66 Hour Work Week

California & Hawaii Hotlist Questions and Discussion
#37

To add to this, even if there were to be a GSI to offset the loss of PERSable income, inflation continues in the background, so, to me, keeping the same PERSable income as last year equates to an effective cut equal to 4% or whatever inflation has been over the last year.

I’m not saying I’m against a reduced work week at all. I’m completely for it and can’t wait for the 56. I’m just saying that the interpretation of “no loss in compensation” may be in the eye of the beholder.

For me, accounting for inflation and the associated loss in the compensation’s spending power is part of the factor when considering “no loss of compensation”.

Based on the comments here, it seems inflation may not be a concern for other people when looking at compensation.

That said, I also agree that even a 10% GSI is not common, even if it’s to offset the loss of EDWC, so shooting for 14% to account for inflation would be that much more difficult, although not unheard of. Especially in the face of current economic conditions.

#38

The 24hr in reduction in work period is 100% PERSable and will require negotiation.

Those of us “Old enough” to remember history knows that the State Dept of Finance has never had a problem reducing the work week, just not getting paid for those NON-WORKED hours.

As stated by many, there is no guarantee that the reduction in hours worked won’t reduce base pay.

To not reduce “PERSable income” the EDWC money would have to be rolled into base pay. This would also increase the FSLA overtime rate.

Remember the formula for OT
Base salery(plus the medical stipended) divided by 4.33(for 13 PP not 12 month)
Then divided by 53(FSLA Hours per week)
Equals straight time hourly rate
Then 1.5 times S/T equals the OT rate.

If there is a reduction in hours worked, DOF has stated, that is a reduction in pay. Bottom line is it needs to be negotiated, voted on by egislation and signed into law by the governor.

2 Likes
#39

Thanks that was my point it has to be bargained and that’s not going to happen what so ever. Something will be taken away like it is everything you are going to lose money. How about the work on getting everyone on a 3 day work week with a raise that would help. Adding another shift will cost billions can’t remember amount. How about take that money and give the people a raise or get the retirement age back to 3% at 50. Just food for thought.

1 Like
#40

It seems like each bargaining session begins with the mentality that in order to gain something, we have to give something up. I disagree with this approach and feel like beginning with this as the basis sets the stage for it to be acceptable to give, give, give. There is so much that has been given back or foregone over the decades that has led us to where we are today.

CAL FIRE already has the longest work week for the lowest hourly pay (how much lower can you go than starting at minimum wage?), the state civil service minimum standards for holiday/vacation/sick leave, the lowest per-apparatus staffing levels, and some of the most grueling working conditions in the most remote locations around. With the loss of 3@50 and the other “give backs” in recent years, there just isn’t much meat left on the bone to sacrifice in order to bring the department up to the industry standard.

I’m not saying nothing has been gained, as there have certainly been considerable gains in recent years, but just that overall, CAL FIRE’s progress seems to have been slower than other all risk fire agencies and the effects are showing in the wear and tear on the workforce. While there are many factors, I feel this partially stems from this “well, we have to give up something to gain something” mentality.

2 Likes
#41

I’ll address getting everyone on a 3 day work week really quickly, do you really believe the union hasn’t brought that forth to the agency? Do you really think the union has turned down putting everyone on a 72 hour shift pattern? The union requested this years ago, the agency refuses to do it. Our work patterns are dictated by the agency, not the union or the government. The union has fought to get everyone on a 72 hour schedule, not the agency.

Now to the 3 at 50 retirement formula, you are late to the party. 3 at 50 wasn’t the standard retirement formula amongst fire departments when we had that benefit, our union fought for that. 3 at 55 was the common formula amongst most other fire departments in California before PEPRA. Sure, you will find certain agencies that were also at 3 at 50, but it wasn’t the majority like everyone thinks. Now contrary to your belief, every time the bargaining team goes to collective bargaining they ask for 3 at 50 back, but it’s up to the state of California and the Governor whether they are even willing to entertain that benefit, and they have NEVER been willing to entertain the thought of that up to this point, but rest assured the bargaining team and L2881 will continue to fight to try to get that back.

With the 66 hr work week, the union won’t agree to present a contract offer with a loss in net income to the membership for a vote. So if the state refuses to allow the 66 without a loss in compensation, then the bargaining team won’t present that for a vote to the membership.

Of course this could all be being argued by folks that don’t even pay union dues and instead just ride the coat tails of those that do pay and go and fight for benefits.

1 Like
#42

Though this is a good discussion, with some buttons being pushed, the current state budget deficit will push this discussion down the tracks. There’s no way this Governor can spend more money when he has to find cuts in the next 2-3 years. I don’t see the legislature passing on their entitlement adds for a better MOU for 2881. The current proposed budget cuts in many areas, but adds new entitlement programs that make no sense. We may get there some day, but in a deficit budget year or years I just don’t see it getting through the process. I hope I’m wrong for those still serving but we’ll see.

3 Likes
#43

Here you go

Here is the original language

Pay particular attention to Section C and D in the Reducing the 72hr Duty Week.

2 Likes
#44

Take the time to read this article. SEIU is the SINGLE largest union in California. The Governor is already being forced to go back on things he just signed into law 3mo ago. The bottom line is this, until the tax basis is corrected to a less expensive, less volatile method. This swings in revenue will continue.

1 Like
#45

Tamp down the hyperbole. Let say Calfire has 6000 employees. Adding a third shift (which the 66 hour work week doesn’t) would roughly be 3000 extra employees. At 175K (!!)/employee that would be a little over 500 million. The proposal just for the 66 hour work week is an extra $770 million. That is why I’m optimistic the will not be a PERSable income drop.

Talking with some who have been at bargaining sessions, this is never the mentality of labor.

This was bad, however you pick your battles. There was never any way our little union was going to buck the political landscape at the time. This had nothing to do with negotiations. We were just swept along with the bigger players at the time.

2 Likes
#46

Loss of 3@50 wasn’t bargaining’s fault. Can’t bargain for employees you have t hired yet. Gov. Brown took advantage of that loophole and made it apply to all “future hires” at the time…

4 Likes
#47

Also need to remember, PEPRA is a law. So bargaining can’t circumvent it.

4 Likes
#48

This is interesting if true and approved by the members.

Let’s see if a "Fiscal Emergency " gets declared.

2 Likes
#49

Does CSU bargain every year? Or do they picket once a year? Seems like a lot of negotiations recently.

1 Like
#51

Budget proposal is asking for 105 new FCs and 104 new FAEs statewide for the B side 66 hour implementation. I’m guessing these positions would be used to take up the 6 hour reduction in hours worked. These positions are funded w/additional money. The Governors budget proposal shows no reduction in money for current employees. Roughly you need one additional FC/FAE for every 12 FC/FAE in a unit. Not sure how many line FC/FAEs there are statewide but this would take care of about 2500 of them.

If the schedule does result in a 3-3-3-2 pity the poor schedule maker.

3 Likes
#52

66 hour workweek ?
A schedule “B” nightmare, when you add in Holiday, Sick Leave and Vacations.

You’ll get paid for less duty hours, but it could result in more days on duty. May be a 72 hour duty schedule. Just a thought…:eyes:

1 Like
#53

How so? Also, the union is bargaining for less hours in the work week with no loss in compensation.

#54

“Your not losing compensation, your just working less hours”
🪄

2 Likes
#55

If you are the type of person that cares about money more than time off, there will be plenty of OT available… so that would be a non issue.

1 Like
#56

It won’t be a nightmare. It’ll actually make it easier to schedule.

#57

Can you explain? In an ideal world for scheduling purposes, you would want that extra FTE to fill in the one day/month the other 12 FTEs don’t have to work. To make that happen would entail shifting a lot of FTEs workweeks around. Now I haven’t taken a deep dive into this, I’m just looking at it from 20,000 feet. Its obviously doable, will just be interesting to see the end product.

As mentioned in the original post, lots of logistics to work out.