So, seriously, when will California finally break??? (New $2B bond axed).....

[Patranus]

you brought up the issue of republicans. do we really have to quote you to prove it? just look a post or two above?

the house provides proportional representation - allowing states with large populations (eg, california) to have proper representation.

in order to prevent the large states from walking all over the small states (because with proportional representation, that would be easy to do), the senate allows each state to have an equal say.

not that i intended for this to be a history and/or civics lesson.. but i hope you get the idea now, craig

Yet another reason the responsibilities we bicker over these days were originally delegated to the states.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Another glorious day in the peoples republic of California and another glorious ruling by a judge which will end up costing CA a ton of money.

So Arnold in his attempt to help keep the state from going bankrupt (Yet not wanting to fire a lot of state workers.) decide instead that they should take a 2-3 days off from work every month. This was to be down until the state was more fiscally solvent. This in theory would of helped reduce the budget while reducing the amount of people being laid off by the state.

Of course state unions being the big babies that they are did not like this idea and instead took the state of California to court. Meanwhile people in the private sector are losing their jobs left and right, the lucky few who still have jobs are dealing with big pay cuts, freezing of 401k plans, etc...

So fast forward to this court decision which will in essence force the governor now to either allow the state to incur even more debt or force him to actually lay off state workers. Yet people wonder why CA is in such a dire situation and why unions are blamed for many of the job losses suffered in the state (ie Nummi plant, a lot of those jobs went to Texas).

This is the definition of spiting your face by cutting off your nose.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/25/BA1D1C7G54.DTL&tsp=1

Judge rules state workers owed back pay

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, February 26, 2010

Tens of thousands of state employees who were illegally placed on unpaid furloughs for three days a month last year are entitled to back pay for the time they missed, an Alameda County judge ruled Thursday.

Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch's order follows his ruling in December that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had violated a law that sets state employees' workweek to 40 hours. That law allows reductions only to meet a state agency's needs, and Schwarzenegger ordered the furloughs across the board without considering any agency's needs, Roesch said.

The ruling applies to 68 state offices and agencies that receive most or all of their money from sources other than the state general fund, such as federal funds and specially generated state fees. They include Caltrans, the Department of Motor Vehicles and the state lottery.

The number of affected employees will probably exceed 50,000, said Felix De La Torre, lawyer for Service Employees International Union Local 1000, which represents most of the workers. He said the union hasn't calculated how much money they are owed.

Schwarzenegger will file an immediate appeal, said press secretary Aaron McLear. He noted that other judges have upheld furlough orders for individual agencies and predicted that the state Supreme Court would eventually side with the governor.

An appeal would automatically suspend Roesch's order, but De La Torre said the union would ask the judge to lift the stay because of the hardship to workers. He said he would also ask Roesch to halt the furloughs.

Schwarzenegger initially ordered state employees furloughed two days a month, from February 2009 through the end of June. He issued a new order July 1 requiring furloughs of three days a month through June 2010, and estimated savings of $1.4 billion a year.

The order did not apply to most public safety employees, including the California Highway Patrol and firefighters during fire season.

On a less serious note and with a satirical point of view:

State workers in the capital of California (Sacramento) were seen dancing in the streets and honking their car horns after this court ruling.

One state worker was quoted as saying "I'm rich bitch !!"

 

[Craig234]

What part of the law do you not understand?

You post idiocy about people not losing part of their salary as 'rich bitch'.

That's nothing but dishonest propaganda, appearing to try to trrigger an emotional response from people by making the workers who don't lose work under the law as people to angrily resent as obnoxious rich.

If the furloughs are good policy, make them legal. It's not up to the judge to put policy ahead of the law.

There are always idiots who suggest unpopular legal decisions are 'wrong'. Let's just abolish the courts.

We should just have an all powerful executive who has no restrictions for 'individual rights'. If 'the majority' wants anything, let them violate individual rights, no need for 'constitutional' or legal rights.

Another glorious day in the peoples republic of California and another glorious ruling by a judge which will end up costing CA a ton of money.

So Arnold in his attempt to help keep the state from going bankrupt (Yet not wanting to fire a lot of state workers.) decide instead that they should take a 2-3 days off from work every month. This was to be down until the state was more fiscally solvent. This in theory would of helped reduce the budget while reducing the amount of people being laid off by the state.

Of course state unions being the big babies that they are did not like this idea and instead took the state of California to court. Meanwhile people in the private sector are losing their jobs left and right, the lucky few who still have jobs are dealing with big pay cuts, freezing of 401k plans, etc...

So fast forward to this court decision which will in essence force the governor now to either allow the state to incur even more debt or force him to actually lay off state workers. Yet people wonder why CA is in such a dire situation and why unions are blamed for many of the job losses suffered in the state (ie Nummi plant, a lot of those jobs went to Texas).

This is the definition of spiting your face by cutting off your nose.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/25/BA1D1C7G54.DTL&tsp=1



On a less serious note and with a satirical point of view:

State workers in the capital of California (Sacramento) were seen dancing in the streets and honking their car horns after this court ruling.

One state worker was quoted as saying "I'm rich bitch !!"

 

[DucatiMonster696]

What part of the law do you not understand?

You post idiocy about people not losing part of their salary as 'rich bitch'.

That's nothing but dishonest propaganda, appearing to try to trrigger an emotional response from people by making the workers who don't lose work under the law as people to angrily resent as obnoxious rich.

If the furloughs are good policy, make them legal. It's not up to the judge to put policy ahead of the law.

There are always idiots who suggest unpopular legal decisions are 'wrong'. Let's just abolish the courts.

We should just have an all powerful executive who has no restrictions for 'individual rights'. If 'the majority' wants anything, let them violate individual rights, no need for 'constitutional' or legal rights.

Lets see:

State is in a economic mess and near bankruptcy. Arnold tries to save the jobs of state workers but he also is trying to reduce the budget. The Gov tells the state workers that they must take 2-3 days off each month so that he wont have to fire these workers.

Of course the unions for these state workers will not budge. They take this thing to court but several judges prior to this ruling have agreed with the furloughs.

The unions continue to go judge shopping until they find one who is willing to side with their point of view and now they get these days paid back in the form of extra paid vacations. Of course how is the state of CA going to pay them when they take their days off? More IOU's anyone? I am sure CA's credit rating couldn't possibly go any lower right?


Meanwhile the average guy on the street in the private sector is being laid off left and right but that doesn't matter to these unions or Craig. They are entitled to have whatever they want no matter the situation.

 

[Slew Foot]

Theyll just get laid off instead. Fucking useless lazy ass moron union workers.

 

[Fern]

Craig234's remarks on the US Senate:

Who said anything about Republicans? Republicans have nothing to do with the disproportionate representation for the low-population states, whatever their party.

There was no California when the constitution was founded, either, with 40 million people getting the same representation as under a million in other states.



That's like saying 'men and women each get one vote for the House, but women get 10 votes for each Senator and men one vote, as a balance to the gender equality in the House'.

You don't NEED to balance equality with inequality.

Who says big areas of dirt with a few people are deserving of 'balance' of political power with states with more people? One voter, one vote makes sense. One voter, 50 times the weight of another voter doesn't.

The US Senate is "one voter, one vote".

The House was designed to represent the people.

The Senate was designed to represent the states. As you are no doubt aware, originally senators were not even elected by the people. And each state gets the same amount of votes, so it is fair.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Lets see:

State is in a economic mess and near bankruptcy. Arnold tries to save the jobs of state workers but he also is trying to reduce the budget. The Gov tells the state workers that they must take 2-3 days off each month so that he wont have to fire these workers.

Of course the unions for these state workers will not budge. They take this thing to court but several judges prior to this ruling have agreed with the furloughs.

The unions continue to go judge shopping until they find one who is willing to side with their point of view and now they get these days paid back in the form of extra paid vacations. Of course how is the state of CA going to pay them when they take their days off? More IOU's anyone? I am sure CA's credit rating couldn't possibly go any lower right?


Meanwhile the average guy on the street in the private sector is being laid off left and right but that doesn't matter to these unions or Craig. They are entitled to have whatever they want no matter the situation.

It's obvious you simply are unable to get the fact that what you think the right policy is, and the law, are not necessartily the same thing.

The only answer you will not complain about is the policy you like, no matter what the law says.

If you think the speed limit should be 35 and it's 25 and you get a ticket, do you stand there telling the judge you're not guilty because 35 is better until they throw you out of the court?

I lay it out for you in language a child can get - if you want another policy change the law - and you act like a parrot repeating 'but I like this other policy so the judge is wrong'.

You throw out accusations without any idea how to back them up - the union is 'judge shopping' retrying the case over and over.

That's not how the courts work to retry the issue over and over. That's not how the courts work to 'judge shop'. You haven't shown ONE OUNCE OF EVIDENCE the judge did anything wrong on the law.

Your post is filled with irrationality.

 

[Craig234]

Craig234's remarks on the US Senate:
The US Senate is "one voter, one vote".

The House was designed to represent the people.

The Senate was designed to represent the states. As you are no doubt aware, originally senators were not even elected by the people. And each state gets the same amount of votes, so it is fair.

Fern

We're agreeing the Senate represent states equal to each other, obviously. You're wrong that that's 'one voter, one vote'. It gives Californians one fiftieth the representation of a low population state.

Yes, it was set up that way. THat's what I said. And it's unfair. A lot of things were set up a certain way that were unfair. Want to go back to how blacks were represented for voting as 3/5 of a person too?

THere wasn't some noble principle involved in either setup - states had all the power to approve or disapprove the federal constitution, and so it had to bend over backwards to get their votes.

Just as the 3/5 weighting was a compromise to get southern and northern votes. We have an injustice that not all voters are equally represented. The equlality of the house doesn't need to be balanced.

Neither of these setups are shining attributes of our constitution. One has been corrected, one hasn't.

So why have two houses? It's debatable if we should - but they do have different powers and different cultures not requiring the unfair representation. A citizen is a citizen and deserves equal representation.

Telling a big group 'you all get equal representation with that tiny group' is unfair to them.

 

[OrByte]

Lets see:

State is in a economic mess and near bankruptcy. Arnold tries to save the jobs of state workers but he also is trying to reduce the budget. The Gov tells the state workers that they must take 2-3 days off each month so that he wont have to fire these workers.

Of course the unions for these state workers will not budge. They take this thing to court but several judges prior to this ruling have agreed with the furloughs.

The unions continue to go judge shopping until they find one who is willing to side with their point of view and now they get these days paid back in the form of extra paid vacations. Of course how is the state of CA going to pay them when they take their days off? More IOU's anyone? I am sure CA's credit rating couldn't possibly go any lower right?


Meanwhile the average guy on the street in the private sector is being laid off left and right but that doesn't matter to these unions or Craig. They are entitled to have whatever they want no matter the situation.

Like Craig said,

your post is filled with irrationality.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's obvous you simly are unable to get the fact that what you think the right policy is, and the law, are not necessartily the same thing.

The only answer you will not complain about is the policy you like, no matter what the law says.

If you thing the speed limit should be 35 and it's 25 and you get a ticket, do you stand there telling the judge you're not guilty because 35 is better until they throw you out of the court?

I lay it out for yu in language a child can get - if you want another policy change the law - and you act like a parrot repeating 'but I like this other policy so the judge is wrong'.

You throw out accusations without any idea how to back them up - the union is 'judge shopping' retryiung the case over and over.

That's not how the courts work to retry the issue over and over. That's not how the courts work to 'judge shop'. You haven't shown ONE OUNBCE OF EVIDENCE the judge did anything wrong on the law.

Your post is filled with irrationality.

No Craig irrationality is making demands of state government in a budgetary crisis and expecting to have your cake and it eat at the same time in regards to be able to keep your job without making any sacrifices. When these people get laid off from work because their union was greedy I sure as hell wont shed a tear. No doubt you'll be ready to vilify those you deem responsible save the state unions who were not willing to make any comprises to keep their jobs.

Of course I expect you to be in full acceptance of the appeal to this ruling if the Governor's side wins the next round in this case. No excuses and no vilification period.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Like Craig said,

your post is filled with irrationality.

To quote Mayor Bing of Detroit

"Either they can't read, they can't add or they can't comprehend,"

Go tell that to folks losing their jobs, taking large pay cuts, etc... in the private sector all across the state of California.

 

[OrByte]

To quote Mayor Bing of Detroit

"Either they can't read, they can't add or they can't comprehend,"

Go tell that to folks losing their jobs, taking large pay cuts, etc... in the private sector all across the state of California.

Im gonna borrow a line from one of our resident wingnuts;

You choose to work in the private sector. If you dont like it...find another job.

 

[AmerDoux]

To quote Mayor Bing of Detroit

"Either they can't read, they can't add or they can't comprehend,"

Go tell that to folks losing their jobs, taking large pay cuts, etc... in the private sector all across the state of California.

Ducati - you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. The judges ruling is directed at those agencies that are SPECIAL FUNDED. The states fiscal crisis is with general fund $'s. Special funded agencies are just that, specially funded. They dont take from the general fund coffers. Furloughing special funded agency staff was stupid. For example, if the agency is funded by the Feds, and you reduce the monthly work by 15%, then the Feds reduce the amount of money they give that agency by that amount. Employees lose their discretionary spending money and no longer spend money in the community. Private businesses lose money and go under. CA is not saving a dime, or helping the general fund, by furloughing those employees. In fact, it is costing CA money. Some agencies are revenue generating for the state! They fall under this ruling too. Why are they being furloughed to "save the general fund" when 1) their employees are not even paid out of the general fund, 2) they actually bring income to the state, and 3) furloughing them 3 days means they are falling further and further behind in getting their job done?

Yes, there need to be changes to the system and cuts in departments. But be smart, use a scalpel instead of a machette.

Yes, it is partially the fault of the Legislature we are in this position. But the people of CA have to take responsibility for their own actions too. The people are the ones who voted in many of these special programs and bonds. Once a program has been voted in, someone has to run it. The state employees are hired to implement these programs. Dont blame them for doing their job.

The only way change is going to occur is if the people of CA vote to change current legislation, removing programs, and thereby reducing the amount of general funds (and state employees) needed to implement.

 

[OrByte]

Ducati - you are the one with the reading comprehension problem. The judges ruling is directed at those agencies that are SPECIAL FUNDED. The states fiscal crisis is with general fund $'s. Special funded agencies are just that, specially funded. They dont take from the general fund coffers. Furloughing special funded agency staff was stupid. For example, if the agency is funded by the Feds, and you reduce the monthly work by 15%, then the Feds reduce the amount of money they give that agency by that amount. Employees lose their discretionary spending money and no longer spend money in the community. Private businesses lose money and go under. CA is not saving a dime, or helping the general fund, by furloughing those employees. In fact, it is costing CA money. Some agencies are revenue generating for the state! They fall under this ruling too. Why are they being furloughed to "save the general fund" when 1) their employees are not even paid out of the general fund, 2) they actually bring income to the state, and 3) furloughing them 3 days means they are falling further and further behind in getting their job done?

Yes, there need to be changes to the system and cuts in departments. But be smart, use a scalpel instead of a machette.

Yes, it is partially the fault of the Legislature we are in this position. But the people of CA have to take responsibility for their own actions too. The people are the ones who voted in many of these special programs and bonds. Once a program has been voted in, someone has to run it. The state employees are hired to implement these programs. Dont blame them for doing their job.

The only way change is going to occur is if the people of CA vote to change current legislation, removing programs, and thereby reducing the amount of general funds (and state employees) needed to implement.

yeah. like she said



I could have said all of that....but...well...yeah.

Think: California High-speed rail.

 

[Greenman]

The end result is that the furloughed workers will get paid for the time they had off, and likely be canned since there is no more money to pay them. I don't know if I'd call that a win.