Arnold just reduced my pay to Federal minimum wage

John30_30

That sucks, dude.

Danny Tse

It has happened again....will be getting minimum wage of $7.25/hour :mad:

Hello, Cup-O-Noodle. Goodbye, SHM-SACD.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal has upheld a 17-month-old ruling allowing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce state workers to minimum wage in the absence of a budget.

The court, agreeing with a Sacramento Superior Court ruling, said State Controller John Chiang overstepped his authority by refusing to issue minimum-wage paychecks to state workers during the 2008 budget impasse.

The decision, published just moments ago, comes the day after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Department of Personnel Administration gave Chiang the same pay reduction instructions the controller rejected two years ago.

Chiang's office has not said whether it will appeal to the state Supreme Court. If the ruling stands and no appeal is filed, Chiang will be hard pressed to refuse to follow Schwarzenegger's minimum wage ruling this year.

The governor's pay order was triggered by lawmakers' failure to enact a budget before the July 1 start of the fiscal year.

With no budget in place that appropriates money for wages, the state can withhold what it pays employees to the least amount allowed by federal standards, which is $7.25 per hour for most of the 240,000 workers subject to the law. The withheld money would be issued once legislators and the governor agreed on a budget with payroll appropriated.

"We ... conclude the DPA has the authority to direct the Controller to defer salary payments in excess of federally-mandated minimum wages when appropriations for the salaries are lacking due to a budget impasse, because the Legislature created DPA to 'manage the nonmerit aspects of the state's personnel system" and vested DPA with jurisdiction with respect to 'the administration of salaries' and 'other personnel-related matters,'" the appellate court said in its decision.

disneyjoe7

I think you should either need to get another job, or go back to school to get nice trade to get one. Who can live on min $$ no-one.

George Grand

Danny Tse wrote: »

. Does anyone want to see this puppy starve?

Which brings to mind the classic, "If you don't buy this magazine we'll shoot this dog."

Thank you for bringing that to mind. I don't give that enough attention in my day to day affairs. That or The Mona Gorilla.

tonyb

disneyjoe7 wrote: »

I think you should either need to get another job, or go back to school to get nice trade to get one. Who can live on min $$ no-one.

Min. wage was never ment to raise a family on to begin with. If his pay will come retro, then he'll get his dough eventually. Things won't get any better for Cali state employees my friend. Best to start sending out resumes at warp speed while your still employed.

cfrizz

I'm sorry you are upset Danny. But at least you HAVE a job. There are plenty on this board who DON'T myself included! And even with all of my transferable skills, I'm not having any luck in finding a new one.

Just remember, it can ALWAYS be worse.

hearingimpared

Geez, you think you have a secure job with the state government, albeit lower wages but great benefits (typically) then they nail you with poverty level hourly pay. Arnold's nuts. Living on $7.25 per hour is going to be tough unless they let you work 80 hours a week and pay overtime . . . fat chance.

I feel for you Danny.

Cath what's the use in working if you can't meet your basic needs which I'm sure $7.25 per hour won't permit. He'd probably be better off with unemployment compensation and seeking out a job in private sector although it's tough out there and he'll probably loose his pension which could be quite hefty if he's been with the state for a while.

I just figured it out and it comes to $290 a week, $15,080 yearly BEFORE TAXES that meets the criteria to go on the welfare roles in Delaware. If that is the case in California, their going to have 240,000 workers on welfare. Yeah that good budgetary work there!:rolleyes:

tonyb

Maybe it was a move to get some state employees to quit. Crap, here in Illinois,you get at least 10 bucks an hour to stay home and not work, and it goes up from there if you have dependants.

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

Maybe it was a move to get some state employees to quit. Crap, here in Illinois,you get at least 10 bucks an hour to stay home and not work, and it goes up from there if you have dependants.

Wouldn't it be easier to just lay them off until the budge is passed?

apphd

Sorry to hear, but as others have said, it could be worse. I hope you have stashed away a little to get you through what looks like something temporary.

Just out of curiosity, does this include the pay for Arnold, (not that it matters) the rest of the Cali legislators and all their staff?

In any case, good luck I was out of work for 9 months and no matter what they say it's only gotten marginally better (at least in my area) in the job market.

cfrizz

Yes it does affect the lawmakers salaries as well. Or it did, they cut their salaries last year. Arnold doesn't take one at all.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GCJH383.htm

tonyb

hearingimpared wrote: »

Wouldn't it be easier to just lay them off until the budge is passed?

Depends...contracts and all may get in the way. You still need some bodies to run the state,question is,will they ever make the state government smaller ? Will they do away with soo many entittlements ? Will they do away with that obnoxious pension for government workers ? Those 3 things are needed to get Cali back on track,except there is no will to do so.

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

Depends...contracts and all may get in the way. You still need some bodies to run the state,question is,will they ever make the state government smaller ? Will they do away with soo many entittlements ? Will they do away with that obnoxious pension for government workers ? Those 3 things are needed to get Cali back on track,except there is no will to do so.

Tony that is one thing we disagree on. I've friends who work for the governement both state & federal and they make far less in salary than those doing the same job in the private sector. One of the perks of this is that they get a great pension. I think it balances out. I see it as a trade off.

Now I'm not talking about your upper and senior management postitions here as they've worked themselves up to their high salaries over the years but I still think even with the higher salaries that if they did the same job in the private sector they WOULD make more money.

I actually regret not taking a government position when I first entered the corporate world. I was looking at the salary offered by each as well as the benefits but dopey me wasn't concerned about my retirement back then although the companies did offer pension plans profit sharing, then 401ks, etc. I can tell you this, the amount of money offered to me by the corporation I finally decided to work for offered me much, much more money that what the government job offered. Had I taken the government job, I would not be relying on SSD as my only source of income now as the government pension and their disablilty (not eligable for SSD/SSI) would have me living much more comfortably.

shack

The CA legislators need to get off their asses and pass a budget, regardless of how hard it is or how many cuts need to be made. Problem solved.

LessisNevermore

tonyb wrote: »

Maybe it was a move to get some state employees to quit. Crap, here in Illinois,you get at least 10 bucks an hour to stay home and not work, and it goes up from there if you have dependants.

Actually, it's less than $10/hr., but you come across like it's a lot of money. It's certainly not enough to live on, survive maybe, but I wouldn't exactly call that living.

obieone

Sorry Danny, but if you want to see the future of your state, here it is:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mTCPj6G7044&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mTCPj6G7044&hl=en_US&fs=1&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


"The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples money"- Margaret Thatcher

apphd

cfrizz wrote: »

Yes it does affect the lawmakers salaries as well. Or it did, they cut their salaries last year. Arnold doesn't take one at all.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GCJH383.htm

Thanks Cathy, while indeed they had a cut last year, it sickens me to read the link you provided. While most lawmakers (I'm guessing evan at the state level) are slamming the corp. and banking world for outlandish perks and pay even when doing a poor job, they fail to see the similarities in their positions and performance.

The commission also opted to keep lawmakers' benefits the same, including daily expense allowances, vehicle allowances and health insurance. Lawmakers receive additional per diem pay of $141.86 on days the Legislature is in session, which provides most lawmakers as much as $30,000 on top of their base salaries.

California lawmakers earn more than their counterparts in several of the country's most populous states, according to a survey this year by the compensation commission. Florida, which has the fourth-largest population, pays its lawmakers just $31,000 per year.

Really an extra $150 a day just for showing up to work

hearingimpared

cfrizz wrote: »

Yes it does affect the lawmakers salaries as well. Or it did, they cut their salaries last year. Arnold doesn't take one at all.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GCJH383.htm

Okay, but the benefits and perks they receive(d) are never seen by the "regular" government employee at least not the ones I know. I always thought the "lawmakers" were there to serve the people, not make a living at it or be paid the way they are.

Did you know that the House has a blurb in the recent Healthcare bill that cuts payment of doctor's Medicare claims submitted by 27%? They put a band-aid on it but their band-aid always has a expiration date. This has caused doctors not to paid properly for almost 8 months now. The AMA has advised doctor NOT TO SUBMIT Medicare claims during these periods, which can last a month or two because if they do, when the House does put the band-aid on it will be near imposible for the doctor to recoup the 27% because of all the red tape involved.

The latest fiasco has occured during the Memorial Day Holiday. The house was to apply the band-aid but didn't so the 27% cut went into effect again while the House members went out on TWO weeks of Memorial Day Holiday. It was until the last week in June that they reapplied the band-aid. WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY JUST FIX IT!!! It's bad enough to cut meager Medicare payments to doctors by 27% but now because of it, doctors are not seeing Medicare paitients, because they haven't been paid or have lost 27% of their earnings, until this mess is fixed. Can you blame them?

Who suffers, the doctors, yes, but also the elderly and disabled on Medicare. At first the docs were just going along but after over 8 months of this nonsense they just can't afford to see all of their Medicare insurance patients until this 27% cut BS is fixed.

What a mess, what a disgrace! What gauls me the most is they've voted themselves a raise and then need to get the money from elsewhere . . . "Hey I have an idea let's take it out of Medicare!" UGH!

Danny Tse

Thanks for all the comments....

Believe me, I'd love to find another job....except it's so hard in CA. I think I mentioned about possibly leaving my current job at this forum about 3 years ago. As the economy worsen, I am glad I didn't leave my job since I would be likely be amongst the first one to get laid off at a new position. It's better to have a job that I can complain about than not having one at all. Btw, the unofficial unemployment rate here, including those who have given up on finding another job, is about 20%.

The frustration comes from being used as a political tool for the governor and the legislators to do battle. The agency I work for is actually "self-funding". Heck, the State had "borrowed" millions of dollars from us.

Lasareath....I'm a regulatory analyst. Basically, we battle giant utilities/corporations and their teams of lawyers/accountants to protect consumers. Even though we are located in San Francisco, we don't get pay any "location differentials" for being in an "expensive" location, unlike those who work for the Feds.

Here's the latest....our State Controller (the guy who writes our paychecks) just announced that it will take at least a couple of months to reprogram the computers to prints checks at $7.25/hr. Last year, he refused to follow Arnold's order to pay State workers minimum wage.

Danny Tse

Cool! Judge rejects "Governator" request for minimum wage for State employees....

A judge has declined to force the state controller to comply with an order by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to pay state workers minimum wage to deal with the state budget deficit.

He ruled that it would cause too much harm to employees.

Jstas

California should take some lessons from NJ. Gov. Christie has been slashing spending and eliminating waste for the past year. Dropped 11.9 billion dollars of waste from the budget and he's still going. People are up in arms about some stuff but if it isn't done, we'll end up like The Peoples Socialist Republic of California.

He's also trying to muscle through a 2.5% cap on property taxes and fixed a 3 billion dollar unemployment benefits shortfall but upping the payments corporation make for each employee per year by $139.

Some of the cuts suck but he's making solid progress that no one else yet has made. There is decades of damage to fix here and if past leaders had been doing what they were supposed to in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I was gonna say everything's hunky-dory down here in Texas, but then realized I have no idea what it's like...perhaps I should turn on the local news a few times a year.

vc69

From one state worker to another Danny, I'm glad things worked out in your favor. Best of luck in the future.

fatchowmein

I'm happy for you, Danny!

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

I was gonna say everything's hunky-dory down here in Texas, but then realized I have no idea what it's like...perhaps I should turn on the local news a few times a year.

We've cut some teachers depending on where you live (it is a big state afterall). We're also looking at casino gambling again. Turns out the horse races aren't doing so well without slot machines. In other words, not enough people go out and bet on horses when the economy is down but they will pour money into the one armed bandit.

Since we're perceived as a state that isn't so badly affected by the economy, I beg your pardon if you've lost your job in Texas, and we have no state income tax, there's now concern over a water shortage as people migrate to the Lone Star State. Most of our water is from above ground sources, man made lakes, provided by the US Army Corps of Engineer back in the 60's (source = news radio). We may have to dig some more.

That's all I've kept up with so far.

JimKellyfan

Danny Tse wrote: »

This is Bogie's reaction when he heard Arnold's decision....




.

That was also the response upon Arnold actually holding office.

Oh, California, why must you be so difficult ?

I love SC and all of our rules, almost.

We are a machine gun right to carry state, with many blue laws and we would not tolerate an Arnold, just infidelity tolerance.

hearingimpared

Great news Danny, now let's see if Arnold can pull a rabit out of his hat.

xj4094dg

Maybe all of you who are affected by this should support the legalization of marijuana.

California estimates that a legally regulated market for marijuana could yield the state at least $1.2 billion in tax revenues and reduced enforcement costs. A basic $50/ounce excise tax (roughly $1/joint) would yield about $770 - 900 million per year plus another $240-360 million in sales taxes. In addition, the state would save over $200 million in enforcement costs for arrests, prosecutions and prison. Additional benefits would accrue from increased employment and spinoff industries. Total retail sales of marijuana could be on the order of $3-$5 billion, with total economic impact of $12-$18 billion including spinoff industries such as coffeehouses, tourism, plus industrial hemp.

Fire it up!

hearingimpared

xj4094dg wrote: »

Maybe all of you who are affected by this should support the legalization of marijuana.

California estimates that a legally regulated market for marijuana could yield the state at least $1.2 billion in tax revenues and reduced enforcement costs. A basic $50/ounce excise tax (roughly $1/joint) would yield about $770 - 900 million per year plus another $240-360 million in sales taxes. In addition, the state would save over $200 million in enforcement costs for arrests, prosecutions and prison. Additional benefits would accrue from increased employment and spinoff industries. Total retail sales of marijuana could be on the order of $3-$5 billion, with total economic impact of $12-$18 billion including spinoff industries such as coffeehouses, tourism, plus industrial hemp.

Fire it up!

Seriously, I can't believe this hasn't been brought up to Arnold yet! The only problem they would have are the federal laws. I don't agree with it but it's better then **** state employees to the point of living at poverty level.

markmarc

Back about 8 years ago here in Oregon the state somehow managed to reset retirement for state employees with less than approximately 22 years, converting everyone working for a gov't agency at any level to a 401k type retirement. A lot of people got stung, but in 30 years when most all those retired under the old pension are dead the state is going to be in a lot better of a financial position. Unfortunately, until then every time the economy/market has a lousy year cuts will have to be made to cover the pension fund.

I've felt for several years that Governors & the President should do what mayors and smart business owners do when cuts need to be made. They go to their employees and ask them to name wasteful areas, duplication, rules/regs that collide and those that are out-of-date. The amount of streamlining that could be done without causing protests would be amazing IMHO.

I need to research into what Gov. Christie is doing in NJ. If he does it the right way it could very well be a blueprint for many other states.

xj4094dg

hearingimpared wrote: »

Seriously, I can't believe this hasn't been brought up to Arnold yet! The only problem they would have are the federal laws. I don't agree with it but it's better then **** state employees to the point of living at poverty level.

There is another side benefit from this great idea. Think of all the scumbag attorneys defending people in Marijuana cases who will be on the unemployment line!

Not to mention all the very expensive "drug" agents trying to bust people smoking doobies.

Also, it is widely believed the Mexican cartels are paying whoever they can to prevent this from happening, lest they lose the $multi-billion/year pot business in California.