Schwarzenegger orders Calif state workers' pay reduced to min wage

Little-Acorn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,444
Location
San Diego, CA
This is delicious.

A Calif Supreme Court decision some years back declared that, if the state didn't have a budget in place by the start of California's fiscal year (July 1), the governor could order state workers' wages lowered to the Federal minimum wage.

They don't, and he just did.

And as a little salt in the wound: California state minimum wage is $8.00/hr. But the Court specified the FEDERAL minimum wage, which is $7.25/hr. That's what the affected workers will get, until a budget is in place. They now make LESS than any other workers in the state, except waitresses and illegal aliens.

Look on the bright side: Maybe they will all quit, and get real jobs.

Budget problem solved! :D

------------------------------------------------

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/01/2864148/schwarzenegger-orders-minimum.html

Schwarzenegger orders minimum wage for state workers

By Jon Ortiz
jortiz@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jul. 1, 2010 - 4:37 pm
Last Modified: Thursday, Jul. 1, 2010 - 5:01 pm

The Schwarzenegger administration today ordered State Controller John Chiang to reduce state worker pay for July to the federal minimum allowed by law -- $7.25 an hour for most state workers.

The instructions from the Department of Personnel Administration exclude roughly 37,000 state workers in six bargaining units that recently came to tentative labor agreements with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Some employees, such as doctors and lawyers, would get no pay because federal exempts them from any minimum wage requirement. Managers, supervisors and others who don't get paid for working more than 40 hours per week would receive $455 per week until a budget deal got done.

Schwarzenegger has invoked a 2003 state Supreme Court decision as grounds for the move. That ruling, White v. Davis, held that without a budget that appropriates money for state payroll, employee wages can be withheld to the federal minimum. That condition exists today, which is the start of the 2010-11 fiscal year and the state is without a budget. The back pay would be paid once a budget is enacted.

The administration issued similar instructions to Chiang during a budget impasse in 2008. The controller refused to comply over concerns that doing so would violate federal law. He also asserted that the state's decades-old computerized payroll system couldn't handle the complexities of changing the pay for 240,000 state workers affected by the governor's instruction.

Calls to the Controller's office seeking comment were not immediately returned.
 
Werbung:
so the house and senate of Cali can'd do there job, so people working to help evryone...get punished...and you seem happy.

I hope they all strike and shut down Cali...maybe people will wake up to the fact that its actuly nice having a goverment..

then again Cali Screwed itself with its retard logic...Vote for spending and vote against increase in funding...very year...with there 190 Props they have to vote on each year..because they can't let there leaders do anything...but like to blame them when they Vote for A and C to pass, when A conflicts with C...
 
This is a big mistake for Scwarzenegger to make. He has been fair to everyone thus far. To cut salaries is very uncharactaristic of him. It could point to how even he can be corrupted by power. I hope I´m wrong, but so many well meaning politicians have succumbed to changing their spots when they´ve held office for a certain amount of time.
 
so the house and senate of Cali can'd do there job, so people working to help evryone...get punished...

When a company has severe financial problems and goes bankrupt, ALL its workers are hurt, including the ones who did NOT cause the bankruptcy. Every company, no matter who or where it is.

Is there some reason why government should be exempt from this rule?
 
When a company has severe financial problems and goes bankrupt, ALL its workers are hurt, including the ones who did NOT cause the bankruptcy. Every company, no matter who or where it is.

Is there some reason why government should be exempt from this rule?

because government is not a business...one day republicans will understand that idea...
 
So, who's right? Those who vote to increase spending? Or those who vote to NOT increase taxes?

(Hint: California already has the highest rate of taxation of the 50 states.)

It terms of total taxes paid to the state, California is #1, but it is also #1 in population. In terms of taxes per capita, it ranks tenth.
Source

So, who's right? Neither one. California needs to raise taxes, at least temporarily, and cut spending in order to balance its budget.

The problem is that the big urban areas, San Francisco and Los Angeles, are big on big, expensive, government. Those areas have most of the population, and therefore most of the votes.

And those state workers will be paid their back wages. The nonsense of paying them the federal minimum wage is just political posturing at the expense of some hard working people. The ones who should be sanctioned are in the state assembly and senate.

Sometimes, I wonder whether this state is even governable.
 
Stop wondering, it is not! Calif is the most messed up state in all the union and we should just give up on it, wash our hands and tell Mexico to take it! Then ship every illegal in the rest of the US to Calif :)

We seceded from Mexico in 1849 or 50, I don't remember for sure.
( not that I was there at the time)

We don't want to go back. Maybe we could bring back the Bear Flag Republic.

That might not be governable, either, but then, neither is the current nation of which we've become a part.
 
We seceded from Mexico in 1849 or 50, I don't remember for sure.
( not that I was there at the time)

We don't want to go back. Maybe we could bring back the Bear Flag Republic.

That might not be governable, either, but then, neither is the current nation of which we've become a part.

I used to think New Jersey was the arm pit of the nation but for the last 10 years or so I think California is for sure. Don't get me wrong, I was born there as were half of the other people in Oregon. You cannot possibly know how bad it is when you live there. You see the decay so gradually that you do not notice it as much as someone from there that goes back to visit every ten years or so.

The last time was 4 years ago and that was just it for me. I never want to go back for any reason.

Mexico wants it back, its of no use to the rest of the United States. Its far too dysfunctional to ever get back on its feet so why not let Mexico have it. Maybe it's the one thing that could get Calif to fix its self :)
 
Werbung:
Have you tried living anyplace else? So many leave calif to come to Oregon that it is now ruining oregon :)

I lived in New York state for a time. That sucked, as it was colder than ***** in the winter, but hot and humid in the summer.

I've considered coming to Washington or Oregon, but mainly because my grandkids are in Washington. Nothing to do with politics or climate. Actually, I'm not sure I'd get used to the constant rain in Western Washington.
 
Back
Top