Random header image... Refresh for more!

Nancy Wyman Engages in “Direct Dealing” With Union Employees. Dumps on SustiNet.

Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman is working management’s playbook in the run-up to bargaining union votes on $1.6 billion in employee benefits and other changes.  Wyman sent a message to state employees telling them to ignore other information they received from someone who is not a state employee and, don’t you know, did not use a state email address to communicate with employees.

Unions often protest management having direct dealings with union members.  In this case, management’s bargaining position was heavily weighted with political calculations not usually found in the private sector.  There’s a growing perception that sentiment among bargaining unit members is shifting away from approval of the agreement.  How essential are the concessions if Malloy could find $400 million a week ago to fund the shortfall in the negotiated agreement?  Add to that the $1 billion he’s larding on UConn (for 3,000 construction jobs) and employees are wondering what else Malloy could find to reduce threatened layoffs and let employees keep the benefits they have.  After all, they’ll still try to fill suggestion boxes with $200 million in ideas for savings (another part of the plan) and everyone can try to live a little healthier (millions more in a package that starts to look just a little bogus in spots).

Wyman, a Democrat, uses her message to assure employees that the healthcare changes are not related to SustiNet (which she not long ago supported) and the new federal healthcare law (which she also supported).  Suddenly they are bad? What’s her beef?

Here’s Wyman’s management missive:

 

Dear Fellow State Employee:

Whether an employee chooses to support or oppose the pending SEBAC agreement is an individual decision, but it should be a decision based on correct and factual information.  That is why I write to provide you with some facts and resources that may assist you in making that personal decision in the days ahead.

I first want to address an e-mail you may have received recently from someone claiming to be a state employee that contained many factual misstatements concerning the proposed SEBAC agreement.  This email was not from the CT.gov domain and there is no state employee by that name.

Contrary to the information in the email, the proposed changes to our healthcare coverage are not in any way related to SustiNet, or to the federal healthcare reform that became law last year.  Additionally, the legislation now pending in the General Assembly that links state employee healthcare to SustiNet will be vetoed by the Governor if it emerges from the General Assembly, which appears unlikely.

Also, the proposed changes absolutely will not result in our coverage becoming a version of Medicaid.  Our benefits will continue to be provided by Anthem or Oxford under the plan we selected during open enrollment.

I urge you read the actual proposed agreement and make your decision based on the facts.  You may do so by visiting a website that can be accessed by this link:

http://www.dir.ct.gov/opm/SEBACAgreementInfo.htm

The website contains the full SEBAC agreement and a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document, which I hope will help address some of the questions you might have regarding the proposal.  If you have other questions, you should contact your union representatives or leaders.

Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail, and thank you for the good work you do every day.  Governor Malloy and I are grateful for your service.

Sincerely,

Nancy Wyman

Lt. Governor

Wyman was the proud co-chair of SustiNet when she served as state comptroller.

3 comments

1 Not Convinced { 06.03.11 at 6:32 pm }

I don’t trust either her or Malloy. All one has to do is read the Sustinet wording and it clearly states that state employees would be the first group to be put on it, then municipalities and non-profits. C’mon, news media–why is no one looking into this story? This administration is lying through their teeth and once we vote yes, we are screwed.

2 G { 06.03.11 at 7:12 pm }

I can’t speak for my fellow co-workers, but I found this e-mail highly insulting.

Considering what some of my fellow co-workers have found doing some basic research, the guv’nor has grossly underestimated just how upset the rank & file are with this SEBAC agreement.

The fact that he’s now chastizing us (collectively) and threatening to layoff 4700 workers if we don’t approve this only proves that contrary to popular opinion, we aren’t just little sheeples anymore.

We can actually think for ourselves.

3 SteveHC { 06.05.11 at 12:21 am }

STATE EMPLOYEES – At this point you should have all of the info you need to make a decision on how you’d like to vote; if you don’t, ask your union steward or delegate for whatever info you need and check the SEBAC website and your union’s website as well.

Do NOT pay attention to ANYONE on this or ANY OTHER “blog” trying to manipulate or tell you how to vote – at this point, not even ME! SEBAC, the unions and the State have determined that anti-government and anti-State employee organizations and their supporters have been engaging in a WIDESPREAD effort to use websites, online “social media” and “blogs,” etc. to try and manipulate union members into voting “no” IN ORDER TO FURTHER *THEIR* OWN AGENDA. They do NOT have your best interest at heart. THAT is why SEBAC has stopped allowing “blogging” on its website – SEBAC has no way of determining who really is a State employee vs who isn’t but who was posting just to try to get people to vote “no” for their own purposes.

GET the info you need if you don’t already have it, consider the pros and cons of voting “yes” or “no,” then vote when it’s time to vote. Just be sure to base your vote on FACTUAL information, and consider the short AND long-term ramifications to the outcome… an outcome which has the *potential* of being of national significance to unionization as WELL as your own life, your own job, and the lives and jobs of your co-workers.