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
I don’t believe for one minute we will see it for a multitude of reasons. But the reality is as long as we have wildlands in California, the financial burden will always exist. And my comment about pay now or pay later isn’t to be used as any type of intimidation factor, but more or less just focus on the reality of the world in which we live. Some of you are already paying it in the form of higher insurance premiums. Will a 66 hour work week and staffing change that? Absolutely not. We find ourselves in an unfortunate paradox in which no one truly wins.
3 Likes
Yes it does seem a little high. When they crunch numbers they look at total compensation. This includes: salary, planned overtime, employer contributions to medical and pension. I just heard some figures last week and I thought a Engineer was around $225,000 and a Captain was around $285,000.
Might include associated costs of onboarding including PPE, training, and travel expenses related
1 Like
Not really. When you factor in "employer’s contributions " to retirement, medical benifits, and AAV. The cost to the state for an employee is about double what is in your year end W2. Look at a pay stub and add up the “employers contributions” then add those to your gross pay. That $312,000 is pretty accurate.
2 Likes
The sad part is they can fund whatever they want when they want. Look no further then the BLATANT
WASTE that goes on. Government at it’s finest, at all levels.
5 Likes
Not for nothing, but I do know that lots of LG Agencies are hiring AND most work 48/96. Plus, traditional FF/ENG/CPT positions EVERY day. Lastly, no staffing patterns, no new seasonals each year, & they hire both EMT & Medic’s. Unfortunately, the politics will still be there, but on a much smaller level.
Lots of reasons to stay at the state as well. The grass ain’t always greener. I know lots who have left and came back because of that!
4 Likes
With the PEPRA change that occurred 11yr ago. The retirement and benifit formula changed DRASTICALLY. That being said, the retirement and benifits of working for the state in a public safety capacity is still the best game in town upon retirement. The medical benefits alone will pay for themselves in your retirement.
The facts are still in the MOU. The 66hr schedule is coming. When the current contract expires, if a new one isn’t in place, the current one gets extended 1yr automatically, including the 66hr beginning 11/1/2024.
The only out for the Governor is to declare a fiscal emergency as referenced in the LAO report. This is what happened in 2020 with Covid-19 and resulted in ALL BARGAINING UNITS TAKING A HAIR CUT. Who remembers PLP days.
Is that going to happen? Time will tell. But if this Governor has higher political aspersions as most people think. The needle he will have to thread will be dam near impossible.
4 Likes
Looking deeper into the LAO report the training requirements are staggering. Total new positions that require COA and potential 11 weeks of training. New positions by classification
FAE 1456
FC. 699
BC. 69
AC. 30
Total. 2254
Put another way, that’s over 45 academy’s at 50 students per class. 2024 started with 18 COA on the Calendar and 4 have been canceled due to low enrollment because students didn’t meet minimum requirements(had a clear 306). That’s 2+ year, more than likely 3+ year just to get all the new employees trained. Not included are any new positions created in cooperative Sch A fire protection agreements. Additionally, it does not include replacement for any of the 1500+ employees who have exceeded the minimum requirement age of 50 or 57(those newly hired after 1/1/2013.
The bottom line reading the current MOU and the Governor’s proposed budget. The 66Hr schedule is coming. Even if the current contract expires on June 30, 2024 and there is no new agreement in place, the current contract automatically gets extended 1yr by language in the MOU.
Buckle up!
4 Likes
5 Likes