The looming question was whether the unions would reconsider the package they turned down last week, which would save the state $1.6 billion over two years and eliminate the need to cut up to 7,500 state jobs.
The General Assembly reconvened Thursday for a special session. Under the bill it is considering, Mr. Malloy, a Democrat elected last year, would be required to provide details on his proposed budget cuts by July 15. The legislature could then approve them in full or hold hearings to reject or change specific provisions before Aug. 30.
Lawmakers rejected a $54 million reduction of state aid to cities and towns. That decision could mean another 1,000 job losses in addition to the 6,500 Mr. Malloy had already proposed, putting added pressure on workers to somehow approve the deal they turned down last week.
Mr. Malloy said before Thursday’s session that he would also ask the General Assembly to increase his authority to privatize state government functions and to approve measures reducing state employees’ accrued sick days, freezing longevity pay and changing the way pensions are calculated. The House speaker, Christopher G. Donovan, a Democrat, declined to bring those suggestions up for a vote. But they could be brought back later, more inducement for workers to ratify the agreements.
The deal the unions rejected called for a wage freeze for two years, a no-layoff guarantee for four years and pension and health care concessions. A majority of union members, 57 percent, supported the deal, but it failed because collective bargaining rules required that at least 14 of the 15 unions ratify it and that the approving unions represent 80 percent of workers.
Union leaders planned to meet Friday, according to a union spokesman, Matt O’Connor, who said he was confident they would be able to report progress on moving toward a resolution to sustain the original agreement or something close to it. He said the impetus came from union members’ unwillingness to accept widespread layoffs, adding: “It’s important to let everyone know we’re going to get there. We’re going to get there. We just don’t know exactly what that will look like when all is said and done.”
Roy Occhiogrosso, a spokesman for the governor, said that there would be no renegotiation of substantive issues, but that Mr. Malloy would clarify language in the deal itself or in a separate document if it would help the ratification process.
“The agreement is written in legalese,” Mr. Occhiogrosso said. “It is a confusing, lengthy, complex document. If there are things that the governor can do to clarify some of the provisions about which there might be some confusion because of language, he’s happy to do it.”
Finding a way to ratify an agreement that was turned down just a week ago is a delicate and tricky process. But Mr. O’Connor’s optimism and the fact that most layoffs would not occur until late in the summer appeared to leave some leeway for a resurrection of the original agreement or for a slightly tweaked version that would eliminate the need for the job and program cuts.
Republicans were critical of both enhanced authority for the governor and the overall tenor of the special session.
The Senate minority leader, John McKinney, said the legislature was shirking its duties in giving the governor so much power to make cuts. He and the House minority leader, Larry Cafero, also lamented that none of Mr. Malloy’s tough talk this week seemed likely to find its way into legislation passed by the General Assembly.
“This whole business about collective bargaining and the governor getting tough — it was all a sham,” Mr. Cafero said. He added of union members who were at the Capitol today: “They’re not sweating it at all. The macaroni’s been cooked. They were told, ‘Don’t worry about it. You’re not going to be touched. Whatever we’re doing is for show and show alone.’?”
Whether for show or not, it was clear that Democratic legislators hoped Thursday’s session would be made moot by the unions’ somehow finding a way to approve the agreement.
“It’s in the cities’ and towns’ interests, it’s in the state employees’ interest, it’s in the State of Connecticut’s interest to get this done,” Mr. Donovan, the House speaker, said. “It’s a good, fair bill, and the majority of the members voted for it. I just see there’s a deal there. There’s got to be a deal there.”
没有评论:
发表评论