Closer to a deal on health benefits in New Jersey

Alternative proposals from Senate President Stephen Sweeney and the Communications Workers of America want to tie health insurance premiums to workers' incomes on a sliding scale, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. Such changes are likely to be legislated, the preference of the Governor.The union prefers that health care benefits be considered a collective bargaining issue and indeed so do a majority of legislators.

The back story to the health care debate is over the balance of power in a U.S. state government. An analysis by Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center raises some interesting points in the context of mandatory collective bargaining in Washington State.

• In a democratic system there is no single "management" entity with which to bargain. Powers are divided among three branches. The legislature has power over appropriations.
  
• The real "employers" are the people of the state.
• Therefore, does collective bargaining reduce the role of the legislature to "the absolute minimum necessary to comply with the constitution?"

While the situation in New Jersey differs from Washington State's recent experience the question at the heart of the debate is the same: Where should fiscally important issues such as pension, health care, and employee compensation get decided and made binding?

 Each state offers a case study of how these arrangements play out. Illinois appears paralyzed by a pension system that is protected in the state's constitution. New Jersey statutorily mandates pension policy but this did not lead to a fiscally prudent course, quite the contrary. And without the benefit of collective bargaining Virginia public employees have not contributed to their pensions since the passage of a law in 1983.