Malloy, Union Leaders Cut Deal

From the CT Mirror:

Negotiators for state employee unions and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy tentatively agreed today on a two-year $1.6 billion package of concessions and other labor savings that will help Malloy balance the $40.1 billion biennial budget without 4,700 announced layoffs.

The deal, which is subject to ratification by nearly 45,000 employees in 15 unions, comes after weeks of intensifying negotiations and days after the first 186 of 4,472 layoff notices went out. All notices will be immediately rescinded.

In exchange for the $1.6 billion in savings over two years and structural changes in work rules and retirement benefits that Malloy’s staff says could save $21.5 billion over the next two decades, the administration promises job security for the next four years.

Full story www.ctmirror.org/story/12590/unions-malloy-reach-deal

0
Share

11 comments

  1. Congratulations to the State employee unions who dealt with an economic reality that is growing more painful each day.
    Congratulations to a Governor who knows the direct trauma that layoffs could cause and the escalating repercussions to families and communities.

    I believe the Governor when he says those jobs are now safe. I bet we wouldn’t get that commitment from the Mayor of Bridgeport …

    0
  2. I’m amazed Malloy pulled it off in such an equitable manner. Actually, I’m astonished. If he keeps managing the state the way he has so far, I just may change my mind. Yeah, I know. His tax package is brutal. He has to pay the bill for the sins of his predecessors.

    0
  3. I congratulate all parties for their compassion in resolving problems common to the citizens of CT. As a union man I must temper this with concern. Any gains the unions have made for their members were at the expense of other issues. Will labor be forced to make additional givebacks to further the governor’s agenda? Consider this scenario, instead of further concessions from the current union members let’s alter the agreement we have with the retirees. Hell, if we voided one agreement nothing is sacred, let’s “share the pain.” This could easily be deployed by either the state or City government. Ron Mackey and tc, mark my words.

    0
  4. Antitesto, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 increases penalties for coercive interference with pension rights.

    The private pension law makes it unlawful for anyone to use fraud, force, violence or threat of violence to restrain, coerce, or intimidate a retirement plan participant or beneficiary for the purpose of interfering with or preventing the exercise of any right under the law or the plan. Until now, the penalty for willfully violating this section of the law, Section 511 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, was a $10,000 fine or imprisonment for up to one year.

    Under the new law, anyone coercively interfering with another’s pension rights can be fined up to $100,000 and imprisoned for as many as 10 years.

    This provision took effect on August 17, 2006, the date the law was enacted.

    Read Section 623 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-280).

    0
    1. So Governor Malloy’s Plan A or Plan B bears fruit promptly? We shall see. Once it is off the front pages and the details have not been well understood, the savings may not fully be there. But it is a start.

      I am familiar with ERISA 1974 and the obligations it puts on employers with the running of retirement and other benefit programs; and with the many changes in this area of the law. I am not familiar with how effective these regulations have been in assuring individual retirees they will receive what they expect. Nor am I sure plans that are governmental or union are affected the same way. When I have written about Pension Plan A where there are no retirees or affected members on the Trustee Board, and where it seems clearly the Trustees by wearing more than one City hat are not performing well for the interests of the plan participants.

      Thank you to Ron and tc who have a real stake in the success of this obligation.

      0
  5. Ron,
    I really hope you are correct, but isn’t your pension funding being violated already? Is there any language that would demand annual payments be made? They are clearly violating the spirit of the agreement already. Calculate the compounded interest you are losing daily. As you are well aware lawyers and legislators live to find loopholes. Retirees worked long and hard for their benefits and should feel confident their Interests are being protected.

    0
  6. Just as I predicted. The unions came up with most, but not all, of the concessions and Malloy will figure out the balance. What I like about this deal is it appears to impact everyone equally. We’ll know for sure when the full details are released. This is very different from Bill Finch’s approach. He was extremely harsh with some unions and asked for nothing from others. There is one city union in particular who stumped for Finch during the last election. They have yet to make a concession yet Finch claims he has filled the $8m “union concession gap.” He will never be trusted again by any of the unions except one. September 2011 is right around the corner.

    0
  7. B Girl, I got a question for you that is bothering me. The city unions have historically laid down like whores and supported the seated Mayor. Is there any chance this time they will support another challenger?

    0
    1. Ronin, there’s only one union out there that has sold their souls to Mayor Finch. Everyone else is totally disgusted and WILL BE backing another candidate. I can assure you of that.

      0

Leave a Reply