|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
****JavaScript
based drop down DHTML menu generated by Visual QuickMenu Pro. (OpenCube
Inc. - http://www.opencube.com)****
|
|
|
|
|
News Archive
» 2010
» 2009
» 2008
» 2007
| |
| |
 |
Big-City Mayors Snub Malloy - Courant.com
10-June-2010
The big-city mayors of Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport have all worked with Dannel Malloy, who was mayor of Stamford for 14 years.
They have common interests as Democrats, as mayors, as fighters for urban renaissance, and as advocates who have stood together when pleading for more money at the state Capitol.
But instead of supporting their fellow city-dwelling Democrat in the upcoming gubernatorial primary, all three mayors have turned away from Malloy to throw their support to Ned Lamont of Greenwich, who lives and works in one of the nation's wealthiest suburbs.
When Lamont unveiled his plans for the cities this week, he stood side by side with New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, who defeated Malloy in a bitter gubernatorial primary in 2006. Without any experience as a big-city mayor, Lamont still has the ability to get the job done on education, transportation and other issues, the mayors said.
The dire need for job creation this year, DeStefano said, is sharply different from the issues that the state faced four years ago in the last primary.
"Ned's skill set and his life experiences are unique in this respect,'' said DeStefano. "I respect his opponent as a manager, but in terms of temperament and where we've got to go as a state in terms of job creation and having a public policy background, Ned is the right package of skills, experience and temperament. This is not 2006, man. This is a very different world.''
Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch said the three mayors talk on a regular basis, and they all came to the same conclusion that Lamont was the better candidate to win both the primary and the November election.
"We looked at the political landscape,'' Finch said Wednesday. "We looked at electability, and we threw it all in the mix. Ned would be the one who would help me get a new Harding High School and a new train station, which we desperately need.''
Hartford Mayor Eddie A. Perez worked hard for Malloy in 2006, but now supports Lamont. One key reason was that Lamont was persistent in asking the mayors about their needs and in pledging support.
"He convinced the other two large-city mayors the way he convinced me,'' Perez said in an interview Wednesday. "What works for Hartford works for New Haven and Bridgeport. We're very, very dependent on state aid, and we need a governor who understands the human side and the economic development side. I mean jobs. We have to grow the state. The state unemployment rate might be 9 percent, but my unemployment is 18 [percent] to 25 percent, depending on which age and which cohort.''
Job Experience
Malloy did not have an immediate explanation on why the big-city mayors have swung their support to Lamont.
"I don't spend a lot of time wondering about it,'' he said.
He then cited his own support among mayors and top officials in smaller cities, such as New Britain, New London, Bristol, East Haven, East Hartford and West Haven. With that level of support among delegates, Malloy won the party's convention endorsement last month by a ratio of more than a 2-to-1. Lamont, however, has been leading Malloy among Democrats statewide in the past four Quinnipiac University polls over the past six months and was ahead last month by 17 percentage points. A new Quinnipiac poll comes out today.
During the next two months of the campaign, both Lamont and Malloy will be fighting for the all-important votes in the cities, which traditionally represent deep bastions of Democratic support. Despite the endorsements by the high-profile mayors for Lamont, Malloy says he is the one with the life experience and the work experience that has focused sharply on urban improvement.
"This is something that is my life's work,'' Malloy said. "I've always lived in cities. I'm a guy who was born and stayed in a city. … I'll take my urban backing and stack it up against Ned's urban backing.''
In his first job out of law school, Malloy noted, he moved to New York City and worked there as a prosecutor. When that stint ended, he returned to the city of Stamford, where he was raised and now lives with his family.
Malloy served as mayor from 1995 through 2009 — running the state's fourth-largest city — before he decided against seeking re-election and, instead, started running for governor full time.
After Lamont unveiled his plan for the cities this week, Malloy countered that he is the mayor who was actually working in the trenches for 14 years on the urban issues of crime, affordable housing, transportation and job creation.
"The difference between Ned and myself is he can do it on an academic level,'' Malloy said. "It's like building a house and not being a carpenter.''
Along with their views about how to create jobs and improve education, the candidates will be battling over who has the right experience to solve the state's myriad problems as the next governor.
"I think experience is the issue,'' Malloy said. "He's highlighting, in many ways, his inexperience. … I'm not the self-funder. I'm not the wealthy guy. I'm the guy who has done it.''
Malloy's words were echoed by East Hartford Mayor Melody Currey, a former Democratic state legislator who is supporting Malloy as a fiscally moderate Democrat.
"I think Dan Malloy showed in Stamford his ability to take a city and turn it around to make it into one of the most livable cities in the country,'' Currey said. "People want to move there. … Government is not a business. It's government. We don't have time to educate someone how to run government.''
Revitalizing Cities
But Hartford City Council President Pedro Segarra said that Lamont — despite having a completely different educational background and upbringing — has a strong understanding of the cities that would make him the best candidate for governor. Segarra volunteered that he arrived in Hartford as a 15-year-old runaway in the 1970s and the son of a welfare mother from The Bronx.
Lamont, by contrast, grew up as the son of a wealthy family who graduated from a prestigious prep school and Harvard College before attending graduate school at Yale University.
Segarra, who attended Lamont's announcement on revitalizing the cities, says he will do whatever he can to help Lamont win.
The issues facing the cities and the rest of the state — jobs, transportation, education and health care — will be widely discussed during the next two months as the candidates start broadcasting TV commercials and increase their direct-mail campaigns leading up to the primary on Aug. 10. For his part, Lamont said that cleaning up contaminated properties and transforming them into job-creation centers is the type of expensive groundwork that the state can provide to the cities.
"I tell the mayors that there are some things that a governor can help,'' Lamont said. "It starts with brownfield remediation. It starts with property tax reform. … You want precision, high-end manufacturing right here in our cities. We can continue to forgive property tax on that equipment so people have an incentive to be here in New Haven, an incentive to be in Hartford, and that's how you go forward.''
Among the six candidates for governor, only Malloy and Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele currently live in a city — with both having attended high school in Stamford and still living in the city. Besides Lamont in Greenwich, Republican R. Nelson "Oz" Griebel lives in Simsbury, and Republican Tom Foley has lived in Greenwich for the past two decades. Independent candidate Thomas E. Marsh lives in the riverfront suburb of Chester.
All six candidates are scheduled to appear at 1 p.m. today at a forum at the annual Connecticut Business Expo at the Connecticut Convention Center in Hartford.
| | | Legacy for One Billionaire: Death, but No Taxes - NYTimes.com
10-June-2010
Legacy for One Billionaire: Death, but No Taxes
Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle, via Associated Press
Dan L. Duncan, in 2006. He was an avid big-game hunter.
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: June 8, 2010
Facebook
Twitter
Recommend
comments (626)
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share
Close
LinkedinDiggMixxMySpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalink. A Texas pipeline tycoon who died two months ago may become the first American billionaire allowed to pass his fortune to his children and grandchildren tax-free.
Related
Times Topic: Inheritance and Estate Taxes
Enlarge This Image
"A Rockefeller Family Portrait"/Little Brown Publishers
When John D. Rockefeller, America’s first billionaire, died in 1937, his estate paid 70 percent.
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (626) »
Dan L. Duncan, a soft-spoken farm boy who started with $10,000 and two propane trucks, and built a network of natural gas processing plants and pipelines that made him the richest person in Houston, died in late March of a brain hemorrhage at 77.
Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan’s riches — Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world — would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher — 55 percent.
Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan’s four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.
The United States enacted an estate tax in 1916, and when John D. Rockefeller, America’s first billionaire, died in 1937, his estate paid 70 percent. Since then, the rates have fluctuated, but this is the first time the tax has been repealed altogether.
The bonanza in tax savings for Mr. Duncan’s descendants is sure to be unsettling to those who have paid estate taxes on more modest wealth — until Jan. 1 of this year, it applied to any estate valued at more than $3.5 million, taxing only the money exceeding that threshold, or $7 million for a couple’s estate.
Although the tax affects only about 5,500 estates a year, it is such an incendiary issue that when Congress unexpectedly let it lapse at the end of 2009, financial advisers warned that it might play a macabre factor in the end-of-life decisions being weighed by heirs of elderly Americans. Some estate lawyers worried that tax considerations might prompt their clients to keep an ill relative on life support through the end of 2009 to get the favorable treatment — or worse, resist life-prolonging measures to hasten a relative’s demise before the end of 2010.
The one-year lapse in the estate tax was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001, an accounting quirk in his package of tax cuts. Although Democrats pledged to close that gap and reinstate a tax for 2010 when they took control of Congress, they failed to reach an agreement last December. The Senate Finance Committee is now trying to forge a compromise that would reinstate the tax, but even if that effort succeeds, it is unclear whether any changes might be retroactive and applied to those who have died so far in 2010.
Many lawyers say Mr. Duncan’s heirs have the means and motivation to wage a fierce court battle to challenge the constitutionality of any retroactive tax.
Representatives of Mr. Duncan’s family, his estate and his business interests did not return calls about the matter. Mr. Duncan’s will, which is on file at the Harris County Probate Court in Houston, was written in 2006 and amended in 2008, a time when most estate planners assumed that Congress would not allow the tax to lapse. Federal law has long allowed an unlimited amount of assets to pass untaxed to a surviving spouse, and Mr. Duncan left his home and ranch to his wife of more than 20 years, Jan, along with stock valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.
But the bulk of his estate is left to his children and grandchildren, and would have been taxable in 2009 or 2011.
In addition to personal effects bequeathed to his descendants — boats, jewelry, automobiles, shotguns and a 5,500-acre Texas hunting ranch stocked with wild game — he passed on his holdings in EPCO and Dan Duncan L.L.P., two entities in the natural gas and pipeline empire he built. The stock involved includes more than 100 million shares in Enterprise GP Holdings, which closed at $43.23 the last trading day before Mr. Duncan died. That asset alone could have resulted in a $2 billion estate tax.
The Treasury collected more than $25 billion in estate taxes in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.
Elaborate estate plans with sophisticated trusts are often made many years before death to reduce estate taxes owed by the richest.
Advocates of the tax say it is unconscionable that Congressional leaders have allowed the richest Americans to reap a new tax break at a time when deficits are soaring and the income gap between wealthy and poor citizens remains near historic levels.
“The ultrawealthy in this country will still be able to pass on enormous wealth to the next generation,” said Chuck Collins, who studies income inequality and has worked with billionaires like Warren E. Buffett and Bill Gates to promote an estate tax. Mr. Collins argues that the tax is a “recycling program for economic opportunity.”
But opponents, who label it a death tax, say it is unfair because it taxes the same income twice — once when it is earned and again when it is passed on to heirs.
Mr. Duncan’s eldest daughter, Randa Duncan Williams, is serving as executor of the estate and is a voting member of the family trust that will now control her father’s interest in Enterprise GP Holdings.
Should the family trust sell these inherited shares, capital gains taxes would presumably be owed on the difference between Mr. Duncan’s original cost, which could be quite low, and their market value when sold. Capital gains taxes are capped at 15 percent.
Ms. Williams, who has served as a director and general partner at the family’s energy businesses for years, was deeply involved in her father’s philanthropic efforts and is expected to continue much of that charitable work.
During his life, Mr. Duncan contributed to a wide assortment of wildlife foundations and community institutions like the Houston Zoo and Houston Museum of Science, and an assortment of medical institutions. The various medical centers at Baylor College of Medicine received more than $250 million from Mr. Duncan and his wife, with more than $100 million used to found the Dan L. Duncan Cancer Center.
Mr. Duncan’s will designates a handful of nonprofit groups and charitable foundations that will receive donations, all of which would have been tax-exempt even in years when the estate tax was in effect.
An avid big game hunter — Mr. Duncan has more than 500 entries in the Safari Club International record book for killing animals including polar bears, rhinoceroses, bighorn sheep, lions and elephants — he made a $1 million donation in his will to the Shikar Safari Club International Foundation.
The will also directs that any money or assets not otherwise specified for a relative or charity be deposited into two family charitable trusts, which can be used to donate to causes deemed worthy by his heirs.
| | | President Of Hartford Teachers Union Calls On Superintendent To Apologize For Remarks - Courant.com
10-June-2010
The leader of the Hartford teachers union has called on Superintendent Steven Adamowski to apologize and urged that he be reprimanded by the state and the city school boards for remarks he allegedly made at a mediation session Wednesday.
The union and Adamowski have been meeting with a mediator to discuss his proposal to switch from a systemwide seniority system to a school-based one. Currently, a teacher selected for layoff at one school can "bump" a teacher with less seniority at any city school. Adamowski wants to change the rules so that a teacher selected for layoff could only bump a person with less experience at the same school.
Andrea Johnson, president of the Hartford Federation of Teachers, said in a statement that Adamowski "became quite animated while defending his position for the right to hire and fire teachers at certain schools not based on seniority." She then quoted Adamowski as saying that "Abraham Lincoln didn't free half the slaves. He freed all of them."
She said in a letter to the chairmen of the school boards that "he seemed to draw a parallel between Hartford students and slaves or one between the local union and slave masters."
Johnson said in her letter that she was disturbed by the comments and that either inference was unacceptable "particularly from someone whose job it is to serve the public."
Johnson said that several union representatives asked him to cease the inappropriate comments, but he continued, prompting several African American union members to leave.
School spokesman David Medina said Wednesday that Adamowski was tied up in a school board meeting and would be available to respond today.
| | | 4 city workers lose jobs Union officials question decisions that led to budget-related layoffs - RepublicanAmerican
10-June-2010
TORRINGTON — Four city employees were laid off Wednesday, the consequence of Board of Finance-ordered budget cuts, and city unions and a supervisor took aim at the decision-making process behind the staff cuts.
Three of the employees were in the public works department, said David Kissko, president of the union that represents most city employees. The fourth was Zoning Enforcement Officer Mike O'Neil, a seven-year employee who earned a nearly $50,000 salary, City Planner Martin Connor said.
Mayor Ryan J. Bingham said Wednesday night that the public works positions eliminated included a parks caretaker, an equipment maintenance mechanic and a streets department laborer. While Bingham said he does not expect to shed more staff before the fiscal year begins July 1, he declined to comment on other plans to meet the Finance Board's mandate to cut $300,000 from the city budget because he has not yet informed department heads of other reductions.
Informing staff members they were losing jobs Wednesday capped "the worst six months of my life," Bingham said, referring to the January through May budget process.
The cycle included the refusal of the City Council to choose from 14 layoff options Bingham presented in May, an unsuccessful effort to obtain mid-contract concessions from employee unions, and ultimately, the Board of Finance decision to further slash an already picked-over budget.
Kissko, the union president who represents the majority of city employees, said he viewed the layoffs on Wednesday as "politically motivated" payback for the union's refusal to go along with health benefit changes and furlough days.
"I think the general consensus of the union members was, how many times can you be cut before you bleed out?" Kissko said. "We're operating at a bare minimum now. By losing those three gentleman in public works, it's going to create a snowball effect. We're going to have to pull trucks off the road. A caretaker is going to have to pick up the rest of the work (in city parks)."
While Bingham said he "values every employee" and agreed the city was at minimum staff levels before the layoffs, he denied using the layoffs as retribution for the unions.
"It's not retaliatory by any means: If we have a $300,000 figure to hit, and we can't push off purchasing pens and paper anymore, we need sustainable cuts for next fiscal year," Bingham said. "My first goal was to bring the unions to the table and find ways to save money and ask them to make concessions. It didn't happen for whatever reason, and we're still trying to hit a $300,000 to cut."
Larry Dorman, a spokesman for the local AFL-CIO chapter, said Wednesday that in closed-door meetings with the union earlier this year, Bingham's presentation seemed ambiguous and lacked any clear benefit to workers — including assurances that jobs would be kept.
"When we had that first meeting, the numbers from the city's end were very imprecise about why they needed these savings other than avoiding a (tax) rate increase," Dorman said. "The conversation was very vague and very troubling because the mayor basically said, I could use these concessions, but I can't guarantee anything."
Dorman criticized the mayor for failing to outline a more comprehensive, long-term strategy 18 months ago, when the city's fiscal crisis first emerged, that could have made structural savings that would have saved jobs and services.
"We're not the reasons the cities and towns are struggling. It's broader reasons, and Torrington workers have stepped up time and again to make savings," Dorman said. "We made it very clear with (Personnel Director) Thomas Gritt that we want to be part of a solution that looks at how services are delivered and how we can come up with cost-savings ideas. It's hurtful to show very little interest in actually getting ideas from us."
"We're not the reasons the cities and towns are struggling. It's broader reasons, and Torrington workers have stepped up time and again to make savings," Dorman said. "We made it very clear with (Personnel Director) Thomas Gritt that we want to be part of a solution that looks at how services are delivered and how we can come up with cost-savings ideas. It's hurtful to show very little interest in actually getting ideas from us."
Bingham said that in the next several days, he will make an announcement about the creation of a panel that will study long-term cost savings, but he denied excluding the unions from input: "If they wanted to come to the table, we'll be happy to do that."
City Planner Martin Connor and Inland Wetlands Officer Kimberly Barbieri each expressed concern over the dismissal of O'Neil, whom Barbieri said was unprotected because he was a non-union employee.
"I can't believe they looked at the effects this would have other than this was low-hanging fruit," Barbieri said. "How this was handled, with no thought for what exactly his role is, just was very unprofessional."
Without O'Neil, Connor said that he and Barbieri will likely find themselves mired in zoning enforcement issues instead of writing grants and providing professional guidance to the city's economic development efforts.
Bingham said O'Neil was not targeted because he was unprotected by the union.
"Of course there's going to be loss in service across the board, but it was trying to be as minimal as possible," Bingham said. "I have to make tough decisions and I know what I'm doing is right."
| | | Oil Spills Into US Rep. Race - newhavenindependent.org
03-June-2010
The political currents of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill washed up on New Haven’s shores Monday, as candidates for U.S. Congress injected the issue into their campaigns.
U.S. Rep Rosa DeLauro (D-3) (pictured) issued a statement “applauding” the Obama Administration for announcing it might pursue legal action against BP executives for their role in the oil spill, the largest in U.S. history.
DeLauro also cited her record to seek to align herself with sentiment critical of BP: her cosponsorship of a current bill to “to lift
the cap on BP’s liability for the Gulf of Mexico disaster from $75 million to $10 billion”; and her prior introduction of a proposed 50 percent tax on major companies’ crude oil profits of over $50 a barrel.
“I remain deeply concerned over the tragedy that is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico and its impact on local citizens and on the region’s delicate ecosystem,” the ten-term incumbent Democrat stated in the release. “I will be working with my colleagues in Congress to make certain that those who are responsible for this disaster will be held accountable.”
DeLauro’s Republican challenger, meanwhile, released a statement blasting the incumbent for alleged family ties to BP.
The candidate, Jerry Labriola (pictured), called on DeLauro “to explain why she hasn’t disclosed her husband’s lucrative relationship with the company behind the largest environmental disaster in American history.
Labriola claimed that the polling firm run by DeLauro’s husband, Stanley Greenberg, “represents” BP.
“Stan Greenberg is entitled to make a living, but where is the line?” Labriola is quoted as saying. “One has to ask: does the money Stan Greenberg makes conflict with his wife’s ability to represent the people of the 3rd Congressional District and her claims on her website?”
DeLauro’s campaign responded that Stanley Greenberg’s firm, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, in fact does not “currently” represent BP.
DeLauro campaign spokesman Chuck Swirsky said in response to a question that he doesn’t know if Greenberg has represented BP in the past.
Howard Briskin, the chief operating officer of Greenberg’s firm, said Wednesday that BP was a client for “probably” ten years. The firm offered BP “reputational and brand management.”
Briskin said the firm has not represented BP since last fall. “Since then, we have nothing,” he said.
That’s enough to raise questions, argued Labriola’s campaign manager, Tanya Bachand.
Greenberg’s firm helped “greenwash” BP’s image, she said in a conversation Wednesday.
“Listen. We’re capitalists. You go and make money. We don’t have any particular issue with that,” Bachand said.
But “BP’s image certainly is environmentally friendly. This very rig got a safety award. That begs the question” about greenwashing.
Meanwhile, the DeLauro release sought to turn the bedfellows argument back on Labriola. It quotes campaign spokesman Churck Swirsky as noting that Labriola’s campaign manager, Tanya Bachand, has served as statewide coordinator for the Tea Party “and presumably favors a ‘drill, baby, drill’ position on offshore oil.”
Bachand responded that the Tea Party favors “an all of the above approach” on energy: wind, solar, and “including drilling, yes… Energy independence is a national security issue.”
| | | Court’s Decision May Not End Labor Dispute for State Police - CT Newsjunkie
03-June-2010
Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s administration was successful Tuesday in getting Connecticut’s Supreme Court to block close to 50 State Police lieutenants and captains from forming a union and negotiating its first labor contract.
The court’s 4-2 decision Tuesday overturns a lower court ruling and a state Labor Board decision. In the majority decision the court found that the lower court applied an “improper” legal standard in sustaining the Labor Board’s decision that lieutenants and captains are not managerial employees.
Union attorneys argued in February that that lieutenants and captains are not managerial employees because they lacked a level of independent judgment. However, the justices concluded that independent judgment isn’t a mandatory part of being a manager.
Despite the court’s decision Tuesday the union says the fight may not be over.
“Nevertheless, the evidence in this case is more than sufficient to entitle these employees to collective bargaining under the statute even with the ruling of the Supreme Court. We look forward to a speedy reconsideration by the Labor Board,” said Robert Krzys, legal counsel for CSEA/SEIU Local 2001.
“If Governor Rell is as committed to public safety as she says she is, she’ll drop these legal maneuverings and encourage the ranks of the department to step up to command positions by allowing them to form a union,“ Lt. Ed Gould, president of the Unions council representing the lieutenants and captains, said.
If they receive a favorable second decision from the Labor Board and Rell or the next governor decides not to appeal then there’s a chance the union may still prevail.
The dispute over the formation of a union dates back to 2006. By 2007 the labor board had certified the election, but the state refused to recognize and negotiate with the union.
In 2007 Attorney General Richard Blumenthal refused to represent Rell’s administration in fighting the Labor Board’s decision in court.
“I announced that I would not represent the State of Connecticut in this appeal as I believe opposition to the unionization of police lieutenants and captains is wrong as a matter of policy,” Blumenthal wrote in a letter to the union president.
Rell’s administration decide to continue to fight the Labor Board’s decision and hired the law firm of Kainen, Escalera, and McHale to continue to represent the state in the appeal.
The union anticipates that the dispute over its right to organize will continue until a new governor is named.
| | | Staff Complains Of Labor Issues At CVH - wfsb.com
03-June-2010
MIDDLETOWN, Conn. -- Staff at Connecticut Valley Hospital in Middletown said the hospital is relying on forced overtime for routine scheduling and is undermining safety and quality of care standards.
In a report given to Gov. Jodi Rell, mental health professionals concerns are made known regarding mandatory overtime and staffing shortages.
It said that studies show this results in low energy levels, slowed reaction time and lapses in attention to detail.
"I just worked six straight days of mandatory overtime," said Albert Honegan. "I came in at 3 p.m., and left at 7 a.m the next morning, for six straight days."
Mental health professionals stormed the Capitol in Hartford on Wednesday calling on Rell to move quickly before a meltdown of specialized care in Connecticut occurs.
Tamara Cunningham said, "I'm tired of (Rell) telling us one thing and just taking out from under our table. I mean, Cedar Crest is closed, what's the answer next?"
The employees said Connecticut Valley Hospital relies heavily on forced overtime, all while shifts still remain unfilled. They also dropped off the report of the under-staffing to an employee of Rell's.
It said the problems were exacerbated by large numbers of state-mandated layoffs in 2003 and the large number of skilled and experienced staff who accepted retirement incentive program in 2009.
Because of economical problems plaguing the state, many of the 140 positions remain unfilled. | | | Waterbury pools would stay open in exchange for 4 public works jobs - Republican American
03-June-2010
WATERBURY — The city pools will stay open, but having a cool, wet place of refuge for local children will come at a price — four public works department employees will lose their jobs.
A landscape architect, two mechanical equipment operators and a janitress would be laid off among other cuts to trim $500,000 from the department budget without the closure of any city pools or parks, director John Lawlor said.
"I don't want to do this," Lawlor said. "This will cut deep."
Lawlor was one of several department heads to appear before the Board of Aldermen's budget committee Wednesday. The panel is struggling to pass a city budget that will not require a big tax increase. The budget group did not conclude its work, but adjourned until tonight. It will meet after the board's hearing on the budget — which be held today at 7 p.m. at Kennedy High School — to continue debate.
By Wednesday, the committee had agreed to cut Mayor Michael J. Jarjura's proposed $385.3 million budget by about $5.8 million. The cut, which includes at least 11 layoffs, would reduce the tax increase from 2.81 mills to 1.67 mills.
For an average taxpayer, who owns a home with a fair market value of about $170,000, that would mean a $200 tax increase instead of a $300 one. The taxpayer would most likely see his or her water bill go up about $10 a year.
But the committee has yet to officially adopt a budget recommendation while it hashes out several lingering issues, including whether the city should accept a hazy fire budget or keep funding the Greater Waterbury Chamber.
It is also awaiting a blue-collar union vote Sunday that may give the Board of Aldermen concessions in exchange for not laying off any blue-collar workers. As of Wednesday, the management union was the only one to agree to givebacks.
To read the complete story see Thursday's Republican-American or our electronic edition at http://republicanamerican.ct.newsmemory.com.
| | | Picketing workers confront Red Cross - thehour.com
03-June-2010
The American Red Cross Workers Union began a three-day protest outside its Norwalk chapter Wednesday in reaction to what they call unlawful labor practices that arose from recent collective bargaining negotiations.
The picketing outside the Norwalk office coincided with picketing in Farmington, where the company is headquartered, as well as picketing around the country in New York, Georgia, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan and California.
The unions represent more than 1,000 Red Cross blood drive workers who have been without a contract since April 2009. Red Cross workers in other states are still under a binding contract and thus cannot and would not strike, said Christine Holschlag, AFSCME Union president and representative of Connecticut.
About 200 members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3145 picketed in Norwalk to help change blood-drive staffing practices and conditions workers believe are imperative to protecting donor and blood safety.
"We are disappointed the AFSCME has decided to protest against the Red Cross," said Donna M. Morrissey, spokesman for the American Red Cross of Connecticut. Morrissey said the Red Cross will continue negotiating in "good faith" with union members despite the protests but could not put a timetable on a resolution.
Larry Dorman, spokesman for Council 4, said the Red Cross has pushed substandard and expensive pension and health-care plans on their employees since their contract expired in 2009.
"New hires are being forced into a 401k plan instead of a defined benefits plan," Dorman said, who also noted that existing employees have been forced into expensive and substandard family health-care plans.
"We are unified, we are strong, and we will not break," Holschlag said, adding that the Red Cross is "putting profits before the safety of its donors and employees."
Picketer and local Red Cross employee, Nancy Newton, said the AFSCME has brought a number of complaints and charges against the Red Cross. The union claims the Red Cross denied access to insurance information pertinent to contract negotiations, dispanded long-term disability for part-time employees and also eliminated the matching of funds in employees' 401k's. Newton said the Red Cross is also demanding the union abandon its bargaining rights.
The strikes will be limited to three days, the AFSCME Local 3145 said, as to not impede the process of getting much-needed blood to patients across the country.
Wednesday's picketing was pointed by a news conference featuring Brian Petronella, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 371 in Westport, as the keynote speaker. Petronella, a Norwalk resident, has donated blood more than 40 times throughout his life, but said he will not donate blood until the AFSCME and the Red Cross have come to a contract agreement.
Workers are having a difficult time -- not only getting a fair contract and proper working conditions -- but also in holding the Red Cross accountable for its actions, Dorman said.
Along with four claims filed by the union against the Red Cross, the organization continues to endure fines. Since 2003, the Food and Drug Administration has fined the Red Cross $21 million for blood-safety violations.
The AFSCME plans to hold a hearing in August with hopes of resolving the issue.
| | | Red Cross Strike Ending Friday - Courant
03-June-2010
Even before picketing began Wednesday morning in Farmington and Norwalk, Red Cross strikers announced their strike would end after three days.
The decision was made nationally "in the best interest of the availability of the blood supply," said Larry Dorman, spokesman for the American Federation of of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 4. "Our goal isn't to disrupt the blood supply."
But Red Cross officials said the blood supply was never in jeopardy, even though blood drive workers coordinated the strike in New York, California, Ohio, Michigan, Connecticut and West Virginia.
About 210 phlebotomists, licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, drivers and lab techs have been working without a contract for a year. Their union has filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the Red Cross has broken labor laws by unilaterally dropping the pension for new hires, changing health insurance cost sharing and retaliating against union activists.
Because the Red Cross made these changes nationally in order to cut costs, cases are pending around the country. Most recently, California NLRB directors ruled in favor of the Red Cross, saying the pension and health care changes were legal.A hearing has been scheduled in Connecticut on the complaint.
State legislators and Secretary of the State Candidate Nancy Wyman marched with the strikers Wednesday, as dozens of drivers honked their approval.
Christine Holschlag, president of the bargaining unit, said Red Cross management sent a letter saying the workers on strike were dropped from the non-profit's health insurance the moment the strike began. Dorman said that was not the reason the strike was curtailed.
Wyman condemned the move. "I don't understand how the American Red Cross, that is dedicated to giving life, can threaten to take away health care."
Red Cross spokeswoman Donna Morrisey said: "AFSCME made the decision to strike, not the Red Cross." She responded to Wyman's charge that the action betrays the Red Cross's values by saying: "I disagree with that."
Felicia Dillon, a phlebotomist with the Red Cross for six years, said she was striking because registered nurses are only supervising blood drives two or three days of the five days she works each week.
"I feel like donor safety is compromised," Dillon said.
Dillon, whose sign said "Stop Red Cross union busting," said she hoped even a short strike would bring a fair contract. "I have full faith in my union stewards," she said.
| | | GOP diners treated to Rell, Rowland and Democrats' misfortune - CtMirror
20-May-2010
STAMFORD - It was a night for Republicans to gloat a bit about the Democrats' Black Tuesday, tell a new joke about Dick Blumenthal, recognize John G. Rowland and say good-bye to Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
Nearly 800 Republicans crowded into an under-sized ballroom Wednesday night for the annual Prescott Bush fundraising dinner, bringing in $300,000 and setting the stage for this weekend's GOP nominating convention.
"Isn't it great to be a Connecticut Republican?" asked Chris Healy, the GOP state chairman.
Gov. Rell, ex-Gov. Rowland: 'Great to be a Connecticut Republican' (Mark Pazniokas)
This week, it is.
On Tuesday, the Democrats saw their U.S. Senate candidate, Blumenthal, forced to explain how he "misspoke" about his military record and their candidate for attorney general, Susan Bysiewicz, compelled by a court to quit her race.
"The running joke today is Jane Fonda spent more time in Vietnam than Dick Blumenthal," Healy said from the stage. "And Susan Bysiewicz will have plenty of time to get her 10 years of legal practice."
The crowd roared.
Blumenthal, a stateside Marine Reservist during Vietnam, is on the defensive this week about a 2008 speech in which he both correctly referred to his Vietnam-era service and incorrectly referred to serving in Vietnam.
The state Supreme Court unanimously found that Bysiewicz, the Democrats' best-known candidate after Blumenthal, lacks the 10 years of active practice to hold the office of attorney general.
Her Republican brother-in-law, Ross Garber, who declared his candidacy for attorney general earlier Wednesday, worked the crowd. He may be joined in the race today by Rep. Arthur J. O'Neill, R-Southbury, who was co-chairman of the House impeachment inquiry of Rowland in 2004.
Garber, who represented the office of the governor during the impeachment inquiry, chatted with Rell, who became governor after Rowland's resignation.
During a tribute to Rell, candidates and their surrogates criss-crossed the room. Former U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson stood in the back, selling a young couple on the virtues of her candidate for governor, Oz Griebel.
"They know him to be a straight shooter," Johnson told them.
Rell, who is not seeking re-election, was invited to the stage for the last time as governor.
"I want to say thank you, really and truly. Thank you for everything," Rell said.
She announced she has a fourth grandchild on the way, due around Election Day.
Rell spoke for just 90 seconds, leaving to a standing ovation.
Earlier, Rell walked past Rowland's table without the former running mates acknowledging each other. It was unclear if one noticed the other.
Healy later recognized Rowland from the stage, the first time he was so acknowledged since his resignation and conviction on federal corruption charges. Rowland stood and waved. He was warmly applauded.
On his way into the ballroom at the Stamford Plaza, Rowland predicted that Blumenthal would survive the military-record controversy and stay in the race.
He and his wife, Patty, were surrounded by well-wishers. As New Britain Mayor Timothy Stewart walked by, Rowland smiled and loudly announced, "This is the future of the party right here. You can mark that down."
When a reporter he knew took out a camera, Rowland smiled. He hadn't seen the reporter shoot photos before.
"You're taking your own pictures now?" he said, his grin growing wider. "How the mighty have fallen."
| | | Rell Vetoes TARP Tax and Small Business Relief Bill - CT News Junkie
20-May-2010
As expected Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed a bill that would have eliminated the business entity tax for 46,000 small businesses by creating a temporary tax on residents that earned Troubled Asset Relief Program bonuses.
“However well-intentioned, I cannot sign into law a bill that creates an instant budget deficit,” Rell said in a press release. “And while – like many people – I am outraged that any business that took a federal bailout would be paying out big bonuses to its executives, the law does not permit us to target individuals with punitive taxes.“
During the Senate floor debate on the bill, Sen. Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, said the TARP bonus “surcharge” is entirely equitable because it provides relief for small businesses.
“This is a way of bringing attention to those businesses that need help in Connecticut,” Looney concluded.
But Rell assumed that the constitutionality of the surcharge or tax, which Attorney General Richard Blumenthal opined was “likely constitutional” would be challenged in court.
“Even if the TARP tax were to survive such a legal challenge, the court case would be long and expensive, adding to the burden on Connecticut’s already hard-pressed budget,” Rell said. “And given the state’s precarious financial condition, we would be taking chances we cannot afford to take if we were to spend the revenues from that tax until the court case was definitively resolved. All in all, this is simply not a bill I can support.”
Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, the main proponent of the bill, said he is disappointed in the veto.
“I am disappointed that Gov. Rell has decided to veto a bill that offered immediate tax relief to more than 46,000 small businesses across Connecticut,” said Williams. “Small businesses account for the vast majority of new jobs in Connecticut and this initiative would have offered help where it is needed most. Our plan to compensate for the tax cut by implementing a temporary surcharge on large Wall Street bank bonuses was fair and legally sound.”
While opinions on the legality of the tax vary, it’s unlikely the Democrat-controlled General Assembly will be able to override the veto.
The House voted 89 to 49 and the Senate voted 21 to 14 on the legislation. In order to override a veto the House would need 101 votes and the Senate would need 24 votes.
| | | Hartford Teachers, Officials Discuss Layoff Policies - CTnow
20-May-2010
By GRACE E. MERRITT
The Hartford Courant
May 20, 2010
HARTFORD —
In a major breakthrough, city teachers and Superintendent Steven Adamowski sat down with a mediator Wednesday to discuss a controversial plan to change the way the school district handles teacher seniority when making layoff decisions.
Just meeting with a mediator was a step forward in the often stormy relationship between the teachers union and the reform-minded superintendent.
Currently, a teacher selected for layoff at one school can "bump" a teacher with less seniority at any one of Hartford's 47 schools.
Adamowski wants to change the rules so that a teacher or administrator selected for layoff could only bump a person with less experience at the same school, a relatively new concept emerging as some states begin experimenting with school reform.
Arizona, for instance, banned seniority-based layoff rules last year. New York education officials also have asked their state legislature to ban using seniority as the only factor in deciding layoffs, while California made a similar request in January.
Adamowski said the school-based seniority rules would protect teacher quality and prevent Hartford's 19 specialty schools and theme academies from losing large numbers of specially trained, experienced teachers.
Teacher union leaders say Adamowski's plan would unfairly bump experienced teachers and potentially lead to favoritism and corruption. They said the move is a ploy to save money by getting rid of highly paid teachers and would violate the teachers' collective bargaining agreement and tenure laws.
Hartford schools are preparing to lay off 49 teachers to meet a $15 million budget gap. Under the current system, a layoff that big would result in as many as 149 teacher "bumps" and mean that two schools — Breakthrough Two and Milner Core Knowledge Elementary School — could lose their entire staffs, Hartford schools spokesman David Medina said.
Adamowski asked the State Board of Education to order the change, but the board has been reluctant to intervene in what it sees as a local dispute and a potential legal quagmire.
However, the board instructed state Education Commissioner Mark McQuillan to help arrange a meeting between the two sides
| | | Enfield Municipal Union Seeks To Save Jobs Cut In 2010-11 Town Budget - Courant.com
20-May-2010
By SHAWN R. BEALS
The Hartford Courant
May 20, 2010
ENFIELD —
The union representing many town employees isn't giving up on trying to save some of the nine jobs that were eliminated Monday in the 2010-11 budget passed by the town council.
"Our concerns, despite this budget being passed, are still very present, and we hope to address them in the next five to six weeks," said Matt O'Connor, a spokesman for CSEA-SEIU Local 2001.
The union gave the council a list of 15 suggestions that it says would help save some jobs and improve town operations. Those ideas include improving recycling efficiency, increasing fire district fees, reducing the hours that town buildings are open and enforcing energy conservation measures.
Members are especially unhappy with the plan to outsource work from the engineering department, which was eliminated in the $113.1 million budget. The spending plan is 2.5 percent lower than the current budget.
Town Manager Matthew Coppler said of 18 jobs that will be eliminated beginning July 1, three are vacant and six workers are taking early retirement through an incentive program that the town offered. Nine people will be laid off.
"It was a horrible, horrible, reckless move they made eliminating the engineering department," said Anthony DiPace, chairman of the Democratic town committee and former chairman of the planning and zoning commission. He said that consultants won't know the town well, and that the move will end up costing more money later. Council Democrats voted against eliminating the department.
The union also said it was disappointed that employees were not approached or included early enough in the budget process to have an impact. The town manager, however, disagreed.
"The process starts at the department level in November," Coppler said. "That's not an accurate portrayal of the budget process to say that they weren't included."
He said the list of 15 ideas is still missing key information, like projected savings.
"Some of these have cost implications," he said Wednesday. "If we don't have enough money to keep people employed, how can we afford them?"
Councilman William Lee asked the town to provide a detailed plan of how the staff members would be replaced.
"If they get into this and they realize we really do need a staff member to achieve [a service], I'm confident they'll come back and tell us," Lee said.
Lee said the council would be open to discussing the union's recommendations, and he said he was impressed because the suggestions seemed to have a broad focus on improving customer service rather than being just a last-ditch effort to save jobs
| | | City Council Votes To Cut $9.8 Million From Perez's Budget Plan - Courant.com
20-May-2010
By JENNA CARLESSO
The Hartford Courant
May 20, 2010
The city council and Mayor Eddie A. Perez reached a budget agreement Wednesday that cuts spending by $9.8 million and requires no increase in the tax rate.
Residents' tax bills will jump, however, because of a state-mandated 3.5 percent tax increase that's required by the phase-in of a citywide property revaluation.
The mayor's original budget proposal included a 5 percent tax hike on top of that, meaning residents would have seen a nearly 9 percent increase in taxes. Several council members said their aim was to eliminate Perez's proposed increase.
"We want to send a message to Hartford and beyond ... that Hartford is still a place you can do business. It's still a place you can live," council President Pedro Segarra said.
The council passed a resolution to cut spending in various departments. The police and fire departments saw reductions of $200,000 and $100,000 in their budgets, respectively. Nearly $7.1 million was cut from citywide salaries and benefits.
Perez said he is confident that the $7.1 million could be made up through union concessions, salary adjustments for nonunion employees, a retirement incentive program and adjustments to the pension contribution.
"We're probably going to have to work at it for 12 months," he said. "I expect cooperation from labor unions."
Matt O'Connor, a spokesman for the CSEA/SEIU local 2001, which represents 48 city employees, said the unions are prepared to talk with the mayor.
"We're eager to work with elected officials on a plan that protects the vital services [employees] deliver," he said. "At the same time, a plan that is balanced on the back of our working families is not good for the city."
Larry Dorman, a spokesman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 4, which represents nearly 500 city workers, said unions have agreed to wage freezes in previous years, and the city should "find a way to tighten its fiscal belt without destroying services."
The council cut $1.25 million from the education budget, and reduced the Hartford Arts Council account, which includes the city's Arts and Heritage Jobs Grant Program. Contributions toward public programs and the unemployment compensation account were also cut.
The city has also identified $3.8 million in new revenue from a variety of sources, including licenses and permits and federal stimulus funds.
Perez announced Wednesday that he plans to sign off on the $544.4 million budget, which will then go back to the council for adoption.
| | | Staff cuts at Red Cross harm blood supply, coalition says - The Washington Post
20-May-2010
A coalition of advocacy groups on Wednesday called on the Food and Drug Administration to investigate the Red Cross to determine if employee reductions by the organization contributed to its failure to adequately manage the nation's blood supply.
The AFL-CIO, Workers Committee for Blood Safety, the National Consumers League and other organizations said anonymous employee whistle-blowers at the Red Cross complained to union representatives that the Red Cross is reducing the number registered nurses who oversee blood donations and replacing them with staffers who were hired for other tasks and subsequently trained to draw blood.
"They've gone to a lower-cost workforce, and have had very significant turnover problems," Edward Feigen, a strategic campaign coordinator for the AFL-CIO's collective-bargaining department, said following the groups' announcement at a news conference. "People on blood drives tend to make mistakes. When there's constant turnover, when people aren't experienced, you're asking for problems."
Red Cross spokeswoman Stephanie Millian questioned the motive behind the announcement, saying it came as unions are negotiating labor contracts at Red Cross Blood Services Regions nationwide. Millian called it "a negotiating tactic to try to gain leverage at the bargaining table."
"While issues of blood safety and the presence of nurses were brought up at these press conferences, it is wages and benefits that remain the top union concern at the table in each of our negotiations, not blood safety," Millian said.
The Red Cross is a Washington-based charity that manages nearly half of the nation's blood supply and contributes to national disaster relief efforts. Since 1993, the group has been under a court-supervised consent decree due to chronic problems related to its blood collection.
In October last year, the FDA issued an Adverse Determination Letter listing three events in which the Red Cross collected blood from donors who reported a history of testing HIV-positive, and not properly testing blood for HIV infection. Other donors had histories of hepatitis infection, and blood products were not properly screened for syphilis.
Two years ago in June, federal regulators fined the Red Cross $1.7 million for washing six units of red blood cells using the wrong saline solution, according to the FDA. In February 2008, the Red Cross was fined $4.6 million for 113 instances in which the organization collected "unsuitable blood components," according to an FDA review. The Red Cross has been fined for at least $21 million for safety lapses in the past seven years.
Union officials said employees in Connecticut complained that workforce reductions created a staffing ratio of one employee for every 25 donors. In Buffalo, nurses are no longer required in rooms where blood is donated, and drivers of Red Cross mobile units are being asked to draw blood. In New Jersey, the Red Cross has reduced a force of 75 nurses to 18 over 10 years.
But Feigen and the whistle-blowers have not drawn a direct connection between the reduction of workers to problems collecting blood. The coalition provided only anecdotal evidence to support its allegations.
"Calling blood safety into question as a negotiation tactic is highly disappointing," Millian said. "The blood supply is safer today than ever before. . . . While the blood supply will never be without risk, people should not hesitate to donate or receive needed blood products."
The Red Cross has "made great strides" in decreasing overall problems associated with blood collection since 2005. The Red Cross has reduced high-risk problems with blood collections by 60 percent in the past two years, Millian said.
| | | Red Cross workers: Firings result of contract impasse - New Britian Herald
20-May-2010
NEW BRITAIN — Council 4, the parent union of AFSCME Local 3145, filed an unfair labor practice complaint Wednesday with the National Labor Relations Board against the American Red Cross.
The union alleges the Red Cross fired two phlebotomists for retaliatory purposes. The company has stated the workers were fired for insubordination, despite written statements from the staff present corroborating the workers’ concerns about hot, humid working conditions adversely affecting donors and employees.
The local president said the firings are rataliatory as the union has been working without a contract for more than a year and has authorized a strike.
Calls to Red Cross New England headquarters seeking comment were not returned.
Brianne Decio, 26, and Lisa Novicelli, 22, both members of AFSMCE Local 3145, were terminated May 11 over events that took place during a blood drive three days earlier at the High Plains Community Center in Orange.
Both workers had symptoms of heat exhaustion and went to the company equipment van for a few minutes of air conditioning. Decio had a migraine headache, Novicelli feelings of nausea. Decio said at least one donor suffered a seizure possibly related to uncomfortable conditions.
"The blood drive supervisor, a management person and not medically licensed, tried to get a couple of fans working," Decio said.
Though another worker was assigned to cover for them and the supervisor had given workers adversely affected by the heat and humidity permission to cool off, the company nevertheless put both Decio and Novicelli on immediate unpaid administrative leave pending an investigation. That investigation concluded with their termination last week.
Novicelli said they got a one word explanation—"insubordination"—with no further discussion.
"No talk of reinstatement, no exit interview," said Novicelli. "It felt like an execution."
"How can the Red Cross say its top priority is safety when they are running drives unsafe for donors and firing staff for feeling adverse effects from unsuitable working conditions?" Decio asked. "I felt it was unsafe to put a needle in a donor’s arm when I was feeling extremely sick."
Forty-eight hours after she was terminated Decio received a Federal Express package; a check was enclosed for zero dollars and zero cents. Novicelli got a check for $40. In tears, Decio called the Red Cross human resources department.
"Is this some practical joke?" she asked and was told this was the amount due her after her health insurance and tax deductions.
Decio, a union steward and member of the strike committee, and Novicelli, also a strike committee member, have been active in support of fellow union workers and the union’s stance on safety concerns during contract negotiations with the Red Cross.
"It’s a sad day when the Red Cross fires workers for getting sick on the job," said Novicelli. "We care about the donors and our jobs and will fight this injustice."
Both said they still want their jobs back.
Local 3145 President Christine Holschlag called the firings "a retaliatory move by the American Red Cross in the midst of our strained negotiations. We have reached out to various agencies, including OSHA, the FDA and the NLRB, to help get these wrongful terminations overturned."
Union members have worked without a contract for more than a year. Workers voted March 28 to authorize their negotiating team to go on strike in support of a national coalition of unionized Red Cross employees. Local 3145 members voted May 2 to authorize an unfair labor practice strike against the employer after rejecting management’s last, best and final offer.
Rep. Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, Southington, and a former Red Cross blood drive worker, said, "We were always allowed to cool off in the van."
Aresimowicz recalled that "if you were sick, you could go home. These folks were wearing heavy lab coats on a hot, humid day. What happened is a total break from what used to be done. This sounds like a political statement on their [management’s] part."
| | | Chester Selectmen Dismiss Assessor - Local Online News
17-May-2010
Chester Selectmen Dismiss AssessorBy Charles Stannard
CHESTER— The board of selectmen has dismissed tax assessor Patricia Stevenson, setting up a labor grievance and possible complaint with the state Board of Labor Relations.
The board acted on a 2-1 vote at a special meeting Monday, with First Selectman Tom Marsh, an elected Republican who recently joined the Connecticut Independent Party to run for governor on the new party’s ballot line, and Republican Selectman Tom Englert in favor and Democratic Selectman Lawrence Sypher opposed. Stevenson, who has worked as the assesor in Chester for nearly 10 years, was asked to leave her town hall office the same day.
Marsh said Wednesday the board acted after being advised by town attorney John Bennet the tax assessor was an appointed position with a four-year term under a town ordinance, though the board of selectmen had not acted on the appointment since Stevenson’s first in 2001. Marsh said he viewed the opportunity to appoint as a chance to “restructure” the office for cost savings to the town. “The fact that it is an appointed position reduces constraints on how we staff it,” he said.
Marsh said Stevenson was receiving an annual salary of about $60,000 as a full-ptime tax assessor, while many Connecticut towns with a population similar to Chester are sharing a tax assessor with another town at a reduced cost. Marsh acknowledged that Stevenson had been listed as a member of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 4 bargaining unit for town hall employees, though he maintained the appointment provision of the position supercedes the union position.
Stevenson, a 67-year-old Killingworth resident, said Wednesday she knew Marsh wanted to reduce the hours of the position,. but was surprised and disappointed by the vote Monday. “After 10 years and two revaluations I have always done my job proficiently,” Stevenson said. “I feel like I was pushed out.” Stevenson had worked for several years as the tax assessor in Westbrook before taking the Chester position.
Paul Wallace, staff representative for AFSCME Council 4, said Thursday he would be filing a grievance for Stevenson under the existing union contract with town employees, and suggested there may be “other legal violations” in the board’s action that could lead to a complaint with the state Board of Labor Relations. “I think what the town did was wrong and we’re going to represent her,” he said.
Posted by admin on Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Filed under Chester · Tagged with Patricia Stevenson, Tom Marsh
Add New Comment | | | City unions say they won't make wage concessions - The Register Citizen
17-May-2010
TORRINGTON — Several local unions that represent city workers will not reopen their contracts in an effort to reduce city spending.
A press release from spokesperson Larry Dorman detailed the plans for the unions and city employees. The unions have reopened their contracts in discussions with the city in previous years, however it was decided that now was not the time to reopen them again.
According to press release from Dorman, “AFSCME Local 442 (Police), AFSCME Local 818 (Supervisors), AFSCME Local 1579 (City Hall/DPW) and and IAFF Local 1567 (Firefighers) have met with their members and decided not to reopen existing collective bargaining agreements after agreeing to major wage concessions less than a year ago.”
The unions informed the city of their decision not to re-open the contracts and made it clear they would like to create and participate in a “Blue Ribbon Committee.”
Torrington provides important public services economically and efficiently.
Nevertheless, a committee with a broad mandate to explore cost savings and alternative fiscal solutions is sensible.
The unions would be honored to participate in finding lasting, meaningful solutions.
Also according to the release, “Last year city union members stepped up to the plate and sacrificed significantly to protect vital services. Now more than ever, those services are needed to protect and improve the quality of life in Torrington.”
A shift in the dialogue from downgrading the public workforce to investing in our community so city employees can move forward and make Torrington a better place to live, work and raise families needs to happen.
Mike Agogliati can be reached by e-mail at magogliati at registercitizen.com. Follow us on Twitter at Twitter.com/registercitizen | | | DPW workers list grievances - The Hour
17-May-2010
NORWALK
By ROBERT KOCH
Hour Staff Writer
A list of grievances brought nearly two dozen Norwalk Department of Public Works employees to City Hall last Tuesday night to speak to the Common Council.
While members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2405 said they were concerned primarily about the city possibly privatizing its garbage pickup services, the packet of materials which the union handed council members also included numerous allegations against public works management.
The issues range from use of handicapped parking spaces to injuries sustained at work to speaking Spanish on two-way radios. Included in the package is department correspondence, copies of grievances to the state Board of Labor Relations, and the union's summary of its relationship with public works Director Harold F. Alvord. Two years ago, the union presented the city a no-confidence vote against Alvord.
"Because of the original 'NO CONFIDENCE' vote against Mr. Alvord, he has done nothing but develop a pattern of intimidation, scare tactics and disciplining employees," reads the introduction to the materials presented by Local 2405 to the council. "This included his attempting to Privatize of the Sanitation Department."
Also in the materials: Local 2405 leadership alleges that union Vice President Hector L. DeJesus was denied use of a handicapped parking space at the public works garage, despite having a handicap and a handicapped accessible parking sticker. The union included a letter from Alvord to state Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner, stating that "Mr. DeJesus routinely walks in excess of 200 feet without rest" and "has never been seen using a cane."
The union maintains that another Local 2405 employee suffered a head injury while cutting down a tree and was subsequently terminated for 'fraud' by Alvord. Still another complaint charges management with creating a rule that no employee may speak Spanish on the department's two-way radios.
Neither Milton Giddiens, Local 2405 president, nor Jim Castelot, staff representative for AFSCME Council 4, could be reached for comment Friday.
Alvord, when asked about the complaints and grievance against him, kept his comments limited.
"It would be inappropriate for me to make any public comment about contract issues that are in the negotiation or arbitration process," Alvord said.
The public works director did speak earlier this week about privatizing city garbage pickup.
"In the negotiations, in our proposals, it is proposed that the city might have the right to contract out the collection of garbage," Alvord told The Hour. "We simply made the proposal that the city would have the right to do that."
The most recent collective-bargaining agreement between the city and AFSCME Local 2405 expired June 30, 2009. Efforts to reach a new contract have failed, and the matter is now headed to arbitration.
H. James Haselkamp Jr., the city's director of personnel and labor relations, said the labor grievances go through a process that begins within the public works department, come to his office and go on to the state Board of Mediation and Arbitration, if they cannot be resolved locally. He said he was surprised that the union went to the council.
"I think this is more about issues related to the contract negotiations than the grievances. Certainly they have grievances. There's no doubt about that, Haselkamp said. "But this has been a very frustrating exercise ... because of the negotiations. We've reached a technical impasse, and we got a notice the other day about the imposition of binding arbitration."
Mayor Richard A. Moccia told union members Tuesday night that he would "meet with them any time, any place, anywhere" on issues aside from the new contract.
| | | Unions offer ideas on New Haven budget
17-May-2010
NEW HAVEN — Leaders of several unions representing city and education workers gave aldermen an earful of ideas Saturday morning on how to save money and reduce waste in city government to address the city’s budget crisis.
They said they are willing to work with the city to cut the budget, but don’t want to make further sacrifices only to see the city go and spend the savings on someone or something else.
“You’re asking for five percent” back, said Tonia Gonsalves, president of Local 3429 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents Board of Education paraprofessionals. She called it unfair that workers like her should take a cut when city has “double-dippers” who retire, collect their pensions, then come back as consultants and collect a salary as well.
Among the suggestions the unions made were reducing access to color copiers and printers; installing time clocks; eliminating contract and part-time workers, including “double-dippers”; taking a closer look at use of city vehicles, cell phones and office supplies; eliminating a $250,000 purchase of tablet computers; giving residents only one free bulk trash pickup; selling ads on city vehicles and parking meters; revising building permit fees; and doing more legal work in-house.
“I think part of the problem ... is that a lot of our ideas never get acted upon,” said Tom Fascio of AFSCME Council 4.
He was one of eight or nine union leaders who met with 15 members of the Board of Aldermen in New Haven Central Labor Council headquarters at 267 Chapel St.
The meeting took place in advance of the aldermanic Finance Committee’s deliberations this next week on Mayor John DeStefano Jr.’s proposed $476 million budget.
“We’re willing to help. ... We will do our share,” said Robert Montuori, president of AFSCME Local 287, which represents Board of Education custodians.
Several union leaders said it was a problem for the unions when they give up a raises or make some other sacrifice and then DeStefano gives raises to managers or his own staff.
Aldermanic President Carl Goldfield, D-29, said, aldermen will look at some of the ideas.”
| | | Furlough Days Could Come for Hartford City Employees - NBC
13-May-2010
Furlough days could be coming to Hartford city employees as the capital city looks for ways to save money.
The furlough days are one way that has been proposed to drive down Mayor Eddie Perez’s proposed 5 percent tax increase for the next fiscal year, reports the Hartford Courant.
City Council members claim the city can save as much as $1.5 million through furloughs. The number of days imposed would depend on an employee’s position and whether that person works full time or part time.
While the mayor of Hartford has not included layoffs in his 2010-11 budget, it does increase residents' tax rate. The increase would be about $76.64 for each $1,000 of assessed property value.
The furlough days are not being received well by the union that represents hundreds of Hartford employees. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees told the newspaper that its union members had four furlough days for the current year and can’t afford another cut.
"We did furloughs last year, and as soon as we did the furloughs, they went on a spending streak," Clarke King, president of Council 4 Local 1716, told the Hartford Courant of city leaders. "I'm not willing to give anything up this year."
No final decisions have been made about the furlough days.
| | | Both Sides Appeal To Unions In Budget Fight - New Haven Independent
13-May-2010
(Updated) A city union president heard a pitch from the mayor to rally the troops behind his proposed budget—but she decided to hold the phone.
The union president, Cherlyn Poindexter (pictured), joined other municipal labor leaders Monday in a private confab with Mayor John DeStefano in his City Hall office.
DeStefano called them in to discuss efforts by some city aldermen and a citizens group called New Haven Citizens Action Network (NHCAN) to shoot down his proposed $467 million budget for the coming fiscal year.
He asked the union leaders to rally their members to contact aldermen to oppose NHCAN and to support City Hall as the budget heads toward a final vote in coming weeks. Mayoral Chief of Staff Sean Matteson circulated tailored lists for each union president with a set of aldermen to contact.
Poindexter’s response?
She said she agrees with NHCAN that the budget has waste in it.
“The mayor is pitting the unions against the residents,” she charged.
She has invited all 30 aldermen to a meeting with municipal labor leaders Saturday morning. She promised to unveil her own ideas there about how to cut alleged fat from the budget without sacrificing union jobs.
“I will tell the aldermen on Saturday where the waste is,” Poindexter promised in an interview Wednesday. “And there’s a lot of it.” The only example she’d give as a preview Wednesday was City Hall’s decision to hire a prison reentry coordinator.
Ronald Hobson, president of the city clerical workers union, said he too was unimpressed with the mayor’s call to lobby aldermen on behalf of the budget.
“We’re not going to do that,” Hobson said. ” From what I hear, the budget is not going to work. He knows it’s not going to work.”
The mayor’s message resonated more with the teachers union. Union President David Cicarella said he’s inclined to have his people make some calls to aldermen to oppose a 10 percent cut.
“A 10 percent reduction to the Board of Education would be devastating,” he said. “There’s only so much in books and paper [to cut]. It’s got to be staff. Yes, you can probably shave an administrator or two or four, and not renew some contracts with consultants. But you’ll never get to $17 million [in cuts] without getting two, three hundred teachers. That’s not palatable.”
Everyone Invites Suggestions
Thomas MacMillan File Photo
DeStefano (pictured) said Wednesday that he called the meeting in order to respond to what he called budget critics’ incomplete message. They’ve called for a 10 percent across-the-board tax cut without, he said, offering ideas about where to cut. He said he wanted to let the unions know that if such a move succeeds, union members will lose their jobs.
He said his message to the assembled union presidents was: “I want you to be clear. If I get a budget that doesn’t balance, I’m going to be required to balance it. And I will. You have a stake and an interest in this just as taxpayers do.
“By saying, ‘Cut the budget 10 percent,’ but not identifying where, I think [budget opponents] are very knowingly trying to push dramatic reductions to the workforce. It’s just clear that that would result” in layoffs.
DeStefano said he got a clear message in community meetings that people don’t want to see policemen or firefighters or teachers laid off, or libraries closed, or other services cut. “The way to reduce employee costs is going to have to be accomplished with health care and pension [adjustments]. I’ve been up front with unions about that. I don’t think we’re in a position where we should cut the number of officers who patrol New Haven’s streets,” the mayor said.
Poindexter said she doesn’t want to see the budget cut 10 percent across the board. “Cutting services means laying off my people,” she said. She also said other cuts can be found without laying off her members.
“The unions are city residents as well. We are on the same page as them. We are not against NHCAN,” she said. “Taxes do pay our salaries. But there is a lot of waste in that budget. What the mayor’s doing is pitting the unions against the residents.”
NHCAN has invited people to volunteer ideas about how to cut the budget or raise new revenues in order to avoid a tax hike and proposed parking-revenue monetization deal. Read about those efforts here. Some ideas include moving faster to installing parking fee-collection kiosks, raising street parking rates, and increasing weekend and other off-hour ticketing of illegally parked cars.
DeStefano said he welcomes suggestions for closing the budget gap without a tax increase. The city has invited city workers here to submit ideas for efficiencies or new revenues. The mayor said he similarly welcomes any new ideas that come out of Saturday’s union-NHCAN meeting.
A group of aldermen, too, has been meeting this week to draw up alternative ideas for closing the budget gap. Hearings on the budget—some of which have been stormy—continue Wednesday night at City Hall; the Independent plans to live-blog it so people who don’t attend can follow along. The budget comes up for a final vote at the Board of Aldermen on June 7.
Both Sides Lobby
Thomas MacMillan Photo
NHCAN organizer Jeffrey Kerekes, at far left, at a budget protest.
Meanwhile, NHCAN has done its own targeted lobbying to match City Hall’s, both on this website and in a mass email sent to city workers Wednesday in response to the mayor’s meeting with labor leaders.
Here’s what the email message said:
“Join us in our effort to keep New Haven affordable and to keep quality city jobs through increased efficiency, more accountability, and getting rid of divisive tactics that split this city so we do not work together.
“We understand the mayor and his executive staff are trying to rally you against the budget cuts that more than 1,000 citizens and taxpayers are seeking. Please understand we are not against city services or against any one department. We know there are considerable savings that can be achieved in every budget in the city. We also know the mayor has not looked for any of them which is why the people you serve, are facing property tax increases as high as 21% including the phased in reval. This is on top of taxes that have doubled for most of us across the last 7-10 years. Would you put up with that in your town?
“The City of New Haven is in a tough financial spot because of the mayor’s decisions across the last several years, some going back even further. It’s not all the ‘state’s fault’ all the time, as he would have you believe.
“As you know, when the mayor was running for governor, he put the school board on auto-pilot and didn’t even attend any meetings let alone monitor its budget. He agreed to generous union contracts he knew then and definitely knows now, we could not afford. In fact, the pension and healthcare promises he made to you are underfunded by hundreds of millions of dollars that no amount of tax increases will ever be able to cover. Each year he budgets only enough to pay for that year’s needs and puts virtually nothing aside for your future retirement. The debt the city is carrying has mushroomed and is robbing vital cash resources from city services, education and the proper funding of your pensions. It now consumes $62 million in mortgage payments this year—up from $30 million in 2002. And he plans to add at least another $100 million in debt this year.
“How much credibility does the mayor and his executive staff have when asking you to call an alderman about our fiscal crisis? This is the same mayor who demanded a $25K raise the day after the election and settled for $16K. This is the same staff who gave themselves unbudgeted stealth raises and allow their friends and favored few to take “special assignments” and consultant contracts most of whom were already drawing a city pension, and then laid off city workers, many of them, the lowest paid. This is the same administration who consistently violates the rules of employment so that millions are paid out in settlements and grievances and fires people for speaking with the press.
“The fact is we are in a financial crisis. Families are losing their homes and many of our citizens are out of work or are working for reduced wages. Our middle class is shrinking and the underclass is growing. We simply cannot afford any tax hike let alone a double digit one all because of poor decisions, planning and making promises we can’t keep.
“Before you pick up the phone to call a member of the Board of Aldermen, please re-consider doing so and instead channel your energies into finding efficiencies in your own department or in another department with which you are familiar. Send your ideas to us so we can help champion concrete ways to run an affordable and sustainable city. We have a community budget presentation that we would be happy to share with you and your membership. Let us know where and when we can do our presentation on the budget.
“Thank you for your service.
“(NHCAN) New Haven Citizens Action Network”
| | | Rules Let Youths Stay on Parents’ Insurance - New York Times
11-May-2010
WASHINGTON — The White House issued rules on Monday allowing young adults to remain covered by their parents’ health insurance policies up to age 26.
The promise of such coverage has attracted great interest. Employers and insurers say they have been flooded with inquiries.
Under the rules, an employer-sponsored health plan or a company selling individual insurance policies must offer coverage to subscribers’ children up to the age of 26, regardless of whether a child lives with his or her parents, attends college, is a dependent for income-tax purposes or receives financial support from the parents.
Coverage is to be available to married and unmarried children alike.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, estimated that 1.2 million people would gain coverage because of the new requirement.
The health department estimated that the average cost to cover each new enrollee would be $3,380 in 2011, $3,500 in 2012 and $3,690 in 2013.
The cost will be borne by all families with employer-sponsored insurance, with family premiums expected to rise by about 1 percent, the government said.
The rules generally take effect for insurance plan-years that begin on or after Sept. 23 this year.
However, the rules allow an exception for employer-sponsored health plans that were in existence on March 23, when President Obama signed the health care bill. In general, such health plans can exclude adult children of workers until 2014 if the children have access to insurance through another employer-sponsored health plan. That might occur, for example, if a 24-year-old child is working for a business that offers health benefits to employees.
Many insurance companies have voluntarily agreed to provide dependent coverage immediately, without waiting for the requirement to take effect in September 2010 or in January 2011, when many companies renew their coverage.
On Monday, the White House urged employers to follow the example of insurance companies and extend coverage to their employees’ adult children up to age 26 immediately.
Under the rules, insurers and employers must provide young adults with a 30-day opportunity to enroll in their parents’ coverage. Terms of coverage cannot vary based on the age of young adults under 26. Thus, the White House said, an insurer violates the law if it imposes a surcharge on premiums for children 19 to 25.
The administration offered another example, involving a company that covers employees’ children up to age 19, or up to 23 if the children are full-time students. If a worker’s child lost coverage on turning 23, the company must notify the worker that the child is again eligible for coverage starting Jan. 1, 2011.
Aaron B. Smith, executive director of Young Invincibles, an organization for people 18 to 34, welcomed the new rules, saying they would help secure affordable coverage for college graduates and other young adults looking for jobs.
But James P. Gelfand, director of health policy at the United States Chamber of Commerce, said: “Regulatory agencies may have stretched their authority in writing these rules. Adult children can live 2,000 miles away from their parents, be married and not have spoken to Mom and Dad in a year, and they could still be added to the parents’ employer-sponsored health plan just like any other child.”
Douglas H. Shulman, the commissioner of internal revenue, said that coverage provided to an employee’s adult children would generally be tax-free to the employee.
| | | SCOTUS Nominee a Cipher on Labor Issues (Updated)
11-May-2010
Updated with AFL-CIO President Trumka reaction
By Lindsay Beyerstein
President Obama announced Monday that he is nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan to fill the upcoming vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Labor activists and union officials will likely be left scratching their heads: Kagan's record yields few hints as to how she might rule on labor issues.
In 2009, Kagan became the first female solicitor general of the United States. To date, she has only argued a handful of cases before the Supreme Court. But Kagan did represent the U.S. government in the recent Citizens United Supreme Court case, arguing that corporations and unions should not be allowed to spend unlimited sums from their general treasuries to influence elections.
However, as Marvin Ammori argues at Balkinization, it is unclear whether Kagan's personal views match up with the case she argued on behalf of her client, the U.S. government. Ammori concludes that she may personally favor expanded speech rights for corporations. Organized labor was deeply divided over Citizens United, which Kagan and the U.S. government lost.
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, which filed a brief in favor of looser regulations on union spending to influence elections, congratulated Kagan today, saying:
Ms. Kagan is the daughter of a housing lawyer devoted to the rights of tenants and a public school teacher. We are optimistic that she will bring to the bench a full appreciation of the issues confronting working families in today's economy.
The nomination whisks Kagan out of the solicitor general's office before she has to take a stand on the constitutionality of Arizona's notorious new "papers please" immigration law—another issue of keen interest to labor.
George W. Bush chose Supreme Court nominees with minimal paper trails and impeccable movement conservative credentials. Kagan is no liberal stalking horse. She's a centrist who sees eye-to-eye with the president on a number of key issues. She's well liked by the Washington establishment.
Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic explains:
Kagan is part of the club. She was a domestic policy adviser during the Clinton administration. She tried to get Obama to become a Harvard Law prof. She and he are brilliant, detached, and of like minds. She has many ties in the administration.
Kagan's nomination proves once again that if you aspire to be a Supreme Court Justice, your best bet is to stay silent on the issues and make friends with powerful people. That strategy doesn't exactly bode well for those watching SCOTUS from within the labor movement.
But Trumka, at least, is optimistic, offering a hopeful "wait-and-see" approach to Kagan's thoughts on labor issues: "We look forward to Ms. Kagan's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee," he said, "and learning more fully her position on labor and employment issues."
| | | Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - usa today
11-May-2010
Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.
Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.
"The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. The real problem is spending,counters Adam Brandon of FreedomWorks, which organizes Tea Party groups. "The money we borrow is going to be paid back through taxation in the future," he says.
Individual tax rates vary widely based on how much a taxpayer earns, where the person lives and other factors. On average, though, the tax rate paid by all Americans — rich and poor, combined — has fallen 26% since the recession began in 2007. That means a $3,400 annual tax savings for a household paying the average national rate and earning the average national household income of $102,000.
This tax drop has boosted consumer spending and the economy, which grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter. It also has contributed to the federal debt growing to $8.4 trillion.
Taxes paid have fallen much faster than income in this recession. Personal income fell 2% last year. Taxes paid dropped 23%. The BEA classifies Social Security taxes as insurance payments and excludes them from the tax calculation.
Why the tax bite has eased:
• Stimulus law. One-third of last year's $862 billion economic stimulus went for tax cuts. Biggest reduction: The Making Work Pay tax credit reduced income taxes $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.
• Progressive tax rates. Presidents Clinton and Bush pushed through a series of tax changes — credits, lower rates, higher exemptions — that slashed income taxes for poor and middle-class families. A drop in income now can trigger big tax breaks and sharply lower rates, sometimes falling to zero.
• Sales tax. Consumers cut spending sharply in this downturn, thereby paying less in sales taxes.
A Gallup Poll last month found that 48% thought taxes were "too high" and 45% thought they were "about right." Those saying taxes are "too high" remain near a 50-year low.
The lower tax burden should last at least through 2010, says Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, D.C. "Virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year," he says. "So the key decision is whether to extend them into 2011."
| | | Former Conn. anchor announces bid for Congress - Courant.com
11-May-2010
HARTFORD, Conn.
Former Connecticut TV news anchor Janet Peckinpaugh says she has a good shot of defeating Democratic Rep. Joe Courtney, crediting her name recognition from working 30 years in journalism.
The 59-year-old Peckinpaugh kicked off her bid for the Republican nomination for the 2nd Congressional District seat on Tuesday.
Appearing at the state Capitol, Peckinpaugh says voters trust her because she's "been in their living rooms day and night" while working for WTNH-TV, WFSB-TV and WVIT-TV. Peckinpaugh says she'll approach being a member of Congress like being a reporter: asking what the voters want to know and making the process more transparent.
Three other Republicans are also in the race.
Peckinpaugh, who lives in Essex, owns a marketing and communications business.
Courtney is seeking his third term.
AP-ES-05-11-10 1150EDT
Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
| | | Malloy, Griebel, and Marsh Offer Ideas at Nonprofits’ Forum in Manchester - CT News Junkie
11-May-2010
MANCHESTER—What can one Democrat, one Republican, and one independent gubernatorial candidate agree upon when it comes to the state of the state?
“Aw heck, the state’s a mess,” Democrat Dannel Malloy exclaimed in his opening statement.
Republican R. Nelson “Oz” Griebel said the state has seen an erosion of opportunity over the past few years, and Chester First Selectman Tom Marsh, an Independent candidate, said state government is dysfunctional and distracted because it lacks leadership.
The three candidates may agree on the depth and breadth of the problem, but didn’t necessarily agree on a solution or what role the nonprofit community may play in the state’s recovery effort.
The three candidates were speaking Monday at a well-attended forum sponsored by eight nonprofit organizations at Manchester Community College. The questions asked by WNPR’s John Dankosky centered on issues related to poverty, education, and jobs.
Asked what is the most effective means of reducing poverty, each answered the question differently.
Griebel said confidence in the private sector to preserve and create jobs is the best way to reduce poverty in the state. Malloy said he believes a state Earned Income Tax could help reduce regressive taxation and restructuring the state’s tax structure will lead to job growth and help end poverty. Marsh focused on leadership.
Christine Stuart photo
First Selectman Tom Marsh
“We are where we are because the people in office have refused to act responsibly,” Marsh said.
Asked how they would close the state’s achievement gap between white and minority students, Marsh suggested the expansion of charter schools and the need to relieve the property tax burden. He said the state has to separate education values in response to taxation levels.
“We need to link the business community to educational opportunity,” Griebel said.
As Stamford’s mayor, Malloy said he instituted universal pre-kindergarten for all 4-year-olds to level the playing field.
And how would they ensure graduation rates?
“I’m not sure I have an answer to that,” Griebel said.
Malloy said that making sure education is offered isn’t good enough. He said the state needs to make sure children receive an education. Marsh said that simply raising expectations for students will increase graduation rates, using his daughter as an example.
Christine Stuart photo
Former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy
As far as the nonprofit community is concerned, Malloy said, they need to have a seat at the table.
The state’s nonprofit community, which contracts with the state to provide services to the developmentally disabled and other constituencies, has not received a cost of living funding increase from the state for more than three years. Malloy said it is not fair to give state workers, who provide similar services, a 6 percent increase while the nonprofits receive less.
Griebel welcomed the opportunity to meet with the nonprofit agency officials to see what services each provides and if more services can be farmed out to nonprofits. This would probably require opening the state employees union contract, which doesn’t expire until 2017.
Marsh said that if nonprofits can do the same services for less, then the fact the state has been unable to do it points again to dysfunctional leadership. He opined throughout the forum Monday that if the state gave more money to municipalities, cities and towns could take care of things much more efficiently, effectively, and at a lower cost than the state.
Republicans Tom Foley, Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, and Larry DeNardis declined to attend the forum, while Democrats Ned Lamont had an unspecified conflict and Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi canceled at the last minute. C. Duffy Acevedo, another Republican, also had agreed to attend but did not show for the forum. Democrat Juan Figueroa, who had agreed to attend, bowed out of the race on Friday.
Ron Cretaro, executive director of the Connecticut Association of Nonprofits, said he thought Monday’s forum was a “good airing of a lot of issues that are important to us.”
Since many nonprofits hold state contracts, they can’t endorse or donate money to candidates, but they can conduct public forums.
| | | Hartford Considering Furloughs For City Workers
11-May-2010
HARTFORD —
City officials are considering furloughs for all Hartford employees as a way to drive down Mayor Eddie A. Perez's proposed 5 percent tax increase for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1.
Council members said Monday that as much as $1.5 million could be saved through furloughs. The number of furlough days imposed would depend on an employee's position and whether that person works on a full- or part-time basis.
"I don't think there's anyone on the council who's opposed to furlough days," Councilman Matt Ritter said. "There is no appetite nor has there been any conversation about layoffs."
Perez's budget for 2010-11 does not call for layoffs. It includes, however, a tax increase of 3.85 mills, or 5 percent, bringing the tax rate to 76.64 mills. That equals $76.64 for each $1,000 of assessed property value.
Council President Pedro Segarra said Monday that the panel is looking to cut costs in several areas of the budget.
"We're going through the budget piece by piece. We want to bring the increase down as much as possible, hopefully with a target of zero," he said. "[Labor] is a big cost-driver."
The council on Monday introduced a resolution to consider the furloughs. It was referred to the panel's operations, management and budget committee. The resolution is designed to "get the conversation started" about whether furloughs are an option, Ritter said.
Although members have yet to iron out the details, some suggested that higher-salaried employees should shoulder more of the burden.
"People who earn more would have more of a furlough liability than people who [earn] less," Segarra said.
Clarke King, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 4 Local 1716, which represents 520 city employees, said Monday that he's against the furloughs. The union had agreed to four furlough days for the current year, he said, and workers can't afford another cut.
"We did furloughs last year, and as soon as we did the furloughs they went on a spending streak," he said of city leaders. "I'm not willing to give anything up this year."
Rhonda Moniz-Carroll, president of the Hartford Municipal Employees Association, declined to comment Monday. Attempts to reach members of the Hartford Police Union and the Hartford Firefighters Association were unsuccessful.
Sarah Barr, Perez's spokeswoman, said that talks between city officials and unions are continuing. No agreements have been made on concessions, she said.
The city last year saved more than $1 million through labor concessions, which included furloughs.
| | | Payday At Last For Avery Heights Union Workers - Courant.com
11-May-2010
Hartford Courant
May 11, 2010
When nurses' aides, housekeepers, kitchen staff and drivers went on strike at Avery Heights nursing home and assisted living in November 1999, they figured the picketing wouldn't last long.
"It was probably going to be a six-week strike, max," thought Sharon Weir, a nurses' aide who had worked for a decade at the home in Hartford's South End. Just a few years earlier, a strike ended with a settlement after barely more than three weeks.
Instead, about 200 strikers were locked out two months later as the company hired permanent replacement workers — while still negotiating.
"I was devastated," said Weir, now 45. "It seemed like someone just punched me in my gut. I couldn't believe it."
The lockout lasted as long as 2½ years for some of the workers.
Today, after 10 years of legal wrangling through six appeals, the workers who were locked out will receive back pay with interest — $2.05 million in cash, an average of $15,433 for each of 133 affected people, plus nearly half a million dollars in pension benefits.
"Even if it was a dollar, it was the principle of the thing," said Patricia Torbicki, a former van driver who will receive $28,000.
The settlement marks the end of one of the most bitter disputes in recent labor history. The chief executive of Church Homes Inc., the nonprofit owner of Avery Heights, said last month that he believed the ruling was unjust because the replacement workers were needed for quality service to residents.
"We felt we did it appropriately and in accordance with the law. I feel that the process of defending our action was biased against us at every step of the way, and our side of the story was given very little consideration," said Church Homes Chief Executive Patrick Gilland.
After the lockout, New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, fought Church Homes at the National Labor Relations Board and in federal courts, over whether the action was legal. The company and District 1199, which is part of Service Employees International Union, had a seesaw battle that ended last October, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the last appeal by the company.
"Most people from the outside were absolutely convinced the union lost the strike," said Deborah Chernoff, spokeswoman for District 1199.
The awards are based on how long strikers had to wait to be called back to work; the largest settlement is $64,654, plus pension gains.
Even some of the workers, including Weir, started to lose faith. "This is never going to happen," Weir said she thought to herself during the legal battles.
Weir and other present and former Avery Heights employees spoke about the long wait Monday at the District 1199 office in Hartford.
During the lockout, Weir, of Hartford, found another job as a nurses' aide in Vernon, paying $14 an hour — $2 more than the Avery job. But when Avery offered her full-time work again after four months, she gladly returned.
"It's right close to home. I didn't have to travel 30 to 45 minutes," she said. "Going to Avery is like going home. It still is."
But even after she went back to work, she continued to picket on her days off, on behalf of the workers still locked out.
Her friend Herman Davies Jr. was out of work for the full 2½ years.
Davies, now 58, had taken a housekeeping job at Avery in 1992 after he was laid off from a better-paying sheet metal fabricating job at Hamilton Standard in the late 1980s. Twenty years later, he's back at Avery, making $15.74 an hour — the same salary he made at Hamilton (now Hamilton Sundstrand).
He said he was disgusted when he learned about the lockout. "We had good workers. Why would you go in and trade a good Cadillac for an old Ford?"
Davies applied for dozens of jobs, but said that when prospective employers heard he was from Avery, the tone changed. "They didn't say it, but you felt it." He said they'd say: "We'll call you in a couple of weeks." The call never came.
Davies relied on unemployment and then strike pay, as well as his wife's nursing aide salary, in the years he was out of work.
Now, he'll receive tens of thousands in the settlement — he declined to say how much. His youngest daughter is going to college in the fall. Some will go into retirement savings. "Everybody will get some, even the dog," Davies joked.
As the years dragged on — and former strikers worked side-by-side with replacements, some of whom are still on staff — management told them to forget about the battle for back pay, Weir said.
"You're never going to get this," she said they would say. "It's going to be tied up in court forever."
Torbicki, 39, of Newington, thought the case might be settled after she died. In 2001, she said she was hired in the union office as a receptionist, and later moved into health benefits administration. She makes about $18 an hour now.
"I don't have any resentment towards them," she said.
In contrast, her co-worker Pina Scionti, 51, of Wethersfield, still is angry that the nursing home locked her out after she'd worked there for 19 years. It was hard to leave the residents. "They [the company] wanted the union out," she said.
Both Scionti and her 20-year-old son Tony were locked out. She ended up working at the union office.
Tony Scionti is getting married this year, and the $8,000 Pina Scionti will receive, along with the $5,000 for him, will help pay for the reception. Scionti said she is pleased that she took the opportunity to better herself, as her salary — more than twice what she made at Avery — was critical during the recession when her husband's steel fabrication work dried up.
For some former strikers, going back was tense. Some of the replacement workers were hostile. Weir said she got written up frequently after her return to work. She said she was never written up before the strike.
But she wouldn't hide her allegiance to the union, or be meek with supervisors. "I am the one always jumping in," she said, even when she worked at nonunion nursing homes early in her career.
"I used to hate the way they talked down to people because you're from another country," said Weir, who moved from Jamaica 21 years ago. "This is a 50-year-old woman or a 60-year-old woman that you should respect."
She wiped angry tears away. "I am so, so proud. We won. I say today, our fight was not in vain. Somebody listened."
"I am so, so proud. We won. I say today, our fight was not in vain. Somebody listened." Sharon Weir, below, a nurses' aide at the Avery Heights nursing home and assisted living
Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant
| | | CT Red Cross union ready to strike - hartfordbusiness.com
11-May-2010
Unionized Red Cross workers in Connecticut have rejected the latest and final contract offer from the nonprofit's management, moving them a step closer to a potential strike.
Members of AFSCME Local 3145, which represents 215 front-line blood collection workers at the Connecticut Blood Services Region of the American Red Cross, voted 153-14 to reject the management proposal during a May 2 membership meeting in Farmington, the union said.
The workers also voted 152-14 to authorize a strike over the employer's unfair labor practices, the union said. The National Labor Relations Board has issued four complaints against the Connecticut Blood Services Region.
Workers are now preparing to potentially join a national strike.
AFSCME Local 3145 members have worked without a contract for more than a year. On March 28 the workers voted 161-13 to authorize their negotiating team to go on strike in support of a national coalition of unionized Red Cross employees.
The local Red Cross had no immediate comment.
| | | Rell’s Reluctance Re: Contract Review - CTnews.com
23-April-2010
GOVERNOR’S DELAYS IN CONTRACTING STANDARDS DEMAND NEW FOCUS ON TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The Connecticut Contracting Standards Board met today for the first time since 2007. The “Clean Contracting” law passed in 2007 created the reconstituted board, and the legislature intended it would begin work in 2009 reviewing contracting policies. However, Governor Rell delayed her appointments to the board and proposed cutting the funding necessary to support its efforts.On January 1 of this year, the statute granted the SCSB new oversight authority to perform a cost benefit analysis of proposed projects.
“Citizens only need to read recent news accounts to understand the importance of the work the board is mandated to perform,” said John Vitale, a leasing property agent in the Department of Transportation’s Office of Rights of Way. “Recent news about the Carlyle Group’s service plaza contract demonstrates what little oversight there currently is. If the Contracting Standards Board had been active last year, more could have been learned about this 35-year, multi-million dollar deal before it was too late,” said Vitale, the President of the Council in CSEA/SEIU Local 2001 which represents engineers, inspectors, and planners in the DOT.
State public service workers are urging the State Contracting Standards Board (SCSB) to take concrete steps toward establishing long overdue safeguards for taxpayer dollars and greater protection of public safety and health. Members of CSEA/SEIU Local 2001 and Council 4 AFSCME are also calling on Governor M. Jodi Rell and the state legislature to support the board’s efforts.
“The governor and legislature need to understand that this board has the ability to save taxpayers money,” said Roberta Price, an administrative assistant in the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services’ Southeast Connecticut Mental Health Authority. “But it’s about more than that. Providing the board the resources needed to do its work will not only ensure that precious state dollars are well spent, but that citizens’ health and safety are protected,” said Price, the President of Local 610 in Council 4 AFSCME, which represents state administrative-clerical employees in southeastern Connecticut.
Members of both unions are calling on the governor to aid the efforts of the board and increase transparency in contracting-out. They are proposing all Executive Branch contracts receive prior approval in the same manner as required for State workers’ out of state travel and that their scope of work be posted at the governor’s website one week prior to their execution.
Currently, the law requires state contracts to be posted on the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) procurement portal website, which is both cumbersome and difficult to navigate. Requiring the governor to post Executive Branch contracts on her web page will provide for public scrutiny and review in an easy to use and transparent manner.
Members of both unions also call upon the legislature to restore funding for the State Contracting Standards Board to allow for the assignment of staff to assist with performance of cost benefit analyses and business case justifications of all new, renewed, or modified contracts. Contracts have been awarded without a thorough review that could determine if indeed taxpayers are getting the best value for the services performed.
| | | Last-Minute Deal Averts Crisis In Judicial Branch - Courant.com
23-April-2010
In a last-minute deal to avert a crisis in the state's courts, Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the judicial branch have agreed to keep open courthouses that had been threatened with closure because of the state's budget woes.
The deal also clears the path for an important public hearing today for nine judicial nominees whose futures had been in question in a bitter budget battle involving all three branches of government: the Rell administration, the legislature, and the judicial branch.
"Judicial is ecstatic. They're very happy," said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, the longtime co-chairman of the judiciary committee. "This is what they've been asking for all along. It solves the problem. ... This is the outcome that everyone wanted."
The judicial branch now will have enough money to keep the threatened courthouses open. No courthouses have been closed yet, but some law libraries have been closed. Lawlor did not reveal all the details of the deal, saying that the agreement is sensitive and minor issues remain to be worked out.
The judiciary committee and the Democratic-controlled legislature had threatened to hold up the appointment of the nominated judges, including Rell's longtime budget director, Robert L. Genuario, and the public safety commissioner, John A. Danaher III.
Lawlor said five of the nine judicial nominees are personal friends of his, and the issue was about principle, not personalities.
"She has no control over the appointment of judges. We do," Lawlor said in an interview at the Capitol. If the deal falls apart at the last minute, Lawlor said, "They won't be appointed. Period."
That point was reinforced later Thursday by Lawlor's fellow judiciary co-chairman, Sen. Andrew McDonald, D- Stamford, who said the Democrats are taking a "trust, but verify" approach with the governor's office.
Lawlor had said Rell needed to either address the judicial branch's financial problems or withdraw her nominations. If her office didn't budge, Lawlor said, the judiciary committee would perform its statutory duty to hold a confirmation hearing Friday but would also vote by Monday, its deadline, to give "unfavorable reports" on the nominees when it sent them on to the House and Senate for final votes. Then, he said, they wouldn't receive those final votes and the nominations would die.
The pressure apparently worked.
Now that Rell's office and the judicial branch have an understanding, McDonald said the Democrats plan to give the nominees "favorable reports" in the committee vote Monday. However, they also will hold up final approval in the House and Senate until after both chambers approve a budget bill implementing the terms of Thursday's deal to help the judicial branch.
That judicial budget bill would be transmitted immediately to Rell for her signature, McDonald said. Only after that would the nominees receive votes for final legislative approval, he said.
Rell's spokesman, Rich Harris, said the administration had no comment Thursday night on the latest development. Earlier Thursday, Rell said in a radio interview that she was moving ahead with the nominations.
"I am not withdrawing the judges," Rell said. "I don't have money to simply hand out because they want it" in the courts.
Rell noted that the courts have 22 openings for judges, and the nine judges she nominated represent less than half that number. Thus, the money for judges should already be in the budget, she said. "This is not new money," Rell said.
House Republican leader Lawrence Cafero said he expects that there will be 31 vacancies for judges by the end of 2010. The clash over the judges, he said, was really part of a delay tactic that has "more to do with the hope that it will be a Democratic governor to fill those vacancies."
| | | Seymour warned layoffs loom if budget rejected - New Haven Register
23-April-2010
SEYMOUR — If voters don’t pass the $50.72 million budget for 2010-11, the Board of Finance will have to resort to layoffs and cutting services, the board chairman said Thursday night.
“We squeezed every penny we can,” in crafting the budget, which would raise the tax rate by 2.18 mills to 27.98 mills, Board of Finance Chairman Mark Thompson said after the annual town meeting on the budget.
But Thompson said he felt fairly confident that voters would approve the budget next week.
He was impressed by the turnout for the town meeting, which exceeded 75 residents and town officials, though only two residents spoke at the Seymour Middle School auditorium.
Christine Peltier said she trusted her elected officials to come up with the best possible budget, and that a tax increase is a “necessary evil.”
She said Connecticut Magazine recently ranked small towns in the state, and Seymour came in last, tied with Ansonia. Seymour was ranked poorly in categories such as education, leisure and culture, yet residents quibble every year over funding these things, she said.
The other speaker of the night, former Board of Finance member Michele Pavlik, said she could only support a modest tax increase in the budget “if town and Board of Education labor costs are reduced, critical positions are filled and budget funding is allocated properly.”
Pavlik said she couldn’t support a budget that preserves current levels of employee compensation and benefits, yet fails to fund critical positions such as economic development director and human resources.
“Private sector businesses have frozen and reduced salaries, eliminated bonuses and pension plans, increased job responsibilities, and increased employee contributions for health plans and retirement,” she said.
Pavlik said after the meeting that she thought taxpayers wouldn’t be willing to accept the tax increase “because people don’t see what they’re getting for that increase. They see critical things being cut,” and no givebacks from the unions representing town employees.
Thompson has spoken about the need to address what he views as overly generous benefits packages for town employees. But he said Thursday that would not happen in time to affect the 2010-11 budget.
| | | Judge sides with R.I. on retiree health benefits - Projo.com
23-April-2010
PROVIDENCE — U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith has upheld the state’s trimming of health-care benefits for state employees who retire early.
Governor Carcieri on Thursday proclaimed the decision “a victory for all taxpayers” that affirms state officials’ legal authority to better align employee benefits with what the government can afford.
“It was a huge cost-saver to the state,” said Carcieri spokeswoman Amy Kempe. A savings estimate was not immediately available.
But Kenneth DeLorenzo, executive director of the employees labor union, Rhode Island Council 94 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, denounced the decision as a historic repudiation of the state’s obligations to its employees.
Council 94 had sued to block implementation of the law on state-subsidized health-care benefits — a law that Judge Smith described as an attempt by the state amid a fiscal crisis in 2008 “to tighten its belt” by reducing the amount it spends on those benefits.
In a decision entered Tuesday, Smith rejected claims by the union that the reduction in benefits violated employee rights under the contract clauses of the Rhode Island and U.S. Constitutions. Contrary to the union claims, he said, no enforceable contract exists for retiree health benefits under the state’s past practice regarding retirees, the negotiated collective-bargaining agreement between Council 94 and the state, state statute and common law.
At the time the law took effect, on Oct. 1, 2008, the collective-bargaining agreement had expired and pronounced by the governor to have been “terminated” — an important legal distinction, according to the judge. Council 94 contended that the agreement’s provision for retiree health benefits nevertheless remained in force. The judge said no.
A Carcieri proposal that the General Assembly incorporated into the state budget tightened the criteria for early retirees to be eligible for health-care benefits. The action spurred the retirement of more than 1,000 workers who beat a deadline in order to be grandfathered into more generous benefits.
As explained by the governor’s office, workers who left state service prior to enactment of the law were eligible for benefits in which the state paid 90 percent of the cost for those with at least 28 years’ service regardless of age, and full cost for those with at least 28 years’ service who had reached age 60.
The new law cut that back to have the state pick up 80 percent of the cost for those with at least 20 years’ service, but only after they reached age 59.
DeLorenzo said he agrees with the governor that the decision has historic import “because it reaffirms the state’s right to fail to meet its financial obligations to its employees.
“State employees never fail to meet their pension obligations, the 8.7 percent [of salary] that they have to pay into their pension, and they never miss their health premium co-shares” because they are deducted from their paychecks. “It’s the state that misses its payments to either the pension fund or the fund for retiree health insurance.
“Now, the state has the right to go to state employees to bail the state out of its financial mismanagement. It doesn’t seem fair and, for that reason, we are reviewing every option that we have” under the law.
Carcieri said in a statement that cooperation among state offices, including the Department of Administration, the attorney general, general treasurer and his own office of legal counsel was an important factor in the win.
| | | Chester Budget Hearing Set for April 27th - LocalOnlineNews.TV
23-April-2010
CHESTER— A proposed $3.69 million town government budget and a proposed $4.16 million budget for Chester Elementary School budget go to a public hearing Tuesday, April 27 at 7:30 p.m. at the Chester Meeting House.
The $3,695,484 town government budget for 2010-2011 is down by about $121,000, or 3.1 percent, from the current appropriation. First Selectman Tom Marsh said the reduction could be attributed to a $133,000 drop in debt service expenses from the retirement of the bond for a 1990 school renovation project. The budget includes a $393,000 capital expendture program.
Marsh said the budget includes a three percent wage/salary increase for non-union employees and elected officials, and a 3.7 percent pay increase for employees in the local AFSCME union bargaining unit, including town road crew workers and a handful of town hall employees. Marsh is not taking a pay increase, leaving the salary for first selectman at $50,792. The raises would bring the salary for town clerk to $44,239, tax collector to $27,690, and town treasurer to $15,468.
The $4,166,893 budget for Chester Elementary School is up by $49,801, or 1.21 percent, from the current appropriation. The total town spending levy of $12.47 million includes the town’s $4,616,324 share of the Region 4 education budget that goes to the voters of Chester, Deep River, and Essex for approval in a May 4 referendum.
Marsh said the total spending plan is expected to require a one mill increase in the tax rate, which is currently 22.11 mills, or $21.11 in tax for each $1,000 of assessed property value. The board of finance has endorsed a transfer of $115,000 from the town’s undesignated fund balance to hold the tax increase at one mill.
Marsh said the finance board would conduct a final review of the spending plan based on input received from residents at the April 27 hearing. May 18 is the tentative date for the annual budget meeting vote on a town spending package for 2010-2011
| | | AFSCME seeks ‘no’ vote on American Express, Wells Fargo exec pay - Pensions&Investments
23-April-2010
American Express and Wells Fargo shareholders are being urged to vote against ratifying the companies’ executive compensation in non-binding proposals submitted by the $850 million AFSCME Employees Pension Plan, Washington, according to a statement from the retirement fund.
Both companies have a “misalignment between executive pay and performance. These firms’ poor pay practices have resulted in a growing proportion of guaranteed pay that has no tie to performance,” the American Federation of State, County and Municipal. Employees plan statement said.
“Outlandish, guaranteed executive salaries and bonuses that aren’t tied to performance are unacceptable,” Gerald W. McEntee, AFSCME president and chair of the AFSCME plan, said in the statement. “This kind of excessive, guaranteed executive compensation is outrageous.”
Management and the boards of both companies support the proposals.
The American Express annual meeting is April 26 and the Wells Fargo meeting is April 27.
| | | Reinvesting in a National Treasure: Our Nation's Public Libraries - The Huffington Post
07-April-2010
Last Saturday morning, while thousands of the tech-enabled were lining up in anticipation for the release of yet another technological luxury, thousands of people were checking their email and managing their lives, digital and otherwise, from what at times seems like an antiquated place: the public library. Yet, according to a recent study, commissioned by the Information School at the University of Washington, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, a much larger number of people were likely using computers at their local library last Saturday morning.
According to Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries, over 32% of the United States population uses public libraries for their Internet access. "Internet access is now one of the most sought after public library services, and it is used by nearly half of all visitors."
Much like the iPad release seems like a new piece of technological "magic" to many of us, basic access to a computer and the Internet is radically life changing to many. Over 44% of people living below the poverty line use the Internet at libraries. Even more astonishingly, our nation's future, 14-18 year olds, have used a library computer during the past year. Libraries are not passe. If anything, they are in vogue.
Our nation's public libraries need a serious reinvestment. They should not be places using dial-up and a computer that 1998 would reject. Our nation's public libraries should be treated as national treasures. They are places of first discoveries, first words read, first experiences and the place where the "lightbulb" goes off for children and adults alike when it comes to literature, math and the sciences.
After reading the study, I went and worked at a public library. Even though I was probably using the most tech-savvy device in the place, the magic was in what was happening around me. Kids doing their homework with the help of a computer. A precocious little boy was carrying a stack of books bigger than he was. A mother was reading to her young child.
Libraries are America's real laboratories for education and engagement for over a third of our population. Technology is amazing, but pure discovery is what is still really magical.
| | | Obama may face election-year Supreme Court battle - Yahoo News
07-April-2010
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama, fresh off a bruising battle over healthcare, could face another tough fight in Congress to fill a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy if 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens retires as expected.
A confirmation battle could sidetrack Democratic plans to focus on the economy and job creation ahead of November's congressional elections in which Republicans are hoping to regain control of Congress.
Obama secured Senate confirmation last year of Sonia Sotomayor, his first high court nominee, after a heated battle in which conservatives questioned her suitability for the job.
Stevens, who leads the four-member liberal minority on the nation's highest court, said in recent interviews he will decide soon on whether to retire after nearly 35 years as a justice. Obama is expected to nominate a fellow liberal to replace Stevens and then push hard to win the required Senate confirmation for the lifetime appointment.
Obama administration officials and legal experts said the leading candidates to replace Stevens were expected to be current Solicitor General Elena Kagan and a pair of U.S. appeals court judges, Diane Wood and Merrick Garland.
"Given that it's an election year, I expect Republicans to aggressively oppose whomever Obama nominates, in order to stir up their (conservative) base," said Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice, an association of environmental, civil rights and consumer advocacy groups.
The confirmation battle could dominate Congress for some time and make it tougher for Obama's fellow Democrats to focus on trying to reduce the U.S. unemployment rate, expected to be a key issue in the congressional elections.
It also could complicate last-ditch efforts by some Democrats and Republicans to win Senate passage of compromise legislation to combat global climate change.
Liberal and conservative interest groups are gearing up for the anticipated battle and the televised Senate confirmation hearings. The confirmation process could drag the Senate into a protracted fight over contentious social issues.
Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice said Obama may want to avoid an all-out, election-year fight that focuses on such divisive social issues such as abortion, gun rights and gay rights.
IDEOLOGICAL BALANCE
The president's pick -- expected to be a liberal who would replace a liberal -- is not likely to change the court's ideological balance, which has been divided for years with five conservatives and four liberal justices.
Sotomayor was confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate last year on a largely party-line vote of 68-31.
Potential nominees Kagan, Wood and Garland, all considered moderate liberals, could face varying degrees of Republican opposition. But even conservative activists said each probably would win confirmation in a Senate in which Democrats control 59 of 100 seats. A simple majority is needed for confirmation.
Republicans could raise a procedural roadblock that would take 60 votes to clear, but Senator Jon Kyl, a member of the Republican leadership, said he did not expect such a move.
A White House spokesman said the White House would be prepared if a vacancy arises, but added there is no short list awaiting a potential vacancy.
Kagan, 49, and Wood, 59, were among the finalists for the vacancy created last year by Justice David Souter's retirement, but Obama decided to name Sotomayor. She became America's first Hispanic justice and third woman ever to serve on the court.
One Senate Democrat said Stevens should delay his retirement to next year to put off a bruising confirmation battle so soon after the yearlong fight to pass legislation to revamp the U.S. healthcare system.
"If a year passes, there's a much better chance we could come to a consensus," Senator Arlen Specter, who switched political parties a year ago, said on "Fox News Sunday."
"I think the gridlock in the Senate might well produce a filibuster," said Specter, the former Judiciary Committee chairman, referring to a vote-blocking procedure that Republicans could use for a Supreme Court nominee.
Kyl, another Judiciary Committee member, said, "I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person."
"You may see Republicans voting against the nominee, but I don't think you'll see them engage in a filibuster," said Kyl, who also appeared on "Fox News Sunday."
Boston University political science professor Graham Wilson said Obama may want to nominate someone who will face little, if any, resistance.
"The recently publicized ability of the (Republican) minority in the Senate to delay and block could be very important," Wilson said, adding that Obama might need to nominate a candidate with a safe record.
If Obama does not nominate a staunch liberal, he could face heat from his Democratic Party's liberal base.
The potential vacancy comes not long after Obama assailed the high court. Obama in January openly criticized it after the conservative majority prevailed in a 5-4 ruling that removed long-standing campaign finance limits and allowed corporations to spend freely in campaigns for president and Congress.
"This ruling strikes at democracy itself," Obama said at the time in an unusually harsh criticism of the Supreme Court.
(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason and Thomas Ferraro; editing by David Alexander and Will Dunham)
| | | Transcript Shows Bysiewicz Has Little Litigation Experience - CT News Junkie
07-April-2010
Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz admitted in her March 31 deposition that she has never tried a case, never argued a case before a judge, rarely appeared in court and represented herself in one small claims matter—which she won.
Those details were disclosed during a day-long deposition in the lawsuit that Bysiewicz filed against the Democratic Party seeking to prove she is qualified to run for attorney general.
Bysiewicz’s attorney Wesley Horton said in court Tuesday that one only has to be “eligible” to practice law, in order to qualify under the statute. “It means far more than representing clients in court,” Horton said.
Bysiewicz, who filed the lawsuit, has been adamant about her qualifications, however, Eliot Gersten, the Republican party’s attorney sought to prove otherwise when he peppered her with questions about her legal background last week.
During the first day of her deposition, which will be released on video Wednesday, Bysiewicz acknowledged the last time she collaborated on a legal brief, aside from the friend of the court brief recently rejected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, was more than 24 years ago when she worked for White and Case in New York.
“I’m a corporate lawyer, not a litigator,” Bysiewicz said in response to Gersten‘s question.
Through a more than five-hour question and answer session, Bysiewicz admitted she , never prepared a deposition or a witness for trial, never sat at the counsel’s table in court, never used the Practice Book, and last observed a court proceeding during her first year of law school.
“I believe in law school I went to an argument at the Connecticut Supreme Court,” Bysiewicz said.
“Okay. Any other occasions? And I don’t mean to sound flippant, but I don’t think—that’s the most recent one you can recall? That would be what, somewhere 25 years ago, if my math is right?,” Gersten asked.
“Yes,” Bysiewicz responded.
Toward the end of the deposition, Gersten pointed out that Bysiewicz has publicly compared herself to the current Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.
“And you’ve actually said you’re every bit as qualified as Dick Blumenthal was when he took this position based upon your legal experience, correct?” Gersten asked. “Yes,” Bysiewicz responded.
Gersten asked if she realized that Blumenthal had tried a bunch of cases before becoming attorney general.
“You never tried any cases?” Gersten asked. “No,” Bysiewicz responded.
“I believe my experience in private practice and in the public sector more than qualifies me to serve as attorney general because it more than meets the ten year requirement,” Bysiewicz responded.
Earlier this year, when Bysiewicz asked Blumenthal for his opinion on whether she is qualified he said it’s up to the judge to decide, but concluded that the statute is constitutional. Bysiewicz’s and her attorney’s disagree with the second part of Blumenthal’s decision.
Tuesday in court lawyers for both parties decided to allow Gersten to depose more witnesses tomorrow, Friday, and Monday. Horton will be expected to hand in his trial brief by Friday, and the trial will begin April 20th.
Superior Court Judge Michael Sheldon has agreed to an expedited schedule citing the need for an outcome prior to the state convention in May, where Democratic delegates will have offer their support to one of the three candidates.
Rep. Cameron Staples of New Haven and former state Sen. George Jepsen of Stamford are also seeking the Democratic nomination.
| | | Committee revenue plan hits estates, hospitals, corporations - ct mirror
07-April-2010
The General Assembly's tax-writing committee wrapped up a plan Tuesday to bring an extra $180 million to $200 million in tax revenue and federal aid into the state's coffers next fiscal year.
The Democrat-controlled Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee endorsed a dramatic hike in the estate tax, a new levy on hospital gross revenues designed to leverage more federal aid, and a new reporting system designed prevent corporations from avoiding paying taxes by hiding profits out of state.
The committee also decided Tuesday not to enact a controversial windfall profits tax on electricity generators after the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis declined to forecast any revenue gain or loss from the proposed levy.
"We really tried to get a consensus from the committee and put together the best plan that we could," Rep. Cameron C. Staples, D-New Haven, co-chairman of the finance panel, said afterward.
The committee, which absorbed heavy criticism from Gov. M. Jodi Rell and her fellow Republicans in the legislature one year ago after recommending annual tax and fee hikes worth about $1.5 million, declined to take such a big step Tuesday.
This time around, the largest tax increase - on paper - was a new 5.5 percent levy on hospitals' gross revenues. Revenue from the tax--$207 million next year--would be returned to hospitals as additional payments to offset the costs of treating uninsured and Medicaid patients. Though the industry as a whole would break even, hospitals with larger populations of uninsured and Medicaid patients would come out ahead, while many in more affluent communities would lose funding.
The goal of the back-and-forth is to qualify the state for an additional $103.5 million in federal health care reimbursements. But the finance committee announced Tuesday that $20 million of that $103.5 million would be redirected back to hospitals through a yet-to-be-determined formula designed to minimize losses for hospitals serving wealthier communities. That means the net gain in federal aid now stands at $83.5 million.
The realigning of more state assistance to hospitals under the Medicaid umbrella also would trigger a one-time increase in federal reimbursement through the emergency stimulus program of $10.8 million in 2010-11.
Outside of the hospital tax system, the largest tax hike adopted by the panel would boost all rates for Connecticut's estate tax, which is levied against inheritances worth more than $3.5 million.
The largest increase occurs at the bottom of the tax scale, where the rate on estate values between $3.5 million and $3.6 million more than doubled, from 7.2 to 14.8 percent. The increases gradually diminish in size as the estate values rise. But the top rate, reserved for estate values in excess of $10.1 million, jumps by two-thirds from 12 to 20 percent.
Democrats on the finance panel tried to downplay the estate tax increase, noting it would sunset after 2012.
But Rep. Themis Klarides, R-Derby, who opposed the tax package, said state government has a record of keeping "temporary" tax increases in place long after their original expiration dates. "Once you get that revenue stream coming in," she added, "it's very difficult to stop."
Republicans on the committee argued the estate tax increase would prompt many of Connecticut's wealthy families to move out, and that a new unitary reporting requirement on the corporation tax would have a similar effect on large businesses.
The corporate tax measure requires a group of related companies with a presence in Connecticut to calculate their tax liability jointly. The provision, which is designed to stop large corporations from minimizing their Connecticut tax payments by shifting assets and profits to out-of-state affiliates, could bring in an extra $15 million to $35 million next fiscal year, according to legislative analysts.
Titled "An Act Concerning Tax Fairness," the bill "probably should read 'tax arbitrariness,'" Rep. Vincent J. Candelora of North Branford, the ranking House Republican on the panel, said. Candelora predicted it would create a morass of confusing tax scenarios that would make businesses avoid this state altogether. The chief business lobbying group, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, has made the same argument.
But Staples responded that the state Department of Revenue Services already has taken legal action to pursue corporations it believes have shortchanged Connecticut. "It's about being transparent and making sure every company, large or small, is paying their fair share of taxes," he said.
"Some of our state's largest and most profitable corporations have been playing a shell game, quietly shifting profits out of state to avoid millions in taxes," the Working Families Party, a labor-based political organization that has pushed for the unitary reporting bill, wrote in a statement issued late Tuesday. "The result is that working families and small businesses pay more. But we simply cannot afford these corporate tax loopholes any longer."
The governor, who vetoed a Democrat-sponsored bill to increase the estate tax last December, issued a brief statement Tuesday expressing her displeasure with the overall tax package approved in committee. "It has not been a very good legislative session, so far, for Connecticut's taxpayers," she said.
One tax proposal that the finance panel defeated by taking no action before its 5 p.m. deadline Tuesday involved the controversial windfall profits tax to be levied against certain electricity generators.
The bill, approved by the Energy and Technology Committee and spearheaded by that panel's House chairwoman, Rep. Vickie O. Nardello, D-Prospect, would have taxed major generators, primarily nuclear and coal-powered plants, that earn profits in excess of 20 percent of their generating costs, claiming 50 percent of the profits that exceed this threshold level.
Though Nardello estimated the tax would have raised between $300 million and $400 million annually - which her panel wanted used to reduce electric rates for consumers - the legislature's nonpartisan fiscal analysts wrote they lacked sufficient data to assess any potential revenue gain or loss.
Nardello could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.
Industry officials and other critics have strongly disputed Nardello's estimates, arguing that more expensive staffing requirements and business regulations in Connecticut weaken the profits of generators located here.
"I think the facts are pretty clear," Daniel A. Weekly, a lobbyist for the Richmond, Va.-based Dominion Resources Inc., said afterward. "These types of taxing mechanisms do not work." Dominion owns and operates two nuclear power plants at Millstone Point in Waterford.
Other revenue items approved by the committee include:
•A new corporation tax credit for businesses that hire persons diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders and provide job coaches to assist them with their duties. The credit is expected to cost state government $500,000 next fiscal year.
•Elimination of an exemption from the $565 annual attorney's occupational tax for attorneys who practice law as state employees. This change is projected to raise $200,000 next fiscal year.
•Two measures designed to raise money for municipalities or regional agencies. One increases the hotel tax from 12 to 15 percent and the other raises fees for various town services such as notarizing documents and issuing dog or marriage licenses. They could generate an estimated $20 million in new revenue. | | | Deaths at West Virginia Mine Raise Issues About Safety - The New York Times
07-April-2010
MONTCOAL, W.Va. — Rescue workers began the precarious task Tuesday of removing explosive methane gas from the coal mine where at least 25 miners died the day before. The mine owner’s dismal safety record, along with several recent evacuations of the mine, left federal officials and miners suggesting that Monday’s explosion might have been preventable.
Multimedia
Photographs Mine Accident Devastates a West Virginia Town
.
Interactive Map Inside the West Virginia Mine Explosion
.Video: Safety Issues at W.Va. Mine (NBC)
Video: One Miner Was Due to Retire Soon (NBC)
Related
Mines Fight Strict Laws by Filing More Appeals (April 7, 2010)
Diligence Is a Factor in Controlling Risks From Methane (April 7, 2010)
The Lede Blog: Officials Explain Response to Mine Accident in West Virginia (April 6, 2010)
Miners’ Families Grapple With the News, and the Pain (April 7, 2010)
Times Topics: Massey Energy Company | Mining Disasters
Enlarge This Image
Andrew Spear for The New York Times
A sign at a church in Whitesville. Four miners remained missing after Monday’s blast. More Photos »
Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (338) »
In the past two months, miners had been evacuated three times from the Upper Big Branch because of dangerously high methane levels, according to two miners who asked for anonymity for fear of losing their jobs. Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a Democrat whose district includes the mine, said he had received similar reports from miners about recent evacuations at the mine, which as recently as last month was fined at least three times for ventilation problems, according to federal records.
The Massey Energy Company, the biggest coal mining business in central Appalachia and the owner of the Upper Big Branch mine, has drawn sharp scrutiny and fines from regulators over its safety and environmental record.
In 2008, one of its subsidiaries paid what federal prosecutors called the largest settlement in the history of the coal industry after pleading guilty to safety violations that contributed to the deaths of two miners in a fire in one of its mines. That year, Massey also paid a $20 million fine — the largest of its kind levied by the Environmental Protection Agency — for clean water violations.
It is still unclear what caused Monday’s blast, which is under investigation. But the disaster has raised new questions about Massey’s attention to safety under the leadership of its pugnacious chief executive, Don L. Blankenship, and about why stricter federal laws, put into effect after a mining disaster in 2006, failed to prevent another tragedy.
Kevin Stricklin, an administrator with the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, said the magnitude of the explosion — the worst mining accident in 25 years, which also left four people missing, including a woman working as a mining operator — showed that “something went very wrong here.”
“All explosions are preventable,” Mr. Stricklin said. “It’s just making sure you have things in place to keep one from occurring.”
Mr. Rahall said that even veteran rescue workers, some with decades of experience, had told him they were shocked by what they saw inside the mine. They said they had never witnessed destruction on that scale, Mr. Rahall said, or dealt with the aftermath of an explosion of that magnitude.
“It turned rail lines into pretzels,” Mr. Rahall said. “There seems like there was something awfully wrong to make such a huge explosion.”
Gov. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and members of Congress said state and federal officials would begin investigating the explosion.
In an interview with the Metronews radio network in West Virginia, Mr. Blankenship said that despite the company’s many violations, the Mine Safety and Health Administration would never have allowed the mine to operate if it had been unsafe.
“Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process,” Mr. Blankenship said.
“There are violations at every coal mine in America, and U.B.B. was a mine that had violations,” he added, referring to Upper Big Branch.
“I think the fact that M.S.H.A., the state and our fire bosses and the best engineers that you can find were all in and around this mine, and all believed it to be safe in the circumstances it was in, speaks for itself as far as any suspicion that the mine was improperly operated,” Mr. Blankenship said.
The Massey Energy Web site also contains a defense of the company’s safety record. It says 2009 was the 17th year out of 20 that the company had scored above the industry average in safety.
But miners and other workers in the mine took issue with Mr. Blankenship’s reassurances.
“No one will say this who works at that mine, but everyone knows that it has been dangerous for years,” said Andrew Tyler, 22, an electrician who worked on the wiring for the coal conveyer belt as a subcontractor at the mine two years ago.
Mr. Tyler said workers had regularly been told to work 12-hour shifts when eight hours is the industry standard. He also said that live wires had been left exposed and that an accumulation of coal dust and methane was routinely ignored.
“I’m willing to go on record because I am a subcontractor who doesn’t depend on Massey for my life,” Mr. Tyler said.
In March alone, the Mine Safety and Health Administration cited the Upper Big Branch mine for 53 safety violations.
Last year, the number of citations issued against the mine more than doubled, to over 500, from 2008, and the penalties proposed against the mine more than tripled, to $897,325. J. Davitt McAteer, a former assistant director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, said the Massey company “is certainly one of the worst in the industry” when it came to safety and called recent violations at the mine for substandard ventilation and other problems “cardinal sins.”
Enlarge This Image
Luke Sharrett/The New York Times
The West Virginia state police and emergency crews stood by outside the entrance to the mine on Tuesday. More Photos »
Multimedia
Photographs Mine Accident Devastates a West Virginia Town
.
Interactive Map Inside the West Virginia Mine Explosion
.Video: Safety Issues at W.Va. Mine (NBC)
Video: One Miner Was Due to Retire Soon (NBC)
Related
Mines Fight Strict Laws by Filing More Appeals (April 7, 2010)
Diligence Is a Factor in Controlling Risks From Methane (April 7, 2010)
The Lede Blog: Officials Explain Response to Mine Accident in West Virginia (April 6, 2010)
Miners’ Families Grapple With the News, and the Pain (April 7, 2010)
Times Topics: Massey Energy Company | Mining DisastersReaders' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (338) »
“The Massey record is without doubt one of the most difficult in the industry from a safety standpoint,” Mr. McAteer, now the vice president of Wheeling Jesuit University, said in an interview. He said other large, diversified coal operators had far better safety records than Massey.
In 2008, the Aracoma Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey, agreed to pay $4.2 million in criminal fines and civil penalties and to plead guilty to several safety violations related to a 2006 fire that killed two miners at a coal mine in Logan, W.Va.
After the fire broke out, the two miners found themselves unable to escape, partly because the company had removed some ventilation controls inside the mine. The workers died of suffocation. Federal prosecutors at the time called it the largest such settlement in the history of the coal industry.
The company’s commitment to safety came under scrutiny in 2005 after Mr. Blankenship sent a memorandum to his deep mine superintendents.
“If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e., build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever), you need to ignore them and run coal,” said the memo, a copy of which was obtained from Bruce E. Stanley, a lawyer who represented the widows of the victims of the Aracoma mine fire. “This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that coal pays the bills.”
In a follow-up memo a week later, Mr. Blankenship said some superintendents might have interpreted his first memo as implying that safety was a secondary consideration; in the second memo he called safety the company’s “first responsibility.”
In Washington on Tuesday during an Easter prayer breakfast, President Obama offered his condolences to the families of the victims and said the federal government was ready to help in whatever way needed.
Thirty-one miners were in the mine around 3 p.m. Monday when the explosion occurred. Some died from the explosion. Others suffocated from the fumes, state safety officials said. Seven of the bodies have been removed, and 14 have not yet been identified.
Four of the miners who were believed to have been farther back in the mine remained unaccounted for late Tuesday. Officials said there was still a possibility, though slim, that they had been able to reach airtight chambers, where there are stockpiles of food, water and oxygen.
Governor Manchin said at an afternoon news conference on Tuesday that four drills were in place to begin drilling holes behind the rescue chambers, an effort that began in earnest later in the day. It may not be until Wednesday night that rescue workers can regain entry to the mine after the first ventilation hole is drilled, he said.
“Everyone is going to cling on to the hope of that miracle,” the governor said of the four missing miners. “The odds are against us. These are long odds. They know. These are mining families. They know methane, they know about air.”
As the families of the miners waited on Tuesday, frustrations grew. State and mine officials were taking a long time to confirm the names of the dead, many of the miners said. Families also voiced frustration that they had learned about the disaster from news reports rather than from Massey officials.
Some of these tensions boiled over around 2 a.m. Tuesday when Mr. Blankenship arrived at the mine to announce the death toll to families who were gathered at the site. Escorted by at least a dozen state and other police officers, according to several witnesses, Mr. Blankenship prepared to address the crowd, but people yelled at him for caring more about profits than miners’ lives.
After another Massey official informed the crowd of the new death toll, one miner threw a chair. A father and son stormed off screaming that they were quitting mining work. And several people yelled at Mr. Blankenship that he was to blame before he was escorted from the scene.
| | | W. Haven council needs more arbitration info - The New Haven Register
07-April-2010
WEST HAVEN — The City Council wants more information before deciding whether to act on the recent police arbitration award.
The arbitration decision gives police a 4.5 percent raise spread over four years, and switches new hires to a 401(k) plan instead of the existing defined pension plan. The union believes the pension switch is a major flaw in the award.
Police union officials and Deputy Chief Joseph Perno waited more than two hours in the hallway Monday night while the council met with city attorneys in executive session to discuss the terms of the award. In the end, the council reconvened in public and allowed public comment before deciding to postpone the vote until 6 p.m. Thursday in City Hall.
“It looks nice on paper,” said Sgt. Robert Urrata, vice president of the union, “but it’s going to cost the city more money to give less benefits to employees. That just doesn’t make sense fiscally or morally.”
At the center of the council’s hesitation over approving the award is an actuarial study that shows the difference in cost between the defined pension plan and the proposed 401(k) plan. The study says the city would save $10 million in the long-run by switching new hires to a 401(k) plan.
However, the study did not take into consideration the cost of Social Security payments and disability insurance. The union maintains that the arbitration panel was not given accurate numbers on which to base its decision.
The union also warns that the switch to a 401(k) will put the Police Department at a disadvantage in recruiting new officers.
Lt. Burton Gifford Jr., president of the police union, said West Haven already has hired three officers from other departments who left 401(k) plans for the more secure pension plan. He argued that police officers put their lives on the line every day and want to have the security of a pension plan.
“They know if something happens to them in the line of duty, that their family is taken care of,” he said.
The city maintains that the existing pension plan is not financially sustainable. The arbitration award itself cites financial woes as the reason for siding with the city’s request for a 401(k), and notes that the city had to borrow $66 million to fund the police pension in 2002.
The arbitration award is considered “final and binding” unless the City Council rejects the award by a two-thirds majority. If the award is rejected, the council has 10 days to explain in writing the reason for the rejection and submit that statement to the state Board of Mediation and Arbitration and the police union. The union can submit a written response. Ultimately, the arbitration board can select a new review panel or name a single arbitrator to review the briefs and render a final, binding decision.
Contact Abbe Smith at 203-789-5615 or asmith@newhavenregister.com. | | | UAW sues GM over retiree health care payment - Yahoo News
07-April-2010
DETROIT – The United Auto Workers union has sued General Motors Corp., saying the automaker owes it $450 million for retiree health care.
In the lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in Detroit, the UAW said that in 2007, GM agreed to pay $450 million to settle a UAW claim against auto supplier Delphi Corp. as part of Delphi's emergence from bankruptcy protection. Delphi is GM's former parts division.
The UAW said the agreement should still be in effect even though GM went through its own bankruptcy reorganization last year. The UAW said it demanded the payment from GM on Oct. 29.
According to court documents, GM responded with a letter rejecting the union's demand.
The UAW says the money should go to a union-run retiree health care fund.
| | | Griswold finance board: Make 6 positions part-time - Norwich Bulletin
07-April-2010
Griswold, Conn. — The Griswold Board of Finance has proposed trimming six full-time jobs to part-time starting July 1, a move that may prompt union employees to consider legal action.
The seven positions include: Town planner, building inspector, assistant bookkeeper, assistant assessor, secretary to the building and health office, and secretary to the wetlands and planning and zoning office.
The town sanitarian job would also be eliminated, but made part of the Uncas Health District, which is taking over health department services in Griswold.
Union Local 1303-133 President John Lorange said the union just agreed to two furlough days for the current fiscal year and he feels betrayed. Four of the jobs to be cut are held by some of the town’s longest-serving employees, he said.
Finance Board Chairman Steve Merchant said the town needs the money.
“If there’s a tremendous uproar from the public, we may have to think about it,” he said. “People have two choices. We either have to cut expenses or raise taxes.”
He said Griswold is looking at about a 1 mill tax increase even with the cuts. A public hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. today in Griswold High School.
Larry Dorman, spokesman for Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said legal action is possible. “We’ll have to weigh every option on the table if we have to protect services in the town,” he said.
Town Building Inspector Peter Zvingilas, who has worked in Griswold 21 years, said he’ll consult with a lawyer if his hours are cut.
“Why not? That seems to be the thing we do in this town,” he said, referring to the wrongful firing lawsuit of former secretary Andrea Charron.
Zvingilas said the department inspects houses and the new school buildings.
“We’re a self-sustaining department that pays for our salaries,” he said. “What do you want me to do, pay off the school bond?”
| | | The Rage Is Not About Health Care - The New York Times
29-March-2010
THERE were times when last Sunday’s great G.O.P. health care implosion threatened to bring the thrill back to reality television. On ABC’s “This Week,” a frothing and filibustering Karl Rove all but lost it in a debate with the Obama strategist David Plouffe. A few hours later, the perennially copper-faced Republican leader John Boehner revved up his “Hell no, you can’t!” incantation in the House chamber — instant fodder for a new viral video remixing his rap with will.i.am’s “Yes, we can!” classic from the campaign. Boehner, having previously likened the health care bill to Armageddon, was now so apoplectic you had to wonder if he had just discovered one of its more obscure revenue-generating provisions, a tax on indoor tanning salons.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Barry Blitt
Go to Columnist Page »
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Frank Rich
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (606) »
But the laughs evaporated soon enough. There’s nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank. And as the week dragged on, and reports of death threats and vandalism stretched from Arizona to Kansas to upstate New York, the F.B.I. and the local police had to get into the act to protect members of Congress and their families.
How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.
No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its proximate cause. The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.
Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.
When Social Security was passed by Congress in 1935 and Medicare in 1965, there was indeed heated opposition. As Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post, Alf Landon built his catastrophic 1936 presidential campaign on a call for repealing Social Security. (Democrats can only pray that the G.O.P. will “go for it” again in 2010, as Obama goaded them on Thursday, and keep demanding repeal of a bill that by September will shower benefits on the elderly and children alike.) When L.B.J. scored his Medicare coup, there were the inevitable cries of “socialism” along with ultimately empty rumblings of a boycott from the American Medical Association.
But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.
The apocalyptic predictions then, like those about health care now, were all framed in constitutional pieties, of course. Barry Goldwater, running for president in ’64, drew on the counsel of two young legal allies, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to characterize the bill as a “threat to the very essence of our basic system” and a “usurpation” of states’ rights that “would force you to admit drunks, a known murderer or an insane person into your place of business.” Richard Russell, the segregationist Democratic senator from Georgia, said the bill “would destroy the free enterprise system.” David Lawrence, a widely syndicated conservative columnist, bemoaned the establishment of “a federal dictatorship.” Meanwhile, three civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.
That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.
In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.
If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.
They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.
If Congressional Republicans want to maintain a politburo-like homogeneity in opposition to the Democrats, that’s their right. If they want to replay the petulant Gingrich government shutdown of 1995 by boycotting hearings and, as John McCain has vowed, refusing to cooperate on any legislation, that’s their right too (and a political gift to the Democrats). But they can’t emulate the 1995 G.O.P. by remaining silent as mass hysteria, some of it encompassing armed militias, runs amok in their own precincts. We know the end of that story. And they can’t pretend that we’re talking about “isolated incidents” or a “fringe” utterly divorced from the G.O.P. A Quinnipiac poll last week found that 74 percent of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while only 16 percent are aligned with Democrats.
After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, some responsible leaders in both parties spoke out to try to put a lid on the resistance and violence. The arch-segregationist Russell of Georgia, concerned about what might happen in his own backyard, declared flatly that the law is “now on the books.” Yet no Republican or conservative leader of stature has taken on Palin, Perry, Boehner or any of the others who have been stoking these fires for a good 17 months now. Last week McCain even endorsed Palin’s “reload” rhetoric.
Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that’s the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too.
| | | Democrats Defend Appointments - The New York Times
29-March-2010
A leading Republican predicted Sunday that President Obama’s appointment of 15 officials while sidestepping Senate confirmation would make it more difficult to get bipartisan support for future legislation.
Related
Obama Bypasses Senate Process, Filling 15 Posts (March 28, 2010)
Blog
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
More Politics News
.But senior members of the Obama administration said that obstructionist Republicans had given the president little choice.
“This is going to make problems worse,” Lindsey Graham, a Republican and South Carolina’s senior senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
He singled out the appointment to the National Labor Relations Board of Craig Becker, a former associate general counsel for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. whom 41 Republican Senators have depicted as a pro-labor radical and who has been opposed by business groups.
But David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser, speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said the Republican Party had “taken a position where they’re going to try and slow and block progress on all fronts whether it’s legislation and appointments.” He said 77 people nominated for high-level positions within the administration have not been voted on for months because Republicans have blocked any action in the Senate through such maneuvers as filibusters.
Presidents have the constitutional authority to fill vacancies without the advice and consent of the Senate when Congress is in recess — as they are now for a spring break. Other presidents have used that authority, with George W. Bush making 15 recess appointment by this point in his presidency and a total of 171 by the end, according to Congressional Research Service.
Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, also appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” echoed Mr. Graham, saying that “what the president has done here is throw fuel on the fire at a time when the debate about politics is a very angry debate to begin with.”
“What this is going to do is cause the election of a lot more Republican Scott Browns in November who are determined to come in and provide some checks and balances in Washington to stop the overreaching of the government,” Mr. Alexander added, referring to the Republican who was elected to fill Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts and caused Democrats to lose their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.
In addition to the president’s recess appointments, Senator Graham said the Obama administration’s decision to pass health care without a single Republican vote would also make it harder to pass other tough legislation like an a immigration bill.
Senator Graham has been working with Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat, on crafting a bill that would require illegal immigrants to admit they broke the law before being eligible for legal residency and require workers to carry a biometric identity card to be eligible to work.
The plan was to draw some Republican support, but Mr. Graham said that Mr. Obama’s decision to push through far-reaching legislation like health care has made it harder for Republicans and moderate Democrats to go out on a limb.
“If moderate Democrats were to get a call from the White House to help him on immigration, most would jump out the window,” Mr. Graham said.
Mr. Graham, who was first elected to the Senate in 2002 and to Congress in 1994, has often worked with Democrats, for example sponsoring a bill with Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York to expand health care for Reservists and National Guard troops. And he was one of a group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans who agreed in May 2005 not to filibuster judicial nominees.
| | | U.S. Rep. Larson Acknowledges Threats Over Health Care Vote - Courant.com
29-March-2010
The Hartford Courant
March 27, 2010
HARTFORD —
During a stop at Connecticut Children's Medical Center, U.S. Rep. John Larson acknowledged Friday that his offices in both Washington and Hartford had received threats over the health care vote, but he declined to provide details.
Asked whether he had been a target of anger from opponents of the health care overhaul that he helped shepherd through Congress, he said, "We have."
"We've reported them to the appropriate authorities," Larson said. "We just don't go into the nature of them. We report them immediately. There's a procedure you follow and that has been done.
"I'm not downplaying those, but it's nothing that I want to dwell on. What we're going to dwell on is having hearings out in this district, having round tables with the business community, and making sure everybody's informed about this bill."
Larson visited the hospital to celebrate the passage of the bill with other supporters, including Brenda Kelley, executive director of AARP Connecticut; Martin Gavin, president and CEO of the children's hospital; and James Iacobellis of the Connecticut Hospital Association.
As one of the highest-ranking members of the U.S. House, Larson, a Democrat from the 1st District, has been front and center on the health care debate — he has become a familiar face on television and in news stories advocating for the measure.
A quick poll of the rest of Connecticut's congressional delegation Friday showed that none of the others had reported threats to law enforcement.
Elizabeth Kerr, a spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat who voted for the bill, said the 4th District congressman had received a lot of feedback. "The congressman has been very pleased with ... how much our constituents are engaged in the issue," she said.
| | | Conn. legislative committee OKs call center rules - Associated Press
29-March-2010
HARTFORD, Conn. — Trying to halt telecommunications job losses in Connecticut, unions and their allies in the General Assembly have cleared a first hurdle for legislation setting new rules for how companies' call centers are staffed.
The legislation overcame opposition from telephone companies that denounced it as an attempt to micromanage their business and state regulators who called it discriminatory.
Telephone company employees who call or are called by customers must, upon request, identify the city, state and country where they work, according to the legislation. If the employee is not in Connecticut, the customer can be transferred to a call center in the state "when possible," or if a call center exists.
In addition, the state Department of Information Technology, when buying products or services, would be required to give preference to telecommunications companies that have a high percentage of service calls directed to in-state call centers.
The legislation also would require telecommunications companies to provide to the state each year the locations of centers receiving calls from customers in Connecticut.
The bill was approved Tuesday by the legislature's Energy and Technology Committee on a party line vote, with majority Democrats voting in favor and Republicans in opposition.
"It's pro-jobs," said Sen. Gary LeBeau, an East Hartford Democrat and a sponsor of the bill. "I think that's what people's concerns are right now."
Rep. Vickie Nardello, co-chairwoman of the committee, said she is concerned that large companies such as AT&T are moving jobs out of the state.
"What's best for Connecticut's economy? Jobs," she said.
Bill Henderson, president of the Communications Workers of America Local 1298 in Connecticut, said union membership has dropped nearly 35 percent, from 6,533 in 2001 to 4,277 last year as AT&T has shifted jobs out of state.
"These are good jobs needed in Connecticut," he said.
Chuck Coursey, a spokesman for AT&T, said the company provided nearly all the traditional local telephone service in Connecticut 15 years ago, but now only provides about half.
"As the wireline portion of AT&T's business shrinks because of this competition and the dramatic increase in wireless communications, so naturally will its work force," he said.
The company is adding workers to its growing businesses in video and wireless, Coursey said.
In testimony to the committee earlier this month, AT&T said labor is among the highest costs to operate customer service call centers and is higher in Connecticut than elsewhere in the United States, placing the state at a competitive disadvantage in locating call centers, AT&T said.
AT&T said it has call center work for some of its Connecticut customers in other states, but also has hundreds of jobs in Connecticut that serve AT&T customers across the country.
The state would likely be a "net loser were Connecticut employees only allowed to service Connecticut customers and likewise in other states," the company said.
Backers of the legislation also say customer service provided from out of state would improve if available locally.
"I do think there are delays," Nardello said. "I do think there are safety issues."
However, Verizon Communications Inc. rejected the argument that call center services at a particular site "somehow provide a greater level of responsiveness and sensitivity to customer concerns and questions."
Most services handled by call centers are done electronically and the site of the call center "has no bearing on the timeliness and responsiveness of addressing customer concerns," Verizon said in testimony to the committee.
It also criticized the legislation as an attempt to "micromanage reasonable and efficient business decision-making."
The state Department of Public Utility Control, which regulates utilities, said the legislation would not extend to companies that offer local phone service over the Internet and is therefore discriminatory.
LeBeau said the legislation might have to be sent to another committee because the provision that the state give preference to companies must be reviewed.
"I don't know exactly how preference would be defined," he said. "That will have to be worked out."
| | | An Exhausting Day At The Capitol; Budget Deficit Is Exactly Where It Was On Friday At $350 Million This Year - Courant.com
29-March-2010
The cavernous state Capitol was becoming quiet.
It was 2 a.m. Saturday, and much of Connecticut was sleeping.
But the debate in the state Senate was droning on as Republican John Kissel of Enfield was asking detailed questions of Democrat Toni Harp of New Haven on a budget amendment.
"Only eight people are watching this,'' a lobbyist said outside the Senate chamber, talking about the wee hours of the morning and the building frustration of legislators, staff members, and lobbyists.
When legislators arrived at the Capitol on Friday morning to tackle the state's financial problems, Connecticut had a projected budget deficit of about $350 million for the current fiscal year.
And when they woke up today, the state still has a projected budget deficit of $350 million.
Despite a marathon day of fits and starts, rhetoric and rancor, nothing was passed into law when the smoke cleared. By 5:30 a.m. Saturday, the Senate had voted, 21 to 15, on a deficit-cutting plan that increased taxes and cut spending.
But Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell promised to veto the bill, saying the tax increases were too high and many of the spending cuts were either phantom or unachievable.
Prompted by Rell's veto threat and the Senate's failure to pass the bill by a veto-proof margin, the state House of Representatives abruptly pulled the plug and canceled a scheduled Saturday session. The House had been expected to convene in its rare weekend session because lawmakers were scrambling to pass a deficit-cutting plan before the Passover and Easter holidays. The cancelation marked the culmination of a bizarre 24-hour period in which there originally was no House session expected - only to be scheduled on short notice and then changed once again when it was canceled.
Friday's squabbles focused on the easiest of the ongoing problems - the current fiscal year. Lawmakers have still not resolved the problems for next year, in which the deficit is projected at more than $700 million, and the 2012 fiscal year, in which the deficit could balloon to more than $3 billion. The reason for the rising deficit in 2012 is that the state will have nothing left over because it will have already spent the entire $1.4 billion "rainy day'' fund and $1.5 billion in federal stimulus money to close the deficits over the previous two years.
"I hope the governor will join us in making these difficult decisions because they pale compared with the challenges that lie ahead,'' said House Speaker Christopher Donovan.
The budget battle is fraught with election-year politics, posturing and rhetoric as each side seeks to gain advantage over the other in a political, financial and policy battle under the Gold Dome.
Friday marked one of the longest days in recent memory at the Capitol as the Senate Democrats struggled to pass the plan. While long days are commonplace during bitter political clashes, no one expected the battle to last almost until 5:30 a.m.
Even before the Senate voted, the few lobbyists and lawmakers remaining in the hallways were debating over whether the House would convene for its scheduled 12 noon session Saturday. Some said definitely yes. Others said no.
The reason that the House bailed out, insiders said, came directly from Rell's veto threat. That threat came at about 11 p.m. Friday night, and it changed the dynamics in the building. Only minutes later, at 11:12 p.m., the Senate clerk's booming voice came over the loud speaker, saying, "There will be an immediate Senate Democratic caucus! Will all Senators please return to the caucus room.''
Strategically, insiders said, the liberal Democrats in the House did not want to be forced into taking any votes on Saturday to cut spending if the Senate Democrats did not have 24 votes to override Rell's veto. In addition, moderate Democrats wanted to avoid taking votes on tax increases, such as postponing tax breaks under the estate tax. Why, they asked, should Democrats be forced to take difficult votes on both taxes and spending if the bill would not become law?
Some Senators themselves asked that question, wondering why they were sticking their necks out in an election year on a tough vote.
A large part of the day - for the senators, Rell's budget office, lobbyists, and the press - was spent waiting for the bill and supporting documents to be finalized. Complicated bills are technical, detailed documents, and putting the finishing touches on them takes hours. The actual debate on the Senate floor took about 4 1/2 hours, stretching to about 5:20 a.m.
In the end, three Senate Democrats broke with their caucus, making the final vote 21 to 15. The Democratic Senators - Jonathan Harris of West Hartford, Joan Hartley of Waterbury, and Gayle Slossberg of Milford - broke with their colleagues and joined the Republicans to oppose the plan that would have laid off 21 deputy commissioners, mandated two more unpaid furlough days for non-union state employees, imposed a tax on hospitals, and postponed about $75 million in tax cuts for wealthy families under the estate tax.
When it was all over, the Democrats blamed the Republican governor. Rell, in turn, blamed the Democrats for refusing to make real spending cuts and reduce the size of government.
The Democratic leaders "are disappointed that Governor Rell's veto threat has intimidated the House into canceling their agreed-upon Saturday vote,'' said Derek Slap, a spokesman for the Senate Democrats. "Senate Democrats hope the opportunity to regroup will enable the House to approve this bill and place it on the governor's desk in the next few days.''
But Adam Liegeot, a spokesman for Rell, said, "The taxpayers of Connecticut should be grateful that the House of Representatives canceled their Saturday vote. The cancelation saved taxpayers money, time, and unnecessary political theater.''
He added, "The people of Connecticut want a resolution to our budget problems. They do not want political fighting and sniping. Now is the time for all sides to work together, make tough decisions and tackle this deficit head on.''
| | | Town salaries account for increase in budget
29-March-2010
Of the $29-million budget the Board of Selectmen has presented to the Board of Finance, the largest chunk — 44% — accounts for salaries for the town’s approximately 150 workers. The total is $12.3 million. Employee benefits account for another 24%, or $6.8 million.
The total salary line budget-to-budget increase from FY’10 (the current budget) to FY’11 is $624,445, larger, actually, than the $512,269 total budget-to-budget increase. The latter number is smaller because of cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Salaries represent an increase of $376,735 or 3.2% over the budget currently in effect. This number represents “overall employee compensation,” said Finance Director Sandy Dennies, including items like longevity pay, overtime, part-time pay, as well as regular salaries. It also includes any reserve for increases anticipated from upcoming contract negotiations. Therefore, Ms. Dennies said, this number will not change.
The increase in salaries is driven by contractual raises, Ms. Dennies said. Presently, the only town employee unions that have new contracts are the fire department and Teamsters Union, which includes primarily workers in the highway department and at the transfer station. The police union and AFSCME Town Hall Employees Union contracts expire on June 30 of this year, and negotiations have begun. Any salary increases for FY’11 have yet to be determined, according to the first selectman’s office. The salaries detailed with this story for those employees, along with non-union employees, reflect their current status, with no increases figured in. The AFSCME employees include the town’s office workers; the non-union employees are department supervisors.
There have been no salary cuts and no cuts in positions, although there has been some shifting of responsibilities. There is also one police officer position that is not filled and not expected to be filled next year, Ms. Dennies said. The department should have 44 officers; it has only 42 on staff right now with a new officer presently in the police academy.
There have also been no added positions, with the town having been under a hiring freeze for four years.
Benefits
As for town employee benefits, that line item has risen $244,710 for a 3.7% increase. A jump of about $298,000 for health insurance was offset by decreases in other areas. Benefit payments include health, dental, life insurance, pension contributions, and FICA.
Employees contribute to their benefits package. “It’s a pretty decent contribution,” Ms. Dennies said.
The town is also looking at changing insurance plans, but that is something that has to be negotiated with the contracts. “There has been no change, but we have not completed looking at them,” Ms. Dennies said. Two groups have made presentations to the town and two more have appointments to do so as well. | | | Public works union to hold food drive - Theday.com
29-March-2010
New London - The city's public works union is sponsoring a food drive April 3 in the parking lot of ShopRite in the New London Mall.
The union, AFSCME Local 1378, also has been collecting food in boxes in each city building for the past month. Goods will delivered to the Gemma E. Moran United Way Labor Food Center.
Nonperishable items can be dropped off at ShopRite between 8:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. April 3.
For further information contact Bill Barlow (860) 941-8261; Deb Sommers, (860) 449-4248; or Marianna Gaynor McGuirk, (860) 235-9299.
| | | Union Authorizes A Strike Against Red Cross In Central Connecticut - Courant.com
29-March-2010
March 29, 2010
After a year of unsuccessful negotiations, the majority of unionized Red Cross workers in central Connecticut voted Sunday night to authorize a strike.
The phlebotomists, licensed practical nurses, nurses, drivers and lab technicians are represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and they have been working without a contract for a year.
The vote doesn't mean there will be a strike — union President Christine Holschlag said she hopes to avoid one — but it's a way for the union to bring more pressure on the nonprofit organization.
Holschlag said one of the issues is that the Red Cross no longer requires registered nurses to supervise each blood drive, as they once did, and as is laid out in the contract. She said that nurses have more clout, and can bring attention to substandard conditions at mobile sites.
Red Cross spokeswoman Donna Morrissey said that blood collection and supply is "safer than ever before," and that it's not necessary to have a nurse at every donor drive to ensure that regulations are met.
Phlebotomists make about $16 an hour to start, but Holschlag said wages aren't the sticking issue.
She said that union members agreed to the wage freeze they've had for the past year, and would also accept the nonprofit group's offer of a 2 percent raise in the second year and a 2.5 percent raise in the third year of the contract.
What the union does not accept is the nonprofit's decision to no longer offer a pension for new workers, instead, giving them a 401k match, and language in the new contract that would let the Red Cross unilaterally impose changes when management deems it necessary.
Red Cross and union officials will return to the negotiating table April 25.
| | | Waiting to strike - New Britian Herald
29-March-2010
FARMINGTON — Regional union workers of the Red Cross voted Sunday to authorize a strike if their national union members walk out.
The members of AFSCME Local 3145, representing the 215 blood collection workers from the Connecticut Blood Services Region of the American Red Cross, cast their votes Sunday at the Farmington Community & Senior Center.
After the secret ballots were counted and it was announced that the majority of voters favored the possible strike, the room full of union members erupted in applause and cheers, and several workers stood up to hug one another.
The results were overwhelmingly in favor of supporting a strike, said union spokesman Larry Dorman. About 85 percent of all the Local 3145 bargaining unit members showed up to vote.
Now that the workers have permission from their bargaining unit, the workers can join in a national strike if the Red Cross Workers do take action nationally, said Christine Holschlag, a phlebotomist and president of the bargaining unit. She noted, however, that the union is still in negotiations with the Red Cross and have set up meetings.
The Red Cross workers, Holschlag said, have been working for more than a year without a contract and have filed numerous unfair labor practice complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. Two of those complaints are moving forward.
One of the union’s concerns is that registered nurses and licensed practical nurses are being taken away from blood drives.
“There are blood drives that go out without licensed personnel,” Holschlag said. She added that the Red Cross is considering allowing 16-year-olds to give blood without parental permission.
“This vote sends a strong message to Red Cross management that our workers are prepared to go on strike if that’s what it takes to protect donor and blood safety,” Holschlag said. “We’re doing everything to ensure a safe blood supply.”
The Connecticut Red Cross workers are a part of a coalition of Red Cross workers also standing up to the company.
The coalition issued a resolution earlier this month in support of the workers that specified that “blood drives are big business” for the American Red Cross.
According to the resolution, the American Red Cross had $2.2 billion in revenues in 2009 from its biomedical operations.
“While this addresses a critical medical need, ARC has a horrendous track record of protecting the safety of the U.S. blood,” the resolution states.
“We cannot allow this company to continually put profits and lavish executive compensation ahead of the well-being of loyal donors and workers,” Holschlag said.
Freesia Singngam can be reached at fsingngam@centralctcommunications.com or (860) 584-0501, ext. 7259.
| | | Democrats have proved they can govern. Can they keep it going? - The Washington Post
24-March-2010
With the enactment of health-care reform, the often hapless, sometimes hopeless Democrats have transformed themselves into something America has not seen in decades: a governing party. By passing the most significant social legislation since the '60s, they have ended the policy gridlock dating to the middle of Ronald Reagan's presidency. They have revalidated the almost quaint notion that -- despite the ever greater role of money in politics -- elections have consequences, too.
This revival was partly the result of the Democrats' decision to activate their base. Obama for America -- the 13 million-member organization of the president's supporters -- was put to sleep after Barack Obama's election. But in recent weeks it was awakened and enlisted in a massive effort to lobby wavering lawmakers. Its members sent a million text messages and made half a million phone calls to fence-sitting Democrats during the 10 days preceding the House votes on Sunday. Unions and other organizations that were already pressuring Democratic lawmakers to support the legislation intensified their efforts.
Of course, none of this would have happened had the president decided to "go small" after Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special Senate election in January, depriving Democrats of their 60-vote Senate supermajority. The president's insistence on a big bill that guaranteed nearly universal coverage -- a position he was encouraged to maintain by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who played Margaret Thatcher to Obama's George H.W. Bush in this tale -- is what motivated the base organizations to go all out for the bill, even as it required the White House to reawaken its own massive group of supporters. It also ensured that these organizations, which are critical to turning out the base in November, will actually be motivated to do so.
In the process, Obama and Pelosi became a legislative force that Democrats have not seen since Lyndon Johnson. Pelosi's contribution, no less than Obama's, is one for the history books. While there have been notable House speakers over the past century -- Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill -- none presided during periods of epochal reform, while the speakers who did (Henry Rainey and Joseph Byrns during the New Deal; John McCormack during the '60s) played negligible roles in enacting landmark legislation. Pelosi is the first speaker in more than 100 years whose role in the passage of major reform was indispensable.
Neither she nor Obama nor the Democratic organizations could bring along all of her colleagues. Most of the House Democrats who voted no come from heavily white working-class districts that have viewed Democratic reforms since the '60s as programs designed to help "other people" -- blacks in particular. Eighteen of the 34 Democrats who voted no came from Southern or Civil War-border states; three (Michael McMahon, Stephen Lynch, Dan Lipinski) came from northern urban districts (Staten Island, South Boston and Chicago's Southwest side, respectively) that have long been white ethnic enclaves known for their racial resentments (to name a few, Staten Island's would-be secession, and South Boston's and Southwest Chicago's sometimes-violent resistance to integration efforts).
But any hardworking Democratic member of Congress should be able to combat the ideological and racial opposition with which their reforms, and their president, have been targeted by making clear to their constituents that the policies enacted Sunday are not racially targeted but universal, including a number that take effect before the midterm elections: a ban on excluding from coverage children with preexisting conditions, a ban on annual and lifetime insurance payment limits, a prohibition on insurers' dropping enrollees when they're sick; allowing children to stay on their parents' policies till they're 26; and requiring insurers to cover co-pays for (and not apply deductibles to) preventive care.
To continue as a governing party beyond November, Democrats must apply the lessons of their health-reform victory to more popular causes. They need to establish a powerful consumer protection agency and rein in bank speculation -- causes that some congressional Democrats decline to embrace. They must pressure those Democrats relentlessly, as they did those who wavered over health reform. They need more job legislation, beginning with California Rep. George Miller's bill to save the teaching and public safety jobs on numerous states' chopping blocks, and with Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro's bill to establish an infrastructure bank to revive our construction sector.
Even if the Democrats fall a vote or two short on these issues, such causes are popular with voters well beyond their base, as well as battles for which those base voters would happily mobilize. They are causes worthy of a governing party -- particularly if it seeks to remain so.
meyersonh@washpost.com
| | | Business Groups Urge Obama Against Naming Becker to Labor Board - BusinessWeek
24-March-2010
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce led 20 business lobbying groups in urging President Barack Obama not to use his executive power to appoint union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.
“We urge you to respect” the “overwhelming sentiment of our members throughout the business community,” groups including the American Trucking Association, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation said today in a letter to the president. Tens of thousands of members have written to oppose Becker, the letter said.
Becker, a lawyer for the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, failed to win Senate confirmation last month after two Democrats joined Republicans in blocking a vote on his nomination. The groups told Obama “not to disregard the bipartisan Senate vote against moving forward” on Becker.
U.S. presidents have the power to circumvent the Senate by making appointments during a congressional recess. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told the AFL-CIO this month that unions “will be very pleased” by Obama’s actions on Becker in the next congressional recess, which begins next week.
The National Labor Relations Board was created in 1935 to remedy unfair labor practices and certify union elections. The five-member board has had three vacancies for more than two years, and has more than 200 cases pending, including a matter involving MGM Mirage’s New York New York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas.
Business groups oppose Becker over a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article saying union-election rules should be rewritten in favor of labor, and that the NLRB can do this through regulation, without the consent of Congress.
Becker, at a Senate confirmation hearing in February, said that his views 17 years ago were those of a “scholar” and he will respect Congress’s wishes on labor laws if he joins the board.
--Editors: Steve Geimann, Romaine Bostick
To contact the reporter on this story: Holly Rosenkrantz in Washington at hrosenkrantz@bloomberg.net.
| | | WWE and McMahon 'slammed' in book - News Channel 8
24-March-2010
Stamford, Conn. (WTNH) - Former WWE/CEO Linda McMahon has surged to the top among Republicans in the most recent public opinion poll with a nearly non-stop advertising campaign and extensively reaching out to party activists. But pro-wrestling investigative author Irvin Muchnick thinks Connecticut voters should take a closer look at McMahon's tenure as head of World Wrestling Entertainment .
In his book, "Chris & Nancy," Muchnick details the death of WWE superstar Chris Benoit; his suicide/murder of his wife and seven year old son was one of the most sensational crimes of the year in 2007.
Benoit was one of over 20 wrestling ring stars who died that year before their 50th birthday.
"WWE and Linda McMahon created the atmosphere and the working conditions that have caused many, many deaths in the industry of which the Benoit one was just the most dramatic and heinous example," Muchnick said.
"All of those super stars, who are independent contractors, if they're injured or hurt in the ring, they're well cared for," McMahon said in a January 12th interview. "There's a health and wellness policy in place."
Meanwhile, Muchnick said the "wellness" policy is not one that can be taken seriously.
"WWE has what they call a 'wellness policy' and it's a joke," said Muchnick. "The fact of the matter is they had no steroid testing at all between 1996 and 2006."
And that, Muchnick says, combined with brain trauma from undiagnosed frequent concussions, may have contributed to many of the deaths.
"My former company, I'm no longer the CEO there, certainly has always had the health and well being of the men and women who perform at WWE in there, you know, it's a top priority," McMahon said in her January 12th interview with News Channel 8.
Muchnick continued his argument and said, "By any reasonable definition, these performers are employees, not independent contractors. They can't go work for another promotion, they're totally controlled schedule-wize and otherwise by WWE and they should be better taken care of by WWE."
A spokesman for the McMahon campaign told News Channel 8 that they have decided to ignore Muchnick; that voters are more interested in her plans to help the economy.
"The great thing about her candidacy for the Senate is that it is yet another platform for people to look at, what I think, is a public health nuisance," Muchnick said.
Muchnick is starting his first East Coast tour promoting his book. He's going to be in Stamford, the home of the WWE, later in the week and in Farmington over the weekend.
| | | In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality - New York Times
24-March-2010
For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.
A blog from The New York Times that tracks the health care debate as it unfolds.
More Health Care Overhaul News
..
Health Care Conversations
Share your thoughts about the health care debate.
Top Discussions: The Final Reconciliation Bill | Abortion | Taxes and the National Deficit
.Multimedia
Graphic How the Health Care Overhaul Could Affect You
.
Interactive Feature A History of Overhauling Health Care
.Related
Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill, With a Flourish (March 24, 2010) Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (538) »
Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.
Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.
Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would “mark a new season in America.” He added, “We have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”
The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society — the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.
A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.
The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level — $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.
Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual’s misfortune — illness, death, fire, flood — across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.
The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill — and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.
Much about health reform remains unknown. Maybe it will deliver Congress to the Republicans this fall, or maybe it will help the Democrats keep power. Maybe the bill’s attempts to hold down the recent growth of medical costs will prove a big success, or maybe the results will be modest and inadequate. But the ways in which the bill attacks the inequality of the Reagan era — whether you love them or hate them — will probably be around for a long time.
“Legislative majorities come and go,” David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, lamented on Sunday. “This health care bill is forever.”
•
Since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign in 2007, he has had a complicated relationship with the Reagan legacy. He has been more willing than many other Democrats to praise President Reagan. “Reagan’s central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic,” Mr. Obama wrote in his second book, “contained a good deal of truth.” Most notably, he praised Mr. Reagan as a president who “changed the trajectory of America.”
But Mr. Obama also argued that the Reagan administration had gone too far, and that if elected, he would try to put the country on a new trajectory. “The project of the next president,” he said in an interview during the campaign, “is figuring out how you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth.”
Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent. The only period of strong middle-class income growth during this time came in the mid- and late 1990s, which by coincidence was also the one time when taxes on the affluent were rising.
For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly. Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980. At the 99th percentile — about $300,000 today — real pay has roughly doubled.
The laissez-faire revolution that Mr. Reagan started did not cause these trends. But its policies — tax cuts, light regulation, a patchwork safety net — have contributed to them.
Health reform hardly solves all of the American economy’s problems. Economic growth over the last decade was slower than in any decade since World War II. The tax cuts of the last 30 years, the two current wars, the Great Recession, the stimulus program and the looming retirement of the baby boomers have created huge deficits. Educational gains have slowed, and the planet is getting hotter.
Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer — what is the proper balance between the market and the government? — remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.
Before he became Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers told me a story about helping his daughter study for her Advanced Placement exam in American history. While doing so, Mr. Summers realized that the federal government had not passed major social legislation in decades. There was the frenzy of the New Deal, followed by the G.I. Bill, the Interstate Highway System, civil rights and Medicare — and then nothing worth its own section in the history books.
| | | Connecticut Bonus Tax Constitutional, AG Blumenthal Says - The State Column
24-March-2010
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal says a proposed bill to tax employee bonuses from companies that get federal bailouts likely would survive a challenge in state court.
The opinion comes after State Senate President Donald E. Williams asked Mr. Blumenthal for the opinion based on a reading of the state's constitution.
The proposed measure seeks to tax yearly bonuses above $1 million paid by recipients of the federal Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
"In my opinion, a court would likely find the proposed tax on TARP bonuses to be a constitutional exercise of the state's taxing power," Blumenthal said in his brief.
The multi-billion-dollar TARP has drawn scrutiny from taxpayers, lawmakers and others because some recipients used a portion of their rescue proceeds towards bonus packages.
The effort comes in light a recent report on Lehman Brothers which cited cases of financial impropriety and a day before three prominent financial institutions—Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas and Moore Capital —were embroiled in the UK's biggest insider dealing case after 16 dawn raids led to the arrests of six people.
Connecticut is home to some of the largest hedgefunds and financial institutions in the world.
| | | With massive budget deficits ahead, legislators propose sweeping tax study - The CT Mirror
24-March-2010
With the November elections still to go before they must face a 2011 state budget deficit of historic proportions, legislators admit they aren't ready to order major tax hikes this spring.
But that doesn't mean they aren't laying the groundwork.
"We need a comprehensive overhaul of the entire tax structure in Connecticut," House Majority Leader Denise W. Merrill, D-Mansfield, said Tuesday. "We need to look at the property tax, income tax, sales, corporation - how they and all of the others are related, which ones work and which ones are hurting people."
Merrill is chief architect of a bill working its way through the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee could set the stage for what some legislators are predicting will be a watershed tax debate reminiscent of the 1991 battle that produced the state income tax. The measure would create a bipartisan revenue accountability commission composed of public officials, business and labor leaders, private nonprofit groups and others.
Rep. Cameron Staples, co-chair of the Finance Committee is backing a study of the entire state tax system.
Politicians who imply the $3.88 billion deficit projected for the 2011-12 can be closed without tax hikes are being dishonest, said Merrill, one of the legislature's most vocal advocates for a more progressive income tax.
Roughly one-third of all revenues that support this fiscal year's $18.64 billion budget come from the income tax, the single-largest revenue source for state government.
New data from the Department of Revenue Services shows adjusted gross incomes for households reporting annual earnings beyond $1 million shot upward by more than 230 percent between 2002 and 2007 - a growth spike unmatched in the 19-year history of the state income tax. Even after 2008, the wors year of the curent recession, filers earning more than $1 million were 140 percent ahead of 2002.
And though the same tax data shows households earning less than $1 million finished 2008 just 21 percent wealthier than they were in 2002 during the last recession, Merrill said she continues to hear claims that the wealthy have been financially crippled.
Connecticut's top rate for taxing income, 6.5 percent on earnings above $1 million, also remains lower than those in neighboring states including: New York, 8.97 percent; New Jersey, 10.75 percent, and Rhode Island, 9.9 percent. Massachusetts has a flat, 5.3 percent general income tax rate, but levies a 12 percent rate on capital gains.
"The mythology about taxation is unbelievable," she said. "Everyone's got a favorite story and 90 percent of them are wrong."
Rep. Cameron C. Staples, co-chairman of the finance committee, endorsed the study, adding his panel also is considering a measure to ensure companies with a presence both here and in other states cannot illegally hide assets elsewhere to avoid paying Connecticut taxes.
Merrill said she also wants the study to examine more than $5.3 billion in credits, exemptions and other breaks offered throughout the entire state tax network, particularly about $3 billion tied to the sales tax. She said she doesn't believe anyone wants to repeal traditional sales tax exemptions such as those on groceries, medication and clothing purchases on items costing less than $50. But if state government wants to continue sales tax break on less essential items, such as winter boat storage, it should be sure there is a compelling reason.
"A lot of these tax breaks went into our system piecemeal and we don't have a comprehensive policy, or even remember why they started in the first place," she said.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said Tuesday that Merrill's fundamental approach to the state's budget crisis is wrong.
Regardless of whether officials believe tax increases are needed or not, they first have to work much harder at shrinking government, he said, adding the Democrat-controlled legislature has a poor record when it comes to cutting spending.
"We talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, but we never act," he said. "It's sending a horrible message about where we're going."
Former state budget director William J. Cibes Jr., who served from 1991 through 1994 under then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., urged the finance committee this week to support the study.
Cibes, a Democrat and former state representative who chaired the finance committee in the late 1980s, suggested state government spend $2 million to $3 million to hire fiscal professionals to assist in the tax study. "A thorough study by credible national experts can explode some of the myths that now seem to be taken as gospel - but have no foundation in fact," he said.
Cibes said he believes that approximately $1 billion out of the nearly $3.9 billion deficit projected for 2011-12 could be eliminated with spending cuts.
After that, economic growth could help to expand the revenue base somewhat, but much of the remaining deficit would need to be closed by asking more from Connecticut residents and businesses. "And you're going to have to look for a way to raise those revenues fairly," he said.
| | | Cheshire releases police department documents - Record Journal.com
24-March-2010
CHESHIRE - Documents from the town and the police union released Tuesday portray deeply contrasting versions of conflict between the union and the Police Chief Michael Cruess, and councilors are in disagreement over whether the chief's personality or union discontent is at the root of the conflict.
The union, Local 1720 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 15, called Cruess' conduct as a supervisor tyrannical in a letter to the Town Manager Michael Milone, saying Cruess' actions were contributing to low morale among officers at the department.
An e-mail from Milone to Town Councilors defends the chief as a competent, knowledgeable commander and blames the union for intransience in their opposition to him.
| | | Labor pledges to remember healthcare votes - UPI.COM
24-March-2010
WASHINGTON, March 23 (UPI) -- Labor leaders say their unions likely will withhold support from Democratic lawmakers who voted "no" on legislation to reform the U.S. healthcare system.
Karen Ackerman, AFL-CIO's political director, said even Democrats with solid pro-labor voting records could lose organized labor's support over which button they pushed during voting on overhauling healthcare, The Hill reported Tuesday.
"Like the Civil Rights Act, Social Security and Medicare, it is a defining bill, considering the effect it will have on the middle class," Ackerman said.
Of the 34 House Democrats who voted against the bill, at least six members have been big union supporters this congressional session, voting all or most of the time with labor on its priority legislation, interim 2009 legislative scorecards kept by the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union indicated.
"Every race will be different. We are going to look at these members of Congress and who made what promises. Several of these members specifically promised to pass healthcare reform," said SEIU spokeswoman Lori Lodes said. "This just isn't any other vote. This is something we have been fighting for since 2002."
"Everyone who voted against passing health insurance reform yesterday will have to explain to voters why they stood up with the insurance industry and not for them," Lodes said.
By the same token, unions are preparing rally around members who voted for healthcare reform and face tough races this year, The Hill said.
"First thing we want to do is take the time to thank those who took the tough vote," Ackerman said. "This is not a one-time appreciation rally. We will let them know that we stand with them."
© 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.
| | | Rell Administration And Unions At Odds Over Further Concessions - CT News Junkie
24-March-2010
(Updated) Last week Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s administration reached out to the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition and asked for close to four pages of additional concessions. The move was not welcomed by the unions, who fired back this strongly worded letter.
After dismissing the cost-saving ideas presented by the union leaders as “not likely to produce any significant savings,” Rell’s Budget Director Robert Genuario asked for further reductions in sick and vacation days, but he also asked for increases in health insurance co-payments and changes to pension benefits, in addition to the elimination of longevity pay. The health insurance and pension benefit portion of the SEBAC agreement doesn’t expire until 2017, but the wage freeze and other salaried portions of the contract are set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2011.
“Today you are pandering to the partisan politics of the gubernatorial campaign in making proposals that show a cynical disrespect not just for Connecticut’s 45,000 public service workers, but for all of Connecticut’s struggling families,” the SEBAC coalition’s 15 union leaders wrote in response to the request for deeper concessions.
“Even the cavalier manner in which you dismiss our suggestions for savings and improvements to state services is but a small part of the problem,” the coalition wrote. “We offered in March of 2009 to directly involve frontline workers in the crucial task of improving state services to more efficiently meet the ever-increasing public demand during hard times. Your negotiating team then caucused for all of 45 seconds before dismissing those suggestions out of hand”
Genuario said in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon that he hopes to have a meaningful dialogue with the unions.
“I see no reason why we can’t have a meaningful discussion this year,” Genuario said. While he certainly didn’t expect them to endorse wholeheartedly the concessions he proposed in the letter Thursday, he had hoped it would engage them.
He said he was a little disappointed in the tone of their response. “I don’t see why we all can’t do what’s right for the state,” Genuario said.
Click here to read last year’s story on the estimated $750 million in concessions the unions and the Rell administration agreed upon
| | | Simmons Irks Labor By Rating Unions - Hartford Courant
22-March-2010
When public officials keep political lists, sometimes there's trouble.
The latest proof is a newly surfaced letter that U.S. Senate candidate Rob Simmons drafted when he was a congressman in 2004. In it, he told two Republican House colleagues in detail which labor unions supported his re-election campaign and which ones backed his opponent.
The document, obtained in recent weeks by The Courant, provides a window into Simmons' thinking as he noted who his friends in the labor movement were, and weren't, after winning his third and last term representing Connecticut's 2nd District in Washington.
When shown the letter last week, a state labor leader called it "a bad-boy list" that might have had a political use — such as retaliation — but no productive one. But Simmons said it had no dark purpose and was strictly intended to help Republicans in efforts toward "building coalitions" with labor.
Discussing one's allies and adversaries has always been a preoccupation of politicians, but it's rare that such a discussion is drafted into formal language in an official letter. This one was drafted three weeks after the election, at a time when memories of slights are fresh and the legislative agenda for the next term is being shaped. It was addressed to the two co-chairmen of the Republican Labor Caucus, Reps. Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey and Steve LaTourette of Ohio, at their offices in Washington, D.C.
It was marked "confidential" and bore a handwritten notation that "this is for your information only, and not for distribution or attribution." There was also a note — "Good work!" — to Simmons' aide.
The first unions that Simmons mentioned were the ones he said had supported him.
"At the top of my list are the federal employee unions and two of the larger building trade unions," Simmons wrote. He mentioned unions that provided financial help. He gave the names of their representatives in Washington. He said the carpenters "were the only union to contribute the maximum amount allowable" — adding that the union's Washington office was supportive despite "a renegade local in my district that worked against me."
On the flip side, he said the unions that opposed him were: the United Auto Workers; the two big national teachers' unions; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). "Despite my record of support on important issues for each of these unions," he wrote, "they have demonstrated that they would rather place partisanship ahead of results and appear to be firmly — and happily — in the grip of the Democratic Party."
Asked about the letter last week, Simmons said it was a follow-up to a discussion he'd had with the two caucus leaders about improving relations with labor. The caucus leaders had been interested in how he had been successful in gaining the support of some unions, he said. Simmons said the draft was among the collection of official papers that he gave to the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center at the University of Connecticut and though he wasn't certain that it was actually sent on official stationery, it represented his views.
When The Courant showed the letter to two labor leaders — state AFL-CIO President John Olsen and AFSCME Council 4 director Sal Luciano — they wondered why Simmons would make it his official business to rate unions by how many contributions they gave him, instead of on their merits.
Olsen said such matters should be the concerns of the Republican Party, not Congress. Luciano said, "I've never seen anything like this." He called it a "bad-boy list," adding: "I'm not sure what the purpose is. I don't know if it's for retaliation."
Simmons said he has never been that kind of person — "my personality doesn't go that route" — and he noted that his wife, a schoolteacher, is a member of the Connecticut affiliate of one of the big teacher unions that didn't support him. While in Congress, he said, he worked hard for unionized workers and businesses. He said he stepped in as an "honest broker" to settle a government workers' strike.
He said the letter was intended, as its first paragraph said, to tell the caucus co-chairmen he looked forward to working with them "to build stronger relationships with our friends in organized labor."
Luciano, the AFSCME leader, said it was "insulting" for the letter to say his union was in the Democrats' grip. He said if Simmons, as a Republican, had an 80 percent lifetime rating from the union based on his votes, instead of 34 percent, "we would have endorsed him."
It's unlikely that Simmons or his opponent for the GOP's Senate nomination, Linda McMahon, will get the AFL-CIO's support this year. State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the probable Democratic nominee to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, has good relations with unions.
Simmons' campaign manager, Jim Barnett, didn't sound worried about alienating the union leaders when he issued a response to their criticism. He said: "The fact that committed partisans like John Olsen — who chaired the state's Democratic Party — and his fellow union bosses are attacking Republican candidate Rob Simmons is not a surprise — in fact, it's to be expected. During his tenure in Congress, Rob worked to reach out to both labor and business to create jobs for Connecticut."
•Jon Lender is a reporter on The Courant's investigative desk, with a focus on government and politics. Contact him at jlender@courant.com, 860-241-6524, or c/o The Hartford Courant, 285 Broad St., Hartford, CT 06115.
| | | Arbitration award gives cops 4.5% raise - New Haven Register
22-March-2010
WEST HAVEN — After failed negotiations and weeks of waiting, the arbitration award for the police contract and pension has arrived.
Mayor John M. Picard announced the award at a meeting last week when he presented his proposed budget for next year.
As a result of the arbitration award, police officers will get a 2 percent raise in July, after getting no raise in 2008 and 2009. They will get a 2.5 percent raise in July 2011.
According to arbitration briefs filed months ago, the union had sought a 6.5 percent raise over four years, while the city pushed for a 3.5 percent increase. The final award was 4.5 percent.
The biggest change to come out of the arbitration process is that new police hires will have a 401(k) retirement plan instead of the existing pension plans. All current employees will remain in the existing plan.
Picard on Thursday said the existing pension plan simply costs too much and the city cannot afford it much longer.
“The pensions are not sustainable,” he said.
The 401(k) retirement plan was adamantly opposed by the union, which argued it is a far inferior plan to the pension.
“This decision is a bad decision in regards to 401(k),” said Richard Gudis, the union attorney for Council 15 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, of which West Haven is a member. “It thoroughly weakens the city of West Haven’s ability to attract and retain quality police officers.”
Gudis predicted the repercussions of switching to a 401(k) will affect the city for decades.
Neither Police Chief John Karajanis nor police union President Lt. Burton Gifford Jr. could be reached for comment Friday on the arbitration award.
All of the details included in the document were not immediately available.
The arbitration briefs filed by the city described West Haven as “one of the most financially distressed municipalities in the state,” and warned that even a few extra snowstorms this year could push its finances over the edge.
In its counterbrief, the union acknowledged the tough economy, but suggested that the city was exaggerating its financial woes in an effort to justify giving less to the police union.
Contact Abbe Smith at 203-789-5615 or asmith@newhavenregister.com. | | | Democratic would-be governors court organized labor - The Connecticut Mirror
22-March-2010
It's spring, when the fancy of nearly every Democratic gubernatorial candidate turns to organized labor.
Over the weekend, five Democrats romanced 400 activists from the bargaining coalition that represents 51,000 state employees.
State employee union lawyer Dan Livingston, left, introduces Democrat Ned Lamont at a union gubernatorial forum
Today, about 200 members of the Connecticut AFL-CIO will hear from much the same group at the Hilton, a unionized hotel in Hartford.
How important a voting bloc is labor, particularly state employees?
Winning the Democratic primary could take fewer than 135,000 votes - and unions can reach nearly 100,000 active and retired state employees.
With the economy in tatters and most Republicans gubernatorial candidates promising to shrink the state workforce, labor is starting early to focus attention on the race for governor.
The rank and file are showing signs of responding.
On Saturday, the first day of spring, union members stood outside the Webster Hill School in West Hartford, directing cars to park on nearby streets. A half-hour before the arrival of the first candidate, the lot was full.
"We're pleased with the energy," said Matt O'Connor, a union spokesman, as he watched active and retired union members fill the school's 400-seat auditorium. "This is exciting."
The two declared Democratic candidates, Ned Lamont and Dannel P. Malloy, were joined by three Democrats with exploratory committees, Mary Glassman, Juan A. Figueroa and Rudy Marconi.
All five pledged to oppose changes in binding arbitration and collective-bargaining rules. They promised to work closely with unions, without ruling out seeking concessions.
One Republican accepted the union coalition's invitation, Tom Marsh, the first selectman of Chester. He was the only candidate to take the stage without a union button on his lapel, but he regretted being the only member of the GOP.
"I must say I'm a little disappointed with my fellow Republicans," he said.
Today, the same five Democrats will be joined at the Hilton by Republican Mark Boughton, the mayor of Danbury.
With the next governor expected to have to cope with a $3.8 billion deficit - about 20 percent of the entire state budget - the unions are desperate for a friendly face in the governor's office.
"This is probably the most important election we're ever going to have for governor," Glassman told the union members Saturday, the day after a televised Democratic debate. "If you saw the debate last night, you know that any of the Democratic candidates for governor are better than any of those Republican candidates."
Her audience applauded.
All the candidates tried to quickly demonstrate their affinity for labor as they addressed the crowd, then met with smaller groups.
"I'm Juan Figueroa, and I'm proud to say I was a state employee for 10½ years," said Figueroa, a former assistant attorney general and legislator.
Marconi, the first selectman of Ridgefield, talked about how well he worked with municipal unions, even during a tough budget year.
Malloy, who sometimes had conflicts with unions when he was mayor of Stamford, was warmly applauded after relating how his mother, a school nurse, responded to a boss who had denied benefits to women, reasoning that they could depend on their husbands.
"Know what my mother did about that? She formed a union," Malloy said. "That local is now headed by my cousin."
Lamont, the owner of a cable television company, mentioned that he now teaches political science at Central Connecticut State University, where the faculty is unionized.
"I may be one of your lowest paid guys there," Lamont said, smiling.
His audience laughed, well aware that the part-time state employee standing before them is a multi-millionaire who spent $17 million on a Senate campaign in 2006
Lamont's millions are the reason why winning over the unions could be most crucial for Malloy, one of two Democrats to open some distance from the rest of the pack in early polling.
For Malloy, who expects to be dramatically outspent by Lamont, union support could be an equalizer.
In last week's Quinnipiac University poll, Lamont led Malloy, 28 percent to 18 percent. No other Democrat topped 4 percent, but the undecided vote was 44 percent.
While the poll showed progress for Malloy, who trailed by 16 points in January, only the self-financing Lamont can afford to begin television advertising.
Malloy is participating in the voluntary Citizens' Election Program, which provides public financing to qualified candidates. The first check will not be available until late May - if the program survives a legal challenge and the state's budget crisis.
In a not-so-subtle reference to the relative resources of the Democrats, Lamont said, "If we're going to elect a Democrat, I've got the best chance to win. I've got the best chance to take on those Republicans.
The Republican front-runner is Tom Foley, like Lamont a wealthy Greenwich businessman who has rejected public financing. Foley is the only gubernatorial candidate on the air with television commercials.
Lamont warned the union members what another Republican governor would mean to them, pointing to the budget proposed recently by New Jersey's new Republican governor.
"It is a proposal that has massive layoffs of state employees," Lamont said. "I'm going to be fighting for each and every one of your jobs."
Lamont and Malloy each were on the ballot four years ago in the last Democratic statewide primary. Lamont narrowly won the nomination for U.S. Senate. Malloy lost a tight contest for governor.
Malloy had a similar message.
"You better elect a Democrat," Malloy said. "Not because a Democrat is going to give you everything you want, but I can tell you a Republican is going to give you everything you don't want."
While Lamont pressed for an advantage over Malloy with a reference to his resources, Malloy distanced himself from Lamont over legislation mandating paid sick days for private employers.
Lamont has said the requirement, which no other state has adopted, sends a hostile message to business as the state tries to improve its business environment.
The state has the worst job-creation record of any state over the past 20 years, and Lamont said during Friday's debate that the lack of jobs is a bigger problem for working families than a lack of sick time.
Without mentioning Lamont by name, Malloy said anyone opposed to paid sick leave does not deserve labor's support.
"Are you actually prepared to trust your future to that person?" Malloy asked.
Someone shouted, "Hell, no!"
| | | House delivers health care victory for President Obama - usa today
22-March-2010
WASHINGTON — Congress completed action Sunday night on the major portion of President Obama's top priority, a historic restructuring of the nation's health care system that has eluded his predecessors for more than a century.
The 219-212 House vote, coming after a tumultuous day of protests and rancorous debate, paves the way for Obama to sign into law most of his 10-year, $940 billion plan within the next few days. The House also approved a package of changes to the bill by a 220-211 vote shortly before midnight and sent it to the Senate for final action, perhaps later this week.
"Today, we have the opportunity to complete the great unfinished business of our society and pass health care reform for all Americans that is a right and not a privilege," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said in the final floor speech before the vote.
Democrats who provided all 219 votes cheered "Yes we can" when the needed votes were cast, assuring that about 32 million Americans will gain health insurance coverage and millions more will win protections against losing theirs. The legislation will raise taxes, largely on the wealthy, and reduce future Medicare spending by about $500 billion.
It gave Obama a major victory and will make him, at least for now, a more powerful president who made good on his campaign promise of change.
ABORTION: Deal helps ensure votes for health bill
TURNABOUT: Representatives who changed votes
ON POLITICS: Protesters target Pelosi, Frank
TIMELINE: Road to health legislation
"We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things," Obama said in statement delivered after the House votes with Vice President Biden at his side. "We proved that this government, a government of the people and by the people, still works for the people."
Republicans who voted unanimously against the health care overhaul, along with 34 Democrats, predicted it would come back to bite Democrats at the polls — and in the form of repeal efforts as soon as next year.
"Just because it's historic doesn't mean it's good," said Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill.
In his closing argument, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio thundered that the Democrats were ignoring the will of the people.
"We have failed to listen to America, and we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents," he said. "And when we fail to reflect that will, we fail ourselves, and we fail our country."
With every Republican poised to vote "no," Pelosi and her leadership team had to a strike a late deal on abortion language with some of the party's conservative members.
In a dramatic turn, eight anti-abortion Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., announced late Sunday afternoon that they would support the bill even though it did not include stronger prohibitions against using federal money to cover abortions — a move that gave Obama the votes he needed to pass the bill. Instead, the conservative lawmakers settled for an executive order signed by Obama.
"We would all love to have a statute that is stronger," Stupak said. "We can't get there."
Determined not to fail where their party has so many times before, most recently in 1994, Democratic leaders drew on history as they marched toward passage of the legislation.
"This will be one of those events that every textbook writer is going to have to put in his books," said presidential scholar William Leuchtenburg, author of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal.
After more than a year of debate, including heated summer town-hall meetings and an icy winter summit between Obama and Republicans, Democrats had to go it alone.
"It's not the desirable way to enact major social policy, but it might be the only way," said Robert Reischauer, president of the nonpartisan Urban Institute and a former Congressional Budget Office director.
Polls continue to show Americans split down the middle on the issue, and both sides claim momentum.
"The opposition to this is as strong as it was in July," said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $145 million lobbying last year, much of it on health care. "Americans are not being fooled by this."
Many Americans, particularly those with private insurance from their employers, remained in the dark about whether the overhaul would help or hurt — even the grandson of President Harry Truman, who fought for universal health care more than a half century ago.
"How much damage is this going to do? How good a bill is this going to be?" said Clifton Truman Daniel, public relations director at the Harry S Truman College in Chicago. "My assumption is that it will improve things, but who knows?"
Making history
Throughout the rare weekend session, Democratic leaders repeatedly tried to frame the debate as part of a much larger, historic effort to revamp health care, while reducing the nation's deficit by $143 billion over the first 10 years.
House Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter of New York held up a 1939 letter from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Congress seeking expanded health coverage as part of Social Security. The letter had FDR's notes in the margins.
Pelosi appeared at a news conference with the same gavel Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., used to end the House debate on the Medicare legislation 45 years ago — and she vowed to use it at the end of Sunday's vote.
"We're doing this one for the American people," Pelosi said.
As Democrats put on a confident face, they could not escape the controversies that the health care plan continues to stir. As Pelosi finished her remarks after a meeting of House Democrats, 66-year-old Ron Arner of Pennsylvania shouted, "You're doing it to the American people."
Around the corner, Arner started shouting down Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., as he spoke to a reporter. "This is Fox News," Frank quipped, suggesting that Arner might not want to interrupt the conservative cable network.
Republican House members stood on a second-floor balcony and waved to a crowd of about 1,000 protesters gathered on the National Mall. Several of them unfurled a yellow flag that read, "Don't tread on me," prompting loud cheers.
"That was fun," Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., said as she walked back into the Capitol.
The opposition will have one more shot in the Senate, which must vote on the changes demanded by Obama and House Democrats as the price of passing the Senate health care bill. Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, plan scores of amendments and procedural challenges.
If the Senate parliamentarian decides any part of the second bill must be struck because it does not, as required, have fiscal implications, the measure would have to go back to the House. And a "vote-o-rama" on Republicans' amendments could go on for days.
The second bill also includes an overhaul of the college aid program that would give the government — not private lenders — the power to authorize all Pell Grant loans for needy students.
'Cost, cost, cost, tax, tax, tax'
Nearly lost in Sunday's focus on protests, process and politics was the stunning array of new federal policies included in the legislation. Dingell, 83, who succeeded his father in the House 55 years ago, called it a natural successor to Medicare.
"We were solving an enormous problem, the health concerns of the elderly in this country," he said of that vote 45 years ago. "Today, we are doing what we intended to be the second step, and that is addressing the health concerns and the health problems of all of the people. Unfortunately, it's been a very slow national progression."
The package of changes would provide coverage to 32 million people through Medicaid, subsidies to families and tax credits to small businesses that can't afford to cover their workers. It would pay for the expansion with the Medicare cuts, new taxes on upper-income workers and expensive insurance plans, and fees on the manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices.
It also would prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, dropping people when they get sick and limiting lifetime benefits. Children could be covered on their parents' policies up to age 26, and seniors would receive improved coverage for Medicare prescription drugs. Most individuals would be required to have insurance, and businesses with 50 or more employees would have to provide it or pay a fee.
Faced with all those provisions and more, Washington's lobbying industry has weighed in with full force. The number of corporations, trade associations and other organizations that disclosed their efforts on health care grew from 398 during the first months of 2009 to 1,541 by the end of the year. Health professionals and health insurers spent more than $576 million on lobbying, up from $515 million in 2008 and $210 million a decade ago.
In the end, most stakeholders endorsed Obama's plan, including major trade groups representing doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and the AARP, the nation's largest seniors' organization. Two groups — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and America's Health Insurance Plans — opposed it with multimillion dollar ad campaigns.
Karen Ignagni, president of the insurers' trade group, expressed regret that Obama in recent weeks decided to "villainize" her industry for premium increases necessitated by rising medical costs, which she said the legislation mostly fails to address. Access is "a very important step forward," she said. "But the cost crisis needs to be addressed."
"My members are sitting there looking at cost, cost, cost, tax, tax, tax," the Chamber's Josten said.
The taxes will fall heaviest on upper-income taxpayers, according to an analysis by Deloitte Tax. It found that single taxpayers earning $250,000 a year would pay $450 more in Medicare payroll taxes, for instance. Those earning $500,000 would pay $2,700 more, while those earning $1 million would pay $7,200 more. Those with income of $5 million would pay $43,200 more.
Obama 'looking very good'
It will take years to sort out winners and losers among consumers, insurers and health care providers.
Some of the law's provisions, such as a tax on the most expensive insurance plans, don't take effect for nearly a decade.
The political consequences will be known much sooner. Republicans hope to defeat dozens of Democrats this fall, and health care represents "a bigger vote than anything we've already had," says Rep. Pete Sessions, who runs the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Democratic leaders predicted the measure would become more popular after it passes, giving those who voted for it time to herald some of the changes that would be made later this year. Among them: $250 rebates for seniors to help pay the costs of prescription drugs.
"If the Republicans want to make November all about the repeal of this bill, I don't quote George Bush very often, but 'bring it on,' " said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
One thing most experts agree on: Obama needed to win.
Fred Greenstein, director of the program in leadership studies at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, said Obama's image will be recast from "a cerebral wimp who can't hack it and doesn't have spine and doesn't understand Machiavelli's principle that it's better to be feared than loved. Instead, he's suddenly looking very good."
David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress and a former NATO ambassador, said defeat "would be a terrific blow to his presidency, and it would be a symbol around the world that his power is broken."
Representatives who changed votes
A sampling of House lawmakers who said going into debate on Sunday that they would switch their votes on health care.
| | | Ned Lamont, Tom Foley Maintain Leads In New Quinnipiac Poll; Bysiewicz Leads With 54 Percent In AG Primary Race - Courant.com
18-March-2010
Two Greenwich millionaires - Democrat Ned Lamont and Republican Tom Foley - maintain their frontrunner status in the potential gubernatorial primaries in the latest Quinnipiac University poll that was released this morning.
Lamont, a cable television entrepreneur, leads former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy by 28 percent to 18 percent. Simsbury first selectman Mary Glassman is in third place at 4 percent, but 44 percent of Democrats remain undecided - making the race a wide open contest.
On the Republican side, Foley leads with 30 percent over Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele of Stamford and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, who are both tied at 4 percent. Some insiders believe that Boughton could have enough support from his days as a state legislator and mayor to capture 15 percent of the delegates at the convention and qualify for the GOP primary. In that race, 50 percent of Republicans are undecided - giving a chance for plenty of movement in the multi-candidate field.
In potentially the biggest surprise of the day, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz maintains a huge lead in the race for attorney general, despite a barrage of negative publicity for the past two months over whether she has the necessary 10 years of "active practice'' of the law in Connecticut, which is the requirement under the law to be attorney general. Bysiewicz has the support of 54 percent of those polled, far ahead of former state Senate majority leader George Jepsen of Ridgefield at 10 percent. Overall, 31 percent of Democrats are still undecided in that race.
The candidates are battling for the support of delegates at the party conventions in May in Hartford, and then they will clash in statewide primaries on August 10.
In the Democratic race for governor, Lamont is expected to spend millions of dollars in the way that he spent nearly $17 million of his own money in the primary and general election races against U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in 2006.
Justine Sessions, a new spokeswoman for Lamont who previously worked for five years for U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, said, "This is the third poll in a row where Ned is up by double digits over his closest challenger. Ned's business background and his focus on creating jobs are resonating with voters, and this comes before campaign season has even kicked into high gear.''
Unlike Foley, Lamont has not yet started his television blitz that is expected to arrive in the coming weeks. Lamont told Capitol Watch in an interview that he has no intention of allowing Foley to be the only candidate on the airwaves for an extended period of time.
Lamont had been ahead of Malloy by 16 points in the previous Quinnipiac poll, and he is now up by 10 points among those polled.
In a potential Republican primary for attorney general, state Sen. Andrew Roraback of Goshen leads with 13 percent to 9 percent for Martha Dean, an Avon attorney who lost in a previous race for attorney general against longtime Democrat Richard Blumenthal. Republican fundraiser John Pavia of Easton is close behind at 8 percent with 66 percent of Republicans undecided.
In the Republican race for governor, a group of candidates is fighting for name recognition and the attention of delegates. Longtime business executive Oz Griebel of Simsbury, Newington Mayor Jeff Wright, and former U.S. Rep. Larry DeNardis of Hamden are all tied at 2 percent. They are all behind the three leading candidates.
Foley has clearly pulled ahead in the GOP primary because of a heavy barrage of statewide television commercials that show him driving around the state and then standing outside of the Capitol to say that he is going to fix Hartford. Before his television blitz, Foley had little name recognition because he has never held elective office.
A friend of former President George W. Bush, Foley is the former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland - having served there until Bush left office on January 20, 2009. Before that, Foley served in an appointed position in Iraq for seven months, overseeing the privatization of previously state-owned businesses.
Since he never served in the state legislature or other elected post, Foley has been making numerous trips around the state to raise his profile. That included an appearance at the state Capitol on St. Patrick's Day for the traditional Irish Coffee Break that is held every year by the Motor Transport Association and always fills up a large, chandeliered function room on the third floor.
Foley has also advertised on the Internet and recently sent a brochure to Republican households in an attempt to reach primary voters. The expensive, stapled, eight-page brochure contains 14 color photographs and includes Foley's slogan that "Connecticut is broken and broke. Working together, we can fix it.''
| | | Number Of Middle Class Insured Through Jobs Drops Dramatically - Courant.com
18-March-2010
March 18, 2010
The number of middle-class people in Connecticut who had health insurance through an employer dropped 16.8 percent between the height of economic prosperity in 1999-2000 and the recession in 2008, according to a new report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Nationally, the decrease was 6.6 percent, according to the report.
The study also showed Connecticut with a greater increase in the percentage of middle-income residents enrolled in government-run insurance over that period — 8.3 percent, compared with 3.9 percent nationally — not including Medicare for people 65 and older.
The study defines middle class as having a household income of $45,000 to $85,000.
The average number of uninsured middle-class Connecticut residents increased from 64,000 at the beginning of the decade to 105,000 two years ago, the report says.
"America's uninsured crisis means that hard-working people with average incomes are being squeezed," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, chief executive of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
| | | Unions flex muscle with bank protests - The Hill
18-March-2010
Labor unions are flexing their muscle this month in scores of protests against the country’s largest banks, which are lobbying heavily to influence financial overhaul legislation.
Unions will hold roughly 200 events by March 26 aimed at Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo.
One of the largest, with roughly 1,000 people slated to attend, is in Philadelphia on Friday and targets Bank of America.
“It’s time to create good jobs now and the big Wall Street banks that destroyed jobs should pay to restore them,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement. Trumka is scheduled to speak in Philadelphia.
The events are part of a broader campaign to fight Wall Street banks. Unions are strong supporters of a new tax on stock and other financial transactions and a new agency or bureau to oversee consumer financial protection.
Labor unions and many consumer advocacy organizations have pushed a tax on stock transactions that could raise billions of dollars in revenue.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) has been one of the most vocal supporters of a tax, which has been resisted by the financial industry.
Banks and other financial interests argue that the tax would wind up restricting the flow of credit and hurting consumers. Unions say the tax would limit excessive speculation in financial markets and encourage financial firms to make longer-term investments.
Neither the House nor the Senate is planning to take up the stock transaction soon.
The consumer protection bureau is one of the central elements of Democratic efforts to overhaul financial regulations. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has scheduled a markup of financial legislation for Monday.
Dodd unveiled legislation this week that includes, among other provisions, a new consumer bureau housed at the Federal Reserve that would have broad rulemaking and enforcement power. The bureau is different from a standalone agency originally proposed by President Barack Obama and passed by the House in December.
Consumer advocates and labor unions continue to favor a standalone agency.
| | | Griswold town employees to be asked to choose between furloughs and layoffs - The Day
18-March-2010
Griswold - With revenues looking grim for 2010-11 and possibly a significant shortfall in the current fiscal year, the first selectman has asked Town Hall union members to choose between furlough days or a rolling layoff.
Members of the union, which includes 13 employees, met Friday afternoon with a representative from Council 4 ASFME Local in New Britain to discuss Anthony's edict, which comes on the eve of the union negotiating a new contract.
In a memo sent March 11, First Selectman Philip Anthony Jr. wrote that for budgetary reasons the union members either could take the equivalent of two furlough days by the end of June or face a mandatory four furlough days, or be subject to a "rolling layoff," in the next fiscal year.
"The way I see it now, the ball is in their court. I don't know where it goes from here. I just hope that it's the least harmful and financially hurtful to the staff," Anthony said Tuesday.
As of Wednesday afternoon the union had not made a decision on the issue, according to local president John Lorange.
"The Griswold Town Hall workers have made it clear that they were willing to try to do their part, and now we're also in a situation that negotiations will soon commence on the new collective bargaining agreement, those discussions could play into the negotiation," Larry Dorman, a spokesman for Council 4, said Wednesday.
Last spring, the finance board reduced the current general government budget with the understanding that union members had agreed to take two furlough days. The union said it would agree to the proposal in exchange for layoff protection through the duration of its current contract, which expires June 30.
Lorange and Anthony shook hands, but that agreement, which was not reduced to writing, did not come to fruition.
This week, Anthony said after the exchange it was determined that the town could not accept the no-layoff stipulation. It was later reconsidered and town officials decided to accept the layoff protection, but this update was never conveyed to the union.
Anthony added that when it became clear the agreement had failed, town and union officials decided to wait to see what the town's financial situation would be during the year and the union wanted to wait for the outcome of separate an insurance-related challenge.
"Everybody shares some of the blame, including myself. We will work toward hopefully an amicable resolution," Anthony said.
In a news release Wednesday, Lorange reiterated that the union did not renege on the agreement and it is equally as hopeful that the issue can be resolved.
Lorange said he understands the urgency of the situation but said that union members "provide a service with pride and diligence."
He said that the town is not going to able to balance its budget, and the projected deficit, strictly on Town Hall employees' salaries.
The town knows for certain that it will receive $257,000 less in state grant funding than was anticipated when the current budget was approved last spring. There is also a chance that the financial situation could be worse.
Finance Director Barbara Richardson-Crouch said this week that the town has not received approximately $900,000 in other anticipated state funding. She said it is not a question of if the town will receive the money, but when.
Last year the state delayed its disbursement of some grants by five months, forcing the town to take out a short-term note.
"We know the state will eventually pay us, but when is the question. It may not be in the fiscal year; I'm praying and hoping it is," she said.
| | | Union blasts agency for prison attacks - New Haven Register
18-March-2010
CHESHIRE — A leader of the union representing 700 Department of Correction officers is criticizing agency officials for failing to order a lockdown of the Manson Youth Correctional Institution more quickly in the aftermath of a pair of assaults on correction officers on Tuesday and Wednesday.
One of the attacks sent three officers to the hospital, and Moises Padilla, vice president of AFSCME, Local 387, said the first of the two assaults on the correction officers was “premeditated.”
Larry Dorman, a spokesman for the union, said there was evidence prior to the attack that an assault was being planned on correction officers.
“An officer was savagely attacked and there was evidence available that this guard had been specifically targeted,” Padilla said. “ This was one of the most savage attacks on an officer at Mansion in recent memory. They should have immediately gone to lockdown.”
A lockdown keeps prisoners in their cells around the clock and keeps everyone except attorneys from visiting inmates, Padilla said.
Brian Garnett, a Department of Correction spokesman, declined to respond directly to Padilla’s criticisms. “As is the case in any incident of this kind, we are conducting a full-scale investigation,” Garnett said. “In any investigation, we look at what the cause might have been and what policies can be put in place to prevent it in the future.”
Padilla said all of the attacks occurred in a unit at Mason where inmates who are linked to gangs are housed.
The first attack occurred at 5 p.m. Tuesday, when two inmates at Manson attacked a correction officer, according to state police. Two other officers responded and, when the two attackers were finally subdued, one officer had suffered a broken hand while the other two had suffered facial, knee and hand injuries, said Andrius Banevicius, a DOC spokesman.
A second incident at the correctional facility occurred Wednesday morning when an inmate punched a guard, Banevicius said.
Padilla said injuries to correction officers typically are the result of efforts by the officers to break up fights between inmates. The fact that officers appear to have been targeted for violence is “troubling”, he said.
The two inmates involved in the altercation were identified as Jordan Anderson and Reginald Holley, both 18 and from Middletown, according to state police. Both are believed to be gang members and have been charged with a variety of assault-related charges.
The guards injured in Tuesday’s attack were Joseph Fabiano, 37, James Hyland, 56, and Dean Michonski, 46. No additional information was available on the injuries each suffered.
Anderson was being held at Manson on a first-degree robbery charge. He had been sent to the facility in July.
Holley was being held at Manson on a home invasion charge; he was admitted to the prison in December 2008.
Padilla said he has been assured by officials at Manson that movement of inmates in the gang-related section of the prison will be limited, and when they do move, they will have to wear restraints.
Contact Luther Turmelle at 203-789-5706 or lturmelle@newhavenregister.com. | | | Freeman Brown: No More Limbo for Workers’ Rights - Roll Call
25-February-2010
The war on working people has a new battleground: the National Labor Relations Board. For a full year, hostile Senators have blocked or watered down nearly every key piece of legislation America’s workers need — from labor law and health care reform to creating good, green jobs and regulating the finance industry.
The recent derailment of fully qualified nominations to the NLRB laid down the gauntlet, proving that big business special interests and their friends in Congress are against any attempt to level the playing field for the middle class.
Right before the recess, a whole slate of President Barack Obama’s appointees were confirmed by the Senate, with the exception of a package of three nominees to the NLRB, the agency tasked with protecting and promoting the rights of workers to form unions and collectively bargain.
Long overdue progress for workers came to a screeching halt because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and their anti-worker allies in the Senate manufactured controversy around one of the NLRB nominees, Craig Becker. The highly respected labor law practitioner, professor and practicing attorney before the U.S. Supreme Court is a perfect fit for the job. So why was an all-out war waged against Becker? He’s too pro-union. Translation: He’ll actually uphold the law.
The truth is Becker’s opponents simply don’t believe workers should be able to combat exploitation on the job by forming a union. So why would they want to see the agency charged with protecting workers’ rights fully functioning?
With President Barack Obama’s nominees defeated, America’s workers continue to pay the cost. The board will continue to hobble along as it has for the past two years. Stuck with just two members, every critical case at the national level is frozen. The delays for some cases are beyond reasonable — two dozen cases have been pending for more than four years. Nor will the board review and reconsider the damaging legal precedents established by the Bush administration’s board. This means that millions of workers who saw their right to form a union revoked by the Bush board — like the nurses and professionals wrongly labeled as supervisors — must continue to work without job security and a voice to improve their working conditions.
Here’s the bottom line: We need a fully functioning NLRB. Every day without one leaves hard-working men and women vulnerable to unfair labor practices that strip them of their right to organize and bargain for a fair shot at the American Dream.
How can that happen? The president must flex his constitutional authority to appoint his NLRB nominees and give workers the protection they’ve gone so long without. Obama missed a great opportunity over this past recess to move on from this debate. A recess appointment would not be a radical use of executive power. In fact, he would just be following the precedent laid out by his predecessors. Every commander in chief dating back to Jimmy Carter has made recess appointments to the NLRB. Ronald Reagan made a whopping 243 recess appointments, George H.W. Bush made 77, Bill Clinton made 140 and George W. Bush made 171.
Obama shouldn’t make the same mistake again. Instead of starting from scratch and giving workers’ rights opponents another opportunity to block exemplary candidates, he must stop the cycle of inaction.
Indeed, America’s working families shouldn’t have to wait any longer. Their rights took a beating under the Bush administration, and with Obama, saw an opportunity for hope and change. In today’s climate of economic insecurity, now is not the time for the labor board to be handicapped. Our nation’s workers have given more than their fair share of sacrifices and patience. They are playing by the rules, want to rebuild the economy and are willing to work harder. They deserve better than Washington gridlock and ideological impasses.
The obstructionist minority in the Senate has made it clear that it does not want the labor board to function in its role as a protector of workers. It’s now up to the Obama administration to stand up to them — and get this fundamental agency back to work.
Kimberly Freeman Brown is the executive director of the labor policy and advocacy organization American Rights at Work.
| | | Under-30 Americans: The next new dealers - The Washington Post
25-February-2010
Young Americans are the linchpin of a new progressive era in American politics. So why aren't Democrats paying more attention to them?
The relative strength of conservatives in American politics since the 1980s was built on generational change: Voters whose views had been shaped by the New Deal were gradually replaced with the more cautious souls who came of age after FDR. Enter the Millennials -- generally defined as Americans born in 1981 or after. They are, without question, the most liberal generation since those New Dealers, and they could transform our politics for decades.
Yet this will happen only if progressive politicians start noticing their very best friends in the electorate. Progressives who doubt this should spend time with the exhaustive portrait of the Millennials that Pew Research Center released Wednesday. The study underscored the generation's "distinctiveness," and a big part of that distinctiveness is how progressive younger Americans are compared with the rest of the country.
For one thing, they are not allergic to the word "liberal." Americans under 30 include the largest proportion of self-described liberals and the smallest proportion of self-described conservatives of any age group: 29 percent of the under-30s called themselves liberal, compared with 28 percent who called themselves conservative.
"In every other age group," Pew notes, "far more described their views as conservative than liberal."
Among Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980), the conservative advantage over liberals was 38 percent to 20 percent. Among baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964), conservatives led 43 percent to 18 percent. Among those born in 1945 or before -- Pew uses the classic "Silent Generation" tag -- the conservative advantage was 45 to 15 percent. (Moderates and a few respondents who refused a label made up the remainder in all groups.)
The difference in self-labeling reflects differences in attitudes. It's well-known that younger voters are more liberal on social issues, particularly gay rights. But their liberalism also includes sympathy for activist government. Fifty-three percent of Millennials said that "government should do more to solve problems." In every other age group, pluralities preferred the alternative statement offered by the pollsters, that "government is doing too many things better left to business and individuals."
"Millennials," the report concludes, "are significantly less critical of government on a number of dimensions than are other age cohorts."
Scott Keeter, a principal author of the report, said that while individuals often become more conservative as they get older, not all generations start off as liberal as the Millennials have. "Many in Generation X came of age in the Reagan years and started out as conservatives," he said. Baby boomers, he added, are more conservative than they were in the 1970s, but older boomers "retain a distinctively Democratic tilt."
Though not the whole story, demographic factors help account for the Millennials' progressive leanings: Census data cited by Pew show that 61 percent of Millennials are white, compared with 70 percent of Americans age 30 and over. This means that political outreach to the young will require particular attention to Hispanics (19 percent of Millennials) and African Americans (14 percent).
For Democrats looking ahead to this fall's election, the Pew study has some disturbing news.
It's true that Millennials are the most Democratic age group in the electorate -- they voted for Barack Obama by 2 to 1. Their turnout rate relative to older voters was higher in 2008 than in any election since 1972, the first presidential contest in which 18-year-olds could vote.
But Pew notes that since 2008, the Millennials' "enthusiasms" have "cooled" -- "for Obama and his message of change, for the Democratic Party and, quite possibly, for politics itself."
Obama's personal ratings among the Millennials remain very high -- three-fourths have a favorable view of the president -- but his job-approval rating has slipped from 73 percent a year ago to 57 percent this month. In the early months of last year, Democrats had a 29-point Millennial advantage over the Republicans. By the end of the year, their lead had been cut to 14 points.
That still keeps the 18-to-29s the electorate's most Democratic age group. But Democrats face disaster this fall and real problems in 2012 if the Millennials become disaffected from politics and if the Republicans continue to erode the Democrats' generational edge.
And what will Democrats do about it? Politicians have a bad habit in midterm elections: They concentrate on older folks, assuming younger voters will stay home on Election Day. This may be rational most of the time, but it is a foolish bet for Democrats and liberals this year. The young helped them rise to power and can just as easily usher them to early retirements. Obama cannot afford to break their hearts.
| | | Spirited debate unfolds at health care summit - CNN
25-February-2010
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama and Republican and Democratic leaders engaged in a spirited but civil debate at a health care summit Thursday, finding agreement on some issues such as high costs but not much common ground on how to achieve reform.
In opening remarks, Obama said that "it is absolutely critical to begin now moving on what is one of the biggest drags on the economy."
The situation affects not just people without health insurance but also those who have it, Obama said.
"The problem is not getting better," he said. "It is getting worse."
Obama called on Republican and Democratic leaders at the much-publicized summit not to "focus on where we differ but focus on where we agree."
Live updates from the health care summit
Highlights of Obama's plan
Video: Partisan rift on health care
Key lawmakers on health care
Video: Dying for health coverage
RELATED TOPICS
Health Care Reform
U.S. Senate
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Barack Obama
The differences were evident though in what each side believes should happen next.
In opening remarks for Republicans, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said his party wants to focus on health care costs. Alexander urged the president and Democrats to scrap current legislation and "start over."
But Democrats said that wouldn't happen, adding Americans cannot wait.
"For them, they don't have time for us to start over," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in her opening comments.
Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona said there's a major philosophical difference between the two sides over who should be in charge of the health care system -- the government or private industry.
"There's so much in the bills you have supported that puts so much control in Washington," Kyl said to Obama.
Critics have said the nationally televised six-hour summit will amount to little but a public relations stunt.
"This is about theater," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, before the meeting began. "This is not about substance unfortunately."
Watch Cornyn dismiss summit before it starts
Obama addressed that concern in his opening remarks.
"I hope this isn't political theater where people are playing to the camera," he said.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said earlier Thursday that the president wants to hear what Republicans have to say.
"It makes sense to have everybody in the same room," Gibbs said on CNN's "American Morning." "We're going to have a big table. We're going to listen to a lot of ideas."
Watch Gibbs point to progress on health care
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, urged Republicans to present their proposals, saying, "If you have a better plan ... let's hear it. We're ready to listen."
Obama said Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that costs have to be contained.
"It's absolutely true that if all we're doing is adding more people to a broken system, then costs will continue to skyrocket," he said.
Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who's a physician, cited several ways to cut costs, including focusing on disease prevention and management as well as cracking down on fraud.
Coburn also blasted what he called "extortion" behind frivolous lawsuits that he said make doctors victims of the legal system.
"A large number of the tests we order every day are not for the patients, they're for the doctors," Coburn said.
As legislators prepared Wednesday for the meeting, there did not appear to be much mood for compromise on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, a key author of the Senate health care bill, told reporters Wednesday that if Republicans continue to demand that Democrats scrap their health care proposals and start over, "then there's nothing to talk about."
"If you expect me to start all over on this, there's really not much point in this, 'cause we're not going to start over," the Connecticut Democrat said.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, argued that's exactly what Republicans want.
"Unless they're willing to do that, I think it's nearly impossible to imagine a scenario under which we can reach agreement because we don't think we ought to pass a 2,700-page bill that seeks to restructure one-sixth of our economy," McConnell said.
Dodd said Democrats and Republicans could find common ground in some areas, such as a Republican push to allow insurers to sell insurance across state lines. Dodd called the GOP proposal "a legitimate issue" but added that Democrats already have a version of that proposal in their legislation.
Gibbs expressed confidence Thursday that a bill will pass.
"We're very close to health care reform for the American people," he said.
Three top Democratic sources told CNN the new goal is to pass the final legislation by the end of March or else Congress will have to move back to other issues such as job creation and unfinished spending bills.
The summit is taking place across the street from the White House in the Garden Room at Blair House. It's airing live on CNN.
Watch the summit, then share your reaction
Obama's opening comments were followed by remarks from Republican and Democratic members chosen by their colleagues. The summit discussions will be based on four themes -- controlling costs, enacting insurance reforms, reducing the deficit and expanding coverage.
Obama made health care reform the domestic priority during his first year in office, but after Democrats lost their crucial 60th vote in the Senate recently, they were forced to rethink their strategy.
Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in last month's special election to serve the remainder of the late Ted Kennedy's Senate term.
Obama on Monday unveiled a blueprint for his compromise health care plan, which closely resembles the bill that emerged from the Senate last year.
The White House said the president's proposal would extend coverage to 31 million Americans. If enacted, Obama's plan would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago.
Obama's plan does not include a government-run public health insurance option, which is in the House bill but not in the Senate version. Liberal Democrats support the public option, but Republicans and some moderate Democrats fiercely oppose it.
Pelosi told reporters Wednesday she had "great optimism" ahead of the meeting.
But she declined to give any specifics about how Democrats will proceed on the health care overhaul. She also sidestepped questions about Democrats' plans to use a controversial parliamentary shortcut to bypass GOP opposition and pass a health care bill.
Watch what's at stake at the health care summit
"I'm going there to talk about substance," she said. "We agree that we should have universal access to coverage, with affordability for the middle class and accountability for the insurance companies. That, to me, is what the subject is about tomorrow."
But Sen. Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Democrats did talk Wednesday morning about using "reconciliation" to move health care legislation. He said Democrats anticipate the issue will come up at Thursday's summit.
Reconciliation is a process, limited to budget-related bills, that bypasses the Senate rule of 60 votes being needed to end debate. By using reconciliation, only a majority vote would be needed to advance a bill.
McConnell warned the political consequences would be severe if Democrats moved forward without GOP support.
Pointing to the backlash over the special deal in the Senate bill for Nebraska's Democratic senator, Ben Nelson, to cover his state's Medicaid costs, McConnell said, "If they think the American people are mad at them now, they haven't seen anything yet."
The Senate majority leader pointed out this week that reconciliation has been used more than 20 times since 1981, by both parties.
In his opening remarks Thursday, Republican spokesman Alexander urged Democrats not to use reconciliation and ram the measure through Congress.
| | | P&W appeals ruling on closing - New Haven Register
25-February-2010
The fate of Pratt & Whitney’s engine overhaul and repair operations in Cheshire and East Hartford went back to court Wednesday, as the manufacturer filed an appeal of the recent court decision that blocked its plan to close the plants.
“Our appeal will address the errors in the court’s analysis of the collective bargaining agreements and the court’s conclusion,” said company spokesman Greg Brostowicz. “We genuinely believe that we negotiated in good faith and we made every reasonable effort to keep these jobs in Connecticut.”
Union leaders, in response, said the company should work with employees to find a resolution rather than appeal the court ruling. Pratt & Whitney, a division of United Technologies Corp., first announced plans to shut down the Cheshire plant and a related East Hartford division in September.
The decision would have moved 1,000 jobs out of state and immediately drew criticism from the union representing workers as well as state officials. The union subsequently sued, claiming the company did not try hard enough to save the jobs.
On Feb. 5, U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a permanent injunction preventing the company from moving the jobs to Columbus, Ga., Japan and Singapore.
Brostowicz said the company was awaiting a final decision, which came Feb. 17, before filing its appeal. The final decision upheld much of the Feb. 5 ruling, he said.
Following Pratt & Whitney’s filing Wednesday in U.S. District Court, company officials have 14 days to make another court filing further detailing the appeal.
The appeal came a day after Pratt & Whitney announced it will eliminate 163 union jobs in Connecticut — 119 in Cheshire, the rest in East Hartford — by March 12 due to a slowdown in business.
James Parent, chief negotiator for the union representing workers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, criticized the company again Wednesday.
“They won’t win an appeal; the judge’s decision was sound and the evidence was overwhelming,” he said in a statement. “They should stop wasting time and money and start working with us. Acting recklessly with people’s lives is irresponsible. The company needs to take a hard look at themselves; things have gotten ugly.”
State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who urged the court to block the plant closures, said he, too, is disappointed the company is appealing the court’s decision.
“This decision will simply add cost and friction with minimal prospects of success in overturning a powerful and persuasive judicial ruling,” he said in a statement. “The company would seem better served by seeking common ground with its workers rather than extending this conflict in the courts.”
Contact Cara Baruzzi at cbaruzzi@newhavenregister.com or 203-789-5748.
| | | Rell Lobbies Business Community To Support BRAC-Like Commission - ct news junkie
25-February-2010
In an unexpected appearance at Wednesday’s Connecticut Business & Industry Association event, Gov. M. Jodi Rell urged business leaders to support her plan to create a new commission to look at restructuring state government.
“We have to get our spending under control because we don’t have the money, but getting our state government to do something about it, is frankly a constantly frustrating battle of wills,” Rell said.
“I proposed a new way of dealing with the budget and I called for a budget cutting panel based on what many of us know as the BRAC (Base Closure and Realignment) Commission,” Rell said. “To take the politics out of the equation.”
Rell admitted that when she first proposed this some political pundits rolled their eyes and others said she’s just kicking it down the road. She said those political pundits and columnists are missing the point.
She said when the BRAC Commission was formed to close military bases they knew Congress would be unable to handle the task of deciding which bases should close.
“There was no horse trading, no log rolling, no powerful members calling in the favors and it worked,” Rell said.
She said it will also work in changing the discussion on the state budget and help take politics out of the equation.
“We have a state government unable to make the decisions required to make itself affordable,” Rell said. “It may be the only way for us to make real changes to a state budget.”
The changes proposed by the 24-member commission would have a greater and lasting impact than any deficit mitigation plan or any two-year budget that could ever be offer, Rell said.
John Rathgeber, CEO and President of CBIA, said Rell’s proposed commission deserves the support of the General Assembly. He urged business leaders to talk to their legislators about the commission.
Christine Stuart photo
State Comptroller Nancy Wyman
“We need to take seriously this concept,” Rathgeber said. “The proposal deserves serious consideration.”
Rathgeber’s colleague Joe Brennan said CBIA supports the idea because “we need to do something different to break the logjam.” He said it’s the uncertainty of Connecticut’s long term policies and budget priorities that is driving business out of the state.
State Comptroller Nancy Wyman also addressed to packed room of business leaders Wednesday and talked about the fiscal outlook for the state.
She said the budget deficit for this fiscal year remains around $515 million. She said she doesn’t expect that number to change much on March 1 when she releases her latest projections.
“There are no magic bullets to solve the problem,” Wyman said.
There are three ways to solve the budget crisis: spending cuts, borrowing, or tax increases.
“We need structural changes,” Wyman said before promoting her idea to take any surplus money on a monthly basis and deposit it in the Rainy Day Fund.
She said she hasn’t asked Rell yet what she will propose as part of her budget mitigation plan due by March 3, but the “rumors are they will take some of the money from the Rainy Day Fund they planned to use in the second year of the biennium.”
When asked what this will mean, Wyman said it means there will be more holes to fill in the following fiscal year.
On Tuesday, Sen. President Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said he’s not concerned with taking money from the Rainy Day Fund and moving it up to cover the deficit in 2010 as long as the cuts are being made in the 2011 budget. He said it’s difficult when you’re down to the last four months of the fiscal year to make any cuts to the current budget.
| | | Union President Negotiating With Shaw's On Severance Packages - Courant.com
25-February-2010
The Hartford Courant
3:34 PM EST, February 24, 2010
The president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 371 is taking a break from negotiations with Stop & Shop today as he tries to save jobs and arrange severance packages for unionized Shaw's workers who will be displaced.
Last week, Shaw's owner, SuperValu Inc. of Minneapolis, announced it was pulling out of Connecticut and selling its 18 stores. The grocery chain's 2,200 part-time and full-time workers are currently covered by a Local 371 contract.
Brian Petronella, president of the local union, said he's negotiating with Shaw's this afternoon on severance packages.
"I'm hoping that Shaw's provides the people that are going to lose their jobs with some type of package. At the very least we want them to keep their medical coverage going for awhile so they don't have to pick up COBRA," he said, referring to a federal program under which former employees can temporarily keep their former employers' health coverage, usually at a higher price.
"They have an obligation to take care of these people," Petronella said.
Shaw's had no immediate comment before the talks.
A deli worker at a Shaw's store that's being converted to a nonunion ShopRite said Wednesday that Shaw's officials are keeping workers in the dark about what will happen next.
"They haven't said anything about when the store will reopen as a ShopRite," said the deli worker at the East Hartford store, who declined to give her name.
"If they offered me a job, I'd stay — even if they are nonunion. I would probably have no choice. You need a job."
The mood among store workers is not optimistic: Most employees doubt the new ShopRite owner will keep them on the payroll, said the deli worker.
"As far as we're concerned, we are totally gone," she said. "At this point, we're all getting laid off. They [Shaw's] haven't told us otherwise. They haven't told us if the new owners are going to interview us. We're just going along day by day."
Stop & Shop, which is in contract talks with UFCW throughout New England, and is operating under an expired contract, will acquire five Shaw's stores — in Newington, East Hampton, Vernon, Darien and New Fairfield. Workers there will be represented by Local 371, but must reapply and interview for their old jobs.
New Jersey-based Wakefern Food Corp plans to convert 11 Shaw's stores to ShopRite or PriceRite locations. Wakefern, which operates as a retail cooperative and handles marketing and distribution, told the union last week its store owners will interview Shaw's employees.
Five of the Wakefern conversions — stores in Hamden, Stratford, Canton, West Hartford and Enfield — will continue as union shops, Petronella said, and are expected to interview existing workers.
The remaining Wakefern conversions — Clinton, East Hartford, Fairfield, Southbury, Wallingford and Willimantic — are being purchased by ShopRite or PriceRite operators who are not expected to operate union shops, Petronella said.
"Whether they're going to interview or hire people, I don't know," Petronella said today.
For the people who are at the nonunion Wakefern stores, Petronella said, "I'm hoping that down the road, those folks will have a chance to interview at Stop & Shop and union ShopRites." P
Negotiators for Stop & Shop and the UFCW are continuing their talks today in Rhode Island. Talks showed some progress but the sides remain apart, Petronella said. Stop & Shop spokeswoman Faith Weiner was more optimistic than Petronella in her assessment of Wednesday's negotiations.
"We met all day yesterday [Tuesday] and worked primarily on contract language issues and made significant progress," she said.
"We are continuing to meet today and narrowing the gap on remaining items -- regarding health and welfare, and pension and wages. We are committed to staying at the table and reaching an agreement and negotiating in good faith."
| | | Advocates Clash With Business Leaders Over Paid Sick Days - CT News junkie
25-February-2010
Proponents of a bill that allows employees to earn up to five paid sick days per year held a press conference at the Capitol Wednesday, the same day as more than a couple hundred business leaders from around the state gathered to talk about job growth.
As proponents of the bill talked about how it’s actually good for business and public health, opponents of the legislation said it was an “anti-business” bill that will drive more companies out of the state.
“This bill has been worked out over time and in my view is a common sense approach to a desperate situation,” Sen. John Kissel, a Republican from Enfield, said Wednesday. Kissel has been one of the only Republicans in the past to support the proposal, which puts him in direct conflict with his party’s leadership.
Christine Stuart photo
Rep. Larry Cafero and Sen. John McKinney
“This is a job killing bill,” Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, said Wednesday.
In a year when everyone agrees job growth and job creation is the most important issue facing the state, Democrats are introducing “unfriendly business mandates,” he said.
This is the fourth year the bill has been proposed.
This year’s bill addresses employers with 50 or more employees, so it carves out small businesses, Kissel said. And it‘s not cumulative, so you can’t carry the days over from one year to another.
“It’s not going to drive businesses away,” Kissel said.
Sen. Edith Prague, chairwoman of the Labor Committee and the bill’s main proponent, agreed.
Christine Stuart photo
Wanda Cobbs
Holding up an article from Forbes magazine, Prague said it costs employers $180 billion a year in 2007 by not giving their employees paid sick time. “Besides that when workers go to work sick are they productive, can they do their job? I don’t think so,” Prague said.
“Folks who say paid sick time is going to chase businesses out of this state really don’t have any facts to back that up,” Prague said.
Wanda Cobbs, a West Hartford school bus driver, knows all to well what it’s like to go to work sick. Last December her son and daughter got H1N1 and she was forced to take time off work to care for them. In the process she was infected with H1N1, but couldn’t afford to take any more time off, so she went to work sick.
“For more than a week I drove a school bus while I suffered from swine flu,” Cobbs said. None of the kids on her bus caught the flu from her, but Cobbs believes “nobody should have to go to work sick.”
Rep. Selim Noujaim, a Republican from Waterbury, said over the past 10 years he’s seen 18 companies he used to do business with move or go out of business.
He said paid sick days is harmful to employees, not employers, because it’s the employees who will lose their jobs if the legislature passes this bill.
“Another mandate on employers means they will no longer be able to operate in the state,” Noujaim said.
Christine Stuart photo
Rep. Selim Noujaim and Sen. John McKinney
And while the bill may apply only to companies with 50 or more employees, Noujaim doesn’t think it would be long before it applied to other small businesses.
But Kissel warned it’s also a public health issue.
According to the Institute of Women’s Policy Research 8 million Americans went to work with H1N1 last year and an estimated 7 million people caught H1N1 from a co-worker.
When asked what they believe will help them get the bill passed this year, Prague said the H1N1 epidemic. She said the epidemic showed that not everyone has the ability to stay home from work when they are sick.
“ I think our school bus driver said it all,” Prague said
| | | Bill would require review of health insurance rates - New Haven Register
22-February-2010
By Mary E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor
The state’s health care advocate is proposing legislation that would open up review of health insurance rate increases in Connecticut, while allowing his office and the attorney general to act as intervenors and appeal decisions to the courts.
The plan will go to a public hearing at 1 p.m. at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford Thursday, and is being offered as the latest statistics on insurance profits and skyrocketing rate requests are making national news.
A report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that the 10 largest insurance companies’ profits increased 250 percent between 2000 and 2009. Last year, WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Aetna and Humana had combined profits of $12.2 billion, up $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008.
The report, “Insurance Companies Prosper, Families Suffer: Our Broken Health Insurance System,” found that the companies accomplished this by covering 2.7 million fewer Americans than the year before.
Health care Advocate Kevin Lembo said he is skeptical of claims by the state Insurance Department that it does not have the authority to “dig deep” into the rate requests that come before it. A report by the state Office of Legislative Research found that out of 23 rate increase requests going back to 2006, 19 were approved as submitted.
Lembo, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the co-chairmen of the Insurance Committee of the legislature have proposed holding public hearings on all rate increase requests; notifying all policyholders affected; and requiring the department to vote on every application. Currently, rate increases can take effect without any action by the department.
The legislation would also presume that all information submitted at the rate proceeding is public, with the burden of proof on the insurer to show why it should not be disclosed. It would allow Blumenthal and Lembo to intervene as parties in all rate cases and appeal decisions to Superior Court, if necessary.
A spokeswoman for the state Insurance Department said officials there are still reviewing the proposal and had no comment at this time.
“Individuals and businesses are forced to accept these outrageous increases in insurance premiums, because they have no real power to change the outcome; no voice in the process; no real, open market,” Lembo said.
He said he agrees with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that the current health care system is broken, but he did not feel Connecticut could wait for federal reform to protect consumers.
The HHS review of insurance profits was released as Anthem Blue Cross of California, which is owned by the for-profit company WellPoint Inc. requested rate increases up to 39 percent in its individual market rates at the same time WellPoint had more than $2.7 billion in profits in the most recent quarter.
Last year, Anthem Blue Cross sought a 24 percent to 32 percent jump in Connecticut and eventually was granted a 13 percent to 20 percent boost. Sebelius is using the report and the Anthem request to push for the market reforms, the insurance exchange and other fixes included in the House and Senate health bills.
President Barack Obama is holding a bipartisan health seminar Thursday and is expected to present a combined bill that would insure 30 million people by 2019 at a cost $900 billion.
Contact Mary O’Leary at moleary@newhavenregister.com or 203-789-5731.
| | | Middletown Mayor, BOE Chairman Try To Clarify Roles Regarding Local 466 Workers - Hartford Courant
22-February-2010
MIDDLETOWN — - Mayor Sebastian Giuliano and board of education Chairman Ted Raczka are working to clarify the roles the city and school district play in union matters.
Their discussions, which began in January, focus on Local 466, which represents school cafeteria workers, secretaries and custodians. Those employees work for the school district but are hired by the city, Raczka said. The city, which negotiates their union contract, also handles grievances and pays the legal fees to represent the school district when grievances require state mediation. The union represents the employees.
Giuliano said school administrators don't always follow the protocol listed in the contract for disciplinary matters or posting open positions, which leads employees to file grievances with the city. The situation, he said, places the city in an awkward position when those grievances reach the state labor board.
"If they haven't followed the contract, what do we do when we go to the labor board?" he asked.
He said employees hired by the city are entitled to the protections listed in their union contract.
Raczka said that the arrangement has created "turf wars" between the school district and the city, but that the grievances seem to be over "fairly minor issues." The problem, he said, has existed for decades in Middletown, one of three municipalities in the state that designates the mayor as the hiring authority and the school board as the funding source.
"I think it's gotten a little bit out of hand right now," he said. "I think it's something that if everyone takes a step back ... we can resolve."
Raczka said that the school district's Local 466 workers — who number 123 — have filed the most grievances of all school personnel — 11 — since July.
Giuliano said that Local 466 workers who work for city departments have not filed any grievances, which he said shows that the city follows union contract rules and settles disagreements quickly.
Larry Dorman, a spokesman for AFSCME Council 4, which represents Local 466, said the union welcomes any clarification.
Grievances are handled through a three-step process that begins with the employee's complaint to his or her department head. Unresolved problems are forwarded to the city's personnel director. Unresolved grievances then go to the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration.
The school district, Dorman said, has often refused to settle grievances even after the city has ruled in employees' favor, the subject of the union's Dec. 31 complaint to the State Board of Labor Relations.
"To the degree that the city can get more control of its process, I think that's something everyone ought to welcome," he said.
Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant
| | | Union to appeal taking no-layoff clause out of city talks - Stamford Advocate
22-February-2010
STAMFORD -- Despite Mayor Michael Pavia's assurances this week that employee layoffs will be a last resort, union leaders will appeal an arbitration decision that could keep no-layoff clauses off the bargaining table.
In a recent decision, a three-member arbitration panel representing the state Department of Labor sided with the city against the unions for municipal supervisory employees, dental hygienists and the Teamsters.
The panel wrote in its brief that simply having past negotiations involving a no-layoff clause does not make it a mandatory negotiating point, according to court documents.
Kevin Murphy, the director of collective bargaining and organizing for Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said the union believes the panel was outside its jurisdiction in making a ruling.
"There is only one authority that is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the subject of mandatory subjects of bargaining and that is the state Board of Labor Relations," Murphy said in a statement.
AFSCME, which represents the supervisors and the dental hygienists, plans to appeal to the Board of Labor Relations, he said.
The union is free to exercise its right to an appeal, wrote Michael Larobina, the city's legal affairs director, in an e-mail.
Last week, Larobina said the ruling meant the city would no longer consider no-layoff clauses in contract talks.
AFSCME negotiates an average of 190 contracts each year; last year, Murphy estimated, one-third included no-layoff clauses.
"Recently, there are a lot more no-layoff clauses because of the economic times," Murphy said. "We're going to give some concessions; we want job security for those concessions."
Last spring, the city negotiated no-layoff clauses with all 10 city unions for the current fiscal year, setting two-year agreements with the police and fire unions and a three-year agreement with Smith House workers.
In Norwalk, the city reopened a settled contract with city supervisors to offer a no-layoff clause in return for a hard freeze, Norwalk Finance Director Tom Hamilton said.
The clause extends six months into the 2011 fiscal year, he said.
Norwalk does not typically offer no-layoff clauses, but "felt it was a reasonable compromise," because the union was not obligated to reopen the contract, Hamilton said.
Tuesday, Pavia told 150 city workers that layoffs are the "last" thing his administration wants.
Staff Writer Devon Lash can be reached at 203-964-2242 or devon.lash@scni.com.
| | | Torrington grapples wit worker raises
22-February-2010
TORRINGTON — Taxpayers this year are on the hook for $614,216 in raises for city workers, and in this second consecutive year of tight budgets, the mayor likely would not get far with the card he played last February: Asking unions to give up negotiated raises.
One union leader is questioning whether a series of personnel moves over the last seven months, including a $12,000 raise for one employee, is a sign that the city overstated its reportedly dire financial situation last year. Others say they were told the request to forgo raises was a one-year deal, and they would not consider doing it again.
Every public employee in the city except teachers gave up raises altogether last year; most teachers received a small “step” increase but it was not an across-the-board cost of living raise.
David Kissko, president of the 320-member City Hall workers union, questioned how on Feb. 10 the City Council could afford to approve $12,000 raise for information technology worker Jim Liebler, who had a private sector job offer. A week later, the city laid off parttime City Clerk employee Jackie Clement from her 20-hour per week job. That layoff is projected to save about $20,000 for the year.
“How do you justify giving somebody $12,000 and then laying off a part-time employee?” said Kissko, who also questioned the hiring of a new street department worker after that department lost three employees to cost-cutting early retirement packages last year. “What they’re doing doesn’t really jive with reality.”
Mayor Ryan J. Bingham defended the personnel moves as individual decisions, and said tying the larger budget issue to one layoff and the filling of “essential” positions such as street department workers was “overly simplistic.” He agreed, however, that unions “have a point” when it comes to how the personnel moves may appear, but said, “We’re still down a halfdozen employees across the board, so to say we’re not feeling a financial burden is silly to say.”
The city is still feeling a significant budget pinch, Bingham said, although it is difficult to gauge how dire the situation will be. The city’s grand list is still being finalized in the midst of a revaluation year that will almost certainly prompt a lowering of the 35.33-mill tax rate, but state aid to cities and towns also is expected to decline.
That muddled picture is putting most of Bingham’s focus on holding the line on spending, but he acknowledged that turning in a budget that remains at or below this year’s $114,895,660 is looking increasingly difficult. “The only way we’re going to be able to freeze spending is through significant layoffs or significant concessions,” Bingham said. Economically, “We thought things would turn around. That’s looking like it’s not going to be the case. If it’s getting better it’s only slightly, but it’s looking like it’s going to be worse.”
Democratic City Council members Marie P. Soliani and Paul F. Samele have already begun to signal they are in no mood to grant raises. Soliani and Samele voted against a teachers’ contract that included raises in December and a dispatchers’ contract that contained a 3 percent raise in January.
Soliani was the sole vote against a dispatchers’ contract containing raises as well as the single $12,000 raise approved on Feb. 10. Samele was absent for that vote, but said he would have also opposed it. Soliani and Samele both declined to promise “no” votes when departmental budget approval begins in April, but Samele said in an interview that he remains deeply concerned about the impact raises will have on the city budget and said past votes are sending a message.
“It’s going to be very difficult to look at raises this year knowing what kind of shape we’re in,” Samele said.
Whether the city faces a worse fiscal scenario than last year is not registering much with union officials, who said they were told during negotiations last year that wage freezes were a one-year fix. City Planner Martin Connor, who serves as president of a union representing 18 City Hall managers, said the union has no intention of giving up raises that are projected to cost taxpayers $60,146 in 2010-11.
“The city hasn’t asked, and I don’t expect they will,” Connor said.
“I think everybody works very hard and sacrifices for the city. We did our part last year.”
Representatives from the police union and the firefighters’ union also said they understood the wage freeze request was only a one-year deal, but they did not rule out sitting down with city officials if asked to give up raises again.
“If they want to open up and sit down and talk to us, I wouldn’t say no,” said Chris Pepler, the president of the firefighters’ union. The union is due a 3.5 percent increase that will cost taxpayers about $140,000.
“We’re very familiar with the economic climate,” Pepler added. “We don’t want to come across as being greedy.”
Harry Elliott, the attorney for the city’s police union, took a similar tack. “If the city wants to propose something to the union leadership, they’ll listen,” he said. Police department raises are projected to cost about $250,000.
When asked whether he planned to approach unions to ask for more concessions, Bingham said, “the idea is there but we haven’t acted on it.” He said the city does plan to hire a health insurance consultant that could introduce new costcutting tools.
| | | Stop & Shop Union Members Vote To Authorize A Strike - Hartford Courant
22-February-2010
ROCKY HILL - About 1,500 unionized Stop & Shop workers in Connecticut joined fellow workers in Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Sunday in voting to strike, but the union said that there will be no walkout for at least another week.
Negotiations between New England's largest grocery chain and its workers broke down Saturday evening, just hours before their contract expired. The two sides agreed to extend the contract through next weekend, and will resume talks on Tuesday.
"We're disappointed they took a strike authorization vote, but we're committed to continuing to negotiate until we reach a fair agreement," company spokeswoman Faith Weiner said Sunday afternoon. "It's business as usual in all our stores."
The two sides are still divided over wages, pensions and medical insurance costs, according to Brian Petronella, president of Local 371 of the United Food and Commercial Workers union.
"This is the most successful retail food chain in New England. They know it, we know it," Petronella said. "There's no reason these workers shouldn't get a good wage increase, or why the company shouldn't continue to take care of health care and the pension plan."
Weiner declined to discuss specifics, saying, "We prefer to negotiate at the table. It's premature to comment on any individual component of negotiations. They're fluid."
About 500 of Local 371's members showed up for the vote at the Marriott hotel in Rocky Hill, and Petronella said afterward that they unanimously authorized union leaders to declare a strike. Local 919, based in Farmington, had about 1,000 people vote unanimously to strike.
In Massachusetts, Local 1445 cast about 4,600 votes and Local 1459 cast about 400 votes. In Rhode Island, Local 328 cast about 1,500 votes. All three branches voted to strike.
In all, the union represents 36,000 workers at 240 stores. About 15,000 union members are in Connecticut, and about 80 percent are part-timers, Petronella said.
Bill Buono, a union steward and meat-cutter at the company's North Haven store, said that Stop & Shop has been a good employer for the 40 years he has worked there. In the past several years, though, the company has taken a harder line in labor negotiations even though its market share has risen as some competing chains scaled back or folded, he said.
"Absolutely nobody wants a strike situation," Buono said. "But right now, 51 cents of every [grocery] dollar spent in New England goes to Stop & Shop. So why would they take the chance of closing down all their stores? Some of those customers wouldn't come back."
Entry-level, part-time employees make as little as $125 a week, and would have to pay about $45 a month for their medical coverage if the company's proposal is accepted, Buono said. Full-time workers would get a $700, one-time bonus but no pay raise this year; in exchange, they'd have to pay about $1,100 a year toward health insurance, he said.
Under the short-term agreement reached Saturday afternoon, workers will stay employed under the current contract terms through at least midnight Saturday.
After that, the company and union can agree to renew the contract on a day-to-day basis. Or, either side can terminate the deal after giving 24 hours' notice. Stop & Shop has been advertising for replacement workers since early February.
All five locals will have representatives at the negotiations that resume in Providence on Tuesday.
Petronella said a difficulty in this year's talks is the new medical insurance law in Massachusetts that requires a higher quality of coverage than part-timers receive now. The law does not affect Connecticut workers, but the cost of improving benefits in Massachusetts is complicating negotiations in all three states.
•Courant staff writer Matthew Sturdevant contributed to this story | | | Romney says Obama failed America - Yahoo News
19-February-2010
WASHINGTON – Republican Mitt Romney blistered President Barack Obama for a squandered first year of policy failures and broken promises on Thursday, informally auditioning before a key part of the GOP base for the chance to challenge the Democrat in 2012.
"President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their team have failed the American people, and that is why their majority will be out the door," Romney told a gathering of conservatives, a certain critical constituency in the upcoming Republican primary fight.
"When it comes to pinning blame, pin the tail on the donkeys," Romney quipped — and this partisan crowd ate it up.
Conservatives attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference also heartily cheered at several other points during Romney's speech. And they went wild when newly elected Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., made a surprise appearance to introduce Romney, whose advisers helped orchestrate Brown's upset victory last month.
"He was the only one behind pushing me along to try to make a difference," Brown said of Romney, "one of the Republican Party's bright lights."
Brown, beloved by conservatives and "tea party" activists despite his moderate stances on social issues, brings Romney credibility with a constituency that had viewed the former governor skeptically during his failed 2008 bid for the GOP presidential nomination.
Noting as much, Romney said: "As a Massachusetts man, who, like my fellow Bay-staters, has over the years, been understandably regarded somewhat suspiciously in gatherings like this, let me take just a moment" to rejoice in Brown's victory.
Romney hasn't decided whether to run for president again but he's laying the groundwork. He's seen by observers as the most formidable Republican, given that he's run before and the GOP has a history of nominating the loser of the last nomination fight. He withdrew from the GOP fight two years ago before the same audience he spoke to Thursday, effectively ceding the nomination to John McCain.
Other potential 2012 candidates speaking to the conservative gathering this week include: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
In his speech, Romney praised former President George W. Bush, saying history will judge him kindly. "He kept us safe," Romney said.
He also blasted Obama for "his failure to re-ignite the economy" — even though there are signs of growth. "He has prolonged the recession, expanded the pain of unemployment, and added to the burden of debt we will leave future generations," Romney said.
Romney argued that Obama broke his promises of transparency and a new kind of politics. And Romney charged Obama with "the most blatant and reprehensible manifestation of political payoff in modern memory" by cutting a health care deal with unions.
Pumping up the GOP, Romney said: "The people of America are looking to conservatives for leadership, and we must not fail them."
He said conservatives would strengthen the economy, U.S. security, and the nation's families, though he acknowledged that not everything on the agenda is popular.
Still, he said: "The American people have shown that they are ready for truth to trump hope. The truth is that government is not the solution to all our problems."
| | | Angela Carella: Tough time to be in Congress - Stamford Advocate
19-February-2010
Voters think little of Congress.
Polls show that nearly three-quarters of Americans disapprove of the job lawmakers do in Washington. Nationwide, and particularly in Connecticut, large numbers of voters call themselves independents, not wishing to associate with Democrats or Republicans.
Many voters think the members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives looked the other way while Wall Street divvied up shaky mortgages, hid them in nebulous financial packages and sold them, bringing the country to near economic collapse.
They are angry that Congress has allowed a federal budget deficit in the trillions and counting.
They are fed up with the underhanded system that allows lawmakers to attach "earmarks" to bills to fund pet projects in their districts.
They detest how members of both parties attack each other, thwart each other's attempts to fix problems and spin the truth in an unending bid for re-election as the country struggles with job loss, skyrocketing energy and health care costs, and broken schools.
It was in that atmosphere that Democrat Jim Himes went to Washington one year ago, after he defeated longtime Republican U.S. Rep. Chris Shays. Now Himes represents Connecticut's 4th Congressional District, which includes Fairfield County.
Now Himes is one of the group that voters detest.
"I love the job, even though it's enormously challenging, and it was a difficult time to arrive," said Himes, who met with Advocate editors Monday.
Do members of Congress know about the people's anger?
"We are aware of it," said Himes, 43, a Harvard-educated former banking executive and one-time head of a nonprofit that creates housing for the poor. "At the end of the day I worry more about what my constituents think than about the broader picture."
Voters tend to "like their congressman and not like Congress," said Himes, who lives in Greenwich with his wife and two daughters.
But, along with the nation's economic framework, that may be changing. As with Shays, Connecticut voters have targeted two other longtime incumbents in the opposing party -- U.S. Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman. Dodd's poll numbers were so poor that he decided not to run this year, and the numbers for Lieberman aren't much better for 2012.
The reason for the anti-incumbent attitude is clear, Himes said, citing an example involving a senator from his own party, Ben Nelson of Nebraska. In the Washington wheeling and dealing over President Obama's health-care plan, Nelson agreed to vote for it only after he swung a deal that other states would pay Nebraska's extra Medicare costs forever.
"Voters reacted badly to that because they think those deals are a little sleazy, and they are," Himes said.
Republicans, for their part, have adopted a tactic of opposing everything Democrats propose, even if it's a policy they like, hoping it will win them votes, he said.
"That's not taking responsibility for governing," Himes said. "The people want us to work together, but if you are a Democratic leader in Congress and the other side is not standing by its own principles, how do you deal with them?"
Many things about the system work, he said. Having a worthy opponent, for example, is good, Himes said.
"You have to get out of the cable news shout-fest and get in the realm of proposals and ideas," he said.
Believe it or not, the slow pace of government can be good, too, he said.
"In the year I've been there I've learned to take the longer view, to respect that a change in administration can't revolutionize the economy or the government. That takes time. It's a process," he said. "For all of us, it's a good thing government moves slowly when the other party holds the keys."
But partisanship is built in. State legislatures, for example, often draw voting districts to favor one party or the other, Himes said. A lawmaker's seat is safe, for example, if he is a Republican in a heavily Republican district. Himes' is a swing seat because Fairfield County has many independent voters who switch between the parties.
"There is a very real difference between people in Congress with safe seats and those without safe seats," Himes said. "You get out more, you listen more if your seat is unsafe. A lot of people in Congress play to their core if they have a safe seat. They are not required to think centrist, which is where most of the American people are."
It explains some of the polarization to the left and right, and how cooperation falls into the gap between.
"People are enraged by the partisanship," Himes said.
That includes Congress. The list of moderate lawmakers deciding not to run again is growing. The latest was Monday, when Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, announced he will give up his seat, citing "too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." Other moderates who quit have cited party pressure to conform and difficulty raising campaign money if you don't go full liberal or full conservative.
Congress should try harder to earn the confidence of voters, Himes said.
"Don't do the Ben Nelson give-aways. Don't put off the Charlie Rangel ethics investigations," he said.
The allegations against Rangel, a New York Democrat and influential member of the House, include that he evaded taxes, accepted gifts, and preserved a tax loophole for a campaign contributor.
Congress can take other steps, Himes said.
"I get $1.4 million a year to run my office. Take it down to $1.3 million, and everyone else in Congress do the same," Himes said. "Let's take a pay cut. Those things won't make a big difference financially, but it will tell people we hear you, we will live like you do."
Members of Congress, who earn $174,000 a year, get an automatic cost-of-living increase each January, though they voted not to accept it for 2010. Individuals may refuse the raise on their own, which Himes said he did last year.
Having paper in hand will eliminate some of the backbiting, he said.
"Pass a bill so there will be something firm that everyone can look at, then change it if it doesn't work. We have to get stuff done," Himes said. "When we get stuff done, the rhetoric doesn't matter as much. Some of the fear and uncertainty goes away when you have something in front of you that you can work on."
Angela Carella can be reached at 203-964-2296 or angela.carella@scni.com. Her column runs Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays.
| | | State Turned Down In Request For $630 Million In Federal Transportation Funds - Courant.com
19-February-2010
By DON STACOM
The Hartford Courant
February 19, 2010
HARTFORD —
Connecticut came away with absolutely nothing in a competition for $1.5 billion in federal transportation grants this week, angering the congressional delegation enough that it has demanded a meeting with federal Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood next week.
Connecticut is one of just nine states to come up empty.
"I was outraged when I got the news," U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-4th District, said Thursday afternoon. " Chris Dodd was exceedingly angry. John Larson was not happy. We all called the White House. This is just unacceptable," Himes said.
At least one state lawmaker is saying that Connecticut's transportation department dropped the ball, particularly since this is the second time this month that the state has fared miserably in competition for major federal transportation aid. State DOT officials insist that they are as disappointed as anyone and that they've done everything possible to win a share of the money.
The loss also is a severe blow to the state's battered construction industry, where unemployment runs about 30 percent, and many small contractors are struggling to stay solvent.
Altogether, the state sought $630 million from the federal transportation stimulus program known as TIGER — Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery. Of that, the state DOT sought $330 million, and individual cities and regional planning associations applied for $300 million.
The effect on Connecticut's backlog of bridge, highway, railroad and port repairs could be profound. The state DOT had sought $170 million to help pay to replace the Moses Wheeler Bridge over the Housatonic River on I-95 between Stratford and Milford. That money also would have helped to create the New Britain-to-Hartford busway; rebuild the I-91 and I-95 interchange in New Haven; and construct a wheel-milling shop at the New Haven rail yard.
All of these jobs will go forward, DOT spokesman Judd Everhart said Thursday. But if the state had landed the federal grants, it could have transferred $170 million from those projects to pay for other highway and transit repairs.
Several projects, however, "will not be moving forward, at least not with DOT participation in the near future," Everhart said. The state DOT asked for $160 million to upgrade freight rail systems across the state, to redesign five downtown Stamford streets and to create a bus system there to stimulate a major economic development project. Part of that money would have gone to build a new train station on Metro-North's Danbury line as the centerpiece for a transit-oriented development project.
State legislators and congressional staffers Thursday were puzzled at how Connecticut, one of the most densely populated states with severe traffic congestion, could get nothing from Washington. Tens of millions of dollars went to remote spots such as Port Huron, Mich.; Oglala, S.D.; and Lake County, Mont.
"Zero is zero. The [state] DOT says we have a desperate need to invest in our infrastructure, and here was a chance for federal money," said state Rep. David McCluskey, D- West Hartford, a key member of the General Assembly's transportation committee. "I'd like to know if there's anything they're going to learn, if they're going to change their behavior and find out what the successful applicants did."
McCluskey and others have acknowledged that despite a bipartisan "celebration" by top politicians recently, Connecticut actually performed poorly in a separate competition for high-speed rail funds. The DOT has said it would cost $800 million to $1 billion to rebuild Amtrak's New Haven-to-Springfield line to accommodate commuter trains and 110 mph intercity trains; Connecticut came away with just $40 million of the Obama administration's $8 billion funding bonanza for high-speed rail.
Larson and Dodd both have said that the state DOT needs to do a better job of preparing its case before the next round of high-speed rail funding is distributed. But neither they nor Himes blamed DOT for this week's failure in the TIGER competition.
"I looked at their applications [for projects] in my district, and they were fine," Himes said. Himes largely represents Fairfield County.
Himes said he, Larson and Dodd all contacted White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to complain Wednesday. They've arranged a meeting with LaHood, who oversees disbursement of federal transit dollars, and plan to make a pitch for Connecticut to get a hefty share of $600 million in additional transportation stimulus grants that will be given out in the fall.
"This is a disappointing result to this round of funding, and I will speak with officials back in Washington to figure out what happened," Larson said in a statement.
"There were several highly qualified applications from our state, which should have been awarded funding from this program," a Dodd spokesman said. "The senator will be seeking specific answers from the administration."
State Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D- Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the General Assembly's transportation committee, said he plans to convene a hearing later this winter to ask the DOT what went wrong. But he said he's not willing to blame the agency yet.
"I want to get all the facts," Guerrera said.
| | | Insurance Hikes Targeted - CT News junkie
19-February-2010
Insurance Hikes Targeted
by Christine Stuart | Feb 19, 2010 5:00am
(0) Comments | Log in to Post a Comment
Posted to: Health Care, State Capitol
username Auto-login on future visits
password Forgot your password?
submit
Courtesy of the HHS report.
Connecticut figured prominently in this report released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It was one of four states where insurance companies requested and received double digit increases in health insurance rates last year.
While officials in President Barack Obama’s administration seemed poised to use the report to jumpstart its stalled health care reform proposals, Connecticut officials used it to promote legislation that will require the Insurance Department to hold public hearings and notify consumers about proposed rate increases.
The Connecticut bill would also require the Insurance Department to take some type of action on every proposed rate increase. Currently it doesn’t need to take any action and the proposed rate increase will automatically go into effect.
“I have always been skeptical of the State Insurance Department’s claim that it lacks the tools and authority necessary to dig deep on rate increase requests,“ Kevin Lembo, the state’s Healthcare Advocate said Thursday. “More often than not, the companies get exactly what they ask for.”
As proof Lembo offered this Dec. 14, 2009 Office of Legislative Research report, which shows that many times the four largest individual health insurance companies in the state received exactly the rate increase it requested.
In Connecticut Anthem requested a rate increase of more than 30 percent last summer. But after public outcry and a rare state Insurance Department public hearing, Anthem was granted rate increases between 13 and 20 percent, not the 22 to 32 percent rate increases it had requested.
“Individuals and businesses are forced to accept these outrageous increases in insurance premiums, because they have no real power to change the outcome; no voice in the process; no real, open market. That must change,” Lembo said.
This summer after Lembo and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announced they would be introducing legislation to open up the rate setting process, Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan said he doesn’t like increasing rates either and would be happy to hold more public hearings on health insurance rate filings, “as long as the legislature gives the Insurance Department the resources it needs.”
Lembo said that shouldn’t be a problem since the Insurance Department’s budget is paid for by the industry and doesn’t come from the states general fund, which is in the red by about $500 million.
Lembo encouraged the public to come out to the public hearing on the bill and voice their support in favor of greater transparency in the rate setting process.
The public hearing on the bill will be held 1 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 25.
| | | Stamford cop who shot chimp denied stress claim - Stamford Advocate
19-February-2010
STAMFORD -- The pet chimpanzee that viciously attacked a Stamford woman one year ago left another victim in its wake.
Stamford Police Officer Frank Chiafari filed a workers' compensation claim for post-traumatic stress disorder after he shot and killed Travis, the 200-pound chimp, as it tried to enter his police cruiser while Charla Nash clung to life nearby, her body in pieces.
Five days later, the city denied coverage for his claim and any future claims, Chiafari said.
The officer, who describes himself as a nature lover, has strenuously avoided the national media spotlight since he was first to arrive on the scene of the gruesome attack on Rock Rimmon Road on Feb. 16, 2009.
Chiafari turned away a personal injury lawyer who proposed filing suit against Sandra Herold, the chimp's owner. He turned down an offer from television's "Animal Planet" to re-enact the scene.
"I don't want a penny," he repeated vehemently in a telephone interview Wednesday. "If any other cop goes through something so traumatic, he should be recognized and covered."
Ann Marie Mones, the city's risk management director, confirmed the city denied Chiafari's claim.
She declined to comment further, saying she was not prepared to discuss the case.
As the letter of the law reads, state Sen. Andrew McDonald explained, the city denied the claim because current state Workers' Compensation Act statutes apply only to a police shooting of a person threatening an officer with serious injury or death.
"Right now, the law says if the exact same scenario had happened, but it was a person who opened the car to attack and kill the police officer, and he shot and killed the attacker, he'd be eligible for workers' comp benefits," McDonald said. "Because it's not a person but rather an animal, that was the basis for the denial."
McDonald, who was contacted by the Stamford Police Association and former Police Chief Brent Larrabee about six months ago, has championed the officer's cause, proposing legislation to the co-chairs of the Legislature's Labor and Public Employees Committee.
It was carefully drafted to apply only to special situations, McDonald said.
"This is not dealing with a situation where you shoot a dog at 50 feet," he said. "You have to be at imminent risk of serious physical injury or death."
Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, a Labor Committee co-chairwoman, said the legislation will likely face some criticism.
"But our job as lawmakers is to take care of the people of the state, and I am completely with Andrew (McDonald) on this issue," Prague said. "This police officer. My God. I can't even imagine being in that position with that chimp who could open car doors. Look what he did to Ms. Nash. Good God."
She said the Labor Committee will hold a public hearing on the bill Feb. 23.
The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities has traditionally opposed any expansion of workers' compensation laws because it has an economic impact on member cities and towns.
Conference Executive Director James Finley said he has initial concerns with the bill's language and that it is actually "looser for incidents involving animals than those involving humans."
Asked whether the conference would back a more narrowly written bill, Finley was uncertain.
"We have a concern with any expansion of workers' compensation benefits, but we understand the somewhat uniqueness of the situation that occurred with Travis. It sounded like a horrific incident, and we're willing to work with the proponents to see if we can come up with something that's mutually acceptable," Finley said. "But in a tough economic climate, if there are no physical injuries, once you get into mental and emotional impairment, it gets into a more difficult type of disability to diagnose and to substantiate."
A post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis "is a very specific diagnosis," said Dr. Justin Schechter, an attending psychiatrist at Stamford Hospital.
"It's something you can generate a history accurately for, and there are ways to separate out those people who magnify their symptoms," Schechter said.
In addition to genetic predispositions, the condition most often develops when a person is exposed to something way out of one's typical context -- something extreme, he said.
Chiafari's fellow officers said the scene they arrived at that day was something "out of a horror movie."
"The call came in at the beginning of the shift ... and we had gotten several calls about the monkey before," Sgt. Robert Littlejohn said. "We didn't know if it was a prank or not."
As the third or fourth officer on scene, Littlejohn said he first saw a body, bloody and damaged beyond recognition.
Chiafari "ran up, saying, `I had to shoot it,' " Littlejohn said of the chimp. "Then he said, `I fired four shots, and it didn't back up. I fired four shots, and it didn't back up.' "
Littlejohn said Chiafari told him "the chimp was marching around" Nash's body when he arrived.
Then it walked to his car, tried to open the front passenger door, got angry and knocked off the side-view mirror with one swipe, he said.
"Then he started shaking the car, and he walked over to the driver's side door and opened it," he said.
Each patrol car is fitted with a metal cage, separating the front and back seats and a central computer terminal between the front seats, Capt. Richard Conklin said.
"He was trapped and had no place to go," Conklin said. "As a last resort, he drew his handgun and fired several shots striking the chimp ... at point-blank range."
Sgt. Joe Kennedy, the police union representative, said that without new holsters provided only months earlier, Chiafari could not have drawn his weapon while sitting down.
Shot four times in the chest, the chimp ran to its cage in the house, where it died. Additional officers arrived moments later to secure the scene for paramedics, Littlejohn said.
"It could have happened to Chiafari," he said. "The chimp ran out and pulled that lady out of the car. Frank is a hero."
Littlejohn paused, adding quietly, "It's something I'll never forget."
Nash remains hospitalized at the Cleveland Clinic.
Instead of going through the officer's personal insurance, the legislation, if passes, would make it possible for the city to cover his mental health care, Kennedy said.
"You go to get help, and you're told it's not covered," Kennedy said. "When you look at the law, you see this loophole. We understand it needs a change."
Emotional damage is a concern police officers have to face each day, Conklin said.
"In so many situations, officers are sent places that are chaotic and violent; you have to make sense out of it and restore order quickly," he said. "Sometimes you take things home with you and carry them for some time to come."
Chiafari, who declined to talk about last year's attack, said he would be in worse shape without his fellow officers, especially Police Chief Robert Nivakoff, who called him almost every day.
"I still go up and down," Chiafari said. "This month, I had a few bad weeks. ... Maybe I knew it was the anniversary."
Staff writers Brian Lockhart and Jeff Morganteen contributed to this story. Staff writer Devon Lash can be reached at devon.lash@scni.com or 203-964-2242.
| | | Conn. officials urge Congress to fund public jobs - New Haven Register
19-February-2010
HARTFORD — More than a dozen state and local officials stood with organized labor and a statewide teachers’ association Thursday to urge Congress to pass a jobs bill, which could include aid to states and municipalities.
They released a report that said without an infusion of federal funds, Connecticut and many states will face deep cuts to public safety, public health, safety-net and education services.
The state faces a $515 million budget shortfall in 2011, and a $3 billion deficit the following fiscal year, the report said.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s proposed adjustments anticipate $366 million in additional federal aid through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages and the fiscal stabilization fund.
“Without these funds, thousands of state residents’ jobs are threatened,” the report said. “Congress must invest in public services to save jobs and grow the economy.”
The U.S. House of Representatives in December passed a $174 billion Jobs for Main Street Act that would allocate money for aid to states and transportation improvements that Connecticut AFL-CIO President John Olsen said would reverse painful job declines among the construction trades.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement that the bill commits $26.7 billion to stabilize public service jobs such as teachers, firefighters and police officers. Parallel legislation is stalled in the U.S. Senate.
“Public investment is the cornerstone to any meaningful jobs plan,” said Sal Luciano, executive director of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union.
State House Majority Leader Denise Merrill, a Democratic candidate for secretary of the state, said she has signed, along with many other Connecticut lawmakers, a letter to Congress urging passage of a final jobs bill.
State Rep. Toni Walker, D-New Haven, said that the state loses tax revenue when residents are out of work and, in turn, businesses and the economy suffer as a result of less consumer spending.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Labor reported Thursday that the number of newly laid-off workers claiming unemployment benefits unexpectedly spiked by 31,000 nationally last week to a seasonally adjusted total of 473,000 people. That uptick followed a drop of 41,000 in the preceding week.
State Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield, D-New Haven, said job retention is just as critical as job creation for a recovery. “There is nothing more important than a job,” said state Sen. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, co-chairwoman of the legislature’s Labor and Public Employees Committee.
Contact Angela Carter at 203-789-5752 or acarter@newhavenregister.com.
| | | Unions push for second stimulus
19-February-2010
Hartford, Conn. (WTNH) - It’s been a year since the federal stimulus bill was passed, and it it estimated that just half of it has actually been spent. But there’s a plea by some groups in Connecticut for a second stimulus, for fear thousands of public sector jobs may be lost.
Who’s asking are the leaders of the unions that represent thousands of police, fire, and school teachers across the state, because the latest economic prediction is that Connecticut may not recover until 2015.
Right now, state and local government in Connecticut is being propped up by several billion dollars in federal stimulus money, and it’s still running in the red.
Track the stimulus money being spent in Connecticut
“We simply will not be able to balance our budget without it next year,” Rep. Denise Merrill, D-Majority Leader, said.
Rep. Merrill joined union leaders Thursday to urge residents to urge federal lawmakers to approve a second stimulus bill as soon as possible.
“State and local governments facing unprecedented budget shortfalls are putting vital public services and jobs on the chopping block at a time when they are needed most,” Sal Luciano from AFSCME Council 4 said.
Many jobs in the fire service were saved because of money from the first stimulus. Stimulus money also helped to save many jobs in the local police services. It also helped to save jobs in local school systems, which could soon be on the line when the first stimulus runs out.
“Whenever public education, there’s a setback in public education, it has a ripple affect throughout the economy in the area of unemployment and it takes a long time for us to come back,” Mark Waxenberg of the Connecticut Education Association said.
And the sobering economic prediction this week is that Connecticut may not start seeing any job growth for five long years.
“At this time of crisis, we need public services now more than ever, we are here today to push for federal assistance to help get us back on track,” John Olsen from the Connecticut AFL-CIO said.
But in the Congress there is reluctance even among those who would vote for a second stimulus.
“My answer is yes, but we have to be careful that we don’t just throw money at the problem because we’ve got another national problem which can send our economy reeling and that is an enormous national debt,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman said.
Sen. Lieberman said the Senate will be considering several proposals when they go back to work next week, including tax credits for businesses that hire out of work people. But the reluctance will continue until all of the first stimulus is spent, which could take the rest of this year.
| | | Senate Dems ax bipartisan jobs bill - Associated Press
12-February-2010
WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats scrapped a bipartisan jobs bill in favor of one they say is leaner and focused solely on putting Americans back to work, and they're all but daring Republicans to vote against it.
The new, stripped-down proposal followed criticism that the bipartisan version wouldn't create many jobs.
The switch brought sharp accusations of reneging from Republicans who thought they had a deal, jeopardizing a brief attempt at bipartisan lawmaking.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest bill focuses on several popular provisions aimed at boosting job creation, including a new tax break negotiated with Republicans for companies that hire unemployed workers and for small businesses that purchase new equipment. It also would renew highway programs and help states and local governments finance large infrastructure projects.
Reid, D-Nev., put forward the pared-back plan after Senate Democrats balked at a broader bill stuffed with unrelated provisions sought by lobbyists for business groups and doctors. The surprise blew apart an agreement with key Republicans like Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who worked with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., for weeks to produce a bill containing the extra provisions.
The original bill had won support from across the political spectrum, from President Barack Obama as well as conservative Republicans in the Senate, offering the promise of a rare bipartisan package in a Congress that has been gripped by partisan fights. To get that support, however, the package had morphed into a 361-page grab bag of provisions that included extending benefits to the unemployed and tax breaks for businesses.
Now, the bipartisan agreement is off.
"Our side isn't sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together," said Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del. "Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let's test them."
Said Reid: "Republicans are going to have to make a choice. I don't know in logic what they could say to oppose this."
Reid officially put the measure before the Senate on Thursday evening, setting up a key test vote when the chamber returns the week of Feb. 22. He'll need at least one GOP vote to prevail in a filibuster challenge.
Republicans said they were blind-sided by Reid's about-face.
Grassley spokeswoman Jill Kozeny said in an e-mail that Reid "pulled the rug out from work to build broad-based support for tax relief and other efforts to help the private sector recover from the economic crisis."
The bigger bill got a decidedly mixed reception at a luncheon meeting of Democrats, many of whom were uncomfortable with supporting a bill containing so many provisions unrelated to creating jobs, including loans for chicken producers and aid to catfish farmers.
The provisions also included a $31 billion package of tax breaks for individuals and businesses, an extension of several parts of the USA Patriot Act and higher payments for doctors facing Medicare payment cuts.
The surprise move appears to insulate Democrats from criticism that greeted the earlier, lobbyist-backed legislation first leaked on Tuesday and officially unveiled by Baucus and Grassley — to praise from the White House — only hours before Reid's announcement.
The centerpiece of Reid's new bill is a $13 billion payroll tax credit for companies that hire unemployed workers. The idea, by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would exempt businesses hiring unemployed workers in 2010 from the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax for those hires.
It also would provide an additional $1,000 tax credit for workers retained for a full year and deposit an additional $20 billion into the federal highway trust fund — money that would have to be borrowed. There's also $2 billion to subsidize bond issues by state and local governments for large infrastructure projects
But Republicans are irate at the tactics and said Reid had gone back on a deal reached with some of the Senate's heaviest hitters, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
| | | Crucial vote nears for town's largest union
12-February-2010
The fate of the union that represents more town employees than any other will be decided March 3, when its infighting members vote whether to disband or keep their current representation.
Some 429 administrative assistants, clerks and public service workers get to choose whether they want to remain part of the Greenwich Municipal Employees Association or join the ranks of the Laborers' International Union of North America Local 136.
A takeover of GMEA would mean that two-thirds of all municipal employees would be represented by LIUNA, which already consists of 415 middle managers.
"My advice is, this is a very serious decision and people should get the facts," said Lynn Mason, business manager of LIUNA.
LIUNA has put on a full court press in recent months to get GMEA members to make the switch, trying to tap into growing disenchantment over the union's leadership.
A message seeking comment from Rosalie Mastropaolo, GMEA's president of five years, was left at her office Tuesday.
Mastropaolo has come under fire from some of the rank-and-file over spending of members' dues on trips and dinners by union officers, as well as access to financial records.
In an interview last week with Greenwich Time, she defended the expenditures, including what she described as a four-day, three-night Las Vegas trip by five other executive board members in July 2005 to learn how to negotiate union contracts.
GMEA leaders insisted that the tab for the conference was $4,061, including $2,825 for airfare and lodging at the Flamingo hotel, $500 for breakfast and room service, $488 on dinners and $80 for admission tickets to a wax museum.
They were unable to provide copies of receipts from the trip, saying that union's entire seven-member executive board would have to approve the release of such information.
Mastropaolo acknowledged that a combination of seven incoming and outgoing executive board members went to the Patti LaBelle concert around June 2007 as a "celebratory" transition meeting, spending $484 at Dylan Prime steak house in Tribeca and $849 on a limo.
She said GMEA officers don't get paid for the many hours they put in negotiating contracts and helping to save members' jobs, while often incurring gas, mileage and postage costs.
Mastropaolo said last week that a few disgruntled members of her union were being sold a bill of goods by LIUNA and that she has nothing to hide.
LIUNA leaders said that more than half of the 429 GMEA members signed the required union cards to force next month's vote.
A secret ballot election will take place from 8 to 10 a.m. March 3 outside the Greenwich High School auditorium and from 1 to 4 p.m. the same day at Town Hall.
"We'll be posting a sample ballot and list of all eligible voters where GMEA voters work," said Alfred Cava, the town's labor relations director.
A simple majority of votes will dictate the future of the union, which dates back about 40 years.
An agent from the state Board of Labor Relations will oversee the closed-door election, with observers from both GMEA and LIUNA watching as the ballots are cast.
The election results won't become official until they are certified by the state labor board, according to Cava.
This is the third time that LIUNA has made a play to represent GMEA members, failing each time before.
"The town and the Board of Ed need to make every possible effort to allow employees to vote," Mason said.
If GMEA members decide to go with LIUNA, Mason said their monthly dues will increase from $7.50 to $27 for full-time employees and $18 for part-timers.
Mason emphasized that the current GMEA contract will remain valid until June 30, when it is set to expire.
A negotiating committee comprised of GMEA members, herself and the LIUNA president will hash out a new contract, Mason said.
In addition to that, Mason said one seat on the 11-member local LIUNA executive board -- the office of vice president -- is being saved for a GMEA representative who would have to be voted on by his or her peers.
Staff writer Neil Vigdor can be reached at neil.vigdor@scni.com or 203-625-4436.
| | | Connecticut Supreme Court Hears Arguments In State Police Union Drive - Courant.com
12-February-2010
February 12, 2010
Captains and lieutenants are in the middle of the Connecticut State Police command structure, collectively overseeing more than 1,000 sergeants and troopers.
But does that make them managers?
That question — and the fate of a 4-year-old union drive by captains and lieutenants — now rests with the state Supreme Court, where lawyers argued Thursday morning about whether that small cadre of officers was eligible to join a union.
In 2006, 15 captains and 27 lieutenants voted to affiliate with the Connecticut State Employees Association, but state officials challenged the action and refused to negotiate with the union. The State Labor Board and a Superior Court judge sided with the union, leading to Thursday's Supreme Court battle.
At issue is whether the captains and lieutenants are "managerial employees" under the law, which would make them ineligible for union representation. State law sets several criteria for judging whether employees are managers, and requires that at least two of them apply. The state and the union agree that the troopers meet one of the criteria — that they direct a sub-unit of a department. But they disagree on two others — whether they develop agency goals or participate in the formulation of policy.
Diana Garfield, representing the state, told the justices that captains and lieutenants develop training and operational plans, and can discipline subordinates. But Karen Buskin, representing the union, said that those duties were not the officers' principle function, and that most of their decisions had to be approved by superiors.
Garfield said that upholding the State Labor Board's decision would mean that virtually all middle managers were entitled to unionize, which would leave only a handful of nonunion managers with "undivided loyalty" to the state.
State police Lt. Edward A. Gould, a leader of the union movement, said after the hearing that many large municipal police forces are also entirely unionized, except for the chief and deputy chief.
"And it's not like there's anarchy in those police departments," he said.
Union leaders said they expect the court to issue its ruling in the spring.
| | | Arbiter finds in favor of town, against police - The Middle Town Press
12-February-2010
CROMWELL — An arbiter found in favor of the town and against the police union in a decision the first selectman believes should serve as a signal to the teachers’ union.
The impartial arbiter ruled against the police, and said the union should receive no raise during the first year of a new three-year contract.
The decision against Local 357 of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers was, First Selectman John M. Flanders said, based on “the town’s ability to pay.”
As a result of the ruling, the union will have to pay back roughly $10,000 in step increases that had already been granted to various officers.
Flanders said the real impact of the ruling extends beyond just the 24 members of the police union.
“It would be nice if our teachers understood the financial reality we face together as a community,” Flanders said earlier this week.
Saying he needs to make more than $1 million in budget reductions, Superintendent of Schools Matt A. Bisceglia asked the teachers’ unions to accept a package that includes furloughs.
However, to date, the union has not responded to Bisceglia’s proposal.
Absent some concession by the teachers’ union, Bisceglia said it will be almost impossible to avoid layoffs of teachers.
Flanders said he was regretful that the town and the police union had not been able to resolve their negotiations without having to go to arbitration.
The IBPO contract expired June 30 of last year. The police continued working under the provisions of the expired contract, which granted them the step increases.
“We were close to an agreement,” Flanders said. “But in the end, we just couldn’t make it.”
The two sides reportedly could not agree on a union proposal for a 1.5 percent wage increase in the first year.
“I’m not ‘upset’ with the police,” Flanders insisted. “But I am upset with the teachers, who are not stepping up to the plate.”
While the arbiter ruled that the union would receive no increase in the current year of the contract, the IBPO membership will receive increases of 1 percent in the second year of the contract and 2 percent in the third year.
The membership will also have to shoulder a larger share of their medical costs.
Despite the arbiter’s ruling, Flanders said he is confident the police will continue to carry out their duties with their usual high standard of professionalism.
“I have no question about the professionalism of our police — none whatsoever,” he said.
Jeff Mill can be reached by e-mail at jmill@middletownpress.com.
| | | Stamford will no longer consider no-layoff clauses - Stamford Advocate
12-February-2010
STAMFORD -- After a state finding this week, Stamford will no longer consider no-layoff clauses in contract talks, a city attorney said.
From now on, the city is "not entertaining no-layoff clauses with any union," said Michael Larobina, director of the office of legal affairs. "It is an inappropriate issue to raise in labor contracts ... and now, unions can't threaten to go to arbitration."
A three-member arbitration panel representing the state Department of Labor opposed the no-layoff clause, supporting the city against three unions -- dental hygienists, municipal supervisory employees and the Teamsters unions.
The panel wrote in its brief that simply having past negotiations regarding a no-layoff clause does not make it a mandatory negotiating point, according to court documents.
The arbitration dispute on behalf of about 140 city union workers is still in progress on the subject of the 2 percent pay increases the unions negotiated last summer.
The unions in August reached tentative agreements for the 2010-11 fiscal year with the previous mayoral administration. On the advice of the Board of Finance, the Board of Representatives rejected the tentative agreements.
After the boards' rejection in September, the city filed for arbitration on the general wage increase and the no-layoff clause.
The arbitration panel has discretion in deciding the outcome of the wage increase. It could decide in favor of either the city or the unions, or it could order the two to split the difference.
The city argued that layoffs are not a condition of employment, like hours and wages.
"This was not a proper item to be arbitrated; it's a prerogative of management to resort to layoffs if necessary," Larobina said. "This is an issue that should have never have been agreed to and it was ill-conceived."
In the unions' brief, Thomas Fascio, the unions' representative, countered that because the city had made the no-layoff clause a part of its negotiation tactics -- and the clause had affected three other city unions, the police, firefighters and 1199 unions -- the issue is on the table, according to court documents.
Fascio did not return calls for comment Thursday.
Peter Lucia, the municipal supervisory employees' union president, said he could not comment on the ruling before he had read it and discussed it with his executive board.
In December, a state arbitration panel released an award sharply curtailing raises for city teachers -- completely eliminating them next year -- while increasing health care contributions.
| | | Paid Sick Days An Issue Again - Hartford Courant
05-February-2010
HARTFORD — - One day into the legislative session, Rep. Selim G. Noujaim is already crafting his argument against a measure that would require businesses to give their employees paid sick days.
"We cannot let this bill go through," Noujaim, a Waterbury Republican, said at a meeting of the legislature's labor and public employees committee Thursday. He noted that the issue came up only 24 hours after lawmakers and the governor agreed that job growth was their top priority.
Businesses are already having a difficult time, he said, and another mandate is not the best way for the state to retain businesses and help them thrive.
No bill requiring paid sick days has been drafted yet, though such a requirement is being considered by the labor committee. Noujaim, however, is anticipating future debate, and Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, co-chairwoman of the committee, confirmed his fears.
Legislation requiring paid sick days will be her "top priority" this year, Prague said, noting that businesses do not benefit from making ill employees go to work.
Germs can spread, health care bills will rise and a sick worker is rarely productive, she said.
The debate over paid sick days is not new. In 2009, a bill that would have required businesses with 50 or more employees to give workers six sick days was amended and then passed by the state House of Representatives. It was never brought up in the Senate.
In 2008, a similar bill passed the Senate but did not come to a vote in the House.
Although past bills have failed, Prague says she expects this year to be different.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell could be an obstacle — she opposes the concept.
The Connecticut Business & Industry Association also opposes the bill and will continue to lobby against it, said Kia Murrell, assistant counsel for the association.
In today's economy, business is unpredictable and more mandates could harm the state and make businesses less competitive, she said.
"Things like that threaten to push people off the edge when they are just hanging on," Murrell said.
Backing the legislation is Connecticut Working Families, a union-backed political party.
A spokesman, Joe Dinkin, said his group is cautiously optimistic this year and will continue to push the issue.
While Prague believes requiring paid sick days makes sense, she said the recent H1N1 scare reinforces the need for such a law.
A similar bill requiring paid sick days is making its way through Congress, and several members of Connecticut's delegation are pushing for its passage.
| | | Unexpected Rise in U.S. Jobless Claims - New York Times
05-February-2010
WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of newly laid-off workers filing initial claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week, the Labor Department said Thursday.
Skip to next paragraph
The New York Times
And a second report by the Labor Department showed that people with jobs worked harder in the fourth quarter.
In the jobless filings report, the agency said that new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 8,000, to a seasonally adjusted 480,000. Wall Street economists had expected a drop to 460,000. The rise is the fourth in the last five weeks. Most economists had hoped that claims would resume the downward trend that was evident in the fall and early winter.
The four-week average, which smoothes fluctuations, rose for the third consecutive week, to 468,750.
The figure is the highest in the last two months.
The Labor Department is scheduled to report the January employment figures, which are expected to show a tiny gain in jobs, on Friday. The unemployment rate is forecast to stay at 10 percent.
The number of people continuing to claim benefits was unchanged at 4.6 million. That data lags initial claims by a week.
But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits typically provided by states, and are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.
More than 5.8 million people were receiving extended benefits in the week ended Jan. 16, the latest data available, up from about 5.6 million the previous week. The extended benefit data isn’t seasonally adjusted and is volatile from week to week.
Still, the increasing number of people claiming extended unemployment insurance indicates hiring has not picked up.
Among the states, Oregon reported the largest increase in claims, with 4,336. Puerto Rico and Hawaii also reported increases. The state data lags initial claims by one week.
California reported the largest drop in claims, a decline of 22,674. Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia and Missouri also reported decreases.
In a separate report, the Labor Department said that worker productivity rose more than expected in the fourth quarter as companies squeezed more output from their employees.
Productivity rose by a seasonally adjusted 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter, above analysts’ expectations of a 6 percent rise.
The increase follows two quarters of sharply rising productivity. Over all, productivity has risen 5.1 percent in the last four quarters, the most since the 12 months that ended with the first quarter of 2002.
Productivity often rises at the end of recessions as companies ramp up output before hiring new workers. Rising productivity can raise living standards in the long run. But it can also make it easier for companies to postpone hiring.
| | | Pratt Workers Scramble To Deal With Plant Closing - Courant.com
05-February-2010
By ERIC GERSHON
The Hartford Courant
February 5, 2010
Peter Tirado is no fan of plant closings, and no stranger to them. In 23 years with Pratt & Whitney in the company's home state, he's been through two.
Each time he escaped with a job at a surviving Pratt factory, landing at the company's Cheshire jet engine overhaul and repair factory in 2002. He works there as a painter-sprayer, applying protective coatings and varnishes to engine parts.
But with Cheshire on the chopping block since September, Tirado, 46, hasn't been counting on a lucky streak that never dies. "You don't stand still for Pratt," he said. "Because Pratt doesn't stand still for you."
So, even in the midst of a union lawsuit to postpone the plant closing, Tirado has been actively looking at other ways to make a living. And he's not alone.
For a week now, Tirado and about 1,000 other Pratt workers, most of them in the Machinists union, have been anxiously waiting for a federal judge to decide whether the company may immediately start shutting down Cheshire and an East Hartford unit. A decision against them in the union's case against Pratt would cost them all their jobs by early 2011.
Most of the workers, who make a basic wage of $34 an hour on average, would be let go this year, in the midst of the weakest labor market in more than 30 years. Pratt is eager to take advantage of lower costs in the American South and in Asia.
No one knows exactly how many workers are seriously pursuing a Plan B, but a couple dozen union members have left already, according to Wayne McCarthy, president of the Machinists local lodge in Cheshire. With an average age of over 50, some of the remaining 650 Cheshire Machinists are contemplating retirement, he said.
But most are not ready to retire, so they're calculating how far savings, severance pay and unemployment benefits could carry them after they're laid off.
Tirado learned auto body painting as a teenager in Waterbury and has kept a hand in it, mainly "for the love of it," he said, but also as a hedge against unemployment.
"If I have to have another job in the next few months, the quickest is to go to a body shop," he said in a recent interview.
He previously worked in a Pratt plant in Southington (closed in the 1990s) and one in North Haven (closed in 2002), as well as in East Hartford, before coming to Cheshire. Along the way, he was laid off once, then rehired.
Besides auto body work, Tirado is considering an entrepreneurial venture; he has approached the owner of a small liquor store in the Unionville section of Farmington to inquire about buying it.
"He knows that I'm interested," said Tirado, who has his eye on the building as well as the business. "He's talking it over with his family."
McCarthy, president of the Cheshire lodge, said 20 to 30 Machinists have resigned since September, including about a dozen workers, generally low in seniority, who took offers with another United Technologies Corp. division, Sikorsky Aircraft.
"They've already left," said McCarthy, a key figure in the five-day trial in Judge Janet C. Hall's Bridgeport courtroom on Jan. 13. Machinists from Cheshire and the threatened East Hartford airfoil repair unit attended every day, taking up about half of the spectators' gallery.
Inundated with orders for its military helicopters, Stratford-based Sikorsky is one of UTC's best-performing units.
McCarthy said "a lot" of salaried engineers at Cheshire also have left, with many transferred elsewhere within Pratt or UTC. A Pratt spokesman said employment has fallen by 4 percent, or 30 people, since July — fewer than 10 of them Machinists.
Few Cheshire Machinists have been able to line up work with Pratt's Middletown and East Hartford plants, and most of the plant's remaining 650 union workers are still employed there and hoping for a ruling in their favor.
"We're not dead yet," McCarthy said.
Whatever Hall's decision in the case, there is good reason for workers to keep looking for new jobs, scarce though they may be: Even a ruling for the union won't prevent Pratt from closing Cheshire after the Machinists' current contract expires in December. It would merely complicate the task for the company.
"It will only be a later date, that's all," said Maureen Cassidy, a 54-year-old Cheshire worker with 30 years' experience at Pratt. "All of us have to start looking ahead."
For her, that has meant returning to school part time, on Mondays, to study criminal justice. (UTC pays for most higher education for employees under a long-standing corporate policy.) Cassidy, who cares for her mother and a sister, hopes to find a job with the Department of Homeland Security, perhaps at an airport.
She's also looking for other work — "looking continuously, every day, at what's out there, which isn't very much."
Connecticut's unemployment rate stands at 8.9 percent, its highest since 1976. Nationally, unemployment stood at 10 percent in December, with January figures due out this morning.
Cassidy, who grew up in Southington and lives there still, figures she will last at Cheshire longer than most. Given her seniority, she thinks she'll be among the last to walk out the door.
But she finds little comfort in that. "It's like the end of the world moving over my head," she said. "Thirty years of my life I spent there. It's all I've ever done. I try not to think about it, because when I do, I panic."
At the East Hartford airfoil repair unit that would also be closed, many workers will be able to transfer under union rules into other Pratt units, according to Juan Gelabert, president of the Machinists local lodge there. They will bump less senior workers into unemployment.
Tirado, a cheerful bear of a man with a bone-crushing handshake, had hoped his children, teenagers now, might work at Pratt one day.
Even so, he says he's not bitter about the situation.
"The company is not a bad company," he said. "That is not what we're saying. We would like to work for this company. I'm not trying to bash the company that has supported me for the last 23 years. We would like to be profitable with the company here."
He knows a mass layoff will be harder for many of his friends and co-workers than for him.
"The decision that the judge would make — on myself, it weighs heavily," said Tirado, whose wife, Cheryl, works in the billing department of a medical practice. "On other people it weighs even heavier, because they may not be as prepared as I am."
Or as young.
"At 63, 64 years old, the opportunities are not as good," he said. At least one Cheshire Machinist is over 70, he said.
Tirado likes the idea of the liquor store, provided he can get the building, too. His stepfather owned grocery stores in Waterbury for decades starting in the mid-1970s, and Tirado worked there in his youth. He stocked shelves, carved meat, fixed refrigerators, ordered supplies, tracked inventory. A small retail operation feels familiar and manageable. He could set the hours and wouldn't need many employees.
"Growing up in the grocery store business with my dad, I was always taught, 'If you're going to buy it, buy it all. ... I'm not a businessman today; I work for UTC. But the skills to cope with a business are there. ... It's in a nice location and I feel that there's potential there for me and my family."
Tirado said he hasn't estimated what kind of income he could earn as the proprietor of a small suburban liquor store. After more than two decades with Pratt, he earns "in the 70s," including overtime pay, he said, far less than the $90,000 that Pratt says is the average pay for Cheshire's Machinists, including overtime.
"It took me 23 years to make that," Tirado said. "It's not like a free ride. You got to work."
And so he would at his liquor store. "I'm preparing for the worst," he said, "and hopefully it'll turn out better."
| | | Stop & Shop Seeks Temporary Replacement Workers In Event Of A Strike
05-February-2010
Stop & Shop Seeks Temporary Replacement Workers In Event Of A Strike
By MARA LEE
The Hartford Courant
February 3, 2010
Stop & Shop, the New England branch of the Dutch-owned Ahold grocery chain, is playing hardball in its union negotiations.
The current contract, which covers about 15,000 Connecticut workers, expires Feb. 20. The chain has been advertising for temporary replacements at $12 an hour for part-time workers and $15 an hour for full-time workers.
The company, which has about 90 stores in the state, ran similar ads three years ago but waited until after the contract had expired. The workers were not used, as there was no strike.
A company spokeswoman declined to say Tuesday if workers would be locked out if the contract expires before an agreement.
"As our negotiations continue, we are mindful of our commitment to our customers," Stop & Shop spokeswoman Faith Weiner said. "We are making contingency plans. These plans include placing ads in local newspapers for temporary workers in order to continue business operations in the event there is a work stoppage."
Brian Petronella, president of one of the two United Food and Commercial Workers Union locals that represent grocery workers throughout the state, said the company's offer on wages and health care is much less generous than the current contract.
Part-time workers, who make up about 80 percent of the workforce, have received hourly raises that totaled $1 over three years under the current contract. Petronella said the company's new offer contains no raises in any of the next three years, but would provide a lump sum of a few hundred dollars in 2010.
He said the company also wants to increase full-time workers' contribution to a family health plan from $60 a month to $300 a month.
Members also are irritated that the ads are offering $3 an hour more than new workers make now, he said. "They want a fair contract. They're not out for anything outrageous."
Shaw's and A&P agreed to raises in their most recent contracts, in 2008 and 2009.
Both sides said they hope to avoid a strike.
"We value our associates, and the contribution they make to our success," Weiner said, "and that is why one of our top priorities is offering our associates a competitive wage and benefit package."
| | | Himes and state legislators warn of budget crunch - CT Post
27-January-2010
President Barack Obama's call for a budget freeze reflects a growing priority to cool off government spending, making it less likely the federal government could again use a massive stimulus bill to prop up revenue-strapped state governments, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., warned local leaders Tuesday.
More serious consideration is being given to ideas like a national infrastructure bank that would include both private and public dollars to build important projects, Himes said.
"The mood in Washington, D.C., has taken a turn in how it is looking at the fiscal situation," Himes said. "We're close to the end of the time when Congress is comfortable with the kind of Keynesian stimulus we have seen in the past year."
Himes and state legislators talked about concerns regarding deficits at the federal and state levels at the legislative breakfast of the South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization and the South Western Regional Planning Agency, predicting aid would stay flat or decline.
Leaders urged them to not scrimp on funding needed to upgrade the Metro-North Railroad's New Haven Line and other transportation improvements that will help maintain Fairfield County as a destination for businesses.
"We need to put some gas back in the tank and not take it out," said New Canaan First Selectman Jeb Walker, chairman of SWRPA.
On Monday, Obama announced his proposal for a freeze on most non-military discretionary spending for three years, starting in fiscal year 2011, to help shrink a $1.3 trillion deficit.
The Connecticut General Assembly will convene next Wednesday for a new legislative session, where it will attempt to close a $500 million budget deficit this fiscal year. The state faces a projected $12.5 billion deficit through 2014.
State leaders can no longer defer budgeting to cover long-term commitments, including an expected $40 billion in unfunded pension, health, and other benefits for state employees, State Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, said.
Legislators need to make labor more affordable, while lowering state and local taxes that discourage economic growth, he said.
"The mood has to change very quickly," Frantz said. "If you look at the rate of growth of the government for the past 26 years, it is far ahead of the consumer price index or the growth in actual income for residents. I'm afraid we need a fiscal catastrophe before people in Hartford really get it."
State Rep. Bruce Morris, D-Norwalk, said state budget cuts that affect lower and middle income families should be scrutinized for cost effectiveness, highlighting Gov. M. Jodi Rell's proposal this winter to abolish the state's Commission on Children as an example of austerity that would have taken essential benefits from children in low-income families. The commission has spearheaded initiatives in school readiness and early childhood education.
"I know we need to make some cuts but they need to be strategic," Morris said. "People are concerned that we are spending 40 percent on health and human services ... well, that is going to continue in this economy."
Walker said funding railroad station upgrades, guaranteeing timely delivery and introduction of the new M-8 railroad cars as well as other rail and bus transit initiatives, should be a fiscal priority for the state to help nurture economic prosperity in Fairfield County.
"Continuing the financial commitment to the New Haven line and rehabilitating existing infrastructure are critical," Walker said. "No one can argue with the need to improve and modernize those facilities."
| | | Courant.com
27-January-2010
January 27, 2010
NEW BRITAIN —
The city's legislative delegation got a taste Tuesday of what the next General Assembly session may bring: demands for spending cuts alongside demands to protect programs.
About 15 people came to a public forum at the senior center and several urged legislators to keep funding social service programs that benefit the city's large population of poor and elderly.
Others insisted the General Assembly should show more leadership in cutting costs to close the $500 million deficit projected in this year's budget.
"It's getting worse, and everyone is waiting for someone else to do something," said Helene Groman, a board member of the Citizen Property Owners Association of New Britain. "I expect you people to have the answers. All I can see is everyone is passing the buck."
But state Sen. Donald DeFronzo, Rep. Tim O'Brien and Rep. Peter Terczyak — all Democrats — said the General Assembly endorsed $200 million in spending cuts that Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell still hasn't implemented.
Ann Mikulak, president of the taxpayers association, said that as a retired state employee, she'd be willing to skip her cost-of-living pension increase to help balance the budget. Terczyak replied that legislators can't negotiate contracts, and that only two people have the authority to negotiate a cost-of-living increase giveback: the head of her union and Rell.
"I can no more do that than I can stop someone for speeding," Terczyak said.
DeFronzo said the city's delegation will work to maintain state aid to education, Dial-a-Ride, nursing homes, after-school programs, domestic violence shelters and the Spanish Speaking Center. He said the budget dispute between Rell and the General Assembly is not merely partisan, but reflects fundamental policy differences.
"The governor wants [tax] breaks for the wealthy," he said. "There's a fundamental difference in values and perspectives."
When Terczyak asked "To balance the budget, what benefit are you getting now that you're willing to give up or reduce?" the audience was silent.
"We've been hearing politicians say 'cut the waste' since Richard Nixon," said Terczyak. "Show me the waste and I'll go after it."
| | | Foxwoods, UAW Agree On Contract For Table-Game Dealers - Courant.com
27-January-2010
The Hartford Courant
January 27, 2010
Thousands of table-game dealers at Foxwoods Resort Casino reached their first labor contract with the Indian tribe that owns the casino on Tuesday, positioning them to become the largest group of union-represented dealers at any U.S. casino.
Foxwoods, owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, is the nation's largest casino.
The tentative deal, announced Tuesday afternoon, covers 2,500 workers at Foxwoods and the MGM Grand at Foxwoods. Subject to a ratification vote by the union membership, it would provide scheduled pay increases, offer job protections and govern working conditions.
The deal comes more than two years after the Foxwoods dealers first voted to organize through the United Auto Workers, in November 2007, and more than one year after the Pequots and the UAW agreed to negotiate a contract under tribal law rather than under U.S. law.
Foxwoods aggressively resisted the dealers' efforts to bring them to the bargaining table under U.S. law, even after a series of National Labor Relations Board rulings in the union's favor. Tribal law does not allow the union to strike. In the event of an impasse, the parties would seek arbitration.
Casino workers elsewhere are represented by unions, but few, if any on this scale. The UAW itself represents workers, including some dealers, at three small non-tribal casinos in Detroit and others in Atlantic City. The Teamsters represent a small group of workers at a Pennsylvania operation of Mohegan Sun, according to a spokesman for the Mohegan Tribe.
None of Mohegan Sun's Connecticut workers are represented by labor unions, spokesman Chuck Bunnell said.
"In terms of scale, this is definitely a precedent-setting agreement," said Greg Guedel, chairman of the Native American practice group at the Seattle law firm of Foster Pepper.
After delaying a deal for years, Foxwoods has agreed to one as it faces the gravest financial peril of its 18-year history. The Pequots are struggling to restructure debts estimated at about $2 billion. The tribe even has explored the possibility of bankruptcy — widely considered to be legally impossible for a Native American tribe — according to sources familiar with the Pequots' strategy.
"To some extent, you wonder whether this timing is just coincidence," Guedel said, noting that, at a minimum, "it's one less thing they have to deal with as they're trying to focus on their future business planning."
Foxwoods would not comment.
The agreement is the culmination of years of effort by at least two unions. After a low-key campaign, Local 217 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union took the first steps toward organizing Foxwoods workers in 1998, when it erected billboards near the casino asking employees concerned about working conditions to call a toll-free number. The UAW much later succeeded in securing support among the dealers.
George Taylor, a blackjack dealer at Foxwoods for the past 15 years, and a member of the union's negotiating committee, said he expects the membership to approve the contract in a vote scheduled for Friday.
The tentative deal would provide a 12 percent wage increase over two years, extend medical leave time for seriously ill workers, codify the dealers' right to control distribution of their tips and establish job protections based on seniority. It also would establish a 24-table smoke-free gambling pit.
Table game dealers at Foxwoods earn about $35,000 per year on average, most of it from tips.
"I'm very confident that it will [pass]," Taylor said. "We've been waiting for a very long time. We stood together and we haven't broken down."
Speaking for himself, he said the contract would mean knowing that "my job is secure, that I got somebody watching my back if something happens at work."
Only members of UAW Local 2121 will be allowed to vote Friday, the union said; non-members will be allowed to join on Friday.
Elizabeth Bunn, secretary treasurer of the UAW, said she did not know how many of the 2,500 dealers already are members. "It's not a number that we keep track of," she said.
Taylor would not say whether other groups of workers at Foxwoods — which, with MGM Grand, employs between 9,000 and 10,000 in the state — are now planning to push for union representation. Maintenance workers at the casino overwhelmingly rejected union representation in May 2008.
But he left little doubt that he hoped they would.
"I hope we can inspire other gaming workers to stand together," he said. "If they stand together like we have, they can win."
While the UAW's deal with Foxwoods does not permit workers to strike (or the casino to lock workers out), the union said it retained its rights to seek redress under U.S. federal law should it prove necessary.
The tribe has argued consistently that its status as a sovereign nation positions it beyond the reach of U.S. law — a position that led to Tuesday's deal under the tribe's own laws.
| | | Companies line up for custodial work - The New Haven Register
27-January-2010
NEW HAVEN — With contract negotiations between the Board of Education and school custodians in early stages, eight firms have responded to a city request that would privatize the union’s work.
The city posted a request for proposals last month, seeking bids from firms interested in managing and staffing school custodial work. A committee including New Haven Public Schools and AFB Facilities Management officials will meet to review the proposals. The district has not yet decided whether it ultimately will privatize the work.
“Those bids just came in. We will take the time to look through those and analyze them and determine what the appropriate course of action would be,” said school Chief Operating Officer Will Clark.
City and school officials claim privatizing the work would be less expensive and more reliable, alleging one in four custodians does not report to work on a typical day.
“We found that it was a trend. It wasn’t just one day where there were substantial numbers of employees absent. It happened quite a bit,” said city spokeswoman Jessica Mayorga.
School custodians in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 287, have fought the move towards privatization, filing a complaint with the state Board of Labor Relations. The complaint alleges Clark threatened to contract out their work if they continued to file grievances.
A state hearing on the complaint initially had been set for Friday, but has been postponed due to scheduling conflicts.
“The city is certainly within their rights to put out the (request for proposals) and to accept bids. Our hope is that the bids won’t be awarded because we believe our members do the job well. They do it with great dedication and they do it in a way that is cost effective for the city and the school system,” said AFSCME spokesman Larry Dorman.
AFSCME has long fought against private management in the public schools, particularly taking aim at Philadelphia-based Aramark Corp. Amid growing concern and union discontent over Aramark performance, the district re-bid food service and facilities management contracts in 2008, both of which had been awarded to Aramark. The district ultimately put management of food service in-house, but decided to retain a new private firm, AFB Facilities Management, to handle school maintenance. AFSCME has continued to push for the ouster of private management.
The custodians’ contract expired June 30, 2008, and new negotiations have just begun.
Union President Rob Montuori said the two sides only recently exchanged initial proposals. Mayorga said the city and the union were in the process of scheduling a meeting.
Custodians are primarily seeking job security, Montuori said.
“There’s always a concern when something like (privatization) is looming out there,” he said.
“But it’s not like they told us, ‘we’re getting rid of you,’ either,” he said. “I think the times are going to dictate what happens.”
The eight firms to submit bids are ABM Janitorial Service North East, Inc., Performance Environmental, UNICCO, GCA Service Group, Service Solutions, Service Management Group, OR&L Custodial Cleaning Services and A&A Maintenance.
| | | Fired public works employee gets his job back - Ct Post
27-January-2010
DERBY -- The city must rescind the firing of one Public Works employee terminated last year under a ruling recently handed down by the state Board of Mediation and Arbitration.
Last March, Alan Jeanetti and Ron Luneau were fired after problems at the town's transfer station surfaced that included incomplete record keeping. The two were the only city workers running the transfer station and, initially, were removed from those positions and assigned to the Town
Garage.
But after they refused to answer questions before the Board of Aldermen, the two were fired, and both appealed that action. The state board's ruling only pertains to Jeanetti. The board has not yet released a decision on Luneau's status.
Under the decision, the city has to reinstate Jeanetti, pay him $5,000 in back pay and restore his pension benefits, which Board of Aldermen president Ken Hughes said will cost about $3,000. The board also deemed that a 60-day suspension would be an appropriate action for the city to have taken.
"Alan Jeanetti will be a Public Works employee again as of tomorrow," Hughes said Tuesday afternoon.
"The state gave him a 60-day suspension and no back pay except for the $5,000, so they obviously saw there was something there," Hughes said. "It could have been a lot worse for the city because they were asking for back pay and vacation and health benefits.
Jeanetti was hired by the city in March 1987 and had been stationed at the Pine Street landfill since March 2006. He holds state certification allowing him to run the landfill and keep the records required by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
But it was discovered two years ago that the city doesn't have the proper state permit to run the station, that the required reports hadn't been submitted to the DEP and the records needed to compile those reports also hadn't been kept, which in part led to the aldermen ousting Jeanetti and Luneau from the landfill in July 2008 and bringing in Annex Associates of New Haven to run the station.
The state earlier found that the removal of Jeanetti and Luneau and the installation of Annex was improper, which led to the decision in December to close the landfill. City officials made an arrangement with the city of Shelton to use its landfill until the permit can be obtained, which could take a year or more, Hughes said.
In its decision, the board found fault on both Jeanetti, for failing to follow regulations in keeping the records, and with the city, for failing to discipline him for those actions prior to his termination. "The discharge of (Jeanetti) was not for just cause under the contract between the parties," the decision states. The discharge is replaced by the 60-day suspension, the decision says, and Jeanetti's seniority will be restored.
Because the landfill is closed, Jeanetti will return to the Public Works department as a regular employee, Hughes said. "He wasn't assigned specifically to the dump so he will return to the regular Public Works rotation," Hughes said.
City officials still believe to be true the findings of the aldermanic subcommittee that investigated the problems and places the blame on Jeanetti and Luneau, Hughes said.
"That is the state's decision but the subcommittee stands behind its report and findings," he said.
I think this is a good victory and a validation both for the grievant and the case we have been making that the town of Derby is willfully mismanaging public resources," said AFSCME Council 4 spokesman Larry Dorman.
"All of this stems from the fact that (city officials) want to privatize the transfer station and I think that is the underlying issue," Dorman said. "They lost the case on Allan, there's another pending and they also lost the decision on how they handled the transfer station when they switch management.
"This validates the concerns we have how the city is managing public resources and their refusal to live by laws that govern everyone else," he said, "and that cost the taxpayers in the end."
| | | Obama gets voters' message: It's jobs, jobs, jobs - AP
21-January-2010
WASHINGTON – Jobs, jobs, jobs.
If there's any path out of the mess President Barack Obama found himself in on the first day of his second year in office, more aggressive promotion of the administration's economy-boosting efforts — coupled with criticism of the Republican approach — is the one he has settled on.
The White House in the new year already had begun focusing greater attention on the nation's angst and anger over a range of economic issues, including unemployment persisting near 10 percent, government expansion, Wall Street excesses and federal deficits.
Officials said that shift will intensify now, an acknowledgment that Tuesday's stunning Senate election of Republican Scott Brown in the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts requires at least some course correction in Obama's still-young presidency.
Brown's election to the seat that had been held by Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy meant the end of a filibuster-proof majority for Obama's party in the Senate and suddenly imperiled passage of the president's marquee domestic agenda item — a sweeping health care overhaul. It also leaves the fate of other key Obama priorities unclear and prompted a series of questions about the president's political judgment, clout and popularity.
Obama and his top aides huddled with each other and Capitol Hill allies throughout Wednesday to plot how to rescue the health care legislation and to start mapping a way forward leading into this fall's midterm congressional elections.
Their conclusion was that the economy — jobs specifically and the broader topics of the nation's fiscal and financial health — must be priority No. 1.
Among the ideas Obama has already proposed to generate jobs and will promote:
_New spending for highway and bridge construction.
_Tax cuts for small businesses that increase their payrolls.
_Money to retrofit millions of homes to be more energy-efficient and create "green" jobs.
_Funds to help state and local governments avert layoffs of public-sector employees.
Using most but not all of Obama's approach, House Democrats adopted a $174 billion bill. But it passed only barely — and the deficit-financed measure faces a tougher road in the Senate.
In the coming weeks, Obama also will talk regularly about other plans, some old, some new: on deficit reduction, increasing access to capital for small businesses, boosting exports and help for working families, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe private planning.
Obama was expected to try out his retooled message first on Thursday, at a White House event on the financial regulatory overhaul that is his next big legislative push. On Friday, he travels to recession-battered Ohio for a town hall meeting on the economy.
The economy and jobs also will be a major theme of Obama's State of the Union address next Wednesday night, as well as during the travel officials say he will embark upon afterward to pitch his proposals, and in the budget proposal he submits to Congress in February.
But while Obama will directly address the Massachusetts election results and what they mean in his State of the Union speech, Gibbs said, the second-year blueprint Obama plans to outline will look much like it was planned to before Tuesday. In other words, the White House believes its main problem is its sales job, not its product.
In his daily closed-door meeting with senior advisers Wednesday, Obama had moved on from anger over the Massachusetts election debacle to a get-it-done demeanor, a senior administration official said.
Obama was furious with Democrat Martha Coakley for what many in Washington saw as inept handling of a once-sure victory for the seat long held by Kennedy, the official said. The president undoubtedly was also mad at himself.
He said as much in a first-year anniversary interview with ABC News, acknowledging that he had made a mistake in not making his aims clear to the American public — a failure he already had planned to correct but which now had become more imperative.
"We were so busy getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people," Obama said. "I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy ... that people will get it. And I think that, you know, what they've ended up seeing is this feeling of remoteness and detachment."
Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs conceded that the White House allowed confusion over the health care proposals to persist and to drown out the administration's economic efforts — all playing a role in stoking the kind of voter anger that was a factor in Coakley's defeat.
Said Gibbs: "That anger is now pointed at us because we're in charge. And rightly so."
Throughout his new efforts, Obama also will more pointedly draw contrasts with Republicans.
Republicans were ready to strike back. "Stop the arrogance and start listening to us," Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, said on CNN, assessing the voter message from Massachusetts. "I think this is the theme that we will see continuing to play out unless this administration and the majority in Congress begin to respond to the people."
| | | Q-Poll: Lamont Takes The Lead - CT News Junkie
21-January-2010
CTNJ file photo
Ned Lamont
The latest Quinnipiac University poll shows Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont with a slight lead over his Democratic competitors and Republican opponents in the race for governor.
Slightly less than half the Democratic voters still remain undecided, while Lamont received 27 percent of the Democratic vote. He is followed by former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy who gets 11 percent. The rest of the Democratic field received 5 percent or less of the vote.
On the Republican side Greenwich businessman Tom Foley has a slight lead over Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele. More than half of the voters remain undecided, but 17 percent say if the primary were held today they would pick Foley, while eight percent say they’d pick Fedele. The rest of the Republican field received 6 percent or less of the vote.
“On the Democratic side, Ned Lamont has taken the ‘lead’ with the exit of Susan Bysiewicz, but much of that is due to his greater name recognition,“ Quinnipiac University Poll Director Doug Schwartz said in a press release. “Malloy is within striking range and it is possible for a lesser known candidate to emerge.”
In the general election, Lamont beats Foley 38 to 36 percent and Fedele 41 to 32 percent, while Malloy beats Foley 37 to 33 percent and Fedele 37 to 31 percent.
“The big winner in the primaries for Governor is ‘Undecided.’ With most of the candidates largely unknown, voters aren’t expressing a preference in the gubernatorial primaries yet,” Schwartz said.
In the race for attorney general, Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz tops the Democratic pack with 62 percent. Former Democratic State Chairman George Jepson gets 10 percent and 24 percent are still undecided. Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura received 2 percent of the vote and Rep. Cam Staples, D-New Haven, who announced his candidacy Wednesday was not included in the poll conducted Jan. 14-19.
By a 49 - 14 percent margin, Connecticut voters have a favorable opinion of Bysiewicz, with 36 percent who don’t know enough about her to form an opinion.
“Bysiewicz has to feel good about her poll numbers,“ Schwartz said. “Despite the controversy over whether she has been in ‘active practice’ as an attorney for 10 years, which broke as the poll was in the field, she is the clear favorite over the virtually unknown George Jepsen in the Democratic primary. And her favorability numbers have remained high. But if this story doesn’t go away, this could change.”
The poll of 1,594 voters has a 2.5 percent margin of error
| | | DOT May Hire Firm Involved In Botched I-84 Work - Courant.com
21-January-2010
January 20, 2010
Maguire Group's name still raises red flags in this state because of the company's role in a botched construction project on I-84 in 2006 — one of the most celebrated messes in recent Department of Transportation history.
Even though the New Britain engineering and architectural firm has been sold and reorganized since then, its selection last month as one of the companies eligible to do environmental consultant work for the DOT has prompted Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to ask the department to reconsider the choice.
The consultant work could pay Maguire up to $2 million a year, but DOT Commissioner Joseph Marie said that no contract has been signed. In response to Blumenthal's request, Marie on Tuesday said that the DOT is still reviewing the restructuring of Maguire, purchased in June by Miami-based Metric Engineering Inc., a top-50 construction management firm.
Maguire was fired from its role as construction inspector on the I-84 job in September 2006 after dangerously substandard work was found in the reconstruction of a 3.5-mile stretch of highway in Cheshire and Waterbury.
Blumenthal's office sued Maguire and now-defunct contractor L.G. DeFelice. In all, the state recovered $22 million and used the money to re-do the I-84 project. The FBI and other federal law-enforcement and regulatory agencies began an investigation of the project, a probe that "is ongoing," according to a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office.
Since 2006, Maguire has made nearly $3.9 million from state contracts, mostly from the DOT, according to records from the state comptroller.
Marie said those contracts were in place before Maguire was fired, and that for the past three years, Maguire has received no new work from the DOT.
"They've essentially been on the shelf for three years," Marie said. "Now, in light of the restructuring, in light of their sale to Metric, in light of the fact that none of the people involved with I-84 are there anymore, we're considering whether to enter into contract negotiations with them."Metric said in a corporate statement on Tuesday that President and CEO Carlos Duart is aware of Maguire's association with the I-84 contract, and that Duart has fired or accepted the resignations of all the Maguire employees involved with that project.
Metric is a consortium of international firms specializing in projects such as highways, bridges and water-treatment plants. Marie said the DOT has looked at Metric's projects in Massachusetts and found them to be of high quality.
If the DOT does do business with Maguire, it would be for soil and groundwater testing and other environmental assessment work — tasks for which the company has consistently received high marks, according to state records. Marie said the DOT is not yet ready to consider Maguire for construction-inspection work, its role in the I-84 project.
Blumenthal, in a letter to Marie dated Friday, is questioning why the Maguire Group was selected, over other bidders, to a list of contractors pre-qualified to do the consultant work.
The attorney general also pointed out that this isn't the first time that the Maguire Group has re-invented itself. In the early 1990s, former DOT Commissioner Emil Frankel suspended the company for two years for what Frankel called a "serious disregard for professional ethics." The company then went through a reorganization.
Marie, in a letter to Blumenthal on Tuesday, said that the attorney general did not object to the inclusion of Maguire on the list of pre-qualified consultants when the list was sent to his office in November for review. Marie said the DOT is thoroughly reviewing Maguire's fitness to receive a DOT contract.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A previous version of this story posted online on January 19, 2010 at 11:10 a.m. incorrectly stated that DOT had awarded a contract to the Maguire Group. A contract agreement has not yet been made.
| | | Firemen’s union tables mayor’s request - Middletown Press
21-January-2010
MIDDLETOWN — The union that represents most of the Middletown Fire Department’s personnel voted last week to table Mayor Sebastian N. Giuliano’s request for concessions.
Lt. Mark Tine, president of the International Association of Firefighters Local 1073, said that, after a lengthy discussion, the 63-member union decided not to immediately act on the request at its January meeting.
“We’re probably going to end up discussing it more at a later date,” Tine said. “We’re still taking it under consideration.”
Giuliano had asked the firefighters union, the police union and the Middletown Managers & Professionals Association to take wage and step-increase freezes next year. The city is currently negotiating a new contract with its fourth union, Local 466 of AFSCME Council 4.
The MMPA turned down the request last week, MMPA President John Milardo said, because the Common Council rejected their concession package last year.
“They played big-time politics with us,” Milardo said.
The police union, Local 1361 of AFSCME Council 15, plans to vote on the request at the end of the month, union President Derek Puorro said.
Hannah Vahl can be reached by e-mail at hvahl@middletownpress.com.
| | | Now We Wait: 1,000 Pratt & Whitney jobs on the line - New Haven Advocate
21-January-2010
Labor & the Law
Now We Wait: 1,000 Pratt & Whitney jobs on the line
WALLINGFORD — Mike Pesapane and his wife took five days of vacation from an engine rebuilding plant in Cheshire to watch the Pratt & Whitney trial wrap up over three days in federal court in Bridgeport last week. The first two days were in late December.
"There's no vacation more important than that courtroom to see what's going on," Pesapane said here at his home.
Pratt announced in September it will close a jet engine maintenance plant in Cheshire, putting 800 people, including the Pesapanes, out of work; and a jet foil repair facility in East Hartford, putting another 200 people out of work. The jobs will go to non-union facilities in Georgia, Singapore and Japan, where labor costs are lower. Pratt says it will save $53.8 million a year.
The Pesapane's union — the International Machinists — sued Pratt on the grounds that it did not live up to contract requirements to make "every reasonable effort" to maintain those jobs.
The contract commits Pratt to a 45-day "meet and confer" process with the union to explore every possible way keep a facility open before deciding to close it, which the company did, beginning last July. Pratt even extended the process by 15 days, but ultimately announced on Sept. 21 that Cheshire and East Hartford would close by early 2011.
Pratt President David Hess testified last week that efforts by the union and State of Connecticut to entice Pratt to stay with wage concessions and tax credits fell short. Pratt valued the concessions at about $30 million for 2010. The state and the union valued them at nearly $50 million. Pratt found some incentives by the state worthless.
Hess, who only took over as president in January, said the decision to close Cheshire and East Hartford "wasn't even close." Pratt is looking at $54 million in annual savings every year into the foreseeable future, he explained. The union was working within the one-year time frame of the current contract only, which ends on Dec. 5, offering about $25 million in wage concessions.
The state's offer stretched over five years, but added up to just $5 million in direct benefit annually to Cheshire and East Hartford by Pratt's estimation, even though the state valued its offer at $20 million a year. A lot of that money was for an engineering center and tax credits that would have little direct impact on Cheshire and East Hartford, a Pratt spokesman said.
"Was there an amount of money the union could have offered for the remainder of the contract that would have changed your mind?" union attorney Gregg Adler asked on Wednesday.
"We would have considered it," Hess replied.
"What if it was $53.8 million?" Adler asked.
"No," Hess said.
"What if it was $80 million?" Adler said.
"No," Hess said.
Case closed.
The Pesapanes, both military veterans, have nearly 60 years between them at the Cheshire plant. Their Wallingford home, 18 miles from the plant, is on a semi-rural road lined with manicured mini-estates, although theirs, which includes an oversized double garage, is just past the row of cookie-cutter homes. Inside, a jungle of cactus plants crowds the sliding glass doors leading to their back deck, and paintings and drawings fill the walls.
Estella Pesapane, who spent some of her time in court studying for an online degree in leadership, has an artistic streak. She showed me the pen drawings in her notebook of a Pratt executive with a down-turned mouth, glasses and shock of combed hair who struck her as sour. She was angry the courtroom wasn't overflowing with Cheshire workers. About 40 showed up every day.
"There are many couples like us. They all should have been in that court," she said. "Whenever those executives think about Cheshire, I want them to think of my face."
Now the Pesapanes wait. A decision from Judge Janet Hall is expected by month's end.
The ideal outcome, says lead union negotiator Jim Parent, would be for the judge to agree that Pratt breached its contract, issuing an injunction preventing them from moving out of Connecticut.
In that case, the Cheshire and East Hartford facilities would remain until December, when full contract negotiations would be reopened and everything would be on the table. Then, Parent says, the challenge would be addressing the company's concerns and preserving the work.
"We've given members their day in court," Parent said.
Later that afternoon, Mike, 53, and Estella, 52, returned to work. Work is grim," Estella said. People are very depressed and angry. "They know the ax is coming," Mike said, his thumbs hooked behind suspenders over a red t-shirt memorializing the 2005 contract the union reached with Pratt.
When he left the witness stand last week, an erect Hess glanced briefly at his company's attorneys before taking a drink of water from a small paper cup and throwing it away at the union counsel's table. An elderly assistant handed him his coat and he walked out without looking at any of the workers gathered to his left in the courtroom — Pratt executives sat to his right — ignoring the machinist who told him to have a nice day.
"I felt sorry for him; I thought he felt ashamed," Estella Pesapane said. —Dan D'Ambrosio
Shopping
Thriving Thrift: Second-hand sales are soaring
ORANGE — "Isn't this fabulous?" Maria Papaluca rhetorically asks a sales girl as she slips into a calf-length black coat with a single button and a faux-fur collar.
Papaluca is pushing an overflowing shopping cart full of steals at Savers, a new super-sized thrift store that just opened here on the Boston Post Road.
The coat, she practically squeals, is only $30.
Papaluca (in photo), from Orange, has become a regular thrift store shopper in the last year or so. Mostly, its because of the recession she says.
"If I can get a bargain here, why should I pay full price anywhere else? There are Gap jeans over there with the tag still on them," she says, "and I found a Chico sweater for only 10 bucks."
Nationally, the shopping attitudes are trending towards Papaluca's philosophy, meaning that thrift stores like Savers are thriving in a down economy.
At the other end of the store, Mya Dixon of New Haven is buying a hot pink brocade skirt and jacket set for $5.99.
Dixon used to shop at places like Nordstrom and Macy's.
"I still go there, but now I head straight to the clearance rack," in an effort to pinch pennies. That's why, lately, she's been thrift shopping: "I find some really nice pieces for a fraction of the price."
"The market is growing by leaps and bounds," says Darryl Foley, Savers' store manager in Orange.
The location is Savers' second Connecticut store (there's one in Manchester) and two more will open soon — Newington in February and Waterbury in May.
Goodwill stores, too, are improving in the recession. Last year's sales were up 5 percent over 2008 numbers, meaning that Goodwill did better than most national retailers.
At the same time, though, donations dropped by up to 20 percent in some areas.
"Without the donations, we don't have the goods to sell and without that, our programs and services get hit," explains Marcus Notz, spokesman for Easter Seals Goodwill of Greater New Haven. "Our main business is providing training and employment for people with disabilities. All that funding is being cut by the state. If we have those cuts combined with a drop in donations, that hurts our services."
In an effort to capture more of the market, Goodwill, like Savers, has been reaching out to the middle class. In the last year, Goodwill has opened a few stores regionally — Route 80 in New Haven and an outlet on State Street in Hamden — and renovated others like in Orange, where that store is now larger, brighter and better organized.
It seems to be working.
"The demographic has changed," says Sname Wilson, of West Haven who was shopping at Goodwill's Orange location recently. "Now I see more middle class people and more people my age."
Renee Lupone, a Goodwill shopper and pre-school teacher from Derby, agrees: "There's more competition to find the good stuff." —Betsy Yagla
Preservation
Just Desserts: Saving the Milford Diner
MILFORD — Soon you'll be able to get a slice of pie and a cuppa joe at the Milford Diner again. What was once a popular breakfast joint could soon feature poetry slams instead.
The 1946 diner, located on the edge of downtown, has been closed for six years. The building is too young to be historic and therefore is not immune to the wrecking ball. SBC restaurant — which is next door — owns the diner and originally proposed leveling it and using it for extra parking, a hot commodity in downtown Milford.
"Our objective is to first of all save the diner from the wrecking ball, and second of all, create what we believe is a void in Milford," says businessman Steve Spector, who started the Milford Diner committee (themilforddiner.com).
He and others hope that by this summer, the diner will reopen its doors as a community center for the town, featuring art shows, meeting space and everything in between.
To do so, the Milford Diner committee needs to raise about $60,000.
That's why they're hosting a fundraiser this Sunday: $20 will get supporters into Daniel Street Club (21 Daniel St., Milford) where, from 4-9 p.m., the RumRunners (a band of local firefighters that plays fundraisers) and the CT RollerGirls will entertain.
On a recent visit to the diner, Spector, the committee's president, went over restoration plans. Although several booths and some of the red, padded stools that line the counter will be removed, the committee hopes to keep the diner spirit alive.
This diner's plans seem to be a less avant garde version of the Hygienic Gallery in downtown New London, a hip art gallery in an old diner which still features a diner counter complete with bar stools. Plans for the Milford Diner aren't based on the Hygienic Gallery; Spector says he's never even heard of it, but promises to check it out for inspiration.
In it's new incarnation, the Milford Diner will probably serve coffee and pie, but not hot food. "Diners were a place where people met to share information, where you found out what was going on," says Susan Shaw, the group's executive director and owner of Milford's Collected Stories Bookstore.
Once upon a time, that's exactly what the Milford Diner was. Here's hoping it will be again. —Cara McDonough
Politics
King for a Day: Hamden's first black mayor on MLK Day
HAMDEN — Scott Jackson, Hamden's first black mayor, was feted almost as much as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was during King's birthday celebration last week.
"I'd like to congratulate you for putting away how you look at a person," NAACP state president, Scot X. Esdaile, told the crowd gathered at the Hamden library.
"Dr. King talked about this: 'I pray for a day when a person will be judged not on the basis of their color but the content of their character.' And I thank you for voting for Scott Jackson, not on the basis of his color, but the content of his character."
State Attorney General (and candidate for U.S. Senate) Richard Blumenthal said: "I am so proud to be with you today at your first Martin Luther King Jr. Day. And I'm reminded of the inauguration day of Barack Obama — but I don't want to put any ideas in your head."
Others, too, praised and congratulated Jackson on a day meant to celebrate King's fight for racial, social and economic justice. For his own part, Jackson spoke briefly and eloquently on what King's legacy means to him.
In high school, Jackson said, he first came across one of his favorite quotes, which happens to be a Dr. King quote: "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice." "A great framework," says Jackson, "but at its core that statement is inaccurate. The arc does not bend of its own will; we bend it. It is not our duty to be right, it is our duty to be righteous. Righteousness demands we speak up even if we speak alone, even if we confront another bend in history's long arc."
After the ceremony, Jackson (pictured with his 1-year-old son Eli) says that, as a policy maker, he appreciates King's understanding of how much effort and time goes into working towards both short- and long-term goals.
"We can't always engage in immediate change, and that can be frustrating," Jackson says.
Case in point: During his mayoral campaign, Jackson was attacked for talking about bringing trolley cars to Hamden. "They're impractical, I know," he says. "But they open the door to talking about other transportation opportunities. We can't just talk about vehicular. We need to talk about mass transit, bike and pedestrian paths."
Transportation, Jackson says, is an economic justice issue: "If gas goes up to $5, I need to make sure residents can still get to their jobs." —Betsy Yagla
Information Technology
Is It Bigger Than Yours?: Faster than a speeding Google
HARTFORD — Because the Internet is gigantic, and getting huger every day, Googling is actually, almost unbelievably, getting more difficult. It can be frustrating to parse the ad-heavy, bogus sites for a legitimate credit consolidation agency or trustworthy hair-removal services or weight-loss centers.
Those are frequently-searched-for things, and there's a ton of information about them on the Web. The paradox is this: Though people search for that information constantly, they're the hardest topics to find good information on. To combat this, you could use something called a "human search engine."
HSEs employ people to weed out the bad, junky sites from common (or, depending on the size of the HSE, even uncommon) Web queries.
Some HSEs are complex. DMOZ, founded in 1999, is an open-source search function that requires some insider-tech background to use effectively. There are small-scale HSEs started by young tech heads and Google-inspired designers. Bryan Hadaway, a 23-year-old Washington-based Web designer, is the creator of the nearly year-old hengine.com, a small database with limited information, but Hadaway told me in an interview he's eager to expand.
"We're centuries away from [being] Google," Hadaway said in a recent IM chat. Hadaway hopes people will contribute to his start-up HSE, loading it with good, clean, reliable data. He wants to be the "people's search engine."
There are are bulkier and/or more you-and-me friendly HSEs out there. It's likely you've already been using them, or at least seen ads for them.
ChaCha and what's called "_kgb" are the most popular HSEs, known primarily for their text service. ChaCha, in textspeak, is 242242 — that spells ChaCha on your phone; _kgb is 542542. Text message them any question you want and they'll send you an answer within a minute or two. Because it's free, they also send you a little advertisement, which is totally worth it. Also because it's free, ChaCha will cut your ass off after an indeterminate number of questions, which can be a bummer when, for instance, you're arguing with someone at a bar about the best time to grow tomatoes. So _kgb, which charges $1 a question, is a good backup if you're desperate enough.
More than saving you the cost of having access to the Internet on your phone, these search functions also help you find answers to your questions quickly and easily. If I were to Google, say, "When's the best time to grow tomatoes?" I might get a Yahoo! answer, or the tomato Wiki page or some tomato fan site, where information isn't always accurate. Or I might have to scan an entire page before I find my answer. The human search engine saves me all of that headache (with a few exceptions in accuracy).
Elizabeth Diamond-Lessard, of Litchfield, N.H., has worked as a "guide," answering people's questions for ChaCha since it launched in September 2006. It's perfect for her, a mother of three young boys, as a work-from-home job that brings in between $7,000 and $10,000 a year. Plus, she gets to learn all sorts of things, she told me in an interview.
Most of her questions, she says, are about relationships or for "411 stuff," like phone numbers for local restaurants and things. But she said she's been asked all kinds of crazy questions.
"There are a lot of penis questions," she says. "The biggest penis on a person is 13 and a half inches. Jonah Falcon. Poor guy." —Brianna Snyder
| | | Labor Leaders Digest Senate Setback - Wall Street Journal
21-January-2010
Labor leaders met by phone Wednesday as the loss of a Democratic Senate seat and the specter of further party defeats in November threw unions' legislative agenda into disarray and further diminished chances of passing a bill to ease organizing.
Officials of the AFL-CIO, a federation of 57 unions, discussed options and strategy, including how to keep the administration and members of Congress focused on pro-labor issues such as jobs and enforcement of trade laws, and beefing up pre-election campaigning for vulnerable Democrats. They also discussed the possibility of salvaging the union-organizing bill, known as Employee Free Choice Act.
Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, couldn't be reached for comment. Last week, Mr. Trumka predicted that the organizing bill would reach President Barack Obama's desk in the first quarter.
"Congress and the White House need to focus like a laser beam on the jobs issue and failure to do so will have consequences in November," said Thea Lee, deputy chief of staff for the AFL-CIO. She declined to comment on specific strategy.
Tuesday's win by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts dealt a blow to labor's multiyear, multimillion dollar effort to put Democrats in the majority of the House and Senate. Labor officials viewed the 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate as essential for passing the organizing bill, which would benefit unions by shortening the time period before union-organizing elections, mandating arbitration of first contracts and boosting penalties for employers who violate labor laws.
The bill was already on shaky ground, due to strong opposition from business, Republicans and some moderate Democrats. Now some labor officials believe it's doomed.
"Personally I think that becomes a dead issue for the year 2010," said Thomas Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists. "It's an election year and I think people are going to focus on what's most important."
Labor experts agreed that unions' hopes had dimmed. "Any major legislation that's coming out of this Congress that's important to labor is probably not going to happen," said Peter Francia, a political scientist at East Carolina University.
Business groups said there were a number of bills that unions can still push, including one that would change the definition of a supervisor, which could enable unions to organize people in jobs with supervisory duties, such as certain nurses. Other bills would expand paid leave and change rules related to plant-closure announcements. Unions are supporting nominees to the National Labor Relations Board who could revise certain union-organizing rules on their own, without legislation.
"Labor's agenda is stalled and they'll have to drop the big ticket items. But they'll no doubt try to move smaller but still significant initiatives," said Randel Johnson, vice president of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Buffenbarger said he hoped Tuesday's election would benefit unions in one way, by leading Congress to enact a jobs bill that could include pro-labor provisions, such as requirements that the government purchase items from American companies, including defense concerns where his union represents workers. "The lesson I hope the party takes is what this union has been yelling about for the last three years, jobs," he said.
Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State and Municipal Employees said Friday that the organizing bill would be taken up after health care. Reached Wednesday, Mr. McEntee said he still believes the bill "is in play."
—Melanie Trottman contributed to this article.
| | | Gubernatorial Candidates Discuss Employee Union Givebacks, Campaign Financing During Forum - Courant.com
21-January-2010
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING
January 21, 2010
Two candidates for governor said Wednesday that the state employee unions should be asked for more givebacks in order to close the state's growing budget deficit.
The remarks by state Sen. Gary LeBeau, a Democrat, and Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, a Republican, came on a day when the governor's office increased its projected estimated deficit to $500 million because tax collections are worse than expected. The state's fiscal health has been weak for more than one year, but some lawmakers had hoped that the problem could be solved with last year's plan to raise the cigarette tax by $1 per pack and increasing the state income tax on the state's wealthiest citizens.
Now, however, the tax collections are still weak and the deficit has grown.
In a gubernatorial forum at a Cromwell hotel, LeBeau was asked by the moderator on how the state should deal with the public-employees unions.
"There are going to have to be cuts in state employee numbers unless we can get concessions," LeBeau said.
LeBeau, who acknowledged that state employees "do a great job," voted in favor of the Democratic-written budget that Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell allowed to become law without her signature. He said, however, that Rell did not drive a hard bargain with the unions on wage and benefit concessions.
"This year's bargaining was somewhat of a joke in terms of how much was requested and how much was received," said LeBeau, a retired teacher. "I think we need to bargain harder."
LeBeau later added, "Given the enormity of the problem we were facing, we needed more help from the state-employee unions."
Fedele essentially agreed with LeBeau, saying, "We cannot continue on the path we are going with our state employees." He added that the state must continue to work with the unions "as a partnership."
The candidates' remarks were made at the forum in which seven gubernatorial candidates participated. Rell, who is not running for re-election, did not attend. The forum was sponsored by the Council of Small Towns, which represents mayors and first selectmen of the state's smaller municipalities.
Catherine Osten, the union president of the Connecticut State Employees Association, SEIU Local 2001, attended the forum because she also serves as the first selectman of Sprague in New London County. Without the savings from the unions that came from increased prescription drug co-pays, a wage freeze, and other concessions, she said, both the state and towns "would be in even worse shape" than they are currently.
"State workers were one of the first groups to contribute in such a meaningful way toward solving our deficit problem," Osten said later in a statement. "Now that these candidates are running for governor, they should be offering real solutions, not looking for scapegoats."
Campaign Finance
The candidates clashed on campaign finance reforms and campaign spending.
Tom Foley, a Greenwich Republican who has pledged to spend millions of his own money on the campaign, said, "I think it's absolutely ridiculous that government should pay for people's political campaigns."
Former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, mentioned Foley and Greenwich Democrat Ned Lamont by name and challenged them to "just live with the same limitations that other people are living with." He said Foley and Lamont have the right to self-fund their campaigns but should limit their spending to the same level as other candidates.
Foley scoffed at that idea later, saying that his ability to communicate with voters should not be restricted. Besides contributing $2 million of his own money so far, Foley is raising funds with maximum limits for individuals of $3,500 for the primary and another $3,500 for the general election. He taped footage for a TV commercial Saturday, and the commercial should be on the airwaves in an advertising blitz within the next 10 days.
Speaking of Malloy's proposal, Foley said, "If he can cut off resources to his opponents, that would be to his advantage."
Lamont, a cable TV entrepreneur, said: "It only works if everybody is in the public financing plan. Given the fact that not everybody is in it, I'm reserving the right to opt out."
So far, Lamont said he has not contributed any of his own money to the current campaign and is instead raising money from contributors. | | | Union Files Against Public Works - The Hour
21-January-2010
Hour Staff Writer
Norwalk - The union representing Norwalk Department of Public Works employees has filed two complaints with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations alleging "intimidation and harassment" by management.
The complaints were filed by The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Association Council 4 on behalf of Local 2405, which represents about 120 Norwalk public works employees.
According to the first complaint, DPW Director Harold F. Alvord and DPW Roads Supervisor Chris Torre threatened, harassed, intimidated and called Local 2405 members at their homes after a grievance was filed "in an attempt to get them to withdraw the grievance."
The second complaint alleges that Alvord violated the Municipal Employees Relations Act by not allowing Local 2405 President Milton Giddiens to represent a union member at an unemployment hearing.
"Mr. Alvord and Mr. Torre have been engaged in a campaign of fear and intimidation and threats to take away our rights and to strip us of our dignity," Giddiens said. "This disregard of our legal and civil rights has been going on for years and needs to stop. It's demeaning, demoralizing and destructive to us as public service workers."
Alvord said it would inappropriate for him to comment on the complaints, given that the city is currently negotiating with Local 2405 over a new contract. The public works director referred questions to H. James Haselkamp Jr., the city's director of personnel and labor relations.
"It was our position that it's not appropriate to take and use taxpayers' time (to attend) an unemployment hearing," Haselkamp said. "The union thinks that the union president should be allowed to take union business leave, where we're paying, to go and represent the employee at unemployment (hearings), and we said, 'No.'"
The labor relations board in Wethersfield has received the two complaints. The complaints are under review and being processed, according to officials there.
Two years ago, Local 2405 members charged their supervisors with abusive treatment and delivered a petition to the city. The events led to discussions between the union and management.
"We certainly had some discussions, but at this point it appears like it's deja vu all over again," said Larry Dorman, spokesman for AFSCME Council 4.
| | | Obama Demands 'Crisis Tax' To Recoup Finance Bailout Cash - Courant.com
15-January-2010
Vowing to recover "every single dime the American people are owed," President Barack Obama proposed a new tax Thursday on the nation's largest financial institutions to recover projected losses from the government's bailouts.
"We want our money back and we're going to get it," Obama said in a short but sharply worded White House speech. "If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they surely are in good enough shape to afford to pay back every penny to taxpayers."
Obama's tough talk comes amid public anger about big profits and large bonuses at major financial firms as Wall Street -- with the help of taxpayer money -- has returned to robust fiscal health while much of the nation struggles to recover.
Obama said the bailouts, which were begun under the Bush administration, were "as necessary as it was unfortunate" because of the vital role large financial institutions play in the economy. Even though many of the firms have repaid the money, Obama said that's not good enough.
"My commitment is to recover every single dime the American people are owed," he said. "And my determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people, folks who have not been made whole and who continue to face real hardship in this recession."
The new Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee would have to be approved by Congress. It would hit about 50 of the nation's largest financial institutions and generate about $9 billion annually for at least 10 years, administration officials said. The tax would be an annual 0.15 percent fee on a company's liabilities, excluding insured deposits, and would be assessed on banks, insurance companies and other financial firms with at least $50 billion in assets.
The goal is to offset projected losses of about $117 billion from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. About 60 percent of the fee would be raised from the 10 largest financial firms, among them some of the biggest names from the financial crisis, including Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley.
But most of the large recipients of bailout money have repaid all of their infusions, and the Treasury Department has projected a profit from the TARP program that injected money into banks because of payments from dividends and stock warrants.
The tax, which would begin on June 30, would be assessed on firms that have repaid their money and some that never received any bailout. It would not be assessed on automakers General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group, which have received about $64 billion in bailout money and are projected to account for a large share of the losses. Such a fee would be logistically difficult to impose on a manufacturing company, according to a senior administration official.
The administration also is spending about $50 billion of TARP money on its plan to offer incentives to banks to modify home mortgages to reduce foreclosures. That program's cost is included in the projected losses for TARP.
Large banks said asking them to make up the TARP shortfall is unfair.
"Two-thirds of the TARP investment from banks has already been repaid with a large profit to the taxpayer," said Steve Bartlett, president of the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group of large financial firms. "This proposed tax will do nothing more than stifle economic recovery and encumber more pressing concerns, such as covering new regulatory costs. ... This tax is strictly political."
Some Republicans also said they were opposed to the new fee, echoing bankers' concerns that it will limit lending as the economy struggles to recover from the recession.
Obama said executives of large banks should take responsibility for the fee rather than fighting it.
"What I'd say to these executives is this: Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal, or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I'd suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities and I'd urge you to cover the costs of the rescue not by sticking it to your shareholders or your customers or fellow citizens with the bill, but by rolling back bonuses for top earners and executives," he said in some of his sharpest rhetoric yet about the role of large firms in the financial crisis.
Some congressional Democrats would like to tax the large financial firms even more. In addition to Obama's tax, they want to tax large bonuses paid to employees of those firms. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., has introduced legislation to impose a 50 percent tax on bonuses of more than $50,000 paid by companies that received bailout money.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Wednesday he supported the administration's bank tax and also would like to raise the marginal tax rate on those bonuses, which is now 36 percent. He plans hearings next week on limiting Wall Street pay.
| | | Another tough budget year, another push for regionalism - Stamford Advocate
15-January-2010
State House Democrats today announced the creation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Municipal Opportunites and Regional Efficiencies – or MORE, as in “doing more with less.”
The will identify opportunities for more regional collaboration designed to create efficiencies and save money for Connecticut’s cities and towns, which are wrestling with budget crises and facing a loss of aid from the equally cash-strapped state.
I hate to fall into the cynical reporter stereotype every time lawmakers put together another committee or commission or task force and produce yet another report that leads to nothing, but having written about a similar push for regionalism one year ago, it’s difficult not be a little skeptical about this MORE initiative. But who knows? Maybe I’ll be surprised during the 2010 legislative session.
Here’s my story from February 1, 2009 about some of the reasons regionalism has not worked in Connecticut.
Cities, towns wary that shared services would lead to losses
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
HARTFORD — Norwalk and New Canaan considered merging health departments in 2006 to recoup an estimated $84,000 annually in additional state funding.
But that was not enough to overcome concerns among members of Norwalk’s Common Council that they would be sacrificing local control of health services.
The merger died.
Democratic legislators in Hartford launched a new push last week to encourage the state’s 169 cities and towns to consolidate more services, ideally shrinking local government and reducing local property taxes during the economic crisis.
But several current and former officials in lower Fairfield County said so-called regionalization is far easier said than done.
“You have a bunch of towns that are hard-wired to oppose consolidation for fear it will lead to consolidation of things they don’t want,” said Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, a Democrat. “This fear — if we start doing anything voluntarily it will lead to something else — has been enough to stifle cooperative efforts.”
Unlike many states, Connecticut abolished county governments — structures that typically encourage or require municipal cooperation. Instead, Connecticut has 15 bodies that are councils of governments — groups of local elected officials who meet regularly. And it has regional planning agencies whose members are appointed by elected officials or municipal planning commissions.
In Fairfield County, the Southwestern Regional Planning Agency was created in 1962. Much of its work is focused on addressing regional transportation issues, though SWRPA has purchasing pools for sand and salt, as well as for diesel fuels and gasoline.
Some state lawmakers and other proponents of regionalization want SWRPA and its fellow planning agencies transformed into councils of government to foster better cooperation.
“With no disrespect to the regional planning agencies, their focus is much narrower than a council of governments’ would be,” said James Finley, head of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.
Councils of government also are considered more accountable to voters because local elected officials play a more direct role, Finley said.
Malloy and former Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell have unsuccessfully encouraged neighboring towns to agree to turn SWRPA into a council of governments.
“I felt it would give us strength in terms of our relationship with Hartford,” Farrell said. “It went nowhere. There was a general suspicion about the loss of individual identity.”
Greenwich First Selectman Peter Tesei, a Republican, said he has no problem working with neighbors or seeking advice on how they handle issues in their towns.
But he said he is satisfied with SWRPA and does not see the need for a council of governments.
“I think the decisions that are made best are done at the local level by individuals who understand the needs of a particular community,” Tesei said.
Norwalk Finance Director Thomas Hamilton, who worked for Stamford in the past, said the reluctance is not just at the executive level.
“You have departments — managers and other people in charge — who may not want to give up their control over certain operations,” he said.
Finley acknowledged the problem is common throughout New England.
“We’re a Yankee ‘go it alone’ heritage,” Finley said, noting that the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities is a relatively young organization, having been founded in 1966. Similar groups nationwide formed in the late 1800s.
Farrell said state lawmakers must offer credible incentives to encourage regionalization, particularly during tough financial times.
Legislative Democrats last week proposed sharing portions of the state sales tax with cities and towns that partner. But with the state facing a budget deficit in the billions of dollars, they could not promise how much money might be available or when it would be provided.
“It’s too ambiguous,” Farrell said. “I’d be surprised if anybody jumped on the bandwagon.”
On the other hand, state legislators expressed reluctance to pass any laws requiring regionalization, which Malloy agreed would not be welcomed in Connecticut.
“I don’t think anyone’s going to agree to be forced into doing anything,” he said.
But municipalities in lower Fairfield County work together on some issues.
For example, Norwalk and Stamford are part of a statewide consortium of 15 communities that purchase prescription drug coverage and life insurance.
But Democratic lawmakers are suggesting more ambitious endeavors, such as regionalized collective bargaining with municipal unions to better control labor costs.
“That sounds to me like a pretty daunting undertaking,” Hamilton said. “One community might be interested in keeping wages as low as possible, and another might be interested in taking on retiree health insurance.”
He said it would make more sense to instead have a regional government that provides regional services.
Democratic legislators last week also suggested municipalities forge no-compete agreements on economic development. But Joseph McGee, vice president of public policy for the Business Council of Fairfield County, said that was unnecessary.
“What does it mean? If you’re an economic development official in Norwalk, you can never talk to a company in Stamford? That’s not realistic,” McGee said. “You want some competition. You want one town pushing another.”
McGee said the state would be better served by being more conservative about providing tax breaks and other incentives for businesses that relocate from one town to another.
“That is absolutely wacko,” he said. “The only way those become palatable is if the company is legitimately going to move out of state. You have to figure out if that is ‘the game of bluff’ or real.”
But municipalities have recognized the benefits of regionalization in emergency services.
Norwalk Fire Chief Denis McCarthy and many neighbors have established a joint HAZMAT team that none could afford individually.
But McCarthy pointed to failures. Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, emergency responders and chief elected officials met to discuss creating a single communications system and dispatch center.
“Once you do that, you’re just moving pieces around on a single radio frequency, and you can mix and match resources very easily,” McCarthy said.
It never moved forward.
McCarthy also has explored building a new fire station to serve Norwalk’s Cranbury neighborhood as well as areas of Westport and Wilton.
But at a time when some municipal officials might begin to recognize the financial savings of a shared fire station, their budgets are stretched too thin to finance the project.
“When times are good, no one has the compelling reason to discuss any type of regionalization,” McCarthy said. “When times are bad . . . there’s no money to do it.”
| | | Testimony Heard That Pratt CEO Refused To Delay Cheshire Plant Closing - courant.com
15-January-2010
BRIDGEPORT —
Even as talks intended to save Pratt & Whitney's Cheshire plant continued last summer, the chief executive of United Technologies Corp. apparently was refusing to delay its closing.
"I just heard from Hess," CEO Louis Chênevert wrote in a Sept. 10 e-mail to an assistant in Hartford, referring to Pratt President David Hess. "His request is to not go ahead with Cheshire, which I will not support."
The e-mail emerged Wednesday, the fifth and final day of a federal trial over the future of Pratt's jet engine overhaul and repair factory in Cheshire and a smaller unit in East Hartford. Pratt's main labor union sued in an effort to derail the closures, formally announced last September. More than 1,000 Connecticut jobs hang in the balance. UTC owns Pratt.
Gregg Adler, a lawyer for the Machinists union, raised the Chênevert e-mail during his cross-examination Wednesday of Hess at U.S. District Court in Bridgeport. Hess said he couldn't recall a specific conversation with Chênevert that provided the basis for the e-mail.
"There might have been some discussion about timing," Hess said.
Chênevert did not testify during the trial. The e-mail appears to suggest his eagerness to shut down Cheshire as of Sept. 10 — one day before the Machinists union gave Pratt a final package of proposed concessions.
Other internal company e-mails disclosed during the trial showed UTC's wish to shut down Cheshire, and to do so before negotiations over the Machinists' next contract start later this year.
The union's lawyers hope to prove that the companies decided in early 2009 to close the plants, and thereafter did not consider alternatives in good faith, as required by the existing labor contract.
Lawyers for the companies have focused on the business rationale for closing the plants, emphasizing declining workloads and the plants' weak performance relative to other Pratt repair shops.
During his court appearance Wednesday, Hess disputed previous testimony by one of his top deputies that the entire Pratt management team — including Hess — had agreed by Jan. 15, 2009, that Cheshire should be closed.
"Mr. Kallman's recollection was incorrect," Hess said from the witness stand, referring to the testimony of Todd Kallman, Pratt's president for commercial engines. "Mr. Kallman was mistaken."
Hess, who did not become Pratt's president until Jan. 1, 2009, said he did not make up his own mind until "somewhere in the May or June time frame" of 2009.
Even then, Pratt could not carry the closures out without financing from UTC, Hess said, and UTC did not agree to provide the money until June or July.
Pratt announced publicly on July 21 that it was "evaluating" the plant closures and soon began discussing alternatives with the union. The company demanded $53.8 million in recurring annual savings.
Chênevert wrote his Sept. 10 e-mail in response to an assistant who asked about his availability for a conference call with U.S. Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman. He and Hess were at a conference of aerospace executives in Wyoming.
As Hess considered whether to support closing Cheshire, he worried about angering the politicians, because Pratt needs their support in Washington to win federal contracts, he testified Wednesday.
He decided they were likely to push Pratt's interests anyway.
"Ultimately, the congressional delegation would do the right thing for Pratt & Whitney," he testified.
As Hess walked out of the courtroom after his testimony, a person sitting among the assembled Machinists called out, "Have a nice day."
| | | AFL-CIO Calls on Unions, U.S. to Assist Haitians - AFL-CIO Now Blog
15-January-2010
The AFL-CIO is calling for the United States and the entire international community, including the global union movement, to “do our utmost to aid our Haitian sisters and brothers in their moment of extraordinary need.”
You can help Haitian workers in distress by donating to the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center’s Earthquake Relief for Haitian Workers’ Campaign. Click here to make a donation and here to learn more about how the center is working to help Haitian workers. (More donation options below.)
In a joint statement, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler and AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker called on Congress to grant humanitarian relief in the form of temporary protected status to Haitians who are in the United States.
It would be inhumane to send people back to a country utterly incapable of taking care of its own population.
Read the entire statetment here.
The Solidarity Center is sending a delegation of Haitian labor activists living in the Dominican Republic to Port-au-Prince to assess the situation. The center also is working with unions in the Dominican Republic to establish a donation center with nonperishable goods that will be shipped to their Haitian trade union counterparts.
The three AFL-CIO leaders urged the union family to provide in-kind assistance to the relief effort. Unions have been called to support and assist the Haitians as we wrote about here, and we will update union actions as we hear about them. Most recently:
Members of the AFL-CIO Maritime Trades Department unions are crewing ships, including the USNS Comfort that will provide aid.
The South Florida AFL-CIO is collecting donations of water, nonperishable food items, cleaning supplies and over-the-counter medications to ship to Haiti. The collections are being accepted at the Longshoremen (ILA) Local 1416 union hall at 816 N.W. 2nd Ave. in Miami. The labor council has secured a ship and is looking for volunteers to load containers of the donated goods for shipment. Volunteers should call 305-593-8886. You can send monetary donations made out to Catholic Charities or Operation Helping Hands and send or drop them off at the South Florida AFL-CIO, 2500 N.W. 97th Ave., Suite 201, Miami, FL 33172.
To learn about what some other unions are doing to provide aid to Haiti, click here.
Donations also may be made to:
Partners in Health: www.pih.org/inforesources/news/Haiti_Earthquake.html or send your contribution to Partners In Health, P.O. Box 845578, Boston, MA 02284-5578.
Doctors Without Borders: www.doctorswithoutborders.org or call toll free at 1-888-392-0392. USA Headquarters 333 7th Ave., 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10001-5004.
American Red Cross International Response Fund: www.redcross.org/org or call toll free at 1-800-REDCROSS or 1-800-257-7575 (Spanish). Contributions also can be mailed to American Red Cross, P.O. Box 37243, Washington, DC 20013 or to your local American Red Cross chapter (specify if you want to make sure your donation will benefit Haiti).
RN Response Network: www.NationalNursesUnited.org.
United Way Worldwide Disaster Fund: https://volunteer.united-e-way.org/uwwwdisaster/donate/ or mail checks with the fund reference to United Way Worldwide, P.O. Box 630568, Baltimore, MD 21263-0568.
Those interested in providing volunteer assistance should contact the Center for International Disaster Information, at http://www.cidi.org/.
| | | Accord Reached on Insurance Tax for Costly Plans - NY Times
15-January-2010
WASHINGTON — The White House, Congressional leaders and labor unions said Thursday that they had reached agreement on a proposal to tax high-cost health insurance policies, resolving one of the major differences between the House and the Senate over far-reaching health legislation.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Doug Mills/The New York Times
President Obama, sitting next to Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill, gave a wink to a House member before his remarks.
Health Care Conversations
Share your thoughts about the health care debate.
Top Discussions: The Public Option | Medicare and the Elderly | The Senate Bill
Living Story
Health Care Reform
Recent developments on the struggle over health care with background, analysis, timelines and earlier events from NYTimes.com and Google.
Go to the Prescriptions Blog » Times Topics: Health Care Reform
Multimedia
Interactive Feature
A History of Overhauling Health Care
Interactive Graphic
Comparing the House and the Senate Health Care Proposals
Political Points Podcast: Final Health Care Negotiations. (mp3)
Related
Prescriptions: Final Health Care Bill to Be Available Online
Prescriptions: Updated: Labor Leaders Describe Excise-Tax Deal
Prescriptions: Details on the Health Plan Tax Their negotiations produced changes to a tax included in the bill passed by the Senate last month. The changes would lessen and delay the impact of the tax on workers and would reduce the amount of revenue collected. The revenue would help finance coverage for millions of people who are uninsured.
Labor leaders hailed the deal and said they were prepared to fight for passage of the legislation.
“We have seen tremendous progress over the last couple of days,” said Richard L. Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
Under the bill passed last month by the Senate, the federal government would have imposed a 40 percent tax on the value of employer-sponsored health coverage exceeding $8,500 a year for an individual and $23,000 for a family. The tax would have taken effect in 2013. White House officials, Democratic Congressional leaders and labor unions said Thursday that they had agreed to an increase in those thresholds to $8,900 for an individual and $24,000 for a family. Moreover, they said, starting in 2015, the cost of separate coverage for dental and vision care would be excluded from the calculations.
In addition, they said, health plans covering state and local government employees and collectively bargained health plans would be exempt from the tax until 2018. This transition period addresses the concerns of schoolteachers and other public employees who have denounced the tax.
For people in certain high-risk occupations, including police officers and construction workers, thresholds would be higher: as high as $27,000 for a family.
In addition, Mr. Trumka, who led a team of labor leaders negotiating with the White House, said the thresholds would be increased for “age and gender,” to reflect the higher premiums often charged for health plans with large numbers of women, older workers and retirees.
He said the changes would reduce the amount of revenue from the tax by about 40 percent, to $90 billion over 10 years. The tax in the Senate bill would have generated $149 billion over 10 years.
A White House official, speaking to journalists on condition of anonymity, said he did not know how much revenue would be lost as a result of the changes. The White House said that the tax would still tend to slow the growth of health spending, and that the overall bill would not add to the federal budget deficit.
President Obama and Congress will find ways to offset the loss of revenue from the tax, the White House said.
Republicans said the agreement was another special deal to win votes for the legislation by mollifying some of the Democrats’ most loyal supporters.
Progress in the negotiations came as Mr. Obama addressed House Democrats on Capitol Hill. He exhorted them to finish the job on health care despite fierce criticism from Republicans and fears among some Democrats that they could pay a political price for passing the legislation.
“Let me tell you something,” Mr. Obama said, pointing to elements of the legislation he said would increase access to health care. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”
The agreement has not been vetted by rank-and-file members of the Democratic caucus in either house of Congress. Nor has the Congressional Budget Office reviewed it. The proposed tax could be further modified based on feedback from lawmakers and the budget office.
Mr. Obama and some economists contend that the tax could help rein in health spending by encouraging employers to reconfigure health benefits.
While insurers would be responsible for paying the tax, the Congressional Budget Office and private economists say the cost would be passed on to workers and retirees.
Representative Joe Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut, who has led opposition to the tax, said the agreement indicated that “a lot more intelligence is being applied to this issue.” But he added: “I am reserving judgment. I would like to see more detail.”
The tax could affect a significant number of health plans in the future because the thresholds would probably rise less than health costs and insurance premiums. Under the deal, as in the Senate bill, the thresholds would rise with the Consumer Price Index, plus one percentage point.
The thresholds would be further increased if insurance costs grow faster than expected from 2010 to 2013.
Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said he spoke to members of the House Democratic Caucus at their conclave on Thursday.
“They were quite receptive, although there were some people who wanted to fight for no excise tax at all,” Mr. McEntee said.
Republicans said the special treatment of collectively bargained health plans was a favor to union members, who have supported Democrats with campaign contributions and votes.
Representative John Kline of Minnesota, the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said that while union members might avoid the tax on high-cost health plans for five years, nonunion workers would have to pay it.
“This latest back-room maneuver is another example of how administration officials and their enablers in Congress will cut deals with their special-interest allies to impose a government takeover of health care,” Mr. Kline said.
White House officials defended the provision, saying it would allow employers, employees and insurance companies to prepare for the new tax.
Under the agreement, Mr. Trumka and White House officials said, people in collectively bargained health plans could buy coverage through new government-regulated markets, known as insurance exchanges, starting in 2017. The officials said they were still working with Congress on details of this arrangement.
Robert Pear reported from Washington and Steven Greenhouse from New York. Carl Hulse and David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.
| | | Public misled on prison crowding, union claims - new haven register
15-January-2010
The president of the union representing corrections officers at the Webster Correctional Institution in Cheshire used the closing of the prison to accuse state officials of misleading the public about jail overcrowding.
Dwayne Bickford, president of Local 387 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said Department of Correction officials are lying about the real numbers of inmates in the state’s prisons.
That’s important, Bickford said, because moving more than 200 inmates from Webster to other prisons is only adding to the overcrowding problem.
“The agency continues to house inmates in unconventional housing units,” he said, referring to common areas and spaces normally used for recreation. “This trend will not allow for proper administration of behavioral and other problems, adding to our concerns about safety and security.”
Larry Dorman, a spokesman for the union, said, “We’re just hoping it doesn’t take a tragedy for people to see the problem with this.”
The comments came just hours after the last inmate was moved from Webster, which is being closed to save the state $3.4 million annually.
The last shift of corrections officers was scheduled to end at 11 p.m. Thursday.
The Correction Department quietly began moving prisoners from Webster, a minimum-security prison, early last month, even though no formal announcement had been made about the closing.
A few more than 200 inmates were moved to another minimum-security prison or higher-security facilities.
Correction Department spokesman Brian Garnett disputed the union’s claims regarding overcrowding and any impact inmates moved from Webster might have on it.
“We have, at this point, no or extremely minimal overcrowding in the agency,” Garnett said. “Any overcrowding that does occur is temporary and occurs on nights in which police bring a large number of offenders into the system. Our facilities are safe and secure and any movement that was done involving inmates from Webster was done without causing any issues in our remaining facilities.”
Garnett said the statewide inmate population is 18,200, down from the high of 19,894 in February 2008.
Only two of the four housing units in Webster were in use at the time the decision was made to close it, Garnett said. Each housing unit held about 110 people, he said.
The 120 corrections officers, counselors and other employees at Webster are being transferred to other prisons.
Frank Batista, a corrections officer for more than 19 years, is one of the lucky ones.
While some union members are being sent to work at more far-flung facilities, Batista is transferring to the Cheshire Correctional Institution, a long-term, high-security prison next to Webster.
Batista said employees at Webster first suspected that the prison might be slated for closing early in 2009. But then the Department of Correction began investing in improvements, leading employees to believe that closing it was unlikely.
“They were doing things like putting in brand new cable television connections for the inmates, so we figure maybe we were OK,” Batista said.
Webster is being mothballed so that it can be used again in the event inmate populations rise, Garnett said.
| | | Guards say prisons not safe for them
15-January-2010
(WTNH) - Correction officers in Connecticut say their jobs are too dangerous and that no one is doing anything to help them.
After 18 years as a corrections officer, Harry Harrison nearly lost his life. "They hit me with a couple of shots and I woke up on the ground. They were stomping on my head," he said.
That was in September at the Northern Correctional Institution in Somers, where the state's most dangerous offenders are kept. It is a level-five facility.
"These inmates intended to take my life," Harrison said. "If it wasn't for my partner, I'd be dead."
In December, Officer Peter Kuhlman was slashed in the neck with a razor blade. It missed his jugular by millimeters.
"Oh, he most definitely was trying to kill me, absolutely," Kuhlman said. "Even right now, sitting here telling you, it's a sick, empty feeling."
They are speaking out because they no longer feel safe in their jobs. The union revealed the state eliminated 700 guard positions in 2004. And multiple lawsuits have chipped away at their ability to do their jobs. They can't discipline or even take away privileges.
Everyone gets one-hour of recreation a day, as well as TV, phone calls, visits, mail and commissary, even if they just tried to kill their guard.
Department of Correction Commissioner Brian Murphy would not reveal what the inmate to officer ratio is, but he said they are not short-staffed.
"We review staffing annually and that facility is appropriately staffed for a level-five maximum security facility," Commissioner Murphy said.
The Commissioner said they take each and every incident seriously. But the union said the state is now considering taking away their worker's comp and hazard pay.
"They want more work and less officers," Harrison said. "It's all about money."
Both Harrison and Kuhlman have been so traumatized by these attacks they have not been able to go back to work. One is doing light, administrative duty. The other said he doesn't know if he'll ever be able to walk through the doors of a correction facility again.
| | | Manchester Board Leaning Toward 'Living Wage' Ordinance - Courant.com
13-January-2010
The Hartford Courant
January 11, 2010
MANCHESTER —
The board of directors will likely adopt an ordinance compelling some businesses to pay employees a "living wage."
The proposed ordinance, which is on the agenda for Tuesday's board meeting, would apply to companies that employ at least 25 people and get tax breaks or provide services to the town worth at least $25,000.
The ordinance defines a living wage as 115 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, the level is an annual income of $22,050, according to the federal government's 2009 guidelines. One hundred fifteen percent of that would be $25,357, or weekly pay of about $488.
Rudy Kissmann, a Democrat on the board of directors, said that the proposal is like a seed, "and hopefully down the road, we're going to see it flourish and bear fruit."
"There's no reason," Kissmann said, "that a company with 25 employees that work in Connecticut can't pay this fair wage."
But Mayor Lou Spadaccini, a Republican, said the proposed ordinance exempts so many businesses and employees that it is "virtually meaningless." The board of education, which uses 63 percent of the town budget, is not affected, Spadaccini said, and only those businesses that provide services, not products, are included. There are many other exemptions.
"It's purely form over substance," Spadaccini said.
Democrats had adopted a living wage ordinance when they held a majority on the board in 2006. Republicans dumped the rule when they were in power in 2008, but with Democrats back in control, the ordinance again is in favor.
The proposed rule has been changed from the original, affecting only full-time employees who work in Connecticut. That change was necessary, officials have said, because CIGNA, the town's health insurance provider, did not meet requirements of the original ordinance because some of its employees worked in other states with different living costs. Hiring another provider, officials have said, would have cost the town at least $800,000 more.
Also, reporting requirements designed to ensure employers' compliance have been streamlined, Town Attorney David Sheridan said.
Board of directors member Jay Moran, a Democrat, said that the proposal is "a small but significant solution to a larger problem" and also a statement from town leaders that people who work hard should be able to survive.
"Yes, there are exemptions, but it's a step in the right direction," Moran said.< | | | |
