Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pensions Overtime topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dozens of state employees urge Appropriations Committee to reject Senate Bill 24, which would exclude overtime from pension calculations
Summary
Correction officers, nurses, union leaders and other state employees testified at length against SB 24, saying most overtime is mandated to cover chronic understaffing and that removing overtime from pension calculations would break promised retirement commitments and worsen recruitment and retention.
Dozens of current and former state employees and union representatives told the Appropriations Committee on April 3 that Senate Bill 24, which would prevent overtime payments from being included when computing retirement benefits, would harm recruitment, retention and public safety.
Speakers described repeated, mandated overtime driven by chronic understaffing in corrections, state hospitals and other public agencies. ‘‘When a correctional officer is ordered into an extra shift, they do not have the choice to comply,’’ Robert Beaman, president of Connecticut State Prison Employees Union Local 391, said. ‘‘The state is mandating additional labor while simultaneously proposing to strip the employee of their rightful pension benefits.’’
Testimony came from front-line employees — correction officers, nurses and mental-health staff — and from union and labor representatives, who framed the bill as an unlawful or unfair retroactive reduction of promised benefits. Brian Anderson, counsel and legislative director for AFSCME, told the committee SB 24 is part of a longer campaign aimed at reducing public-employee pensions, and Dan Livingston, chief negotiator for CBAC, said removing overtime could force the state to refund employees' past contributions with interest.
Witnesses described the human and operational effects of mandated overtime: missed family events, higher rates of PTSD and other health problems, and shorter life expectancy for corrections staff (testimony cited a figure of about 58'60 years). Several speakers said overtime is not optional but imposed to maintain facility safety; they urged the legislature instead to address root causes through hiring and funding.
Unions and union counsel warned of legal and fiscal consequences. Testimony noted past collective-bargaining adjustments (tiers and caps added in 2011, 2014 and 2017) and cited Internal Revenue Code section 415 in explaining existing federal limits on pension calculations. Unions and many individual employees argued that cutting overtime from pension formulas would effectively break promises the state made to employees who accepted lower pay or difficult jobs in exchange for retirement security.
Committee members asked some clarifying questions during the hearing; multiple witnesses urged exemptions for mandated overtime, a delayed effective date to allow recruitment, and a focus on hiring instead of pension cuts. No formal action was taken at the hearing.
The hearing record shows broad, repeated opposition across agencies and union lines; supporters of SB 24 did not appear in the portions of testimony captured in the committee record.
The committee will consider the testimony alongside fiscal and legal analyses before any decision on the bill.
