Issue link: https://nebusinessmedia.uberflip.com/i/709026
20 Hartford Business Journal • August 1, 2016 www.HartfordBusiness.com OPINION & COMMENTARY EDITORIAL Employers must have key voice in I-84 viaduct redo T he planned remake of the I-84 viaduct poses many risks and rewards for the city of Hartford as well as the region as whole, and while all stakeholders should have a say in the process, the business community must be top of mind to urban and transportation planners as well as government officials. As HBJ staff writer John Stearns reports in this week's issue, the multi-billion dollar reconstruction of the I-84 stretch through Hartford, which could start as early as 2021, will cause pain for motorists and businesses, but how much and for how long is still uncertain. We urge transportation officials to choose the path least disruptive to the business community, which will have the most at stake during a construction process estimated to take at least four to seven years. The Capital City remains Connecticut's epicenter of commerce and Hartford employ- ers' ability to get their workers and goods in and out of the city safely and in a timely manner will be a key consideration for whether or not they choose to do business here. A major concern, as voiced by MetroHartford Alliance CEO Oz Griebel along with many others, is that the massive headaches likely to be caused by the construction pro- cess will deter companies from moving to or expanding in Hartford. This, along with other issues the city is facing including its budget crisis and high property taxes, could have major implications on the Hartford economy's short- and long-term prospects. For years, Hartford employers — particularly larger corporate citizens — have been shrinking their office footprint as they consolidate their workforce and allow for more flexible work-at-home schedules. The reconstruction of the I-84 viaduct only threatens to hasten or continue that trend. Another concern, of course, is how the state chooses to finance the project. Although a decision hasn't yet been made on the design of the highway, it will cost billions no matter which plan is selected. The state's precarious financial position means transpor- tation funding will be under constant threat, and state officials have already said tax surcharges and tolls, among other options, could be adopted to help pay for the project. Significantly increasing the cost of companies and their employees to work in Hart- ford would add another roadblock to growing the city's economy. While we urge caution, it does appear state transportation officials are taking seri- ously the concerns of businesses and other stakeholders. The state Department of Transportation and its project consultants have held myriad public meetings and gath- erings to get input on the project design and implementation. Griebel told HBJ the process has been "extremely well-managed and highly partici- patory," so far, but, of course, the devil will be in the final plan details. It's too early to talk specifics about construction since there's no decision yet on the new design, although there's apparent consensus on a combination of ground-level and "capped" freeway, which is less costly than other options, including building a tunnel. State transportation officials are also considering several construction methods, including an accelerated approach that would cause more short-term disruption, but significantly shorten the construction timeframe, possibly cutting the completion time- line in half. The business community must have a significant say on these types of ideas and decisions. And of course, we recognize the potential positive impacts the I-84 viaduct recon- struction could have on Hartford, including improving traffic flows and re-connecting portions of the city long separated by the highway, which could open up economic development opportunities. We just urge caution and continued collaboration as officials get closer to making final decisions. n RULE OF LAW State's nonprofit- contracting system broken By John Horak A nyone looking for proof that we need governmental reform will find plenty in an op-ed published June 17th by the CT Mirror, entitled "Georgie Porgie and the Con- necticut Budget Cuts." The editorial (penned by an active member of Our Families Can't Wait, SEIU 1199) is both a lamenta- tion about the effect of budget cuts on Department of Devel- opmental Services (DDS) employees who care for people with intellectual disabili- ties, and a condemna- tion of DDS's immedi- ate efforts to hire (by contract) nonprofits to provide the care in ques- tion (because they can do so less expensively). While the DDS's efforts have a taxpayer- friendly common sense appeal, they are pal- liative at best because the "contract system" by which the state engages nonprofits to provide services must be rebuilt from scratch if we want an affordable and fully functional system. Let's start with some perspective on cost and size. DDS has an annual budget of almost $1 billion and over 3,000 employees — which are deployed to provide services to the intel- lectually disabled. Approximately 16,000 people are receiving services, and there is a long waiting list. The people served are of various ages, have different levels of need, and have diverse and complex medical and behavioral conditions. This is hard work — it is labor intensive, hands-on, 24/7, stressful, emotional and heavily regulated. Second, over the decades DDS has fulfilled its responsibilities by providing care by both direct and indirect means. Direct care is pro- vided at DDS facilities with DDS employees at state wage levels. Indirect care is provided under contracts (which are long and complex pre-printed documents) with nonprofit organi- zations that provide care at their facilities with their employees at their much lower wage lev- els. The wage differential accounts for the cost savings DDS needs, and the gap is huge. The CT Mirror op-ed claims that nonprofit work- ers make "close to half" of what state workers make, a figure consistent with my research. Third — and here's the thing — DDS is able to save money by transferring work to nonprofit providers simply because it has manipulated and underfunded the contract- based nonprofit provider system for years. DDS's recent moves are not (despite any con- trary appearance) a free market-based deci- sion to find lower-cost providers in lean times — because under the contract system (as it exists) DDS has more control over the non- profits (and thereby what they can pay their employees) than it does over its own staff. In other words, in the current financial crisis the state is turning to a lower-cost alternative of its own making — nothing more, nothing less. There is a legal loophole that gives the DDS leverage to treat the nonprofits (and their employees) this way. While labor law permits state employees to bargain on a col- lective basis for wages, benefits and security, anti-trust law prohibits the nonprofits from bargaining collectively as an industry for rea- sonable sector-wide contracts. Nonprofit employees can unionize (and many have) but their employers remain in a "take it or leave it" position with the source of almost all of their revenue (from the state). Even worse, the terms of the contracts relegate nonprofits to a form of indentured servitude (they may be the most one-sided documents in legal history), in contrast to the legal protections in the collec- tive-bargaining contracts with state employees. So, here's the bottom line: We seem to have a system in which DDS employees make "too much" and nonprofit employees make "too little" even though they do the same work and are both paid with taxpayer dollars. This is the way the state has made the bed for every- one, leaving us with an unfortunate, unneces- sary and unseemly tug-of-war between state employees and their nonprofit counterparts, as the CT Mirror op-ed demonstrates. We can do better. My experience tells me that the best way to get there is with a system with internal checks and balances that would include a reformed contracting system that gives nonprofits the ability to bargain in good faith and to bind the state to payment and other terms for the long- term benefit of the people served and employed. This would require legislation, leadership and creativity (such as "grandfather" provisions to protect higher-paid employees in the interim). I have served on nonprofit boards and represented others as counsel. I respect the efforts of DDS employees to advocate for their interests, and I am sure they provide high-qual- ity care to the disabled people they serve. But in this anomaly-laden situation of DDS's mak- ing a truce with their nonprofit counterparts (if not an alliance) is called for, and in a spirit of comity and with the hope of finding common ground, let me correct some misunderstand- ings in the Georgie Porgie op-ed. The nonprofits are not in this to make a prof- it at the expense of their employees or anyone else. "Nonprofit" means what it says, and the law prevents them from having any owners or shareholders, and any black ink in their finan- cial statements must be used to perpetuate their tax- exempt mission. The inability to pay employees a living wage hangs over nonprofit management and governing boards as a con- stant worry. Finally, despite the lower wages, nonprofit quality of care has not and does not suffer, and any innuendo to the contrary is not helpful to the cause or mission. n John M. Horak has practiced law at Reid and Riege P.C. in Hartford since 1980. His opin- ions are his own. HARTFORDBUSINESS.COM POLL Will the pending I-84 viaduct project do more harm or good for Hartford? ● Harm ● Good To vote, go online to HartfordBusiness.com. Last week's poll results: Was the Department of Justice right to sue to stop the proposed insurance mergers? 63.3% Yes 36.7% No John Horak Send Us Your Letters The Hartford Business Journal welcomes letters to the editor and guest commentaries for our opinion pages. Electronic submissions are preferred and welcome at: editor@HartfordBusiness.com.