Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

RunnyDischarge t1_j5yfhwa wrote

It’s a part time job

Connecticut's General Assembly is considered a part time legislature. The legislature convenes for five months on odd numbered years, and for three months in the even numbered years

178

MormonReformist OP t1_j5yg60q wrote

Oh, that makes sense

29

smkmn13 t1_j5ygpbl wrote

Does it though? What kind of job / career lets you work 7 months / 9 months every other year?

56

twomorecarrots t1_j5yho5z wrote

Yes, this is a problem, more than the salary I think. It’s one thing to be paid X for a part time job. But how are you supposed to find a career that allows you to work the other part of the year? It limits public service to people who can work for themselves or not work at all.

57

Most-Flight-9505 t1_j60zod4 wrote

How about this? Make all Ct legislators teachers. They serve in the summer on a rotating basis and make ALL the decisions for the state. And get an extra $40k. Problem solved

7

_JayC114 t1_j601t8g wrote

They’re CHOOSING to take the job!!! They know what they’re getting into!!

−11

sld06003 t1_j604gsg wrote

Yes, the problem is more who is and who can choose.

11

_JayC114 t1_j605st0 wrote

Then don’t take the JOB!! IT’s that simple!!

−12

sld06003 t1_j606mlb wrote

You're missing the point. The only people who are able to take the job at that pay are people who are independently wealthly or do not need to otherwise work. These groups don't tend to be truly representative of the population. Raising the salary to a point that *typical" people are able to quit their job and run would be how you get a truly representative group.

14

RunnyDischarge t1_j5yhwgt wrote

The Connecticut Legislature

0

Bridger15 t1_j60ggws wrote

Ah, so these guys just gotta get a second job in another state legislature which works opposite months. Genius!

5

_343_Guilty_Spark__ t1_j5z8hgu wrote

Yea that’s still more or roughly the same as what many other jobs make from working all year

−3

smkmn13 t1_j5z98et wrote

Not really - 28k divided out by 40 hours/wk and 52 wks/year is like $13.50 per hour, less than the state minimum wage.

11

nikedude t1_j5zhxab wrote

That's an unfair argument. If their job was FT it would be less than minimum wage, it averages ~4mo a year of work. 16 weeks * 40 hr = 640hrs. $28k/640hrs = $43.75/hr

0

smkmn13 t1_j5zjbcf wrote

The person I was responding to said "that’s still more or roughly the same as what many other jobs make from working all year," so I was clarifying that all (FT, full year) jobs in Connecticut are actually required to earn more than 28k.

Scaling the pay for 4 months implies that you can get a job for the remaining 8 months at a similar rate, but there aren't many jobs / careers that allow you to work 8 months a year and keep the job each year, let alone advance normally, unless you're already well established and successful (which was the point of my original comment earlier in this chain).

5

Pinkumb t1_j60n6y8 wrote

I don't think this negates OP's critique.

What kind of person can afford to be totally absent from a full-time job for 5 months out of the year? Or even 3 months out of the year? Either people already entrenched in the political system or rich/retired people who make their own hours.

25

Whaddaulookinat t1_j5yutib wrote

On paper it's "part time" but for the longest time it's effectively been a full time, I do believe there's additional pay for work rendered on Committees and Sub-Committees.

17

Strat7855 t1_j5zgd8p wrote

But in reality it's a fulltime job and then some, if you're doing it right.

13

Hyasfuq t1_j5zugwu wrote

It's a full time job only if you consider all the hours they spend consuming alcohol at the Capital. Ask anyone who works there and they will let you know how pickled our state reps regularly get while "working"

−5

Strat7855 t1_j605zjn wrote

I did work there. And still work in politics.

6

AuntJemimasHoney t1_j60vwja wrote

I mean it is on paper but it’s a full time job if you’re doing it right and want to keep your seat

2

zxcoblex t1_j60yikr wrote

This is the real answer. Nobody depends on it for a full time wage.

1

ctmirror t1_j5zof9x wrote

Hi! Just jumping in here to say that legislators' salaries were raised to $40,000 annually on Jan. 4 under a bill passed by the CT General Assembly last May. For more info: https://ctmirror.org/2022/05/03/ct-house-approves-raises-for-lawmakers-statewide-officers/

~Gabby (CT Mirror)

71

MormonReformist OP t1_j5zq2ve wrote

> House passage came on a 95-53 vote after a brief and seemingly choreographed debate in which two Democrats and three Republicans spoke in support and no one rose in opposition

That's pretty much how it all goes.

9

ThePickleHawk t1_j5ymllo wrote

Lucky for you it was just bumped to 40k, indexed for the future, and leadership almost always finds some obscure extra role for members so they get extra money.

46

adultdaycare81 t1_j5z25a6 wrote

Check their Expense Reports. They rack up more than their Salary.

32

HerAirness t1_j5ygg6a wrote

It leaves the door wide open for corruption, so I am all for changing those legislative roles to full time. It's the reason we have so many Eversource execs in legislative roles. It's complete BS

30

[deleted] t1_j5y5rxr wrote

I will grant you 250k salaries for legislator if you agree they are only allowed to be civil servants at any level of the government for 8 years and then return to the private sector.

15

Dark_Larva t1_j5ysvtu wrote

I'm fine too as long as somehow we can ban lobbyists.

7

[deleted] t1_j5yusiq wrote

fiscal conservative here totally against corporate money in politics. Citizens United would solve 90% of the lobby problem

3

Mental_Grapefruit726 t1_j5zei1f wrote

“Fiscal conservative against corporate money in politics.”

True fiscal conservatives love Cit. United, you sir fall into the “reasonable human-being” conservative vertical.

2

[deleted] t1_j5zg7jg wrote

While I truly dislike taxes and wasteful spending I can live with that label.

2

MormonReformist OP t1_j5yg47q wrote

I support term limits as well.

5

Blicero1 t1_j5zcnj7 wrote

Term limits sound so good, but in practice they've been quite bad. Missouri tried them and all they've done in let the bureaucrats and lobbyists run the show. If you're out in eight years you're already looking for your next job, so you'll cozy up to industry.

10

signofzeta t1_j620vfv wrote

I never thought about it that way. Thanks for the food for thought.

1

ThatsALotOfOranges t1_j620icl wrote

Why?

1

[deleted] t1_j62q9gr wrote

Why not?

1

ThatsALotOfOranges t1_j6366zr wrote

What will be the benefit of that?

1

[deleted] t1_j63a7ay wrote

The elimination of entrenched, corrupt and bureaucratic career politicians who make self serving decisions while in office.

1

ThatsALotOfOranges t1_j63b9i2 wrote

Why would politicians with shorter terms be less self serving? If anything, knowing they're going to go right back to their private sector company in a couple years give them even more motivation to represent that company's interests.

0

ct_hickory_golf t1_j5y6s6b wrote

As of May it's $40,000.

6

MormonReformist OP t1_j5yci12 wrote

Oh, that is closer to the median income in CT of ~39k

2

TheDudeMaintains t1_j60bt02 wrote

They work 4 months out of the year on average, so their $40k salary is "on pace" with a $120k/yr full-time position.

−4

smkmn13 t1_j60tgqr wrote

Sure, assuming they can find a job that pays the same rate on an 8-month-a-year basis (with a schedule that perfectly matches up with the congressional sessions). My larger point is that this system (and low compensation) incentivizes people with disproportionate means to run for office.

2

werd2828 t1_j5ya2bg wrote

I’d be good with a raise if they stopped putting forth bullshit bills

6

NLCmanure t1_j5ypo6q wrote

I thought they already got a raise to $40 or 45K and it was approved.

5

TreeEleben t1_j5z8oex wrote

The system is designed to keep the poor out, and wealthy in. Can't have a government that would benefit the citizens, it has to always benefit the rich and corporations.

5

dumplingboy199 t1_j5yrroa wrote

Didn’t they recently give themselves a raise? Also they get 5k per committe they’re on. I do know they’re part time as well but honestly, at this point just make it a full time position and pay them accordingly

4

[deleted] t1_j5yzu9c wrote

[deleted]

2

Taurothar t1_j5za2la wrote

I agree with reasonable term limits, but cycling new people that them too easily abused by lobbyists who know the system better than newbies. Career politicians at all levels have value in safeguarding the processes.

That said, nobody should stay at the same level for more than 8-12 years. Move up or move out.

4

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j5zfbcw wrote

We have them. Every so many years, the term is limited by having to be reelected with popular support.

If someone is popular and gets elected what's the issue?

I prefer the wisdom of experienced people than some arbitrary feel good term limits.

2

Mental_Grapefruit726 t1_j5zdqza wrote

Politics shouldn’t be a career, but those serving us should make enough to live without needing a job or outside donors.

Term limits and a full-time state medianincome salary would satisfy both of those requests.

1

Ziggy1433 t1_j5zio8i wrote

I'm SURE there are other perks to being there...

2

Evan_802Vines t1_j5zvxg1 wrote

It's a part-time gig right now for sure. They're passing serious legislation in the early morning hours.

2

Nyrfan2017 t1_j605psa wrote

Hmm but yet they all seem to be paying there bills

2

Badgercakes7 t1_j63ijw0 wrote

….right because those getting involved are retirees or independently wealthy which is the exact point OP made. You get that right?

1

Gusto36 t1_j60ag7h wrote

Don’t feel bad for anyone in the legislature

2

bladerunner_203 t1_j60mojn wrote

Since when was becoming a politician supposed to be your only source of income? Politicians were initially meant to be Good Samaritans who had an established career and wanted to help make positive changes in their communities. Career politicians in todays world are in essence the ruination of modern politics as we know it.

2

lrpage1066 t1_j60wx6t wrote

I agree with OP with stipulations. Give it a living salary for a family of 4. Make it a full time job. M-f 9-5. Either in Hartford working on legislation or back at their local town and city halls working with the towns and constituents. Always visible. Public google calendars. No 4 hr golf games I mean economic development meetings. Actual real work.

Then anyone could afford to be a state legislators.

2

CxT_The_Plague t1_j60zjer wrote

it's not meant to replace a full time job and they should be working when the senate is not in session. 28k for a part time gig is sufficient when you get to spend a good portion of it on the golf course.

nice try tho

2

djdeforte t1_j647bdd wrote

Holding public office was NEVER meant to be a full time job or a career. It was meant to be held by working class peoples who live the same lives as their constituents.

2

MormonReformist OP t1_j64dyug wrote

I figure we should just pick people at random. Just like jury duty.

1

Burwylf t1_j5yvp1r wrote

They should make minimum wage, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

1

activehobbies t1_j5yxr2m wrote

How about you prioritize increasing teachers' salaries first? THOSE are more important.

It's good to keep the legislature's wage low. Otherwise, you get the problem the overall US congress has; people who use their positions to reap all manner of profit with just enough credibility to keep getting elected, all but guaranteeing they serve their entire lives.

Low legislature wage makes your legislature more honest as lame-duck legislatures are more likely to find better money elsewhere.

1

PeteyWinkle t1_j5z3riu wrote

>It's good to keep the legislature's wage low. Otherwise, you get the problem the overall US congress has; people who use their positions to reap all manner of profit with just enough credibility to keep getting elected, all but guaranteeing they serve their entire lives.

That's the exact opposite impact. Low wages increase potential for corruption and incentivize alternate streams of income that can lead to conflicts of interest (speaking engagements, etc). If they made good money with their legislative role they wouldn't need to use their position to "reap all manner of profit."

It also makes it nearly impossible for a working class person to serve as a legislator. If we want more "relatable" legislators we should pay them well so anyone with qualifications can do it. As it is now, it's very difficult to serve if you don't already have a lot of money.

7

Big-Pond t1_j5zhrnv wrote

Well, you certainly have the requisite level of critical reasoning, research and data analysis to qualify for office.

I’d encourage you to look up starting salary’s to attract educator talent to our public schools…just keep in mind -that- number isn’t part time, unlike the assembly.

1

MormonReformist OP t1_j5zi74b wrote

Yeah, everyone keeps mentioning education. And power costs/corruption with eversource, and taxes. Those would be good things to run on.

1

Big-Pond t1_j60xblz wrote

If you have a legitimate interest in serving the best way to approach it is find a problem that impacts your community and find a realistic working solution and build on it.

No one needs another gaslighting politician beholden to a corporate interest.

At the local level it’s still possible to mount a campaign in such a way.

1

rambolo68 t1_j601ho7 wrote

This is not a career job since it is only a part time job.

1

MetsGo t1_j608t8c wrote

I worked in the Capitol and I can say that everyone has another job and the further you live from Hartford, the less you even show up. I worked for a guy from Stamford, he was in maybe 1 day a week

1

BrandonP1976 t1_j60l9m3 wrote

Before you post you should probably check your facts or maybe just stop being a moron. Connecticut Legislators are only a part time job they are only required to be in a Hartford a couple of times a week for votes and work around a regular full time job schedule. It is not a full time job. It has never been a full time job. It was never meant to be a career. Even if trash like Rosa deloro and Is Joe Lieberman made sure to make it a career.

1

y2kill4money t1_j60myvk wrote

Maybe if my electricity didn't just go up 50% it would still be liveable

1

UnfairAd7220 t1_j60rq4y wrote

Turning it into a paying job is when CT jumped the shark.

1

that_one_dude13 t1_j611wlk wrote

While I live in MA and not CT, I gotta say I like the idea of politics not being a paid position. Tax wrote off able, but you shouldn't be paid to guide your fellow people to what's good for THEM. It absolutely shouldn't be a job for just anyone, and honestly I think they should take it further.

1

Dank_Bonkripper78_ t1_j61wa4g wrote

If it wasn’t part time, I’d agree. I had the former speaker of the house as a professor and he said most reps go back and work full time jobs when they’re not in session

1

IndependenceSpecial9 t1_j62sdu2 wrote

You’re telling me I can take five additional months off per year and make 12k more? Sign me up, rich bastards

1

NerdDruggist t1_j5y5bbd wrote

IMO, you have to be rich to retire. My generation and the younger kids will be working until we drop dead I’m afraid.

0

Azg556 t1_j5z1i3q wrote

Not from CT. Is the legislature a full time job? Year round?

0

WhittlingDan t1_j5z9nqi wrote

Minimum wage is perfectly fine. If its not then perhaps minimum wage is what should go up. This is part time though , with their hours it varies year to year but more than double minimum wage still.

0

JJamesP t1_j5zk7gs wrote

It’s a part time gig. Settle down, you.

0

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j5zpnh1 wrote

Good. They deserve less. Should be volunteer.

0

microspora t1_j5zxy8s wrote

Then only rich folks and retirees would be in the legislature, everyone else needs to work.

1

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j6005u8 wrote

Whatever. I don’t care. I would prefer we don’t have anyone who’s job it is to sit around and dream up new ways to control our lives. The problem with these stupid jobs isn’t even the salary. It’s the back door deals, the fact that these positions attracts megalomaniacs, the board positions and industry jobs that are likely guaranteed once they push favorable legislation for their corporate buddies.

The whole thing is a scam. I don’t care if they get paid.

−2

Badgercakes7 t1_j63ierm wrote

So your solution is to make it HARDER for regular people who aren’t corrupt/ overly self interested to become a part of politics? That’s like solving a gunshot wound by shooting yourself again to dislodge the first bullet.

1

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j63kbqu wrote

Oh because incentivizing poor people who need 28k to make divisions about running our lives is such a good idea? You know because broke people are sooooo good at operating successful businesses.

1

Badgercakes7 t1_j63u19s wrote

Wow. That’s a lot to unpack there. First of all I said “not independently wealthy enough to take off work for several years” and you heard “poor people”. Second of all, the assumption that poor people are inherently less intelligent or capable than more wealthy people is simply not correct. Lastly, we’re not talking about running any business, we’re talking about running a government and those are not the same. Hell, if we’re talking about basic finances I’d rather trust someone that can stretch a small amount of money further (one of the dirty poors) than someone used to just throwing money at a problem to solve it

1

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j63uoq4 wrote

Ok. So the solution is high salaries for those who are used to stretching a dollar? They would never make any decisions to personally enrich themselves at the expense of their constituents.

Anyway, I think you can see that there isn’t a solution. We have pitifully few examples of people in government serving because it’s their civic duty. It just gets overlooked because people are on teams and they want their political team to win.

0

Badgercakes7 t1_j64hvp7 wrote

Unironically yes, give a living salary to people who are used to having to work for a living to allow them to represent their constituents. They have had to actually live paycheck to paycheck, had to go without, and they would be the most likely to represent faithfully the people who have had to live the same life, because they know how much it sucks. Otherwise you get someone who thinks nothing needs to be done to help the poor because they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and maybe consider having their housekeepers come half as often if they are having trouble paying their bills (in case this needs saying, most working class people don’t have housekeepers so this is an out of touch perspective.)

1

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j64l2k3 wrote

How do you propose that we prevent already rich and powerful people from just collecting an extra 100K just for the hell of it? After all, a huge amount of your probability of winning a local election depends upon your ability to fund your candidacy, which is how we ended up with the oligarchical political class that we have.

1

Badgercakes7 t1_j658unw wrote

Campaign finance reform. Or even better, make all campaign funding illegal. There are half a dozen state sponsored debates between candidates, televised of course, that’s it. All other forms of campaign advertising are illegal.

1

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j65hqt6 wrote

That’s a start. I could get down with that. And it would weed out some of the more casual and propagandized votes. You got my vote.

1

Darkling5499 t1_j5zqtoj wrote

Legislatures should make minimum wage, no more no less.

0

poppymonte t1_j5ztze1 wrote

It’s part time, they are public servants and many have other things and full time jobs they are doing to make money.

0

_JayC114 t1_j601nh7 wrote

They don’t deserve what they get!! They’re part time employees!!!

0

Fappiness-isawarmgun t1_j603wdr wrote

Only in tax and spend CT do mothafuckin citizens want to pay they politicians more. Smdh some u all trippin

0

red_purple_red t1_j60qr8m wrote

Agreed, their salaries should be increased to at least $500k a year to make them less susceptible to bribes.

0

General_Awareness510 t1_j5y93gy wrote

They line their pockets in other ways. If you don't understand this you shouldn't even be on this planet.

−1

MormonReformist OP t1_j5ybg05 wrote

If I get elected, how can I line my pockets? Hypothetically

3

silasmoeckel t1_j5yh0dk wrote

The reelect mormonreformist committee who your spouse is on the board of and gets a 200k salary for.

All of the various "charities" whom you now are on the board of can pay you.

At the federal level you can not get paid for speeches but they can donate to a charity of your choosing.

Universities love to keep politicians on salary give a lecture/speech now and again to justify it.

It's all in the filings so hit up opensecrets and dig in, plenty of politicians do it.

8

Dry-Hearing5266 t1_j5zrvth wrote

Get hired at companies on the "political advisory committee" and get paid thousands per quarter while racking up luxurious vacations.

1

HeartsOfDarkness t1_j61a1nc wrote

Rank-and-file state reps don't have nearly enough power to "line their pockets" with ill-gotten money.

1

Old-Bedroom8464 t1_j5z8c5s wrote

LOL learn what the fuck you are talking about

−2

MormonReformist OP t1_j5z9fek wrote

This thread has cured my ignorance on many topics.

I'm not rude, however.

3

DarkLamont t1_j5yqla5 wrote

Hmm, uhh a part time job for retirees paying $28,000 seems perfectly acceptable to me. Plenty of people in CT working full time for $35,000....

−3

ImCloserToThePin t1_j5yb1up wrote

Fuck that, how about we pay me more to do my job? Fuck those cocksuckers who are only self serving lol. You think that’s the only income they have?

−5

microspora t1_j5yi8ws wrote

Most of them do have other income, no one is disputing that. But what professions allow you to take several months off each year to go to Hartford? Take a look at the current legislators we have - a big proportion are lawyers, real estate agents, or retired. Our current structure excludes basically everyone else. That’s fine with you? You don’t think we might benefit from having other perspectives in Hartford?

5

xvx_k1r1t0_xvxkillme t1_j60fg7k wrote

My previous union contact had unpaid leave for elected officials as needed to perform duties of office.

2

BobbyBuzz008 t1_j61jaf7 wrote

  1. Of the 187 legislators, 178 have a job outside of their legislative position.

  2. In the state of Connecticut, it is against the law for an employer to deny leave to an elected representative serving in the legislature. Employers must excuse employees from work without any punitive action to employees who are elected to the state general assembly.

  3. The $40,000 salary is higher for most. If you serve in a leadership position (committee chair, vice chair, leader, whip, debuty speaker, speaker, etc) you get several thousand more dollars annually. All 36 state senators are in leadership and nearly have of the 151 state representatives are in leadership. State representatives also receive a travel stipend which can be worth several thousand more dollars, free meals, good healthcare, and a pension if they serve for ten years. Legislators also have access to a staff and a office at no charge.

1

Badgercakes7 t1_j63izcp wrote

That’s exactly the point. You or I COULDNT live our lives in politics because we don’t have other sources of income. The current system makes it so that those who can afford to become a politician are those who are already wealthy, while those of us working schlubs would go bankrupt trying to do a stint in politics. By increasing pay for politicians to a livable level, we can make it so that the working class will be able to become involved in politics and would therefore give more of a voice to their fellow workers.

1

RT1977 t1_j5ydciw wrote

It should be volunteer our taxes are high enough

−12

theOGlib t1_j5y2avj wrote

They should be paid nothing! It's a privilege to represent the district and the people who make it up. We should take a lesson from New Hampshire.

−18

urBEASTofBURDENog t1_j5y3b6l wrote

But then only the rich get to serve. People who can afford to do a job for free. We should be represented by the working people.

14

theOGlib t1_j5y6uey wrote

The government shouldn't be as large as it is or have the power it has. I'm not saying things r perfect. I just personally believe we need a more liberty driven system. This means drastically reducing the size of government overall.

−11

mkt853 t1_j5yif0k wrote

It's already pretty small compared to most states. Plus we're missing an entire level of government that most other states have: counties.

4

OpelSmith t1_j5yoatt wrote

this is just a word salad of nonsense. Also NHs government is even larger with 400 members in the House of Reps. 400 Reps who are all people who forever whatever reason don't have to work like a normal adult. This isn't a great model for a government

1

Badgercakes7 t1_j63k074 wrote

Let’s follow that train of thought though. We could minimize our government to an extent but to completely abolish it would create utter chaos so regardless we need SOME level of government and politicians. By keeping politics as a volunteer or incredibly low paid position, because it’s a “privilege to serve”, we are making it so that the only people who do not have to work a 9-5 to pay their bills, i.e. the wealthy, are ABLE to get involved in politics. As it stands if I, a working class stuff, were to get involved in politics I would likely have to quit my job, try to live on the salary provided for the duration, and then cross my fingers my job is there waiting for me in a few years. Meanwhile a multimillionaire can just go for it because he doesn’t have those same worries. Lowering or removing salaries for politicians would actually increase corruption because IF a working class person got elected they would almost have to sell out to corporate interests just to make ends meet.

1