http://www.news10.net/news/local/sto...?storyid=76126I'm one of the "some"
SACRAMENTO, CA - Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch on Thursday ordered more than 50,000 state workers be paid back wages for days they were furloughed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Under the decision, Roesch said California must "immediately pay all employees of respondent department and agencies their full salary" as well as stop any future furlough plans against the members of SEIU Local 1000.
The ruling would restore millions of dollars in pay to SEIU workers staffing who work in nearly 70 departments not supported by the state's general fund.
"We've said all along that the furloughs made no sense and hopefully, the Governor will finally stop this," said Yvonne Walker, President of SEIU Local 1000, which represents about 53,000 workers who would be affected by the order.
A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said the administration would immediately appeal the order.
"The furloughs are still in place until the State Supreme Court says otherwise and we don't think they will," said Aaron McLear.
McLear accused the unions of "judge shopping." "They've been going across the state and filing the same lawsuits in a number of different liberal courthouses to make sure that they got the ruling that they like," McLear said.
Walker denied the claim. "Are there liberal judges? I just thought there were judges that decided on the facts of law. And apparently, this judge did and he decided right," she said.
State worker Judy Louie said she had her fingers crossed that the State Supreme Court will eventually rule with the union.
"My one daughter is in community college and she wants to go on to a four year college, so that would help out a lot when I could save that money for her education." Louie said.
McLear said the administration wants to consolidate nearly 30 separate lawsuits filed over the job furloughs and move them quickly to the State Supreme Court. That has not happened so far and McLear said it could be months before a final ruling is reached.
The judge also ordered an end to the three furlough days a month workers are required to take.
If the order for back pay is upheld, it could cost the state millions of dollars the administration expected to save through furloughs.
Q and A: California furloughs and back pay
Published: Saturday, Feb. 27, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Saturday, Feb. 27, 2010 - 12:07 am
An Alameda Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered the state to immediately end furloughs for tens of thousands of state workers and pay them for wages they've lost since the controversial policy started 13 months ago.
And as promised, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration on Friday filed its appeal.
What are the legal underpinnings of Judge Frank Roesch's order, who is affected and what will happen next? Some answers to commonly asked questions:
Who is affected by Roesch's order?
Employees in 68 state agencies and departments that receive significant funding from sources other than the government's general fund. Some of the more prominent departments: Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Social Services and Employment Development. See the full list at www.sacbee.com/stateworkerblog.
How much money and how many people are we talking about?
The state figures that payroll savings from non-general fund furloughs totals about $1 billion for the current fiscal year, but that may include some departments that aren't named in the lawsuit.
The state is also on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars more for twice-monthly furloughs that ran from February through June of last year.
On Friday, the administration was counting how many of the state's 235,000 employees come under the order. Service Employees International Union Local 1000, the state's largest civil service union, figures Roesch's decision affects about 53,000 of its 95,000 members.
Does this mean no "Furlough Friday" next week for some departments?
No. Schwarzenegger appealed the order on Friday. That triggers an automatic stay, a delay on enforcing the order while the case goes through the appellate process.
What's next?
The unions will argue that the impact of furloughs is so significant that Roesch should lift the stay.
How long will it take to find out whether the stay is lifted?
Once the unions challenge the stay, the governor gets time to respond, then the two sides meet to argue their positions. Labor lawyers will probably ask to expedite the hearing, but Roesch will decide the date. That could be two or three weeks off – or more.
Legal experts say it's unlikely, but not impossible, that the stay will be lifted.
When might state workers receive their back pay?
The state controller won't cut checks until either the stay is lifted or the governor exhausts his options to appeal all the way to the state Supreme Court. It's likely another governor will be in office before the litigation is settled.
What about interest on the back pay?
The unions will ask for interest. In two smaller furlough cases that the unions won last year, the courts awarded 7 percent interest on back pay. At the time, it worked out to between $50 and $100 per employee.
Are former state employees who were furloughed going to get back pay?
Yes, if the judge's order survives the appeal process.
Does Thursday's order apply to nonunion managers and supervisors?
Roesch wrote that his order "is not limited by bargaining unit or union membership." That leaves room for interpretation, but it's difficult to see how rank-and-file employees could go to work while their supervisors stay home.
Why do state workers get back pay? Doesn't that turn furloughs into paid vacations?
Vacations are voluntary paid time off. The court found that the governor illegally ordered state workers to stay home without pay. The only way to make that right, Roesch said, is to end furloughs and give them the money they lost. From that perspective, anything less would reward the governor and the state for breaking the law.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
I'm hoping when California collapses it will force the rest of the states to buckle down and start cutting back like crazy. Of course then they'll face lawsuits just like this; how do you break the cycle? Hopefully state supreme courts (if not California's then others which learn from California) will break it, but things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
California should cut workers and programs, not just ask workers to stay home.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote