Republican gubernatorial hopeful Tom Foley braved a tough crowd last week speaking in front of the Connecticut AFL-CIO at the Omni Hotel in New Haven trying to explain his call for a “Wisconsin moment” in Connecticut.
That declaration, of course, carries a negative connotation with organized labor following Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s 2010 passage of a budget that restricted public employee collective bargaining rights, including capping raises and requiring workers to contribute more to their pension and healthcare costs.
Any inkling of support for similar legislation in Connecticut is seen as a direct threat to one of the most powerful — if not the most powerful — special interests in the state.
Foley, a former diplomat, took a cautious approach, saying his nod to a Wisconsin moment didn’t mean he would change the way collective bargaining works in the state. Instead, according to the Connecticut Mirror, Foley said he was referencing the need to move away from one-party rule, where Democrats overwhelmingly control majorities in the House and Senate and own the Governor’s mansion.
Union members weren’t buying what the former private equity boss was selling.
Whether or not Foley was sidestepping the real intent behind his words is debatable, but the issue of public employee unions and their influence over, and costs to, the state isn’t going away.
Connecticut faces a nasty $1.4 billion deficit in fiscal 2016, and it doesn’t appear Malloy has the appetite to raise taxes again.
His Republican gubernatorial challengers, including Foley, Sen. Minority Leader John McKinney of Fairfield, and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, also aren’t likely to pitch tax hikes to fill the budget gap. That leaves few options other than to cut costs.
Foley has said he would keep state spending flat for two years to deal with the deficit, but it’s not clear if that alone will balance the budget.
McKinney and Boughton have said publicly more state employee sacrifices could be necessary.
The truth is, if Connecticut really wants to sure up its finances long term, it will have to spare no sacred cows, including public-employee unions.
That doesn’t mean upending collective bargaining rights; such a political maneuver wouldn’t work here.
But, if taxpayers believe the current size and scope of state government is unsustainable — the unending flow of red ink in recent years makes it appear that way — any meaningful restructuring will require a smaller state workforce. That’s not to cast aspersions on state employees; it’s just the economic reality.
Malloy has gone to the bargaining table with the unions before, and it seems state employees got the better end of the deal. To help close the $3.5 billion deficit he inherited in 2011, Malloy convinced unions to accept a reduction in the rate of their pay increases. Unions also agreed to “suggest” $180 million in cost savings, which never came to fruition. In exchange, state workers were given job security through at least July 2015.
