CWA Could Have Avoided Furloughs

CWA Grandstanding Again (0.00 / 0)

This from the Star Ledger:

Commission grants Corzine authority to order state worker furloughs
by Chris Megerian/The Star-Ledger
Wednesday March 25, 2009, 3:02 PM
Four union members were arrested while protesting a meeting of New Jersey's Civil Service Commission, which today granted the Corzine administration the ability to furlough state workers by passing an emergency rule.

Tensions have been simmering on the issue, which has pitted Gov. Jon Corzine against union leaders in a tug of war over workers' rights and budget constraints.

The membership is being deceived! These CWA leaders are playing chicken with state workers jobs.

The truth is that furloughs were never on the table back in December.

CWA might be the most inept union in history.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 21:31:42 PM UTC

Corzine would have Sought Furloughs regardless (4.00 / 2)

In retrospect, CWA was correct.  Regardless of whether CWA would have agreed to the wage freeze, the Governor would have sought furloughs as the budget picture further worsened.  That has been CWA's argument the entire time.  You have absolutely no proof that Corzine would not have sought furloughs if CWA had agreed to the wage freeze.  

If you want to keep bashing CWA, go ahead.  But your argument has no more legitimacy than your argument that Andrews was going to win the Senate primary.

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 14:23:42 PM UTC

The Deal was Made (0.00 / 0)

Corzine wanted a wage freeze only. He wanted an agreement at the  meeting he had with CWA leadership in the first week of January. THAT IS A FACT! Not a public fact but it is a fact.

Instead they left that  meeting an publicly embarraseed him by saying he was against the sanctity of contracts. They told him he could not run the state without them. TOTAL ARROGANCE!

A deal could have been made and Corzine would never have brought up the furlough idea .

Corzine gave the CWA leadership every opportunity to stand with him, side by side, and agree to partake in the sacrafice.

But they played " union tough guy" and now we have a wage freeze and a furlough.

CWA leaders  might be the most out of touch union group in the country.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 22:55:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, right (0.00 / 0)

Just like he adhered to his contractual promise.  Nothing prevented him from doing the furloughs.  And you offer nothing to indicate that he wouldn't have done it even had the union agreed to forgo the raise.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 14:35:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Contractual Promise? (0.00 / 0)

What contractual promise? Just because CWA leadership either can't read the contract or is purposely deceivng their membership , you blame Corzine.

Corzine is adhering to the contact.Article 41 clearly states that the contract is not valid unless funded by the Legislature.

Maybe your leadership needs glasses or maybe they should just stop lying to the membership.

---

by: firstamend07 @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 16:30:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CWA Calling For Illegal Strike. (0.00 / 0)

CWA is calling for its 66,000 members to illegally stop work throughout the State on April 7th.

I am sure the taxpayers ofthe State will be overjoyed to see " their " employees walking instead of working.

Just another great move by the " tough guys"  at CWA .

This is trully a Keysone Kops union.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 18:48:02 PM UTC

CWA Violates Sanctity of Contract (0.00 / 0)

Once again the CWA leadership has failed to read its own contract. CWA is calling for  statewide picketing on April 7th.
They are clearly putting their members in jeopardy of getting fired because those members have not been told that they are violating Article 2 Section C(1) of the contract.

The contract reads:

During the term of this agreement, the Union agrees not to engage in or support any strike,work stoppage,slowdown, or other similiar action by employees covered by this agreement.

---

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 13:13:47 PM UTC