Thank you NAPE for continuing to reaffirm my decision to no longer be a member. The governor will get his "pound of flesh" in one way or another. If labor doesn't give the raise back, jobs will be lost or you will see the cost of health insurance rise (again) and it will be more than the 2.5% that would have been given up. Since starting my employment with the state, my take home pay has shrunk every year. It is the short-sighted, narrow-mindedness of the Union, along with their all-or-nothing mentality that keeps them from having any influence what so ever.

Every time the state has money troubles, they look to penalize their employees. State employees have been asked many times in the past to give up pay and benefits. It's time the state found other ways to cut expenses. How about the multi-million dollar surplus that Gov. Dave says is for "rainy days"? Isn't it rainy enough, yet, Dave?

Forgoeing their negociated raise wont save anyone's job. Do you really think the Governor will keep one more union employee at BSDC than they absolutely need simply because he appreciates the workers giving up a raise???

The wages were negociated and a contract entered into, just like many other contracts that were negociated and entered into. Are they trying to renegociate with the utility companies, contracted medical providers, food suppliers, etc?

Remember that the Johans and Heineman have been bleeding the employees for a while now. It's a state law the employees shall be paid comparable wages with surrounding states but they both ignored that (and apprently there's no penalty for breaking that law) and bled the wages down. The union finally took a stand and it went to arbitration and the arbitrators found in the employee's favor. Unfortunately though many occupations were far enough behind it would've created a finanacial hardship on the state to raise all their wages to appropriate levels all at once so the arbitrator allowed them to just raise the most severely out of line wages, but even at that they still didn't raise them to full comparability. The rest remained behind comparability and a subject for negociation in future contracts. So, the union employees have been kicking in to cost savings for a -very- long time.

In the mean time the Governor's questionable decisions have cost the state far more than the wage savings can cover - just look at the cost of out placing the 40+ residents last year (in money, premature resident deaths, and now pending law suits). Look at the history of how BSDC got into trouble, the former temp CEO Claire Mahon put it simply - look at the funding, as it went down the care went down and the problems ramped up. By allowing this to happen the state lost it's federal funding - again, with a price tag far higher than the negociated union wages. The new ceo negociated for a salary higher than the governor's, did they ask him to forgoe some of his negociated compensation? If so, did he?

The governor and the leadership have failed and the front line employees are, and have been, paying the price for a very long time. Forgoeing their twenty five cent raise isn't going to make a bit of a difference so I don't blame them for saying no!

Scotious:

Most of us in the public sector have ALREADY taken pay cuts. Besides, what the Gov asked for wasn't a pay cut. He asked them to forgo a 2.5% increase in 2010. Please remember the 1st thing Gov did after he saw the budget shortfall for 2010 was CUT HIS OWN PAY. In my opinion, all NAPE just did was push the Gov to have to cut jobs. Well, guess what there are plenty of other Nebraskans without a paycheck at all that would be more than happy to forgo a scheduled pay increase just to HAVE A JOB!
Point of reference in our community. When Rubbermaid bought DeWitt the average employee took an 18.5% CUT in pay, and still the majority stayed. Because they realized, as perhaps you should, even a smaller paycheck is better than NO paycheck.

I think the State employee Union is a waste of time and money. For the members it doesn't really fight for when it should. (then picks fights when it shouldn't) and for the State that is bound to waste time and resources dealing with Union leaders.
As a former state employee, I didn't know a single Union member that the Union had actually defended or really done a single thing for - other than take their money. I refused to join on principal. Unions are no longer needed in our country. When they started, they were necessary to force employers to provide safety for their employees and occasionally increase wages. Now the Unions have become such an out of control political machine - I don't think they do a thing for their dues paying members, what they do is further the interest of the Union and it's leaders.

The state employees were taking cuts YEARS before the economy tanked and the public sector started taking cuts.

It's a state law the union employees are supposed to be paid a wage comparable to those in similar positions in surrounding states, but the current and past governors refused to do that and the union didn't fight for it so the employees wages fell behind year after year after year. Finally the union members pushed the union to stop it and they finally took a stand and it went to arbitration. The arbitrator decided in the employees favor, but the cost to bring everyone up to comparability was huge so he allowed them to just increase the wages of the positions that were the furthest behind, but even at that those wages didn't get moved up to full comparability and the rest didn't move at all - it was left as a negociation point for further contracts. So, union jobs are still behind as they have been for YEARS.

The governor is not going to leave positions filled if they are not absolutely needed just because the union didn't take their negociated raises.

The state is not a factory that's driven by consumer demand for products, they provide necessary services that stay in a pretty constant ratio to the population, so the need for the employees to provide those services is there - what the governor is trying to do is take advantage of the situation - there are no jobs in the area so the employees will do anything to keep their jobs is the idea so he's going to take advantage so he can drive the wages even further behind where they should be. That's it, plain and simple. He's not going to leave positions filled just becuase the union employees gave up a twenty five cent raise (and again, remember they've given up raises and benefits for years, while the rest of the state not covered by the union did not - many times the upper management got raises, the union gave up sick time but the upper management to this day still gets the old rate of sick time, on and on. The union employees HAVE been kicking in and kicking in for YEARS, it's time for the trimming to start at the top for once).

As far as the effectivenes of the union, I dunno as I don't work there so I haven't had any direct dealings but it seems I've never ran into an employee who is happy with them - they rarely want to fight even if it's a no brainer (much like the wage comparability issue that's backed by a state law). The general feeling I get is that the union is just slowing the loss of their negociated benefits - at every negociation they give stuff up just to keep other stuff and they rarely, if ever, gain anything. I guess the only benefit is that they are slowing the erosion of the benefits - if there was no contract governors such as our present one and his predecessor would've cut them back to as close to minimum wage and no benefits as they could.

The state employees, as most government employees, really are hard working people who appreciate their jobs and want to do their best for the population that employs them - let's try to keep that in mind.

Please keep in mind too that the lower union employees are not where most of the waste occurs, and if it does occur in those levels it's probably not their fault as they are just doing what they are told. The most waste in government comes from poor MANAGEMENT, and I think it's quite telling that troubles such as what's occured at BSDC have only crept up during the terms of the current and previous governor, prior to that the facility was a national model facility. Claire Mahon even pointed it out in an interview and commented the bones of that model were still there, the knee jerk reactions needed to stop and the system just needed to be put back on track, but she was quickly brushed aside and instead of repairing the system it was completely dismantled and now we're flailing about trying to find a direction - all the while throwing more and more money down the tubes.

The quarter raise for the union employees just isn't the problem - look higher.

Fortunately we will be able to do something soon to help us all - let's all pay attention to what's happened and get out and VOTE!!!

Don.Wilson:

I gotta take issue with you on the wage thing. My experience while working for the State (in Lincoln) was that my wages were comparable to wages I earned in the private sector for doing the exact same thing. Plus, I was assured a cost of living increase, per the compensation tables, every year. I never received a cut in pay whatsoever. In fact, all the years I worked for the state there wasn't a single year that I received less than a 2.5% increase - no matter what the economy was doing. When I compare that to working in the private sector, I had much more job and wage security working for the state than I've ever had in the private sector.
Still I prefer to work in the private sector. Because, while working for the state I was very unhappy with the fact that I worked alongside several people that received the same wage as I did, yet had poor attendance and performance. They kept their jobs regardless because it's almost impossible to get fired from the State. Likewise, I had a supervisor that tried for several years to get my position reclassified to better reflect my actual duties so that I could be in a higher classification and receive an increase in pay. The hoops the man jumped through to try to get me a raise was ridiculous! In the end, he was unsuccessful and I had already decided to take an offer (that started out at a LOWER wage) from a private business. I wanted to have the opportunity to earn more based on my performance, not on the Union negotiated compensation matrix.
I agree that most of the people that I have known that worked for the State are decent people, however, most of them will also tell you that they don't want to leave State employment because private employers expect a higher level of performance than they are used to and therefore are more comfortable staying right where they are. I'm not bashing them for their choice. I'm just telling you how it is from inside.
You can rant about the Governors all you want to, that's fine. Just be aware that when it comes to the personal experiences of state employees - what you're describing isn't completely accurate.

Since Nebraska is a free to work state, meaning that you are free to work and the employee is free to let you go anytime for any reason, why would the state allow its workers to be unionized. Unions had a place in time, but now, I don't think so. There would be many ways to cut expenses. I would be happy to be hired at union wages of course to advise them of how to cut expenses. Here's a free one.........get rid of 90% of the cars they drive to and from work.

HuskerWife,

Though I don't work for the State (I'm a retired attorney), I know several who do (BSDC specifically) and I've watched the situation closely (and with utter amazement!).

The fact is that a great many of the state jobs are below comparability - that's a fact proven out by the wage impasse that went to arbitration just a short while ago. It's also a fact that most of those jobs were NOT brought up to comparability, the most out of range jobs were just moved up a bit closer to what they should be is all. If you were in a job that was in comparability then good for you, but there's a LONG list that was and is not.

The issues of poor attendance and poor performance by your co-workers, and inability to get your job classification modified to more closely match your actual job also helps illustrate the MANAGEMENT problems that exist. Giving poor managers less money and employees to manage doesn't make them better managers!

Of the employees I know I can't think of a one that is "scared" of the private sector because they would be expected to perform at a higher level! I do agree though that many have stayed even in the face of ever receeding wages simply because of job stability (again, the stability comes from the fact that the state does not produce a product, they provide services and the need for those services stays in a pretty constant ratio with the population, so no matter what the economy is doing there's always a need for the services the state provides). (it's worth noting that the perceeved need for less employees isn't because of a lessening of need for the services - they are simply inappropriately placing residents out into care facilities that provide care only. This fact was pointed out recently in the McGhee report and sharp eyed readers will note that in Miss Fenner's rebutal she didn't address this issue at all. Beyond that there is a waiting list in excess of a thousand waiting for services that they are just ignoring!)

It's hard to not place blame on the previous two governors - anyone who's followed the story of what's happened can plainly see how the whole situation has been caused by their policies and then exasberated by their responses to the problems created by their policies. Now it's plain to see that the agenda is to simply get out of the service providing business completely. It's not about money, it wont save a dime, in fact it'll cost several times more, it's just about responsibility - they want to pay someone else to take care of the problems and make them go away - no matter how that affects the people who need the services and their families, the people who provide the services, or the local communities that depend upon them.

I appreciate your insight, but I believe your experiences reflect a small percentage of the lower end state jobs. Most of the jobs affected by the raise being discussed are held by hard working people who have had their wages traveling backwards for a very long time and only gained the raise through legal action that was decided in their favor. And most of these employees do not have poor attendance or performance - just try working on a living unit at BSDC and calling in sick all the time and see how long you last!!!