Dustin Racioppi

State House Bureau, @dracioppi

Gov. Chris Christie rejected a bill Monday that would extend unemployment benefits to striking workers, dealing a blow to pro-union legislation advanced by Democrats after a recent contract dispute between Verizon and its employees.

Christie not only conditionally vetoed the proposal to extend the availability of benefits during disputes, but also recommended amending the current law “to make it clear that all striking workers are disqualified from receiving benefits.”

“Striking workers, no matter what effect their actions have on the operations of their employer, by definition, cause their own unemployment by choosing not to work,” Christie wrote in his veto message to the Legislature.

The bill, he added, “adds insult to injury” because it proposes expanding unemployment benefits beginning April 10, 2016 – around the time of the strike. That provision, he said, “makes clear that the sponsors’ main intention is to compensate Verizon workers who went on strike in April amid contract negotiations.”

About 39,000 Verizon workers across several states, including about 4,800 in New Jersey, walked off the job in a dispute with the telecommunications company last April. The unions – Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers — said the company wanted raise health costs, freeze pension benefits and outsource jobs. It was the largest labor action in the nation since 2011, when Verizon employees walked off the job. The recent strike ended in June.

State law allows striking workers to receive unemployment benefits as long as the strike doesn’t substantially impact the business of the company. Democratic lawmakers sought to extend the availability of benefits to all striking workers.

Lawmakers said the state’s unemployment insurance fund, now in surplus after years in the red, is healthy enough to support workers during future strikes. But Christie said the unemployment compensation law “should not be used as a tool to give labor organizations additional leverage in labor negotiations.” Approving the bill would compromise the integrity of the law and the insurance fund, he said.

Sen. Joseph Vitale, one of the primary sponsors of the bill, called the veto a “disservice” to workers and “not only guts the intent of the bill, but it leaves individuals vulnerable to poor employment practices.”

“Every worker deserves to be fairly compensated and to be treated with dignity, but there must be some recourse if negotiations fail,” Vitale, D-Middlesex, said in a statement. “For many, going on strike is the only option, and we should not be punishing them for fighting for their rights.”

Christie’s rejection of the measure came as little surprise to Hetty Rosenstein, director of the communication workers’ New Jersey chapter. Christie has battled unions regularly over his seven years in office. She called his action on the bill “anti-worker,” “anti-democracy” and “anti-speaking up for your rights.”

Christie's conditional veto means that the Legislature can either accept or reject his proposed changes to the bill.