OUR THOUGHTS Did Local 1033 jump the gun by severing ties with 21 other local public worker locals by individually filing a lawsuit in federal district court against legislation that alters our pension benefits. See letter from National Union On June 22, 2011 CWA Local filed an action in federal court, basically arguing that members have a Federal and State Constitutional right by virtue of a pension statutory contractual right to funding of pension benefits by the state. A state court ruled in another matter that the statute did not grant members a statutory contractual right to funding of their pensions. June 28, 2011 legislation was finalized specifically stating that members have a statutory right to funding of their pension fund by the state. Most states have failed to fund state employee pensions and are increasing members contributions. Four states have been court challenged on these issues. Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Rhode Island. They have all lost. The other states are sitting back, closely watching how the landscape will unfold. If unions continue to lose these court decisions, it would give states the green light to continue not funding state pensions and increasing members contributions to help balance their budgets. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/business/16pension.html?_r=1 Assuming this was a legitimate question by the Local 1033 lawsuit, the question becomes which constitution and court, federal or state provides public workers the best chance of success on these issues. Federal Courts view public pensions as gratuities that could be amended at any time under the federal constitution. Federal courts in following the law as laid out by the US Supreme Court since 1889 has historically found that statutes providing retirement benefits to pensioners create a mere “expectancy” that may be modified, revoked, or suspended by the authority granting it through subsequent legislation. However, state courts are not required to follow the US Supreme Court’s view and have instead adopted a more liberal view of public pensions as deferred compensation benefits. As a result of nationwide litigation in this area, the US Congressional Research Service put forth the State and Local Pension Plans and Fiscal Distress: A Legal Overview. http://www.nasra.org/resources/CRS%20state%20and%20local%20legal%20framework%201104.pdf See also http://wikipension.com/index.php?title=Legal A counterview to the Congressioal Research Service was submitted by the National Conference on Public Retirement Systems (NCPERS). http://pensionboardnewsletter.blogspot.com/2011/05/crs-publishes-legal-overview-of-state.html The consensus is that federal case law and federal courts provides weaker protection than state law and explains why most if not all challenges have been in state court under that particular state’s constitution. It should be noted that our Supreme Court let stand the Appellate Court decision in NJEA vs. State. What this means is based upon the arguments presented before the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court would have reached the same decision and therefore declined to review the matter. But, the court left the door open to ultimately determine the matter if the argument is right. To answer the question: Did Local 1033 jump the gun by severing ties with 21 other local public worker locals by individually filing a lawsuit in federal district court against legislation that alters our pension benefits. The answer is absolutely. This is just another chapter in the Roeder election modus operandi, an election campaign ploy. Another illegal election campaign ploy we might add which invalidates this election because Roeder used locals' funds, premises, equipment and personnel. Moreover Roeder violated the CWA Constitution Article XVII which provides: "CWA negotiates collective negotiation agreements; implements and maintains those agreements; handles labor disputes, grievances and arbitrations on behalf of local unions, and coordinates labor relations matters with other unions." CWA Local 1033’s action in filing a lawsuit subverts this authority and is a fraud upon the members of this local. We end here with the wise words of Senator Peter Inverso "Be careful what you wish for". In the 2008 contract negotiations Roeder attempted to subvert CWA's authority as the recognized negotiation representative , even though she didn’t have a snowballs chance in hell to win. |
 | | | | | | | | | |  |