NJ passes landmark public employee bill

[Azazello1313]

 

Christie and Republicans banded together with Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex) to advance the bill despite opposition from the majority of Democrats who control the Legislature.

 

More than 8,500 protesters, the most this year, poured into Trenton this morning with signs, speeches and their trademark inflatable rat. But most had dispersed by the time Democrats emerged from their hours-long caucus meetings where they debated the bill’s details and a separate budget proposal. The Assembly convened for a vote at about 6:15 p.m., more than five hours late, and lawmakers delivered speech after speech on the bill for nearly three hours.

 

The bill passed the Assembly 46-32 and will be sent to Christie’s desk for his signature. Fourteen Democrats voted for the bill, while 32 opposed it.

[caddyman]

This guy gets it...he should be president

[borge007]

This guy gets it...he should be president

Edited June 24, 2011 by borge007

[jetsfan]

Full Disclosure: I am a federal employee

 

If I read the bill correctly, the NJ govt is changing/eliminating the benefits of all current and future state employees. One of the selling points of working for the govt is the benefits/pension and the ability to positively contribute to society. If the govt. came in one day and said we're changing the rules by which you were hired, and swore an oath to live by, I would be pissed. Working for the govt. is not like private industry (where I have worked in the past). There are tangible benefits (like a pension) and some tangible issues (lower pay, crappy health care compared to the industries I deal with).

 

I see this as a breach of faith to all of the states employees.

[yo mama]

"As a result, the state has a $54 billion shortfall in its pension system, among the highest in the nation. New Jersey’s health benefit system is in even worse shape than the pension fund and is the most poorly funded in the nation at $66.8 billion in the hole, according to the Pew Center on the States." (From the article).

 

Maybe Avernus was right to compare us to Zimbabwe after all.

[caddyman]

sorry buddy...I cant keep supporting you...

[Clubfoothead]

All them lazy cops, firemen and teachers should get real jobs that contribute to society. Something like selling stock swaps and derivatives.

[bpwallace49]

Over the years, lawmakers and local leaders from both parties have offered increased benefits to public employees, often in exchange for political support. But even as benefits improved, the state and municipalities failed to meet its financial obligations. Since 2004, the state has not made $15.11 billion in required payments to the pension funds, while the municipalities have skipped $1.9 billion. Public employees, meanwhile, have fully paid their required contributions.

 

As a result, the state has a $54 billion shortfall in its pension system, among the highest in the nation. New Jersey’s health benefit system is in even worse shape than the pension fund and is the most poorly funded in the nation at $66.8 billion in the hole, according to the Pew Center on the States.

 

Shame on the crooked politicians that passed these bills and then decided to NOT fund them.

 

They need to be revisited and adjusted, but when cops, firefighters, teachers, etc are told that "here is the deal that you will get" and then have it pulled out from under them because the people that promised them these benefits were lying through their teeth it makes me sad for them.

[keggerz]

The inflatable rat that they refer to is something that the unions use when they pickit non-union jobs...I know because when I worked for Burlington Coat Factory we had a new store that we were refurbishing (an old Jamesway location or something) and we were using non-union labor so they showed up to pickit and brought their inflatable rat..

[yo mama]

All them lazy cops, firemen and teachers should get real jobs that contribute to society. Something like selling stock swaps and derivatives.

I understand your point and its valid. But cops, firemen, and teachers aren't *so* important that the rest of society should be forced into bankruptcy in order to fund their pensions. Economic reality must be permitted to enter the equation. You either: (1) raise taxes, which everyone loves; (2) cut spending on actual services to fund pensions; or (3) modify the pensions themselves.

 

My kids are in public school and I spend a lot of time and money supporting the school. But if we have to sacrifice the quality of education (e.g., making class sizes go from 20 to 30, furlough days, eliminating teacher's aids, library hours, etc) just to fund the pensions for teachers - many of whom have already retired - then something is f'ed up.

[caddyman]

I understand your point and its valid. But cops, firemen, and teachers aren't *so* important that the rest of society should be forced into bankruptcy in order to fund their pensions. Economic reality must be permitted to enter the equation. You either: (1) raise taxes, which everyone loves; (2) cut spending on actual services to fund pensions; or (3) modify the pensions themselves.

 

My kids are in public school and I spend a lot of time and money supporting the school. But if we have to sacrifice the quality of education (e.g., making class sizes go from 20 to 30, furlough days, eliminating teacher's aids, library hours, etc) just to fund the pensions for teachers - many of whom have already retired - then something is f'ed up.

I would be curious to hear which of the three above choices liberals would choose. If it is raising taxes...how much is too much? We have numerous issues in this country that need to be addressed and when anyone tries to do it, the public screams like crazed madmen. You just can't keep living the way we are living without making serious changes.

[jetsfan]

I understand your point and its valid. But cops, firemen, and teachers aren't *so* important that the rest of society should be forced into bankruptcy in order to fund their pensions. Economic reality must be permitted to enter the equation. You either: (1) raise taxes, which everyone loves; (2) cut spending on actual services to fund pensions; or (3) modify the pensions themselves.

 

My kids are in public school and I spend a lot of time and money supporting the school. But if we have to sacrifice the quality of education (e.g., making class sizes go from 20 to 30, furlough days, eliminating teacher's aids, library hours, etc) just to fund the pensions for teachers - many of whom have already retired - then something is f'ed up.

 

What is f'd up is that the govt has known this for years and done nothing to prevent this day from coming. It is not like they woke up one morning, and they found out a whole bunch of teachers retired, and they suddenly needed to cover the pensions that those people were promised. Bunch of Chia Pets.

[i_am_the_swammi]

The sad part is that many of the quality people who are getting screwed are likely to find another jobs in other industries, rather than continue to get shafted. A world without quality teachers, firefighters and policemen is not a good thing. IMO, those that promised those benefits, and defaulted, should be jailed for fraud.

 

Be that as it may, the only logical option at this point would be to raise taxes to cover the shortfall. The politicians who crafted 9and defaulted) on this deal were servants of the people...the voters of NJ put them in office, and entrusted them to make deals such as this. If the state can't make the payment, the people of the state should be next in line.

 

In no way, shape or form should those who chose a certain career path with promises from their employer of a quality retirement be told to 'f-off".

[Azazello1313]

What is f'd up is that the govt has known this for years and done nothing to prevent this day from coming. It is not like they woke up one morning, and they found out a whole bunch of teachers retired, and they suddenly needed to cover the pensions that those people were promised. Bunch of Chia Pets.

 

the unions just kept asking for more and more, and the bureaucrats just kept saying, well, we don't have any more money in the budget for higher salaries, but we got this pension fund....and if we just imagine it will always grow at 8% per year, then we have plenty to give you what you want. oops. yes it sucks to be hired under one assumption and then they pull the rug out from under you. but it's not so bad when you consider the alternative is your job getting cut outright.

 

and you said you're a federal employee, so I have zero sympathy whatsoever. you're well-paid compared with the private sector, and you basically have iron-clad, recession-proof job security. federal employee health benefits are outstanding.

[yo mama]

The sad part is that many of the quality people who are getting screwed are likely to find another jobs in other industries, rather than continue to get shafted. A world without quality teachers, firefighters and policemen is not a good thing. IMO, those that promised those benefits, and defaulted, should be jailed for fraud.

 

Be that as it may, the only logical option at this point would be to raise taxes to cover the shortfall. The politicians who crafted 9and defaulted) on this deal were servants of the people...the voters of NJ put them in office, and entrusted them to make deals such as this. If the state can't make the payment, the people of the state should be next in line.

In no way, shape or form should those who chose a certain career path with promises from their employer of a quality retirement be told to 'f-off".

But that's the catch 22 - either someone gets the shaft, or someone else gets the shaft. But either way, someone is getting shafted, and good. My vote is that it shouldn't be school kids. Because they sure as heck didn't have any say in this, and it isn't like they can "go get another job."

 

You want to know what REALLY f'ed up? Me and a group of concerned parents offered to pay for a teachers aid on the side in my kids' class - wouldn't have cost the school a dime. We were told no, because the union contract prohibited it. So that's reason #2 I'm not particularly sympathetic to the union - they won't fix the problem, and they won't let other people fix it either.

[Clubfoothead]

I understand your point and its valid. But cops, firemen, and teachers aren't *so* important that the rest of society should be forced into bankruptcy in order to fund their pensions. Economic reality must be permitted to enter the equation.

 

Well if I am looking at the New Jersey numbers, even after this measure they are still broke. I guess that means these pensions aren't the reason they are broke.

[yo mama]

Well if I am looking at the New Jersey numbers, even after this measure they are still broke. I guess that means these pensions aren't the reason they are broke.

In NJ, I dunno. But here in San Jose, CA - they are the main reason we can't keep the budget balanced. The city has the ability to keep every other cost pretty much in check, but the costs of pensions and benefits keep going up no matter what.

[Azazello1313]

Me and a group of concerned parents offered to pay for a teachers aid on the side in my kids' class - wouldn't have cost the school a dime. We were told no, because the union contract prohibited it. So that's reason #2 I'm not particularly sympathetic to the union - they won't fix the problem, and they won't let other people fix it either.

 

as the former head of the united federation of teachers once put it, "When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

[yo mama]

as the former head of the united federation of teachers once put it, "When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.”

So you're saying that school kids should form their own union. I like it! First order of business - expensive legal team.

[yo mama]

I would be curious to hear which of the three above choices liberals would choose. If it is raising taxes...how much is too much? We have numerous issues in this country that need to be addressed and when anyone tries to do it, the public screams like crazed madmen. You just can't keep living the way we are living without making serious changes.

Meh. I guess I pass for liberal around here, though I'm a fiscal realist. So I'll take a stab at this...

 

You have to raise taxes. Have to. The problem is that the spending machine will spend 2X of whatever new taxes gets raised, and I have zero faith in what that money will get spent on. I would much rather see a public referendum that raises taxes, the funds of which are ear marked for reducing class sizes, eliminating furlough days, etc. But something specific that doesn't get raided because local government couldn't manage its general funds.

 

Pensions must be reformed. Existing employees are a tougher nut to crack because they had a deal in place, but for the love of Christ STOP GIVING PEOPLE DEALS LIKE THAT!!!

 

If old timers are going to keep their old deals, they should be expected to earn them. Thus, make it easier to get rid of lazy union employees who aren't pulling their weight. I'm sick and tired of seeing the younger, cheaper, hotter, more enthusiastic teachers get pink slipped in order to protect some ancient district employee that hasn't changed their lesson plan since the Carter administration.

 

Local communities need to get more involved - hands on, at the grass roots level. Frankly, many problems can be fixed with a little elbow grease and force of will. Spend less energy complaining, and more energy fixing. This will require competent coordination between local government and involved citizens. And that's a tall order because most people are pretty stupid. It has been my experience that even when people are motivated to fix things, there is a lack of leadership and organization to execute even simple tasks. It's generally true that 20% of the people do 80% of the work, so you just have to learn to live with that.

Edited June 24, 2011 by yo mama

[Clubfoothead]

In NJ, I dunno. But here in San Jose, CA - they are the main reason we can't keep the budget balanced. The city has the ability to keep every other cost pretty much in check, but the costs of pensions and benefits keep going up no matter what.

 

That's great for your kids.

 

I guess I'm confused as to why eliminating collective barganing is such a must. Why not stop with defined benefit plans?

[yo mama]

That's great for your kids.

 

I guess I'm confused as to why eliminating collective barganing is such a must. Why not stop with defined benefit plans?

I'm actually a fan of collective bargaining - I fear what things might degenerate to without a countervailing force representing workers. (Though, the case for public employee unions is not as compelling as the case for private sector workers. But let's ignore that for now).

 

It's the unfunded nature of the plans, and the unrealistic/unsustainable levels of growth they are predicated upon, that need to change. Union employees need to contribute more out of their own pockets before taxpayer money comes pouring in. And the retirement plans need to be subject to market risk - if actual growth is less than projected, then you can't ask taxpayers to make up the difference.

 

And no spiking. And people are living longer, so increase the retirement age expectations. And if you retire, none of this nonsense where you go back to work someone else full time while you collect "retirement" benefits. That's a scam. And if California (or wherever) taxpayers are funding the retirement benefits - and you move out of state to spend that money elsewhere - there should be.... consequences.

 

I generally support the process of collective bargaining, but unions are out of control, and in a way that's hurting my kids and my community. There is a rational middle ground and its high time unions stepped towards it.

Edited June 24, 2011 by yo mama

[Clubfoothead]

I'm actually a fan of collective bargaining - I fear what things might degenerate to without a countervailing force representing workers. (Though, the case for public employee unions is not as compelling as the case for private sector workers. But let's ignore that for now).

 

It's the unfunded nature of the plans, and the unrealistic/unsustainable levels of growth they are predicated upon, that need to change. Union employees need to contribute more out of their own pockets before taxpayer money comes pouring in. And the retirement plans need to be subject to market risk - if actual growth is less than projected, then you can't ask taxpayers to make up the difference.

 

And no spiking. And people are living longer, so increase the retirement age expectations. And if you retire, none of this nonsense where you go back to work someone else full time while you collect "retirement" benefits. That's a scam. And if California (or wherever) taxpayers are funding the retirement benefits - and you move out of state to spend that money elsewhere - there should be.... consequences.

 

I generally support the process of collective bargaining, but unions are out of control, and in a way that's hurting my kids and my community. There is a rational middle ground and its high time unions stepped towards it.

 

That's kind of what I tried to say. Instead of removing collective barganing how about a switch from defined benefit to defined contributions?

[yo mama]

That's kind of what I tried to say. Instead of removing collective barganing how about a switch from defined benefit to defined contributions?

Yeah, the part about eliminating collective bargaining is more about breaking political opponents than balancing budgets. I understand the arguments for and against, but including collective bargaining rights on the agenda is distracting us from purely economic reforms folks might otherwise be able to agree on.

[Azazello1313]

Instead of removing collective barganing how about a switch from defined benefit to defined contributions?

 

maybe because the unions will sooner strike than agree to it?