State Controller John Chiang was in Fresno Monday warning that if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature don't solve the budget problem, things are going to get bad in California. Of course, the governor tried to reduce spending by furloughing state empoyees, but Chiang wouldn't got along. He takes his orders from the state's public employee unions.
Chiang, a Democrat, says the governor doesn't have the authority to reduce state worker pay, and that can only be done by the Legislature. So instead of representing a separate state office, Chiang has jumped in on the side of the public employee unions in their suit to block the furloughs. In fact, he has asked the judge in the case to make him a plaintiff in the case -- legally wrapping himself into the union side. I wonder if they'll share lawyers. By the way, Chiang has already taken contributions from the unions filing the suit against the furloughs.
Wow. Instead of being an independent elected official, Chiang is now battling the governor on the unions' side. It's not good for the people, but he probably figures he'll get union contributions for a future run for political office. He says he wants to be governor one day. For Chiang, his political future trumps what should be done for the people today.
Hypocrisy abounds in Sacramento. Chiang says something must be done to solve the budget problem. But don't do something that will cause a favored special interest to share in the public sacrifice. Chiang will have to check with the unions to see what he should do next. Don't be surprised if the solution is raising taxes, without union members having to give up anything.
This is what we said on the issue in a recent editorial in The Bee:
"Chiang, who continues to issue ominous warnings about the state running out of cash, blocks a proposal to save some cash. The reason, of course, is the public employee unions oppose the furlough and Chiang can't make a move without the approval of the union leadership."
While I do not agree with him aligning himself with the unions, I do agree with his refusal to follow through with laying of the state employees who are bringing in the revenue for the state. Now he just needs to stop paying the legislators as one should not be paid for stupidity and incompetence. Once that is done you may see action on a budget and then if necessary a furlough of non essential non revenue processing employees first although I hope none get layed off. Having worked for the federal govtm layoffs were often to their spending on unnessary things and programs that were not effective to the process. All political like the state. I will not vote to reelect anyone currently in office i the legislature and Arnold id already on his way out.
Er, what if Chiang is correct about the Governor's lack of authority? Don't you want public officials to follow the law? The Bee seems to be tilting more and more to the Governor's side in this dispute, ignoring the fact that he is a major part of the problem. If he had concentrated his efforts on mediating a solution between the Republicans and Democrats in the Legislature, we'd probably have solved this by now. Instead, he decided to push his own agenda. So instead of two sides and a mediator, we have 3 sides squared off against each other, like the 3-way duel in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Except in this case none of the sides is particularly "good."
The court will decide the legality, but Chiang is prematurely saying it's illegal and then siding with the unions as a plaintiff to persuade the court that he was right. Chiang is more than a disinterested party. The fact that he took campaign contributions from the unions bringing the suit should have been enough for him to remain neutral and wait for the court outcome. But the special interests control the state's politicians and he had no choice if he were going to get their support in the future. A courageous politician would have let the court decide without intervening. Sometimes you have to say "No" to your friends.
While the Governor talks about taxing golf, a move MOI is sure to get folks talking, he might be better served if he hit a few golf balls in the direction of elected officials, might make them wake up. Doubt that it will cause them to get smart.
UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS WHY POLITICS IS SO DIRTY BECAUSE NOT JUST THE STATE BUT THE COUNTRY IS RUN BY SPECIAL INTEREST. THEY SHOULD OUTLAW CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND ALL THE TV AND WRITTEN ATTACKS IN ELECTIONS.
So he's following the law as he reads it, rather than deferring to the Governor's interpretation? Again, I don't see a problem here. He is an independent elected official who doesn't answer to the Governor. His obligation is to follow the law as he understands it, not to obey the Governor. If he turns out to be right, will you apologize for disparaging his integrity?
Furthermore, if he did what the Governor wanted, and the courts ruled that it was illegal, we might well end up paying more money than otherwise, as those "furloughs" would be turned into paid days off, with interest. I think it's time to quit playing around with gimmicks like furloughs, and just get the budget done.
State Controller John Chiang has already taken contributions from the unions filing the suit against the furloughs. Is that legal? Maybe a stupid question: Taking two days a month of unpaid furlough is it not better than having no job at all? Though personally, I don't agree with anything Governor Schwarzenegger does. I support the right to collective bargaining. But We the People the non-Union tax payer should not be obliged to just hand over our money without questions.
I am behind Chiang's refusal to do something he sees as illegal. As a state employee looking forward to the furlough (I can use the time off), it is my experience that government employees are sometimes asked to bend the rules or look the other way to expedite the process. Regardless of the reason it is WRONG!!! No employee should be forced to do something illegal or unethical. Thankfully few do. The fact that Chiang has publically proven he will not break the law, on two occasions now, actually makes me support him the more. If Chiang just does what Arnold asks and Arnold is found to be wrong, Chiang will be the one paying the price for the illegal action. Yet ya'll assume he's just doing it to be nice to his union friends. Folks, that is the reason we have independent personnel in key positions so that there are checks and balances preventing someone from taking the law into their own hands. Until proven wrong, Chiang is right. I also don't mind his joining an existing lawsuit. It saves time and state money to do so. We need an answer fast.
There is another perspective to this. Implementing the furlough is not an easy process. The monthly paychecks are preprogrammed into a computer system. The techical change to the pay structure can be done; however, it will require significant expense in programming, calculations and data entry to set up for each one of thousands of state employees. Ask any payroll clerk in any sizable company. Chiang is right to make sure this is legal before he goes to the significant expense of instituting the furlough. The furlough is not the end all to the budget issue. Why does the public and press act like it is? It is important? Yes. Should be pursued? Likely. Where are the rest of the solutions?
In addition, please let me point out that government employees also pay taxes, they are filling jobs required to keep the state running. They are providing a service, expertise, years of education and experience for their pay. Not all state employees make a high wage nor have the same benefits or unions. Quit speaking as though none of this is true. We'll do our part but don't condemn us for civil service. We live in the same economy as you do, we are getting laid off, hours cut, etc. like you are. Our expenses are up, we a losing our houses and are appalled at our government like you are. Mike is right, the furlough is a gimmick and it is doing what it is designed for...taking the focus off of the problem and shifting all the blame to one group of people. Are some of the arguments valid against state employees? Yes, but most are misperceptions propagated by media hype and erroneous data. Don't slap and spit at us just because we are state employees and chose civil service. For most it isn't all about money and we are willing to do our part; take the cuts, a furlough but it's harder to swallow when treated with venom.
The issues are complex and the legislators are painting the problems with a large brush instead of going through the budget line by line and cutting costs efficiently. It demonstrates to me they really have little concept on how the budgets, costs, expenses, income, economy works. That folks is the scariest thing of all.
It demonstrates to me they really have little concept on how the budgets, costs, expenses, income, economy works. That folks is the scariest thing of all.
Yeah, and by the time they finally start to get the hang of the thing, they'll be termed out. The oft-touted solution? "Get rid of them all." Like starting over with a new bunch of amateurs will help.
That is very true Mike
Kim Tanksley expounded a lot of didactic verbiage about the proposed 2 day a month unpaid furlough Governor Schwarzenegger wants to cram down the state employee's throats. If it is illegal, and the state employees don't like it; it should not happen. But that still sheds no light on the relationship of the California Sate Controller with the Union. The report was "Chiang has already taken contributions from the unions filing the suit against the furloughs."
If true ...is it legal or ethical for the Controller to do so? That Arnold Shwarzenegger is not considered a good governor, does not mean I would like to have any elected official around who is in the pocket of a Union.
Nobody in their right mind expects that those proposed 2 days of enforced unpaid furlough would solve California's fiscal crisis. But having a one track mind, I want a complete lowdown on that relation ship ....controller and union. I have every respect for an elected official who refuses when expected to do an illegal act. But I also expect that this very refusal stays within prescribed government laws and ethics. Nowadays we have little delusions about certain powerful unions, and little delusion about certain elected and/or appointed government officials. Tammany (the Democratic political machine) did not cease to exist with New York's reform Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, (1934) it only went into hibernation for a while, only to reappear in different State Capitals like a malignant fungus and totally bipartisan.
WHEN IS ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA GOING TO QUIT TALKING AND QUIT SPENDING? THINGS ARE JUST GETTING WORSE AND NO ON WILL STOP THE SPENDING AND CUT BACK THE COST. INSTEAD WE FIGHT AND GO TO COURT AND DONT GET ANYTHING DONE. I SAY LETS QUIT PAYING THE OFFICALS, THAT WILL BE A GOOD START. AND GIVE NO BACK PAY SINCE THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB. Arnold should hire someone that knows how to run a business at a profit and let them do their thing. Don't let any one stop them from trimming the budget. How much worst does it have to be?
"I SAY LETS QUIT PAYING THE OFFICALS, THAT WILL BE A GOOD START." "Vickie"
You must be joking. Our Governor just created a job for Nicole Parra at $126.000 (plus) a year, and not even she knows what the job is or does. We only have a pretty good idea that it is a political payoff. However good the idea, but how can not paying them be accomplished? How do they get paid? Checks? Direct deposit....or how?
Maybe the "State Employees" should revolt against their "Union" which has sold the "California Taxpayer" out.I never heard from the employees... "We can not accept this package of benefits and pay to sell our vote because it will be bad for the state and the taxpayers".No, they took the"Goodies" and ran and I believe not just union leaders but membership has a say in this and it is not the only spending problem generated by our Democrat majority legislature but a large one and "Chiang the Opportunist" is symbolic of a "Union Handmaiden"...willing to lick their boots for their support.I have to say I'm appearing to be more and more "Cutting Edge" as I predicted the "Golf Tax" when our RINO Governor came out with his tax ideas weeks ago.Sometimes being right doesn't make you feel better.
You say you never hear from us low life state employees. You hear from me all the time Brian, you just refuse to take anything I say into consideration. Some issues you talk about have merit but you lose all credibility by not even acknowledging that the situation is not as black and white as you claim. Just because you paint state employees as money-grubbing evil-doers out to take taxpayers for a ride does not make it truth Brian. Yes, members get to vote on some union activities but the board has the authority to vote on behalf of the members in many issues. Not an excuse just fact. I remember in 2000 health care costs were rising. The union wanted the state to pay the higher costs instead of splitting the increase with the employees. Many employees, including myself, voted to have the employees themselves shoulder the costs because it wasn’t a significant battle to fight; our costs were still less than the private sector (at that time). Many of us wanted to save the fight for something important. We were outvoted. During the same year, PERS negotiated a healthcare contract for the state, which would have resulted in reduced costs for the state and employees. Many lower salaried employees cannot afford the state healthcare plans (they don’t have state benefits because they are too expensive but supposedly they are sucking the state dry too) and this was a great deal for them. The California State Employees Union and members supported the idea however, the Services Employee International Union led a drive against the deal and they prevailed; killing the deal. You keep claiming that government employees don’t try and stop out of control union activities when in fact many have been fighting those battles for years. As I mentioned on another blog, approximately 1,200 state employees are working to withdraw from the union in part because the union has gotten so out of hand and don’t choose their battles. Don’t paint us all with the same large brush. You will find that most don’t disagree with raising the retirement age. most are willing to take cuts and make changes. It’s getting harder for me to care though when the effort state employees put into state service gets spit on at every turn these days. I think it is clear to government employees that things need to change but quit trying to pin it all on us and spit on us with your rhetoric. Lets look at the issues and resolve them instead of disparaging our existence. State employees fill state jobs because there is a need to be filled not because we stumbled on free money lying around.
By the way Brian, I’m making good on my promise to move out of state service. I have been making the transition back into the private sector. It is going slow in this economy but I am working on it. I knew I made less for the state than I did in the private sector but was shocked to find that the average for the exact same job would bring me $20,000 more a year in the private sector (yes I can prove it with documentation.. call me). My interviews are in the next two weeks, wish me luck Brian. Even the orgasmic retirement plan that I have been paying into with the state doesn’t trump that but somehow I been sucking the state dry. Go figure. In the mean time I tried to go part time but just this week been forced to return to full time. The work can’t get done on reduced hours and infrastructure projects are suffering. Funny since myself and my coworkers are just money grubbing driftwood.
I apologize for the length of this post. Next time I’ll just say, “Bite me Brian!”
Here is another blog by a state employee posted on the Sacramento Bee blog. I hope I am not out of line by reposting it here. So state employees don't speak up huh?
As a State employee, I say reject the furloughs. Layoffs are swifter than slowly bleeding to death. If the State has too many workers, than eliminate some and get to the right size. The Governor's Executive Order already calls for a 20% layoff (that's 48,000 employees). This just isn't getting discussed because other things are happening first. No sooner do you agree to furloughs than the layoffs will happen anyway. In the private sector, on Monday, 50,000 people were laid off (read as fired). In the private sector, when comapnies are in trouble, they are not doing small salary reductions (furloughs), they are eliminating positions. Over 82% of the state managerial and IT workforce are within 5 years or retirement. Implement golden handshakes and clear them out. Maybe fresh blood and leaner organziations will improve things. People are tired of threats. We want leadership. This includes the legislature. WHERE HAVE ALL THE LEADERS GONE ?
-- ProudCalifornian
I searched for a gazetteer that could give me a breakdown on the percentage of the general population working in the California government sector and its fiscal cost to the state. All I could find was that the percentage for the United States is over 16% while in Japan around 6% of the population work in the public sector.
For California I could only find a statistic for Santa Clara County and Water District. And by God we all should hope that it is not typical for all of California. I do not have to spell out the fiscal implications if it were typical for the entire State. I really would be grateful if someone could direct me to the pertinent search engine.
===================================
"As the newspaper notes, they’ve gotten the information they sought from 1/3 of the 29 local government organizations from which they sought it. Other local government groups have various reasons for not being able to immediately provide the requested data.
One noteworthy result in the information receive so far is that in the Santa Clara Valley Water District:
About 310 of the district’s 795 employees earned six-figure salaries, including 11 who made more than $200,000. That’s a far higher percentage of workers making more than $100,000 than in either the city San Jose or Santa Clara County. District Chief Executive Officer Stanley Williams earned the most at his agency, with a gross salary of $241,000."
======================================
That report tends to indicate that a great percentage of the state employees earn more than the majority of wage earners in the private sector. There really has to be more openess about what the tax payer is buying, or the acrimony will never be overcome.
Kim...I never called you a "Low Life".I understand you are caught in the middle but you did make a choice somewhere to be a player. I'm sorry but I do not read posts that take ten minutes because things are not and cannot be that complicated and being self employed and not dependent on the govt. my time is money...I agree all you had to say was "Bite Me" if that was the whole purpose of your response... so consider yourself bitten bu take comfort in knowing that this citizen/taxpayer has not sold his vote for perceived security and so far in life has not been a drain on other taxpayers.I'm a giver not a taker and we are becoming a rare breed.Respect us and love us because you need us for your security.
Another cop out Brian. Never address the facts. Refused to see more than one perspective. Refuse to address issues brought forward and yet you still expect us to take you seriously and believe how wonderful you are. I agree Brian, you are a lengend in your own mind. The functioning of the government is dependent on the employees. Not the other way around. Anyone who thinks the government can function without government employees is naive at best. But as you say too complicated for you to understand. Again we agree.
For those of you interested this is what Brian posted when he wasn't in his manic phase:
Brian Murray | January 19, 2009 7:06 AM | Reply
Kim...please accept my apology and request for forgiveness.I had a whole day to think about the last post and feel I am not being fair to you.You've made your choices based on what is best for you and I am guilty of trying to transfer my beliefs on to you and your circumstances... I don't think that is right or fair.I made a decision when I entered the workforce not to take a govt. job for security and I guess picking on govt. employees is some way of affirming that I made the right decision for me.I still believe I made the right decision and while I distrust any union...they contain many good people(such as yourself) trying to do the best they can under the circumstances.Thank you for your patience with me and "Best Wishes".
Even in a psuedo apology he takes a stab. He doesn't understand that government employees don't have any special job security. There are layoffs, hour reductions, salary reductions just like the private sector but Rush Limbaugh doesn't talk about those so Brian is unaware.
Poor guy, Ijust hope he can get his meds stabalized.
Kim Tanksley; you being a State employee makes it difficult for you to come across as a disinterested party. Certainly that does not mean that you are wrong; but you may be waving a red kerchief in the bullring.
To divorce ourselves from the personal for this exercise: Strictly socio/political/ economy indicates hat 16 citizens out of each 100 are making their living paid for by the taxpayer. That must be subject to open book policy. Bringing to the table a chip on the shoulder instead of clinical detachment would only fuzz up the larger issue of We the People 's control over government.
As for blogger Brian Murray; after six months of reading his acrimonious posts, I have no slot in which to file him bercause he is too old to be a child demanding attention one way or the other.
Signing off; your friendly neighborhood windbag and clown in the little car (as per Murray). But with my polymyalgia, I still prefer my big Lincoln Town Car for reasonably easy ingress and egress.
Isabell - I have never tried to represent myself as a disinterested party. I am merely trying to show there are many facets to the issue and not just the rhetoric that the media tends to promote. It is clear that I am not disinterested as it is very clear it is difficult to constantly read about goverment employees (which includes me) being smeared for merely being a government employee. Especially when the "facts" behind these smears are inaccurate at best. All along I have been asking for someone to back up their accusations with facts. I've been giving supporting information why not the detractors? State employment IS an open book it's just taxpayers refuse to look before they condemn. I prefer educated discourse, that's all. The structure of state employment needs to be fixed, cuts need to be made, lets address those facts instead of calling all state employees "money grubbers sucking the state dry." That is no better than me calling private industry employees lazy, self involved, opportunists because they aren't working in civil service but think only of themselves. You and I both know that isn't true or fair. Why is it so easily considered true or fair when civil servants are attacked without pause? The examples I have been providing for weeks have had no responses except the canned name calling. It is extremely telling that no one on the blog is interested in discussing some of these seemingly contradictory facts. Not one person has to agree with anything I've brought forward but clearly no one here is prepared to discuss the issues and appear only equipped to resort to school yard taunts. My 11 year old daughter knows more about how the state works and more interested in understanding why. Maybe we'll have to wait for her generation before we can get some type of government reform. Currently taxpayers can wave their pitchforks and yell but aren't interested enough to learn the details so that they actually have something constructive to add. What good is an angry mob when they have no clue as to what they are fighting for? Sacramento is swatting at embers and calling it fire fighting and the public is falling for it. Meanwhile the state is close to ashes. Sincy my soapbox has just succombed to the conflagration. I'm done.
Kim Tanksley, perhaps no educated discussion is being offered because you fail to bring clinical detachment to the table. Righytly so, you are hurt that you have to endure being called names for doing a good job for the people of California. But the disapassionate fiscal issue of it is legitimate. It's bigger than you. It's bigger than me or Murray. I am one of those who wants to know what government is doing, how much it costs We the People to maintain it. By the way...Murray said that I kept succking SS paymnents from the people. So what? So ; stop feeling sorry for yourself and put on your socio/political hat, and intelligent dialog will come your way.
Kim Tanksley. I have to wait and see if my last post ever went on its way. But since your soap box succumbed to being conflagranted(?) did I set a torch to it? Hope not! Save the ashes for me for Ash-Wednesday; I am a Catholic hahaha!
Isabell! Just because I'm cranky and feeling sorry for myself does not mean I'm cranky and feeling sorry for myself. O.K... yes it does... point taken. Thanks for the perspective and attitude adjustment!!! I saved the soapbox and have turned in into a lemonade stand. My own little economic stimulus effort.
By the way... I'm Lutheran, my husband calls Lutherans "Catholic Lite." HA!
Hey the judge just ruled in favor of the Governor and our 9.23% reduction in pay is formal. Aren't you glad Chiang didn't pursue his own court case? It's a pretty quick turn around. Or are ya'll still just assuming he's in the union's pocket? There is still nothing to prove he is and nothing to prove he isn't. He's only got a month to revamp the entire payroll system for 175,464 pay warrants; he's going to need the time. But why change? We should just assume the worst of him right? That's what we are good at.
I know furloughs will cost state employees money, and that is very unfortunate during this terrible economy, but aren't they preferable to layoffs?
It would be preferabble, but if the state is so bad they might not get unemployment, which would at least lessen the sting a bit. It's just a slap in the face to the employees when the dorks in the legislature are getting a ton of money to do nothing.
Kim...first you make fun of those with alcohol problems...now mental illness?I'm beginning to think your not the person I thought you were.I support the 176,000 workers, just not the unions and like I did for Mike(D) I have set aside a couple extra cans of pork n beans if things get really bad and you need them.
You must be out of your manic phase Brian because now you support the 176,000 workers? Funny because before you've said:
"greedy state employees and PEU's have sold us out"
"government employees bleeding the state dry"
"you have grown soft and lazy via "State Employee" status"
I don't want to upset you so I'll go with whatever you want to believe this week. However, I must correct you in that I have not made fun of anyone with alcohol problems but you know that. In fact the only one I've ever made fun of is you. Which is probably what you meant when you said I was making fun a someone with mental illness. Thanks for confirming that for us... we were all kind of wondering.
As for the pork and beans.. though I'm sure we could be forced to believe you are such a selfless Samaritan, I'd sooner let my family...all the way down to our sweet innocent puppy die a slow, horrible, grueling, death from starvation than accept your cast offs. All were all in agreement with this so I have given them a choice. Thanks anyway.
"A brainy woman has millions of natural enemies....every stupid man in the world." by Maria Ebner von Eschenbach, née Countess Dubsky, a well-known Austrian writer.
No mystery as to why Brian Murray is antagonistic toward Kim Tanksley and Isabell Lawson. Their intellect and acquired knowledge drives him to distraction. For all he is able to do is to use "brainchild" of others and make them his own. But I give the devil his dues...he can vulgarize the most refined with an imagination that is noteworthy.
Why am I bothering. Because of the absurdity of it. I can mention something as objective and technical as the benzene rings, and Murray will jump in, engaging in personalities. Or am I weird to find it weird?
Kim...Cast offs? I'll be eating pork n beans too and maybe I was wrong to change my mind and give you the benefit of the doubt.Thanks for clearing that up.
"Dizzy"...I challenged your proposition, a time back, that we should try to do something constructive with the blog.I said "Give us some ideas and I'm all for it". You didn't see fit to respond which showed me that like "Just Rich",Kim, and Scot ... your all talk and no action and You're probably a "Wiz" at "Jeopardy"... but a butt load full of trivia accomplishes little and impresses few.I'll take "Substance over Style" any day and on the surface you seem deficient in the former.
Brian, your mind, attitude and demeanor changes as often as the wind. I'm not concerned you've changed your mind about me. I have not changed my mind about you. Though God knows I've tried.
Maybe this is a second post about same subject. I can' t get used to my new computer. I did not challenge the blog to contribute something useful to the community. I questioned if blogging here made a contribution to the community. I don’t know (verbatim) what I said several months ago, but I am not going back 6 months of posting. I would for someone else, but not for you, Mr. Murray. And if you were different I might carry on a banter with you, like Kim Tanksley. But for my taste you are too vulgar and rude. Your demeanor is anathema to everything I am and what I stand for....may that be right, or may it be wrong.....
RE: post 1.29 4:43 PM
It's an invalid syllogism ; the judiciary ruled for the Governor so we can stop questioning if the State Controller might be in the pocket of a Union. Correct, we don't know if he is or if he is not. But to proof or disproof would be an entirely different matter, independent from the Chiang vs Schwarzenegger furlough issue. I , personally, stand on the opinion that I would (futurity use of verb) not like it if the Controller, a State official should be unethically or illegally involved with a trade union. But the magic word is should (conditional verb usage.) Just one illogical component of an argument can throw the entire argument out of kilter.
Any news regarding a Golden Handshake for employees fifty five and older with at least twenty years experience?
Golden handshakes are OK, but they cost money. The Governor wants to take money.
The state/government agencies are very inefficient so the budget would never be enough. The union just makes it worse, and soon the state/government agencies will bankrupt just like GM. Why would the government employees need the following?
- cell phone (a high percentage), not like they are waiting to close business deals like private sector.
- laptop
These are just two basics things but they add up. Government employees have no concept of budget since it's not their money and unlike private sector it's impossible to measure service return for the tax's payers money. Also, state employees sick leave is accumulative so most of them just use it as vacation no wonder they are so unproductive. I'll give you another example of how expensive the state is. A lot of professors of the university/college get back to the state through their connection after working else where just before they retire so they can receive a bigger pension and guess what I don't do much. The list of problems goes on and on...