Thursday, July 16, 2009

Gov. Rell ---Vetoes Cuts Insurance To Janitor's Kids - Connecticut News Story - WFSB Hartford

Posted by Frank Smith at 16.7.09

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand this correctly?

1. The state contracted out to a contractor to provide janitors as a way to save money over hiring state employees to do the work.

2. The Democrats in the legislature passed a bill to provide free insurance to the children of employees of this private company, at taxpayer expense (which leads me to suspect that we, the taxpayers are already paying for free health insurance for the employees themselves of this private company).

3. The Governor vetoed this ridiculous attempt to expand socialized medicine at our expense.


The Governor did the right thing. Why should we as taxpayers pay a dime for insurance benefits provided to employees of a private company? If they want to give all these lucrative benefits to the janitors cleaning state buildings, then let them dump the private contractor which was hired specifically for the purpose of saving the state money and hire state employees to do this work.

July 16, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Anonymous said...

their parents work for a private contractor



Man it shouldnt be any simpler than that. Lets take this a step further.

If we give them insurance what about the contractors hired to clear snow? what about the contractors hired to .... oh forget it its like arguing with a child. They just don't get it.

July 16, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Anonymous said...

Let me try and guess what legislators might be behind this brainstorm?

July 17, 2009 at 1:08 AM
Anonymous said...

Substitute House Bill No. 6502

Public Act No. 09-183

AN ACT CONCERNING THE STANDARD WAGE FOR CERTAIN CONNECTICUT WORKERS.
co-sponsored by Rep. Tim O'Brien 24th District

This bill, which the Governor vetoed, also had language that required a subsequent state contractor to keep all employees employed by a previous contractor providing the same service under a previous contract for a minimum of 90 days.


If the state changes contracts for bad service, why would we want to legislate that the new contractor must hire the same employees that were providing the bad services that caused the state to end the contract in the first place?

What possible management sense does this make?

July 17, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Anonymous said...

The govenor did the right thing. Capitol cleaning should be responsible for their own employees and their dependents not the taxpayers of the state of CT. Now the bleeding hearts are crying a river. It's true if the state does it for one, where does it end.

July 17, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said...

What a sad state Connecticut is in. The local 6:00 PM news carried the story and interviewed one of the Janitors. In her own word ..... "I don't want to have to pay for Health Insurance". I guess that sums it all up!

July 17, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

What a sad state Connecticut is in. The local 6:00 PM news carried the story and interviewed one of the Janitors. In her own word ..... "I don't want to have to pay for Health Insurance". I guess that sums it all up!

I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE, SO YOU SHOULD PAY FOR IT FOR ME!

July 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...

Capital Cleaners should provide the insurance benefits, not the state.

July 17, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...

The governor vetoed the bill because she said it let private companies dictate how much taxpayers should pay.

"It takes private union contracts and makes that the standard wage for negotiated contracts with anyone," Rell said. "We don't do that with any other contract."


This nonsense is brought to you in part by Representative Tim O'Brien and now he wants to be mayor.

Is this an example of the socialist issues he will want us all to pay for as mayor?

July 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Web Tracking
Online Florist