New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

As reported by the New York Times, On Thursday, March 31, 2011, the State of Ohio passed a law that is more restrictive on the collective bargaining rights of Public Safety Officers than the law that was passed in Wisconsin several weeks ago.  

While both laws severely limit public employees’ ability to bargain collectively — they both prohibit any bargaining over health coverage and pensions — the Ohio law largely eliminates bargaining for the police and firefighters whereas Wisconsin’s law leaves those two groups’ bargaining rights untouched. Ohio’s law also gives city councils and school boards a free hand to unilaterally impose their side’s final contract offer when management and a union fail to reach a settlement.  Implementation of a final offer by management is permitted in private sector collective bargaining but was previously not permitted in the public sector.

Notwithstanding the differences in legislation, the push by those states’ Republican governors and Republican-dominated legislatures points to a pendulum swing away from what many unions and Democrats see as a fundamental right for public employees: the right to bargain over wages and benefits.

While New Jersey's Governor, Chris Christie, has stated that he does not have any intentions on abolishing Public Safety Officers' rights to collectively bargain, he has already taken steps to eliminate premium cost sharing of health care benefits as a subject that is mandatorily negotiable.  Furthermore, he has also stated that he is looking forward to engaging in "adversarial" negotiations with public employee labor unions as contracts are now expiring.

To read the entire New York Times article regarding the Ohio law, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Asbury Park Press published an article in today's Sunday edition addressing the ability of The State of New Jersey to honor its pension obligations to those public employees that have been paying into the retirement system since the start of their public employment .  The article, entitled "Can New Jersey Keep its Pension Promises?" unfortunately reiterated the same information that we have been hearing for the last several years.......The Pension System is Broke.

The article stated that as of June, 2009, the state's pension system faced unpaid liabilities in the amount of $45.8 billion dollars.  However, this is assuming that the state receives an annual 8.25% return on its pension investments.  At this point in time, everyone is aware that the State hasn't seen 8.25% for several years now.  Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated that the unfunded liability of $45.8 billion is a conservative estimate and the true unfunded liability is more along the lines of $173.9 billion, with unfunded health care costs reaching $55 billion dollars.  Eileen Norcross, a George Mason University researcher has been quoted as stating, "It's mathematically impossible to pay this out.  It's too large."

However, despite the fact that the public employment pension system is in dire straits, Governor Christie, has made the decision to "skip" the state's 2010 $3billion dollar pension payment. In reviewing the administration's decision to forgo the payment, one has to question if the Christie administration has already given up on attempting to save the state pension system and the countless amount of money that has been withheld from public employee's paychecks on a weekly basis since the inception of the system.  I bet many of you who are reading this article would like to skip a few pension payments or take a "pension holiday" the way that the state, county and local governments have over the last sever years. 

A year or two ago, myself and other attorneys representing public employee labor unions filed suit against the State of New Jersey for failing to fund the State Employee Pension Systems.  An argument was made that the state had a constitution mandate or obligation to fund the pension system.  Unfortunately all of the suits were dismissed under the notion that the state had very broad discretion in making decisions on how to appropriate funds concerning fiscal obligations.  However, the court did leave the door open and stated that a suit would be entertained if pension recipients did not receive payment due to the state's inability to pay.  With that being said, one has to ask the question:  "Wont it be to late at that point in time?"

We will continue to follow this issue on this blog.  You, the public employees of the State of New Jersey, and retired public employees of the  state of New Jersey need to take affirmative steps to attempt to revive your retirement system.  If you do not take immediate affirmative steps to protect your retirement income, unfortunately, it appears as if it will be lost due to government irresponsibility and mismanagement. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link