<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Friday, March 29, 2024
March 29, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Shallow Solutions

Furloughs are not the real reform that's needed in state government

The Columbian
Published: March 18, 2010, 12:00am

Do not be deceived. When state senators approved a bill on Tuesday that would cut about $50 million through furloughs and other steps, the reaction from many Washingtonians might have been: “Great! Now the politicians are starting to think more like those in the private sector, where furloughs and other cost-cutting measures have been widespread.” But that would be a false assumption.

Among state workers, furloughs might represent less pay for a limited number of workers, but those savings are only temporary and fall far short of the reform of state government that’s needed. The goal in this instance is not fewer hours worked by state employees or a temporary shutdown of access; it’s a more efficient state government that delivers programs and services quickly and as needed. As state Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, was quoted in The Olympian newspaper: “All this does is save a few bucks for the next 12-15 months.” It would only kick the budget-deficit can a little ways down the road while ignoring meaningful improvements.

What we see here are shallow-minded shutdowns — not innovative approaches — among state senators who approved Senate Bill 6503 by a 30-11 vote. The bill — which now moves to the House — would direct certain state agencies to trim about $50 million in payroll costs. Failing that, the affected agencies would suspend operations for one day a month for 10 months starting in July, with workers unpaid for those days.

It might sound a little like a private-sector mind-set, but the bill is full of amendments and exceptions. For example, an exhaustive list of agencies would be exempted, including law enforcement and military operations, emergency management, corrections, social services, child protective services, hospitals, state parks, the lottery, highways and ferries, revenue-collecting agencies and several other areas of state government. As opponents of the bill point out, treating some state workers differently than others could lead to legal entanglements.

The bill also would allow state workers making $30,000 or less per year to use vacation time or shared leave to keep from losing pay. That might sound like the kind of benefits sacrifice that many sources (including The Columbian) have been advocating, but it would only be a drop in the bucket. Remember also: While state workers — and especially their union leaders — complain about losing cost-of-living increases this year, in many cases those increases have only been suspended. Furthermore, according to The Seattle Times, “around 20,000 (state workers) are projected to receive ‘step increases’ in the current two-year budget, which runs through June 2011.” Which likely leaves legions of private-sector workers thinking: “Gee, that must be nice.”

At least twice in the Bill Report of SB 6503, this effort is described as a “compensation reduction plan,” but it’s really not that at all. Ask private-sector workers (those who still have jobs) what a compensation reduction plan really looks like; it means permanent pay cuts, reductions in (or abandonment of) employer contributions to 401(k) savings plans and more serious measures such as layoffs.

Most significantly, there are the triple concerns put forth by opponents of this bill, — that implementing furloughs will cost more than it will save; that furlough-exempted workers will become eligible for overtime; and, in many cases, that public-worker unions will put up an awful squawk. Nothing inherently wrong with that, of course, but in this case, it’s a proper denunciation of a bad idea.

House members should spike the furloughs bill. Washingtonians don’t need stopgap, feel-good, fiscal Band-Aids during the Great Recession. We need real reform.

Loading...