My way or the highway...

I'd be interested to see the response from the Governor, and also the Mayor of Newark.

it sounds drastic, but maybe it's enough of a shock to get people to organize and participate more in their own neighborhoods, learning to defend themselves against criminal elements. who knows how much the crooked cops of camden were ever doing to serve and protect, but maybe this could push its law abiding citizens to fight back on their own. one can dream.

imo, the mayor AND the union leaders failed the city. Let's hope Bloomberg, Cuomo, and the unions will learn from this. "My way or the highway" is no way to negotiate.

True, all of the above.
Did you read about the big mafia bust?
They are still in the thick of things. Along with the unions.

don't forget the martians.

Laying off half the police force in the SECOND MOST DANGEROUS city in the country is a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?

"imo, the mayor AND the union leaders failed the city."

The unions caused Camden to have the second highest murder rate in the country?

Hey, did you read about the arrests of the sanitation workers in Staten Island?

Socialist, are you saying that the unions should not make any concessions when times are bad? I too believe it's a mistake to fire half the department. That is why I believe it's ALSO the mayor's fault as well.

Staten Island is a "very homogenious" island.

Unlike midtown east, right, with all of those foreign diplomats, right?

well done, ME.

on the topic itself, I think we're going to see some sort of state bankruptcy option popping up, it just won't be called that.

But, yes, if a union demands too much of a company, the company folks. When the union knows this, they have a reason not to demand too much. When that can't happen in a government scenario, problems are a given.

Thanks, SWE; we try.

Huntersburg -- It is a sign of stupidity when you don't even know that someone is making fun of you. So, you qualify.

Are you talking to yourself?

You are true wit, there H-burg. What's next? I'm rubber and you're glue?

The union leaders better understand that Bloomberg do not need their votes in the next election and any hint of union action would only give more public support for the mayor.

The union leadership is headed by the older workers. Their actions and common sense would suggest that they prefer layoffs over a reduction in benefits for several reasons.

1) Layoffs mean reduced services which if played right might get the public angry at their elected officials
2) The older workers are closer to retirement and want to protect those benefits
3) The layoffs are more likely to hit members of less seniority(younger workers)

It all comes down to a few holding everyone hostage to what is not in the greater interest.

Many states have what you might call a “Don’t kill Grandma” problem: spending creates dependent—and stubborn—constituencies. At least New York doesn’t have the legislative gridlock of California, where ballot initiatives have mandated spending and prevented tax increases, and a two-thirds-majority requirement to pass tax increases has resulted in a stalemate between free-spending Democrats and tax-averse Republicans. New York’s local economy hasn’t been devastated by the collapse of a primary local industry, as have those of Michigan and Nevada, where unemployment tops 12 percent. It does not, like New Jersey, have a history of underfunding its pensions.

It’s hard to see how Governor Cuomo is going to cover gaps like this without raising taxes. His state’s feisty public-sector unions enjoy extremely favorable laws governing their collective bargaining. Under one provision, if a collective-bargaining agreement expires, the provisions of the old contract stay in effect until a new one is negotiated, including “step up” provisions that automatically increase wages. This means the unions have no incentive to agree to a contract less lucrative than the one they already have.

If fixing the state’s problems without tax increases seems hard, consider the prospect of actually raising taxes. New York is already one of the most highly taxed states, particularly when you consider how many of its residents are in the top federal brackets. Many jurisdictions have hefty local taxes as well—the combined top marginal tax rate for New York City residents is already near 10 percent.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/dire-states/8330/

"This means the unions have no incentive to agree to a contract less lucrative than the one they already have."

Does the law also state how many the state can fire or have to hire each year? Let's say there are 10 workers in total. The 8th and 9th worker would be very worry about losing their job. The 7th a little worry. If they fire the 10th and the 1st retires, now who is worried? Union leaders are elected right?

"1) Layoffs mean reduced services which if played right might get the public angry at their elected officials"

That might be true in good years. The public is well aware of the financial problems. Would elected officials rather face anger from reduced service that they can blame on the unions or the anger from higher taxes?

The laws protecting union salaries were written for a different time and a different set of problems. Back then the idea was to create a floor for salaries in certain industries and prevent companies from bringing in non-union labor from different parts of the country. Today the problem is unions holding states and municipalities hostage to benefits they cannot fund. And today New York isn't facing competition from South Carolina but from China, Canada, Germany and Taiwan.

"And today New York isn't facing competition from South Carolina but from China, Canada, Germany and Taiwan."

Canada and Germany are heavily unionized.... perhaps more so than the U.S.

Camden is a cesspool anyway. Just demolish the whole place. It's another Detroit, perhaps worse. In the next few years, lots of cities are going to have to be demoloshed or abandoned.