Proposed "Banding" Changes to Civil Service

A major proposed rule change at the Civil Service Commission (CSC)would significantly impact the present Civil Service system. The rule proposal bypasses the legislature and contract negotiations to "broad band" civil service titles, rewrite promotional rules, and eliminate or limit important protections like veteran preference, testing and ranking on lists, and layoff rights. The "broad-banding" proposal would also base future promotional advancement solely on interviews of candidates that management deems "competent," and anyone deemed not "competent" could potentially be demoted. There are significant concerns that this proposal could lead to management patronage, discrimination, favoritism, and other workplace problems. 

The Civil Service Commission held a hearing on April 10, 2013. Unfortunately, despite repeated requests in advance and at the hearing to move the meeting to a larger room, the hearing room held less than 50 people. Over 100 members from many unions picketed outside for the duration of the hearing. Over 60 email letters were sent by PSMA members using our Legislative Action tool.

All testimony over the course of two hours was strongly against the rule proposal. There was not a single person who testified in support. Legislators testified against the rule: Senator Linda Greenstein, Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo, Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson-Coleman, and Assemblyman Dan Benson spoke about their personal experience with civil service and their strong opposition to the rule since it bypasses statute and collective bargaining. Community allies from Garden State Equality, Latino Action Network, Next Step, a disability rights group, and others spoke against the rule because it will eliminate protections for minorities, women, the disabled, and others who are more likely to suffer from discrimination and favoritism. 

In Summary:

• There was NO decision by the CSC at the hearing since it was only the first step in the public hearing process. 
• Public comments are due by May 17, 2013.
• Sometime after the public comment period, the rule will be re-published. 
• The full Commission will need to vote on adoption of the final rule. This may be rushed so stay tuned for critical dates when we will need to mobilize quickly. 

PSMA/IBEW is looking for comments to the rule proposal by its members.  As managers we recognize that there are positive aspects to some of the proposed changes, but we need to carefully review the rule to understand its implications.  We are looking for volunteers to review the rule and provide comments.  If interested, please contact Executive Director Ginther at execdir@psmanj.org.

(Excerpted in part from CWA 1036)

The state's public employee health plans would no longer be able to deny coverage to treat eating disorders, alcoholism and some other substance-abuse and mental disorders under a bill approved by the  Senate on March 18, 2013.

The bill, S-1253, and its companion bill, A-1665, requires the State Health Benefits Program and the School Employees' Health Benefits Program to treat alcoholism, substance abuse and other "non-biologically based mental illnesses" the same as other illnesses.

Under the 2010 federal Affordable Care Act, individuals and small businesses will receive mental-health coverage if they buy insurance through an exchange. In addition, federal law requires that private group health plans that offer mental-health coverage provide it on an equal basis with other health insurance. For instance, copayments, deductibles and the frequency of appointments for treating mental illness must be similar to those for other illnesses.

Senator Vitale, co-prime sponsor of the bill, said federal law is flawed in allowing states to "opt out" of providing mental-health parity. The State Health Benefits Commission has opted out so far, although it has been considering offering parity.

"This bill would address that and say that the state cannot opt out and that everyone is entitled to the same coverage, whether it is for a physical illness or a mental illness, whether it is biological or - as some have called it - a non-biological treatment or illness," Vitale said.

Current state requirements only cover conditions that are defined as biologically based under a 1999 law, including schizophrenia, depression, paranoia and autism. The proposed bill would extend those protections to eating and anxiety disorders, and disorders resulting from sexual abuse and assault, as well as alcoholism and substance abuse. Bill advocates say that there is no scientific distinction between biological and non-biological mental disorders.

PSMA strongly supports this bill and is asking its members to join in by writing to their Assembly person through our Take Action Now button below!!