Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

AB 53 and AB1 Would Freeze State Salaries Above $150,000

Given the state of California’s economy and the ever-rising salaries among upper level state workers, including those who sit on boards and those who work for UC, it makes a lot of sense to attempt to cap salaries and compensation increases for those state employees making over $150,000 per year until the economy recovers.

AB53 and AB1 would freeze salaries, benefits, and compensation for those state employees who make over $150,000. The bills sponsor is Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, who represents the California’s 44th Assembly District which represents people in and around Pasadena.

Assemblymember Portantino told the Progress Report on Tuesday:

“It’s time government leads by example, this bill shows the people of California we’re willing to tighten our own belt, not just theirs. I have already refused my own proposed pay raise, certainly our state’s highest paid officials can do the same until our economy recovers and our State’s financial future is once again stable.”

AB 53 would provide immediate savings to the state by prohibiting any pay raises, overtime pay, or any other increase in compensation to state employees earning over $150,000 per year. The legislation would allow the Governor to make exemptions to the salary freeze for individuals “necessary for protecting the safety and security of the people of California”, but would require him to explain why the increase is necessary. AB 53 also applies to legislative and gubernatorial staff.

AB 53 will be considered by the Assembly Public Employees Retirement and Social Security Committee today at 9 a.m.

Given California’s dire budget crisis and looming cash shortfall, the sponsors intend to add an urgency clause so that the bill immediately takes effect.

How many people would this bill affect and how much money would it save?

“A precise number is unknowable, but a quick glance at a state employee database compiled by the Sacramento Bee suggests we’re talking about hundreds of people that would translate into hundreds of thousands in potential savings.”

These measures specifically urge the Regents of the University of California and the Board of Directors of the Hastings College of Law to adopt the policy for their employees. UC and Hastings are constitutionally protected–subjecting them to these provisions would require a constitutional amendment.

While the UC does not have to comply with this bill, Assemblymember Portantino believes that it would be difficult to imagine that the Regents would not take it seriously.

“I find it hard to imagine that the Regents would not take that a serious indication of what’s to come if they do not act.”

Employees that are subject to collective bargaining are exempt from this bill. The state has negotiated a contract with the various bargaining units and this bill would not interfere with that.

Said Assemblymember Portantino:

“We have a legal and moral obligation to hold our end of the contract. Most people under $150,000 are covered by collective bargaining.”

While it is unclear what the full impact will be, the Assemblymember believes this will help the average Californian.

“This recession has hit working families extremely hard. With home values down and mortgage payments up, it would be mean spirited and counter-productive to target an entry level receptionist earning $40,000 a year. “

Posted on April 01, 2009

Comments

Fancy that! The liberal/left/progressives are dancing around with their own variations of GREED.

First, just what do you mean by a mere CAP on pay and benefits? Where is the cost cutting REDUCTIONS in pay and benefits (if not outright losing thier jobs) like the private sector, the ones who PAY TAXES, are going through?

Second. what is so "sacred" about collective bargaining? Oh yea, that a STATE EMPLOYEE UNION could be more special than regular folks. Yes, lets not include them in any overall sacrifice for the common good for all during these difficult economic times...

WHO WORKS FOR WHO? The government for the people OR the "progressive" other way around people for the government?

And the UC administrators & staff? As Leland Yee pointed out elsewhere at this site, they are hiding behind their ivory curtains laced with gold: No offer to reduce/cut their own pay & benefits by even a FRACTION of 1% to help out or show LEADERSHIP. Not one penny.

No, they floated instead a plan to reduce enrollment of 2300 students, OUR CHILDREN, rather than help out. While simultaneously saying don't cut "education", when they really hid behind children and ment "Don't cut our pay & benefits".

Article states, "Employees that are subject to collective bargaining are exempt from this bill. The state has negotiated a contract with the various bargaining units and this bill would not interfere with that".

Why the heck not? Is it a near depression or not?

Article also states, "Said Assemblymember Portantino:

“We have a legal and moral obligation to hold our end of the contract. Most people under $150,000 are covered by collective bargaining.”

While it is unclear what the full impact will be, the Assemblymember believes this will help the average Californian."

The average Californian just got hammered with the highest taxes in the nation as of today, with probably more on the way as the last budget passed ain't gonna fix the states SPENDING problem and again, looming deficits.

Where is the "legal and MORAL obligation" to the taxpayers? Those students who couldn't get into college via reduced enrollments? Those making betwen $100-150K need their salaries/benefits untouched for the greater good? And ONLY because they are UNION members?

I guess in the progressive/liberal utopia, some folks really are MORE EQUAL than others... and the Democrats in the Legislature in proposing bills such as this are perpetuating it, even while the regular folks, the TAXPAYERS, suffer through tough economic times.

Posted by: Jay Gould at April 1, 2009 08:51 PM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker