Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Furloughs Will Mitigate Layoffs

Some of the material that has gone out states that furloughs won't mitigate layoffs. This is in error.

From CSUEU's Chief of Staff, this morning (emphasis ours):

Both the CO and the union believe furloughs would mitigate layoffs.

In Union,

Phillip Coonley, Chief of Staff
CSUEU, Local 2579

CO in this context refers to the CSU Chancellor's Office.

The whole purpose of furloughs is to mitigate layoffs. No one can guarantee there will be no layoffs at all, or that there won't be further CSU budget cuts down the line.

If furloughs don't completely prevent layoffs, the roughly 10% salary savings from furloughs will at least mean far fewer layoffs are needed to reach the savings goal. That will make the layoffs less severe, which is the very definition of mitigate.


Anonymous said...

The title clearly states "furloughs will mitigate layoffs", then the text in the article proceeds to say "no one can guarantee there will be no layoffs." Get your story straight people. The fact is that the money saved through furloughs will *not* be enough to mitigate layoffs for the fiscal year 2009-2010. There *will* be layoffs. And mind you 2000 people out of 60000, is merely 1 in 30. The CSU NEEDS LAYOFFS.

Anonymous said...

2000 layoffs out of 60000 employees is 1 in 30. The CSU NEEDS LAYOFFS to trim the fat. There aren't enough money in the budget to stop layoffs in 2009-2010, even if furloughs are approved. Layoffs are expected.

Editor said...

I'm afraid your facts are confused.

It's 2000+ layoffs in our own bargaining units. That's 2,000+ out of about 16,000, or more than 1 in 8 – quite a bit more than "merely 1 in 30."

In addition, 100% of the temporary employees in Units 2, 7, and 9 would not be reappointed, and 77% of Unit 5 employees would not be reappointed.

That's just in Units 2, 5, 7, and 9, which are represented by CSUEU. The total number of layoffs systemwide would be much higher.

CFA, for example, is looking at non-reappointment of about 9,000 lecturers plus 3,700 Full-Time-Equivalent (FTE) layoffs.

Deceiving ourselves into thinking the situation is rosier than it is doesn't help us.

Editor said...

There's no contradiction between "furloughs will mitigate layoffs" and "no one can guarantee there will be no layoffs." Both statements are correct.

Mitigate means make less severe, serious, or painful.

The whole point of furloughs is to reduce the need for layoffs, also known as mitigating them.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for continuing to clarify that mitigate doesn't mean NO layoffs, it means it will lessen the number of layoffs. At our meeting it was made clear that it is not 2,000 people out of 60,000, but 2,000 out of 16,000 that could suffer layoffs if furloughs are not implemented.

We were told it would be more likely 1 out of 3, but I'm assuming that's based on a number that would include temporary employees as well as permanent employees.