The bill that would force you to take a 5 percent pay cut through 16 forced-furlough days hit a wall of opposition in its first Senate hearing Tuesday (Jan. 19) with the Federation leading the way.
Federation Executive Director Greg Devereux said state employees had already given up the equivalent of 4 percent in pay.
“This legislation (Senate Bill 6503) would take that to 9 percent per state employee,” Devereux told the Senate Ways and Means Committee. “Few jurisdictions around the country have taken health care and wage cuts.”
King County enacted furloughs but also pay increases and those furlough days will be returned in 2010 and 2011, he said.
The bill has some exemptions, for instance for institutions, Child Protective Services and corrections.
“The disparate treatment between furloughed and furloughed exempt employees invites lawsuits,” Devereux said. He noted a judge in California recently struck down the Sunshine State’s furlough program.
“When you add the 3,000 layoffs and $300 million in pension diversion to the aforementioned cuts, I think it is obvious that state employees have done their share and it’s time to look at shared sacrifice,” Devereux said.
“There are 567 tax exemptions in this state totaling $96 billion. Fourteen billion dollars of that is easily accessible. The governor in her budget only talked about $55 million out of $14 billion. I think if state employees are taking the cut here, it’s time to look at tax exemptions on a temporary basis and look at an overall revenue solution.”
Devereux’s testimony sparked a testy retort from the committee’s ranking Republican member, Sen. Joseph Zarelli of the 18th District.
Zarelli has launched a number of attacks against state employee pay and benefits, including step increases, in recent weeks.
He told Devereux the pension cuts did not hit state employees in the pocketbook and pooh poohed the suggestion that state employees have sacrificed to help rebuild our economy.
“When is not getting a pay increase getting a pay cut?” Zarelli said. “There’s a lot of people across the state who saw no pay increase. In fact have seen significant pay decreases and the loss of jobs. To equate (that) as participating in solving our budget problem I would not look at those in the same fashion.”
Devereux respectfully disagreed.
“Diverting $300 million that should have gone into the pension fund this year as you know will substantially drive up the cost in later years and put incredible pressure on the pension system, which will lead to a Plan 4, a Plan 5, which is a diminution from the current pension system, so I think that is taking away from state employees,” Devereux said.
“Secondly, state employees across the board started last biennium 14 percent behind the private sector. So to take away a 2 percent wage increase that doesn’t even make up the pay gap that exists I would say is taking away from state employees.”
Of the more than a dozen others who testified, no one spoke in favor of SB 6503. The strongest opposition came from higher education, nurses and wheat and cattle producers who rely on state inspectors and would by stymied if they were laid off one day a month. Even the governor’s budget office raised concerns about the level of possible savings and other “unintended consequences,” such as Department of Transportation Highway Maintenance, which is not explicitly exempted in the bill.
PARKS MEMBERS OPPOSE BILL TO REPLACE STAFF WITH VOLUNTEER PARK HOSTS
“There are 567 tax exemptions in this state totaling $96 billion. Fourteen billion dollars of that is easily accessible. The governor in her budget only talked about $55 million out of $14 billion. I think if state employees are taking the cut here, it’s time to look at tax exemptions on a temporary basis and look at an overall revenue solution.”
Devereux’s testimony sparked a testy retort from the committee’s ranking Republican member, Sen. Joseph Zarelli of the 18th District.
Zarelli has launched a number of attacks against state employee pay and benefits, including step increases, in recent weeks.
He told Devereux the pension cuts did not hit state employees in the pocketbook and pooh poohed the suggestion that state employees have sacrificed to help rebuild our economy.
“When is not getting a pay increase getting a pay cut?” Zarelli said. “There’s a lot of people across the state who saw no pay increase. In fact have seen significant pay decreases and the loss of jobs. To equate (that) as participating in solving our budget problem I would not look at those in the same fashion.”
Devereux respectfully disagreed.
“Diverting $300 million that should have gone into the pension fund this year as you know will substantially drive up the cost in later years and put incredible pressure on the pension system, which will lead to a Plan 4, a Plan 5, which is a diminution from the current pension system, so I think that is taking away from state employees,” Devereux said.
“Secondly, state employees across the board started last biennium 14 percent behind the private sector. So to take away a 2 percent wage increase that doesn’t even make up the pay gap that exists I would say is taking away from state employees.”
Of the more than a dozen others who testified, no one spoke in favor of SB 6503. The strongest opposition came from higher education, nurses and wheat and cattle producers who rely on state inspectors and would by stymied if they were laid off one day a month. Even the governor’s budget office raised concerns about the level of possible savings and other “unintended consequences,” such as Department of Transportation Highway Maintenance, which is not explicitly exempted in the bill.
PARKS MEMBERS OPPOSE BILL TO REPLACE STAFF WITH VOLUNTEER PARK HOSTS
Statewide Parks Local 1466 activists Brian Yearout and Don Hall on Tuesday opposed House Bill 2333, the bill recruiting voluntary park hosts to possibly replace park rangers and other staff.
Hall (left) and Yearout.
Hall (left) and Yearout.
The bill came before the House Ecology and Parks Committee. It aims to recruit more voluntary park hosts. But it would require those volunteers to work eight hours a day (instead of the current four), solicit monetary donations from campers and, worst, supplant bargaining unit staff.
“Park hosts are volunteers, many of them retirees,” Yearout said. “They help and assist campers and give a lot of tender loving care. But they are not trained in how to run a park, including all aspects of programming, maintenance and law enforcement.
“To allow the use of park hosts to replace trained staff sets the state up for huge liability problems and would actually lower the quality of services for the public.”
HB 2333 appears to professionalize volunteer hosts and undercut the current “opt out” funding plan by soliciting donations from campers, Hall told the committee.
“Most hosts are retired and would not warm to becoming full-time employees,” Hall said.
VALIDITY OF CONSULTANTS REPORT CLOSING RHCS RAISED AT HOUSE HEARING
“Most hosts are retired and would not warm to becoming full-time employees,” Hall said.
VALIDITY OF CONSULTANTS REPORT CLOSING RHCS RAISED AT HOUSE HEARING
The House Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee heard all sides of the consultants’ recommendation to close Frances Haddon Morgan Center and Rainier School.
Federation Executive Director Greg Devereux and Local 1326 President Julianne Moore made up a panel at the Tuesday morning work session.
Devereux (left) and Moore.
Devereux (left) and Moore.
The report came about in 2009 because of a last-minute budget proviso that had very little thought behind it, Devereux said.
There was no analysis on the capacity for the community to absorb those released from residential habilitation centers, he said. The report did not look at flaws in non-state community-based programs and did not take into account the growing demand for the kind of services provided to those with autism by the Morgan Center, Devereux said.
Moore said RHCs are homes for its residents and not the 1940s stereotype of institutions spread by opponents.
Some community programs can’t serve needs, so moving residents only sets them up for failure, she said.
CAPITOL NUGGETS YOU SHOULD KNOW
Nugget No. 1. The bill that would have frozen pay for a wide number of higher paid, exempt employees has been replaced by a substitute that simply extends the current ban on salary and wage increases for exempt and Washington Management Service (WMS) employees. Substitute Senate Bill 6382 was introduced Tuesday in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
CAPITOL NUGGETS YOU SHOULD KNOW
Nugget No. 1. The bill that would have frozen pay for a wide number of higher paid, exempt employees has been replaced by a substitute that simply extends the current ban on salary and wage increases for exempt and Washington Management Service (WMS) employees. Substitute Senate Bill 6382 was introduced Tuesday in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Nugget No. 2. But over in the House, HB 2998 was introduced today that would suspend special lump sum recognition pay and “growth and development” increases for those in Washington Management Service. The bill came from a bipartisan trio of legislators: Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-26th Dist.; Rep. Mike Armstrong, R-12th Dist.; and Rep. Sam Hunt, D-22nd Dist.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment