Judge: Schwarzenegger can furlough employees

Judge: Schwarzenegger can furlough employees

www.msnbc.msn.com

Calif. - A judge ruled on Thursday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can force tens of thousands of state workers to take days off without pay to help close a multibillion-dollar budget gap.

The two-day-a-month furloughs are scheduled to start Feb. 6 and would apply to all 238,000 state workers, although many of those would be exempt.
Two employee unions had challenged Schwarzenegger's executive order, saying he did not have authority to order furloughs.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow, so instead of being given IOU's, California employees will just have some days off... And the unions are having a problem with the 'without pay' part.. While the whole state may be going bankrupt??

I think they might soon realize that this could be an even bigger problem than TWO DAYS less pay on their check.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 30-1-2009 by LostNemesis]

Several of the Police Departments are doing that here.

The Officers figure, correctly, that this is far better than being "laid off"

They are having the Officers take 5 days, without pay, anytime throughout the year at their discretion.

I think they might soon realize that this could be an even bigger problem than TWO DAYS less pay on their check.

Very well put

Semper

I don't care much for politics or for being lead by politicians.

Which is why it's even more ridiculous that CA voters were willing to be lead by a body builder turned actor.

I support Arny in almost all of his FICTIONAL FILMS. That's about it.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Several of the Police Departments are doing that here.

The Officers figure, correctly, that this is far better than being "laid off"

They are having the Officers take 5 days, without pay, anytime throughout the year at their discretion.

Where is that? I wonder how many states are thinking about doing the same thing, just having employees take a couple of days off?

Really, I will feel better having more policemen about if things are going to get bad. Long as they will let us anti-socials hide in peace.

EDIT: typo fixed


[edit on 30-1-2009 by LostNemesis]

South Carolina, but it is happening all over actually.

As you may imagine, we network and I routinely correspond with Officers all over.

Hiring freezes are very normal in an economic down-turn, and in my years I have seen several layoffs as well. This seems like a rather good idea; all things considered.

I thought that this quote, hidden in the last paragraph, was rather telling:

Bruce Blanning, executive director of Professional Engineers in California Government, one of the unions that sued over the furlough plan, said his group has suggested Schwarzenegger save money by reducing its outsourcing. Outsourcing engineering jobs to private companies costs the state twice as much as hiring its own engineers, he said.

Now, I'm sure Mr Blanning's opinion is not unbiased; I wonder if there's good objective evidence that outsourced jobs do cost the state more than hiring employees.

And I'm sure that outsourced obligations are not affected by this furlough. Is outsourcing of government jobs simply a way to have big and inefficient government, more subtly and at more cost to the public?

reply to post by Ian McLean


Now, I wonder, wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of outsourcing?

Originally posted by SpencerJ
reply to post by Ian McLean

 

Now, I wonder, wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of outsourcing?

There's also the possible purposes of 1) allowing lucrative contracts to be steered to politically-connected constituents and 2) hiding actual program activity and efficiency under less-open private-sector regulations.

Hmm, one of the problems of government is that when you start thinking cynically, speculations usually just turns out to be more realistic sounding....

Originally posted by LostNemesis

Wow, so instead of being given IOU's, California employees will just have some days off... And the unions are having a problem with the 'without pay' part.. While the whole state may be going bankrupt??

I think they might soon realize that this could be an even bigger problem than TWO DAYS less pay on their check.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 30-1-2009 by LostNemesis]

That's Two Days PER MONTH! for the next 18 Months.



Do the math.


That's 36 days without pay!


That's more than a month without a paycheck.



How many families, in the current economy, will be able to survive without a month's pay?



We're talking about 200,000 people losing a more than a month's pay.




If you thought the California economy was bad before, you're about to get a preview of the Apocalypse.

given the choice of 36 days without pay and keeping my job and having no income for god knows how long without a job i'd take the 36 days without pay over the next 18 months. think about it.

and most families can manage with 2 less days a month pay. yeah they might not be able to eat at Mc Donalds and other fast food places. But they can manage.

I Know i'd take the 36 days spread over 18 months then risk being laid off. IF your laid off its no guarantee that you will receive unemployment. And if you do its only for 13 weeks then after that runs out and you qualify you can get a federal extension of another 13 weeks. so if your lucky when you loose your job you got 26 weeks of income coming in. and its only half of what you were making on your job.

Yeah I'd take the less pay and keep my job as long as i could before i rolled the dice with unemployment. also if you keep your job you keep your health insurance if you have it. Loose your job you lose your insurance within 30 days after you leave your job.

reply to post by Ian McLean


The word "outsorucing" is being used incorrectly here. It's not outsorucing, it's called consultant engineering... I know, I am one. Pretty much all 50 states use consultant design firms to design roadway/transportation projects as well as to perform construction management. In the very short term, yes, it actually may cost the state more to hire consultant firms to do this work, but in the long run it saves a lot more than it costs. We bid for the work competitively against other firms when a request for proposal is issued by whatever governing body has a project needing addressed. Barring a change in the scope of work initiated by the client, our fee is set in stone and cannot change. This means if we are looking at missing a deadline, we have to hire more staff to get the job done in time, the cost of which (extra labor) comes out of the profit margin and, if severe, cuts even deeper into the consultant firm's budget. That's one pro for us that the states don't have... for years and years states with in-house design teams watched their budgets get killed by cost and time overruns. With outside consultants, that cost is no longer a tax payer concern.

Also, the design & management companies take the responsibillity and liabillities for the design. This ensures that the state doesn't end up getting sued for $100 Million when some drunk falls to his death off the side of a culvert crossing because nobody bothered to put a pedestrian safety rail there even though the road was out in the middle of nowhere and the culvert was a good 20 feet off the edge of traveled way and wasn't intended for pedestrian use whatsoever. (True story, happened in Arizona. Guy was DWI, stopped his car to take a leak, walked too far off the shoulder, fell 12 feet onto his head and died. His family successfully sued the state, originally asking for $100 Mil but settling for an undisclosed amount.) With consultants it is us that end up in court, defending ourselves, and ultimately paying the fines/penalties if we're found negligent.

Finally, Much of the so-called "outsourced" engineering work this ass is complaining about is actually little mom & pop local engineering subconsultant work. It's minority owned businesses and by federal law and most state laws they get a 5-10% bid advantage on work as a registered MBE. It also allows for a lot more specialization and "expert" involvement with work. For example, California has a lot of salmon rivers in the north. Any work done in these rivers' watershed areas requires a lot of very specialized knowledge of federal codes, EPA regulations, and even international discharge standards in some cases. Rather than have to employ a group of specialized engineers who may only see actual work in their area of specialization on one or two projects a year, they can use a consultant firm which, thanks to steady flows of work from several different agencies year round, can maintain a robust staff of engineers who are true experts and highly proficient in that area of work.

So please, look somewhere else to blame Cali's problems on.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Thanks for the perspective and info. I kind of figured the union spokesman had his agenda.

reply to post by Ian McLean


Unions are half the problem in this state, period. This just goes to show it.

I think that it's better to have two unpaid vacation days per month then to get laid off.

That's just my opinion at this point in time.

There just are not many jobs out there.