2011 SEBAC Agreement: CHALLENGED!!!!!!!

THANK YOU LISA!!!!!!!

 

update 7/28/11

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/state_prosecutor_takes_on_sebac/#.TjHf8ArtCEs.facebookwww.ctpost.com/local/article/Union-revote-challenged-1602748.php

The state Board of Labor Relations has scheduled a preliminary meeting on Aug. 3 on a prosecutor’s complaint that union leaders’ efforts to strike a $1.6 billion concessions deal with the governor violated collective bargaining laws.

Lisa Herskowitz, a senior assistant state’s attorney in Manchester, filed the paperwork earlier this month.

In late June, members of the 15-union State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition failed to ratify $1.6 billion worth of givebacks Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the Legislature counted on to balance their new, two-year budget.

Fifty-seven percent of voting members and 11 unions — including Herskowitz’s, the Connecticut Association of Prosecutors — backed the givebacks, but not the supermajority required.

Although the governor has begun implementing layoffs and budget cuts, he and labor leaders clarified portions of the deal late last week and unions are scheduling a second-round of voting they hope will save jobs.

SEBAC leaders last week also amended their rules allowing ratification by a simple majority.

Herskowitz in her complaint to the labor board alleges SEBAC violated its own bylaws by agreeing to a two-year wage freeze, arguing the coalition’s negotiating authority is limited to pensions and health care.

She further argues SEBAC should not have reopened the existing pension and health-care agreement, which expires in 2017, without allowing union members to first vote to authorize SEBAC to renegotiate the deal. Rank-and-file approval should also have been sought in early July when SEBAC approached Malloy about reopening talks, Herskowitz said.

Herskowitz also called the SEBAC process of selling the negotiated terms “highly coercive.”

“SEBAC carried out the negotiations in secret without … input from union members,” she wrote. “SEBAC basically said, `Here it is. Take it or leave it. And if you leave it, there will be layoffs and the state will be economically devastated.”

SEBAC spokesman Eric Bailey said, “We are confident that SEBAC leadership have acted in the best interests of its members in reaching a tentative agreement with the state.”

Staff Writer Brian Lockhart can be reached at brian.lockhart@scni.com

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Union-revote-challenged-1602748.php#ixzz1TGu7v64K

2011 SEBAC Agreement revised: CVS Caremark privacy violations and more bad news

 

 

 

http://alarmedaboutcvscaremark.org/index.php?id=52

Why We’re Alarmed About CVS Caremark

2011 SEBAC Agreement: More CENSORSHIP and controlling the information flow ! ! !

 
 
Awhile back,prior to the 2011 SEBAC Agreement being voted on, SEBAC began to delete posts from union members on the union members own website that did anything other than fully support the union leaders own greed based, arrrogant opinions of the 2011 agreement. Forward 8 weeks and they’re at it again! Comments can no longer be posted on the SEBAC website (for awhile at this point), and now they are censoring the Facebook page and controlling the information flow to members under the guise of protecting members from “inapropriate” comments ! Only  the “committee” members will be able to start new threads and will be deleting posts that they find do not
support their dark agenda.
 
Here’s the link to the article:
 
…and the article as presented from the SEBAC website
 (should it “disappear”!) 

Announcement of Revised InThisTogetherCT Facebook Page Policy

by Matt O’Connor on July 22nd  

“The InThisTogetherCT Facebook page was created to be a social networking source of information and help for members of the unions in the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC). The page was launched at the height of the economic crisis so leaders and staff had another tool to assist members in navigating the tough issues and tough choices we face.

But efforts to make the FB page work have been overwhelmed during the effort to reach an agreement that saves state workers’ jobs, their collective bargaining rights, and the services they deliver. The large volume of content from a relatively small group of understandably angry and frustrated folks that want to see an end to the current mess has diminished the page’s effectiveness. It is no longer able to offer information to a much larger group of state workers who want and need answers to the questions they want and deserve answers to.

Beginning today we will recapture the original intent of the Facebook page and make it a source of information for union leaders’ discussions and details of any agreement that may be reached.

Members of the coalition’s communications committee will post information and seek questions from union members, all of which will be more closely monitored. Inappropriate, disparaging, and offensive comments will no longer be tolerated and will be deleted by the committee on a regular basis beginning today.

Additionally, new “threads” will be limited to designated Facebook page administrators, and previously posted threads — as well as the comments associated with them — will no longer be visible.

Some of the folks who have enjoyed the openness of the dialogue on the Facebook page will likely be disappointed by the revised policy. We also know many union members who will be pleased they can more effectively and efficiently find accurate and respectful information during this very critical time.

Those who would like to actively participate in our informational and educational efforts are invited to join the coalition’s team of member messengers. Those interested in helping to facilitate the Facebook page as an administrator are invited to offer their volunteer services to the committee.

Contact your union’s elected or staff representatives to submit your name to the committee.

Thanks to all for the lively opinions and creative composition posted at the Facebook page in the last few weeks.”

 Please see Hadda Enough’s FB page:
for the real story and real opinions of union members

2011 SEBAC Agreement :WTF? Voo-doo?

Why do we need unions  if an entity like SEBAC can simply change the rules, and act as a legislative extension of the Malloy administration???

As I wrote in my last blog…the 2011 Agreement  is Dead in the land of OZ…but watch for the possibility of reincarnation! Or perhaps voo-doo!  Check this link:

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/state-union-leaders-press-conference

Anyone who watches the above news video please pay attention to the deflection and non answers by SEBAC union leaders to reporters questions…this is very similar to responses ( or lack of responses) union members received in the union information sessions about the 2011 Agreement!

When you were a kid did you ever “not play with someone'” any longer because every time you played a game they changed the rules when they were losing midway through the game? We called them “cheaters’.

It seems that the SEBAC leadership thinks that when you lose you just change the rules of the game so you win.

Bottom line…The current SEBAC Union By-Laws are the Union By-Laws and were the rules of the game when  Union members voted. End of Game! 80% approval is required to protect union members interests when negotiating for health and pension benefits under the current ByLaws. 14 of 15 unions needed to vote yes to ratify the agreement…only 11 of 15 did…the vote fell far short of the 80% requirement!

Should SEBAC “cheat” and attempt to change the bylaws to suit their needs…they will lose ALL credibility with ALL union members regardless whether they  individually voted yes or NO! IF the current unions are not decertified, any  negotiations on future agreements will be met with a 99.9% NO VOTE!

Again….why do we even need unions if an entity like SEBAC can simply change the rules, and act as a legislative extension of the Malloy administration???

 Here’s a  fun clip from  “Weekend at Bernies” that reminds me of this whole deal!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRMlvBfSBYQ

2011 SEBAC Agreement: Blame, projection and a bit of paranoia !!!

It seems SEBAC Union “Leaders” are getting desperate!

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/union_officials_ask_ag_to_investigate_yankee_institute/

What is it with the Union Leaders that has them thinking that State employees can’t think for themselves!  The P4 Engineering, Technical and Scientific Bargaining Unit sent a legitimate, well thought out letter together stating their concerns, and it took courage to take that step! https://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/2011

Now  SEBAC union leaders insinuate it was influenced by the Yankee Institute…???

Come on Union Leader folks….admit it…you screwed this up!…and let your own agendas stand in your way of creating a clear agreement for the State Employees you’re paid to represent!

The HEP plan being “offered” clearly puts State Government in charge of a persons own being and decisions at the threat of being thrown out of the program . While it is technically voluntary as the current plan is not eliminated but changed to include a $100 surcharge and deductible for each family member, the State HEP plan takes charge of an individuals freedom to choose what healthcare services are in their own best interests. It’s government dictating that they ‘know what is best for you”!
 
Likewise, we are capable and responsible for our own decisions on how to vote on the 2011 Agreeement! This bloggers decision to VOTE NO! is based on research that can be found in other postings on this blog and has nothing to do with any info provided or forced upon me by  “outside forces”.
update 6/18/11 Here is the letter from Dan Livingston to AG Jepson published by the Hartford Courant

2011 SEBAC Agreement: A few final thoughts on voting NO ! ! !

If you haven’t voted yet…..Ask yourself this about the 2011 SEBAC Agreement…..If I knew for a fact that I wouldn’t be layed off would I vote for this package?
 
I believe that the total “Yes” count would be limited to that of those who knew they were getting layed off. So if 7500 were going to be layed off…there would be 7500 “yes” votes. The only factor in this is the FEAR FACTOR”…”will it be me”?
 
There aren’t too many ways to say this but the agreement “sucks”. There is nothing good in it for any State Employee apart from the “sort of” guaranteed job security for 4 years….layoffs can still happen by consolidation and department elimination.
 
My reasons for voting NO!
 
1. No established health care plan is present….a framework… but no actual plan. The only plans we’re lead  to go by expire July 1, 2011…open enrollment was canceled….there is not a plan booklet out for this year.  Anthem, United/Oxford ,or the State Comptrollers office can not give you a contract plan that actually states that it applies to after June of this year. Also…do not forget …contracts with Anthem and United/Oxford expire June 30, 2012. Premiums, copays can rise significantly, and treatments covered, and diagnostic tests (not preventative)  paid for  can  be changed…you’re really only guaranteed your plan won’t change at all this year. Voting Yes allows the State to get “very creative” with your benefits, and not necessarliy in a good way for you!
 
2. If you’re a tier 2  or 2A, retiring after 2022, and decide to pay into your pension to maintain “normal” retirement age….there is no legal protection or language built into the 2011 Agreement that says what happens to the money you invest should the State legislatively change (to a 401k type plan) or eliminate pensions altogether in 2022 ( or even before). Yes, we would be able to file a lawsuit if they did this….BUT…if you want to retire…. do you want to wait another 10 years for your money? Or have to agree to a settlement?
 
3. Will we get that last 3% salary increase? This Agreement has us agree to give back the increases bargained for in 2009….why should we believe that last 3% increase will be given, especially when Patrice Peterson called it a “Bargaining chip for next time”  in a union info session!
 
Finally…..this agreement was put together behind our backs and we had no input!  Several Union Leaders have deep connections to the push for Universal Healthcare … you can read that in another recent blog post here…https://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/2011-sebac-agreement-crisis-in-connecticut-the-sebac-scandal-wmv-vote-no/
….and I question how clear their motivations were in bargaining  our interests . Were they more interested in benefitting their philosophical/political alignments? and  forwarding the interests of the charitible organizations some represent?
 
again ask yourself…
Would I vote for this agreement if I knew I wasn’t going to get layed off? 
 
Good Luck…vote safely!

2011 SEBAC Agreement: Crisis in Connecticut- The SEBAC Scandal.wmv — VOTE NO!

 Info available  to all on line … get informed through your own research!…  Union leaders/execs have their own interests in all of this!  VOTE NO!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CvZVVDaKiM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 we have Leo Canty’s Agenda here:

http://canty2010.wordpress.com/health-care/

for info on Dan Livingston, Bob rinker and Sal Luciano see this blog post https://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/sebac-2011-and-possible-conflicts-of-interest-of-union-negotiators/

http://ctpeoplebeforeprofits.blogspot.com/2009/05/dan-livingston-accepts-merrilee.html

 

and other agendas here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/afl-cio-leader-gladly-accepts-communist-party-award/

http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/Unions-Democrats-and-Communists-One-Big-Angry-Family/

2011 SEBAC Agreement: 5th year 3% is a “bargaining chip”

Real quick as it’s getting late…. a quote from  the union president at tonight’s info session….”the last 3% (year 5) is a bargaining chip”…meaning that if you were slated to receive 2% or $2.5% next month as agreed in the 2009 Agreement, it was originally  only intended to give the union somewhere to start this negotiation round! The unions are adding the last 3% as a starting point for the next round! You are not necessarily meant to receive this increase! Do not be snowed by this deal!

Using this same logic ask yourself if you think the Healthcare Pooling Plan/HEP Plan is the bargaining chip for the next round of healthcare change….can you hear the Govenor saying  a few years (or sooner!) from now….’merge your healthcare pool with SustiNet Plan or I’ll have to lay off thousands!

and by the way……yes this Agreement will be opened again for sure  in 2015….or sooner….figure you are not voting on 0,0,3,3, ?…..but  -2.5 ( depends on your contract),0, 2.5,1.5,  then year 5…0 or -3

and one more thought…hey OFA…is the 3% an assumed savings in Malloy’s  long range budget?

2011 SEBAC Agreement: “Conflicts evident in deal between Malloy and unions”

This was reported in the Waterbury Republican-American Newspaper 6/6/11…no author was listed

“Conflicts evident in deal between Malloy and unions”

“The biennial budget fiasco that unravels every other year in Hartford is imploding on schedule this spring. One central facet of this mess is the “deal” that has been worked out between SEBAC, the state workers’ bargaining unit, and the governor’s office. Everyone directly involved in the negotiations is speaking confidently about the chances the rank-and-file members will sign off on this deal without fanfare. I’m not so confident.

One of the stickier issues in this morass is the activity of one Sal Luciano. Sal is the executive director of AFSCME Council 4, which represents more than 33,000 unionized state employees, including many of the people I work with in the judicial branch. Council 4 pays Mr. Luciano more than $151,000 annually for his services. Mr. Luciano is one of the negotiators ostensibly representing those he refers to as his brothers and sisters in Council 4. The problem is that Comrade Sal seems to be trying to serve two masters in this endeavor. Mr. Luciano is also one of the 11 members of the board of the not-yet-established Sustinet. Sustinet is charged with implementing health-insurance reform in this state. Many people, myself included, think Sustinet is meant to be a precursor to single-payer health care in Connecticut.

Channeling state employees into Sustinet is part of the deal union members are to vote on. There is a great deal of consternation over Mr. Luciano’s apparent conflict of interest. To understand his behavior, one need only follow the money.

In May 2010, the Sustinet board released a report on federal health-insurance reform. One hundred fifty thousand dollars of the funding came from the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut (UHCFC), which with three other foundations provided $615,000 to produce the report. UHCFC also gave $100,000 to Council 4 from 2009 to 2010.”

 
 

2011 SEBAC AGREEMENT: More thoughts on voting (heck) NO ! ! !

2011 SEBAC AGREEMENT: More thoughts on voting NO!

So this week the Malloy Administration and Unions did their utmost to show State Employees that we are not getting a healthcare plan by the name of SustiNet. (you can read of the name changes in other entries in this blog) In a move to squelch the SustiNet information read about by State Employees on State Websites and other blogs. the House, on June 3rd, 2011 “recommitted” the SustiNet Bill HB 6305 to the Human Services Committee. This essentially takes the Bill “off the table” for the rest of this Legislative session(which ends June 8th….and thereby “technically” it’s out the picture during the SEBAC voting process. There is no word how quickly this can resurface next session

Read it here Journal of the House 06/03/2011

http://cga.ct.gov/2011/jnl/h/2011HJL00603-R00-JNL.htm
BUSINESS ON THE CALENDAR

MATTER RECOMMITTED

On motion of Representative Sharkey of the 88th District, the following matter was recommitted to the committee indicated:

HUMAN SERVICES. Substitute for H. B. No. 6305 (RAISED) (File No. 341) AN ACT CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTINET PLAN.
… here .. http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/wyman_seeks_to_clarify_sustinet_rumors/ http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/wyman_seeks_to_clarify_sustinet_rumors/
and here…

 http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=6305&which_year=2011&SUBMIT1.x=0&SUBMIT1.y=0

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/H/2011HB-06305-R00-HB.htm

(In the meantime…while I write this ( on Sunday morning) ads sponsored by the Universal Healthcare Foundation of Ct. are running  every half hour on WTNH, encouraging people to contact their Legislators to support the SustiNet Bill.)

What are dealing with? HB6308 , which combines aspects of the former SustiNet bill with the Connecticut Healthcare Partnership Bill http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=6308&which_year=2011&SUBMIT1.x=7&SUBMIT1.y=6

 This is meant ” To allow nonstate public employers, municipal-related employers, small employers and nonprofit employers to join the state employee health plan.” according to the Bill Status Report

see also : Health Care a site from the House Democrats of Ct.

http://www.housedems.ct.gov/healthcare/index.asp

Bottom line….The healthcare partnership “pooling plan” needs pool of people to start with so others can dive in…. State Employees are it!

In other action this weekend not reported by Ct. TV News Channels:

CT News Junkie | House Gives Final Passage To Insurance Exchange Bill http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/house_gives_final_passage_to_insurance_exchange_bill/

“The House on Saturday gave final passage to a bill to create a health insurance exchange that creates a quasi-public agency to develop and run an exchange where individuals and small businesses can buy health insurance.

Here is the Bill:  http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=921&which_year=2011&SUBMIT1.x=0&SUBMIT1.y=0

Now I’m not saying the media is “hiding this info”…but they did report on The change in the “possession of marijuana law” http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archive/entry/senate_votes_to_decriminalize_small_amounts_of_cannabis/

 and the mandatory sick leave law passage. http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/paid_sick_days_passes_house_after_x_hours_of_debate/

…yet they reported nothing about the Health Insurance issues going on.  Why? or Why Not?

So nothing else has changed regarding my thoughts on Voting NO on this sham of a deal!

A mass meeting regarding the Agreement was held at the State Armory Saturday 6/4/11. From other blogs I have read …only preselected questions sent in beforehand were dealt with.  Many “answers” given were conflicting, or didn’t really answer the question asked. …I was not there myself and can not verify this information.

IMO…NOW is the time to hold the line! State employees have not broken the law…why are we being asked to accept a “plea deal”?

State Union members were never consulted or asked for what they might be willing to give up! Malloy is bullying the membership and essentially saying “my way, or the highway”. Threatening to lay off State employees and then scapegoating and projecting the fault onto us for program closures.  Malloy is spending over a billion on a useless busway, and an unnecessary NEW medical center in this economy, all while allowing huge tax breaks to corporations and banks,this is insane!
Some of what he is asking for yes, there are some good concepts….all of it …NO WAY!.

What will we be giving up next time when the State is “short of funds”? With the passage of the sick leave bill do we need to be concerned the next time we are asked for concessions we will be asked to give back some of our current sick leave to make our benefits the same as the private sector? …Just a thought…Just saying….

Holding the line this time isn’t just about this Agreement. it’s about future Agreements! Administrations will feel free a few years down the line to tap into “the State employee fund” with a yes vote this time around.

The State was supposed to make deposits into the pension fund for years and never deposited a dime., and SEBAC allowed this to happen through years of concessions. State Employees didn’t create the problem…why should the “cure”  be focused on our backs? VOTE NO!

fyi…For those who think this page might be the work of the “outside forces” claimed by SEBAC…I can assure you that it is not…. I am a state employee, and it is a compilation of research I have done on the issues surrounding the SEBAC Agreement.