One challenge of aligning state expenses with dwindling revenues is that elected officials have little to offer public employee unions during the meet-and-confer process when it comes to pay cuts.
Furloughs work to some extent because they allow employees to have time off when pay is reduced, they're temporary and they tend not change an employees' base pay level.
But the limitations of furloughs are significant as demonstrated by a costly Alameda County Superior Court judge's decision Thursday ordering tens of thousands of California workers be given back pay immediately because they were furloughed illegally.
The judge's order, which is expected to be appealed, would cost the state more than $1 billion, making a projected $20 billion state budget deficit this year that much worse.
This outcome, if upheld, should come as no surprise. The governor's furlough program is said to have saved the state more than $2.5 billion during the last fiscal year and this one, but it has been on shaky legal ground from the beginning. As a result, it has been the target of dozens of lawsuits.
In the Alameda County case, lawyers argued that furloughing employees in departments such as the Department of Transportation and the California Highway Patrol, which are almost entirely funded by special, dedicated fees and not the general fund, is arbitrary and illegal.
The governor's attorney argued that it needed to furlough those specially funded departments in order to fairly administer the program to all state employees. But that argument did not prevail.
The governor is likely to continue to defend furloughs, but he has a better tool at his disposal - a straight salary cut.
As the state Legislative Analyst's Office noted in a recent report, the governor and state Legislature would fare better by veering away from furloughs and simply calling for an across-the-board salary reduction.
The report notes that for all the limitations the governor and state Legislature face in controlling spending, they still hold broad authority in setting employee salary levels, and only one bargaining unit - CHP officers - has a contract that has not expired.
"We believe that reductions in employee compensation will be necessary given the state's fiscal condition," in a report released by Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. Because of the "practical and legal barriers" to many of the governor's initiatives, including furloughs, the report concluded "reducing employee pay is the most viable option available to the Legislature."
No more gimmicks. No more gambles. The governor and state Legislature should heed Taylor's advice and use its authority to mandate an overall salary reduction.
It's difficult to see how the state is going to address a $20 billion budget deficit, as well as pay for its past mistakes, without one.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: