In the midst of the President and Congress trying to pump up the economy with the stimulus bill, California's Governor Schwarzenegger is taking the 8th largest economy in the world and doing his darn best to knock it down.
He is about to implement a 10% pay cut unilaterally on tens of thousands of state workers, and the judge today said: "You've declared an emergency?!? Well, okay then President Bush umm, Governor Schwarzenegger, you get what you want."
The Guvernator's proposal is straightforward: furlough government workers for 2 days a month for the forseeable future, and cut their pay accordingly (approximately 10%). So at a time when the federal goverment is trying to get more money into the economy, California is doing it's damndest to counteract that action. As Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman observed in the article
Fifty Herbert Hoovers, what the hell good is it for the Congress to increase federal spending if the states are going to ramp down their spending? Looks like we'll find out what happens when the biggest Hoover of all (over 10% of the national economy) does just what Krugman advises against.
Labor unions attempted to stop this proposal by pointing out that under state law, the state government has to bargain over terms and conditions of employment before implementation. Getting your pay whacked by 10% seems like it falls under that description.
But the judge today disagreed in this opinion. Although labeled "tentative," the judge confirmed he would stick with it as final.
Some decision. After dispatching with preliminary rulings, the judge observed
The Governor's authority for this action is found in the statutes in the Government Code and in the employment contracts of the unions challenging the order. [P] The Governor has express authority to make the challenged order under Government Code sections 19851 and 19849. Those statutes are expressly incorporated into the [labor unions' contracts].
Well look at those two statues:
19851. (a) It is the policy of the state that the workweek of the state employee shall be 40 hours, and the workday of state employees eight hours, except that workweeks and workdays of a different number of hours may be established in order to meet the varying needs of the different state agencies. It is the policy of the state to avoid the necessity for overtime work whenever possible. This policy does not restrict the extension of regular working-hour schedules on an overtime basis in those activities and agencies where it is necessary to carry on the state business properly during a manpower shortage.
So, the workweek should be 40 hours a week, except where meeting needs of agencies - as opposed to that alleged of the entire government. And, such needs envision that employees might need to work overtime. Instead of getting work hours reduced.
19849. (a) The department shall adopt rules governing hours of work and overtime compensation and the keeping of records related thereto, including time and attendance records. Each appointing power shall administer and enforce such rules.
"Rules" meaning "you shall arrive at work by 8am and may leave at 5pm. Furloughs aren't "work rules." Otherwise, they might as well say anything about whacking time - such as "no work for the next month" - can be called a "rule."
But the real basis of the opinion follows:
Moreover, certain of the petitioners' MOUs expressly permit the Governor to reduce employee hours due to lack of funds, or to take any necessary action to carry out its mission in an emergency. The current circumstances constitute an emergency. The challenged order is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.
Well, at first blush, this is a bad understanding of emergency. Here's a few examples: Hurricane Katrina was an emergency. The fires surrounding southern California's cities a few months ago were emergencies. Anything requiring an immediate response is an emergency.
The Bush Depression is not an emergency. It sure is a crisis. It is a clusterfuck. But an "emergency?"
But then again, I realize what Republicans consider "reasonable and necessary under [this emergency] circumstances. Not a single Republican voted to give our economy a boost yesterday for the Obama/Democratic stimulus plan. By their rationale, blockading necessary (emergency?) economic aid to the people is "reasonable and necessary."
So, on second thought, I don't have much of a quibble with the judge's ruling. He just noted what constitutes reasonable and necessary actions in an emergency for Republicans like Schwazenegger. Namely: do what you can to prevent the Obama Presidency and Democratic Congress from actually working.