PBA responds to why the 2 percent arbitration cap is a conflict of interest
Holding NJ law enforcement cap-tive
PBA responds to why the 2 percent arbitration cap is a conflict of interest
n BY MITCHELL KRUGEL
PBA members, elected officials and gubernatorial candidates who follow State President Pat Colligan know that when an action or issue gets under his skin, he doesn’ t get mad. He gets witty.
Part of his leadership impact since taking the reins of the NJ State PBA in 2014 has been an ability to wax glibly while giving a perspective appropriate context and definition. And so it was that when an NJ state assemblyman leaked a report at the end of September advocating to extend the 2 percent interest arbitration cap on police and fire salary increases that Mr. President rendered his qualified take on the absurdity not only of such a recommendation but also the way it came down.
“ A wholesale 2 percent interest arbitration cap,” Colligan set up.“ Why don’ t they pass a law that insurance carriers can only raise rates by 2 percent each year?”
When he related the conversation he had with Republican candidate for governor Kim Gaudagno asking her why she supported the 2 percent cap, Colligan reported that her response claimed that she would back off the cap when the state was able to get school funding under control. That offered the PBA president occasion to throw another telling punch line.
Quipped Colligan:“ She wants to tie school funding to the 2 percent cap. That isn’ t apples and oranges; it’ s apples and computer screens. It’ s absurd, and I told her that.”
Theater of the absurd might be the only way to describe a legislative attempt apparently fueled by the NJ League of Municipalities to thwart the sunset on the 2 percent cap law passed in 2012 and extended in 2014. The law is set to expire on Dec. 31, and the state legislature does not have to take any action but let it expire.
A committee known as the Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Impact Task Force was convened with the initial passing of the cap, and it is charged with providing an annual report on the impact of the cap. The 2017 report was due by the end of the year. But the only legislator on the task force, Republican Assemblyman Declan O’ Scanlon, according to the NJTV News“ went rogue and unilaterally” released a report advocating that the 2 percent cap should be permanently renewed.
Whereas Colligan is surgically succinct with his cutting take voicing the emotion of, and for, those in NJ public safety, PBA Director of Government Affairs Rob Nixon can be equally evocative when assessing NJ legislative activity. And the way some members of the task force apparently conspired to engineer the report without getting input from its police and fire appointees compelled Nixon to offer a rebuttal worthy of MSNBC’ s The Last Word.
“ We found out that they have made their own recommendation without meeting with the labor representatives on the task force to discuss the data,” Nixon began.“ It’ s like they made it up on their own, and then to throw it out there for the task force to vote on to release it – this thing is the sham we thought all along. I recall arguing against the implementation of the task force for fear that this is exactly what would happen.”
But the sham deepened, perhaps because the leaking of the report and the press conference that followed belies proper parliamentary procedure or rules of order. When the eight members of the task force voted to release the report, they split 4-4.
“ I’ ve always thought if it was a tie vote, you haven’ t adopted anything. You go back to the drawing board and try to get a consensus,” adds Nixon.“ But they didn’ t want a consensus. They wanted to form their own conclusions.”
Leaking the report might be perceived in the state legislature as an act of desperation and could backfire in its attempt to force a decision to extend the 2 percent cap law. But to make sure the most accurate information is in play, the NJ State PBA has sent a Q & A out to legislators to detail what the cap has done, and to submit the union’ s desire to analyze the facts and have an honest discussion about its merit.
In pulling no punch lines, Colligan asserts that the 2 percent cap is another part of the Christie tool kit to deplete, diminish or destroy collective bargaining.“ Let’ s call it what it is: legislated bargaining,” he clarifies. And his appraisal of the task force report and the desperate measure of its premature release specifies,“ Requiring a permanent cap on raises is a solution in search of a crisis.”
Not that the PBA is against binding arbitration because it is provided to ensure that if employers fail to negotiate in good faith, there is an ability to reach a settlement through an independent arbitrator. And since most contracts are decided mutually and without the need for an arbitrator, Colligan adds that demands to“ permanently cap police salaries in this manner are inappropriate and heavy handed.”
In reality, there was a time and place for the 2 percent cap. The PBA explains this as a market correction that started even before the past six years, and adds that the average officer has not had a raise for the past eight years.
This is just one of the facts that should be considered by the task force and beyond. A few others:
• During the decade prior to the arbitration cap law, an average of 18 contracts per year out of the more than 300 potential contracts up for negotiation were decided through arbitration.
• Even after the cap was passed, average annual raises barely exceeded 2 percent outside of arbitration.“ The arbitration cap is essentially a permanent 2 percent cap on raises, forever,” Colligan submits.
The League of Municipalities argues that the 2 percent cap achieved compensation control that towns needed in order to adhere to the annual 2 percent cap on property tax levy the state requires. But Nixon reminds that reductions in compen-
28 NEW JERSEY COPS ■ OCTOBER 2017