As i expected yesterday, the Governor is being sued for his decree in laying off thousands and cutting wages to the Federal minimum wage. The SEIU, the union that recruits illegal aliens to join their union (as well as prostitutes in Nevada) has stood up the the Executive Order.
Besides wage violations, they are charging the Governor with failure to give legal notice of a layoff. Seems State and Federal law says that layoffs of over 60 people must have a 90 days legal notice--that did not happen.
The union is going to use expensive attorneys. The Governor will use attorneys that he pays $6.55 an hour, and might be unhappy about the pay cut themselves. Now, the attorneys are being paid the same as janitors.
In the end, the only losers are the people of California. We get to pay the bill. And, if the SEIU wins, we get to pay their attorneys as well.
See the story here.
Of course SEIU was going to oppose the action and by taking it to court.
That is part of why members pay dues, to defend them against rash, unfair, and even illegal actions by their employers.
Contracts have meaning, legal weight, and if there are specific advance notifications required, then that needs to be done. There is usually an order in layoffs as well. Different contracts have differing provisions.
Under contract law, my understanding is that parties agree to an exchange of value, with certain stipulations as to how the exchange occurs.
We will see what the out come is.
I'm a bit surprised about temporary workers who, generally don't have such rights. Now if the fall into the "permatemp" category, and the Guv saying he will return many/most to positions once the budget is set..hmm...that sounds like quite possibly they are "temps" who via Union effort have begun to retake rights accorded to other more formal regular employees.
You are very right about Californians in the end paying for it all, including the legal fees/costs of both sides (remember those State attorneys will get back pay).
I would make much more sense for BOTH sides to modify, compromise and seek some middle ground +/- a few whatever...and get this mess over with.
I hold the Dems responsible too Frank, but it is the Republicans with their "Oath of Fealty" to not raise taxes, any taxes at all that are the larger roadblock to a solution.
The good news is that the "far right" of the Repulblican Party is in a self-immolation mode, with dissent in the ranks, falling numbers, falling revenue, falling influence.
On the other hand... Republican indictments are up!
Thanks for filling the gaps in VCS's coverage of the budget crisis, Frank. As with most of his comments regarding your posts, the esteemed Mr. Johnston has made some all too common ommissions.
Contracts do have meaning, Mr. Johnston. Like the contract the State Legislators enact when they swear the Oath of Office (feudal commitments optional). It binds them to follow the law(not a lord). The law says they shall pass a budget. The Governor is going to enforce that law.
If you had a job that pays $140 billion, spent your whole salary, ran up $30 billion in debt, and then tell your boss "I'm not going to do my job until you give me a raise big enough to pay my credit cards off," you're not going to have a job very much longer.
If I have anything to do about it, neither will the legislators that have failed to uphold their public responsibilities. Their failure will only squeeze members of the very unions whose huge contributions fund their campaigns. That is, of course, when those legislators even bother to campaign. If I got several thousand constituents laid off, I don't suppose I'd venture out of Sacramento either.
The difference between dems and the Republican party is simple, Mr. Johnston. We can hold dissenting views and still unite over less government and less taxes; win campaigns with less money and more volunteers. We don't need the influence of union bosses or the infotainment industry to convince people that less take-home pay is a bad idea right now.
Any college student can tell you that, when you max out your credit cards, its time to cut them up, stock up on cup noodle, and tighten your belt. No part of that solution involves taking out a new student loan or buying lottery tickets.
Indict that.
Hmm...interesting Mr. Smith and somewhat disingenuous.
I'm not quite sure how swearing an "Oath of Office" is comparable to a civil contract. Yes, legislators are bound to follow the law in such an instance. I'm not sure how comparable to a civil, legal contract that is. Parties agree to an exchange of value with stipulations as to how that exchange takes place.
I suppose, since the legislators have in a sense "broken" their contract, one could plausibly say they should relinquish or be removed from their seats.
Your commentary about a "job that pays $140 billion" is faintly amusing, but doesn't seem to fit the issue really.
The issue I thought was whether the SEIU would seek to enforce a contract in court as is their right (and maybe obligation to dues-paying members).
I do agree that Democratic legislators need to bend, maybe a lot in this instance, but I do feel that when one group absolutely refuses compromise of any kind, you do have to point a serious finger that way. That fickle finger of fate points right at the Republican MINORITY in the legislature.
As to remarks about differences between "dems and the Republican party" you seem to imply that so long as everyone argees with Republicans we can all get along. That, Mr. Smith is clearly not going to happen.
To be sure, Democrats have a base constituency, but so do Republicans, be assured of that.
If Dems have Unions, Repubs have corporations, if Dems have "tree-huggers", Repubs have polluters, if Dems have "infotainment (you mean like Ron Popiel??) then Repubs have far-right talk radio...it goes on and on.
Reality is that both sides are more alike in style then they would like to admit, they just differ in message whatever the value of either message may be.
Just please be less patronizing about it Mr. Smith.
Mr Johnston
Do you think for one second that the SEIU does not have an agenda by sticking their minions out to protest the governor?
Heres a thought. How about the government employees who are getting paid minimum wage protest in front of the Democratic senate and assembly leaders who refuse to pass a budget? How about they knock on Perata's door and ask him why they're getting paid 7 bucks an hour because as usual the democrats are unreasonable by not passing a budget that has tax cuts...
Quit the moderate card. no one here thinks for one second you're some sort of middle ground guy.
As for you Mr. Smith, keep it up... Looks like Johnston needs to look up the word patronizing.
Mr. Johnston,
let me start by saying that it is not my intention to patronize. It was my intent to highlight the issue at hand, and it isn't SEIU membership's sweetheart contract. Its California membership. We are all union members of this electorate, and we all pay dues to the State, and our union reps are supposed to keep our pension safe, our health care covered, and the union hall from burning down. They've decided instead to run us into debt. Their answer to that problem is to up our union dues.
At the risk of sounding patronizing, I don't know how to put it in any more DEMOCRATIC language than that.
Mr. Johnston, I don't want the SEIU members to not get paid. No one wants that. But I don't want the SEIU members, or anyone else paying for irresponsible spending either.
We are all hurt when the Legislature fails to pass a budget. When our Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker say that they will not pass any bill without taxes on it, how is that any different from the minority standing between spend-happy democrats and our deflating check books? Both sides are guilty of drawing lines in the sand. The Governor's idea for a sunset one cent sales tax raise in exchange for spending cuts sounds like an open hand reaching across the aisle to me. Where is the reciprocation from the dems?
gopblondie: What, are you some sort of dumb bunny? Would you even consider that the SEIU (or for that matter any other focused group) does NOT have an "agenda"?? Say what?
I hate to wake you up here "gopblondie" but pretty much every political animal out there has an "AGENDA". Like...uhm...DUH! Did you just figure this one out? Sounds like you got one too!
What the heck are blogs and these commentaries about if not about "agendas"??
Whether the Democratic budget agenda is good, bad or indifferent, it makes NO difference because the Republican minotity won't go along with anything that does not tow their Party line, which since the rest of us don't want a one-party state, probably won't fly anytime soon. Hence the inaction in Sacramento.
My point is, and has been, both sides need to move some, or maybe more. This endless standoff is helpful to no one. If you actually read around, the California budget crisis is pretty much self-inflicted and most other states have moved past this issue.
As to what you think I am, moderate or not. I could care less what you think. I know what I am, and that is all that I am.
BTW, I do not require your external validation.
RE: SEIU
Remember the days when unions represneted working people.....those days are gone...the major focus of unions these days is reprenting government employees...where the money is, and causing my taxes to rise
california is taking in $40 billion more in tax revenue now than four years ago...nobody talks about that..it all has gone down the black hole of pay raises for public employees
What about where all of our (your) federal tax dollars are going? a record deficit and a senseless fraud of a war. nice legacy your president is leaving your great grandchildren. thankfully there are still unions around to protect SOMETHING!