Earlier this afternoon we reached out to the numerous Democrats and Republicans vying for Governor for their reaction to today’s report about the use of in some cases quite generous longevity pay bonuses to reward public employees, both union and non, who remain on the job for at least ten years.
There are arguments for and against longevity pay, which cost Connecticut taxpayers around $43 million in 2009, according to the Office of the Comptroller.
But during the current fiscal crisis state lawmakers from both parties believe the topic – and some of the larger payouts that we reported – require much closer scrutiny.
The first two gubernatorial candidates to respond to our request were Republicans Oz Griebel, a Hartford businessman, and Chester First Selectman Tom Marsh.
Marsh: “I do not favor maintaining the longevity bonus program. I believe this is one of many examples of how state employment has failed to evolve. Longevity should have been eliminated long ago as part of the negotiation process as state wages and health benefits improved. The original purpose, to reward loyalty and theoretically competencies acquired over a long term of employment is understandable when viewed as a portion of the state compensation packages available during the middle part of the last century. Over time, wage and benefit packages of state employees have not only found parity with the private sector they now often exceed private sector levels.”
Griebel: ““The very notion of a ‘longevity benefit’ is counter-intuitive and productive to fiscal responsibility. Like the private sector, pay increases should be based on performance and merit, particularly during challenging economic times. This culture of entitlement is exactly what needs to be changed in our state government. As a true outsider with practical business management and public policy experience, I understand the benefits of merit based systems and am prepared to tackle tough problems to restore our state to fiscal sanity. ”
UPDATE:
The responses keep coming, all so far from Republicans:
Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele of Stamford: “Longevity payments should be eliminated at the time of hire for any new state employee and they should be eliminated for existing State employees through negotiations. State employees already get merit increases and cost of living increases each year that generally range between 4 and 6 percent and far outpace the rate of inflation. Longevity payments have nothing to do with performance. They are bonus payments for seniority — in essence, payments not related to any work product — and they should be eliminated.
“Longevity payments are just one of many cost-savings measures that will have to be negotiated with union and non-union state employees as part of the solution to our state’s ongoing budget crisis.”
Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton: “The longevity program has been in existence before collective bargaining units were in created. Longevity payments were first spelled out in the Connecticut General Statutes, and were then folded into the collective bargaining agreements once the state workers were organized.”
“Approximately 15 of the 33 collective bargaining units in the State of Connecticut have ‘caps’ placed on the longevity payment which were negotiated by the state, 18 do not.”
“Non-Union employees do not have ‘caps’ placed on their longevity payment because they are still adhering to the statute enacted by the legislature.”
“The highest longevity payments go to the State Auditors due to their length of service and their pay grade.”
“As Governor, when appropriate, I would negotiate with the respective unions to place ‘caps’ on longevity payments to all of the collective bargaining units.”
“The non-union management positions should also have a similar ‘cap’” to that of the unions. This must be accomplished by amending the statute.”
“The Judicial Branch is another matter. Since they are a separate branch of government, and their salaries and benefits do not come under the purview of the Governor, I would advocate to the Chief Administrator that a similar ‘cap’ be placed on both unionized and non-unionized employees.”
“By capping the amount of the longevity payment, you will dramatically reduce the amount tax-payers would pay for both union and non-union employees. I would also tie any longevity bonus to performance with specific goals mutually set by the administrator and the employee, so that there is some accountability in the granting of these payments.”
Tom Foley of Greenwich, former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland: “A well-designed and well-administered compensation system shouldn’t require ‘longevity pay’. Wages and other compensation an employee receives should be appropriate for the demands of the job, experience level required, and performance of the employee, not how long an employee has been employed. As part of my Plan Forward for Connecticut I am recommending that we look for opportunities to obtain more efficiency in the delivery of state services. To do that we must review the compensation policies for state workers to ensure that all compensation, including ‘longevity pay’, is part of an overall compensation plan that pays employees fairly, aligns the cost of state services with their value to consumers, and brings the cost of services provided directly by the state in-line with alternative means for providing those services.”
Former U.S. Congressman Larry DeNardis, who today entered the gubernatorial race: “On the issue of longevity payments, in our current economic and financial situation, the taxpayers of Connecticut can no longer afford to pay state employees a bonus for simply having attained a certain number of years of employment with the state. As I said this morning in my announcement, I make this solemn pledge to the people of Connecticut that if I am elected your Governor, I will pursue and implement policies to create financial stability in our state without regard to political or partisan interest or advantage, motivated only by the best interests of the people of our state.”
“The best interests of the people of Connecticut are a more stable and fiscally sound budget. I have called for a new constitutional spending cap that would place firm limits on spending and that does not exempt any current expenses, including wages and benefits for state employees.”
“As Governor, I would propose the immediate elimination of longevity payments for all non union employees. I would not grandfather in those currently receiving payments. Longevity payments would be eliminated for all non union employees regardless of the amount of time they have been employed by the state.”
“I would also direct my labor negotiators to remove longevity payments from each and every union contract that comes up for renegotiation during my term as Governor. If the unions are unwilling to step up and help the taxpayers of Connecticut, a class that includes almost every state employee, then I would recommend to the General Assembly that they reject the contract and send it back for renegotiation.”
“Hard decisions are going to have to be made by the next governor. Decisions that may not be popular with different groups, but decisions which will ultimately get Connecticut back on track. The elimination of longevity payments is one of the decisions that must be made and, if elected Governor, will be made.”
UPDATE 2:
Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi is the first Democrat to step up to the plate. Campaign Manager Mark Robinson said that after reviewing today’s article, Marconi “feels that this is definitely an issue that should be examined closely. Some elements, such as elected officials (who later take state jobs) counting their time in office as a way to qualify for longevity pay, should definitely be eliminated. The program and the overall question, however, are far too complex to give a general answer without appropriate careful study and discussion.”
UPDATE 3:
Boom, boom, boom. Over a period of minutes my e-mail in-box has received responses from Democrats Ned Lamont, a Greenwich businessman, Simsbury First Selectman Mary Glassman, and former Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy.
Lamont: “We’ve seen what happens when our state government doesn’t operate at its best – hundreds of millions of federal dollars for job creation, education, roads and infrastructure lost because Hartford took its eye off the ball.”
“The first thing I’ll do as Governor is hire the best and the brightest to serve the hard working families of Connecticut. I’ll work with our employees on the front lines to make our state government work again, and I’ll trust my managers to offer reasonable incentives to keep talented employees working for the state. As a business owner, I believe in hiring good people and rewarding them for their hard work and success, but managers shouldn’t get a bonus just for showing up to work in the morning.”
Glassman: “As Governor I would honor existing agreements. But as Governor, I would be fair to workers and state taxpayers in looking at the cost of government. I would have an open discussion of the longevity payments including whether they work to retain our best and brightest workers, whether they supplement noncompetative wages, or whether they are unnecessary costs that no longer serve a purpose.”
“The focus of my campaign has been to make sure that all state expenditures, including employee compensation packages, are part of a long term strategic plan, not something that shifts with the political wind.”
“Any candidate who simply says ‘yes’ or ‘no’ does not understand the need to have a strategic plan, and not address issues like this in a vacuum.”
And Malloy: “Longevity payments for lower wage employees have always been viewed as a way to reward hard work, perseverance and loyalty. Those are qualities we should continue to foster in state government if we want to improve efficiencies and productivity.”
“The issue gets distorted when talking about higher wage employees, especially given the state’s unprecedented budget problems. That’s why we need to have a discussion of how the program needs to change. Those conversations might include scaling back payments, instituting a cap on the program, or considering whether or not Connecticut can afford to extend the program to future state employees.”
UPDATE 4:
Last but no least here’s what Newington Mayor Jeff Wright, a Republican, had to say (Note: Wright is last because it took me a while longer to get the questions to him): “Longevity payments should be absolutely eliminated and the fact to so many politicians in Hartford still have second thoughts about protecting these payments is another example why we need a wholesale change in our elected officials. Our state budget and the overall financial condition is an embarassment, yet our elected officials continue to do business as if nothing is wrong and ignore our crisis. This type of fringe benefit does not exist in the real world, only in state government, where bonding the operating budget is accepted. For those who protect this payment system and believe it is a wonderful idea for state workers who have maxed out their step level, why not just add more steps, instead of providing a back door cash giveaway, to feed their sense of entitlement. If I am elected as the next Governor, I will restore common sense to government and lead Connecticut’s Comeback, by eliminating this type of entitlement greed at the taxpayers’ expense.”
