20% of state employees could get the axe

[DWCAP]

[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

[DWCAP]

[quote=jennyo]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.
[/quote]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.

[DWCAP]

[quote=jennyo]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.
[/quote]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.

[DWCAP]

[quote=jennyo]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.
[/quote]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.

[DWCAP]

[quote=jennyo]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.
[/quote]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.

[DWCAP]

[quote=jennyo]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.
[/quote]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Supervisors should be able to let go those whom they see fit, and not be forced to take someone from a different department with no training in that dept at the expense of a good, trained, employee. Firing people based solely on when they joined is the stupidest reason I could think of to fire someone. Plus it shoots the state in the foot, protecting baby boomers that are on their way out at the expense of the next generation of state workers. If there is a real problem, like someone got fired for their race, gender, etc etc then I am sure the state is more than equiped with lawyers willing and able to mediate it.

[jennyo]

What the state is doing is questionably legal and will probably result in another huge lawsuit that we end up forking over hundreds of millions for. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for it, but when is the last time you heard of the state of CA winning a lawsuit? It doesn’t happen.

[jennyo]

What the state is doing is questionably legal and will probably result in another huge lawsuit that we end up forking over hundreds of millions for. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for it, but when is the last time you heard of the state of CA winning a lawsuit? It doesn’t happen.

[jennyo]

What the state is doing is questionably legal and will probably result in another huge lawsuit that we end up forking over hundreds of millions for. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for it, but when is the last time you heard of the state of CA winning a lawsuit? It doesn’t happen.

[jennyo]

What the state is doing is questionably legal and will probably result in another huge lawsuit that we end up forking over hundreds of millions for. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for it, but when is the last time you heard of the state of CA winning a lawsuit? It doesn’t happen.

[jennyo]

What the state is doing is questionably legal and will probably result in another huge lawsuit that we end up forking over hundreds of millions for. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for it, but when is the last time you heard of the state of CA winning a lawsuit? It doesn’t happen.

[DWCAP]

They won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?

[DWCAP]

They won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?

[DWCAP]

They won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?

[DWCAP]

They won the furlow lawsuit. basically a 9% paycut for effected state workers. Other than that…….?

[Author]

Posts