Union Leaders Reach Framework Agreement with Governor Malloy on Cost Savings

by Matt O'Connor on May 13th

State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) leaders and representatives of Governor Dannel P. Malloy reached the framework of a tentative agreement on a cost-savings package to help close the state’s budget deficit. The administration has also agreed to rescind layoff notices for nearly 5,000 state workers announced earlier this week.

The framework agreement is intended to help reduce costs while protecting public services in the current and next fiscal years, and to help put Connecticut on a firmer footing for economic recovery. When finalized, the agreement will provide for savings of approximately $1.6 billion in combined labor cost reductions and service efficiencies. The agreement also provides job security, and does not contain any furlough days or reductions in work hours for permanent state employees.

This process began with the members of our unions sharing their ideas for cutting costs and improving efficiency while providing high-quality services. State employees used their knowledge and experience to create a better future — for themselves, their services, and the people of Connecticut they proudly serve.

SEBAC leaders know that in this economic and political climate, we need more than good policy ideas. We need all our union members standing up for themselves and for all working and middle class families. After all, solidarity is what being in a union is all about.

In order to respect the fundamental rights of the working men and women we represent, SEBAC leaders have agreed not to publicize details until they can be presented to members of our unions. This process will begin immediately.

As we move forward, SEBAC leaders appreciate the solidarity, patience, and dedication that has been demonstrated by our 45,000 members. The process has been difficult and anxiety-producing as members wait for details about their future in the agreement. Given the extraordinary stakes involved, we sought to avoid the speculation and misunderstandings that would hamper our ultimate goal of reaching a mutual settlement by keeping our discussions out of the media.

The reality is that more work remains to be done. Any final agreements must be ratified by the members of our unions and approved by state lawmakers.

The fight to rebuild Connecticut and restore our state’s struggling middle class will continue as we move forward and talk with our members. State public service workers in SEBAC’s unions will continue to play a major role in helping stabilize the state’s economic health.

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

149 Responses to “Union Leaders Reach Framework Agreement with Governor Malloy on Cost Savings”

  1. Bob got screwed again Says:

    If the deal is so good why won’t you or the governor tell us or the press what the details are?
    Is it that you guaranteed to screw us while keeping your union dues fully intact? Will there be another bogus vote without outside monitors? Please brothers and sisters remember what we are giving up when it is time to vote our illustrious union leaders back into office. Do not forget union rule number one which is always preached to me: Never Give Up What You Already Won.

  2. Trudy Kilby Says:

    Thanks for folding and putting the whole burden on us! Now you can say “We tried” when we vote it down and we all will be the bad guys. I have no faith in you and am very concerned about how fair the counting of votes will be!!!!!

  3. hotpot Says:

    Vote no we have given enough and it has to stop some where,first Rell now Malloy when will it end.

  4. Horrible Deal Says:

    If the rumors are true on how horrible this agreement is. You all better vote no.

  5. Tim Says:

    Please tell me that our pensions are not compromised, I notice in the press release pay rate and hours are mentioned but no mention of pensions

  6. marybeth anderson Says:

    What exactly were the items agreed upon to reach this tentative budget agreement?

  7. bbourke Says:

    As an A & R member I strongly encourage ratificaion of this agreement. Keeping as many jobs as possible is the TOP priority. And we need to give something to gain that job securtiy. I strongly cast my vote to ratify as soon as possible.

  8. just say no Says:

    so, how about some details. the pension piece seems ok, but i am hearing some nasty rumours about the health benefit piece – if true, that will sink the deal by itself.

  9. Michael Says:

    Older Tier II employees should be very careful to evaluate how this agreement can adversely affect their retirement, in terms of when you will be finally able to afford to retire. I cannot envision 65+ year olds doing physical jobs, without elderly issues occuring. The cliff between Tier I and Tier II widens even further. I will be pressing this matter to my Tier I union president.

  10. Observer1 Says:

    I’ve been reading up, and I know details are coming, but there is a pertinent question I have which should be able to be answered here… Does the extra 3 years towards retirement go for Hazardous Duty also? If someone is going to retire in 2018, 1 year after the SEBAC agreement was supposed to end, do they have to wait another 3 years to 2021?

  11. Ross Says:

    I’m interested to see how my $40,000 share in pay/benefits cut will be taken from me over these two years. It is hard to accept changes in the SERS retirement programs, when the state refuses to act on the pre-existing arbitration award to fix the ARP problem…changing the rules in the middle of the game. Except for a few exceptions noted in the media recently, most state workers are strictly middle-class. It is hard to justify balancing the budget shortfall on a few people in the middle class while refusing to ask other people making millions per year to contribute even a small percentage more. Within three days of Big Oil executives going to the US senate begging for tax relief while extracting 40% profits from the middle class, like the “welfare addicts” they have become, here in CT we are giving out 25% pay cuts to state workers. It just isn’t fair.

  12. PeteG Says:

    Keep in Mind Mike if we don’t come to an agreement there will be alot more layoffs on top of the 4762, the governor is not going to cut state aid, he’s going to slash state government even further. I hate to say it but this about survival by the way 10 states have increased their retirement age since 2010. I understand your concern but to get a 4 year no layoff clause and 5 year increase in health care and pension is not exactly a bad deal when you consider the debt and the unemployment rate of the state. . Malloy was fair and I have about fifteen years in the union also remember Connecticut is probably the last state to feel the recesssion so we will be one of the last ones out. We are getting job and benefit security

  13. DC Says:

    Agreed Mike, do not know details yet but Iknow of no other union where there is such a un just system. seniority is everything. we all work and have no raise and teir 1 gets 3% annual raise while teir 2 pays a extra % to help fund retired clowns.

  14. anne Says:

    I think greater savings could be acheived with a better review of and AUDIT of how the state spends its money on entitlements. There are overlaping services and redundant information rerquirements. Also need to look at how agencies spend their money especially from the 4th quarter allotment—”use it or lose it” still prevails. Ridiculous spending was going on while people were being given lay off notices.-does the CEO really need the new furniture ? I think careful examination of how the money is spent and not what the agency says it spends is needed–
    It was never possible to acquire a billion dollars in a year from less than 50,000 employees. The deficit was created over the years and didn’t occur in one year. And I do hope that the Governor keeps his word regarding the elimination of management positions–I hope he continues to look at the appointees/protected staff that were carried over from the previous administration as well.
    Imprudent spending is what got us here in the first place–a “let them eat cake” attitude prevailed in the former administration–let’s hope this is finally coming to an end–and “heads will roll” for waste in government

  15. Scott Says:

    I agree with Michael. However, This appears to be very reasanable at first glance. Tier II is still an excellent pension. We have to stop comparing it to a pension plan that was stopped 28 Years ago. Those days are gone. If they move the retirement age up 3 years (65/63) that is a reasonable change. I think if you look around at what is happening in other states (removing collecting bargaining from health and pension issues), this is a good deal. We can still negotiate these benefits in the future. At the same time, we show that the current system still works.

  16. Luke Says:

    This agreement should have all state employees pay 4% for tier 2 and 5% for tier 2-A into the pension. Hazardous duty got screwed again we now will pay 4-1/2% & 5-1/2% why pay a whole ½ %

  17. Jackie Says:

    I read that health benefits for those retiring after July 1 2011 may have changes to their health care coverage. What changes may be implemented?

  18. K Says:

    Now that the agreement has been reached, where is it? I would have expected SEBAC to show the agreement here so that state employees are prepared for the agreement that they will be voting on in a short period of time. I understand and agree that concessions had to be made however I do not appreciate being kept in the dark. I would like to be informed, please.

  19. Wayne Estey Says:

    The devil is in the details. When will members get to read the actual agreement? I want to read it myself not just having it expalined to me.

  20. Bernie Says:

    Yes Tier II employees will be left in the dust again, when the break point goes up 6% each year, and empolyees taking zeros in the same years, your pension will become less. If you retire today your pension will be higher, then 2 years from now by about .04 %. In comparison Tier I employees pension will increase by 4%. If you are at or below the break point of $58,100.00 for the year of 2011 your pension will be .0133 X of that number. The break point will compounds by 6% each year to $98,200.00 by the year 2020.
    Example an empolyee retiring at the $58,100.00 break point with 25 years of service will be .0133 X $58,100.00= $772.73 X 25 = $19,318.25 /year 2011. In 2013 the same pension will decrease by .04% = $18,545.52.

  21. Jon Says:

    Vote no! We haven’t even gotten the full benefit from the last concessions yet and now they say another 2 years with nothing is great while we pay higher taxes, higher medical, and higher pension costs. Its not 0,0,3,3,3 it is actually -3, -3, 0, 0, 3. Wake up!

  22. jack Says:

    Jon…why not do us a favor by taking your retirement and leave!

  23. jack Says:

    A couple of realities: public employees must accept the fact that collective bargaining rights are under siege across the country! If any group can provide their employees shelter from layoffs, then the membership would be foolish not to consider ratification. Last time I checked, it hasn’t gotten any easier to get off the unemployment line. Paying an increase in medical benefits is not only common, but expected! Don’t embarrass yourself by denying that health plans have built in increases. The protection is in limiting those increases. Neighboring states have faired way worse…do your research on it. I too don’t like to pat more but I also see the wisdom in ratifying in order to protect what the labor movement has fought so hard for!! Does CT really want to be the east coast Wisconsin?? I eagerly await for the details, but I refuse to make a decision without facts. Lastly, I hope all of us are smart enough to make a decision independent of what may or may not happen to managers. Would it really be a consolation to anyone here if managers got laid off at the expense of union layoffs??? To our SEBAC leadership … Thank you for providing labor with options that would otherwise be stripped from all of us.

  24. Michael Says:

    We’ve seen 4 waves of Tier I employees leave, between the ages of 55 to 60 with enhancements to an already generous retirement program. The Tier II employees should had been retiring between 62 and 65, as they cannot afford to leave without Social Security. As the Tier II employees are stuck, a mack truck will come barreling at us. There’s plenty of older Tier II employees, finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel, as we are about to reach for the brass ring, that proverbial brass ring is being pulled away. The gulf between Tier I and Tier II was already wide, but it’s widening further, at a quickening pace. To older Tier II employees, can’t you see that instead of retiring between 62 to 65, it’s looking more like 65 to 70. The irony is, to save the newbies, us older employees must delay our own retirements. I hope that you folks aren’t already physically or mentally burnt out, or feel jaded at your work situation. Sorry, call me callous, but for my own survival, I’m voting no.

  25. K Says:

    It actually isn’t that bad of a deal.

    Notice a couple things:

    1) No furloughs. We have taken furlough days the last 2 years, so this is effectively a raise since we get that money back.
    2) Job security for 4 years! Imagine! In this economy! A guarantee for the next 4 years that we cannot be laid off. That is an incredible offer.
    3) The two-year wage freeze isn’t THAT bad. We just got a raise on 1/1/11. We’ll get our next raise on 1/1/13, so it really is only a 1 year freeze–we miss our raise next year and then get one guaranteed for the following 3 years. Again, in this economy, that’s not horrible.
    4) increasing the retirement age…we have to see the writing on the walls. This is happening everywhere. At least we still have a good pension and not a 401k.

    As I see it, the options are either (A) take the deal and have guaranteed job security for 4 years and keep our benefits for at least 11 years or (B) vote the deal down, layoff probably 20% of us once all the cuts are said and done, and then they will continue to lay more of us off each year moving forward (and overwork the remaining folks).

  26. SoonToRetire Says:

    Tier I, 54 1/2 years old, 33 years service. I plan to retire Jan 1st, 2012, as I turn 55 in December 2011. Now am I forced to retire at 54 1/2 with reduced benefits (< 2% year * ave(3 highest years salaries) so that I lock in my health care before this agreement changes it? May have to retire on July 1st this year to avoid any take backs that last for the rest of my life. I'M VOTING NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  27. Howard Says:

    The longer Union management waits to reveal the details of this agreement (going on 24 hours), the probability that negative feedback about the agreement from members will increase. Uncertainty fuels fear.

    Most members probably have access to the local unions websites from home or elsewhere, so why not just publish the agreement there, NOW?

    Union members are capable of reading and understanding, so why not let them? It IS ultimately up to the members to decide if this agreement is good enough for them, and there isn’t a lot of time to study the agreement so that they can make informed decisions.

    If union members don’t understand parts of the agreement, they need to ask questions and receive answers promptly. I believe a question and answer website/page would be the most effective and efficient means of cutting down on duplicate questions and spreading necessary information.

    Get crackin’, union management and remove the uncertainty.

  28. Bill Says:

    I said 2 years ago that if we bent over for them, they would be back for more in two years. Last time around, our union leaders tried to scare us into voting yes, throwing around statements that “layoffs could reach 10,000 or more” etc. They also threw out a bribe to some members, by attaching the early retirement vote to the concession vote. What sort of tricks do they have in mind this time to get us to go along with this? Remember, when you give up a raise your pay is permanently reduced for the rest of your career, and your future pension is reduced by that amount as well. I believe we’ve already given up at least 5 raises and step increases in the last 20 years. When does it end? What are managers giving up? What are you going to give up next time, when the 4 year protection ends in 3 years?

  29. Wayne Says:

    There is a lot of anger out there!

  30. LFTUL Says:

    Let’s wait to see what is on the table and then slam or praise it. If it’s not good for “you”, vote NO. If it is good for you, vote YES. It’s really quite simple. I can tell you one thing for sure, I haven’t worked all these years to be screwed over by MY lobbyists bargaining for ME, without my knowing what they are bargaining for. With that said, I’ll make my decision once I see what the package is.

  31. Horrible Deal Says:

    We need to get these union leaders out of this office and get some real fighters in there that are more about the employees then getting paid and there political agenda’s. Why are we paying these union dues. If we are paying them to have our union leaders to screw us. We are suffering enough with the tax raise and now you want us to give our future away to. This is absolute insanity if SEBAC thought this was a decent deal. This is not the job any of us signed up for. Now I have to work longer to get less benefits. How is that fair. I urge you all to VOTE NO. I don’t want to see any one lose there jobs either. But this is our future we are playing with. We have families to, we need to survive. VOTE NO PLEASE!

  32. Horrible Deal Says:

    We need to get these union leaders out of this office and get some real fighters in there that are more about the employees then getting paid and there political agenda’s. What our we paying union dues for, if we are paying them to get screws by are union leaders. We are suffering enough with the tax raise and now you want us to give our future away. This is absolute insanity if SEBAC thought this was a decent deal. This is not the job any of us signed up for. Now I have to work longer to get less benefits. How is that fair. I urge you all to VOTE NO. I don’t want to see any one lose there jobs either. But this is our future we are playing with. We have families to, we need to survive. VOTE NO PLEASE!

  33. Rob Ramonas Says:

    I have been a Registered Nurse since the 1990s. In 1998, I had many choices in front of me. I could have continued in the U.S. Armed Forces toward a twenty year pension, worked at various hospitals with other health care professionals, or entered a hazardous duty position as a Correctional Nurse. Although it was not my lifelong ambition to care for felons, I ultimately decided to go inside the confines of a correctional setting day after day because working in this hazardous duty environment would afford me the opportunity to retire in twenty years (2018).

    I understand the State of Connecticut is in a fiscal crisis. And although I am willing to sacrifice longevity and pay as private sector employees have, I am NOT willing to sacrifice or compromise on the 20 year deal I made in good faith in 1998 with the State of Connecticut. Had I known the the rules of the game would change in the middle of the game, I would have chosen a different path.

    Vote No…Please.

  34. Wayne Says:

    For those who are not satisfied with their elected union leaders, I challenge you to be a candidate in your next union election.

  35. rankandfile Says:

    I was laid off (bumped) ten years into state service, because I had taken a promotion from clerical to A&R that put me at the bottom of the seniority list. Two weeks later I came back as a part time clerical (at that time, you could only come back to a position you had held previously). Two years later Weicker privatized my agency, and I was laid off again. I worked for the private company, then they laid us off (while the CEO made $50 million). But by then SEBAC was in place, so you could come back in any position you qualified for. So I got back into A&R.
    I took a promotion just before the Rowland layoffs, but by then A&R had changed seniority from time in class to time in union, so I didn’t get hit. I now have 30 years in. The point is, while I don’t want to see anyone laid off, almost all of those who want to will be hired back within two years. It’s always been that way, that’s why the number of state employees never changes much. With all of the previous lay-offs and early retirements, has anyone seen a permanent reduction in the workforce?

  36. sal Says:

    As someone who will loose their job, thanks to all of you who will be voting NO. I come to work every day and take a lot of pride in doing it. I’ll loose my house and my 10 month old will starve. Thanks, I don’t want to conseed either but the world we live now is grim. Hopefully this gets done and we don’t sacrifice all the young people, who by the way are the future!

  37. In the dark! Says:

    Wish details of the agreement would be published already!
    As far as I am concerned I don’t think we should give back anything. Seems my entire career has been one big give back! I think it is a joke the state wants us to balance the budget on our backs. Enough already! We just gave back to the Rell Administration. We have a perfectly good agreement until 2017 why change it. What is Malloy, GE or Bank of America giving? Nothing! Don’t change the rules when I am at the end of my career. How could SEBAC even agree to raising the retirement age? Changes to retirement age, pension contributions, and calculations should apply to new hires only. Everyone else should be grand fathered in without exception. I took my job and decided to make it my career based upon the pension and benefits that were being offered. When big business and the ultra-rich join in the “shared sacrifice” then I will be more then willing to take a two year pay freeze but that is all.

  38. Nicholas G Says:

    Hazardous duty will now be 25 years rather than 20. That’s the deal breaker for me. I could manage to deal with everything else. Also people I wouldn’t exactly call 2014 job security. We can’t keep going on and on like this.

  39. will vote no Says:

    Usually when a deal is made, we get immediate details. Somehow I think this must be a bad deal. Union members, don’t settle for a bad deal. This is our future. Once they change the medical, pension, etc. It will never go back. It wil only get worse and worse. I can’t imagine a good deal without any furlough days included in it. They must be changing something else drastically to make up 1.6 billion. Vote No if you don’t think it’s a fair deal. We did not make this mess.

  40. ruth Says:

    will vote no too!!
    You can be sure that this is a bad deal and will indeed only get worse. If it were on the up and up we would have have some details by now. There is no way it’s a “win” for us. They will come back in two or three years for more, the 3% “raise” is a joke and sham. VOTE NO!!!!!!

  41. Andrew Woods Says:

    Need information to make a sound decision. Thus far nothing but media chatter… Would like to review the entire agreement before passing judgement. When and where will we obtain the document?

  42. Diana Says:

    It is unbelievable to me that the Governor, who was demanding 2 bil in concessions is going with a deal less…something is wrong here…all employees who can’t retire before 2017 need to take a serious look at the details of this plan…many many employees were willing to do furlough days, take pay freezes and lower the work hours…and they are going to now have take a concession package with none of these? Something big was given up for this to happen….employees pay attention, where are they going to add the 3 years? Are they adding it to the early retirement age or the normal retirement age? As a NP-3 Bargaining unit member, who is at her last step, the only thing I am working for is my retirement. Since none of the other bargaining units will accept our seniority, the chances of increasing my salary in the next 16 years before I can retire are null….therefore, anything that messes with my pension will be a NO VOTE…the governor’s plan b was a scare tactic, his budget has no significant decreases in spending…look closely at that budget, tell me where you see cuts….why hasn’t the union taken out news ads saying how much we gave up the last two years…why hasn’t anyone said how much we gave back with the governor’s voluntary leave…..

  43. Brian Swanson Says:

    Please put up the tentative union sebcac 5 extended agreement with every detail ASAP
    people need to read and digest the line by line changes to the health and pension and labor contract changes Can not vote without actual detail. Show the terms please and sooner thanks

  44. Brian Swanson Says:


  45. Bob Gregson Says:

    I am close to retirement and need to see what I up against. A & R said details would be presented immediately. Where are the details?

  46. RS Says:

    I am a Tier 2 state employee. Some of you are speculating, as I understand that we have had to do, because not only has there been a “media black-out” but little information given to union members. This is purposely done due ’safe-guard” negotiations and as “heart-wrenching” as this has been for all of us, it is being done for good reasons. The next step that the Unions will take are “Chapter meetings” with it’s employees, to inform us all of the tentative agreement. To my understanding, wages are “frozen” for the 2 years and then 3% given, annually for 3 years. Longevity pay is discontinued, there are no additional furlough days, Tier 1 and Tier 2A already pay into their pensions and now Tier 2 will be. I pay into my pension, $130/month (that is not a lot). I would think that Tier 2 wouln’t have to pay that much more. The retirment age would not

  47. RS Says:

    increase to 2017 and it would only increase 3 years in each Tier. There would be a “No lay-off” clause until 2015. That is incredible in itself. Do we all realize that it is a possibility that if we do not vote “Yes”, that not only will the 4,732 lay-offs probably take place but possibly thousands more lay-offs could occur. Can you truly understand the impact that this will have on individuals, families, services, the economy. Do you want to see this? Can you afford to be laid off? Many of us have family members, friends that also work for the state. Do you want to see them laid off as well? We all, as state employees, get a wonderful salary and benefit package. We are truly “blessed’ or “lucky”, whatever terminology you want to use. Imagine if we were a state with no collective bargaining. You know it is happening already. Thing wisely and realize if we don’t vote “YES”, what could truly happen and remember how fortunate we all are with our jobs and a union working on our behalf. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

  48. perturbed Says:

    So far, the most detailed account I’ve found is on Keating’s blog at the Courant. Unfortunately, many of the details that appeared Friday afternoon have since been deleted.

    Gone now is the part that described the retirement age being raised by three years. Originally, I think that was supposed to apply to those retiring after 2017. (Does that mean early retirement would start at 58?)

    However, the description of the retirement age “enforcement clause” is still in the blog entry:

    The summary of the deal also says that the state will “increase the penalty for Tier 2 early out from 2.5 percent to 6 percent.” In addition, the summary also says, “Medical benefits for retirees may be subject to change for anyone retiring after July 1, 2011.”

    On face value, those numbers don’t make much sense. But what if they mean that the 0.25% per month penalty for early retirement would go up to 0.60% per month?

    Effectively, this agreement would put an end to an early retirement option for Tier II, Tier IIa members. Nice work.

    Let’s take a fictitious example: a 50-year-old Tier II member with 26 years of service making $65k now. Let’s assume this employee’s salary would, on average, go up by roughly 2% per year, with no raise in some years, and in other years a small wage increase and an increment. Maybe this employee is thinking about retiring at 55 with 31 years of service.

    Current scenario:

    Normal retirement: Age 60; 36 years; average salary = $77,750; 100% Spouse, Option B; annual pension = $32,760. (42% of average salary)

    Early retirement: Age 55; 31 years; average salary = $70,500; 100% Spouse, Option B; 60-month penalty @ 0.25% per month; annual pension = $22,164 (31% of average salary). That’s 32% less than the normal retirement pension. But this employee’s family has been saving diligently, and they think they can swing it, combined with their deferred compensation, spouse’s 401k savings, paying off the mortgage in 5 years, and part-time work.

    Proposed scenario:

    Early retirement: Age 55 [if the higher retirement age only applies after 2017]; 31 years; average salary = $70,500; 100% Spouse, Option B; 60-month penalty @ 0.6% per month; annual pension = $16,688 (24% of average salary). Ouch, that’s a little over *HALF* the normal retirement pension, and less that 1/4 of the highest 3-year average salary.

    N-i-c-e. No more early retirement.

  49. Watch Your Back Says:

    Keep an eye on your back… If a crummy deal is passed this will be just the beginning of the Governor getting his hand deeper into our pockets. How can we as state employees afford to give back 1.6 Billion dollars? I hate to say this but I am voting no! Let him make his cuts and layoffs I would rather collect unemployment then sell my soul to the Devil!!!!!!

  50. julio ramos Says:

    vote no. what kind of deal could this be.there taking the july raise that was owed to us from our previus contract .if they can do that, then could go and take the raises away under the new deal if the economy doesnt recover.another thing under our contract now there cant be no lockouts.what do you thinks a furlouhg days is. vote no and preserve what we all ready have people

  51. rankandfile Says:

    From the Hartford Courant: Lisa Moody gets to retire at 51 yrs old with a $55,000 pension? Tell me again why union workers are the problem? She’s a non-union political appointee. Apparently there’s a loophole for people like her…

    The provision grants retirement, at a reduced rate, before age 55 for 25-year state employees under certain conditions. One condition is if they are “terminated from state service because of … lack of reappointment to a position in the unclassified service” — which is the category of state service that political appointees such as Moody fall under.

  52. Rob Ramonas Says:

    Agree with Brian Swanson…we need the details… I can read it for myself…I do not need you to send propaganda in the mail to me.

    BOTTOM LINE: I need to READ a copy of the original document you signed in order for me to decide how I am voting.

    However, Know This: If I need to work even ONE DAY LONGER than I originally planned, I will vote NO!!! How dare you SEBAC leaders negotiate this away…

    I truly hope you were wise enough to start this new 25 years to retire from HAZ DUTY for new hires…it stand no chance to pass if the current membership are required to work 3-5 years longer!


  53. CAP Says:

    Oh Boy I came here to get my benefits… I work hard and have gotten nothing but
    pay cuts furlough and delays in raises… increased costs in retirement costs and unclear discussions with the union… THIS IS CLASS WAR FARE…. The union thinks Malloy is helping them… Look over your shoulder.. he is coming at you with public distrust…. Publicize you pain do not fold do the math.. share the cart….

  54. Mike Guerrera Says:

    All the newspaper articles are heralding this tentative agreement a great accomplishment or historic. They are almost portarying it as a done deal. Not true! We still have to vote on this! My question is how do we know that our votes will counted accurately? The unions have alot at stake here, losing sigificant membership dues if the layoffs do come. It makes you wonder if the outcome is already been determined regardless how we vote.


  55. Vote no Says:

    The Gov. Will not layoff 5,000. Which is exactly why he trickled out the layoff notices. He is playing us, to support his future political aspirations. The only reason the politicians offer us anything is to buy our votes – once they have them it is unethical to ask for the contract to be changed.

  56. Pist off Says:

    Give us the freakin’ details already!!!

  57. TheTruth Says:

    As taxpayers, state employees are already “sharing the sacrifice” by paying the same higher taxes necessary to make-up for the missed payments into the state pension system as everyone else.

    This nonsense that state employees must also come up with $2 billion (on top of the higher taxes) is nothing more than political ploy to lay blame and divert attention away from the public and politicians who actually caused this mess.

    It is a clever political tactic because almost half of all Baby Boomers haven’t saved enough money for their own retirements and it infuriates them to see lowly state employees (who Boomers have always felt superior to) having the guaranteed security in their retirements.

    My advice to state employees would be to keep your eye on the ball. Don’t buckle under public pressure or be fooled into thinking you don’t deserve what was promised to you. Know that any concessions you make will never be appreciated or rewarded. In this crumbling economic environment, you’re far better-off making a stand and protecting what is rightfully yours. If you don’t, no one else will and your futures will be taken from you.

  58. Wait wait somebody tell me Says:

    We need to wait for the details for intelligence to rein over speculation and outright falsehood. There are portions of the agreement that seem tollerable however, employees should examine the “fine print” and then vote with good reason. As a 27 year state employee I truly care about those who lose their jobs and how they’ll manage to survive this tough Connecticut economy. I cannot vote for materially changing our health insurance now or in the near future. That is a bad deal for everyone. Let’s wait and see exactly what this agreement contains.
    Thank God this agreement won’t affect Ms Moody age 51. It is outragous deals like hers that give state employees pay and pension system a really bad smell to the private sector. Read today’s Courant for Moody’s wonderful very early retirement pension.

  59. Scott Says:

    We know that this isn’t going to be a positive for us. However, the key is that the negative isn’t too bad. The good thing out of the contract that I’ve heard so far is no layoffs, extending the agreement for 5 years and showing that collective bargaining can work. By agreeing to this, we keep our right to collectively bargain for benefits and pension. If the vote ends up being “no”, we are taking a hugh risk. Other states (Mass, Wisconsin, Etc) are taking away collective bargaining. Also, I hear that the republicans don’t like the agreement. Maybe that means it isn’t too bad.

  60. John H. Says:

    So much for all the hype and hoopla of rebuilding the middle class. The exception being if the middle class happens to be State of Connecticut employees who are being demolished and will never be rebuilt. Concessions are supposed to be something temporary to get an organization over a financial hump, not something that will cost employees for the rest of their lives. Additionally, what ever happened with shared sacrifice and making the ultra wealthy and corporations who caused this financial catastrophe to pay their fair share? There is no alternative but to VOTE NO!!!

  61. Tier II Member Says:

    I have yet to see the entire agreement, but from what I had seen posted in the Courant on Friday, I will have to vote NO. I have no problem giving up pay raises for 2 years or contributing 3% towards my retirement, but don’t increase my retirement age. I have 20 years of state service and still have about 15 to go. I know that one of the main reasons I began working for the State was because of the pension and health insurance. I have been planning my future based on that. I do not believe that changing that mid-stream is fair. Three years might not seem like a lot at this point but when I reach 62 that 3 years will definitely be long. If they need to change that for anyone entering state service that is OK because they will know that is what they are signing up for. The same goes for the hazardous duty. Why would anyone vote yes to changing that now mid-stream? Please read this agreement very carefully. I hope that the Unions are really counting our votes, because it seems that most state employees I’ve spoken with will be voting NO! If this passes……??????

  62. Nicholas G Says:

    I think membership has spoken on all fronts. I think each person has to look at this and vote for what’s good for them. For me , I am in a hazardous duty position and to increase my years worked from 20 to 25 has me voting NO. If that were subtracted from the language of concessions I would consider a yes vote for my union brothers and sisters.

  63. Observer1 Says:

    Oh, I think I just figured this whole thing out… The Governor, and his administration, KNOW that Hazardous Duty members (Correction Officers, their Supervisors and State Police) will vote NO, when most other State Employees will vote YES (the reason for the NO vote is the added 3 years to the HD retirement). After the vote comes out, and the public sees that our Corrections and State Police departments aren’t willing to sacrifice more than higher taxes (like every other CT citizen) and their health (because working in a prison or pulling over drunk/high people on a highway is VERY dangerous), the Governor will have no other choice than to close Bergin CI and lay off around 300 Correctional Staff members (Officers, Supervisors, Counselors, School staff, Medical staff). Which is EXACTLY why that prison and those employees were issued the Pink Slips first!! I mean, why else was the DOC – Bergin CI department threatened with lay-offs first?? Because it was going to happen anyway, and the Governor needs 4 – 8 weeks notice for those employees! Bergin CI is going to close no matter what the vote is!
    The State Police are not involved as much in this statewide chess game. The Governor doesn’t want to lay them off (nor does he want to lay off anyone, but he may have to for his re-election bid), and, in fact, wants to hire more of them. Please refer to his Public Safety Plan, which came out during his campaign.
    Remember, we are dealing with very smart people here. Especially the Governor. He may have had trouble learning as a child, but he is a very quick minded leader now. Like Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars Episode I.

  64. Wally Santiago Says:

    We need to know at once what we will be voting on…

  65. John H. Says:

    Most of the State Employees that I talk to do not believe that the voting is legitimate suggesting that it is a scam. This is quite chilling especially considering that this vote will affect us for the rest of our lives. The voting should be counted by a third party that is unbiased politically.

  66. Michael Says:

    There needs not be an official increase in the retirement age to get employees to retire at a later age. From the concessions of ‘92, ‘97, ‘03, ‘09 and the furlough days, I already lost $150- $200, a month, of my pension. From what we know of the concessions, I will quickly loose another $150, or so, a month of my pension. This means I cannot retire as soon as I would had liked to. The concessions will fall hard on the older Tier II employees. The paradox is, to vote in the affirmative, would save the newbies, but the older employees will have to decide to retire on less or work an additional 3- 4 years to make up that money, plus have higher retirement insurance costs, more than Tier I. Malloy and Sebac are not worried about elderly employees doing physical labor. The state of Connecticut crafted Tier I in 1939. The unions are 50% responsible for crafting miserable Tiers II and IIa. If this means I have to stay on the job so much as 1 month longer, I will be voting “NO”.

  67. Agnes Says:

    According to this new deal……As I understand it, Hazardous Duty members will now need to work 25 years instead of 20 years…… if……they havent’t reached 20 years of service by 2017. That is an additional 5 YEARS not three. Am I correct??????

  68. Bad Deal Says:

    1199 Members Vote NO. From what has been posted so far this sounds like a very bad deal. We already gave concessions last time around while other unions did not. Many other unions will vote No again while our leadership will push to vote yes. We got burned last time and this time it will be much much worse. When the facts come out, read them closely. Don’t trust your delegate or leadership to explain it to you without bias.

  69. Fair Vote Says:

    First thing first we need a fair vote third party. 2nd i dont know about other departments but mine has been promoting managers all year and we have to give? The last 2 years i had to cut spending why couldnt malloy do that with the state and last if you vote yes and let him open up the pension and heathcare deal you all will be sorry when its time to goto the DR and retire. Vote NO

  70. PeteG Says:

    Do you realize in 2017 the agreement is over and the retirement age will be comprimised in any new agreement, so what are we really complaining about the age of retuirement will change in that year regardless. Corrections by the way administrative employees can’t increase their retirement in the last three years by working more overtime. Folks would you rather have a extension of our 2017 contract to 2022 or risk a Republican Governor whom as we know are attacking state employees work out a new deal. I respect the work and risks of correction officers and troopers but the retirement age is going to change after 2017 whether you vote yes or no to this agreement. We are in a horrible economic situation and voting no isn’t going to help any of us in the long run.

  71. donna Says:

    Does anyone else notice that Tier 1’s aren’t really giving up anything besides raises in this deal?

    They’ll all be gone by 2017 and the rest of us will lose raises, pay more for healthcare, and work until we’re old and gray. Basically, what’s the incentive for a talented workforce to stick it out?
    Vote No.

  72. Patty Says:

    Ask some other states such as Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri etc they would love the chance to get this type of deal say no and see what being attacked by government really means. I really would suggest studying the attacks the other states are under and the issues alot of you may form a different opinion. We have Democrats in office or we’d be in deep trouble as the deal was given to Republicans they ripped it in fact Cafero stated ” the union leaders win again” please look at the overall picture and understand if Malloy loses our future contract that expires in 2017 will be in the hands of a Republican Governor. Foley would have privitized many of our jobs and he even said so and the Republican recomendation was to lay off 2700 workers and get 2 billion in concessions. 4 year no lay off and get a five year extension on our health and pension we should be running to say YES. By the way many states have already raised retirement it really is not a issue because its going to happen one way or the other. We could get a radical Republican president in 2012 and change it if he has the congress and senate majority.

  73. just say no Says:


  74. Roger Says:

    Vote NO…

    Whatever is given up in health and pension benefits will never be recovered; only decreased further. There is no 4 year guarantee….it’s only a guarantee until CT public employees become the scapegoats again for administration mismanagement. The union is acting in their best interests….vote NO and act in our best interests.

  75. Who makes your decisions... Says:

    There is no agreement. Union heads agreed to something that was in their best interest and now its time to vote for our best interest . They are banking on our ignorance for this to pass. Anybody that votes yes to this, better not ever complain about working conditions again.

  76. Tier II Member Says:

    I believe the retirement age is linked to what tier you belong to. That is why Tier I is 55 and Tier II is 62. Not sure about Tier IIa.

  77. EDNA THOMAS Says:

    Why is it taking so long to give us the details. And what is this about our votes not counting? If they (the votes) don’t count, then why have us vote!

  78. ECSU062 Says:

    Anyone who thinks that they can reject this because they never worry about a layoff should keep in mind that in addition to the many thousands who will be laid off now if we reject this, and the furlough days that will be put BACK into our work weeks, cutting our pay, we are going to be blamed for shutting down the state tech schools and the state library among other things. And in two years do you think we’ll be able to negotiate a deal that includes 9% in raises for the following three years with the public screaming about how our “greed” caused all this? Dream on. If we reject this the result will be that in two years the state will be looking for MORE cuts and another several additional years of wage freezes and the public will insist on it, along with MORE layoffs and we will negotiating with ZERO leverage. So in five years every dollar we saved in benefits by rejecting this deal will have come out of our paychecks anyhow, and in addition to that thousands less of us will HAVE jobs. Rejection is a “lose – lose” proposition for all of us.

  79. Already Laid Off Twice Says:

    Lets get serious for a moment. I started working for the State of CT in October 1988. I have been laid off twice (Weiker & Rowland). The public thinks we are the bad guys because of our benefits. They have also been mislead that we are getting high salaries on top of these benefits. The reality is that as state employees we give up wages in exchange for benefits and job security. Both of these are now being attacked as well as wages. The public says we should have the same benefits as the private sector. Okay fine, as long as I get the same pay as the private sector. I want the same wages, the same bonuses the same increases that the private sector gets in exchange for my benefits. Suddenly it doesn’t sound so good to give up everything. I currently make a decent 5-figure salary. In the private sector in a comprable position I would be making a very comfortable 6-figure salary. I plan on voting NO. Go ahead and lay me off a third time (a charm?) but do not give up what benefits we have. Once you give up benefits they are NEVER given back. The unions are concerned with no lay offs so they can still collect all their dues at the expense of the employees. They have even raised dues when our pay has not increased. Looking out for me? I think not. I do not trust the vote counts either when so many said no, and it was said that an overwhelming number of people voted yes. Really, show me the counts! As for the “younger” people who are mad and want to keep their job at any expense because it will hurt them and the fact that they may loose their home and their children will go hungry. I’m sorry you are not the only ones in danger of loosing your lifestyle. The “older” people who have been here for many years are in danger of loosing those things too. We have kids in college or older kids still living at home with us because they cannot afford to leave. We still have morgages and all the bills you have too. If Malloy wants to cut anything, how about reducing those wonderful pay increases he gave to all of his friends when he appointed them to be commisioners so they could benefit from 4 years of service to fatten their retirements. I know ours got a nice $55,000 additional salary over what our former commisioner was making. Sounds like the salary of an employee that would have been of more use actually doing the work. Also, do something about the top heavy management in the state. I work for four layers of management that supervises one person. Hello, really do you need one person to watch one person to watch one person to watch one person? As the low level union people have left, retired, and been laid off, management has remained intact. Positions were filled with little to no reguard to the fact that there was no longer anyone to supervise. Wake up, smelll the coffe. VOTE NO!!! It is not just for us, but for the future benefit of state employees.

  80. dave schreiber Says:

    Well, Here it is, Monday the 16th, and we are soon going to know what the deal is. My own selfish interest would have had RAISES with Furlough days to pad my retirement. As it is, I will probably be averaging the same pay for the last 4 years. P.S. I am 67, and Tier I. I am capable and not afraid of hard work.
    The Courant has been blasting away at us like it is “state employee” hunting season. As soon as the agreement is reached, they put in the Sunday OP_ED page a piece that shows that Ct Taxes are among the LOWEST in the country. State employee numbers are down over the last few years, and our pensions are NOT out of line. Ex Post Facto friends.
    I don’t think people should complain if retirement age goes up. I think we should complain when Political Appointees try to run programs that should not be politicized. This makes any job unpleasant.
    I also believe that the income tax is not high enough on upper end incomes.
    All this being said, I will hold my nose and vote YES. The alternative is worse.

  81. voting machine Says:

    The members vote should be fed into a voting machine like they have at the regular voting booths for President, etc. Otherwise, counting the votes by hand leaves too much room for error and manipulation.

  82. Nicholas G Says:

    Let’s not just give up the fight because”regardless in 2017 it’s gonna change anyways” that’s not how Unions or their membership deal with issues. If that were the way Unions deal with negotiations we would have changed the retirement age in 2009. I fully understand your viewpoint but you can’t concede simply because you feel it’s gonna happen anyways. We will deal with 2017 at a later time. Let’s not forget about people who are going to retire shortly after 2017. They may have to put in , if they are hazardous duty, another 5 years. So it does matter that we keep at least what we already have for as long as we can.

  83. B. Graham Says:


  84. Very Concerned Says:

    I am very concerned about the details of this agreement. I want to see it, read it, and have a chance to digest it, before being asked to vote on it. When that vote does take place, I agree with many others who have previously commented that the vote should be counted by an outside group.

  85. Joan Says:

    What happened to : Its time to get rid of Overpayed MANAGERs! Well we did not see that did we One manager gone would be the salaries of 2 to 3 employees!!
    We dont see managers giving anything back – No they Get Bonuses- They are the ones that get the $6000.00 bonuses – Yes I get $568.00 No where near what the managers get – I will not vote yes and i will no longer be a member of the union -

  86. Joan Says:

    above vote no

  87. Phil McCracken. Says:

    II & IIa are the same only II has a free ride while IIa pays into the retirement. Btw both can retire @ 60 with 25 years of service. Tier I at age 67 you should be long gone. Go travel or do something else and make room for the newer folks.

  88. John Says:

    Dave S. is pretty much the only commenter that I completely agree with. Least of all, is the grumpy old overpaid Tier 1’s, who are doing nothing but clogging state payrolls.

  89. Sarahsmile Says:

    Our union steward says vote No! They are making changes in our healthcare. Can u afford 100 bucks extra per check taken towards medical? I can’t!

  90. David Petrario Says:

    The receiving and counting of the votes need to be monitored. Eackaaveryone I talked with are voting no. What happens with backroom deals?

  91. David Petrario Says:

    The receiving and counting of the votes need to be monitored. Everyone I talked with are voting no. What happens with backroom deals?

  92. WH Says:

    Look at it this way 2017 isnt getting extended any changes to it makes it a new deal. Lets worry about that in 2017 who knows the economy could be better. Look into the details before you say you want to vote yes it may change your life forever.

  93. Russell at local 4200 Says:

    Economist and former state lawmaker Demetrios Giannaros interviewed by NBC CT said,”These are the largest concessions for a union that I have witnessed from my years at the Capitol. These are really significant and PERMANENT, not temporary concessions.” “Healthcare, personnel costs in terms of pension, salary increases, personnel overtime, and reducing employees over time.”

  94. Nancy Says:

    Monday morning at work and there is no heat in our building -again. Haven’t read the tentative SEBAC agreement because it is not available. Having difficulty focusing on doing my best at work. Anxiety reigns.

  95. forever Says:

    vote no no

  96. forever Says:

    let’s get them monitored and why isnt a independent company counting them

  97. PublicServant Says:

    I will be voting no. I have worked for the state for 27 years and make $45,000.00 I cannot afford to give anything more back with this economy. I have yet to see a copy of this agreement, but it is my understanding that the reason they could guarentee no layoffs for four more years is that the changes to the health insurance are vast, not just in copays and how much of the premium we will be paying but in the quality of the plan.

  98. tango Says:

    I am tier IIA, my salary keep coming down, specialy after the 3 %, for the health fund, that I do not understand why we all don’t paid less %. If my salary keep going down how can my dues keep increasing every year? I do not believe that union represent me when is a time of an agreement, is like they always think in tier I and tier II.
    We should all share the burden

  99. Tier IIA Says:

    Here some details…Everybody is going to have to pay an extra $100 per month for medical premium’s. That first 3% raise is going to be a wash, because everybody is going to have to pay 3% toward’s our retiree/medical benefit’s that currently employees with 0-5 year’s pay. So the first 3% is actually a zero net raise. Then, in years 4 and 5, 3& with step’s, all on time, but even our union president admitted, the last raise may be “Pie in the sky”. The way I read it, if you can retire before 2017, then the current retirement option applies, but, if you can’t retire until after 2017, then the new retirement’s, 60/63, 62/65, and 25/out hazardous duty will apply. There will be 2 vote’s, one for SEBAC, and a second for Contract. You can vote yes on SEBAC and vote no on contract, and take your chances with the arbitrator. Either way, the state is going to get zero raise’s from us. 4 years no layoff’s is nothing to sneeze at. And in this economic climate, we will be the only state in the country with that type of protection.

  100. Jeff Says:

    23 year state employee. We HAVE to vote no on this. At my office here, everyone with 10 years + service will be voting NO.

    We have a contract until June 30, 2012. Need to fulfill the contract. If it means layoffs, then so be it. I will take my chances.

    The 5 year (0,0,3,3,3) is a big sham. We will get through three years then the raise in the 4th year you will never see. Gov will need to reopen contact again.

    We all agreed to concessions in 2009 to save jobs at expense of our salary. People need to band together and vote NO !!!!!

  101. MMM Says:

    VOTE NO!

  102. CHRISTINE Says:

    con·tract   /n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 ˈkɒntrækt; otherwise v. kənˈtrækt/ Show Spelled

    1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
    2. an agreement enforceable by law.
    3. the written form of such an agreement.

    realism onomatopoeia dastard ampersand AGREEMENT – 5 dictionary results
    Partnership Agreements
    Make a Partnership Agreement Online Fast & Affordable.
    3 Easy Steps!www.legalzoom.com

    Free Partnership Contract
    Quickly create your partnership agreement online.
    Fast, easy, free.legalforms.lawdepot.com

    Agreement Definition
    Find Definitions For Any Word.Get Your Free Dictionary.com Toolbar.

    a·gree·ment   /əˈgrimənt/ Show Spelled
    [uh-gree-muhnt] Show IPA

    1. the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arrangement.
    2. the state of being in accord.
    3. an arrangement that is accepted by all parties to a transaction.


  103. paul Says:

    1.6 billion / 47,000 union members = $17,000 a year per person. Not to mention higher taxes etc. This is not ’shared sacrifice’ – $17,000 per year for each unio. Member is unfair….say NO!!!

  104. Carol Driscoll Says:

    CT legislators should pay the same health-care costs/copays as the rest of the state workers. I hear they only pay $3.00 copay for prescription drugs. If this is the case then their benefit package is “NOT SUSTAINABLE!” The governer needs to get concessions from them too.

  105. My reply to David Says:

    The only way to be assured of the voting integrity is to have the voting conducted by an outside audit firm.

    Once the people conducting the voting have a stake in the game, one way or the other, how can anybody be sure?

  106. AL Says:

    I been working for the State for over 29 yrs and I will vote YES…. We need to be more noble and think about our fellow workers with family that will suffer if they loss theirs job.

  107. Unrepresented Says:

    I’m a Tier 2 member that has worked my way up the chain over the last 24 years from Clerical to A&R and now finally in 2007 to a Mangerial psoition. I was layed off 3 time in the first 5 years but managed to finally get my job back. My last pay increase was July 2008. With the last SEBAC agreement in 2009 all state employees that were not represented by a union were supposed to get a 2% increase in 2010, but our illustrious Govenor Rell said no to any managers getting a raise. Now they’re talking another 2 years which means my salary will not have increased for 5 years and has been decreased by the furlough days. If they can’t even abide by the last agreement they made, how can you believe they will abide by any agreement they make. Sure they say no furlough days with this agreement but they also said a hard freeze on longevity, lump sum payments etc. so that is really a cut in pay for those of us that have put in our time. He is allowing the executive branch to get their longevity if they were eligible for it in April 2010 so why can’t the same privilege be expanded to the rank and file that are eligible. With 24 years in and 3 years until retirement, it is getting harder to make ends meet.

  108. Sue Says:

    We gave back TOO much the last time…Everyone claimed to vote NO on the last contract, yet somehow it passed! As far as making our pay match the private sector…When do I get my RAISE? I am sick of being on call and manadated for STRAIGHT TIME! Im sick of working short staffed! I get denied vacation and comp time days all the time because there is “no one else to work”. The union has done NOTHING for ME over the last 9 years. I cant even get them to follow the contract! I need to be reminded WHY I pay dues!!?? Isn’t the union supposed to have the people who pay them’s best interest in mind???

  109. Aren't we in this together?? Says:

    I can’t help but notice that the “no” supporters are voting for themselves and their own personal feeling of not getting what they deserve. They also seem to be those who have already gained the most, and have the best retirement and benefit packages. Their fellow employees getting laid off by the thousands is the last thing on their minds. Is that really what a union is???? I am voting YES. By the way I have children with bachelors and masters degrees who would love to make half of what some of our union members with no education make!!! We have a good situation, lets appreciate it.

  110. Kim Says:

    Ok its now MONDAY May 16th 130pm when are you going to post this, Makes me laugh that the clerical union has information and A&R has nothing I am A tier 2 with 26 years service but only 47 years old How screwed am I going to be with this deal

  111. Doc, it hurts when I do this... Says:

    I have no problem giving when it is appropriate, but it’s now the norm. I’d say you’ve got your hands full ratifying this with the little we know of it. For the Administration, I feel like before you come to me AGAIN you need to do some things:
    -Fix the revenue problem and stop attacking everyone but the wealthy corporations and wealthy people.
    -We have or have had agreements; Healthcare through 2017; we are currently under a 2-year agreement that includes language 2012-2013 “Any units which had a settled contract in FY 2012 would receive that raise and increment in FY 2013.”
    Point is what good is an agreement that you don’t keep?
    -If you ask the state employees to give back because of the State’s financial exigency, then I would insist you do the same of the hundreds if not thousands of contractors with their hands in the tax payer’s pockets. Reopen all contracts and ask them for a 3% give back, and that would be just the first time for them.
    -As for the public, people better start seeing past the BS, manipulative ads of the CBIA and those types in Connecticut portraying a group of working people who happen to work for the state as the problem, directing the taxpayers away from themselves.
    While I’m at it, if you want to know where the money goes here’s a clue, ¼ of the annual budget will go to Medicaid, that plan that too many of us think of as our Health Insurance coverage when we get old. Much of the cost is due to many, many CT residents hiding their assets the +5 years in advance of applying for Medicaid. 4.5B this year will be spent on your parents and nursing homes, hospital bills and the like. You all cause the hole, stop whining about it and pay up.
    And, I’ve said this many times, how will you feel when revenues increase with the market this year and you just took a beating? Maybe we should have an agreement with language that restores us when that happens.

  112. phodge Says:

    I wouldn’t mind the furloughs so much if we got the equivalent in vacation days as it was reported some non-teacher unions negotiated. It seems like we keep giving with nothing tangible in return, only short-term promises of employment. Once the marker is moved in any category it’s the new starting point. Are we negotiating for new employees or everyone across the board? Are those closest to retirement age willing to give up their medical benefits at a time when they’re needed the most? Are those on regular medications willing to pay double and sometimes triple the amount in increased premiums? Two years ago we voted yes for the increases and they took a lot of medication off of the “approved” list. Our negotiators told us one thing prior to the vote regarding the furlough days and we found out it was interpreted and implemented a completely different way when it came into play. We started out using our voluntary leave days as our furlough days, then that changed and we had to take the furloughs on top of the voluntary days we gave. How much giving do we need to do before there’s nothing left?

  113. Tier1sceptic Says:

    Where are the details three full days after there is an agreement? I am inclined to vote no just on the fact that the members have been disregarded as to whether or not they matter enough individually to be clued in? What is the big secret? A& R still has given no information and blames it on SEBAC. I`m sure SEBAC will blame it on the individual unions. Is the blackout still in effect? How about one of the SEBAC big shots explaining the delay. Really poor in all aspects from a public relations standpoint.

  114. firftr1 Says:

    The fact that there are no details available means the Union spin-doctors are collaborating on the pitch to sell us a bad deal. It’s that simple. Look around, anyone that has contacts in higher places is running to retire before July 1, 2011. That should tell you something right there. It’s rumored that Tier I will be rolled into Tier II for employees still working and a Tier III created. By the way, when you think about Union leadership just remember how many of them retired under the RIP of the last deal padding their pensions by 6-9% with a COLA to boot. Two years of no raises after the past 10 we have had is driving us into poverty. Lets face the fact that we took state jobs because of the guarantee of reasonable benefits, changing this for any current employee is a sell-out.

  115. Randy Krause Says:

    LAYOFF!!!. Don’t know about anyone else but I’m tired of being the scapegoat for the governments ineffective approaches to the states finances. How much more are we going to tolerate? We’ve been giving concessions for over 10 years and it still hasn’t solved anything. Stop this non sense and face the facts — Layoff and downsize. Keep laying off until it comes to a point where you can’t layoff anymore and then you can’t use hard working middle class as the scapegoats. Then maybe the officials will face the true problems — THE SYSTEM NEEDS FIXING NOT THE WORKERS.

  116. lifewasgood Says:

    Easy……….Vote NO. Let them offer 10% early incentive and watch the numbers drop! They won’t need to layoff. There would be a reduction of close to 7500.

  117. Rachel M. Says:

    The way the proposed contract was presented to the union members is ridiculous, why don’t you just schedule a pep rally. I think state employees are capable of interpretting the contract minus the cheerleading, it is distracting and frustrating, especially considering the fact that once again state workers have become the scapegoat for why the economy is in such terrible condition.

  118. Rachel M. Says:

    When and where are the union members going to be able to see the actual SEBAC 5 agreement proposal, not the hyped up versions written about, just the actual contract???

  119. Pam Concerns Says:

    I’m very concerned about getting an honest vote from SEBAC. I say bring a pad and paper with you to the meetings. Demand a secrect yes or no vote and count the slips of paper at the meeting. That will give you a true vote + or – 4%. How can Malloy rescind layoffs unless SEBAC guarantees the vote to pass. Wouldn’t he have said I will recsind the layoffs if the agreement is passed. Now he can’t layoff people by July 1 now. According to my union NP2 the vote will take weeks to come about. Please think very carefully what you are giving up. I will most likely vote no if it smells rotten. The unions gave up nothing. Their union dues stayed in tact.

  120. jack Says:

    Graat job keeping membership informed. (lol) Who ever thinks it is a good idea to let the government into our future medical and pension benefits is a moron. It’s time to stand up and vote NO !!!!!!!!!!! This vote will never pass in DOC or STATE POLICE.

  121. concerned P4 Employee Says:

    I agree that SEBAC and the other unions should have an independent collections and counting of the votes. I am with P4 and have concerns that some want this to pass so much that the vote will reflect that even if majority of us vote it down! Randomly pick vote counters from the locals

  122. Wonders Says:

    If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it usually is a duck, it seems to me unless gov Malloy had a guarantee that this deal Is a done deal he would not of recinded the layoffs but instead would of said he will recind them after the agreement is ratified by the unions. I would hope that the unions will use due diligence when counting those ballots

  123. Waiting Employee Says:

    When are we going to see this deal???????

  124. r u kidding me Says:

    what are you hiding? why can’t we view the deal? to say that trust is being violated is an understatement. Post it, let us decide.

  125. Good S Worker Says:

    LOTS OF GREEDY PEOPLE ON HERE! For those of you who bawk at the retirement age increasing and “planning your life” around it… Cry me a river! Tier 2 and below are the ones who STILL have been paying into YOUR retirement and you wanna vote no! Well if we get laid off and the greedy long time employess plan on bumping someone just to stay on for a few more years to get EVEN MORE MONEY, you are sad! I can barely afford to pay my mortgage and am a single parent. I will happily keep my job and worry about retirement later. As long as i still have healthcare and a job as opposed to 60% of my salary on unemployment I really dont care about your extra 3 years of hazardous duty or additional retirement age. I have a job, our kids have their schools and towns have their aid. YOU ARE GREEDY and need to cut your spending just like everyone else does. If you make 90g or more then go jump off a tall building cus it is sad if you cannot survive with a measly pay decrease when i am surviving as a part timer! My words seem harsh but it is sick to hear complaints about retirement ages increasing or having to pay into your own retirement. Wake up! You will still have your job and your co workers will still have your job and our kids will still get to go to school and have the chance we all had…Selfish, selfish, selfish… Shame on you.. Rebuttle my comment, go ahead-then say a prayer for yourself because your greed is sad….

  126. Brian Swanson Says:

    go to ctnewsjunkie christine stuart released 6 page summary on 5/16/2011 515pm

  127. ALEX DOUGLAS Says:

    This is a great deal. Im voting yes

  128. Good S Worker Says:

    OH, please dont vote no just to WIN A FIGHT! This is not about teaching the governor a lesson. This is about not increasing unemployment and giving our children their future. No matter what you think of our governor, or the negotiations-dont you think another 4 years of security beats 4 years of furlough days, no pay increases and being able to supply much needed town aid to inner city kids!

  129. firftr1 Says:

    This is a crap deal. How many of the Union negotiators are Tier 1 eligible employees? We are all going to kick in 3% to pay for their health care? They sold out all the Tier II employees for their own benefit. I hope the State is aware that under Value Based Health Care that if they require the physicals and any subsequent disease management it has to be done on company time at their expense. How is that a savings? Tier III as predicted and poverty retirement in Tier II to support the “Old Boys” what a great plan.

  130. CIndyLouu Says:

    I will vote Yes! and continue to work while my lazy state slacker co-workers sit around and chit-chat. I know how important they think their jobs are.

  131. Burned out worker Says:

    To Good S Worker It is not Greed is survival. Do you think is right for a person with 30 or more years and not old enough to retire, to be penalized . We have paid our dues it is not fair to continue to loose just to cover the new employess. take that into consideration. If you were in our shoes you would be doing the same thing. We did not cause the problem the but we have to be the solution. What do you think we have been doing all these years, save jobs, save jobs, well I think enough is enough. We can not afford to continue this way we will be left with nothing by the time I get to retire and believe me if I could retire I would… VOTE NO

  132. noway Says:

    Read it carefully. Hazardous duty retirement is going to 25 years for Tier III only. The additional three years for age is for non-hazardous duty…there is no age requirement for hazardous. HOWEVER…that big brother healthcare plan is a deal-breatker. Now you have to sign a form saying you’ll agree to certain checkups and if you don’t comply you pay 100 more a month and a 350 deductible for EACH person you cover? And if you have asthma, diabetes, hyper-tenstion, congenstive heart failure or high cholesterol…you’ll have to report that to your employer and participate in a “disease management” program? How do you think that information will be used in the future…..to determine your fitness for duty? To raise your health cost premiums if you have any of those? Be careful…you’ll have to report if you smoke or have a drink within the confines of your own home………this is a deal breaker!

  133. noway Says:

    Studies that have reviewed other studies on the effectiveness of disease management include the following:

    A 2004 Congressional Budget Office analysis concluded that published studies “do not provide a firm basis for concluding that disease management programs generally reduce total costs”.[2] The report caused the disease management industry to “scrambl[e] to build a better business case for their services”.[28]
    A 2005 review of 44 studies on disease management found a positive return on investment (ROI) for congestive heart failure and multiple disease conditions, but inconclusive, mixed, or negative ROI for diabetes, asthma, and depression management programs.[29] The lead author, of Cornell University and Thomson Medstat, was quoted as saying that the paucity of research conducted on the ROI of disease management was “a concern because so many companies and government agencies have adopted disease management to manage the cost of care for people with chronic conditions.”[10]
    A 2007 RAND summary of 26 reviews and meta-analyses of small-scale disease management programs, and 3 evaluations of population-based disease management programs, concluded that “Payers and policy makers should remain skeptical about vendor claims [concerning disease management] and should demand supporting evidence based on transparent and scientifically sound methods

  134. Michael Says:

    To Good S Worker: Rell, Rowland, Moody, Jaekle and Johnston are all grabbing every penny that they can receive, for their generous pensions. The police chief of UCONN makes more money than the Police Commissioner of New York City. The vast majority of six-figure state employees are the managers, for which there are about twice as many, as compared to the private sector. The managers’ benefit package is also better. You pick on the union employees as being selfish, and give the elite a pass. Just from the past 20 years, since Weicker, between the freezes and furloughs, you already lost about 20% of your income and pension. I don’t know why you mention the inner city kids, but you brought up one of my favorite subjects, in Hartford 80% of the births are out-of-wedlock, and it’s not much better in the other cities. This is a costly situation, brought on by the Great Society programs, and it will never be fixed, as it’s public policy not to. I prefer the furlough days, but you would rather come to work at a lower pay rate. Yes, I am a burnt out state employee, and as the Courant editoral says, I should be traded in for a younger, cheaper, go-getter.

  135. Michael D Donato Says:

    Look at the national trend towards unions give it serious thought before voting no. No one wants to give up anything but these are hard times. To those that want a to take a hard line and say no ” they would rather be laid off” are those with top seniority and will not lose their jobs.
    It’s easy to take a hard position when your job is not on the line.

    Retired State Employee

  136. Al Says:

    This is a great deal under the circumstances. We need to take advantage of being able to negotiate with a Democratic governor. If this goes down and we have to go against a union-hating Republican to negotiate the SEBAC pension/healthcare agreement in 2017 we will be screwed! Vote yes to preserve jobs now and solid benefits going forward!

  137. EDNA THOMAS Says:

    Why did I have to hear on the NEWS this am about what our contract says? A&R where are you?! We should have been in the loop about the contract language before the media got a hold of it!

  138. Tier1sceptic Says:

    After reading the proposed agreement I can`t see voting no. The 3% health care payments are for every employee so there is no longer any “Tier” imbalance. We only lost 1 longevity payment in 10/2011 and no furlough days. People need to think long and hard about voting no and what the ramifications are of this deal not being ratified. I have almost 30 years of service and will not think twice about voting “YES”. Although there is some measure of pain I think SEBAC did a good job in representing our interests. Anyone that thinks they were going to come away unscathed on this is living in a dream world.

  139. RR Says:


    You should have put this agreement out right away instead of waiting four days for speculation, misinformation, and false leaks to cause widespread distaste for the agreement.

    Also, a lesson on Public Relations:
    NEVER release news on an agreement this important at 3PM on a Friday and then wait four days to tell us what it is. Every PR expert will tell you that if you release big news on a Friday afternoon it is because you are trying to hide the content. As a result of not having a competent PR advisor on staff there, it only fueled the fire of distaste for this agreement before it even got off the ground.

    However, after reading the agreement (FINALLY) today, I am o.k. with the provisions. I am therefore voting “Yes”…but I fear you have jeopardized the survivability of this agreement given the PR missteps along the way.

    Rob Ramonas

  140. CTintrouble Says:

    No one on the site is GREEDY-just tired of being abused by the state. State employees gave concessions last time to save the jobs of the winers on this site. You can only give so much and frankly, since Malloy is not honoring the prior concession his word is worthless and cannot be trusted. If things get worse he will demand more concessions next year. Honor our last agreement and negotiate from there-it’s only fair to hold the state to the commitment they signed and agreed to.

  141. Good S Worker Says:

    Um, again i dont care what the managers are making. There is no cure for that unless unions care to negotiate their part of the contract otherwise, they have ridiculous bumping rights and i know many who plan to bump a job that they have no qualifications to do just cus they want their retirement… Yea, all non union employees should go! All of them…. Will save a huge chunk of change but cant get the rest to leave.

  142. will vote no Says:

    I wonder if this “Value” medical plan will be the one that Governor Malloy and his staff are going to be on after July 1st! I hope so! We need to share the sacrifice. By the way, I see that management has to give up one longevity check. What other sacrifices are management and the legislative staff making? I say vote no, it doesn’t seem like it is a shared sacrifice. The only ones attacked are union employees again!
    Vote no!

  143. Ctintrouble Says:

    When is a raise not a raise?-when you are a state employee who has a negotiated contract negotiated by SEBAC which has no legal right or authority to bargain on your union wages but only pension and healthcare issues. Do the math people-the next five years have wages pegged at 0,0,3,3,3. But we must now pay .5%, 2%,3%,3% for retirees medicals-why? Because the state refused to fund it despite the fact it was their contractual obligation alone-not ours. The state refused to fund it and spent the money on other things it felt was more important. Do the math-it amounts to +.5% over 5 years-that’s a whopping +.1% per year over the life of this contract- what a deal! And when this debacle is over and the next contract is up-the state will put it to the unions again-just threaten the unions with more layoffs-the wining will start all over again-the union folds like a cheap tent-this has to stop. Where is the shared sacrifice? What about legislative and judicial? Are they sacrificing anything?

  144. Ctintrouble Says:

    Additionally, keep in mind that your contributions for the retiree health benefit fund goes beyond the life of this contract-the contract states you must pay the equivalent of 3% for 10 years so when this contact expires you still have 7 years of this 3% per year payment to pay into the fund. Query-will you get a 3% raise for each of the 7 years in the next new contract(s)?-fat chance. This is a huge financial hit-think about it. This is a big loser. The state is shifting its contractual obligations to union membership-make no mistake about it. Soon a state job will no longer be worth having.

  145. 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.

  146. Phil McCracken. Says:

    Lots of greed. We should never have had raises over the last couple years. That was just stupid in this economy. Tier II should pay into the pension. Anyone still in tier I with the age to retire should be asked to give some things up if they refuse to get out. Managers haven’t had raises forever so give them a break. Layoffs wouldn’t be all bad as there are a few useless souls I wouldn’t mind seeing on unemployment. Most state employees have no idea how great they have it.

  147. Ken Says:

    Folks. Things will only get worse if we vote this down. Trust me. Look at the polls, the numbers and what’s happening in other states. We still have plenty of protections, no layoffs, 9% raise in five years and more. Not perfect, but in this climate a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.

  148. Good S Worker Says:

    no sound medical plan? No vote! So far i feel that we are being told its just the same but adding the specific illnesses and their management??? I am worried, truly worried that the lack of information on this can hurt us more than being laid off???

  149. peaceoutbaby Says:

    what a world- class warfare, yes- this feels like an episode of the twilight zone- kinda makes me wish 5/21/11 had been the day of rapture !!! buckle up baby, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride. God help us all. I vote NO – no one else is going to help me in my ( fast approaching ) old age . Don’t touch the medical, & give me a few furlough days, then i might think differently. And voluntary OT should NOT enter into the pension equation either. Here I am getting closer to the finish line, and NOW the union wants to move the finish line ?? diabolical .

Leave a Reply