PROVIDENCE — Less than a year after it became law, the General Assembly may reconsider a controversial “anti-privatization” bill criticized by a handful of Democrats who say it goes too far in blocking the governor’s ability to save money by replacing state workers with private contractors.

Rep. Douglas W. Gablinske, D-Bristol, pre-filed legislation this week that would weaken the law that Republicans have blasted as a handout to labor unions enacted weeks after Governor Carcieri pledged in May to privatize “every state service that could possibly be performed more efficiently by the private sector.”

“In my view, we have incrementally gotten ourselves into this situation by year after year, law after law, satisfying the needs of the unions,” said Gablinske, a freshman lawmaker. “We can’t get out of this thing incrementally. We have to take some bold action.”

Gablinske’s bill, which won’t be considered until the Assembly reconvenes in January, substantially weakens current law by removing language that allows unions, individual employees, or even state program recipients such as hospital patients, to appeal privatization decisions to Superior Court.

The governor’s chief of staff, Brian Stern, acknowledged last month that the law adopted as part of the state budget in June effectively blocked the governor’s privatization plans. “At this point, we feel that it is not possible to comply with the privatization statute as written,” Stern said.

The issue takes on new significance as Governor Carcieri struggles with filling a projected budget deficit in the coming fiscal year, estimated as high as $450 million. Last week he announced plans to eliminate 536 state workers in the coming seven months, a move he said would save taxpayers $41.6 million.

But nearly one third of those layoffs — approximately 150 state workers — depend on the governor’s ability to privatize government services ranging from interpreters at welfare offices to prison counselors to janitors at Eleanor Slater Hospital.

The governor’s spokesman Jeff Neal couldn’t immediately provide the estimated cost of the contractors who would replace the state workers.

“They often find ways to do the same job with many fewer people,” Neal said of the private sector. “This is unlike Smart Staffing, where we are contracting for a specific amount of people. In this case, we are contracting for a service. However many people that company uses to provide the service is up to the company.”

Neal would not acknowledge, as Stern did last month, that the current law makes it logistically impossible to privatize any state service. But he suggested late last week that the governor would reach out to Assembly leaders to change the law in the coming session.

Gablinske actually drafted his bill in May, but said he announced his plan this week heeding the governor’s call for help.

“I think he knows he’s on shaky ground,” Gablinske said of the governor. “It’s not going to be solved with us working against each other.”

Gablinske was among three Democrats to vote against the new law in June, including Representatives David A. Caprio, D-Narragansett, and Thomas Winfield, D-Smithfield. Winfield co-sponsored the new bill.

Rep. Charlene M. Lima, D-Cranston, the force behind the original privatization law, said yesterday that she hadn’t seen Gablinske’s legislation. But she said there was room for compromise.

“Gablinske has major issues with the unions. And he probably really believes this is out there benefiting the unions. That’s his perspective. I respect that,” Lima said. “I’m always willing to sit down. If we can make a policy better for the state, I’m willing to sit down with anybody. The main thing is there has to be some verifiable truth that there will be savings to taxpayers.”

House Speaker William J. Murphy, D-West Warwick, was noncommittal when notified of Gablinske’s bill yesterday, according to spokesman Larry Berman, adding that the speaker was aware of the bill but hadn’t read it.

Gablinske said he wasn’t worried about political repercussions from opposing the original privatization bill that was backed by Assembly leadership. “My concern is more to do what I think is correct, than to worry about the political risks,” he said.

Labor leaders have consistently opposed any move to replace state workers — most of whom are union members — with contract employees who often earn less and don’t receive state-subsidized benefits.

AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer George Nee said there’s no need to change the current law until it’s tested.

“For them to just say it won’t work and it can’t work when they have no evidence is ridiculous,” he said. “From the labor perspective, I would say there’s no need to do anything.”

Neal confirmed that the governor planned to cut 31 prison counselors in favor of “community agencies that can provide the same services.”

“There is no plan to subcontract people out of these jobs. It hasn’t been studied. It’s just kind of like shooting from the hip to justify those cuts,” said Richard Ferruccio, president of the prison guards’ union. “It’s not about being cost effective, it’s about control. They have more control over the outside vendors than the state worker.”

The governor’s layoff plan also includes using contract workers to replace at least 30 dietary workers and another 45 janitors at Eleanor Slater Hospital, a move that legislative leaders thought they had blocked with the passage of Lima’s legislation, which was retroactive.

Labor leaders have vowed to sue should the governor proceed.

“If they proceed with that award, just let me know. I’ll be in court the next day,” said Dennis Grilli, executive director of Council 94, the largest state employees union.

speoples@projo.com