From The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayers
Susan Kniep, President
September 9, 2017
Today,
Connecticut
taxpayers are facing a near $6 Billion State Budget Deficit and a $74.3 Billion
State Debt primarily due to State Mandates such as BINDING ARBITRATION AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATE LAWS!
The
majority of this debt is due to what was promised to State retirees for both pensions
and healthcare costs. Today, some state retiree pensions well exceed $100,000,
$200,000 and have reached $300,000.
Click
on the heading of the following article to learn more.
These
two state laws have also driven up local property taxes to among the highest in
the country as Connecticut
Town Officials and Boards
of Education negotiate public sector union contracts with their town employees,
teachers, and fire and police personnel.
The
fiscal problems of the State of Connecticut
and its capitol, the City of Hartford,
as both teeter on the edge of Bankruptcy, can only be contained by
The aforementioned
article was written in 2011. Little has changed since then. These two laws
remain on the books today and are the cost drivers of state and municipal
budgets. The irony is that for some taxpayers, their town officials who sit on
local legislative bodies and approve these contracts are themselves public
employees, state or federal.
As I noted
within my 2011 article
In 2010, the
Milwaukee
Teachers Education Association claimed sexual discrimination through the courts
in an attempt to have taxpayers fund nearly $800,000 dollars for drugs that
treat erectile dysfunction.
In March,
2011, unions in Orange, Connecticut won a grievance requiring
taxpayers to provide them with free coffee and milk.
As many
Americans struggle with their own healthcare costs, their elected officials
throughout the country have signed contracts to provide healthcare benefits to
government retirees at a cost to taxpayers of $1.5 trillion.
The
aforementioned are examples of the negative impact municipal and state unions
have on taxpayer-funded budgets which become burdened with the costs of litigation,
the drug Viagra, coffee, and gold plated healthcare plans. Continue reading at https://ctmirror.org/2011/04/14/ending-collective-bargaining-would-be-opportunity-reform/
THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW!
YET LITTLE HAS CHANGED
STATE BINDING ARBITRATION AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING LAWS ARE NOT ONLY BANKRUPTING THE STATE BUT THE TOWNS AS WELL.
Approximately
75% to 90% of the local budgets of Connecticuts 169 Towns are
dedicated to personnel related expenses for Town and Board of Education
employees.
PUBLIC SECTOR UNION CONTRACTS ONCE SIGNED
AND SEALED BY BOTH PARTIES, THEN BECOME LEGALLY
BINDING CONTRACTS.
TAXPAYERS MUST FUND THESE UNION CONTRACTS
REGARDLESS OF THE ABILITY OF THE TAXPAYER TO PAY! ON THE LOCAL LEVEL, THIS CAN
THEN RESULT IN TAX LIEN SALES IF LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES INCREASE PROPERTY
TAXES BEYOND THE ABILITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY!!!
And that scenario may play out in the State
of Connecticut
and its towns within the next few days as noted by
Republican Senator Toni
Boucher who puts the approval of the State Employee Union
Contracts by State Democrats into perspective
A Sad Day for Connecticut Taxpayers
State
Senator Toni Boucher (R-26) today called the legislatures vote approving the
union concession package a sad day for the state of Connecticut.
By voting
into law the package negotiated by the Governors office, the General Assembly
has taken an action that will reverberate in Connecticut for decades, Sen. Boucher said. State
Senators that controlled the vote had a chance to reject this package and
expand the options available to balance the state budget. Instead, we now are
locked into a ten-year contract that guarantees wage increases, pension
benefits, and continued employment for unionized workers no matter what
financial situation the state faces in the future. This party line vote locks
in increased benefit costs despite the fact that year after year budget
deficits not were solved by historic tax increases. This vote virtually
guarantees that these problems will continue.
Sen. Boucher said the package negotiated by the Governor and
his staff produces some positive changes and includes a two-year wage freeze,
but does not even get close to the numbers needed to put Connecticut on the path to financial
stability. Connecticut
is facing a $5.1 billion budget deficit while this union package seeks to save
$1.5 billion.
Continue
reading at
http://ctsenaterepublicans.com/2017/07/senator-boucher-a-sad-day-for-connecticut-taxpayers/#.WbSgB4-cHcI
*************************
The
following is the statement I made before the State Legislature in 2006 as it
relates to the negative effects of Binding Arbitration and Collective
Bargaining on municipalities. I knew this to be true as I had served as the
Mayor of East Hartford from 1989 to 1993, under a town charter which
established a strong mayor form of government.I also
negotiated, at the time, the first no wage increase public sector union
contract in the state.
Then
and today, I focus on these two mandates because they do much more than simply
determine wages, healthcare, and pensions for public sector unions. They also
establish working conditions as I noted in 2006.
STATEMENT BY
THE FEDERATION OF CONNECTICUT
TAXPAYER ORGANIZATIONS, INC.
BEFORE GOVERNOR RELLS
COMMISSION ON UNFUNDED MANDATES
DECEMBER, 2006
The following are comments made by Susan Kniep, President of The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer
Organizations, Inc. on December 20, 2006 before the Governors Commission of
Unfunded Mandates.
Thank you for
extending the time to me to appear before your Committee. I ask that you look
at the most impacting unfunded mandate in this state which is Binding Arbitration .Due to Binding Arbitration,
local officials cannot manage their budgets and every year taxpayers are forced
to pay for increased costs born through union contracts.
From 1989 to 1993
I had served as the Mayor of East Hartford
under a strong Mayor form of government. I had previously served for several
years as East Hartfords minority leader on its
town council. I am currently the President of the Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer
Organizations.
A few years
ago, the Federation assessed towns to determine the percentage of personnel
costs to budgets. Of the 169 Connecticut
towns, we determined that taxpayers were paying between 75% and 85% of their
property taxes to support government employee wages, pensions and healthcare.
Taxpayers, some of whom had no health insurance, were paying 85% or more for
government employee healthcare costs.
Taxpayers are
impacted by local budgets which are now controlled by arbitrators passing
judgment on union contracts. Not only on wage, pension or
healthcare issues, but grievances as well.
During my tenure
as Mayor, the State was in a recession resulting in layoffs in the private
sector. Some Connecticut
companies downsized, others went bankrupt. Some left Connecticut for states where taxes were less
impacting.
The State and
towns suffered economically, as did taxpayers. Families were impacted by lost
jobs and wages. Yet, as Mayor, I could see the obvious. Those in the public
sector were secure. In fact, not only were they not losing their jobs, they
expected to receive wage increases.
In talking with
government officials from other towns, many of us knew we had few budget
choices as we were impacted by union contracts. In an attempt to control the
finances of East Hartford as its Mayor, when
elected to office in 1989 I relinquished the taxpayer financed automobile I was
entitled to. Concurrently, I instructed that the practice of town employees
driving town owned vehicles home would cease. This was done after a careful
review of their contracts which did not grant this entitlement.
I was
subsequently grieved by the unions. I lost my case due to a seldom referenced
term called past practice. If the union is doing something outside the realm of
their contract, arbitrators have ruled they have earned the right to do it. In
essence, an administrator may be allowing a practice by a union member or
members to occur over a period of time which is unbeknown to the public or to
other elected or appointed officials. Once discovered, there is no recourse to
stop the practice which may have a dramatic financial impact on the taxpayers
forced to support it.
More recently, the
police chief of East Hartford had assigned a
work schedule which would have a positive impact upon his budget. The union
grieved and they won, again creating a financial hardship on taxpayers.
The most egregious
act by the government unions was when they successfully took control of
millions of dollars as a result of the Anthem stock distribution. Rather than
towns being allowed to use this money to offset union healthcare costs paid for
through property taxes, the unions felt entitled to the money and filled
lawsuits to take possession of it. Many towns acquiesced to the unions
believing the costs to litigate might exceed the benefits distributed by
Anthem. As you are aware, for years many government union members paid nothing
for their healthcare, while taxpayers absorbed 100% of the cost. Today,
healthcare costs in the private sector are soaring while taxpayers concurrently
pay for the majority of the costs of healthcare for government employees.
The Federation
recognizes that Binding Arbitration will not be abolished in the immediate
future although other States have done so. However, there must be reform.
Taxpayers do not elect those who arbitrate a contract. The elected officials taxpayers elect however have no control over their
budgets or the taxpayers dollars when 75% to 85% of their budget pay for
personnel expenses and are under the control of arbitrators who have no
accountability to the voter. This is an affront to the democratic process.
We urge your
committee to propose to the legislature that local municipalities be given the
following authority by statute:
Give local elected
officials the same powers that State elected officials have. Make it mandatory
that local arbitration awards be ratified by a majority vote of the town
council.If, as in state government, these awards are rejected, then require the
Process to begin again.
Next, take the
fund balance off the table when negotiating contracts. Allow towns to build a
fund balance without the threat of unions being able access this money for
their members. Failure to do so will continue to force towns to bond projects
because they cannot now save their money to pay for future projects.
Next, give towns
the right to suspend Binding Arbitration for up to three years when impacted by
negative economic conditions. I had begged the legislature to allow for this
suspension when I was Mayor, but my requests were ignored.
Next, take the
negotiation table out from behind the closed doors of secrecy and into the
light of public debate. The taxpayers fund union contracts and should have
every right to follow negotiations and comment on terms being negotiated before
contracts are agreed to. In fact, taxpayers should be allowed to vote on union
contracts through referendum.
In conclusion, I
question why the CEOs of
municipalities are forced by our State legislators to adhere to laws which
prevent them from controlling their labor costs which are ultimately passed on
to property owners through property tax increases.
The majority of Connecticut residents
work in the private sector under at-will conditions wherein they can be
terminated at any time, for any legal reason, or for no reason at all by their
employer. They work in a state of flux knowing that their employer on any given
day can demand that they pay a greater share of their health care premium, take
on a greater workload, receive a minimal salary increase, no salary increase or
have their pay cut. There will be no debate, no bargaining, no arbitration, and
no elected official waiting to defend them. The words out-sourcing and visas
have become a part of the Connecticut
workers vocabulary as the agenda of many corporations is to put their stock at
the top of the portfolios of Wall Street analysts.
The at-will
employee is an unprotected class. They are losing their jobs, their homes and
their health insurance. They are being forced into jobs which are below their
educational and skill levels and at salaries which are a fraction of what their
previous jobs paid.
Yet, the American
dream is alive and well for those whom the at-will employee is forced by
elected government officials to financially support. They are the state and
municipal government workers. In contrast to the atwill employee, government
workers do not have to accept what their employer tells them. Taxpayers are
their employer. Whether it is working conditions or salary, healthcare or
pension issues they exercise their State given right to force negotiations and
push their agendas, behind closed doors, under state Binding Arbitration laws,
which leave taxpayers powerless. Unions vote to accept or reject their
contracts. Taxpayers do not. Instead, taxpayers are simply presented with the
bill for these lucrative union contracts, through their property taxes.
Thank you again
for your time.Taxpayers in the 169 towns and the State need property tax
relief. Reforming Binding Arbitration will provide that relief.