The choice facing the state's 10,000 employees is not an enviable one. Unless other ways can be found to save, Gov. John Lynch will have to cut $25 million from the state personnel budget. So virtually all state employees will lose a small portion of their income by taking unpaid furloughs or about 10 percent of them will lose all their income through layoffs. Furloughs are the fairest, least disruptive course for state workers and for the public that depends on state government services.
Unpaid days off have become a standard response to massive, recession-induced revenue shortfalls. In some states, governors have the power to order that all non-critical employees be furloughed. That's not the case in New Hampshire. Lynch has the power to order layoffs, but the state employees union must agree to mandatory furloughs.
Nationally, the unemployment rate hit 9.5 percent in June, the highest level in a quarter-century. If discouraged workers and those who've had to settle for part-time jobs are included, the rate is over 16 percent. That means workers who are laid off aren't going to have an easy time finding a job in the private sector. And given the strong possibility that New Hampshire's budget shortfall will be even larger in coming years, a quick return to state employment is unlikely.
For the good of their colleagues, state workers should share the pain. To achieve the necessary savings, they would have to sacrifice about 5 percent of their income. That loss would essentially wipe out the 5.5 percent pay raise employees received in January.
The union is willing to accept voluntary furloughs but reluctant to agree to mandated ones. That's understandable. Mandatory furloughs should be a last resort. But as the state's chief negotiator, Tom Manning, says, the governor can't sit back and hope that enough people volunteer to take time off. Workers should be given a few weeks to sign up for voluntary furloughs or take early retirement buyouts that are under discussion. If enough of them commit to do so, mandated furloughs would be unnecessary. That, we fear, is not likely to happen.
Like most people, especially those far down the pay scale, many state workers spend all they earn just to get by. But almost every household can find 5 percent to cut. It won't be fun, but it can be done.
Furloughs, particularly if everyone must take them, would be less disruptive, for state employees and the public alike. When an employee is laid off, either fewer services are provided or the remaining employees must work harder. With layoffs, the burden of that extra works tends to fall on the same people every day. But when employees are furloughed on a rotating basis, no individual or group has to pick up the slack on a daily basis.
The state employees' fate was sealed when lawmakers and the governor failed to raise more revenue from those who can more easily pay. But New Hampshire workers are not alone in facing layoffs. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures and the reporting service Stateline.org, nearly 730,000 state employees in 21 states have already been furloughed and 54,000 have been laid off. If not for furloughs, hundreds of thousands more public employees would have lost their jobs.
Furloughs, in the public and private workforce, are a much kinder way to weather economic downturns. State employees should agree to them swiftly to avoid even more layoffs later.
BOSTON (AP) -- Officials in New England's coastal areas…
NASHUA, N.H. (AP) -- William Smart, who was devastated…
BANGOR, Maine (AP) -- Two men are free on bail after…
FRANCESTOWN, N.H. (AP) -- A New Hampshire fire chief…
Comments
City plan furloughs....
By hoss - 07/10/2009 - 1:29 pmThe city didn't look into it why should the state. The inept city councilors and dept. heads and directors just cut away and god forbid if you ever disagreed with them. Right CPL! The state doesn't care..nobody cares.
to vote
Good for All
By jimgrant3 - 07/08/2009 - 7:08 pmIn a True Democratic Society, The burden of a deficit would be shared by all members
of that society. There are approximately 1.5 million citizens in the State of New Hampshire, and $25 million dollar deficit. There is nothing Democratic about
asking ten thousand of the citizens to pay the price for All.
to vote
Should you cut off your neighbor's ear or finger?
By Ali G - 07/08/2009 - 12:58 pmThis article is ridiculous. To cut money, ask someone else to give up 5% or layoff workers. Most departments have been stripped down and are doing more with less. The legislators say cut 5% because they don't want to be held accountable for deciding what programs and services actually get cut.
They have already raised *everyone's* taxes, including mine, so now they cut from state employees only because they can. What if the question was, "Raise the Meals tax another 1% or institute a Sales tax." Either way, someone loses.
It's easy to attack state employees because we're all just faceless workers to you. You don't see what most of us do, and you probably don't care. You see bad examples and assume we are all the same. When you hear that a soldier has gone AWOL or a fire fighter failed a drug test, do you just assume the army is weak and fire fighters are drunks? No.
It's always the same. Some Know-It-All gets his kicks by commenting, "Stick it to the State Workers". It takes more character to actually think about a subject before spewing your "wisdom" into a comment box.
to vote
From a State Employee
By copo195 - 07/08/2009 - 11:51 amMy husband and I have been state employees for 17 and 14 years respectively. Although upset by the non-passing of the gambling bill, which we both wanted, we both have been upset by the negative statements made by non state employees about how state employees should "have to suffer like everybody else." We do. We pay the same taxes and will pay the same NEW taxes that YOU do. We are no different. I'm proud to be a State Employee. I have seen those who "just sit around and do nothing." However, by far, the vast majority, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER BUSINESS, work very hard, even on their own time, to ensure that YOU, a citizen of NH, get the services you deserve. I AM tired of having the budget balanced on our backs. But I also understand how important it is that everyone, including us, has to cut down on what we spend. Both my husband and I don't want the mandatory furloughs, however, we will do it if asked or ordered. If that is what it takes to keep State workers on the job and stop layoffs, so be it. I do feel that not all employees should be made to take the furlough, however. Only those above a certain pay grade. (Which would include me and my husband..) State workers don't all make a decent wage and to take 2 weeks of pay out of the mouths of single parents and children....well...as the earlier writer stated, they can't afford to do much as it is. I'm not rich by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I'll give up 2 weeks, 4 with my husband, to help other state workers. Why? Because they matter. They should to you, too.
to vote
Perfect
By TWE - 07/08/2009 - 1:28 pmA perfect example of how the union's proposed volentarty furlough would work. We just need to Governer side to listen to our proposal, including the millions the union proposes to save.
They need to think outside the box and listen to state employees that know how the state can save money.
to vote
If only
By bluemoose - 07/08/2009 - 11:38 amIf only it were as simple as the Monitor makes it out to be.
to vote
If only
By TWE - 07/08/2009 - 11:50 amRight on, this article make it sound simple with out examing the complex nature of a state budget with mixed funds (Federal, other and general funds).
to vote
An option?
By littlecitygirl - 07/08/2009 - 11:14 amHow much would be saved if state employees had a 35-hour work week instead of 37 1/2 or 40? Part-time employees should be the first ones to lose jobs, not the full-timers. To cut down on overhead (electricity, heat, a/c, etc.), cut back on staggering hours. Offices are open say 9-5 or 8-4 or 10-6. Go to a 4-day work week. Lots of options. I would rather lose a couple hours of pay per week than lose a full day's pay or a full week's pay. A little here and there shouldn't hurt that much - unless you are in over your head to begin with. How about all of the department heads giving up a week or two of their salaries to protect their employees jobs?
to vote
Not true
By TWE - 07/08/2009 - 8:44 am"Furloughs are the fairest, least disruptive course for state workers and for the public that depends on state government services. "
This is not true. A number of state employees are federaly funded. If they furlough these folks it does not save the state any money it just lets washington keep the money for those folks and that money will never make it to the state to help the local economy.
Also, some other state funded positions are a match federal funds a furlough could actualy mean the state will recive less federal funds for those matches. Again, meaning less fed money comming to NH.
Best way out of a recession is growth, not more cuts.
to vote
They don't listen!
By rhondak - 07/08/2009 - 7:37 amWe would not even be having this discussion if the legislators had listened to what the majority of the people wanted & voted to pass expanded gambling. Instead they are going to nickel & dime us into the poor house, spend more money on litigation expenses regarding the medical fund they wanted to "steal", and still end up with large shortfall hole that will need to be filled in some other way. Can't wait to see what the next brilliant idea is going to be!
to vote
Gamblin
By MotherOfPearl - 07/08/2009 - 9:13 amSorry, Gambling is not the cure and fix all everyone was hoping for. Mandatory furloughs can ease the pain. I think it is pretty selfish of ANY state employee to say they won't do it. I think that anyone refusing to take a furlough to save fellow employees should be the ones laid off. 5% is much better then 100%. I think we should care more about our fellow employees and whether or not this save yourself mentality is right. These are hard times. If everyone works together it can help. I'm sick of hearing employees say "I can't take the cut, I refuse furloughs, I would rather see layoffs," I agree, you should be the first to go if you say that. We lived without the 5% last year, we will do it. Buy less prepackaged meals and make your own. Use coupons. Everyone can find a way. I just had to find out how to live on one paycheck. The cuts are there, you have to look hard. If we have to do this to keep from layoffs, I vote YES for mandatory layoffs. I just with the SEA would actually care what I thought during this. They do not speak for me when they push against mandatory furloughs and hope for voluntary. I refuse to volunteer for furloughs so that we dont' get enough and endure layoffs anyhow. MAKE IT MANDATORY!! Also, they should be on a mandatory state shut down day, that would save even more money. The state of Maine is now having 10 mandatory shut down days a year to ease the budget.
to vote
Find 5% you say???
By EvilStateWorker - 07/08/2009 - 5:32 amYou just made one of my cuts easy...my subscription. I can get it online free. I'm sure there are many state employees that have been subscribers for years that will be making the same decision.
Try protraying all sides and remember how many rank and file state employees make below 25-30K. What about those at the top and the contractors? Why do you not question the millions of dollars we are spending on contractors that state employees could do ourselves? Please, try and broaden your scope of reporting beyond...let the state employees take another hit for the good of the state.
to vote
Come on, everyone knows state employees are non performers
By factfinder4u - 07/07/2009 - 9:29 pmLets take this sad moment in history and get rid of the layabouts we all know who permeate state government. We pay dearly in lawsuit settlements for many of these slugs acting inappropriately outside the scope of their duties. I challenge anyone to get the exact figure from the AGs Office before she leaves, of payoffs to employees and those abused by employees under her watch.
to vote
All state workers are non-performers??
By Ali G - 07/08/2009 - 1:06 pmPlow your own road. Hand out your own speeding tickets. If you want to group us all in one basket, then why don't I assume the world is full of grumpy know-it-alls like you. Sad.
to vote
Cut how
By native1 - 07/07/2009 - 7:02 pmI would be hard pressed to find the so called easy five percent cut. I don't take my family on vacations not even daytrips. I haven't bought new clothes for myself in 3 years even though my is very worn and I have holes in my shoes, I only have one pair of those and one pair of boots for winter. I have a garden to help with the grocery bill but I can't fertilize it so the yield isn't that good even with homemade compost only a small amount available. My kids will be getting second hand clothes for school and only alittle of that. We don't have any entertainment except for basic cable, would you like me to get rid of that too? Basically I get up, go to work , go back home and we sit and stare at each other because we ware sick of taking walks up and down the same route in front of our house because we can't afford to go anywhere. Everything has an admission price and gas is going back up and its expensive to repair my 12 year old vehicle because we can't afford to get another one. But by all means go right ahead volunteer me to take a pay reduction while you drive by taking your kids to the movies (wherever) while we sit watching everyone else have a good time
to vote
unclassified and non-classified employees should be included
By glk.interests - 07/07/2009 - 10:26 amWhy is the classified (rank and file) worker the one who is made to feel the brunt of the budget axe. The real wasted salary costs go to the over-paid and grossly under-worked non-classified and unclassified employee. Those are the political appointees who fill commissioner, assistant commissioner, deputy commissioner type positions. Their salaries are two and three times larger than the worker; I have to question what productive activity do they do? Why are they exempt from layoffs and furloughs? Loss of one of those unclassifieds could save three and perhaps more line workers. That way, productive work output would not be diminished while cost reductions would be achieved.
Also, all of that $25,000,000 in personal cost reductions could come from the out-sourcing of services that are granted to the private (for profit) sector. Those out-sourcing costs include payments to private sector workers, the company's profits, the company's taxes, etc. but are virtually unaudited by the state. Those costs total to about $500,000,000 (half a BILLION $$); therefore, a mere $25,000,000 would be nothing more than a drop in the bucket!!
Let's have some real accountability and not just political posturing. NH also needs a list of "essential core services" so we know what costs the public funds cover.
to vote