Senate Passes Collective Bargaining
Reforms; House Declines, But Labor Gets Message
by Christine Stuart and Hugh McQuaid, CTNewsJunkie, June
30, 2011 10:08pm
The Senate
tackled changes to collective bargaining and
passed the bill 30 to 6 shortly after 8:30 p.m. Thursday, while the House
debated a bill that gives Gov. Dannel
P. Malloy increased rescission authority.
House
Speaker Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, made it clear earlier in the evening that the
House would not take up the collective bargaining changes being debated by the
Senate.
“We’re not
debating that today,” Donovan said. “That doesn’t mean we won’t bring it up if
the deal doesn’t go through.”
He said the
collective bargaining bill will remain on the House agenda and can be taken up
in the future if the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition can’t reach an
agreement on the $1.6 billion concession package. And despite SEBAC’s inability to delineate a clear path forward,
Donovan remained optimistic.
“If there is
no agreement we may be dealing with these issues. So right now we are
concentrating on dealing with the budget issue. That’s why we came in,” Donovan
said.
A staunch
supporter of labor, Donovan said he hopes state employees will take notice that
the item is remaining on the House calendar.
Asked
whether the unions are bothered by that fact, Matt O’Connor, SEBAC spokesman,
said “we’re confident we’re going to reach a resolution.”
But that’s
not to say the unions don’t take seriously the legislation the Senate passed
Thursday.
“It’s a real
fiscal problem, but the last thing we need to do is make permanent changes that
have real implications for the quality of life in Connecticut,” O’Connor said.
O’Connor
remained confident SEBAC would reach an agreement on the concession package
even though under its current rules the vote could not be ratified.
“Chances are
good that it passes,” O’Connor said. “How we get there I really don’t know.”
Republican
lawmakers said the support by some Democrats to change how pension benefits are
calculated was “for show.”
“With
respect to changes to collective bargaining, it’s all a show,” Sen. Minority
Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said. “There is no intention of passing that
legislation. It’s just about showing that they’re tough when in fact they
really aren’t.”
“The voices
of all of our constituents have been silenced by the willingness of Democratic
leadership to give all of this power to Governor Malloy,” McKinney said.
The Senate
spent several hours on the bill, which they acknowledged was largely symbolic.
The bill
focused on eliminating longevity payments for state employees not yet eligible
for them and freezing longevity payments for those already receiving them. The
longevity changes could be made to union contracts as they come up for renewal,
but the pension benefits would not be changed until 2017, the expiration of the
SEBAC agreement.
The bill
also would have changed the definition of “salary” for pension calculations in
order to exclude overtime, longevity, fees or any other payment in the
calculation.
It passed
with broad support on both sides of the aisle after a debate marked by uncommon
agreement.
“Albeit [the
bill was] symbolic perhaps and not real because it won’t be taken up in the
House, it is an important one nonetheless. It is a sign for the first time in
my 13 years that as Democrats and Republicans we agree on making some long-term
structural changes,” McKinney
said.
McKinney
said that in passing the bill, the chamber set the state on a very different
path. He hoped the House would someday soon take up the measure, he said.
Senate
President Donald Williams said even that if the House never takes up the
measure, it wasn’t pointless. He compared it to amendments submitted by Senate
Republicans all the time.
“We know
that those amendments rarely have a chance of passage and becoming law.
However, you bring those forward to send a message. You bring those forward to
present your ideas so that perhaps – not today – but perhaps tomorrow, next
week or next year, they resonate,” he said.
If the
bipartisan consent seemed unusual so did the points of contention.
Early in the
debate, observers scratched their heads as they watched Enfield Republican Sen.
John Kissel defend longevity payments for some state
workers while the traditionally pro-union Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, called
for their end.
Prague said
people should have the ability to negotiate good salaries, good pensions, and
good health care benefits.
“I don’t
believe people should get paid longevity for working 10 years just because
people stayed in a good job,” she said.
Sen. Leonard
Fasano of North Haven
was one of two Republicans to vote against the bill. He said it was starting to
seem likely that the unions would find a way to ratify an agreement and the
bill only existed as something to hold over their heads.
“This is
just hanging in the House to make sure the deal goes through and no structural
changes that this body, this Senate bipartisan says they want – it’s not going
to happen and I as a legislator refuse to vote for a bill that’s going to die
as soon as it leaves that clerk’s desk,” he said.