Job & Benefits Savings Agreement “Q&A” Videos Online; Union Leadership and Administration Finalizing TA

by Matt O'Connor on May 26th

The tentative job security agreement between the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) and the Malloy administration is being reviewed and finalized for publication. We will post the full tentative agreement once it is made available so that all state employees can review it ahead of membership meetings and ratification votes that will take place throughout June.

In the meantime, we have begun to post several video question-and-answer segments designed to help you better understand the agreement before you vote on it. The segments feature SEBAC chief negotiator Daniel Livingston and attorney Robert Krzys, a labor advocate and healthcare expert who assisted in the discussions that produced the framework.

Click here for the videos and be sure to check back daily, as we will post nearly 30 segments for your use.

As always, we appreciate members’ patience during this process.

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

60 Responses to “Job & Benefits Savings Agreement “Q&A” Videos Online; Union Leadership and Administration Finalizing TA”

  1. jonny appleseed Says:

  2. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    “When do we get to see the actual agreement?
    THE COMPLETE TA AGREEMENT OF 2011? -a summary is worthless-why is SEBAC failing to give union members the actual 15 UNION SIGNED BY EACH PRESIDENT. 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 -we all have the right to see the actual agreement before any voting takes place.”

    Hundreds of Union Members are making the same points that are why DO we have No Agreement Before the Vote? Maybe Because when we WILL have time to dissect this agreement as more & more people will be aware of the dangers in this.

    In our UNION we were told that Voting would be around June 10 th to 17 TH OF JUNE,




    VOTING WILL BE Friday MAY 27 (1X), MAY 31 (3x),MAY 31 ( 5X),MAY 31 (3X),MAY 31, ( 3 X ),JUNE 1,( 4X ), JUNE 2 (2X),JUNE 2 ( 3 X ), JUNE 6 ( 3X ), JUNE 6 ( 3X ), JUNE 7 (5 X), JUNE 7 ( 2 X ), JUNE 8 ( 4 X ), JUNE 8 ( 3X), JUNE 9 ( 4 X ), JUNE 9 ( 3X), JUNE 9 ( 2 X), JUNE 9 ( 4 X ), JUNE ( 2 X ), JUNE 10 ( 4 X ), JUNE 10 ( 3 X ), JUNE 14 ( 3 X ), JUNE 14 ( 4X ), JUNE 16 ( 4 X )



    THE OFFICAL SEBAC TA AGREEMENT is not out yet BUT voting has started?




  3. Helen Says:

    Excellent videos. Clear concise explanations. I urge all union members to vote yes.

    A no vote could prompt the Connecticut government to turn into another Wisconsin situation where we lose all collective bargaining rights.

  4. Fed Up Says:

    Helen–you must really be either Dan or Sal. Anyway, we’re not buying it.

  5. Dave Says:

    Reply to Helen: The Legislature has long fed off our union dues – they would lose a big pot of money if our collective bargaining rights were to be rescinded! I wonder how long it would take for a “wildcat strike” to compel the Legislature to restore our collective bargaining rights? VOTE NO TO CONCESSIONS AND STAY STRONG! NO MORE GIVEBACKS!

  6. vic Says:

    Helen, you clearly have an agenda or you wouln’t urge anyone to vote for sustinet. I work for D.O.C. and if this agreement goes through I will have the same health insurance as the criminals that I have to deal with on a daily basis.
    Malloy, Livingston and Luciano are all trying to sell Sustinet, no thanks, vote no.
    Don’t listen to the sell outs!

  7. ag Says:

    look at the Chronic Illnesses
    video…….my advise….Don’t EVER get sick!!!!!!!! You will be labeled for life!!!! We all know what happens once you are labeled!!!!

  8. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Forget about Hellen……………Any comments people about 1199 starting voting today at 8:15 am, and for the next 23 days? Before this contract is even offical? I don’t care who Helen works for. He or she was posting on May 12 th at 3 pm. with all the “facts” or leaks of the concessions BEFORE Good Ole’ Danny’s news conference on May 13 th. Just ask her.

  9. vic Says:

    Like Jack says helen, what agency to you work for? it doesn’t matter, this agreement is DOA. state police, doc and 2001 are all voting against it. you lose Helen and tell Livingston and Luciano NO DEAL!

  10. Do the math Says:

    Is the governor going to have sustinet? Anyone? Anyone?

  11. Just Say No Says:

    Gee, Livingston is connected with CHART and Luciano with Sustinet. All the hush hush negotiations with the governors office, keeping everyone in the dark. This entire thing stinks of corruption. VOTE NO. This thing is bad news.

  12. jack Says:


  13. sick and tired of this game Says:

    These videos do nothing but repeat the scant info in the written summary in a different venue. Rather than summarizing issues, they summarize the view that the SEBAC negotiators wish us to take.
    I have yet to decide how I will vote, but the apparently deliberate move to hide information speaks louder than either the written or video propaganda shared to date.
    By the way, I already have regular physicals and all recommended preventive care. I also have seasonal asthma. Why then, do I have to pay an additional monthly fee if I opt to continue my own care as opposed to letting someone else, “provide me with information to keep me healthy?”

  14. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    People what about 1199 voting as of today at 8:15 AM? and For the next 23 days until June 17 th. who checks and keeps the count? And all of this BEFORE the TA agreement is offical?

  15. jack Says:


  16. rankandfile Says:

    Are we no longer being censored if we disagree?

  17. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Do the Math……he most likely will have the SEBAC agreement of 1997 …….Blue cross/Blue shield……..until 2017. The same SEBAC that got us that deal now says “know what we are giving you Obama Care /Sustinet now until 2022. VOTE NO! & sign up for the Class Action Law suit.

  18. Helen Says:

    Some of you folks are spewing pure propaganda. I was at a meeting yesterday with upwards of 100 people. Guess what. They did a poll after the union guy took about 40 minutes and explained the deal to us. Of the people at the meeting, 84 participated in the poll. The results were very encouraging. 74 yes to 10 no. Now before the meeting I heard a lot of complaining about not knowing what was in the agreement. After the meeting the feeling was relief for many of the same folks who were complaining. I think when the union officials get through going to all the work places this thing passes by a very wide margin. One anecdotal example: a woman and a guy who work at the agency I do were going around telling everyone to vote no. They were aggressive about it too. After the meeting I talked to them. They said the were going to vote yes because the union spokesman that day convinced them it was a fair deal. That’s just one small example, but if you extrapolate it out to a larger audience it’s pretty darn impressive.

  19. vic Says:

    If the union leadership somehow get this passed, I think we would have to look for new leadership. this wouldn’t be the first time an election is fixed.

  20. Helen Says:

    A challenge to all who post here:

    Can anyone link me to any newspaper or other respected publication that has brought forth the opinion that this deal is bad for union members?

    I can’t find a single reference by any major news outlet that says the union members got a raw deal. In fact quite the opposite seems to be the case.

    I’m not talking about blogs with low web traffic or that are unknown. I’m talking major news outlets and well known op-ed writers.

  21. rankandfile Says:

    Helen, I won’t call you names, but it does sound odd. Possibly people in your union support this anyway (social workers?), but had reservations about the details. At the meeting that I attended, it seemed most people were leaving angry. The videos weren’t as bad as I thought they’d be, but they do leave a lot of questions. What exactly is the full schedule for “screenings”?. Is there a list of them available? There is a list of 5 diseases for the “disease management programs”. Can any new diseases be added without our voting on it? What are the specific requirements of these programs, and can the requirements be changed without our voting on it? How is this better for us than the plans we have now? Since almost everyone agrees that reopening this now will result in a 2015 reopener, is it really preferable to keeping what we have until 2017?

  22. Angry Says:

    Our 1199 guy came this week to try to sell this bunch of crap. It really is amazing what is happening and actually very scary. He kept stating that we are firtunate to get raises in the last three years. The fact is, we are giving up 2.5% this July, getting nothing the next two years, 3% the following year ofset by a .5% contribution to the health fund, 3 % the following year ofset by 2% to the health fund, and forget about the last 3%, it is after the no layoff clause and we will never see that one because the state will be back asking for more and we will still be asked to contribute the 3% into the health fund.. Combine all this and we are looking at a decrease in salary of 2% over the next five years. And the the 3% health fund contribution coninues for another seven years after that. Wake up people!!! This agreement sucks! Not to mention the fact they screwed any tier2 employee that wants to retire early by doubling the penalty and starting a premium share payment. The union is now using scare tactics to get us to vote yes, dont fall for it!

  23. Disgusted Says:

    It is irresponsible for the union to ask members to vote for a plan that they haven’t read. It is also irresponsible for them to ask us to vote on a medical plan that has yet to be written. We gave furlough days and salary increases to avoid lay-offs not that long ago in exchange we were given two pay increases. Before we even get the second one they want more give backs….and if that isn’t bad enough, they are throwing us under the bus with this heath care plan…….read on and do your own research: ; (wellpoint and Anthem are the same)

    Slide 7: Value-Based Purchasing Design
    One of the answers is an innovation we call Value-Based Benefit Design. In California,
    we’re working with CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, to
    drive more affordable reimbursements for hip and knee replacements. When we looked at
    the data in California, the cost of an inpatient hospital stay associated with hip and knee
    replacement ranged from $15,000 to $110,000 with no meaningful difference in quality.
    So CalPERS and our California plan teamed up with all this data and with other partners
    of CalPERS and set a threshold of reimbursement of no greater than $30,000. CalPERS
    members can have the surgery wherever they’d like, but their reimbursement will not
    exceed $30,000, leaving the member to make up the difference. This puts both choice and
    responsibility in the hands of consumers. And with CalPERS’ more than 1.6 million
    public employees, they can really have an impact.
    There are also a lot of participating hospitals in this program, including some of the most
    reputable hospitals in California. So what happens if your hospital is not on the list? You
    pay more. So we know that this will drive health care value for our members.
    We also have another example: our Smart Shoppers program in New Hampshire. When a
    physician recommends a service or a test, such as carpal tunnel surgery, a colonoscopy or
    a CT scan, the patient is provided with cost and quality information for that area’s care
    providers for the procedure requested. If the member chooses a more cost-effective
    provider, they will qualify for an incentive ranging from $50 to $100. Sometimes that can
    be a lot relative to the service at hand. This saves cost and rewards the member for
    making the value-driven decision, and it’s a step in the right direction to making the
    member more of a consumer in health care.

    And in its guide to value-based benefit plans–the kind the state employee agreement calls for–the National Business Coalition on Health warns that costs can increase in the short-term because of increased use of medical services. Reduced medical costs from improved health can take longer to materialize, it said.
    The agreement assumes the state would save $121.7 million in the first year from changes to the health plan’s design. Some is projected to come from more traditional changes like requiring prior authorization for services like MRIs, limiting the number of physical or occupational therapy sessions a person could have, and limiting orthotics to people with certain diseases, like diabetes. Mark Ojakian, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s chief negotiator on the deal, said those are projected to save about $20 million in the first year. The plan would also require members who go to the emergency room but do not get admitted to the hospital to pay $35; currently, they pay nothing. The savings figure also includes the increased premiums members who don’t participate in the new plan design would pay.

    The plan would also encourage people getting bariatric or cardiac surgery to use “centers of excellence,” designated by the insurers based on patient outcomes. Doctors who call for authorization will be told about the centers of excellence, although the doctor and patient could choose any hospital. (Is this the “you can keep your doctor part?)

    The state will be “a bit of a laboratory,” with a large insurance pool to see what works and what doesn’t, and make changes accordingly, he said. But he added that the concept behind the plan design is not new and has improved outcomes and helped control costs in other places. (Happy to hear we are lab rats?),0,5981101.story

    But unlike the win/win situation being projected in Connecticut (no increase in premiums and savings of a quarter of a billion dollars in two years” the report goes on to say that, “because of the additional cost of lowering or waiving copayments for prescription drugs and some services, the Anthem official explained, “The pricing is still being worked out…The promise of a value-based insurance design is to make an investment in your employees. When you do that, you are really looking at increasing the plan’s cost.”
    In true health care industry fashion, another Anthem official said that it wasn’t so much about reducing premiums as about increasing employee productivity. “One thing fully insured clients will benefit from is the effect on overall productivity…when their employees are compliant and educated, they’ll see decreased absenteeism, disability costs and increased productivity.”
    Good news about the increased productivity, since the Malloy/SEBAC plan also relies on more than 1,000 employees leaving state service and not being replaced next year.

    Doctor participation in SustiNet could also be limited because the SustiNet bill still calls for the creation of a committee to recommend clinical care guidelines, but doesn’t protect doctors who follow them, Lancaster said.
    If the plan is so good, why are the doctors worried about being sued if they follow the recommendations?

    Interestingly, the description of (a) new Anthem plan is very similar to the language being used in the Malloy/SEBAC Agreement… Anthem said “the product will attempt to remove the cost barrier to medication compliance by reducing copayments for high-value drugs and medical services while encouraging plan members to participate in the insurer’s condition management education programs…Initially, it will target five conditions: asthma, diabetes, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive heart failure.” What comes next?
    But unlike the win/win situation being projected in Connecticut (no increase in premiums and savings of a quarter of a billion dollars in two years” the report goes on to say that, “because of the additional cost of lowering or waiving copayments for prescription drugs and some services, the Anthem official explained, “The pricing is still being worked out…The promise of a value-based insurance design is to make an investment in your employees. When you do that, you are really looking at increasing the plan’s cost.” Thought this was supposed to save money?
    In true health care industry fashion, another Anthem official said that it wasn’t so much about reducing premiums as about increasing employee productivity. “One thing fully insured clients will benefit from is the effect on overall productivity…when their employees are compliant and educated, they’ll see decreased absenteeism, disability costs and increased productivity.”
    Good news about the increased productivity, since the Malloy/SEBAC plan also relies on more than 1,000 employees leaving state service and not being replaced next year.
    In conclusion, according to Jon Pelto’s research, as I suspected, Value Based Health Care won’t really save any money at all, especially in he first year, but will “improve employees productivity.” Depending on how intrusive “participating in disease management” is, and I have to believe it will involve stopping smoking, dieting, and exercise in some combination, it seems unlikely the unions will accept this in any event.

    So, if the SEBAC Agreement is approved and adopted, state employees and anyone retiring after 9/1/2011 will be required to participate in the new “value based health care system” or pay an additional $1,200 a year and have an additional $350 deductible per person, per year, on top of their existing deductibles and co-pays.
    Hello Teir 1

    Someone on grounds aid that we will all pay the increased premium with a refund at some time in the future, WTF. The below indicates that may be correct.

    In Colorado, for example, Anthem is offering a product through the state Chamber of Commerce to employers with 51 to 300 employees that guarantees up to a 3% reduction in subsequent-year premiums if plan members participate in screenings and health promotion programs that lead to improvements in their health status.

  24. rankandfile Says:

    Helen, how would they know? They don’t report facts, they regurgitate what is told to them. Investigative journalism died years ago. The Hartford Courant reports that uncapped longevity is something longtime employees get. Wrong! The newspapers also consider “guaranteed” to mean we are promised something. Most of us consider “guaranteed” to mean we actually have a likelyhood of receiving it. The last raise of this deal is no more “guaranteed” than the one from the last concession agreement of just two years ago, that was “guaranteed” for this year. The “guarantee” until 2022 is no more “guaranteed” than the one that expires in 2017 is “guaranteed”. The fact of the matter is that they aren’t looking at it from our perspective, and most of them are biased against us to begin with. And of course, none of them seem to be aware that this is actually SustiNet.

  25. Enough Already Says:

    We didn’t finish the last giveback which ends with a pay increase in June and the current contract that expires in 2012 and we are already giving back the June pay raise ++. So the last wonderful deal that the union negotiated wasn’t so wonderful…and this one is worse.

  26. vic Says:

    helen, where do you work and where did this poll take place. It sounds like your making things up. why would anyone want to give up our healthcare for sustinet

  27. Helen Says:

    I find it hard to believe that people posting comments in blogs such as this (anonymously by the way) know more about things than newspapers, reporters and high profile op-ed writers.

    The blame the media strategy has always been the last resort for politicians. For example: Sarah Palin get’s interviewed by Katie Couric and from that point on Palin trashed Couric every chance she gets. Yet her answers come out of her mouth in the interview. Clinton blamed the media in the Lewinsky scandal. As recently as last week Newt Gingrich stated that anyone who runs an add using what he said on “Meet the Press” is a liar.

    The blame the media strategy is a loser.

  28. vic Says:

    Helen, I work for D.O.C., where do you work?

  29. rankandfile Says:

    Helen, I must have missed you posting your name. I’m not blaming the media, I’m simply saying they lack critical thinking skills. I’m sure some media members have the capacity to think for themselves, but I don’t think they are here in Connecticut. Go back and read what they write, they simply parrot what was told to them, and maybe offer their less than informed opinion on the matter.

  30. Good S Worker Says:

    Hey disgusted, thank you for the links to the postings. Definitely voting no~

  31. Joe Lunchpail Says:

    To Helen and her ilk. No No No NO . Respect contracts that are signed. 2017 is sacred. Negotiate later. You must not really labor at your job. You probably work but not labor. A deals a deal and let the chips fall as they may. Personal responsibility starts with looking out for yourself. Proudly voting NO NADA NIEN .Intellictualism aside stand up and see givebacks are for less gettin.

  32. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    RankandFile……………every social worker I know will be voting NO. I would say at least 90% of them if not more.
    T -19 = Sustinet D,
    State employee’s = Sustinet E.
    The social workers are very aware of this. And for the most part they fully understand the SEBAC V agreement and what that refers to about helath care until 2017.

  33. rankandfile Says:

    Sorry freespeech, I didn’t mean to malign social workers. It’s just that most of the ones I have met are very ideological. It’s good to hear they know what’s going on here. Maybe she isn’t actually a union member? It seems like every union I’ve talked to people from is voting no.

  34. sunshine Says:

    this agreement, especially the health portion, is like a dictatorship. you will be forced to have medical tests you do not want and do not need. you will be forced to take medication against your will. you will experimented on and not have the right to say no. PLEASE UNION MEMBERS EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO SAY “NO” NOW. this agreement is hideous!!! add to that the fake raises– they will give you 3% and then take it away in retiree health care costs. 3%-3%= ZERO! meanwhile we have mortgages to pay and cost of everything is going up. how is anyone supposed to survive in this state?

  35. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    This post is a response to the early voting with 1199.
    “The CSEA SEIU Local 2001 Constitution states in Section 12, Employee Contracts.”

    “12.1 Copies of any proposed employee contract shall be distributed to the employees affected by the contract one
    (1) calendar week prior to the date voting on the proposed contract begins, or as otherwise provided in
    council/chapter bylaws.”

    I am sure that the fact that there was voting today with no written contract distributed to the members is a violation of other union’s constitutions as well.

    Unfortunately, you will have to stand up for yourself, because SEBAC is the one stabbing us in the back.

    Get informed. Find your union Constitution and print it out. Make a verbal complaint in front of witnesses if they try to make you vote without seeing the agreement. Follow this verbal complaint up with a written complaint.

  36. FreeSpeechCT Says:

    Vic think the rules have changed Need 3 unions for it to be a No vote. Before all the papers stated 14 out of 15 need to approve and 80% of rank and file. Now it has changed to 13 out of 15 and if so it is a yes? Why?

  37. Ctstateemployee Says:

    this is the best thing since sliced bread.

  38. vic Says:

    I think at least 3 unions will vote no, state police, D.O.C. and seiu 2001. don’t know about the rest, but the on line voting stands at 79% no, 21% yes

  39. Mim Says:

    Still waiting to see the actual agreement……….our union rep has been vigorously arm twisting but has NO concept of the details and can’t seem to answer any questions to my satisfaction. Totally denies the health plan =Sustinet. I’m voting no. It feels like the union is hiding something.

  40. Unionleo Says:

    It’s 12:10am – Friday – The SEBACers are still at it here in Hartford editing and finalizing the language on the Tentative Agreement. Calling back and forth with management on the final detail lists – It’s coming soon – this document has more detail than the framework – and will represent the agrement you vote on. We’ll post it as soon as we can and do as much a we can to answer your questions.

  41. Helen Says:

    I am going to forecast the future for all the folks who say the “no” vote will win.

    Here it is:

    The agreement will pass overwhelmingly. Then, all of the folks here will post that the vote was rigged.

    Check back here and re-read this post after the vote.

  42. votemaybe Says:

    The unions covered by SEBAC are:

    Administrative and Residual Employees Union/AFT Local 4200
    AFT Connecticut
    American Association of University Professors – Connecticut State University
    American Association of University Professors – UCONN
    American Association of University Professors – UCONN Health Center
    American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees – Council 4
    Connecticut Federations of School Administrators Local 61
    Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges/SEIU Local 1973
    Connecticut Association of Prosecutors
    Connecticut Employees Union Independent/SEIU Local 511
    Connecticut State Police Union
    CSEA SEIU Local 2001
    International Brotherhood of Police Officers/SEIU Local 731New England
    Healthcare Employees Union, District 1199/SEIU
    Protective Services Employees Coalition/IAFF-IUPA

  43. alicemary Says:


  44. rankandfile Says:

    Helen, indeed we will see . The fears of vote fraud were caused by the fact that everyone seems to act as if this is a “done deal” before voting has even occurred. Additionally, it seems that both SEBAC and the State have a vested interest in the outcome. It’s very simple to prevent those claims, just have an independent party monitor the vote count. Ever since Bush stole Florida people have had some skepticism when it comes to vote counting, and rightly so. If a presidential election is at risk, then certainly a union vote might be as well. While I understand the neccessity of keeping the union negotiations out of the news, an unfortunate side effect of that process was to reinforce fears of a backroom deal. It might have been best if SEBAC had stated this would be a tough sell to membership from the beginning, and emphasized that nothing was final until membership had approved it. I think they may have honestly believed we would jump on board for this, and that no one would realize that it was SustiNet in disguise. It would also have been extremely helpful to them if Malloy had waited until after the vote to go on a spending spree. Claiming to be broke while you announce billions of new spending every other day isn’t helpful to SEBAC’s cause.

  45. alicemary Says:

    Helen you are clearly a plant. Dan Livingston is a board of director for CHART-Universal Health Foundation since 1999. Priceless. You are not suppose to work for your own personal agenda but workers rights. Since 1999 he has been on this agenda not telling the members. 12 years yet not written plan priceless. The videos enrage me even furtherl. What are we two years old and mom and dad are going to punish us. All this different agencies having our personal health care information. Inmates have better care. Also look on site CEO and how all of the union leaders are endorsing this. Dan Livingston needs to step down this is unethical negotiatiing this agreement. An agreement is legal and binding and he had no write to negotiate this. They have have opened and opened this agreement one to many times. sebac increased the money every year by opening it one to many times. Now they are trying to change the whole health care plan. This is our own unions doing this to us how disturbing. Dan and Sal need to step down and this piece of garbage needs to go where it belongs in the trash.

    This process is tainted and corrupt. Who in their right mind would vote yes . Yes maybe STeveH and Helen the two plants.

  46. rankandfile Says:

    Oh, and he could have made several moves that would have demonstrated to union memebers that he was serious about budget cutting and spending reform. All “120 day wonders” would have been let go. He would have announced that management was being reduced by x% (40% ? 50%?) The Lisa Moody rule would have been immediately repealed. All managerial longevity payments would have been reduced to 1977 levels, to bring them back in line with what capped union workers get. These are the kind of things that might have convinced union employees that they were not the sole target, that all “state employees” were sharing the sacrifice, starting at the top. Too often “state employees” actually means union employees. Many of us know managers who got their jobs because they “hung around long enough” or they were related to somebody, or friends with somebody, and not because they actually had any managerial skills.

  47. Ctstateemployee Says:

    I say VOTE NO! This is a bad deal. We need answers. How come.
    Dan Livingston being a board member for chart and Sal Luciano being a board member for Sustinet. What is the legal aspect we can have these people removed from the leader ship that clearly is not looking out for our best interest. Protect what we have. Honor our current contract.

  48. Ctstateemployee Says:

    Can somebody tell me or explain to me why i have been blocked from posting on this website since May 22nd. HORRIBLE DEAL.

    VOTE NO!!!!! Stop the Censorship.

  49. rankandfile Says:

    And why can’t we ever get some decent public relations? Advocating tax increases is never going to make us popular. How about mentioning to the media that the pension issue is much like social security, the government made promises to us, and after holding up our end for 30 years they claim “sorry, we’re broke”. The health care issue is like Medicare, again promises made that might not be kept. Help the public see things from our point of view, in a way that lets them put themselves in our shoes. Many will hate us no matter what, but maybe we can mitigate at least some of the vitriol. And maybe we can somday we can get a governor that actually doesn’t use us as a convenient scapegoat, as every governor had done for over twenty years now.

  50. rankandfile Says:

    Ctstateemployee, I think it was to hold up comments until the videos went up last night. At least I hope that was the reason, an official announcement regarding that might have been a good idea as well. People feared SEBAC was restricting the debate on a website that our dues help pay for.

  51. rankandfile Says:

    One last idea. Don’t confuse people by mixing long term concessions with short term ones. Tier 3, value based health for new employees, changes to retirement ages for new employees, no OT calculations in pensions for new employees, etc. would probably pass by huge margins. Some would say we’re selling them out, but at least they’ll know what they are signing up for from the beginning. The drawback of course is the rentment they will have for us. Much like how most of those with less than 5 years resent the rest of us, or how most tier 2a resents tier 2, and both resent tier 1. I don’t like the philosophy of concessions at all, and have voted no to every proposed concession package we’ve ever had put in front of us. So if you have less than 5 years and are paying into health, it wasn’t my fault. I don’t agree with changing the rules on people midstream.

  52. concerned - AGAIN Says:

    We have seen some arm twisting in SEIU 2001 as well. But no vote will take place until we get the written

  53. Diana Says:

    This week our NP-3 Union had our meeting to discuss the concession package, we were told that today the website would have all of the actuary numbers and I don’t see that here…also we were told that positions/classifications eliminated by the mergers would continue receiving their regular pay until they were found jobs….read the tentative agreement refers to the extension of the job security agreement signed in 2009 with the changes in the mileage radius for job placement….that 2009 agreement does not guarantee job security due to eliminations/mergers…simply states that OPM/State will make “best efforts”….so people that are voting based on job security only….read carefully….additionally, the representatives that came to our meeting used scare tactics, intimidation in their presentation…who is the union working for? US or the administration??? I understand that we have to make sacrifices, but there is something wrong here…they are acting like the administration has pushed us into a corner…in reality….they voted a budget counting on 2 bil in concessions….they would have to lay off every single one of us….impacting services to muncipalities, elderly, children and non profit agencies….the backlash would be huge…..I’m willing to take furlough days…freeze my salary all you want, I’m at the top of my step anyway…take my longevity too, I’m a clerical bargaining unit member… not getting thousands of dollars in longevity….just don’t touch my pension…thats the only thing that I have been working for……sorry, but I have 22 years in….

  54. John Says:

    First of all there is no alternate health care plan that exists, yet. It has to be created and bought by the Ins CO’s and doctors. Even though you won’t know what restrictions there are and how many doctors buy into this new plan, you have to pick it at the next open enrollment , but you have to vote on it now. If you don’t like it, the alternative is $100/month and a yearly co-pay. So some of the savings will be from state employees who say no. Interesting way to raise your insurance costs.

  55. Ag Says:

    I have a question. As it stands now our dental coverage ends once a dependent reaches age 19. The new health insurance requires two cleanings a year. Does anybody know if the age is going to be increased for dental coverage from age 19 to 26 so that they are covered?

  56. concerned - AGAIN Says:

    OK, We know this site get moderated to try and cleanse some of the comments, but based on what I see they must not be filtering everything only the rually obscene stuff posted by some. WHat I want to be sure to know, is how can we have confidence in our vote. Is there any kund of auditing that can take place such as sealed/locked boxes that get collected to a common location and then accounted for before the ballots are counted? There should be some method to verify number of ballots passed out to members and actually put into the boxes. Any way for absentee ballots should also be looked in to. Votes should not be tallied at local workplaces and then the # sent to headquarters. A CLEAR WRITTEN and EXPLAINED process must take place so that when the ‘vote is in’ no one can question it later on! I think that most of us as just ask for a process to be written before it happens. Not Haphazard, Not different at each work location, not willy nilly.

  57. Allpolitics Says:

    As a Tier IIA member I am also leaning to voting NO because SEBAC choose to make current Tier II and IIA members work longer or incur more expensive penalties for leaving early.

    How does this make sense? The most generous plans, Tier I and HD, the plans that actually can afford to give, under this agreement give nothing. Yet in the same agreement, SEBAC says it costs too much to have people leave early, we need them to work longer. So Tier II and IIA, who CURRENTLY already have an early retirement reduction of 21% if they leave at 55 instead of 62, will increase to a 42% reduction. Additionally, because they may leave at 55, they need to pay higher health insurance premiums.

    But, a HazDuty person who leaves in mid 40’s or Tier I member who leaves at age 55 incurs no additional cost with their retirement or their health insurance (and HazDuty, due to their employment, I assume have more health insurance costs. Yet they don’t pay).

    Basically this plan makes Tier II and IIA subside already generous pension and health insurance benefits to the other plans that were the only ones who could afford to give SOMETHING. But they give VERY LITTLE.

    I hate to say it, but I’m leaning to voting NO. I like the 4 year no layoff clause, that was a gift. I am willing to participate in shared sacrifice. I’m willing to accept the changes to Tier II and IIA, but only if HazDuty and Tier I give equally.

    It should be shared pain, shared sacrifice for ALL the employees. Its that simple.

  58. Daveynavy Says:

    To all you brain surgeons out there Sustinet has nothing to do with this concession package.

    To all D.O.C. (NP-4) members say bye bye to your schedules….especially the every other weekend and 5/3. If in arbitration the arbitrater gives you even 15 cents the house and senate are voting NO!!!!!!!! say BYE BYE TO YOUR LONGEVITY forever! At least one of your presidents get it.

  59. Ctstateemployee Says:

    It was complete censorship … new email and user name was only way I was able to post again. The more and more information or lack there of we are getting from our union. Our union is not supporting this rubbish. This deal is scandalous.again honor what we have the we talk.

  60. Newer state employee Says:

    I find it mildly entertaining that nobody cared when in 2009, the employees with less than 5 years of service were hit with a 3% surcharge so our first increase in over two years back in June 2010 was washed away (and then some) with this 3%. Now that you are being asked to step up and contribute a little bit, you’d think it was the end of the world. Get over yourselves. To me, it is not unreasonable to expect to contribute to my retirement, it is not unreasonable to expect to work past the age of 55. I mean really, wake up people and stop acting so entitled. I am so disheartened…wish I had made a different career choice.