Furlough tussles between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and various interests are keeping the courts and a legion of lawyers busy. More than 20 lawsuits are challenging the policy, which cuts state workers' hours and pay by 14 percent each month. Unions, doctors, a couple of state agencies and an independent employee group have sued Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger has been on the attack, too.

Here are the legal arguments in various furlough lawsuits now pending.

Unions v. Schwarzenegger

THE ARGUMENT

• The governor's "state of emergency" declaration, the basis for his furlough order, is illegal. State worker salary changes need legislative approval.

• Furloughs are "arbitrary and irrational" because they include workers whose pay doesn't come from the state's deficit-ridden general fund.

• Furloughs violate a state law against staff cutbacks at the quasi-public State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF).

• Furloughs violate collective bargaining agreements' "evergreen clause" that says expired contracts remain in force until new deals are approved.

• Furloughs illegally cut pay for employees who must work on "Furlough Fridays" because of understaffing. Their wages get cut but getting compensatory time off by June 2012 won't happen.

THE RESPONSE

• Legislative inaction on the budget created an emergency that forced the furlough order. State law and union contracts give the governor power to temporarily reduce employees' work hours.

• Most departments get some general fund money. Parsing furloughs by fund is impractical and unfair to workers. "Special fund" agencies must run lean so the general fund can borrow from them.

• "Staff cutbacks," which reduce the number of employees, aren't the same as furloughs, which reduce hours.

• Those contracts have language that the governor says gives him wiggle room to furlough workers in a fiscal emergency.

• Furloughs reduce hours worked, not pay. And the government has plans in place to assure that employees use all their furlough hours.

WHAT'S NEXT

• A Sacramento Superior Court judge sided with the governor on Jan. 29. Furloughs started in February. The unions are appealing.

• Cases making this argument are set for a Nov. 16 hearing in Alameda Superior Court.

• Schwarzenegger has lost twice and is appealing. The decisions applied only to about 8,000 state SCIF workers.

• Several lawsuits make this argument. The appeal of the Jan. 29 decision in Sacramento's 3rd District Court of Appeal is the trailblazing case to watch.

• The correctional officers' union is the force behind this lawsuit in Alameda Superior Court. It is one of several set for hearing on Nov. 16.

CalPERS v. Schwarzenegger

THE ARGUMENT

• Furloughs drag down CalPERS' push to rebound from severe investment losses – and that jeopardizes the rights of retirees.

THE RESPONSE

• The governor hasn't responded in court to this argument. CalPERS filed its lawsuit in August.

WHAT'S NEXT

• CalPERS continues to furlough its employees but wants out from the governor's order.

Schwarzenegger v. union

THE ARGUMENT

• State engineers' union can't file a grievance on the governor's furlough power, because it is in court on the question.

THE RESPONSE

• The grievance isn't about executive authority. It's about whether furloughs breach the union's contract.

WHAT'S NEXT

• The union wants the case arbitrated rather than litigated. The governor is fighting that. No hearing date is set.

Schwarzenegger v. constitutional officers

THE ARGUMENT

• Governor's authority includes state workers working for officials elected to statewide independent constitutional offices such as attorney general, treasurer and controller.

THE RESPONSE

• "Constitutionals" say that they're free to handle employee staffing as they see fit because they're independent officers. They're saving money in other ways.

WHAT'S NEXT

• The case is with the 3rd District Court of Appeal. No hearing date is set. The constitutionals still aren't furloughing some 15,000 employees.