Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Without reading the details of the bill, it sounds like a reasonable idea to me. An entire state is large enough that surely anyone who works for the state should be able to find a place they like inside the state's borders.
And that way, they'd also have to suffer the NJ property taxes along with the rest of us :-)
Without reading the details of the bill, it sounds like a reasonable idea to me. An entire state is large enough that surely anyone who works for the state should be able to find a place they like inside the state's borders.
And that way, they'd also have to suffer the NJ property taxes along with the rest of us :-)
Agree...I'm sure all the current state workers that reside in PA or DE breathed a collective sigh of relief that it will not apply to them
Used to be strict hiring rules that you couldn't ask where or how far a job applicant lived from the workplace. In other words you could not legally reject a prospective employee because of distance.
It would, however, be made clear that an employee would be terminated if they were chronically late or regularly missed work regardless of cause.
Theoretically you would be restricting the pool from which to select the best person for the job unless the standards are so low it doesn't matter how small the pool or who gets hired.
Can we assume that whatever the rationale for passing such a rule, it would benefit someone's political career or is there a clear economic advantage?
I'd prefer the best performers over the feel good rule of hiring only NJ residents as it would hopefully produce better return for the tax dollar.
Used to be strict hiring rules that you couldn't ask where or how far a job applicant lived from the workplace. In other words you could not legally reject a prospective employee because of distance.
It would, however, be made clear that an employee would be terminated if they were chronically late or regularly missed work regardless of cause.
Theoretically you would be restricting the pool from which to select the best person for the job unless the standards are so low it doesn't matter how small the pool or who gets hired.
Can we assume that whatever the rationale for passing such a rule, it would benefit someone's political career or is there a clear economic advantage?
I'd prefer the best performers over the feel good rule of hiring only NJ residents as it would hopefully produce better return for the tax dollar.
You can hire some one from out of state with the stipulation they have to move to NJ if they want the job...public servants being paid their salary & benefits by funds provided through taxes of the citizens are usually under a different set of rules then the private sector.
It really isn't all that uncommon through out the country
i thought they had to today. for my dad's job, we had to live in hudson county. who knew?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sounds discriminatory
