Unions pushing for approval as second vote nears conclusion

August 16, 2011

By Caitlin Emma

With the second vote on a state employee concession agreement scheduled to end Wednesday, union leaders were making a last-minute push Tuesday to get members to approve the deal in hopes of averting thousands of layoffs.

At CSEA/SEIU Local 2001 headquarters in Hartford, union leaders and delegates said workplace morale has been hurt by the thousands of layoff notices that have been issued since the agreement was rejected in an initual vote in June. Members are anxious to get the concession issue resolved, they said.

"A lot of people are asking more questions this time around and feeling more comfortable about the answers they're getting," said Charlene Bell, a developmental service worker for the Southbury Training School. "People are more open-minded this time around."

Charlene Bell

Charlene Bell

Bell, along with other union leaders and delegates, were at CSEA/SEIU headquarters to answer questions, distribute information and encourage members still voting on concessions to vote yes.

"It's all about the anxiety," said Rosemarie Tate, a dietician with Capitol Region Mental Health Service and Blue Hills Substance Abuse Services. "They want this to be over with and they want to move on. It's been a rough and long summer."

Matt O'Connor, spokesman for the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, or SEBAC, said unions will finish voting Wednesday and he expects the results to be known by midday Thursday.

Several unions already have voted, but in a marked difference from the first vote, the results aren't being disclosed piecemeal. O'Connor said he couldn't give any information on the tally so far.

A majority of all union members voting approved the concessions deal in June, but the rules at the time required the memberships of 14 of 15 constituent unions to agree to the change; only 11 did. SEBAC changed the rules for this round to require that a majority of all members and eight of the 15 unions back the deal.

The first vote may have been influenced by widespread claims that the concession agreement would require union members to become part of SustiNet, a state-run insurance program. Union leaders said that has been an issue this time around.

Instead, union members want to know more about the details of a benefits agreement that would apply to all members of the 15 unions that are part of SEBAC. They also want reassurance over what will happen to workers who received layoff notices.

"People want to know more about when they can retire and things like that," said Bob Alves, a mental health assistant for the Connecticut Mental Health Center in New Haven. "They're concerned whether or not their layoff notices will be rescinded. People still have this anxiety over pink slips."

Union event

Union leaders and delegates at CSEA/SEIU Local 2001 headquarters encouraging a 'yes' vote

A memo issued last week by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget chief, Benjamin Barnes, layoffs will be rescinded for members of bargaining units that approve for members of bargaining units that agree to a two-year age freeze, but will continue at units that reject the freeze. He also said non-union members and managers who received layoff notices in the wake of the first concessions rejection will "not necessarily" keep their jobs even if the agreement is approved.

Bell said her office received 17 layoff notices so far.

"The morale is really low," she said. "We just want to put the focus back on the clients and this has been such a distraction."

Bell works for the Department of Developmental Services, helping to provide services such as job skills training at the Southbury Training School. She said her co-workers feel anxious over the thought of foregoing important services to the people who need them most if unions reject a second concessions deal.

Deborah DeVivo works as a social worker for the Department of Developmental Services in their East Hartford office. She said that people she's spoken to fear the loss of critical services, too, especially in state-run respite centers.

"The alternative to approving a deal is devastating," she said. "It would be such a horrible thing to remove that kind of lifeline for people. Respite centers work with your child, you trust them, you form relationships with them. What do you do in the absence of that service?"

DeVivo said she also feels that members possess a greater understanding of the deal this time and that she sees definite support for approving the deal.

Other union members agreed that support for the deal seems greater the second time around and that anxiety always finds its root in the idea of change, no matter what the stakes.

"It's human nature to be concerned with change," said Supervising Judicial Marshal Tom Grodecki of the Connecticut Judicial Branch. "I think there was a lack of clarification the first time, but there will be greater ratification this time."

Please login or register to post comments

Not a member of The Connecticut Mirror yet?

Be a part of The Connecticut Mirror community, comment on stories, receive e-mail news updates and more!

Comments

Just remind them there’s the

Just remind them there’s the proposal to eliminate OT, differential and vacation credits from pension calculations AKA the base pay proposal.

The House won’t act on the legislation unless the agreement is rejected or the union decertified in which case Malloy will make it law. It already passed the Senate and has Malloy’s nominal support.

That’s the back door deal that Malloy made with the public safety/haz duty worker unions isn’t it?

The 20-year retirement, the all-you-can-eat pension accelerators in your last 3 years will not be touched.!

The budget-busting Over Time schemes will be overlooked in public safety

Read More

Goat boy, you are talking

Goat boy, you are talking jibberish. Headline sentences that dont state any facts. The vote ends tomorrow. Please, state facts...

Are you kidding me

Are you kidding me notasnobbystate? Those are the facts. 20 year hazardous duty retirement & overtime for public safety has been & will again be overlooked and padded pension from OT still exists. You tell me how that's part of sharing the burden?

AFSCME needs to go! Lets get

AFSCME needs to go! Lets get a union in that will protect our benefits and wages. We need to show AFSCME we are not going to put up with their lies, bullying, scare tactics, etc. AFSCME doesn't care about their members. All they care about is collecting our dues money so they can continue to receive better health benefits, wages, etc. than us that WE PAY FOR WITH OUR DUES. We care about the layoffs but we didn't cause them nor can we prevent them. AFSCME only cares about layoffs to protect their jobs

Read More

goat boy is right. why should

goat boy is right. why should someone who is willing to subject their body to a high stress work environment and is more likely to die within ten years after retirement get such a high pension. they have a cushy job not knowing a. if they will get shot or stabbed on a minute basis, b. get any life ending disease like aids or hep or any of the lethal flu strains by working in close proximity to degenerets, c. comfortably knowing that at the end of their 8 hour shift they can go home , oh wait just

Read More

Openyoureyes, I 100%

Openyoureyes, I 100% support you on this issue when it comes to correction officers and state police!!! However, I do not support State's attorneys, public defenders, or probation officers (to name a few) getting hazardous duty. I have worked in the State for over 15 years... and I have never seen any of the above mentioned get hurt on the job. Is there a potential? Yes. But, there is a potiential for any state employee to get hurt on the job.

You might want to get into

You might want to get into CT's most deadly occupations sometime....a public safety occupation sometimes makes 10th on the list.

When it does it's AKA as the fat fireman carrying a hose syndrome. And then it turns out 2/3 of such deaths are from volunteers who aren't subject to the same physicals adn training in warning signs of a heart attack that pros are.

CT is one of the stats where Lottery Worker held the title for most dangerous state occupation for a decade.

Senior State Worker, there's

Senior State Worker, there's NO WAY any other out-of-state union can do a better job than AFSCME. AFSCME's got the best economic research unit at its disposal, which is invaluable when it comes to figuring out when it's best to negotiate for whatever. And it has FAR more experience at representing very large numbers of government workers than any of the "poaching" unions do - especially in Connecticut. Believe me, these other two unions looking for green cards will just collect your dues, join SEBAC (because by law they have to), and produce unit contracts that are mediocre at best

Read More

CSEA's voting has been

CSEA's voting has been completed and tallied; members have voted OVERWHELMINGLY to accept the SEBAC TA by more than a 2-to-1 margin. The only CSEA bargaining unit to vote "no" - at least according to the vote tallies that I saw in an email from CSEA - was their Corrections bargaining unit (naturally) - and even in THAT unit the vote was VERY close, being defeated by only 35 votes. However, CSEA is claiming that *all* of its bargaining units approved the SEBAC TA, so maybe the vote tallies that I saw had a typo in them??