Welcome to PatsFans.com

Schwarzenegger vs. CA State Employees Union

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Dec 20, 2008.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,511
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    As most of us know, California's fiscal condition is one of the worst in the nation. Yesterday, Gov. Schwarzenegger declared that all state employees must take 2 days per month of unpaid leave beginning in February.

    Union representatives are up in arms saying it violates their agreement. Schwarzenegger countered that most American families have been forced to cut back and that he is cutting all CA dept. back in work hours. Either that or he will fire 10% of the state workers.

    My question is, what do people expect him to do? Our states can NOT raise taxes that much on a work base that is struggling as it is. Very, very few of us in MA would accept additional taxes just to allow state employees to maintain their hours or their staffs.

    Something's gotta give and it ain't the taxpayers.

    “Every California family and business has been forced to cut back during these difficult economic times, and state government cannot be exempt from similar belt tightening,” Schwarzenegger said in a letter to state workers.

    The furloughs would amount to a 10 percent pay cut, Chris Voight, executive director of the California Association of Professional Scientists, a group that represents about 3,000 scientists working for the state. The association and the Service Employees International Union announced they will sue to block the furloughs and any layoffs, which they said would violate collective-bargaining deals."


    Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
  2. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,428
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +267 / 10 / -26

    If he did not first attempt to bargain with the Unions, this will prove to be a stupid move as you just can't change the contracts... he will loose in Court, and then the familiar cry of blame the unions will ensue..

    The problem with these types of cuts is that a clerical person making 20K gets a 10% cut it is pretty significant.. but a high ranking official who makes 135K gets a 10% cut it does not hurt as much.. percentage raises and take backs usually hurt the little person more.
  3. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,807
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ratings:
    +91 / 7 / -13

    #37 Jersey

    I think organized crime, err, I mean labor days of being the bully are over, people have finally awoke to the fact that not only was the economy's problem, over inflated housing prices, but also over inflated union wages.

    US government employees should be next.
  4. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,511
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    It may not be a bad idea to use a graduated system, I agree. As far as him bargaining, I don't think he has any choice. EVERYTHING needs to be cut back and state employees are no exception. When you consider the cronyism that typically exists among state employees, it doesn't bother me.

    I'd bet apples to oranges Massachusetts could easily cut 10% of the state employee payroll by reducing the number of employees. This is not an employee vs. worker issue, it's a TAXPAYER issue.

    I will not pay another dime in state taxes to support levels of state employee payrolls. That's just stupid in these economic times.
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,994
    Likes Received:
    189
    Ratings:
    +437 / 5 / -2

    Union lackey's will always defend their joe. I think Ahnold should cede to their outrage, and let them work their full schedule. He should then fire 10% of the work force instead.
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,511
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    I'm down wit that!
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,994
    Likes Received:
    189
    Ratings:
    +437 / 5 / -2

    Seriously PR. The reality is that Kalifornia is broke. They've got an $18 billion shortfall, and some say they're going to run out of cash in February. As it stands right now, they can't borrow either. Basically, they're fukced. I hope they, and 30 other states, go bankrupt so people will finally learn. I can dream I know. Anyway's, the choice is, lose 10% of the workforce, or lose 10% of your pay. What's more important, keeping 90% paid in full, or keeping 100% paid at 90%? That's the unions choice. I'd prefer to keep 100% employed at 90% pay, since people can afford to supplement their income, but won't likely be able to find a fulltime job as easily. Now, if the higher ups have a few brain cells, they can construct the policy so that the people at the bottom end of the totem pole are cut less, and the people at the top a little more. Just make it so people earning $30-35-40k a year (their choice) get maybe a 5-6-8% cut, while people at the top get a 10-12-14% cut, if the income differentiality is a concern.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    We don't have the money and we don't want to pay more taxes. So they have three choices :

    - Layoffs.
    - Pay cuts.
    - Furloughs.

    The latter choice is the least intrusive to most so there you go. If you gave me the choice of a 10% paycut or 10% unpaid vacation I'd take the latter, thanks. If they don't like it they can start laying people off, I don't want to write a bigger check - sorry.
  9. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    I think the larger question is will Arnold take a paycut and the elite office holders?

    it's like asking the teachers to take no increase in contract negotiations(which will be interesting) yet the principals and superintendents get an increase.

    i think this will be a very interesting topic.
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    It would be an appropriate gesture but in reality cutting the governor's salary is irrelevant to the budget of CA.
  11. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    why is it irrelevant? is he not paid with taxpayer money? or did he not take a salary because he's already loaded?

    cuts should start at the top and trickle down and not vice versa
  12. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,428
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +267 / 10 / -26

    Nothing convinces me that failing to negotiate and just cutting the rank and files salaries is not going to work legally or practically... negotiate first, and if it fails then explore options... nothing pisses off a union more than just to violate a collective bargaining agreementwithout consultation..
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Because it's so small it's inconsequential. He makes $212K. He could take $0 and save us $212K and it would have no effect on the bugdet issues.
  14. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    I hear what you are saying, but if he plans on cutting people below them or their pay he should be the first to take a cut. it would be extremely hypocritical
  15. mikey

    mikey Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0


    BelichickFan --

    I thought you are a CA government employee.

    Are you not a member of the union?

    .
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,511
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    There isn't much to negotiate...one way or the other, cuts are gonna happen.

    Raising taxes is NOT an option. Darryl, you need to understand that taxpayers have ZERO interest paying more taxes so employees can remain status quo.

    SO RAISING TAXES IS NOT AN OPTION....with double emphasis on NOT.
  17. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    I think his point is to allow the unions to vote to lower wages so people won't be cut. Don't think this will happen but it's a potential alternative to cuts.
  18. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,562
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +437 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Nope. If I were, though, I'd take a 10% furlough over a 10% paycut.
  19. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,428
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +267 / 10 / -26

    This may or may not be true, but to negotiate in the public forum while skipping negotiated and agreed to remedies usually backfires.. the court of public opinion is usually not the great decision maker..

    There is no advocacy of raising taxes or cutting services, the reality is negotiate with the unions, this is the remedy, tell them the realities and see if you can work something out.. there is a trend here to demonize the rank and file, all the while the decision makers are exhonerated..

    The method that Ahnold has chosen will only lead to exhaustive law suits and overall craziness... I agree with Belichick Fan that a % decrease will be the best outcome.. but a straight across the board 10% for all will not be equitable.. it should be graduated.. i.e. 3% reduction for those making less than 25K, 6% for those making 25K to 40K... to whatever is needed to achieve the fiscal goal of all of the cuts..

    What is happening in Ca. is inevitable and will happen in other states, in some it already has.. but do it the correct way.. all he is doing is creating hysteria.
  20. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    you are correct IMO. Arnold should go through due process

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>