Union leaders reject deal to stop RI shutdown
Governor Plans Layoffs
Council 94 rejects an agreement to avoid a shutdown; Gov. Don Carcieri says he'll turn to layoffs to achieve the savings he wants.
Associated Press Writer
Published: September 23, 2009
Updated: September 24, 2009
NORTH PROVIDENCE, R.I.—The heads of Rhode Island’s largest state employees’ union on Wednesday rejected a deal struck with Gov. Don Carcieri’s administration to avoid a shutdown of state government or 1,000 layoffs, prompting the governor to say he’d go ahead with the firings - though likely on a smaller scale.
Joe Peckham, acting executive director of Council 94, which represents 4,000 state workers, said the union’s roughly two dozen presidents rejected the deal by a wide margin, even though negotiators had recommended they approve it.
Carcieri said several other unions had agreed to the tentative deal. Those that didn’t would be subject to layoffs, he said, because the state is facing a $68 million budget gap.
“We’ve got to move forward ‘cause I’ve got to get the savings,“ he said. “We’re losing time.“
Carcieri said last month that he would shut down state government as one step to help close the deficit for the fiscal year ending in June.
He planned to order 80 percent of the state’s 13,500-member work force to stay home without pay for 12 days before July. But a judge put that plan on hold earlier this month after the union took the
state to court. After that, Carcieri said he would have no choice but to lay off 1,000 workers.
He didn’t specify Wednesday evening how many workers he planned to lay off but said he assumed it would be fewer than 1,000.
“It would seem to follow that logic,“ Carcieri spokeswoman Amy Kempe said, but added that the administration first “needs to look at the numbers.“
The deal approved by other unions guaranteed that their members would be protected from layoffs until June 2011, leaders of two of those unions said.
Carcieri encouraged Council 94’s members to join the agreement. Council 94 President J. Michael Downey said its leadership was still willing to negotiate, although the governor said he was done bargaining.
Peckham said he was bracing for the governor to take the worst possible action, but said there were other ways, such as raising taxes on the wealthy or curbing the use of private contractors, to accomplish the same ends.
“State workers have given enough. For the past two and a half, three years they have given and given and given,“ he said.
Rhode Island has struggled for years with massive budget deficits, and in recent years has laid off workers, cut retirement benefits and forced workers to forgo pay raises, among other steps.
Under a compromise deal reached two weeks ago, state workers would lose 12 days of pay between now and June 2011. They would also put off a planned pay raise. In return, they would get more
vacation time and could get some lost pay back when they retire or leave their jobs.
That plan stalled when Carcieri said he wanted more freedom to move state workers from one job to another.
After several more days of negotiations, the sides struck a tentative deal around midnight Tuesday that would allow Carcieri to reassign state employees to different jobs, said Philip Keefe, president of the Rhode Island Alliance of Social Service Employees Local 580. Unionized workers with more seniority would have greater protections against being moved than less experienced workers, he said.
Keefe said he believes the compromise is good because it protects employees from layoffs and will keep government open for its citizens. He said the executive board of his union, which represents 850 to 900 state workers, would decide tomorrow whether to send it to its members for a vote.
Frank Ciccone, business agent for Local 808 of the Laborers International Union of North America, said Council 94’s decision did not affect his union, which had already accepted the deal.
“Was everyone happy? No,“ said Ciccone, who is also a state senator. “It’s something that we feel we might be able to live with.“
Associated Press writers Michelle R. Smith and Ray Henry contributed to this report.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
EXCUSE ME Skittish but I am not wrong. I am unemployed as some of my other single friends. We get shot down. Families get the help.
tiredofri: you are wrong about medical and food stamps. marital status has nothing to do with eligibility for either program. please get your facts straight before posting. both programs look at income first no matter your family composition.
kc don’t get mad
most people would like the security that the union brings
The land fill 8 years no union problem
where was the govenor?
8 years of contracts signed by the governor. What was he thinking?
Illegals working in state buildings
Where was the governor?
The big audit?
where was the governor?
You don’t like unions I don’t care.
You have a contract stick by it.
Now ,just answer the questions without
going off track.
Where has the governor been for eight years?
Kc12
So with all your hated union experience ONE, how can you say this union crippled a State budget when you say the can’t even negotiate a good contract money wise.
This is one of your quotes about your union experience you said you only worked for one union shop.
I like having control over my own destiny and do not require babysitting, which is all the unions are good for. I remember once, our rep got us a .50cent an hour raise (HA HA, we would have gotten it anyway, maybe more), he came in about a week later driving his brand new Cadillac. What a joke. I have been screwed more by unions than any company I ever worked for has ever tried to do.
Sorry KC12 I don’t know what company hired you but I guess loyalty and Integrity isn’t one of there requirments for employment.
We had nick names for people like you when I was active with the unions we called them Scabs or rats thats probably why you don’t like unions they probable didn’t like you either.
Thank God for Unions
God Bless America
If you are single & lose your job you are not eligible for medical or food stamps. Unless it is different for state employees.
“unemployment”, “food stamps”, state “medical coverage”? Who is paying for that?
Those are all temporary, unlike early retirement and lifetime benefits…
Do the math….
Has anyone thought about what happens to the employees that get “laid off”? Won’t they be eligible for “unemployment”, “food stamps”, state “medical coverage”? Who is paying for that? Wouldn’t it be better to pay their wages instead of unemployment and have those people be productive employees of state government? Has anyone tried to utilize the office of vital statistics lately? Their hours have been cut to assist the public. This is only the beginning. The lines @ our government offices are going to get longer. Personally, every municiple employee I know does their job, does it well and works every minute of the day. The municiple employees you see on the news, goofing off, are not your typical employees. More people should stand up for them. As far as being “union”, the people I talk to are really jealous that in their employment career, they have not been able to land such a job. Those people would not be complaining if they had the same job security.
paula, both your question and your statement are pretty dumb. I nor anyone else really cares whether you think I was a blue collar worker or not. You also have a right to your believes about the unions, however misguided they may be. Keep believing the union propaganda, since you are in the minority of folks that do. And yes, unions are babysitters, most people don’t need someone to negotiate their work criteria, unions represent a very small percent of the work force, they are an antiquated system. Only a very small percentage of the work force need unions to enforce anything, what does that tell you? The problems with the state have been around allot longer than the current governor, and the unions have always been to be at the core of them.
kc
Do you work for the governor was a question not a statement.He has been in office 8 years , signed contracts , 8 years , yes he is part of the problem.
Unions will be here long after you and
myself are gone.
I like Unions , they don’t babysit they enforce the contract that is in place.
I don’t think you were a blue collar worker either! Now that is a statement.
paulca
No, I do not work for the governor, just because I dislike unions does not mean I work for the governor, pretty dumb statement. Also, who said I had sooo many jobs? I have had several jobs (not sure that equates to soo many jobs, not sure where you get that from), which includes a job while in college. After graduation moved on to several more jobs, moving on to bigger companies, more regional and national positions, nothing wrong with making moves to better yourself if the company you currently working for cannot offer those types of positions. The companies I have worked for have valued my work, sometimes, you just have to move to improve your career circumstances, not at all a reflection on the companies I have worked for, just other opportunities. I am very grateful to the companies I have worked for and the fair way I was treated by them. The union job I had was only college job, I would never have worked for one post education. I did not feel the need for babysitting or having someone else determine my career path and pay scale. So your logic is illogical. Some people do try to improve their circumstances instead of complaining about their circumstances. I disagree the governor is the problem, unions have been the problem for much longer than 8 years. I do hope you are right about the 1000 workers, I hate to see anyone loose a job in an economy like this.














Advertisement