Arnold says "you're terminated" to state employees, Controller says no

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Give me an "S"

Give me a "P"

Give me an "E"

Give me an "N"

Give me a "D"

Give me an "I"

Give me another "N"

Give me a "G"

What's that spell?

CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEM BALANCING THE BUDGET!

(sorry, forgot the "whereas")

[dd74]

WHEREAS that is an interesting summation, however is that all? Spending? Spending on what? You see, I can't hold Arnold up to any praise - straight shooter or not - for essentially firing people because California can't obtain a balanced budget. But then again, I can't fault Arnold, because it seems something has to be done.

State Controller John Chaing seems to be the wild card in this. He says there's more than enough money to balance the budget. O.K., where is it?

[cab83_750]

Again, law of relativity. Would you guys, who agree with the governor, still agree if you (your spouse, your teenage child, etc.) are part of the laid-off group?

I probably agree with the no-compassion attitude toward the copper-thief, but in this case, I suggest we all step back and think before posting our feedback on this subject.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by dd74

Why is it so hard to balance the California state budget? I just don't understand what the problem is.

"Schwarzenegger said his order was needed to avoid a financial crisis until the state passes a budget. Democratic and Republican lawmakers are divided on how to deal with a $15.2 billion deficit for the fiscal year that began a month ago.

To solve the crisis, Democratic lawmakers want to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy by about $8.2 billion, while Republicans are pushing for long-term reforms that include a spending cap and a rainy-day fund."


Well again the Liberal Democrats want to go to the well, and this is what you have to look forward to with Obama. I think the housing crisis in Nevada has just gone away...as those Corps and Wealthy ain't gona stick around.

Hey DD....guess you will JUST HAVE TO PAY MORE....cause they is talkin ABOUT U!

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by cab83_750

Again, law of relativity. Would you guys, who agree with the governor, still agree if you (your spouse, your teenage child, etc.) are part of the laid-off group?

I probably agree with the no-compassion attitude toward the copper-thief, but in this case, I suggest we all step back and think before posting our feedback on this subject.

For one, I would.

Yes, it would be a short-term setback and I'd hope there would be some sort of severance to ease the transition or transitional placement programs or whatever. It doesn't have to be painful, but it DOES have to be done. Government has gotten WAY too bloated. Clearly people won't just up-and-leave on their own and take a job in the private sector (in a lot of cases, the government jobs are too "cush"). They need an incentive. Offer to buy out who you can; if you don't get enough, you have to lay off. It's pretty simple.

Like I said above, it's all about the attitude. Yes, layoffs suck but if you approach them with the right attitude, they can result in very positive life changes and end up being one of the best things that ever happens to you.

[tabs]

There IS NO PRIVATE SECTOR for them all to be hired into. The net result for the influx of former Civil Service employees is a lower wage scale for everybody. Greater supply of labour than demand.

Civil Service has proped up wage scales in the US for decades now...

[vash]

let me chime in here:

i am one of arnold's minions. i will be the first to tell you, working for the State i see the best of people and the worst of people. some people do not work at all. basically state furnished welfare. it breaks my heart, and sometimes my spirit/moral. then there is the other side; there are those that bust their butts. great work ethics, great workmanships, accoutability, and very proactive. you have to ask yourself, "which list do you want to be on?" we dont get paid that well, compared to the private sector. i chose to supplement my monetary pay, with payment to my credibility. my name and reputation, in my Department means just as much as my pay. i am developing a reputation as "the cleaner". i take projects, running overtime,and over budget, and i get them finished. i have great job satisfaction. i am modeling myself after my boss. he is so hard working. he has the pulse of the project down pat. with his skills he choses to stay, and work for less. he can go anywhere.

with this pay delay, i will see some of my co-workers go under. that aint good. but people love to see a disaster. these are real people affected by this.

there needs to be a mechanism to trim the needless fat. not easy in the public sector. my office is half consultants and half state employees. we are tunneling, so we have many foreign engineers. i would say that the state workers are the harder working people. (the good ones) we bust butt.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Enterpreneurship. Consulting. Whatever. The ones that approach it as an OPPORTUNITY will do well. The ones that have gone through life in their own little world consisting of only their jobs, their McMansion, SUV and 2.2 kids will be the ones who are caught deer-in-headlights and end up whining about it.

I'm not wishing it on myself at all (because it would suck in the short-term) but if I were ever laid off, I'd see it as an OPPORTUNITY to do all the things that being forced to work my j.o.b. 8-12 hours a day gets in the way of (like getting my own practice going, like getting into the markets more, like taking a few personal enrichment classes, like getting my backlog of filing and stuff to do at home, etc. etc. etc.)

I don't know about you guys, but honestly if I didn't have to work (and assuming I had just enough $$$ coming in to cover basic expenses from unemployment or wherever else) I could EASILY keep myself busy for 6-9 months until I started getting bored.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Another side note: Anyone who's budgeted THAT tight and is living paycheck-to-paycheck brings it on themselves. That's just stupid.

[tabs]

Don't you Boyz get it...the day of reckoning is upon us. The United States since 1967 has been burning the candle at both ends. That policy will only end when there is NO MORE MONEY left.

[VaSteve]

Originally Posted by vash

let me chime in here:

i am one of arnold's minions. i will be the first to tell you, working for the State i see the best of people and the worst of people. some people do not work at all. basically state furnished welfare. it breaks my heart, and sometimes my spirit/moral. then there is the other side; there are those that bust their butts. great work ethics, great workmanships, accoutability, and very proactive. you have to ask yourself, "which list do you want to be on?" we dont get paid that well, compared to the private sector. i chose to supplement my monetary pay, with payment to my credibility. my name and reputation, in my Department means just as much as my pay. i am developing a reputation as "the cleaner". i take projects, running overtime,and over budget, and i get them finished. i have great job satisfaction. i am modeling myself after my boss. he is so hard working. he has the pulse of the project down pat. with his skills he choses to stay, and work for less. he can go anywhere.

Yup. I just left my job as a consultant to the gov't for an actual gov't job. I took a job that had been unfilled for a long time. The vacation is over for my staff.

I probably work harder than I have to given the mess things are in but I wanted that experience. If I break a couple eggs trying to get something done, I can go back to consulting. Most of my staff has let their skills atrophy horribly.

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Enterpreneurship. Consulting. Whatever. The ones that approach it as an OPPORTUNITY will do well. The ones that have gone through life in their own little world consisting of only their jobs, their McMansion, SUV and 2.2 kids will be the ones who are caught deer-in-headlights and end up whining about it.

I'm not wishing it on myself at all (because it would suck in the short-term) but if I were ever laid off, I'd see it as an OPPORTUNITY to do all the things that being forced to work my j.o.b. 8-12 hours a day gets in the way of (like getting my own practice going, like getting into the markets more, like taking a few personal enrichment classes, like getting my backlog of filing and stuff to do at home, etc. etc. etc.)

I don't know about you guys, but honestly if I didn't have to work (and assuming I had just enough $$$ coming in to cover basic expenses from unemployment or wherever else) I could EASILY keep myself busy for 6-9 months until I started getting bored.

P-O-P, what exactly do you do? Really, you have the most negative, judgemental condescending attitude all the time. How could you possibly be that busy at work either... amassing some 13,000 posts here many of them loooong.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

How is that condescending? All I'm saying is that how one deals with the occasional setback in life is ATTITUDE. Obviously some will do better with their travail than others will. Some of it comes down to exposure (my example of the people walking around with blinders on and going through life in a daze, or those budgeted to $0.99 of every $1.00). Some of it comes down to preparation (people who have saved up, kept their skills sharp, etc. versus those who didn't). Some will come down to attitude (very important) and some will come down to simple dumb luck.

All I'm saying is yes, it will not be pleasant (short-term) for the people affected. That part is unfortunate. Nobody likes their little world shaken up, however this is a simple case of "greater good" needs being put before individual ones and frankly, once the initial shock/disappointment wears off, perhaps some folks could see it as an opportunity to end up better off for it.

When life deals you a setback you can either whine about it or you can make lemons into lemonade.

Don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but if it were me, I'd see having my resources freed up as a POSITIVE thing. It'd be good in some respects to be unburdened by having to sit at work 12 hours a day wasting my time making someone else rich for my efforts. My plan is eventually to go on my own; in my case it would be a kick in the butt possibly.

One thing's for sure - I wouldn't let it get me down, nor would I mope about it. I have no doubt I could be earning money again in very short order. Perhaps some of these folks should try looking at it that way?



If I've learned nothing else in life, it's that life is ultimately what YOU make it. YOU control your own destiny unless you LET someone else do it for you. It's a choice. I'm actually trying hard in my own life to seize control back over the parts that I've let "slip away" unintentionally over the years too. That little aphorism is probably applicable (and good advice) for anyone - me included.

[BeyGon]

40% of the workforce in California is employed by the government, 60% of them are worthless. Just look at CalTrans as a case in point. Everything they do could be done better and quicker by a privatee firm.
They get paid equivalent to private sector but get enormous benefits. At the same time do nothing. Once you work for the Gov. you are there for life. Arnie won't be able to get rid of anyone. Nice try Arnie.
Every state worker you talk to says those "other" state workers are worthless but I work my but off. Yeah sure.
OK, 60% is a guess. Could be more.

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by cab83_750

Would you guys, who agree with the governor, still agree if you (your spouse, your teenage child, etc.) are part of the laid-off group?

Yes.

I believe the average civil servant is a lazy shmuck. We (the government of California) spend far too much on waste. If there's a budget deficit, the solution is not to increase revenue/taxes, but, rather, to trim the spending. So let's start getting rid of our bureaucracy. One was is to make people work to keep their jobs (wow, what an interesting concept). Don't work, ya get canned.

[jyl]

Where did you get that 40% number? "40% of the workforce in California is employed by the government"

According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2006 California had 426 state and local employees per every 10,000 residents.

California had 486 state and local full-time equivalent employees per 10,000
residents in 2006 compared to the national average of 539. http://www.ccsce.com/pdf/Numbers-mar07-govt-employees.pdf

So, it seems pretty clear that your statement is false.

When we make posts here, do you think we have an obligation to be truthful? To check our facts? Or is it okay to make misrepresentations and false statements? Should we think of your posts as simply fiction/fantasy, and any purported fact as simply whatever you decided to make up?

Note: Some other info/sources on the number of government employees in California, and the increase/decrease trends.
http://www.californiacityfinance.com/state_v_city_empl.pdf
http://www.dpa.ca.gov/job-info/workforce/main.htm

Originally Posted by BeyGon

40% of the workforce in California is employed by the government, 60% of them are worthless. Just look at CalTrans as a case in point. Everything they do could be done better and quicker by a privatee firm.
They get paid equivalent to private sector but get enormous benefits. At the same time do nothing. Once you work for the Gov. you are there for life. Arnie won't be able to get rid of anyone. Nice try Arnie.
Every state worker you talk to says those "other" state workers are worthless but I work my but off. Yeah sure.
OK, 60% is a guess. Could be more.

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by jyl

Where did you get that 40% number? "40% of the workforce in California is employed by the government"

According to the US Census Bureau, as of 2006 California had 426 state and local employees per every 10,000 residents.

California had 486 state and local full-time equivalent employees per 10,000
residents in 2006 compared to the national average of 539. http://www.ccsce.com/pdf/Numbers-mar07-govt-employees.pdf

So, it seems pretty clear that your statement is false.

When we make posts here, do you think we have an obligation to be truthful? To check our facts? Or is it okay to make misrepresentations and false statements? Should we think of your posts as simply fiction/fantasy, and any purported fact as simply whatever you decided to make up?

Note: Some other info/sources on the number of government employees in California, and the increase/decrease trends.
http://www.californiacityfinance.com/state_v_city_empl.pdf
http://www.dpa.ca.gov/job-info/workforce/main.htm

I will look that up for you again when I get home this afternoon,
Employed by the Government
City, County, State, Schools, DMV, Forrest Service, Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire, Elected, CalTrans, and Military.

[vash]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

Just look at CalTrans as a case in point. Everything they do could be done better and quicker by a privatee firm.
They get paid equivalent to private sector but get enormous benefits. At the same time do nothing.

where do you get this info? are you a consultant in the state? you are wrong. i am on a great bridge project. just about to finish it up. on time, on budget..(the bridge anyways). my super-professor-like bridge designer, kevin, also designed another bridge, up north, going over the eel river. essentially the same bridge. we call it our "sister" project. it is run by a super huge, mega engineering firm. not a single state engineer up there. kevin is having fits with the eel river project. they are not using crucial admixtures in concrete mixes, not taking test for pre-stress steel activities, and just crappy management. those engineers double my salary. CT management wants to take my entire team, pay us per-diem and move us up there to finish take over the project. i hope i dont have to go.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by BeyGon

I will look that up for you again when I get home this afternoon,
Employed by the Government
City, County, State, Schools, DMV, Forrest Service, Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire, Elected, CalTrans, and Military.

Here is some more info.

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/Calmr.pdf
California labor force is 18.4MM people.
Total employment is 17.2MM.
Total government employment is 2.6MM.

If you are interested in seeing California employment by industry, down to the most detailed NAICS codes, start here:
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?PAGEID=94

Here is an online data lookup tool:
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/AreaSelection.asp?tableName=ces

And here are the NAICS codes, but you don't need them to work the data lookup tool:
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02.htm

Using the data lookup tool, I summed employment for all federal govt, all state govt, all local govt, primary/secondary school, college/junior college, university/professional school. I get 2.7MM. Close enough to the 2.6MM figure.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Those stats were put together by government employees so they must be wrong.

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by vash

where do you get this info? are you a consultant in the state? you are wrong. i am on a great bridge project. just about to finish it up. on time, on budget..(the bridge anyways). my super-professor-like bridge designer, kevin, also designed another bridge, up north, going over the eel river. essentially the same bridge. we call it our "sister" project. it is run by a super huge, mega engineering firm. not a single state engineer up there. kevin is having fits with the eel river project. they are not using crucial admixtures in concrete mixes, not taking test for pre-stress steel activities, and just crappy management. those engineers double my salary. CT management wants to take my entire team, pay us per-diem and move us up there to finish take over the project. i hope i dont have to go.

Years of working around CalTrans, my friends that worked for CalTrans, we see it differently. Sorry you are having trouble with one bridge, I never see CalTrans as worthwhile.
Like I have said before, everyone that works for the State says they do real good work but those other guys are slackers. Somebody has to be wrong.