Lacey failed to show how voting for the contract would harm state employees more than voting against it would. "Many state employees wonder why we should pay $50 million to save jobs that may eventually be lost anyway," she wrote. "Either way, the gap in productivity will harm public services. Should state employees become willing participants in the destruction of these services?"
She seems to be saying that layoffs will occur no matter what, so why take a pay cut first?
But of course, that's a huge assumption. It presumes that Gov. John Lynch is lying when he says the pay cuts (which total less than the raises employees received at the start of the year) will save enough to avoid 750 layoffs. The SEA has yet to offer any evidence that layoffs will occur anyway.
We've Moved- Please Come See Us
Check out the new home for New Hampshire Watchdog:
Friday, October 2, 2009
Why vote no? SEA hasn't made the case
The Union Leader editorializes that the State Employees Association has yet to make a convincing case for voting down the proposed contract offer with the state.