Should I even think about accepting the state job? (Sacramento: layoffs, schools)

[xmp]

Hi!

Here I come with a dilemma that I am facing for the last couple of days, especially with CA's budget woes and what Gov has proposed for next year. Hopefully, someone who knows more than me can guide me on what should I do.

I have a job offer from state of California, with position located in Sacramento, for an entry level scientist position with salary of ~60k. Based on my education and experience, there are chances for promotion within a year or so. Being a scientist level position, I am thinking (or rather want to believe) that it might be a little secure job as it will not be very easy for someone else to come in and do the job. However, I could be wrong.

I will be taking a salary cut if I were to accept this CA position. However, I am inclined to take this cut, as at this point in my life I want to settle down with a stable job and not worry about getting laid off, especially with the economy as it is and there is almost certainty that many employees from my organization will be laid off, but dont know which ones and when.

I know that with CA budget woes, it does not look like a good decision for job stability, but this position is in a special funded project. It is a special funded project in the sense that it does not get any money from general fund, and as such they are less dependent on state money. However, they are going on 3 furlough days a month so as to be fair to others who are taking the furloughs. However, the money saved in this way is not going back to the state, but staying with the department. This is what I was told, and looks like a good sign to me. Also, the department doesn't anticipate any budget cuts as they are not dependent on State money for their budget, but still in the budget for 2010-11, if it comes to laying people off, I dont know what will happen to me.

My spouse should also be able to get a job, hopefully soon, in both public as well as private sector.

I am hoping that there are several people working for the state or who have better experience and can advice me that will make my decision easier. Basically, right now I am asking if I should take this offer or not?

Thanks in advance for your advice.
[LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[Curmudgeon]

Asked and answered in your original post, "Thinking about moving to Sacramento for job" yesterday. Either that or it's deja vu all over again!

[xmp]

Thanks for the reply in my earlier post. Since I didn't get much response in that one, I thought that if I post a thread with a subject that asks for the opinion about whether to make this move or not, may be I shall get a better response. In that post, I was mainly asking for place to live, schools, etc, whereas this one is focused on whether or not to take this job.

Hope more people can give their feedback.

Thanks to Curmudgeon once again.

[heartfocus]

The economic crisis is supposed to get worse (see Dr. Housing Bubble Blog) so as long as your job is as recession-proof as you say, then why not go for it?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by xmp

Thanks for the reply in my earlier post. Since I didn't get much response in that one, I thought that if I post a thread with a subject that asks for the opinion about whether to make this move or not, may be I shall get a better response. In that post, I was mainly asking for place to live, schools, etc, whereas this one is focused on whether or not to take this job.

Hope more people can give their feedback.

Thanks to Curmudgeon once again.

I understand. Best of luck. If you decide to do it I'd do so sooner rather than later. Knowing the state I expect a very hard (for CA) hiring freeze to be implemented no later than July 1 and there is still the possibility of reduced benefits coming for new hires. You would need to beat that.

[edwardius]

What is your next best alternative?

A job in Sacramento is better than no job somewhere else.

The state budget is precarious. See for yourself here. The continues to not bring in as much money as forecasted and continues to spend more money than forecasted.

California State Controller's Office : Summary Analyses of Statements of General Fund Cash Receipts

The courts have taken away the ability of the governor to furlough employees. So I assume that the state will make up for that by cutting labor by laying people off. In the past when the the state lays people off it has been last hired first fired.

If you have better job alternatives elsewhere, I would do that. But if you don't take your chances. Maybe the independent funding source will protect you.

[wburg]

Furloughs haven't saved the state a dime, due to the increased costs of overtime (for the handful of state agencies that allow overtime during the furloughs), for contractors to provide services that furloughed state employees couldn't and wasted contractor time, and reduced tax income because employees in fee/tax collecting agencies being on furlough 3 days a month instead of collecting money.

So, considering that the amount of money the furlough actually saves is zero (if not negative), the amount of layoffs needed to make up the difference should also be zero.

The state of California isn't going to get any smaller, or any less complex, anytime soon. We are 49th out of 50 states when it comes to number of state employees per capita--only Illinois has fewer.

[ElectroPlumber]

I would take the job with the state. The state may be one of the last employers offering benefits and pension plans in the future.

Also, look at this article about the future of working in America. Very interesting.

Future of America̢۪s workforce: permatemps - Careers- msnbc.com

[edwardius]

Originally Posted by wburg

Furloughs haven't saved the state a dime, due to the increased costs of overtime (for the handful of state agencies that allow overtime during the furloughs), for contractors to provide services that furloughed state employees couldn't and wasted contractor time, and reduced tax income because employees in fee/tax collecting agencies being on furlough 3 days a month instead of collecting money.

So, considering that the amount of money the furlough actually saves is zero (if not negative), the amount of layoffs needed to make up the difference should also be zero.

Any actual proof of this assertion or this just something you pulled out of thin air?

[Jimbo15]

In the mid 1990's, the woman my dad was then dating got laid off during another period of tough state budgets. They first offered early retirement to anyone who would take it. When that didn't reduce payrolls enough then they did last hired, first fired.

The budget is out of whack enough where they may do something similiar again. Especially since furloughs have been taken off the table.