Schwarzenegger: Layoffs if no budget by Friday
By JULIET WILLIAMS
Associated Press
12:30 p.m.SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration warned Tuesday that it will begin proceedings to lay off thousands of state workers if the governor and legislative leaders do not reach a budget deal by Friday.
Notices would go to employees with the least seniority in the state’s corrections and health and human services departments, as well as all other agencies that receive money from the state’s general fund, said Schwarzenegger’s communications director, Matt David.
The move is part of the governor’s order to cut 10 percent from the government payroll as California faces a $42 billion deficit through June 2010.
“This is simply a matter of needing to realize savings and running out of time to do that,” David said.
The governor’s proposal to balance the budget through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases assumed the fix would be enacted by Feb. 1, but he has been unable to reach a compromise with lawmakers after weeks of meetings.
“We’re losing savings the longer we go into February,” David said. “We’re at the point where time’s up.”
Administration officials are seeking to eliminate up to 10,000 jobs. Because of seniority and so-called bumping rights, however, they will need to send about 20,000 layoff notices.
They project $150 million in savings through the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
Under labor agreements, the procedure to lay off a large number of state workers takes about six months, said Lynelle Jolley, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Personnel Administration, which oversees employee pay and benefits.
She said employees first receive a type of pre-layoff warning that gives them 120 days’ notice.
“It gives the employee the opportunity to shop for other state jobs that they will be given preference for, compared to a non-state employee or even another state employee,” Jolley said.
Employees who receive a notice will have a chance to transfer to other branches of state government that are not paid through the general fund.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the first notices will be sent Friday if a deal is not reached by then, although he characterized ongoing budget talks as encouraging.
“It’s not a threat. This is not a tactic. It’s a necessity. The state is starting to run out of money. The governor has very few options that he can take to unilaterally cut back on state spending,” McLear said.
Schwarzenegger has the authority to start the layoffs under an executive order he issued in December, in which he also ordered the first furloughs in state history.
Some 200,000 state workers were forced to take last Friday off without pay, as part of twice-a-month furloughs Schwarzenegger ordered to save money. The furloughs amount to a 9.2 percent pay cut for affected employees.
The administration also wants to eliminate two of the 14 paid holidays state employees get each year, a move it estimates would save about $75 million through June 2010.
Lance Corcoran, a spokesman for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which represents most prison guards, said mass layoffs would hurt the state economically without solving California’s budget woes.
“Wholesale layoffs is a drop in the bucket with respect to the state’s overall fiscal problem,” Corcoran said. “Even with a 10 percent reduction in pay, state employees are only one 40th of the problem.”
California has issued mass layoff notices because of precarious financial conditions before.
In summer 2003, then-Gov. Gray Davis issued about 16,000 surplus notices, or pre-layoff notices, Jolley said.
In the end, lawmakers agreed to cut 9,300 state government positions when they finally reached a budget accord. Most were vacant at the time, so about 1,200 people lost their jobs or were demoted, she said.
Schwarzenegger and lawmakers are approaching the 100th day since the governor called the special session to deal with the state’s fiscal crisis.
Republican legislators remain opposed to tax increases, while Democrats are trying to preserve as much education and social service funding as possible.
———
Associated Press Writer Judy Lin contributed to this report.
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
TINAMAC wrote on Feb 10, 2009 1:08 PM:
can someone refresh my memory why Gray Davis was voted out? impeached or whatever happened there...
I just can't remember getting an IOU when he was in office... "
antipc wrote on Feb 10, 2009 1:14 PM:
y2kcbr wrote on Feb 10, 2009 1:29 PM:
Just to let you in on a few things. There will be a ripple effect if State employees are laid off. Just as there is a ripple effect when private sector people are laid off. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 10, 2009 1:31 PM:
Clearly, what we needed was not a Terminator.
I'm a broken record on this, but it didn't help that the new gov decided budget difficulties warranted a roll-back of the car tax, in defiance of legislation setting it at 2%, to be cut only in times of economic well-being. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 10, 2009 1:32 PM:
JimClark wrote on Feb 10, 2009 1:38 PM:
Believe me the services would be much better without desk jockeys. "
angrytoo wrote on Feb 10, 2009 1:49 PM:
kbc wrote on Feb 10, 2009 2:32 PM:
cab e-girl wrote on Feb 10, 2009 2:38 PM:
Unclestuy wrote on Feb 10, 2009 2:44 PM:
Raven wrote on Feb 10, 2009 2:55 PM:
angry, laying off the governor was what happened with gray davis and got us the governator.
antipc, exactly what do you find so pleasurable about losing a job that makes you want more and more people to experience it? "
antipc wrote on Feb 10, 2009 3:44 PM:
The hope is, being forced to make cuts lets the bureaucrats know that they are not in charge & that changes need to be made. The economy grows & shrinks, up until now government has only grown. It's true that everyone is expendable & people that receive a pay check via my taxes are no exception. Enough of the right cuts will get us back on track. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 10, 2009 4:09 PM:
Cool!
That takes care of a lot of problems, then. "
Rob C wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:41 PM:
Remember that CA has the largest population in the US, nearly 13 million more than the closest state, TX. So one would expect some "economy of scale" to come into play and that naturally the ratio per 10,000 would drop.
Additionally, Stephen Levy - principal of the CCSCE for many years uses that argument routinely in support of his position advocating higher taxes on Californians.
Always a story behind the numbers, you know. "
Paddy wrote on Feb 10, 2009 6:44 PM:
db76 wrote on Feb 10, 2009 7:01 PM:
pinkflame wrote on Feb 10, 2009 8:37 PM:
Raven wrote on Feb 10, 2009 9:26 PM:
and how does one get an economy of scale in hiring clerks? "
Rob C wrote on Feb 11, 2009 8:45 AM:
As far as scale, "clerks" is a reductionist argument. For example, many services and business dealings (DMV, applications, etc.) will increasingly move to web-self service.
In this structure a single employee can manage larger amounts of population simply through automation. More bodies in remote outposts manually servicing large populations doesn't need to be the answer, and only adds to overhead future-expense (benefits, salary, etc.) pressure.
The answer for the future lies in these approaches, not endless funding for the "old California".
Of course if we want to flatten the tax structure, bring all those who don't pay any taxes into a new plan that includes their contributions from say, a flat consumption tax, then by all means, let's get that ratio down. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 11, 2009 9:16 AM:
All we can hope is that the national stimulus package still has a little money left for the states and still has provisions for training and work on jobs for the future, including opportunities for teachers. "
napaparent wrote on Feb 11, 2009 9:33 AM:
36213621dp wrote on Feb 11, 2009 10:30 AM:
5th generation napan wrote on Feb 11, 2009 11:29 AM:
dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 11, 2009 11:52 AM:
I think mine might have been about $150 some when it was new, with the higher tax, and now is 8 yrs. old and with the rollback is $90/year.
It's kind of like sales tax -- a flat tax, but the more expensive car you can afford, the more you can afford to pay in tax. Truth be told, I can afford the $150. "
Cadence wrote on Feb 11, 2009 12:08 PM:
5th generation napan wrote on Feb 11, 2009 12:15 PM:
pinkflame wrote on Feb 11, 2009 1:42 PM:
Rob C wrote on Feb 11, 2009 4:14 PM:
I thought with a computer in every classroom and net neutrality, all walks of life will be cruising the information highway full speed ahead... "
dellasumbrella wrote on Feb 12, 2009 10:10 AM:
Many of us already contribute voluntarily (to the nonprofits that do the work the government can't and the private sector won't). And I already pay upward of 35% of my meager income in taxes because of self-employment tax. I know, don't I wish I had contributed that to a private investment retirement account instead? Hah! I've lost over 1/3 of the little bit I had invested there. But if I were to voluntarily contribute more, I'd want to know it was matched in kind by my fellow citizens. "
voter1944 wrote on Feb 15, 2009 10:36 AM: