Section 9.2 still exists
Oh I see, we’re just going to take their word for it… seeing how well that has worked for the membership in the past I am sure this process will be just fine.
BTW, if the state always did exactly what they said they would, what would be the point of a union? The reason we have a union is to hold the department and state accountable, because they don’t always do what they say.
Am I the only one who feels they have stepped into the twilight zone during TA ratification?
No… we are going to hold their feet to the fire and make sure they they are meeting and coming to a consensus and not unilaterally imposing their will…
How are we gunna hold their feet to the fire? If the TA passes, we have already waived our right to arbitration in the event of an impasse. So what mechanism do we have to “hold their feet to the fire”?
2 Likes
The conversation about what shift, happens and will be settled waaay before we’ll be done voting.
Under what authority? There is nothing in the current agreement that says the unit chiefs have to meet with rank and file to agree upon a shift pattern. The section about the unit chiefs meeting with rank and file is in the TA, which also states that in the event of impasse the union waives our right to mediation. I’m not sure how you think we’re going to hold there feet to the fire when they done even have to meet with us until the TA is ratified and the provision come into affect and when they do we don’t have the ability to arbitrate a disagreement on selecting a schedule?
Which takes me back to my original question, how do we plan to hold there feet to the fire? Or is the plan to ask nicely and hope for the best?
That’s where you are wrong. The meeting to discuss and decide on schedules is going to happen waaay before the TA is ratified.
Can you please explain to me how I am wrong?
What section of the current contract states the unit chiefs need to meet with rank and file to determine schedules?
Union management should easily be able to answers this.
1 Like
Ok, why are the unit chiefs in the process of scheduling meetings with their respective chapter/district leadership? Why are the chapter/district leadership in the process of polling their membership to find out shift preference? Why will the chapter/district leadership then meet and discuss with their respective unit chief on what schedule is preferred?
Bottom line… their boss is telling them to meet with the rank and file to determine schedules. Doesn’t have to be in the current contract of the TA.
Asking rhetorical questions doesn’t answer my question.
How is L2881 going to hold there feel to the fire?
1 Like
Should is the key word there. Though Union leadership should also have known the $260 benefit sunsetted, they should have known that changing from fixed rate to adjustable rate OPEB was not a good idea and they also should have an understanding of how the Dills Act works. They should not have lied to the membership during the last ratification and spread the false rumor that if we rejected the TA the state would give us less. Those items we just from a single ratification, the list of should could go on and on, so I do t out much weight into that union leadership should be able to answer.
2 Likes
IAfire, you and I have agreed on many points through you this forum, but I’m not really seeing what you’re arguing here.
From what I’m reading, it basically says the Unit Chief has the final say and it’s not appealable. Any Unit Chief would be foolish not to consider the situation of the local unit’s personnel as a whole, consult with the local chapter, and make the best choice for their local area.
There will never be a schedule that makes everyone happy. Could you imagine having an appeals or arbitration process that takes months on end and jeopardizes the timely implementation statewide because someone doesn’t like the schedule chosen for their unit?
To me, this might be a good compromise where the local unit chooses what’s best locally. What’s the alternative? Have multiple schedules within a unit? To have CalHR choose one schedule for the entire state? I don’t see either of those turning out well.
Also, what’s there to “hold to the fire”? The way I see it, as long as it’s one of the agreed upon schedules, there’s nothing to argue. What am I missing?
There are still a few UCs who want to be able to be the “puppet master” of their respective units.Most UCs are meeting and are working with their respective chapter/district on what will work best. The ones who wanted to be the sole decision maker, are going to have to sit with their chapter/district and come to decision. Maybe my words of “holding their feet to the fire” weren’t the correct context. But like I said now they will be meeting to decide on a schedule.
1 Like
Well, allow me to muddy the water.
BDU has 2 chapters.
When the vote to approve the bump back schedule was voted on. One chapter voted for the rotating schedule, one chapter did not. Only the engine personal were allowed to vote, no prevention, HFEO’s or FCB’s were allowed to vote. This was the 2nd vote as the first vote failed to pass.
You are right to be skeptical. There is not a lot of time to get all of this done. I HIGHLY encourage everyone to do their own research. What looks like a good deal on one hand, does not look like a good deal on the other. This is how negotiations go.
As someone who already rotates, I’m OK with that. I want to remain on BUMP BACK, PATTERN 2. If any of the pattern one’s are selected, I will vote no for the fact so many employees still do the “High 5 I-5” I also don’t think the modified schedule will work for a majority of our employees. Can anyone even afford to live in CZU / SCU? The $ gained will be spent on fuel and that employee will end up a NET LOSS in $$ when the loss of the Medical Stipend is added into the the decision making process.
5 Likes
I thought the entire Bargaining Unit had voting rights, not just engine personnel.
Interesting that some units have already voted and others haven’t scheduled meetings yet.
1 Like
I couldnt agree more. The modified is a non starter for me as I commute 4+hrs. Additionally that schedule will require an extra trip in to the unit per pay period. Thats easily a $200 a month extra cost. The amount of 3 day offs would be terrible for the employees who commute and their families. I think the platoon backward every other is reasonable, fairly stable, and provides lots of opportunities to burn 2 days and get 9 or 11 off.
1 Like
Just go to a 56 and be done with it. All this voodoo economics and scheduling is just a big headache. It doesn’t move the needle enough to actually be considered a win.
And letting only certain members of the local to vote sure seems odd.
4 Likes
I’m not making an argument, I am asking for a point to be clarified. It was stated that the unit chiefs will not unilaterally decide schedules. The TA states a meet and confer shall occur no later than September 10, 2024 and that the union agrees to waive mediation in the event of impasse.
During times such as TA ratification, I tend to hear a lot of bark, such as “we will hold their feet to the fire” without a lot of bite, such as a legal footing to actually do what the union is stating.
So I was asking for clarification on how the union plans to actually accomplish what has been stated? Because the way I understand it, other then asking nicely, we don’t an actual mechanism to legally accomplish what some people think will just happen in good faith.
It’s great to believe this well all just fall into place in good faith. But the reality is the Union exists due to the fact that things do not always happen in good faith. So does the Union have a plan, other than asking nicely, if the meet and confers do not go as planned.
1 Like
Sorry, needed some comic relief
3 Likes