Slashdot Mirror


California Can't Perform Pay Cut Because of COBOL

beezzie writes "Last week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered a pay cut, to minimum wage of $6.55/hr, for 200,000 state workers — because a state budget hadn't been approved yet. The state controller, who has opposed the pay cut on principle and legal grounds, now says the pay cut isn't even feasible because the state's payroll systems are so antiquated. He says it would take six months to go to minimum wage, and nine months more to restore salaries once a budget is passed. The system is based on COBOL, according to the Sacramento Bee, and the state hasn't yet found the funds or resources, in ten years of trying, to upgrade it." The article quotes a consultant on how hard it is to find COBOL programmers; he says you usually have to draw them out of retirement. Problem is, if there were any such folks on the employment rolls in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger fired them all last week, too.

19 of 1,139 comments (clear)

  1. COBOL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are plenty of COBOL Programmers out there, the problem is nobody in IT wants to hire old people.

    1. Re:COBOL. by taniwha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no - the problem is that no one wants to be paid minimum wage to program COBOL

    2. Re:COBOL. by drpimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no the problem is social security pays more so why go back to 40 hours weeks of coding at that rate!

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    3. Re:COBOL. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure they do. When I do a job search for IT positions, nine out of ten are for "senior" level positions. Nobody is hiring junior or just normal engineers. Seniors only.

      Usually "senior" means 5+ years experience with some piece of technology invented six years ago, though.

      So to get a job in IT, you can't be old, you can't be young, and you must have started working with every one of the latest technologies professionally on the year it was invented (before most businesses even used such technologies).

      I can't believe anyone can find a job with those requirements. Perhaps the mass of positions advertised these days are just a ploy to allow more H1Bs and outsourcing.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:COBOL. by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They lie in their requirements, you lie on your resume, balance is achieved.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:COBOL. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a global problem. Companies want people with 5+ years of professional experience with technology that has been out for 3- years, flexibility (both in hours and location, meaning you work 48 hours a day, 8 days a week and have no problem being shipped off to their office in Abu Dhabi), can poop out perfect code while writing reports in at least 3 languages, have a masters and at least 10 years of professional experience but ain't older than 25, and don't ask for more than 2500 USD a month, tops.

      And then they go around and lament that we have not enough IT people. There are IT people on the market, but you have to pay their value and you have to step down from unrealistic expectations.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:COBOL. by Darby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The national defense is one of the few things the federal government does today that actually has a constitutional basis. I don't think anyone suggests getting rid of our military. It's one of the VERY few things our government has done that actually WORKS (when liberals aren't busy undermining it and/or its mission, anyway).

      Really? There's a constitutional basis for using our military to murder democratically elected leaders in order to install brutal right wing thugs if they're friendly to certain powerful corporate interests?

      How exactly does that translate as "defense"?

      The most laughable thing is that you declare people who dislike that type of massive unconstitutional corporate welfare to automatically be "liberals" (which, of course they are according to what that word actually means although that's not what you meant by it) and then claim that by expecting the military to actually do their fucking job instead of being little besides a corporate hit squad that they're "undermining" the mission of the military.

      That is, of course, complete nonsense.

      Your idea of the military's mission is in direct contradiction to what it actually is. You also demonstrate your contempt for a free society and your love of militant fascism, corporate welfare and huge government.

      I mean, seriously, at least try to sound sane for a minute.

      "Waaaaaa the eval liberulz are undermining the mission of the military by expecting it to defend our country instead of attacking other countries for the profit of a few scumbags". That is what you said, and it's both false and utterly disgusting.

      Please keep your huge oppressive government wet dreams to yourself, or at least have the basic decency to be honest about your contempt for small government and the idea of a free society.

  2. Programmers? by SgtPepperKSU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would you need a programmer to change people's pay in the system?

    Oh, wait; you don't. This is just more politics...

    1. Re:Programmers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems to me the people who should get their pay cut are the governor and legislators. They're the ones who haven't produced a budget.

      Don't give them back pay either - every day there's no budget is another day they lose a payday - forever. That might encourage them to get their job done on time.
       

    2. Re:Programmers? by Lord_Frederick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen how government applications are coded. The majority are either built by someone that can program but not engineer software and the rest are built by the lowest bidder. I find it perfectly feasible that a simple change will break the entire system.

    3. Re:Programmers? by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sometimes you really do. Often, with really old systems like this, data that ought to be in tables is hard-coded in the system, sometimes in really obscure places. Or the code may only support pay *increases* because nobody thought there'd ever be a pay decrease for a government employee. (Seriously.) If you've ever worked on a project to replace an antiquated system, especially for a utility or government entity, you'd be shocked at what you saw. It's amazing that anything works at all.

      Job security? Incompetence? Micro-management? Probably a combination of all three.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:Programmers? by Al+Dimond · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A guess: it's not changing the pay that requires a change in the code. It's keeping track of how much pay each employee is then owed at the end of the political fight.

      You see, they're not just going to unexpectedly cut their employees' pay. They're just going to take a short, interest-free loan from them without their consent. How merciful of them.

      It's no wonder governments so often get the worst pick of employees. Why would people with choices stay when they could at any time used as political pawns like this?

  3. rule #1 by pak9rabid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're going to pull a lame excuse out of your ass for why a decision can't by fulfilled, don't make it known that you're against said decision.

  4. When you pay minimum wage for labor... by janeuner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...expect minimum wage results.

  5. Re:Problem is not lack of programmers.... by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is this person is lying. Seriously, wages change all the time; probably at least once a year people get reviewed and get raises; you're going to tell me there's a 9 month backlog?

    And why on earth would it take 50% longer to raise them back up again? That makes absolutely no sense.

    There's only one obvious conclusion: the state controller is lying.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  6. Re:Uhh... by isomeme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can easily picture a system that encodes rules about pay grade differences derived from huge piles of laws, union contracts, and so forth. Changing everyone's pay to the same low level would violate all kinds of intertwined constraints and validation checks, and thus be rejected. I imagine the time quoted to make this change is due to the need to work around these cross-checks without eliminating them entirely, as most of the time (i.e., when the governor isn't posturing) they are quite useful to help avoid illegal or improper changes.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
  7. Re:Should just fire everyone by nickhart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure why unions act like every person should be guaranteed a job. What universe you have to live in for things to be so certain?

    I don't know about you, but I live in the richest nation on Earth (which has a government that acts like it owns the universe). We spend more than 5x on our military each year (not counting "supplemental" spending on wars, interest on loans for said wars and other related costs) than it would cost to feed every hungry person on the planet, according to UN figures. The workers of the United States are some of the most productive in the world and we collectively create vast riches--for a tiny minority of people at the top who "own" the factories and businesses from which this wealth is extracted. This is nothing more than organized theft.

    Under a sane, rational system all workers would share in the wealth we create. When we discover new techniques that make our jobs more efficient, we would all work less--instead of under capitalism, which results in layoffs and fewer people working more. We wouldn't waste trillions on killing people--we'd spend trillions to create good jobs that serve important needs: like educating people, healing them, building efficient mass-transit and clean, renewable energy sources (all of which create more and better jobs than military spending does).

    Instead we live in a world where a handful of parasites lets their own short-term, profit-oriented interests dictate policy for the rest of us. They get to force their pro-capitalist dogma onto us in schools, textbooks and via the media they own, so that people believe that the current system is the way things should be and always will be (just as the Church and nobility once taught serfs and merchants to remain in their places).

    There's no reason we can't provide a job, food, clothing, shelter and health care for every single person on the planet--except that it wouldn't be profitable for the people at the top, and they are not going to give up their power and privilege without a fight.

  8. Re:I call BS... by rujholla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because you aren't changing their salaries. You are paying them a partial salary for the duration of the budget crisis and then back paying them all that remains.

    What do you do about health insurance payments -- what if their current options cost more that they are being paid.

    Do their 401K deductions and the resulting match go into their account now?

    There are a bunch of questions that come up when you start dealing with HR issues. Nothing is ever simple there.

    Don't get me wrong I support Arnold's effort to cut state spending to try and lower their defecit. But this might be more difficult to implement than it might seem at first glance.

  9. Make me a sandwitch by pentalive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    alias 'please'='sudo'