The 3rd District Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a nearly year-and-a-half old ruling that would allow the Governor to order state workers’ pay reduced to minimum wage until a new budget can be signed into law. The timing cannot be mere coincidence, only a day after the governor ordered the Controller to pay all state workers 7.25 in wages until a budget is passed.
However, this fight is far from over. On Friday, Controller John Chiang argued that while he lost the appeal he still has legal room to maneuver.
“Like the Supreme Court in White, the appellate court declined to resolve the feasibility issue,” he continued.
“This is not a simple software problem. Reducing pay and then restoring it in a timely manner once a budget is enacted cannot be done without gross violations of law unless and until the State completes its overhaul of the state payroll system and payroll laws are changed,” the statement read.
The statement concluded, “I will move quickly to ask the courts to definitively resolve the issue of whether our current payroll system is capable of complying with the minimum wage order in a way that protects taxpayers from billions of dollars in fines and penalties.”
The Sacramento Bee is reporting that state employee unions are also signaling their willingness to file their own lawsuits.
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg issued his own toughly worded statement on Friday as well. “The court ruling is wrong, and the Governor’s decision to impose minimum wage is as fiscally reckless as it is heartless,” said the Senate leader. “The negative economic consequences of the Governor’s action will be harsh and long-lasting. The Governor should not be toying with the lives of working families in order to gain a tactical advantage in budget negotiations. You don’t get to a fair and decent budget result by bullying people.”
“This underscores the fact that everyone loses when we have a budget impasse,” said Governor Schwarzenegger’s spokesman Aaron McLear.
“Let’s be clear: the Governor’s minimum wage order is nothing more than a political stunt that will not save the state a single penny,” Speaker John Perez said on Friday. “I find it shocking that the Governor is deliberately causing real suffering in an attempt to force the Legislature to pass his job-killing budget. The Governor shouldn’t be playing political games to distract from the fact that his budget will devastate California’s recovery and wipe out 430,000 jobs.”
Clearly this is a move designed more for leverage than anything else. The Bee article quotes Bruce Blanning from the Professional Engineers, he made the point, “If (Schwarzenegger) tries to cut everybody’s pay to minimum wage, there probably would be a number of legal challenges,” said Mr. Blanning. “Our view is that when people do their job, they should get paid.”
What seems more likely is that he will try to push to get the various groups to the bargaining table to hammer out a new agreement.
However, from the standpoint of Davis, this is a situation worth watching as the large number of people effected by this in Davis would be huge. One member of the business community told the Vanguard Friday that if this went into effect this could endanger a number of businesses. The current downturn has already put a lot of businesses into the margins and if a large percentage of Davis residents had their discretionary income cut, it could be the death blow for a number of restaurants, bars, and other establishments that rely on people’s discretionary income.
The good news is that given the myriad of legal challenges and the lack of a court order, we do not see this as much more than a political ploy to get people’s attention at this point. Even with yesterday’s court ruling, it is not going to go into effect.
Nevertheless, the economic news right now is bad both nationally and statewide and I think we are in for several more years of hardship at both the state and local level.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Chiang is a lawbreaker.. he still uses the stupid public argument that he cannot manage his software to reduce checks, when in fact the court said that argument was BS..
David, you are not helping anyone by promoting a dead argument and false hope. You should be asking where is the legislature.. answer: they are on vacation ! Which shows how truly out of touch they are. They dont give a S**t about the ‘little guy’.
Please stop deluding the public with Chiang’s fairy tale view of the world. Stop the ‘lacking a court order’ lies David. The court ruled. Chiang lost. People need to face reality. We are in a great depression. Denial only puts off the cure.
Really, so you actually believe there is going to be minimum wages imposed on state workers? Because I don’t.
Yes, it will happen. Telling people it wont does not help them prepare for it.
Chiang cannot pick and choose who gets paid. If vendors get script instead of dollars, then he cannot favor salaries. At least minimum wage is better than worthless script. This town really needs to do its citizens a favor and begin planning for what is certainly to be a many years long depression.
We need to be able to help each other. Preparation would be the responsible thing to do. I left some comments in your other article on State Wages. We need positive preparation. Food, tent zones, etc. Nobody wants whats coming, but not preparing is a huge mistake. Denial gets in the way of preparation.
And David, I appreciate your efforts in providing this space and forum. regards.
Chiang will wait until the court orders him in the meantime the unions will file a lawsuit which will tie up implementation until after the point at which a settlement is reached. If I were a betting man, I would bet a lot on there never being a minimum wage implemented for state employees.
The unions are taking a huge gamble here. If they go to court and lose, they have established precedent and minimum-wage will become an annual part of the California budget maneuvering. Chiang’s argument is preposterous on its face, as the courts have already ruled. The 15 bargaining groups would be better off, IMO, quickly coming to agreements similar to those already tentatively accepted by the other 6, rather than handing this tool to this and future governors in perpetuity. Courts have already ruled on the governor’s behalf. This may be a case of short-term planning ignoring long-term consequences.
“…if this went into effect this could endanger a number of businesses.” That is true. We’ve seen this year after year, and last year’s budget impasse seriously affected Davis businesses. The impact of these dragged-out budget negotiations on local economies is severe. You can’t cut the pay of thousands of employees without very adverse side-effects. The problem is, that doesn’t matter one whit to the governor or to the Republican minority that will block any budget agreement. They don’t have those issues in their districts, and even if they did it wouldn’t overcome their philosophical objections to tax increases.
Don: I think they are weighing two precedents, one that they can be compelled through court action versus the other that by imposing minimum wage they can be forced to give concessions at the bargaining table.
It’s interesting to note that the governator wants to pay FEDERAL minimum wage, rather than STATE minimum wage, which is higher… Folks who commented on this earlier seem to miss a point… this will NOT affect state workers’ “discretionary” spending (affecting our ‘poor’ downtown merchants)… for most, it will affect their NECESSARY spending… rent/mortgage, food/groceries, etc. But, hey, public employees are living on the trough, so who cares?
It does depend on the state worker, but most of the people in Davis who I am referencing probably have enough savings to survive a few months on minimum wage and therefore they will cut out all discretionary spending and only spend on the essentials. Of course the lower wage state workers will be even more impacted than that, but most of those people do not live in Davis and therefore not covered by the comment.
All this disgraceful posturing on the part of the governor and the ridiculous inaction by the legislative minority is disgusting. The public employees affected should deliver minimum work for the minimum wage,i.e. show up and answer their e-mail, take lunch, breaks and go home. Give the governor and the simpletons who support him what they’re willing to pay for and deserve.
Say Grazi to all those DINOs who voted in Governator Schwarzenegger for the destruction of the state infrastructure (including public education), and lay-offs, pay reductions, furloughs, etc. Some vanguardist should compile a list of names of those who voted for Ahhnuld the clown
As with this typical pseudo-liberal, Miss Ternus-Bellamy–
https://davisschoolsfoundation.org/supportsystem04212010.html
[edit — no name-calling, please]
justoutsidetown opined [quote] Chiang is a lawbreaker.. he still uses the stupid public argument that he cannot manage his software to reduce checks, when in fact the court said that argument was BS..
[/quote]
I guess this from Chiang means nothing? [quote]“Like the Supreme Court in White, the appellate court declined to resolve the feasibility issue,” he continued.
“This is not a simple software problem. Reducing pay and then restoring it in a timely manner once a budget is enacted cannot be done without gross violations of law unless and until the State completes its overhaul of the state payroll system and payroll laws are changed,” [/quote]
Does FLSA ring a bell? How about: “federal labor laws” and the CA State Constitution, stare decisis, isssue relevancy, the doctrine of competing harms and the like?
DMG: ““As expected, today’s ruling by the Third District Court of Appeal restates the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in White v. Davis, but goes several steps further by saying my office could be excused from reducing the salaries of some 250,000 employees to minimum wage if it is practically infeasible to do so without violating federal labor laws and the State Constitution,” the Controller said in a statement released by his office on Friday.”
The court’s decision is not a ringing endorsement that the governor is correct, that he can just arbitrarily cut salaries of state workers to minimum wage. The court’s holding purposely left a huge loophole that Chiang can walk right through. The court is saying that there is a possibility that it is infeasable and will violate federal labor laws and the State Constitution to reduce the salaries of state workers to minimum wage. If push comes to shove, Chiang may have to prove his point, and he very well may be able to. Meanwhile, the court would prefer to keep things status quo and hope an amicable agreement can be reached long before the entire issue comes to an actual showdown. As an attorney, I disagree that the court’s ruling is a clear mandate that the Governor is correct in taking his drastic position, but I don’t know enough about labor law to be able to determine if Chiang’s argument has strong merit. It must have some merit, or the court would have ruled entirely against Chiang, which it did not…
Schwarzenegger and the yacht club repugs should be on trial–sedition, for starters. So should the do-nothing “democrats” who support him (or …do-nothing)
Or ________________’d.
AP: Old technology foils Schwarzenegger’s wage order
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_california_budget_minimum_wage[/url]
Chiang reports that the computer system won’t allow him to comply with Schwarzenegger’s order on his timeline.
Perezoso: “yacht club repugs” — no more of this kind of thing, please. Keep it civil.
You know if dahhling Arnold was so interested in ensuring that the budget is finalized, he should go after every state employee in California. Including, police officers, sherriffs, firefighters, teachers, environmental protection agency, and on and on and on and on… why is he just going after the state workers? he’s a discriminatory hypocrit and John Chang is not the law breaker, it’s the governor that’s the liar and thief!!
You know if dahhling Arnold was so interested in ensuring that the budget is finalized, he should go after every state employee in California. Including, police officers, sherriffs, firefighters, teachers, environmental protection agency, and on and on and on and on… why is he just going after the state workers?
Probably because the public doesn’t have as much direct contact with “generic” state employees as the do with their local police, fire fighters and teachers. Once you get to know some of those folks, then you’ll likelier develop a positive opinion of them and think that they’re good people doing honest, hard work who deserve their salaries.
Targeting state workers like this plays into the narrative that part of the budget problem is faceless beaurocrats in Sacramento earning high salaries at the public trough and doing nothing to contribute to society.
It appears that one Republican strategy is to cut government, and then complain that government doesn’t work, and then cut it some more because of it.
“You know if dahhling Arnold was so interested in ensuring that the budget is finalized, he should go after every state employee in California.”
And that would, as we discussed a week ago, cover about 11% of the deficit.
If you want to compare the different budget proposals, go to the California Budget Project website here: [url]http://www.cbp.org/[/url]
and look for this pdf file: [url]http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2010/100618_Budget_Comparision.pdf[/url]
David…
Ok… if someone lives in Davis, has a rent of $1650 per month (typical for a rental house & utilities), and for a “few” months (took two years to get to the court decision… let’s assume 4 months) 4 X $1650 = $6,600… do YOU have that much in liquid savings where you can take that hit for four months? I suspect that even $60,000 per year folks can’t take that hit. Or do you have a generous trust?
One thing to keep in mind for state workers who get the minimum wage–assuming Chiang relents: they will get back-pay up to their full wages the week after the budget is approved. It’s not as if they will work for three months for $7.25 an hour, the budget will be signed, and then they are just s.o.l. for their last 3 months of wages less the $7.25 per hour.
I don’t mean to imply it won’t be a short-term hardship for those who have no savings and no ability to borrow. However, it will be far less of a hardship than getting laid off will be in the long run. And sooner or later, a good percentage of the state workforce is going to get laid off, unless the unions agree to deep cuts in their pesnions.
[i]Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg issued his own toughly worded statement on Friday as well. “The court ruling is wrong, and the Governor’s decision to impose minimum wage is as fiscally reckless as it is heartless,” said the Senate leader.[/i]
Steinberg has his head shoved so far up the tushy of the unions, he cannot see the light of day. For him to call anyone else “fiscally reckless” is a horrible joke.
Remember that Steinberg is the union’s stooge who tossed Lois Wolk off of the Senate Local Government Committee, where she was the chairwoman and had by far the most experience in local government, all because Wolk bucked the firefighter union (CPF) in 2009 and would not agree to their proposition to triple the legal costs for a city or county to file bankruptcy.
The unions then circulated a lie–which was widely repeated at the Capitol and reported by irresponsible sources who never checked it out–that Wolk was thrown off of her committee assignment because she bucked Steinberg on a peripheral canal deal. But I made some calls and found out that was bogus; and later Dan Walters*, who I had also contacted, reported later in the Bee that was a lie being pushed by the firefighters. Steinberg never bothered to kick Lois off of the Natural Resources & Water Committee, where she voted against his wishes on the canal. She has no singular power, there. But on Local Government, she was the chair and the swing vote. And that is what really had head-up-fireman-butt Steinberg hopping mad.
*Walters wrote this recently about the status of the municipal bankruptcy bill, which shamelessly and regretably has been co-authored by our very own firefighter sycophant, Mariko Yamada: [quote]“The bill passed the Assembly in that form, but stalled for months in the Senate Local Government Committee until Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg changed the committee’s membership to ensure approval.”[/quote]
Rich: “head…up the tushy….stooge….sycophant.”
Again, keep it civil, please.
Okay, Don. But I thought using “tushy” in place of …
[img]http://northweststarks.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/donkey0up.jpg[/img]
… was very civil of me.
It appears that one Republican strategy is to cut government, and then complain that government doesn’t work, and then cut it some more because of it.
I think a better summary would be that Republicans don’t want to raise taxes further in one of the highest taxed states in the country, when the most important issue is decreasing the cost of the services that are delivered. It may mean that we need smaller government, it almost certainly means that we need government that costs less, especially in public employee pension and health care costs.
David…
Ok… if someone lives in Davis, has a rent of $1650 per month (typical for a rental house & utilities), and for a “few” months (took two years to get to the court decision… let’s assume 4 months) 4 X $1650 = $6,600… do YOU have that much in liquid savings where you can take that hit for four months? I suspect that even $60,000 per year folks can’t take that hit. Or do you have a generous trust?
If you own a home or rent in Davis, and you are not liquid enough to withstand 4 months of reduced or lost salary, you shouldn’t be living in Davis – you should be living in a lower cost area, and saving some money for a rainy day. I’m not suggesting that it would be fun or easy, but even the most rudimentary planning would include a few months of living expenses in a liquid form.
Many parts of the country are experiencing significant unemployment for extended periods of time, with no promise of recouping the lost income. The situation for state of CA employees really pales in comparison.
David you said that ALL state employees, if their wages were cut down to 7.50/ hour it would only cover 11% of the budget?>
Okay, so please do me a favor and define state employees.
Every town, city, county, municipiality including public works, area resource board, the water district employees, cops, firefighters, epa, public health, unemployment, mental health, prisons, jails, courts, district attorney, attorney general’s office, statel legislature employee, assistants to congress men and women, congress men and women, and every other state employee that works for the state. I know i’ve forgotten some, but you’re telling me that if all the aforementioned groups and then some, would have their salaries cut down to minimum wage, this would only take care of 11% of the budget?
Really??? That’s hard to believe David. You of all people shouldn’t be giving such ridiculous statistics. The state employee outlays are MASSIVE, if you include EVERYONE in EVERY department. Probably more like 85% of the budget.
Adam, Davis is not the only city in California were ppl wouldn’t be able to withstand 4 months of minimum wage. Actually, you seem like one of those lofty Davisites that seem to think everyone makes 100k and over.
Let’s break it down, if you bought a house for 250k, your notes probably more like 1600/month. Nobody making minimum wage could pay that kind of mortgage. As a matter of fact, in order to make ends meet on minimum wage, your house payment would have to be more like 400/month.. find me a decent home in California whose price is 70k.
I’m sure you’d be able to find some drug infested, cockroach infested trailor for that price, but most middle class earners don’t live in those kinds of houses.
If Arnold were to cut EVERY state worker in the state, well, the economy would collapse and Davis would not be the only community affected by this disaster.
You know, there’s a fundamental principal in economics, especially this economy where consumers who BUY things are its driving force: If you don’t have money, you can’t spend it, no matter how many credit cards you have. Eventually the truth will catch up with greedy republicans. Bush’s economy was propelled by debt, because he didn’t want to raise people’s wages and didn’t want to advocate for fairness…well it caught up with us, and now you want to make things even worse.
I say go for it! Let’s cut everybody’s wages to minimum wage. In fact, let’s get rid of the minimum wage entirely.
Let’s experiment and see how much the wealthy who will benefit from this policy will help us out.
trickle down economics has been proven to be a failure. when the fuc. are you ppl fiscal “conservatives” gonna get that!
public works: city
area resource board: state
the water district employees: state
cops: local except for highway patrol
firefighters: city except for cdf
epa: state epa but not us epa
public health: county
unemployment: EDD is state, rest is county
mental health: county
prisons: state
jails: county
courts: state
district attorney: county
attorney general’s office: state
statel legislature employee: state
assistants to congress men and women: federal
congress men and women: federal
and every other state employee that works for the state: state
Here’s the story that shows how much we would save cutting employee salaries: link ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3519:state-employees-are-not-the-cause-of-the-states-budget-problems&catid=70:budgetfiscal&Itemid=109[/url])
This graphic shows the top departments:
[img]http://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/authors/budgetreport-2.png[/img]
I’m sorry but i’m not going to get into semantics..
when i say “state” employees I mean every employee that’s employed by government and works for the tax payer. I don’t care if it’s county, city, village, town, state, federal …..
all these people are employed by the tax payers in the state. whether funding comes from the federal govt, local government, or state government, the money comes from one source….the tax payer..
so let’s include everyone please that’s on the government dole…..
if we cut all the salaries for everyone that gets their paycheck from the government down to minimum wage, we’d have a surplus, but then the economy would come to a grinding halt!!!
people that advocate for lowering the minimum wage, or getting rid of government have no concept of economics.
they have a concept of greed that’s for sure, but there’s unbridled greed in many third world countries. the rich don’t pay taxes and live lavish lives, the poor can’t get ahead, most live in shanti towns, there are no city services..(sanitation, health etc)
so if you want that kind of small government, no taxes, slave wage economy, then you can go to somalia, or india, or the phillipines.
ps..
your table is scary.. imagine that, the highest expenditures are corrections and “education”.
scary..social services and mental health is TINY, yet we still blame the poor and needy for all of our problems.
shows how evil this society is..we’d rather spend our tax dollars to lock people up and bomb and destroy other countries.
this is the legacy of right wing, republican “christian” conservative america.
to mr. and mrs. christianity!!! who would jesus starve? who would jesus bomb? would jesus destroy god’s earth for a quick buck???? is jesus dick cheney?