Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Administration seeks authority to defer or impose 2025–26 salary increases; unions and lawmakers object
Summary
The May revision would let the administration suspend or impose salary increases under control sections tied to collective bargaining; legislative analysts and union representatives warned this could undermine bargaining and asked for clearer legislative limits and alternatives.
The administration proposed control sections (3.90 and 3.91 language in the May revision) that would permit it to pursue up to $766.7 million in savings (including $283.3 million General Fund) from employee compensation by deferring scheduled pay increases and, if necessary, imposing terms on bargaining units that do not reach agreement.
Department of Finance officials said the state will first attempt to achieve savings through collective bargaining for the July 2025 pay period and, if no agreement is reached, would include a budget revision to impose reductions. CalHR director Irene Ortega said the administration prefers bargaining and that the control sections are intended to defer scheduled increases rather than cut base pay already on the books.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended rejecting the proposed control-section language and urged the legislature to specify a reduction target and the policy the administration could impose if it is authorized to act — instead of granting open-ended authority. LAO analysts warned the authority could damage labor relations and that imposing reductions on agreements the legislature previously ratified would raise policy and labor-relations concerns.
Union leaders and dozens of public commenters representing state scientists, SEIU Local 1000, CAPS-UAW and other bargaining units told the committee that collective bargaining should be honored and that pay deferrals would disproportionately harm employees facing rising housing and living costs. Lawmakers also pressed DOF to explore alternatives, such as asking vendors and contractors to take temporary adjustments and seeking lease or procurement savings tied to the return-to-office mandate.
Why it matters: The proposal touches core collective-bargaining rights and would affect a large share of the state workforce, pension calculations and employee morale; senators emphasized that bargaining is the appropriate forum for concessions and that unilateral authority would be a heavy-handed tool.
What’s next: LAO recommended the legislature reject the control-section proposal and, if it wants reductions, adopt language that sets a ceiling on reductions and specifies the policies that could be implemented; DOF said it is willing to work with the legislature on alternatives.
