Report: Corrections Furloughs Don't Save Money

A new report on the Oregon state prison system shows why furloughs in public safety don't save money.  The report puts in black and white what most public safety professionals already know: 24-hour operations require back-filling when regular staff are furloughed.  The report compared the cost of correctional staff with the cost of back-filling with extra help and overtime, revealing that furloughs cost the state more money than they save.

Court Awards Millions in Back Pay for Furloughs

In Professional Engineers in California Government, et al. v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr. et al., Case No. R610-494800, the Alameda County Superior Court awarded back pay to state workers unlawfully furloughed in 2009 and 2010.  The Court's June 7, 2012 ruling found that employees whose positions were not funded by the state budget act could not be furloughed by the act.

The Court's ruling also focused on the "single subject rule", part of the California Constitution that prohibits budget bills from changing substantive law in other areas.  As a result, the Court concluded the furloughs were unlawful for some state workers whose responsibilities were protected by specific sections of the Water and Health & Safety Codes.

Finally, the Court discussed a requirement in the budget act that furloughs to line staff be proportional to furloughs for managers.  The Court decided the requirement means that the state went too far when in furloughed line staff more than managers, entitling workers to back pay to make up the difference.  The parties expect the the ruling to cost the state millions of dollars in back pay.

Court of Appeal Upholds Furloughs for Correctional Officers

In Brown v. Superior Court of Alameda (1st DCA, Oct. 3, 2011, A127292) 2011 WL 4537946, the Court of Appeal overturned CCPOA's trial court victory, holding self-directed furloughs under two executive orders did not violate California Labor Codes prohibiting “kickbacks” by employers or minimum wage laws.

CCPOA attempted to nullify self-directed three-day/month furloughs. Under the orders, employees were permitted to take the furloughs whenever they preferred. If the employees did not use the three furlough days by the end of the month, the days were to be used at a future date, prior to the employee using any form of paid leave. The furlough days needed to be used prior to June 2012 or they would be eliminated. CCPOA claimed the State was essentially asking its members to work for free.

The Court found the Governor had a right to impose the furloughs as the agencies which members of CCPOA worked for were included in the 2008 and 2009 Budget Acts, which were approved by the Legislature, and were part of the extended furlough program. The Court also found the manner in which the furloughs were implemented did not violate applicable California Labor Codes as employers were not taking “kickbacks” from employees or secretly paying them less. The court also found the furlough program did not violate minimum wage laws. The Court also overturned the trial court’s order for back pay for union members.