The “Christiecrats” attack labor

NEW JERSEY has joined the growing list of states attacking collective bargaining and forcing public workers to bear the brunt of fiscal woes--and key Democratic legislators were more than willing to work with Republican Gov. Chris Christie in the assault.

Although Democrats control both houses of the state legislature, the party provided enough votes June 20 to pass a pension and health care bill that removes health insurance from collective bargaining, more than triples employee health care contributions and raises workers' pension contributions as well.

The Democrats gave Christie everything he asked for, passing the measure by a margin of 24-15 in the state Senate and 46-32 in the Assembly. All Republicans voted for the bill, while the Democrats were split between "Christiecrats" and those who opposed the measure, labeled "Real Democrats."

Several Democrats gave eloquent speeches throughout the weeklong proceedings in the Senate and the Assembly, equating bargaining rights with civil rights. Senate Majority Leader Barbara Buono claimed that undermining collective bargaining "erodes our identity as a nation."

But Senate President Steve Sweeney, a Democrat and former Ironworkers official who claims he is first and foremost a "union man," had no problem finding the Democratic votes needed to push the legislation through.

Under the new law, workers will increase contributions to their pensions by 2 percent of their salaries. The retirement age will increase from 62 to 65, and cost-of-living adjustments will be eliminated for current and future retirees, which means that inflation will erode pensions over the long term.

The health care provisions require employees to pay up to 35 percent of their premium. A 50-50 union-management Oversight Board will determine costs. Health care costs for workers--who until now paid just 1.5 percent of insurance costs--will increase by as much as 300 to 500 percent, depending on the plan.

All told, employees will see a 10 percent pay cut when the law is fully implemented, according to union estimates.

While liberal Democrats spoke out about the health care changes, they had no problem with the pension adjustments. Many called for splitting the bill, which would allow policymakers to tackle health care and the pension deficit separately.

The pension deficit is not the result of exorbitant benefits. On the contrary, it resulted from the state's failure to pay its portion of the pension fund for the last 20 years--and gambling the funds on the stock market.

There was little talk in the legislature of making the hedge fund managers and Wall Street bankers, who earned lucrative fees from handling the state's pension funds, pay to cover the shortfall. Nor did Democrats not push for a millionaire's tax, which would have actually made the sizeable number of Wall Streeters who live in New Jersey pay their fair share.

Christie's attack was months in the making. In January, when Chris Wallace of Fox News asked the governor about the pension deficit, Christie bragged, "The Democratic state legislature has said they're willing to work with me on it and negotiate. And they promised me, as part of property tax relief that we passed last year, that in the first quarter of this year, we'll pass real pension and health-care benefit reform. So that'll be my push for the first quarter."

Legislating public worker's health benefits was also seen as an attack on collective bargaining: health care and wages have always been the main basis of contract negotiations in New Jersey.

In response, the Communication Workers of America (CWA) and other state employees' unions proposed their own health care plan, which would have doubled employee contributions while introducing cost-saving measures. Lawmakers refused to even entertain the proposal.

In spite of the CWA's efforts to convince New Jerseyans of the importance of "shared sacrifice" and "balancing the budget," the politicians' refusal to consider the union's offer of concessions proves that this latest legislative maneuver isn't really about containing costs. Rather, the aim is to bust unions and make teachers, firefighters and state workers pay the financial burden for the state--and no one else.

After being shut out by the Democratic leadership, public-sector unions scrambled to defend themselves. Yet despite ample warning from the administration, union leaders seemed surprisingly unprepared for the impending battle. On June 23, the day the bill passed, the largest protest peaked at about 6,500 people.

Unions like the CWA worked alongside AFSCME, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and local firefighters and police unions to call for rallies at the state house. Labor officials had hoped for a repeat of the May 2010 rally that drew about 40,000 people. However, teachers, who made that rally a success in terms of numbers, were still in session in some districts and failed to show in significant numbers.

This year, the first rally on June 16 focused on happenings inside the Senate Budget Committee and was over by 1 p.m. The second rally was called by the NJEA alone, leaving teachers to protest without support. The third rally played more like a rock concert than a protest, complete with a stage and multiple projection screens.

Union leaders seemed to honestly believe that things would play out similarly to Wisconsin, where tens and then hundreds of thousands converged on the state Capitol to delay a vote on anti-union legislation. But in New Jersey, the crucial mass they hoped for never materialized.

Given the 500,000 public workers in New Jersey and the extent of the cuts, the modest numbers at the rally may be surprising. However, the unions' attempt to turn the bill into a referendum on collective bargaining never gained traction. Indeed, union leaders were ineffective in explaining what was at stake in the months leading up to the showdown.

When the battle finally came, there was no occupation of the Capitol, no talk of strikes, no talk of shutting anything down. The best the unions could muster was "We'll remember in November,"--which seems odd because there really is no alternative to the Democrats in November. While the unions are threatening to withhold money and support from Democrats who "betrayed" them, they haven't put forward any idea for building an alternative or fighting back against Christie and the Democratic power brokers.

On the contrary, decades of support for the Democrats left unions in disarray when the party turned on them with such venom. No other strategy beyond electoral politics emerged, and the years of never really mobilizing members, nor building coalitions with other unions, non-unionized workers or local communities exposed a real weakness at the core.

That was a disappointment to many activists at the rally. "All I hear is a lot of apologies for the Democrats. We need a third party," a member of CWA Local 1032 said, repeating a popular refrain of the day. Many workers were quick to openly criticize Democrats for such a blatant affront to their traditional base.

But laying the blame for this defeat on the Democrats--or rather, certain Democrats--is too convenient. The unions failed to do the hard work of mobilizing the rank and file, and building coalitions across unions and with non-union organizations. The union leadership was content to bemoan the apathy of its members, blaming members for not mobilizing--although they are never asked to mobilize for anything other than contract negations.

Focusing our energies on building the movement beyond the statehouse steps and into the workplaces and community will be the only way to strengthen labor. Rank-and-file organization will enable the movement to go forward in the right direction, helping to empower workers while at the same time boosting the power of the unions.