Thousands of non-union workers to receive longevity bonuses

DAS sent out a memo recently to notify those in the MP and MD pay plans of the following:

1. If you ARE NOT eligible for longevity as of September 1, 2011, you will NEVER be eligible, regardless of how long you continue to work for the state.

2. If you ARE eligible as of September 1, 2011, your longevity payment is FROZEN as of that date. The payment will not increase, regardless of your continued service.

3. There was no mention of anyone in the Executive (EX) plans.

This DAS ruling contradicts the language in SEBAC 2011 for the treatment of longevity. SEBAC 2011 eliminates longevity ONLY FOR NEW HIRES. For everyone else, the plan was to be suspended for two years and then resumed. Yes, the state is not obligated to follow any SEBAC agreement for non-union staff, but this is a matter of fairness.

I don't care if you take longevity away from me. It has outlived its value and it should be ended. But treat everyone the same. At a minimum all non-union staff should live under the same rules, especially Executivs who are supposed to set an example for those the lead.

jschmidt,
Rob Simmons wasn't all that wrong. A bit blunt maybe, and politically incorrect, but not wrong. She's an institution that other than 'name value' has gone beyond her usefulness, kinda like Babe Ruth with the Boston Braves...

To Edith and all the other luddites in the legislature. I know you don't care about managers in the State of Connecticut. However, please be aware of the following:

1. Managers have not received a raise during the last three years. This 'shared sacrifice' started under Jodi Rell and will obviously continue under Danny Malloy.

2. In an increasing number of cases, union employees are earning more than the managers who supervise them.

3. A number of managers I have spoken to are frustrated by this situation and have started exploring the option (if such a thing exists) of returning to unionized service. I know in my own case that if I were to return to my last union position before becoming a manager that I would get a pay raise.

4. Because it is nearly impossible to get a vacant manager position filled these days, an increasing number of agencies are finding that their succession plan (if they ever had succession plans) are worthless because there is no one 'waiting in the wings' to take on the role of administration. This will become painfully apparent during the next five to ten years when experiences managers retire and there is no one to replace them.

The administration (governor, legislature) is being shortsighted in its broad-brush attack on managers in general. Are there too many managers in the state? Maybe. But I would also suggest that the reason there are too many managers is that during years past when there were other consolidations of agencies and services within agencies (example: the centralization of business services within the Department of Correction years ago) the state chose to be humane and keep those managers who weren't immediately needed in their current positions, knowing that the need would be developed. This policy is no different than today's policy of avoiding union layoffs during the consolidations that were authorized during the last session.

I know it's open season on managers, and I too am wearing a target, but to Edith and all the luddites in the legislature I ask: Think about what you want to accomplish before you open your mouths, not after. And please don't feign outrage over situations that you likely endorsed years ago but find embarrassing today.

I was laid off from DCF at the end of the August. Before leaving I wrote a email to the commisioner expressing my feelings about the situation and how I felt she handled the situation poorly. It took over 2 weeks to get a response and when I did it wasn't even from her. In the email it said that the state was in FINANCIAL DISTRESS and that was one of the reason's 37 of us social workers were being laid off. Now I read this article and it makes me want to vomit in my mouth. This state is run so poorly. We are made up of people who only want to make more money for themselves then trying to fix the problems that lay in front of us.

Apologize in advance for length of post, but I kind of got on a rant roll... this is just one reason that, after READING the TA I voted 'NO' twice...

Most bargaining units have comparable longevity rates, with 15 year, non supervisory level steps getting between $200 and $250

"Ojakian, who received a $4,800 payment in April, will not lose his in October"
OK, so that covers about what 20 15 year employees (at $250, high end)gave up....

"For example, three top scientists at the state's agricultural experimental station qualified in April for bonuses above $4,100."
3 @ $4100 equals about 50.

"Over 18 non-union staffers in the state auditors' office earned bonuses in excess of $4,000 last time"
Call it $4,000 and that's almost another 300 15 year schmucks....

So here alone we have 22 upper level, connected folks bringing home a total equal to amount given up by 400.

And that's just what's on the surface.

GREAT JOB ON THE VOTE SHEEPLE! More of the massiveness what we're giving up will continue to trickle out, that would have taken little more than a cursory look at the agreement. One example-

Here’s a link to the SEBAC, it’s .pdf so I couldn’t cut/paste important parts here, so I’ll tell you where to look….
http://inthistogetherct.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Revised_SEBAC_201...

1) Page 5. About 2/3 down the page, part B Retiree Health Care, section 2 Healthcare Premiums for Early Retirees. Doesn’t say who is exempted from being a ‘certain early retiree’. I haven’t gotten a solid answer yet from HR, Council 4, or Retirement Division. Normally, and notably absent to me, was the usual disclaimer exempting Hazardous Duty and Disability Retirements from changes. Verbally, was assured that past practice exempts. But no one will commit to writing.

2) in attachments, letter C, page 21. They’re going to be socking most retiring early after Oct. 1. Potentially, as written, with up to 25% of a person’s pension benefit. Haven’t got an answer if it’s a percentage of current premium share or a percentage of the total premium.This is on top of the doubling of early retirement penalty.
So that’s a potential for collecting big money for premiums for 8 months remaining this FY, which I don’t see in what I can read of budget bill. Notwithstanding possibility I missed it, or further action taken by legislature… They had an $80 million surplus for Retiree HC this past year, and probably used same basic projections, so probably safe to double RHC surplus this year.

note- the premium question is sorta kinda answered in last question of attachment G, page 2. If the percentages are replacing the current percentage, which is between 15 & 20 percent depending on plan and family status, many are facing a doubling or in some cases close to tripling of cost as an active employee.
Good way to save money on state’s end- force people to work until full age with sad odds that a fairly good percent will die before then. Also be retiring right about the age Medicare takes over as primary, cutting state's costs.

Keith - Keep up the great work! The workers have known for the longest time that Management is catered too and they do little to earn it! Want some dirt on the daily events of these people who earn so much and do so little? Reach out to the employees and give us a voice!

How would the tax payers feel about knowing there are policies put in place by these management types, in spite of objections by rational staff, requiring dozens of employees be dedicated to tracking inventory worth only $125,000 at one agency alone? Yes a million in salaries is spent annually (not counting the manager who makes $140,000!) on keeping track of $125,000 worth of inventory that will depreciate every year! It is insane! This is duplicated at all agencies! There is a huge backlog of real work that needs to be done! These people would better serve the citizens if they were put on more productive assignments. If one of these items went missing, who cares! They are only worth $1,000 each right now, and half that next year! The savings and productivity is well worth the risk!

So let me get this straight, the state of CT is an economic crisis, 37 DCF workers and 56 state police have lost their jobs to collect unemployment so managers can continue earning inflated salaries and reaping the benefits of twice early bonuses? Where exactly is the shared sacrafice Malloy? So while managers can now afford to take a hell of nice vacation our streets are less safe and needy, impoverished families suffer? Ojakian's $4800 can keep a social worker in the field helping Connecticut's families and children for an entire month. Those millions of dollars in longevity payment can re-employ your frontline workers and put much needed services back in our communities. This is fiscally irresponsible!! Frontline workers do the real work in the field helping empower families to function independently in their communities without further DCF intervention. Police officers keep our communities safe. Removing frontline workers from service, while allowing managers to maintain bonuses is repulsive! Where exactly is the shared sacrafice??
The focus should be getting more workers in the field to help Connecticut's children and families. Malloy and the commissioner should be ashamed of themselves. So Malloy, by redirecting resources to the people who need services and the frontline workers who deliver them, you gave the power to department heads to layoff your frontline workers? You take workers out of the field that are directly working with the public to advocate and empower the less fortunate and turn around and reward managers that arrive late for work, leave early and take 3 hour lunches? Really?! Commissioner Katz promised to cut positions from the top where salaries are inflated and where positions/ offices can be combined. Instead she's cutting social workers who do the real work? How does that make any sense?! Stick to your word! Commissioner Katz if you truly value children and families return your workers to service, caseloads are NOT decreasing, you are over burdening your staff which takes away from quality social work with families. How many children will have to die, how many families will have to suffer before you start to place value on your frontline social workers and the work they do??

Question Are managers getting their longevity payments in October?
Dan Livingston's Response:
"Let me try to clarify this. As you know, in the discussions with the Coalition, we were promised that managers (as a group) would make the same or more significant economic sacrifices as union members did. On the specific issue of longevity, the administration proposed to us that longevity would be frozen forever -- that is that union members would get whatever longevity they currently get with no increases no matter how much their service increased. So a current member with 9 years would never qualify for longevity at all because they are not currently getting it. A member with 11 years would continue getting their current payment (the 10 to 15 year amount), even after 30 years of service.

The Coaltion rejected that proposal as too harsh. The administration eventually accepted our milder version which included giving up a single October payment (in capped units), and the equivalent amount in uncapped units, but which suspended longevity increases for only two years, after which people would resume their longevity growth and get credit for the two years suspension So by 2013, a 9 year worker (who had been getting nothing) would begin receiving their 10 year longevity payments and would eventually mature into the 15, 20 and 25 year payments, etc. We believed this counter was in the long run much better for members.

What the Administration did -- with the approval of the General Assembly -- was impose on managers the harsher freeze proposal which we rejected. In the very short term it is more favorable to managers, since they don't lose any part of their October payments whereas union members with uncapped longevity lose a small part of their October payments. But in the long term, this is a much less favorable arrangement.

Hopefully this clarifies it. If not, let me know."

Dan Livingston

Lets Get Someth...

I think you are forgetting the Courant article that referenced a ratio of 6 managers to every 1 state employee. National average is 12 to 1. Really have a hard time digesting longevity pay considering CT has twice the amount of managers in the state than the national average. Let's bring the ratio down to 6 to 1 and then management can earn/have their longevity. Otherwise they can leave state employment and go back to the private sector if they see fit. Good luck finding a job.