Which Oath Matters?

Least surprising is that labor unions withheld funding from most legislators until the elected officials' position on the reforms was known. Labor also temporarily cut off NJ's Democratic State Committee. No one should expect a PAC to give money to candidates who vote against the sponsoring organization's position, and supporting a state committee enables the party to support candidates the PAC sought to punish in the first place.

The more intriguing stories were about retribution against pro-reform legislators who are also union members. Assemblyman David Rible (R) is a retired police officer, and was charged by the union with violating his oath to protect the PBA. Across the aisle and on the other side of the state, Senator Donald Norcross (D) was the target of an effort by labor leaders to expel him as president of the Southern New Jersey Central Labor Council.

In a letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, the union bosses charged,

"Mr. Norcross has acted several times in complete contradiction of his sworn duty as President of the Central Labor Council and against the principles of both the National AFL-CIO and NJ State Federation, specifically endorsing and personally acting to eliminate collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of public sector union members."

As a member of the legislature, Norcross has a sworn duty (i.e. Constitutional obligation) to pass a balanced budget. He could also argue that the reforms preserve the pensions for younger and future members.

The two legislators and union targets deserve praise for making their responsibility to taxpayers paramount. Still, the concept of "loyalty oaths" to unions is a legitimate question for candidates seeking elected office who have taken similar oaths.

For every David Rible and Donald Norcross who are willing to withstand retribution from their fellow union members, how many are not, and when, if ever, do taxpayers get to find out which oath the candidates take more seriously?