State Budget - Courier - State workers not exempt from budget examination

*
Published in the Courier News, Monday, June 5, 2006

[Editorial]
State workers not exempt from budget examination

The proposal to seek union givebacks from state employees to help balance New Jersey's budget shouldn't have been such a shock to so many people, as it was last week.

The question, really, is why shouldn't lawmakers at least look at that possibility?

Democratic state Sen. Stephen Sweeney, D-Woodbury, who has been known to stir the Trenton pot, is the lead proponent of the idea to trim 15 percent from the $4.6 billion spent on employee salaries and benefits. Joining him on the front lines in describing the plan last week were Assemblymen Jerry Green, D-Plainfield, and Paul Moriarty, D-Turnersville, and the proposal resonated with many lawmakers -- particularly Republicans.

Supporters' specific financial goal is to save $700 million and thus avoid the proposed sales tax hike from 6 percent to 7 percent included in Gov. Jon S. Corzine's budget. The proposal includes a longer work week -- from 35 hours to 40 hours -- a ban on pensions for part-timers and mandatory employee contributions for benefits. The Democrats leading the charge said it's time for state workers to join the "real world" encountered by private-sector employees. Sweeney, usually a labor proponent, was reportedly angered by unions' active support for the sales tax increase.

Realistically, this plan isn't likely to solve any immediate budget problems, with a deadline for completion looming at the end of June and Corzine all but rejecting the idea on arrival. A governor's office spokesman said the budget process was no time for re-opening contract negotiations, and these would certainly be particularly contentious talks.

But while the timing may be an obstacle, the concept should not be so summarily dismissed. The depths of New Jersey's budget crisis demand the exploration of every nook and cranny of the budget, including those union deals. And -- on the surface, at least -- public employees do get a very good deal in New Jersey, potentially too good for the state to any longer afford.

Legislators speak often about reducing the size of state government, but what that really means is reducing the expense of it, not merely the number of people on the payroll. That reduction can be achieved through fewer jobs, but also by reducing compensation packages.

The unions are under no obligation to consider any givebacks in a deal that expires next summer. And with the governor's support behind them, they have little motivation to volunteer anything. But if nothing else, this effort by lawmakers to expose what they see as bloated contract provisions should help lay some needed groundwork for the next deal.

The state employee unions may be able to hold onto what they've got for another year. But those "real world" considerations should make some mark in the next contract. We want workers to be treated fairly, but we expect the same for taxpayers. And right now, there certainly appears to be an imbalance that leaves too heavy a burden on the taxpayers. That should not continue.

http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060605/OPINION01/606050314/1009

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)