Morning Read: Another wave of state job cuts looming in July
by Brian Mann on June 9th, 2011
As we’ve observed here many times, the North Country is particularly susceptible to the winds of fortune in Albany. State jobs are a mainstay of the region’s economy.
The Albany Times-Union is reporting this morning that Governor Andrew Cuomo is setting July 15th as the target date to lay off as many as 9,8oo workers. But we could know much sooner which positions are set to be cut.
[A]ccording to a memo obtained by the Times Union…starting Monday, specific jobs slated for layoff will be declared agency-by-agency by the state Budget Division so that individuals in those positions who have greater seniority have the option of transferring to jobs that are not planned for elimination.
The lay-offs are slated to happen in waves, and it appears that the governor is using this threat as part of his negotiations with public employee unions.
Cuomo has demanded $450 million in salary and benefit concessions, along with changes to pension rules.
This news comes as the North Country awaits word of which prisons state officials plan to mothball. So what do you think? Are we facing another big economic speed bump? Or can the region absorb these cuts?
The real story remains higher energy prices draining millions more dollars out of the North Country economy, but further state job losses certainly will not help. It is not a matter if we “can” absorb these cuts, the region will absorb with an eroding economic base and declining standard of living.
Any mention of salary cuts for our representatives in Albany? They have state jobs too no?
I vote all Governmental salaries be cut by 25%, and if you text pictures of any body part, other than your face, you forfeit the remainder of your yearly salary and face expulsion by a special election of your district’s constituants.
Citizens For Simple Solutions
Anytime you take money out of an economy it hurts. Its especially bad when the economy is in trouble anyway.
Apparently Cuomo timed release of whom is getting cut to the end of the Legislative session so that our representatives will be unable to fight them.
Also, uncovered by all media to my knowledge, Cuomo got the Legislature to pass a one year suspension of the 12 month facility closure notice, reducing it to 60 days instead (I read this in the May “Communicator” ,the Public Employees Federation member magazine) The union seemed to be proud of the fact that it was only for one year. As if it will matter after this year).
So when the Legislature returns in the fall, the chosen facilities may already be closed, and the unfortunate employees unable to bump someone else, or retire, will be on unemployment.
And I expect no whining from labor unions (like the AFL-CIO) who funded and endorsed candidate Cuomo and the liberal Democrats who voted for him. He’s only doing what he promised. You choose to ignore someone like Green candidate Howie Hawkins (who’s not only pro-labor but actually a union member) prefering a guy who promised to carry water for millionaires and property developers. You are complicit with all this.
I think what Brian-MOFCY said deserves more than just a “like.”
The unions lined up behind Cuomo because … I have no idea why the unions lined up behind Cuomo, except that maybe they felt that unions are supposed to back Democrats. But everyone knew Cuomo was going to be a Republican Lite.
The last election was a moment that unions could have stood for working people by supporting Howie Hawkins and they blew it. So, I wonder what sort of perks union leaders are going to get for lining up behind Cuomo while their rank and file gets chopped? Saratoga County?
The thing I have never understood is the need for draconian lay-off when you could achieve the same fiscal result from, salary and or benefit reductions across the board for all government employees. They seem to pick out winners and losers. It’s almost as if the unions and the government would prefer to totally eliminate jobs rather than have everyone give up some things. But that may be a function of relying on a seniority based system. Your senior workers will be just fine giving up nothing while less senior workers will be totally eliminated.
I have to agree with Mervel. I believe it was in 1990 or so when the SP was told, “You either accept this contract with the wage freezes or we start laying people off.” For the next 5 years or so wages were stuck. It worked then, why not now? We simply have to cut spending, we never should have gotten this far in over our heads. THe unions are going to have to learn to give a little.
Mark my words though, if the economy turns around at all, spending will pop right back up.
And the irony in your comment, Mervel, is that it’s the senior state employees that are the highest paid, typically contribute nothing to their pension, have the most generous health insurance, and in some cases, are the most unproductive. I think some sacrifice on the part of all state employees is a better, more effective process at cutting costs.
I remember a blog topic here before Cuomo was even a candidate for office whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing for the state if he would run and get elected. what say now?
The only thing different between his agenda and patterson’s was the stategy and execution.
Patterson was right on with his fiscal choices, and owed no favors to anyone for the outcome.
Cuomo gives me the feeling we’ll pay for his decisions down the line– and not for the cause and effect of the actual decision, but what he sold us out for to get his way.
He only makes his edicts look like they’re strait forward principles, based on the best intentions, while his agenda is much darker, and self serving.
He agenda is just as unpopular as Patterson’s.
Who’s Cuomo stoking so it doesn’t look so?
Mervel makes an interesting point, but unions are all about seniority. Seniority is everything. I have always found it odd that they are willing to lose membership through layoffs in order to protect only the most senior employees. When one considers that unions are in business of selling memberships, it is a strange approach.
you guys are ignoring the fact that state workers total compensation is less than private workers (for same level of etc). The compensation is structured differently – more benefits, less take-home. Sure the state would save money if it paid workers even less than they get now – but they (the state workers) dont have to go along with it.
“you guys are ignoring the fact that state workers total compensation is less than private workers (for same level of etc).”
Really? Certainly not in the north country. and what about the job security of public jobs where it’s usually impossible to fire those who fail to perform?
Srcatchy – – yes in the north country and everywhere else too. The job security is part of the trade-off for getting paid less. You are getting snookered by the way the anti-tax lobbyists are skewing the statistics. A lawyer, nurse, or trooper working for the state all get paid more than a guy working retail at a dollar store. So What?
It’s not a question of anti-tax, it’s a question of whether state and local taxes should rise and services reduced so that state and local governments can continue to pay for increased health care, retiree health care, and pension costs. The unions think the NY should just raise taxes to pay for those increased expense; I think the state should reduce their expenses.
Just look at the number of people who are “double dipping” by collecting a pension and working for the government at the same time. Or the workers who retire at age 40 and get free health insurance for the rest of their life. Or the pension padding. Or the people that get “no show” political jobs (like Joe Bruno’s daughter). Or the enormous sums of money that must be spent to fire a tenured teacher. There is excess in the public sector jobs and it should stop.
I am for keeping as many people in jobs in the North Country as possible that includes state jobs. But scratchy is right the pay in the North Country for equal jobs at many levels (not all higher level jobs are better in the private sector, but then we don’t have many higher level private sector jobs up here) is much higher if you work for the state than work in the private sector and they are more secure also.
Look at what a custodian for the state starts at and what a custodian who works nights at Walmart or one of the grocery stores gets paid. Look at social workers for the state versus social workers who work for one of the not for profit agencies or teachers who work for public schools versus those who work for private schools. Almost uniformly all jobs in the trades, administration, office work, etc. all pay better for the state than in the private sector. BUT I would say that we need to preserve those jobs I am not resentful of them as they provide a source of income for our communities I do hope they would consider giving up many of these over the top perks to save the jobs though.
Sure if you are a lawyer or a doctor or a CEO of a corporation you will make more in the private sector I totally agree but for the average north country worker the state jobs pay better.