3 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

What was she waiting for?

by: Jason Springer

Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:43:03 PM EST

Paid Family Leave isn't an issue that came out of nowhere. The Chamber of Commerce has been screaming that the sky is falling, unions and senior groups have been voicing support. There have been many editorials and newspaper articles written on the topic. So how is it that Attorney General Anne Milgram didn't realize she had a problem with the legislation until 2 days AFTER it passed the Senate...

New Jersey's attorney general says a paid family leave bill might leave small businesses susceptible to lawsuits.
Anne Milgram suggests changes to prevent employees who take leave but lose their jobs from suing.

I know she hasn't been busy making sure our votes are counted, so how could she wait so long to review the legislation and voice her concerns? It could have been dealt with before the bill went through the process on the Senate side. Maybe next time she'll wait until after the Governor signs the legislation. We are so close, I just don't get it.

Update- From the Star Ledger...

In a written opinion, Deputy Attorney General John Bender didn't think the bill offered enough protections for business owners.
Bender issued his legal opinion to the labor commissioner on Feb. 27 -- the day before the Assembly Labor Committee approved the bill. There was no mention of Bender's letter or discussion of possible amendments at the hearing, nor was there discussion of it when the full Senate passed the measure 22-16 on Monday.
Socolow explained to reporters today he and the bill's sponsors weren't ready to take action. "We were still digesting the opinion," he said. "We got it the day before the committee, and we were talking about what to do. We weren't going to have amendments ready" the next day.
The bill (S786) is scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Monday, Socolow said.
"We are working with sponsors on new language, and if the legislators choose to opt for amendments, they will have the opportunity to present those and pass a revised bill," Socolow said.
If that happens, the bill would have to return to the Senate for a new vote agreeing with the changes.

I guess I still don't understand what took so long to review the legislation and realize there was a problem, but there is your explanation.

Jason Springer :: What was she waiting for?

Tags: paid family leave, Anne Milgram, Attorney General, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

What was she waiting for? | 8 comments

Could she wait any longer? n/t (4.00 / 1)

by: Jason Springer @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:25 AM UTC

It seems odd (0.00 / 0)

I don't know if there are institutional restrictions or something, but it is a very odd statement at a very odd time in the process.

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:53:01 AM UTC

The The Timing Indicates Political Pressures Are At Play (0.00 / 0)

...on the other hand....

If she (or her staff) really didn't know what the law said and is just now figuring it out; then there's a lack of competence.

Take yer pick: Incompetence or Politics.

(I know, it's an oxymoronic dichotomy these days. ;-)

If this bill is scuttled, or rendered toothless/useless by some last minute garbage bought and paid for by the "smart money" the perpetrators need to be held accountable at the polls.

Our votes still count more than the "contributors" dollars......if we use them.

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:27:26 AM UTC

Don't take your eye off the prize (0.00 / 0)

The language the AG is proposing will not do anything to substantively change the bill.

I actually think this might actually help get it passed because the Assembly can say, "Look there was a problem with small businesses and we fixed it."

The reality is we need 7 votes to get this passed on Monday and the business lobby is going to do a full court press on this letter, probably telling small business owners that the legislature and labor unions want to put you out of business.

Call members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee now, and tell them:

If you only have time to call three people make it Greenwald, Wisniewski and Gusciora, these are the D's that have not committed to voting for this bill.

Vote Yes on Family Leave insurance A-873.

Assemblywoman Nellie Pou (D-35), Chair - 1-973-247-1555 ?
Assemblywoman Valerie Huttle (D-37), Vice-Chair - 1-201-541-1118 ?
Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-15) - 1-609-292-0500?
Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-19) - 1-732-316-1885?
Assemblyman Louis Greenwald (D-6) - 1-856-435-1247?
Assemblyman Ruben Ramos (D-33) - 1-201-714-4960?
Assemblyman Herb Conaway (D-7) - 1-856-461-3997?
Assemblyman Peter Barnes III (D-18) - 1-732-548-1406?
Assemblywoman Dawn Marie Addiego (R-8) - 1-856-234-8080?
Assemblyman Sam Thompson (R-13) - 1-732-583-5558?
Assemblyman Richard Merkt (R-25) - 1-973-895-9100?
Assemblyman Michael Doherty (R-23) - 1-908-835-0552

by: jimrwalsh @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM UTC

Senate ,Not Assembly trouble (0.00 / 0)

The Bill now needs to be amemded. Thatwill happen on Monday. The amendment will actually be business friendly, but don't expect businees to now be on board.

Kirshner and his anti-family people are now getting a second chance to defeat this Bill since the amendedBill needs to go back to the Senate .

That is where the battle will be and the battle will be on March 17.

The Assembly will do some " pontificating" but it will pass. The 22 YES votes in the Senate must hold. That is where the fight will be.

by: firstamend07 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 13:51:41 PM UTC

Not sure she waited... (0.00 / 0)

From Gannet...

"No mention was made of a Feb. 27 opinion from the Attorney General's Office in a letter to Labor and Workforce Development Commissioner David Socolow that validated the lawsuit concern and suggested wording changes that could protect small business from a lawsuit without changing the intent of the bill.

Socolow testified before the Assembly Labor Committee on Feb. 28 without mentioning the opinion."

Mr. Socolow dropped the ball.

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

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 16:09:53 PM UTC

Blame is clear, but.... (0.00 / 0)

Socolow received the notice less than 24 hours before he testified. The AG Office waited forever to give him their opinion.
Socolow should have handled it better.

But there was no "coverup" as the anti-family business groups are stating.

The bottom line is that this actually gives the opponents one of the things they had requested. It also shows that you can give Kirschner and his gang anything and they will still want this bill defeated.

The bill should proceed and be passed next week by the Assembly with even more support and then go back to the Senate and be passed with the amendment.

There is no reason for anyone to change their vote because of the amendment.

by: firstamend07 @ Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 18:08:33 PM UTC