Days after a federal judge blocked his efforts to furlough half the state work force, Gov. David A. Paterson is drafting a plan that would lay off thousands of government workers at the beginning of next year, a move officials say is necessary to help balance the state budget.
A senior administration official involved in preparing the plan said Monday that Mr. Paterson would direct state agencies to begin picking which positions could be eliminated starting Jan. 1, 2011.
That is the expiration date of the no-layoffs pledge that Mr. Paterson made to public employee unions last year in exchange for an agreement to reduce the state’s long-term pension costs. It also coincides with the end of his term as governor, meaning that the decision to move forward with the layoffs would ultimately rest with his successor.
The leading candidates of both major parties — Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat who is the attorney general, and Rick A. Lazio, a Republican who was a Long Island congressman — have signaled that they would seek to shrink the state’s work force if elected.
The administration official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because the administration’s proposal had not been finalized, said Mr. Paterson would coordinate his efforts with the new governor to ensure continuity.
“It’s going to take a few months to put together the plan,” the official said. “We’re going to use that as an opportunity to further restructure the government and look at programs and departments we may need to eliminate.
“State government has gotten too expensive. It can’t be everything to everybody. The timing also gives the next administration a chance to look at the plan.”
The official also said Mr. Paterson had not yet ruled out breaking the no-layoffs pledge, which he made last June as part of a deal with the Civil Service Employees Association and the Public Employees Federation, the two largest unions of state workers.
“There are people who are encouraging the governor” to break the no-layoffs pledge before Jan. 1, the official said. “That’s an option he has. And it’s something he will decide on after we’ve laid out the layoff plan.”
Representatives for the two unions did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Both Mr. Paterson and the Legislature are seeking about $250 million in savings from the state work force to help close a budget deficit now estimated at more than $9 billion for the fiscal year that began April 1. But they have been unable to agree on either a specific plan to achieve those savings or a broader budget deal, leaving the state operating on emergency spending bills week to week.
A federal judge last week quashed Mr. Paterson’s efforts to begin one-day-a-week furloughs of about half the state work force, ruling that such furloughs were unconstitutional because they unilaterally altered the workers’ collective bargaining agreements.
With government finances stretched to the breaking point at every level of government, some public employees unions, like local teachers’ unions, have agreed to wage freezes or furloughs — usually to avert layoffs — that they would have never considered before. But the unions representing state workers have steadfastly refused to do so, saying that they are entitled to every cent promised to them in their contracts and that Mr. Paterson should instead cut the number of independent contractors working for the government.
Those unions have also declined alternative cost-saving proposals from the administration, like giving up a pay raise that went into effect in April or accepting a five-day lag for part of their salaries.
Administration officials have estimated that the state would have to lay off about 10,000 workers to achieve the same savings as the furloughs, which would have cut spending by about $30 million a week. They also believe that layoffs would have a better chance of surviving a court challenge, since the administration’s no-layoff pledge was not written into the unions’ contract.
The new proposal follows the passage in the Legislature last week of a package of temporary early retirement incentives for public employees. The administration official said Mr. Paterson’s agency executives would wait to see how many workers took advantage of the new rules before making a final decision on how many jobs to go after for elimination.
(Source: NY Times)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
One Response
The legislature could cancel the collective bargaining agreements by repealing the Taylor Act. Without such a statute in effect, there is no collective bargaining agreement.