In February, Gov. Ted Kulongoski announced a proposal to help close the $3.1 billion gap in Oregon’s 2009-11 budget: Unionized state workers take 26 furlough days over the next two years, meaning 26 mandatory days off without pay. In addition, Kulongoski proposed wage freezes as well as eliminating cost-of-living and other “step” pay increases over the next biennium. Kulongoski spokesperson Rem Niven said if all state workers agree to the days, the savings would be $105 million, and the eliminated step increases would save an additional $56 million.
When deciding how best to get an economy out of a recession, no option is ideal. Furlough days are no exception, and many union leaders are outraged at Kulongoski’s plan. Leslie Frane, executive director of Service Employees International Union Local 503, says workers are willing to share in sacrifices to get through the recession, but this proposal places too much of the burden on workers. Ken Allen, executive director of Oregon’s chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said he doesn’t want to take pay cuts until the legislature is willing to raise taxes to help close the budget gap.
These are valid concerns, but when the state is facing a multi-billion dollar budget shortfall over the next two years and a current hole of $855 million, there is no way to get the economy back on track and please everyone in the process. Kulongoski’s proposed 26 days may be shocking, considering his original plan – to which union leaders agreed to – consisted of only eight furlough days over the same period. The idea of 26 unpaid days off over the next biennium may be difficult to reconcile, especially for workers who already struggle to make ends meet.
Many argue that instead, the governor and other state officials, the ones they say got us into this mess with their money mismanagement, should be the ones taking pay cuts. It’s true there should be sacrifice on all sides, and the governor is no exception. However, he has already announced he will be taking a 5 percent pay cut himself, which is the percentage being asked of state union workers. Perhaps he could afford to take an even higher cut before he asks the same amount of employees who barely live above the poverty line. And yes, perhaps taxes could be raised (Oregon is still one of the only states without a sales tax). But it falls upon everyone’s shoulders to help stabilize the economy – the isolationist sentiments to the contrary that have dominated the American economic machine for so long are the true culprits for the situation we now find ourselves in.
The furlough days may not be ideal, but they are an attempt to save jobs from simply being cut altogether – a possibility that is currently very real – and in this case are a lesser of many evils.
However, certain state employees, such as medical workers, health and care providers and police officers should be required to take fewer, if any, furlough days, because for them to take extra days off is only a further disservice to Oregon’s citizens, and it could end up costing even more money.
“(A month off without pay) is a significant cut that, within our section, could end up costing more than saving anything,” said Don Bruland, director of Senior and Disability Services for the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. Most of the employees Bruland oversees are Oregon Department of Human Services employees, he said in a Feb. 25 article in the Ashland Daily Tidings.
“Central to keeping costs down is helping people stay in their own homes as long as possible,” Bruland said. “That takes staff time, working with individuals and family, to try to put together a plan that will keep them at home.” Reducing his staff’s hours, he said, would mean more people they work with having to go to facilities. “If they go into a facility, that will cost far more. (The furlough proposal) may work in certain areas to save money, but in our section it would end up costing the state money,” he said.
In addition, workers at the Oregon State Hospital marched on the superintendent’s office on Feb. 26 to protest the furlough days out of concern that the days off will create unsafe conditions because there must be a minimum number of employees at the hospital at all times.
And, according to Jeff Leighty, president of the Oregon State Police Officers Association, the 26 furlough days would drastically reduce Oregon State Police protection, particularly in rural areas.
Furlough days may be a necessary step toward closing the budget gap, and they are better than losing one’s job altogether. But forcing union employees in every state department to take the same number of days off is a heavy-handed approach that could end up doing more harm than good. Employees whose jobs are necessary to provide health and safety should be required to take fewer, if any, furlough days, as their ability to work at their jobs is crucial to the well-being of the people.
[email protected]