S5 Reporters Take

The only video reaction so far to the conditional veto of S5 is a minute from John Reitmeyer of njspotlight.com:
.

.
The problem here….

The bill does nothing except set the stage for a series of meetings of a committee which will have no power. This is another example of union hierarchy betraying their members which is something of no practical concern to those who support this conditional veto:

  1. lobbying groups concerned about not having their pieces of the pie shrink,
  2. politicians pandering to an interest group without actually giving them anything, and
  3. reporters provided with a spate of happy-news press releases to choose from thus obviating the need to do unpleasant chores like researching (or thinking).

21 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on May 12, 2018 at 10:27 pm

    Sorry (off topic) but judicial rulings such as THIS is madness if NJ is to ever get any sort of tax relief:

    http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2018/05
    /town_taking_over_policing_duties_for_neighbor_must.html

    Quoting the first paragraph….

    “A town taking over policing duties for a neighboring municipality disbanding its police force must hire all the officers from the department being dissolved, a judge has ruled.”

    Another quote……….

    “Telsey (the Judge> said according to state law, Mantua must hire all of Wenonah’s officers. ”

    WHAT, we keep hearing that we need CONSOLIDATE to save money, but there is evidently a SATE LAW that that disallows the biggest (BY FAR) source of savings …. redundant headcount reduction ?

    Reply

    • Posted by El gaupo on May 13, 2018 at 8:39 am

      Can’t open the link. But either way I didn’t know that. I think it has to do with whether you are merging it consolidating. I don’t know. Look at Camden County PD. Lots of former city cops went to work there, those that could’ve retired did. Most new ones leave as soon as they can for greener pastures(figuratively and literally). But the county I don’t beleive was under an obligation to hire all of them. What we can all agree on is that there are major retention issues within that department. I wonder why?
      I also remember years back Assemblyman John Rooney trying to disband the Palisades Park Police Dept because his son got arrested for drugs. (Not unlike the port authority case). He actually admitted that it was a personal vendetta for what they did. That is why it is a good idea to have keep these mutts out of decision making process. The Bergen county sheriffs dept absorbed the county police. It may not have been perfect but no one lost their job. (At the time). And as folks retired they found ways to manage(mostly with a smaller administrative head count.). If you go to the Bergen county police academy and look at all the photos of graduating classes, you will see 2010 and 2011 as the by far the smallest in record. Then you will see a few years after the largest on record. Most of these dept are not over staffed. The residents (at least in Bergen county) want a cop at their door 90 sec after calling, they want dare in the schools , the want services that while nice and very worthwhile, also require additional manpower. I work in a town where the min staffing level is 2 guys. That happens almost half the time. You can’t cut more than that without merging. I am not opposed to that. As long as it is not done because the mayors kid got a ticket. Lol.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on May 13, 2018 at 11:01 am

        Here’s the link (paste in a single line … all of it)

        http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2018/05/town_taking_over_policing_duties_for_neighbor_must.html

        Camden is an unusual case. The situation in my linked article is a small town with 5 Police Officers who made a deal to get police services through nearby Police. If CONSOLIDATION is one of the best ways to get property tax relief, then having ANY State Law or Regulations that protects UNNECESSARY workers from being terminated is counterproductive, absurd and clearly passed by a Legislature doing what they do best …. kissing the Police Union’s ass.

        And it’s 180 degrees opposite of what happens in Private Sector consolidations, where management knows that the financial benefits of such mergers/consolidations are DEPENDENT on headcount reduction. Beyond eliminating clear redundancy (e.g. 2 Chiefs), it’s also an effective way to get rid of the incompetent, the lazy, the hangers-on, and the ones you now realize that you never should have hired in first place..

        Reply

  2. Posted by MJ on May 13, 2018 at 8:30 am

    TL…..you know that is a perk of being a public servant, one can never ever lose ones’ job…they just get shuffled around to another public service position

    After all, they gave up all of those lucrative private sector job offers they received and decided to suck it up in the public sector

    Very funny……

    Reply

    • Posted by El gaupo on May 13, 2018 at 8:55 am

      Read my above post concerning former assemblyman Rooney. Sorry. Folks that like have no business deciding whether someone keeps a job or not. While we have lots of protections (because of people like that) they are cops that lose their jobs all the time, and in most cases rightfully so. I don’t advocate bad cops keeping their jobs. There should get a fair hearing to ensure that it is in fact fair, but if if they objectively are bad officers than goodbye.
      You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that “no public sector folks lose their jobs” while at the same time say “the politicians(who do ALL the hiring) put in their buddies”. Which happens every single election cycle in every single town. Which is why civil service laws came to be. You should want that!!!! You mock the protections but do you want your neighbor to get away with DUI, speeding, theft or whathave you because he is buddies with the mayor and the mayor will fire the cops who take action against him??? Beleive me. There are way more good reasons why cops can’t be fired just because the politicians want to.
      In all honesty, do you want the cops in your town beholden to the mayor and council in that way?? As it is they have to much influence. Over my career I have had more than a few councilman ask me if I can help them out w a buddy who I gave a ticket too. Never did, and also didn’t make an issue of. I’ve also had a mayor ask me if I could modify an accident report that he was involved in. Told me the road was icy, via phone a week later. It wasn’t. Thousands of other cars navigated that strech of road that day. He just wanted he report changed. Now imagine if I was afraid of losing my job because of that. In fact, that same mayor promoted me five years later and I think ultimately respected and trusted me to be truthful in no small part because I told him I could not in good conscience change the accident report.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on May 13, 2018 at 11:28 am

        El gaupo,

        ONLY being able to get rid of “bad Officers” is not sufficient. Shouldn’t changing financial conditions allow such job loss when doing so when it is the best among the range of choices?

        While I would agree that the DECISION to consolidate 2 Town’s Police should NOT be driven by revenge from a Town Official, you’re so blinded with “entitlement” mentality (e.g., inviolable job security absent significant criminal activity), that you apparently can’t grasp that revenge from a Town Official is RARELY the case, and a Town SHOULD have the right to eliminate unnecessary positions …….. the financial success of the consolidation DEPENDING on it.

        And then in an attempt to JUSTIFY your absurd position, you throw in the kitchen sink of mostly irrelevant distractions ………… the world of possible things that could, and yes, occasionally do go wrong.

        Wake up, Taxpayer do NOT owe the UNNECESSARY a job ……… just like we DON’T owe you pensions 4 TIMES greater in value upon retirement that those of similarly situated Private Sector workers, and all while your are getting MUCH richer healthcare benefits (BOTH while active and retired) and wages (alone) that are in most case above those of Private Sector workers in jobs that require comparable education, experience, skills, and knowledge.

        Reply

        • Posted by El gaupo on May 13, 2018 at 3:09 pm

          How would my dept cut positions ? Any further would involve massive amounts of overtime. It happened in my dept in 2010. They put off hiring 2 guys because it was the flavor of the day with Christie. I made $34000 in OT that year and was able to put an addition on my house. Not just me. Why the fuck would the future police classes be so huge after the few small ones? There really are not many redundant positions in police work. It’s not like we have extra guys on patrol in my town that we can fire in bad times and enjoy more cops in good times. How about an adequate staffing level at all times. Good and bad. Nothing more than that.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 13, 2018 at 11:15 pm

            El gaupo,

            The discussion was about a consolidation of 2 (or more) police agencies, where you DON’T need 2 Chiefs, or as many Captains, Lieutenants and Sargents. Take a look at Police staffing in any big City. It ridiculous how many above-patrolman positions exist in all of NJ’s small Towns.

            Redundant positions upon consolidation is OBVIOUS ….. but apparently not to you.

      • Posted by Stanley on May 13, 2018 at 1:21 pm

        “… You mock the protections but do you want your neighbor to get away with DUI, speeding, theft or whathave you because he is buddies with the mayor…”

        OK, senor gaupo uno, how many times have you used your get out of jail free card? There was a NJ policeman driving through KS a number of years ago who was stopped and charged with 80 in a 50. The arresting officer (I think a county mounty) didn’t issue a warning or reduce the severity of the charge. This NJ policeman wrote a ltr to the editor of the local paper complaining about backwoods (I don’t remember his terminology) police work and the refusal to honor his get out of jail free card. Unbelievable! He actually wrote a letter to the editor advising of the event and complaining about his ill treatment! 80 in a 50! How many policemen have never used their get out of jail free card? Damn few, I bet. Talk about the mayor’s kid!

        Reply

        • Posted by El gaupo on May 13, 2018 at 3:12 pm

          Don’t know the specifics of that case. Dui? Not anymore. Video of everything. Not putting that “ludicrous” pension on the line for anyone. Lesser offenses absolutely. However, I like most cops issues mostly warnings over tickets anyway. In my dept is 2 to 1. Show me the dentist that charges full boat to another dentist to clean his teeth. Or a doc that charges another full boat for a quick office visit.

          Reply

  3. Posted by dentss dunnigan on May 13, 2018 at 9:34 am

    We can really appreciate Sweeney not putting that constitution guaranteeing pension question on the ballot here …https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-12/audible-gasp-was-heard-when-chicago-fed-unveiled-its-solution-pension-problem

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on May 13, 2018 at 11:33 am

      When I read that article with the proposed “solution” to Chicago’s pension problems, I thought ………. wow, THAT’S a BIG step in moving the Citizenry towards revolt.

      Reply

      • Posted by Stanley on May 13, 2018 at 1:31 pm

        Yes, but that’s just a small step from where they presently are. Illinois is toast without that new tax. It’s amazing! Why would anyone continue to live there? How can anyone own IL debt? Or have a bond fund that may have IL debt. It isn’t only IL debt that should be graded triple Z minus either. One of these days the market will wake up from its complacency and katy bar the door!

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on May 13, 2018 at 2:07 pm

          “Illinois” shouldn’t “be Toast” w/o the new tax. Instead, the Towns & Cities need to be allowed to file for Bankruptcy and VERY materially eliminate unaffordable pension & benefit obligations.

          If the Public Sector Unions/workers weren’t such MOOCHERS, and their politicians so willing to trade their favorable votes (on pay, pensions, and benefits) for Union campaign contributions, Illinois wouldn’t be in this predicament.

          Reply

          • Posted by El gaupo on May 13, 2018 at 3:15 pm

            You are so right TL. In fact, tomorrow I’m going to Boro hall and telling them cut my salary and benifits and I promise to donate half my pension to a fund to help taxpayers. Lol. Your a fuckin tool sometimes. Dream on fool.

          • Posted by Stanley on May 13, 2018 at 5:19 pm

            Did you read the Wirepoints article that dealt with Danville’s difficulties? The jurisdictions need access to bankruptcy, but the state law that requires them to deal with employee unions also needs to be repealed. I doubt that that will happen, but until it does Illinois will treat its manufacturing capacity to neighboring states. Unions are a cancer that business can adapt strategies to deal with and they aren’t quite as vulnerable as cities, towns and states.

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 13, 2018 at 11:22 pm

            El gaupo,

            Only HALF …. now being FOUR times greater in value upon retirement than that of comparably situated Private Sector workers ?

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on May 14, 2018 at 11:16 am

            The comparably situated Private Sector worker is a figment of your imagination.

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 14, 2018 at 11:54 am

            When I say “comparably situated” I mean several things:

            (a) in a job requiring reasonably comparable education, experience, skills and knowledge, even though in a different field
            (b) retiring at the SAME age with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service

            AND….

            (1) with pensions adjusted for differences in wages AFTER factoring in any difference in average hours worked and where measurable, actual productive output.
            (2) adjusting pensions for risk in the Private Sector job vs that of the Public Sector worker. E.g. a premium for the Police Officer over an Office worker. and a Premium for a roofer, construction worker, logger, etc. over ANY Public Sector job, including Police/Fire.
            —————————————————————————-
            Got a problem with EQUAL…. and on a risk-adjusted Total Compensation” basis ?

          • Posted by Tough Love on May 14, 2018 at 3:36 pm

            Like I stated Stephen…………

            Got a problem with EQUAL …. and on a risk-adjusted Total Compensation basis?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: