|
Layoffs of State Employees Not Necessary
By Katherine Hermes, Torrington
Governor Rowland has apparently realized he made an error announcing layoffs before Christmas, when all hearts are touched by the idea of children going without a few presents and a nice dinner. But now that the holidays are past, let's not forget that more layoffs are coming and the pain and suffering of those laid off will be just as great. Most of the state workers being laid off right now work in maintenance and clerical jobs. I have a state job as a college professor, and I am watching as people begin to disappear, buildings begin to get dirtier, and, in some departments, work begins to pile up. Only unionized state workers are targeted for layoffs.
Two questions need to be answered: are layoffs necessary at all; and why are layoffs only of state employees who are in bargaining units? The first is easy. No one has to be laid off. There are proposals by One Connecticut and SEBAC (the union coalition bargaining for state employees' health and pension benefits) as well as an alternative plan put forward by some Democrats that manage to make cuts and, yes, give concessions by state employees, without laying off anyone. The second question is harder to answer with any certainty, but it seems like the governor is trying to break unions.
Unions have become unpopular in recent decades. When Reagan broke the air traffic controllers' union many people were happy. They had begun to see unions as encouraging laziness and sloppy work, making it difficult to fire the deadwood that everyone "knows" exists in just about every place of employment with over 100 employees. This picture of unions is distorted.
Unions have great historic importance in establishing some of the rules from which even non-unionized workers benefit, including the 40-hour week, and the idea that one should get health and pension benefits. A living wage—it's a great concept.
For the glory days of unions when big bosses and robber barons were the bad guys, I recommend John Dos Passos' semi-fictional trilogy USA, but what about now? Today’s unions enter into contracts with management to set specific work conditions. Governor Rowland, for example, signed a very specific contract with SEBAC that was supposed to last for 20 years. It included a 46% hike in health benefit costs that workers will soon absorb, making the state employee benefits more comparable to that of private industry, despite the fact that our salaries are lower than in private industry. Both parties signed with full knowledge about what each was giving and taking. So why is the governor trying to break this contract?
You might answer that we are in a budget crisis! Duh. Who got us there? Who sent out $50 checks to whittle down the surplus we had in our state budget? Not state employees. (OK, they may have licked the envelopes, but they did not make the decision.) Now it's gone. We do have to deal with it and we can, but not by putting one-third of the budget shortfall on the backs of 50,000 employees. Please urge your representatives to vote for alternative solutions that do not include layoffs. These are not needed now. SEBAC is willing to talk, but the governor isn't.
The consequences of any layoffs are hard to bear. Besides personal loss, the economy suffers, confidence goes down, housing sales decrease, and people will begin to look elsewhere (out of state) for homes and jobs. We need reason to prevail in these very scary times.
Katherine Hermes is an Associate Professor of History at Central CT State University.
| 
