Spring Break
Unions need to get practical in negotiations
Megan Lynch
Issue date: 4/8/09 Section: Commentary
Layoffs, downsizing, consolidation and budget cuts is basically all we have been hearing about from the business community. Now, in Connecticut, Gov. M. Jodi Rell is working hard to cut labor costs and reduce spending to fit in her new budget, which just happens to be changing week by week. The unions have kept pretty quiet so far, but now they are fighting with Rell about layoffs due to the budget cuts.
The unions want to implement a "no-layoff" system to be put into effect for the next two years. While Rell is trying her best to save jobs as much as she can, she is unsure of the practicality of completely ruling out all layoffs, and honestly, so am I. Chances are that the unions will not back down on this, so Rell is going to need to find a way to compromise.
The Hartford Courant has reported that discussions between Rell and the unions are going quite smoothly - except when it comes to the topic of job security. Unions want total job security for every employee, but that is just not feasible. It would be wonderful if every employee could be guaranteed continued employment, but it is just impossible if we plan to fill some of the budget gap with money from labor cuts. Hopefully, the unions will soon realize this and try to come up with a plan that is actually practical.
At this point, job security should mostly be determined by seniority. Of course the more experience employees have, the more likely they are to keep their jobs. One of the things Rell was worried about is that, when a company consolidates, the combining of some services that result in the need for fewer jobs, which will go against the "no layoffs" rule.
While it would indeed contradict the no layoffs, there should be a provision in whatever is decided to include the proper ways to go about consolidation issues. If there is no longer a need for an employee's job because of a beneficial cut or merger, the person should be laid off. These issues are exactly what Rell and the unions need to discuss beforehand.
The unions want to implement a "no-layoff" system to be put into effect for the next two years. While Rell is trying her best to save jobs as much as she can, she is unsure of the practicality of completely ruling out all layoffs, and honestly, so am I. Chances are that the unions will not back down on this, so Rell is going to need to find a way to compromise.
The Hartford Courant has reported that discussions between Rell and the unions are going quite smoothly - except when it comes to the topic of job security. Unions want total job security for every employee, but that is just not feasible. It would be wonderful if every employee could be guaranteed continued employment, but it is just impossible if we plan to fill some of the budget gap with money from labor cuts. Hopefully, the unions will soon realize this and try to come up with a plan that is actually practical.
At this point, job security should mostly be determined by seniority. Of course the more experience employees have, the more likely they are to keep their jobs. One of the things Rell was worried about is that, when a company consolidates, the combining of some services that result in the need for fewer jobs, which will go against the "no layoffs" rule.
While it would indeed contradict the no layoffs, there should be a provision in whatever is decided to include the proper ways to go about consolidation issues. If there is no longer a need for an employee's job because of a beneficial cut or merger, the person should be laid off. These issues are exactly what Rell and the unions need to discuss beforehand.
Be the first to comment on this story