Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

California is bankrupt, Schwazenegger promises vengeance upon those who oppose him

1235»

Posts

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Couscous wrote: »
    Any state worker could easily hope save the state a few dollars in costs over the year, whether it be printing on both sides of a piece of paper, or eating a cheaper restaurant when on expenses.
    Guys, if they can all just pitch in by saving a few dollars, the budget will magically stop being millions of dollars in the whole.
    emotdownsop2.gif

    Err, you do realise that to save billions of dollars is going to require across the board savings right? I've already proposed 9 billion in new taxes, I'd hope the administration could save another billion or so with efficiency, and the rest is going to have to come from program cuts. You do realise that these inefficient work practices very rapidly cost the state money? If a lawyer spends an hour a week doing something redundant, then that just cost the state $100. If catering at San Francisco third division police station leaves a gas stove on all the time, thats $100. If some driver takes a non optimum route with his congressman each morning so he can go to his favourite dougnut shop, thats $100. These savings add up fast.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    You do realise that these inefficient work practices very rapidly cost the state money? If a lawyer spends an hour a week doing something redundant, then that just cost the state $100. If catering at San Francisco third division police station leaves a gas stove on all the time, thats $100. If some driver takes a non optimum route with his congressman each morning so he can go to his favourite dougnut shop, thats $100. These savings add up fast.

    When state employees are wasteful it costs money. Okay. The question is whether mandating pay cuts to cover budget deficits is an efficient or fair way to regulate that waste.

    Given that the State budget is often extremely uncertain up until the last minute, your measure would transfer that uncertainty onto the livelihoods of state employees. That would be really shitty for them. Furthermore, the wasteful behavior you describe is a community action problem, so it strikes me as uncertain how much your plan would even be able to motivate that individual driver not to stop for doughnuts.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.
    Still would be illegal. I'm not talking California Constitution, I'm talking federal law. Unfortunately the federal courts haven't recognized gay marriage under equal protection (yet), but if you try to reach into the pocket of a few hundred thousand workers (or even just those among them with salaries above X) when they have contracts and/or collective bargaining you are going to get the Hammer of God dropped on you (especially with a Dem in the WH). No state can legally alter a collectively bargained contract arbitrarily or unilaterally, even if mandated by popular vote.
    tbloxham wrote: »
    In Prop 2, this is only for proposals brought up by the people. Short term budget deficits are indeed fine, but I view them as too complex an issue to be decided by a popular vote. Impact committees need to be formed to evaluate the worth of aquiring the debt.
    Ah got you, objection withdrawn.
    tbloxham wrote: »
    With 3 remember that petrol is hugely demand inelastic with price, and ideally we would like people to consume less, it would be good for California's and the USA's balance of trade. When the price tripled from 1.50 for nearly 5 dollars, demand fell a few percent. Effectively any drop in demand would be good, and any revenues would also be good. Its a win win situation.
    We did see demand go down at $4 a gallon last time though. And a 50+% drop off in that revenue with high prices unnecessarily disrupts it as a revenue source. Gasoline use dropping is good in the long term. Gasoline use replaced by something greener is better long and short term. Gasoline use dropping with no replacement is bad short term (because it is symptomatic of an economic decline)
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Proposition 6 : Possession of cannabis in California will now be punishable by a fine (sliding scale with amount) or community service, and the confiscation and destruction of the drugs. Repeat offenses in a year will increase the amount. Possession with intent to sell, or direct sale will carry a steeper fine AND community service.

    Completely doable, would almost certainly pass (I believe CA has a more open attitude than MA on drugs and a somewhat similar Question here passed 2-1 this year) and within the state's rights regarding Controlled Substances Act.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually, every state employee is responsible for keeping the budget in line. It's not just salaries, its expense accounts, use of resources, efficient working practices. Any state worker could easily hope save the state a few dollars in costs over the year, whether it be printing on both sides of a piece of paper, or eating a cheaper restaurant when on expenses.

    They have three options, do their jobs and balance the budget (which will include layoffs and pay cuts that the administration decide on), get fired, or take a pay cut.

    I don't think they are overpaid (barring the top earners, hospital administrators etc, but they are a small fraction of the total spend), I think we don't have the money to pay them. So either they need to decide how to save the money, or this proposition will.

    Efficient working practices? That does not offer up a hard cost savings. Expense accounts and purchases of supplies, sure, but that's still a minority of the state workers making those decisions. And guess what, those decisions are administrative. So a minority of state workers, are having an effect on maybe 5% of the budget. Any sort of significant cost savings comes from budget policy makers deciding to make cuts to a total annual budget.

    If you don't have the money to pay them, you should cut employees, I think this is a good idea, it saves money, and is good government.
    Any state worker could easily hope save the state a few dollars in costs over the year, whether it be printing on both sides of a piece of paper, or eating a cheaper restaurant when on expenses.

    Or this example. Don't rely on the employees for this, just change the reimbursement policy. I work in state government, and on trips, we basically get a flat amount(I forget just how much, maybe $40 or $50) of per diem, that can be spent on anything. I could submit a receipt of $30 in alcoholic drinks at a restaurant, and I could submit receipts for a bunch of food, even my meals are already being paid for otherwise.

    rodq.jpg
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    This is weird. How can California, home of all the shiny and new, be bankrupt only one year into our recession; all the while Michigan, home of all that's fucked, manages to keep a balanced budget?

    As to saving money on corrections, how about the following proposition:

    Prison sentences will only be served in prison for violent offenses. Everything else (fraud, drugs, theft, etc.) is served on the tether.

    That ought to save some money. In case anybody isn't familiar with tethering, convicts still have to work (movement is monitored), pay for a place, and food, etc.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Proposition 6 : Possession of cannabis in California will now be punishable by a fine (sliding scale with amount) or community service, and the confiscation and destruction of the drugs. Repeat offenses in a year will increase the amount. Possession with intent to sell, or direct sale will carry a steeper fine AND community service.

    Completely doable, would almost certainly pass (I believe CA has a more open attitude than MA on drugs and a somewhat similar Question here passed 2-1 this year) and within the state's rights regarding Controlled Substances Act.

    CA just tried to pass a law that would treat drug users more leniently, and it got clobbered. Half of CA is progressive, the other half is a bunch of fucking hillbillies.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Proposition 6 : Possession of cannabis in California will now be punishable by a fine (sliding scale with amount) or community service, and the confiscation and destruction of the drugs. Repeat offenses in a year will increase the amount. Possession with intent to sell, or direct sale will carry a steeper fine AND community service.

    Completely doable, would almost certainly pass (I believe CA has a more open attitude than MA on drugs and a somewhat similar Question here passed 2-1 this year) and within the state's rights regarding Controlled Substances Act.

    CA just tried to pass a law that would treat drug users more leniently, and it got clobbered. Half of CA is progressive, the other half is a bunch of fucking hillbillies on meth who would probably get the book thrown at them if caught.
    :)

    BNsig.jpg
  • Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Proposition 6 : Possession of cannabis in California will now be punishable by a fine (sliding scale with amount) or community service, and the confiscation and destruction of the drugs. Repeat offenses in a year will increase the amount. Possession with intent to sell, or direct sale will carry a steeper fine AND community service.

    Completely doable, would almost certainly pass (I believe CA has a more open attitude than MA on drugs and a somewhat similar Question here passed 2-1 this year) and within the state's rights regarding Controlled Substances Act.

    CA just tried to pass a law that would treat drug users more leniently, and it got clobbered. Half of CA is progressive, the other half is a bunch of fucking hillbillies.

    I live on a progressive/hillbilly border, and this man speaks the truth. We should build a fence or something around the bay area and make it another state. Maybe CaliFABULOUS.

    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    How about you guys pony up the dough to pay for shit? Thats what taxes are for. To pay for your shit that you need.

    The States' fear of taxes is what is killing you. You simply cannot cut and cut and cut. That doesn't work.

  • templewulftemplewulf Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Shurakai wrote: »
    How about you guys pony up the dough to pay for shit? Thats what taxes are for. To pay for your shit that you need.

    The States' fear of taxes is what is killing you. You simply cannot cut and cut and cut. That doesn't work.

    The only problem is that with their proposition retard-o-matic system, you can guarantee some new, fundamentally flawed spending obligations. They need to both raise taxes and cut spending.

    I was listening to NPR this morning, and they had on the minority/majority leaders from the Minnesota house. The Republican kept saying things like "we need to be bipartisan in the solution. Oh, and by the way, our budget was fine when we were in control 3 years ago. Neener, neener, neener. ... Bipartisan."

    Of course, he wasn't very bipartisan in raising taxes, but the DFL leader didn't really seem to get behind the idea either. I guess the state will have to brace for cuts, but I don't think our MN DoT can really afford to get cut back any further.

    Friend me: Twitter | Google+
    Invite me: XBox Live | PS3 | Steam
    Link to me: Number Sorter | Achievement Generator
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Shurakai wrote: »
    How about you guys pony up the dough to pay for shit? Thats what taxes are for. To pay for your shit that you need.

    The States' fear of taxes is what is killing you. You simply cannot cut and cut and cut. That doesn't work.

    Mind you, California already has the 6th highest effective combined tax rate (meaning all taxes divided by all incomes) in the nation. It's 10.5%. That's after New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Hawaii in that order.

    So, in some ways they are limited in just how much more they can raise taxes.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    Just went over the California state page and looked at some budget stuff. The problem isn't just revenues. They are forecasting a $6 billion drop in revenues from the recession but the hole is projected to be somewhere between $18 and $24 billion. The reality is that the state is spending way too much money. For instance, on K-12 Cali spends $45 billion on approximately 6 million students. That is over $7k per student. You can get a fancy man private education for that kind of dough. We have the same issue here in MN (think we spend over $8k per student).

    I don't know about MN, but in CA I'd say most of that's going to administrators rather than classrooms. I've seen school district headquarters that were fancy enough to host heads of state. LA's school district has approx 4000 administrative employees. 2400 of them make over $100k. Meanwhile, average teacher salary is $63k - less than in San Jose, let alone NYC, Chicago or San Francisco.

    And this goes back to Prop 13 (notice a trend here?) - when the local tax bases were slashed to the bone, the state had to pick up the slack, which has caused a mass of problems for school districts and the state.

    Seriously, there's a reason that whenever California has revenue issues, people start pointing at Prop 13. It was a very bad idea that got passed by using a crisis to push people to vote for it without looking too closely.

    Even with Prop 13 the schools are still given a huge chunk of money. Nearly every school bond that goes up for vote passes. It's just that the money never reaches the classroom. The money never leaves district headquarters, where the average salary is $95k.

    From 2001 to 2007, LA's public school enrollment fell by 6%. During that time, 500 teachers were laid off. During that time, district bureaucracy increased by 20%. Teachers can't get erasers, but the district HQ's cafeteria has flat-screen HDTVs.

    Repeal Prop 13 if you want. All it will mean for school districts is that they can replace their old TVs with the new 120Hz models, maybe get some Blu-Ray players and Wiis in there too. All it will mean for actual classrooms is nothing.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2008
    enc0re wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    How about you guys pony up the dough to pay for shit? Thats what taxes are for. To pay for your shit that you need.

    The States' fear of taxes is what is killing you. You simply cannot cut and cut and cut. That doesn't work.

    Mind you, California already has the 6th highest effective combined tax rate (meaning all taxes divided by all incomes) in the nation. It's 10.5%. That's after New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Hawaii in that order.

    So, in some ways they are limited in just how much more they can raise taxes.

    Yeah, I really don't think we need to raise taxes here. Certainly not right now, in this economic environment. We need to fix the problem of having $10B in new bond measures pass every two years thanks to the aforementioned retard-o-matic proposition system. Basically, every two years the voters here elect to spend a bunch of extra money with no means to pay for it.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.
    Still would be illegal. I'm not talking California Constitution, I'm talking federal law. Unfortunately the federal courts haven't recognized gay marriage under equal protection (yet), but if you try to reach into the pocket of a few hundred thousand workers (or even just those among them with salaries above X) when they have contracts and/or collective bargaining you are going to get the Hammer of God dropped on you (especially with a Dem in the WH). No state can legally alter a collectively bargained contract arbitrarily or unilaterally, even if mandated by popular vote.

    It is my understanding that state and federal government can alter contracts both between private entities and between the government and private entities if the change serves the public interest, is narrow, and doesn't completely destroy the contract (Contract Clause). Do federal regulations explicitly say that they can't exercise this power against unions (but can against individuals or corporations)?

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • cheezcheez Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    templewulf wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    How about you guys pony up the dough to pay for shit? Thats what taxes are for. To pay for your shit that you need.

    The States' fear of taxes is what is killing you. You simply cannot cut and cut and cut. That doesn't work.

    The only problem is that with their proposition retard-o-matic system, you can guarantee some new, fundamentally flawed spending obligations. They need to both raise taxes and cut spending.

    I was listening to NPR this morning, and they had on the minority/majority leaders from the Minnesota house. The Republican kept saying things like "we need to be bipartisan in the solution. Oh, and by the way, our budget was fine when we were in control 3 years ago. Neener, neener, neener. ... Bipartisan."

    Of course, he wasn't very bipartisan in raising taxes, but the DFL leader didn't really seem to get behind the idea either. I guess the state will have to brace for cuts, but I don't think our MN DoT can really afford to get cut back any further.

    Wasn't that balanced budget where infrastructure was slashed so hard a bridge collapsed?

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    Shurakai wrote: »
    How about you guys pony up the dough to pay for shit? Thats what taxes are for. To pay for your shit that you need.

    The States' fear of taxes is what is killing you. You simply cannot cut and cut and cut. That doesn't work.

    Mind you, California already has the 6th highest effective combined tax rate (meaning all taxes divided by all incomes) in the nation. It's 10.5%. That's after New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Hawaii in that order.

    So, in some ways they are limited in just how much more they can raise taxes.

    Yeah, I really don't think we need to raise taxes here. Certainly not right now, in this economic environment. We need to fix the problem of having $10B in new bond measures pass every two years thanks to the aforementioned retard-o-matic proposition system. Basically, every two years the voters here elect to spend a bunch of extra money with no means to pay for it.

    Hmm, does approving the bonds require that they be spent? In Texas, we pass constitutional amendments to approve the issuance of bonds, but then the state can choose whether to go to the market to actually issue them. We don't have much danger there.

    Or, is the issue with the school districts getting bond elections passed, and the schools not having the foresight to plan out their budgets in the future?

    rodq.jpg
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    lazegamer wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.
    Still would be illegal. I'm not talking California Constitution, I'm talking federal law. Unfortunately the federal courts haven't recognized gay marriage under equal protection (yet), but if you try to reach into the pocket of a few hundred thousand workers (or even just those among them with salaries above X) when they have contracts and/or collective bargaining you are going to get the Hammer of God dropped on you (especially with a Dem in the WH). No state can legally alter a collectively bargained contract arbitrarily or unilaterally, even if mandated by popular vote.

    It is my understanding that state and federal government can alter contracts both between private entities and between the government and private entities if the change serves the public interest, is narrow, and doesn't completely destroy the contract (Contract Clause). Do federal regulations explicitly say that they can't exercise this power against unions (but can against individuals or corporations)?

    Government can void union contracts. It's one of the things being discussed in the Detroit Big 3 bailout, whether to void the UAW's contract.

    In the state of CA's case, it probably can also void union contracts by declaring bankruptcy. I don't know if I'd recommend it, though. Aside from the financial/credit impact, people can go a little while without buying an American car when UAW is on strike. I don't know how long they can go without streetlights and trash pickup.

  • templewulftemplewulf Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    cheez wrote: »
    templewulf wrote:
    The only problem is that with their proposition retard-o-matic system, you can guarantee some new, fundamentally flawed spending obligations. They need to both raise taxes and cut spending.

    I was listening to NPR this morning, and they had on the minority/majority leaders from the Minnesota house. The Republican kept saying things like "we need to be bipartisan in the solution. Oh, and by the way, our budget was fine when we were in control 3 years ago. Neener, neener, neener. ... Bipartisan."

    Of course, he wasn't very bipartisan in raising taxes, but the DFL leader didn't really seem to get behind the idea either. I guess the state will have to brace for cuts, but I don't think our MN DoT can really afford to get cut back any further.

    Wasn't that balanced budget where infrastructure was slashed so hard a bridge collapsed?

    Yes. Yes, it was.

    We also had a big argument, because the governor signed a "no new taxes" pledge with the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. He then raised the tobacco tax (which I approve of) to make up for the budget shortfall they created. The resolution? The tobacco tax is totally a user fee and not a tax in any way.

    Apparently, aimless pedantry does work in the real world!

    Friend me: Twitter | Google+
    Invite me: XBox Live | PS3 | Steam
    Link to me: Number Sorter | Achievement Generator
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    lazegamer wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.
    Still would be illegal. I'm not talking California Constitution, I'm talking federal law. Unfortunately the federal courts haven't recognized gay marriage under equal protection (yet), but if you try to reach into the pocket of a few hundred thousand workers (or even just those among them with salaries above X) when they have contracts and/or collective bargaining you are going to get the Hammer of God dropped on you (especially with a Dem in the WH). No state can legally alter a collectively bargained contract arbitrarily or unilaterally, even if mandated by popular vote.

    It is my understanding that state and federal government can alter contracts both between private entities and between the government and private entities if the change serves the public interest, is narrow, and doesn't completely destroy the contract (Contract Clause). Do federal regulations explicitly say that they can't exercise this power against unions (but can against individuals or corporations)?

    That's not actually what the Contract Clause says but its irrelevant. Cutting salaries in this way would be not be narrow. A state can't simply say we want to have a balanced budget and alter the contracts of its workers to meet this goal. A union contract would especially not be politically viable to alter in this way by a Dem because you'd be in effect nullifying a union's right to collectively bargain with the state.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.
    Still would be illegal. I'm not talking California Constitution, I'm talking federal law. Unfortunately the federal courts haven't recognized gay marriage under equal protection (yet), but if you try to reach into the pocket of a few hundred thousand workers (or even just those among them with salaries above X) when they have contracts and/or collective bargaining you are going to get the Hammer of God dropped on you (especially with a Dem in the WH). No state can legally alter a collectively bargained contract arbitrarily or unilaterally, even if mandated by popular vote.

    It is my understanding that state and federal government can alter contracts both between private entities and between the government and private entities if the change serves the public interest, is narrow, and doesn't completely destroy the contract (Contract Clause). Do federal regulations explicitly say that they can't exercise this power against unions (but can against individuals or corporations)?

    That's not actually what the Contract Clause says but its irrelevant. Cutting salaries in this way would be not be narrow. A state can't simply say we want to have a balanced budget and alter the contracts of its workers to meet this goal. A union contract would especially not be politically viable to alter in this way by a Dem because you'd be in effect nullifying a union's right to collectively bargain with the state.


    If California tried that Schwazenegger might as well declare martial law, since it would spark off the biggest strike in history. Every Union would walkout of their jobs until it was recinded and the offending politicians shot. Hell every Union in the country would stage sympathy strikes, because if that passes in California its going to go nationwide in a heartbeat.

    Voiding contracts and arbitrarily cutting pay is the kind of shit that helped create unions in the first place. If the goverment changed the rules of the economic game in such a drastic way it would spell the deathknell for the US as we know it.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I agree, it would be a terrible idea, and it's not one I imagine will be put forward. I was just challenging that the contract is rock solid legally, given previous interpretations of the Contract Clause by the court. Without widespread fear of a complete collapse of the California government, it's politically untouchable.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    BubbaT wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.
    Still would be illegal. I'm not talking California Constitution, I'm talking federal law. Unfortunately the federal courts haven't recognized gay marriage under equal protection (yet), but if you try to reach into the pocket of a few hundred thousand workers (or even just those among them with salaries above X) when they have contracts and/or collective bargaining you are going to get the Hammer of God dropped on you (especially with a Dem in the WH). No state can legally alter a collectively bargained contract arbitrarily or unilaterally, even if mandated by popular vote.

    It is my understanding that state and federal government can alter contracts both between private entities and between the government and private entities if the change serves the public interest, is narrow, and doesn't completely destroy the contract (Contract Clause). Do federal regulations explicitly say that they can't exercise this power against unions (but can against individuals or corporations)?

    Government can void union contracts. It's one of the things being discussed in the Detroit Big 3 bailout, whether to void the UAW's contract.

    In the state of CA's case, it probably can also void union contracts by declaring bankruptcy. I don't know if I'd recommend it, though. Aside from the financial/credit impact, people can go a little while without buying an American car when UAW is on strike. I don't know how long they can go without streetlights and trash pickup.

    No it is not what is being discussed regarding the Big 3. The UAW has specifically said it would make changes to the contract in order to help make the bailout feasible. Additionally, government contracts and private contracts demand different levels of scrutiny (see United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey).

    Citation backing me up. (google book that won't allow copy and paste)

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Actually with propositions in California it seems we can do whatever the heck we want, I mean, we can violate constitutional requirements for equal protection, so surely we can cut the pay of some state workers. Remember, this isn't an actual pay cut. They can have all their money back as soon as they balance the budget. It's 'performance related pay'.
    Still would be illegal. I'm not talking California Constitution, I'm talking federal law. Unfortunately the federal courts haven't recognized gay marriage under equal protection (yet), but if you try to reach into the pocket of a few hundred thousand workers (or even just those among them with salaries above X) when they have contracts and/or collective bargaining you are going to get the Hammer of God dropped on you (especially with a Dem in the WH). No state can legally alter a collectively bargained contract arbitrarily or unilaterally, even if mandated by popular vote.

    It is my understanding that state and federal government can alter contracts both between private entities and between the government and private entities if the change serves the public interest, is narrow, and doesn't completely destroy the contract (Contract Clause). Do federal regulations explicitly say that they can't exercise this power against unions (but can against individuals or corporations)?

    Government can void union contracts. It's one of the things being discussed in the Detroit Big 3 bailout, whether to void the UAW's contract.

    In the state of CA's case, it probably can also void union contracts by declaring bankruptcy. I don't know if I'd recommend it, though. Aside from the financial/credit impact, people can go a little while without buying an American car when UAW is on strike. I don't know how long they can go without streetlights and trash pickup.

    No it is not what is being discussed regarding the Big 3. The UAW has specifically said it would make changes to the contract in order to help make the bailout feasible. Additionally, government contracts and private contracts demand different levels of scrutiny (see United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey).

    Citation backing me up. (google book that won't allow copy and paste)

    Thanks for the correction.

    So if I'm reading that link right, public contracts not covered by a collective bargaining agreement have a lower standard? There's lots of non-union workers on state/local payroll too, including a whole bunch of high-priced consultants.

    Locally, I know the LA City Council is considering imposing a mandatory work furlough program next fiscal year - ie, mandatory, unpaid time off. Ideally this would be staggered, but it's also been suggested that the city simply shut down from Christmas to New Year's. It's not in the major unions' (SEIU, AFSCME) contracts.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    BubbaT wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Spoiler:


    No it is not what is being discussed regarding the Big 3. The UAW has specifically said it would make changes to the contract in order to help make the bailout feasible. Additionally, government contracts and private contracts demand different levels of scrutiny (see United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey).

    Citation backing me up. (google book that won't allow copy and paste)

    Thanks for the correction.

    So if I'm reading that link right, public contracts not covered by a collective bargaining agreement have a lower standard? There's lots of non-union workers on state/local payroll too, including a whole bunch of high-priced consultants.

    Locally, I know the LA City Council is considering imposing a mandatory work furlough program next fiscal year - ie, mandatory, unpaid time off. Ideally this would be staggered, but it's also been suggested that the city simply shut down from Christmas to New Year's. It's not in the major unions' (SEIU, AFSCME) contracts.
    MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITY COLLEGE COUNCIL & others [Note 1] vs. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS seems to match those circumstances pretty identically. If you force people to take unpaid time off (a furlough) then you're creating a substantial impairment of a contract.
    The mandatory furlough program substantially impaired the Commonwealth's obligation to pay compensation to the various affected employees covered by the collective bargaining agreements. Opinions dealing with mandatory State furlough or delayed compensation plans, although not unanimous on other points, have agreed that a unilateral reductionin contractually established, future State employee salary obligations constitutes a substantial impairment for Contract Clause purposes. See Baltimore Teachers Union v. Mayor of Baltimore, 6 F.3d 1012, 1018 & n.8 (4th Cir. 1993)("[w]e would be reluctant to hold that any decrease in an annual salary beyond one that could fairly be termed de minimis could be considered insubstantial"; annual salary reduction of .95% not insubstantial), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1127 (1994);
    Spoiler:
    In other words, since such a furlough would be a de facto pay cut, it counts as altering a contract, which is a no-no unless they can show its sufficiently narrow. It didn't matter that the contract didn't specifically prohibit a furlough because the effect of the furlough would be a pay cut. In the Massachusetts case that was pretty handily dismissed and I don't see how a California case would be any different.

    But I don't know the specifics of the LA city workers. Its possible they aren't unionized or this exception is specifically in their contract or they're explicitly paid by the hour in the contract with no guarantee about number of hours. Its politically dangerous though.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    In other words, since such a furlough would be a de facto pay cut, it counts as altering a contract, which is a no-no unless they can show its sufficiently narrow. It didn't matter that the contract didn't specifically prohibit a furlough because the effect of the furlough would be a pay cut. In the Massachusetts case that was pretty handily dismissed and I don't see how a California case would be any different.

    But I don't know the specifics of the LA city workers. Its possible they aren't unionized or this exception is specifically in their contract or they're explicitly paid by the hour in the contract with no guarantee about number of hours. Its politically dangerous though.
    My mom works for the State of California, and has both been forced to in the past and is currently being forced to take furlough days.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    So prop 13 was basically a local/state revenue swap? Local revenues go down and the state has the make up the difference to fund schools etc?

    That sounds almost exactly like Texas' 2/3 cut to property taxes enacted in 2005, which for us, is as simple as a huge ongoing cost that created a structural budget deficit. I don't think it's particularly tricky for us, other than starting a slow process of several budget cycles where you spend less than the revenue you're getting to steadily offset the structural deficit(which isn't going to happen anytime soon with revenues being so terrible).

    rodq.jpg
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    You know the entire California sitch, gives me a "for want of a nail" Vibe. California's public economy is not much in a global sense, but its a big deal for California as a whole. As goes California, so goes the US and so on.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    So prop 13 was basically a local/state revenue swap? Local revenues go down and the state has the make up the difference to fund schools etc?

    That sounds almost exactly like Texas' 2/3 cut to property taxes enacted in 2005, which for us, is as simple as a huge ongoing cost that created a structural budget deficit. I don't think it's particularly tricky for us, other than starting a slow process of several budget cycles where you spend less than the revenue you're getting to steadily offset the structural deficit(which isn't going to happen anytime soon with revenues being so terrible).

    Prop 13 is a lot of different bad ideas all rolled into one big proposition. Prop 13 made it very difficult for the state legislature to increase taxes independently. Prop 13 also changed the way the property tax base was assessed in a way that has had devastating consequences for school districts, young homeowners, and for the state's general revenue fund. It also has massive distorting effects on the purchase and sale of commercial property, as well as the relative rates of taxation of various different kinds of property.

  • cheezcheez Registered User regular
    edited December 2008

    And hilariously enough, that suit was dismissed because the recount provisions only account for votes with a narrow pass/fail margin from 50%. Yay loopholes.

    /voted yes on B

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Septus wrote: »
    So prop 13 was basically a local/state revenue swap? Local revenues go down and the state has the make up the difference to fund schools etc?

    That sounds almost exactly like Texas' 2/3 cut to property taxes enacted in 2005, which for us, is as simple as a huge ongoing cost that created a structural budget deficit. I don't think it's particularly tricky for us, other than starting a slow process of several budget cycles where you spend less than the revenue you're getting to steadily offset the structural deficit(which isn't going to happen anytime soon with revenues being so terrible).

    Prop 13 is a lot of different bad ideas all rolled into one big proposition. Prop 13 made it very difficult for the state legislature to increase taxes independently. Prop 13 also changed the way the property tax base was assessed in a way that has had devastating consequences for school districts, young homeowners, and for the state's general revenue fund. It also has massive distorting effects on the purchase and sale of commercial property, as well as the relative rates of taxation of various different kinds of property.

    Basically, Prop 13 is one of the best examples of the Shock Doctrine. They used a crisis (a real estate balloon that was artificially inflating taxes, hurting seniors and other demographics) to scare people into passing a set of laws that has fundamentally crippled government in California. And they've made it that even trying to repeal these changes are near impossible.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    California and Minnesota are both bankrupt now? My two favorite states :(

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    So prop 13 was basically a local/state revenue swap? Local revenues go down and the state has the make up the difference to fund schools etc?

    That sounds almost exactly like Texas' 2/3 cut to property taxes enacted in 2005, which for us, is as simple as a huge ongoing cost that created a structural budget deficit. I don't think it's particularly tricky for us, other than starting a slow process of several budget cycles where you spend less than the revenue you're getting to steadily offset the structural deficit(which isn't going to happen anytime soon with revenues being so terrible).

    The revenue swap portion of 13 wasn't a terrible idea, at least in theory. By mitigating the amount of revenue that localities can generate, you create a situation in which the state government is pretty much expected to chip in to cover the balance. This establishes precedent for poorer areas necessarily receiving state funds, with less of a stigma, since pretty much every area, even wealthy ones, need to be on the dole to function. Localities still have a measure of autonomy, but poorer regions can be subsidized by state-level taxes from wealthier regions. In theory.

    In practice, this was hamstrung by the Herculean effort needed to actually generate the state-level revenue localities need to function. And to make up for that, we throw in a generous bond measure system that ensures money gets siphoned from state coffers and sprayed all over the damned place in an inefficient and unregulatable manner.

    Basically, take a schizophrenic with ADHD and no concept of economics and have him develop a tax/revenue system, and you'd likely get what we have in California.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.