1 user logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Where things stand on furloughs

by: Jason Springer

Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 02:23:11 PM EDT

The court of appeals ruled yesterday upholding the ability of state and local governments to furlough public employees:

"Given the economic crisis confronting the state and nation, and the fluid and rapidly unfolding circumstances in which we live, we find the statement of 'imminent peril' to be sufficient," the panel of three state appellate judges said in its decision.

You can view the full ruling here. But Michael Symons pointed out that it wasn't a complete vindication for the Governor and talked about the split decision:

But the ruling wasn't a complete win for the Corzine administration, as the judges also expressed concern that the sections of the rule allowing the temporary layoffs to be staggered, rather than done department-wide in one fell swoop, might not be appropriate because they change work conditions without negotiations with workers. The court put such furloughs - which are planned by almost all state departments, to at least a small degree - on hold while the Public Employment Relations Commission hears the matter.

Corzine praised the ruling, saying furloughs are preferable to layoffs. The unions praised the part of the ruling questioning the staggered temporary layoffs.

State furloughs are scheduled to begin in three weeks for this budget year. But then we'll go through the process again. Whether it's a negotiating tactic or not, the Governor now says that unless union accepts 12 furlough days in the upcoming year and a wage freeze, he will be forced to lay off 9,000 state workers. That's up from the original number of 7,000 layoffs. The union still feels they are being scapegoated and plan to fight those efforts it appears. They say the governor should focus more on the wealthy and negotiate with the unions:

"We're in serious financial straits, but that doesn't give the state the right to single out the people who serve the public as it looks for savings," Rosenstein said.

Three months after we've started the furlough discussion with the state in even worse financial shape, it feels like groundhog day with each side saying the same thing. The Governor says he has two options, furloughs or layoffs. The union says no to both and there are more options to explore. I think we're going to see even further cuts across the board with revenues coming in below even lowered projections. They're playing chicken with the future of many people and it still doesn't seem like either side is willing to blink. We're less than two months from the budget deadline

Jason Springer :: Where things stand on furloughs

Tags: Union, CWA, Jon Corzine, furlough, State Workers, furloughs, layoffs, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Where things stand on furloughs | 10 comments

No Third Choice (0.00 / 0)

CWA leadership has been screaming for 3 months, but they only tell us what they do not want. They have offered no third option.

Now the choice is clear.

Furloughs or layoffs.

There is no third choice.

Corzine wants to save 9,000 jobs, CWA leadership wants to save a days pay.

State Workers, not CWA leadership now have to let themselves be heard. Everyone gets a unpaid day a month for 14 months or 9,000 co-workers get a pink slip and probably another 5,000 workers get bumped to other positions throughout the State.

My position has not wavered since January. Saving jobs is priority number 1,2, and 3 in this economy. I also resent the fact that CWA leadership has acted without asking. They have misled their membership and at times out right lied. They are bad Union leaders.

My vote is for furloughs.

by: firstamend07 @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 22:31:25 PM UTC

What a freakin' surpise (0.00 / 0)

There is no third choice unless you think the entire budget consists of the state payroll. There are plenty of alternatives including repealing the corporate tax giveaway enacted at the end of last year. Corzine and lackeys like FA want to convince people there are no other alternatives so as to weaken state unions and worker power.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 22:51:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All are sacraficing now (0.00 / 0)

You are so wrong. Everyone in the state is sacraficing in some manner. Are state workers not supposed to do the same ?

Corzine is not trying to weaken unions . He is trying to save union members their jobs.

Only the selfish state workers , which is a small group led but the MOST selfish group, the CWA union leadership, would not want to give up one days pay a month to save 9,000 jobs.

For state workers there is only the choice between furloughs and layoffs.

The true union, pro-worker decision is to accept the furlough and save our Brothers and Sisters their jobs.

Sorry you are on the other side but I guess your conscience will not bother you when your co-workers lose their job.

Shame.

by: firstamend07 @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 13:15:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Move those goal posts (0.00 / 0)

Can you ever stay on the subject? Or can all you do is regurgitate the same talking points. The question is whether there's another alternative to furloughs. There are.

State workers have expressed their willingness to forgo agreed upon pay raises, so they have agreed to sacrifice, and that strawman won't fly.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 20:00:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two parts , not one (0.00 / 0)

If you followed what the Governor has said ,the amount of money he needs as the state worker portion of the sacrafice is around $400 million.

His number not mine. The wage freeze gets him about 2/3 of that total.

Now had your CWA leadership agreed to that amount back in January, like I said they should , and came out with Corzine hand in hand, like I said they should, then Corzine would have been very happy to have their support and would not have bothered them anymore. Politically he could not have taken anymore.

But instead the CWA leadership " big timed " Corzine and bad mouthed him to the press .

So when things got worse and he needed more money he came up with the furlough idea or a layoff.

Why should Corzine take money from some other group while CWA leadership is stabbing him in the back all over the media ? But to his credit he did not impose, which he could have very easily , a layoff.

State workers , becasue of your idiot leadership are going to make up for $400 million of the sacrafice.

Now there is nothing you or your shortsighted leadership can do about it.

Layoffs or furloughs , pick your poison.

by: firstamend07 @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 20:46:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

On Furloughs and Giving Money to Other Groups (0.00 / 0)

One only has to listen to Corzine's budget speech to realize that he is giving enough additional new money to groups this year to cover most of the proposed savings of the furloughs. The biggest gift is expanded school aid.

The only thing I can take from your unwillingness to look at these gifts is that you believe state workers and their contracts are less worthy than these new projects.

-pb

by: princetonblue @ Sun Apr 19, 2009 at 21:06:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The taxpayers definitely do (0.00 / 0)

Sometimes you have to just live with reality. Take the best deal , even if you have to hold your nose.

CWA leadership has helped make state workers public enemy #1.

Smart union people see that the best deal on the table is the furlough. Taxpayers are not going to tolerate anything less .

It did not have to be this way but the egotists who run CWA misplayed this and now the state workers have to suffer.

The deal will never get better and it could possibly get worse. If public opinion turns any more sour you might just see a wage freeze, furloughs and a layoff or an increase in the number of furlough days.

Smart union people know when to fight another day.

CWA leadership is as dumb as it gets.

by: firstamend07 @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 01:00:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

On Public Opinion (0.00 / 0)

The public has almost never supported unions when they strike. (It disrupts their lives) If your criteria is what the public wants, a union would never be able to strike, and would consequently only lose the benefits they have acquired over time.

-pb

by: princetonblue @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 14:03:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the public generally (0.00 / 0)

hates state workers. Which F.A., despite his protests to the contrary, simply reflects. As does his good buddy, Jim Gerhardt.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 15:41:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, so it's personal, not business (0.00 / 0)

First off, it's not "my CWA." I am not a member. Secondly, if Corzine makes budget policy by punishing those who have supported him and rewarding those who have opposed him (business), then he's a bigger idiot than I thought. Finally, Corzine can get at least $250 million by agreeing to repeal the corporate tax giveway he signed in December. That's more than enough to make up the shortfall. But instead of taking money from corporate bank accounts and those who, generally, opposed him for election in '05, he takes it from the paychecks of workers, who generally supported him. Only your anti-union animus blinds you from seeing that.

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:38:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Where things stand on furloughs | 10 comments