Bargaining units representing more than 6,400 unionized state employees chastised Gov. Dannel P. Malloy this afternoon for allowing non-union managers and executives to receive longevity bonuses in October under a new capping system while unionized staff will forfeit some or all of theirs.
CSEA-SEIU Local 2001, called for Malloy to apply the same standard to all workers, arguing that to do otherwise would "violate the spirit" of the $1.6 billion concession deal ratified in mid-August.
But the governor's senior policy advisor responded that the unions are wrong in their assertion and the longevity pay issue has been "mischaracterized."
"'Shared sacrifice' should mean that state managers are treated the same as the unionized workforce," Bob Rinker, Executive Director of CSEA-SEIU Local 2001, formerly the Connecticut State Employees Association, wrote in a statement. "The members of our unions just agreed to concessions believing that that the budget would not be balanced on their backs alone. The issue is one of fundamental fairness, and the managers' longevity bonuses should reflect the same sacrifice as the front-line workers' reduced payments."
"I guess fiscal responsibility is a selective concept," said Paul Lavallee, president of Local 2663 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "Managers should manage well, instead of managing to do well while vital services are sacrificed."
The union release added that Rinker would call on Gov. Dannel P. Malloy to treat the October longevity payments for managers and appointed officials "in a manner consistent with the unionized workforce."
Rinker's union represents approximately 3,900 workers providing a wide range of professionals including bridge inspections, transportation engineers and planners, correction officer supervisors, police inspectors, judicial marshals and some institutional educators and education administrators.
Lavallee, whose local represents about 2,500 human and social service workers, added that his parent union, AFSCME Council 4, has demanded that the state immediately provide the union with the specific cost of the non-union longevity bonuses.
"We just appealed to the governor to rescind the layoffs of 37 (Department of Children and Family) social workers carrying full case loads," he added. "The DCF spokesman said the layoffs were due to what he called fiscal responsibility.Yet now we hear that state bureaucrats are going to rake in millions while children and families are left stranded."
The longevity pay system, first created by statute in 1967 and subsequently guaranteed in most union contracts since then, rewards most workers with biannual bonuses after they have achieved 10 years of service. The statutes also call for higher bonuses after workers hit their 15-, 20 and 25-year anniversaries, after which longevity pay is capped.
The Department of Administrative Services declined Thursday to release a preliminary list of staff slated to receive longevity payments next month. Department spokesman Jeffrey Beckham said it still was being adjusted to reflect resignations, retirements and layoffs over the past six months. But longevity pay is issued twice yearly, in April and October, and 3,599 non-union staff received such bonuses, worth about $7 million in the spring.
Though specific cost estimates haven't been disclosed, the Malloy administration insists that a new longevity cap imposed on non-union employees will save more money over the next 30 years than the union concession regarding longevity pay.
The executive cap was ordered by Malloy on Jan. 21, and applied to about 50 top officials. It said the officials could not earn higher payments in future years, even if they had fewer than 25 years of service.
The order also stipulated that those who hadn't received a longevity payment in October 2010--such as legislators who left that branch in January to join his administration--would not be eligible for bonuses in the future.
The deal means about 39,800 unionized employees will forfeit their entire longevity payment this year. Another 5,200 union members, primarily involving higher education faculty and Judicial branch professionals, will forfeit 25 percent of their October payment.
All unionized employees hired after July 1, 2011 are ineligible from ever receiving longevity pay.
Among non-union workers, all those who didn't receive longevity pay last April are ineligible from participating in the future, regardless of whether they are new hires or were just shy of 10 years of experience.
The governor's plan doesn't call for any non-union workers to lose any longevity pay this October, but their payments would be capped and would not increase in future years.
The unions' argument that the governor's plan for non-union longevity pay violates the spirit of the concession deal; "is not true, and I think this issue has been mischaracterized in the last few days," Roy Occhiogrosso, the governor's senior policy adviser, said Friday.
Occhiogrosso added that Malloy "doesn't think anyone should get a longevity payment--period."
The administration tried to negotiate an end to all longevity payments in talks with the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, but that proposal was rejected by labor. Occhiogrosso said the governor would revisit the matter with the legislature during the 2012 session.
"I think this issue has to be taken on," Malloy said of the longevity controversy this morning, before the union statements had been released. "I would support it being taken on legislatively. I think there are some nuances which I think are hard to explain."
Malloy said managers got larger longevity bonuses as an alternative to increasing the salary base. If those didn't occur, some managers would be paid less than their employees.
"I want a comprehensive answer to this," he said.
The governor said he was proud to negotiate a deal eliminating the bonuses for new employees.
"That's an accomplishment," he added. "We have some additional work to do."
SEBAC had language in the original concession agreement that called for managers to sacrifice a slight portion (maybe 10%) of their exhorbitant longevity bonuses in return for giving away the union members' longevity pittance. The revised agreement apparently did not contain this language, either because SEBAC was complicit in this,or because they were hoodwinked. The union members who voted during the infamous revote were never told about this change. Either way, they look even more incompetent than they did before.
As for the difference between capped and uncapped, it seems as if you may be confused about those terms.
Read MoreState managers had no say in the concession agreement. They didn't get to vote on the givebacks, which was the second time in 2 years that givebacks have been made. Since state managers didn't participate or have a voice in the negotiations, the state could not take away longevity, which is considered income. It doesn't matter what the legislature or Malloy does, longevity for managers can't be touched. Also, if the unions were being completely honest here, they would report that have gotten raises over the past 3 years, whereas state managers have gotten nothing.
Bob Rinker can clown around looking foolish in public all he wants now. He's not going to fool anyone.
Sorry, Bob, you're still going to lose a chunk of your state employee union members.
Now you can concentrate on your municipal and private member majority -- the ones you were willing to sacrifice state workers' pensions for.
Goodbye is too good a word, Bob, so I’ll just say fare thee well...
--perturbed
I'll bet the unions didn't mind Donavan killing the proposal to get rid of overtime in pension calculation.
what?
the unions protested? you're kidding, right?
they got 5 years job security and they are protesting longevity to a group that has not had a raise in more than 3 years?
joking right?
State managers also paid no union dues. Union members had one raise in the last three years (see Rell & Malloy concession agreements). Union members, and many bargaining unit leaders, also had no voice or participation in the SEBAC negotiations. Many managers were appointed in higher pay grades, and while I'm not positive I believe they may have gotten PARS. The legislature can indeed take away longevity, as they threatened to do to the union employees if they didn't surrender.
Those that get OT anyway. For most of us, OT is a nonissue.
Working for a living is too much work... In my next life I want to be a state manager... They get all the best deals just handed to them and they do nothing to earn it...
Don't forget, a manager's longevity payment is equal to a raise or two for a union employee, and manager's get those twice a year.
I am not a manager and could careless about the longevity. Union leadership accomplished what they planned. Blame the members for being too careless, distracted, ignorant, or stupid. Pick one or more reasons. Who cares,the deal is done and it won't change until 2013. Yes,2013 when the Gov comes knocking again and threatens to reorganize if no "give me more back". Reorganization is not a bad thing. It is coming so enjoy the ride.
If anyone actually thought the budget was honest, I would like to sell you some moon rocks. Please Disregard "MADE IN CHINA"
what raises are you referring to ProgressforCT? I would suggest you try to read the facts before you post a comment.
State managers have been sharing the sacrifice for three years now. When did the unions start sharing the sacrifice? Oh yeah, just now.
Danny Malloy is wrong about one thing though: in an increasing number of cases, union employees are earning more than the managers who supervise them.
Managers have always been at the front of givebacks and sacrifice. It's one of the pleasures of being a direct employee of the governor (starting at least with John Rowland and continuing with Jodi and now Danny).
Jen, there is no such thing as job security. Just because this agreement claims to give four years of no lay-offs, as we have seen, they can come back, anytime before then, and ask for more concessions. A contract means nothing anymore.
Livingston acknowledged that the union members longevity "deal" is better than the non-unions'. Managers is now frozen forever, union members are on "hold" for 2 years, but then continue to go up.