66 Hour Work Week

California & Hawaii Hotlist Questions and Discussion
#1

I am creating this post to inform about the 66 hour work week, not to start a political conversation/gripe fest.

Governor Newsom’s proposed budget includes approx $200 million dollars and 338 positions next year and $770 million and 2457 position ongoing to implement the 66 hour work week. No further details about it except they assume a 5 year implementation, starting on Nov 1, 2024 and negotiations w/2881.

I wouldn’t sweat the 5 years as that is probably more of a bean counter entry. The important stuff will be negotiated. I can just assume there is going to be a huge amount of logistical issues to be worked out, but it’s nice that the support ($$$) remains.

6 Likes
#2

Hopefully that’s good news for for Captain and FAE offers down the road!

1 Like
#3

So what’s the schedule look like.
I keep being told it’s a 3-4 with one less day a PP.

2 Likes
#4

There are a bunch of rumors floating around. One is a 3/4 for 3 weeks, then a 2/5 on the 4th week. Or some variation of that pattern in a 28-day work period. However, it shakes out 66hr equates to one less working day a month. Again, all rumors.

2 Likes
#5

I believe that’s the only way it works.

2 Likes
#6

Convention is next week, let’s hope we hear something concrete from 2881. Still can’t understand how were this far into this latest contract and nobody knows what’s going on??? If anyone from 2881 leadership is reading this thread( which based on “keyboard warrior” comments during convention last year),we know you are, please please please, remember transparency and keeping the membership informed should be a high priority. I know most of us have grown up in the department and understand the mushroom theory of leadership, but to still not understand who/what/when/where/why is unacceptable.

5 Likes
#7

I’m not sure about anyone else, but I was very unhappy about how this was all handled. I’ve got about 3.5 left. There were several questions never answered about this. Biggest being am I gong to loose some of my monthly PERSable income. The local chapter spent a lot of time talking about pay raises, not the possible loss of edwick money and the possible lowering of gross income towards my retirement.

5 Likes
#8

This question has never been satisfactorily answered in my opinion

3 Likes
#9

I’m probably missing something, but I see only 2 ways to implement the 66 hour work week with no loss of compensation (i.e. PERSable income at the end of the year remains the same). As far as I know, that was a requirement in negotiations???

  1. Raise everyone’s base pay approx 10% (which would compensate for the loss of EDWC hours).

  2. Lower the EDWC clock to something like 38 hours. This would be the most desirable in the short term as your OT rate would increase significantly. Thus any 24 hour unplanned OT would be compensated much better.

Which one that occurs that is politically most palatable is unknown. The problem with the second is that when the next reduction in hours occurs the EDWC clock starts to become nonsensical. Of course I can see the state saying, we’ll give you an EDWC clock of 38 hours, but all unplanned OT is on the 56 hours clock. :face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

1 Like
#10

There was no negotiation… Remember it was a memo that came out from calhr with verbiage along the lines of “may” and “can” not “shall and will”.

Your points are well thought out and desirable yet at present because of the contract that we agreed to we really have no say in the matter… we agreed to an open-ended ticket… not an absolute. We will receive whatever is voted or approved by the government side and hope that the local gets to have a say or influence… I wish I could find the damn memo that came out. Remember it was shock n awe as it came out from HR and not the union and then there was a big back pedal the next day… The actual words are important not the translation or the perceived intent, unfortunately. We are at the mercy of what is decided, not negotiated.
Don’t forget in our short vision … our staffing model has not changed or been padded by heartbeats or bodies to offset. Simple math right, we need a “third Platoon” or the personnel for it to make things work. Instead we forced something that will require forcey bear to force even more. Brilliant plan!

Moreover we as small groups vote for c fallers to get a pay differential, and paramedics to get another pay bump, and to have longer mustaches, etc etc etc. How about as the largest department XYZ we have a unified front and we fight for one thing.
Statements put here are my interpretation and not those necessarily of the 2881 or the agency. I appreciate the opportunity to put them out there. I encourage those to do their own research and not be swayed by pomp and circumstance and promises of dollar signs.

That is all…

8 Likes
#11

Is this the memo?

2 Likes
#12

Much appreciated @s159

Nope. It was from calhr I believe. Broadsided 2881

1 Like
#14

You don’t want a loss in compensation… yet because of the verbiage you may. Not all things are opinionated or voted on to be honest where we sit right now we will be told what we will have. The land and the time of the keyboard warrior and social media unfortunately weill have a slap in the face potentially. Just because you tell somebody on the Internet it’s not right… don’t mean much!!! Unfortunately technology and times have out paced reality and government… To brazenly say no loss in compensation that’s like telling the car behind you at the Taco Bell drive-thru what they should order… It’s your desire or preferences,but you have absolutely no control!

5 Likes
#15

To me, no loss in compensation needs to include a factor for cost of living. There are some that say if we give up 10% in EDWC by going to a 66 but get a 10% GSI, that meets the definition of “no loss of compensation”. I disagree. By using the GSI to offset an equal loss of EDWC, you’re falling behind by the cost of living/inflation.

To me, not keeping up with inflation is equivalent to a loss of compensation. Is my thought process wrong?

3 Likes
#16

Well Stated

It is hard to hear the words from L2881, when they have been silence for the duration of this process.

  1. No committee has been formed to discussion the 66hr schedule as dated by July 2023.

  2. A side letter was formed to move to a 72 hr 3 day schedule for those programs that are on a 4 day. Prevention, HFEO, CDCR/ CCC camp programs, Air Attack etc. Dept did not accept it.

  3. Pay Parody bill went to Gov. desk. News was late on the outcome.

  4. As far as Negotiations went. There were none. Bargaining team pushed the offer forward. Gov’t office would not come back to the table. Local 2881 went to IAFF. IAFF contacted Newsum, said they would not endorse him for 2024 White House run if he did not give 2881 a contract. Governor Office received the message said they would only talk to L2881 President. This is the outcome. President accepted. Bargaining Team was not informed of what was negotiated.

L2881 contributions to IAFF $17.52 AND CPF $15.41 per member, per month. So if they have that much pull to get the Governor’s attention. ……. I believe when State said be have an $ 100 M surplus , we should have used that to our advantage with the other organizations we support.

  1. So the hear things said like this -“Throughout this process, our bargaining team will be working to ensure that our wages, benefits, and working conditions are maintained. We will continue to work daily with legislators as the budget moves forward.” How can members believe that the bargaining team will actually bargain.

So this week at convention will be interesting.

With all that being said. We are the best Dept. in the world. I mean that.

Look we even have a show now. - part where we laugh. :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

6 Likes
#18

Well, if you prefer the optimistic take…

The budget proposal shows a significant increase in $$. If all they did was substitute one body for another there would only need to be a minimal increase in costs. The reduction on one persons gross income would fund the additional person taking those 24 hours. With the proposed additional $$ that lends itself to a more positive outcome. I agree that addl info would be nice, however I also know that there is certain communication that would be politically toxic in the public sphere. Like it or not, we compete with a lot of other political entities.

Hopefully those attending the convention will be able to get some tea leaves read for them.

That’s concerning…

Not sure about this, it shows as a 2 year bill passed by the Assembly held in the Senate so it will be taken up or killed after the May 5th revise.

3 Likes
#19

I hear the department’s rationale is that these positions aren’t fire suppression, so their schedules will not change. No 3 day schedule, no 66, certainly no 56, no nothing unless you’re actually on a fire engine. Only then might you get a 66 as long as the fiscal emergency doesn’t come into play.

3 Likes
#20

Funny if they are not consider fire suppression, why are these resources always the first out of the gate and fought over during draw down. Since we seem to never have enough when multiple incidents occur.

4 Likes
#21

It would be interesting to know why 2881 never supported the pay perody publicly. I would have assumed as big of a deal as it would have been, they’d organized rallies, marches, buy billboards, and send a couple cases of scotch to some folks :wink:

1 Like
#22

Is this the document you are referring to? This was posted by CalHr well before the membership knew anything if I recall right. There are some errors in this PDF. One is our EDWC clock. It is 53 hours, not 56, section 8.2.3.1. It kills me that this document is still living on CAL HR’s website under Bargaining 8 with the errors it has. There was a lot of confusion state-wide on the implementation of the 66hr. This document clearly says, shall
" reduction shall occur effective November 1, 2024.

Bargaining Unit 8 Tentative Agreement 07-01-2022 through 06-30-2024.pdf (ca.gov)