Letter: Milford resident responds to CT labor agreement article

Below is a Letter to the Editor from this week's Milford Mirror. If you'd like to have a letter to the editor run next week, email letters to brian.gioiele@hearstmediact.com

Below is a Letter to the Editor from this week's Milford Mirror. If you'd like to have a letter to the editor run next week, email letters to brian.gioiele@hearstmediact.com

Contributed photo /

The following letter was in response to an article by Keith M. Phaneuf on the Connecticut labor agreement.

Dear Mr. Phaneuf:

Your article about the tentative labor agreement between the Governor and SEBAC used incorrect language that changed the meaning of the story.

The retroactive lump sum payments are just that, payments owed, rather than “bonuses.” The use of the incorrect term “ bonus” implies that something ontoward occurred.

The unions operated without a contract and SEBAC represented their appropriate interests. In a time of balanced funding it is indefensible to withhold earned wages because one can. The monies are due and are a responsibility of management to deliver.

The settlement acknowledges what the data documents; that wages/ benefits were voluntarily held back during economic distress periods by labor disproportionately giving back. It is disingenuous to provoke public ire in a partisan manner by stating otherwise. The Governor did not give in to labor but acknowledged by agreement that a viable, fair, reasonable and cost saving solution was at hand.

Your usual reporting is generally less biased and more informative. I trust that this report was an outlier from better journalism planned in the future.

Dr. Ellen Russell Beatty

Milford