California Supreme Court upholds unpaid furloughs for state employees, but says governor does not have unilateral authority in such cases

The California Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld last year's unpaid furloughs for more than 200,000 state employees, ruling that state legislators approved the plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The high court’s ruling was the first to address disputes between the governor and state workers over orders that cut the pay of the employees. More than 30 lawsuits have been filed challenging the unpaid furloughs, and lower court rulings have been mixed.

Lawyers for state employees argued that only the Legislature could cut employee pay, while the governor insisted he had unilateral authority in such cases.

In a decision written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the court said a governor does not have unilateral authority to furlough workers.

However, the court said the furlough order implemented in 2009 was valid because legislators approved a budget measure that reflected the governor’s order. The measure reduced employee spending by the exact amount the state expected to save when it ordered employees to take two days off a month without pay.

The legislative action "validated the Governor’s furlough program here at issue," the court said.

Schwarzenegger issued the following statement:

"As Governor, I have had to make very difficult decisions in response to the world-wide economic collapse, including furloughs for state workers and line-item vetoes to balance our budget. These decisions were absolutely necessary to keep our state functioning. Today’s ruling upholds the state’s actions to protect taxpayers and ensure we live within our means, just like every California family and business must do."

But Ann Giese, an attorney for SEIU Local 1000 who argued the case before the court, said she was also pleased with the ruling, saying that "in all my years, I’ve never gotten a loss that felt so good."

"The governor does not have the authority that he thought he had. ... The only thing that saved him in this case is the fact that the Legislature scored the savings from the furloughs he imposed, thereby ratifying them."

"I think it’s a real shot in the arm to the union side to know that they control their destiny through collective bargaining," she said.

The court’s ruling can be downloaded here: PECG vs Schwarzenegger - 100410.

In another decision, the court unanimously upheld Schwarzenegger's 2009 vetoes of spending for social service programs. Democratic legislators had challenged the nearly $500 million that the governor cut from health, battered-women and other programs.

-- Maura Dolan and Shane Goldmacher

Comments

[Andy M]

Sorry but the state employees have to share the economic pain. It's too bad the elected officials don't get to share as well.

[Pedro Gambino-Gotti]

"But Ann Giese, an attorney for SEIU Local 1000 who argued the case before the court, said she was also pleased with the ruling, saying that "in all my years, I’ve never gotten a loss that felt so good."

Ann feels good because she's not losing a penny. I'm an AFSCME member and our union is just as worthless. Si Se Puede!!!

[blank]

Good, now we can cut everyone pay and lower everyone else taxes.

[Michael]

It's too bad the Governor sees the only way to balance the budge is to punish working families. These cuts cause real pain to thousand's of people.

What a failure.

[wowlfie]

So lets furlough a few million more for a few months time and reduce their pensions while your at it which they are way too high and far far higher than what the public gets. Government employees are way over paid.

[Greg Maragos]

There's hope for California yet. Judges, this song's just for YOU:

Hallelujah hallelujah hallelujah hallelujah hallelujah

King of kings forever and ever hallelujah hallelujah
and lord of lords forever and ever hallelujah hallelujah
King of kings forever and ever hallelujah hallelujah
and lord of lords forever and ever hallelujah hallelujah
King of kings forever and ever hallelujah hallelujah
and lord of lords
King of kings and lord of lords

And he shall reign
And he shall reign
And he shall reign
He shall reign
And he shall reign forever and ever

[Transparency]

Loyalty to the State of Calofornia by state public employees just died. Rest in peace. Loyalty for public employees in the 21st century was just born. Like businesses public organizations are into a phase of creative disassembly where reinvention and adjustments are constant. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being shed by Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Sam’s Club, Wells Fargo Bank, HP, Starbucks etc. and the state, counties and cities. Even solid world class institutions like the University of California Berkeley under the leadership of Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer are firing employees, staff, faculty and part-time lecturers through “Operational Excellence (OE) initiative”: last year 600 were fired, this year 300. Yet many employees, professionals and faculty cling to old assumptions about one of the most critical relationship of all: the implied, unwritten contract between employer and employee.
Until recently, loyalty was the cornerstone of that relationship. Employers promised work security and a steady progress up the hierarchy in return for employees fitting in, accepting lower wages, performing in prescribed ways and sticking around. Longevity was a sign of employer-employee relations; turnover was a sign of dysfunction. None of these assumptions apply today. Organizations can no longer guarantee work and careers, even if they want to. Senior managements paralyzed themselves with an attachment to “success brings success’ rather than “success brings failure’ and are now forced to break the implied contract with their employees – a contract nurtured by management that the future can be controlled.
Jettisoned employees are finding that their hard won knowledge, skills and capabilities earned while being loyal are no longer valuable in the employment market place.
What kind of a contract can employers and employees make with each other?
The central idea is both simple and powerful: the job or position is a shared situation. Employers and employees face market and financial conditions together, and the longevity of the partnership depends on how well the for-profit or not-for-profit continues to meet the needs of customers and constituencies. Neither employer nor employee has a future obligation to the other. Organizations train people. Employees develop the kind of security they really need – skills, knowledge and capabilities that enhance future employability. The partnership can be dissolved without either party considering the other a traitor.
Let there be light!

[Ali Jahanfard]

They're right! The Governor shouldn't have the authority.

Ali Jahanfard

[uncle_vito]

Hope they give the governor the right to fire government workers too. Most are lazy and overpaid.

[Lurid]

As I understand the ruling, the court is saying that the governor did not have unilateral authority to impose furloughs. However, what the court left out of its ruling (which for me makes its justification flawed) is that the governor lied to the legislature, saying he had said unilateral authority, during the time that they were forming the budget. I feel the legislature implemented the furloughs into the budget based on the misinformation given to them by the head of the executive branch. I followed the news carefully during that time, and I clearly remember the legislators criticizing the governor on the number of furlough days he was imposing. The legislators said they would have only implemented one furlough day to balance the budget, not two and most certainly not three.

So the supreme court's justification that the legislator's passage of the budget ratified the governor's illegal furloughs, thus making it legal, is flawed in my eyes because the legislature was misled in that decision process. The legislators were under the assumption that the governor had the right to impose the number of furloughs he wanted. As such, the legislators worked that cost savings amount into the budget as though it were fact. Had they known the governor could not do this, and it was merely his suggestion, I do not think their budget decisions would have been the same. For that reason, I think that the supreme court's decision is highly speculative.

[paul concert]

6 pm
october 17 2010
waldron road
corpus christi texas usa
Schwarzenegger on motorcycle