( – promoted by odum)
VSEA members were relieved to hear that the number of state employee layoffs this round were far fewer than projected – about 25 in total. However, we couldn’t help wondering why 25 people had to lose their jobs at all, particularly given that the Union offered $7.4 million to avoid this outcome.
Not only were these layoffs needless, but by rejecting VSEA’s offer of furloughs and unpaid holidays, the Douglas Administration cost taxpayers almost $5 million!
Representative Mark Larson was quick to point this out to Finance Commissioner Jim Reardon when he testified at the Legislative Joint Fiscal Committee on Tuesday:
Rep. Mark Larson, D-Burlington, reacted to Reardon’s report with sharp criticism. He said the state would be in a better position to cope with the looming budget pressures if the administration had accepted an offer from the Vermont State Employees Association that all employees take off four days without pay and give up three paid holidays.
Larson argued that taking the union’s offer would have avoided layoffs and left for the next budget crisis all the options the administration used — eliminating vacancies, taking savings from the health insurance program and asking departments to absorb more of the increase in the cost of personnel.
“Refusing to accept the deal that was put on the table has put us in a weaker place,” Larson said.
BFP – 10/29/09/
Here’s the math:
Laying off 25 state workers = approximately $1 million + using health plan surplus ($1.7 million) = $2.7 million
Accepting VSEA proposal = $7.4 million
$7.4 million in exchange for saving 25 positions seems like a pretty good deal for the State! There was never a provision in VSEA’s proposal that precluded the Administration from eliminating the 133 vacant positions they used to meet their target. How does this make sense fiscally or even politically? Why would you pass up an offer that saves both jobs and money?
When the Administration began eliminating federally funded positions last year, I thought they had lost their minds. I mean, isn’t sending money back to DC a “reverse stimulus package?”
The Governor’s latest actions continue to defy logic. How do you bargain with someone who would cut his entire workforce just to spite you?
Dubie should be tarred with the Douglas administration’s poor judgement and wastefulness. We can’t afford a carbon copy of Douglas’s administrative follies for another four years!
You bargain with someone that despises you by despising them back equally or worse. I am sure that is what vsea did, but, perhaps,and I am probably wrong, they did not despise Douglas enough. You have to beat them down instead of compromising with them. Douglas just wanted to bust the unions so that his friends could get nice handouts. I agree that we cannot afford another session of continuing stupidity and avarice in a continuing Douglas administration under a new name of Dubie.
This radical irish tiger guy has apparently been too close to the mill, as his math is a sufferin.
not only is the loss of the 5 million on the douglas team’s back, but the gift that keeps on giving is in the works also. By gutting so much of the state workforce, they have created a bubble in the retirement system that will need to be made up in the future, as existing workers are not there to contribute for the next generation. Clearly it is time for the failed economics of Jim=NOJobs to start to move on, and give our economy a break. With the proposal to now RAISE TAXES on business folks to support the unemployment fund that he has ignored for most of his time in office, I dont see how he has much in state support except from the big money corporations that fund his ONGOING election campaigns.
Can Brian be any different??? I hope we aren’t going to get the opportunity to find out!!!
… is if the goal is to bust the union.
It seems, perhaps, that the governor lied when he said he was trying to save money. He knowingly tossed aside an additional $4.7 million dollars in savings just so he could force hard working people out of their jobs.
Once again, Jim = Job-loss. But it’s not just Jim, it’s the entire republican philosphy. Short term gain at the expense of long-term economic stability has been the republican focus for decades now.
This same philosophy explains why stocks go up when companies announce layoffs. It doesn’t matter that the company may have cut too many jobs, sacrificing its ability to survive or compete in the marketplace, what matters is that, for the coming quarter, the payroll expense will be down, but the damage from the layoffs won’t have affected earnings, yet, so there is profit to be siphoned off.