California state workers push back against July 1 return to office, budget cuts
Governor Gavin Newsom is mandating that state workers return to in-person work at least four days a week starting on July 1.
Many state workers are concerned about how expensive it will be for them to return to in-person work, and now those costs may only be harder to deal with.
"It really feels like state workers are being punished," said Haley Leguizamo, who works for the California Department of Education.
The governor is proposing to cut nearly $767 million in state worker salaries to address the $12 billion state budget deficit.
State workers said that means they will not be getting their 3% raises that were negotiated for the next two fiscal years.
Assemblymember Josh Hoover called for an audit of what the return-to-office mandate for state workers will cost.
"Why should Californians who have returned to office in their respective fields care about this? How is state workers returning to the office impacting them?" I asked.
"People working in the office already will very much notice a difference on their highways when it comes to traffic congestion," Hoover responded.
Hoover said it is also impacting taxpayer dollars, claiming it costs around $600 million per year to pay and maintain state office buildings that he thinks could be sold and turned into housing.
"It's going to be crazy again," said Andrew Douglas, who works at La Bou.
Downtown businesses like La Bou are hopeful that state workers will bring a boom, but instead, it may be a bust.
"People aren't going to go and patronize those businesses because they just can't afford to," said Vincent Green, an information technology specialist for the state.
State workers may also be paying more for parking, up to $200 a month in some garages.
The city plans to increase its prices on some of the cheaper garages on July 1, the same day the new return-to-office mandate for state workers begins.
The state's finance department gave CBS13 this statement about the budget cuts:
"Closing a $12 billion shortfall requires spending restraint across state government. The budget doesn't propose any furloughs, salary cuts, or health care reductions for state workers - but it does ask them to forego a three-percent salary increase."
CBS13 also reached out to the governor's office but did not hear back.
In the past, Newsom has been standing firm behind his return-to-office mandate, saying that it is good for people to collaborate in person.
Some state workers told CBS13 that this is all a political move.
"We have proven that we can still do our jobs even though we are at home," Green said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
How a unique California law puts the Menendez brothers' fate into the hands of one politician
After serving several decades in prison, Erik and Lyle Menendez are facing the possibility of freedom as the California Board of Parole Hearings this week considers whether they've adequately atoned for the 1989 murder of their parents. While this may seem like the final moment in the long and captivating saga, refueled by several attempts by the brothers' lawyers and the former district attorney to achieve what they say is a more modern version of justice, the brothers have one more potential roadblock – California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor holds an unusual power that allows him to 'affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the parole authority on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to consider' for someone convicted of murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term, according to state law. While the governor is required to follow certain parameters, he is given broad oversight on the decision. The little-known and rare ability, established in the 1980s, looms large over the brothers as they prepare to explain to a parole panel why they should be released. It's not clear how Newsom is leaning, and his office did not answer a question from CNN about his potential decision, but here's what we know about the power that gives him ultimate authority to decide on the brothers' freedom. The governor's ability to veto the parole board's decision dates to the 1980s, when public reaction toward a now-forgotten case grabbed headlines – as well as the attention of voters. William Archie Fain, convicted of the 1967 killing of a teenage boy and rape of two teenage girls, was released on parole in 1983 to much outrage from the public, according to the Los Angeles Times. After getting parole, he continued to be accused and found guilty of other crimes, ranging from assault to peeping. Then-Gov. George Deukmejian tried to prevent his release, but state courts ruled Fain had to be freed. In response, the California legislature passed Proposition 89, which gave voters the option to allow the governor power to modify the parole board's decision. While there were concerns it would unjustly give a politician too much power, many were more worried about the potential for violence during a tough-on-crime era. 'Proposition 89 will not politicize the parole process, but it will provide an extra measure of safety to law-abiding citizens by giving the Governor the authority to block the parole of criminals who still pose a significant threat to society,' Deukmejian and a state senator wrote in a 1988 voter information guide arguing for the proposition. 'Prop 89 will correct a weakness in the state's parole system and further strengthen California's system of justice.' The proposition ended up passing with 55% of the vote, according to the UC Law San Francisco Repository. The only other state that gives its governor the power to veto parole grants is Oklahoma, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The proposition does limit the window of reversal to 30 days, meaning if the parole board votes to release the brothers, Newsom has 30 days from when the decision is released to change it. Since the proposition's passing, the power bestowed on the California governor has been curbed slightly by court rulings over the past two decades, said Christopher Hawthorne, clinical professor of law and director of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic at Loyola Law School. In one, the California Supreme Court ruled the governor must reasonably assess the defendant's risk against public safety, Hawthorne said. Another ruling several years later allowed the governor to consider whether the defendant had insight into their crime, he added. While the power has been modified, the governor still has room to a make a decision in the Menendez case as long as it follows these guidelines. Since the proposition was added to the California state constitution, governors have often used it to deny parole in cases during the 1990s and early 2000s, when tough-on-crime policies were more popular, according to Hawthorne. 'In the mid-'80s, California passed law after law after law, frequently by initiative, that made it much harder to get anyone out of prison. And that flow only reversed in about 2012 or 2013 when Gov. (Jerry) Brown was in office,' he said. 'For a long, long time, it was almost impossible to get parole, get found suitable for parole, and if you did get found suitable, the governor reversed a lot of parole grants at that time.' Hawthorne cited the case of Leslie Van Houten, a former Charles Manson follower and convicted murderer, as an illustration of when governors repeatedly denied parole despite the board approving it. Newsom also denied parole for Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated US Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, with the governor citing Sirhan's 'refusal to accept responsibility for his crime' and 'lack of insight and accountability,' among other reasons. 'He does not understand, let alone have the skills to manage, the complex risks of his self-created notoriety. He cannot be safely released from prison because he has not mitigated his risk of fomenting further political violence,' Newsom wrote in a 2022 Los Angeles Times op-ed explaining his decision. 'Every governor is fairly allergic to releasing high-profile defendants,' Hawthorne said, though 'California has done really well in the last 10 years or so' in increasing the availability of parole overall. 'It was something that was not available, essentially, during the (Pete) Wilson, (Gray) Davis or (Arnold) Schwarzenegger administration, with very, very few exceptions,' he said. The three governors served successively from 1991, but starting in 2011, 'Jerry Brown's administration and Gavin Newsom's administration have done infinitely better,' he said. While the Menendez brothers have some elements working in their favor, such as family and public support, as well as encouraging recommendations from prison and corrections officials, some have passionately argued against their release. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman hotly contested their potential resentencing earlier this year, despite his predecessor, George Gascón, requesting it. The previous district attorney, Hochman said in a statement, 'did not examine or consider whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited full insight and taken complete responsibility for their crimes.' His statement also cites the two points Newsom can consider in a potential reversal of a parole board decision. To help make his case, Hochman created a chart comparing factors considered by the parole board for Sirhan and each Menendez brother. Some of the factors include time served in prison, their education level before and during incarceration, and the gravity of the offense. Since Newsom denied Sirhan's parole based on the factors laid out in the chart, Hochman argued, the Menendez brothers definitely don't qualify for release as the they have more prison rules violations and haven't exhibited full insight into their crimes. Hochman has said the brothers lied when they claimed the motive for killing their parents was due to abuse they faced from their father. He has previously said he believes evidence to corroborate the abuse allegations is 'extremely lacking;' earlier this year he said his review of the case showed the killings were premeditated and not the result of a threat from their parents. Although a judge ultimately ruled to resentence the brothers earlier this year – which is why they now have a parole hearing – the positions taken by Hochman's office could still factor into the governor's decision on parole. The situation is definitely a 'political hot potato,' Hawthorne said, though the overwhelming support for release from family members could heavily weigh the decision. More than 20 Menendez relatives have banded together over the past year to advocate for release, saying they believe the brothers' abuse claims and that society's understanding of childhood sexual abuse has changed dramatically since their conviction in 1996. They also say the brothers have grown and tried to help others through rehabilitative programs in prison. Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the Menendez brothers and leader of the coalition, told reporters last October that 'If Lyle and Erik's case were heard today, with the understanding we now have about abuse and PTSD, there is no doubt in my mind that their sentencing would have been very different.' She also read a statement from Terry Baralt, Jose Menendez's sister: 'I implore the district attorney's office to end our prolonged suffering and release Lyle and Erik back to our family. Thirty-five years is such a long time. My prayer is that I live long enough to see my nephews again and to hug them once more.' Oftentimes, a victim's family opposes release, Hawthorne said, making this a unique situation. 'It's interesting in this case, given that Jose and Kitty Menendez's family are largely in favor of both Eric and Lyle getting out – those voices will matter, and they will be brought to bear in that 30-day window when the governor has the case,' he said. The family will be able to express their opinions to the governor's office through calls, letters and other documents, in an attempt to sway his opinion. 'I can't think of a governor who wouldn't be sensitive to that,' Hawthorne said.
Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Odd Lots: Housing Is a Problem Even in a State With Declining Population
You can kind of understand why it's so hard to build housing in New York City. There isn't much available land. It's already pretty built up. And then, add in the fact that so many people want to live in New York, and you can understand why it's so expensive. But what's the deal with Alaska? There seems to be plenty of land. And population has actually been in a a general state of decline. And yet, housing remains strained, with many of the same affordability problems seen elsewhere in the country. So what are the specific challenging dynamics to be overcome? On this episode, we speak with Jimmy Ord, Daniel Delfino, and Stacy Barnes of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to understand the challenges they face, and the work they do to ease the strain. We get into both the specific logistical, political, and financial tools available to reduce pressure.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Make your money work for you by ‘laddering' bonds or CDs
If you have a lot of cash on hand, it should be making money for you. One way to ensure it continuously does that is to set up a ladder of Treasuries or FDIC-insured certificates of deposit with staggered maturities (eg, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc.). When a ladder might make sense A laddering strategy can offer low-risk, predictable returns that will help you keep up with — or beat — inflation, while protecting your money during volatile markets and helping you meet your near- and intermediate-term goals. 'Which ladder works for you depends on your needs,' said Collin Martin, a fixed income strategist at Schwab Center for Financial Research. For example, ladders can be useful if you want to: Preserve purchasing power: A fixed income ladder can help if your main concern for a given sum of money is to protect the principal and not let inflation devalue it. Rhode-Island based certified financial planner Sue Gardiner had a client whose goal was to preserve capital and protect purchasing power of money going to beneficiaries of an inherited IRA that had to be fully distributed within 10 years. 'So we used TIPS (Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities) to hedge inflation, but balanced them with Treasuries and brokered CDs to lock in competitive yields and keep annual liquidity,' she said. 'The ladder was designed so each year's withdrawal is funded by maturing securities.' Pay off debt: If you have credit card debt and can secure a zero-rate balance transfer card — which lets you pay off your debt interest free for up to 21 months — a ladder of CDs or bonds can generate additional income to help clear your balance. Say you have $100,000 from the sale of a house or an inheritance. If you don't already have an emergency fund, set aside some of the money into a high-yield FDIC-insured online savings account or a money market fund. Then split the rest evenly across the number of 'rungs' in the ladder you choose. For instance, a three-month CD or Treasury, another one maturing in six months and a third one maturing in a year. As a CD or Treasury comes due, direct the income it throws off plus some or all of the principal to pay down your 0% credit card debt, Gardiner suggested. Grow savings for a specific end dat e: Or, say you want to have enough money to make a down payment on a home in five years. 'If the goal has a finite date, ladder the strategy so all the money is available for the down payment [on that date],' Gardiner said. Set up a cash flow stream: If you're about to retire but won't claim Social Security for a few years, you might consider a laddered bonds strategy to provide a steady income stream between now and then or even for longer. 'It provides stability and predictability while bridging the gap until larger income sources like Social Security kick in, or to create a predictable foundation while other assets are positioned for growth,' Wade Pfau, founder of the site Retirement Researcher, wrote in an article about bond laddering. 'As one (bond) matures, the principal is returned and can be reinvested or spent, depending on your needs at that time.' Questions to ask To set up a laddering strategy that works for you, consider these questions: How long before I need the money? Be very clear what your liquidity needs will be for the money you're investing. Once a ladder of investments with staggering maturities is set up, if you tap any before they come due, you may have to pay a penalty in the case of CDs that you buy directly from a bank; or you might lose some of your principal if you're selling a bond (or a CD purchased through a brokerage) when you sell it back into the secondary market. 'Make sure you match up maturities of those holdings with what your time horizon is. You don't want to suddenly need all of it and be forced to sell at a loss,' Martin said. Also know that any investment on your ladder that is labeled 'callable' means the issuer can recall it and pay you back your principal before the instrument comes due, plus any income owed up until that point. So ideally, you will only invest in non-callable CDs or bonds, otherwise you might need to reinvest it sooner than you think. Does it make more sense to invest in CDs or bonds? What you'll net after taxes from your investment is a key consideration. The income you earn from a CD is taxable at the federal, state and local level. If you invest in Treasuries, the income is exempt from state and local taxes. So if you live in a high-tax area, they may be a better bet. But if you live in a state with no income tax or very low income taxes and the yield on a CD is better than a bond of similar duration, the CD may be your better bet. Do I want to manage the ladder myself? If you're setting up a ladder of CDs or Treasuries for a one-time, date-certain purpose and your plan is to use the money as it comes due, that might be the simplest thing for you to set up and manage. But if your plan is to use a ladder on an ongoing basis for income, that will mean you have to keep track of everything and be proactive about reinvesting your money whenever it comes due to maximize your income potential. Alternatively, there are now some ETFs that ladder bonds, which can do the work for you if they're structured in a way that meets your goals. If you're building you own ladder, your brokerage may offer model laddering strategies that will help you set one up and then can automatically do the reinvesting for you if you choose. If, however, you're considering laddering municipal bonds for their tax advantages or corporate bonds to maximize yield, you might consult a fixed income adviser or have an investment professional manage your ladder for you because those instruments require a little more research to make sure you're getting the risk-reward trade-off. 'You don't want to blindly invest in those,' Martin said.
