Would you consider this state sponsored slavery?

It’s not slavery at all—they are certainly welcome to quit if they don’t like it. Sure, getting another job might be hard right now, but slavery would mean they couldn’t just quit.

This is their job putting extra demands on them. If they were salaried it wouldn’t be an issue at all. I mean, jobs frequently require salaried employees to stay beyond the typical 40 hours a week. Many positions when moving from low levels with hourly pay to higher positions that are salaried mean taking an actual paycut because you lose that overtime. So even though your salary is theoretically more, you actually get less.

Anyway, it’s not slavery.

It’s simply a pay cut. Not slavery.

I and many others experienced that as salaried folk.

I wouldn’t call it slavery.

By the way, as horrific as prison is, In California, even with budget constraints the inmates get access to 24 hr. dental and dessert at every meal.

No it isn’t slavery it is a cut back.

they’re still getting paid, just they aren’t spreading it out over the actual hours worked. Otherwise, it would no doubt appear extremely low.

that being said, where i work, if you’re off the clock, you aren’t allowed to do anything.

@Judi i wish i got that. gotta go work on my 3rd strike..

When I worked 3 months solid with no day off, my super visors still had their weekends. When I was working 18 hour days they still came in at 9 and left at 5.
While I was under paid in my salary by 33% they were still overpaid by 23%.

I could have left and given up unemployment benefits, healthcare and entered a jobless market.

It is just the way it is sometimes.

Not slavery but it’s certainly an unfair impingement upon their freedom, liberty and justice. Not so much the crappy employer part, but the threat of imprisonment part – on what grounds is that threat being made?

I don’t think it is slavery. Robmandu hit it on the head when he called it a pay cut. If they are getting comp days eventually, for most of them it isn’t even a permanent pay cut. In this economy I would guess that the union is willing to take this deal in order to spare as many jobs as they possibly can.

It seems to me that like @eponymoushipster said, the private sector would be in big trouble if they tried to force an hourly employee to work more hours than they were paid for.

No. Especially if they are salaried. However, their union is the biggest lobby in the state, for good and bad. I imagine the union is having a field day with this.

Not slavery.
And for the retirement and other benies ca state workers get, They are still getting a good deal.

Has anyone who has said it’s merely a pay cut, etc., read and considered the part Judi wrote: “If they strike or don’t show up they can go to jail.”?

They are HOURLY workers and forced to work UNPAID HOURS The idea that they will ever really get the comp time is a joke. It won’t happen.

@Zaku – I’m sorry but I just can’t resist. They are already in jail :-).

@GAMBIT;
Actually, people in prison who have been tried and convicted get better treatment than people in county jail, awaiting trial or not able to afford bail. No 24 hour dental there!

@Judi – I understand Judi. I couldn’t help myself about the gaurds being in jail.

@GAMBIT – LOL! Yes, good point. ;-)

@GAMBIT plus, you know, in prison…the other thing.

ridiculous

@judi, the union is going to need to assert their power to be sure these guards get the comp days they deserve.

Well their workload may be getting lighter, since it looks like the state will be required to release up to 58% of prisoners from overcrowded jails. Then maybe they’ll get those unpaid days off. Under the heading “You can’t get blood from a stone” their union leaders know that a strike might give private orisons a foothold and there may be a permanent loss of jobs if that happens.

@Judi, would it make you feel better if they just made it a 10% pay cut (assuming 2 days off for a 20 work day month) across the board?

Because that’s all it is.

And repealing the furlough is likely to be a lot easier than trying to push through actual compensation rate changes for thousands of employees. [ of course, I know nothing of Cali’s internal budgetary and financial procedures ]

It’s not slavery. The guards are free to find employment elsewhere; a slave is never given a choice in the details of their employment. But it’s certainly not fair. Then again, in today’s economy, a lot of things that are happening are not fair.

@dynamicduo I agree.

When I worked for our city (and it is still this way from what I hear) when a hurricane or other emergency situation was declared, city workers were required to report to duty as “essential personnel,” and do whatever work was assigned them in order to prepare for, protect the citizens from, or recover from the emergency. No one would be paid for that time but would get comp time later.

Any worker who failed to report to work was fired, and could also be prosecuted for breaking city ordinances, state law, and federal law.

Employees could apply for a waiver every year in January for cause (sole caregiver to a disabled person, and so on) but the waiver could be waived at the discretion of the city manager.

This was backed up by, as I said, city, state, and federal law. However, we did have a choice in that we could 1) comply, 2) refuse to report and thus be fired, or 3) quit. I chose option 3 once my husband became so disabled that I could not care for city property and our own.

I suspect California is operating under a similar legal structure in that not having guards at a penitentiary would be a risk to the public and hence an emergency. Because the guards can quit the job, it is not slavery. Because there are statutes that control how federal, state and municipal workers must carry out their duty to protect the public it isn’t illegal. However, it certainly isn’t pleasant and will do little to raise morale.

“The beatings will continue until morale improves” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_beatings_will_continue_until_morale_improves )

I have never heard anything good about the California corrections officers’ union. My wife’s uncle is a San Diego attorney, and he has a rather dim view of the lot of them. They’re the first ones to push for longer prison sentences and more prison-time offenses because they want to keep the prison population in Cali large and thus their jobs. The cost of incarcerating somebody for a year is a lot more than many hard working people earn. There is just no sense in that. America has the largest per capita prison population in the world. I’m not sure where Cali ranks among the states, but I’m sure it’s up there.

Anybody who works at a California prison, or just about anywhere else, is free to quit their job if they don’t like the terms under which they can stay in good standing with their employer. Private or government jobs, no difference. In other words, if they don’t like it, they can lump it.

That isn’t slavery. It’s freedom of choice.

Since Pete Wilson the prison funding was constantly increased while school funding remained the same (really dropped due to inflation) That tells you what the priorities are.

not slavery, but certainly not fair

I agree not fair. It would be more fair if they told them take two days off and don’t get paid for two days (which, by the way, is a 10% pay cut assuming a 20 workday/month). I guess the alternative is quit and be jobless in this economy. I am following this issue because i work in child welfare, and we have a number of cases each, and i could imagine them saying we’re taking two days of work away from you, but not two days worth of cases. You still have to do the same number of cases, but in two less days, which would be a total screwing. However, someone has to do it, like with the CO’s, someone has to guard the prisoners, and in not enough time to train new CO’s.

@jca,
And with a hiring freeze even if they had time to train new CO’s….