New Jersey’s Toll Increases Hit Taxpayers Hard

New Jersey is placing a significant burden on its taxpayers. Recently, the state has not only raised road tolls but has also imposed regulations that undermine constitutional rights.

Evesham Township in southern New Jersey has plans to repave certain roads in 2025 and issued a call for bids.

The lowest bid came from Earl Asphalt, which quoted $1,463,513.

It seemed straightforward—Earl would undertake the job, ensuring that taxpayers receive the best deal possible. But that’s not what unfolded.

A week after the bidding concluded, the Evesham County Council passed a resolution mandating that all public works contracts include a project collective agreement.

This agreement compels contractors to hire via union halls and acknowledges the union as the sole bargaining representative for workers.

Earl Asphalt, operating as a non-union “open shop” since its inception in 1968, found itself unable to comply with these new requirements without compromising its core principles, which have earned it respect across New Jersey.

The result? The town abandoned the bids and initiated the process afresh.

Ultimately, the costs soared. The new bids exceeded Earl’s initial offer, with the reserve price now set at $1,617,411, a jump of over $153,000 to have the same roads repaved by a compliant contractor.

It’s hard to see any noticeable difference in the work, but, unfortunately, the taxpayers clearly see the difference in their wallets.

This situation in Evesham reflects a broader trend sweeping across New Jersey, where project collective agreements are increasingly extending from major state projects to everyday municipal contracts.

Earlier this year, former Governor Phil Murphy approved a bill that lifted cost-based limitations on these agreements, enabling local governments to align public works contracts with union stipulations.

The consequences have been predictable: fewer bidding options, declining competition, and elevated pricing.

Earl Asphalt is currently suing the state in federal court, backed by the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.

This lawsuit challenges the mandate for public works agreements but also confronts the state’s contentious policy that imposes “target employment goals,” which translates to race and gender quotas.

Failure to meet these targets can lead to penalties, fines, and threats to future public contracts.

For nearly six decades, Earl has employed individuals based on merit and ability, not on discriminatory criteria.

But under New Jersey’s current system, that’s simply not adequate.

The government is pressuring Earl to monitor and report the racial and gender makeup of its workforce and meet specific demographic targets.

If the compliance reports fall short, Earl faces the daunting task of negotiating with the union for sufficient workers or navigating through a complicated series of bureaucratic hurdles—namely, the aim of pressuring non-union companies to unionize.

The U.S. Constitution touches on these matters too.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from mandating discrimination based on race or gender in employment.

To satisfy legal standards, such classifications must serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that.

New Jersey’s standards appear to miss the mark, enforcing racial quotas without justification or expiration, which the Constitution expressly restricts.

Additionally, the implications of the project labor agreement raise further constitutional questions.

The First Amendment safeguards not just free speech but also the right to associate freely—or to choose not to.

Forcing Earl to engage with and financially support unions as a prerequisite for public contracts complicates matters, mandating association and promoting views that both Earl and its employees may not endorse.

These unfair regulations inflict tangible damage.

Earl’s senior employees average an impressive tenure of 18 years in an industry often characterized by high turnover rates.

The company has earned national recognition for its second-chance hiring practices, providing significant job opportunities to individuals with criminal backgrounds.

“This isn’t just about me,” co-owner Michael Earl emphasizes. “It’s about our people.”

If his employees decide to unionize, that’s entirely their prerogative.

But it shouldn’t be the government’s choice to impose that decision.

Earl’s battle in federal court centers on this principle—not seeking special advantages but the right to compete based on merit and let employees make their own choices.

For decades, New Jersey has seen a shift from market competition and individual freedoms to more government mandates.

The rising costs associated with such a shift now land squarely on the shoulders of taxpayers, starting with that additional $153,000 in Evesham and continuing statewide.