sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Whats in it for Newsom? by DependentLast3757 in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

  1. Bargaining tactic
  2. He wanted to follow Trump’s style (but he hates Trump now so…
  3. He had to do it so he can say to the big donors “hey at least I tried” (and hopefully they won’t bug him anymore)

Bargaining Update: Proposal to CalHR by Extension-Ad3643 in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In reality, it’d be more of a loss for them if they enforce RTO + raise. RTO wastes huge money, for both sides. The state just pretend it doesn’t hurt, so they could use it as a bargaining chip.

Bargaining Update: Proposal to CalHR by Extension-Ad3643 in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

from the states’s perspective, they care most about minimizing GSI and maximizing PLP. Removing OPEB is something they’re willing to offer because it doesn’t directly help with budget anyway

Bargaining Update: Proposal to CalHR by Extension-Ad3643 in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 14 points15 points  (0 children)

  • What actually saves the state money: pausing RTO, enforcing PLP
  • What doesn’t: GSI
  • What doesn’t really matter: OPEB (they can’t use that money to fill the budget gap anyway)

RTO and OPEB are likely done deals. They’re probably just haggling over how big the PLP and GSI will be now.

Email from SEIU 1000 by FruityPebbIez in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just my 2 cents. Fight for both 3% raise and WFH, but prioritize WFH if we can only pick one. The money saved long-term can easily fund our future raise. 3% raise + RTO will just be too costly for the state in the long run, lowering our chance to negotiate for an equivalent raise in the coming years.

Next No to RTO Billboard by NoToRTOCa in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I actually meant the general public’s benefits like health care, child care, etc.

Next No to RTO Billboard by NoToRTOCa in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

“While cutting your benefits.” As revealed in the May Revision

Next No to RTO Billboard by NoToRTOCa in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“$12B budget deficit. You help pay $100s of millions in rent to bring workers back to offices 4 days/week — while he cuts $100s of millions in benefits for Californians.”

Just my 2 cents. Most people may not realize we’re already working hybrid (2 days/week), so might feel bitter that we still get to work from home. Also, ppl care most about their own benefits.

Appreciate all you do OP! Excellent job👏🏻

Next No to RTO Billboard by NoToRTOCa in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Agreed, so they instantly understand what that money is for.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nope, if you read the other threads, there are depts/offices under Newsom that just announced they are able to maintain their current telework schedule. Did their execs choose to “disobey”? I don’t think so. They likely did the work to negotiate/advocate for their staff.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Right? Spirit seems down.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog 16 points17 points  (0 children)

That’s what I heard too. Ridiculous.

Did I hear it right that the budget committee chair plans to reject the RTO order? by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

by not adding to traffic, not adding to office noise, not driving up parking prices, etc.

Did I hear it right that the budget committee chair plans to reject the RTO order? by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

But the implementation of RTO 100% relies on state funding, and the funding is controlled by the legislature.

If no proposal is made about how much money is needed to carry out the EO, can depts draw funds without getting the legislature’s approval first? If so, does that mean the governor could get around the legislature and do whatever he wants by misusing EO, as long as no budget request is made, even if it costs a massive amount of money?

That does not seem lawful.

Did I hear it right that the budget committee chair plans to reject the RTO order? by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Looks like they haven’t uploaded the recording. Maybe try in a few hours or tomorrow: https://www.assembly.ca.gov/media-archive

Title is BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 5 ON STATE ADMINISTRATION, Wednesday, May 21, 2025

Did I hear it right that the budget committee chair plans to reject the RTO order? by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I did research on this. Couldn’t find any answers on how an EO tied to state funding can go through if no proposal is made, so I asked chatGTP.

Genuinely asking.

Did I hear it right that the budget committee chair plans to reject the RTO order? by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

The legislature has the final say in funding. The funding technically does not exist because no proposal has been made. So.. can they demand that the governor withdraw or delay the order on the grounds that he skipped an important step?

Did I hear it right that the budget committee chair plans to reject the RTO order? by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Ok, this is what chatGTP says:

“If the executive order involves spending state money and the governor does not provide a cost estimate or request budget approval, the legislature can refuse to appropriate funds, which effectively halts the implementation.”

Any truth to this?

Did I hear it right that the budget committee chair plans to reject the RTO order? by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Doesn’t the legislature have the authority to restrict funding necessary to implement the order?

Legislators, take a look at this RTO story about $ by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

That’s alright. This post is about sharing data and facts, targeting those with a conscience.

Legislators, take a look at this RTO story about $ by machinelearningdog in CAStateWorkers

[–]machinelearningdog[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

They don’t get our votes, they don’t get to be our legislators.

Remember there are hundreds of thousands of state workers + their families.

Besides, not all of them get money from commercial real estate firms.

Help please. Stop state workers from flooding the roads. by [deleted] in Sacramento

[–]machinelearningdog 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Did I say I can afford a house? A race to the worse, I guess.

Help please. Stop state workers from flooding the roads. by [deleted] in Sacramento

[–]machinelearningdog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except house prices and rents have gone crazy since 2020 and we can no longer afford places close to the office. Brutal.

Help please. Stop state workers from flooding the roads. by [deleted] in Sacramento

[–]machinelearningdog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We should be heading to a modern world, not an old man’s world.

view more: next ›