(Source: June 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

Lafe Solomon, the man President Obama has selected to be the top lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), outraged millions of Americans across all regions of the country in April by asserting his agency has the prerogative, in many instances, to tell businesses where they may or may not expand.

For decades, the NLRB has called the shots with regard to implementation of the National Labor Relations Act, the nation’s principal federal labor law. The NLRA covers over 90% of private-sector businesses and front-line employees. The NLRB is thus, no doubt, powerful.

Nevertheless, the claim of power by NLRB Acting General Counsel Solomon in his April 20 complaint filed to block Boeing from initiating a new aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina is remarkable.

As economist Arthur Laffer and senior Wall Street Journal editorial page economics writer Stephen Moore noted in a pungent op-ed appearing in the Journal May 13, this is “the first time a federal agency has intervened to tell an American company where it can and cannot operate a [new] plant within the U.S.”

Well-informed apologists for compulsory unionism like New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse and former Clinton-appointed NLRB Chairman William Gould don’t dispute that the Boeing complaint is, to quote Mr. Greenhouse, “highly unusual.”

Acting General Counsel: Sensible Business Decision Equals ‘Anti-Union Animus’

The controversial complaint by Mr. Solomon, whose nomination has yet to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, stems from Boeing’s 2009 business decision to address at last its chronic problem of strikes instigated by top bosses of the International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union.

Since 1975, IAM union chiefs have ordered employees at Boeing’s Washington State and Oregon facilities out on strike five times. The most recent strike, in 2008, lasted 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion.

In a highly competitive, globalized industry like aircraft production, such costly labor stoppages put Boeing jobs at risk. The potential harm to workers is far greater than any economic gain they could reap from a strike.

Nearly two years ago, having failed in their latest attempt to secure a no-strike deal with the union, Boeing finally decided to build a new, $2 billion 787 Dreamliner plant in North Charleston, S.C.

Boeing executives knew at the time they made the call that a majority of their current South Carolina employees had opted against union monopoly bargaining. The new plant’s availability for production during a strike would mitigate the company’s revenue losses.

If Boeing is allowed to proceed with this plan in peace, its employees, union and nonunion alike, will surely benefit from an investment that is creating, directly and indirectly, thousands of jobs at a time America needs them.

Nothing doing, says Mr. Solomon. His complaint insists that Boeing’s eminently sensible move to expand production in a Right to Work state so as to cut the cost to customers, employees and shareholders of disruptive IAM strikes was driven by “anti-union animus” and illegal.

Complaint Lays the Foundation Of a ‘Union Berlin Wall’

As Mr. Gould explained to a reporter for Slate magazine, Mr. Solomon is, deliberately or not, rewriting the NLRA to intensify greatly its pro-forced unionism bias:

“The general counsel is trying to equate an employer’s concern with strikes that disrupt production and make it difficult to make deadlines — he’s trying to equate that with hostility toward trade unionism. I don’t think that makes sense.”

And the potential impact of the NLRB move against Boeing is very far-reaching. As the title of the Laffer-Moore op-ed suggests, Mr. Solomon is laying the foundation of a “union Berlin Wall.”

“If the acting general counsel’s stance prevails, then any business owner who acts on the desire to extricate himself or herself from profit- and wage-consuming Big Labor class warfare may be guilty of committing an ‘unfair labor practice,’” said National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix.

“Any state or locality with a comparative advantage in labor relations in any industry is a direct target for Lafe Solomon. But, in practice, the 22 states with Right to Work laws barring forced union dues and fees will be the main targets, because that’s where the job growth is.”

Right to Work Leaders Pursuing Both Legislative And Legal Strategies

This month, an NLRB administrative law judge is scheduled to consider Mr. Solomon’s request that Boeing’s South Carolina production of 787 Dreamliners be blocked before it begins, unless the company first meets his extraordinarily costly and economically absurd demands.

To stop the acting general counsel in his tracks, Mr. Mix and other Right to Work leaders have adopted a multi-pronged strategy.

On Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., National Right to Work attorneys helped craft legislation, known as the Job Protection Act (S.964/H.R.1976), which would explicitly prohibit NLRB bureaucrats from ordering an employer to relocate jobs from one site to another.

Introduced just last month, the Job Protection Act already has 36 Senate sponsors.

This legislation would also free employers and employees to communicate freely and honestly with one another regarding the costs associated with unionization without fear that their discussion will lead to the company’s being charged with “anti-union discrimination.”

Over the next few months, the Committee plans to implement a major lobbying effort to secure House and Senate passage of the Job Protection Act.

Meanwhile, Right to Work attorneys are also seeking to intervene in the NLRB case against Boeing on behalf of roughly 1000 employees at the company’s new Dreamliner plant in North Charleston, which is scheduled to begin production this summer.

Finally, the Committee and its 2.6 million members will continue lobbying efforts, launched long before Mr. Solomon’s action against Boeing, to cut off all taxpayer funding for the NLRB.

“The Boeing case is just one more high-profile example of why federal labor-law cases should be processed through the court system, and not be directed first to a politically appointed ideologue like Lafe Solomon. The rogue NLRB should be defunded before it does any more damage,” Mr. Mix concluded.

At the behest of Service Employees International Union, Oregon Senate budget chief Richard Devlin sought to stifle criticism of an organizing drive that added more than 7,700 workers to the union’s membership and turned it into the largest in the state.

During a drive to organize workers who help care for developmentally disabled Oregonians, Tualatin Democrat wrote a letter to officials who help employ the workers, warning them not to say anything even “mildly” critical of unionization. He also suggested that a successful union drive would help boost legislative support for services for Oregonians with developmental disabilities. .

Several officials who received the letter said it appeared Devlin tried to tip the scales in favor of the union’s expansion.

Devlin’s letter illustrates how closely the powerful public employee unions and supportive politicians work with each other behind the scenes. In the end, SEIU won its organizing fight. As a result, the union has now passed the Oregon Education Association to become the largest union in the state, with 60,000 members.

SEIU financially backed Devlin’s reelection last year and has been a key supporter of the Democratic legislative leadership. The union continues to work with the Legislature to expand its membership. Union lobbyists are trying to push through legislation allowing them to organize an entirely new category of community health workers…

The NLRB’s complaint is in fact a back-handed compliment to right-to-work laws, because it is based on the assumption that right-to-work laws help attract businesses. The preponderance of the evidence favors that position.

As Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore recently noted in the Wall Street Journal, from 2000 to 2009 right-to-work states “grew faster in nearly every respect than their union-shop counterparts: 54.6% versus 41.1% in gross state product, 53.3% versus 40.6% in personal income, 11.9% versus 6.1% in population, and 4.1% versus -0.6% in payrolls.”

A recent analysis by the office of Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) shows that right-to-work states created 1.3 million more jobs in the private sector, had 3.5 percent faster income growth, and 46 percent higher business growth than forced union states between 1993 and 2009.

And, according to a recent National Right to Work Committee analysis of Department of Labor data, over the past 10 years, the top five states in creating new jobs are right-to-work states, while the bottom five are forced unionism states. Workers in right-to-work states also have more disposable income than those in forced unionism states.

In right-to-work states, unions must demonstrate to workers that their service has value or they will refuse to join. As in other areas of the economy, competition makes providers of goods and services—in this case the representation services of labor organizations—more efficient and responsive.

Competition also extends across geographical boundaries, as the shifts in population of recent decades show. Workers and business are voting with their feet. Since 1970, the population in right to work states has more than doubled, while only increasing 25.7 percent in forced unionization states. This substantial gap in population growth is likely attributable to people moving from forced unionization states to right-to-work states because of better job opportunities arising from right-to-work states’ better business environments.

Currently, policy makers in three states—Michigan, Maine, and New Hampshire—are considering enacting right-to-work laws. As they ponder their options, they should look at where the jobs are. Workers want more jobs, faster income growth, better job security, and freedom of association—these are all things that right-to-work laws can help achieve.

Obama NLRB to South Carolina Boeing Employees: “You Have No Stake in Your Jobs”

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue to help workers save their jobs from union boss power grab

Washington, DC (June 9, 2011) – A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge in San Francisco denied three Charleston-area Boeing employees’ request to intervene in the NLRB’s high-profile case against Boeing Corporation (NYSE: BA). The judge also denied the employees’ request to file an amicus curiae brief in the case.

With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, the group of North Charleston Boeing employees whose jobs are in jeopardy sought to have their say in the NLRB’s unprecedented case targeting Boeing for locating production in South Carolina in part due to its popular Right to Work law.

The NLRB’s complaint, if successful, would eliminate over 1,000 existing jobs in South Carolina, not to mention several thousand more jobs that would be created once the Boeing plant reaches full production capacity. Further, the case could set a dangerous precedent that gives union officials a new tool to dictate where job providers locate their facilities.

Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work, issued the following statement in the wake of the judge’s ruling:

“It is unbelievable that the judge bought the General Counsel’s argument that the employees do not have a ‘legitimate direct interest’ in saving their jobs. This is yet another example of a misguided federal labor policy that favors Big Labor and Big Business despite the flowery language about employee rights.

“The Obama NLRB has no concern for the little guy or America’s working families. They are simply and directly focused on expanding the forced unionism power of the union boss elite.

“The NLRB is poised to set a dangerous precedent that would allow union bosses to dictate to job providers where to locate their jobs, of course, with the aim of avoiding states with Right to Work protections for their workers at all costs and forcing more workers into union-dues-paying ranks.

“Foundation staff attorneys plan to appeal this ruling immediately and continue to explore other legal measures to help these Boeing employees save their jobs and to prevent the devastating effects the NLRB’s actions will have on the Charleston community and the American free enterprise system.”

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. Its web address is www.nrtw.org.

Machinist union bosses join with NLRB Acting General Counsel to tell workers to “sit down and shut up” about losing their jobs

Washington, DC (June 8, 2011) – Yesterday, Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, International Association of Machinist (IAM) union lawyers, and Boeing Corp. (NYSE: BA) attorneys responded to a motion filed by three North Charleston Boeing employees seeking to intervene in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) case against Boeing.

The North Charleston employees are receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB’s complaint, if successful, would almost certainly eliminate thousands of jobs in South Carolina, including those of the three Boeing workers represented by Foundation attorneys.

Foundation President Mark Mix released the following statement in response to the Acting General Counsel’s and IAM union lawyers’ opposition to the employees’ motion:

“Acting General Counsel Solomon’s and the IAM union lawyers’ opposition to the Charleston employees’ motion to intervene in the NLRB’s persecution of Boeing is a slap in the face of all independent-minded American workers and citizens who support duly-enacted Right to Work laws in their states that protect employees’ choice over whether or not to financially support a union.

“Solomon’s argument that the South Carolina workers have no stake in the shutdown of the facility in which they are employed is a disingenuous attempt to silence workers whose very livelihoods are in jeopardy. This is a bald-faced lie of Wiener-esque proportions.

“Essentially, what Solomon and IAM union officials want is for workers to sit down and shut up, even though their jobs are on the line and their rights are at issue.

“The opposition of Solomon and IAM union bosses to these courageous employees’ attempt to save their jobs and their community is just another cynical action by Big Labor and its political cronies to silence independent-minded workers and further empower union bosses to force more workers to submit to union boss demands and forced dues payment.”

In contrast, Boeing attorneys filed a brief supporting the employees’ intervention in the case, observing that “[the intervening employees] have a direct interest in the outcome of the case.”

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in nearly 200 cases nationwide. Its web address is www.nrtw.org.

Company Prodded to Abandon New Aircraft Plant in Right Work State

(Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter)

To a rational observer, it’s obvious that the antics of the strike-happy union bosses at Boeing’s West Coast facilities over the past few decades have been detrimental to the interests of the aerospace company’s rank-and-file domestic employees as well as its shareholders.

Since 1975, International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses have ordered employees at Boeing’s Washington State and Oregon facilities out on strike five times. The most recent strike, in 2008, lasted 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion.

In a highly competitive, globalized industry like aircraft production, such costly labor stoppages put Boeing jobs at risk. The potential harm to workers is far greater than any economic gain they could possibly reap from a strike.

Obama NLRB’s Top Lawyer: Sensible Business Decision Driven by ‘Anti-Union Animus’

Boeing managers long accepted IAM boss-instigated strikes as a cost of doing business. However, in 2009, having failed to secure a no-strike deal with the union, Boeing finally moved to address this chronic problem by locating a new aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina.

Boeing executives knew that a majority of their current employees in South Carolina had opted against union monopoly bargaining. The new plant’s availability for production during a strike would mitigate the company’s revenue losses.

If Boeing is allowed to proceed with this plan in peace, its employees, union and nonunion alike, as well as its shareholders will surely benefit from an investment making strikes far less likely and less costly if they occur.

Unfortunately, Lafe Solomon, the man President Obama has selected to be the top lawyer for the powerful National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), doesn’t intend to let Boeing open its now-already-built, $2 billion 787 Dreamliner plant in North Charleston, S.C.

Nor does Mr. Solomon, whose nomination has yet to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, intend to let the 1000 employees Boeing has already hired for the plant to start working and collecting paychecks.

In an extraordinary complaint filed April 20, Acting NLRB General Counsel Solomon insisted that Boeing’s eminently sensible move to expand production in a Right to Work state so as to cut the cost to customers, employees and shareholders of disruptive IAM strikes was driven by “anti-union animus” and illegal.

Mr. Solomon’s complaint asked an NLRB administrative law judge to stop Boeing’s South Carolina production. Even New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse, a relentless apologist for compulsory unionism, acknowledged that the general counsel’s move was “highly unusual for the federal government.”

Solomon Power Grab Underscores Need To Defund NLRB

The fact is, Mr. Solomon’s attempt to force Boeing to move its second line of 787 Dreamliners from Right to Work South Carolina to forced-unionism Washington State has from the beginning been highly controversial.

On April 28, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and his counterparts in eight other Right to Work states sent a strongly worded letter to Mr. Solomon urging him to withdraw the complaint.

“General Counsel Solomon’s assault against employees and businesses in Right to Work states, launched at IAM union bosses’ behest, may or may not ultimately prevail at the NLRB and in the federal court system,” said Greg Mourad, the National Right to Work Committee’s legislative director.

“Regardless of how it unfolds, this power grab underscores the danger of putting implementation of federal labor laws that are already strongly biased against the individual employee’s Right to Work in the hands of politically appointed ideologues like Lafe Solomon.

“Back in February, the Committee supported an appropriations amendment by pro-Right to Work Congressman Tom Price [R-Ga.] that would have completely defunded the NLRB for the rest of this fiscal year.

“Because 60 Big Labor-appeasing GOP representatives joined with all Democrats present and voting in opposition to the Price Amendment, it failed, 176-250.

“All House members, Democrats and Republicans, who opposed the Price Amendment were responsible, wittingly or not, for helping Lafe Solomon do his dirty work last month.

“The Solomon power grab should make it clear to all elected officials who profess to support the Right to Work principle why the NLRB must be defunded before it does even more damage.”

Right to Work is about freedom — the freedom to join — or not to join. Likewise, America allows (or used to allow) people who created companies to run them as they saw fit. If the NLRB achieves their goal they will knock down two freedoms at one time.

According to The Street,  NLRB Spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said, “We are not telling Boeing they can’t build planes in South Carolina. We are talking about one specific piece of work: three planes a month. If they keep those three planes a month in Washington, there is no problem.”

It’s clear the bureaucrats at the NLRB now admit they believe they can mirco-manage the operations of America’s companies. Keep digging, NLRB! Keep digging.

Bill Gould, a Clinton Administration Board member is “mystified” by the NLRB’s actions. “The Boeing case is unprecedented,” he says. “I agree with much of what this board has done and is likely to do, but I don’t agree with what the general counsel has done in the Boeing case. The general counsel is trying to equate an employer’s concern with strikes that disrupt production and make it difficult to make deadlines—he’s trying to equate that with hostility toward trade unionism. I don’t think that makes sense.”

From the Slate post, Air Rage by David Weigel:

Bill Gould has some advice for the labor movement: Turn back. Turn back before it’s too late.

“The administration is acting like a bunch of thugs,” said Sen. Jim DeMint. “If this is checks and balances, God help our country,” said Gov. Nikki Haley. “This is nothing more than bullying by the labor unions. This is President Obama and Harry Reid carrying their water.”

The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation has released a copy of its NLRB Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and it looks like its focus is not limited to the White House, but also includes any communications with Washington Governor Chris Gregoire and Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.

The pertinent part of the FOIA is in the image below, or you can click here to download the Foundation’s full FOIA.

From Matt Mayer’s post:

“With Michigan bleeding jobs and tax revenues, Granholm said she followed the corporate playbook in her attempt to close a huge state budget deficit and make Michigan more competitive. ‘In listening to the business community, I cut takes [sic] 99 times, and I ended shrinking government more than any state in the nation. In my two terms, I cut more by far than any state in the nation. And yet, we still have the highest unemployment rate.

There was no correlation.’ Granholm conceded that streamlining business regulations and lowering taxes — Kasich’s economic recovery mantra — are helpful, but they aren’t a panacea…[l]abor costs, help with start-up costs and proximity to markets are other factors.”

Hallett and Governor Granholm fail to mention why streamlining regulations and lowering taxes aren’t helping the northern states (located within 50 percent of the U.S. population and with low start-up costs) compete against the southern and western states. Instead, Hallett ignores the obvious answer and pleads for an end to corporate pork (with which we enthusiastically agree).

The reason Michigan and Ohio can’t compete is that the southern and western states already have fewer regulations and lower taxes, so “catching up” with those states still leaves the proverbial elephant in the room weighing down the northern states. Plus, those states are also pushing for lower taxes and fewer regulations, so the northern states are perpetually behind them. The elephant, which Governor Granholm does hint at, is labor costs, or, more specifically, unionized labor costs (see: General Motors and the United Auto Workers).

As I noted in Six Principles for Fixing Ohio, “Of course, tax and regulatory burdens also impact a state’s economy. Although many of the forced unionization states have heavy tax burdens and many of the worker freedom states have light tax burdens, some heavily taxed worker freedom states (Idaho, Nevada, and Utah) had the strongest sustained job growth from 1990 to today.

Similarly, a few moderately taxed forced unionization states still had weak job growth (Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri). The combination of both a heavy tax burden and forced unionization is deadly when it comes to job growth, as 11 of the 15 worst performing states are ranked in the top 20 for high tax burdens.” If Ohio and the other states from Missouri to Maine want to truly compete with Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina, then those states need to enact laws that protect the rights of workers not to join a labor union to get a job.

After all, depending on the National Labor Relations Board to protect unions from competing is not a long-term strategy for success; rather, it is a short-term finger in the dike as the flood of worker freedoms washes over the dike. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data over the last twenty-one years shows why Right to Work laws result in more jobs.

From 1990 to 2011, states that protected the freedom of workers not to join a union to get a job netted 10,742,600 jobs — even after the massive housing and construction job losses in states like Nevada, Florida, and Arizona — as forced unionization states (including Ohio) netted just 6,715,500 jobs.

Keep in mind that the vastly superior net job growth in worker freedom states was done despite having nearly 60,000,000 fewer residents! Over twenty-one years, forced unionization states had private sector job growth change of just 11 percent compared to 34 percent in worker freedom states.

Stephen M. Sweeney, the president of the State Senate here, glowered with disgust as he described how one New Jersey town paid out nearly $1 million to four retiring police officers for their unused sick days and vacation time.

Mr. Sweeney, a Democrat, also scowled about the estimated $46 billion New Jersey owes in pension contributions and its $58 billion in liabilities to finance retiree health coverage for government employees.

For years, Republican lawmakers have railed against public employees’ pay and benefits, but now another breed of elected official is demanding labor concessions, too: current and former labor leaders and allies themselves.

After 12 years erecting steel beams for office buildings, Mr. Sweeney became a top official in New Jersey’s ironworkers union, now holding that post along with his legislative one. He says the state can no longer afford the benefits won over the years by public sector unions.

“At some point, you reach the limit of your ability to pay,” he said.

In Oregon, Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski, a former lawyer representing the state employees’ union, is insisting upon wage concessions from those very workers. In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a former teachers’ union organizer, is battling once-friendly unions, demanding $100 million in concessions.

In New York, Gov. David A. Paterson, a longtime union ally whose father is a top adviser to several unions, is threatening large-scale layoffs unless public sector unions agree to a pay freeze and re-open contracts.

The transition from labor ally to labor critic can be bruising. Viewing Mr. Sweeney as a traitor, several public sector unions in New Jersey are threatening to get another Democrat to challenge him and have hired airplanes to fly over the Jersey Shore with banners denouncing him. They have even dragged out giant inflatable rats to embarrass him at speaking engagements.

“I’m getting branded as an antilabor person by the public employee unions, which amazes me because I’ve spent my lifetime doing right by working men and women,” said Mr. Sweeney, who has sponsored legislation that raised the state minimum wage and required companies to provide paid sick days. “I’m a labor leader, but I’m also elected to do right by all the people in the state of New Jersey, and not just union members.”

Another New Jersey Democrat, Donald Norcross, who is both a state senator and president of the Southern New Jersey Central Labor Council, has been told by several public sector unions that they will not contribute a cent toward his Senate re-election campaign because he has backed so many of Mr. Sweeney’s proposals. And in Los Angeles, Mr. Villaraigosa has faced hostile union-paid advertisements and librarians demonstrating outside his home on Father’s Day.

For decades, many state and city politicians, especially Democratic ones, helped assure their re-election by cozying up to public-sector unions and benefiting from their campaign dollars and precinct walkers. Prior to their current jobs, Mr. Paterson did just that as Democratic leader of the New York State Senate and Mr. Villaraigosa did the same as a member of the California State Assembly.

Like many labor-friendly politicians, they happily voted for pension sweeteners and other benefits for unions. But now, with cities and states struggling to close budget gaps, there is a glaring need to scale back costs of all kinds, and public employees are a favorite target.

Last year, 51 percent of cities froze or reduced pay, according to the National League of Cities, while 25 percent laid off workers, 24 percent reduced health benefits and 22 percent revised union contracts to reduce pay and benefits. According to the Pew Center on the States, states are $452 billion behind in their pension contributions while also having $554 billion in liabilities for retiree health care.

Even with the resistance from public sector unions, some elected officials are realizing that getting tough with the unions can be good politics in down economic times, as government employees’ benefits are held up as examples of excess — and as taxpayers (and voters) demand greater accountability.

Gary N. Chaison, a professor and labor expert at Clark University, said some Democratic officials now see it as a “badge of honor” to take on the unions.“They see it as a way to show their independence,” he said.

At a time when many private sector workers have been badly squeezed by stagnant wages, soaring health care premiums and shrinking 401(k)’s, resentment has grown even among private sector union members toward the public employee unions. “It’s almost as if the private sector is blaming the public sector as the spoiled child in the house of labor,” Professor Chaison said.

Hetty Rosenstein, state director of theCommunications Workers of America, New Jersey’s main government workers’ union, sees these moves as scapegoating.

“You can drum up a lot of resentment when people are hurting economically,” Ms. Rosenstein said. “It’s very, very hard to see people so angry at teachers and social workers.”

In New York, Danny Donohue, president of the Civil Service Employees Association of New York, said union members feel betrayed by Mr. Paterson.

“If you told me five years ago that David Paterson would be our enemy, I would have laughed at you,” Mr. Donohue said. “He’s trying to balance a $9 billion deficit on the backs of public employees.” The Paterson administration says it is asking many parties to sacrifice.

In New Jersey, Mr. Sweeney faulted many public employee union leaders for not telling their members the hard facts.

“All you get is finger-pointing,” he said. “They don’t tell their people that they got them these things without a way to pay for them long-term.”

As New Jersey’s top Democrat and second-most powerful official, Mr. Sweeney has made proposal after proposal to rein in labor costs, like setting a $15,000 cap for cashing out unused vacation and sick days and requiring all state employees to pay 1.5 percent of their wages toward their health coverage.

But some union officials have criticized Mr. Sweeney for collecting more than $150,000 a year from the three jobs he holds simultaneously — Senate president, county freeholder and union official. He responds that he works 16-hour days and donates his county salary to charity.

In demanding cutbacks, Mr. Sweeney does not go as far as New Jersey’s Republican governor, Chris Christie. Mr. Sweeney has called for eliminating — for all future state hires — a 9 percent pension increase that a Republican governor pushed through in 2001. Mr. Christie would also eliminate that increase for current employees and retirees now receiving pensions and set a 2.5 percent annual cap on any increase in teachers’ contracts.

Ms. Rosenstein, of the communications workers, said many state workers in New Jersey have already taken an 18-month wage freeze and 10 unpaid furlough days. Moreover, she said, public pensions are in trouble not because they are too generous, but because many years the state failed to make the $2 billion annual contribution needed to keep the pension fund solvent (while most employees’ contributions have increased to 5.5 percent of pay, from 3 percent).

“People talk of shared sacrifice,” Ms. Rosenstein said. “We’ve already sacrificed.”