Schwarzenegger orders minimum wage for state workers - Chiang won't comply

[mrjminer]

And that is what Schwarzenegger has been trying to do, from his ballot measures (shot down by the public after unions spent millions to defeat them) and this move. \

Chiang should be fired. It is not his job to dictate policy.

No, what he's done is make deals with four of the unions, two of which are among the most unreasonable and corrupt unions in the nation (police and firefighters -- not that I don't think they should be compensated adequately, but they should not be getting twice their salaries in overtime and whatnot, either), while throwing every other state employee under a bus.

Hell... $7.25 in California? That's insane. Minimum wage in Illinois, which is less corrupt, but only marginally so, than California, is $8.75 and it has a much, much lower cost of living, overall, than California.

What Arnold needs to be doing is erasing some of the politicians, like those in Bell, and getting rid of illegals.

 

[OrByte]

Chiang is protecting California taxpayers

The guy should be given a medal

 

[Fear No Evil]

Chiang is protecting California taxpayers

The guy should be given a medal

I assume you feel the same way for any Republican in the state who suggests cutting wasteful spending and limiting increases in spending?

 

[SoCalAznGuy]

Chiang is protecting California taxpayers

The guy should be given a medal

While I personally oppose what arnold is doing. The argument that the state could loose millions in labor law violation suits is WRONG. The state is protected from such suits by the 11th amendment. Every court has recognized this fact.

 

[Darwin333]

Most of these jobs are essential services. Would you work at as a Prison Guard for $7.50 an hour? Hell would you work at your current job for $7.50 an hour?

What does that have to do with the employers ability to pay?

 

[OrByte]

I assume you feel the same way for any Republican in the state who suggests cutting wasteful spending and limiting increases in spending?

I would agree with the wasteful spending part. I would have to look into the spending increases to see whether or not I think its a good idea....

but that has nothing to do with Chiang and Arnolds fight.

 

[OrByte]

While I personally oppose what arnold is doing. The argument that the state could loose millions in labor law violation suits is WRONG. The state is protected from such suits by the 11th amendment. Every court has recognized this fact.

I am sure you think you know what you are talking about. Maybe you can share?

I personally oppose what arnold is doing too. I also think that if the State is exposed to penalties for violating labor laws, whether true or not, Chiang is duty-bound to hi-light these legal areas and the Administration/Judge/SCO/Legislature should be held responsible BY US THE TAX PAYERS for making sure brash decisions don't add to the already sky-high debt that California is facing.

If there is no legal danger, then why isn't Arnold claiming so?

If there is no legal danger, then why did Arnold issue a directive to all agencies to prohibit any employee from taking overtime unless it is mission critical? And this was issued immediately following the Chiang court filing.

I am a taxpayer too in California. And if Arnold exposes this state to more legal trouble then that means more money this state owes and frankly this state owes too much money as it is.

But...please tell me why this is a non-issue. I'm interested.

 

[Zebo]

California lol

It's worse than you think. Pension obligations are in the hole $500 billion. That's 6x what budget is for the whole state. Every municipality in the state is the same type numbers and ratios and makes the current annual $20 billion budget deficit look like chicken feed. She can't borrow no more with CDS saying she has a 20% chance of default. I was not joking with Olds or any other state employee about 'don't count on it'. It's a certainty California will have to declare bankruptcy to mollify/nullify their obligations. Period.

 

[olds]

It's worse than you think. Pension obligations are in the hole $500 billion. That's 6x what budget is for the whole state. Every municipality in the state is the same type numbers and ratios and makes the current annual $20 billion budget deficit look like chicken feed. She can't borrow no more with CDS saying she has a 20% chance of default. I was not joking with Olds or any other state employee about 'don't count on it'. It's a certainty California will have to declare bankruptcy to mollify/nullify their obligations. Period.

I must have slept through civics class. When did bankruptcy become an option for a State?

 

[Darwin333]

I must have slept through civics class. When did bankruptcy become an option for a State?

When they run out of money?

Seriously though, exactly how do you expect them to pay an obligation if they don't have nor can they procure the money? I guess they can completely payoff their pension fund with IOUs that they will never cash but zero dollars still equals zero dollars.

 

[nick1985]

When they run out of money?

Seriously though, exactly how do you expect them to pay an obligation if they don't have nor can they procure the money? I guess they can completely payoff their pension fund with IOUs that they will never cash but zero dollars still equals zero dollars.

You cant get blood out of a turnip

 

[olds]

When they run out of money?

Seriously though, exactly how do you expect them to pay an obligation if they don't have nor can they procure the money? I guess they can completely payoff their pension fund with IOUs that they will never cash but zero dollars still equals zero dollars.

Seriously though, since when can a State file bankruptcy?
The actual answer I was trying to drag out of him is, THEY CAN'T!

 

[Zebo]

"Can't" is not in congress vocabulary. All it takes is a law.

With Illinois and California and a whole bunch of others are close behind and about to be replicated across the country there is no way people and congress will allow 1% pensioners take 100% of state budget or even close to it. Well before that there will be a law or effective bankruptcy called tax revolt which is default.


What you're basically saying is - People can't rob banks, it's against Federal law.

 

[JSt0rm]

I feel bad for people who were counting on that but wallstreet took that money and pumped it into their pockets. Now there is no more and pensions must die.

 

[Zebo]

I feel bad for people who were counting on that but wallstreet took that money and pumped it into their pockets. Now there is no more and pensions must die.

Partially but it's more like you make insane projections of DOW at 28,000,000, yes million, to justify future benefits that puts you in huge hole when they don't come true.
http://www.businessinsider.com/california-pension-dow-25000-2010-6

 

[olds]

"Can't" is not in congress vocabulary. All it takes is a law.

With Illinois and California and a whole bunch of others are close behind and about to be replicated across the country there is no way people and congress will allow 1% pensioners take 100% of state budget or even close to it. Well before that there will be a law or effective bankruptcy called tax revolt which is default.


What you're basically saying is - People can't rob banks, it's against Federal law.

CA is behind because they chose to defer payments into the system. Now that they economy has tanked, thanks to private industry, they don't have the funds to pay back what they owe.
But instead of blaming the government for their actions, let's just choose a scapegoat.

What I am saying is this: there is currently no provision in law that allows a State to file bankruptcy. Therefore, California can not file bankruptcy. To suggest that they do file shows a lack of intelligence which makes any other argument, on any other subject, likely to be as retarded as the first. As such, it must be ignored.

 

[Zebo]

Hey man just prepare. Like I told my mom who retired from UCI - don't count on it. (I always bring sunshine she says) It will soon become a horse race between well off pensioners and children/welfare/taxpayers and I think we know who will cross finish line first.