TO: All CWA Local 1081 Members
FROM: David H. Weiner, President
DATE: April 28, 2009
SUBJECT: 4/23/09 Civil Service Commission Hearing Testimony
Below, please find the testimony of New Jersey Director of the Communications Workers of America Hetty Rosenstein, at the New Jersey Civil Service Commission hearing of April 23, 2009, where the Commission accepted public testimony regarding Governor Corzine's proposal the Commission vote to approve permanent Civil Service rule changes to allow New Jersey's state and local governments (including counties) to implement furloughs in a way that would include allowing those governments to ignore workers' seniority rights.
Good evening Commissioners. Hello Brothers and Sisters.
My name is Hetty Rosenstein. I am the New Jersey Director of the Communications Workers of America.
We oppose the Rule that is before you. The Civil Service system has existed in New Jersey for more than 100 years. The idea of the system is that workers are hired, promoted and laid off based upon merit and fitness and in order of seniority. This system lasted throughout the past century including through the Great Depression without any system of temporary layoffs.
Layoffs are controlled by the statute and involve a careful system of lateral and demotional rights determined by title and seniority with tests and oversight in order to prevent politicians from using layoffs as a means to promote cronyism and exact political revenge. This system also makes a sad and terrible circumstance as fair as possible.
The Rule that adds 'temporary layoffs' to the mix is an effort to manipulate that process and ' as you said ' give politicized management the flexibility to do whatever it wants when ever it wants, without regard to fairness, equity, seniority, or a collective bargaining agreement.
The Temporary Layoff rule permits involuntary furloughs of workers for reasons of economy, efficiency or other related reason. Much has been made about trying to use furloughs as an alternative to layoff. The fact is, this was available before the rule ' all that was necessary was that the Employer negotiate it with the union. But this rule goes out of its way to be more than an alternative to layoff. Under this rule, an appointing authority could implement a furlough in order to lower the wage costs of its rank and file workforce so that it had more money available to hire the relative of a local politician merely by making some claim of needed efficiencies or managerial prerogatives. Does anyone doubt that in New Jersey, where politicians become plumbing consultants and hold no show jobs at universities in exchange for funding of hospitals and medical schools, that such is not only possible but likely?
The Rule is fundamentally unfair. It allows for the exemption of some and not of others. The conditions under which some are exempt and others are not appear to be extremely flexible and we have no doubt that we will soon read that some corrupt local politician will have exempted some and not others for the price of sneakers or a gym membership.
And please do not tell us that there will be Civil Service oversight of the layoff plan. The Civil Service Commission is a shadow of its former self with no staff to even oversee the selection and appointment system. This Rule is yet another opportunity for New Jersey's particular brand of corruption.
The Rule violates statutory bumping and layoff rules. In State service there are workers who have been exempted from furlough whose supervisors have not been exempted. Under the statute, in a layoff, those supervisors have demotional rights to the unfurloughed position. We think that those supervisors will have a right, in every 45 day layoff event to bump those they supervise all over the State of New Jersey for one day so that the least senior and lowest title ends up furloughed for the day. Obviously this is true with staggered furloughs as well.
And we have not spoken of the Elephant in the Room ' the fact that furloughs are a cut in services to the public. It all sounds rather cute and fluffy. Furloughs. As opposed to cut in hours, cut in services, cut in pay.
But that is what it is. If you eliminate 5% of the workforce ' that is what 14 days of furloughs do ' you are cutting services to the public by at least that much. The lines at motor vehicles will be longer, there will be fewer workers to help abused and neglected children, unemployed workers will wait longer and more desperately for their unemployment, permits at DEP will wait, developmentally disabled and mentally ill clients will have less therapy, less vocational rehabilitation and less supervision. Furloughs are not free.
There is a CWA local government unit where within weeks of signing off on a collective bargaining agreement ' the appointing authority upon learning of this rule ' is furloughing workers for 26 days in 26 weeks. That is a 20% pay cut and a 20% cut in services over that time.
Public workers sacrifice their careers and their families to service. That is why we took these jobs. We are teachers and social workers and scientists and public interest lawyers, employment counselors, and nurses, and health aides, and police officers, fire fighters. We give back. That's who we are. I would also remind you that we are taxpayers and voters as well.
Our members are desperately needed now. The demand for a wage freeze, coupled with furloughs amounts to an 8 ' 12% pay cut. Saying to workers pay up or we will lay off you or the person who works next to you ' is unfair. It is inequitable. It is too much from a small group. It is too much.
And furloughs and wage cuts are anti-stimulus. Most of our members earn between $30,000 and $70,000 a year. They take their paychecks and bring them to the grocery store. Many of our members are single parents, and a pay cut for us, really is a cut in the standard of living for our children. Many of us have had spouses and partners who have been laid off.
A pay cut of 8 ' 12% will hurt our families. This Rule hurts families. Jon Corzine is hurting middle class families.
We are not stupid. Our members are not stupid. We know that the State has lost revenues and that there is an enormous budget gap. But too much is asked of this group. And the anti-public worker rhetoric is unconscionable and does not bring the state and the country together. It is contrary to the Change millions of Americans sought in electing Barack Obama.
But there is a better way. If any issue every cried out for the bargaining table it is this one.
Here's what we propose:
A. Eliminate all Project Specialists, Confidential Aides, Government Service Representative positions. We all know that these are political appointees. That is a luxury we can no longer afford.
B. The statute and the contract calls for the elimination of temporary and non permanent services before permanent workers are laid off and for returning contracted work to state service. Eliminate all non-seasonal temporary services contracts and side deals. Bring the work back.
C. Bring the Engineering design and inspection work back inside the Department of Transportation. DOT's own studies show that the State is paying $75 million more to pay to play politically connected consultants than it would cost to bring the work inside. The State should get rid of Caremark and become its own Prescription Benefit Manager or negotiate a better PBM ' we are getting snookered on that contract and we could save tens of millions of dollars with a better one. The Aon Contract for an audit of the SHBP is costing at least $4.5 million in a no bid contract to save $9 million. The state could have easily had the appointing authorities do this at no cost and less risk of a breach of confidentiality.
D. And finally ' please can we get rid of the external pension plan investors that have cost the pension plan over $50 million in fees while losing us $29 billion in investments. It appears that those expensive boys from Wall Street know less than the good old State Workers from the Division on Investment who have invested our money conservatively and for free for all of these years.
Doesn't the State of New Jersey have a responsibility to do these things before demanding that working families give up 8 ' 12% of their household income? Doesn't the State of New Jersey have a responsibility to demand that Local Government go through a similar process?
The State has permitted Local Governments and itself to furlough what is owed to our pension plans ' without requiring any test of imminent peril. The Rule permits the State of New Jersey to cut our incomes without enforcing the provisions that eliminate temporary positions first. The Rule makes no requirements of Local Governments that they prove that they have cut patronage positions and crony contracts before cutting the wages of its regular workforce.
We get it. We know that we have to do our share. But, at the end of the day, this Rule is a crude tool that bludgeons the wage rate, the collective bargaining agreements, it will lead to corruption and chaos, it is inequitable and falls most harshly on our members, and hurts middle class families.
Someone needs to explain to our members, middle class workers, how it is fair that their share of the sacrifice is $4,000 or more a year, but someone who earns $9000 a week is asked to sacrifice $675 a year. This is unfair.
The politically appointed Civil Service Commission should tear up this Rule and quietly go back to collecting $18,000 and qualifying for life time public pensions and healthcare for showing up to a handful of meetings and acting as a rubber stamp for appointing authorities.
Governor Corzine ' come to the bargaining table yourself. We'll tell you other places you can save millions of dollars and we'll negotiate something that is fair that does not destroy the standard of living of middle class families.