Furloughs have been proposed for state workers in California in order to close the budget gap, but unions like the SEIU is adamant that furloughs do not actually save money.  Workers have to make up undone work with overtime; they are completely ineffective, and then there is lost productivity, and…..the list continues.  Let me repeat, the SEIU is adamant that furloughs don’t work….in California.  Iowa is apparently a different case all together, where the local SEIU proposed furloughs to save money. From the Daily Nonpareil:

“Superintendent Martha Bruckner already has met with representatives of the three unions representing district employees – the Council Bluffs Education Association, the Service Employees International Union and the Communications Workers of America. The SEIU proposed the furloughs to save jobs. If the district asked its employees to take five unpaid days off, the SEIU will agree. Dwain Pedersen, co-president of CBEA teachers’ union, said the CBEA will not agree. The CWA said it is open to discussion.”

“Most of the district’s administrators have agreed to the furloughs. If everyone agreed, Bruckner estimated the district could save about $1.3 million, and $1 million of that would be from CBEA employees. While unpaid furloughs and a wage freeze for 2010-11 still would not stop layoffs, “If we don’t get agreement on furloughs and wage freezes, there will be more cuts,” Bruckner said.”

In California, whether the SEIU is willing to face the music or not, their options are the same as Iowa’s: furloughs or layoffs (and paycuts). It’s funny, Michigan and Chicago implemented and accepted furloughs to close budget gaps. In Massachusetts, the SEIU was the first to approve furloughs. But in California, apparantly furloughs are ineffective?

Image courtesy of Kables.