"Framework of Agreement" Reached Between State and Unions

A joint statement from the Governor and SEBAC (the state employees bargaining unit) was released this afternoon:

Governor Rell and State Employees Union Leaders today announced that they had worked out the framework for an agreement intended to help reduce costs and protect public services in the current fiscal year and the upcoming biennium. When finalized, the agreement will provide for labor cost savings of over $637 million in the upcoming biennium, in addition to savings in the current fiscal year. The framework also provides job security for permanent employees during the upcoming biennnium, as well as the flexibility needed to make organizational changes. Details of the agreement are still being discussed, including translating its job security provisions to the particular circumstances of the Judicial Branch and higher education institutions.

No more details will be released prior to their presentation to the unions, “[h]owever, the Governor and union spokesperson have confirmed that the proposed agreement includes a Retirement Incentive Program, in addition to changes in health insurance and wages.”

Any agreement must ultimately be approved by the unions’ memberships and the General Assembly.

Advertisements

20 responses to “"Framework of Agreement" Reached Between State and Unions

  1. Why does this have to be approved by the GA? They never vote on any other agreements even though they have the option ( and some would say the obligation) to.

  2. AndersonScooper

    Hey, maybe Donovan’s relationship to labor is paying off!

    Of course Republicans won’t be satisfied until the State’s unemployment rate reaches double digits…

  3. Of course Republicans won’t be satisfied until the State’s unemployment rate reaches double digits…

    Oh, it’s headed that way all right, but not because of Republicans…

  4. AndersonScooper

    The Bush Presidency wasn’t eight years of Republican incompetence?

    PS– I know you want to lay it all of on Chris Dodd, but without a filibuster-proof majority how were Senate Democrats supposed to over-ride Bush? Not to mention the GOP was in charge from 2000-2006.

  5. The Courant is reporting the concessions total about $637 million, a significant number for sure. However, if state employee costs and benefits are one of the largest expenditures in the state budget, and the projected gap for 2010-2011 is $8.7 BILLION, can’t it be argued the unions will need to do more to help close the gap?

  6. The Bush Presidency wasn’t eight years of Republican incompetence?

    Yep.

    That repeal of Glass-Sleagal…oh wait, that was Clinton.

    Well, you can still complain about that warrantless wiretap stuff. Oh wait, it was Patrick Leahy (during the Clinton Administration) who championed CALEA and paid to install those wiretaps.

    Stretching the military too thin! Yeah, that’s it…errr, well his dad actually started that downsizing.

    All we’ve done is gone from Democrats Lite policies under Bush to Proudly Lunatic Left Democrats again.

  7. AndersonScooper

    What we need is clearly a return to Repuiblican rule.

    Who better to clean-up the Bush/Cheney/Delay mess than Rob Simmons, Sarah Palin, and that FIC clown running against Joe Courtney?

  8. PS– I know you want to lay it all of on Chris Dodd, but without a filibuster-proof majority how were Senate Democrats supposed to over-ride Bush? Not to mention the GOP was in charge from 2000-2006.

    Even if the Democrats had had a filibuster proof majority, that would have meant 60 seats or more. But to override a veto requires 67 seats, assuming no defections either way…

  9. The Bush Presidency wasn’t eight years of Republican incompetence?

    In a word, no. I know you’re not very big on facts, but the Bush Administration’s first six years were marked by recovery from a recession, wild economic prosperity for all levels of the economy, and an ultimately successful war effort. The last two years — coinciding with Democratic control over Congress — were filled with continued unchecked spending and no one watching the financial store. Although spending increased by over 4% during this time, half of this was due to increased war and homeland security spending.

    Still, unless you don’t like…

    – an overall rise in asset values by $6 trillion from 2003 to 2007, compared to a $600 billion “cost” for the Bush tax cuts
    – 8 million jobs created (150,000 jobs per month) between 2003 and 2007
    – making the tax code MORE progressive: the top 1% of earners paid more than the bottom 90%, even though the bottom 90% had over three times the income of the top 1%
    – reductions in every tax bracket and increasing the child tax credits
    – surging business profits, which led to record corporate tax payments

    …you must recognize that the Bush tax cuts, and the Bush record against terrorism, were good for every single American. The budget deficits during the Bush years were caused by overspending (well, what we thought was overspending, until Barry and Nancy came to power and decided to trash that record), not by under taxing.

  10. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Really? Which part? The blasphemous comment that the Bush tax cuts were good, or the unbelievable thought that the United States won a war?

  11. Jack, the price for those “successes” was far, far too high.

  12. …you must recognize that the Bush tax cuts, and the Bush record against terrorism, were good for every single American.

    The kool-aid crowd will *never* agree with that; however the majority will once:

    1:) A suitcase nuke goes off.

    2:) Russia arms Venezuela who then moves into Mexico (to help them
    no-doubt) which sets the stage for the Red Dawn scenario.

    3:) Both of the above.

  13. Jack, the price for those “successes” was far, far too high.

    In my opinion, that’s simply not true. Assuming that you’re talking about only the war(s) and economics, I argue that the former was absolutely necessary. Neither Bush 41 nor Clinton had the political will to stop Hussein, and the end result has been the creation of a stable democracy there. Al Qaeda has been on the run since the minute we hit the ground in Afghanistan, and things are better, not worse, after our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    With regard to the latter, the total estimated “value” of the Bush tax cuts was $600 billion, yet we saw a $6 trillion rise in personal asset values and the creation of $15 trillion in new wealth. This makes sense, because even though the top tax bracket had the lowest cut of all (the lowest tax bracket saw its taxes cut by a third, from 15% to 10%, and the top tax bracket saw an 11% cut, from 39.6% to 35%), two out of three people who pay taxes at the top bracket are sole proprietors of businesses — therefore, of course more money in their pockets translated to more jobs for everyone else.

    Approximately $2 trillion of the $6 trillion added has been lost since late 2007 (due mostly to the poor financial decisions made by individual Americans in buying more of a home than they could afford), but that still means that we’re up $4 trillion based on the $600 billion tax cuts. That’s not just for rich people, either: the median — not the average — household saw its wealth rise by $20,000 from 2003 to 2007. These aren’t made-up numbers — they come from the Federal Reserve and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    If you want to argue that the Bush Administration spent too much money, I’ll buy it. If we had flat-lined domestic spending except for the increases in Defense and Homeland Security from 2001 to 2007, we would have had a $100 billion surplus instead of a $162 billion deficit in 2007. Like all in power, the Republicans got drunk on spending the tax revenue bonanzas created by the Bush tax cuts (see Nowhere, Bridge to). That doesn’t excuse the Democrats’ irresponsibility now that those revenue streams have slowed to a crawl.

    As I said before, overspending — not undertaxing — created this mess. Why Obama and Pelosi believe that overspending will turn this ship around, in the face of hundreds of years of evidence and history to the contrary, is beyond me.

  14. Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    To quote the 20th Century’s greatest President, “there you go again.”

  15. AndersonScooper

    Dobbs, only you can tout the Bush housing bubble as a success, while even now we’re paying dearly for the inevitable aftermath.

    And since Iraq is/was so successful, I’ve bought a ticket for you so you can make like John McCain and walk the streets of Iraq. (Don’t forget your flak jacket…)

    PS– I love you man. Not enough Republicans are willing to wear their Bush love so loudly on their sleeves.

  16. CTcentrist,

    “However, if state employee costs and benefits are one of the largest expenditures in the state budget, and the projected gap for 2010-2011 is $8.7 BILLION, can’t it be argued the unions will need to do more to help close the gap?”

    I am thinking exactly the same thing as you. But since the details are missing here I think we need to keep our cool until we see them. What we do know is that just a few days and a few threads ago, the claim here was the state workers were giving up nearly a billion dollars. Somehow in just a few days a 1/3 of a billion seems to have vanished.

    We do now know however that since the priority of the Democrats is to maintain the size, and expense of a bloated state government they are willing to try to do that on not just on the backs of the “wealthy” and the few remaining profitable businesses in this state, but also largely on the backs of the lower and middle class as well.

    Their proposed huge tax increases not only punish the “wealthy”, but punish even more those in the middle class. Those who are struggling daily just hoping to keep their job a while longer while they try to make far apart ends meet. It calls for virtually eliminating their property tax credit. This will only hit the middle class since it was phased out long ago for any one with an income that could afford them the chance to eat out once a year at any place other than a fast food restaurant. They have proposed new sales taxes. They want to again up the cigarette sin tax, and are considering adding gambling while you eat and drink. Somehow I don’t see many of the wealthy at all the upscale Fairfield county restaurants looking for this item on their menus.

    I also wonder exactly how the Governor and the General Assembly will be able to promise the unions job security in return any “savings” no matter how big or small, unless will they can make those same job security promises to those in the private sector who’s jobs are the very jobs that provide the income to pay for this on going state excess?

    But as I said until we know the details no sense getting upset. Maybe there is some huge new company that is just about to come to CT, set up world wide operations across the state, and bring with it about 50,000 good paying middle class private sector jobs.

  17. AS,

    You’re referring, obviously, to the Barney Frank/Chris Dodd housing bubble, no? Those were the fingers that pushed over the first domino, which led to the present disaster. Isn’t it a little soon for revisionist history here? The facts have yet to be buried. Liberals used to wait a descent interval before they dug up the body and began redressing the corpse. Scheesh! Why do you think the Courant – the Courant, for God’s sake! – is pressing Dodd on his connection to Countrywide, not to mention the two F’s, Fannie and Freddie? And Frank? He was literally sleeping with the enemy, while he was providing favors to them – not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  18. PS– I love you man. Not enough Republicans are willing to wear their Bush love so loudly on their sleeves.

    I don’t. If you re-read what I wrote, I touted the increases in worker productivity, the increase in the progressivity of the income tax, the increases in the net household worth, etc., following the Bush tax cuts. I lauded Bush for making the world safer. But, I bashed him for the absurd government spending increases and, even though I didn’t mention this, I also blamed him for starting “the Surge” three years late.

    Dobbs, only you can tout the Bush housing bubble as a success, while even now we’re paying dearly for the inevitable aftermath.

    What the hell is the “Bush housing bubble,” anyway? George Bush didn’t make anyone buy a home that he/she couldn’t afford.

  19. This is from the Courant report this morning:

    “Under SEBAC rules, health care and retirement provisions require 80 percent votes of approval by 12 of the 13 constituent unions”

    I’m not sure I understand this completely but it seems to set a very high bar for adoption.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s