Saturday, June 26, 2010

ARTICLE FROM BOB WALSH/PV

Report from B O D meeting

Jun 26th, 2010 | By Bob Walsh | Category: Negotiations

As many of Paco’s readers know there was a Board of Directors meeting today. Except for a brief Treasurer’s report the entire meeting was taken up by the general field of Negotiations.

The turnout was excellent, with very few no-shows. Most of the no-shows sent someone to cover so the board was in good shape. For the MJ haters out there, he showed up looking appropriate and (allowing that the audience was all staff) speaking appropriate.

The E C gave out information, then requested input. They got it, and accepted it.

The E C has been in regular touch with members of the legislature and people within CDCr who seem to express interest in getting something done. They have not been in touch so much with the Governor or the DPA (which is pretty much the same thing) for the simple reason that (based on experience) the Governor is untrustworthy and seems to be uninterested in actually reaching an agreement, as opposed to scoring points.

Some good questions got asked.

Will we go to minimum wage in July? Nobody knows, except maybe the Governor. Nobody believes that there will be a budget in place by July 1. The Governor COULD do it at that time, Contrary to what he has presented to the media, he is not REQUIRED by the law to do so. Also, there is very real reason to believe that it is not possible for the Controller to do it. In addition, there is some good reason to believe there would be a huge negative staff reaction. Sure you will get paid EVENTUALLY. Will your child care take an IOU? How about Safeway? How about the gas station? How about your car payment and car insurance? It was pointed out correctly that some people will simply not be able to afford to go to work for $7.25 an hour. (How many of you could even take public transportation to work if you wanted to?)

Will union dues be taken out of a minimum wage check? Nobody knows, but the guess is, “No.” That will also depend a lot on the Controller.

Has the 12 hour shift proposal gone away for good? NO, it is still lurking in the weeds.

What’s going on with pensions? That is another one of those things no one is sure about. The Governor clearly wants to make changes, as do much of the legislature and a lot of the electorate. There is a lot of case-law supporting the notion that the employer can not unilaterally make the change. Whether the voters can is another matter. That is another thing that we might very well be right on (probably are in fact) but it could take years to fight it out in court. That might not do the guys and girls who are thinking of bailing out this year a lot of good. (Visit the Legislative Analysts Office web site, check out the document from 01-27-2010 on the Governor’s pension proposal for more on this.)

Can we get what the CHP got? No. For one thing, nobody right now is really sure what the CHP got. For another, they didn’t get it yet, they have not ratified the deal, nor has the legislature agreed. Also, on a purely economic basis on the things we are pretty sure of, it would cost the state $2 billion over three years. That isn’t in the cards. CHP is one tenth the size of Unit 6. What cost the state a few tens of millions of dollars for them costs hundreds of millions for us.

CCPOA is going to attempt to open a dialog with the Governor. Nobody believes it will have any success, but you never know. That is NOT the same thing as opening negotiations, though that is also likely to happen in some small, focused items. There are hazards to that. For instance, there is currently a court case running on “Donning and Doffing” time. If we open negotiations on that item, it could screw up the court case. Everything is connected to everything.

DPA has refused to answer CCPOA questions about their latest proposal (which is on the DPA web site). For instance, they use three different definitions of the phrase (Unit 6 employee) in the same section. It might mean any Unit 6 R&F, it might mean Uniform Custody only, it might mean institution staff only. That is the sort of thing they are refusing to even define terms on.

As far as I could tell, the B O D split about 55% to 45%. The minority wanted to tell the Governor to kick rocks and believe that there is no point in even pretending to talk with him as nothing he says can be trusted. (Ask SEIU about that if you don’t believe Unit 6.) That majority don’t believe he can be trusted either, but think that there is a point in talking, and letting it be known that we are talking, or at least willing to talk. They are concerned that it appears that we were being unreasonable and obstructive.

So, that’s where it sits. We will, rather soon, have some general indication as to whether or not the Governor is actually interested in talking or is more interested in scapegoating. When I know, you will know.

Appellate court hears opening arguments in state employee minimum wage case


June 21, 2010
Appellate court hears state worker minimum wage arguments

A three-judge panel of appellate justices this morning grilled attorneys debating both sides of a lower court's decision that State Controller John Chiang didn't have the authority in 2008 to refuse a Department of Personnel Administration order to issue minimum wage paychecks to state workers.

Today's hearing reviewed the lower court's decision in Gilb v. Chiang that the controller didn't have authority to reject state worker pay reduction orders issued by the Schwarzenegger administration nearly two years ago. The law allows state worker pay withheld when no money is appropriated for state payroll, as is the case when lawmakers fail to pass a budget by the July 1 beginning of the fiscal year.

On Monday, Chiang attorney Steven Rosenthal argued that Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley's 2009 decision didn't correctly interpret the controller's legal obligation to adhere to the Federal Labor Standards Act.

That law, which requires workers who work even one hour of overtime in a given pay period be paid full base wages in the same pay cycle, would be violated if the controller complied with the DPA order, Rosenthal said. The state uses a payroll system that assumes hours worked in a given period and issues paychecks based on those anticipated hours. Any additions or subtractions in pay are made a month later.

Rosenthal said that system makes it impossible to adhere to the federal law if the state assumed everyone's wage withheld to the minimum. "We issue the paycheck before we know the overtime has occurred," he said.

It's a problem that won't go away, even if the Controller's Office had the technology to swiftly alter payroll, which Chiang asserted it couldn't in 2008.

DPA lawyer Christopher Thomas argued that state Supreme Court's decision in White v. Davis left room for employers to delay pay. (Click here to read more about that key 2003 court case.)

And Thomas countered that Chiang had failed to prove that the state couldn't logistically manage the mass payroll changes that a minimum wage order would require.

"Even if they can't achieve 100 percent perfection, they have to comply to the maximum extent possible," Thomas said.

The judges, led by Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland, dismissed the hearing without giving an indication of when they might issue a decision.

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2010/06/appellate-court-hears-state-wo.html#ixzz0rWgzQdAs

Chronicling civil-service life for California state workers

State issues memo on furloughs, minimum wage

Department of Personnel Administration Director Debbie Endsley has sent a memo to all California state agencies that lays out the Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's position on furloughs (they're over ... for now) and the possibility of employee pay being withheld to minimum wage (he'll do it if there's no budget).

The latter assumes, of course, that the 3rd District Court of Appeals doesn't overturn a lower court ruling that State Controller John Chiang overstepped his authority by refusing to implement a similar wage withholding order during the 2008-09 budget impasse.

Here's the memo, which at least some agencies are forwarding to their workers:

Here's an update on the furlough and minimum wage situations.

With respect to furloughs, the current program ends June 30, and the Administration expects the State to resume normal hours of operation in July. The Governor's budget proposal includes four proposals to reduce employee compensation costs: a wage cut, one day per month of unpaid leave, increased employee contributions to pensions, and the workforce cap. The Governor retains the right and authority to order furloughs if necessary to address a fiscal and cash crisis.

As for the prospect of state workers receiving minimum wage in lieu of full wages, it will depend on when the Legislature and the Governor reach a budget agreement. The California Supreme Court ruled in 2003 (White v. Davis) that absent an appropriation, which for most of the payroll comes through the annual state budget, the Controller is prohibited from paying state workers beyond what is required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Absent a state budget, we will send instructions to the Controller to pay wages in accordance with the FLSA for the July pay period.

The four unions that recently reached tentative agreements on new contracts (CHP officers, firefighters, psychiatric technicians, and some medical professionals) would not be subject to any new furlough program or minimum wage payments, assuming their contracts are ratified in a timely manner.

Debbie Endsley


Rolling back pension costs: how far will it go?

By Ed Mendel

The Highway Patrol union that negotiated the most generous pension formula a decade ago, a trendsetter for police and firefighters statewide, has tentatively agreed to reduce pensions for new hires.

The “three at 50” formula, providing 3 percent of final pay for each year served at age 50, became the best-known part of a sweeping state worker pension increase, SB 400 in 1999, often cited by critics who say public pension costs are “unsustainable.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, applauding the Highway Patrol agreement last week, said once again in a news release that rolling back the benefit increase in SB 400 is one of the demands that must be met before he signs a new state budget.

“I am absolutely committed to getting pension reform done because we cannot continue down this unsustainable path that has taxpayers on the hook for $500 billion in debt,” the governor said.

New Highway Patrol hires would get a “three at 55” pension formula, if the bargaining agreement is approved by Highway Patrol members and then enacted by legislation.

That’s a significant cut. But it’s still more generous than the pre-SB 400 Highway Patrol formula, “two at 50,” which provided 2.7 percent of final pay for each year served at age 55.

At a CalPERS forum in January, the chief executive of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, Jon Hamm, said he might negotiate lower pension benefits for new hires. Pensions promised current workers are regarded as contracts that can’t be cut.

“I have come to the conclusion it’s a very strong likelihood I would be looking out for future employees by negotiating a second-tier retirement system,” Hamm said. “The last thing we want to do is leave it to the initiative process.”

An attempt to put an initiative on the November ballot to reduce state and local public pension benefits and extend retirement ages failed for lack of funding. But the backers are talking about trying again if pension costs are not cut.

This time, however, the initiative might be a proposal to switch new hires from pensions to the 401(k)-style individual investment plans common in the private sector, a change that a poll last fall showed had strong support among voters.

A severe economic recession has sharply reduced tax revenue, forcing deep cuts in state and local government programs. Public pensions are the exception, moving into the spotlight by imposing or projecting big cost increases to replace investment losses.

A study of state pensions issued in February by the Pew Center on the States, grimly reporting a $1 trillion funding gap, said the good news is that a growing number of states are changing benefits and taking other “reform” action.

But in California, Schwarzenegger faces Democratic legislative leaders, traditional allies of labor, who say any cut in pension benefits must be done through labor negotiations, not imposed by legislation.

The tentative agreements announced last week, some including pay cuts, with four unions representing 23,000 patrolmen, firefighters, psychiatric technicians and others are projected to save the state $72 million in the new fiscal year beginning July 1.

That’s about 12 percent of the state workforce. If similar agreements were reached with eight other unions, said the governor’s news release, state savings next year would total $2.2 billion.

In addition to lower pensions for new hires, the four unions agreed to boost the pension contributions from current workers to 10 percent of pay, up from 5 to 8 percent contributed now depending on the union.

The powerful California Public Employees Retirement System board last week ordered an 18 percent increase in the employer contribution from the state in the fiscal year beginning next month. The new state rates range from 20 to 33 percent of pay.

The tentative agreements have an “anti-spiking” provision aimed at manipulations to boost pensions. Pay used to calculate pensions would be broadened from the final year to the last three years, a safeguard already in a number of state contracts.

Meanwhile, some local governments also are cutting pension costs this year. Action in at least 62 local government agencies ranges from considering proposals to completed contract amendments, the CalPERS board was told last week.

“There is no cookie-cutter approach,” said Pat Macht, the CalPERS public affairs director. She mentioned lower benefits for new hires, higher worker contributions, anti-spiking, extended retirement ages, and “golden handshakes” to encourage retirement.

The CalPERS report and tracking done for Dave Low, chairman of a public employee union coalition on retirement issues, show that some local governments are not following the Highway Patrol this time.

Rolling back police and firefighter pensions all the way to the pre-SB 400 formula, “2 at 50,” reportedly has been discussed by city managers in the San Francisco east bay and executives in a half dozen Sacramento area counties.

A decade ago, the Highway Patrol was a clear leader with the “three at 50” formula. Local governments are under pressure in labor talks to meet or exceed benefits offered by other agencies, a competition some say “ratchets up” pensions.

Data from the giant California Public Employees Retirement System, handling pensions for 1,568 local governments, shows that none of its plans were as generous as “three at 50” before SB 400, said an Assembly Republican report earlier this year.

Now 64.7 percent of local public safety plans in CalPERS have the Highway Patrol’s trendsetting “three at 50” formula, said the report, but about a third still have lower benefits.

Although SB 400 helped boost local public safety pensions, the report suggests that some of the motivation for the landmark legislation was that state worker pensions in the largest job classification, “miscellaneous,” trailed local government pensions.

“More plans that offer SB 400-level benefit formulas were adopted before the implementation of SB 400 (913 plans) than were adopted after (640 plans),” said the Assembly Republican report.

Now 99 percent of local plans have miscellaneous formulas equal or better than SB 400, up from 58 percent before the legislation.

Benefits for miscellaneous state workers were increased by SB 400 from “two at 60” to “two at 55.” The “two at 60,” still a little-used option, was a reduction enacted under former Gov. Pete Wilson in 1991.

SB 400 also took the unusual step of authorizing a retroactive increase in pension payments to retirees, ranging from 1 percent to persons who retired in 1997 to 6 percent to persons who retired in 1974 or earlier.

CalPERS told legislators that the benefit increases in SB 400 would be mainly paid for by investment earnings, resulting in little change in state costs for a decade. But the state payment to CalPERS, $150 million in 2000, is $3.9 billion in the new fiscal year.

Much of the dramatic increase is because CalPERS, with a surplus from a booming economy, gave the state a contribution “holiday” in 2000, dropping the state payment from $1.2 billion several years earlier.

As local government officials in some areas talk about area-wide agreements that could help “ratchet down” pension costs, would a reduction in Highway Patrol pensions cause the state prison guard union to do the same?

Probably not, but there is some irony.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association has made perhaps the biggest gains among state worker unions of recent decades, often by negotiating pay and other benefits linked to the Highway Patrol.

But after personal attacks on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, with portable billboards towed around the Capitol and other tactics, the union has worked with an expired contract since 2006 and may be waiting for a new governor next year.

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at http://calpensions.com/ Posted 23 Jun 10

The State Worker: Are public pensions the root of all evil?

Published Thursday, Jun. 24, 2010

The nonpartisan Little Hoover Commission meets today to hear testimony about public pensions, aiming to dispassionately analyze the impact of retirement costs on governments and then, if needed, suggest changes.

Heaven knows we need a dose of level-headed analysis, given the wide-open rhetoric that "pension reform" provokes.

Unions see such efforts as a call to arms, "an attack on public employees," union lobbyist Dave Low once told The State Worker.

Last year when it looked like an initiative might make the ballot to cut benefits for future government hires, Low warned it would provoke a "nuclear response" from labor.

Context and moderation don't score political points on either side.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made rolling back state retirement benefits a top priority and has adroitly linked pensions to just about everything that ails the state.

Welfare? Kids' health care getting whacked? State aid for seniors? All on the chopping block all because ... of ... PENSIONS!!

Earlier this year, administration spokesman Aaron McLear said that the public is tired of a public pension system that is "crushing the rest of state government." David Crane, the governor's pension point man, calls the current retirement funding system "intergenerational theft" that has added to higher college tuitions.

It's a provocative narrative. It's also like a lifelong chain smoker cursing one pack of cigarettes for giving him lung cancer.

For some context, consider the tentative contracts agreed to last week by four unions representing about 23,000 state workers, including Highway Patrol officers and firefighters.

The deals, seen as a win for the governor, increase employees' pension contributions and lower retirement benefits from new hires. The state won't realize savings from that second provision for many years.

Those concessions and a few others in the four contracts translate into $72 million saved for fiscal 2010-11. About $43 million of that is savings for the $83 billion general fund, the shrinking pot of money at the center of the state's seemingly eternal budget crisis.

If all 235,000 or so state workers came under the same terms, the savings would be about $2.2 billion. The general fund, which is $19.1 billion short going into the July 1 start of the 2010-11 fiscal year, would realize about $1.1 billion of those savings. That's about 5 percent of the money needed to bridge the budget gap.

Meanwhile, Schwarzenegger's plan calls for the state to kick in $3.8 billion for pensions next year, a little more than half of that from the general fund.

Those are big dollars and an expense that can't be ignored. But pensions aren't the big fix to this year's budget mess, either.

Still, that won't keep either side from the over-the-top rhetoric.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Soledad prison cell-phone smugglers meet K-9 match

BY KIMBER SOLANA, SOLEDAD — A metal locker is covered in rust, the cord of a small television hanging on its side.

In a dimly lit bunker at the California Training Facility, about a dozen of these lockers stand next to a set of bunk beds. The room is unassuming and quiet, except for the heavy panting of a black German shepherd.

The dog sniffs the worn mattress, then moves past a box filled with paper. After its handler, Officer Oscar Covarrubias, opens one of the rusty lockers, the German shepherd pokes its head in and immediately sits.

"Good girl," Covarrubias says. Inside the locker, a small white water pitcher is on the bottom shelf. Inside it is a pink cellular phone — a Motorola RAZR.

"Ida" is part of a new initiative by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to combat a common prison problem — the smuggling of cell phones.[continue reading on The Californian...]

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Summary of the tentative agreements with Units 5, 8, 18, and 19

From dpa.ca.gov-- The pension formulas for new employees agreed to by these unions are as follows:
  • Patrol: 3% at 55 (from current 3% at 50)
  • Firefighters: 3% at 55 (from current 3% at 50)
  • Safety: 2% at 55 (from 2.5% at 55)
  • Miscellaneous: 2% at 60 (from 2% at 55)
California Association of Highway Patrolmen (6,660 employees): July 3, 2010 - July 3, 2013
  • Current employees' pension contribution rises from 8% to 10% of pay over $863/month.
  • Pension based on three-highest-years average salary for new employees (instead of current single-highest year).
  • Temporarily suspends current contract provision to pre-fund retiree health benefits by 1% of pay. That 1%, plus another 1% effective July 1, 2010, will instead go toward pensions. Starting July 2013, an additional 2% of pay will go toward pre-funding retiree health benefits.
  • Pay scale restructured on 1-1-12 to add another top step (2% higher than current top step); only applies to employees who reach the top step.
California Department of Forestry Firefighters (4,280 employees): July 1, 2010 - July 1, 2013
  • Pension based on three-highest-years average salary for new employees (instead of current single-highest year).
  • Current employees' pension contribution rises from 6% to 10% of pay over $238/month.
  • Pay scale restructured on 1-1-12 to add another top step (4% higher than current top step); only applies to employees who reach the top step.[continue reading on DPA...]

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

SO NOW THAT WE HAVE YOUR ATTENTION

As most know~the state is implementing their 5% plan tomorrow. How many months have I been telling you all this is coming? They say it will only be until July 1st. I don't think so. They are going to take this as long as they possibly can. I did receive a couple phone calls tonite from staff complaining about being redirected. Now they are pissed. So I will go back to say, "Do we have your attention now"? I have been telling you guys for a bit this was coming, but nobody wanted to do anything, because it wasn't effecting them personally. Well now it's hitting at home. We have no contract and the state has no money. So who do you think they are going to take this out on? Somebody has to pay. It sure in the hell aint gonna be the phat wallets in Sacramento running this circus. Not going to be any AW's or Capt's. Its going to be us. So maybe it's about time everybody bands together and makes a fucking statement. Like I have told you a couple meetings ago, I am ready to do a camp out by our institution, are you? A couple months ago nobody wanted to raise their hands because the problem wasn't in their back yard. Well now it is. But hey, if you don't mind the states redirection plan, don't mind getting your jobs changed/post orders changed, don't mind your saftey in jeopardy, then your doing just fine. Don't call and complain when the hammer comes down on you.

If we don't do something now, this state is going to roll us over like a steam roller and we are going to have nothing left. Is there any part of this nobody understands? When the state finally runs out of money and can't pay us because they have dug themselves a huge hole, then maybe you will understand. CDCR can't pay their bills right now. They will make payroll next payday, so what happens after that?

Just something to think about.

Lori Olah

Friday, June 11, 2010

WRITING BY IAN


By Sgt. Ian Pickett, KVSP-- There are many of us out here that embody what CCPOA really is. It is a family of Correctional Peace Officers who have banded together to provide protection from erroneous investigations, regulations that put not only staff but inmates as well in danger, we exist to provide each other assistance when a Brother or Sister has been assaulted (9 Officers a day on average), to ensure that the Peace Officer Bill of Rights is enforced by our higher authorities and obviously, as a bargaining unit, to get us a fair and just contract.

As in any large organization there are people that either lose their way or become distracted by self serving goals. We are no different, and as in any other large organization there are many of us that will not always agree with each other.

But Correctional Officers across the state just want things to be fair. We understand that the state is in financial crisis. We understand that the current way of doing things cannot be sustained, but, we also understand that our pay and benefits make up a very low percentage of the problem. Cuts need to be made and I think that the membership of CCPOA understand that, most of us would be willing to accept cuts, but the current administration and some of the Governor hopefuls don't plan to make cuts, they are amputating and plan to continue with it. They plan to amputate the very fabric that makes a Capitalistic Society what it is supposed to be and that is, if you go out and work for the money than you deserve to make it.

The politicians currently in power and some of those looking to rise to power attack state workers because they are the group that everyone loves to hate. CCPOA tends to be on the top of that list. What people don't realize is that CCPOA is not just some entity in Sacramento, it is a collective group of hard working professionals that are made up of parents, coaches, mentors, volunteers and tax payers just like everyone else. Some of the press and many of the opportunists go to great lengths to try and portray us as bullies with our hands out no matter the cost and unfortunately, there have been some in our organization that have helped affirm that belief, but it simply isn't true and the masses of CCPOA are tired of that label. Granted, it will be our responsibility to help curb that by cleaning our own house but the press and the public can go a long way in helping as well.

The State Worker of this state deserves more than what they are being given now, they deserve fair treatment and an equal voice. They are an easy target which offers relatively little resistance because of the unwillingness of the press to tell the whole story. The politicians refuse to address the wasteful spending and gross negligence of their own failure and feel good programs for people that expect a handout, why, because their numbers are larger and more able to effect the polls. This is a cowards mentality and the current Governor has done nothing more than Govern by extortion.

We will continue to fight for what we deserve and we will weed out those in our ranks that don't deserve to have our title. All we can ask and hope is that Californian's refuse to accept, be fooled or by into the propaganda about us and realize that for every 1 CCPOA member that does something wrong, there are thousands more that do multiple things right and often in the face of great danger to accomplish a mission that the state says must be accomplished.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Just My thought Process Only 6/8/10


Meg Whitman? Give me a break. When I said things will get worse before they get better~I honestly didn't think we would b headin down this road. This is going to be one long ass road for us in corrections. I pray for us on this one.

Tomorrows meeting will be starting at 1600 hours instead of 1700 hours. We are hoping this will get folks out early for their family's during the summer months. The board will meet at 1530 hours. Chris Vandee is our newest board member and Bollie is official as our VP, even though he has been doing the VP duties for a very long time now.

The rumour mill that I had come in and signed my retirement paperwork is bullshit. You just gotta love the CCC rumour mills out there. If I was retired, I sure in the hell wouldn't be spending my own time coming in to meetings and dealing with issues now would I?

Our medical jobs finally got re~aligned so staff won't be redirected every weekend. It only took CDCr 6 months to do this?

This practice has been going on statewide for a couple years now, but seems to have hit our house~implementing before notifying anybody on what the hell is going on. As everybody probably is aware we have lost beds on the Sierra Yard, which in turn cut positions. After this was implemented, they sat down with us (Us requesting a sit down) and pretty much was told how things will be done. We did give suggestions, but those were set aside on the roadway. I guess it doesn't matter to the administration the extra workloads that were created because of this. Or the lack of any kind of Code response that was effected.

We lost the first watch Arnold unit Sergeant position. Again, this was implemented before we were told. This implementation will effect more workload on the officers again. Again we gave our input, not sure if anything will change.

And when the 5% reduction plan comes through (and it will), it will probably be the same tactics. It will be implemented by the state and then they will sit down with us after the damage is done. As I have said a hundred times~it will get much worse before it gets better.

We will be loosing more Level one beds coming July~again, impact on positions, workloads and code response. The list will go on and on. Cutting staff positions and putting more workload on the cops on the ground.

Without a contract~the state has pretty much free reigns on what they want to do to us. And it seems there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. Ofcourse we will file our puny grievances, they will be denied and then will sit down at the Labor office for a good year or longer. ei; the retired annuitant grievance that was filed January of 2009 is still sitting down in Sacramento. I will be long gone before they ever get to it and the RA's will be off to greener pastures when that thing is ever addressed. But this is reality. And yes it sucks. So in a brief summery, the state can do whatever the hell they want, we just sit there sitting on our hands hoping they will talk to us and just maybe take into consideration any input we may have. It's a long shot.

My personal thoughts on this, our administration is finally falling into the states rule~don't talk to your union. Implement it anyways. We will deal with them later. This was infact the exact verbiage used during a table with the state side on the Tower 4 talks.

So with that in mind, which is so pathetic and having our own Union sitting idle in Sacramento, there is not much left for us. People say we used to have one of the strongest unions around, now look at us. This is embarrassing. Hands down to the peeps down south that camped out for a whole week to make their statement and made it loud. It is too bad that everybody across the state is not in the same mind set. Instead, it is much easier to sit in their corner offices and complain about everything and NOT do anything. People~we are the union. Not the Executive Counsel down in HQ'S. Not your local board. But all of you. If we all stood strong like our brothers & sisters did down in KVSP, then we would be united. And just maybe the state would have stopped and listened or maybe our elected Executive Board would have listened. But people all have their own agenda's and create the conflict within our troops. As long as we are going down this beaten path~we will never be strong. I call it the "convict behavior". As long as all the convicts in our system are fighting eachother~we are safe. God forbid if they ever decided to get along and band together, then we would be in greater danger then anybody could possibly imagine. Same goes for us, as long as we are fighting eachother, the state, the administration and everybody in between has nothing to worry about. We are our own worst enemy in this.

I know I posted that we were supposed to have some of the Executive Board come up during this coming meeting, but to be honest, I'm not holding my breath. I have left messages with them and have not gotten a confirmation on it.

We all have a long road ahead of us~we need to get our shit together and grab the bull by the balls and handle business. If we don't, then we failed. If you have no problem the way things are going, then great, you don't have to do nothing, just roll with whatever comes your way. The choice is yours.

Stay Safe and Sane
Lori Olah
CCC

Chronicling civil-service life for California state workers

June 4, 2010

June state payroll won't be withheld, administration says


Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2010/06/finance-department-june-payrol.html#ixzz0pv8KruIc

State workers don't have to worry that their paychecks for June will be reduced to federal minimum wage, a Department of Finance spokesman said this week, ending speculation that an arcane state budget fix last year gave Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger the authority to order wages withheld for this month.

July payroll, however, could be reduced if budget talks drag on much past the June 30 end of the fiscal year, said Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer.

State workers have been wondering if their June pay would be withheld to the least allowed by federal law, $7.25 per hour for most employees. Legislation passed last year to plug a $20 billion hole in the 2009-10 general fund budget included pushing this month's payroll expenses to the July 1 start of the 2010-11 fiscal year.

That meant, technically, that the state has no funding set aside for June payroll, which is paid July 1. And legislative consultants concluded that could have opened the door for Schwarzenegger to invoke a 2003 California Supreme Court decision that the state can't pay employees' beyond the legal minimum when there's no budgeted money for wages.

The governor invoked that court ruling when budget talks deadlocked in 2008. He ordered pay withheld with the balance returned to employees when lawmakers appropriated the money in a new budget. Controller John Chiang refused on legal and logistical grounds. Schwarzenegger sued and won a lawsuit to force Chiang to comply. Chiang filed an appeal.

Although there's no money budgeted for June payroll yet, the administration concluded that "individual departments still have appropriating authority through June 30," Palmer said. "June payroll will not be affected" by what is strictly an accounting device.

But July pay could be reduced he warned, he warned, if a budget impasse drags on into the new fiscal year.

State employee unions have tried to change the law so that state workers are paid when budget talks stall. Their latest attemptAssembly Bill 1699 cleared the lower chamber on Thursday with 54 votes and now goes to the Senate.

Meanwhile, the legal tussle between Schwarzenegger and Chiang is about to resume. Chiang's appeal goes to oral argument before the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on June 21.


Sunday, June 6, 2010

ANOTHER RIOT DOWN SOUTH

MSF Cedar Hall riot
At approximately 0800 Cedar hall (open dorm-reception inmates) inmates were doing the morning clean up. When staff observed several inmates grouping right in front of the staff office. As the officer order all inmates to their bunk areas for the clean up. They noticed several Hispanic inmates coming from the opposite wing armed with brooms and mop handles. The Hispanic and Black inmates began fighting right in front of the Office hallway. Staff were confined to the office. A code 1 was called and it was quickly, upgraded to a Code 3 response.

Responding staff from all yards were able to control the incident. Subsequently, a code 4 was called. The inmates were separated into detention areas. When all said staff reported that approximately 20-30 inmates were involved in the fighting. At least 4 inmates were sent out for medical care. No staff injuries were reported at the time of the writing.