Back to the Report

More publications like . . .

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Units 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21


Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 16 (Physicians)

March 14, 2017 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the state and Bargaining Unit 16. This bargaining unit is represented by the Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD) and consists of state employed physicians, dentists, and podiatrists. This analysis fulfills our requirement under Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

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

September 6, 2019 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the nine bargaining units represented by Service Employees' International Union, Local 1000. This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 8 (Firefighters)

January 23, 2017 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 8 (Firefighters). State Bargaining Unit 8’s current members are represented by Cal Fire Local 2881. This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 18 (Psychiatric Technicians)

January 9, 2020 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 18 (Psychiatric Technicians). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Corrected 1/10/2020: Changed Figure 3 and reference to the figure in text.

Post

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

August 8, 2019 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 7 (Protective Services and Public Safety). Bargaining Unit 7 is represented by the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

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

June 10, 2016 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 12 (Craft and Maintenance). Bargaining Unit 12 is represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Locals 3, 39, and 501. This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 6

June 14, 2019 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 6 (Corrections). Bargaining Unit 6 is represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 6 (Corrections)

April 4, 2016 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 6 (Corrections). Bargaining Unit 6 is represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 6 (Corrections)

May 30, 2018 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 6 (Corrections). Bargaining Unit 6 is represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

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

June 24, 2016 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 7 (Protective Services and Public Safety). Bargaining Unit 7 is represented by the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

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

August 29, 2016 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 2 (Attorneys and Hearing Officers). State Bargaining Unit 2’s current members are represented by the California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

The 2020-21 Budget: Labor Agreements to Achieve Budgetary Savings

September 9, 2020 - The budget assumes that employee compensation is reduced by up to 10 percent in 2020-21. This analysis provides a historical record of all the labor agreements between the state and its employees to reduce state costs in 2020-21 and—in most cases—2021-22. In addition, this analysis looks forward and provides comments and recommendations to help the Legislature think through future decisions to reduce employee compensation should the budget problem persist beyond 2021-22.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 9 (Professional Engineers)

August 28, 2018 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 9 (Professional Engineers). Bargaining Unit 9 is represented by the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG).This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 10 (Professional Scientists)

August 28, 2018 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 10 (Professional Scientists). Bargaining Unit 10 is represented by the California Association of Professional Scientists (CAPS).This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.

Post

[PDF] 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.

Hearing Handout

[PDF] Pending Proposal Concerning Highway Patrol Officer Retiree Health Benefits Funding

September 2, 2009 - On August 27, 2009, the administration presented to the Legislature a proposed addendum to the existing state employee labor agreement with Bargaining Unit 5 (California Highway Patrol [CHP] Officers). The proposal would amend the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act and increase state budgetary costs in some future years. This letter provides our office’s analysis of the proposal, similar to the analysis we routinely provide the JLBC with proposed labor agreements.

Report

[PDF] The 2015-16 Budget: Health Benefits for Retired State Employees

March 16, 2015 - Health benefits for retired state employees constitute a large and growing cost for the State of California. The state’s retiree health benefit program constitutes the state’s last major liability that needs a funding plan. As part of his 2015-16 budget, the Governor proposes one approach to address retiree health liabilities through the collective bargaining process. In our report, we recommend that the policy committees of the Legislature hold hearings to discuss the Governor’s proposal—as well as other options to address retiree health liabilities—with actuaries, employee groups, policy experts, and the public. We acknowledge that a delay in implementing a funding plan might make some elements of a funding plan more expensive; however, we think it is more important to get the plan right that to quickly set up a plan that can be implemented in 2015-16.

Report

Retiree Health Care: A Growing Cost For Government

February 17, 2006 - The costs of providing health care to retired state employees and their dependents—now approaching $1 billion per year—are increasing significantly. Many other public employers (including the University of California, school districts, cities, and counties) face similar pressures. This report discusses health benefits provided to retired public employees, focusing on state retirees. We find that the current method of funding these benefits defers payment of these costs to future generations. Retiree health liabilities soon will be quantified under new accounting standards, but state government liabilities are likely in the range of $40 billion to $70 billion-and perhaps more. This report describes actions that the Legislature could take to address these costs.