The New York Times and “solidarity” 

New Jersey legislators have been acting irresponsibly for many years by failing to allocate enough budget money to fund the pension system for state workers. Now, facing a crisis of their own making, they are trying to break labor contracts, force union give- backs, and institute draconian budget cuts. State Senator Stephen Sweeney, a Democrat from Gloucester County, is leading the charge.

From a New York Times editorial 6/18/06: “Union leaders point out that benefits are subject to contract negotiations, which are not due to start until next year. Mr. Sweeney replies that when New York City and Philadelphia were in fiscal distress, unions did not stand on ceremony. Labor leaders had a place at the table in both cases, and offered to absorb a share of the pain in the name of fiscal stability and solidarity with other taxpayers.”

In response, I wrote the following letter, which was printed 6/25 in the New Jersey Section.

[the full text of the 6/18 editorial is included below my letter]

------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/opinion/nyregionopinions/l25jersey.html

To the editor:

Decades ago, solidarity among wage earners resulted in a progression of employment-related improvements such as a shortening of the work day, an increase in vacation time, and better pension and health benefits, as well as higher pay. Your editorial of June 18 ("Reform Now, or Pay Later") invokes the idea of “solidarity” in an entirely different context, implying that state workers should give back hard-won gains so as to “absorb a share of the pain in the name of fiscal stability and solidarity with other taxpayers.”

Currently, pensions and benefits are being ravaged all over the country. We’re witnessing the reversal of what formerly was recognized as social progress. Its champion, the labor movement, has become isolated.

Groups of workers need to start taking a stand to halt the anti-progressive momentum. It appears that the New Jersey state workers are intent upon doing so. Their fight is for a defense of living standards, and they need to be supported by a healthy dose of broad-based, old-style solidarity.

Steven Welzer

------------------------------------------

[FULL EDITORIAL]

New York Times 6/18/06 - New Jersey Section

Reform Now, or Pay Later

As a union ironworker with a pro-labor voting record, State Senator Stephen Sweeney, a Democrat from Gloucester County, has impeccable union credentials. But to some of his union brothers and sisters, Stephen Sweeney is the enemy. His crime? He insists that the state must drastically change pension and health benefit packages for future workers, and he thinks union leaders ought to be doing more to help the state out of its current fiscal mess.

As the July 1 deadline for passing a new budget approaches, Senator Sweeney finds himself in the center of a growing debate over New Jersey’s ability to pay for generous benefits granted by contract to its thousands of unionized workers. He wants to save $700 million in the next fiscal year by cutting state compensation costs by 15 percent. Compensation for state workers accounts for $4.6 billion of the state’s $31 billion budget.

Among the perks that Mr. Sweeney and his allies, Democratic Assemblymen Jerry Green and Paul Moriarty, have criticized are a 35-hour work week, 14 paid holidays and three personal days annually, 15 paid sick days per year, up to five weeks’ vacation for senior workers, and the ability to cash in unused sick time upon retirement at age 55.

Mr. Sweeney would increase the work week by five hours, raise the retirement age to 60, change the formula on which pensions are based, and limit lifetime health benefits to the workers, not their dependents.

Union leaders point out that benefits are subject to contract negotiations, which are not due to start until next year. Mr. Sweeney replies that when New York City and Philadelphia were in fiscal distress, unions did not stand on ceremony. Labor leaders had a place at the table in both cases, and offered to absorb a share of the pain in the name of fiscal stability and solidarity with other taxpayers.

Mr. Sweeney also notes that the entire State Legislature is up for re-election next year, which means that any discussion of union givebacks or concessions must begin now. “Otherwise,” he said, “the same shenanigans that got us into trouble in the first place will happen again.”

Over the long term, Mr. Sweeney believes the state must install a two-tier system of retirement and health-care benefits. Current workers will not see a change in their defined benefits. But newly hired workers would have higher co-payments for medical benefits and higher contributions into a reformed pension system.

Mr. Sweeney and his colleagues have begun an extremely important debate at an appropriate time. If Trenton is going to achieve true reform of its finances and placate a public upset by high property taxes, it has to act now.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Comments