Exactly, so when our representatives acted shocked and appalled that it happened….
Uhhh y’all agreed to it. So did we when we voted for the contract but acting like it’s a shock is disingenuous at best.
6 Likes
It still has to be ratified. So it can be turned down.
1 Like
Correct. We are talking about the last contract. And I agree, we all voted for it and ratified it. But for the union to act like “they didn’t know this would happen” says either they aren’t taking responsibility, or they were incompetent in bargaining. Either option is less than palatable as a dues paying member.
4 Likes
Not all of us voted for it.
7 Likes
Also not my point 
But I very much so agree. Not all of us voted for it.
5 Likes
If this is the case this means our managers and union are sharing in the deception and misinformation. I find it hard to believe every single one of them is this lacking in foresight to see these results.
3 Likes
Exactly. That’s what I’m getting at. But remember, we don’t literally pay management to keep us informed and updated on these types of things.
Last I checked my dues go to local 2881, not CAL Fire executive.
5 Likes
True. I only bring this up because Executive was first to say they are supporting the schedule, but now it will be interesting to see what there twist on words is now.
2 Likes
Remember, in general the job of management is to ensure organizational and fiscal stability. So, yes, they have motives to see the schedule change.
For example if we all work less and get paid less, IE loss of EDWC, then the department becomes more fiscally stable. And management scores a win with the employees who have stated that the schedule is the only thing that matters, even over proper compensation.
2 Likes
Great reframe in assuming that a cut in pay is way better than a better schedule. Especially in this economy. Yes they are responsible for those items. That’s a no brainer. But my point is, they have to be willing to take the bad with the good, and pay cut is likely going to divide this department. It’s simple socioeconomics.
3 Likes
I don’t disagree at all. And for the record I have no shame in saying I’m perfectly happy on a 72 and would much rather have just had money.
But the union has clearly stated that a schedule change is their number one priority. So from a management point of view that is low hanging fruit when negotiating with labor.
6 Likes
Again, our Union showed how ignorant they are. The email explaining the lose of compensation should have been sent June 30th explaining that this benefit sun setted. They, meaning the Union e board should not be “so upset and angry” they, meaning Tim, knew the day they sent this past contract to the union for the vote that this was going to happen. This is all Smoke and mirrors. I’m
Going on record saying that you will see an email from the dept executive email explaining this because the OT and SSA have and will
Continue to field hundreds of phone calls about this benefit “going away.” The email will be sent before the Union updates the membership.
5 Likes
I agree. If this is true. I will be voting a no on this contract if it means any kind of pay reduction. I think about LG departments that have better schedules and worse pay, those guys end up coming to us for better pay and despite the schedules. I also see a loss in pay as a hit to the 56. Once firefighters feel the pinch of less take home, a different perspective will arise. I appreciate and respect what you’re saying. My position is, if we take home less, it very much feels like a step backwards.
2 Likes
EDWC would need to be rolled into salary and then straight to a 56 retaining that salary to make it worth it, skip the 66 nonsense. Get ready for a bumpy road. I have 6 years left, I’d wager I won’t see the 56.
3 Likes
Well here is a fun thing about the 56 in the coveted 48/96 format. Some months you work 8 days others you work 11….
Tell me how to fit that into epay.
You know what does work in epay?
A kelly
Edit for clarity.
2 Likes
I agree. Days off don’t feed my kids or pay my bills.
2 Likes
There is a huge disconnect in the dept and the Union. Almost everyone I’ve talked to says the 66 is ok, but what about half the dept having
To work till they’re 57??
I will say most of us are ok with the 72, it’s what we signed up for. I do agree that riverside gets hammered and the 72 is not realistic for them and that they are surrounded by a 48/96. I do feel for those boys.
But, here’s a thought, we get pitched a crap contract with a “reduced work week” we vote it down due to loss in persable comp. The Union goes back to the table and comes back with a 72. Blames the membership for voting down the 66 and then the state just came up on a huge cost saving in current budget crisis. Makes one wonder…….
3 Likes
Soooo about the Riverside thing. More of us are perfectly fine with a 72 than you might think. Especially if going away from it means losing money. Stuff isn’t cheap down here.
Now, I’m not saying it’s not brutal at some stations. I’ve worked at some of the busiest stations in the unit as a medic, so I’m pretty confident I can speak to what it’s like. But frankly the 72 isn’t that bad, it’s the 96 or the 120 or the 2 weeks that kills you.
4 Likes
Absolutely no one complains about the 72. It is definitely the forces out of fire season that suck. We need to stack the ranks especially the medic pool.
2 Likes
Second that, never have heard an RRU employee complain about the 72.
5 Likes