The California Supreme Court has said it will review a lower court ruling that kept Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger from furloughing roughly 144,000 employees last week as he had planned. (Hector Amezcua / Bee file, 2009)

State workers endured the latest tortuous turn in an off-again-on-again furlough saga that has left roughly 144,000 of them uncertain from week to week of their work schedules.

But the California Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to side with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and allow furloughs to start again Friday should be the last twist - at least until next month.

The court stopped a lower court's order that briefly kept Schwarzenegger from resuming the controversial furlough policy.

The ruling also adds another layer of drama to a Sept. 8 Supreme Court hearing and the subsequent decision of several key cases that likely will determine whether Schwarzenegger and the governors who follow him can impose unpaid time off on state employees.

"The result of the California Supreme Court ruling today means that the furloughs will continue until the court says otherwise," Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said, adding that furloughs also will stop if the state budget is approved.

Otherwise, he said, "furloughs will continue as planned Friday the 20th, the 27th, and one additional floating furlough between now and the end of the month."

Schwarzenegger ended a similar policy in June, but with state lawmakers at an impasse over how to close a $19 billion budget deficit, the Republican governor issued an executive order July 28 restarting the policy as a way to save $136.7 million per month in payroll costs, about $75.5 million for the general fund.

One furlough day equals about 4.65 percent of an employee's monthly pay.

Wednesday's ruling ended a legal sprint through the courts that started Aug. 9 when an Alameda judge temporarily barred Schwarzenegger from imposing a new round of three "Furlough Fridays" per month that were scheduled to start last week.

Schwarzenegger asked the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco to lift the lower court's temporary order, claiming that the judge's decision was "fraught with error," overstepped judicial authority and would "exacerbate the ongoing fiscal and cash crisis in California and will correspondingly harm the state and the public."

After losing in the appellate court, the governor asked the state Supreme Court to review the appellate and trial court decisions - and allow him to resume furloughs in the meantime.

The state Supreme Court agreed, and state workers said they are feeling the whiplash of conflicting court actions.

"What's next?" said Vickie Duke, a mailroom worker at the California Environmental Protection Agency. The worst part about the furloughs, she said, is the "roller coaster ride" that state workers have been on. The loss of money from forced days off also hurts and makes it hard to plan financially, Duke said.

Maria Bueb, who works for the agency's Department of Pesticide Regulation, said: "I'm used to getting jacked around."

She tried to digest how fast the first furlough day - and cut in pay - would be coming. "So I'm not working Friday, and I'm not getting a complete paycheck," she said, looking as if she were calculating her coming losses.

"I think we've done our part," she said of state workers.

The latest round of litigation is just one slice of more than 30 union-initiated furlough lawsuits that date back to December 2008.

The Supreme Court has taken up four key cases and set a hearing for oral arguments on Sept. 8. Its subsequent ruling, which will probably come by year's end, will likely affect many or all of the remaining lawsuits.

With the hearing date nearing, the court said Wednesday, "and without expressing any view on the merits of that issue, we conclude that it is appropriate to grant review in this matter and defer further action pending our resolution of the currently pending proceeding."

The Supreme Court also lifted the Alameda court's temporary restraining order. That lets furloughs resume Friday.

Sacramento labor attorney Tim Yeung cautioned against reading too much into Wednesday's decision as the September hearing looms.

"The initial knee-jerk reaction will be that (Wednesday's decision for Schwarzenegger) must mean the court is leaning in favor of the governor, but I just don't read that much into it," Yeung said.

A brief statement by Service Employees International Union Local 1000 noted, "The justices said that they are issuing today's ruling, 'without expressing any view on the merits' of the furlough issue."

Bruce Blanning, executive director of the Professional Engineers in California Government, said that the decision "just goes to show day to day that you don't know what the courts are going to do. You just move on."