Why did unions agree to California state worker pay cuts? Court ruling set blueprint
A failed union lawsuit from a decade ago drove the speedy dealmaking that produced state worker pay cuts taking effect this month, according to several state union leaders.
Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on May 14 that he wanted to cut state pay to help close a projected $54 billion budget deficit caused by the economic fallout of the coronavirus. By July 1, all but one state union had agreed to reductions.
Unlike past state pay cuts, there were no lawsuits, no demonstrations and few public accusations.
The reductions affect a broader swath of workers than even former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s furloughs, which exempted Highway Patrol officers, firefighters and some revenue-generating offices.
The agreements use a personal leave program to reduce pay. The program reduces most workers’ pay by up to about three-quarters of what they make in two days of work, and in exchange, workers receive two days off to use at their discretion.
The pay cuts are less onerous than Schwarzenegger’s, and Newsom enjoys a better rapport with state unions than did the Republican governor.
But several union leaders said a 2010 state Supreme Court ruling decided the matter.
“No matter who the administration was, we would never have said, ‘yeah let’s do this,’ ever, unless that legal backdrop was there,” said Carrie Lane, chief executive officer of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. “My obligation is to my members, regardless of how I feel about a particular administration.”
The state engineers’ union, the attorneys’ union and others joined together in a lawsuit during the Great Recession challenging Schwarzenegger’s authority to unilaterally impose furloughs. The suit reached the state’s highest court after appeals.
In an October 2010 ruling, the court agreed the governor can’t unilaterally impose furloughs, even during an emergency. But in a surprise twist, the court ruled the Legislature had tacitly approved the governor’s furloughs by signing off on a budget that included savings from the pay reductions.
The court’s ruling indirectly addressed another question hanging in the background: Whether the Legislature has the authority to withhold raises promised in signed union contracts.
The Ralph C. Dills Act, the state’s collective bargaining law for public employees, gives the Legislature authority to approve labor spending each year. But the state has traditionally honored existing contract agreements.
“Had that Supreme Court decision not been there, we might have looked at other avenues,” said Tim Edwards, president of Cal Fire Local 2881.
For the court’s decision to apply, the Legislature had to get behind Newsom’s approach to the cuts. Newsom’s proposal promised two furlough days per month for any workers whose unions didn’t negotiate agreements.
Senate and Assembly leaders at first took a softer approach than that, encouraging state unions to sit down and bargain with Newsom’s team while declining to force furloughs absent agreements.
None of the unions signed agreements with Newsom’s administration under those terms. The unions were waiting to see what the final budget would say.
When the Legislature’s final budget proposal came out in June, it had been revised to adopt Newsom’s approach. A rush of bargaining followed.
“That was what broke the dam for most of us,” said Lane, of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. “We thought, ‘OK, we’ll sit down and have the conversation now.’ It became a pretty quick process after that.”
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, representing about 28,000 correctional officers, was the first to reach an agreement, followed by SEIU Local 1000, which represents about 100,000 workers ranging from nurses and office administrators to IT specialists and custodians.
Agreements with Professional Engineers in California Government and the International Union of Operating Engineers followed, along with others.
“I think the threat of imposing something more harmful on the groups is probably what helped people make the decisions they made,” said Steve Crouch, director of public employees for the International Union of Operating Engineers.
The union represents two groups of workers. One of the groups, made up of about 900 HVAC specialists, was the one that didn’t reach an agreement by the July 1 deadline. The state Human Resources Department sent the union a furlough notice but hasn’t released any additional details.
Newsom’s administration has estimated the personal leave program would save $2.8 billion per year, and that withholding planned raises would add to the savings.
“The bottom line is once they have agreed to potentially impose, it’s best to sit down and try to work it out,” said Peter Flores, president of California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment. “And for us, we’re trying to keep a good, collaborative relationship with the Governor’s Office.”
Some of the agreements required membership votes, others didn’t. Several agreements have already been ratified.
“Our members were well informed, well educated, we made sure to bring them through this process with us,” said Bianca Petzold, staff director of the California Association of Professional Scientists. “When it came down to ‘here’s what we were able to negotiate,’ the membership very much via voting let us know they supported us.”
This story was originally published July 15, 2020 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Why did unions agree to California state worker pay cuts? Court ruling set blueprint."