Posted on 05/13/2010 11:38:30 AM PDT by blam
Showdown in New York: Legislature Approves 100,000 Furloughs; Judge Blocks Action After Union Protest
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
May. 13, 2010, 1:51 PM
On May 10, in response to a fiscal crisis, and at the request of New York Governor David Paterson, the New York Legislature approved the furlough of 100,000 state workers.
Despite their strong objections, New York lawmakers voted to approve unprecedented furloughs for state workers to contend with a fiscal crisis, as thousands of workers rallied against furloughs across the state.
The crowd of New York State workers chanted "We will remember in September," over and over again in Manhattan Monday afternoon.
"I won't be able to pay my bills. We won't be able to do our jobs," said NY State worker Bob Pugliese. "There could be other ways they can look into this issue of balancing their budget," insisted state worker, Luenda Hurditt.
The mandatory furlough of 100,000 state workers is part of an emergency spending plan that lawmakers plan to vote on Monday in Albany. It's designed to keep state government from shutting down, since the budget is more than a month overdue and more than $9 billion in the red.
The unions that represent state workers argue that a one day a week furlough is essentially a 20% pay cut for its members, who they say shouldn't be forced to shoulder the burden of balancing the budget.
"I don't think that's the greatest sacrifice to make in a recession, when in the private sector the workers sacrifices can't even be enumerated," said Governor Paterson.
Judge Temporarily Blocks Furlough of State Workers
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I love it when union workers, who represent less than 10 percent of the American workforce, can dictate to the other 90 percent. There WILL be a backlash. We’ll remember in November, alright.
Greece
That’ll work, until enough people get out of town.
Liberals suffer from serious brain broke problem.
Lay them off to balance the budget.
Welcome to my world state workers. Everything going up except my income.
C2K
Shouldering the budget since 1973.
They all go on Unemployment and Foodstamps instantly.
sounds like this judge “found” a large envelope stuffed with cash on his doorstep recently.
Yeah, what gives? What's wrong with us, asking unions to pay? That's always been the responsibility of the NON-union people! It's not faaaaaaaaair!
Now they will be forced to fire people.
Good job unions.
This judge sounds a little timid and lacking in creativity.
The judge should just order full employment, higher pay and lower taxes for all. So ordered, done and problem solved.
And all before lunch!
Ok, you dumb ass liberal retard, Luenda Hurditt....start listing the other ways and how much they will save to balance the budget. The point is, NONE of the socialist, welfare state parasites want to lose their cush jobs that are paid & funded by the real taxpayers, those who don't work for the gubmint or school systems.
The logic & missing solution of this retard reminds me of my dumb ass brother & even dumber ass sister-in-law.
I’ll bet they will getr really pissed when their paychecks start to bounce.....
September 19 is the anniversary of the publishing of the Unabomber's manifesto in the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Where is MSNBC's scrutiny about the union members' choice of a deliberately inflammatory statement designed to incite violence?
Oh. Wait. That's only Republicans wanting to "remember November".
www.remembernovember.com
The legislature voted for a temporary one day furlough a week.
The judge thought otherwise. Bought and paid for no doubt about it.
If the state fires a quarter of the workers,the most senior 3/4 keep their jobs;in my experience they WILL throw their “brothers” under the bus.
Simple answer here, send the bill the Judge. He can make reality go away by springing for the bill. Great guy that Judge. I wonder how much backing he received from the unions?
Did you open a new store 1 mile out of town yet?
Irreparable harm? To whom? Who does this judge represent? The people of the State of New York or the state worker's union. If there is no money to pay these workers they will have to be laid off to make up the shortfall. If you're cutting programs it makes little sense to keep the people on board who were administering them. But that is the mindset of the unions. Instead of taking a furlough day or having to contribute a little more for benefits (while still maintaining both), they would prefer to eat their own and have so many of their fellow workers let go so they can continue to suck off the tet of government. Personally I think all government work should be merit based with no union involvement whatsoever. It's to the point where it's gotten way beyond out of hand.
“The unions that represent state workers argue that a one day a week furlough is essentially a 20% pay cut for its members, who they say shouldn’t be forced to shoulder the burden of balancing the budget.”
So they are saying that EVERYONE else should shoulder the burden of continuing to maintaining an UNSUSTAINABLE budget? Exactly how does one make this argument in a court of law? And exactly how stupid was the judge that agreed with this argument? More likely, the questions should be how big was the envelope of money the judge got?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.