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.
June 25, 2021 - This analysis reviews 20 labor agreements received by the Legislature between June 9 and June 15, 2021. The analysis summarizes and provides comments on the agreements. In addition, the analysis provides overarching comments across the 20 agreements and offers recommendations to the Legislature.
January 30, 2023 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding for Bargaining Unit 10 (Professional Scientific). Bargaining Unit 10 is represented by the California Association of Professional Scientists. This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
August 12, 2022 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding for Bargaining Unit 18 (Psychiatric Technicians). Bargaining Unit 18 is represented by the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
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.
August 25, 2022 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding for Bargaining Unit 2 (Attorneys and Hearing Officers). Bargaining Unit 2 is represented by the California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Government (CASE). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
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.
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.
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.
August 22, 2014 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 2 (Attorneys). Bargaining Unit 2 is represented by California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment (CASE). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
August 14, 2024 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 10 (Professional Scientific). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
August 26, 2022 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding for Bargaining Unit 8 (Firefighters). Bargaining Unit 8 is represented by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Firefighters (CalFire Local 2881). This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
August 25, 2014 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 13 (Stationary Engineers). Bargaining Unit 13 is represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39. This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
March 16, 2011 - We reviewed the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 2 (California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment [CASE]). If adopted, the MOU would result in increased state costs in the current year, savings in 2011-12, and net cost thereafter. Overall, the MOU would reduce state Bargaining Unit 2 employee compensation costs in 2011-12 by 3.5 percent.
May 29, 2014 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 10 (Scientists). Bargaining Unit 10 is represented by the California Association of Professional Scientists. If adopted, the MOU would modestly increase state costs beginning in 2014-15.
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.
March 25, 2011 - We reviewed the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 7 (California Statewide Law Enforcement Association). If adopted, the MOU would result in increased state costs in the current year, savings in 2011-12, and net cost thereafter. Overall, the MOU would reduce state Bargaining Unit 7 employee compensation costs in 2011-12 by 2.8 percent.
April 8, 2011 - We reviewed the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 6 (Correctional Peace Officers) and Unit 13 (Stationary Engineers). If adopted, the MOUs would result in increased state costs in the current year, savings in 2011-12, and costs thereafter. Overall, the MOUs would reduce state Bargaining Unit 6 and 13 employee compensation costs in 2011-12 by about 3.6 percent.
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.