66 Hour Work Week

California & Hawaii Hotlist Questions and Discussion
#23

A lot of missing and misinformation in the thread.

A committee has been formed for the 66 hr. Work week.

The reason the department hasn’t agreed to ALL suppression programs to be in a 72 hr. Schedule is because the state wants its workers on a 4 day work week from office to field positions. They want 4, 10 hour work days per week. Look at the MOU hours of work and it makes sense. One of the big reasons that Schedule B engines have gone to a 72 is because of the schedule A program. You have to remember that schedule B company officers used to work a 4-day work week while Schedule A was a 3-day. This was fixed by the union and collective bargaining, then it transferred down to the FF1 ranks in the mid 2000’s. We move at the pace of a steam powered locomotive, not an electric bullet train.

Certain political decisions cannot be made public because of the potential backlash to the governor. Love him or hate him, we all ultimately work for him (we really work for the people that reside in and visit this state.) The union and agency are given confidential information that comes out before the press release for planning purposes. It’s not given to us peons on the floor though because we are a majority of type A personalities that will potentially cause to lose what they have negotiated.

I will say that I am not someone “in the know”, but know enough to know that some of the above information is wrong and that the internet word isn’t fact or truth, but opinions and anecdotal. That doesn’t mean it’s always wrong, but it needs to be considered “what someone says”, not black and white.

6 Likes
#24

To clarify. The EDWC clock is 56 hours. The EDWC clock can be anything agreed to between the state and labor. All it does is set your hourly rate (remember most/all of 2881 is considered salary employees, not hourly). Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but BC and FF1 had a 72 hour EDWC clock up until 5 years ago or so. The FF1 EDWC clock had to be reset because using it caused the hourly rate to fall below the state minimum wage. The BC clock was changed because their total comp was only a couple hundred above a FC which became an issue.

The 53 hour number comes from FLSA. Any hours worked over 53 are to be considered OT for firefighters. That’s the reason there are 76 hours of extended duty week pay (i.e planned OT). 72 -53=19. 19*4=76.

The 53 hour and 56 hour numbers are not related to each other.

These calcs are the reason I gave my 2 possibilities above as the solution for a 66 hour work week. Again, I’m probably missing something as HR and 2881 can be very creative when necessary.

1 Like
#25

I’ve always been confused why they use a divisor other than 53 to calculate overtime when FLSA says the hourly overtime is to be based on dividing the weekly salary by the number of hours that salary is compensating for.

In this case, overtime is paid (per FLSA) after 53 hours in a week, meaning the salary is compensation for the first 53 hours every week. Yet, they use a higher number to divide by (56), which results in a lower hourly rate.

Maybe I’m wrong and there are a lot of people that are a lot smarter than me looking at these things, but using anything higher than 53 to calculate overtime seems like it would violate FLSA.

1 Like
#26

Not a labor lawyer, but I believe if the employer (State) and the labor representative (2881) agree to it then it is allowed. My guess is that if 2881 had ever said no in a contract (thus immediately enacting a 53 EDWC clock), then the state would take away/not agree to certain other benefits/raises that were granted in past contracts.

However I agree that this anachronism of years past should have been done away 20+ years ago. Back in the dot com boom I was arguing this should be the number one priority. If 2881 ever wanted to start bargaining on an equal basis in regards to all other 56 hours/week fire departments, they needed to get their calcs in line with them, otherwise it makes comparisons very difficult.

2 Likes
#27

FLSA is primarily for hourly wage earners and becomes less of a thing for union and govt. That being said, they still regulate some basic stuff.

Work periods can be anything up to 28 days. I know you’ve heard 212/28. 212 hours in 28 days is the threshold for OT per MOU. Also per MOU is the agreed hours worked to earn salary, the 56. FLSA doesn’tcare how you agreed to calculate the hourly rate as long as it’s more than minimum wage and you get 1.5 for more than 212.

FLSA also says only actual hours worked need be counted toward 212. Vacation, sick and other time off is only counted because of MOU.

I used to work for LG where our schedule didn’t repeat evenly over 28 days, so the hourly rate changed every 28 as some periods there were more and some there were less hours.

2 Likes
#28

The EDWC clock was bargained down to 53 for the OT rate during Covid and hasn’t changed since. Our OT is calculated at the 53 hr. rate, most LG’s are at the 56 hr. rate.

We didn’t print new MOU books for the one year contract extension so it’s not printed in the current book

3 Likes
#29

I haven’t seen MOU books handed out since Moby was a Minnow.
Seems like about all thats ever is available to read is an older fire station copy.
That’s something they can budget in with our dues.
Each CalFire employee gets a book.

4 Likes
#30

The 66 hour work week is the dumbest thing ever. You will still get held on you will lose $1000 a month not to mention that is pers able income that 12,000 a year pay cut for getting 12 days off a year not worth it. There are alot of other things at effect this do your home work kids before you wish for this.

8 Likes
#31

You are greatly misguided based on your own assumptions of just working one less 24 hour shift per work period.

The loss of scheduled 24 hours of duty would result in a GSI to compensate. No reduction in persable income, approximately same net take home pay, no reduction in compensation.

Where you are correct is that yes, we will still probably eat a force day at least once a work period, but it will be worth more money now.

5-10 years from now folks that became so used to working as much OT as they want will start to complain that there is no OT available because we will be staffed up. Look at the FF1 rank, there used to be plenty of voluntary OT available. Now FF1’s complain that they can’t make enough money because there isn’t any OT available so some of them are getting second jobs.

1 Like
#32

It’s a digital era now. You can view the MOU online in the members section of the union website and even download a copy to your phone so you have it all the time.

The agency doesn’t provide hard copies of policy manuals and I haven’t heard anyone complain about that.

Would you rather have the union spend your dues on paper books or use the money to negotiate better wages, rights, and working conditions?

I’d personally rather have the latter over a book.

2 Likes
#33

“The loss of scheduled 24 hours of duty would result in a GSI to compensate. No reduction in personable income, approximately same net take-home pay, no reduction in compensation.”
The 66hr work week is a done deal. It’s up to the Bargaining Team to negotiate the 10% PERS’able pay loss in EDWC. One less day in a work period equates to a 10% decrease in PERS’able income. There is no GSI it has to be negotiated in the next contract. Fire1300 is correct to give up one less day for a PERS’able loss in pay is very foolish. When has 2881 ever seen a 10% GSI in one calendar year?

2 Likes
#34

Sorry, not a digital guy. I like books. And Highlighters too sniff* and crayons I can chew on

4 Likes
#35

Thanks for that. That slipped by me. (People still need to remember FLSA and EDWC clock are not related…comment made for me to save face :grinning:)

RE: Loss of Money
I understand members concern about reduction in PERSable income. Couple observations. Anyone can be a sceptic (sometimes its healthy), but it is also healthy to base your views on observable facts.

The Governors proposed budget includes a huge amount of additional money for implementation of the 66 hour work week. Where is this money going? As I stated above, if all your doing is replacing one body with another (and paying the latter with the reduced salary of the former) no more money is needed. Based upon this alone, I think the odds are for a favorable outcome and thus I’m not going to spend the next year all grumpy.

Secondly, it is political suicide to tell your members, “We have agreed to cut your income 10%. Enjoy”. Now some of our union officers might not be the most politically savvy, but observing a few of the higher up over the years, they’re not without some skills.

Lastly, we are but a small cog in the great labor pool of the state. However we can have an outside political impact on people who don’t really care about us, but whose support is needed, if this process is done poorly.

#36

The 66 hr. work week isn’t a done deal. If you could please cite and post the literature that says we are STARTING the 66 hr. Work week November 1, 2024 I would greatly appreciate it.

I’m curious where you are getting your factual information from.

1 Like
#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