Only four Dems said they are in favor of proposal Watch video
Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) shake hands after a press conference where it was announced that they have reached a deal on a key part of Christie's "tool kit." Sweeney’s plan to require public workers to kick in more for medical benefits is getting little support from his fellow Democrats in the upper house, which means it could need Republican for the bill to pass, according to a Star-Ledger survey of lawmakers. TRENTON — Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s plan to require public workers to kick in more for medical benefits is getting little support from his fellow Democrats, which means it may be doomed without Republican help, according to a Star-Ledger survey of lawmakers.
And as Sweeney scrambles for votes, Senate Republicans say they favor Gov. Chris Christie’s proposal, which a new non-partisan report predicts would save about 16 times more money than Sweeney’s plan next year for state workers alone. Democrats, however, have even less enthusiasm for Christie’s plan.
Of the 24 Democrats in the Senate, eight told The Star-Ledger they oppose Sweeney’s bill — leaving the bill five votes short of the 21 needed for passage unless Republicans support it.
Four Democrats are undecided, with all saying they hoped the issue would get resolved through collective bargaining but not closing the door on supporting the bill. One senator refused comment and seven did not respond to repeated phone calls from the newspaper over a four-day period.
Only four — Sweeney, Brian Stack (D-Hudson), Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic) and James Beach (D-Camden) — said they support it.
When told of the survey today, Sweeney (D-Gloucester), wouldn’t speculate as to whether he would call a vote on it, saying: "The majority of the caucus is not against the plan."
Adam Bauer, a spokesman for Senate Republicans, said Sweeney’s plan was a good starting point, "but the governor’s plan goes further with regard to savings."
Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts noted that "without health benefits reform, we will not have the resources to double property tax relief and the Legislature will have to explain their decision to voters."
In a March 16 letter, a senior analyst with the Office of Legislative Services said Sweeney’s bill would save the state about $22 million next year, while Christie’s plan would save about $347 million. Sweeney’s plan would save $206.2 million by the seventh year. The review only covers state workers.
Democrats who oppose the bill argue that how much public workers pay for health benefits should be decided at the bargaining table and not dictated by lawmakers.
"This stuff needs to be negotiated," said state Sen. Ron Rice (D-Essex). "Sweeney’s in a union. He should know that. If the unions can’t negotiate health benefits, they might as well be a sorority or fraternity."
State Sen. John Girgenti (D-Passaic) said, "Clearly, something needs to be done to curb the rising costs of health benefits, and most public employees believe this as well. But it should happen through collective bargaining, not legislation."
Some opponents cited a recent offer by the Communications Workers of America, the largest state employee union, to increase contributions after Christie said he will not negotiate medical benefits. The CWA said its plan would save $200 million by 2013.
"The union is making a reasonable offer and Christie should negotiate," said state Sen. Linda Greenstein, (D-Middlesex).
If the CWA makes a deal with Christie, Sweeney said there "would be no need" for legislation: "I think they knew I’m serious about doing legislation. Now if they can accomplish it through collective bargaining, I think the governor should attempt it."
Some Democrats said they were undecided, even though they signed a pledge brought by the unions that stated they believed in collective bargaining. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) signed the pledge, but said she has not ruled out supporting Sweeney’s bill or some other alternative.
Bill supporters say it’s a reasonable alternative to Christie’s plan, which calls for all public workers, regardless of income, to pay 30 percent of their medical premiums. Sweeney wants to phase in the increases over seven years and set a sliding scale of 12 to 30 percent of premiums, based on salary. Public workers pay at least 1.5 percent of their pay for health benefits.
"It should take into account someone’s salary," said state Sen. Jim Whelan (D-Atlantic). Asked whether he believed medical benefits should be collectively bargained, Whelan responded, "I don’t think we have that luxury right now."
Matt Friedman contributed to this report.
Previous coverage:
• N.J. Sen. Sweeney to unveil bill requiring state employees to contribute more for medical benefits
• Christie highlights education and benefits reform, fiscal discipline in Chamber of Commerce address
• N.J. Senate President Sweeney says state must pay into pension system for reform to happen
• Sweeney vows to block Gov. Christie's pension reform bills until N.J. relieves overburdened fund
• N.J. files response to lawsuit challenging public worker pension, benefit changes
• N.J. police, firefighter unions sue to stop pension reform laws
• N.J. lawmakers trying to reach deal on pension reform bill banning part-time workers from system
• N.J. Assembly introduces pension reform bills to reduce state worker benefits