By turns conciliatory and defiant, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy framed today's overwhelming ratification of a labor concession deal as a victory of sweeping scope and a vindication of what he calls his tough, but respectful approach to state employees.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic agreement," Malloy said, standing with Lt. Gov. Nancy S. Wyman in the Old Judiciary Room of the state Capitol. "It represents the most fundamental restructuring of the relationship between state government and state workers that has ever occurred in the state of Connecticut."
Malloy looked beyond the two-year biennial budget, which was unbalanced without a mix of concessions and labor savings his administration values at $1.6 billion, a number that non-partisan budget analysts have yet to confirm. Instead, he focused on pension and health changes projected to save $21.5 billion over 20 years.
Malloy, Wyman framing the concession deal.
"The real significance of this agreement lies in the long-term savings it produces for taxpayers and the state of Connecticut," Malloy said.
Malloy, 56, this blue state's first Democratic governor in 20 years, had made national news by vigorously defending collective bargaining rights even as he demanded up to $1 billion a year in concessions from the unions that played crucial roles in the state's tightest gubernatorial contest in a half-century.
The governor contrasted his approach with confrontational Republican governors such as Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Chris Christie of New Jersey. But when the unions failed in June to ratify an initial tentative agreement, Christie crowed on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Malloy had been played. The clip was shown again days later when Malloy appeared on the show.
Today, it was Malloy's turn to push back after the State Employees Bargaining Agency Coalition, representing 45,000 unionized state employees, voted by more than a 2-1 margin in favor of concessions that Malloy was willing to clarify, without changing the basic terms of the original agreement.
And push back he did, working off a prepared text that mentioned none of his doubters by name, but listed their insults.
"There were many people who said we could not reach an agreement that we achieved here this day," Malloy said. After a long pause, he added, "They were wrong."
Slipping into the cadence of a formal speech, Malloy went on to say exactly how wrong his critics were, weaving in shots he had taken from Christie, newspaper editors and House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, whom his administration is now cultivating for bipartisan support of a special legislative session on jobs.
"There were many people who said when the first agreement was rejected that I should renegotiate the terms of the deal, or it would fail a second time," Malloy said. "They were wrong.
"And when the first agreement failed, there were many people who said I should just go onto Plan B. They said I'd been taken for a ride, and I'd gotten what I deserved negotiating respectfully with my fellow employees. Some people even suggested that the rejection of the agreement proved that Hartford was too difficult for me to navigate and that I was naïve to think we could implement real change. Obviously, they were wrong.
"On that point, they were very, very wrong."
The deal imposes a two-year wage freeze, penalizes employees who opt out of a new wellness program, and imposes structural changes to the retirement system, some taking effect this fall, while the others will not apply to anyone who retires before 2022.
Early retirements will become less attractive on Oct. 1, as the present three-percent benefit reduction will double to six percent, and contributions for health coverage will increase. In 2022, the normal retirement age will increase by three years, to age 63 or 65, depending on years of service.
To labor and Democratic legislative leaders, Malloy was grateful.
House and Senate leaders, despite long ties to state employee unions, backed the governor as he insisted the only alternative to the concession was layoffs and deep budget cuts.
And he acknowledged that the leaders of the SEBAC coalition shared his desire to stabilize the costs of employee benefits, recognizing that without savings now, pressure would grow for more givebacks when the unions' basic health-and-retirement deal expired in 2017.
"But for this agreement, come 2017, there would have been hell to pay," Malloy said.
But Malloy said he was most grateful to state employees, who reconsidered the earlier rejection and approved a deal that will save jobs and preserve vital state services. Left unsaid, the ratification also saved Malloy from budget cuts that touched nearly every part of the Democratic base.
"They have stepped up to the plate," Malloy said. "They have made real sacrifice. And when, not if, but when we turn this economy around they can rightfully say that with this agreement they became part of the solution. We would not be at this place without them."
Malloy said he saw no reason for the House of Representatives to act on a bill approved by the Senate at his instigation after the first deal was rejected. It would have changed the way state employee pensions are calculated, reducing their sick days and freezing longevity payments.
The governor left for another day a question that will grow more important as he nears re-election in 2014: How badly has he damaged his relationship with organized labor?
"I don't know whether it's suffered. I think that would be a question for those folks," Malloy said.
Then he reminded listeners that he never sought to undercut collective bargaining or labor arbitration laws, even as he tried to push the workforce toward accepting concessions.
"So, I'm feeling pretty good about the relationship," Malloy said. "That's not to say that, you know, feathers haven't been ruffled. I'm sure they have. But we needed to get to this point."
Time to go! Malloy will continue to bury every citizen left in the state.
An historic agreement that has yet to be certified as real savings by the Office of Fiscal Analysis, wait until midway in the fiscal year and the debt has grown even larger.
As a newly repatriated Connecticuter, the Yankee in me says "What the hell took so long?"
Hannum
Really Dannel...feeling preety good about the relationship huh?..As a state toilet swabber for many years and now looking at another 15 before I can even think of retiring thanks to this crap deal, I will have worked well over 40 years for this state and givin the best years of my life just to get screwed in the last 10 years of my tenure ..I was making a modest pension that would be a joke of a pension to most making 50,000 or more cause at 40,000 a year I'm not even close to middle class in wages. Then to
Read MoreI cannot agree with the article and say he was respectful. He may have meant it in good faith, but regardless we were subjected to constant bullying and reminders.. Like we were in some sort of special needs class at a grammar school.
But i am glad the deal passed....Not sure why....but i am.
"Malloy looked beyond the two-year biennial budget, which was unbalanced without a mix of concessions and labor savings his administration values at $1.6 billion, a number that non-partisan budget analysts have yet to confirm. Instead, he focused on pension and health changes projected to save $21.5 billion over 20 years.
State employees were unable to do the same.
--perturbed
Governor Malloy gets what he wants and crows to the media about how he got it. Big surprise. He utilized fear of layoffs and unemployment and bullying and intimidation of State employees as tactics, and even went so far as to get the unions to change their long-standing by-laws to get this P.O.S. budget ratified. How is that respectful and to whom? State employees have been scapegoated again at the whim of someone who has a driver drive him everywhere. What are YOU giving up or conceding, Gov?
The cost of living here in CT
Read MoreSo..as a toilet swabber for 28 years, you started state service at the age of 21 as a custodian, never took advantage of the fact that state service is the one place that you can move around in your state career because they hire from within (not to mention tuition reimbursement) and so now at the age of 49, you're still a custodian. On top of that, I'm supposed to feel bad for you because your lack of drive and ambition has kept you at 40k a year. Dude, you could have worked out, got in shape and
Read MoreTo 27 year statie, I am a 17 year statie who is making just over 50k a year if I include the ot. The truth is, is that a lot of agencies are facing privatization and closures, and you are right if you say that they could face them anyway, but with the agreement, it will be done by re deploying people elsewhere. If the agreement was not approved then a lot of people at a lot of agencies with more then 20+ years still would have been affected as they would have been transferred elsewhere to bump someone else
Read MoreLet the lawsuits begin. There are several fundamental violations of legal principle embedded in this agreement, the state and the unions will be liable for damages. Its not a matter of if, but when.
great point. Can't confirm the savings but we're locked in anyway. So if the money isn't there just raise more taxes. Democrats have really done a number on the state.
Thank you SEBAC for selling us out to this bullying governor. I hope the economy tanks the next four years so that the deficit is even bigger than what we have now. Since we have four years of job protection, it will be a lot of fun watching those buffoon politicians balance the budget with massive tax hikes and program cuts. Yippee!!!
I understand skyreacher and I'm sorry if I offended anyone, its just very depressing to know that people who are suppose to be running this country can do things that to me seem to be very shady and secretive. Changing by-laws cause you dont like the outcome the way they did all seems way too unethical.I like my 40,000 a year job as it is all I need. I never needed a 50,60,or 80k job and I also like custodial it is a good workout and makes the day fly by. Just wanted my pension to be left alone. I
Read MoreSo sad what we gave up. I'm embarrassed to be union.
There aren't going to be any "lawsuits," at least none that will be able to pay out ANY "damages" to ANYONE - because the second vote would have passed under the original voting rules.
27 Year Statie. We are the same age, but I have two years less in pension service. Per the agreement, I think you will have no penalty to retire at 60 if you pay the very minor fee. The way it was explained to me at July 2022 I will be 59 years and 2 months. Therefore , I am 10 months short of being able to retire at 60. The fee is 0.2% per month up to a maximum of 3 years/36 months or .72%. It will cost you 0.24% of your salary
Read MoreThis is a win for labor at a time when labor needs a win. Congratulations to all the state workers, and congratulations to Malloy.
@ Now What, puzzled, SteveHC, E. Talon, People Power - I am going to premise what I post by saying that I accept the voting results.
However, I cannot allow your haughty and illogical bombastic blasts to go unchallenged. First, those that are paying close attention, as they should to matter of financial interest, realize that there will be *at least* TWO LAWSUITS filed by good lawyers funded by disgruntled union members. The claims raised in these lawsuits will be supported by law and facts and will be decided by a judge or jury.
Read MoreCongratulations to Malloy on reconsumation of his incestuous relationship with the unions. I suppose that with the 2+ BILLION dollars in new taxes we are all paying, he can now afford the installments on all the union votes he purchased, and probably buy some new ones (see earned income credit)! Once as an American I was free to avoid unionized providers to prevent paying inflated prices and subsidizing cushy wage and benefit packages. And eventually union products and services always lose market share
due to this greed. Now public unions like SEBAC make it impossible for Connecticut taxpayers to opt
"Second, the results of the second vote are irrelevant to many of the claims that will be filed: 1) that the first vote was improper because SEBAC acted outside of its authority and 2) that the unions and SEBAC did not take required actions to authorize a) change the ByLaws regarding ratification of changes to the existing agreement and b) hold a second vote."
1. SEBAC did not act outside its authority to bargain for wage concessions. The Local barganing unit leaders were at these meetings and allowed SEBAC to bargain for the contracts. They had a choice to go
Read MorePoll question( when we vote for our next govenor)- Do we need a state union for our employees, Yes or No? Should be start downsizing the union, Yes or No? Should we also start downsizing government services, Yes or No? After these polls are tallied, than goals and timelines should be set to allow for these changes to begin. Not a massive exodus like plan B or massive layoffs all at once. But a gradual trend to whatever the end results was, voted for by the resident of CT. This way it would
Read More"Poll question( when we vote for our next govenor)- Do we need a state union for our employees, Yes or No? Should be start downsizing the union, Yes or No? Should we also start downsizing government services, Yes or No? After these polls are tallied, than goals and timelines should be set to allow for these changes to begin. Not a massive exodus like plan B or massive layoffs all at once. But a gradual trend to whatever the end results was, voted for by the resident of CT. This way it would also give us time to absorb what
Read More"Why is it idiotic?"
Because stupid is as stupid does.
"He brings experience. He's been elected."
Mike Clark on endorsing State Sen. Andrew Roraback for the Republican nomination for the 5th Congressional District race.
Get the latest headlines right to your mobile
Visit m.ctmirror.org on your mobile device
FOLLOW US ON: 
PROUD SPONSOR
MINIMUM WAGE IN CONNECTICUT
January 1, 1980 $3.12
January 1, 1981 $3.37
October 1, 1987 $3.75
October 1, 1988 $4.25
April 1, 1991 $4.27
October 1, 1996 $4.77
Septem 1, 1997 $5.18
January 1, 1999 $5.65
January 1, 2000 $6.15
January 1, 2001 $6.40
January 1, 2002 $6.70
January 1, 2003 $6.90
January 1, 2004 $7.10
January 1, 2006 $7.40
January 1, 2007 $7.65
January 1, 2009 $8.00
January 1, 2010 $8.25
PROUD SPONSOR
Printer-friendly version
Send to a friend