|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Executive Director: “State employees struggling under the weight of ever-increasing costs and a failing economy under Governor Scott can’t give up the fight, and neither will their union.”
The Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA), the union representing over 6,000 Vermont State employees, vowed Friday to continue to pursue every available legal channel to fight against Governor Scott’s mandated return to commuting for State workers after this morning’s Vermont Supreme Court ruling.
VSEA President Margaret Crowley focused on the impacts to Vermonters of Scott’s “return to commute” policy, noting “when the Governor embarked on this regrettable course of action, it is clear that the needs of everyday Vermonters — both those who work in State government and their neighbors whom they serve — were the furthest thing from his mind.
“We heard immediately from members that this change would necessitate two-hour commutes for families already struggling to find housing and childcare under this Administration,” said Crowley, adding that if the policy stands, many State employees will be forced to leave public service “leaving Vermonters without their expertise and experience because they simply can’t afford to work for the State under the Scott Economy.”
“It is clear from the Court’s ruling that its analysis did not probe beyond the Governor’s purported rationales for instituting this harmful change in working conditions, but rather focused on his power under the telework agreement” said Steve Howard, VSEA’s Executive Director. “While we wholly accept the Court’s authority in this case, we fundamentally reject the Governor’s pretenses as to why he set out on this destructive course of action,” added Howard, noting that avenues for further legal challenges remain.
“The decision issued today says nothing about what VSEA believes to be a clear violation of the Flexible Working Arrangement statute, and we will continue to fight — both under that statute and at the bargaining table — to ensure that the Governor’s mandate is reversed,” said Howard.
This article was sourced primarily from a VSEA press statement.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: State Government
I have a solution, fire their lazy asses!
Spot on……..send them packing.
Roughly 8000 vt state employee…….
This is the perfect solution to the fact that Vermont has WAY TOO MANY state workers. Only the ones who really want to contribute will remain. To the rest goes the standard advice: dont let the door hit you on the way out.
I guess they’ll have to do what others in similar situations were told to do in the recent past. Learn to code.
Covid showed us a lot of things. Like yes it is possible for many jobs to be done from home. It also showed us that some people should never work from home as they are not focused enough to pull it off. So why does this have to be black and white? All or nothing? It does not.
I have never worked for the state but I have worked from home for nearly 20 years. I didn’t need to learn to “code” to do so and I work in the computer industry doing things that are easily done on a computer screen from anywhere in the world. Including in my PJs at home.
So if you want to talk “tax burden” you have to look at the system you are talking about. The money should first be spent on direct services and not have so many managers in the State of Vermont work force who never talk to a tax payer. At least this is what my husband used to say as he worked for the state for 34 years and had seen it all.
It is still not in your job title for work location. Until this is added (generally by creating a specific job and applying for it) you need to follow the law. Which your HR department has a legal responsibility to have your work location listed. In your job offer, it will clearly state this location. If it does not, then legally you can work at will. My job has it in black and white. Location of employment “remote”. Hence the reason they want to lay off and rehire with this included in the job description. Any job that turned remote after 2020, legally needs to state this. So union members, buckle up. It’s going to be a long fight which you will end up losing.
For example, the reason most self-employed artists have studios that are separate from their living quarters, even if only in a shed in the back yard, is because something changes in one’s mindset when they step into a workspace.
It could be argued that a specific room in one’s house could do the same thing, but then, of course, that changes when one has to leave the room for any reason. Just going to the bathroom or getting a drink could throw one into a “not work” mindset. Productivity then tanks.
You lost me, Gina. Are you saying that people who work in an office — that they commute to — shouldn’t ever use the lavoratories or stop by the water cooler, lest they get distracted? Oh, wait…
There are several former dairy workers who would love to have a commute for a job
A lot of information is lacking. Which jobs were temporary changed to remote and were people hired specifically for remote work? How was the person complaining about a two hour commute hired? What are the legalities when an employer changes a work location?
Boo Hoo you spoiled baby. Drive to work like everyone else. You can cook dinner when you get home or buy a crockpot.
Yes, let’s require each individual to drive their gas guzzler to their climate controlled office space(paid for with our dime), to complete computer work they could accomplish promptly at home.
And then add this management practice to the list of Vermont State inefficiencies.
Yeah, six of one, a half dozen of the other.
My daughter works for the state. She drops of her 2 kids at daycare and drives the 20 miles one way to work. She pays about $10,000 a year for daycare and transportation.
Compare that to a state employee who has 2 young kids and works at home. Daycare cost $0. Transportation costs $0. Her reward for physically going to work? She gets the honor of losing $10,000 of right of the top of her income. That makes sense to no one.
Working from home means working from home.
It’s not an invitation to take care of your family at the same time.
If one is caring for two young children one is not working at his/her job….
The state pays for the employee’s home office, I would call that a pay check bonus. No one remembers that part.
I don’t believe saying “the state pays for the employee’s home office” is true.
What specific State policy are you referring to that provides direct compensation?
Otherwise I call BS.
One assumes that most of these “long commuters” were in fact employed at these distances and perhaps even began their “service” as a compromise where they accepted distance for a rural lifestyle preference. Old pseudo hippies living in Thetford or Hardwick who CHOSE to apply for work in Montpelier or Waterbury in exchange for above statewide pay averages and generous benefits…. cannot Now Complain they are being inconveniently torn from their woodstoves and Labradoodles to achieve the Vermont “lifestyle dream”.
Hopefully the long (long Covid?) result is attrition and opportunity fkr a more rational staff at state bureacracy!
Make room for younger hungry more grateful folks who can do the job and keep Vermont Vermonty!