“Your not losing compensation, your just working less hours”
🪄
2 Likes
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
It won’t be a nightmare. It’ll actually make it easier to schedule.
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.
Set shifts or in the units that are going to/are already rotating. It’s known way ahead of time what the open day(s) are going to be. The world of shift shafting to save the state a dime and screw the employee has/will be coming to a glorious fireball of an end.
2 Likes
Captains and above? 
2 Likes
Those non-monetorial feel goods for sure!
Basic crew boss.
3 Likes
We aren’t taking a loss in compensation. The raises to get to the no loss in compensation have already been handed out and implemented. The bargaining team will always fight to get us more money.
If it was up to Sacramento HQ and the state government everyone but Schedule A contracts would be on a 4 day work week and we would be getting paid at the same wages as the USFS. I really don’t understand why the union haters don’t do their research before attempting to bash on them, because there is a lot of false information being pushed as truth just based off the fact that folks have been around for 25+ years. Length of time doesn’t equate to being correct, but we do need to take history into account as well.
We are closer than ever to a 56 hour work week and for those that think we will still have the abundance of OT, you will be in for a scary surprise. Schedule A contracts will always have OT, but the B side will dry up in a year or two unless you are on assignment. Time to find another side hustle for spending cash.
2 Likes
Any updates? New Talks of takes and giveaways? Leave it all alone and just give us raises? Toro Toro…
1 Like
Governor must release the May revision on or before May 14th and Legislature needs to pass a budget for the upcoming fiscal year by June 15th.
That’s when we will know for sure.
2 Likes
Update:
Significant Budget Analysis by legislative analyst office released today
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4886
2 Likes
Hell of a Read. That’s a pile of deficit cash. Maybe pull back the reigns on the schedule and focus on pay disparity. Two “slower” or “traditional” fire seasons with 4 thousand or so new employees really reminded me about what a normal paycheck looks like in reflection of the cost of life. But hey, I just push dirt and look forward to possibly sleeping at the station with my Boss. Life’s good, Cheers
3 Likes
3/4 of a Billion Dollars ongoing is not cheap!
Seeing the number of new FAE positions completely makes sense. It’s the only way to fulfill the imbalance of FAE to FC.
Seeing things like a proposal to make T3 engines basically traditional staffed (FC-FAE-FF) or the addition of a Lieutenant are intriguing and deserve further research.
But seeing things like going BACKWARDS by charging the 3.11 to 2.33 to achieve the 66hr would be a deal breaker for me. The fact this report mentions local cooperative agreements (SCH-A) iMO, should not be part of this discussion. Those agreements can come and go.
Reading the multiple mentions of “Fiscal emergency” tells me that option is still on the table. Even though it has HUGE implications as it doesn’t just effect CALFIRE but ALL collective bargaining agreements in the state. Which in turn has even LARGER political implications for the political leadership in Sacramento.
3 Likes
Looks like the LAO is justifying kicking the can down the road on a new workweek. It appears they are also setting the stage for revisiting the entire 66hr. schedule and making arguments that the legislature didn’t have all the fiscal information needed when they approved the MOU and the possibility of a 66hr. workweek. In typical fashion, this is government at its worse. There will always be an “out” in the language for any potential siginificant workweek change so the state isn’t absolutely obligated to it. I don’t think this ends well for Cal Fire and a reduced workweek. Bargaining teams need to recognize that the state will always give lip service and blow smoke but fall short of a full commitment. As I said back when this talk even was whispered , it will be when hell freezes over that a full reduced workweek will ever happen. There will always be an excuse! Wishing you all still working the best outcome in this quagmire.
5 Likes
I don’t understand the proposed option of using the new hires to achieve a 66 while staying at 2.33 staffing works. Wouldn’t that make it 2.75 or something like that? I get that there would be more overtime to fill gaps, but wouldn’t there still be more overall bodies per engine position?
1 Like
The simple answer is NO
The FF 2 sch B Engines, the FF1 hand crews, the Military & CCC crews are all staffed at 3.11. Not to mention the HFEO positions are rapidly working towards that number. Remember, the FF2 Sch B engines were part of the 2018/2019 budget and 3.11 staffing model was identified was in the 2019 Strategy Plan. Roughly 600 new FAE and 200 new FC positions have been created with double that amount (rough numbers) when all new positions are added together. Rolling back to a 2.33 model means those positions would have to be “absorbed” somewhere in the system. Hence the mention that 66hr at 2.33 is a less expensive option than 66hr at 3.11. As my late mother use to say “we don’t own a dog that chaps $$ or have a tree that grows $100 bills” or put in a more blunt way “none of us work for free”
Adding over 2,400 new positions comes at a cost. The LAO estimates that cost at $750 MILLION Dollars ongoing permanent increase due to wages and benifits.
2 Likes
The problem I see is one way or another we are all going to pay for it. Having the staffing levels at 3.11 fully realized over the past few years may not have changed the overall cost of fighting fires and the damage they cause. But at 18.7 billion in damages (unsure if suppression cost is included) over five years it’s still significantly less than 750 million annually. The reality is pay now or pay later. Fire suppression isn’t cheap and we as a society are not doing anything to limit the ignitions or the population from moving into the wildland areas of California. If a 66 hour clock is achieved in this bargaining cycle, I foresee it will be through some very difficult concession and bargaining.
“California has experienced $18.7 billion in property damage from wildfires over the past five years — the highest in the country”
1 Like
That’s $312,500/position. Something seem out of kilter??
Agree 99% with what you’re saying. However, the LAO & politicians don’t “really” care about the majority of that “$18.75 billion” for several reasons.
- those effected are less than 10% of all voters and less than 5% of their supporters
- those losses while devastating and tragic effected mostly private insurance companies.
The fact remains, in California SEIU is the largest and most powerful union in the state. They are the ones that champion “fight for $15” and got the minimum wage law changed and pegged to C.O.L.A. Look at other collective bargaining agreements and look at percentage of increases they got compared to other bargaining units and L2881. The political class wants to remain in power. The budget in its current form doesn’t support these projected costs increases. The population of California has plateau and is falling. School districts up and down the state are suffering from decreased enrollment and decreased revenue. The issuance of pink slips up and down the state have quadrupled in the last 12mo due to these decreases in enrollment. I state this because education is a fixed number in the budget. $750 million doesn’t currently exist. Heck, even proposition 1 from earlier this month is struggling to pass. So the tax paying citizens aren’t in the mood for increased costs as evidenced by the last election. I just don’t see the “political will” to make other necessary and required cuts from other programs to fund the proposed 66hr work week and the forecast $750 million/year increased costs to the general fund.
1 Like