Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today called on Pratt & Whitney to avoid the projected layoff of 129 workers at its Cheshire plant by reducing overtime, instituting furloughs or taking other steps short of letting go workers.
Pratt & Whitney currently has many Cheshire plant employees working overtime and on weekends.
In a letter to Pratt & Whitney and its parent company, United Technologies Corp., Blumenthal said the current collective bargaining agreement covering the Cheshire work force is due to expire Dec. 5, and the federal court has prohibited Pratt & Whitney from transferring work to out-of-state facilities before that date.
In the meantime, the union and the company have an opportunity to seek a further agreement that preserves quality jobs while ensuring efficient plant operations, Blumenthal said.
“The loss of many well-paying jobs in this economic climate will badly harm our state economy and devastate families,” Blumenthal said. “I encourage Pratt & Whitney to work with the union to implement alternatives to lay-offs — such as furloughs and reductions in overtime — that will preserve jobs while achieving real cost savings.
“The question remains whether lay-offs are presently necessary. My understanding is that the Cheshire plant work force is currently fully-occupied, with employees working approximately 20 percent overtime above their normal hours and working 10-hour days and on weekends.
“I do not presume to second guess business judgment or projections, but I do know that families and communities will suffer seriously and egregiously if employees are laid off during the harshest employment climate in decades. I respectfully urge Pratt & Whitney in the strongest terms to work with the union to take every available measure to seek cost savings without resort to lay-offs.
“Workers and families who lose their jobs face the worst job market in decades, with limited prospects for quick reemployment. I hope Pratt will do the right thing, sparing workers and their families the devastation, anxiety and uncertainly of unemployment. My office stands ready to assist Pratt & Whitney to preserve jobs and business in Connecticut.”
Similar Posts:
- Ct Atty Gen Claim Pratt Blowing Smoke On Why Transferring Work
- Federal Judge Rules In Favor Of Union, Pratt Must Keep Plants Open
- Pratt Negotiations A Sham, Ct AG Claims
- Ct Atty Gen Permitted To Join Legal Battle Against Pratt Layoffs
- Blumenthal backs Pratt workers’ suit to stop job losses in Connecticut
- Conn AG Seeks Federal Injunction Blocking Pratt’s Moving Jobs
In all the years this man has been Attorney General, he has never done this . What a political stunt for a campaign. I am nauseous over this overtly political move. He has reached his level of incompetence.
what are you mental, he has stood behind them for over a year now, this is no last minute political stunt. Get your head out of your…..
This guy is such a political hypocrite trying to make gains at the expense of human tragedy
Wait a minute, you mean that the esteemed AG of this great State which ranks 45th in business friendly, is asking an employer that he sued to keep jobs in the state? Seriously, why is he involved in this at all. Pratt and Whitney is a private employer, it is not a public service employer. Therefore, Blumenthal has no position to tell this company how it should manage its business forecast. If the unions didn’t demand that the company pay outrageous salaries and benefits and contribute to expensive pension plans, perhaps they could keep their 129 jobs in CT. But when the employer is forced to deal with the AG who sued them, I’d be moving too.
Wow, are you that uniformed? Pratt and Whitney is a private employer that has a contract with the Union, which the company broke by not making every reasonable effort to keep work in Connecticut. There was a lawsuit and an appeal case, so yes, he should be involved especially if Pratt & Whitney is now in contempt of the ruling. Then you say “If the unions didn’t demand that the company pay outrageous salaries and benefits and contribute to expensive pension plans”. It’s called collective bargaining, we negotiate all of that with the company, there is no demanding. It is the company that puts out their best, last and final proposal which includes raises and benefits, then the Union votes on the contract. By the way, usually the raise in our insurance rates every year just about breaks even with our raises. You read one story and think you know the whole situation, well you don’t. Plus our pension plans are not as expensive as most are. Also learn how to properly use the words to & too!
Also learn how to properly use the words uniformed & uninformed.
The reason they lost the lawsuit is they weren’t bargining in good faith. Judge ruled against them (PWA). However once the contract is opened they are free from what the negociated in the past. PWA did it to themselves. Now they have found a loophole. Pratt doesn’t care about the money. There are more profits to be made moving out. There business is slowly dieing as they loose more and more market share. Most of their work comes from goverment contracts. We should stop using our taxes to support a company who treats employees like this.