Not Better Safe - Just Sorry

Corzine -- A wolf in Sheep's clothing (0.00 / 0)

I burst out laughing when you said that Governor Corzine was liberal.  Governor Corzine has been instrumental in the bills coming before the legislature this coming week.  On Monday, the legislature is poised to vote on a bill involving public service workers that will rescind many bargaining rights of unions as well as many benefits previously negotiated.  This will probably be the biggest defeat for unions in this country this year and will set the national stage for increased attacks on them.  Gov. Corzine is no liberal.  He is a very conservative politician who wears a few good causes on his sleeve. 

Property taxes in this state are a mess and need to be reformed.  A liberal politician wouldn't try to solve the problem by going after the benefits of lower and middle-class workers who have loyally served the state for decades.

This behavior is more typical of the Republican CEOs of many corporations.

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 23:22:29 PM UTC

Live by the sword, die by the sword... (0.00 / 0)

If they were willing legislative modifications to their compensation in 2001 in their favor, they should not have a problem with addition legislative modifications in 2006 against their favor.
I'm not even sure what modifications are being proposed, and if the modificagtions are not fair, let them be debated on their merits or lack thereof, by I find the argument that any modifications must be considered only at the bargaining table hypocritical at this point.
 

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 00:58:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

does Corzine oppose this changes (for now)? (0.00 / 0)

In this press release, Corzine asks for some provisions to be removed so that they can be discussed in bargaining:

These changes are being requested because we are currently engaged in comprehensive collective bargaining with our public employees.  Our intent is to seek structural and cost-saving reforms in the context of these collective bargaining negotiations.  The effort to address these issues in the context of collective negotiations and discussions with public sector unions might well be significantly compromised if the noted changes were to be implemented legislatively at this time.

the details are in the link. 

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 01:39:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm, another wolf .... (0.00 / 0)

You're "not even sure what modifications are being proposed", yet you're going to go and tell the unions that it's their fault?  This sounds exactly how union-busting CEOs act.  Blame the unions first and last for every problem.

Could I suggest that one read up a little on these measures when someone's pension and health benefits are at stake?

An objective history of how these contracts came to be shows that the history is not as one-sided as you or the union-busters would like it to be.  The specific instance you point to from 2001 was a one time instance, that may have been a mistake.  The current bill contains about a hundred modifications that repeal decades of decisions. The majority of those resulted from compromises on both sides.

"if the modificagtions are not fair, let them be debated on their merits or lack thereof"

That is exactly the problem.  The bill is scheduled to be voted on on Monday without any real debate.  Instead, the legislature will vote without really understanding what they are voting on.  Legislators from Northern Jersey in a forum earlier tonight admitted that they were unaware of many of the details in the bill even though they favor it.  So it's not like there's going to be any debate.

By the way, did I say anything about the bargaining table?  Regardless of where these decisions are being made, they are not consistent with a liberal governor. 

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 02:04:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Research is always useful (0.00 / 0)

Of course, since in an earlier article on the NYC transit strike, you [WjcW] wrote

"My personal feeling is the union is WAY out of line on this one, but I typically side with management."

it is not surprising the views on the union that you wrote.  Just please keep in mind that unions were the main political force behind the establishment of a 40-hour work week, the end of child-labor, and a minimum wage law.  Without unions, this country would be a vastly less progressive country.

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 02:09:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My problem with public sector unions is... (0.00 / 0)

there is no competition to keep them in check. (by the way, I haven't worked 40 hours/wk as an engineer since the day I left college)
With private sector unions, there is the market place to determine when compensation/benefits become unhealthy. My problem with the public sector unions is that no such force exists. Not only that but the public sector union yields disproportionate power over our elected officials with their political might.(at least here in NJ)
It's been well documented that adjustments to compensation are necessary in NJ. Sen. Sweeney, who I would hazard to say is more educated in union affairs than you or I, was one of the first politicans courageous enough to point out the disparity between unionized public workers and unionized private sector workers.
As far as what changes were being proposed, it's my understanding that the legislature was going to require a contribution to health care costs, with said contribution undefined. 2ndly, I thought there was a cap on the amount of sick time that can be carried around, like $15,000.
I stand by my point, if they accepted positive adjustments through legislation in the past, they have set the precedent and should accept negative ones through legislation as well. And I believe these adjustments are miniscule compared to having your retirement age lowered by 7 years in 2001.
Having said that, I don't have a problem with the average worker in NJ who makes $45,000 or less getting the current level of benefits. My issue becomes when you have employees in the $70k plus range who claim a $10 copay will break them. Or people who have enough 'sick' time to take a year of work. Wouldn't you agree these are loopholes that need to be closed?

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 03:09:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The reason there are public service unions is ... (0.00 / 0)

for the same reason, there is no competition.  Unlike in private industry, where there are several employers who would desire your skills and constributions, there is only one state government (let's not talk about uprooting your family every year).

I know it is hard to believe, but the state government behaves just like any private sector employer when it has the opportunity.  Despite media reports, the state is ruthless in asking for and getting people to work crazy hours when they can.  There are a few state employees who are neither management nor in a union and they are treated very poorly. 

Granted, it's not in the same league as illegal child labor, but there are poor working conditions nevertheless.

With respect to your never having to work 40 hours per week, I applaud you.  However, I don't think that entitles you to be cavalier about cutting the benefits of people who do have to work 40 hours per week.  In the second part of your post, you make a lot of reasonable suggestions, but you need to realize that the average state worker is not making $70,000 a year.  That figure, which comes from the "expert" Sen. Sweeney, was incorrect and was part of many incorrect figures that Sen. Sweeney put forward this past summer. 

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 04:31:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re (4.00 / 1)

I'm no expert on unions - nor do I play one on TV.  However, I'd like to suggest a few points to ponder on your statements.

With private sector unions, there is the market place to determine when compensation/benefits become unhealthy.

I'm not sure I believe this is true.  My brother works through the plumbers' union and gets ten times the benefits (almost to the dollar) that he would get as a non-union plumber.  It's always risky to generalize from such a small sample, but it doesn't look like there would be any way to compete with such disparities.  In fact, that's exactly the point of trying to break the unions through NAFTA and all the "free trade" nonsense.  The only competition we get is from other countries, and our CEOs have proven they are willing to sell out the American worker in half a heartbeat to save a penny.

Not only that but the public sector union yields disproportionate power over our elected officials with their political might.(at least here in NJ)

It is definitely not true elsewhere - and I speak as a former disgusted member of the Tx State Employees Union. 

I'd argue that the only reason they hold "disproportionate" power is because of the lack of engagement by non-union persons.  The state employees certainly don't outnumber the non-state employees, so I can't see how breaking an effective organization will help any worker anywhere.  I could see where using its model to build competing organizations would be beneficial, though.

It's been well documented that adjustments to compensation are necessary in NJ.

Well, there are "adjustments" and there is "union busting".  This is not, in my opinion, a brave new stance, but rather a tried and true stance that management has taken against all manner of unions.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen unions buckle and accept two-tiered programs so that old-timers could keep their benefits.  Then they try to explain how the union is helping younger workers...

I stand by my point, if they accepted positive adjustments through legislation in the past, they have set the precedent and should accept negative ones through legislation as well.

Well, I could go along with that - if the workers had been the ones that legislated the change.  They weren't.  If you and I have a contract and I say, "You know, this isn't fair.  I'm going to pay you more," then you would simply be stupid to say, "No.  Not until this contract is finished."  On the other hand, if I said, "You know, I think I'll pay you less because I'd like to buy a new camera," your reply would be different.

A contract sets minimum standards.  If a new law requires higher standards, then it supercedes it.  If a new law requires lower standards, then the contract remains in effect until it expires - at which point the standards can be negotiated lower.  That's standard contract law.  The only way to lower the standards of a contract is if it specifically includes a mechanism for doing so. 

To say the state can break a contract simply by passing a new law is to say that the state cannot be held to any contract.  We should all shudder at that prospect.

A final point to ponder: Throughout this whole mess, I've constantly heard how good state employees have it when compared to non-state employees.  Well, my wife is a non-state employee and I honestly don't think her benefits are that great (they generally meet the state minimums).  The problem is one of perception.  I'd argue that it isn't state workers who are overcompensated, but private sector workers who are undercompensated.  The statistics on the erosion of purchasing power of the average salary during the last half decade should provide at least some point to begin exploring that issue.

And, quite honestly, when I hear union workers blathering about how their union brothers and sisters are getting too rosey of a deal, it makes me sick.  The idea of a union is that we are strong when we work together.  Instead of tearing the public unions down, we should be working to lift all workers up to their level.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 04:47:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are points I definitely agree with both of you on... (0.00 / 0)

I would like to think that if the state is functioning and funding it's responsibilites at the current level of compensation for its employees it is equivalent to a non-profit organization.
My argument for adjustment would be that the state has 'structural deficits' for the forseeable future. I would equate that to a private business losing money. In the private sector the business doesn't not have the option of increasing taxes, so costs must be cut.
The state does have the option of increasing taxes, but in my opinion, we have exhausted that route at this point. The next logical course of action would be to cut costs. I get frustrated when the unions seem to take the postion that any and all adjustments must be fought. (even the most reasonable ones mentioned above)
By and large, I'm for the little guy. I just think they little guy gets somewhat perverted when he gets unionized.
I know there is no way in the world $45,000 a year is a comfortable life here in NJ. I also know that the minimum wage is ridiculous.
But I'm stuck in the position mentioned above that in my manufacturing industry I am competing with companies all over the world, and we have to compete on our hourly manufacturing rate. The only countries we have an advantage with are a couple in Europe currently. (our cost here in NJ is somewhere around 22$/hr, there are a couple in Europe up around 27$/hr) And even the ones in Europe enjoy a 10% tariff on my products. (I'm not sure what the tariff is the other way around).
It's a difficult situation, my company, while offering attractive health benefits worth somewhere around $6/hr, is only paying $9/hr on average for an operator. I know no one is living on $9/hr, but I also know the company around the block isn't paying more than $9 either. It's frustrating, and then I read about public employee unions griping over $15,000 in sick time retention, and I can't support them.

 

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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 13:32:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Difficult Situations (0.00 / 0)

Manufacturing in the US is in a difficult situation.  It is hard to pay reasonable wages in the US when one is competing against a company with minimal wages and often no benefits in Asia.  However, I don't think we should accept that the solution has to be ask working people to work for minimal wages.  There are other solutions, which though opposed to the current free-market mindset in this country, which have worked for years in other developed countries such as Western Europe and Canada, and provided for decent minimal living standards for the average worker.

As you point out, the problem is that NJ has structural deficits for the foreseeable future.  How do we fix that?  There are many possibilities.  The simplest one, the one that the legislature is considering, is to simply cut all workers wages.  There are many reasons why this should be opposed, but from the worker's perspective and the state's (over the long term, the state will cease to function even at today's low level as quality people leave). 

But there are other solutions.  It has been documented that a large reason the budget has exploded is because of the large increase in government personnel over the past 5 years.  One could reduce the size of government back to a level that we can afford.  Some workers would need to find new jobs, but those that remain would still be paid reasonable wages.  Such a reduction would result in some loss of state functions, but that's to be expected in a time of crisis.  As far as I can tell, there has been little action on this idea in the state legislature.  A few areas have reduced personnel, but nothing substantial compared to the recent hiring rate. 

Part of the frustration you hear from the public service workers is because the media and many educated people are accepting the line that the state workers are to blame and are not giving much press to alternative ideas.  Blaming the unions serves the legislators since it takes the spotlight off their mistakes, it serves the conservative and  business community, and it serves the media by giving them a spotlight, but it hurts the average working men and women in the civil service and it won't solve NJ's budget crisis.  A structural solution is what is needed.

By the way, some of the items in the media, such as the $15,000 sick leave payment, seem crazy (I wish I had that), but if you look at the history, I have been told the state was the party that initially came up with the idea (in order to lower absentee rates).  So the blaming of the workers for this is out of line.  There are a few items like this that get play in the media, and they should be reformed, in my opinion.  However, these items are not the heart of the proposed changes.  The most important items concern wages, pensions, and benefits such as disability payments, and don't have scandals connected with them (at least for working people).

-pb 

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 20:12:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eliot Spitzer... (4.00 / 2)

Can he bring about the end of three men in a room and bring some transparency to the state's government, against the will of Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver?

Those of you interested in our neighbors to the north should check out The Albany Project.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 00:08:24 AM UTC

Corzine.... (0.00 / 0)

...won't be elected president.  Not because of his positions on issues, but because he's just not a good campaigner.  He spent way more than he should have needed to to win against a lousy candidate in '00, and did the same in '05.  He simply hasn't gotten any better at it. 

As for the 37th district Senate primary, I strongly doubt Zisa will come out for marriage equality.  He doesn't support it; never has. And the idea of the liberal grassroots coming together to support Zisa is fairly laughable.  It ain't gonna happen.

---

by: Bill W @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 16:57:35 PM UTC

Maybe not, and probably not,... but (0.00 / 0)

I'm not saying Zisa will come out for marriage equality. I have no idea what he supports, and I'd be surprised if he's stated any public position on the issue (though your comment suggests he has). I'm just saying that either way, it would be very easy for him to tell a roomful of gay activists that he supports marriage, putting them in the position of choosing between a longtime ally who didn't deliver when it counted, and someone they know little about promising he will.

And I'm not suggesting (even if Zisa took that route) that the liberal grassroots would or should come together to support Zisa - I'm sure that won't happen. But, it's not Zisa who needs that support to win.

---

by: Jeff Gardner @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 19:40:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I become (0.00 / 0)

a tad miffed at the way the above arguments a set forth.

First there is the argument of whether or not employee benefits should be legislated or negotiated through collective bargaining.  As an old time union girl, I believe they should be negotiated.

There is a separate argument about how these benefits should play out.  I've read a lot lately about union give backs in the private sector whereby the "Olds" keep their benes while younger workers have lower starting salaries and fewer benefits.  On the surface, it seems like a sell out, but I don't have the expertise to comment on the particulars.

What I find missing in the NJ debate about unions, is the lack of mention of which people and which unions are being discussed. 

Is it the secretary at some department in Trenton who makes a ridiculously low salary and is supporting 2 kids?  Some employees of the NYC council are collecting food stamps. 

(And this is a true story) Or is it the recenly retired, high paid, college (s'cuse me university - thank you Christie) administrator with a huge retirement package who wangled himself a number of teaching gigs at the university so he could collect a pension from them too.  I know most of it is TIAA Cref, but there seem to be a lot of state benes in there.

UMD (You Might Die) makes my head explode.

Why do legislators go for the weak ones? (snark)

---

by: SmartyJones @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 17:26:24 PM UTC

UMDNJ & Corzine (0.00 / 0)

The really frustrating part is that UMDNJ was the only part of the higher education system in NJ whose funding wasn't cut very much this past year.  The reasoning according to the Governor was that we needed to fund areas such as medical research that would help the state grow.  Other areas of higher education which were squeaky clean had their budgets slashed.

-pb

---

by: princetonblue @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 20:15:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

New Jersey for Spitzer (0.00 / 0)

If Eliot Spitzer can get marriage equality passed in New York, I am ready to start organizing for him.

It would be particularly special for me since he probably has the best chance of anyone currently active in politics at this moment of becoming this country's first Jewish President.

What is truly pathetic about Corzine is his lack of vision.  I do not believe that marriage equality is going to be the third-rail issue in 2012 or 2016 that cowardly Democrats make it out to be today.

I wonder if the primary motivation that Corzine and Spitzer will have for supporting Hilary Clinton for President in 2008 is that while she probably has the best chance of winning the Democratic nomination at the moment, she also probably has the worst chance of actually winning the Presidency, enabling them to run in 2012 rather than having to wait until 2016.

That said, if Clinton or any Democrat were win the Presidency in 2008, both Corzine and Spitzer would be top choices for Cabinet positions in the Treasury and Justice Departments respectively.  Would either or both give up their Governorships for these Cabinet positions?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 20:16:39 PM UTC

Spitzer. (0.00 / 0)

Here's a link to a good article that explains the resentment of educated people that Spitzer seems to have tapped into.
http://www.mattmille...

I know I thought twice when I read it.

If I wasn't such a tool, I'd hyperlink it the real way, but I never really bothered to learn that syntax.


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

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 21:07:19 PM UTC

thanks (0.00 / 0)

very interesting article.

I have noticed, though, that the Economist and the Wall Street Journal sure take every opportunity to beat on Spitzer.  I would have thought it had more effect on the 'lower upper class.'  I suppose though they have the most opportunity to see what is going on at the top.  Who knows?


Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 03:57:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]