Well, here's another one.
The California Association of Psychiatric Technicians has filed a lawsuit against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger over his furlough policy. The union, which represents about 7,000 state workers, filed this document in Sacramento Superior Court.
CAPT makes three arguments against Schwarzenegger's furlough policy:
The furloughs violate California Labor Code Section 212. Furlough days are entirely unpaid, which CAPT says makes them illegal under Section 212. Psych techs are being paid for 32 hours out of a 40-hour workweek (many have to work the unpaid day due to staffing shortages), which also violates the code. (Click here and scroll down the page to read Labor Code Section 212.)
Departments aren't following Schwarzenegger's executive order that requires employees to take unpaid furlough days off work. Since management regularly denies requests for furlough time off to maintain legally adequate staffing, departments are violating the governor's court-approved order.
Schwarzenegger's third furlough day violates collective bargaining law. When lawmakers said no to the governor's 5-percent pay-cut plan, he went ahead with the third furlough day. But CAPT says that move was a salary reduction that violates Government Code Section 19826(b). We've experienced trouble linking to the appropriate page, so we pasted the text into the blog. Click the link below to read it.
There's no date set yet for a hearing in this matter.
CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 19824-19838
19826. (a) The department shall establish and adjust salary ranges
for each class of position in the state civil service subject to any
merit limits contained in Article VII of the California Constitution.
The salary range shall be based on the principle that like salaries
shall be paid for comparable duties and responsibilities. In
establishing or changing these ranges, consideration shall be given
to the prevailing rates for comparable service in other public
employment and in private business. The department shall make no
adjustments that require expenditures in excess of existing
appropriations that may be used for salary increase purposes. The
department may make a change in salary range retroactive to the date
of application of this change.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the department
shall not establish, adjust, or recommend a salary range for any
employees in an appropriate unit where an employee organization has
been chosen as the exclusive representative pursuant to Section
3520.5.
(c) At least six months before the end of the term of an existing
memorandum of understanding or immediately upon the reopening of
negotiations under an existing memorandum of understanding, the
department shall submit to the parties meeting and conferring
pursuant to Section 3517 and to the Legislature, a report containing
the department's findings relating to the salaries of employees in
comparable occupations in private industry and other governmental
agencies.
(d) If the provisions of this section are in conflict with the
provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to
Section 3517.5, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling
without further legislative action, except that if the provisions of
a memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of funds, the
provisions shall not become effective unless approved by the
Legislature in the annual Budget Act.
The Author
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.