NJ Police Union – Blows off New Jersey Casinos for non-union Mohegan Sun!
Posted on 19 January 2011 | No responses
From the Associated Press:
The New Jersey Policemen’s Benevolent Association will hold its spring convention in Connecticut.
The organization decided to pull out of Atlantic City to protest the city laying off 60 police officers this year.
Atlantic City reinstated 17 of the officers last month after concessions were reached that require each of the city’s 300 officers to forfeit $410 to compensate for a single month of salaries and benefits.
I suppose it is too much to ask for any public employee union in the State of New Jersey to act in the best interests of the state and its citizens. But it strikes me as foolish to make this kind of statement especially when they are clearly going to open themselves up to ridicule.
For example, while they are jetting off to Connecticut-the land of no labor strife and perfect relationships between unions and the citizens they serve. Wait, this just in from the Stamford Advocate:
Pavia administration plans for budget cuts, takes aim at unions
This can’t be true? Our police unions have chosen Connecticut because they are pure!
But in setting up a potential confrontation with unions, Flynn largely blamed the need for cuts on rising structural costs caused by “onerous rich union agreements that need to be reexamined.” Flynn said his preliminary projections indicated the cost of union contracts in the form of health care, pension and other post-employment benefits are expected to increase between $18 million to $20 million over the next year.
Of the approximately 3,100 city employees, most belong to unions. Among the contracts set to expire next year are those with fire and police unions.
But that isn’t all. What about this article in the American Chronicle regarding union unrest at Foxwoods. Notice the last line. There are no union workers at Mohegan Sun.
Union At Foxwoods
In January, card dealers negotiated a union contract with Foxwoods Resort Casino, becoming the largest group of union-represented card dealers in the nation. Dealers formed a union through the United Auto Workers in November 2007 and had been fighting for a contract.
The casino’s bartenders, beverage servers, bar porters and lounge hosts later organized a collective bargaining unit through Local 371 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. In late July, they voted to form a union in an election sanctioned by the National Labor Relations Board, after rejecting unionization in a previous election.
Foxwoods challenged the outcome, arguing that federal labor law does not apply to the tribe as a sovereign nation. In November, an administrative law judge upheld the outcome of July’s election, paving the way for contract negotiations.
No Connecticut workers at Mohegan Sun are represented by unions.
So the NJ Police union says to fiscally troubled Atlantic City that its thousands of fellow union workers in their casinos are far less important than the non-union Mohegan Sun employees because they have to make a “statement”?
Interesting.
The President’s Best Night
Posted on 12 January 2011 | No responses
I just watched President Obama give his speech at the memorial
for the victims of Saturday’s tragedy in Tuscon. It was his finest moment
as the leader of the United States of America. In the midst of one of the ugliest
media climates I have ever seen led by the Sheriff of Tuscon, he had the opportunity to
show the country that he gets it. And he nailed it.
Well done Mr President.
Obama and Palin discuss Tuscon
Posted on 11 January 2011 | 2 responses
This one is excellent. Hat tip to Instapundit.
Giffords shooting: Isn’t it interesting?
Posted on 8 January 2011 | No responses
First off I would like offer Congreswoman Giffords family my thoughts and prayers for her wellbeing and recovery from the tragic shooting at her town hall meeting in Arizona. There is never a reason for anyone to resort to violence and this is no exception. In addition, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who died in this tragedy.
Isn’t it interesting that many people on the left immediately came out and call this tragedy politically motivated and blamed the tea party. Much like Mike Bloomberg in NY blamed right wing extremeists immediately after the times square bomber situation unfolded. Why anyone would want to immediately rush to judgement and indict millions of people in this country with no evidence is tellling.
After following this all day, I would suggest that this nut (despite what has been reported by the Sheriff and others) is not someone who was riled up by rhetoric but just a plain nut. But imagine if the alleged “midding accomplice” turns out to be a progressive who goaded this nut into committing the act? How fast do you think this story would disappear? Just saying.
And by the way, this commentary has as much evidence as virtually everything else I have seen written on this topic. Which makes it equally useless at this point.
Just saying.
Middlesex Cops nab 11 year old girls for WHAT?
Posted on 5 January 2011 | 2 responses
Sometimes living in the State of New Jersey makes me want to laugh and it often makes me want to cry…or vomit. Since the beginning of time (or cement), it adults poured cement on a sidewalk and walked away, some enterprising kid would pop up and scratch their initials in the wet cement. And I always thought it added character especially when you see a sidewalk many years later. I never had the sense of timing myself but appreciated it when someone else did.
And now a headline story in Fox News points out this egregious crime (at least according to Middlesex Police):
A New Jersey sixth-grader is going before a judge next week after apparently writing her name in wet cement.
Kelly Zierdt, 11, and a group of her friends allegedly etched their names in wet cement outside their school. Police caught the group in the act as they were driving past.
One of the officers said, “‘let’s put these kids in the back of the car; we’re bringing them to headquarters,’” according to Zierdt. “And then me and my friends started crying our eyes out,” My9News reports.
If all the cops did was scare the kids and turn them over to the parents, it would be just another chapter in a group of probably good kids life and a lesson learned. But not here in New Jersey:
That’s because police say Kelly’s dad, unlike the other parents, refuses to pay a $250 fine to her middle school to pay for the vandalism and refuses to sign the parent/child and police agreement as punishment.
Lt. Mike Colacci of the Middlesex Police Department says that the parents help to come up with what they believe is a suitable punishment for the action of their children, “like a 5 o’clock curfew, or chores around the house. In this case they had to write an essay as to why they did this,” Colacci told My9News.
But Zierdt’s father says his honor student daughter has already learned her lesson and so he will fight in court.
The fact that something like this would wind up in court is a like a sad joke. But it points out the real problem in the state. If we have so many police officers and courts that this is a worthwhile use of the cops’ and the court’s time, then maybe we have TOO MANY POLICE OFFICERS AND COURTS! I drive through Trenton every day and can assure you that additional police presence would contribute peace of mind to many hard working law abiding citizens just trying to get by. Perhaps these cops can drive to Trenton and help out as they clearly don’t have enough to do.
Read the entire article here.
Trenton Mayor: Take a bailout, pay to cronies
Posted on 27 December 2010 | 1 response
It looks like something isn’t right in the City of Trenton (from the Trentonian):
Mayor Tony Mack put two old friends on the city payroll without consulting with state regulators as required under the terms of the deal that gave the city a $13.7 million handout earlier this month.
According to records from City Hall, Mack hired retired city detective Harold Hall as Trenton’s public property manager and Edwin King as a park ranger three days after signing an agreement to let the state block all hires, raises and contracts made after Dec. 10.
What is it about officials in the State of New Jersey? The city of Trenton approaches the state about their budget shortfall. The Mayor’s approach bordered on begging to the state to avoid ‘massive layoffs”. The Governor relented and Trenton got assistance with “strings” attached. One of the requirements was that there would be no hiring without state approval.
Surprise:
Ryan and Gov. Chris Christie, who is behind the curbs on spending at City Hall, have yet to comment on today’s suggestion from a columnist for The Trentonian that the mayor is ignoring the rules and thumbing his nose at his critics.
Today’s Hall and King disclosures came from a list of 58 Mack crony hirings provided to City Council President George Muschal by Lauren Ira, the mayor’s press flack and “policy director.’’ The list said Hall and King were hired on Dec. 13, three days after Mack agreed to have his financial decisions monitored and maybe overruled by the state.
This is corruption pure and simple. It shouldn’t be a question of whether or not these hires should be approved. They shouldn’t. Every single one of these hires should be investigated by the State Attorney General. And charges filed if there is even a scintilla of impropriety.
Read the entire article here.
Menendez is a disgrace: Says GOP are terrorists
Posted on 4 December 2010 | No responses
In a news report in Roll Call yesterday, a group of liberal Senators decided that they were unhappy that Republicans were respecting the voters intent when they put them in office over the proposed Democratic Tax Hike of Lame Duck 2010.
“Do you allow yourself to be held hostage and get something done for the sake of getting something done, when in fact it might be perverse in its ultimate results? It’s almost like the question of do you negotiate with terrorists,” Menendez said when asked whether he and other Democrats would accept a compromise with Republicans.
What is interesting here is that while Menendez can never bring himself to actually condemn terrorists, he sees no problem calling his duly elected political opposition terrorists. And I think Chuck Schumer said in all in this money quota:
Schumer, who handily won re-election this year, acknowledged the anger vented by tea partyers and others during the election but insisted that didn’t extend to upper-income tax cuts.
Voters “did say ‘repeal health care,’ they did say ‘reduce the size of government.’ But not a single one of them from the tea party or anywhere said ‘give tax breaks to the wealthiest,’” Schumer said in a rare moment of candor.
So where do we start? Apparently we can expect Chuck Schumer to support the repeal of the Obamacare and the reduction of the Federal government in this lame duck. He said that the voters made that statement correct? And as to his comment on the “tax breaks for the wealthy”, if he would leave his Washington bubble for a short time and look around at his own constituents, the “wealthy” are the people who are struggling to keep their restaurants open, their bodegas stocked and their staff employed. It appears that the only people who seem to be living it up these days happen to work for the government as Schumer and his colleagues has seen a collective growth in their income during this recession. As the Center for Responsive Politics reported, between 2008 and 2009 congress saw an increase in their personal wealth by more than 16%. I can also assure him and Menendez that couple with children in his constituency that make 200k per year are hardly “the rich”. They are the people paying the highest tax rates in the country for the least services by government.
And one more thing Mr Menendez, the American people and the people ofo NJ did not say they wanted you to create an amnesty program (the DREAM Act) so that you could legalize illegal aliens who have flaunted our laws for years in a lame duck congress. As a matter of fact, they said just the opposite. So if Chuck and Bob want to follow the will of the voters, perhaps they should concentrate on what they actually said in their own words.
Read the article here.
Unions Would Rather Lay People Off Than Cut Costs
Posted on 23 November 2010 | No responses
The article below is about the Newark police union, but essentially the same position was taken by the teachers’ union in my town, West Orange. From NJ.com:
Newark police union rejects deal proposed by city to avoid layoffs
Published: Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 10:17 AM Updated: Tuesday, November 23, 2010, 10:48 AM
Jerry McCrea/The Star Ledger
Derrick Hatcher, left, president of the Newark Police Officer’s Union; is seen along with Ken Gaulette; Alonso Vinueza; and Jerry Aquino; alll Newark Police officers. The police union has officially rejected a deal floated by the city to avoid police layoffs.NEWARK — The Newark Fraternal Order of Police officially rejected a plan proposed by the city to stave off 167 police layoffs, FOP leadership announced in a statement this morning.
…
The deal asked for $9.5 million in concessions, including a $3.7 million salary deferrals, a $2 million cap on overtime for all detectives and patrol officers and five unpaid work days that would be recouped as time off.
The proposal also called for the 167 officers facing layoff to forego $2.7 million in overtime, stress pay, uniform allowances and raises.
…
Last Thursday, the union presented an offer of its own, proposing $6 million in pay deferrals over the next two years and $2.7 million in concessions from the officers facing layoffs. The administration declined the offer, describing the deferrals as a “liability.”
Of course, the deferrals are a liability — by definition, it shifts a requirement for money now to a requirement for money later. Since the deferrals don’t actually cut salaries, that means that Newark will have to pay for the existing salaries plus the deferred amount, which means the amount of money paid will have to increase above the levels they are now. Where do they think this money is going to come from?
Don’t get me wrong, I love cops, just like I love teachers. But when their unions refuse to deal with reality — when there is no money, and many of the people around them are taking pay cuts or getting laid off, and their unions would rather have them lose their jobs than deal with the same kinds of issues we in the private sector have been dealing with for several years now — then the union is actually working against the workers. The result was layoffs when we went through this in the West Orange schools. Will Newark cops be able to save their jobs from the union?
Best TSA Cartoon Yet: Trentonian/Mike Lester
Posted on 21 November 2010 | 1 response
Data Point: Regulating Cigs Matters More Than Taxing Them
Posted on 15 November 2010 | No responses
An article at the New York Times tells us:
A few sorts and moving the cursor over the national map quickly present these facts: The state with the highest price per pack (in 2007, the most recent data) was New Jersey, $6.34. The cheapest was South Carolina, $3.31. And New Jersey had the highest per-pack tax, $2.71, and South Carolina the lowest, 7 cents.
Smoking rates are somewhat correlated with price, but more closely correlated by high percentages of smoke-free environments, by local government regulation. Kentucky had the highest smoking rate, at 28.3 percent, while Utah was the lowest, at 11.7 percent.
Yet cigarettes are relatively inexpensive in Utah, at $3.98 a pack. Presumably, the low smoking rate in Utah is explained less by price and policy than by religion — all those non-smoking Mormons.
Lesson 1: If you are trying to regulate a behavior, regulate it directly instead of trying to play social engineer with taxes.
Lesson 2: States’ rights are important, and not just as a matter of liberty. Imagine there were a federal law prohibiting smoking in public accommodations: There would be no data above showing us that differences in smoking rates had more to do with regulation than with taxes. By honoring states’ rights, we preserve liberty while also creating little experiments and incubators that can show us, empirically, the cause-and-effect relationships of different regulations, taxes, subcultures, and so on. Liberty: Good for the individual, good for the country. Go figure.