Thursday, January 29, 2009

Is a 10% Cut Really That Bad?


State workers unions lost their legal challenge to the Governator's furlough order today. From the judge's ruling (on link yet):

The Governor has express authority to make the challenged order under Government Code sections 1985 1 and 19849. Those statutes are expressly incorporated into the petitioners' MOUs. Moreover, certain of the petitioners' MOUs expressly permit the Governor to reduce employee hours due to lack of funds, or to take any necessary action to carry out its mission in an emergency. The current circumstances constitute an emergency. The challenged order is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. The emergency circumstances authorize the making of the order without prior meet-and-confer efforts. Government Code section 19826(b) does not prohibit an order that reduces the hours employees work, even with a resulting reduction in pay.

SEN and CASE have not proven that non-compliance with the FLSA will actually occur,
and FLSA non-compliance, even if proven, would not necessitate invalidation of the Governor's order, since employees retain all their rights and remedies under the FLSA. Judgment shall be for defendants (respondents) on these causes of action.

As provided in Tirupelle v. Davis (1993), the State Controller is not authorized to refuse to implement an order of the Governor affecting state employee pay that is authorized by law. The Court’s judgment in these matters shall therefore include an order directing the State Controller to implement the Governor's order.
$1.3 billion saved, $44 billion to go.

4 comments :

patient renter said...

Wonder what Chiang's next move is.

Hopefully we can move past this now and worry about the other tens of billions that need to be dug up.

Anonymous said...

I too am a patient renter, but also a State Worker. Fortunately for my family, this will not affect us much. We'll be saving a little less to buy a home someday in the next few years. However, I'm certain this will STRAP others.

Overall, it makes me curious as to how much this will affect Sacramento's economy on the whole and it's ailing housing market, considering the majority of State Workers live and work here.

Rich said...

I'd certainly rather take a 10%, especially if it comes with 2 days off, than take a 1:10 chance that I'd lose my job. Or see 1:10 of my co-workers lose their jobs.

Of course, I have more than 10% buffer in my budget. Not everyone does. But of those that don't, I wonder how many buy Starbucks.

Certainly some people are on the ropes. I've been there and it's really tough. But I also think a lot of Americans have developed a sense of entitlement with regard to their stadnard of living.

wannabuy said...

Certainly some people are on the ropes. I've been there and it's really tough. But I also think a lot of Americans have developed a sense of entitlement with regard to their stadnard of living.

Yep.

I do wonder what they'll cut in their spending. Its not as if most would make a 10% cut... recall how many borrowed to sustain a higher standard of living.

I'd be ECSTATIC to take a 10% pay cut with 10% fewer hours with no layoffs. Sigh.. not much of an option in private industry. I know of coworkers being laid off.

Got Popcorn?
Neil