Menu

Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › 20% of state employees could get the axe

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 101 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • Author
    Posts
  • February 17, 2009 at 4:43 PM #348781
    DWCAP
    Participant

    I dont think cutting school days will do much good. Schools suck enough as is. Id be more interested in cutting back on some of the extra stuff schools engage in that isnt really necessary. Field trips and such that really are excuses to not have to do anything for a day.
    I am sure there is fat in there, it just depends on your definition of fat.

    I would be alot more interested in finding out that it doesnt take 6 months to layoff a state employee. Start the process, fine, but it should take two weeks or so, maybe a month, but not 5-6 months. They will prob spend more money trying to layoff people than they would save from laying them off, what with all the consultants they would have to hire and all.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM #348232
    cr
    Participant

    CA just received a massive loan for unemployment benefits, and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the union. (3rd according to this.

    State workers drain money whether working or not. At least unemployed they’re paid less, and can eventually find a real job.

    The issue should be who gets laid-off. I think they should start with councilmen, board and committee members and other wastes of space who got the budget where it is.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM #348549
    cr
    Participant

    CA just received a massive loan for unemployment benefits, and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the union. (3rd according to this.

    State workers drain money whether working or not. At least unemployed they’re paid less, and can eventually find a real job.

    The issue should be who gets laid-off. I think they should start with councilmen, board and committee members and other wastes of space who got the budget where it is.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM #348668
    cr
    Participant

    CA just received a massive loan for unemployment benefits, and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the union. (3rd according to this.

    State workers drain money whether working or not. At least unemployed they’re paid less, and can eventually find a real job.

    The issue should be who gets laid-off. I think they should start with councilmen, board and committee members and other wastes of space who got the budget where it is.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM #348700
    cr
    Participant

    CA just received a massive loan for unemployment benefits, and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the union. (3rd according to this.

    State workers drain money whether working or not. At least unemployed they’re paid less, and can eventually find a real job.

    The issue should be who gets laid-off. I think they should start with councilmen, board and committee members and other wastes of space who got the budget where it is.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:54 PM #348801
    cr
    Participant

    CA just received a massive loan for unemployment benefits, and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the union. (3rd according to this.

    State workers drain money whether working or not. At least unemployed they’re paid less, and can eventually find a real job.

    The issue should be who gets laid-off. I think they should start with councilmen, board and committee members and other wastes of space who got the budget where it is.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM #348237
    jennyo
    Participant

    The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.

    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM #348554
    jennyo
    Participant

    The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.

    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM #348673
    jennyo
    Participant

    The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.

    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM #348705
    jennyo
    Participant

    The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.

    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.

    February 17, 2009 at 4:55 PM #348806
    jennyo
    Participant

    The layoff process is arcane. There are rules about bumping and seniority which is why it takes so long. For instance, if a department determines that one of its functions is no longer needed (or a law is passed eliminating the function), they would have to go through their entire staff to determine seniority (based on years of state employment). If an employee in the eliminated unit had more seniority than one in an area that was going to continue operating, the higher seniority person would “bump” the other one of of their position, and then the bumping would continue through the staff until someone actually got laid off. By that time, the person getting laid off probably has another job lined up.

    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.

    February 17, 2009 at 5:15 PM #348272
    DWCAP
    Participant

    [quote=jennyo]
    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.[/quote]

    Oh you could get funds from the schools, prop 98 allows 3 different formulas to fund, and this year the GUbinator is using the least used one. It will cut 7 billion in future school spending, I think by mostly not allowing preprogramed increases to take effect.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNS4159KA4.DTL&type=printable

    February 17, 2009 at 5:15 PM #348589
    DWCAP
    Participant

    [quote=jennyo]
    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.[/quote]

    Oh you could get funds from the schools, prop 98 allows 3 different formulas to fund, and this year the GUbinator is using the least used one. It will cut 7 billion in future school spending, I think by mostly not allowing preprogramed increases to take effect.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNS4159KA4.DTL&type=printable

    February 17, 2009 at 5:15 PM #348708
    DWCAP
    Participant

    [quote=jennyo]
    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.[/quote]

    Oh you could get funds from the schools, prop 98 allows 3 different formulas to fund, and this year the GUbinator is using the least used one. It will cut 7 billion in future school spending, I think by mostly not allowing preprogramed increases to take effect.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNS4159KA4.DTL&type=printable

    February 17, 2009 at 5:15 PM #348740
    DWCAP
    Participant

    [quote=jennyo]
    Also, can’t get savings in schools – Prop 98 sets a minimum guarantee. So even if enrollement declines, funding stays flat and just doesn’t grow. That’s why you hear teachers unions yelling about “cuts” when really they just aren’t growing at previous levels.[/quote]

    Oh you could get funds from the schools, prop 98 allows 3 different formulas to fund, and this year the GUbinator is using the least used one. It will cut 7 billion in future school spending, I think by mostly not allowing preprogramed increases to take effect.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNS4159KA4.DTL&type=printable

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 101 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.