Well, it is official now. The Sacramento County Superior Court ruled on Gilb v. Chiang, giving the Governor the authority to order the state controller to reduce state employees’ wages to the minimum wage level during a budget impasse. I’ve blogged on this topic, almost ad naseum, because it’s one of the few bright spots that’s come out of the state’s fiscal mess.
The Judge upheld his tentative ruling today and has now clarified the law, it a legal obligation for the Controller to reduce or not pay the salaries of state employees during a budget impasse. The Court also weighed in on the computer issue that Chiang used as a flimsy excuse for why he’s unable to implement that type of order- taking a subtle shot at the Controller’s motives for not estimating when the project will be completed, saying “Although the project has stalled and the Controller’s Office currently is unable (or unwilling) to estimate when it will be completed, the Court is not persuaded the 21st Century Project (or a similar project) cannot be funded and completed before the next budget impasse.”
I don’t want to overstate things, but I believe this dramatically changes the budget process. Anytime the budget goes late, the Governor can reduce state workers pay, which will ramp up the pressure on Democratic lawmakers from the state employee unions to get a budget done. By keeping up the pressure in the courts to clarify this issue, the Governor and his legal team, have placed an enormous tool in the hand of future Republican Governors and legislators to cut costs and avoid tax increase. Once again, this is a big victory for taxpayers, and another loss for the Unions and their tool, Controller Chiang.
Ironically, for my part, this ruling, combined with last week’s announcement by the Legislative Analyst that even if the Governor’s Ballot Propositions pass, there would be an $8 billion deficit for California government, there is an argument for rejecting the May ballot propositions, knowing that this new leverage over the public employee unions will force them do make some real concessions, which did not come out of the unfortunate February big budget/big taxes/open primary deal.
Well, it is official now. The Sacramento County Superior Court ruled on Gilb v. Chiang, giving the Governor the authority to order the state controller to reduce state employees’ wages to the minimum wage level during a budget impasse. I’ve blogged on this topic, almost ad naseum, because it’s one of the few bright spots that’s come out of the state’s fiscal mess.
The Judge upheld his tentative ruling today and has now clarified the law, it a legal obligation for the Controller to reduce or not pay the salaries of state employees during a budget impasse. The Court also weighed in on the computer issue that Chiang used as a flimsy excuse for why he’s unable to implement that type of order- taking a subtle shot at the Controller’s motives for not estimating when the project will be completed, saying “Although the project has stalled and the Controller’s Office currently is unable (or unwilling) to estimate when it will be completed, the Court is not persuaded the 21st Century Project (or a similar project) cannot be funded and completed before the next budget impasse.”
I don’t want to overstate things, but I believe this dramatically changes the budget process. Anytime the budget goes late, the Governor can reduce state workers pay, which will ramp up the pressure on Democratic lawmakers from the state employee unions to get a budget done. By keeping up the pressure in the courts to clarify this issue, the Governor and his legal team, have placed an enormous tool in the hand of future Republican Governors and legislators to cut costs and avoid tax increase. Once again, this is a big victory for taxpayers, and another loss for the Unions and their tool, Controller Chiang.
Ironically, for my part, this ruling, combined with last week’s announcement by the Legislative Analyst that even if the Governor’s Ballot Propositions pass, there would be an $8 billion deficit for California government, there is an argument for rejecting the May ballot propositions, knowing that this new leverage over the public employee unions will force them do make some real concessions, which did not come out of the unfortunate February big budget/big taxes/open primary deal.