“pink sheet” is a Fix & Fax
4 Likes
Just a couple observations.
People seem to be hanging their hat on the bargaining team negotiating the 66hr with no loss in compensation. What seems to be missed by a lot of members is just because a 66hr with no loss in compensation is our desire, doesn’t make it the desire of CalHR/Governors Office. The desire of the state, just like any employer, is maximum productivity for minimum cost. For some reason people seem think under no circumstance would the bargaining team come to us with anything less than a 66hr with no loss in compensation, without even considering it’s a possibility CalHR wouldn’t entertain such a negotiation. Reducing our duty hours while compensating us the same has always been a nonstarter for CalHR and Dept of Finance, not sure why people think that will change all of the sudden.
The last contract was sold to the membership as the greatest thing since sliced bread. L2881 focused their campaign efforts on getting the contract ratified by membership by highlighting and really only taking about a reduction in duty hours. L2881 completely skipped only a couple crucial issues with the contract.
-
Healthcare benefit, the contract language very clearly states the $260 benefit would be provided through June 30, 2024. Yet despite this L2881 seems to be caught completely off guard by the language in the contract, the contract the bargaining team negotiated for.
-
OPEB. Prior to our last contract we had a fixed rate post-employment benefit (medical) at 4.4%. Then in our last contract for some reason the majority of the membership though agreeing to change our fixed rate OPEB to an adjustable rate, which can be adjusted .5% ANNUALLY would be a good idea. This was completely skipped over and not discussed at all when L2881 was selling the membership on ratifying the contact. This move is no different than refinancing a 4.4% fixed rate mortgage for an adjustable rate mortgage which adjusts annually. If you wouldn’t refinance your mortgage into an ARM why did we agree to do so with our healthcare cost?
-
We agreed to a 66hr duty week without knowing any of the details. The membership was just told vote for the 66hr and we will figure out the details later. Who in their right mind agrees to any contract without knowing the details of what you’re agreeing to?
We were sold a bill of good in the last contract on a hope and a wish, I have worked for the state long enough to understand you don’t go into a negotiation with CalHR on a hope that the state will do the right thing.
We was the members of L2881 have never rejected a contract. If you had a group of employees that always agree to what you offered them, what would you offer? If it was me, I would offer the absolute lowers that I think they would take. I expressed this sentiment to many high level union officials, and was basically told if we reject the contract we would get even less. That response told me these people clearly do not understand the Dills Act or the collective bargaining process.
10 Likes
In all seriousness, why don’t you step up and run to be on the bargaining team?
3 Likes
You are right about us always taking what’s offered. We have set the precedence of a beat dog. Wagging our tails when we finally get a treat.
3 Likes
Well said. I have expressed these same concerns on this forum since the day the tentative agreement was announced and continue to share these concerns with you. Like you, I have zero belief that CalHR has the employee’s best interest in mind.
However, right now it’s up to the bargaining team to bring their promises to fruition. They were able to at least provide hope that a reduced workweek without a loss of compensation is a possibility, which is way more than has been possible in the past.
Let’s give them an opportunity to present what they can negotiate.
After that, it’s up to the membership to think as individuals and vote to accept or reject what’s on the table at that time.
3 Likes
Spoken like a true union man.
3 Likes
Does anyone know what the 66 schedule looks like? Asking for a friend that is interested in transferring to the 4th Cal Fire training facility in Atwater. 
This is what gets me, you can put in a transfer to newly recognized 4th CF training center, that is Now recognized because of the 66 passing. The center is now being officially pushed by CF to supplement the academy requirements for the new hired COs to meet the 66 schedules. You can put in for a transfer for the academy staff positions. 30 captains, chiefs & support staff.
But no one knows the 66.
CF is implementing an academy based on training needs due to the 66, before the union body that hasn’t voted on it, nor knows anything official about it.
I mean C’mon, I might drive a truck for living but at least I know when I’m gunna drive it.
Cheers.
2 Likes
Pay cut to salary and edwc rate officially reflected on EPAY this morning
2 Likes
Oh really? From the insurance stipend?
1 Like
No, an email should come through today regarding details I believe. Direct reduction in hourly rate.
Additionally it is reflected on my previous pay period so some ARs may follow.
1 Like
No, an email*
Correct?
1 Like
Very well stated! A lot of members said if we vote no they will come back with less. L2881 leadership even came out and said this was the best we were going to get so vote yes. Now, it is a shame that Tim won’t go on the road and come visit units to address these issues. Hosting a town hall with predetermined questions is pointless. We all know they are already rehearsed and vetted with legal.
You know what really made me think differently about L2881? When L2881 went into damage control when calHR “accidentally” released our contract so all the members saw it before the union could figure out how to spin it to us.
Also they decided to make a powerpoint about it v.s. coming out and sitting down 1:1 with us and having us ask anything we wanted.
Here is another one. When that info was “leaked” L2881 sent us an email saying they were going to address it and then did interviews with the news groups (sacbee) about our contract and giving them the details before actually telling their members about it?
Tim, if you are reading this come spend 3-4 days in each unit giving the members the opportunity to talk in person and not through a screen.
4 Likes
Yes, sorry distracted typing.
2 Likes
I’m hearing the 66 is only for people assigned to apparatus only (engines, crews, dozers, etc) and will not apply to anyone else (prevention, fuels, training, safety, ECC, PIO, admin, etc).
If you’re transferring or promoting to one of those positions, I’m hearing you’ll be on a minimum two year commitment on a 4 or 5 day 72.
Look before you leap!
2 Likes
Captains assigned to statewide training at Martell and Natomas work a 4 day, Redding, Clark and Ione work a 3 day. I fully expect once Castle goes online all facilities will have a 4 day duty pattern for Captains.
1 Like
So, it sounds like you’re also hearing that if you’re not on an engine/dozer/crew, you’re staying on a 4 day 72?
1 Like
Sounds like a lot of wheels turning for the 66 before we approve the 66! Sheesh
1 Like
Its not so much the assignment to equipment, its the PO199 and description of duties. Right now the PO199 for a fire capt at the training centers (Ione, Redding, Clark) is the same as the field, fire capt A, which means the duty pattern is a 3 day. For statewide the PO199 is for a Training Officer, which is a 4 day or 3 day. At an all hands meeting in Jan, with a chief who had stars on his collar, it was stated that the PO199 for fire capt assigned to one of the training centers was going to be changed to relflect the duties of a TO, which means a 4 day duty pattern can be implemented.
2 Likes
Sorry to burst anyone bubble but it was passed already. You guys got bamboozled. Like I said smoke and mirrors gotcha.
2 Likes
Everyone should transfer if that’s the case. Work more while everyone works less sounds fun.