[A]ccording to the secretary of the administration, fewer than 50 Vermont state employees may be laid off under the proposal to cut $10.8 million in labor and personnel costs in the fiscal year 2016 budget.
The labor savings target was first proposed by Gov. Peter Shumlin in January, and was approved by members of the House when the body passed H.490, the budget bill, last month.
“My best guess is, I doubt it will be higher than 50 and it could be lower,” Secretary of Administration Justin Johnson said Thursday. Paul Heintz of Seven Days first reported Johnson’s revised estimate.
So far, the administration has identified $4.5 million in labor savings that does not require lay-offs. Some $2 million will come from labor savings involving non-union employees. Johnson told lawmakers Monday that the administration will offer retirement incentives, which he estimates will produce about $2.5 million in savings.
In total, Johnson expects that 300 positions will be eliminated across the state — although he noted that many of those positions will likely be vacant posts.
Johnson’s next step is to reach out to managers to identify what the impact of the reduction will be on Vermont’s state programs. He’ll be working with different agencies to decide what programs will have reductions.
“I don’t know enough about every single thing we do in state government to decide where we would take it from,” Johnson said.
The savings target posed a challenge for the administration when members of the Vermont State Employees’ Association refused to reopen a collective bargaining agreement. The administration said that without contract renegotiation, layoffs were likely.
Steve Howard, executive director of the VSEA, said that the union was pleased that the administration had accepted ideas proposed by union members to find labor savings without RIFs.
However, Howard said that many state employees are still carrying increased caseloads from the previous round of layoffs, which took place under Gov. Jim Douglas’s administration.
“We do believe that there needs to be a greater investment in public services,” Howard said. “Vermont has a revenue problem and not a spending problem.”
