With the Citizens United decision, the SCOTUS allowed the direct influx of corporate money into the electoral process. This decision also allowed unions to make the same monetary donations as corporations.
Up against this is Gov. Christie's executive order prohibiting unions from making political donations, ostensibly because unions are exempt from "pay-to-play" rules. In response, CWA District 1 has filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Christie's executive order. But instead of relying on Citizens United, their basis is that they should not be equated with businesses, since they do not do business with the state.
In my opinion, they would have a better case relying on the Citizens United decision (no matter what one may think about it), which would trump anything on the state level, perhaps pay-to-play rules as well.
This SCOTUS decision may have the effect of striking down "pay-to-play" rules as an abridgment of the free speech of corporations. Who knows what else may be in its path?
The CWA doesn't have a leg to stand on because as Sweeney stated in this article the CWA AGREED to a clause in their contract (Article 41) that ALLOWS THE CONTRACT TO NOT BE FUNDED!
These idiots at CWA enclosed their own poison pill AGAINST THEMSELVES.
I first started talking to conservative blogger Michael Illions last year around this time when I found out about his family's fight against Hydrocephalus and their wonderful son Cole. I did a post at the time publicizing the hydro-walk 2008. It's a year later now and I've stayed in touch with the Illions family as they continue their efforts raise awareness and funding for the disease.
September 13th, 2009
Roosevelt Park
Rt. 1 South
Edison, NJ
11:00am-3:00pm
This year we are pleased to announce that our Honorary Chairman will be Bill Evans from ABC Channel 7 Eyewitness News!
Join us for a 2 mile WALK around the beautiful lake located at Roosevelt Park to raise money and awareness to help "fund a cure" for Hydrocephalus. All proceeds to benefit the Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation, Inc.
According to Michael, Senator Vitale is attending and Congressman Lance's people are trying to work out for him to be there as well. Other officials from both sides of the aisle that have assisted along the way have been invited as well. I know that often times we go after the other side of the aisle, but sometimes issues like this are more important than poliics. You can help Cole and other families struggling with this disease by making a contribution online, raising attention or registering to attend the walk online. Thanks for your help and you can learn more about their fight at hydrocephaluskids.org
Ok, now that I've got your attention, let me explain. One of the rules of politics is to consolidate your base. Polls show college faculty are one of the most liberal groups with about 90% of them Democrats. In NJ, most public college faculty (about 10,000 total is my estimate) are in the AFT union. So in a close election, you'd like to secure that base. Currently the state and the AFT are in negotiations to reach an contract modification (involving furloughs for example) in order to reach the budget savings required by the state budget. Given that AFT always follows the agreement that CWA negotiates, you would think that the state would offer the AFT the same agreement they just reached with the CWA.
For reasons only known to the political wizards in the Governor's campaign, their best offer to the AFT has been for a 20% greater pay-cut than for CWA (4.6% vs. 3.84%). And in addition, the granting of future paid vacation days as compensation for the furlough days (a gimmick I agree, but one given to CWA) has been eliminated.
Such offers contradict the language in the state budget bill, which calls for the same percentage of savings from college faculty as from other unions, not greater ones. Now the AFT is the smallest and weakest of the state unions, so the state apparently believes it can away with this approach. Personally I don't see the benefit for not offering an equivalent deal. The monetary savings are minimal and the Governor would still be able to say that all workers had to take furlough days and the same cut in salary.
Instead, having just read my union's list-serv, I see a bunch of very disgruntled faculty, with several suggesting political protests be undertaken. They feel the Governor is continuing a campaign of dismantling public higher education in New Jersey and has intentionally targeted college faculty. This is not how to consolidate what should be a very loyal part of your base.
Why would the Corzine pick this fight when he's in a close election? It only costs him votes of AFT members. The general population cares only about the CWA agreement since they are the largest union.
Best,
pb
*** Note: I'm pleased to report that the state subsequently offered AFT an agreement equivalent to the one offered to CWA ***
We are receiving word that CWA has overwhelmingly approved the new contract negotiated with Governor Corzine earlier this month.
He has more analysis. I have certainly seen some predictions that workers would reject the contract, so this is a victory for Corzine and the union leadership.
Update: Corzine's statement:
"I am pleased that our state workforce chose a path that will allow the state to continue to provide vital public services without disruption while achieving over $300 million in cost savings and averting major layoffs. This was truly an important achievement for both the state and public employees, who were willing to negotiate an unprecedented agreement as part of our continuing effort to secure savings and protect jobs in the face of an unprecedented economic crisis and revenue decline."
I finally found time to read the CWA agreement and I was flabbergasted. It seems that CWA got a very good deal. There is a postponement of salary raises for 18 months and a deferral of 8 days pay until one's retirement (paid at the salary rate upon retirement), so in total CWA loses 4 days of pay. This is a concession, but since there will be no layoffs, it seems like a very good agreement for CWA.
What I can't figure out is why the Governor picked a 8 month fight with CWA if this was all he wanted to achieve. He's created a lot of bad blood with union members and can now be portrayed by Christie as caving in to CWA interests. And it was so unnecessary. I would think that had the Governor presented this agreement to CWA last December or January, he could have gotten an agreement. And even if CWA hadn't agreed, is this agreement worth the public perception problem that the Governor has created for himself in the upcoming election?
I will be voting for Gov. Corzine in the fall, but I do think Christie is correct when he says that this agreement is a bad one for New Jersey and that it will cost more money in the long term than it saves in the short term. I like the Governor but I think he has a tin ear for politics. If he was going to pick the fight with CWA, he had to know he needed to have some real achievement to show for it. Delaying a pay increase by 18 months doesn't seem like the achievement that voters want to see.
Promoted from the diaries and cross-posted at Huffington Post - Rosi
Just how strongly is Joe Biden considering a third presidential bid in 2016? He's made more headlines for gaffes and botched jokes than he has for helping the President in moving legislation through the Senate or navigating G-20 leaders.... But if anyone understands that a successful political career is a marathon, not a sprint, it's Biden... and eight years is a long time.
Last night in New Jersey, the Vice President gave a speech to the Democratic faithful rallying behind Governor Jon Corzine, who faces a tough reelection campaign this fall. Biden's appearance had been hyped for weeks by nervous Jersey pols - a sign that the Obama administration would not hang the unpopular Governor out to dry... and yet it almost didn't happen. But not because Corzine has negative approval ratings... because Biden would not cross a picket line.
"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.
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
A New Jersey appellate panel has agreed to fast-track arguments on legal motions by state worker unions trying to stop unpaid public worker furloughs.
The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division will head arguments on April 16, unless the Civil Service Commission stays its rule allowing emergency furloughs.
Corzine's office said it will announce details about the furloughs soon. Rousseau said the exemptions would probably cover direct-care workers in places such as state psychiatric hospitals and veterans' homes as well as corrections officers and state police troopers.
That exempts thousands of workers from the one-day layoffs that begin next month.
"We are still having discussions. As of right now, it will probably be all state employees except direct care and law enforcement. We are working on other ways to get salary savings from them during that period of time, maybe in overtime or things like that," Rousseau said.
Rousseau said the state will save less money from the furloughs as a result and is negotiating with public employee unions to find other ways, such as reducing overtime pay rates, to save the same amount of cash.
I'm sure that last line of negotiating for more compromises will go over well with the union. For their part, the CWA was protesting the plan yesterday with their leaders talking of considering another Democrat to support for Governor. Remember, this fight that they're having is for the two days this year. They're going to have to go through this all again with the proposal to take furlough 12 days next year.
Hetty Rosenstein, New Jersey area director of CWA, said Sunday public workers are angry about the commission's swift ruling and about proposed tax changes by Corzine.
"The governor's budget, as it is, has people who make $550,000 a year who are going to pay maybe $800 more in taxes, but a state worker who makes $50,000 a year is going to pay $4,100 based upon the cuts by the governor, between wage cuts and furloughs... It's not fair," Rosenstein said. "These are middle-class workers and working-poor workers. This is over an 8 percent cut, and they can't afford it.
"The governor said he wanted to negotiate. We were in discussions, and out of nowhere they passed an emergency civil service rule that creates these furloughs without negotiations," she said. "They gave us a 24-hour warning that they would pass the emergency act."
Rosenstein said state-worker unions will be going to court today to challenge the emergency ruling.
State workers clearly see it as an issue of fairness saying that they are the easy target being asked to give more than others. The Governor gave his usual response about this option being preferable to others:
"I understand their frustration, but on the other hand we have a very serious budget gap," Corzine said after Sunday's convention of Democrats to endorse candidates. "I think it is a lot better to have people working and have health benefits than on the unemployment line."
So the public relations battle will continue as this fight moves over to the courts.
The New Jersey police union says it will sue the state to block public employee furloughs.
New Jersey Policemen's Benevolent Association spokesman Jim Ryan says his group will file suit Friday or Monday to stop an emergency rule allowing furloughs.
[snip]
Ryan says the PBA will seek to stay the rule at least until it can be clarified. As written, he says local and state governments do not have to prove financial hardship before laying off workers.
We'll have to see whether CWA takes the same action or joins in the suit. I wonder what clarifications could be made that would actually make the furlough plan acceptable? State workers feel like they are being scapegoated and I don't see how you can really clarify to make that any better. It looks like this fight will continue either way.
In December all Governor Corzine wanted was for the CWA to agree to a wage freeze that was due on July 1. In return there would be no layoff of state workers.
Corzine and CWA were both well aware of Article 41 in the contract that dealt with the withholding of funding for the pay raise.
CWA , in a ill advised , short sighted move decided to " stand up" to the Governor despite the fact that they had no political or legal support.
Instead of having a public " sacrafice" deal with the Governor they pushed him into a corner. They gave Corzine the opportunity to establish the furlough concept .
The failed CWA " stand" will now cost its membership 5% " real "money over the next 14 months.
CWA has stopped fighting the wage freeze idea. What a surprise! If they had paid attention to their own contract it would have been obvious that they never had a " dog" in that fight.
It is very unfortunate that once again the state workers are not being told the truth by their union. They are being told to attack Corzine , despite the fact that Corzine did everything possible to cushion the blow for state workers.
Corzine is the only friend CWA has and they are doing their best to hurt him and get Christie elected.
CWA leadership has cost their members 5% of their pay and now they are trying to cost Corzine reelection.
Every New Jersey state worker can lose their job and Rosenstein will still be collecting a six figure paycheck. The " spokesperson" , according to the press, for state workers , in reality has no stake in whether state workers keep their jobs.
She was not elected to her present position, she was appointed by the New York office of CWA. There is no accountability, yet she is jeopardizing state worker jobs.
What other Union organization has a leadership who is not part of the membership. This is why the CWA leadership is so out of touch and why it is important for both the Press and the Legislators to understand that Rosenstein does not speak for the majority of state workers.
Hell, we can't even vote her out!
The state set up this system of " representation" and it is a poor one.
I can guarantee you one thing. If Rosenstein's job was on the line she would not be making the comments she is now making.
It did not take long for the Non-State Worker CWA leadership to start talking stupid.
This from the Star Ledger: Corzine said the state would save $35 million by having employees take two unpaid days off this spring. Another $850 million will come from the federal stimulus package, and $472 million will be cut from the current budget, among other measures.
But Hetty Rosenstein, New Jersey state director for the Communications Workers of America, denounced the governor's plan, calling it both ineffective and an "assault on our collective bargaining relationship."
Next year could be even worse, Corzine said. The governor said state revenues are estimated at $28.5 billion for the 2010 budget he'll unveil March 10. He declined to say today how much stimulus money the state will be able to use on that plan.
"The actual dollars that will be saved by furloughing state workers will provide little relief to the state - but will cause a tremendous hardship for our members who live paycheck to paycheck and whose wages go directly back into the economy," Rosenstein said in a statement released in response to Corzine's announcement.
"A significant number of state workers are paid through federal funding," Rosenstein continued, arguing "furloughing federally-funded positions actually reduces the amount of money coming into the state."
"Imposing these kinds of cuts only deepens the economic slump we are all working to overcome," she said.
Hetty Rosenstein does not have to worry about her job. She works for a private company , CWA, that is guaranteed dues money by state law.
Corzine is saving state worker jobs with this plan but the CWA leadership does not care about jobs, they care about maximum dues money collected.
It is unfortunate that the average taxpayer thinks Rosenstein speaks for all state workers. She does not. The only thing you can depend on from Rosenstein is bad advice.
Even for a group of people who have tunnel vision the reality of a situation begins to take hold.
The word is out, "shut up or you might lose the only friend you have!"
Over the past few years the CWA leadership has alienated most of the Democratic Party leaders. Only Corzine has remained a friend.
Now when Corzine needs CWA to help him , and the state out, they go screaming and hollaring in the press. In an election year!!
But the word has been passed far and wide. If Corzine " goes down" then good luck in dealing with a Republican Governor and a Democratic Legislature who is not friendly!
The question is how long can these undisciplined union leaders be quiet? Will they break the peace and start threatening the Governor again?
If they do it again Corzine might just walk away from them and eliminate them from all discussions.
"We would like to negotiate a salary freeze as opposed to turning to more difficult issues, although ones that we believe we can deal with, and those are furloughs and layoffs," Corzine said. "Layoffs are a very complicated process, take five or six months to actually get into place and are extraordinarily disruptive, but if necessary we can go there."
The unions didn't like the threats and vowed to fight:
"Although we will always work with the governor to find ways to both raise revenues and save money, we are not going to reopen our contracts. Those contracts were based on the principle of mutual sacrifice, with workers agreeing to make increased contributions to the cost of health care and pensions, in return for modest wage increases," said Sheryl Gordon, executive director of AFSCME union Council 1.
"We will not reopen the contract," said Hetty Rosenstein, CWA's New Jersey director. "Of course we worry about layoffs, but it would be such a bad and terrible thing to do to workers during a recession, it just doesn't make any sense. We're so understaffed, and there's a greater need for public services right now."
Rae Roeder, president of CWA union Local 1033, said Corzine hasn't shown the public any substantial proof in his first three years in office of how he trimmed government spending on things such as paid consultants and private firms.
"Bottom line, no governor is going to threaten myself or any of the workers. We're tired of his threats and the innuendos and everything else. When the governor said, 'This is the way it is, or else' -- or else, mister, or else maybe you ought to pack up your bag over your failed policies over the last four years and go. Maybe that's what you should do," Roeder said.
State workers negotiated in good faith for changes in their last contract, but it's looking like everyone is going to feel the pain of the budget ax. People can argue back and forth about the poor decisions that put us in this situation, but it's where we stand. In a case of no desirable options, many people may find themselves asking which is worse: wage freezes or layoffs? There are plenty of people on the unemployment rolls who would gladly have settled for a wage freeze. With revenues continuing to tumble and our structural problems still in place, this may be the best offer they get.
This from Michael Symons of Gannett : Corzine said on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. "If we continue to stay in this economic slide that we're in, we're going to see major layoffs, furloughs, cutbacks by state and local governments across the country. They're going to join the parade of organizations that are laying people off and increasing the public sector unemployed."
It seems Corzine is ready to turn his back on the CWA. He knows that a state worker layoff will be necessary if he wants to sell other cutbacks. Apparently he has no fear of a CWA backlash since he knows , like most other politicians know , that CWA is a paper tiger and incapable of mounting any response that would be more than a " huff and a puff ".
The paper tiger , that is CWA, for the last two elections, has openly threatened State Senator Sweeney with a massive cash infusion to " run him out of office". However in tytpical fashion for a union that is more talk than action they backed off in his State Senate campaign and now have refused to honor an agreement they had with the Gloucester County GOP in helping to defeat Sweeney in his Freeholder race.
Here is a synopsis of the money race as written in today's Gloucester County Times:
Saturday, October 25, 2008
By Pete McCarthy
pmccarthy@sjnewsco.com
The Republican Party in Gloucester County has not yet met its lofty goal of raising $100,000 for the 2008 freeholder campaign.
In fact, since the last campaign finance report was filed 18 days ago, the candidates have only been able to collect an additional $2,476. That brings their grand total to a little more than $30,000.
Their Democrat opponents, on the other hand, brought in more than $180,000 during that same two-week period, according to contribution and expenditure reports released on Friday.
"People who committed early on said they rethought it at the last minute and decided that they don't want to make an enemy of (Freeholder Director and state Senator) Steve Sweeney because they have to deal with him in Trenton," said Steve Kush, communications director for the county Republicans.
Kush had previously stated that the party was looking to get substantial financial support from all around the state.
Sweeney, who is seeking re-election to the freeholder board, said he had heard that there were some unions in Trenton "threatening" to unload between $800,000 and $1 million on attack ads against him. The freeholder said it was because of the pension reform legislation that he sponsored in his role as Senate majority leader.
"My labor friends were responding to threats being made by state unions," said Sweeney. "When these other unions heard about it, they responded pretty strongly to balance it out."
As more politicians catch on to CWA and discover that their political leadership team is all bark and no bite the " myth" of the " powerful" state worker union will be destroyed.
For some unknown reason the CWA National Union refused to endorse both Adler and Stender. This is a Union that has been pushing for the Employee Free Choice Act but refused t osupport these two candidates who are in favor of this pro-union bill.
CWA , once again, has proven to be an out of touch union in the State of New Jersey.
The Division of Purchase and Property has determined that, given the current budget austerity and the universal availability of online calendars and calendar software, it is inappropriate for the state to encourage continued use of paper calendars, a notice sent to state employees said.
The state didn't ban the use of paper calendars, they just said they won't be purchasing them next year for workers. This move has CWA 1033 President Rae Roeder up in arms:
Rae Roeder, president of Communications Workers of America Local 1033, which represents 6,200 state workers, said paper calendars are important for people to have on their desks to help readily keep track of what they're involved in.
She said the administration could instead save $180,000 by eliminating patronage jobs.
Instead we want to save money by not giving people paper calendars, Roeder said. Oh, whoopee. This is foolishness, absolute foolishness.
I agree with Roeder that the state could save $180 K on patronage jobs and that should be done as well, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Just because the state is cutting paper calendars doesn't mean they shouldn't also be cutting patronage jobs. The foolishness is trying to portray this as an either or choice.
At the same time, aren't there more important things to fight about? If workers don't have a computer where they can use an online calendar, then maybe they should still get them. I could see arguing that point possibly. If workers want to have a paper calendar, they still can buy one to use. The article mentions other cuts that are being made for some context:
The budget cut spending for property tax rebates, colleges, municipalities, hospitals and nursing homes, among other areas.
