SACRAMENTO, Calif. /California Newswire/ — Today, Calif. Assemblyman Jeff Gorell (R-Camarillo), Vice-Chairman of the Assembly Budget committee, announced his bill, Assembly Bill 208, which will prohibit state employees from receiving a full-time state salary while also concurrently accepting hourly employment positions within the same department for the same work, passed Assembly Committee on Public Employees Retirement and Social Security with overwhelming bi-partisan support.
This specific practice to augment pay and circumvent overtime restrictions for state employees was revealed at CALPERS and other state agencies after a recent Sacramento Bee news story and follow up investigation by the Department of Finance. The news story and legislative attention has prompted California Department of Human Resources to conduct an audit of the entire executive branch.
“This practice, which is pervasive throughout state government, is a back door way to provide salaried employees overtime pay where overtime for those on salary is prohibited,” said Assemblyman Gorell. “Not only does this practice circumvent the state’s compensation policies, but by assigning an employee two job classifications it deprives employment opportunities to the state’s unemployed and underemployed job-seekers.”
Recent investigations by the Sacramento Bee newspaper staff and the department of finance of payroll data revealed that state workers in nearly a dozen departments hold both a salaried position and another hourly-wage position in-house.
The State Controller’s office revealed that in 2012 alone, almost 2000 state workers were moonlighting in both full time and part time positions. Records indicate that some salaried employees making over $200,000 were also earning over $80,000 in their second position.
QUOTABLE:
“The state controller’s office confirmed in January that hundreds of managers, supervisors and other non-hourly state workers in nearly a dozen state departments are using this loophole to receive additional hourly wages above their existing salary. This practice appears to be an inappropriate, and perhaps abusive, use of taxpayer dollars to overcompensate employees for their existing responsibilities,” said Gorell.
