Sat Feb 11 2012
Furloughs for most state employees, which began today, were cleared Thursday after a court rejected a union’s challenge that there are better ways to deal with tough economic times than not paying workers.
However, Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd wants to hear more evidence in the case and has set an expedited schedule for arguments before the furlough plan, mostly for executive branch employees, is fully implemented
Shepherd ruled Thursday that the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees District Council 62 didn’t prove “the violation of a concrete personal right” that would make the court stop state employee furloughs.
The plan implemented by Gov. Steve Beshear calls for six unpaid days for executive branch employees. Today is the first and five more will follow in October, November (Veterans Day weekend), March, April and May (Memorial Day weekend).
The plan is expected to save about $24 million and prevent more than 400 state employee layoffs, Beshear spokeswoman Kerri Richardson said in a statement Thursday.
It’s part of a $131 million executive branch reduction plan Beshear must adhere to in the biennial budget passed in a special session of the General Assembly this year.
“We appreciate the Court’s attention to this issue, and will continue our planned furlough action tomorrow,” Richardson said.
“These are extraordinary economic times, and we are forced to implement appropriate budget balancing cost savings efforts.”
Shepherd’s six-page order noted the difficulty some lower-tier state employees will face losing six days of pay.
Shepherd said high-salaried employees and those collecting state retirement checks on top of regular pay wouldn’t suffer as much.
“The impact of furloughs on highly paid state employees (including those who are responsible for drafting and implementing the plan) is significant, but not as difficult to bear as the impact on many rank-and-file employees who struggle with basic necessities,” Shepherd wrote.
“The court is also mindful that the burden of the furlough plan is relatively light for those many full time state employees who are also drawing full pensions from state government.”
Shepherd said while furloughs may be burdensome for some state employees, the General Assembly gave Beshear legal authority to furlough state employees only “to prevent a permanent layoff of state employees in areas of critical services to the citizens of the Commonwealth.”
Shepherd said State Budget Director Mary Lassiter gave the court an affidavit explaining how projected revenues make furloughs necessary in lieu of layoffs.
“The Court further finds, in balancing the equities, that it is more equitable to spread the financial burden of a reduction in the state payroll among all (or almost all) employees, than to have the burden fall catastrophically on 400 employees who otherwise would be terminated from employment if the furlough plan is not implemented,” Shepherd wrote.
However, Shepherd denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case, saying its merits need to be explored and decided.
He also allowed the AFSCME Council 62, representing the six state employees who filed the suit, to name additional parties and amend the complaint to reflect the state’s furlough exemption of public safety and health officials.
David Warrick, executive director of AFSCME Council 62, said the exemptions of state police, corrections officers and other employees involved with 24-hour care and security wouldn’t have happened without the suit.
Warrick said corrections officers had been informed they’d be furloughed and even knew which six days they’d be furloughed.
“The state would not budge,” Warrick said by phone Thursday. “After we filed, they changed their attitude.
“I have no doubt the exemptions came about because of this court case.”
Exemptions were made public Aug. 26, and the suit was filed Aug. 6.
Those exemptions don’t cover social workers though, and Warrick said children and others who rely on those employees may suffer during furloughs.
“(State social workers) deal with children who’ve been abused and abandoned,” Warrick said. “We’re looking at those kinds of state employees that if they take these days off, someone may get hurt.”
“… We are encouraged, though, because the judge didn’t slam the door shut on the case,” Warrick said after noting his overall disappointment in the court’s decision to deny a temporary injunction on furloughs.
State employees, including some who filed the suit, will be furloughed at least twice more while the case moves in Franklin Circuit Court. Shepherd’s expedited schedule gives a Nov. 15 deadline for all court filings in the case with additional arguments to be scheduled as necessary.
Shepherd didn’t indicate when he’d rule on the matter in his order.
Comments
By Posting to this site, you agree to our Terms of Service Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed.
State-Journal.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Login above or Register to comment.
0 Total Comments Home | Back
Copyright Frankfort Publishing Co., LLC 1995-2011. All Rights Reserved.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Content may not be republished without the expressed written consent of the publisher.
Dix Communications