Furlough bill would set guidelines


A bill moving through the House would set restrictions on when state employees could be furloughed.

The bill would establish that the governor could order furloughs in economic emergencies as a last resort. Furloughs would be capped at 20 days and only employees who earn more than $30,000 could be furloughed.

"Given the choice between being fired or furloughed, it seems to me this is the more humane choice," said Rep. Ray Rapp, a Mars Hill Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill.

Rapp said Gov. Beverly Perdue has told him she believes she already has the authority to order furloughs, which she has said she would avoid. Rapp said a 2002 Attorney General's opinion casts that authority in doubt.

The bill appeared before a House committee Tuesday and members heard from a lobbyits for the State Employees Association of North Carolina. Suzanne Beasley Malysz said mandatory furloughs would be yet another blow to state employees who will see no raises and increases in their health insurance this year. And keeping state employees at home will affect state services.

"There are many citizens who are going to suffer if you start cutting people who provide those valuable services," she said.

Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat and another co-sponsor of the bill, said that because of the state's budget deficit, currently estimated to be more than $3 billion, furloughs will be necessary.

"I think it is fanciful and wishful thinking at best to think we won't have to," Glazier said. "These kinds of options are going to have to be on the table."

The bill will likely eventually be combined with another bill that allows state employees to volunteer for furloughs.

You must be logged in to post a comment on this blog. If you already have an N&O online user account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register (it's free!).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Furlough bill would set guidelines

I agree with mountainman. I make just over $30,000 and cannot afford to lose 20 days pay any more than the person making under $30,000. It should be all non-essestial employees, not just a select few. They should look at the fine line of who is considered essential and why they are condsidered essential. Some of them may also be able to furlough.

We talk about health insurance in the article too. As a working person I keep putting off medical procedures because of the cost and you want to take my money away and make me pay more. Please give us a break, we are the one's trying to work for what we have, not living off society.

Furloughs? Who will do the work?

When the tax-paying public calls into a State agency seeking help, help they believe they are due, and no one is there to answer, Who Will Be Responsible? The taxpayer that did not want to pay their fair share of taxes? The Legislator that is afraid to do what is right by finding enough revenue to pay the bills? Or the State Employee that has no control over their fate but is made to suffer because of other people's failures?

Re: Furlough bill would set guidelines

Why would they furlough just employee that make 30,000 or more??? To me that seems that older employee that have many years of service will take the cuts on this. The bill also says this only applies to none essential employee, so who would be essential long time employee or new hires. The long time employee are in vital roles to service the public and new hires are just getting started