Judge calls Schwarzenegger's furlough order illegal

[Newsjock]

Source: Sacramento Bee

An Alameda Superior Court judge has ordered the Schwarzenegger administration to stop furloughing thousands of public servants who are members of three major public sector unions, including the Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, offering state workers a huge legal victory as 2010 begins.

In a ruling handed down late Thursday, Judge Frank Roesch said the governor's reliance on provisions of the state's Emergency Services Act to order mandatory furloughs was flawed and illegal, saying "the emergency necessitating them was the failure of the Legislature to pass the budgets" yet the administration continued the furloughs even after the budgets were passed.

Roesch also said that the furlough plan has "interfered with the objectives of agencies" whose activities were funded with special funds, not general fund revenues, including the processing of Social Security disability reviews.

Schwarzenegger Press Secretary Aaron McLear said the administration will appeal immediately and that state workers will continue to be furloughed pending ultimate resolution of the cases.


Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2431148.html

[WhiteTara]

1. he is a disgusting pig.

I feel so bad for my old state. The repukes have ruined it.

[PatrynXX]

3. really wouldn't call him that.

Repukes hate him.

Said Obama did an A+ job in 2009. and most Repukes I know call him a dem. o_O

[cowcommander]

8. He's managed to piss off both sides and make no friends

The only people I know of who have a positive opinion of Ahnold these days are the morons who voted for him just because he's Hollywood.

[bhikkhu]

14. That sounds like so many people I admire

"He's managed to piss off both sides and make no friends". Sometimes that's a sign that you're doing the right thing. Not that I know a darn thing about Arnie or the whole situation in California...

[Iowa]

16. More than likely it's a sign that you're dealing with a self-serving, lightweight...

...who lacks a set of core principles. When I think of the people I have admired over the years, they were all driven by a strong set of core principles, and that always earned them the respect and admiration of many. I truly cannot conjure up a single person I admire who meets the criteria you describe. I can think of some I despise who fall into that category (Joe Lieberman, for example), but not a single one I admire. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Le Taz Hot]

18. +1

[bhikkhu]

43. ...I meant sometimes thats the result of telling the truth

but I don't live in CA, and haven't followed any of the up and downs and doings of the governor there, so I should just exit the conversation politely...

[No Elephants]

31. Sometimes, it's a sign that you're doing heinous things, or doing things in a heinous way. Pissing

off everyone does not prove anything, one way or another. If that's the only argument in someone's favor, I certainly would not conclude he or she must be doing something right. It's a cliche that does not stand up to scrutiny in real life.

[diva77]

39. check out www.arnoldwatch.org to get an idea of the 129+ millions in special interest

money behind him (and that amount was as of some time in 2008)

[WhiteTara]

22. he ruined my state. He is a disgusting pig.

He can say anything he wants. He is still a disgusting pig.

[No Elephants]

32. Maybe the Repukes you know forgot that Arnold got to be Governor only bc a Dem

was recalled. Toward the end of King George's reign, Repukes were saying Dummya was a liberal. Moral: Repukes talk a lot of nonsense. Ignore them.

As far as his giving Obama an A+, maybe he's looking for an appointment.

[Cleita]

48. Sorry he's still a pig no matter whom he pisses off.

He's not fit to be governor. He never was.

[Stargleamer]

5. Yes they have. . .

starting with Howard Jarvis.

[cutlassmama]

2. Good, glad to hear this n/t

[HelenWheels]

4. Furlough in WI

All state employees in WI are furloughed 8 days in 2009 and 8 in 2010 and most of them belong to a union. Could this be illegal? Would be nice for a lot of my relatives.

[Stargleamer]

6. 8 Days?

Perhaps you didn't have an Initiative like Prop. 13, which made matters worse here. Anyhow, because we can't raise taxes to pay for things, furloughs here in California are put into place to cut costs, and state workers here have 3 days a month as furlough days = 36 per year.

[KakistocracyHater]

29. they'd save more by furloughs on the top brackets instead of the least-paid

but that would be truly doing something & they don't want that, it's ALL about the pecking order.

[Hatalles]

7. If furloughs are ended, won't hundreds of part-timers and temp/contractors lose their jobs instead?

[toadzilla]

15. theres been a hiring freeze going on for long enough that i doubt any temps are left

[olddad56]

49. there are more state employees mnow than beofre th ehiring freeze.

The hiring freeze is rather symbolic. In the agency that I work in, as a temporary employee, then have used the furlough to free up money to hire more people. Both full time employees and contractors. Arnold is a much bigger pig that the people on this board give him credit for being.

[shanti]

28. no

has nothing to do with it.

[chollybocker]

9. If Republicans stopped doing illegal things, they'd never do anything.

[Incitatus]

11. I like that idea.

[lunatica]

10. I will have 5% taken out of my monthly salary for a year because of furloughs.

I work in UC Berkeley and everyone who is paid with state funds has to take a minimum of 11 furlough days. That is if they make less than $40,000 a year. The furlough days go up as the salaries are higher.

I can barely make it from paycheck to paycheck. I've had to take small jobs on the side to help make it and still I can't.

[mike_c]

21. ten percent for me (and other CSU faculty)....

And of course the union voted to approve furloughs in a misguided attempt to avoid layoffs-- which we're now told will happen anyway-- so we, in effect, volunteered for our screwing.

[olddad56]

50. 15% for most state employees.

[tularetom]

12. Gray Davis must be laughing his ass off right about now.

He was a shitty governor but a thousand times better than the buffoon that took his place and fucked this place up so bad I doubt that it can be unfucked.

[bemildred]

17. Yes, I'll bet he gets a chuckle every time he thinks about it. nt

[alp227]

13. Hooray! K&R

I attend San Jose State right now and am somehow getting annoyed by those free days off that they call furloughs. I paid to learn, not to be lazy for another day!

[lunatica]

23. Free? Believe me we're paying for those days with our salaries

Maybe you should study on those days.

[No Elephants]

33. Not really a fair comment. A student pays full tuition, whether or not you get docked.

Don't take it out on the wrong people.

Californians seem to think government can run on fumes.

[mike_c]

26. two comments-- first, there's nothing "free" about it....

As lunatica pointed out, faculty and staff are paying out the nose for those days.

Second, your learning is dependent upon your own effort, not something your profs do in class. I suspect you know this. Use those furlough days for something more productive than pissing around. God knows WE do-- we just do our work for free. The state prohibits us from holding class, so we do other work, inevitably. You can too, and as you say, you're paying for the opportunity.

[No Elephants]

34. No, students don't pay tuition for the privilege of studying on their own. The student

is not responsible for your getting docked, nor does the student benefit from your getting docked. The student paid full tuition. They are not getting a rebate for reduced class time. This is no fairer to the student than it is to you.

[mike_c]

40. I'm sorry, but no students at california public insitutions pay anything close...

...to "full tuition." Currently, at my university (California State University, the largest university system in the world) students pay somewhere between 1/5 and 1/3 the cost of attendance. The rest is subsidized by the state, i.e. taxpayers.

More to the point, however, is the fallacy underlying the notion that students pay for an education, delivered by their professors. In fact, what they pay for is an opportunity to study with the faculty and with their fellow students. How they use that opportunity is largely up to them. Some use it well and excel-- and I can tell you from personal experience this year that those students have not been measurably harmed by my nine furlough days per semester. Others make less use of the opportunity they've paid for and some of those use the furloughs as an excuse for their poor performance. I can't disprove that, certainly, but my instinct is that for many of those students, the furloughs were not the real problem.

I absolutely agree with you that the furloughs are unfair to everyone concerned. I LIKE the time I spend with my students, and I like to think that we all find it challenging and rewarding. But I remember being in college, too, and I recall voluntarily missing lots of classes when I wanted to do something else-- and still succeeding just fine. The opportunities for learning were not diminished at all. It's the place, and the things we do there that make the opportunities and the education-- not the number of hours spent sitting in lecture halls.

[No Elephants]

35. Sounds as though students should band together and sue for a partial tuition rebate.

No need to be lazy, though.

[robo50]

19. I have always looked at furloughs as a TAX ON STATE WORKERS

An unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory tax, making state workers pay for the foolishness and stupidity of the state legislature.

By the way, how much of a salary cut did the California State Assemblymen get??

[boppers]

27. How is a furlough a tax?

Do the state workers pay back the wages to the state that they would have made if they were working?

Or is your argument that workers are somehow owed their wages even when not working, and since they're not getting wages (for not working), they're... er... yeah, I'm not sure what that argument is.

Care to make it clearer for me?

[robo50]

30. How is it NOT a tax? If someone tells you the you cannot earn

your full salary for the year, that you cannot take another job to make up for that money they take from you?
That's taxing one's ability to earn a full year's pay with no option to make up for it.

[boppers]

47. Well, if salary is based on expected work days, and the days are cut...

...then the salary should be cut, no? It's not like they're taking money out of work being done, they're cutting the work itself.

I did not know that they were forbidden from doing other work, do you have a link for that?

[No Elephants]

36. Well, the court did say it was illegal.

[mike_c]

20. unfortunately, my union voted to accept furloughs...

...rather than have layoffs-- which we're now told will happen this year in any event-- so we VOLUNTEERED for furloughs. :grr:

[lunatica]

24. UC has also laid off people

Every department has been forced to cut their budget in 2009 and they're being told to come up with a new lower budget this month. That means more lay offs and much harder work for the remaining staff.

[No Elephants]

37. Hard choice. Do with somewhat less yourself, or see your brothers and sisters do with zero.

Sometimes, solidarity is not an easy thing.

[David__77]

25. There should be criminal liability for this.

There need to be criminal penalties for such actions as this. Otherwise, why shouldn't politicians just disobey the law.

[No Elephants]

38. Maybe he could just apologize, like Maria does every time she breaks California law.

[sendero]

41. If these workers..

... see this as some sort of victory, they are going to be really disappointed when instead of furloughs there are MASS FIRINGS.

Because CA is BROKE.

[bridgit]

42. Schwarzenegger has no damn clue, he's just recycling Reagan/Wilson gibberish

I can't wait for Schwarzenegger to leave town and take his Vichy wife with him

[Imajika]

44. Why is this considered a good thing?

I mean, Schwarzenegger will appeal and if he wins, the furloughs continue, and if he loses, the state will simply go the mass layoff route.

I just don't understand why people are not getting this. There is NO money left. Furloughs and layoffs will increase, not decrease. Don't like furloughs, then be prepared for the layoffs. I suppose this is good if you know you won't be laid off, but this ruling will likely mean a whole lot of people lose their jobs. So instead of sharing the pain, if this ruling stands it will just mean that some keep what they have and others lose everything.

California is broke. There is simply no money available for all the things CA residents would like to have. There is no money available to pay all the state employees on the payroll. It just isn't there, there is no more money left.

Tax hikes are not going to solve this problem. Californians rejected tax increases the last time they voted on it, and it is pretty clear the CA population is absolutely opposed to higher taxation, so that option is out. It just isn't going to happen.

THERE. IS. NO. MORE. MONEY. Massive cuts are going to continue till the budget is in balance. So I am a little bewildered by the fact that so many people think this decision is good? What am I missing? Is this just a case of people willing to roll the dice and hope they won't be the ones laid off? Or are people hoping the state will find some miracle method of not firing state employees if they can't go the furlough route?

[robo50]

45. If you want to live in California, you ought to pay for the good fortune.

I'm sorry if you don't like taxes, even people in Maine don't like taxes, but they don't have the weather and the beauty of California.

If you haven't figured out a more efficient way to make laws, govern yourselves, provide essential services, cut inefficient ones, get rid of people with no legal way of remaining there who might drain your budget, don't complain about taxes going up. You can complain about people being laid off from essential services, you can watch your state go down the drain, or you can ask the tens of thousands of millionaires there to cough it up.

The points people have been trying to make on this thread are that, with poor leadership, uninspired REPUBLICAN leadership, and with expectations that Californians should just be able to go to the beach every day for free, drive their SUV's to work, pay no freeway tolls, etc etc etc, what do you expect? Of COURSE tens of thousands of dedicated public servants will be laid of with a governor like AHHNOLD, who has no clue, and wants to furloughtax the stateworkers so he can just get by and remain popular.

Here's a few ideas for raising money in your lovely state:

A $2 tax on every airline passenger flying into California from out of state or out of the nation. (A few hundred million by this tax alone each year.)
A $1 tax on every gallon of gasoline, to slow down the growth of freeways, and keep lots of costs down, by having people drive less, speed less, have less accidents, etc etc etc.
A release of all non-violent convicted drug offenders from prison after a 60 day "shock sentence" instead of 3-5 years in prison.
A $50 annual tax on all people who want to drive and park at those lovely beaches, or a $5 per day parking pass, for tourists and others who want one or two days a year there.
A $5 a day pass to all state parks.


Other states do most of this, and they don't have the lovely state of California to boast about. In some states, it actually costs money to travel on "freeways"!!!

I am so tired of Californians complaining about high taxes that residents of other states pay all the time.
Pay your workers by charging citizens for their luxurious privileges they enjoy in that wonderful state where I used to live.

[Imajika]

46. We are forced to deal with reality here...

Californians apparently feel they are quite taxed enough. Period. They overwhelmingly rejected further tax increases. It simply isn't realistic to lay out a bunch of ideas to raise revenue when the people are so plainly against it.

It is what it is.

Faced with higher taxes or budget cuts and furloughs/layoffs, the CA public chose the latter.

So, let us emerge from fantasy land and into reality here. State employees are going to face these furloughs or some very painful layoffs will occur. There is no way around that.

So again I ask, what is good about this decision? Is it not better to share the pain till things improve, or do we really want to see some keep their jobs but others be laid off and lose everything? I guess I am just not getting why anyone would applaud this decision knowing full well what the result is going to be. As I said, I suppose state employees that reckon' they have 0 chance of being laid off might be happy about this since they keep their full salary, but an awful lot of public employees are going to be on the unemployment line if this decision is upheld.