Schwarzenegger puts 200,000 workers on $7.25 per hour

[XxKrebsxX]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38048981/ns/politics-more_politics/


SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has ordered about 200,000 state workers to be paid the federal minimum wagehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38048981/ns/politics-more_politics/#) because the state Legislature has not passed a budget.

Department of Personnel Administration Director Debbie Endsley sent the order Thursday in a letter to the state controller. Most state employees will be paid the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour for the July pay period.
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear says the change should be reflected in state employees' next paycheck. Workers will be paid in full retroactively once a budget is passed.

The Legislature has failed to take steps to close California's $19 billion budget deficithttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38048981/ns/politics-more_politics/#), even as the new fiscal year began Thursday.
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 Schwarzenegger, The Sacramento Bee newspaper reported.

Controller John Chiang said earlier Thursday that he wouldn't comply with the minimum wage order, KCRA-TV said.
California Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, expressed his disdain late Thursday in a statement, saying that that he's disappointed in the governor's actions.

"This is not a realistic proposal to save the state cash any more than his budget plan, which kills 430,000 jobs, is a realistic proposal to close our deficit. Using working families as leverage is not the kind of leadership we need to get through this budget process," Perez said.


I echo what Perez says in the article. Arnold is using families as hostages to get his shit passed. That's putrid leadership.


By the by, California minimum wage is $8.00 an hour. Probably a mistake on Arnold's behalf if he meant $8.00 an hour.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm


Although there are some exceptions, almost all employees in California must be paid the minimum wage as required by state law. Effective January 1, 2008, the minimum wage in California is $8.00 per hour. There are some employees who are exempt from the minimum wage law, such as outside salespersons, individuals who are the parent, spouse, or child of the employer, and apprentices regularly indentured under the State Division of Apprenticeship Standards. Minimum Wage Order (MW-2007) (http://www.dir.ca.gov/Iwc/Minwage2007.pdf)

[The Red Next Door]

So much for having a hero. Here Missouri, they are plaining to lower the pay of people under 18.

[gorillafuck]

Will the former wage be back?

[XxKrebsxX]

Will the former wage be back?

Workers will be paid in full retroactively once a budget is passed.

In other words, after July they will be paid their wage again and be paid retroactively (Whatever the remainder of their actual wage - 8.00 is) on their paychecks after July.

[Adi Shankara]

I'm living in California right now, and to be totally honest, I can't really see a problem here...Most of those state "servants" (i.e, the police, the attorneys, the state representatives, etc.) haven't earned their wages; California social services have been in a state of disarray for years, and maybe if they realize that they aren't entitled to a paycheck, they'll work harder.

if this targets any families simply doing their job, I disagree with this law then. but if it's strictly targeting police, probation officers, prison guards, attorneys, state representatives, etc. I can't really feel too badly, considering they treat the job like a privilege.

[XxKrebsxX]

I'm living in California right now, and to be totally honest, I can't really see a problem here...Most of those state "servants" (i.e, the police, the attorneys, the state representatives, etc.) haven't earned their wages; California social services have been in a state of disarray for years, and maybe if they realize that they aren't entitled to a paycheck, they'll work harder.

if this targets any families simply doing their job, I disagree with this law then. but if it's strictly targeting police, probation officers, prison guards, attorneys, state representatives, etc. I can't really feel too badly, considering they treat the job like a privilege.

Indeed. But the article is vague and considering Arnold is a Republican and we all know how Republican's have a hard on for police and the "justice" system I sincerely doubt it is the people you've mentioned.

I'm more willing to bet it's just average workers being harmed by this.

[Adi Shankara]

I'm more willing to bet it's just average workers being harmed by this.

considering Schwarzenegger is a republicrat, that's probably the case.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

hmm... not surprising since California is one of the worse off states in the nation... and I can see why people want to reduce deficits, because having one can become dangerous. However, from what I can tell, rather than trying to fix the broken components of the system to save money, Schwarzenegger and many others seem more incline to cut things like wages simply because they require no work because there is no untangling needed... Therefore, after awhile, things will seem like they're going good again, but after awhile, it'll just go to hell in a handbag again... hence the "business cycle"....

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Who are these "state workers" they're talking about? Because my mother is a lunch lady who has already taken wage cuts and she is employed by the State I believe.

[RedScare]

That's awful. I have a part-time job that pays that much, but I go to school. I can't imagine trying to live entirely on that salary.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

That's awful. I have a part-time job that pays that much, but I go to school. I can't imagine trying to live entirely on that salary.

Agreed... when you talk to most capitalists, they say that the people should just adjust their lifestyles to their new wage.... The fact is though, is that the lifestyle that many people create for themselves based on their wage cannot just simply be uprooted and skimmed down.... especially when there are contracts that call for punishment for early cancellation and massive mortgages that cannot be handled on minimum wage...

[XxKrebsxX]

Agreed... when you talk to most capitalists, they say that the people should just adjust their lifestyles to their new wage.... The fact is though, is that the lifestyle that many people create for themselves based on their wage cannot just simply be uprooted and skimmed down.... especially when there are contracts that call for punishment for early cancellation and massive mortgages that cannot be handled on minimum wage...

Exactly! These workers will have more than likely based their livings off of what they expected to earn. Now, their wages have been obliterated. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them lost their homes over this shit.

[GreenCommunism]

is Schwarzenegger reducing his own wages? oops did i just nailed it?

you know it reminds me of those idea of drug testing people on welfare, some person who is black on youtube said he agreed with it, and also asked where will the people receiving all the bailouts get tested so he can bring his camera and have a great time making fun of highly paid cokeheads.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Exactly! These workers will have more than likely based their livings off of what they expected to earn. Now, their wages have been obliterated. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them lost their homes over this shit.

And with the home loss mess, I've seen countless news footage of abandoned neighborhoods and what not... and what is sickening is that people try to claim that you cannot abolish land ownership when in reality, 1.) the government can take your property at will in the US through Eminent domain. 2.)Many of the Scandinavian countries have property setup in a way in which you can go anywhere as long as you stay a certain distance away from an already existing residency, and that seems to be working. 3.) Most if not all Native American tribes thought of the Earth as being too sacred to own and thus shared the land among the tribe and even among alliances between several tribes.... so long story short, we should be able to house everyone in this nation comfortable with the basic utilities... yet when a person suggests it, someone always has to scream out "Socialist"... and then phobia sets in and you get to watch the stupidity of sheepism and of the rhetoric...

[XxKrebsxX]

And with the home loss mess, I've seen countless news footage of abandoned neighborhoods and what not... and what is sickening is that people try to claim that you cannot abolish land ownership when in reality, 1.) the government can take your property at will in the US through Eminent domain. 2.)Many of the Scandinavian countries have property setup in a way in which you can go anywhere as long as you stay a certain distance away from an already existing residency, and that seems to be working. 3.) Most if not all Native American tribes thought of the Earth as being too sacred to own and thus shared the land among the tribe and even among alliances between several tribes.... so long story short, we should be able to house everyone in this nation comfortable with the basic utilities... yet when a person suggests it, someone always has to scream out "Socialist"... and then phobia sets in and you get to watch the stupidity of sheepism and of the rhetoric...

You should read about FDR's second bill of rights. If anyone could have passed house for all with the basic needs covered it would have been him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

It is a damn shame that the SBR did not pass... if it was managed correctly, things would be extremely different now... and that is another thing... people during that time freaked out about minimum wage, medicare/medicade, and social security, yet if someone touches those in a negative way, people freak out like none other... kinda ironic, right?

[Chimurenga.]

So are they or are they not being paid under the minimum wage?

[XxKrebsxX]

It is a damn shame that the SBR did not pass... if it was managed correctly, things would be extremely different now... and that is another thing... people during that time freaked out about minimum wage, medicare/medicade, and social security, yet if someone touches those in a negative way, people freak out like none other... kinda ironic, right?

Some people will flip out regarding entitlements when the opposition labels them as "socialist" or "communist"; however, once they're enacted people will flip if they try to revoke them later down the road.


So are they or are they not being paid under the minimum wage?

Well, if it actually happens at $7.25 an hour then it will be under California State Minimum Wage.

[Starport]

Some people will flip out regarding entitlements when the opposition labels them as "socialist" or "communist"; however, once they're enacted people will flip if they try to revoke them later down the road.



Well, if it actually happens at $7.25 an hour then it will be under California State Minimum Wage.

Why is everyone taking as though this is some isolated event? It is happening all over the world. It is a product of the international crisis of imperialism. Are there any other conclusions to be drawn from all this?
The 'rights' of the workers are under attack everywhere BECAUSE imperialism is in a death struggle for its existence. Could that be explained to the working class?

[Hiratsuka]

Can't say that I'm all that surprised he would move in this direction. I wish the best for the families who will be more than just burdened by this move. Hopefully, hopefully, California will fix its inane government of disproportionate spending with no revenue to back it up.


And with the home loss mess, I've seen countless news footage of abandoned neighborhoods and what not... and what is sickening is that people try to claim that you cannot abolish land ownership when in reality, 1.) the government can take your property at will in the US through Eminent domain. 2.)Many of the Scandinavian countries have property setup in a way in which you can go anywhere as long as you stay a certain distance away from an already existing residency, and that seems to be working. 3.) Most if not all Native American tribes thought of the Earth as being too sacred to own and thus shared the land among the tribe and even among alliances between several tribes....

That's too therapeutic. Native American tribes fought over land just like all other civilizations. Their spirituality (in some cultures) may have been more in tune with what we now call naturalism, but "land ownership" was not a foreign concept to them. In fact, the very idea early Americans didn't comprehend any complex system of property rights was created and used by the Protestants and Catholics to establish a justification for exploitation. In reality the Europeans were violating their own newly discovered principles of respect for property. Even far away from the large Indoamerican Empires tribes possessed hereditary rights to use tracts of land for farming. Typically wilderness was not valued because there wasn't any use for it. But that wasn't so different than Europeans only a few decades before they crossed the Atlantic.

Native Americans had both communal and private commerce, like the modern welfare state.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i found out about this 2 days ago but at the time i did not know that it was actually passed then. i found this article from then.


(07-02) 17:32 PDT Sacramento -- The governor has the authority to lower most state workers' pay to the federal minimum wage if a state budget isn't in place, a state appeals court ruled Friday, the second day of California's 2010-11 fiscal year.
The ruling came one day after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered the state controller to cut pay for about 200,000 state workers to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
The court case began in 2008, when Schwarzenegger made a similar order. Controller John Chiang, a Democrat, defied the demand and was sued by the Republican governor, but a budget was approved before the case was resolved.
Chiang on Friday said he plans to file a new suit on the grounds that it would be technically impossible to slash pay for some workers because of the state's antiquated payroll system, and also because he thinks it would violate state payroll laws, potentially costing "billions of dollars in fines and penalties."
That suit will be filed in either state or federal court, said Chiang spokeswoman Hallye Jordan; the controller has not yet decided whether to appeal Friday's ruling.
"This is not a simple software problem. Reducing pay and then restoring it in a timely manner once a budget is enacted cannot be done without gross violations of law," Chiang said in a written statement.
In Friday's ruling, the appeals court in Sacramento agreed with Schwarzenegger that the absence of a budget for the fiscal year that started Thursday eliminates the controller's authority to use state funds to pay employees, except to the extent required by federal labor law, which mandates the $7.25 an hour minimum wage. The 3-0 ruling said Schwarzenegger's Department of Personnel Administration can order the controller to delay payments during a budget impasse.
Suspend wage laws

Without a budget in place, the department also has the power to suspend the state's minimum-wage laws for its employees, the court said, rejecting Chiang's argument that workers are entitled to at least the California minimum of $8 an hour.
The governor's office, which argues it is legally bound to slash pay, praised the ruling, saying it "underscores the fact that everyone loses when we have a budget impasse."
But the ruling would not actually save the state money: State workers who experience pay cuts would be reimbursed once a state budget is in place. Most state employees are paid at the end of the month, so if a budget is in place before the end of July, they would not receive a reduced paycheck. The state is facing a $19 billion deficit for the fiscal year that began this week.
The pay cut would not apply to about 37,000 state workers represented by six unions that have tentatively agreed to concessions. However, those agreements must be approved by union membership and the Legislature.
Democrats remained critical of the minimum wage order, accusing the Schwarzenegger administration of using the issue to pressure labor and lawmakers into accepting his budget proposals. Assembly Speaker John Pérez called it "nothing more than a political stunt that will not save the state a single penny."
"I find it shocking that the governor is deliberately causing real suffering in an attempt to force the Legislature to pass his job-killing budget," he said in a statement.
Impact state's economy

Some state workers are already feeling the impact of the impasse: State law does not allow certain classes of employees to be paid at all if a budget has not been approved. Those employees include lawmakers and their staffs, gubernatorial appointees, and lawyers and doctors that work for the state.
The president of Service Employees International Union Local 1000, which represents about 95,000 state workers that would be affected by the pay cut, said the move would wreak havoc on the state's economy.
"We were at the table negotiating in good faith when the governor blindsided us with this order," Yvonne Walker said in a statement.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/03/BA8U1E8QJQ.DTL#ixzz0slBpj5Az

[The Vegan Marxist]

Agreed... when you talk to most capitalists, they say that the people should just adjust their lifestyles to their new wage.... The fact is though, is that the lifestyle that many people create for themselves based on their wage cannot just simply be uprooted and skimmed down.... especially when there are contracts that call for punishment for early cancellation and massive mortgages that cannot be handled on minimum wage...

Exactly, & yet we hear on the news all the time about the "criminals" or "domestic terrorists" selling drugs on the streets, robbing gas stations, &/or holding banks hostage. These "criminals" are doing what exactly you pointed out. "Adjusting their lifestyles" in order to survive from their new wage, &, in some cases, the lack of wage. A lot of people are put into a position where they have no other choice but to embrace the lifestyle as a caper in order to survive or to take care of their family. Yet the media black 'n whites the image by making the banks, the kids buying the drugs, the gas stations, as the victims of crime, when the real crime is the reason behind why these people do what they do.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

They say that many states besides California are on this road of destruction... Not too long ago, I went on MSNBC and saw pics of a protest going on in Illinois... and Ohio and Michigan are in terrible shape... so when states begin threatening bankruptcy.... how long and how much will the federal gov. spend to bail them out... ugh... a nation that cannot keep its spending in check is bound to fail...and with the tea party movement, national failure with them running around is just a bit too horrifying...

[NGNM85]

They say that many states besides California are on this road of destruction... Not too long ago, I went on MSNBC and saw pics of a protest going on in Illinois... and Ohio and Michigan are in terrible shape... so when states begin threatening bankruptcy.... how long and how much will the federal gov. spend to bail them out... ugh... a nation that cannot keep its spending in check is bound to fail...and with the tea party movement, national failure with them running around is just a bit too horrifying...

Controlling the deficit is important. The federal government has no shortage of waste, particularly in the area on what is called "national defense." However, now is not the time to slash budgets, especially when it cuts into peoples' wages, and essential services. That's how you prolong and exacerbate economic turmoil. What we should be doing is something akin to the 'New Deal'; all sorts of public works projects to provide jobs and stimulate growth. Like the old adage; 'Sometimes it takes money to make money.' Then, when the bleeding has stopped, we can work on the debt. However, there's a lot of poisonous rhetoric, mostly coming from the right, about slashing all spending, which is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and, unfortunately, they seem to be winning.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Well, if someone comes up with a new deal, can be pass FDR's Economic Bill of Rights next to it? :)

[Varsai]

Well I guess I'll weigh in here, my dad is a state employee here in California and with the pay cut he is taking he will actually have to pay money to the state for working full time. At 7.75 an hour while paying his usual union dues, taxes and health insurance he will owe the state $260 dollars a month. We're lucky that we have enough money in the bank to last six months before this will really effect us but my cousin also is taking this pay cut and he won't be able to afford to live well and is already struggling with recent pay cuts.

[NGNM85]

Well, if someone comes up with a new deal, can be pass FDR's Economic Bill of Rights next to it? :)

Touche, sir.