Pawlenty proposes state workers take unpaid leave

Posted at 3:39 PM on March 26, 2009 by Tom Scheck (3 Comments)

MPR's Tim Pugmire reports that the Pawlenty Administration is requesting that state employees take 48 days of unpaid leave over the next two years. In a letter to its members, Minnesota Association of Professional Employees Executive Director Jim Monroe wrote that:

"The governor's proposal went after MAPE members with a laundry list of take backs that they have done for the past three contracts -- changes to grievances, holiday pay, expense allowances, severance eilgibility as well as layoffs and recalls. As important as all of these areas are to fairness in the workplace, they were all just a mere prelude to the bomb the governor's team dropped - Governor Pawlenty wants to force a furlough onto MAPE members for up to 8 weeks and 8 days for our contract. That's right, the governor wants to be able to have the ability with no rhyme or reason, to give management the right to arbitrarily decide who gets furloughed and how long they are furloughed, which can be used in a way to undermine every union protection we have."

Meanwhile, AFSCME officials declined comment but posted this information on their website:

Governor Pawlenty wants to force state employees to take up to 24 days of unpaid leave each year. Who can pay their bills after the loss of one-month's pay?! Worse yet, he'd give managers the right to arbitrarily decide who gets furloughed, when they get furloughed, and for how long. That's an invitation for the boss to play favorites. It's also an attempt to balance the budget on the backs of AFSCME state employees, who earn $37,000 on average.

Gov. Pawlenty's lead negotiator has declined comment because of an agreed media blackout during negotiations.

Comments (3)

Dumb. This will never pass. State employees will never pass a contract that has this language in it. We will strike first. this is just a scare tactic.

Posted by Kassie | March 26, 2009 4:09 PM

Unreal. That may plus some budget holes for T-Paw, but how would that help stimulate the economy?

Posted by mhansen | March 26, 2009 9:42 PM

I have two questions:
1. This is potentially a 9% pay cut for every state worker. (24 days in a year=4.8 work weeks/52 weeks in a year=just over 9%) If this goes through, what do state workers get back when times are good? The pattern has been that in bad times, state workers make concessions on wages. Then in good times, state workers fight tooth and nail to get back to where they were before concessions were made. This isn't a sustainable pattern. What's the incentive for becoming a state employee if you're going to be jerked around like this? You might as well work in the private sector and make more money before you get jerked around.

2. My biggest worry isn't that furloughs will be available as a cost-saving option. My biggest worry is that once/if this passes, the governor will order all state workers to take this furlough for the full amount of time available. The governor can say that this is just "an option," but how can state workers not assume that it will be used on everyone for all 24 days?

Posted by MR | March 27, 2009 10:30 AM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories