ALBANY — Gov. Paterson has put massive state employee layoffs “on the radar screen” after being told the no-layoff pledge he signed with public employee unions last year is not legally binding, The Post has learned.
The administration has estimated that up to 10,000 job cuts would be needed to reach the governor’s target, an official said.
Paterson’s new tack follows a federal court ruling last week that temporarily blocked his $30 million-a-week plan to put 100,000 workers on furlough.
Now, he’s weighing pink slips if the furlough offensive fails in subsequent court hearings.
“Layoffs are on the radar screen,” said a source.
A legislative source told The Post that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is “warming to layoffs” because the unions appear “inflexible toward any other workforce savings.”
The Assembly and the Senate both endorsed Paterson’s goal of $250 million in general workforce cuts in nonbinding budget resolutions passed in March.
But the governor and lawmakers remain deadlocked on how to close an estimated $9.2 billion deficit more than six weeks after the budget deadline passed.
Meanwhile, legislative leaders have told the governor they don’t believe a “memorandum of understanding” the administration inked with unions in exchange for their endorsement of a less generous pension program is legally binding — if only because it wasn’t signed by Paterson.
The document signed July 22 by Paterson’s deputy director for employee relations, John Currier, vows “no layoff or threat of layoff” until Dec. 31, 2010.
“Where in the law is [Currier] allowed to sign such a binding agreement?” one administration insider asked.
Leaders of the Civil Service Employees Association and the Public Employees Federation contend the pledge is ironclad. They argue a state judge ruled as much in March, when the court granted the CSEA a temporary injunction against 18 layoffs at state mental-health facilities.
Paterson settled out of court, and the question was never fully resolved.
He is expected to make a final decision on layoffs after a May 26 federal court hearing on the furlough issue.
A mass layoff would be one of the costliest ways to trim payroll, because the state must pay workers for back wages and unused leave.
“I’m going to wait until after the court’s decision to go in that direction,” Paterson said Thursday in a radio interview. “What we’re saying is [furloughs are] the best way, we think, to handle this. Everybody takes a little hit so that some don’t have to take the ultimate hit.”