Making collective bargaining illegal in New Jersey

Making collective bargaining illegal in New Jersey (0.00 / 0)

Such legislation could be challenged in NJ SC, of course as constructively violating Article I Section 19 of the NJ Constitution,

19.  Persons in private employment shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively. Persons in public employment shall have the right to organize, present to and make known to the State, or any of its political subdivisions or agencies, their grievances and proposals through representatives of their own choosing.

It is one of the Rights and Privileges enumerated.

But I would not put it past Republicans to try and repeal Article I Section 19.  

---

by: joeynovick @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 13:47:25 PM UTC

It would be tough (3.00 / 1)

Clearly, under this provision, public unions could not be banned.  But the fact that the right to bargain collectively was given to private employees, but not public, would mean that collective bargaining could be banned.  Public employees would be left with the right to form a union, and to present grievances and proposals, but the governments in question would not have to listen.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 14:17:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's what I'm thinking... (0.00 / 0)

there must be a reason that the law specifically identifies (2) different classes of employees.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 16:47:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Joey (0.00 / 0)

Is there any case law interpreting Art. 1, Sec 19?  Any legislative history on record before the the Article was written?

---

by: SmartyJones @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 19:13:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

This is a backdoor effort to legislate out bargaining over health costs (and pensions) by statute.  It doesn't preclude future negotiations, as a future legislature could change the statute, but it certainly makes it more difficult.

But I'm sure that's the furtherst thing from Steve Sweeney's mind.  Good union man that he is.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 14:20:53 PM UTC

Beat Sweeney/Beck Bill to punch (0.00 / 0)

It has been reported that negotiations for a new state worker contract will begin on March 11.

Having just checked the Legislative calendar S2718 will not have a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee before March 11.

So what is the big problem????

CWA and Ms.Rosenstein simply have to begin negotiations on the Health Plan Reform as their first agenda item. Inform the Governors bargaining team that they would like to negotiate in good faith on this issue.

Make a request that S2718 be amended to reflect the final outcome of the negotiated settlement. This way the Legislature gets their law and CWA gets their negotiations.

Will CWA make the pledge to support a final legislative bill that will make the health plan reform negotiated settlement a law?

If they agree to that then my hunch would be that the current version of S2718 will not be voted on during negotiations.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Mon Feb 28, 2011 at 22:16:10 PM UTC

Does CWA Contract Article 41 supercede collective Bargaining Agreement? (0.00 / 0)

Unless I am mistaken CWA gave the Legislature the right to not fund any negotiated settlement and in effect has allowed them to supercede collective bargaining for years.

The reading of Article 41 clearly gives the legisalture the " power of the purse" .

It also gladly states that if the legislature "improves" wages and fringe benefits then the employee should get those improvements.  

Maybe I am wrong. Here is the exact wording of Article 41 in the CWA/State Contract.  

ARTICLE 41
EFFECT OF LAW
A. Legislative Action
1. If any provisions of this Agreement require legislative action, or require adoption or modification of the rules and regulations of the Department of Personnel to become effective, or require the appropriation of funds for their implementation, it is hereby understood and agreed that such provisions shall become effective only after the necessary legislative action or rule modification is enacted, and that the parties shall jointly seek the enactment of such legislative action or rule modification.
2. In the event that legislation becomes effective during the term of this Agreement, which has the effect of improving the wages and fringe benefits otherwise available to eligible employees in this unit, this Agreement shall not be construed as a limitation on their eligibility for such improvements

---

by: firstamend07 @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 00:19:16 AM UTC

CWA Needs 7 votes to stop S2718 (0.00 / 0)

Here is the Senate budget committee;

can CWA get 7 to vote against S2718

New Jersey Legislature Committees and Membership
2010-2011 Legislative Session  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  next

Budget and Appropriations
Standing Reference
View Schedule
(Group 2)  
Sarlo, Paul A. - Chair    
Stack, Brian P. - Vice-Chair    
Beach, James    
Bucco, Anthony R.    
Buono, Barbara    
Cunningham, Sandra B.    
Doherty, Michael J.    
Greenstein, Linda R.    
O'Toole, Kevin J.    
Oroho, Steven V.    
Pennacchio, Joseph    
Ruiz, M. Teresa    
Van Drew, Jeff    
 

---

by: firstamend07 @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 00:26:41 AM UTC

not likely (0.00 / 0)

Sarlo, Stack, Beach, Cunningham, Ruiz, and Van Drew are all connected to varying degrees to the Adubato-Norcross machine.  Buono and Greenstein should vote the right way, but redistricting is hanging over both of their heads.

Sweeney could threaten Buono with being put in the same district as Joe Vitale, neither of whom are Sweeney allies.  There has already been plenty of talk about taking the Mercer towns out of LD14 and replacing them with Southern Middlesex and Western Monmouth towns, making the district even tougher than it already is.

Sweeney doesn't even need a reason to pull the trigger on this swap since it will most likely create an opportunity to put another B&CTman, Wayne DeAngelo, in the State Senate at Greenstein's expense without the intraparty tension of a primary challenge.  The last thing that Linda could do under these circumstances is give him one.

Some have said that this was the deal that led to DeAngelo backing down last year as it was believed by most that Greenstein was better positioned to defeat Goodwin based on the current demographics, but that DeAngelo would get Sweeney's support if/when Hamilton found itself in a new Mercer-centric district.

That said, I believe that Linda has the guts to do the right thing, particularly since so many of her constituents are public employees.  If she stands with them, they will stand with her.  It will be interesting to see how DeAngelo votes on this issue if/when it gets to the Assembly.  I am willing to bet that he votes with Sweeney and against his constituents.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 01:21:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then Negotiate First (0.00 / 0)

If CWA wants to negotiate this issue then they must act quickly .It must be the first subject.

It is still a 5 step process to become law and that will take some time.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 03:32:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When does their contract expire? (0.00 / 0)

Nobody, particularly the Democratic leadership in Trenton, should be putting a gun to the CWA's collective heads and forcing them to open up their contracts and renegotiate them any earlier than when their next CBA was scheduled to be negotiated.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 04:12:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

June 30 (0.00 / 0)

The Contract expires on June 30. Contract negotiations start in 10 days.

No contracts will be opened up.  

---

by: firstamend07 @ Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 11:05:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why is this legislation necessary? (0.00 / 0)

Let the CWA et al negotiate in good faith and let the chips fall where they may.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 00:38:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]