State worker layoffs
Update at 9 pm The AP is reporting that state budget director Laura Anglin says David Paterson is ordering 8,900 state workers (about 4.5 percent of the state workforce) to be laid off in a bid to save $500 million over two years. (More context from Liz Benjamin.) The layoffs are scheduled to start this summer.
Say Something!
We'd really like you to take part in the conversation here at All Over Albany. But we do have a few rules here. Don't worry, they're easy. The first: be kind. The second: treat everyone else with the same respect you'd like to see in return. Cool? Great, post away. Comments are moderated so it might take a little while for your comment to show up. Thanks for being patient.
Comments
So, is AOA hiring for summer employment?
:)
... said Kari on Mar 24, 2009 at 9:20 PM | link
That's awful. I had hoped it wouldn't come to that.
... said Summer on Mar 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM | link
Seriously. Isn't the number one perk of working for the state job security?
... said Lucy on Mar 25, 2009 at 8:57 AM | link
This definitely is bad news. Having said that, though, it is really a shame that the unions did not make an effort to compromise beforehand. Many of us in the private sector have already had to make concessions. I work in the NFP field and am have been doing a '2 in 1' job for quite some time now. We absorbed a few positions via attrition and distributed the roles throughout our structure with no pay increases for extra duties - all done to help stay afloat.
Why are state jobs any different?
... said James at 42 on Mar 25, 2009 at 9:27 AM | link
This is unfortunate, but staring down a $16 billion deficit all reasonable measures need to be taken.
What should be more scary is that Paterson's directive to cut 8,900 jobs saves only $250 million per year — less than 2% of the deficit.
... said James Cronen on Mar 25, 2009 at 9:33 AM | link
Can the unions be any more tone-deaf? I have friends who have been laid off, I have friends who are forced to take an unpaid week off furlough, but the unions are hanging on to this 3% and other penny-wise and pound-foolish arguments when everyone else is sacrificing and more. So the unions will hold on to their 3% raise, and all the younger new hires will get the axe later this summer? That makes sense. Way to grow the next generation, unions.
I'm a pretty liberal guy and I have long supported unions, but is it any wonder why the Labor movement gets such a bad rap these days, where, with a Democratic president and Congress, you can't even get something like the Employee Free Choice Act to the floor, which would help millions of would-be unionized workers? Unions are losing the public relations war, and if they're not careful, they're going to lose more than that.
... said Beaver on Mar 25, 2009 at 11:44 PM | link