[N]egotiations between the Shumlin administration and the Vermont State Employees’ Association on a new labor contract are months away, but lawmakers are weighing in now.
The House Appropriations and Government Operations committees sent a letter Wednesday to the administration recommending seven points for consideration in negotiating the next collective bargaining agreement with the VSEA and the Vermont State Troopers’ Association.
“The state must limit the growth of its spending, including spending on compensation and benefits for state employees, to a sustainable rate,” the letter states.
Legislators do not participate in contract negotiations, but this year lawmakers were presented with a challenging budget. The state needed to close a $113 million gap between projected revenue and spending for FY 2016. In an effort to prevent similar budget gaps in future years, the two committees decided to weigh in on the collective bargaining process.
The FY 2016 budget, which is currently in the Senate, includes a $10.8 million reduction in labor and personnel costs. If the VSEA does not reopen its current contract with the state, which union officials have repeatedly said they will not do, the administration will likely find at least part of the savings through layoffs.
According to VSEA executive director Steve Howard, the letter from the legislators to the administration was “disappointing,” especially as the union is working with the administration to find ways to reach the $10.8 million labor savings target.
“It’s really hard to see a letter like this that doesn’t focus on anything else except the pay and benefits of the hardworking state employees,” Howard said.
Howard pointed to one of the recommendations, which would limit overtime compensation. Part of why overtime costs are so high, he said, is because state government is understaffed.
The VSEA has been a vocal critic of the spending cuts in the FY 2016 budget. Howard said that in order to fix the structural budget gap, the state needs tax reform. He has repeatedly called for higher taxes on the wealthy.
“State employees are not responsible for this mess,” Howard said.
The provisions in the letter range from reducing the mileage reimbursement rate, to giving raises as a flat rate rather than a percentage, to having employees pick up a greater share of their health care premiums based on their income.
The suggestions originated from a brainstorming session this year on how to close the budget gap. Rep. Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, chair of the Appropriations Committee, said that recommendations to the administration are meant to help ensure the next contract grows at the same rate that state revenue does.
“Ultimately, it is about figuring out how to best provide services and best compensate the state employees, [who] provide incredible service, and do so within the existing budget growth,” Johnson said.
Johnson said she thinks the current two-year contract, negotiated in 2013, could have been looked at “a little more carefully.”
“There are some provisions that just don’t make sense in our environment anymore,” Johnson said.
Rep. Donna Sweaney, D-Windsor, chair of the Government Operations Committee, said the letter offers some ideas from legislators for the administration to consider.
She acknowledged that state workers have made concessions, but noted that the cost of the budget has broad implications.
“We have to look out for what’s best for all Vermonters,” Sweaney said. “Certainly, the spiraling cost of running the government is not in the best interest of us all.”
Secretary of Administration Justin Johnson says the administration is already implementing cost controls outside of the contract. He said that he will consider the House ideas as he prepares to begin contract negotiations later this year.
“This letter sends a message, at least from the House committees, that we need to be looking at sustainability going forward,” Johnson said.
The seven suggestions in the letter, which Howard said are not unusual items in the negotiation process, are:
- Changing the overtime policy so that it would not include hours spent on annual leave, personal leave, time off for jury duty, and other factors;
- Reducing mileage reimbursement rates;
- Establishing a sliding scale for health care premium costs, so employees pick up a greater portion of the cost proportional to their income;
- Shifting health care premium costs so the state picks up a smaller share of costs for part-time employees compared to full-time employees;
- Removing domestic partners from dependents eligible for coverage under state employees’ health care;
- Implementing flat rate salary increases, instead of percentage increases;
- Requiring that the health insurance and benefits under the collective bargaining agreement do not trigger the federal excise tax on “high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance plans.”
