November 19, 2010 in News

State wants to reopen union contracts

Revenue forecast mean cuts needed — Gregoire

Jim Camden The Spokesman-Review

Tags:Chris Gregoirerevenue shortfallstate employees unionsWashington state budget

OLYMPIA — Thursday’s worse than expected revenue forecast prompted Gov. Chris Gregoire to order state employee unions back to the bargaining table to renegotiate contracts.

With a proclamation, Gregoire invoked a state law that allows her to ask the unions to reopen existing contracts. A separate declaration by Office of Financial Management Director Marty Brown about the forecast for the 2011-13 biennium says the contracts reached for those years are also unfeasible and must be reopened.

Most of the major contracts for 2011-13 are still under negotiations, a spokeswoman for Gregoire said.

Gregoire had resisted declaring an emergency and trying to renegotiate the current contracts during the past session, despite some drops in revenue projections. But Thursday’s revenue forecast was worse than expected, prompting a call to reopen contracts the state has signed with its workers.

Forecasters believe the state will collect about $1.2 billion less than expected over the next 30 months. That means a drop of $385 million between now and June 30th, and some $810 million less than expected in the two-year budget cycle between next July and June 2013.

When the current contracts were being negotiated, the state was expecting about $34 billion in general fund revenues for its 2009-11 biennium. Based on Thursday’s forecast, it will actually bring in about $28 billion, or about $6 billion less than it once expected.

19 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

MrNatural on November 19 at 12:22 p.m.
Good…they should…and I would hope the unions agree to the terms proposed by the Governor.
hawken on November 19 at 12:37 p.m.
ditto
bdr on November 19 at 1:18 p.m.
Looking good……..Hold employees to 10% of what comparable’s pay in private sector.
The unemployed have sacrificed everything, Its time the state workers give it up too.
rob_brewer on November 19 at 1:24 p.m.
@bdr - nearly every job category is already at least 10% less than private sector counterparts. When the state makes adjustments to salaries, it is because the salaries in those job classes are far below the 10% line, typically in the 30-50% behind range. When they are adjusted, they are adjusted to the 10% mark.
ChefGus/ John Olsen on November 19 at 1:40 p.m.
Bout time a state of “Financial Exigency” be declared…. The non union people on the payrolls have been taking it in the shorts for a long time…. the budget to this juncture has been balanced on the backs of those that have not had raises for a LONG time….
The union rules are hog tying the process more than most people understand… perhaps Mayor Verner, and our County Council will do this as well…. good goood goooood… john
MrNatural on November 19 at 2:10 p.m.
A guy walks into Pizza Hut and orders a pepperoni pizza. The kid behind the counter asks “do you want this cut into six slices or eight?” The guy reply’s “better make it six I don’t think I can eat eight.”
The inverse to this analogy is what state employees should consider if they wish to avoid layoffs. And I commend them for the job they do…
oneanddone on November 19 at 2:16 p.m.
Don’t buy for a second that state workers make at least 10% less than equivalent private sector counter parts. When you add in pension and benefits I’d bet it’s at least 10% MORE. The difference is that they have much more job security and don’t work half as hard. State workers should make less and should not be able to be unionized. Their pay isn’t based on any bottom line only on how well they can hide.
dukkandpooh on November 19 at 4:10 p.m.
“When the current contracts were being negotiated, the state was expecting about $34 billion in general fund revenues for its 2009-11 biennium. Based on Thursday’s forecast, it will actually bring in about $28 billion, or about $6 billion less than it once expected.”
So then when the economy turns around and the state sees a significant increase in revenues, then the contracts will be re-opened once again and the employees will see a proportional increase? Uh, yeah, didn’t think so.
Shylock13 on November 19 at 4:36 p.m.
Although I do not know the laws in Washington related to union contracts for state employees regarding “financial exigency,” I do know them in Massachusetts. If a Governor (or, for example, a college president, which I once was) declared “financial exigency,” such a declaration would override any collective bargaining agreement with state employees, except for those provisions dealing with “financial exigency.” In general, such provisions allow an agency to eliminate employees the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (usually last hired, first fired). And the union(s) could go to arbitration, and/or the courts, to challenge the declaration. I also know, from negotiating and administering collective bargaining agreements from both sides of the table (management and labor), that it is possible to arrive at a reasonable solution to almost anything. I truly hope that the state unions and the administration will do that. This is not the time for either side to refuse to negotiate!!
eagleproducer on November 19 at 4:39 p.m.
When the economy is mostly suffering from lack of demand why listen to the deficit hawks and take steps to further reduce demand?
Do recovery the good old fashioned way: Spend our way clear!
sean96 on November 19 at 6:01 p.m.
It is sad that these state workers are being vilified. These are the ones who keep our roads clear, keep the inmate behind bars, provide vital services to those in need. Jobs and services that in most cases are not profitable for the private sector to due without a significant cost.
Who in there right mind would wish that more people see their wages cut or jobs eliminated in this economy?
Cut a state workers salary by any % and that is less money coming back into the economy.
Who cares that they get a pension, and good benefits, why is it people are so intent to bringing everyone down to their poverty level job, instead we should be demanding that our employer provides these same benefits that the state worker gets. After all a rising tide floats all boats.
schleufer on November 19 at 6:31 p.m.
i doubt this would add up to enuf to save a job but waste is waste. earlier this year i signed up for direct pay for my utilities so why do they include with the statement a return envelope? these are not the cheapest envelopes as they have the little transparent window and printing on both front and back. so why do they every month mail me something i just throw in the trash?
maybe they need to take a closer look at this and the rest of the process to see what other waste they are creating. id be curious to see just how much waste is going on here in both paper and money. dont sound like going green to me.
cpd805 on November 19 at 8:19 p.m.
Joe, nobody “wants” people to have to take pay cuts and have less money to spend….but how much of that “extra” money will be going to pay higher taxes in order to pay for this extra money? It has to come from somewhere, other than the money fairy (fed res).
It is true that the tide floats all boats, except when you run out of water. The money is not there…something has to give.
Justin_Galloway on November 19 at 9:51 p.m.
Wow. Joe Jones has said it best. The absolute best comment I have ever read on the S-R boards. Except for soccermomsusie and Jonathan Swift that is.
lewis8457 on November 19 at 9:54 p.m.
any state worker making more then 60 grand should be taking a wage cut of some kind. All state workers should pay for 75% of their health insurance.
Why am I paying for them to have health insurance when I don’t have any?
We need to disband all unions of public workers. Sure years ago the unions were needed. if the labor laws are good enough to protect me with out belonging to a union then they sure the hell should be good enough for the folks who work in the government sector, who governs the labor laws.
I got a buddy who works for DSHS he never had to take a drug test, they gave him full medical while he was a temporary employee. and sure his wage isn’t very good but it is heck of a lot more then mine and he has benefits to die for. Hell i would do his job just for the benefits.
It is sad to see people losing their jobs while the state just wastes and wastes. Schleufer is right there is so much waste, they can cut everybody to bear bones and the waste will continue.
cryssT on November 19 at 11:58 p.m.
I’m a state employee and there were YEARS that we received no Cost of Living Adjustment when the State was doing well. I’m not saying a CoLA is in order right now (it isn’t) but unless some of you have done the job that I and others do - you don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t abuse my health benefits but still my out of pocket costs go up and up. The majority of State Employees are neither lazy nor thieves. There’s been very few management layoffs in the State as compared to the line workers. If citizens want to save money then look at Washington Management Services (WMS). State Employees have at least one furlough day a month.
Joe Jones said it correctly - it would be nice if private sector employees had decent treatment.
eagleproducer on November 20 at 12:06 p.m.
lewis: The efforts should be to increase the benefits for private sector workers, not reduce the ones to union members. I don’t understand your insistence that organized labor needs to concede fought for gains, gains that have invariably benefited private sector workers as well.
The working class needs to be united and not at each other’s throats like this. We are the only ones who have our best interests in mind and if we were united none of this nonsense about budget austerity would be an issue because we’d demand more from the wealthy until the economy fully recovers. They aren’t suffering at all and they have most of the income. It’s a no brainer but here we are, biting at each other instead of those deserving of our wrath.
JBlim on November 20 at 1:17 p.m.
According to actual studies, government employees are underpaid:
http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/wage-penalty-2010-05.pdf
Lewis, if you put a cap on salaries at $60K, I doubt physicians, for example, that work for the state would stay around very long, and the positions would go unfilled. Besides wage and price controls never work. (Isn’t that “socialism”?)
Just because you goofed off instead of going to college and working hard to make something of yourself doesn’t mean those who did should suffer your fate.