Mr. Savage,

How about adding two more "must haves" (the most important two items in my mind, the others are a smoke screen).

1) Place a monetary value on those gold plated benefit packages and add them into the discussion when negotiating. They always ignore that minor point when talking about a contract. The two biggies are the actuarial value of the pension as a percentage of salary (the taxpayers contribution - actuaries do this all the time), and the value of the health plans as compared to those offered in the private sector (they differ by around $8K per year when compared).

2) Compare total compensation with that in the private sector. We always play a spiral up game which is insane (Barrington got this much so Burrillvile should get $1 more).

Your hope for binding arbitration as stated in your LTE without these items leads me to side with the Murphy camp as taxpayer friendly and yours as friendly and biased towards the unions.

Response to John Savage.

Why do you want to bankrupt this stae like what is currently happening in C.T. with this useless Binding Arbitration bill. It does not work and is proven not to work period.

May 11, 2009 Press Conference, hosted by Connecticut State Representative Arthur O’Neill

Mike Guarco who heads the Connecticut Municipal Consortium for Fiscal Responsibility.

The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations

As municipalities struggle to find the money to support their budgets they are faced with the realization that 85% or more of local property taxes are dedicated to supporting union salaries and benefits, which are, in turn, driven by State Binding Arbitration laws. They also struggle with the fact that many management rights, due to Binding Arbitration, have been transferred to the unions. From the unions dictating the size of classrooms, to the control of town cars, to the number of fire stations which must remain open, to the work schedule of police which results in the build up of overtime which is factored into their pensions, neither the Governor nor town officials can control their budgets or the taxes we pay until Binding Arbitration Laws are reformed.

Minimum funding requirements to local Boards of Education are due to sunset in 2009. However, this funding requirement may be extended by the legislature which could explain why many teachers unions have refused to give concessions even though many of their students are witnessing the effect of unemployment in their own households.

When Governor Rell introduced her budget with no tax increase she asked the State Legislature to give her what she and town leaders needed in this economy to control their budgets and their personnel. The Governor asked for reform of State Binding Arbitration Laws. She asked specifically for, and I quote: Suspension of binding arbitration requirements for two years while we confront our economic troubles. At the end of the two-year suspension, I propose that we limit mandatory subjects of binding arbitration to salaries and benefits only.

The Federation believes that many more reforms to Binding Arbitration must be made but we endorse what the Governor has requested as an initial effort toward reform. The Governor also asked the Democrat-controlled State legislature to reject the $86 million contract for 5200 state employees driving some salaries to a 6% increase in wages.

As we stand here today, all three of Governor Rell’s requests have been ignored by the Democrat-controlled legislature. The 5200 member union got their raise and her two proposed reforms to Binding Arbitration have been ignored.

With the Federal government sending Connecticut $745 million for education and millions more for other projects, more government employees will be hired and fall under union contracts. There is an obvious concern when this federal money is depleted as some ask the question - Who will fund these new hires? The answer is simple – local and state taxpayers!

Binding Arbitration laws exert an unhealthy power by government sector unions over taxpayers and those public officials who are not intimidated by the unions and actually want to do the jobs they were elected to do. The Governor attempted to do her job – she produced a no tax increase budget but wanted help from the legislature through binding arbitration reform. Without the two year suspension of binding arbitration laws as requested by the Governor, the end result was the State unions receiving a no layoff guarantee for two years while the state anticipates a near $8 Billion deficit for 2010-11.

Taxpayers, the Governor, and the CEO’s of the 169 towns are held hostage to union contracts. Either the wage increases are paid or our officials are forced to go back to the bargaining table and give the unions what they want. And who wouldn’t want to be guaranteed their job. But this guarantee is at the taxpayers’ expense, many of whom do not have jobs and couldn’t comprehend expecting their employer to give them a no layoff guarantee.

And there is much to fear for our State, our towns and our families, many of whom have lost their jobs, their homes and their savings. The losses in the housing market are now being seen in the commercial market. General Growth Properties, which filed for bankruptcy, owns the Buckland mall and malls throughout the country. As commercial bankruptcies and home foreclosures escalate, the impact on sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes and other taxes and fees will be significant. The loss of those taxes will come at a time when the greatest cost of government will grow as wage increases will have to be paid to State government sector unions who agreed to limited concessions while receiving a two year no layoff guarantee.

So as the scale tilts with less money coming to the State and the State having to pay more, what will the end result be? Could it be less money going to towns which will, in turn, have to raise property taxes! Or will state officials have to raise taxes if their collection rates cannot be sustained. And if the towns and the state cannot find the money they need to keep the engines of government running, with their greatest cost being state and town employee salaries and benefits governed by binding arbitration, then what?

With the economy continuing to plummet, mounting job losses affecting the payment of state and local taxes, and a two year no-lay off clause for state employees as the state’s debt continues to climb, Connecticut and some of the 169 towns in the State could be brought to the edge of bankruptcy. Ironically, the end result would be dissolution of public sector union contracts.

The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations encourages State legislators to reform State Binding Arbitration laws as the Governor has proposed. We ask local elected officials and taxpayers throughout the State to phone or email their state representatives and tell them that without Binding Arbitration reform it will be impossible to limit the growth of government spending and control property taxes.

In conclusion, I would reflect upon the past to demonstrate the effects of Binding Arbitration today. When elected Mayor in 1989, under a strong mayor form of government, I refused the Mayor’s car. I then instructed town personnel to find another means of transportation to and from home as they could no longer rely on town cars. I was grieved by the unions. I thought for sure I would win as this condition was not included within their union contract. But I was wrong. I lost based on Past Practice. If a union is allowed to do something long enough outside the realm of their contract, they have earned the right to continue the practice according to arbiters. The effects of that arbitration decision rendered several years ago are being felt today by towns which are trying to take their taxpayer owned vehicles back from the unions. In order to get them back, they must return to the bargaining table and agree to give the unions something in return.

Jack

...one of the goals in the strategic plan was to renegotiate contracts with the district’s unions to try to align better with reform efforts. Portions of the teachers’ contract were singled out as “obstacles” to reform. District leaders felt that the teachers union had focused more on member salaries and working conditions and less on the issue of teacher professional growth. Furthermore it appeared that over the years, the teachers union in Providence had negotiated numerous provisions into the contract that seemed to inhibit implementation of different elements of the district’s strategic plan. The five and one-half hour workday, for example, made it difficult to arrange times for teachers to plan, share, problem solve, and learn together in small groups or as whole faculties. The contract required cancellation of in-school professional development activities during the regular workday if substitute teachers could not be found for all of those teachers involved. Given the shortage of qualified substitute teachers in Providence, this was often the case. Moreover, school administrators were not permitted to ask teachers to cover a colleague’s classes in such circumstances. Contractual restrictions on altering teachers’ schedules after September made it difficult for schools to experiment with alternative arrangements of time for teachers’ joint work and for dealing with unexpected shifts in student enrollment during the academic year. Waivers that might be agreed upon by a majority of teachers in one school were subject to approval by the union membership across the district before they could be granted.

Anecdotal accounts from staff in schools where there had been a history of failure suggested that the union’s traditional stance might have been well justified due to the dysfunctional management styles of some principals and the frequent principal turnover that had existed in the past. What’s more, the situation was exacerbated in part by the apparent failure of the district administration to successfully involve the union in the original design for reform, thus treating the union more as an obstacle than as a fundamental partner. In a sense, rather than forging a more collaborative relationship, this perpetuated long-standing adversarial relations between the district leadership and the union.

The challenge of working together was further complicated by an apparent division within the union between those who supported the reform initiatives and plan and those who were opposed to it for reasons stated above. The union executive during Superintendent Lam’s tenure reportedly was more disposed to seeking ways of working with the administration, and this support was manifested in several concrete actions.

Union executives helped craft the hiring process for instructional coaches in a way that gave precedence to the technical and interpersonal skill requirements of the job overcontractual provisions favoring seniority. They mediated member concerns about the intent of administrator Learning Walks and about the coaches’ perceived interference with professional autonomy. The union executive also suggested a strategy for building lesson planning into the teacher appraisal process through the contractually authorized teacher evaluation labor-management committee, thereby mitigating the need to insert lesson planning into the contract. In the 2001–2002 contract negotiations, the union agreed to a process whereby teachers, with financial compensation, could voluntarily provide coverage when substitutes could not be found for in-school inservice activities that did not involve all staff.

The union executive leaders who took part in these actions, however, had reportedly been elected by a slim majority. When they presented the draft of a new contract negotiated with the district to the membership in February 2002, it was defeated in what the media portrayed as an acrimonious public vote. A new contract was finally approved late in the school year.

The rank and file rejection of the first contract proposal was a huge setback for school reform in Providence. It weakened the administration, helped trigger a decade long cycle of revolving door superintendencies, divided the union, and as the final contract included both a bigger pay raise and fewer concessions in work rules, reinforced the idea that intransigence by the union would be rewarded. Also, the entire conflict triggered a long period of "work to rule" right as a whole range of promising reform initiatives were ramping up.

If Rhode Island had binding arbitration in 2000, everything would have been different. No work to rule, and the orderly adoption of a contract that would have probably closely resembled the original agreement between administration and union leadership. This would have been followed by two more contracts that progressed in an orderly way toward more reasonable work rules, and we'd be working on the fourth in that series right now.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, a look at recent history confirms that binding arbitration would be good for school reform in Rhode Island.

Posted by Tom Hoffman at 9:54 AM

0 comments:

Post a Comment

response to Rastabri

Well mister Hoffman quotes things that would have in his theory been done in 2000 the fact remains that C.T after 4 years of the Binding arbitration went down hill and now is in trouble. This as most goernment idea's in the past decades never looks forward enough another solution must be found. When ever you get involved anythiong that is mandated with labor it invaribly leads to one side or the other getting the shaft. In this case It would be the taxpayers again as proven by the disaster about to befall C.T. acording to the Governor Of the State and the State Legistater above.

As I have said before with the penchant for corruption in this State I have no doubt we the Taxpayer would pay the price for Binding Arbitration.

Jack

Obviously, the 'Rastabri' post was a copy and paste, evident by the web site artifacts at the end of it's post. The unionized teacher scum-bag is only self interested.....and not willing to critically think for itself.

Disregard this simpleton's ramblings.

Watchdan, thank you for the kind words and thanks also for your informative and important addition to the conversation. I guess you forgot to belittle everyone else who has ever done a cut and paste on an article like Jack has done and numerous others have done as well. You watchdan are a true original, a powerful thinker with a wit and wisdom unlike any we have seen on this site. As for you Jack, I enjoy reading your post. They are well thought out and usually very funny and civil. Watchdan,DanGordon,Isustia or whatever name he is going with these days is just a trouble maker with no life except the one he has imagined for himself much like his counterpart Unionteacher.

Your welcome Rastabri I try to be acuate as posible with my views and arguments, as for the rest of the stuff to each their own unless of course they get out of hand then it requires a response at times. As for (eewwt) Havnt seen any post by him since Monday when he stupidly admited to knowledge of a crime in a post.

Could be he finally went to far with the paper and got banned, who knows and in the scheme of life who really cares LOL.

Jack

Thank you Rep Savage for clearing up some of the BS spewed by Mr. Murphy and his gang.

Their information is so off base I am ashamed that he claims to speak for me, a Taxpayer!

His all or nothing stance is what has gotten EP into the dreadful mess it is right now! Help is on the way, the election is only 1 year away!

The bottom line is we should be working toward county goverment.Contracts should be negotiated by the people we elect not some outsider.The golden rule is THOSE WHO PAY SHOULD HAVE THE SAY .Rep. Savage has to be replaced if he believes binding arbirtration is the answere.The power is in the hands of the people,Chose your Reps. wisely

Jethro

Not THE answer, but an answer!

"Contracts should be be negotiated by the people we elect"

Amen to that, BUT what happens when 1 side refuses to bargain in good faith?

In Ohio they have what is called "last/best" binding arbitration. Which requires both parties to offer their "Best" offer. The arbitrator then goes through the list, item by item and decides. And it takes into account each communities ability to pay.

It is FAIR, EQUITABLE and JUST...and Ohio is not one of the states in major financial distress.

response to taxpayerEP

I don't get it you agree we the people need to be only ones to negoiate and then turn around and tout binging arbitration. No offence but you can't have it both ways. The last best offer is just another loop-hole for management and the Unions to screw taxpayers. If you want true negoiations you make both sides go into a room (not a hotel) a school classroom would be best serve bolgna sandwiches and water, lock the doors and tell them when you both decide on something reasonable and fair you can leave period by by.

If they cant do it then you fire them and put other people there until it works. If either side decides to just give away the store just to get out of there, then you fire them and get other people. all people fired to be banned from ever negoiating a public contract ever again.

Fear of the lose of power is the best way to deal with people who abuse the taxpayers. No appointed non-elected arbitraitor should be involved. This has been forced on the airlines, autoindustry and others by the federal government over the last 100 years with this lock up negoiations and it does work if it dosnt they have fire the employees or voided their entire contracts and start from scratch. my Only addition if the firing of the management, or whoever is negoiating for the other side. I can gaurentee after a few times of this negoiations will suddenly start working like they were ment to fair and equitable.

Jack

Pauline Maier, Scholar 1774

The question was never the immediate amount of taxation that the British were asking of the colonists. The question was whether the British had the right to do it at all. We're talking about people [the American colonists] with enormous sensitivity to the dangers of power. If you conceded the right to Parliament to tax and if there was no check on it, no limit, it could go on indefinitely. You could be bled white. The power to tax was the power to destroy."

These folks new the dangers of government, with out control buy the people.

watch it jethro posting profound common sense statements will gather ire od the left and subject you to diatribe of those who believed the torys were right. LOL

Jack

Excellent post, Jethro. As best that I recall, the Crown did not willingly concede to the notion that it should not over reach in it's authority. What makes the modern day 'power-holders' any differant? Time and location....

Being that the tyrants are on American soil already, they should be justly placed into the domestic enemy catagory. The brass nads on this Savage! Line by line arbitration based on the communities ability to pay???? How about pay based on the work!

It's about too late for us, folks. Keep on voting in these self-serving scum, and refuse to revolt against the tyranny, citing 'treason', just like King George did. Well, approximately three percent of the Colonists had the nads to fight back, and stop it......and we over the past cople of hundred years haven't done due dilligence to keep the freedom some of them died for.

And we were told 'gun control' was for our own good....suckers, we.

Wow watchman either you get up very early or stay up as late as I do LOL.

I would add that the first thing Hitler did was ban all private gun ownership un the guise of the state will protect its citizens this or course made it quite easy to control the masses and we all know what happened after that.

Jack

Hiya, Jack....I'm an early riser. The quiet and tranquility of the early morning hours are a great time for reading/thinking for me. (or posting 'radical' comments on EastBayRI, LOL)

Check out this video clip of Michael Badnarik taken from a segment of his class on the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbNIU2KEz4g&feature=related

The class is outstanding. If interested, the entire 7 hour class can be seen here. (Highly recommended for all Americans)

http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

Badnarick, college dropout, couldn't complete the Eagle Scout requirements. Oh, but he is a certified scuba diver and skydiving instructor.

"In economics, Badnarik believes in laissez-faire capitalism, a system in which the only function of the government is the protection of individual rights from the initiation of force and fraud. He therefore opposes institutions such as welfare, and business regulation."

Yea no business regulation, isn't that one of the biggest reasons we are in such a financial mess. No welfare, wouldn't that be nice. Take away what little the poorest have and we will most assuredly dive into a real armed rebellion.

Another hard core selfish, conservative, elitist, right up your alley wm.

Oh, I forgot this.

"A December 2006 letter from his campaign manager, Alan Hacker, states that Badnarik has "retired from political candidacy" and is now working as an account representative for a political and novelty bumper sticker mail-order business."

That's right, jaqladi. The more we as a nation get back to personal responsibility and push those that are unwilling to work off of the government teat, the better we will be. Why should I pay you money that I earn for you to live on, simply because you won't work?

That is why you liberal lay-abouts try to disparage anyone that speaks the truth....it hits too close to home, and it threatens your life of leisure.

How convenient that you and your ilk frequently forget to add to great men's resume's such things as, "ran for President, wrote a book while on the campaign trail, managed the Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, earned a Secret Security clearance at the Northrop facility charged with developing the Stealth Bomber, trained hundreds of employees to use state-of-the-art computer systems at PG&Es Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, etc?

Hmmm....sounds like he WENT OUT AND GOT A JOB! How many like things have YOU done, including get a job?

The willfully ignorant can try to cast a shadow on the truth and Liberty proclaimed by learned men, but the truth remains. Keep talking.....with every ignorant word, you prove it over and over.

How about a shot at evern THINKING about what your writing? You open by besmirching him, and end by calling him an elitist. Which is it, o simple one?

Oh, I forgot this;

"Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé.... Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins! Il n'y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du coeur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l’intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!!!"

Here's a good one pertaining to Savage's proposal to negotiate by the area's ability to pay, rather than on a fair wage for services rendered.

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Lady Margaret Thatcher

Ask Obama.

I find it totally amazing that someone with his supposed credentials is now selling bumper stickers.

He quit politics because of the low turnout.

He quit college just before he supposedly would have graduated.

He quit pursuing the Eagle Scout designation. Why would anyone glorify that?

He would withdraw the US from the UN and kick the UN out of New York.

He would abolish the US Department of Education and privatize it. How would that work, corporate logos and sponsorship of our schools, beautiful.

He would remove any regulations in place for business, specifically energy related business,. Isn't that what caused the Enron debacle?

As well as many other very radical ideas that would send this country into a fatal tailspin. Yea, thats just what I would want.

The more you post your sick ideas and endorsement of these wildly radical proposals the more I believe you are very anti American and only want to see blood in the streets. Your vision of what life should be would only include about 5% of people in this country, thats about the most this guy got from any election he was involved in. That leaves about 95% of us you would exclude, keep trying, maybe in a hundred years or so you might get it up to 7%.

By the way the translation of that quote for those of us that are so lowly to not understand french.

"Let it be, such should be the motto of every public power, ever since the world is civilized..... A detestable principle that we cannot grow but by the lowering of our neighbors! There is nothing but mischief and malignity of heart that are satisfied with that principle, and interest is opposed to it. Let it be, damn it! Let it be!!"

By the way,

Over the past 20+ years I have trained several thousand people on the use of computer software, ranging from general usage to complex network infrastructure, so what, it was just part of my job.

Obtaining a secret clearance isn't all that difficult, I have one, it just means you don't have a criminal record. As far as the Nuclear plant is concerned his job there was as an administrator and software trainer, very low level positions, not hardly worth glorifying.

I have stated before, but I will once again remind you that I have worked full time, until very recently, since the age of 14, that would be appr 33 yrs, enough to retire with a full pension from just about anywhere. I put myself through technical school and obtained a degree in Electronics over twenty years ago. I don't know where you get your arrogance from to say that I am a lazy liberal, it only shows me you don't care about the truth, you just love to wallow in the small minded mentality that everyone other than you is clueless.

Response to watchman

Enogh with posting in "French" The eropean french do nothing but deride the U.S. and block anything done by us at every chance they. They are a socialist society and hardly worth quoting anything from.

By the way I'm still boycotting the Country of France for not allowing U.S. bombers and Fighter to fly over their Air space when we went in to kill gaddaffi Duck in 1986, Where we lost a F111 In the Med. and the crew never found Because of it. To hell with the french they don't like anyone anyway especially the U.S. And their food sucks LOL.

Jack

To Mr. savage are you out of your mind, pass binding arbitration you sir and I use that word loosely are an idiot who obviously has an agenda with the Unions. Binding helps only the Unions and screws the Taxpayers not that you care you stupid, ignorant, moronic, Idiot, uncareing, unintelligent, insane, assinine, scumbag, special interest, socialistic, communist, marxist, leninist, coward, ignorant Horses A,

scallywag, brainless, single I.Q. of 1 point, political Hack.

Jack

Jack, sorry. I agree with you. It was just appropriate as the quote was taken from French minister René de Voyer, Marquis d'Argenson, a outspoken proponent of free trade and essentially the 'founder' of laissez-faire capitalism in 18th century Europe.

The F-111 is an impressive aircraft. I had forgotten about the Quadaffi (sp?) situation. Now we have him staying in NY to give speeches at the U.N. Unbelievable.

Ditto on scallywag, jack.

allways liked that word scallywag LOL

JACKKB what a very unionteacher/ watchman like post from you. It surprises me that you would use a tactic that you in the past have derided. I guess Mr.Savage is not entitled to the freee expression of his opinions or ideas. I would expect such from the Watchman who is critical when people use quotes, but freely does so himself, but you seem like a much smarter level headed person than either Unionteacher or Watchdan. I guess we all get angry and fed up once in while.

response to Rastabri

Never said the guy couldn't spead as for the discription of his views in my opinion the shoe fits though it was done before my Be kind to politicians pills kicked in. Also as I have said many times I have no problem with saying anything about politicians since they are in the public eye so to speak. I only get upset when attacks are made personally on other posters.

As for Union Teacher or (eewwt) as I called him I believe he is all done on these boards at least for some time. And hopefully in a lot of trouble over his foolish statements 2 weeks ago that proably did it.

Jack ;-}

"No national polls including Badnarik had put him above 1.5%, though one poll put him at 5% in New Mexico and another at three percent in Nevada.[6] A Rasmussen poll on October 26, 2004 put Badnarik at 3% in Arizona.[7]"

You have a very sick outlook wm. I have never made the statement that I am a cocaine addict. So once again you prove your guuter mentality. Your french quote is a direct cut and paste of the original quote and who the hell cares where it was cut and pasted from.

According to historical folklore, the phrase stems from a meeting c. 1680 between the powerful French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert and a group of French businessmen led by a certain M. Le Gendre. When the eager mercantilist minister asked how the French state could be of service to the merchants, Le Gendre replied simply "Laissez-nous faire" ('Leave us be', lit. 'Let us do').[2]

The laissez faire slogan was popularised by Vincent de Gournay, a French intendant of commerce in the 1750s. Gournay was an ardent proponent of the removal of restrictions on trade and the deregulation of industry and economic prosperity in France. Gournay was delighted by the LeGendre anecdote, and forged it into a larger maxim all his own: "Laissez faire et laissez passer" ('Let do and let pass'). His motto has also been identified as the longer "Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!" ('Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself!'). Although Gournay left no written tracts on his economic policy ideas, he had immense personal influence on the thinking of his contemporaries, notably the physiocrats, who credit both the 'laissez-faire' slogan and doctrine to Gournay.[3]

I am very happy to be able to read wikipedia as well. How about where exactly did I make the statements that my "father beat me", and "I'm a cocaine addict". You have no basis for your arguement so you resort to low personal attacks, a clear sign of low intelligence.

You back quitters and people with extreme radical anti american views, I have no use for you except to make sure people like you don't get too far.

Hey Jack....I had heard something about Ewwt acting up. I believe I was out of town when it happened. What was it that he said? (Or the gist of it, if it's not for polite company)

response to watchman

I believe in my opinion it was his post admitting to either being involved or at least know of and condoning the destruction of a fellow union members car and intimidation in order to force the member to quit working for a volonteer fire department well employee of a paid department. Dont know when this happened but it really tee'd me off for sure. Hopefully the paper or the FBI will investigate it as they are the ones who handle Union crimes under the RICO act.

I have no sympathy for someone who would condon actions like that against a family man trying to do the right thing by volonteering on his own time pretty damn dispicable to me. I hope he gets his juust deserts. People like that have no place in society or involvement in Labor. Thats about it maybe he will be back under another name but it's been 2 weeks now so who knows and I sure don't care.

Bout all I have to say about it and have no desire to speak about the in my opinion criminal.

Jack

I agree jack, his remarks about that subject clearly indicate his approval and possible involvement in criminal activty, serious criminal activity as someone could have been injured or killed.

Thanks, Jack.