Unions file suit vs. state
By Editor | April 23rd, 2010 - 4:49pmThe Professional Firefighters Association of New Jersey (PFANJ) and Teamsters Local 97 filed a lawsuit against the Christie administration and the legislative leadership in an effort to overturn a 1.5% pay reduction to cover the cost of health insurance for public employees.
“In passing this law, the Members of the State Legislature, from both political parties, rushed to appease the Governor’s desire to circumvent collective negotiations. The result is a statute that violates long-standing principles of fair play as well as the State and Federal Constitutional rights of our clients’ members. We anxiously await our day in court to present our clients’ claims to an impartial judiciary,” said James Mets, the attorney for the two unions.
The suit, filed in Mercer County Superior Court, argues that the newly-passed law violates the constitutional rights of public employees.
“An overwhelming majority of the Legislature and the Governor came together to enact these reforms because they are fair to current employees and will ensure the state’s promise of a full pension to career public servants. I am confident the courts will share that view and dismiss this lawsuit," said State Sen. Stephen Sweeney (D-West Deptford).
Wake-Up Call
Morning News Digest: September 2, 2010
Follow PolitickerNJ on Twitter and FacebookSchundler releases chronology of his firingIn yet another entry in the sordid ledger of his firing, ousted education chief Bret Schundler Wednesday released what he says will be his final word on his termination. In his cover letter to reporters, Schundler said Gov. Chris Christie's accusation that...
The Back Room
Christie v. Sweeney
Beaten up by for being too diplomatic around Gov. Chris Christie, Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-West Deptford) gave the governor both barrels over the guv's attempt to twist his inner cabinet collapse into anti-Obama Fox News code speak - and the governor didn't appreciate that, according to GOP sources.
Read More >Op-Ed
Help Wanted: New Education Commission Should Recognize Real Reform
As the dust settles on the tenure of Bret Schundler, Chris Christie should be looking for a replacement with a proven track record in education, rather than a political resume. New Jersey needs leadership that respects the integrity of the public... Read More >
Contributors
Resources
Visit the PolitickerNJ.com/resources page for links to the best collection of information on New Jersey state government.
- Polls
- The best blogs
- Columnists
- State election results
- Assembly election results
- Local party websites
- And more.
Most Active Stories
Latest from Twitter
Quote of the Day
Quote of the day
"Don't let the suit fool you. I've been a working man. My uncle fired me. My father was the hearing officer. It was the union that got my job back." - Newark Councl President Donald Payne, Jr.
- PolitickerNJ.comPoll
Press Releases
Press releases are submitted by PolitickerNJ users, not by staff. They do not represent the viewpoint of PolitickerNJ.com.
Arrogance
Constitution? Which one the constitution and bylaws of your union charter?
The state requiring its employees to contribute to healthcare is constitutional. If it is not, then guess what? Every town with a Union which refuses to open its contract, should revoke its own municipal charter and end the contract. Trenton Ver.2.0 has no contract.
There has never been more of a critical time than now to warrant consolidation of police and fire.
If your crime rate and fire calls are below 5% and you neighbor a municipality with like percentages, guess what? You get consolidated.
How sad that we are in such greedy times.
Isn't this really a tax & is it legal?
First, I have no problem with public employees paying a bigger share of the cost of their healthcare. But the method seems odd. Normally healthcare costs for employees, wether public or private companies, is a flat fee based upon the level of service (family or single) But this 1/5% is based solely on income, and I'm not sure if there is an exemption for those that don't have benefits. It seems more like a flat tax that applies solely to public workers across the board.
Like I said, I agree with the theory, but curious about the execution. Maybe someone with more knowledge about the details of this interesting accounting could post them?
It must be legal . . .
. . . to require that certain professions pay 'assessments' or taxes - since the State requires lawyers to pay special taxes ($75 a year) to cover medical malpractice premiums for doctors.
Plus, asking employees to contribute to pay for their own (tax-free, i.e., pre-paid with before-tax dollars) health care is not a 'tax' as much as it is a reduction in the tax-exempt benefit.
The State should allow the employees to not take health benefits, pay them the cost of those benefits, and let the cost be taxed as 'regular income.' Even at the minimum marginal rate of 28%, public sector employees are coming out way, way ahead on this one.
-Greg L.