• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

CA State is paying minimum wage to employees starting July

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
Because the stimulus is working. That was the whole point of sending money to local governments.
Askewsme? In order to stimulate the economy, consumers need to buy shit. Not a single penny of the trillion dollars ended up in the hands of consumers. Most local governments are just as upside down fiscally as the State and Federal government...any money given them had already been spent months or years before. Particularly in the state of California.

Or were you seriously expecting it to "trickle down" to the actual workers?

We've had CORPORATE stimulus, not real stimulus.

As pointless as they were, the $600 tax rebates that Bush sent everyone were far more effective than the "stimulus" plan currently being employed.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
SNIP
Ah, the old conservative fallback, blaming the unions again. My union, the HGEA, agreed to 1 furlough day per month with the county and 2 with the state.
That's the kind of sensible action I'm talking about. Everybody gives a little, everybody hurts a little, and we all make it through. Furloughs or straight pay cuts, 5% or 10%, when times are really hard, to be re-established when times are better means no (or less likely) government shutdowns, issuing IOUs, and mass layoffs of or minimum wage for the unprotected. Your union is to be commended for pulling a little harder when the road is steeper.

So does that mean that govt. employees get an automatic 5-20% pay increase when the economy gets better? I have seen a lot of people whine that govt. employees should take a big pay cut because the private sector is doing bad but that is exactly why people take govt. jobs (i.e. job security). Seems a rather unfair proposition to say that govt. employees have to make less when times are good and the same when times are bad.
The point is that the private sector - the wealth-producing sector - is already making these kinds of sacrifices. Your point would be valid a couple decades ago when public sector workers earned less in return for greater security, but in today's world public sector workers earn considerably more than their private sector counterparts plus enjoy much greater job security.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
Askewsme? In order to stimulate the economy, consumers need to buy shit. Not a single penny of the trillion dollars ended up in the hands of consumers. Most local governments are just as upside down fiscally as the State and Federal government...any money given them had already been spent months or years before. Particularly in the state of California.

Or were you seriously expecting it to "trickle down" to the actual workers?

We've had CORPORATE stimulus, not real stimulus.

As pointless as they were, the $600 tax rebates that Bush sent everyone were far more effective than the "stimulus" plan currently being employed.
I think Obama sent the rebates, Bush lowered rates across the board. I totally agree with your point, but Washington tends to think that only Washington can wisely spend money - which is ironic considering that a meth-addicted gambling-addicted schizophrenic can handle money better than Washington.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Always cracks me up when we talk about wages on this site and some of the others I visit.

Everyone says reduce wages, until it's their job that receives the cuts.
Well what does a corporation do when it's on the verge of crashing? They cut salaries or fire people. I think these people would much rather have their job and take minimum wage until things work themselves out. It's the least my state government could do to start balancing the budget is to rework everyones pay.
 

jackace

Golden Member
Oct 6, 2004
1,307
0
0
Well what does a corporation do when it's on the verge of crashing? They cut salaries or fire people. I think these people would much rather have their job and take minimum wage until things work themselves out. It's the least my state government could do to start balancing the budget is to rework everyones pay.
Yes, the state is having problems, but that doesn't change what I said. Not to mention the largest offenders of overspending already made deals so they won't be working for minimum wage. Just reaffirms what I said. Those who need to cut back the most will not be effected at all by the cuts.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Yes, the state is having problems, but that doesn't change what I said. Not to mention the largest offenders of overspending already made deals so they won't be working for minimum wage. Just reaffirms what I said. Those who need to cut back the most will not be effected at all by the cuts.
True, but at least it's a step towards it. These other state employees who are going to get shafted should unite to protest the fact that they're getting screwed, but various government unions are protected. Could make a big stink about it and get the people on their side too.
 

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
49,782
530
126
I'll be surprised if it really happens but it will be interesting to see this play out.

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

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.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
1
0
Askewsme? In order to stimulate the economy, consumers need to buy shit. Not a single penny of the trillion dollars ended up in the hands of consumers. Most local governments are just as upside down fiscally as the State and Federal government...any money given them had already been spent months or years before. Particularly in the state of California.

Or were you seriously expecting it to "trickle down" to the actual workers?

We've had CORPORATE stimulus, not real stimulus.

As pointless as they were, the $600 tax rebates that Bush sent everyone were far more effective than the "stimulus" plan currently being employed.
You don't think government employees are consumers? That's funny, I'm even more of a consumer now that I'm making a lot less as a public servant, because ALL of my paycheck gets spent.

BTW something like 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts. How is that not money in consumers' hands?
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Just lay people off for a few months. This way you dont have to pay any benefits. The medical insurance can be more than the minimum wage.

If the police and the fire department take a few days off on strike, they will see what it is like without them.
 

RaistlinZ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
7,629
9
91
It's a shame really.

California with its huge population, great weather, abundance of natural resources, tech industry, farming industry, entertainment industry, beaches, tourism, etc. has so much potential to be great. Too bad it's managed so poorly.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81


Lower case t...for time for layoffs.

What's with this stupid game. Why don't they FIRE heads.
 

SoCalAznGuy

Banned
Mar 28, 2010
120
0
0
Just lay people off for a few months. This way you dont have to pay any benefits. The medical insurance can be more than the minimum wage.

If the police and the fire department take a few days off on strike, they will see what it is like without them.
The CHP and department of forestry have already made an agreement with the state. They get special treatment. While arnold wants the unions to agree to 1 furlough day a month, the chp and department of foresty unions are exempt from this. They already get way more benefits and were excluded from furloughs.
 

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,276
165
106
46
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaHAHAHAHAHAHAaaHAha. Stupid Californian's can go suck it. I hate that State.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
FINALLY! Now all the states should follow California's lead. Pay them all minimum wage. All of them!
That's a great idea! Let's take, say, 2 million middle class Americans and reduce them to poverty wage class overnight. That will do wonders to help the nation's economy!
 

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,426
2
81
Meh, once the budget is passed, I read that the state workers temporarily switched to minimum wage will get the extra pay in arrears anyways. I don't see what the big deal is. The state controller is retarded and should tender his resignation asap.
 

Medu

Member
Mar 9, 2010
149
0
76
As pointless as they were, the $600 tax rebates that Bush sent everyone were far more effective than the "stimulus" plan currently being employed.
Unfortunately people have a habit of spending money when they should be saving it, and save it when they should be spending it!
Also a large part of the stimulus is about increasing the money supply- something a tax rebate doesn't do.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY