ceo3west wrote:
Quote:

Mathias wrote:
I don't believe pensions and healthcare are just for the super rich. If you work hard and play by the rules you deserve decent pay, vacation time, health benefits and a retirement.

Super rich? Hyperbole is another big problem in these debates. I'd say 99% of the non-union workers in the middle class don't get a pension and have to pay SIGNIFICANTLY more for healthcare. I work in the healthcare industry and have to pay 8.5% of my paycheck for healthcare. I also have to contribute to a 401k because I have no pension. The problem I have is the labeling of "concessions" by unions that aren't really concessions. I used to have a pension years ago, but due to tough times it has been eliminated. I also used to get free heathcare being in the industry. Don't tell me concessions have been made. When there are no more pensions for unions and they're taking almost 10% of your paycheck for healthcare, come talk to me about concessions.

brewster wrote: Yes, here you perfectly illustrate the blindered denialism of your position. "no that couldn't have happened, no they couldn't have said that" to anything that threatens your rosy view of organized labor. Quote:

NY Times At Shaken-Up Javits Center, Costs Stay Sky-High By RANDY KENNEDY Published: October 29, 1995 Nearly four months after the Pataki administration announced major labor changes intended to purge organized crime from the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and reduce the cost of doing business there, many exhibitors say their bills have remained exorbitant, and in some cases have risen slightly. While the ultimate goal of bringing down costs has not been met, the exhibitors and center officials say that some operations have been transformed, from the elimination of payoffs down to the disappearance of folding chairs along the loading docks on 12th Avenue. "In the old days, you'd find dozens of guys who were on the job, parked in those chairs all the way down the line," said Robert E. Boyle, who became president and chief executive of the center in April. But while the changes may have rooted out featherbedding and long-entrenched acts of corruption, the cost of participating in trade shows at the Javits Center still surpasses that of other convention halls across the country, say officials at more than two dozen companies that have taken part in five large shows since the shake-up in July. The exhibitors have seen no decrease in their bills for major services, like freight handling, electrical work and the construction of booths where they display their wares. Nearly all the exhibitors interviewed said they were frustrated that their expectations about costs had been raised unrealistically. "Somebody may be saving money but it doesn't seem to be filtering down to us yet," said Rob Blair, marketing director for Optex (U.S.A.), a California security systems manufacturer that participated in the International Security Conference Expo East in September. He said that his freight delivery charges went up more than $150, to $2,756, and that he was still required to hire an electrician for a one-hour minimum, at more than $50, just to plug in an extension cord.

JadedJC wrote:
Mathias: I admire your idealism about unions, and I used to think much the same way you did. I have been part of a union at various stages of my career and my own views have shifted toward the negative based on personal experience. I am currently in a union, even though I didn't vote to join one this last go-around, but hey it's the will of the majority. I accept that and duly let them take dues out of each paycheck (yet another 'tax'). However, I have very mixed feelings about being in a union. On the one had, I appreciate the union's efforts at collective bargaining and its attempts to ensure that the company follows a consistent set of rules. On the other hand, the biggest downside I see to the union is that its most active members and biggest cheerleaders also tend to be the biggest slackers and most incompetent workers. The union culture, more often than not, stifles meritocracy because it appears more interested in protecting the lazy and inept. The end result is an office full of clock watchers and whiners where few take pride in their work. And I work in the private sector - I can only imagine how much worse it is in the public sector, where the performance bar is set much lower.

La_Verdad wrote:


Deserve? Police officers and teachers (and other public workers) "deserve" something that practically no one else gets? Why? The only argument that holds water to me is that there is a contractual obligation that entitles them to it - and breaking that contract, if it becomes necessary, will be a terrible outcome for those affected and for the further erosion of trust in the government. But "deserve"? Mid-career uniformed police and fire personnel already make well above average pay - often more than people who are far more educated. Why do they inherently "deserve" a pension? Why do they "deserve" superior health benefits? Good for them that they've managed to game the system and negotiate well, but I don't see how that qualifies these entitlements as deserved.

La_Verdad wrote:


Joining a union isn't a practical option for most people. Maybe we'd live in a better world if it were, but that's not the system we have. I've always admired the German system - I think they have a great balance that fairly rewards workers for their efforts and recognizes the important contributions labor makes to the success of a corporation. But that is Germany, not the U.S. Right or wrong, the U.S. has gone down the corporate/greed path that it has - likely to its great peril. That is a great topic for debate, books, documentaries, etc. - we both know that reform of that nature would take decades, if it's even possible. The crisis facing states and municipalities is real and immediate. We can be proactive or reactive, but fiscal bombs will be exploding across the country over the next several years and all sides are going to suffer.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
These lay-off have everything to do with the ongoing, never ending bull-siht war in the middle east.
The U.S spends more on defence then all the other countries (world) budgets combined.

War is good and Bush is the poster child for the war machine he has us commited to - this in turn requires each and every State to provide more funds to the cause of catching the mastermind (one guy hiding in a cave) responsible of 9/11

brewster wrote:

Pretty words. Yet how many times have we heard an industrial union announce it's intention in a contract negotiation to "save jobs", that is, keep the manufacturer from becoming more efficient by keeping a larger workforce than they needed. So when you take that same mentality and compound it with all the baggage of public service or childrens education, it runs off the rails. Recall the "rubber room" tenants of NYC, teachers who were too bad to be put in the classroom but who couldn't be fired for years. Did that "protect the integrity of the job"?

brewster wrote
Who was protected by the work rules at the Javits Center that required exhibitors to hire a $50/hr "electrician" for plugging items into a wall receptacle, the skilled work that happens in American homes a billion times a day? Those rapacious union rules drove the convention business out of town for years.

brewster wrote:

Most of us live in a insecure world. Most of us are lucky to get 1 out of the 3 basic positive descriptors of a career:

Security
hi pay
job satisfaction

brewster wrote
UAW rode the US car industry into the ground, defiant the whole way.

thriftyT wrote:


However, even if the intent of unions is not to guarantee continued appointment, the net effect is that many union members are very difficult to fire or layoff. Unions of course exist to increase the bargaining power of employees, but in many people's eyes, the bargaining power has shifted too far in favor of employees. Many would argue that union members have too much bargaining power in terms of job security and benefits.

thriftyT wrote:

As for the pension situation: in the big picture many workers (and owners for that matter) in the private sector are sick about union members continued pension benefits.

thriftyT wrote:
A private-sector example of how pensions and benefits can get screwed up by bad and/or desperate decision-making processes was the GM / UAW fiasco which stretched over a period of decades. But that is a story for another day.

La_Verdad wrote:

Of course we need police, fire, teachers and other municipal employees. Let's be honest though, in part due to the historical success of the unions, the people can no longer afford the payroll, benefits, pensions and perks they receive. Something has broken structurally and that needs to be addressed, independent of which side "wins".

carpetbaggertil718 wrote:
Somebody wrote this on another site but it makes some pretty good points about why we are where we are so I cut it and posted. Pretty good read.
STOP THE LIES, STOP BLAMING -TEACHERS,POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS
I would like to make sure everyone-- both public and private sector have a true understanding on how all this came to be. Back in 1992 Florio creates the Pension Revaluation Act. In a nut shell this changed the way the state pensions are valued. The pension went from book value of pension assets, to a market-related value, and increased the assumed rate of return for investments from 7 percent to 8.75 percent. This allowed the pension to grow overnight from 100% to 125%, enabling the state to reduce contributions by 1.5 Billion dollars.
Gov. Christie Whitman, seeking to keep her campaign promise to cut taxes while still balancing the budget, enacted the Pension Reform Act of 1994. To keep this short, this tactic reduced the pension payments by the state by 1.5 Billion dollars. In 1997, under Whitman's Pension Security Plan, the state issued $2.75 billion in bonds through the state Economic Development Authority to pay for pension obligations, instead of appropriating funds from the annual operating budget. By having the EDA issue the bonds, the state got around the constitutional requirement of voter approval to issue new debt. This is pure debt that we all swallow. There was no reason for this.
Why is it so hard to see what the state has done and continues to do? This strategy has been going on every since, except with an added twist-"differed pension payments or pension holidays" You see, since these new evaluations make it appear that the system was fat, in fact it is a play on numbers, the money was not used to pay into the pension fund and instead used to offset taxes in the form of tax cuts or relief. Everyone reaped the benefits of the tax cuts And if you like it or not, everyone has benefited from the public employees pension system since than. Money that should have been payed by the state as an obligation to its employees was used in other NON pension areas. How is this fair?
Today, its clear the government has pitted public vs. private, citizen against citizen, a very smart tactic. This hides the truth! This distorts the facts and spins the story against the public employee, portraying them as the guilty party who somehow holds the blame of this whole issue.
As a matter of fact, there have been many studies concluded that show the public vs. private salary war has no meat. Given all the different variables, it was found that the salary and benefits are commensurate between both sectors. One such study can be found here http://epi.3cdn.net/1c76a91816cb93c747_uum6b5slz.pdf.
So now if we look at this objectively we can find some simple facts:
1- The state government has been taking money from the pension system to create tax cuts for over 15 years..
2- The state governemt has created the war of public vs. private sector employees.
3- The state government neglected to make its required payments for well over 15 years to the pension system.
4- Everyone has benefited from money taken from the pension system in the form of tax cuts.
5- Taxes have never decreased.
Do you see the common theme. They take, they create tension and pit people against people and than assign blame...quietly walking away from problem. Than they create a solution looking like the hero.
I find it disheartening that the rules can be changed in the middle of the game. Public Employees made the required contributions to the system, they payed their taxes as well. While the state manipulated the system in their favor, robbed Peter to pay Paul and found that now the system is broke and insolvent they want to rob Peter again to pay Paul.
The bottom line is that the state is to blame. Not the employees. Its clear we are in a major financial struggle, but does anyone really know why? and by how much? I read numbers and hear equations thrown around, but where do they come from? And if these numbers can be substantiated, in which direction should the finger point? Enron's employees lost everything, the people who lied and stole money from them are in prison or dead. Why than can the state pull a similar move and point the finger elsewhere?
Its also clear that Christies approval rating is slipping. We see he has national political agendas. He is in the process of campaigning across the country as we speak. What are his motives? His children do not go to public schools, his wife makes $500,000 thousand per year, does he have the life of a middle class resident, does he understand our plight? He lives in a gorgeous estate in Mendham. Please, and yet he is making policy for us. He knows how to fix NJ? This is a spring board for his political future agenda, not for us- the residents of NJ. The majority of public sector employees did not campaign for Christie, is this payback? Government should be impartial and unbiased, not vindictive and callous
I urge you all to think twice before we bash each other and point fingers before having the facts. Take a second and do some simple research and come to your own conclusions with fact based answers not venom spewed rage.
We should all collectively demand answers from our elected officials into why these action were allowed to go on. We should point the finger where it should be pointed, not at each other but at our government. Its clear they dropped the ball. Are we all so blind to not see what is really happening here? Have we all become just as vindictive and callous? I promise you, if we remain divided....as the old saying goes" We cannot stand."

La_Verdad wrote:
e]

Agree 100%. However, whatever the cause we are drowning right now. Does it matter if it is because the pipe leaked or someone left the faucet run?

La_Verdad wrote:

Technically true - a union is an institution. But it is led by men. Men who, like all others, are motivated by basic needs such as survival and other self interests. That is why unions are almost always willing to trade away job cuts for a better deal for the surviving employees/members. As long as there is even one member left in the union, leadership still has a purpose. You dismiss the goal of saving jobs as not something a "good union" would do. If I am in your union and can't count on the most basic protection - that of continued employment - why the hell would I want you in the first place?

La_Verdad wrote:


No doubt. But the problem is that the tax system depends on the contributions of everyone. And in Jersey City, the middle class is hit harder than the upper class because of tax abatements and the composition of the population.

La_Verdad wrote:
If the police union really existed for the benefit of its brothers and sisters and not just its own self-interest, how could they not agree to a small (relative to what a lot of other people have been through recently) pay cut to save the jobs of its members? I read in the paper that the union is worried that if they give in now it will only lead to further requests down the road. What difference does it make if they get pressure in the future? They would still have the ability to say no.

La_Verdad wrote:
You can't argue that the city isn't broke. The causes of its insolvency are disgusting, but they doesn't change the facts. How does the city pay its bills without employees being affected? Serious question.

brewster wrote:
Interesting article in todays Times

Quote:

Fred Siegel, a historian at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute, has written of the ?New Tammany Hall,? which he describes as the incestuous alliance between public officials and labor.

?Public unions have had no natural adversary; they give politicians political support and get good contracts back,? Mr. Siegel said. ?It?s uniquely dysfunctional.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/business/02showdown.html?_r=1&hp

mwa7368 wrote:
Seems that somebody may have been leaking.

johnr wrote: Since I've lived here I have not been able to understand why we would want to superimpose the NYC skyline at our most prime waterfront location (Exchange Place) with a giant, grotesque symbol of foreign nationalism. Apparently there were originally a huge amount of Polish that lived here and had their way with the place, but downtown is clearly not a Polish/ethnic neighborhood any longer. Lots of terrible things happened to lots of people during lots of wars in lots of places all throughout history. This thing has to do with a conflict between Poland and Russia. What is it doing here? Can't we think of something a bit more positive to welcome NYC travelers to Jersey City with?

frankseraph wrote:
Live in NJ and work in NYC, so need to pay NY state tax.
Wondering whether tuition fee can be used to deduct NY tax.
Thanks a lot for help!

snowflake20 wrote:

And Mathias, property taxes in CT and NY are much much much much lower than NJ.

snowflake20 wrote:


They'll move to Connecticut, or Westchester. There is a higher rate of wealth in those states because the taxes in those states are much lower.

snowflake20 wrote:

I find it ironic that my tax money goes to people's payroll and pension and they get much much better benefits than I do and a lot of them make more money than me. .

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

Mathias wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

Mathias wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

ogden1 wrote:
Cato, just curious.
What do you think these salaries should be?
Do a comparison througout the major cities in the state and let us know your findings.
Do you think Elena Scambia did a bang up job???
Compare her to Epps. Who is better?

Whatever the market will bear.

They are already paid what the market will bear.

How so?

There's a labor market for teachers

There is, but it's not being utilized.

DirtMcGirt wrote:

This meltdown couldn't have happened without the Fed. The market can't overheat without government policies that force easy money into the market.

DirtMcGirt wrote:

As for teachers, no one wants to cut education budgets, but fiscal responsibility still matters.

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

Mathias wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

ogden1 wrote:
Cato, just curious.
What do you think these salaries should be?
Do a comparison througout the major cities in the state and let us know your findings.
Do you think Elena Scambia did a bang up job???
Compare her to Epps. Who is better?

Whatever the market will bear.

They are already paid what the market will bear.

How so?

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
Our elected officials JUST DON'T GET IT.

CUT THE F**KING SPENDING.

CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT.

CUT SALARIES
MORE LAYOFFS (Mid/Senior levels)
Sell Assets
Fix broken pension system (eliminate & replace)


Get Creative with community organizations to enlist help from free volunteers


STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.

NO MORE ABATEMENTS

I really hope this 2.5% cap on Property Taxes gets passed.

FGJCNJ1970 wrote:
Personally, I am glad that this didn't pass.

To get anywhere from a 4.3 to 4.7 % raise is just obnoxious while we're still very much in the Great Recession and so many in the private sector (myself included) have lost our jobs outright.

Giving themselves these generous raises does nothing to help the kids. NJ teachers are already the highest paid in the nation.

Finally, I think there is a LOT of waste in our public schools and a lot of teachers who have their jobs because of that thing called tenure. I'm sick of being taxed to hell for it - and I don't even have kids.

Tenure needs to go. In the 70's when I was in elementary school there were between 30-40 kids in my class with just one teacher. I'm not buying that we have to have a lower student / teacher ratio for kids to succeed.

CUT CUT CUT

FG

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Quote:

ogden1 wrote:
Cato, just curious.
What do you think these salaries should be?
Do a comparison througout the major cities in the state and let us know your findings.
Do you think Elena Scambia did a bang up job???
Compare her to Epps. Who is better?

Whatever the market will bear.

jsqfunk wrote:
if the government is not a business, should government workers have the right to unionize?

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

SICULO wrote:


Getting back to the point, heres another lesson for someone like yrself, Spending more money than what you take on makes for very , very bad bussiness practice, you can learn that in Economics 101, another class you must have flunked!

Government is not a business.

Rbastid wrote:
This thread is an amazing collection of false talking points though (fully proven with the link to huffpo) All the EVILLLL business talk and attempts to attack "talk radio" hilarious.

Rbastid wrote:
The newest Obama bill has many tax cuts for business along with unemployment extensions, the extensions always pass on their own so why add the tax cuts? Maybe because they too believe it works.

Rbastid wrote:
Yes businesses will always be looking out for their bottom line, and why shouldn't they thats the whole point of a business

Rbastid wrote:
but by all of you quoting that talking point you are proving the point you keep trying to claim is false, that tax cuts spur employment. If I run a business and I see my bottom line being cut into by taxes I'm going to fire someone to make sure I stay with X amount of dollars, so the more you tax, the more I fire, until I keep the bare minimum to run effectively while still making what I want. Now if you stop taxing the living hell out of companies, maybe they won't run out and hire 10,000 workers, but you will protect the jobs of those few who are able to work.

snowflake20 wrote:
I'd like to know what your solution would be to close the budget gap. The pension fund is $46 BILLION under funded. Would you rather NJ go bankrupt and not pay these workers anything?