http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/nyregion/cuomo-and-christie-announce-they-will-veto-bill-to-overhaul-port-authority.html
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/nyregion/cuomo-and-christie-announce-they-will-veto-bill-to-overhaul-port-authority.html
Imagine that!
If the reforms were approved unanimously as reported above, I wonder if both legislatures can override the vetos?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 28, 2014, 12:39:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/nyregion/cuomo-and-christie-announce-they-will-veto-bill-to-overhaul-port-authority.html
Imagine that!
If the reforms were approved unanimously as reported above, I wonder if both legislatures can override the vetos?
Removing power from the Port Authority is hard, especially considering the Governors have the right to say what goes on.
There is no question that the Port Authority is a wreck, just the fact that both Governors probably don't want to lose their power. The fact that they both crossed party lines, as Assemblywoman Huttle notes makes me wonder.
However, it's far from the last time that the Port Authority has gotten away with stuff because of the Governors, see the toll raise controversy to what I believe made it $13 at the time.
As for the veto, need 66% in 4 legislative houses. If it survives to pass all 4, I'd be amazed. Both sides have heavy opposition, but there are bound to be supporters.
Don't be surprised for a minute that those legislators are 'surprised' at the governors. When these same legislators leave office, they will be the first to call up the governors asking for a spot at the PANYNJ or any other regional authority.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 28, 2014, 12:43:59 PM
As for the veto, need 66% in 4 legislative houses. If it survives to pass all 4, I'd be amazed. Both sides have heavy opposition, but there are bound to be supporters.
If the votes were unanimous in all four chambers, I'd think overriding would be easy.
(I think Kentucky's veto threshold is much less.)
Cuomo will veto anything that would reduce his power. The fact that Christie is the same way does NOT surprise me at all.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 28, 2014, 12:43:59 PM
As for the veto, need 66% in 4 legislative houses. If it survives to pass all 4, I'd be amazed. Both sides have heavy opposition, but there are bound to be supporters.
If the votes were unanimous in all four chambers, I'd think overriding would be easy.
Pretty much any NJ legislation (at least recently) that was passed with near unanimous support and subsequently vetoed by Christie failed because most of the Republican legislators then abstain or vote against the bill in the override attempt. (Examples: 1 (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/override_of_christie_pension_veto_fails_in_nj_senate.html), 2 (http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829098_1_conditional-veto-hud-sandy-bill), 3 (http://nj1015.com/nj-dems-fail-again-in-veto-override-attempt/))
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 28, 2014, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 28, 2014, 12:43:59 PM
As for the veto, need 66% in 4 legislative houses. If it survives to pass all 4, I'd be amazed. Both sides have heavy opposition, but there are bound to be supporters.
If the votes were unanimous in all four chambers, I'd think overriding would be easy.
Pretty much any NJ legislation (at least recently) that was passed with near unanimous support and subsequently vetoed by Christie failed because most of the Republican legislators then abstain or vote against the bill in the override attempt. (Examples: 1 (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/override_of_christie_pension_veto_fails_in_nj_senate.html), 2 (http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829098_1_conditional-veto-hud-sandy-bill), 3 (http://nj1015.com/nj-dems-fail-again-in-veto-override-attempt/))
I would expect many of them voted for the bill knowing it would be vetoed, so that they could claim to be bipartisan.
Quote from: Alps on December 29, 2014, 09:37:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 28, 2014, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 28, 2014, 12:43:59 PM
As for the veto, need 66% in 4 legislative houses. If it survives to pass all 4, I'd be amazed. Both sides have heavy opposition, but there are bound to be supporters.
If the votes were unanimous in all four chambers, I'd think overriding would be easy.
Pretty much any NJ legislation (at least recently) that was passed with near unanimous support and subsequently vetoed by Christie failed because most of the Republican legislators then abstain or vote against the bill in the override attempt. (Examples: 1 (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/override_of_christie_pension_veto_fails_in_nj_senate.html), 2 (http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829098_1_conditional-veto-hud-sandy-bill), 3 (http://nj1015.com/nj-dems-fail-again-in-veto-override-attempt/))
I would expect many of them voted for the bill knowing it would be vetoed, so that they could claim to be bipartisan.
My first thought. Leave it to politicians to find a no-risk moment to stick their necks out.
Quote from: vdeane on December 28, 2014, 04:34:49 PM
Cuomo will veto anything that would reduce his power. The fact that Christie is the same way does NOT surprise me at all.
Christie cares more about what politicians and potential voters in Iowa think about him and his views far more than the ones in his home state at this point.
Split the Port Authority into 2 independent agencies and others sold:
New Jersey properties
New York property
----------------------------------------------------------------------
World Trade Center to NYC or private owner
Path, Tunnels and Bridges to Triboro Bridge and Tunnel (MTA)
LGA, JFK to NYC
PA Bus Terminal, GWB bus Terminal to NYC or MTA
City Journal: Bloated, Broke, and Bullied -
Mired in debt and strong-armed by its unions, the Port Authority lavishes outlandish pay and benefits on its workforce. (http://www.city-journal.org/html/bloated-broke-and-bullied-14329.html)
QuoteIn 2013, a police lieutenant at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey retired with an annual salary of $129,000; the next year, he began collecting a lifetime pension of $172,000, or one-third above his base pay. The officer had managed to juice up his annual pension through pay sweeteners provided by the Port Authority, including lots of overtime work. He was far from alone. An assistant operations manager at one of the Port Authority—controlled New York airports retired at a salary of $89,000, but soon began collecting a pension of $103,000, 16 percent above annual pay. An electrician quit working with a base salary of $76,000 and started collecting a pension of $79,000. These are extraordinary numbers, culled from a database of Port Authority pay practices provided by OpenTheBooks.com.
QuoteFormed nearly a century ago as a good-government unit to manage the bistate operations of the massive Port of New York, which spans both states, the Port Authority has evolved over the years into the worst kind of government operation: a vast but poorly run agency. Much of what's wrong is reflected in its pay and retirement practices. In labor-friendly New York and New Jersey, unions have bullied the agency into giving away incredibly generous benefits to workers, and then the authority, through mismanagement, has proved unable to control key costs like overtime that drive pay even higher. The result: a workforce among the highest paid in government, even by the dizzying standards of public-employee compensation in the greater New York area. The Port Authority's retirees regularly rank among the top pensioners in the lucrative New York state retirement system, to which most agency workers belong.
Common practice for field workers. NY would rather pay overtime for one person to work an 80 hour week than pay two people working 40 hours each (to be fair, the fact that field work can't be scheduled as a 9-5 day doesn't help, and neither does the fact that you hire when HR and civil service tell you you can, not when you need someone to get the work done or replace someone who's leaving).
Quote from: Alps on December 29, 2014, 09:37:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on December 28, 2014, 04:49:28 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 28, 2014, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on December 28, 2014, 12:43:59 PM
As for the veto, need 66% in 4 legislative houses. If it survives to pass all 4, I'd be amazed. Both sides have heavy opposition, but there are bound to be supporters.
If the votes were unanimous in all four chambers, I'd think overriding would be easy.
Pretty much any NJ legislation (at least recently) that was passed with near unanimous support and subsequently vetoed by Christie failed because most of the Republican legislators then abstain or vote against the bill in the override attempt. (Examples: 1 (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/12/override_of_christie_pension_veto_fails_in_nj_senate.html), 2 (http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829098_1_conditional-veto-hud-sandy-bill), 3 (http://nj1015.com/nj-dems-fail-again-in-veto-override-attempt/))
I would expect many of them voted for the bill knowing it would be vetoed, so that they could claim to be bipartisan.
Meanwhile New York's legislature has exactly four legislative session days left in 2016.
Cuomo waiting until the last minute to veto the bill reeks of a strategic attempt to run down the clock so the legislature doesn't have time to consider a veto override unless they deem it so important as to call a special session for it.
Quote from: vdeane on June 08, 2016, 07:50:50 PM
Common practice for field workers. NY would rather pay overtime for one person to work an 80 hour week than pay two people working 40 hours each (to be fair, the fact that field work can't be scheduled as a 9-5 day doesn't help, and neither does the fact that you hire when HR and civil service tell you you can, not when you need someone to get the work done or replace someone who's leaving).
In the public sector, do benefits scale with overtime pay? You get time and a half, but if you don't accrue any vacation, 401k, etc. it might still be worth their money.
Regarding Anthony's comment, I have to ask: who can call a special session for the NY legislature?
Quote from: Alps on June 08, 2016, 09:42:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 08, 2016, 07:50:50 PM
Common practice for field workers. NY would rather pay overtime for one person to work an 80 hour week than pay two people working 40 hours each (to be fair, the fact that field work can't be scheduled as a 9-5 day doesn't help, and neither does the fact that you hire when HR and civil service tell you you can, not when you need someone to get the work done or replace someone who's leaving).
In the public sector, do benefits scale with overtime pay? You get time and a half, but if you don't accrue any vacation, 401k, etc. it might still be worth their money.
This, I always wondered about. News media loves to get on public sector organizations when they are paying a lot of overtime. I always thought that in the long run, this was cheaper because they don't have to hire another person and pay all the associated benefits.
I know for my snow plowing OT, none of that gets incorporated into my pension calculation or any other benefit.
Pension benefits in New York state DO scale with overtime pay. The amount a person gets when they retire is based on the person's 3-5 (depending on tier) year average of the years they took home the most money in paychecks, overtime included. Note that it's the HIGHEST years, not the most recent, so got demoted through a layoff event, started working part time, or stopped getting overtime, etc., the amount of their pension is unaffected.
Quote from: froggie on June 09, 2016, 08:05:51 AM
Regarding Anthony's comment, I have to ask: who can call a special session for the NY legislature?
Two thirds of both houses need to petition for it, then the speaker of the house and senate president can call it.
Quote from: vdeane on June 09, 2016, 01:30:53 PM
Pension benefits in New York state DO scale with overtime pay. The amount a person gets when they retire is based on the person's 3-5 (depending on tier) year average of the years they took home the most money in paychecks, overtime included. Note that it's the HIGHEST years, not the most recent, so got demoted through a layoff event, started working part time, or stopped getting overtime, etc., the amount of their pension is unaffected.
That's only the pension, though. Things like health insurance are per employee, so having people work overtime saves cost on that compared to hiring more of them.
Plus the pension money is a separate pot that's constitutionally obligated, so the state actually SAVES money when an employee retires (due to not paying the payroll costs or the state's contribution to the pension system for that employee).
Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2016, 05:39:37 PM
Plus the pension money is a separate pot that's constitutionally obligated, so the state actually SAVES money when an employee retires (due to not paying the payroll costs or the state's contribution to the pension system for that employee).
Relative to what baseline, though? A retired employee costs less than an active employee, sure. But does a retired employee who collected lots of overtime draw less money from the pot then two employees who each never worked more then 40 hours?
Then they retire to a lower cost state like Florida or South Carolina.. 100k in a small town in rural SC is a lot
Quote from: Duke87 on June 11, 2016, 07:27:03 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2016, 05:39:37 PM
Plus the pension money is a separate pot that's constitutionally obligated, so the state actually SAVES money when an employee retires (due to not paying the payroll costs or the state's contribution to the pension system for that employee).
Relative to what baseline, though? A retired employee costs less than an active employee, sure. But does a retired employee who collected lots of overtime draw less money from the pot then two employees who each never worked more then 40 hours?
Depends on how many hours. Overtime is time and a half for all eligible employees (those below salary grade 23, I believe). Anything over 37.5 hours before 40 hours is actually comp time, which is basically extra vacation/personal, at least for office employees (I think field employees might have a 40 hour work week instead of 37.5, but I'm not positive).
N.Y. Times editorial: Port Authority Overhaul, Way Overdue (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/opinion/port-authority-overhaul-way-overdue.html)
QuoteMr. Samson's guilty plea is part of the bizarre saga that began when at least one of Mr. Christie's associates forced the closing of lanes to the George Washington Bridge three years ago. The traffic nightmare that resulted was designed as political revenge against a local mayor who failed to endorse Mr. Christie for re-election. Mr. Samson was not charged with conspiring to create the gridlock, but another Christie associate has pleaded guilty in the bridge scandal and others are awaiting trial.
QuoteThe Samson case and the bridge fiasco should have made it absolutely clear that the Port Authority – which is controlled jointly by the governors of New York and New Jersey – needs permanent reform. Its commissioners have voted on a series of useful changes, like consolidating the two top administrative posts, enacting a new code of conduct and creating the position of chief ethics officer, but those reforms could be eroded or even undone by future governors of the two states.
Quote from: mapman1071 on January 16, 2015, 12:06:25 PM
Split the Port Authority into 2 independent agencies and others sold:
New Jersey properties
New York property
----------------------------------------------------------------------
World Trade Center to NYC or private owner
Path, Tunnels and Bridges to Triboro Bridge and Tunnel (MTA)
LGA, JFK to NYC
PA Bus Terminal, GWB bus Terminal to NYC or MTA
I would imagine NJ wants some say in the bridges, tunnels, and trains that have access from the NJ side. Are there any state crossings that are maintained exclusively by one state? I mean bridges and tunnels. I know just about every regional rail agency in these parts operates trains outside their state.
Quote from: bzakharin on July 22, 2016, 02:51:41 PM
I would imagine NJ wants some say in the bridges, tunnels, and trains that have access from the NJ side. Are there any state crossings that are maintained exclusively by one state? I mean bridges and tunnels. I know just about every regional rail agency in these parts operates trains outside their state.
In Maryland and D.C., yes (not sure if you were asking about metropolitan New York or nationally). When the Crown granted what became Maryland to the Calvert family in the 1630's, they were awarded the Potomac River to the low water mark on the Virginia (and since 1863, the West Virginia) shore, which means that Maryland (and D.C.) maintain nearly every bridge over the Potomac River to its landing on the Virginia side.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 22, 2016, 03:20:49 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on July 22, 2016, 02:51:41 PM
I would imagine NJ wants some say in the bridges, tunnels, and trains that have access from the NJ side. Are there any state crossings that are maintained exclusively by one state? I mean bridges and tunnels. I know just about every regional rail agency in these parts operates trains outside their state.
In Maryland and D.C., yes (not sure if you were asking about metropolitan New York or nationally). When the Crown granted what became Maryland to the Calvert family in the 1630's, they were awarded the Potomac River to the low water mark on the Virginia (and since 1863, the West Virginia) shore, which means that Maryland (and D.C.) maintain nearly every bridge over the Potomac River to its landing on the Virginia side.
I meant nationally. This is interesting because Delaware has a similar deal at its border with NJ (The Delaware river/bay belong entirely to Delaware in that area), yet the Delaware Memorial Bridge is still owned by a bi-state authority (DRBA).