(Calif.) Judge orders back pay for some (53,000) furloughed state workers

[Newsjock]

Source: Sacramento Bee

An Alameda County judge today ordered back pay for tens of thousands of state workers he has said were illegally furloughed because they work in departments funded outside the general fund.

Judge Frank Roesch ordered the state to "immediately pay all employees of respondent departments and agencies their full salary without any reductions ... and cease and desist the furlough of such employees."

The order, if upheld on appeal, would cost the state untold millions of dollars it thought it had saved by instituting furloughs a year ago.

... Representatives of SEIU Local 1000 said the back pay order would apply to about 53,000 workers the union represents.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/25/2565897/judge-orders-back-pay-for-some.html

[thelordofhell]

1. Gov. Arnie says, "Vill day axept IOU'z?"

:nopity:

[FreakinDJ]

2. Oh Boy - now Arnold will blame the unions for CA Bankruptcy

[Omaha Steve]

3. My brothers & sisters in AFSCME got the correct legal action

K&R!

[Politicalboi]

4. Talk to the hand!

:popcorn:

[dkf]

5. Well it's probably furloughs or layoffs.

If I'm a state worker I prefer furloughs.

[MissB]

6. The part that bites is when a position or entire program is funded with federal

funds or is supported by user fees. I don't know if that is the case in california, but it is certainly the case in my state. If there is no general fund money paying the salary, why the furlough? What is the state saving by furloughing those employees?

[dkf]

7. It's fairness so that everyone has the same cut regardless of where funding is from.

[Garbo 2004]

8. Except not all state employees are being furloughed & special fund furloughs do not help general

fund...and savings to the general fund is the rationale for furloughs.

Employees of constitutional agencies such as the AG, Secty of State, etc. haven't been furloughed. (Litigation by the administration is still pending on that but the Governor's case may be weakened by the fact the Governor initially stated he didn't have authority to furlough those employees & the furloughs didn't apply to them.)

Additionally, last year Superior Court judge ruled employees of State Compensation Insurance Fund are exempt from furloughs and ordered that they receive back pay with interest. So those employees aren't being furloughed and received back pay. Interest payments reportedly were to be issued to those employees by the end of this month. (Another court decision the Gov is appealing, but in the meantime these employees are not being furloughed and are receiving full pay.)

[dkf]

9. Well our furloughs include everyone.

Can't say I understand why ca is different.

[shanti]

10. well, the furloughs USED to include everyone

until they began fighting back. with this latest news, it's now going to be only general fund positions being furloughed, but that's still a LOT of people.

[Garbo 2004]

12. The Gov's appeal likely will result in a stay of this court's order. If so, furloughs will

continue in these cases.

(This court also stated that the Gov had exceeded the authority given him by Emergency Services Act, regardless of funding source. But General Fund agencies were beyond the scope of these specific cases which were filed in regards to special and federally funded positions/agencies.)

[gratuitous]

11. The state can't unilaterally abrogate its contract?

Who do those uppity workers think they are? Partners in equity to a contract or something?