Secrets of the City

Doesn’t it really amount to 2 months unpaid — one each year? 24 days is about what you’d work per month if you’re doing 5 days a week.

You’re probably right. I’m innumerate.

Yes. That really means 2 months of unpaid leave each year. People love to get on board the state employee bashing train (see comments to the Startrib article) so let’s run some numbers and see what that means for state employees. The average MAPE and AFSCME state employee makes about $17 per hour for a total of $38,080.

A forced leave of 24 days means a $3264 pay cut each year. After two years, that employee will be earning $31,552. Not to mention the wage freeze for two years and sky rocketing health care costs. That will add further deductions.

Let’s fix the economy on the backs of one group of employees. Oh yeah and the managers of each division get to pick and choose who has to take furlough, so it’ll be a popularity contest to boot.

(via PiPress) The unions condemned the proposed furlough. In updates to members, both called it a “bomb.”

In honor of that particular choice of words, I give you an old photo of some “nose cone” art from a World War II warbird.

Here’s a furlough that looks more fun:

What the jesus is with you people and math? State Employee, if you get cut $3264 each year, and you get paid $38,080 per year, then after two years, you’ll have earned $63,104. Or do you only get paid an annual salary once every two years?

And HOLY GOD, it’s not “2 months of unpaid leave each year” it’s 24 days each year. Or do you have it that good that you only work 24 days every two months?

Now I can’t even sympathize with your situation, because you obviously should be fired.

I think State Employee meant after two years the persons annual salary would be $31,552.

Also, I think State Employee meant that, in conjunction with other cost-cutting measures like the wage freeze, it would equal two-months per year.

I could be wrong but at least I’m not an asshole like Anonymous John.

Wow, weird timing: I was just talking to someone that brought up how much of an asshole you are, Bixby. So I guess you’re wrong on both accounts.

Well, State Employee wasn’t me. I didn’t get on here until late in the game.

But, this isn’t going to happen. We will probably end up with 12 or less days a year unpaid. It will suck, but it won’t be a big deal. And the employee will be able to chose which days.

But the biggest problem with it is that we are currently understaffed in many areas because we have had perpetual hiring freezes the last couple years, including right now. Then force people to take days off, on top of their vacations time which they are allowed, and we have big shortages of staff. Shortages big enough to delay services and, in some places, put people in danger (like the public or people in our many institutions.)

The “advantage” of the furlough is that it doesn’t affect your actual pay rate. So, in two years, when, theoretically the furlough program is ended and you get those hours back, the state employee’s pay will bounce back to where it was. Depending on negotiations, step increases and such could also remain in place.

In that sense, it comes across as a stop gap, gimmicky accounting shuffle that does nothing to address any structural issues.

I get the sense that a lot of us at the U would take furloughs over layoffs, but it’s going to be layoffs.

P.S. I know I would.

Wow, anonymous john, you probably were key in getting me kicked off that trivia team. I was just talking to someone about how you can eat a bowl of dicks.

Mmm, delicious!

Hey, wait, you got kicked off of a trivia team? For being wrong all the time or for being an asshole? Either way, you’ve confirmed my point quite well.

Bix is OK at trivia and a fine trivia partner.

Stop it or I start deleting comments. Discuss people’s points, not their personalities.

Uh oh, dad’s mad.

Sorry, Max.

Yes, I’d rather be furloughed than laid off, or have lay offs (I have the least seniority in my job class, so being laid off is very possible), but the state isn’t saying furloughs instead of layoffs. They are saying furloughs and some may still be laid off. What’s the point of that?

And how about doing some optional things first? I have a few coworkers who would love to go to part time, but aren’t allowed to. Allow sabbaticals and see if people are interested. Early retirements are great too, people will take them.

But no, jump straight to 48 days without pay over two years. That’s how to win friends.

I get the sense that a lot of us at the U would take furloughs over layoffs, but it’s going to be layoffs.

The thing is, the layoffs in the private sector are largely because the the demand for products and services is dropping.

Not so with government services. Those are staying steady or increasing as private sector employment drops.

But no, jump straight to 48 days without pay over two years. That’s how to win friends.

If the friends your tryingt owin are Pat Toomey, Grover Norquist, David Strom, Jason Lewis, and Mitch Perlstein, yeah, that is the way.

I would love to see T-Paw cut off his nose to spite his face. Maybe he should take the lead and furlough himself for 48 days?

With the economy and the job market so bad, most people feel lucky to have a paycheck, even if it is a reduced one. Not much the employees can do about this. With so many workers laid off, the demand for public service can be higher than before. Cutting state employees off doesn’t sound like a good idea.

I like what noodleman says.

I have been a state employee and I am a University employee.

What thoughts came to me when I heard this suggestion are these things:

> State employees take pay freezes all the time, deal with hiring freezes & increased work loads, and are in a panic about being laid off every legislative session…at least in the last 10 years. Many also earn less than the market rate for their work in exchange for nice benefits (which have also been on the chopping block). I worked at the much debated Department of Human Services, the biggest department, and every year we were holding our breath and waiting to be cut, wondering when the cuts would stop.

> Oh boy, here comes the public agreeing and ripping on government employees.

> A loss in a months pay means a lot to a family, it means big sacrifice.

> T-Paw state that he wanted the U to make cuts and not raise tuition so that the deficit is not paid for by the backs of MN families. Most state workers ARE MN families- not cyborgs or cylons, some are from Wisconsin or other states. How is this any different?

> How does cutting income to the staff of the biggest employer in the state help to stimulate our economy?

> There is surely waste and room for change or cuts, lay-offs are awful, but perhaps it is better to take from the few rather than the many. (I really need to see stats on how many jobs these unpaid days would save.)

> What about the Governor and the Department Commissioners taking a pay cut? And then another?

> What about organizations and companies that the state contracts out to to do work; do they take unpaid time too?

Wish wish wish that the first people who feel the direct effects of any cuts are the people who mandated and support the cuts.

I know. It’s just a pipe dream.

I am a state employee, with all of 3 years under my belt. In a perfect world, with a standard contract in place come July 1, 2009, I would finally be earning the rate I was paid when I began a career in MN in the private sector – back in 1996.

As for how much of the budget is involved here. My understanding is that state employee salaries (perhaps including benefits) amounts to about 2%, yes – 2%, of the state’s budget, with a substantial amount going to senior and executive level incomes.