Fourteen state employees got pink slips on Wednesday. The layoffs are part of a cost-cutting measure aimed at reducing labor expenses across state agencies, and it’s only the first phase of a significant government downsizing.
The Shumlin administration had at one point said it would have to lay off as many as 350 state workers in order to balance the fiscal year 2016 spending plan. The dismissals handed down Wednesday represent only a fraction of the losses union representatives had once feared. But it’s just the first wave of a labor retrenchment that will see the government workforce shrink by about 4 percent by fall.
“And I think then that also leads into a pretty serious conversation as we build next year’s budget proposal about what programs we’re going to continue to do, and what work we’re going to continue to do and what work we would propose to not do,” says Administration Secretary Justin Johnson.
Johnson is the man in charge of a cost-cutting exercise that will shave nearly $11 million from labors costs next year. The lion’s share of the money will come from a retirement incentive program expected to result in 300 long-serving employees departing state service.
Johnson, though, is only going to refill 75 of those positions. Combined with Wednesday’s layoffs, and the 50 vacated positions that have already gone unfilled this year, state workers will see their ranks shrink by about 300 by October.
Steve Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employee Association, says the remaining workers will work hard to fill in the gaps opened up by the loss of their colleagues.
Combined with Wednesday's layoffs, and the 50 vacated positions that have already gone unfilled this year, state workers will see their ranks shrink by about 300 by October.
“But there’s no doubt that there is an impact on Vermonters and their ability to access the state services they need,” Howard says.
Johnson says the personnel losses with force administration officials to reevaluate their priorities.
“The reality is, for better or worse, that budget crises and other sort of upheaval type of events … lead people to think more clearly about what they really do need to do or not do and find other ways to do things,” Johnson says. “A little bit of adversity never did an organization any harm in terms of really focusing on what it should be doing or not doing.”
Johnson says he’s going to avoid distributing the burden of the losses across numerous government functions.
“I don’t love it because I think that on some level it’s not fair to just do it because I can. On the other hand, we have a real problem, right?” - Administration Secretary Justin Johnson
“I would prefer that we decide what we’re going to do, and we do it properly, appropriately resourced, and then we stop doing other things,” Johnson says.
Johnson says it’s premature at this point to say what those things might be.
Johnson says the Vermont State Employees Association could have minimized the number of position reductions by agreeing to reopen their collective bargaining agreement, in order to make wage or benefit concessions. He says non-union employees will be giving up cost-of-living adjustments to help balance next year’s budget, to the tune of $2 million.
Those employees don’t have any choice in the matter, since their wages aren’t protected by the collective bargaining agreement.
“I don’t love it because I think that on some level it’s not fair to just do it because I can,” Johnson says. “On the other hand, we have a real problem, right?”
"Asking [wealthier] taxpayers to invest more in their state makes more sense than asking snow plow drivers and nurses to give up a cost-of-living increase." - Steve Howard, Vermont State Employee Association executive director
Howard says the Shumlin administration could have avoided the position reductions, and the harm he says will inevitably follow, by increasing taxes on wealthier residents.
“Asking those taxpayers to invest more in their state makes more sense than asking snow plow drivers and nurses to give up a cost-of-living increase,” Howard says.
The retirement incentive program will offer workers up to $15,000 paid out over two years to retire.
Johnson says the battle over labor savings in recent months will inform the administration’s approach to the next round of negotiations with the union, which will begin later this year.
“One of the things that the union has made very clear is that they’re not interested in reopening contracts once they’ve been signed,” Johnson says. “We will be very careful about singing something that we wouldn’t want to live with no matter what’s going on, because it’s clear that we don’t get another go at it.”
By not opening the contract, Howard says the union simply held the governor to his word. He says the VSEA will continue to bargain “in good faith” for livable wages and decent working standards for its workers.
