Summary and Signed Framework of Agreement for Cost Savings and Job Security

by Larry Dorman on May 17th

(updated May 19th)

State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) leadership has signed a framework for an agreement with the Malloy Administration, which will be followed over a short period of time with briefings to members, a formal tentative agreement, and a membership ratification vote.

The focus now is on the exact elements of the framework (linked below, along with the signed agreement) and how it fits into the broader long-term struggle to protect the rights of public and private sector workers.

While we sought a fair agreement with the Malloy Administration, public employees have been a backbone of the much broader fights in the real war on all workers – the war that has seen real income and benefits for all workers, public and private, continue to decline while Wall Street financiers and big corporations have seen their incomes grow beyond measure.  We know we do not stand alone as we fight to protect not just public service jobs and the services they provide, but to stem the anti-worker tide funded by billionaires like the Koch brothers that is an attack on the livelihoods of all working families, public and private.  Whether in Wisconsin, Indiana, New Jersey, or Ohio, what masquerades as an attack on public sector workers is in reality an attack on the fundamental right to be heard of all working families.

As part of our fight, we have joined and supported organizations that have fought for a tax structure to provide the revenue needed not just to balance the budget, but to fix schools and bridges, stabilize communities, reduce unfair property taxes, and expand and rebuild our economy. Our collaborative efforts helped provide the space for Governor Malloy to raise taxes on multi-millionaires, although not nearly as much as he should have. That’s why we must continue our struggle to rebuild Connecticut and create an economy that works for all working people.

Absent an agreement with the administration, there would be no state budget. That would mean thousands of layoffs – and not just the nearly 5,000 state public service workers whose jobs were initially threatened – but many thousands more as “Plan B” failed. Additionally, tens of thousands more jobs would be lost in the private sector as massive state layoffs lead to a stalled economy. That alone, beyond the effects of draconian cuts to vital services and municipal aid, would have resulted in a Connecticut that “none of us would recognize.”  We would not be recommending any agreement that didn’t provide short- and long-term stability for public workers and public services, and a real opportunity to be part of the solution for all working families.

This is the context in which leaders of the unions in SEBAC on May 13, 2011 reached agreement on a framework for cost savings and job security with Governor Malloy’s representatives.

To learn more about SEBAC’s campaign for a better budget and a livable state with great public services visit www.InThisTogetherCT.org.

368 Responses to “Summary and Signed Framework of Agreement for Cost Savings and Job Security”

  1. Just say no! Says:

    Why extend an agreement that has been gutted? I say leave it alone until 2017, things will turn around.

    The proposed concessions we will never get back. In fact, the jobs we lose we will get back.

    Vote no!

  2. r u kidding me Says:

    disease management of diabetese and high blood pressure? so in your management plan if you are overweight , smoke, drink, higher cholesterol you also have to pay more. This is criminal and discriminatory. These 2 dieses effect Blcks at 3 times the rate of no blacks. i will be filing a lawsuit the moment you guys cheat the real vote. this is absurd

  3. hotpot Says:

    VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Tier1sceptic Says:

    Hotspot-Vote no based on what? Support your post with some facts.

  5. Angry Says:

    Tier 2 just got screwed.
    VOTE NO

  6. TierIIunderthebus Says:

    TIER II VOTE NO!! Talk about preserving benies for the Tier I’s and thowing us under the bus. Current hazards also run away unscathed and management will too.

    You are taking away my Tier II option to retire at 55 so NO, NO, NO!! I would agree to everything in this plan if you hadn’t touched the early 55 option for long time employees. I would have had 31 years and been done and this leaves me stuck working for 41 years….HELL NO!!

  7. Gerald Says:

    Vote Yes!! This is a very fair deal for all State Employees.

  8. willbejobless Says:

    The pharmacy plan will send Ct money out of state with the mandatory mail order. Many Ct jobs will be lost due to local pharmacies closing their doors by being locked out of this program. Vote NO to the medical plan portion of this agreement!!! Keep your right to patronize the pharmacy of your choosing. You choose your doctor, keep your right to choose your pharmacist!!

  9. annie Says:

    Vote No!!!

  10. Barb Says:

    Thank you for your very hard work.

  11. state worker Says:

    This deal is not even close to what we thought, meaning, it’s not a deal breaker for me. I will be voting yes and I think we should all be. Please tell me what is so terrible about it that it would make you vote no and have a huge majority of people lose their jobs…what does that fix? What if that person was you? I say yes.

  12. RedCisc Says:

    I’m inclined to vote no for 2 reasons: 1) I see a lot of “deadwood” among state workers, especially managers and the part-time positions that they create for themselves, their friends and retirees, these do need to go. I’d like to see who exactly do the lay-off notices effect. Is there 10% “waste” in the system – probably. Will Unions recognize that – no; that’s their income (dues), 2) a deal is a deal! We keep hearing the word “deal” every time the state gets in financial trouble, but they aren’t deals. They’re a game in which the goal line keeps getting moved. What next? We know what happens next – the State Pension Fund has been raided by previous administrations and is now empty. How is that going to get replenished? Watch out taxpayers!!! The State needs to create revenue from new, stable, defined sources, not alcohol or marijuana sales.

  13. Kim Says:

    Has anyone considered State employees like my husband whose last “Step” increase for 17 years of service was delayed for 16 months and is now delayed another 2 years!!! He will have to retire without his contractually guaranteed increase in pay. This will cost us $12,000 a year before he retires, and $6,000 a year when he actually does retire. This means he won’t actually get to “Retire”. He will have to work a full-time job to make up for the pay that was taken from him. Is this how the Unions thank a man who has sacrificed his Health and Safety for the State of CT??? Has anyone thought about these employees who only had 3-4 years left???

    I hope everyone votes “NO” on this new contract. If the Govenor and his Staff want to take a pay cut as well to set an example for the rest of the State Employees, let them. Does anyone see that happening? I think not. Even if he did, Govenor Malloy is already a millionaire, so I doubt he has any idea what his attack on the middle class and the Unions will really do to the State’s economy.

    We have our State taxes increased .5%, but the couples who make over a million a year only have it raised .2%??!! It is a proven fact that when the weathy get tax breaks, they put it their pockets. They DO NOT create jobs. If that was the case, CT would not have a 9.1% unemployment rate.

    How much more does the Middle Class have to sacrifice while the rich keep getting richer and our so-called middle class continues to fade? The United States will end up in a Caste Society, with the ultra-wealthy at the top, and everyone else at the bottom. Don’t be fooled by double-talk, this is how the wealthy want it. This is our future…

  14. annie Says:

    Vote NO!!!!

  15. Inallfairness Says:

    I think the Governor is trying to hard to be like Trump – a BULLY! Vote no!!

  16. lifewasgood Says:

    I do understand the quick reaction to vote. Never give up anything we’ve earned. Check out other retirement plans. Oh wait, there aren’t any. They are all 401’s and self investing retirement plans that rely on SS to subsidize. SEBAC 5 extension until 2022 is worth it’s weight in gold. There are gi

  17. RHONDA Says:

    I AM NOT VOTING YES UNTIL I SEE WHAT THE HEALTH PLAN LOOKS LIKE. I WANT TO SEE THE COVERAGES!

  18. NoDeal Says:

    I agree with Vote No!!!!!!!!! This is a lousy deal!

  19. UCPEA member Says:

    I urge you all to vote no and this is why. I apologize if this message is a bit long and may seem obvious to some but keep in mind that not everyone is aware of how corrupt the political system actually is. Labor unions in this country are made up of almost exclusively democrats and contribute millions of dollars to the elections campaigns of democrats. They do this so they can exert an enormous amount of influence over government. All three branches of Connecticut’s government are controlled by the Democrats, who rely on labor unions to fund the lion’s share of their campaigns. This means the unions have CT government eating out of the palm of their hands. MALLOY WILL NOT LAY YOU OFF. For one, doing so goes against every fiber of his political ideology. Second, layoffs would ensure little to no union funding for his re-election campaign or other retaliatory action such as the endorsement of a different democrat during the primary. Third, the budget deal that was passed generates taxes revenues resulting in a 1 billion dollar surplus that has been earmarked for future spending. Voting this package down WILL NOT result in layoffs because the surplus would instead have to be used to balance this year’s budget. With the price of gas, food and other commodities skyrocketing, none of us can afford to go two years without a cost of living adjustment. Please pass this message along to any social media outlet you feel may reach its target audience

  20. B. Graham Says:

    THIS PACKAGE SUCKS……….YOU HAVE RETIRESS COLLECTING 8,000.00 A MONTH….WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR INSURANCE??????
    THE ENTIRE PACKAGE SUCKS…THANKS FOR THE SHORT SELL SEBAC….I WILL BE VOTING NO…LAY ME OFF….THE INSURANCE PACKAGE IS BETTER!!!!!!

  21. Sarahsmile Says:

    Vote no people! If it sounds too good to be true it probably is! How does this agreement save any money? There’s got to be something we’re not catching. In four years they’ll probably layoff 30% of the public work force. Don’t believe it!!!!

  22. GUEST Says:

    Oh my god. Read this agreement carefully. It is horrible. I just realized that in addition to getting no raises for two years, we would all have to start paying into a retiree health care fund at the time our raises get reinstated. These contributions would essentially cancel our raises once we finally start getting them again. Vote NO!

  23. been there done that Says:

    Vote NO – once again a small group within the unions is being forced to pay a bigger price. Last time it was those five years in; this time its those who are five years away from retirement. Let’s stop selling each other out. Why not close state agencies a few days a year and get two types of savings – labor costs through furlough plus, energy maintenance etc? And why negotiate new terms in a bad economic environment.? We worked under a contract. We renegotiated in good faith. Honor the contract. Do we admit we are the problem? … or do we stand proud of the work we do everyday for the citizens of this state…

  24. LR Says:

    With Connecticut having a population of 3,518,288, I am so disappointed that our unions agreed for 45,000 TAX PAYING state employees to take on $1.6 billion of Connecticut’s deficit by sacrificing our health and pension plans. I would’ve much rather give up furlough days, increase my health premium and no raises. In addition, a thorough investigation of state agencies that are so heavily staffed with way more management then needed – savings not necessarily by layoffs but perhaps demotions, etc. I’m sorry but this agreement doesn’t work for me or my family.

  25. lisa Says:

    please vote no! we keep giving back. all of us who have dedicated our lives to woking for the state will be giving up all we have worked for! PLEASE VOTE NO

  26. Ben Dover Says:

    ANYONE planning on retiring from State Service…this is a BAD deal.

    All those retiring since 2003 haven’t received a raise over 3%, let alone nearing the top of 6% or the FANTASY of 7.5%.

  27. Susan Says:

    I will be voting no. Lay employees off. There are numerous positions that can be eliminated starting at the top and working down the ladder. Unfortunuately the state will layoff the lower paid employees and continue to let UConn faculty work 10 hours a week and collect obsence salaries. They will allow the police, corrections, and DOT to earn outrageous overtime payments. They will hire another provost, department head, dean, manager, etc. at high paying salaries.

    I have worked for the State of Connecticut for 32 1/2 years. My salary is $56,000 for 40 hours a week. I do not consider this excess after 32 years of service.

    One more thing, since when is my health management my employers business?
    Thanks SEBAC for nothing.

  28. 3 yrs of service Says:

    Let me guess Graham, your not on the chopping block so the word LAYOFF’s means nothing to you. Tell that to my family when I loose my house. Some Brotherhood and Sisterhood. More like vetern’s against the New Hires, thats sad to see. Everyone has to suffer, its unfortunately the world we LIVE IN now. Thanks for your support.

  29. PleasantlySurprised Says:

    I’m pleasantly surprised by this plan. Job security for 4 years? Imagine, not having to worry about your job for the next 4 years. In this economy. That is an INCREDIBLE deal. We keep our pensions and health care, and we have no furlough days! That is basically a raise for all of us. We have taken furlough days for the last 2 years, now we get to keep that money.

    As for paying for retiree healthcare, we have to be realistic. It’s expensive, and all we have to do is pay 3% of our salary for 10 years to have healthcare throughout our retirement? Not a horrible deal. It is also phased in reasonably for long-time employees to avoid anyone ever seeing actual pay cuts.

    As for those worried about being “forced” to go to the doctor, this seems like the wave of the future to me and exactly the type of thing we need if we want “universal health care.” Go to the doctor and stay healthy. How is that a bad thing? As for giving up confidentiality–that isn’t the case. It is your insurance company that would be monitoring whether you see your PCP at least once a year, and they already have that information because they get billed when you visit. No HIPAA violation.

    Please vote “YES!” everyone. Minimal effects on salary and benefits (with raises built in) and 4 years of job security! You won’t find that in the private sector and a “No” vote = 4700 layoffs immediately, then more layoffs due to further cuts that will be necessary. Then every year going forward, there will be still more layoffs to deal with a continuing deficit. Vote “Yes” and we are left alone until at least 2015 (and hopefully the economy will have rebounded by then!).

  30. lifewasgood Says:

    Do you actually think they will get a better deal? We are being looked at with disgust from all CT residents. They do not have any reason to be like this, but face the facts, we are. Big money does not have a name or a face to go after. Cutting our noses off spite our face is not a reason to vote no. This could stall and then we could be in a situation like Wisconsin. Do we really want that? We are wedged in and if we do not compromise, could be facing mandates after 2017 and lose so much that we will never get caught up. The pot o gold is frickin empty. The state put squat aside for us and the alternative is bankruptcy.

  31. Daniel Leone Says:

    Re: B. Graham,
    You pay for it because that is the deal you accepted when you took the job. They worked their tails off for that retirement and in doing so saved the state, taxpayers, millions of dollars by getting more out of less. Don’t penalize them now. There is no short sell. I truly hope your limited thought process is a minority one. Layoffs would be detrimental to not only state workers but to millions of state residents for which services & related businesses would be negatively impacted.

  32. D. Nelson Says:

    Upon reading the presentation given by sebac1199…I felt like I was being sold a bad used car. I will vote no. These same people told us to vote for this Governor . Penalized for healthcare we pay for…No!
    Perhaps the governor should move out of the governor’s mansion and commute to work like everyone else. Also…why are we pouring money into Yvonne health center that has had to be bailed out repeatedly? ? Is this why we have to give 1.6B back? We are not the problem. Mismanagement is.

  33. 5 yr Guy Says:

    What the hell is the matter with you people. No wonder the private sector hates us. The state is full of self righteous people. How can you be so selfish. I don’t understand it. I read thoroughly through the deal and analyzed everything it asks for. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this agreement. We barely give up anything. What is the matter with you people. Can you think about someone else for just once. Seriously. We have it pretty darn well for healthcare and pensions and you can’t give back barely anything. Please read EXACTLY what this is asking for and really really think about what its doing. It’s not much. Vote a big YES!

  34. LEO BLANKHORN Says:

    I SAY MAKE THEM PAY FOR HEALTH AND RETIRING FUNDS TOO AND STOP DOUBLE TIPPING IT TAKEN MONEY OUT OF POCKETS AND THEN WHEN THERE PASS AWAY STOP ALL HEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAY TO SAVE .

  35. BarbaraJane Says:

    What Happened to cutting Upper Management positions that make over $100,000 for supervising so few employees ?

  36. Massa Says:

    I’m amazed that Sebac is selling this as a great deal. I’ve been with the state for almost 19 years. For the next 6 years I will be making less & less money with the 3% for retiree health care fund. Also, isn’t funny how the “Sebac” agreement with Rell moved the 6/18/2010 increase to 7/1/11. Sebac literally screwed us out of this increase twice now. It should have been moved to 6/18/11. They knew they were going to use this as a bargaining chip. S-bags. I’d rather do the furlough days instead of the 3%. Vote no!!!

  37. Debbie Says:

    This package is awful!!!!!! I’d rather have the layoffs!!!! The agreement says we have a say in our own personnal healthcare, however the fact remains if we do not “conform” to what the state dictates we will be required to pay more money. The fact remains that SEBAC has done nothing to wrangle in the outrageous benefits (salary, PIR, longevity) of the few at the expense of the average lower income state worker. Not ALL state employees are able to work excessive amounts of overtime to up their saleries the last three years they are there. I find it offensive that this has been approved by SEBAC. VOTE NO!!!!!

  38. concerned Says:

    First of all, what happened to the one raise we were promised this coming year by Governor Rell? Also, I support the idea of being healthy, but medical records are considered private and confidental…seems like too many parties are going to be involved in monitoring conditions and employee contract medical compliance if you have one of the mentioned conditions. That doesn’t seem right to me.

  39. Michael Says:

    I’m happy to be in an union. Unions are also helping to keep us from the free fall that private sector workers find themselves in. We are in a trickle-up economy, wealth being transferred from the middle class to the wealthy, as the wealthy cries us a river. As for the pensions, Tier I was created exclusively by state government. Tier I employees have been protected all the way, never having an increase in their premiums, and retiring from state service with a 6% bonus, a plan generous enough so most could leave before age 62. The vast majority of Tier I employees are now gone. In early 1984, the unions had a hand in crafting Tier II, which is vastly inferior to Tier I, and that gap is growing. If you are expecting to retire on $2250, monthly, on Tier II, it would had been about $3500, monthly, under Tier I. $1666 under Tier II is $2500 under Tier I, PLUS the early-out that Tier I employees have received. Tier II employees have to work 5 to 10 years longer than Tier I, and never coming close to the payout of Tier I. With Tier II, it’s like we are stuck in quicksand, with a mack truck about to run us over. While Tier I employees have done really good, us Tier II people are doing worse and worse. As my union may loose this coming pay raise, which was part of the ‘09 concessions agreement, I suspect that we will loose more money, beyond the hard freezes of the next 2 years. I’m suspicious that contracts are now meant to be broken.

  40. Old Timer Says:

    1. Wage Pattern of 0, 0, 3, 3, 3 when combined with Retiree Healthcare Payments of 0, 0, 0.5, 2, 3 really comes out to 0, 0, 2.5, 1, 0.

    2. Much of what is in this agreement takes effect in the future, after the current budget crisis. Why is a short-term temporary recession based problem being used to garner permanent changes? This agreement should be about balancing the upcoming biennial budget and nothing else!

  41. Connecticut State Workers Getting Details Of Labor Agreement With Gov. Dan Malloy That Saves Their Jobs « CBS New York Says:

    [...] A summary of the deal was posted Tuesday on the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition’s website. [...]

  42. WH Says:

    If we vote yes this is only the begining minimum wage is right around the corner

  43. The Truth Says:

    On the surface, it sounds noble: “we’ll accept the concessions so that the younger workers can keep their jobs.”

    But if you look carefully at this agreement, you can see that it is carefully crafted to hold the “golden retirement” door open for the last of the Tier I and older Tier II employees by feeding the Tier IIa employees to the wolves.

  44. Tim Says:

    As one who thought the deal would be awful I would like to say that this deal is not bad. The deal imposes on all of us what people with less than 5 years already pay, if it was okay for us to put it on them why is it awful now that we all have to pay? People raging about this deal are clearly out of touch with health benefits in the private sector, oh I have hypertension so I will be one of the people subjected to having to comply with a disease management program and I was very safe from a layoff. Also keep in mind that if this is voted down there are numerous bills in front of the CT legislation that will potentially have a tremendous impact on pensions and they are intended to circumvent the SEBAC contract. All of that being said I’m inclined to vote Yes

  45. Just say no! Says:

    We are being asked to give up WAY too much in order to save 5000 people that will be called back anyway due to attrition.

    This is simple. No. Vote no.

  46. been there done that Says:

    One of several problems with this contract: A Ponzi scheme of sorts…
    So the state will start matching employee contributions to the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund in 2017. Note that current retirees are paid out of the general fund. Note that the state currently has a $20 billion liability. Is the state’s liability now being passed on to the state employees??? Does this Trust Fund mean the state will no longer be responsible for retiree medical???
    With the Trust Fund liable for health care benefits: What part of this liability and what part of our benefits will the state actually be paying? It seems not much. Think about it, the folks who retire by 2017 won’t be paying into the fund, which means the state won’t be paying for them. Most of the folks who have already been paying will be done paying about then, so the state won’t be paying anything for them. The only people, the state will be matching contributions with, are folks with more than eight years of service today, who haven’t retired by 2017. Also, any hazardous duty staff with 20 years will go by 2022 to avoid changes. Any other employees who can retire by 2022 will go. That’s a five year match for a good 20 years of retirement medical.
    Will the funds run out when all these people run for the hills? Will this require a huge increase in contributions by employees after 2022, or will retirees benefits evaporate, with the state claiming there aren’t enough funds to pay the expected benefits. Those near retirement pay little or nothing. The state pays in nothing now …and pays out less later? Those in mid-career get a bill that will keep rising and rising.
    The state should pay the liability it assumed. Current payments should be applied to the retirement accounts of the individuals making the payments. We shouldn’t vote other people’s money into our own pockets.

  47. therrien Says:

    HELL NO is my vote… cut some of the management then well talk

  48. Lou LOU Says:

    We had a contract, and gave up a lot of money already…Now we are giving up more money under a contract we signed to gain the increase/while giving up furlogh days ,,,What the hell are contracts for …???

    we should not agreee to anything ,,,,this is our monety we worked a lot of tyyears for, and I m not about to agreee with any more,,,WE HAVE HAD IT WITH EVERY NEW GOVERNOR……….C’ MON ITS JUST NOT FAIR……..

  49. bella Says:

    With two kids in college I am grateful my spouse and I have jobs.

  50. Inallfairness Says:

    How come the big fish like Coach Calhoun or Governor Malloy aren’t making any concessions? I think that we should be making pay cuts and retirement /medical benefit cuts at the top FIRST!!

  51. kari Says:

    so that makes it 5 years without a raise, one paycut and new monetary contributions for health care and retirement. Its been nice, state of CT, but I can’t afford to donate any more time or effort to this job.

  52. SteveHC Says:

    I’ve read through SEBAC’s and the State’s agreement and I think it looks pretty good, ESPECIALLY considering the current economic and political situations.

    Some people seem to be concerned about the “Value Health” changes in provision of health insurance. Those modifications are actually GOOD, and help to keep our (and the State’s) premium costs down!

    As far as these new “Value Health” provisions go –

    Let’s face it, at *LEAST* 99.99% of all of us are ALREADY doing ALL of this stuff ANYWAY! In fact, I don’t know ANYBODY who has health and dental insurance who HASN’T been getting a colonoscopy every 5 years (and yeah, that propofol anesthesia really IS pretty good LOL ;-) , their b/p and cholesterol checked 2xs/yr, mammograms, PAP smears, dental visits at *least* 2xs/yr (boy do I *wish* I only needed 2 dental visits/yr LOL), etc. – because our current insurance covers virtually ALL of this stuff 100% (at least if you stick with your current participating providers… which again lets face it almost all of us do). Only an IDIOT *wouldn’t* do these things and whatever else their own doctor(s) tell them they need to do. And why should the rest of us (including the State) have to pay higher health insurance premiums because a few irresponsible people prefer to IGNORE their own health needs? I think if anyone wants to refuse to participate in Value Health they should be responsible for paying their ENTIRE health insurance premiums, not just an extra $100/month, because they make insurance for the *rest* of us much more expensive!

    Also, there’s NOTHING in this agreement that will require ANYONE to change their doctors, not even for “Value Health” participants. Our network of participating providers won’t change.

    Our participation in “Value Health” provisions, in addition to keeping the current cost of our health insurance down, will also make it MUCH more difficult for the insurance companies to try to unjustifiably jack up our health insurance premiums going forward into the *future*. Most (if not all) other really large corporations have already been *requiring* employee and retiree participation in these kinds of health insurance provisions for quite some time now; the State of Connecticut’s just been really behind the times on this issue (along with many other issues).

    As far as concerns over privacy of our health information go – The fact of the matter is that EVERYONE who has health insurance of any kind – including all CT active and retired employees – ALREADY has their health info accessible to the insurance companies. This is nothing new; it’s been the case for decades throughout the country. The proposed “Value Health” insurance provisions make NO changes whatsoever to our health info privacy rights WHATSOEVER.

    As far as the *rest* of the agreement goes -

    I must admit that much of what has been agreed to appears to be just plain common sense and which *should* have been in place YEARS ago but which wasn’t due to previous administrations’ irrational and downright CRAZY inflexibility. Employees know best how to improve the State’s operational efficiency by “flatteniing” the organization and its agencies; BUREAUCRATS and MANAGEMENT have *always* been the obstacle in this regard, and this agreement goes a LONG way to help us overcoming those obstacles.

    Financially the agreement’s obviously not exactly thrilling to say the least, but let’s face it – politically as well as economically, the State’s ability to raise additional revenue beyond what Malloy and the legislature already agreed to is pretty much *non-existent*, at least for as long as the recession continues. Given that, there are only so many dollars available for salaries and benefit purchasing – so it’s then simply a matter of deciding how to “carve up” those available dollars in a way that benefits State employees and retirees as much as possible, both in the short and longer terms. This SEBAC agreement seems to accomplish this in the best, fairest and most humanly achievable manner possible.

    The probable consequences of NOT ratifying this agreement -

    Massive layoffs in EXCESS of 5,000, especially further down the road as the “ripple effects” of the necessary INITIAL 5,000 layoffs and ADDITIONAL “program” and aid cuts start taking effect. Eventual TOTAL LOSS of our defined-benefit pension and health insurance benefits, because there’d be no money to continue to pay for them and so politicians would be *forced* to remove them from collective bargaining rights. NO “ERIP” because there’d be no money to pay for such a thing (not that there is NOW anyway). *SEVERE* political backlash directed at State employees by angry voters come election day, and for YEARS to come… and, by the way, a LOT of extremist “right-wingers” KNOW this and THAT’S why they’re writing on online “blogs” urging us to “vote no” on this agreement – they KNOW that if we vote “no” we’ll be destroying ourselves (which is EXACTLY what they want). DON’T BE FOOLED BY THESE DELIBERATELY DECEPTIVE EXTREMISTS!!!!

    The agreement seems to genuinely be in taxpayers’, employees’ and retirees’ best interests – both in the short and longer terms.

  53. Marshal Says:

    This is really difficult to vote yes for but looking at the pension and retiree healthcare portion being under contract until 2022 is really something to consider. Giving up raises that we are all already waiting for since our last concession party is hard to swallow.. But, I am willing to do that to prevent my co- workers from being laid off. I’m already paying 3 percent extra and I’ve felt from day one that should have been something either everyone or no one paid. To me it was unfair that only employees with 5 years or less would have to pay that. This is more equitable to all.

  54. NotAHappyGirl Says:

    You can add my voice to the “NO” votes for this package.

    When I voted yes for the last batch of concessions, I did not realize that when step increases began again, we would not be put back on the step ladder where we should be. We permanently lost a step up the contractual ladder. Under this proposal, when raises and steps are resumed, I will be THREE steps lower than I should be! That is outrageous. I am putting in the time every day and putting in my years and I should not be cheated out of my progression up the contractual step ladder. I am betting no one else ever lost out on their step increases. When the two years of wage freeze are up, all employees should be put back on the contractual step ladder where they would have been had concessions never occurred (including the last batch of concessions). To do otherwise is completely and unfairly taking advantage of members.

    Further, if you read the signed agreement, it calls for reassignments within a 50-mile radius. I can tell you from experience, you do NOT want to commute 50 miles one way. One of my state jobs was a 50-mile one-way commute. Besides the drive time, traffic and the fatigue factor, I was spending $450 a month on gas–on average. I did that for four years until something closer to home finally opened up. You do the math.

    The agreement also calls for some higher education employees to continue receiving “merit” increases called for under their contract. Well, we have contracts too, and we are being asked to void out the contractual promises made to us. Why are they any different from us?

    I, too, am also suspicious that two years down the road, when the economy has not picked up quite as much as we might all like, we will be asked to do more “belt-tightening.” I don’t know about you, but I am feeling pretty squeezed already.

  55. The Truth Says:

    Been There Done That: That’s exactly what’s happening here. Tier 1 employees have been promised the moon, but the state didn’t save enough money to follow through. Malloy’s solution (with SEBAC’s help) is to skip out on the tab and leave the mess for the Tier IIas and Tier IIIs to pay.

  56. Horrible Deal Says:

    I think all and all SEBAC sold us out and gave us crap on top of crap to vote for. The only good thing about this contract and there is only one good thing. The agreement is extended till 2022. That is going to scare a lot of people to vote yest if they can retire between 2017 and 2022. Remember that 9% is really only 4.5% because we have to pay for under funded pension because the state does not know how to manage money. I would be more inclined to vote on the yes side if the medical was not touched. I will be voting no solely cause of medical. Take that away and i can bare to lose to wage increases. Also i agree with the dead weight. I’ sorry to say it but lay them off. The unions purpose is to get us the best deal possible not to secure jobs for newer people. I was laid off years ago and I came back. SO VOTE NO AND LAY THEM OFF!!!!

  57. Greg Says:

    A no vote will mean more then the 4700 layoffs eventually twice the number, there will be no more negotiations it is over (even the calendar has run out). After a no vote the legislature will go along with what ever the Governor wants including just eliminating whole classes of employees, changing contracts by fiat. Remember state employees are not protected by Federal Law, for the most part. Malloy will play the mean Prosecutor; and will punish all the new contracts.

    I for one would not like to see anyone layed off, as most will not be able to get a new job unless they can say do you want fries with that, unless they have exceptional skills (that they can demonstrate). A lot of State job skills are not transferable to the private sector (the real curse of being a public employee), so if you are a unemployed Prison Guard what are you going start your own prison. :) You were a state accountant, not much of a call for specialist in Core Connecticut. A DOT worker well who besides the State has any Highways. If you are a State attorney you will not be able to find work in a law firm unless you can deliver clients, private attorneys are more sells men and woman then legal practitioner, who have you been meeting that will be your client now that you have been working for the state for the last decade or so that will pay your firm. Ditto for about 90% of the jobs. It is tough to find new work for ex state employee, especially during the current economic situation.

    I wonder how many commenting No, are or have ever been Sate Employees (many be people who just want to see it fail) or just playing inside the local union politics, to upstage the current leadership. There seems to be a lack of knowledge what could really be negotiated, that is why I think that some have no real knowledge of state employment or pensions vesting etc.

    I would think real hard about voting, read the SEBAC and your local union agreement fully and understand the real consequences, you will have to live with them.

  58. shamefulstateemployees Says:

    I am embarrassed to be associated with the whiny, self-centered, selfish, ignorant, inconsiderate people posting here.
    This state’s economy is in the toilet! There is no money. We HAVE to compromise. We are not being asked to give anything ($$) that we already have.
    The talks started with a 35 hour work week AND furlough days. I’d say that SEBAC did one hell of job getting this deal.
    It is sad to see how cavalier you are all with other people’s lives, unwilling to forgo a raise for a couple of years to preserve jobs for others. Pathetic! No wonder the rest of the state has such a low opinion of state employees. I am a state employee and my opinion is low after this display. GROW UP, nobody OWES us anything! Be thankful you aren’t one of the millions who have no job at all!!

  59. Christine Japely Says:

    As unionized workers struggle with these issues, let’s not forget to keep an eye on how the non-unionized state “managers” spend money. (We should make sure their ranks are reduced, their salaries are lowered, and their discretionary funds are carefully monitored. This is covered to an extent in the concession agreement, no? But we have to make sure there is follow-through.)

    Look at the money given to fancy PR firms; details below in a new Advocate piece below. This is just one example.

    This throwing cash around to consultants and other outside “experts” has got to stop. It’s fun and easy for managers to do this. But it’s too often an escape from actually doing the task at hand, and it’s also a waste of tax-payer money, and it does nothing to serve the suffering working class in this state.

    http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/news/ht-is-the-state-spending-too-much-money-on-pr-20110517,0,7070932.story

  60. JH Says:

    My vote is a definite no! We are setting a bad precedent even letting our unions negotiate the contract before it is up! what is to say, in 2 years when we are supposed to get raises, they don’t say, oh we need concessions again the state is in the hole still…..I mean seriously this was supposed to last until 2017 and he is reopening it, I bet the next one is NOT going to last until 2022 as promised.

    I also, love love love the fact that after he wants concessions from us, he is on the TV saying he wants almost a BILLION to expand the UCONN health center, which btw is repeatedly in the red and never makes money. I think 2 years ago, they wanted to close it b/c it was almost bankrupt! So he wants us to give up everything to hire new employees there, and give out construction contracts which we can’t afford!

    I have no problem going to the doctor, but I am not going to have Big Brother Beaurocrat all in my business telling me what I have to comply with…..this is crazy in my opinion, I mean its BP and cholesterol now, down the line it will be get the flu shot or else……seriously people wake up and stop giving your rights away……..

  61. A Sad Day Says:

    I voted for Governor Malloy. I was hopeful that this administration would finally give us a “new day” – a new perspective. It is unfortunate that we voted in the same old government, just a different day, and a different face. It is unnerving to sit back and wait for people who will not be long term state employees make decisions about our pension and benefits. The majority of long term state employees do not live in fancy houses or drive fancy cars but have come to work day in and day out for most of their adult lives only to be rewarded with a reduction in wages, pension and benefits. And as citizens of the state, we’ve also suffered the down turn of the economy right along with every other citizen of the state.

    Perhaps the administration should try to find where money has been misappropriated to special interest groups, pet projects and 6 figure salaries for appointed officials and look to cut back there. I know I am dreaming but we must always remain hopeful!

  62. Just a Comment Says:

    Vote no – you’ve worked too hard to give up your benefits!!!!

  63. ME Says:

    TierIIunderthebus could not have said it better. VOTE NO!!!!!!!!

  64. NO NO NO Says:

    VOTE NOOOO!

    HOW MUCH MORE CAN WE AFFORD TO GIVE!

    I AM DISGUSTED THAT SEBAC THINKS LETTING OUR INSURANCE COMPANIES RUN OUR LIFE IS OKAY! I THINK IT IS A VIOLATION OF MY CIVIL & HIPPAA RIGHTS..AND MY FAMILIES.. READ THE FINE PRINT THE RAISE IS NON EXISTENT WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RETIREE HEALTHCARE..

    OLD TIMER..FIGURED IT OUT ..I QUOTE “1. Wage Pattern of 0, 0, 3, 3, 3 when combined with Retiree Healthcare Payments of 0, 0, 0.5, 2, 3 really comes out to 0, 0, 2.5, 1, 0″..

    WITH THE PRICE OF GAS, GROCERIES, KIDS SCHOOLING, CLOTHES, ETC..WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO KEEP GIVING BACK.. WE HAVE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD LAST TIME..AND WHAT TO WE GET FOR THANKS..THEY ARE RE-OPENING THAT AGREEMENT, SO NO ONE GETS THE PROMISED RAISE 7/31/2011.

    VOTE NO..I KNOW I AM!!!!

  65. VOTE NO!!!! Says:

    TO ALL OF THOSE WHO SAY YES! ARE YOU SERIOUS?

    This is a horrible deal… Here is why.

    1. We are currently in a concession package, which has us with a pay freeze (no-step) increase right now. Add two more years of hard zero. The three years of 3% increase are a wash due to the added 1/2%, 2% and 3% BASE salary pay in for retirement benefits for the next TEN years. Total wash! It’s like having five years of pay freeze.

    2. The healthcare portion of this deal will backfire for the State. Several thousand people will be forced to deal with health problems they either do not know about and or failed to address for years. This will cause a tremendous increase in doctor visits and insurance costs. For those working hazardous duty, they will see men and women leaving on full disability under the Heart Bill for hypertension and heart disease that they have developed over the course of their career.

    Does the State really feel that the obesity reduction and tobacco cessation programs, annual colonoscopies, eye exams, two dental visits and annual physical exams will save them money? Insurers will be inviting payment for glasses, cancer treatments, root canals and other medical expenses. Did anyone notice that this will mandated for ALL family members (i.e. Spouse)? If you want us to be so healthy, than allow us time during our work day to work out and give an annual or bi-annual physical assessment test and offer stipends for those who pass (especially for hazardous duty).

    3. The retirement agreement that ends in 2017 will be opened again! You can bet your job on it. There is no guarantee that this will be in place until 2022. Governor and his crew will be long gone and the economy will surely tank once again! BEWARE

    4. YOU WILL NEVER get the benefits you are giving up back. Your lost salary, your insurance changes are all here to stay and you may think that is noble in cause, but you are hurting not only yourself, but the future employees of the State of Connecticut. You will never recover those wages and as a result WE as State workers are sharing the sacrifice, not the citizens of the State as a whole.

    DO US ALL A FAVOR! VOTE NO!!!! I personally do not give a damn what the public thinks! Call me selfish, call me whatever you want. I worked hard for what I have and will continue to work hard, but will not do so for next to nothing!

  66. Lisa H Says:

    One of the real questions we need to be asking is about the health care proposal. Kind of funny there was never any plan for an open enrollment period as typically happens in May. Also a bit odd that a union meeting was scheculed for today over a week ago. Was an agreement already reached back then?

    No one can dispute that we should be taking care of ourselves and get regular medical care and testing. I hope SEBAC will be offering us, in writing, all of the details of this proposed plan, as we would have had during the open enrollment period. Not the sugar coated version that union organizers are not prepared to speak about with any real knowledge.

    With no lay-offs, no furloughs, no other give backs except those around the retirement plans, we have to assume that the real savings comes from health care. How do you get your 20 year old son, or your husband, to agree to a physical, or “required” medical tests? WHO will require them? Your doctor or the insurance company? Who has the final say when your doctor says you need an MRI, already hard enough to get approved? Why does ANYONE, get to dictate when and why you see your doctor? This sounds like managed, socialist type health care. Big Brother is watching… We need details. Until we have all the information we need and deserve to have, my vote is up in the air.

  67. Julie Says:

    I spent quite a bit of time looking at the agreement that was proposed. Overall, it is not that bad. Not great by any means, but not horrific either. I’ve read a lot of comments about the changes to the health benefits. I know there has been the proposal for “Value Health Based program.” If you look at it carefully, it is not significantly different than what most of us are doing anyway. Most of us go for our yearly physicals and have age appropriate tests (ie: mammograms, colonoscopy, blood work, etc). Right now, if you are an Anthem POE member, copays for all office visits is $10. If you participate in the value based health program, there would be no copays for physicals. If you take medication for any of the five listed medical conditions, the copays for those medications are cut in half. So, there is a savings just for signing a commitment to do what most of you are already doing. We are not being asked to change our doctors or insurance plan. There is no mention of having to get referrals from our PCP. So, other than a penalty charge for not participating, there is no significant difference. The other change is the $35 ER charge only for those that don’t get admitted. Personally, I think the state should have done that a long time ago. Too many people use the ER for stupid things because they don’t have a PCP or for whatever reason. It results in unnecessary expenses because the ER does testing that often times is not needed.
    In terms of the pension plan, I would rather add a couple of years on then run the risk of losing the pension altogether. Think about that, especially for those who already have several years invested in state service.
    I don’t know about other state departments, but corrections has seen very little, if anything, in COLA raises in quite a while. While I don’t think we should have to be responsible for the state’s inefficiency with money, this is what we are currently dealt. By contributing to the retiree health fund, that makes it completely member funded so when we all retire, we won’t have to worry. In essence, I know it’s a decrease in pay, but it’s incremental. For two years, 2011 and 2012 (where there is a hard freeze on wages etc) there is no additional contribution. In 2013 we get a 3% wage increase and pay .05% to the retiree healthfund. In 2014 we get a 3% wage increase and pay 2% to the retiree health fund. Finally in 2015 we get a 3% wage increase and pay 3% to the retiree health fund. So, although we don’t end up with much in pay increase, we don’t get a wage reduction either. In terms of taxes, everyone in the state will be paying the increased income tax (based on earnings) and sales tax.
    So, overall, this could have been much worse. We will be voting yes!

  68. CAT G Says:

    Hartford Courant opened their article with: “In an unusual case revealed this week, a current state employee visited a hospital emergency room 150 times in a single year — an average of three times a week. State union officials refused Tuesday to release the employee’s name because of federal privacy rules, but they mentioned the case to illustrate a change in health benefits.” Really? they are using this one incident as a reason to revamp healthcare?

    How far does the micromanagement of state worker’s personal health go? Are the powers that be (ie health insurance and State of CT) going to monitor our Dr.’s appointments? Doesn’t the medical information given to the employer go against HIPPA regulations?

    Please do not tell us that the new healthcare package does not discriminate against those who have health problems. Penalizing by charging us more a month because we have a health condition that we are not keeping up to par with the State’s standards is called discrimination. How far into our personal lives will the state of CT intrude? If you decide to go with this plan, why don’t you just start turning away candidates for employment that have cancer? I am sure Affirmative Action won’t be pleased with that, unless you decide to do away with AA office. Better yet, why don’t you lay off all state workers who have a chronic illness. Then we won’t have to move to a dictatorship country, we will have our own little dictatorship country right here in Connecticut. This is not a win/win situation. It is a degrading one.

    If we allow this to happen, then down the road the State of CT will want to intrude in other areas of our lives to pull the state out of a budget fiasco that we had nothing to do with either. We should hold the previous administration leaders accountable for pulling us out of this mess since they were the ones who made the mess to begin with. VOTE NO ON THIS PACKAGE!

  69. firftr1 Says:

    I just have to laugh about how badly Bernie Vignali is getting screwed in this deal. We have an idiot Health and Safety officer with zero qualifications making $94K a year because he’s an “administrator” and supervises one part time employee. Someone with 25 years experience at ConnOSHA and he’s making less than that and he’s negotiating our contracts? At least if you end up blaming someone after they try to scare people into voting yes you can have some satisfaction in the fact that Vignali’s 25 years of experience don’t count for squat when you compare him to new jack making $94K.

  70. Hope Says:

    I have been so discouraged by comments made by the general public about State workers and am even more discouraged after reading the comments made here. As a fairly new employee, I have been paying 3 percent of my salary from day 1 for retirees’ health benefits. Why shouldn’t ALL have to pay? I have to agree with a few posters that you come across as selfish people who don’t have any consideration for others- fellow State workers who may lose their jobs so that you can retire at 55!! Crazy, sad state of affairs.

  71. Good S Worker Says:

    I am truly saddened that again, the newbies were left out and the overpaid management/unionized workers still get to retire close to expected age! This is unfair! I also think that after reading the healthcare portion that it is unfair! Make everyone pay across the board, dont single sick people out or make them take medicines they dont believe in! If i dont comply with my dr, i pay extra?? Well, if i dont take my singulair, my xyzal and my inhalers dont i save about 3-400 a month in insurance?? OK, i will take my meds everyday because management tells me i have to! This is not a deal, i dont know what this is but make managemet exempt from being able to bump! And lay them off!

  72. oh no not again! Says:

    If you are thinking of voting no to this plan you must have seniority and dont have to worry about layoffs. This plan is reasonable. If you dont like it you always have the option to quit your job and check out the private sector and the minimum wage jobs that are available these days. Don’t blow it for 4700 others. Vote YES !!!!

  73. JustSayin Says:

    Some of us people who have been working for the state longterm have been through this before. What is the purpose of collective bargaining if the state never has to hold up to its own. I know I am expected to hold up to my contract obligations. This agreement soley puts the state’s neglect to take responsibility for poor spending habits and investing and puts it on the state’s working class. Whether people want to here it or not, there is a lot of waistful, top heavy employment so layoffs can be justified. 10 of my 17 years have incuded pay freezes, layoffs, involuntary transfers and stalled contract negotiations. The things that we fought for are being stripped away. Preserve the right for collective bargaining and vote NO!!! We will never get these benefits back. We are now expected to pay for the 2009 agreement that I bet most of you regret voting yes for, don’t make the same regret.

  74. Michael Says:

    On the menu is a Tier II sandwich. The top slice is voting yes to save the newbies, loose thousands upon thousands of dollars in income and work longer to have a worse pension. The bottom slice are Tier II employee payroll deductions to the benefit of Tier I and other elite retirees. The middle slice are very well done Tier II employees. —— How can anyone trust the health insurance/pension agreement being extended to 2022, if the 1997 agreement has already been opened twice? Agreements/contracts cannot be trusted.

  75. protectyourrights Says:

    Vote NO. The value based health plan is clearly unconstitutional. It violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution as it is blatantly discriminatory against people with certain health conditions and it penalizes people over $1,500 a year for exercising their constitutionally protected right to privacy. Voting for the rest of this agreement is just a bad business decision, but voting for the health plan is voluntarily giving up your civil liberties for four years of job security. How cheap are your rights as to you? Freedom is not free. I have one year of state service which means that I will probably get laid off if this is rightly voted down, and that is fine with me. I cannot in good conscious vote for something that is both morally and legally reprehensible. How often do morals and laws fall under the same umbrella. For a chance to make that stand, I would gladly get laid off. Think. Vote NO.

  76. tiredofwhiners Says:

    To all you naysayers, better to have a job with some benifits and a retirement then no job, no retirement and no collective barginning like the private sectors and some states. Think carefully and wisely. It could happen here.

  77. doubtful Says:

    It is not a guarantee of job stability- no layoffs does not equate to canceling of programs and bumping individuals….Why else would the distance one would have to travel if transferred be mentioned in this contract? Places will still be closed, but no “lay offs” just bumping….well…tell that to the person who is getting “bumped.” Another ploy for Malloy to start attacking the Tech schools as well. NO lay-offs the for entire system, but close a few and let the bumping begin….30 mile radius…

  78. Just say no! Says:

    In order for us to agree to opening the contract the have to offer us something, and they are not. Healthcare and retirement take a huge hit. And we get nothing. In 2017 when the agreement expires the economy will be better and the atmosphere more favorable for a deal.

    There is no reason to reopen this contract. Vote NO, see you at the table in 6 years.

  79. rankandfile Says:

    I have the same problem. We continually reopen our contracts and agreements, giving up what we gained for nebulous benefits and extensions, generally just to prevent some layoffs. While I hate to see anyone layed off, it’s happened to me twice in my state career, yet I still managed to get 30 years in. I voted no to Weicker concessions, got bumped even with 10 years because I had taken a promotion that crossed unions, and put me at the bottom. I got rehired as a part time clerical, laid off again when he privatized us 2 years later. Voted no to Rowland’s deal of 4 years of zero, it passed, 6 later he laid people off anyway. I took a promotion just before those, but luckily it missed me because seniority rules had just changed. I voted no to Rell concessions too. How come no one opens our contracts when there is a surplus to give us back money?

  80. Wait wait somebody tell me Says:

    What a scam! “If I don’t get 2 billion in concessions, there will be layoffs.” Don’t believe this statement fo a second. The Governor will not pour gasoline on a fire (Weiker) by adding 5-10 thousand more unemployed to the roughly 9% unemployed or 15% real counted and uncounted people out of work in Connectcicut. Layoffs don’t save the state much when unemployement payments and worker displacement from bumping is counted. The state is asking for more of the same we already gave them 2 years ago. The raise in June 2011 that should have been 2 years ago gets pushed forward 2 years. Where will this end? 2022? Isn’t there a better way to handle health insurance costs than wearing a scarlet letter S for sick employtee. There are reasons for the HIPPA law. It’s called privacy. Many employees lose out on any chance of promotion when they are labeled sick. Just ask anyone who works at 25 Sigourney Street. Sick employees get the label problem employees. Why not bring in more helath insurance competition for employees? This might bring costs down a little. Our insurance costs are rising so should our share. A gradual increase in our share would be better than this nonsense “Value Based Health Care” proposal.
    As for the pension, 20 years of gross mismanagement by various administrations have caused an underfunding of $20 billion. The employees of today and tomorrow are asked to pay for their mistakes. A two year recession brought out how poorly our government has failed to plan ahead. The aging baby boomers demographics has been well known for how long?? As employees, we should plan ahead by not feeding the monster more of our hard earned wages. If this deal is so good for employees, why are an extra ultra scared 1000 leaving? Let Malloy trim upper management to save big money on the biggest salaries. We could get 3-4 thousand to retire with a early retirement plan. Institute a coinsiding hiring freeze and save real dollars. This proposal is a scam.

  81. MP Says:

    To those of you who are some what new to state service please don’t be offended by those of us who say no to the deal. Its not about being selfish or not caring what happens to other state workers. We have been down this road before, and let me assure you it as never as it seems. I myself have been laid off 6 months after having a baby, two kids in childcare; house payment; credit cards etc; it was horrible; however I survived.

    Sometimes you just have to draw the line in the sand and say enough. That being said, if layoffs come I may be one of those folks once again; that is a chance I am willing to take. Not that I am ungrateful, I feel blessed to have a job; however I am tired of state employees being the whipping post because our leaders refuse to cut spending and down size agencies; this is getting old.

  82. Ben Dover Says:

    Enough is ENOUGH!!!!!

    REJECT this watering down of our benefits!!!!!

  83. will vote no Says:

    Will this “value” insurance plan be for all state employees. When I say all, I mean union, non-union, legislative and management? Also, Governor Malloy-he is a state employee. Is he going to take this plan for insurance and retirement? Also, management and non-union is requested to give up one longevity just as we are, but how about wage freezes? I don’t believe that all state employees are required to take wage freezes. The governor was going to address the problem of “top heavy” management. I haven’t seen it. Am I missing something? Until these change, my vote is no. Our futures are at stake and union employees keep giving up more and more. There is a lot of conditions in this agreement and I hope that everyone understand them. Your healthcare and retirement are taking major hits. Why no furloughs, give up longevity entirely and wage freezes for all state employees? This agreement is bogus!!!!

  84. r u kidding me Says:

    If anybody is listening at sebac, from what I hear is that everybody hates the value based insurance. We understand there has to be concessions. This disease management plan is just plain creepy. We don’t want that so please, if you want a vote for concessions, get back to the negotiating table and get rid of that.

  85. Michael Says:

    From what I understand, there is almost a $Billion dollar surplus built into the budget to help the state go onto GAAP– General Accepted Accounting Principals, to help get rid of the built-in structural budget deficits. If this money materializes, it’s no more in the lock box than revenues from the state gasoline tax or the Social Security surplus revenues. I predict that if these revenues materialize, it’ll be ‘gone with the wind’ along with the flood of money from the state income tax. The concessions are bad news, especially for the older & well established state employee. More concessions to come, folks. Contracts are meant to be reopened. Vote “NO”.

  86. protectyourrights Says:

    Reposted a FIFTH time because the rest were deleted by the moderator. Clearly SEBAC does not believe in freedom of speech as well as privacy.

    Vote NO. The value based health plan is clearly unconstitutional. It violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution as it blatantly discriminates against people with certain health conditions and it penalizes people over $1,500 a year for exercising their constitutionally protected right to privacy. Voting for the rest of this agreement is just a bad business decision, but voting for the health plan is voting to give up your civil liberties. You are asking us to give up our rights for four years of layoff protection. Freedom is not free. How much are your rights worth to you? I only have one year of state service, which means that I would probably get laid off if this is voted down. But I can say that I am proudly voting no on moral and legal grounds. How often do those two things fall under the same umbrella? To make that stand I would glady get laid off. Protect your rights. Think. Vote NO.

  87. phodge Says:

    That 9% increase will be eliminated with the annual 3% pay-in for the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund which equals 0% pay increase for those 3 years and even less from there on out. I understand the 90-day medical refill, but why does it have to be mailed in vs. supporting your local pharmacy? They’ll make lots of money off of the the extra $100 per month fine for not signing on to the “value-based health care principles” option, especially with the high co-pays for dental visits.

    It appears that a better option would be to move everyone to a 35-hour, 4-day work week, implement 4 furlough days per year with equivalent vacation days added, eliminate OT and other non-base salary payments from retirement calculations, and increase the pension calculations to consider the top 5 highest years vs 3.

  88. phodge Says:

    The 9% increase will be eliminated with the annual 3% pay-in for the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund which equals 0% pay increase for those 3 years and even less from there on out. I understand the 90-day medical refill, but why does it have to be mailed in vs. supporting your local pharmacy? They’ll make lots of money off of the the extra $100 per month fine for not signing on to the “value-based health care principles” option, especially with the high co-pays for dental visits.

    It appears that a better option would be to move everyone to a 35-hour, 4-day work week, implement 4 furlough days per year with equivalent vacation days added, eliminate OT and other non-base salary payments from retirement calculations, and increase the pension calculations to consider the top 5 highest years vs 3.

  89. disheartened Says:

    protect your rights- mine was deleted as well. How odd.
    My concern is that no layoffs does not mean no program cuts- which would still lay off people because of bumping rights. If this wasn’t a possibility, then why would the contract mention the distance of 30 miles commute? Plan B includes the closing of all the VoTech Schools- something Malloy tried to first pass off to the towns but was unsuccessful. Is this just another underhand way of doing the same? It could just be called “program cuts”..but with the same results- loss of jobs.

  90. Ben Dover Says:

    So I thought there was a censorship of this board taking place and it appears it’s NOT just me who noticed this.

  91. Do the math Says:

    Who is the moderator on this site? I have tried three times to get my comment posted and it does not appear. This deal is no deal at all. Just do the math.

  92. protectyourrights Says:

    So it took them SIX hours to “approve” my original post and that is NOT censorship?

  93. Bernie Chenette Says:

    I’m tier 1 and have 34 plus years invested and am retiring in December of this year. Why would I want to vote yes. There are folks retired with less invested and less years than I and will continue to have all their benefits. Why would I want to give up what I have worked so hard for all my life!

  94. protectyourrights Says:

    Ben Dover, sorry I misread you last post. I am sorry you are getting censored too.

  95. ApacheMoon Says:

    VOTE NO!!!! We can never get concessions back! Get rid of all the dead weight in management first see how much that will save the state! Also, Tier I, what’s up with them? Don’t they ever have to give anything back?? We, Tier 11A already give a % of our salary towards pension, so what are we doing paying into pension plan for the state so that Tier I’s can retire nice and comfy and by the time I retire there will be nothing left of MY money to collect?? VOTE NO!!!! Let the Gov. find another way to get the money back into the state. Ask Rowland where he put it all and Rell (his side kick)! I bet they know where the money went!

  96. Al Says:

    People….people……stop and think before you vote!!!
    First, isn’t it funny how our broke state suddenly found 900 million dollars to fund a new project at the Uconn Health Center!!!!!
    Secondly, Look up the pros and cons of Value Based Health Care, especially the article done by the Washington Post. Ask the people of Oregon how this Value Based Health Care plan worked for them……it’s a carrot and stick game!!! They are luring you in telling all the good they are going to do for you under this plan, while failing to mention that any procedure considered to be over used or preference sensitive to the insurance company will be denied and you will be paying out of pocket!!!!!
    Those procedures are MRI’s, spinal surgery, knee and shoulder surgery, not to name countless others. Do we really want insurance companies dictating what procedures we should have depending upon our age and our health? Seems like we’re playing russian roulette with our health here people.
    As for all the new employees, just remember that some day you will be in the same boat as us older employees….having worked your whole life for a promise and having it pulled out from under you when you’re ready to collect!
    Don’t be surprised if in 2013 when the next biannual budget comes out the state wants to dip into this again……now that we’ve opened the door, we’ve given any arbitrator the right to approve changes in our health and pension package.
    Sorry Unions, I feel you sold us down the river on this one!!
    Dues paying members are more important to the union than the rights and dignity we bargained for and were guaranteed.

  97. AMC Says:

    This Value Medical plan is social enginering, plain and simple. And once again, it’s under the guise of ‘what’s good for us’. The medical plan is going to cost more money even with compliance and it will be easier for them to compromise someone for being 20 lbs overweight as much as for someone who choses to smoke, drink or what have you. Don’t get fooled by the concept of lower costs. It’s not going to save us, it’s just making the insurance companies more money while enfringing ever more on our privacy and civil liberties.

  98. Katie says Vote Yes Says:

    Vote Yes-We are hardly giving anything up, this is a fair deal.
    Things will never be like it was 20 years ago….wake up.

  99. Helen Says:

    Simply put. We, as State workers are being asked for concessions. Now if you don’t want to give back anything whatsoever then yes….this is a bad deal. However, we are being asked and the package presented is a very good one in my eyes. For a few very good reasons.
    1) No layoff guarantee for 4 years. I don’t know of any entity right now that offers this to it’s workforce. This is an incredible offer by the State.
    2) Extension of the Sebac agreement to 2022. You don’t have to worry about your pension or medical insurance until 2022. Another remarkable deal.
    3) How about 4720 people who desperately need their jobs not being laid off? This is extremely important.

    Is everything in the deal perfect? Of course not. Could this concession package been much, much worse? Absolutely.

    Medical benefits stay the same except for the fact that people have to get a physical 1 time per year and 2 dental cleanings. Superb idea in my opinion as that alone will stave off dramatic health problems in the early stages or help prevent them altogether.

    With all the raging about the longevity payments……..we will only miss one this coming October. After that we start receiving them again. That is amazing.

    If you want to spike your retirement wages by working excessive overtime for 3 years…..you can still do that. Another amazing benefit the State let us keep.

    For new workers the threat of layoffs disappears. Job security is a BIG issue these days.

    For older workers the threat of having to work an extra 3 to 5 years is gone. You can still retire at your normal age.

    Anyone can nitpick. Anyone can find fault with a deal as big as this. The good overwhelming outweighs the bad in my opinion.

    That’s why I am voting yes.

  100. disenchanted Says:

    well ben dover…I have also been censored…two posts so far…both appropriate. Makes me wonder what they do not want the others to think about. I will write it in condensed version. No layoffs does not mean no program cuts…..votech schools in danger if plan B…just what malloy wanted in the first place. Let’s see if this gets censored…

  101. Tony Says:

    TO: PROTECTYOURRIGHTS

    You are absolutely correct, the Value Based plan is also a direct contradiction of State law which allows the informed patient the right to refuse any medical test absent a court order. This will turn into a class action suit if approved.

  102. 3% for healthcare fund !!! Says:

    People need to look at the 3% we now would have to pay towards the healthcare fund, which essentially wipes out any 3% raise that might be offered to us for the next 13 years. Do the math, this contract sucks !!! VOTE NO !!!

  103. lambs to the slaughter Says:

    Hey SteveHC: Here’s an idea for the suggestion box: maybe each state agency can have it’s own medical team on staff. Every week “clinics” are held, and we line up according to age, necessary procedure, and chronic condition. The medical team examines us right in our own cafeteria, and if we need additional tests or procedures, we just move to the next line!!! Who needs privacy, anyway, right Steve? I mean, 99.99% of us do the right thing, anyway, so why not let our EMPLOYER dictate how and when each of us receives healthcare? Privacy schmivacy, who needs it, right Steve? There’s this little thing called HIPAA… GET OFF THE ANESTHESIA

  104. Glenn Says:

    Yes, the value based health care has got to go. We see epic spending going on that is not needed. We understand some concessions are needed, but in no way can we vote for this deal. Take it from me, nobody is on board and never have I seen such anger in 22 years of service. This will not pass

  105. been there done that Says:

    Dying young??
    The only way I can see the 7.5% being true is if early retirees die young. See quote from Summary at bottom.

    I know that Early retirees receive reduced payouts for their entire retirements, and the payments begin earlier. So unless they die young they won’t get more or be more expensive in the long run.

    Also, are those numbers based purely on age. If so, they probably include the hazardous duty folks. The reason the hazard folks do less time is because they have more liklihood of illness and early death.

    Lastly, how does my early retirement cost another employee or retiree a dime?

    ” Currently, people are actually encouraged to retire early because their
    reduction in their retirement benefit is only 3% per year, while the true cost of their early retirement is about 7.5% a year (that is, they will average about 7.5% more in pension benefits received in theirlifetime for each year they retire early). This is expensive, and raises the costs for those employeeswho work until their full retirement age.

  106. Rita Dauber Says:

    As a brilliant person once said “The devil is in the details”
    We have the summary but that’s not enough info to make a life decision as to whether to retire NOW or not. When are you going to publish the DETAILS?

  107. 20 something years Says:

    YES sebac sold us out . like an earlier reply, I would of agreed with it all but not messing with my pension . job scaring us first and now leaving us with less and less.

  108. jack Says:

    RECEIVED A COPY OF SEBAC CONCESSION PAPERWORK(unedited version) SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THE HEALTH CARE ISSUES WON’T BE FINALIZED UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE. IT ALSO IS MENTIONED IN THIS VERSION TOBACCO USE OBESITY ECT. SOUNDS LIKE BIG BROTHER HEALTH CARE . VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!! IF THE DEAL SOUNDS TO GOOD IT PROBABLY IS.

  109. GUEST Says:

    After attending an informational union membership meeting, my inclination to vote no has been confirmed. This a terrible deal that exposes numerous slippery slopes and implements the failed paradigm of socialized medicine. A contract should be respected. I urge you all to call the governor’s bluff and vote NO!. There is no way a Connecticut liberal is going to lay people off. Don’t let the union scare you into believing that a no vote will result in a loss of bargaining power during the next contract negotiation. He is owned by organized labor. Even if we have to continue to operate without a contract, we will be in better shape than what this deal offers us.

  110. Horrible Deal Says:

    I know my union president is telling everyone to vote no. he does not even agree with the deal SECRAP worked out for us.

  111. jack Says:

    SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE FOR ALL STATE EMPLOYEES.GREAT JOB SEBAC SELL EVERYONE OUT IN THIS BACKROOM DEAL. STATE WORKERS PLEASE REALIZE WHAT YOUR VOTING FOR.(WECOME TO THE EUROPEAN WAY)

  112. been there done that Says:

    No OJEs???
    Unions supporting Pay inequities…
    haven’t been there and done that for a long time!!!
    How many women were at the table for SEBAC?
    These guys have really lost their way.

    …Actually if you vote yes you are part of the problem.

    Neither SEBAC nor the Union has the right to SUSPEND OJE.
    Pay inequities are based on one set of workers (usually women) doing work equal in skill and difficulty to that of another set of workers (usually men).
    OJE was set up by STATE STATUTE to prevent inequiites in pay (notably those based on gender). “The following agreement is reached pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 5-200c which requires that all inequities, including sex based inequities identified by the Objective Job Evaluation study be eliminated.”

    If folks are not getting paid for the level of work they do, why should they CONTINUE to be denied a fair wage? This is not about contractual raises. OJE adjustments only come after an entire group of workers is already working above their classification. It’s one thing to negotiate the terms of our benefits and our wages. It is not SEBAC’s role to decide if we can have an OJE. Its not in the contract for the unions to negotiate if we can have an OJE. As part of SCOPE (a council for pay equity). The unions can determine how pay changes will be implemented (ie. steps) but they cannot deny us an OJE. This would violate both the letter and the spirit of the law. See the following quote from the Summary below:

    “The same thing is true for the state’s OJE system. The administration had sought to eliminate it, but the only change is that no new OJE adjustments can be effective before July of 2013, again to provide savings during this biennium.

    The administration can’t eliminate a state statute, notably one that protects women’s right to equal pay.

    But, let’s say I’m wrong and they can do it. they can’t do it without you helping them. Can you honestly vote its ok for women to be paid less because they are women? Where have these union GUYS been, under a rock.

    If you vote yes, you are part of the problem.

  113. DOC Says:

    Take a good look at what “Value Based Healthcare” really is, the cheapest solution to a condition/disease NOT what is BEST for the patient! Yes, we should take care of ourselves but not at the cost of quality healthcare. DO SOME RESEACH, look at the Fed’s benefit structure….( it’s lousy). Did anyone notice the lack of description of 2012’s healthcare offerings?

  114. you have rights Says:

    People…..SEBAC negotiated a terrible deal. Malloy needs concessions now and our 1997 agreement lasts another 6 years…a whole 4 years after this budget. SEBAC was in the driver’s seat and they crashed while we were going along for the ride with blindfolds on. We are giving up way too much for minimal return on our investment to save 10% of our jobs and extend (only 5 years) a completely modified agreement that changes all our health benefits and the majority of our pensions. If we have to reopen a contract then we should have maximized our benefit long term. What you think you may have with this agreement would most certainly change in 2022 or sooner if we are asked for concessions again. If the state were to have a budget surplus, we would never get these benefits back. It’s easy to think about now until your future is here.

    I did the math and our retirement will take a huge hit. This hit is not only for people with 5 years of state service but also with 20 years and it amounts to thousands of dollars per year.

    What is wrong with furlough days? It provides immediate savings in the current budget while providing us with a day off and it doesn’t cut future earnings. Why isn’t there any furlough days even when the Governor asked we take 3 per year?

    We do have a good health insurance. Why can we keep the type of plan we have and pay a little more in premiums and co pays? The extra cost of the premiums would be before taxes anyway. Close those loopholes which some people have abused. It seams the people of Connecticut would like that and

    There isn’t much difference between the new Tier 3 and existing Tier 2/2A. We should have closed the loopholes for new hires instead having existing employees take the hit while we have watched numerous employees retire 10 years earlier with a better retirement and benefits.

    The biggest concern is the increase is retirement years for existing employees. The New York Governor is proposing similar changes while he creates a new Tier for new employees. This would not be applicable to existing employees.

    While I believe we need to provide givebacks and savings because of a bad economy and mismanagement by previous republican Governors, I believe this deal should have a clear and loud NO vote.

  115. vic Says:

    I’m voting yes, all you idiots that are voting no represent everything that is wrong with state workers! GREEDY!

  116. Horrible Deal Says:

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… Start voting.

  117. Good S Worker Says:

    feeling very uneasy about the whole deal but unsure of the alternative. I need healthcare…. and money.

  118. Feeling Betrayed Says:

    I feel utterly betrayed by SEBAC. Members were not kept informed nor was input on the types of concessions we were willing to live with solicited from us. I feel there was an arrogance on the part of SEBAC that I cannot accept. Don’t TELL me what is best for me and don’t try to sell me what I don’t want. I am more than willing to make concessions but this healthcare portion that has been negotiated is an absolute deal breaker for me. Why was I not asked BEFOREHAND if this should even be on the table? From the comments here and from other sites and from many co-workers, I feel that I’m not alone in the way that I feel. SEBAC, you WORK for US! I am simply furious at the position I am now in and it could have been avoided by some dialogue with MEMBERS. I honestly don’t think the votes are there to pass this and I certainly cannot vote for it in good conscience. Look around, SEBAC, at the feedback you are getting. You need to find a way to get back back to the bargaining table, pronto. And, this time, please be courteous enough to ask the people you work for how they feel about the issues.

  119. Michael Says:

    Though I happen to be a naysayer, I had an interesting thought. Since I am behind in my healthcare, maybe I can use a push in that direction to catch up. But— there are state employees who have something to hide— their drug addiction! I’m sure that there are a couple of thousands of state employees, from the weekend marijuana user to those who do cocaine are wondering if this health care plan will be designed to catch drug use, which will be definitely noted on their medical records. Right here there should be some built in ‘no’ votes. I suppose that other employees will pay the penalty to keep their little secret. I applaud Sebac for allowing a variety of reasonble thoughts.

  120. Good S Worker Says:

    I dont do drugs or drink! Michael, stop making idiotic statements and get with the facts! Which, we have none…….A open ended negotiation……..

  121. Educate yourself Says:

    Educate yourself!

    Are you happy with the health plan have right now? Yes

    Value base health insurance is horrible!!!!!

    Are the leaders of CT (governor,state senators,etc….) taking this insurance plan? No!!!!!

    If they want us to have this health plan then they should have to take it???

    VOTE NO!!!!

  122. Julie Says:

    After hearing all the details and reading all the posts, we will be voting no on this, primarily because of the medical portion. I certainly don’t want others dictating whether or not I can have a procedure done because of any medical conditions I have. They make it sound good by offering reduced or no copays if you see a doctor for any of the five specified conditions, but they are not saying that they would limit your treatment or testing. Think about this logically….if it’s a value health based plan, do you think the state will want to spend more money?? Of course not. The only real way to save money is to limit what can be done, such as tests, blood work, doctor visits, etc. No thank you. And by the way, thanks SEBAC for selling us down the drain. You are paid union dues to work for us and you sell us out. I’ve always wondered what it felt like to have a knife stabbed in my back, and now I know.

  123. Julie Says:

    I agree with vote no, vote no, vote no.

  124. Wonders Says:

    Wake up and smell the coffee people, I was one of those people that was a no vote prior to details being released , basing my thoughts on rumors and speculation, I took a big sigh relief when most of those rumors proved false and truly feel we dodged a major bullet on this one, yes we gave back and in return we got a pension medical deal locked until 2022, if we vote no all future contracts would be harder to negotiate and after 2017 your medical and pensions can and in all lickly hood be far worse then this. We all knew going into this we had to give concessions but you can’t please everyone take the deal and be happy this could of been 10 times worse and may very well be that way after layoffs then more concessions in 2 years from now with no where near this current offer if we vote this down, think of the downside vs the upside of your votes, I for one will vote yes

  125. rankandfile Says:

    So we keep the health and pension deal we have until 2017, or we extend it 5 years for a crappier deal, and in 2015 they come back looking for more. Do you think they can layoff the entire workforce? The second the layoff protection runs out this deal goes out the window, and they come back looking for more, threatening layoffs again. There comes a time when you have to draw a line in the sand and say “enough!”.

  126. WH Says:

    Has anyone seen the details of this health plan? Does it even exist yet? I dont see how anyone can vote yes on a healthcare plan that you have little details on. 4 year no layoff agreement 5 year contract sound familiar? Oh ya we agreed to that last time and look at what happened. Im voting no im not telling anyone else to but please look into this more. We will worry about 2017 in 6 years.

  127. Very Vague Says:

    Before anyone votes yes, I think some questions need to be answered on the healthcare plan. If one fails to have the required physical and/or the required (2)dental checkups, it appears that individual will be moved into the standard health plan and will have to pay $100/month and a $350 deductible. The contract does not specify if that penalty is temporary, until our retirement, or until we die. It also does not specify if it is for the individual policy holder or for each family member as well. For a family of 5, it could be as much as $500/month and a $1750 deductible if the whole family doesn’t comply with the plans requirements. Either way, we stand to lose a lot of money.

    The other problem that I don’t think the “yes” voters are recognizing, is that the wording is sugar coated. If this contract is passed, we will not get a raise for at least 6 years. We won’t get the raise that is owed to us this year, and because the contract is 0,0,3,3,3, we will not see a pay increase due to the 3% we will have to start paying (10 years in total) in the 3rd year of the contract when our 3% “wage increase” would take effect. So our so called raise is negated.

    This is a horrible deal, and state employees stand to lose a lot of money if it is passed. The fact of the matter is that we have another year left on our current contracts, and 6 years on the current healthcare and pension agreement. It’s unfortunate that some people may be laid off, but it’s a sacrifice that needs to be made. VOTE NO!!!

  128. C Prue Says:

    I do not understand this website – there were 50 responses an hour ago and now there are only three posted. Also, as a union member, why did I have to access this agreement from a media website, shouldn’t it be posted here?

    SEBAC, you blew it. You can not possibly think that unionized state employees will vote to extend their retirement age, give up their medical privacy rights, and not see a pay increase for a total of seven years (those 3% raises are negated by the 3% retiree health care contribution)!? There was no reason to open up the SEBAC agreement once again. We all fully expect that we will see significant changes in the benefits packages after 2017 – why are we chipping away at this now? It seems like instead of contract negotiations, unions will forever more engage in concession negotiations.
    This could have been so simple. Give an incentive for the Tier I’s to retire, continue with the furlough concept, and call it a day. The solution to the state budget deficit is not the wages and benefits of the workers who provide the services that give the people of Connecticut the highest standard of living in this country – the solution is to rightsize the bloated bureaucracy! We all know it.

    So let the Governor lay off some of them. Did you hear what he said last Thursday? He plans to reduce the size of government by trimming managment and the legions of state supervisors. He should start doing that right now!

    As for the new Commissioner of Information Services (and I am assuming an entire new department of state workers) you propose to create – how does that save money? How about putting our state university economics and business brains on the task of designing an economically feasible government?

    I would like to be a part of the solution, but this is not it. In trying to avoid layoffs of the few (less than 10% of the workforce, some of which would be management), you have put undue burden on the many. It is unnecessary, unreasonable, and unattainable. I am sorry that I will not be able to support my union at this time.

  129. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    .

    No Voters…There is not a health plan that has been “created” yet … read the framework agreement.
    If you call Anthem Insurance (as I did today) they will tell you there is no “value added” program for State Employees to send you information about. This agreement allows the Malloy administration and Union leaders to “create” whatever they want. If you vote yes… you are voting for something that does not exist yet….there is no plan ….only a concept! This plan could end up costing you thousands “out of pocket” and you are not being told that!

    Can you answer these questions based on the info you have been provided in the framework?

    Is your family covered? or only the State Employee? If so, are they also required to sign a binding “commitment contract”?
    Other than preventive care….what is covered?
    What is the reimbursement rate and how much are the co-pays for diagnostics not related to preventive care?
    Do they pay for MRI’s or Ultrasounds…what is your share?
    Surgery room expenses?
    Would they pay for a needed knee replacement or tell you that what you get is a cane and pain meds?
    Do they pay for psychotherapy or are you required to take psych meds instead….or would you be forced to take them to comply with the health management team?
    Define non-compliance with the plan completely.

    These questions need to be answered before the vote is taken. “Value Added” and “Value Based” Healthcare is a whole different concept than what you are used to dealing with! Call the number on your insurance card and ask the representative for information for the announced “State Employees Value Added plan”
    As I was told earlier today…they have no information about it, yet this plan is supposed to start up July 1, 2011….???

    VOTE NO VOTE NO VOTE NO VOTE NO VOTE NO.
    Yes this site sencors views. But hey i expect that!

  130. Ignorance is bliss Says:

    A vote of Yes is a vote of ignorance…. no one should vote Yes until they see the entire agreement between SEBAC and good old Dannel. Signifigant details have been left out, I for one will not vote Yes until I see the whole agreement and those who do vote Yes are very ignorant individuals and deserve whats coming. Stay strong don’t give up everything we worked for. I know as a whole us state employees are un-eduacated, but lets make the educated decision this time…..

  131. Just say no! Says:

    The governor has asked us to modify an existing perfectly good agreement that expires soon, in 2017. In return, he has offered to gut our healthcare (and he doesn’t even have all the nasty details).

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.

    Vote NO.

  132. Feeling Betrayed Says:

    Where’s my post from last night? It was “being moderated” at 8pm. The gist of the post was that I felt betrayed by SEBAC. So, since the board is moderated (presumably by SEBAC) I can conclude that they do, in fact, have zero respect for the people who pay their salary. There was no foul language, no cursing, nothing that should have raised a red flag in any way. So, now we’ve also lost the right to an opinion?

  133. annie Says:

    Voting no. Chipping away at our benefits until they are gone. We will never get back these concessions. If they are asking us to renegotiate a contract that expires in 2012, they will do it again with this contract.

  134. Horrible Deal Says:

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… keep voting.

  135. rankandfile Says:

    The big problem is the precedents we’re setting. That is, no contract or argreement is “guaranteed” anytime beyond when the layoff protection expires. That means the “guaranteeed” raise in 2015 may never happen. That means the 2022 extension on healthcare and pensions is only “guaranteed” until 2015. The second 2015 rolls around we’ll be at this again, maybe with a Republican governor next time. The only bullet they have in the gun pointed at our heads is the threat of layoffs. Let them shoot the bullet now, and take the gun away from our heads.

  136. Save Tier 2 and 2a Says:

    Cushioning Tier I again is not the answer. Look at what they already have, so the rest of us suffer for years to come with concessions we will never get back. Most of Tier I are the up upper management/top heavy positions that should be eliminated anyway. We need to look at other ways of balancing this than on the backs of Tiers 2 and 2a…VOTE NO!!

  137. rankandfile Says:

    The state is like a terrorist on an airplane. They tell you “do what we say, and we’ll let you go afterward. If not we’ll kill you.” SEBAC is the guy that says, “you heard them, if we do what they say we go free”. You can be one of the people who believes that, or you can rush the terrorist, knowing some of you may be killed. What would you do?

  138. rankandfile Says:

    Since I’m fond of analogies, here’s another. The state claims they can’t afford our pensions. They are like someone who bought a house 30 years ago. The deal they got was no monthly payments, they just had to pay for it when it came due. Thirty years later, they realized they had only put away half the money, and blew the rest partying with their friends. Now that the bill comes due, they cry “we can’t afford it”. “The housing market (pension plans, 401k’s etc) is down, and other people (the private sector) are buying houses for much less.” “So now you have to accept half the price we agreed to”. “If you don’t, we’ll burn the house down and you’ll get even less”.

  139. Well Wisher Says:

    Please Vote “YES”.

    It is right thing to do. We should be thinking of ALL State Employees.

    We cannot be selfish and think only for ourselevs. Please remember “We are all in it together”.

    Good luck to all of us and please vote – “YES”.

  140. Ben Dover Says:

    Horrible Deal……I like the new acronym you created.

    When all is said and done SECRAP will still try and collect dues from as many members as they can so they can continue to fund I’m sure all the meals, drinks, etc., etc., etc. we paid for while they negotiated this POS.

    WAKE UP FOLKS!!!! THERE ARE NO GUARANTEED RAISES COMING IF THIS POS IS APPROVED!!!!!

    If you believe there are, I’m sure SECRAP has some swamp land and a bridge they’ll try to sell you as well as this POS!

  141. WH Says:

    http://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/full-disclosure-needed-by-ct-state-employees-on-health-plan-before-sebac-voting/

  142. Just say no! Says:

    There are roughly 40000 union state workers. For about 35000 or so this deal does not offer one positive item. In fact it erodes what we already have by quite a bit and they can come back for even more any time they want.

    NO is the only vote that makes sense. Those layed off will be back soon enough.

  143. Helen Says:

    Folks…..you keep the same health care plan you have now. The next open enrollment is when you can change your health plan or keep the same one you have now. There are zero changes to the overall structure of this. All you need to do is sign an agreement where you get 1 physical per year and 2 dental cleanings per year. These two things alone will catch serious disease early and in some cases prevent serious disease altogether.

    Ask yourself this. Would you have a small benign Polyp removed from your colon or would you rather pay hundreds of thousands of dollars treating the cancer that small undetected polyp developed into?

  144. Tony Says:

    To everyone that’s concerned with their fellow employees being laid off you are being bullied into a yes vote. It’s ignorant to put the needs of 4500 employees slated to be laid off above those of 40,000 employees whom have stayed with the state knowing they had a contract until 2017. Do I want to see anyone laid off? No, but it might be a sacrifice we have to make. The Health plan sham is just so Dan can get his wifes non-profit friends to be able to buy into State subsidized health care. Look that up!

  145. Tony Says:

    To Helen: Where did you get all of the details of a Health plan which hasn’t been created yet? I called my Health provider and they said they have absolutely no details on the plan at all.

  146. BOB LABONIA Says:

    READ THE CONTRACT NOT GIVING UP MUCH IF ANY LEN SUZIO AND HIS REPULLICANS ARE QUOTED AS SAYING IT IS A GREAT DEAL FOR THE UNIONS
    ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES . VOTE A BIG YES AND LET’S HAVE LABOR PEACE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 4 YEARS.

  147. Ben Dover Says:

    Duhhhhhhh…….The Republicans will say the opposite of whatever the Democrats and our Union SECRAP Leadership says.

  148. Tony Says:

    Do some math Bob:

    wage increase 0 0 (3) (3) (3)
    medical contribution 0 0.5 2 3 3
    scheduled health increase .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
    12mo. moving ave. inflation 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 (best case scenario)

    Employee wage loss 3.2% 3.7% 2.2% 3.2% 3.2%

    This is a loss of 15.5% of your wages over the next 5 years in a BEST CASE scenario. In a worst case scenario, you are hit with the Value added penalty to the tune of $1750 / year and inflation (6 year trending) hits 5%. That puts your “shared sacrifice” around 35% over 5 years. Hope you can afford that because I can’t, luckily we will qualify for food stamps.

  149. WH Says:

    To all the yes voters besides no layoffs for 4 years why is this a good agreement? You dont want people to get layed off but you can care less about the people that pay $200 a week for daycare, over $4 a gallon for gas, bills, baby supplies, and food. Sorry but i need these raises that we have left in this 2012 contract.

  150. Mr. Mojo Risin Says:

    The 3% raise we are supposed to be getting on July 1, 2011, which the state wants us to give up now, was part of the previous concession deal. It was a dangling carrot and made us all vote for that concession package. We understood then that it was to come immediately after the no layoff clause expired but by its inclusion in that agreement we all felt assured that we would receive the raise. Now we have been threatened with massive layoffs and the shredding of the safety net, which somehow will be our fault if we don’t give in and set aside that raise. The state by this action has reneged on their promise. And they have further insulted us including another 3% raise in this new deal, once again after the no layoff clause expires. And we are supposed to believe that.

    We need to take a stand now or this will continue to happen. It is time to call Governor Molloy’s plan B bluff. Let him layoff 5,000 state employees and shred the safety net that is his choice. I fully agree that we should make concessions but the state needs to honor their last agreement then we can talk of another one. Why not wait a year and see what the economy looks like then. Let the newly hired staff go collect unemployment for a year and we can bring them all back next year by making concessions then. In the long run they will be better off and both sides will be in a better position to bargain (one of mutual respect). If we let them get away with this now we will always be walked on.

  151. Horrible Deal Says:

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… keep voting.

    I believe we are all sensible adults. How come the people saying to vote yes cannot see your union leaders did not have your best Interest with them during negotiations. There is nothing good about this deal. We keep giving and getting nothing back.

    It would have been nice for the union to set up a simple poll like I did to what is really important to.union members and see what we are will do sacrifice. But it obvious they are taking our money and don’t care.

    VOTE NO!!!!

  152. r u kidding me Says:

    Helen , please! look up on google any value based health plan with disease management. You will find that the agreement you sign will have you agreeing to strict health management rules, such as: need to lose 20 lbs. mandated or pay higher premium, tobacco use and pay higher premium, high cholseterol and pay a higher premium. This is a very bad plan and everybody knows it. I can’t believe you are selling something that you know nothing about. Are you trying to get a union job or do you already work for the union? Listen carefully, we do not want this value based health care! My doctor says they are bad plans, one paperwork snafu, missed appointment has you in violation of “signed agreement’ then your rates go up. Human resources is always so pleasant when dealing with paperwork snafus as we know it. Can you imagine the complaints of members living up to ’signed agreements” and getting charged extra each month and a $350 deductable because of a snafu. instead of selling us a bad product, go back to the table and fix this.

  153. r u kidding me Says:

    One other item, of the 5 diseases listed in the agreement, all 5 effect African Americans at a much higher rate. One could say that this new plan is discrimatory based on race. scrap it

  154. HardWorkingStateEmployee Says:

    This site is definitly moderated… There have been posts that have been made that are completely appropriate and haven’t shown up. Let’s try and see if this one makes it.

    People we need to stop fighting against each other, can’t you see that this is exactly what SEBAC and the Governor has done with this agreement, they have pitted state worker against state worker. They have pitted Tier 1 against Tier II and Tier IIa

    As my grandmother always said UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.

    I don’t mind making concessions and giving back, but this Value Plan Insurance scares the heck out of me… it’s a definite move to socialized medicine! VOTE NO for this plan!

  155. Jeff Says:

    I am a 43 yr old state employee with 23 years of service. After initially reading the agreement, I was inclined to vote yes, but after reading it several times, we have to vote NO on this.

    We will never see the back 3% raises, but rest assured we will be making the 3% contributions towards the pension.

    Sad truth is, there are too many state employees. Cut 5000. Half of them will be brought back within 2 years anyways.

    Freezing your wages is a bad thing for us to ever agree on.

    We made significant concessions last time to save jobs. Time to play hardball this time. We need to accept what happens for the greater good of the union members as a whole. The greater good is to vote NO.

    Pretty much anyone with 10+ years in the state should follow my lead as well. It is a bad deal all the way around. Let the Governor layoff the 5000.

  156. Bobby Z Says:

    Did anyone see the SEBAC negotiating team at “Toastmasters”? I cannot wait until they come to my worksite and start selling this to the membership. I might buy the snake oil but I will not be buying into the so called “Shared Sacrifice” rhetoric I see in this summary. Voting NO and NO when the show comes yo town.

  157. Bobby Z Says:

    Yes yes yes, I could not agree with “shamefulstateemployees” more…………NOT

  158. Bobby Z Says:

    VOTE yes…….. just checking to see if this gets edited out like comments I made
    2-18-11 ie:Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  159. jack Says:

    NICE JOB SECRAP. VALVE BASED HEALTH CARE IS WHAT WE GET AFTER ALL THE BACKROOM DEALINGS. GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE AFTER ALL WE KNOW HOW GREAT OF A JOB THE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE WITH SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.THIS WIILL NEVER PASS (NP4) CORRECTIONS UNION.

  160. Honor Love Says:

    CORRECTION TO THE ABOVE:

    WORSE THEN I THOUGHT!

    !THIS AGREEMENT MEANS:

    If you currently pay:

    $110.00 Bi-Weekly and $220.00 monthly for FAMILY Healthcare/Dental benefits

    As of July 1st 2011 this will increase to:

    $136.00 Bi-Weekly and $272.00 monthly out of your paycheck
    .

    This agreement means that by 2016 they are going to be taking:

    $422.00 per month out of your pay check for health care benefits and health care fund alone if you make $2500per pay period.

    IF you make more then $3000 per pay period:

    YOU WILL BE PAYING OVER $500.00 every month out of your paycheck.

    THAT IS AN INCREASE PER MONTH FOR HEALTHCARE COST AND HEATHCARE FUND COSTS OF OVER $300.00!

    ONLY AN INSANE PERSON WOULD CONSENT TO THIS

    RAPE OF STATE EMPLOYEES!!

  161. leaf Says:

    Vote NO-

    state employees are put on the chopping block time and again whenever there is a financial crisis in the state-

    get the state to stop spending and develop more creative ways to obtain revenue- especially from those who make over 100k a year-

    and stop squeezing blood from the hard working people who keep the state moving.

  162. Honor Love Says:

    IMPORTANT!
    YOU ARE AND WILL BE PAYING A PERCENTAGE
    (19%) OF THE OVERALL INSURANCE PREMIUM COST IN YOUR PAY CHECK!!

    THIS IS ONLY YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE……

    THE INSURANCE COMPANIES CAN STILL RAISE THE PREMIUM AND YOU WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY YOUR PERCENTAGE OF THE PREMIUM INCREASE!!!!!!!!!

    YOUR % AGREEMENT IS WITH THE STATE …..NOT FOR THE OVERALL PREMIUM COST!!!

  163. SHELLIE AGREES WITH VIC Says:

    “I’m voting yes ALSO, all you idiots that are voting no represent everything that is wrong with state workers! GREEDY!”

    The private sector has worse medical insurance with a bigger deductible and 80/20 out of pocket expenses…only a 401 K for retirement and no healthcare benefits when they retire. Consider yourself lucky and be grateful.

    Take what is offered before you really piss them off and end up with nothing!

  164. Stand Together Says:

    Why my vote is a no vote.
    If this agreement is ratified what is given up will never be regained.
    We were promised wage increases when we last agreed to open up our contract. Now that those increased are due, guess what, it’s time to repoen the contrcat, rescind the promises – oh but don’t worry you will get those raises in a few years. How can you yes voters be so nieve? We should not have given in before and now that they realize how spineless we are of course they are asking for more concessions. If we ratify this contract it will literally take years to get to where we would be if we just held the State to the contract now in effect. Would those critics in private industry give up wages and increases that they had negotiated for in good faith and which are now due and owing? Of course not! Let’s stop getting pushed around. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Vote no!

  165. WH Says:

    How is no greedy? A spending over 40 billion dollars and taking it away from workers is greedy! How can you say you are voting yes when you have no hard details on a healthcare plan? Dont screw 45000 employees to save (if he has the guts to layoff) 5000. Its not greed its survival.

  166. jack Says:

    BRAVO WH. IT’S ABOUT TIME WE TAKE A STAND AGAINST THIS INSANITY.

  167. Sammy Says:

    How come our current health insurance carriers know nothing about this new “value ” plan. Aren’t they the ones offering it and isn’t it supposed to take effect 7/1/11?

  168. Dedicated to Patients/Clients Says:

    Six pages can not possibly contain all of the language in the new contract. The summary omits how much??? Alot!!! I have had a delegate promise me 3 times that the 30 page document would be forwarded to me. I have not received the document. I feel we are being asked to stand in solidarity and vote and a contract that has no details. We provide the hightest quality of care to Patients and Clients, the citizens of CT that require our services in MH and DDS. We sell our souls to, with a projected two years no raises, while still awating the contract step 3/31/2011 which I have not seen, to in the next five years gain 9% while giving back 6.5% for retiree medical and in addition, 5% for an increase in medical. So we gain 9% and lose 8.5% in a total of 7 years. UNFAIR Anthem cannot give me the details of the new Value Based proposed. I called them. This is pretty scarey.

    We have been pitted brother/sister against each other per teir 1, 2, 2a.

    The smoke has not cleared and facts are not in. I cannot vote based on promises that are not in ink. I hope you agree.

    When the time comes each union member will vote on what is best for their families. Clarification needs to come first. Fairness to respect the incredible work we do as state employees second.

    Currently my vote is NO! I”m sorry people without seniority will get screwed, but, I have earned my right to my benefits as many of you have.

    Stay strong my brothers and sister of the union.

  169. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    VOTE NO,

    5000 co workers in Lay offs = 4 Million dollars less in dues? This is what this is all about. This Heath Plan saves only 210 million dollars ( in 2 yrs. ) of a 2000 million dollar deficit which Malloy demanded.

    Now After reading numerous posts, it is quite evident that workers were willing to give back many options of give backs. What would it take over 2 years, to make up 210 million dollars maybe 2 furlough days a year?

    So why is the Health care changes being placed, Because this is the set up to obama care type Health Insurance in 2014. Did you see that Sustinet is also back on tract? Remember you have a negotiated health care plan until 2017. IF this is voted in ( or if Someone tally’s the votes incorrectly (WINK) You will never have the old plan from 1997 which is the SEBAC V AGREEMENT of 1997.

    It is true this Health Care plan doesn’t even exist yet. So what! you will have health care until 2022, It will be this PLAN and costs will go through the roof. It may not be constitutional. A 1550 Dollar Fine for not complying?

    SEBAC you dropped the ball and Malloy I think got to greedy. Remember you also will pay a 6% Penalty for retiring early. This could have been negotiated if SEBAC asked its members for input from the beginning.

    So now After trying to strong arm it’s members it will back fire. Hopefully the old adage ” It is not who votes it is who counts the votes” does not come to fruition.

    VOTE NO, or re negotiate this SCAM.

  170. Unfair Says:

    You do not know how badly Malloy wishes we take this healthcare plan. Right before he goes to bed at night he is closing his eyes tightly and just hoping and hoping for this to pass. Every politician will look at him as athe Holy Mesiah if this passes. He will save the state trillions of dollars over time with this Walmart brand healthcare. Healthcare will never go back to the way we knew. We will be telling our kids about the good old days when you can pick your own doctor and just walk into an office and get some help. What a sad day Vote No. We take good care of the State and now they need to take care of us.

  171. Julie Says:

    People really need to be informed about the major changes to healthcare. The reason Anthem doesn’t know anything about the “value based health option” is because it won’t be an option for state workers any longer.
    I received an email today stating the following:
    “Sustinet…an historic agreement was reached between Governor Malloy and the House that will provide a nonprofit plan as an alternative to private insurance. Now it’s up the the State Senate to get it done.”
    If this gets voted in by the State Senate and then voted in by state workers, we are beyond screwed. We will no longer have the option of Anthem or United Healthcare, etc. This WILL BE OUR ONLY OPTION, with big brother watching us. It is not what it is cracked up to be. I don’t want to see people laid off either, but we need to call the Governor’s bluff. They are selling us out.

  172. jack Says:

    FREESPEECHCT YOU ARE ONE OF THE MOST INFORMED PEOPLE ON THIS BLOG, AFTER PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THESE HEALTH CHANGES, I SWEAR OBAMA AND DAN MALLOY ARE WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS CONCESSION PACKAGE FOR OTHER STATES TO FOLLOW SUIT.

  173. jack Says:

    THANK YOU JULIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  174. dave Says:

    this is not only a bad deal, but it is the start of obama care in connecticut, thats why the union has not said a word either way about it. it infringes upon your civil liberties as a private citizen. if you do not do want the goverment wants, you will be penalized. if you dont follow strict guidelines on diet or personal behavior, you will be penalized. this is the 1st step to letting goverment make your decisions for you and controlling your most basic desicions. if you let them in the door, it will never stop. will they tell women who want to have a baby in her forties, it is to risky, we wont cover you? will they start banning recreational sports for fear you may use your healthcare insurance to much? with thier push for the so-called green aganda, will they force state employess to buy electric cars? you people in the private sector, if this goes through and becomes law, your employers will follow suit in telling you how to live or we wont contribute to your insurance. it is time to tell the goverment to get out of our bussiness and concentrate on reducing spending. to the media, start telling the truth about malloys budget, he is not cutting spending, he has increased spending 4 billion dollars over 2 years. if you have a 3.5 billion dollar deficit, why must you need a billion dollar surplus into this budget, balance the freaking budget first, then worry about the surplus, you sure arent worried about my surplus. ask yourselves people of connecticut, do you go to work so dan mally can have a govermental surplus when you struggle daily with your finances? VOTE NO VOTE NO VOTE NO

  175. protectyourrights Says:

    Check out CFR § 2590.702 “Prohibiting discrimination against participants and beneficiaries based on a health factor.”

    Seems pretty clear that this agreement is illegal to me.

  176. Not Happy Says:

    I refuse to be bullied around by politicians making promises that they can’t keep to only to waste more money so they can be re-elected and make a name for themselves. I’m newer to the system (6th year) and I’m already behind $16,000 per year as last September that I was promised.

    We all have PERSONAL BUDGETS and financial CONTRACTS to banking institutions that we must abide by. We promise to pay them and if we don’t we are in trouble!!!

    Why should the way that STATE GOVERMENT does business be any different??? Malloy is no different from the rest of the politicians. He could care less about the middle class.

    A question you might want to ask yourself when you vote is why in his plan “B” was to lay off 1400 of the 1700 state employees in the Technical High School System???

    When I saw the budget, that told me right away that he could care less about the middle class, the 12,000 students in our system that strives to provide small business with skilled workers to keep their business operating.

    I am voting NO on the basic principles that this is a scare tactic from Malloy that does not understand the importance of training our future work force in Connecticut.

    VOTE NO!!!!!

  177. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Interesting Posts from Julie and Jack and everyone else.

    QUOTE: “Livingston said the changes to the health care package are what he’s most proud of, because it doesn’t require employees to pay more if they agree to manage their health by getting regular checkups.

    He said that when workers pay more for health care, they don’t get needed treatment, so the other way to save money is to encourage people with value-based medicine. For those members unwilling to manage their health, they will pay an additional $100 premium a month, in addition to paying a $350 deductible for the first time.”

    WHAT ” Members that are Unwilling to address their health care this is why people will pay a $1550 dollar fine , on a Plan that does not exist? What will be the critirion for success? Who makes that decision, what about Hippa laws? IF your BMI did not go down low enough will this be failure? How about African Americans that are 3 x’s higher in the Deseases discribed. Why should they possibly be subjected to fines and fee’s for not complying ( what ever that definition will be?) or anyone else for that matter?
    SEBAC you did not work with your members.
    As “Livingston said the changes to the health care package are what he’s most proud of”
    AND IT ONLY SAVES SOMEHOW 210 Million Dollars or does it set up another agenda?

  178. jonny appleseed Says:

    Go Forth and spread the Word. The WORD is TRUTH and all Unionized state employees need to vote NO… Please, fellow state workers, go to Face Book, Twitter and the media. Malloy has scammed us along with the Union heads. All it takes is for all of us to open our eyes as the truth is right in front of us. He played us.. Now vote NO!!!!!!

  179. Horrible Deal Says:

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… keep voting.

    anyone here voting yes is not informed of the sacrifice your willing to do. we are not the private sector so stop comparing us to them. I and we work hard for what we have and where we are at. Stop roll over and give it all up.

    al Luciano, executive director of Council 4 AFSCME, representing 18,000 Connecticut state employees, said Tuesday on the Watchdog News Hour that he was completely taken by surprise earlier in the day when he learned that the man he and his union supported for Governor wanted the workers to give $1 billion dollars in concessions for each of the next two years.

    uciano, in the 45 interview on http://www.OnTheHORN.com radio/television Internet program, said the request does not make sense since state employee wages only account for $4 billion of the annual Connecticut budget.

  180. Tony Says:

    PROTECTYOURIGHTS is certainly correct. This provision violates state and federal law. It will unfairly penalize African Americans as well as persons whom won’t comply based upon their religious beliefs. Livingston can’t be that good of an attorney if this was not considered. But as long as Dan’s wifes non-profit friends can still buy the State plan it won’t be a total loss for him.

  181. NO NO NO Says:

    VOTE NO ..THIS AGREEMENT SUCKS- PERIOD! WELL DONE SECRAP WELL DONE..NOT!!!

  182. vic Says:

    I’d rather pay an extra 10 to 15% for my current healthcare plan, but that isn’t an option, so even though i don’t like the healthcare plan i’ll be voting yes.

  183. NO NO NO Says:

    HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THE VOTE IS COUNTED LEGALLY? WE PAY ENOUGH IN DUES DO WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND PART OF OUR DUES GO TOWARDS AN INDEPENDENT FIRM FOR COUNTING??? BECAUSE AFTER THIS SHADY PLAN I HATE TO SAY IT BUT I GOT NO TRUST FOR THE UNION..ANYONE KNOW?

  184. Stand Together Says:

    I am no conspiracy nut but the more I think about the health care changes that are proposed the more I am convinced that this agreement is a big step toward health care rationing. The more “cost effective doctors” that they will have in our plans will be the ones that won’t send you for tests unless you have a big metal spike sticking out of your head. “Value based health option” is double-speak for rationed health care. Wise up and vote no! We aren’t socialist yet – let comrade Malloy know where we stand!

  185. Dwilson Says:

    I was at a mtg today union rep stated if non compliant with value based health plan you are charged 100.00 more per pay period and 350.00 deductible per person. The hc summary is not complete and it should worry everyone. Vote no and support by showing up at much needed meetings now not later………iike Wisconsin !!!!!!!!! Vote no!

  186. Stand Together Says:

    Dwilson : Our Union rep also says that the details of the actual agreement have not been finalized. How can it be that we are being called upon to discuss and vote on a package when the details are not settled?

  187. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Very interesting post you provide Sharewhut , in sharing with your readers.
    “ONLY VOTE YES IF YOU WANT SUSTINET FORCED ON YOU!!!!!!!!

    They’re not telling us what the Value Added Plan is. Guess what- in 2012 when Health ‘goes out to bid’, this is what we’re gonna get.
    Link to whole Sustinet committee report, @150 pages is below. But this is our ‘warning’: page 8:
    “We envision that the SustiNet health plan will provide
    a common platform for reforming health care delivery
    and payment.

    ******The plan will begin by covering those
    for whom the state is currently responsible—that
    is, state employees and retirees as well as Medicaid
    and HUSKY beneficiaries.******

    The initial focus of our
    recommended proposal will thus involve slowing cost
    growth, rather than increasing coverage. However, as
    eligibility for Medicaid and HUSKY expands, so too
    will SustiNet enrollment.
    As an interim step in moving beyond state-sponsored
    populations, SustiNet will be offered as an option for
    small firms, municipalities, and non-profit corporations.”
    “Recommendations
    The Board organized its effort to understand options
    for SustiNet design into six major subject areas:
    covered populations; covered benefits; delivery
    system and payment reform; governance and
    administration; coverage and access to care; and
    public health investments. To examine each subject
    area, we conducted major policy meetings at which
    our consultants outlined policy options and applicable
    trade-offs.” SIX MAJOR SUBJECT AREAS, NONE OF THE SIX IS INITIAL FUNDING. THAT’S WHERE STATE EMPLOYEES COME IN. OUR HEALTH INSURANCE $$$ IS GOING TO BE SEED MONEY FOR GOV’T RUN, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!
    Read the main points and objectives in the report and you will see where the “Tentative Agreement” got it’s health care wording from.
    We are being used to establish government run and controlled healthcare in this state!!!!

  188. Gompers Says:

    This deal is a home run for us. We get to give up two zeros that no arbitrator in the world will give us during a recession anyway, in return for protecting our health care and pension until 2022. Then we get 3 years of 3 percent COLA. The best number crunchers in the business say this state is stuck in economic recession through 2015. By the time 2015 rolls around COLAs may be a thing of the past.but ours will be contractually guaranteed. Oh yeah, with four years of no layoff protection. We’re crazy if we don’t vote for this.

  189. Laid off in 1991 Says:

    I cannot believe anyone can consider voting yes to a plan whose details we don’t have. How may children have asthma? How many adults have high blood pressure or cholesterol. Who makes the decision that I am not following the “management plan” for the health condition I or my child have? Someone at OPM or the Comptroller? Once the precedent is set it becomes a slippery slope to determinations like sinus infections and bladder infections are chronic and when does it stop?

    It is not selfish to say “no” to Big Brother telling me how to live my life and “no” to getting between me and my doctor, because it’s not just me its you too and your dependents! My hackles rise when I hear the kind of concessions that are being pushed. They are more like sanctions for being in public service!

    Get a clue, it won’t stop here and heaven help those who follow us if this is ratified!

  190. disappointed Says:

    My post was deleted from last night! I am not so trusting now.

    We have been sold done the river.

    There is no honesty in these negotiations just as the contract of 97. If we open the 2017 contract we are setting ourselves up for losing even more.

    Waterbury paper says this is a done deal. I have been hearing more negative then positive votes. Do not believe the union’s threats of catastrophic results if this does not go through.

    Remember if he lays off 4700 employees the state will pay dollar for dollar of unemployment benefits, accrued sick leave and vacation also needs to be paid out.

    Governor Malloy is renovationg his Gov mansion swimming pool!
    He is investing 900 million in UConn Med center
    600 million on the busway
    Where is the shared sacrifice?

    Health plan is discriminatory against people with five common illnesses. They need to remove this from the concession pkg.

  191. LookinToRetireSoon Says:

    Why did it take four days to release the text of the agreement, allowing all the naysayers to take the high ground? BIG MISTAKE!! how about putting the conditions of the agreement in some sort of a cogent form, so that employees can understand what will affect them and when? A bulleted list with effective dates would be extremely helpful!

    The delay in releasing the text of the agreement only makes the SEBAC Team look like they have something to hide, and instilled a lot of mistrust. If you want the membership to accept this plan, you all got a “lot of ’splainin’ to do”!

  192. WH Says:

    I see no voters on here supporting their cause with facts. The yes people dont know why the are voting yes. Please look into the deal before you agree to it you are messing with peoples lives. The unions are going to present this to us an give us no time to look it over before we vote. Goto the meetings and listen before you cast a yes vote. Why would malloy lay off 5000 people who are paying 3% into the retirement pension fund already. Unemployment would increase and the unions who supported him will not fund his reelection campain please think.

  193. TravisG Says:

    Jack, I agree, they must be working hand in hand.

  194. Orlando Says:

    —-VOTE NO TO THE ATTACK AND ABUSES ON STATE EMPLOYEES BENEFITS—–

    Are they serious, when I bought my home I signed for it with a legal binding contract and when I bought my car I signed a legal binding contract. If the court mandates me to do anything such as pay alimony or child support it binds me to an agreement with the courts. Now if I don”t pay my home the bank forecloses, I don”t pay my car it will be repossessed, I don’t abide with court order I spend some time in Jail so why if our hard earned money which was placed in the hands of our own government to manage do we have to pay for their mismanagement of our money. Gov. DAN Malloy is a “Bully” at best, he should have those anti-bullying laws charged against him for it.
    “VOTE NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, NO WITHOUT RESERVATION, NO IN GENERAL”
    I am a state employee and with under five years and think that if you have to do layoffs for the betterment of the state than do-it and don’t threaten us with it and go on TV like your offended when you are questioned on your motives Mr. DAN Malloy, you were elected to govern our state not to go on TV and acted like a wounded animal when people don’t agree with you on your off-the-wall ideas on being superman and fixing a long standing problem that has plagued this state for a long time, a problem that was caused not by the employees or unions but the government itself that forgot how to count.

    Our Sebac agreement was supposed to not be touched, worked on or opened until 2017. It was messed with in 2009, 2011 and can guess 2013(probably) whenever else we allow this arrogant man with his arrogant followers to think they can in the name of betterment for the state.
    We as state employees are made out to be the bad guys because I as a state employee choose to go into a heavy florescence illuminated building with limited to no windows and work hard surrounded by less than reputable persons or ride on patrol for hours on end not knowing if we are coming home, or work during a blizzard to clear safe passage for residents trying to make it home all for the betterment of my family. Excuse me for wanting to live that thing we call “The American Dream.” We didn’t cause the problem but the backs of our state employees are what this governor wants to use as the solution.
    This agreement is an open door for disaster, and agreement to this will hinder any and all future agreements that follow for futures to come. You want to have a reason to take a state job then “NO” is the only way to go

  195. Michael Says:

    I’m voting “NO” to protest how well the Tier I employees have been treated, with the Tier II employees being treated poorly, in comparision. We’ve seen 4 waves of Tier I employees, mostly retire between 55 to 62, with enhancements to an already generous retirement program. Since the payout of Tier II is 40 percent less than Tier I, the Tier II employees should be retiring from ages 62 to 65, needing their Social Security to be able to afford to retire. There is pressure for the Tier II employees to delay their retirements from the ages of 65 to 70, still with less money. To save the newbies, the older employees will have to delay their retirements, as the numbers needed to retire securely will accumulate much slower. There is also, well founded, suspicion that there will be another round of concessions in 2015, asking us to forgo our pay raises while the premiums to support the Tier I and elite retired remain. Agreements are meant to be broken. The gap between Tier I and Tier II is growing. There is suspicion that the votes will not be counted correctly as the Governor and the Union hunchos have much at stake. We need an unbiased counter. In 2015, we’ll be asked to save the newbies again, as the number of elderly state employees will be growing rapidly. I can’t wait until I hear my Tier I union president preach to me about how we must vote ‘yes’. No skin off his nose. Vote “NO”.

  196. rankandfile Says:

    FreeSpeechCT, I couldn’t find he link, but I found the report by searching for Sustinet committee report. I checked out the the info, you’re right. Stage one is getting state employees, state retirees, husky, medicaid on board. It notes that one issue is current collective bargaining agreements. So they need to change those to implement Sustinet.

    I also found it interesting that the Sustinet board members include Nancy Wyman, Kevin Lembo, and Sal Luciano. It looks like we have to give up stuff so that the State can implement their version of “Romneycare” or “Obamacare”. Governor Malloy did say repeatedly that one of his goals was to implement Sustinet (Malloycare?) as quickly as possible.

  197. rankandfile Says:

    Here’s the link
    http://www.ct.gov/sustinet/lib/sustinet/sn.final_report.appendix.cga.010711.pdf

  198. Julie Says:

    I know this whole healthcare option (really a lack of option) is hard for everyone to swallow. Unfortunately, it is what we will all be stuck with regardless. If you look at private companies that offer insurance, they usually offer only one insurance company with some different plans within that one company. That is the intent of the state here. That is why we have not received anything for open enrollment yet. Even if we vote no, it will only protect our current health insurance for a year, at best, until they have to come up on re-bid. At that point, all that will be offered to us is “Sustinet.” I agree with others that have written that it’s all about rationing care. Other articles I’ve read about the value health care have been very specific that the cost of the service being sought is correlated with the value it has on your life.
    My point is, that no matter how we vote, by 2012 it is the only option we are going to have for medical insurance. Since this is the case, we might as well vote yes and keep our fellow state workers employed and keep our pensions and get out as soon as we can. The alternative is voting no, having the package shut down, and then Governor Malloy issues executive orders doing what he wants anyway.

  199. rankandfile Says:

    If we vote no, our health and pension agreement stays in place until 2017

  200. been there done that Says:

    Hi all, I’ve been trying to post facts, hoping if my info was wrong somebody would challenge. No challenges yet. If it was just a pay cut and higher medical cost I could vote yes – but there is so much extra in here that doesn’t deal with the current problem. It really attacks the Tier II retirements and I don’t see how I can vote for this. I will lose about $30,000 a year for the rest of my life to buy jobs that don’t really have protection. The layoff clause doesn’t mean newer hires keep there jobs. When Malloy closes agencies, you will be bumped. We should vote no and try negotiating something that deals with the current problems. Also, I know two people who have posted but their statements don’t appear here. I have set up an email address so folks who were blocked can let me know. the email address is CTworker2011@hotmail.com. Also, sebac write me to explain why some folks are blocked. Please read what I’ve had to say – start from the top…and let me know if your postings don’t appear. Vote NO so we can work on the current budget issues not some other Management agenda.

    Please read my other posts to see what I have to say about this mess.

  201. Ben Dover Says:

    Yes, I’m also aware of censorship taking place on this board from members expressing their opinions as well.
    —————————————————————————————-

    ANYONE who plans on retiring by 7/1/2017 will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your existing Pension language including the COLA and your healthcare choices.

    ANYONE in TIER II & TIER IIa who PLANNED on retiring at 55 will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your exising Pension language regarding the EARLY RETIREMENT Penalty and other language including the COLA and your healthcare choices.

    ANYONE in TIER II & TIER IIa who PLANNED on retiring at 60 or 62 and NOW will have to work the extra years will be voting NO. Why jeopardize your existing Pension language including the COLA and your healthcare choices.

    —————————————————————————————-
    PLEASE NOTE: This “Agreement” can simply be re-negotiated at any time further watering down our benefits by SECRAP who are obviously out of touch with membership.

  202. WH Says:

    Dear state workers what do you get from voting yes?

  203. protectyourrights Says:

    As explained to me by a Union Rep, the retiree medical change of 10 years vesting to 15 years will not effect ANY current employees and it will be phased in for new hires…. it that were TRUE, then why is there a projection of savings of $3,822,000 in 2012 and $9,705,000 in 2013 if it doesn’t effect current employees? The new hires clearly won’t be retiring…. more lies.

  204. Jeff Says:

    I have posted twice and had posts removed. I guess SEBAC does not value honest opinions.

    23 year state vet (43 yrs old) Tier 2 member.

    If we sign off on this concession package, 90% of the state employees are basically caving in to protect the other 10%.

    And we are giving up so much it makes me sick. Losing the longevity check in October and the top step bonus that comes with it. Losing the 2.5% raise in July promised to us.

    All this while our pay goes down significantly with increase in state income tax and increase in health insurance costs.

    Most newer hires in the last 2 years were told they would possibly losing their jobs and not to make any major purchases in that time. This is not unexpected to them.

    Not to sound callous, but why should the 10 yr+ state employees all see their pay drastically drop to save people who expected to be let go anyhow.

    Trust me, I am losing sleep about this whole thing. Many of us will have to make lifestyle changes if this passes. Something we should NOT have to do.

    I have to make the choice that is right for me, which is clearly NO. I am hoping fellow long termers share my opinion

  205. protectyourrights Says:

    Everyone should vote against this, even tier 1s. You would be agreeing to bascially no raises for 10 years because the “promised” 3 percent raises are offset by the 3% retirement health fund deduction. And with the cost of everything else going up, you are signing on for a paycut.

  206. Horrible Deal Says:

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… keep voting.

    Protect your self vote no.

  207. Just say no! Says:

    And to make matters worse, tax increases begin July 1 and the really big hit in income tax august 1.

    They are not balancing this budget on my back.

    NO!

  208. shamefulstateemployees Says:

    Jeff says: “Many of us will have to make lifestyle changes if this passes. Something we should NOT have to do.”

    Protectyourrights adds: “You would be agreeing to bascially no raises for 10 years because the “promised” 3 percent raises are offset by the 3% retirement health fund deduction.”

    I only chose 2 examples, though there are many more, but hey, I do work for the state, so I only have to do the bare minimum!

    Jeff, why shouldn’t our lifestyles have to change? There are millions in this state who have had drastic changes in their lives due to this economy. Why is it that you, and so many others, believe that we are somewhat exempt from this? Not to mention the 5,000 newer highers you are so altruistically offering as a sacrifice so you don’t have to change your lifestyle! Pathetic!!
    Get a grip man, be thankful you have a job, and stop broadcasting how selfish you are. It is embarrassing.

    And Protect, your are equally as sad. I am sure that you were fine when they implemented the 3% for employees with 5 years or less, weren’t you? Now that it might hit your pocket your are all about protecting rights. What a joke!

  209. WH Says:

    Everyone who was hired in the last 2 years knew this would happen. Its not greed if you want what is owed to you. Whats going to happen in 2015 when the layoff agreement is up but we have 1 year left on the contract the same thing.

  210. protectyourrights Says:

    Actually I only have 1 year of state service and have been paying the 3% all along so that does not personally effect me in anyway. But wrong is wrong and I just thought I would point it out for everyone else who might not have noticed. And if you will read my previous posts, I am MAINLY concerned with the health plan, I just thought I would point out another thing that I have an issue with. The media acts like we are all getting raises. I was only making the point that a lot of employees are NOT… for ten years.

  211. protectyourrights Says:

    I don’t want any tier 1s to get the idea that this doesn’t effect them, because that is something the reps keep saying, which is not true. If effects everyone and I don’t want them think they are doing ME (someone who is probably going to get laid off if this deal goes through) a favor. I would not ask ANYONE to take a hit like this for my job.

  212. protectyourrights Says:

    And you shouldn’t either.

  213. Horrible Deal Says:

    shamefulstateemployees you and all you are yes votes are absolutely clueless.

    We have worked hard for what we have do not roll over and give back to them. We are locked into a contract for a reason. Opening up this health care is a huge mistake. The last two times we did this a was a huge mistake as well. I voted NO last time. And we were told then if you can all remember. If we take the hit now hard zero, furlough, health care increases, 3% for newbies. Next time we will get a better contract. Well look its not even next time and they are trying to give us a worse deal then before. So all you liberal people out there for once stand the ground with the hard working and keep whats ours.

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… keep voting. show them we mean business. Do not toy with our future.

  214. Horrible Deal Says:

    here is another whammy

    http://www.ctmirror.org/story/12652/state-income-tax-hike-hits-paychecks-august#comment-4607

    so all you people that think this a good deal to take a hit. well guess what the federal government is gonna make you take another one.

    VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  215. been there done that Says:

    Anyone considering a vote of yes should do so for one reason – to keep their job. But, if you are downsized or laid off anyway promise not to bump – after all somebody elses job is too important to touch.
    Why are we are negotiating now??? Our contracts are not expiring. If you vote yes accept that nothing else in the contract is worth anything – just like our last agreement was worth nothing. There is no reason whatsoever to think you will see raises in two years. There is no reason to think the 1/2% or 3% for health care will be honored by this or another administration. There is absolutely no reason to think you have layoff protection since Malloy has repeatedly stated he plans to close facilities and agencies. If you do decide to vote yes, please take the layoff when it comes and do not bump. If layoff protection is so very important give it to the rest of us with your promise, stated on this site, that you will not bump another worker. After making that pledge publically, go ahead and climb on your high horse about saving jobs. What you newbies don’t get, is that we veterans know from experience – this deal does not address the problems it is supposed to address. The terms address with some other agenda entirely. Remember if you vote yes you should promise you won’t bump the next guy.

  216. Joe Lunchpail Says:

    A union is supposed to hold the line sometimes. The carrots of concessions they dangle for a yes vote will surely be tossed aside when projections come up short. What’s the frequency Kenneth? COURAGE.

  217. voteno Says:

    I am a P-2 employee and all of the folks in my office are voting no. Every few years the state threatens the employees with a layoff. The gvt. negotiates concessions from FEAR. Only a 1** layoffs were actually sent out the week that the threats came out. Does Malloy really think he will survive another term without our help? Does he really want to layoff 4**** people into an already struggling economy and be the BAD guy to boost the unemployment rate in CT? You can answer those questions yourself. Just remember, once you give up benefits, don’t think good ole dan is gonna give them back to you when the economy gets better. The Malloy administration is using media outlets to keep the positive momentum going into the vote. They believe that we will ratify the concessions and be the saviors. They already think that this is a done deal. Just remember, not only will you be given up raises in a few years, but you will be taking a cut from the retro income tax that good ole dan put into place this year. A consideration. The economy is likely to get better in the next few years. It’s cyclical folks. Waiting to renogiate in 2017 might be healthier for state employees than to get stuck with this screw job deal. Remember, the public perception is that this is a great deal for this and is still not happy. You can rest assure that good ole dan will be back at us for more in the coming years. VOTE NO!

  218. shamefulstateemployees Says:

    I prefer to think of myself as pragmatic, and realistic. All of you talk as though we are living in a time of economic prosperity. Wake up.

    “So all you liberal people out there for once stand the ground with the hard working and keep whats ours.”

    First off, you are assuming my political views, incorrectly, without any knowledge to support your assumption, which I should have expected considering your ramblings thus far. Secondly, what the heck does being a liberal or otherwise have to do with the decision to vote yes or no?

    And you accuse me of being clueless!

  219. will vote no Says:

    I am still voting no. It doesn’t seem fair that the management and legislature staff makes more money than most union employees and they aren’t pitching in. They do not have to pay any of the 3% towards retirement/medical fund. They are retiring and probably at a higher rate than most of us. If all state employees contributed to this fund, (its more like a tax for working for the state) it would be paid up faster and be more fair. Until everyone who is going to receive a retirement from the state, pitches in, I will vote no. The medical, the more I read the worse it seems. You can’t even go to learn about this agreement on state time, you have to use personal time. We can check out medical plans on state time but something as important as this, we can’t. Therefore., since I will not be going to any of these meetings, my vote will remain “no”.

  220. Feeling Betrayed Says:

    I become more angry as the days go on and more “information” trickles out. I believe that, from the very beginning, there was an agenda between the governor and SEBAC and it centers around the healthcare portion of this concession agreement. Your union has a “duty of fair representation”. There was no input from members and this whole thing was done under a veil of secrecy that was disguised as “not negotiating in the media”. I intend to contact the National Labor Relations Board on Monday and find out what redress, if any, we have as members of unions that are represented by the bargaining coalition known as SEBAC. I’ll be surprised if this passes the moderation test, so will also send to CTworker2011@hotmail.com; thanks to ‘been there done that’ for setting up that mailbox.

  221. protectyourrights Says:

    The whole health plan is about forcing sustinet through. Without concessions, the state can’t put the state workers on it until 2017. And they can’t put anyone else on it WE are on it first. Our current health plan does not support sustinet, so they need use to go on this “value” based plan to slip sustinet through the backdoor. If you vote yes, you are voting to get kicked off Anthem, United, whatever you are using, within 18 months and getting put on sustinet. Then they will put the welfare recipients on it, then the municipalities, then everyone else. But they can’t do any of that without concessions. We are being sold out by the unions to force their agenda on this state.

  222. Mim Says:

    I too will be voting NO. Last time I checked this was still America and I decide when and if I go to the Doctor. What else will our government attempt to legislate? Where is the health care savings when it will only cost more money to oversee the package the union and Gov Malloy is attempting to force on us. State workers have an agreement to keep our health and pension benefits intact until 2017. Why would anyone in their right mind allow the Gov and SEBAC to open it up? Do you all really believe once the foot is in the door that will be the end of it? I am disgusted with the Union and it’s leadership. They should all be voted out for trying to push this down the throats of the rank and file. Stand together and vote no. Force the union to take this back to the bargaining table!

  223. Kris Says:

    WS- what we get if we vote yes is the vo-tech school kept in place….despite Malloy’s attempt to close all of them because he couldn’t own Wright Tech as gov. I read the seninet website….sounds like they wanted us to have state welfare insurance all along….make the mandatory physicals to those who do not work yet are insured….but not as part of our “benefits” package.

  224. weweresoldout Says:

    Our Union sold us out! Why is Council 4 AFSCME Sal Luciano on the sustinet BOARD OF DIRECTORS???? Isn’t that a conflict of interest? It seems that our Union knew all about this but kept us dues paying members in the dark. I guess this is why we didn’t have they usual open enrollment packages this may. We aren’t going to have any choices anymore. We were willing to negotiate and knew there would be sacrifices…but THIS? I didn’t trust this governor from the beginning but what is really sad is I don’t trust my union anymore either. What scares me is that I wouldn’t put it past them to “fix” the union vote on this issue. EVERYONE I have spoken to is voting no……

  225. Jose Rodriguez Says:

    http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/news/blogs/nh-the-malloysebac-deal-shocking-incredible-how-did-this-happen-20110518,0,5018664,full.story

    Fellow employees: Please vote NO on this offer! I have heard and seen the details. I would take a layoff before this lousy offer. We have a contract through 6/30/12. We have had zero & zero for the past two years. This offer is for 0-0-3-3-3 but the final 3 we may never see since it is after the year jobs are guaranteed until. I would have to pay up to 3% medical payments for 12 years to save jobs of employees who are already paying 3% for only 10 years! I would not be surprised if the state asked for concessions again in 4 years. Retirement and medical changes are also not reasonable. We will not get the answers before we vote. Do not trust answers from the staff reps who are trying to get your union dues and keep their jobs. Their interests are different than yours! Who came up with the idea to get prescriptions saved by out-of-state (CVS) mail-order? This is taking business away from Connecticut pharmacies and may cost small pharmacies their business! Do not be foolish. Furlough days would save money much quicker. We can do much better than this with Plan B, C or D. VOTE NO PLEASE!

  226. jonny appleseed Says:

    WE need to support Republican Cafero and his attempts to stop this Budget. Send him an e-mail and let him know that only the Union bobble heads and Malloy support this intrusive health care reform as well as SEBAC contract cookie jar that they keep going into. Enough is Enough. The RankandFile Members stand united.

    Lawrence.Cafero@housegop.ct.gov

  227. rankandfile Says:

    It does seem odd that neither the Democratic or the Republican politicians, or the media, or even our union leadership seem to have picked up on the fact that most union members think this is a horrible deal. Are they all oblivious, or is something else going on?

  228. Michael Says:

    Wow. State employees and Lawrence Cafero, talking about strange bed fellows. Five years ago there was a statistic that said within 10 years, 43% of Connecticut state employees would be eligible for retirement. Even if the 2009 golden handshake is taken into consideration, there should be at least 15,000 state employees who are entering pre-retirement territory. It would seem to me that this group should be a natural for voting “NO” to limit the damage of retiring with a smaller pension and/or the financial need to work a couple of years longer. Recent high profile retirees are Rell (governor, Lt. governor, legislator), Rowland (governor, congressman, legislator), Moody (miserable person), Jaekle & Johnston (state auditors) all have great pensions and do you think they would give anything back to save the newbies or keep the current levels of services intact? Nobody is calling them greedy. To older state employees, it’s to your best interests to vote “NO”, or else you will have to delay your retirement and still retire with less.

  229. JH Says:

    Can we even go after the union for discussing the SEBAC agreement when it was not up until 2017? They never took a vote with the membership to ask us if it was ok to re open it! If it was a republican governor asking for it to be reopened, our leadership would have told them to go pound sand! Plus I didn’t think SEBAC could negotiate wages????? Our unions need to disband SEBAC…enough is enough, I see a top ranking official from AFSCME council 4 is on the SUSTINET executive board. Is that a paid position? Isn’t that a conflict of interest??? Plus I don’t like the fact that everyone in the Gov’s office seems to think this is gonna pass……I don’t trust it, everyone I talk to is voting against it including the newbies! I think we need an independent company to oversee the votes! I would rather have my union dues go towards that than towards democrats campaign funds!!

  230. Reality Check Says:

    Seriously!! “In this together”? Who? Can the Union reps and Governor really sleep at night? I thought all the Unions were in it together with their members. Wow a 3% pay increase “the wage pattern offered is 0, 0,3,3,3 “. GREAT!! Oh, but you’ll also “begin contributing to the Retiree Health Care Trust Fund which will begin contributing ½% to the trust fund in fiscal 2014 (which starts July 1, 2013 and before you receive a increase), a total of 2% in fiscal 2015, and a total of 3% in 2016(wow when we’ve received our first 3% increase). Each workers contribution ends after paying the equivalent of 3% for 10 years”. So what is our increase for the next 5to 10years? Does it really make sense that our representatives would be encouraging us to agree with this?
    Would the private sector agree to give up their rights to make their own medical decisions? If we want to exercise our freedom to make our own decisions we will be required to pay high monthly fees. Where are we living? Is this the United States? What about HIPAA?
    Union members have made many sacrifices over the years. We are working with fewer resources; higher demand on current employees and have given furlough days, wage freeze and much more under the Rell administration. We altered the contracts which are being compromised again. What is the value of our contracts if they can be altered time and time again? Malloy is already stating if enough state workers do not retiree by September 2011 he will look for more.
    When is it time that we say “No” the members are standing together. We may have to sacrifice 4700 jobs but we will not continually let our more than 45,000 employees become the sacrifice every time the Government needs a bail out for their misuse and inability to manage the budget. Our 45,000+ members are suffering with the rest of the state with the higher taxes, fuel, and other living expenses. We are not the middle class; Call us tier 4, border line poverty class.
    What did the rich give up? The Governor keeps saying he’s negotiating in good faith!! If so we’ve already given furlough days and pay raises in exchange to extend our contract to 2012, so why not give us our raises as promised by Gov. Rell “in good faith”? Show us it’s worth negotiating and that contracts really are binding. Leave our 2017 contract alone, as our Union President said “this is not a good time to be negotiating”. So let’s wait and see how the economy might be than. At least we would get what was promised until we re-negotiate. VOTE NO!!

  231. Horrible Deal Says:

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… keep voting. show them we mean business. Keep what we have..

  232. Michael Says:

    To Horrible Deal: Your poll is a success, 1% of union members have voted, so far.

  233. Feeling cheated Says:

    Will be voting no. Can’t believe they made a deal to touch our tier II pension. Really? It is one thing to make deals on current pay wages but don’t mess with pension plans. Some of us have over 20 years senority with the state, we chose to stay because of the pension benefits now as we think of retiring you want to change it? Really? I feel cheated! I could have put in time with another company who honors benefits to the end!

  234. Tom Says:

    It seems these wage freezes get placed into a “short term” category and I don’t see why. Let’s say someone 25 years old started work in 2007 at $50K. The disparity between wages, as stipulated in the signed contacts for that person and the actual reality, makes a huge long term difference. They had expected 3.25% increases in 2008, 2009, 2010. They lost out on the 2009 increase, but were promised a raise in 2011 instead. Now it appears 2011 is gone, too. So, adding possible merit into the mix (let’s say $500 increase each year) so far they are out about $4K rounded off annual, ballpark figures. Add another no raise in 2012 and it makes it $6K rounded off. Let’s say they work 37 years and retire at 62.

    No raise in 2009 = loss of $2K X 36 years = $72K
    No raise in 2011 = loss of $2K X 34 years = $68K
    No raise in 2012 = loss of $2K X 33 years = $66K
    Add in upwards of $15K for the 3% retirement fund

    Total loss = $221K

    Add in ARP, if applicable, and it’s close to $240,000. These are not short term numbers.

    And the idea that there will be raises in 2013, 2014, and 2015 is hopeful thinking.

  235. weweresoldout Says:

    Ok…willl try this again and see if this gets posted. This whole thing is a sham. If you want to have SUSTINET then vote yes. Look it up….Sal Luciano is on the board of directors….yes, our council 4 AFSCME Sal Luciano. Obviously our Union was in on this from the beginning and preferred to leave us in the dark. If you look up anything on sustinet, the only way to get it going is to put State Employees on it first and belive me, it frightens me. Look it up…it is all there. Basically a board of bureaucrats will decide whether or not your doctor can order certain tests etc. and they want to establish a Pay-for Performance system for providers….know what that means? If your doctor saves money they get rewarded and you know what happens then? If your doctor gets a bonus for NOT ordering tests, you might not get the best care…but you will still be paying for it. The plan is to put state employees and retirees on it first then Husky, SAGA and everyone else after that. Face it…..our Union sold us out. Look it up…it’s all there. I am voting a NO and suggest you do to.

  236. weweresoldout Says:

    Oh, and the 900,000,000 to Uconn? Where is that coming from? And also on the SUSTINET board of directors….Jeffrey Kramer fro UConn school of Business. Hmmmmmm….Funny how the state has no money and our governor is trying to basically balance the budget on State employee backs but he wants to push through a 900,000,000 deal with the Uconn health center? Wow….I am stunned..

  237. retired d o c from erip Says:

    You guys should take it.pay some, skip some raises go on sustinet; you need to lose a few pounds and quit smoking anyways, cut out the fast food. You are not able to control your behavior so when you think about it, sal luciano and sustinet are doing you a favor. Stop complaining and just take it.

  238. Keith O'Leary Says:

    I vote no!

    This plan is a massive screw job for any worker 50 + who is soon eligible to retire and has any years in. The union is throwing us under the bus after years of paying dues. This deal is actually an attack on older employees. I believe there is a possible age discrimination action going on here. Can you say “massive lawsuit”. Just look at the dynamics of this plan. Force older workers out of the picture to save money. That’s discrimination any way you look at it.

  239. DISGRUNTLED MANAGER Says:

    Those who think the Mgrs. aren’t affected by this are wrong. We get what you get only we don’t get to vote on it. Think about it….Someone else is determining your wages/benefits and you have NO binding arbitration to represent your interests.

    I was a longtime Union member, steward and governing board member who got promoted into management a few years back after nearly 30 years state service. Now, I’m at the whim of the Governor who decides what, if any, raise I get. We haven’t had a raise since 7/2008 and the only hope of one is if this “tentative agreement” passes, we will end up getting the same 0,0,3,3,3 you all are looking at with all the other baggage too with the pension and healthcare.

    I’m not happy with this and if I had a vote, I’d vote NO.

    I’d take my chances with the Pension/Healthcare reopener in 6 years as no arbitrator would ever water down the pensions like you’re being asked to do for existing employees. They may have you pay a small percentage but would NEVER increase the age of retirement or the penalty for early retirement. A new TIER 3 would be created for new employees like what is being proposed and there would be healthcare changes but you wouldn’t be working towards something for years and years only to be told, you know what, you have to work another 3 years to get the same benefit OR be told your penalty for Early Retirement is going to cost you twice as much!

  240. Tier2A~Questions Says:

    Unless and until I see all 55+ pages of this agreement in writing, I am not voting. Fine me 500K & we’ll see you in my State of CT run court house. Don’t provoke me unless you mean it.

    This much I know is true:

    (1) I am pleased and relieved my husband and I have jobs.
    (2) He does not receive paid time off of any kind; straight salary regardless of the number of hours he works. No medical either. ;={
    (3) Our combined pay does not cover our basic expenses to maintain a middle-class standard of living: Two used cars, kid’s public education; & forget vacations.
    (4) The state of CT & IRS took more than a third of our income 04/18/11.
    (5) These concession are the same ‘ol tired arguments that the state has been using to break the backs of unions since Ella Grasso was governor.
    (6) Every one of my fellow state employees wants to balance the state budget. We all want to pay our fair share of taxes. We want more industry, more jobs, more efficient government. Yet the management continues to allow THE EXCEPTION TO DRIVE THE RULE.
    (7) Every one of these governors came from the same school of politics, they just change their suits every four years.

    What is still not clear to me:

    (1) The agreement uses “3%” throughout. Is this 3% of my gross? Adjusted? 3% of my total blood count.. what?
    (2) Finally contributions will no longer go into the slush fund. That only took 25 years. What is not clear from the summary is the interchanging of the terms “pension” and “healthcare” contributions in “Trust.” What exactly are we being asked to contribute? Is it 3% each? 3% total combined pension and healthcare? It changes depending upon who you talk to.
    (3) When I get thrown into the high risk pool for my pre-existing condition and pay my extra $100 per month premium, which does not specify the base to know how much $100 above actually is, am I still covered under BC/BS or some other subcontract who picks up the high risk pool? Do they also pick us up when we fail to meet our “voluntary” commitment to value added health care?
    (4) Isn’t this most recent threat of layoff a breach of contract? Breach of SEBAC 5? It certainly wasn’t in OUR interest to open agreements.
    (5) Let’s take this argument to the extreme. 4,7K positions are eliminated. And let’s say that there is another 10k positions after that just for the sake of argument. Can the state reasonably sustain the cost of the lawsuits, (which of course we are trying to avoid here) when we are out of compliance with the Justice Departments, Health Departments, and every other oversight agency we are accountable to? Let’s take it a step further. When everyone is laid off, where do the displaced go for help? The state department of unemployment, the state department of administrative services, the state department of rehabilitative services? Is it me, or is anyone else lost in the irony of this situation? How is this a cost savings for the state? I am not an accountant, but I can balance my family budget, and this agreement does not add up as it was presented to me.
    (5) If we shift the cost to the municipalities, which I assume has a different bargaining coalition, doesn’t this just reaffirm the basic law of physics that we get hit in the end with higher local taxes? Jusxaposed from the beginning where we get the appearance of first right of refusal?

    I am hopeful that when I meet next week with my organizer he will have my copy of the actual agreement that will answer these questions. I am optomistic and altruistic, but I am not stupid. The employees of the State of Connecticut have been keeping this state’s afloat for as long as I can remember and I’m pretty old.

  241. Michael Says:

    To Keith O’Leary, I keep on trying to point out, to save the newbies, the older employees will suffer some combination of delayed retirement, coupled with a smaller pension. Much I my resentment comes from how well the Tier I employees have been treated, versus how Tier II is very effectively getting screwed. The cliff between Tier I and Tier II is getting really huge, and growing. After a person turns 55, generally it’s too late to expect that person to make changes to compensate for unfortunate circumstances. Even the Federal government realizes that with the coming changes to Social Security. When it comes to the concessions, I think it would had been better to have our enemy across the table, rather than our ‘friend’. We need a labor lawyer?

  242. bob got screwed again Says:

    All I can say is thank God all our current union leaders and newbees weren’t around when unions were being formed. If they were, the first time an owner said they’d fire them if they formed a union, with your mentality unions wouldn’t exist. Union leaders start doing your job and start thinking of who you represent instead of no layoffs and no cut in union dues. Did you promise Malloy the same contribution for his reelection as you gave him last time for no layoffs? And do you have the same benefits that you are asking to take or are your benefits Cadillac plans. And to my union president, and you know who you are, do not insult me by signing in solidarity to anything you write because solidarity means together. This contract means all for you and none for me. People just vote NO. LET’S BRING BACK LEADERS LIKE HOFFA AND THROW THESE BUMS OUT!!! In ending this,union leaders remember NEVER GIVE UP WHAT YOU ALREADY WON!

  243. Tier II Member Says:

    WOW, just read an article on the website CTMirror.org “Concession deal leaves Malloy options to lay off new workers”. This article says that the State will have to hire approx 1,000 new employees if 2,000 retire. How does this save the state money? I understand that we are little fish in the sea of Malloy’s political aspirations….namely Washington DC. I believe that if we called him out on this and he had to layoff 5,000 state employees, he would be slitting his own wrists in the national areana. I believe there is a plan C out there and plan B was just a scare tactic. I can swallow some wage concessions, but don’t mess with my health insurance or my retirement. Not sure what he has up his sleeve, but I don’t trust him for one minute.

  244. Horrible Deal Says:

    I want to applaud all the positive NO! Support. I say positive because you are positively looking.out for the best interest of our future. How are we going to take another confession hit worse then the previous one when SECRAP is posting on this site Connecticut just added 7900 jobs in April. I wonder how many of you know in this current 40.1 billion dollar budget there is actual money in there to hire more CT state employees. So if you believe the hype of mass layoffs it a major scare tactic. Bob said it best never give back what you already won. Again I agree with giving back some concessions. All this sucks, wage freezes, hard zeros, and furlough. But that is stuff I can be upset about , but understand. Not our medical. Leave it alone. If the poll is accurate and correct. That is a great control group and we are on way way to a no vote.

    Keep it alive and post anywhere you can.

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… keep voting. show them we mean business.
    Keep what we have..

  245. SteveHC Says:

    TO THOSE WHO SAY “NO” -

    In deciding whether to vote for or against the new SEBAC agreement, it’s INCREDIBLY important to understand Connecticut’s overall political and economic situation and the consequences of the voting’s results.

    WHAT HAPPENS IF IT GETS ACCEPTED: Everyone gets to keep their jobs for *at least* 4 years. With resumption of step increases, longevity payments and the 3% across-the-board increases in the last 3 years, and no more unpaid furlough days, you actually get RAISES in spite of the 3% contributions to your retirement health insurance fund. You get improved on-the-job IT support to help make your jobs EASIER. Your options for *transfers*changes INCREASE should future program eliminations or downsizing occur. You get to KEEP a defined-benefit retirement pension along with your current health insurance benefits and virtually ALL of your prescription benefits – all of which are FAR better than what 99.99% of the REST of the population has ANYWHERE. The chances of extremist, anti-government employee politicians being elected in Connecticut diminish CONSIDERABLY over the next couple of elections.

    WHAT HAPPENS IF IT GETS REJECTED: At *least* 5,000 employees get laid off within a year. PRIVATIZATION of programs and services will increase DRAMATICALLY, resulting in even MORE layoffs. Public animosity towards State employees will grow out of control, resulting in right-wing anti-government and anti-government employee politicians winning the governorship and both houses of the legislature. Consequently we’ll see the LOSS of the right to bargain collectively over pension and health insurance benefits PERIOD. Contracts currently in effect will NOT get renewed upon their expiration, and arbitrators will side with the STATE – resulting in NO pay raises AT ALL for the foreseeable future, defined-benefit pensions for active employees will be REPLACED with a defined-contribution 401(k)-style plan, health insurance coverage will be REDUCED to what typical private businesses offer (the most basic plan with sky-high deductibles and co-pays), and transfer-in-lieu-of-layoff opportunities will be SHARPLY curtailed from what they currently are. Of course, government employees will continue to lack the legal right to strike. Needless to say, the financial losses to State employees would be CATASTROPHIC, and the ONLY people likely to not see financially catastrophic losses would be those State retirees who are CURRENTLY collecting their pension.

    If you *really* think this “rejection doomsday scenario” is unlikely, you’d better think again. Virtually every major newspaper in the state – both “liberal” and “right-wing” alike – are urging union members to vote “YES” for good reason… the alternative is the destruction of the State, its politics and its government employee collective bargaining rights as we know them.

    A vote of “No” is a vote for your own political, financial end economic suicide. If you’re not willing to vote “yes” for the benefit of the State of Connecticut and its citizens, at least vote “YES” for your own self-interest.

  246. Joe Lunchpail Says:

    Opening up contacts is the same as not having a true voice. Vote no, and your voice will be heard.

  247. Rick Says:

    I am voting no. If this deal gets rejected, the explanation for why it was should focus on the fact that the further stagnation of middle income wages in both the public and private sector increases the wealth gap and is harmful to economic recovery for the state. Gov. Malloy’s refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy more than he has in his budget is “Trickle-Down” economics which is a failed economic policy. The rejection of this deal is a fight for all middle income families, not just for the public sector. That should be our talking points, not the more narrow view that it just hurts public sector employees. Less money in our checks means that we do not purchase goods and hire services from the private sector and it losses jobs or doesn’t hire. That is the real result of “Trickle-Down” economics. We need to have the private sector on our side and we alienate them by focusing on just us. It is about them also and the union capitualted to save just us. That is why I am voting no.

  248. bob got screwed again Says:

    This is a rebuttal to SteveCH. Steve, most of the unionized state of employees came to work for the State more for the benefits and sacrificed the pay which is greater on the outside. Our medical plan cannot be taken away from us until 2017 unless we allow it. The State of CT already wants to renege on the promises that they gave us for the sacrifices we made over the last 3 years. We are willing to make some monetary concessions like furlough days. Do you think it’s fair that 47000 state citizens should make up 2/3 of the State’s deficit? If things improve by 2017, we will get a fair shake. Anyone who has 10 years of service or more has to think am “I a coward or mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”. As far as the public goes, because they believe they pay our salaries, that $.2 is too much. You are never going to change their opinion. As far as the legislature they always spend more than they have, especially a democratic legislature. We fell back and conceded to save jobs the last time. Now they want us to fall back even more to save jobs. They will keep asking us to fall back until we fall back off a cliff. This so called guarantee until 2022 in reality is a 3 year guarantee at best. They will keep doing what works until it doesn’t. So, if you think it’s not worth fighting against a step away from socialized medicine and death panels, having Tier II and Tier IIa pay benefits for Tier I who have by far a better retirement than us and Social Security and should pay a fair share of their own benefits and make us, in essence, work for 5 years without any Cost of Living increase whatsoever, by all means VOTE YES! BUT FOR ME, I’M MAD AS HELL AND VOTING NO.

    P.S., are you a relatively new union employee SEBAC negotiator or a legislative person – I’d like to know.

  249. nodeal Says:

    It doesn’t look good for the Malloy camp!!! Maybe he should get rid of Linda Yelmini as a negotiator as she is a BIG PROBLEM!!
    I have personally spoken with rank and file members of different bargaining units and haven’t heard one person in favor of this concession package..
    Maybe next time Sal and the other representatives of SEBAC will come back to the members to see exactly what the members are willing to sacrifice!!

  250. rankandfile Says:

    The Democrats want us to vote yes. The Republicans want us to vote yes (why else would they be saying what a sweet deal it was for us?). The media wants us to vote yes. Our union “leaders” want us to vote yes. It seems this deal is in the best interest of everyone but us.

  251. Horrible Deal Says:

    Thank You Bob got screwed.

    I was just reading Stevenhc opinion and was about to lose my mind. My thoughts were the same he is either a SECRAP negtiator who is trying to sell this crap as a scare tactic. Doomsday?, well guess what judgement day came and went today and we are still here. KEEP WHATS OURS.

    Keep it alive and post anywhere you can.

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

  252. SteveHC Says:

    Nope, I’m not a SEBAC negotiator. And if the agreement gets ratified I have nothing to gain other than to see fellow state employees not get harmed.

    And if you don’t believe what I said in my previous comment then you must be living on some other planet, or smoking something REALLY good!

  253. rankandfile Says:

    If the agreement gets ratified we all get harmed.

  254. bob got screwed again Says:

    SteveHC, it’s obvious you are smoking something really, really good. Sober up and smell the minore.

  255. SteveHC Says:

    Hey do what you want, “bob,” “rankandfile,” and “Horrible Deal” – either way it’s no skin off of MY back, neither literally nor figuratively. I’m just calling it the way I see it. And I think 95% of employees agree with me… at least I *hope* they do, for their own sake.

  256. jack Says:

    (STEVEHC ) I HAVE 17 YEARS (NP4) HAZARDOUS DUTY, AND TO GIVE UP OUR MEDICAL PLAN FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE SOME TYPE OF OBAMA PLAN WOULD BE CRAZY. PEOPLE NEED TO READ THE DETAILS OF THIS PLAN AND FIGURE OUT WHAT ROAD IT WILL LEAD US DOWN.(REMEMBER IF YOU LIKE YOUR INSURANCE YOU CAN KEEP IT !!!!)( SOUND FAMILIAR)

  257. Michael Says:

    Here’s my take on what makes Mr. Malloy do what he does. He’s not going to do this without feathering his own nest, along the way. He was the mayor of Stamford for 13 years. A mayoral pension for Dannel. Cha-ching! Dannel will be governor for 1 or 2 terms, or something inbetween. A one-term governor of Connecticut receives a pension of $25,000, two terms for a pension of $45,000. Cha-ching! Dannel is still a relatively young man for politics, at 55, years younger than Leiberman. It’s my firm belief that Dannel already has his eyes set on Washington D.C., as a Congressman or Senator, which has a more generous pension than as governor. Cha-ching! He will run on the platform of slaying the state employees. I thought that on my 30th year, as a state employee, I would retire with about a pension of about $22,000. Now I see myself retiring later for less, and I’m in a physical job. That’s okay, so long as Dannel can receive his 3 government pensions totaling over $100,000. Cha-ching!

  258. rankandfile Says:

    And I call it the way I see it. It’s constantly ”bend over”. Concession after concession for the last twenty years. Now it’s so bad they can’t even wait for the last concessions to end. How long before this becomes an annual event?

  259. bob got screwed again Says:

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    STEVEHC, YOU AND EVERYONE SHOULD GO ON THIS LINK, CAST YOUR VOTE. I STILL BELIEVE IN MAJORITY RULES. RIGHT OR WRONG, TAKE THE VOTE AND TELL EVERYONE ELSE TO DO THE SAME. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE STAY DEMOCRATIC AND GET A TRUE AND HONEST VOTE. THIS LINK WILL HELP THE UNIONS STAY HONEST. I HOPE YOU WERE WRONG, BUT VOTE AND SEE THE OUTCOME. AND EVERYONE SHOULD PASS THIS LINK ON AND URGE ALL UNION EMPLOYEES TO VOTE HERE AND WHEN IT COUNTS. IN CLOSING, NEVER GIVE UP WHAT YOU ALREADY WON. THAT’S MY ADVICE TO ALL MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS.

  260. Selfish will vote No Says:

    REAL unionists will vote yes to save jobs. Selfish folks will vote no.

  261. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Looks like we have censoring (Posts) again from this site. Lets see if this goes through, or is FreeSpeechCT being censored again? If not then we can discuss the Vote on the Internet. 75% No, 25% Yes. This was brilliant setting up this simple Poll. Why? When the unions try to Skew the vote and we have proof of a cross section of members voting against this Health Plan, How are they going to say it passed after everyone see’s this survey. Also watch the union will have this vote after June 1 st then they don’t count the 1500 or so people that retired out of this scare tactic who would have voted NO, thus trying to Change the Vote. Again looking forward to read your Post’s. FreeSpeechCT started after this site started taking away people rights to Free Speech.

  262. Julie Says:

    Someone correct me if I am wrong regarding the medical benefits. I know our current contract doesn’t run out until 2017, but the medical insurance companies are coming up for rebid in 2012. What’s to stop the Governor from just offering us the plan he wants?

  263. rankandfile Says:

    They would bid on providing the coverage called for in the agreement.

  264. Julie Says:

    Someone posted earlier that Sal Luciano, head of Afscme was surprised by this deal….what a load of crap. He and Nancy Wyman, the state comptroller, sit of the board of directors for Sustinet….the very plan that passed the House and is waiting to pass the Senate. This has been in the works since January. Just look up the Sustinet final agreement online and you will see for yourselves. This has been their agenda all along.

  265. rankandfile Says:

    I saw the agreement, phase one in 2011 is getting state employees to change the 2017 agreement. I didn’t see where Sal claimed to be surprised, but I definitely saw he’s on the Sustinet board, along with Nancy Wyman and Kevin Lembo, among others.

  266. Julie Says:

    Here is a link for more info on the Sustinet plan. I encourage all to read it….there is a lot of information and none of it good.

    http://www.ct.gov/sustinet/lib/sustinet/ct_pa_09-148.pdf

  267. Keith O'Leary Says:

    Why don’t the sebac folks and Mr Malloy just take the tier 2 workers and just push us out on an ice flow to die. We have given our money and support to the unions and the state of CT. for many years. Now it is “politically risky” for for our union to stand by us when we need them most. Instead it’s more “politically correct” to stand shoulder to shoulder with the gov and the media who are just pushing this along as if it’s a done deal. By the way, did the members get to vote to even have Sebac begin talks with the gov or can sebac just come along and take money out of my wallet which is in my pants pocket,laying on the chair in my bedroom anytime they want? Just wondering because I thought the workers already had a contract in place. Should I sell my wifes wedding band before Sebac and the gov come for that also?

  268. Just Say No Says:

    Think about it. If we vote yes Malloy is the one who gets a Win/Win. He has forced out thousands of employees, without layoffs and destroyed our benefits at the same time. We have a great contract until 2017. There is no reason to mess with it. So many employees are retiring that he really as no room for layoffs. JUST SAY NO.

  269. Peggy Says:

    Wake up and smell the roses. This is a good deal in this economy. The alternative is not acceptable. If you vote no, nearly 5,000 layoffs will happen, resulting in all our friends on unemployment, not able to pay their bills, not able to pay their mortgages which will only further deteriorate our economy. So in the end our contract would end June 2012 in a worse economy and what the Governor would do is take even more from us. We would have no leverage to negotiate. These concessions are necessary and bottom line aren’t as bad as it could be. There is also a proposed bill to eliminate pensions altogether for State employees. This will happen if we don’t try to cooperate. See the whole picture. Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face. WAKE UP——-VOTE YES!

  270. KH Says:

    Title 38a Insurance
    Chapter 700c Health Insurance
    Sec. 38a-544. Prescription drug coverage. Mail order pharmacies.
    Share|
    Sec. 38a-544. Prescription drug coverage. Mail order pharmacies. (a) No medical benefits contract on a group basis, whether issued by an insurance company, a hospital service corporation, a medical service corporation or a health care center, which provides coverage for prescription drugs may require any person covered under such contract to obtain prescription drugs from a mail order pharmacy as a condition of obtaining benefits for such drugs.

    (b) The provisions of this section shall apply to any such medical benefits contract delivered, issued for delivery or renewed in this state on or after July 1, 1989.

    (P.A. 89-374.)

    See Sec. 38a-510 for similar provisions re individual policies.

    AND SEE: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/FC/2011SB-00153-R000123-FC.htm AN ACT CONCERNING THE TIMING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REFILLS.

  271. Kris Says:

    Sustinet plan is a great opportunity for family planning for all the state workers, and eventually all the citizens of CT. CT is taking a progressive view on pro-choice by paying for this with state tax money.

  272. rankandfile Says:

    State tax money? Why don’t they let us keep our money, and just take what they actually need, instead of trying to redistribute our money to others?

  273. dave Says:

    hey Kris, how about those of us who are pro-life that think our money shouldnt be used for killing children, this is about power and control, not about your ideology. if you want the goverment to control your decisions through penalization thats your choice, but i would rather make my own decisions.

  274. Horrible Deal Says:

    Clearly the people voting no. I would say have the most level head and have read everything they could and have done the research to learn this is not a good deal. Sustinet= Big brother. How would anyone think that is something good.

    Keep it alive and post anywhere you can.

    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    lets see where we stand… keep voting. show them we mean business.
    Keep what we have..

  275. Kris Says:

    dave- thank you. I knew if I pointed out the obvious it would get people going..especially those who are against choice. Rile up the folks who are against government paying for that choice….just like they gave Obama a hard time.

  276. Fed Up Says:

    We have a contract until 2017 that should be honored. The Unions have sold us out. We have worked hard for the benefits that we have. Who does the Governor and Unions think they are–to dictate what medical care we get and to fine us if we don’t live up to their standards. Could someone check to see if any laws or privacy issues will be violated if this deal goes through? Maybe a class action lawsuit–if it comes down to that. I am voting NO and I hope that most of the members do the same. By the way, how does Malloy think we’ll be able to pay higher taxes, with no extra money in our checks for the next ten years? Along with the high gas, oil and electricity rates we pay in this state. We are being hit from all sides and it just isn’t fair. If you have half a brain, you will vote NO on this sham!!

  277. rankandfile Says:

    Kris, this is about taking away choice. Government should be about leaving people free to make choices. Not about forcing them to make what some consider to be “the right choices”. Everyone should wear a seatbelt, therefore we need to force them to do it. Everyone should want a bigger UConn Health Center, so we need to force them to pay for it. If you want free choice, if you support freedom of choice, vote no to this plan.

  278. Just Say No Says:

    In 2017 we will most likely have a different economy, different governor and different union leadership. Hopefully. As for now we have a solid deal that was negotiated for us to protect us in times like these. We, as a union, are a bunch of idiots if we open this now and take these concessions. Vote NO and protect what you have. Enough is enough.

  279. Not Happy Says:

    Maybe next, they will be able to tell us what toothpaste we are supposed to be using on their maintenance plan idea??? Someone let Malloy know that I was a good boy and I did floss, brush and rinse this morning. Maybe I won’t be penalized and he will give me a treat by waving another carrot in front of my face!

    Heck with this, I’m voting NO!!!!!!!!

  280. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Thank You, All for your opinions. Go Back and read the SEBAC V agreement of 1997. Review what you will be giving away!

  281. JH Says:

    I just read the Sustinet info more carefully, so they want us to consent to “electronic” records as well. great, so some state employees laptop can get stolen and open us up to even more identity theft……..seriously people, this is big brother on all levels, we lose more and more rights everyday and allow government to intrude more into our personal lives! What if you get diagnosed with cancer and would like to take a hollistic approach instead of chemo? Or what if you doubt the doctor you go to, are you allowed to get a second opinion? doubt it, it would cost too much! you are going to be penalized for it, remember doctors are human too and they are not perfect, I have been misdiagnosed before and if I didnt refuse to take some pills who knows if I would be here right now…enough is enough! VOTE NO!

  282. Michael Says:

    I saw Benjamin Barnes, the secretary of Office of Policy and Management (OPM), on television, and he’s already givens hints that active employees funding retired employees healthcare, will eventually be negoiated beyond the 10 years.

  283. SteveHC Says:

    I haven’t seen nor heard any such thing, but regardless it’s IMPOSSIBLE (literally) – Malloy and Barnes won’t be around long enough to do another SEBAC deal. If it gets ratified, barring total economic collapse there’ll be no SEBAC “renegotiating” on pensions and health insurance until 2022 (2021 at the earliest).

  284. George Says:

    VOTE NO!! Keep our agreement till 2017 then we will come to the table! This package makes no sense whatsoever! Do the math, 12 furlough days a year will equal the same “savings” from switching to this new “Value based plan”

  285. rankandfile Says:

    Actually, why would you believe that SteveHC? We’ve already opened the agreement once, and if this vote goes through we reopen it again. If the 2017 date is no good, why would the 2022 date be any different?

  286. StipendPaul Says:

    No increses in stipend pay from now until the end of the four year contract if we vote yes….we will be stuck on 09-10 pay salary for this year nad the next 4. There go the nice raises we got from our previous leadership…the increases we got were needed and now they will average down to small amounts.

  287. Good S Worker Says:

    To all of you who say this is a good deal???? I believe that it is great when there is an opportunity to improve a system that is not good. But our health care is not the issue. This is where The Malloy Administration and family are taking advantage of the poor economy and trying to force state employees into a poor choice medical plan.

    I truly value Anthem and the coverage we have. I think it would be best that our insurance companies send out letters to us when our physicals are due, and anthem already sends out management care letters to anyone with copd, diabetes, etc….. We allready have a value based healthcare system. We should be able to do 90 day pres anyways and there is absolutely no reason for us to change over to sustinet or this plan the union/malloy wants us to do. We were asked to provide ways to cut back to the malloy admin. I know so many people who did and their ideas were ignored! Some were or allready were in the process of being done.

    I say, NO! Go to 2017 and hope the economy is better. Lay people off Malloy, go right ahead. You will not be re-elected. Not because you fired state employees but because you cut aid to municipalities, closed schools, prisons and did not increase the wealthy’s taxes enough!

    I am sorry for governor malloy and the difficult task he has had to do but these my way or the highway threats are so sad. We cannot cut education, aid or afford to lose the “little” state workers. U should have negotiated that ALL management in unions are not allowed to bump if you lay off because now you will have a 100thous a year worker in a 78 thous a year job…..

    This is all moronic……

    Sorry if i dont make sense but there seems to be a major violation in employee rights, municipal rights and citizen rights..

    Lay people off and let them collect unemployment and deplete the unemployment funding. That is just such the better alterative.

  288. Roger Daltrey Says:

    “…then I’ll get on my knees and PRAY, we don’t get fooled again.”

  289. bob got screwed again Says:

    Steve did you go to this link and vote?
    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f
    If not, the vote is currently 25% yes 75% NO!!!! It appears the people from another planet think they should stand up for their rights and keep their dignity intact. Hope you can see where we are coming from. Nanu nanu. Live long and prosper.

  290. new state worker Says:

    I find it incredibly cavalier to hear people on here say so boldly, “vote no! lay us off!” when in actuality they probably feel pretty secure in their seniority and know that the likelihood is that someone else will be laid off and not themselves…..hmmm.

    I also find it interesting that the last time there was a concession, those of us that got hit with the 3% salary charge to make sure the retirees were taken care of, we took it and WERE THANKFUL TO HAVE A JOB, knowing that we were making sure that our fellow state employees would be looked after. I have been paying that charge for a year now, to the tune of 50 bucks a pay period and will do so for the next 10 years….oh, wait, and I also am not even anywhere near the top step of my grade. So, it strikes me as incredibly selfish to hear complaints about that. Where was the outrage then?

    But I’ll tell you what. I have never and will never fully depend on the State or my “fellow union workers” to have my back. There has been nothing but I, I, I and me, me, me in all the posts here and what people think they are entitled to. COLA’s???? Are you serious?? Your household budget hinges on a COLA increase?

    If you have such a high sense of what you’re entitled to, then get out and earn it and take it for yourself and get off the state payroll.

  291. Useless poll Says:

    For all of you who think this poll is a true indication of the upcoming vote – you’re wrong and you know it. Anyone can vote multiple times – so far I’ve voted on my laptop, my desk top, my iPhone and my iPad. Just another attempt by a few to sway the rest of us. Nice try but we’re too savvy for you tricks.

  292. Michael Says:

    Hey Bob, So far 1.33% of the unionized employees have taken the poll. This is a successful poll. Congrats! As for you SteveHC, how many times does an agreement have to be opened up with positive results for the opposing side before you finally say to yourself, ‘If the state doesn’t want to live up to an agreement that I have with it, how can I trust the state’? If the concessions of ‘11 pass, then what’s to stop the concessions of ‘15? I saw Barnes on CT-N from a taping, 5/20, in which the OPM honchos explain and take questions about the concessions agreement. It makes no difference if Barnes leaves tomorrow, the state already has the expectation that the active employees funding retirees health care will last beyond the 10 years. Sebac will stop it? LOL

  293. bob got screwed again Says:

    Just received this in an e-mail. If you vote yes this is what our health care will look like in 2017 (unions are exempt from ObamaCare until then).

    THE CARE BILL HB 3200

    THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.

    Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX – highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200

    Please read this…….. especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

    JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

    ** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

    ** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

    ** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN).

    ** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

    ** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees.

    ** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient’s age.

    ** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

    ** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

    ** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
    HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

    “Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”
    – Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas
    All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.

  294. no way Says:

    If you want to trade us a 4 year no layoff promise for concessions that last 4 years (not the rest of our lives) then fine. I have no problem helping..
    When did the PROJECTED 2 year budget problem turn into long term saving????
    No matter who is governor in 4 years from now, there will be yet another concession package GUARANTEED.

    MAKE THE CONCESSION PACKAGE THE SAME LENGTH AS THE NO LAYOFF CLAUSE. That should be the first rule of ANY renogotiating…

    At least furlough days are easy to understand, unlike the bs the lawyers put in this agreement….

  295. WH Says:

    Where is this agreement??? Are they going to present it to us the day we have to vote. Make sure you look at the whole agreement before you vote.

  296. Union Brother Says:

    Well, after reading every article and comment and blog I could for over a week and after some extensive research and calculations I can truly say that there is NO good reason to consider this amendment to our contract. We get absolutely nothing from this offer. We give back healthcare for our families and wages as well. Pensions get hit hard and we get nothing in return.

    Those of us that have been around know that those who get laid off will be back.

    Quite honestly, this is an insult. I am very angry at the dishonesty of Malloy – we did not get the governor the candidate promised us. I will not only vote NO to this abortion, but will not contribute again or vote for Malloy again for anything.

    I will not forget.

    Vote NO.

  297. Budget Surplus Says:

    This budget surplus shows the corruption in our State. I have always said that it is amazing how there is usually a budget deficit during the years that the State is negotiating with the Unions. So now that we are offered a horrible contract, they expect us to vote “yes” and accept more concessions. WE HAVE GIVEN BACK ENOUGH. VOTE “NO”

  298. Shirley Says:

    This is a concession agreement. At least we are negotiating with the administration re givebacks and changes in our healthcare and pension plans. Other states have had their collective bargaining rights decimated!
    People are soooooo misinformed about items in this tentative agreement. The value based healthcare piece is NOT a case of big brother snaking his way into our medical lives. The point of the plan is to encourage a wellness conversation and program with ones own primary care physician/general practitioner. The plan codifies what we SHOULD be doing in order to maintain our healthy well-being. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO BE IN THE VALUE BASED HEALTH PLAN, DON’T SUBSCRIBE TO IT! Stop kvetching and moaning. The standard health care plan is $100 more per month with an added deductible. If you don’t want to make the commitment as outlined in the value based health care plan, then opt for the Standard health care plan and be done with it.
    Regarding the retiree health care trust fund, this has been an unfunded liability for years and years. This practice is completely out of touch with current economic times. We should be paying towards our lifetime health care. I can appreciate the phase-in aspect versus the full body hit.
    Yeah, it sucks not getting a raise, but you know what sucks even more… not getting an income. People need to stop acting like crybabies, look at the bigger picture, and get some common sense. The agreement needs to be ratified!

    People want to include tangential points in their arguments: corporations and the wealthy need to come to the table and pay their fair share, etc… no kidding! This fight can’t be won by voting down the SEBAC agreement. This fight should be waged simultaneously. We need to ratify this agreement, lobby our legislators, etc. We can’t just be sitting around whining like babies.
    Judging by some of the board comments, we’ve become the stereotype of public sector workers: whiny, selfish, entitled, greedy people who won’t give two cents for the greater good. This agreement needs to be ratified.

  299. Glenn Arzt Says:

    I will be Voting No!
    Why!

    Why are we giving Permanent Concessions to a temporary condition?
    Maybe in the next CONCESSION package we can just make the retirement age 75 years of age and be done with this part. The insurance companies have a term called “Expectable Useful Life”..it is 73 years of Age!

    Job security?
    5 year plan with no layoffs.
    After 4 years this can start all over again more layoffs
    Article 57 page 21 says a SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT maybe requested by mail.

    We R giving up Julys 3% under this contract, at that point it is 0%,0%,3%,3%,3%.
    When the 3% kicks in under the new contract, Health care kicks in for 3%.
    So we have a 5 year contract with 6 years of no raises..hmmm.
    Can you or any one tell me what the 3% cost to me is going to be in health care?

    This Health care is really the SUSTINET PLAN.
    House Bill HB-6305

    Why is Benjamain Barnes of OPM concerned about this next line?

    Another concern for the administration is that some of the bill’s provisions severely weaken the executive branch’s authority and ability to manage major components of the state budget. For example, the bill provides broad authority over state employee benefits in Section 6(b) and (c). This provision negates the administration’s existing and rightful authority to negotiate benefits and rules with our employees through SEABAC and effectively establishes SustiNet as the employer, not the administration, in collective bargaining.

    When Government starts keeping track of diseases.. Is big brother watching!
    Next it will be them telling you what you can and can not do with your BODY!

    Did you Receive your open enrolement this May?
    NO!
    The legislatures ARE going to force you into this health care!

  300. anonymous Says:

    it seems some of the repeat posters here are right wing hacks intent on spreading false information and using this serious forum to attack President Obama…..their short memories and weak minds need to be reminded that our economy hit the iceberg while THEIR party had the helm….like Malloy or not his options are limited and the economy shows no signs of improvement..

  301. DOT Worker Says:

    If this is not the SustiNet plan, than show some leadership and state that it is not the Sustinet plan on the website

  302. Ron Says:

    In house bill 6305, it refers to state employees being forced to use Sustinet E. Does anyone know exactly how this will impact state employees? Will Bluecare be dropped as part of this deal between the governor and the unions or as part of the house bill alone? I don’t like the intrusiveness of this agreement and also am concerned about us all being forced to change plans. We need more details than our leaders have currently provided.

  303. Ben Dover Says:

    “DISGRUNTLED MANAGER Says:

    May 21st, 2011 at 11:22 am
    Those who think the Mgrs. aren’t affected by this are wrong. We get what you get only we don’t get to vote on it. Think about it….Someone else is determining your wages/benefits and you have NO binding arbitration to represent your interests.

    I was a longtime Union member, steward and governing board member who got promoted into management a few years back after nearly 30 years state service. Now, I’m at the whim of the Governor who decides what, if any, raise I get. We haven’t had a raise since 7/2008 and the only hope of one is if this “tentative agreement” passes, we will end up getting the same 0,0,3,3,3 you all are looking at with all the other baggage too with the pension and healthcare.

    I’m not happy with this and if I had a vote, I’d vote NO.

    I’d take my chances with the Pension/Healthcare reopener in 6 years as no arbitrator would ever water down the pensions like you’re being asked to do for existing employees. They may have you pay a small percentage but would NEVER increase the age of retirement or the penalty for early retirement. A new TIER 3 would be created for new employees like what is being proposed and there would be healthcare changes but you wouldn’t be working towards something for years and years only to be told, you know what, you have to work another 3 years to get the same benefit OR be told your penalty for Early Retirement is going to cost you twice as much!”

    Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing……

    Regarding this online poll:
    http://www.easypolls.net/poll.html?p=4dd43f36f7828ee0151f2d3f

    The results on this really comes as no surprise. The BIG concern I have is with all the censorship that is apparently taking place on this site, we can only hope similiar censorship doesn’t take place at the polling stations with the results.

    I don’t know about you but submitting a paper ballot in a “locked box” that is opened by our Union Leaders (who negotiated this POS in the first place) causes me GREAT concern.

  304. ag Says:

    I will be one of the people who will be forced to retire if this deal goes through. Being forced out of your job, for any reason…..is not fun. Rank and file are the only way this 2017 deal can be broken…VOTE NO

  305. GUEST Says:

    local physician to speak to U.S. congress on how the health plan in this agreeemnt would severly restrict patient’s options and reduce the quality of healthcare http://www.foothillsmediagroup.com/articles/2011/05/23/granby/news/doc4dda7a4ce9153588971835.txt

  306. Sick of the Whining Says:

    I am so tired of hearing the whining of the Tier 2 spoiled brats that wanted to retire at 55. Poor you!! You need to get out more and realize that retiring at 55 is unheard of everywhere else in the REAL world. You are also not someone who is in threat of being laid off. You dont know what UNION means and why you are even paying dues every month. Its not every man for himself as you have all been slanting things.

    I will vote YES proudly to make for a better life in CT for my kids and I will vote YES for all those who may be laid off otherwise.

  307. been there done that Says:

    I am still puzzled. Why does anyone believe that no layoffs and raises in three years will be honored? They didn’t honor the last agreement why would they honor this one.

  308. Paul Doolittle Says:

    To SEBAC and the Gov, I am voting NO! Your plan is awaiting moderation

  309. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Mr. Dover, just received word that in our union voting is starting Friday! In our geographic area no one has even talked to us about the concessions, maybe because everyone understands what is at stake with the Health care ( Sustinet) and breaking the SEBAC agreement of 1997. Our area is going to be all NO votes.
    But the union is not talking to us and going to the rank and file 4 times in one day to get every vote as they leave their shifts. In our office no word but in units were the vote they are getting votes.
    And it is being sold as a “Chapter Meeting” , but people will vote on this Friday, no one has discussed the TA Agreement of 2011. Word is that a Class Action Law suit will be could be placed. Wonder How many would be involved or interested?

  310. rankandfile Says:

    Just a small part of this from today’s State House of Representatives calendar:
    XX 0221 Substitute for House Bill No. 6305. AN ACT CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTINET PLAN.
    Committee Reports: PH, INS, HS
    § 6—DESIGNATION OF VARIOUS SUSTINET PLANS
    Beginning January 1, 2012, the state employee plan, Medicaid, HUSKY Part A and B, HUSKY Plus, Charter Oak, and the basic health program (see §§ 7-8 below) are all to be known as “SustiNet Plans.” The bill designates these as follows:
    1. HUSKY Plan, Part A becomes “SustiNet A”;
    2. HUSKY Plan, Part B and HUSKY Plus is “SustiNet B”;
    3. Charter Oak Health Plan is “SustiNet C”;
    4. Medicaid is “SustiNet D”;
    5. state employee health care coverage is “SustiNet E”; and
    6. a new plan option (the public option) is “SustiNet G.”
    Plan members must be given identification cards with an identical design. Plan membership categories can be identified by discreet designations on the card as prescribed by the authority.
    State Employee Health Plan
    Beginning January 1, 2012, the comptroller must administer the state employee plan according to rules established by the SustiNet Plan Authority and terms to which SEBAC consents in writing. The authority may establish rules concerning benefits, cost-sharing, utilization management, care coordination, disease management, evidence-based best practices, health care delivery systems, health care pilot programs, provider payment methods, provider network management, provider credentialing, and customer service.
    On and after January 1, 2012, the comptroller must continue to obtain health insurance in accordance with (1) existing law for state employees and state retirees (CGS § 5-259) and (2) direction from the authority. The comptroller may jointly negotiate agreements with other agencies for services in accordance with the bill (see sections 10 and 11 below). The comptroller must continue to make payroll deductions for state employees and to enroll and disenroll employees and retirees, and may administer customer relations for such employees and retirees. The Health Care Cost Containment Committee (HCCCC) must continue to advise the comptroller on issues relating to state employee health care. (The HCCCC is the committee established by the ratified agreement between the state and SEBAC.)
    No change in the terms of the state employee plan is effective until SEBAC provides written consent to the comptroller that it agrees to incorporate the terms of the change into its collective bargaining agreement.

  311. rankandfile Says:

    Sorry, here’s the link

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/FC/2011HB-06305-R000341-FC.htm

  312. Looking Deeper Says:

    Even if this was to pass with a yes vote by a 80% margin where doe’s Malloy plan to get the half a billion dollars to fill the hole in this questionable legal budget? That alone makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up! I am also tired of hearing from the state every time our contract is up that they have no money but yet every single time we sign a contract this money always magically appears afterwords. This time Malloy did not even wait until we voted to make some of this money appear, go UCONN. I wish he stuck to his plan and trimmed the fat like he said he would and not shove this Obamma care down our throats then I might consider it.
    Let Malloy trim the fat like he said he would, beat us down on raises (0 0 0 2 2 ) I really don’t care but to attack my Medical. I vote NO !!!

  313. Down The River Says:

    What’s next? Mandatory abortions for women with high risk pregnancies? Government, stay outa my uterus AND outa my colon!

    Speaking of women’s issues, since National Cancer Institute’s statistics indicate that breast cancer is responsible for many more death’s than colon cancer, I’m puzzled by the fact that colonoscopies are mandatory under this plan and mammograms aren’t touched upon. I DO NOT mean to suggest I think mammograms SHOULD be required, I only mean to express that I’m puzzled at the logic of those putting together this plan.

    Unlike colonoscopies, mammograms are non-invasive, require no sedation and (except for the “ouch” factor and radiation) are relatively risk-free. Colonoscopies, on the other hand could be equated with all the risks involved in surgery. It’s creepy to feel forced to participate in a medical procedure involving not only risk, but also one’s most intimate parts. It seems a basic human right to be free to make one’s own decisions about our own bodies.

    I also question why we aren’t evenbeing offered the option of being able to stay on our old health plan for a price.

    I am one of the “elite” Tier 1 members who is voting NO.

    My last (and only) one line, benign comment got censored for who knows what reason, so let’s see if this makes it to the web site.

    In Solidarity!!!! XOXO

  314. rankandfile Says:

    I found out today that it’s not 80% of the voters, it’s 80% of the unions (12 of 15 must vote yes, I believe)

  315. Michael Says:

    Hello Ben Dover: As you may of heard, though judges are not unionized, collectively, they have hired a fancy Hartford law firm to watch after their best interests. Perhaps this is the model that the managers can follow. If you have 30 years of service time, this means you are Tier I, (unless you were picked up by Tier II by not participating in Tier I) so you already have 60% of your 3 highest earning years. If you include the fact that your Social Security/Medicare deductions would cease, you’re working for about 1/3 of your pay, and the future looks bleak for active employees. Why not retire, unless you are under 55? It’s ironic with our ‘friend’ in the governor’s seat, it’s now official that we cannot trust the state to fully follow through on any agreement we have with it. I do not know if thefuture pay raises will survive, but I am certain that paying into the retiree health plan will not only survive, but that deduction will expand in tenure and scope. It does not help sebac being faint of heart. Vote “NO”.

  316. jonny appleseed Says:

    WOW – we have a 697 Million Dollar Surplus going into the end of the fiscal year.. Hmmmm.. Yeah, I’ll vote no on concessions.

    http://www.ctmirror.org/story/12684/malloy-ready-cancel-utility-surcharge-and-energy-fund-raid

  317. Tier2A~Questions Says:

    I am CONNECTICUT. I was raised here in a union household; I was educated right here; and I am raising my children here. I love CONNECTICUT and will do everything in my power to ensure that there are opportunities for my children when they enter the working world. You can call me selfish, you can call me whatever you want, I fought long and hard over the past 30 years to ensure you have that right. The one thing that WI/OH/ et al. did not have is SEBAC and that alone will preserve my binding arbitration rights regardless of what rhetoric people throw at me.
    I have faith in this process. I have faith in my fellow state employees to make the right decision. We did not get and keep this work for as long as we have been doing it by making stupid decisions. We are all fighting for the rights of all workers private and public to maintain a middle class standard of living with a government that spends within it’s means as we do. I’ve been laid off, recinded, laid off again. I roll with it because I know it is for the greater good. It will take 13 of 15 bargaining units to pass this agreement. I’ve been hit harder and anticipate I will be slammed once my contract opens again 2012. It’s a sad commentary on politics in CT, but we are not alone in that.

    I will exercise my right to vote NO, knowing beyond a doubt I will be laid off again. I did not fight alone then and will not fight alone again in the future. Solidarity Rank and File.

  318. cap Says:

    Let us consider that the new agreement requires us to get our prescriptions by mailorder….. Fisrt rx is ok at the drugstore… Connecticut has a law on the books that mandates Pharmacists to provide counseling on prescriptions….. Can we give this up and what economic consequences will this have on our local drugstore…. We give back and we takeaway from a healthcare provider…. Share the pain… kill our pharmacists and take away another mandated service in healthcare…. Open your eyes and watch our contract crumble……..

  319. Union Brother Says:

    Unfortunately, they have given us no choice but to vote NO. I am proud of you all that will stand and deliver.

    It’s my understanding that 13 of 15 unions must vot yes and 80% of all voters must vote yes, but I could be wrong.

    Let’s not let them balance this budget on our backs! We have worked hard for what we have. Do not give it up!

    NO!

  320. rankandfile Says:

    Rising revenues = surplus. And as the economy starts to pick up, the numbers will get better and better. That’s why it’s always bad to negotiate our contracts during downturns or recessions.

  321. Union Brother Says:

    Good point. It always gets better.

    NO!

  322. Tony Says:

    YOUR NEW HEALTH PLAN:

    “The state employee health plan is self insured and therefore under federal law is EXEMPT from current state health mandates, but MAY adopt them voluntarily. As of January 1, 2012 the bill includes the state employee and retiree health plan as part of the SustiNet Plan.”

    This means they are able to provide whatever coverage they like with zero consequences.

    “In 1997 the State and SEBAC negotiated a long-term health and retirement benefit agreement, which is effective through 2017. This agreement was most recently modified in 2009. Therefore, any additional plan changes suggested by the Authority would not be effective until 2017 or until the contract is amended.”

    If you are dumb enough to vote yes guess what agreement SEBAC will amend!

    “The bill requires DSS to disclose to an authorized representative of the authority information about program participants or applicants necessary to carry out the authority’s purposes.

    It allows the authority to enter into confidentiality agreements with the Department of Public Health (DPH), DSS, the Department of Insurance (DOI), the comptroller and other relevant state agencies that conform with the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and other applicable federal laws, to obtain necessary information concerning SustiNet plan members.”

    Yeah how is this not a violation of Federal Law? What is necessary information?

  323. Helen Says:

    A 4 year no layoff guarantee? I vote Yes.

    Extend the current Sebac pension and health insurance contract to 2022? I vote Yes.

    Lose only 1 longevity payment? I vote Yes.

    Ability to spike my retirement with my best 3 years? I vote Yes.

    Prevent the layoff of 4720 fellow workers? I vote Yes.

    This package is such a gift I am amazed anyone would be selfish enough to vote no.

    My guess is that those folks who didn’t vote for Malloy in the first place and have paranoid fears of our health insurance going all socialist are populating these forums with laughable arguments that stretch the truth and these are the people who will be voting no.

    This package will pass overwhelmingly. The vote won’t even be close. Out of the dozens and dozens of people that work in the agency that I work are voting yes. I know of two people who are voting no (and who may change their mind yet).

    Many of the forum posts above sound like people who watch Glenn Beck and think he a genius. They also think Sarah Palin would make a great president. They also hate President of the United States of America Barack Obama. He killed Bin Laden by the way. The most wanted terrorist in US history. Bush failed in that endeavor. Obama was a smashing success.

    That’s the way I see it.

  324. NO NO NO Says:

    OOh Boy Helen..you really need to get a clue!

    No use explaining you clearly do not get it…Well, hopefully you work in one of the smaller agencies..I do not and it be NO across the board except the newbies..

  325. protectyourrights Says:

    Had a Union official come to work yesterday and he said we are not voting until the 17th or 18th of June. How long do they plan to stretch this thing out? That will leave the legislature less than two weeks to set-up a budget when we (hopefully) I vote no. Also I asked him about this being a ploy to get Sustinet online after the meeting and he got PISSED. He kept saying I was coming from a backwards assumption but everything he said confirmed everything that people on this board have been saying. His conclusion was basically, so what? Isn’t Sustinet a good thing? How can you be against it?

  326. rankandfile Says:

    Helen, the 2022 extension has no more guarantee then the 2017 deal (I think it’s 2011 now?). Ability to spike your retirement? Only if you work in a union that gets overtime, many of us don’t. I actually talk to people I work with too, and they are overwhelmingly against this. Let me clue you in, if everyone is telling you a deal is to good to be true, bet that it isn”t. Give up a 3% raise now, for possibly 3% later. (0,0,3,3,3, less 3% for sustinet, and concessions in 2015 take the last raise). If we take 3% now, we can always go to arbitration later. Why lock in a 5 year deal now, when the economy hasn’t fully recovered? Longevity? You need 10 years to even get it, and for most of you it doesn’t amount to much, maybe the average union worker gets $250 per year. The big longevity cost is managers, they get $6-$8 thousand per year.

  327. Union Brother Says:

    The only people that will be inclined to vote yes are those that think their job is on the line and do not think through the consequences.

    The jobs will come back, the health and pension provisions will not.

    Vote NO.

  328. rankandfile Says:

    Oh, and Helen, I voted for Obama over McCain, I thought he was a better alternative than basically 4 more years of Bush. That doesn’t mean I support everything he does. Sarah Palin is a joke. She can see Russia from her house, does that mean since she’s looking across the international date line she can see into the future? You don’t have to be a Glenn Beck fan (I’m not) to believe that bigger government is not the answer to all of our problems, or that state bureaucrats (politicians, managers, political appointees, etc) know what’s best for you. Many of us still believe that freedom means being able to make your own decisions, even those that involve your health.

  329. jonny appleseed Says:

    Votenotoconcessions.com

  330. John Says:

    I guess the laws have changed and have been amended since I last checked? This proposed health care change is against article 2590 section 702
    Also it is against CT state mandates for prescriptions.

    Connecticut General Statutes, Chapter 700, Sections 38a-544 and 38a-510 mandate that group and
    individual health insurance policies issued, renewed or continued in this state provide coverage for
    prescription drugs that are obtained by methods other than a mail order pharmacy. That is, medical
    insurance cannot require an insured to obtain prescription drugs from a mail order pharmacy, and cannot
    limit access to said drug in this manner.
    Specifically, CGSA sec 38a-544 provides that:
    No medical benefits contract on a group basis, whether issued by an insurance company,
    a hospital service corporation, a medical service corporation or a health care center, which
    provides coverage for prescription drugs may require any person covered under such contract
    to obtain prescription drugs from a mail order pharmacy as a condition of obtaining benefits
    for such drugs.

  331. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Protectyourrights, In our office the same thing happened, the union delegate said that voting will be around the 17th of June. But I can tell you the rank and file are voting this Friday and the union is getting every person as they get off there shift.
    Do not be surprised when you hear in the next few days that more unions are taking votes in areas where they can get a yes response. In fairness to some of the Rank and File they have not been given all the facts. Probably not, unless you are like us who research this and monitor.

  332. Me_a_Socialist? Says:

    I grew up in France. Went to my first demonstration before I was able to walk. And today I wish we did it the way they do it over there. A good old strike!

    This deal doesn’t seem like it’s the worst that could happen to us but it also seems that it was crafted without much thought given to the workers.

    I believe losing 5,000 workers (including me, if we vote no) would send Malloy the message he deserves as part of OUR negociating leverage (our “only” leverage, it seems). That’s the only way he would hurt. And he needs to hurt. Because “we” will hurt if we accept the deal. Back in the days, the miners, the auto workers, the children workers, the women, would risk it all to protect their rights to a fair pay, with fair off-time, retirement before age 90, and affordable health care. A lot of them lost it all so that, today, we don’t have to work 70 hour weeks, so that we can take “some” vacation” and get reasonnable pay raises.

    For me, this doesn’t look like a negociation. It looks like Golliath trying to eat David. And the only thing David seems to be able to do is trying to find something tastyer for Golliath. Apparently Golliath didn’t like the look of what David found for him so David has the choice of losing an arm, or his head.

    If he looses 5,000+ workers, agencies are going to slow down, people will wait longer to get service, Connectuct people will get angry, businesses will not want to come here to open plants, start new businesses, retirees and unemployed will be miserable and move out of state. Let’s show Governor Malloy that his plan “B” is a disaster.

  333. Union Brother Says:

    I can’t believe more than 5000 or so out of 45000 +\- would vote in favor.

    Does anyone know why anyone would vote for this degradation of our benefits?

  334. Been there........ Says:

    Although I am pissed about paying 3% for retirement, I unfortunately will have to vote yes.

    was laid off under Rowland, was out for more than a year. When I came back I had to take a demotion and also got screwed with my salary (bad contract language).

    As I am still vulnerable to being bumped even with 16 years in, I can not take this chance again. My finances, my life, and everything else was put on hold for several years. Trying getting someone in private industry to hire a career state employee……it’s a really tough sell.

    Am I happy with this deal? No. It is extremely unfair to Tier II people (me). But, I will take the four years of job security and my 80k salary and consider myself luckier than most.

  335. Union Brother Says:

    Prisoners have better healthcare than this.

  336. Jeff Says:

    Finish the current contract even if that means layoffs. We get the 2.5 % raise, longevity and bonus we were promised.

    Then offer the same 5 year deal next July with tweaks in health care and I (and most people I work with) will vote YES. (0,0,3,3,3) with pension payments starting in the 3rd year. But start it in 2012, not 2011.

    But otherwise, my vote is NO.

    We have a contract. Needs to be fulfilled. For me personally, contracts need to be kept intact for the term.

    A deal is a deal.

    The laid off people will all be brought back within 1 year.

  337. Helen Says:

    Refer back to this post….or……better yet…..print it out. Then read it once you get the news of the final vote tally.

    I guarantee this thing overwhelmingly passes. It won’t be close. It will be a blowout of epic proportions.

    Don’t let tiny sample internet polls fool you. They are and always have been notoriously inaccurate. The microsample in this forum will prove that point once again.

    I am so thrilled that President Obama had the guts to pull the trigger on that risky mission that killed Bin Laden. Most of the people against the concession package were oddly and secretly disappointed when Obama killed Bin Laden. That’s how much they hate Obama.

  338. Ben Dover Says:

    NOT only will they NEVER get near the 80% YES votes needed to pass this POS “tentative agreement” (if the voting totals are being counted HONESTLY)

    I BET the opposite happens…80% OF THE MEMBERS WILL VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    REASON: THE ONLY ONE’S VOTING YES ARE THE 15 – 20% WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THEMSELVES THAN THE GREATER GOOD OF ALL MEMBERS.

  339. Helen Says:

    Ben Dover,
    You are not a State employee.
    Regards,
    Helen

  340. been there done that Says:

    Helen, you sound more like a manager than line staff.

  341. Ben Dover Says:

    Wow…I beg to differ.

    You must either work for SECRAP, Union Leadership or are drinking the koolaid they’re serving.

    Probably all three.

  342. Helen Says:

    Ben Dover,

    Prove it.

    Regards,
    Helen

  343. Helen Says:

    Internet anonymity is a beautiful thing for folks like Ben Dover.

  344. SteveHC Says:

    Connecticut Medical Society Supports SustiNet:

    http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/docs_begin_to_climb_back_on_board_with_sustinet/

    - Looks like the only docs who DON’T like SustiNet are the ones who don’t like the fact that it still permits us to SUE them for malpractice when they screw up.

  345. John Says:

    who is this Helen? Has to be a newbie to the state, who in their right mind would vote for this?? With this “new health care reform” I would have to pay myself an extra 5,000 out of pocket each year! Its non sense!

  346. ag Says:

    Time for a group hug…. : )

  347. Do the math Says:

    This deal makes no sense. Why would anyone give something back that they have for six years? Anyone anyone

  348. been there done that Says:

    You know how children don’t listen to their parents; they think they know it all. The yes voters think there won’t be layoffs. It’s because they don’t know any better.

    BTW fKris et al – the “no layoff” provision doesn’t protect…repeat DOES NIOT PROTECT the voc-tech high schools… or the prisons or chro or agriculture or any other agency Malloy decides to downsize, merge, or close. And those “redundant” workers do not lose their bumping rights so YOU CAN BE LAID OFF even if this passes. Just ask your stewards, if you can find them.

  349. DISGRUNTLED MANAGER Says:

    LEAVE OUR PENSION AND HEALTHCARE ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    6 Years from now, they will never touch TIER’s I, II, IIA age of Retirement or early Retirement Penalty! If SEBAC tries to do this again in the future, they have to be REJECTED like they should be REJECTED this time. Should they come to an impasse it may require Binding Arbitration.

    If it does, I can’t envision any scenario where an Arbitrator would even take away what SEBAC has asked all Union Members, and as a trickle down, Managers as well. It isn’t gonna happen!

    Think about it, you work your whole career under one set of rules (TIERS I, II, IIA) only for your current leadership agreee to try and change the rules midstream. An Arbitrator wouldn’t do that…..IT’S A CONTRACT!!!!!

    They’re NOT gonna add years to your retirement age or double the penalty should you wish to elect early retirement.

    The Arbitrator may have you pay more for healthcare or enter into some other type of Managed Care Plan. They probably would also create a TIER 3 similar to what is proposed.

  350. jack Says:

    HELEN LET ME GUESS! YOU MUST HAVE LESS THAN TWO YEARS OF STATE SERVICE AND ARE PROBABLY SOME KIND OF SOCIAL WORKER AT DCF, WHICH EXPLAINS YOUR TOTAL IGNORANCE ABOUT THE CHANGES BEING MADE TO OUR HEALTH CARE.

  351. jonny appleseed Says:

    http://www.votenotoconcessions.com/forum/gbook.php

    Remember VOTE NO

  352. dave Says:

    Helen is a plant for SEBAC, but she is right about 1 thing, this agreement will pass, SEBAC knows it and so does our union leadership, it is a done deal. this is a fixed vote. this is obamas baby it must go through. we know that all the top senior union big shots are in with obamas agenda. the reality of the votes will not matter, Helen is telling you the truth when she tells you it will pass, all her other garbage is SEBAC propaganda. I hope I am wrong and we vote this down, but I am preparing myself for the worst. i have sent e-mails to our union leadership, if this thing passes, i know its a corrupt count and i am opting out of the union, everyone should email and tell the leadership the same!!!!!!

  353. rankandfile Says:

    Helen, just because people hate the concession deal doesn’t mean they hate Obama, and only an idiot would be disappointed we finally got bin Laden. I know your kind think the constitutiion is an old, dusty document that no longer has meaning, adopted way back in 1787 the way it was. Maybe you didn’t realize that Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, so that’s almost as old and dusty. I’m sure you long for the day when you can just send people who disagree with you to a “re-education camp”, but we haven’t reached that point yet.

    As for the poll, it’s a small and unscientific method, which on its’ own might not mean much. However, I’ve talked to a number of people in 4 different unions, and they are overwhelmingly opposed as well. It might pass by a landside in AFSCME Council 4, but I doubt anywhere else. Regarding voter fraud, my union claims they will get outside assistance to monitor the vote, because it’s such a concern. After all, it was your hero Stalin who said “it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”. Glad I’m not in your union. :)

  354. Good S Worker Says:

    Helen-you moron! I have now stooped to your level and started calling names. Everyone that has written on this site has had valid points and cares enough to post without being immature. Which means you are either a manager or not an employee! I dont care if ben dover is an employee or not, he has the right to state his peace. He has stated the facts as he sees them. Unfortunately, too many see this as black and white. Keep your job/lose your job. It is much more than that. We have a union contract that states we are to get an increase this year! Regardless of the way times are changing, we all agreed to a contract! This lose your job, or vote yes tactic is extremely wrong to do to the entire state workforce. Many of us serve the state for the better good! I cannot apologize for the bad apples in the state or the over-paid long time managers. I can only apologize for voting NO! I dont believe that any of this is right. Go on HELEN, keep cyber bullying/backtalking. You have said NOTHING that validates a true yes!

  355. Good S Worker Says:

    And HELEN-OBAMA did not kill Bin-Laden. A soldier did~ Someone who risked their life for what they believe in, AMERICA. ANYONE, if you have doubts about this agreement, vote no! If you think its right, vote yes. Its quite simple……..If you do not understand the contract and have not gotten answers from your union that clarify things, vote NO!

  356. Michael Says:

    I was listening to Church & State, which is the John Rowland radio show, with his sidekick Pastor Will. Rowland predicted that the concessions will pass with flying colors (beause we suspect that it’s already a done deal). Rowland also said that he has not seen from state employees anything that they are dissatisfied with this deal. But it was interesting that he said that Tier II people are unhappy. Pastor Will said that state employees will have pay raises of 9%, over the next 5 years, but purposely leaves out the part about Tier II employees supporting with superior Tier I retirees with 5.5%, of deductions, over that same time frame. Even a Pastor falls short on telling the truth. The state cannot be trusted. If the concessions of ‘11 pass, next will be the concessions of ‘15.

  357. rankandfile Says:

    Michael, the fact that the media talks about this like it is a done deal is concerning, when it seems most state employees have serious reservations about this. It could just be that they don’t do their homework, and just repeat everything they are told, without talking to any actual state employees.

    You’re right about 2015, we have set a pattern of conceding gains every time they demand it, and if we give in now we set the stage for the future. We’re like parents who give a child that throws a temper tantrum everything they want. All they learn is to throw more and bigger tantrums more often.

  358. Good S Worker Says:

    rankandfile, your last comment was brilliant. We set the stage for the future…..

  359. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Because of all the complaints to our union reps (who do not answer any calls) we have stopped the Voting This Friday. 4 time slots were set up to get every rank and file staff to vote after their shifts. My guess is that “We the watchdogs” in our area realized that the unions were going to get there Yes votes anywhere anytime. People have no clue of what is at stake.
    There is a grass roots type of movement going on here. So many people are reading about the Sustinet Health. the unions sell us down the river on this contract that they won for us in 1997? Why? Because of Sustinet ( Obamacare). They messed with us at the wrong time.
    Why is it that everyone on radio, TV, they say that this is such a great deal. People are starting to read all the SEBAC agreements. If a honest NO vote goes through, they will crucify state workers for taking a 2 % raise that they agreed to on in 2009.
    Soon there will be a class action suit.
    Who can comment on this statement” If union members are not at the vote then they are counted as a YES VOTE?” Any thoughts?

  360. jonny appleseed Says:

    This is Bad: Please for the sake of GOD VOTE NO!!!!

    “Under the original proposal, SustiNet would initially only cover individuals currently covered through the state, including state employees, retirees, and Medicaid HUSKY beneficiaries. Eventually, it would become a new health coverage option for municipalities, private employers and families.”

    Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Doctors-throw-weight-behind-SustiNet-despite-1393989.php#ixzz1NJpYrg3c

  361. JH Says:

    I do not know one person who is voting yes, so if this thing passes, those ballot boxes are pre stuffed!

  362. rankandfile Says:

    At least Helen and SteveHC seem to be implying that this is in fact Sustinet (aka ObamaCare). The problem is that SEBAC was hiding that, rather than bringing out into the light of day, so that every member can make a truly informed voting decision. Politicians (including using leaders) are sometimes like vampires, they fear the light, prefering to hide in the shadows.

  363. dis heartend Says:

    Just curious if anyone is being told that they cannot go to the union informational meetings on work time?

  364. Tony Says:

    Information came in the form of a “clarifying” email from my union this evening. It purports that OUR UNION proposed the “managed health” plan (and penalties). If SEBAC wants to take credit for this mess then let them! I would urge the use of recall elections (petitioned by 10% of the membership) of their respective Union leaders. Further, oppose the SEBAC status-quo by nominating someone with some common sense to run against them. Remember this come election time next year for your Union officers. I would rather have someone with real common sense than the supposedly educated corrupt idiots we have now. When do we get to see how much money (Union dues) were paid to DAN LIVINGSTON for creating this disaster?

  365. rankandfile Says:

    I urge all of you to make sure your co-workers know what’s really at stake here. I think everyone I work with has been checking out just what Sustinet really is.

  366. rankandfile Says:

    Johnny appleseed, just saw your blog, nice job. I didn’t know about this part until I saw DOT worker’s post there
    “Sustinet Plan developed by the Universal Health Care Foundation of CT, Inc. Guess who is on the Board of Directors for that foundation? Dan Livingston, chief SEBAC negotiatior.”

  367. Ctintrouble Says:

    When do we get to see the actual agreement?-a summary is worthless-why is SEBAC failing to give union members the actual agreement? What is SEBAC hiding? How can anyone vote on this without knowing the terms of the actual agreement? SEBAC has done so much backdoor dealing with this agreement that they cannot be trusted-we all have the right to see the actual agreement before any voting takes place.

  368. Get Answers to Your Questions on SEBAC’s Job & Benefits Security Agreement « In This Together CT Says:

    [...] Click here to access a summary and the signed framework agreement reached by SEBAC leaders and the governor’s representatives are also online. The formal tentative agreement, which is being reduced to writing, will be posted as soon as it is finalized. [...]