Filter publications





 

57 Publications Found

MOU Analysis    Clear Filters


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Units 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 (SEIU Local 1000) [Revised]

December 22, 2010 - We reviewed the recently ratified labor agreements with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1000, the largest state employee union. The administration estimates that the state's net savings under the proposed agreements will be $383 million ($164 million General Fund) in the current fiscal year—compared with costs negotiated in prior Local 1000 memoranda of understanding (MOUs). The administration’s estimates are generally reasonable, but we (1) discuss concerns we have with the administration’s assumption that leave days will not result in overtime costs or productivity losses, and (2) compare the MOUs’ costs with the previous three-day-per-month furlough program. Finally, we discuss the current status of state employee collective bargaining and major employee compensation policies currently affecting executive branch employees.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis for Bargaining Units 5, 8, 12, 16, 18, and 19

July 15, 2010 - In our required fiscal analysis of six proposed collective bargaining agreements, we find that the memoranda of understanding (MOUs), if adopted, would produce state savings in 2010-11, little net budgetary impact in 2011-12, and some increasing state costs for one or more years thereafter. Over the long term (many decades), the MOUs' proposed changes in retirement benefits could produce significant state savings, but no actuarial analysis of these changes has yet been submitted by the administration. The Legislature will face a major decision whether and how to approve the proposed continuous appropriations for economic terms of the six bargaining agreements.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Units 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 (SEIU Local 1000)

March 6, 2009 - We review the administration's proposed labor agreements with SEIU Local 1000, the largest state employee union. The administration estimates that the state's net savings under the proposed agreements would be $337 million ($156 million General Fund) between now and June 2010--compared to costs negotiated in prior Local 1000 MOUs. We also discuss two alternate ways to view the costs of the proposed agreements--compared to costs under the Governor's previous two-day-per-month furlough plan and compared to costs included in the February budget package. The proposed agreements represent a cost increase for the state under both of these alternate methods.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 18 (Psychiatric Technicians)

August 28, 2006 - We provide a fiscal analysis of the proposed MOU with Bargaining Unit 18 (psychiatric technicians). The administration's cost estimates are generally reasonable. We estimate that total compensation costs (including benefits) for Unit 18 rank and file would total about $435 million (up 3 percent from the prior fiscal year) in 2006-07 and $460 million (up 6 percent) in 2007-08 under the proposed MOU. Our analysis also discusses the bargaining unit's high vacancy rates. In part because of the vacancy rates, departments often mandate that employees work overtime because state institutions require extra hours of work in order to meet institutional licensing and certification requirements.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 10 (Professional Scientific)

August 25, 2006 - We provide a fiscal analysis of the proposed MOU with Bargaining Unit 10, which includes state scientific personnel. The administration's estimate of the MOU's costs in 2006 is reasonable, but the estimate for 2007-08 likely overstates costs by around $2 million ($500,000 General Fund) due to a high estimate of inflation. Under the proposed MOU, we estimate that total compensation costs (including benefits) for Unit 10 rank and file would total about $235 million (up 8 percent) in 2006-07 and over $240 million (up 3 percent) in 2007-08. About two-thirds of the increased costs over the term of the agreement result from the proposed MOU. The remainder largely results from additional hiring authorized by the Legislature in the budget.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 7 (Protective Services and Public Safety)

August 25, 2006 - We provide a fiscal analysis of the proposed MOU with Bargaining Unit 7, which includes certain state public safety personnel. The administration's estimates of costs are reasonable, but we forecast a lower inflation rate than DPA assumes in estimating costs of 2007-08 pay increases. In some agencies, costs to substantially reduce currently high vacancy rates could exceed DPA's estimates. Under the proposed MOU, we estimate that total compensation costs (including benefits) for Unit 7 rank and file would total about $515 million (up 11 percent from the prior fiscal year) in 2006-07 and $540 million (up 5 percent) in 2007-08. About 55 percent of the increased costs over the term of the agreement result from the proposed MOU. The remainder results from additional hiring authorized by the Legislature in the budget or state health contributions required under the current MOU.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 5 (California Highway Patrol)

August 18, 2006 - We provide a fiscal analysis of the proposed MOU with Bargaining Unit 5, which includes CHP officers. The administration's estimate of additional 2006-07 costs is reasonable. We estimate, however, that the annual fiscal impact after 2006-07 will be substantially more than shown in administration estimates because its projections assume (1) relatively low growth in the statutory pay formula for CHP officers, (2) no increases in state health premium costs after 2007-08, and (3) no change in required employer retirement contribution rates. By 2010-11, annual state costs could be $100 million higher than suggested in the administration estimate. In addition, various factors including pay and benefits for CHP and funding demands in the Department of Motor Vehicles are likely to put stress on the financial condition of the state Motor Vehicle Account, which funds Unit 5 personnel costs.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 16 (Physicians, Dentists, and Podiatrists) and Bargaining Unit 19 (Health and Social Service Professionals)

August 4, 2006 - We provide a fiscal analysis of proposed MOUs with Units 16 (physicians, dentists, and podiatrists) and 19 (health and social service professionals). The administration's estimate of costs resulting from the MOUs in 2006-07 is reasonable, but the estimate for 2007-08 is likely too high by $6 million due to a high estimate of inflation. We estimate that total compensation costs would rise to about $579 million in 2006-07 for a cost increase of over 10 percent. More than 40 percent of this increase results from factors other than the MOUs, such as court-ordered pay increases. In 2007-08, we estimate that costs would increase an additional 6 percent to about $610 million. In addition to these costs, we expect that future court orders related to correctional and mental health programs will increase pay for some members of these units by an unknown amount.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 12 (Craft and Maintenance) and Bargaining Unit 13 (Stationary Engineers)

July 28, 2006 - We provide a fiscal analysis of proposed MOUs with Bargaining Units 12 (craft and maintenance workers) and 13 (stationary engineers). We believe that the Department of Personnel Administration's (DPA) estimate of costs resulting from the MOUs in 2006 is reasonable, but that the estimate for 2007-08 is likely too high by around $7 million due primarily to a high estimate of inflation. We estimate that total compensation costs (including benefits) for Unit 12 and 13 rank-and-file employees would rise to about $740 million in 2006-07 under the proposed MOUs for a cost increase of almost 7 percent. In 2007-08, we estimate that costs would increase to over $760 million, or more than 3 percent above 2006-07.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Units 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 (SEIU Local 1000)

July 6, 2006 - We provide a fiscal analysis of the proposed MOU with the nine bargaining units represented by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1000. We believe that the Department of Personnel Administration's (DPA) estimate of costs resulting from the MOU in 2006-07 is reasonable, but that the estimate for 2007-08 is likely too high by around $65 million due to a high estimate of inflation and not accounting for health care savings. We estimate that the total compensation costs (including benefits) for rank-and-file employees represented by SEIU would rise to over $5.5 billion in 2006-07 under the proposed MOU for a cost increase of almost 7 percent. In 2007-08, we estimate that costs would increase to $5.7 billion, or more than 3 percent above 2006-07.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 8 (Firefighters)

June 2, 2006 - We provide a fiscal analysis of the proposed MOU with Bargaining Unit 8, Firefighters. We believe that the Department of Personnel Administratrtion's (DPA) estimates of additional costs resulting from the MOU are too low. We estimate that net costs for the state will likely increase by at least $13 million in 2006-07 and $12 million in 2007-08 ($6 million more than indicated by DPA in each year).

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 2 (Attorneys and Hearing Officers)—Revised

January 23, 2006 - We revise our December 14, 2005 summary of the fiscal effect of the MOU with Bargaining Unit 2, Attorneys and Hearing Officers, based on a side letter which changes the retirement provisions of the previous MOU. We estimate that current annual costs for salaries, salary-related costs, and health benefits for Unit 2 members total $396 million ($144 million General Fund). The proposed MOU would require 2005-06 expenditures of about $409 million (an increase of $13 million, or 3.3 percent). The MOU would require 2006-07 expenditures of about $436 million (an additional increase of $27 million, or 6.7 percent). The side letter reduces the amount of savings the MOU otherwise would have produced for the state. The magnitude of the foregone savings is unknown since it would have depended on future decisions of Unit 2 employees.