a result of what has happened. I know these players only too well and I certainly understand the inner workings of the political process..There may be several other reasons why folks would want to vote no but this Sustinet nonsense is NOT one of them...

Bob - Sustinet is not dead. They tabled the main Sustinet bill, HB 6305, for this year prior to the SEBAC vote to appease unions members. But, a second bill HB 6308, Public Act 11-58, did pass. Section 14 of this Act provides - Sec. 14. (NEW) (Effective from passage) (a) There is established within the office of the Lieutenant Governor, the SustiNet Health Care Cabinet for the purpose of advising the Governor and the Office of Health Reform and Innovation on the matters set forth in subsection (c) of this section. This concession deal is a step or two in the direction toward of eventually using the state workers health care plan to implement the universal health care and other Sustinet-like ideas contained in HB 6305 and 6308. For state workers to believe Sustinet is dead, they would have to be completely naive, acting on blind faith, and ignoring recent history of the Guv's, Lt Guv's and several SEBAC reps' ties to Sustinet and other like-minded orgs supporting universal health care as well as recent pro-Sustinet-for-state-workers statements made by these players like the one in Luciano's letter. It's the old camel's nose in the tent game. State workers won't let this camel's nose into their tent.
Also, asking workers to agree to change their retirement age and benefits after they have worked over 10 years and vested (or several decades and are near retirement) is a deal breaker too.

To BobOfGlastonbury: What agreements are guaranteed? As I've been saying all along, if the concessions of '11 pass, then within 3 years- 6months, a governor will be threatening more layoffs, ushering in the concessions of '15. Then there will be another concession, or two, from '17 to '22. The state is now addicted to concessions, as a way of funding the budget. If you were to add up the value and compounding accumulation concessions, it helps to fund more of the state budget, than the lottery and casinos, combined. If the state needs to free up money, call for a concession. I would like to thank you, Editor Michael Regan, for allowing us this space, while there is 100% censorship at the SEBAC site.

yes, the media and blogs now work for the dark side. There is a battle, but at the end of the day, the Governor and sebac know the membership is informed . Their only option is to construct a deal with no hidden agenda.I have said all along there will be new talks, but malloy will need to save face before he "tighten's the very large belt"

All of you people that are so upset about Sustinet need to tell me why. Are you just afraid of universal health care? Would you rather that your money goes to a for-profit insurance company rather than a non-profit government plan? I know that Sustinet is dead but what if it wasnt - what is the big deal???

Here’s the thing: either SustiNet exists to preserve policy discrimination and give public workers a better policy than private workers or it exists to merge and streamline policy types into a more egalitarian health care system for all.

I’m a cynic who believes the egalitarian thing is more FUD from Democrats. Sustinet exists to preserve Medicaid and the Cadillac policies state and muni employees get at the expense of private industry taxpayers. That’s the Democrats I know!

Luciano sees SustiNet for what it should be (but isn’t): SustiNet should be a leveling of policies, payments, and benefits. One policy to heal them all. A new age of equality in Medical Care! A real universal system.

The difference between subsidized private workers policies, Medicaid, and a state workers policy? Morally it should be none! Zero difference.

This is Luciano’s fear: moralists will take over SustiNet instead of Democrats.

Bwaah Haaah Haaah. The cynic in me says no. Private workers will get the inferior policies as planned and Medicaid and state workers will continue getting a superior policy.

If you compare the out-of-pocket expenses between a state worker earning $40,000, a private worker on the subsidized policy earning the same, and a Medicaid recipient it becomes obvious just how loaded the system is against the private workers getting a subsidy but mandated to purchase. Coverage is great–just don’t use it. You can’t afford to.

Luciano’s fears are unjustified. The Democrats in politics have no such egalitarian motives. They will continue offering public sector workers and state subsistence bneficiaries ‘Gold’ policies that are paid for on the backs of private industry workers.

Here's the risks with SustiNet: Once the policies are all on a Massachsusetts style electronic exchange the public will have visibility into Medicaid and state plans compared to the public choices for plans. It will be obvious to anyone that Medicaid and the State Plans are superior and funded on the backs of private sector workers including those recieving premium subsidies for an inferior product to Mediciad or Public Sector Policies.

Does all hell breaks loose? Depends if a moralist makes it a platform item out of egalitarian care.

Wake me when its over. It changes by the day.

Mo Boss, I never wrote that I agree with Malloy and I realize that the T/A wouldn't have passed with a 2/3 majority, but I believe if they tweak the healthcare it will pass with a 2/3 majority. Don't get me wrong I voted no on the T/A, but if they fix the healthcare I'll vote yes. They need to repair the healthcare in a way that people will drop the sustinet drama and we can move forward, but I believe once sustinet is no longer an issue people with an agemda will find something else in the agreement to go after.

Union concessions still need to total the "claimed" $1.6 billion over two years. Healthcare savings were estimated at $187 million in the TA.

Here are a few things they may try to re-jiggle healthcare:

Raising employees insurance premium share to 20% (from 14%) saves only about $50 million annually, that is about an additional $80 per month for my family Oxford plan pre-tax.

Make penalty for non-admitted ER visits even more costly - could save $7-10 million (from earlier proposals);

Much higher drug co-pays $10/$40/$50 - gets about $25 million;

Establish a medical deductible - per family member - $350 gets about $30 million;

To me that $110 million in savings above is much more troublesome than the Value Added Plan in the TA, that was estimated at a $103 million of savings.

What may occur is hit everyone with the increased costs and then rebate those that are part of the Value Added Plan.

. Is to raise the premiums by some $