State Layoffs Continue, Unions To File Grievances

Daniela Altimari

4/12/2016

HARTFORD – Union officials said Tuesday they intend to file labor grievances over the state's painful and protracted process of shedding 1,850 government workers, some of whom were informed of their layoff in a conference call.

"If this is what the governor wants to do, then at least management should be telling the workers face to face,'' said Lori Pelletier, president of the state AFL-CIO. "It's a horribly demeaning process and it doesn't need to happen.''

On Tuesday, 43 clerical workers at the Department of Social Services were issued layoff notices, along with 24 at the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and three at the Department of Economic and Community Development.

"Today was a sad day for Connecticut," said Yolanda Rolando, a Department of Transportation employee and president of AFSCME Local 196. "The workers were laid off by way of a conference call. They were told to get their belongings and go home."

"This is a terrible and inhumane way to handle layoffs,'' Rolando said.

Gian-Carl Casa, undersecretary for legislative affairs in the governor's budget office, said laid-off workers were offered meetings with their supervisors.

"Every employee affected at DSS met face to face with his or her manager,'' he said. "In 10 of 12 locations there was a union steward present. Human resources staff were present in most cases and were made available on the phone to answer any questions the individuals, across multiple agency offices, may have had."

The employees receiving pink slips were ordered off the job immediately, even though in many cases they will continue to receive their salary and benefits for a period of time dictated by their union contracts. Most bargaining units require four to six weeks notice.

"We want to make sure we do it right and meet all of our requirements to our employees and the law,'' Casa said.

Once the decision is made to let an employee go, "best practices" dictate that they leave the workplace immediately, Casa added. "That's consistent with best practices in both the public and private sector. It also gives the employee the opportunity to seek employment opportunities elsewhere."

Erika Johnson, a teacher at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School, said she was called into a conference room late Monday afternoon and informed that she was being laid off at the end of the day. Her supervisor was there, along with a representative from her union.

"It's a setback but I know personally I can get back on my feet,'' said Johnson, who was among 165 state employees laid off Monday. "What's most devastating to me right now is the effect this is having on my students and my peers.''

The detention center houses 43 juvenile offenders, many of whom struggle with trauma and abandonment issues, Johnson said. She fears the turmoil caused by abrupt departure of laid-off staffers could send some of the boys into a crisis.

"The hardest thing for me to comprehend and accept is that I can't say goodbye,'' Johnson said. "There was no closure."

Johnson has worked at the school for two years. Due to the complexities of union rules, she might have enough seniority to "bump" another state worker from his or her position. "I'll put someone else out of work and that thought is weighing on me right now,'' she said. "I understand the state has a deficit although I question if this was the only way or the best way to deal with it."

Connecticut faces a $933 million budget gap for the fiscal year starting July 1. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget calls for eliminating 2,500 state jobs as part of a sweeping restructuring of state government. There are about 650 open positions, due to vacancies and retirements in the executive branch.

Union leaders have rejected calls to reopen contract talks and consider givebacks. Instead, they have called for greater efficiencies in state government and additional taxes on wealthier residents.

American Apparel laying off 500 workers

Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY

April 12, 2016

LOS ANGELES -- American Apparel, maker of hip clothing and accessories that went through bankruptcy reorganization, is laying off workers, a consultant to its union organizers said Tuesday.

American Apparel has notified about 500 workers out of the 4,300 it employs in Southern California that they are subject to layoff, says Nativo Lopez, a longtime activist who describes himself as unofficial adviser to the General Brotherhood of Workers of American Apparel. "The first notices of layoffs began last Wednesday," Lopez says.

There was no immediate comment from a company spokesman.

Los Angeles-based American Apparel is known for its edgy, sexy advertising campaigns and its devotion to American manufacturing. The company took steps to cut its debt while undergoing its bankruptcy reorganization. A judge approved its restructuring program in January. Several hedge funds, including Standard General and Monarch Capital, are believed to have added capital and taken control of American Apparel during bankruptcy proceedings.

The company is also known for a scandal: In 2014, its CEO, Dov Charney, was fired in 2014 amid allegations of sexual misconduct. Charney tried to wrest back control of the company, but was rebuffed.

Lopez says the layoffs occurred at several American Apparel sites, including ones in South Gate and Garden Grove, Calif., besides Los Angeles. He says they did not appear to target union sympathizers or supporters. Still, he acknowledged job jitters could make a union vote harder.

"It's a complete fear factor," Lopez says.

As Layoffs Loom, Malloy And State Unions Dance Around Benefits Talks

Dan Haar

3/10/2016

With a date of June 9 set for state layoffs that could reach into the thousands, you'd think both sides would want to negotiate pension and health benefits to save jobs. Why isn't that happening?

The layoff process is not just talk; it has begun. Earlier this week, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget office sent a letter to union officials notifying them that "reductions in force" might happen by June.

Malloy knows the state must adhere to seniority rules that will force commissioners to lay off their newest, least expensive people — not a smart way to manage a workforce. And he owes his re-election to these same unions, so he'd prefer to avoid layoffs.

Union leaders consider job security a core value, and they know they can save positions by offering givebacks. The two sides are already negotiating pay and working conditions for some 30 state employee unions whose contracts expire June 30. They're also discussing new ways to finance the pensions, an issue separate from the benefits available to employees and retirees, but part of the same overall agreement.

In 2011, Malloy's first year, he and the unions did cut a sweeping deal on benefits and pensions, extending the pact by five years to 2022, and they also gave a two-year wage freeze after a freeze in 2009 — all in exchange for a four-year reprieve from layoffs.

This time around, Malloy hasn't directly, formally, asked the bargaining coalition, known as SEBAC, to reopen talks on benefits. And SEBAC hasn't offered.

It might happen yet. But with benefits closer to what private sector workers generally receive, there's a lot less wiggle room. Also this time, Malloy cannot, or will not, balance any union givebacks with tax increases, as he did in 2011.

And for the unions, agreeing to downgrade benefits — in a year when they're likely to sign new contracts with scant raises — is a hazard.

When would it end? The state could force new givebacks every year. We are, after all, in what Malloy's budget chief, Ben Barnes, called a permanent state of fiscal crisis.

Malloy still hasn't give a total, other than "we're talking about a large number of positions." The number 2,000 is floating around, perhaps because that, combined with the 500 to 600 job eliminations targeted this year by attrition, would cut the state workforce by 5 percent; Malloy is seeking spending cuts totaling 5.75 percent across most agencies.

Malloy said Thursday he would like to see talks on benefits. "That would make a great idea," he said at an event in New Haven. "You can't force someone to open an agreement. I think we're playing a game here. We've had discussions. They know that there are going to be many, many layoffs. Do they want to be part of the solution?

Yes they do, said Dan Livingston, the prominent labor lawyer who's the chief negotiator for SEBAC.

"I don't think SEBAC leaders would refuse to meet with the Governor," Livingston said in an email — but he made it clear that doesn't necessarily mean the coalition would agree to talk about benefit givebacks.

SEBAC's position is that the recent wage freezes, combined with health benefit changes, a longer vesting period for lifetime health coverage and a recalculation of pension payouts based on the average of five years, rather than three, are all still reverberating.

"As the governor knows, the sacrifices made by state employees in 2009 and 2011, continue to provide nearly a billion dollars a year in ongoing savings, and so state employees are already part of the solution," Livingston said. "There is money to be saved by interacting with the unions to fully implement the 2011 agreement, not by trying to force us to change it."

It's hard to make givebacks add up to save large numbers of jobs. Instead the unions want to see, for example, an end to "costly and inefficient for-profit contracting," as Malloy suggested he would do five years ago.

Clearly these would be tough talks. "In essence, they want to have a meeting so they can lecture to us," Malloy said. "It would be great for the state to have a more sustainable post-employment benefit program. Although we made great progress in 2011, it's time to make more progress."

Unspoken in any of this is whether Malloy would ask for curtailed health benefits not only for new employees, and not only for soon-to-retire employees, but also for current retirees — and whether SEBAC would offer that as a way to save jobs.

Livingston added, "I'd like to think he'd at least want to hear constructive views on protecting our economy and our struggling middle and working class even though they may differ from his own."

The state must do more with fewer people as most companies have done, and Malloy has been working on that for five years.

But the state isn't a business and can't run like one. If a private company lays off workers, it's due to lack of demand and the company can eliminate whole lines of products. If the state lays off workers it still has to figure out how to deliver most of the services in play. It can't just stop working with profoundly troubled children or the state is a worse place to live, and that hurts the all-important corporate climate as surely as tax increases.

Beyond that, private layoffs improve finances directly. The state throwing 2,000 people out of work can hurt its own income statement, as the economy declines and tax receipts shrink.

In short, state layoffs might be necessary but they're not the answer that loud detractors of public employees are looking for.

Malloy and SEBAC are at the dance but they're hanging around by the doors. The music is playing.

In 'Vergara' arguments, unions say courts should stay away from teacher tenure debate

Kyle Stokes 

February 25, 2016

Three state appellate justices heard oral arguments Thursday morning about whether a lower court overstepped in moving to strike down three job protections California teachers have enjoyed for decades.

It’s the latest chapter in the Vergara v. California case, in which plaintiffs charge these job protections — including teacher tenure, a lengthy process for firing teachers and protections for senior teachers against layoffs — leave too many poor and minority students in the care of “grossly ineffective" teachers.

The case, which many see as ultimately headed for the California Supreme Court, has become a flashpoint in the national debate that's engaged powerful political players from national teachers unions, civil rights groups, advocacy organizations — and statehouses. (Gov. Jerry Brown sided with the unions in this case.)

In their Los Angeles County Superior Court trial two years ago, Vergara plaintiffs presented evidence that poor or minority students were more likely to be taught by "ineffective" teachers. The plaintiffs — nine public school students represented by the advocacy group Students Matter —  said the state's teacher tenure rules and seniority protections caused the disparity.

"Together, they’re putting unqualified teachers who are not [effectively] teaching children into the classroom. The administrators are saying, 'We want change this, we want to have great teachers, but we can’t,'" Boutros told KPCC afterward. "That means students are having their rights violated, they’re being harmed."

In June 2014, Judge Rolf Treu agreed with the plaintiffs, writing that the evidence "shocks the conscience." He struck down the state's teacher job protections as infringing upon students' rights to an equal education, but stayed the effect of his ruling pending appeal.

Much of Thursday morning's oral arguments in the California Court of Appeals was spent wrangling over whether it was appropriate for a court to weigh in — or whether teacher job protection laws were a matter of policy best left to the state legislature.

Attorney Michael Rubin — representing the state's two largest teachers unions — argued the lower court ruling doesn't establish that teacher job protections are to blame for disparities in the quality of students' education. Without establishing this causal link, Rubin argued, it would be inappropriate for the court to step in.

"These are legislative decisions," Rubin told reporters outside the court afterward. "One superior court judge should not be striking down five of the most important provisions in the California education code unless there’s a true violation of the constitution."

When Students Matter attorney Theodore Boutrous stepped to the lectern to make his case, Justice Brian Hoffstadt challenged Boutrous on this point.

In his initial ruling, Hoffstadt said Judge Treu "didn't really address the points we've been talking about — 'Do these statutes inevitably cause these harms?'"

"I believe he did, your honor," Boutrous replied. "He didn't use the word 'inevitable' … The entire thrust of [the decision] is these statutes are having the inevitable effect of causing this injury" to students.

Rubin argued the plaintiffs' contentions did not consider districts that were able to distribute higher-quality teachers to schools with large concentrations of vulnerable students, citing Riverside Unified as one example. Playing off the term in Judge Treu's ruling — "grossly ineffective teacher" — Rubin said the plaintiffs' arguments precluded the possibility of a "grossly ineffective administrator."

Unions say teacher tenure rules and seniority protections are principal means for attracting high-quality educators to the classroom, and that teachers with lots of experience are assets worth protecting for the benefit of students and for the benefit of less-experienced teachers.

"What they've tried to do is say, 'This is a firing issue.' This is not a firing issue," said Randi Weingarten, president of the nation's second-largest teachers union, the American Federation of Teachers. "It is a personnel issue: how do we make this a great profession? How do we have people flocking towards it?" 

Boutrous categorically rejected this argument.

"The notion that the union says there are benefits to these statutes and we need to take those into account — there are no benefits to these statutes," Boutrous told the three-judge panel.

The appellate justices have 90 days to issue their ruling.

Sub-par Union

We don’t like to give the membership the bad news, and it pains us to have to report on the awful state that the union is in. This is not the first class union it once used to be, in a mere few months it has been turned into a troubled union. The latest layoff news just confirms everything we feared about the TWU Local 100. TWU Local 100 is failing its membership by not securing job protection which is extremely important to the membership, and this news is not good.

The layoff figures don’t lie, by any measure, this is awful. Considering the reputation of  TWU Local 100 within the labor movement as among the best and most desirable in  the country, we can clearly see why we specifically characterized TWU Local 100 as ‘sub-par’. Why - because that what we are now. We could sugar coat the layoff situation but that does not change reality. And we must face reality and develop strategies to make things better. Fixing the problem means beginning with the truth. Not the truth of Samuelsen and the current leadership who have failed the membership in a profound way, but the truth that comes from admitting painful facts and making a hard and careful analysis of the current sorry state of affairs.

How did we get so bad so fast? We have failed leadership that is running our Local 100 headed by Samuelsen. There will be a price to be paid - mostly by the membership.

And certainly the membership are paying the price. There are hundreds of members who have been laid off. This is a crisis for every member. Local 100 was a key indicator of successful labor movement in the country, and currently ours doesn’t reflect well. The ugly truth is that we have become ‘sub-par’ and this must not be lost on us. It is the sound of our prestige once held which is slipping away.