Temporary positions.
3 Likes
Copy, thanks for the clarification.
Look at your Epay position code. The last 3 digits is the actual position in the unit.
Any position code that ends in 901 are temporary, or
Limited-Term and not funded year round.
All of the “Extra” FAE that have been hired position codes end in 901. In my unit that number is about 15.
2 Likes
Thanks, I’ve been perm for about 8 years now. I remember when I was a FF1 seeing different pca codes for things like augmented hire or early hires and so on. Ive just never dove down the rabbit hole since then.
3 Likes
Say goodbye to the 66hr per the language in this article and the MOU.
" Newsom will have to declare a budget emergency in order to do so under state"
In order to use the reserve funds, a Fiscal emergency has to be declared. Once a budget emergency is declared the language in the MOU is clear.
1 Like
I’m not seeing anything about an emergency here. None of this is new info, the payroll deferral was already mentioned. The article specifically states that they are doing things to address the budget without making cuts.
“At least so far, Newsom and lawmakers are largely relying on mechanisms other than cuts to shrink the deficit: borrowing $5.2 billion, delaying and deferring $5.2 billion in funding for state-sponsored programs to subsequent years and tapping into $3.4 billion from separate state funds. Democrats also agreed to draw down at least another $12.2 billion from the rainy day fund to cover their spending.”
It’s in the article.
“While Crane, a political donor of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and dozens of other lawmakers, opposes Newsom’s decision to use the budget gimmick again, he said the “biggest sin” is the decision to dip into the state’s reserves in the absence of a recession. Newsom will have to declare a budget emergency in order to do so under state law.”
In order to use the rainy day fund to reduce the curre budget deficit, a fiscal emergency has to be declared by state law. Once the fiscal emergency is declared. The 66hr in the current MOU is effected.
14.6 section C
“If the Governor declares a fiscal emergency and General Fund monies over the multiyear forecasts beginning in the 2024-2025 Governor’s Budget are not available to support the reduction to a 66-hour duty week on an ongoing basis, including the estimate of direct costs and any increases in the cost of overtime driven by the proposal, the parties agree to reopen this provision regarding how and when to implement this section.”
So, when the current MOU expires on June 30, 2024 and there isn’t a new MOU in place. The current MOU is automatically extended one year. Which includes the 66hr schedule on Nov 1, 2024. But with the Fiscal emergency, the 72hr to 66hr is re-opened. The Legislature will have final say because they control the “power of the purse” and all funding bills have to be voted on.
1 Like
Please don’t take this as an invitation to veer into the ideological, but…I don’t see Newsom declaring an emergency. This is a presidential election year, and the current president, who wants to be re-elected and who happens to share party affiliation with Newsom, says the economy is doing better than ever. Can’t have the governor of a flagship state saying there is an emergency when the president says everything is better than ever! Politics is stronger than reality.
4 Likes
I find it amusing that the director sends out an email with an update that has more information in two sentences about this then I have heard from the union since the inception.
You can only be “union strong” if you communicate Tim
4 Likes
Is your contact info updated?
I got communication from Tim Edwards on this on 3/21 and also the convention recap on 1/21. Also the new edition of the fire front has a bunch of communication about this.
1 Like
If you’re happy with the updates the Union sent out last month and the update that was in the fire front good on you. I personally think it’s a shame the lack of info that the union has released on this. This is the biggest thing since dropping nickel time and the lack of transparency is unacceptable. It will go in affect, that’s not the issue. The issue I have is the lack of information from the union. It’s a reoccurring issue that is an unacceptable for a union our size. I’m done ranting on the internet, my only reason is because I hope the e board sees this and knows they are failing the members in regards to the transparency.
2 Likes
, your sentiment is share by a lot of people. I’ve spoken to a lot of people from across the department and across the ranks, this spring in meetings and training. And there is definitely a trend, I almost always heard someone say, " why don’t we know what going on, or what the 66 will look like" Everytime it was broughten up.
I think we understand they cannot share the nut and bolts of the negotiations, but theres got to be better info flow. Thank you to Chief Tyler he has been quick to share info that he can.
2 Likes
Understanding that you can’t specify what you don’t know, what sort of information would you like to see “released”. Maybe the E-board could release some additional info, they might just not be sure exactly what info the membership wants to see. Ranting is a good release…as long as you list what you’re upset about.
3 Likes
Negotiations haven’t even started yet. The 66 is a product of our last contract negotiation. It is NOT a done deal and can still not go into place.
I’m not sure what you’d expect from the union beyond what’s been provided, the union has no part in what’s currently taking place. Chief Tyler and Chief Morris are directly involved in the presentations to Assembly/legislature, obviously they are going to share that they are doing their part. Director Tyler is at our union hall often and is working hand in hand with 2881 to make sure things can fall into place, but ultimately the legislatures make the decision on if this will happen or not.
1 Like
Thank you for the nugget, that’s a perfect example. The Mou expires in less than 3 months, I would have thought we would have already started negotiations.
3 Likes
You are correct, Chief Tyler is very vocal in what he is doing to support a reduction in hours worked. You seem to be in the know of the happenings at the union hall so it’s no surprise to hear that the negotiations team has not had a meeting yet. To your point about they can’t share anything. You are correct they can not share contract specifics as this would be a Meyers Millie brown violation but they can share any updates not specific to negotiations pertaining to JLMC meeting updates. Those are not MMB restrictive but yet no updates have been provided. The local hasn’t even made an effort to notify the members they the JLMC has met and if they had, provide an update. I do my best to be the thorn in the side to get information wherever I can. The problem though is we have a very young membership that are unaware of the questions to ask. They are getting no information and are being told repeatedly to trust and vote yes.
2 Likes
I think your frustration stems from the fact that our union president is very big on staying tight lipped about the happenings behind closed doors. He knows if the wrong info gets out, it can be portrayed negatively and used as ammunition against us.
I don’t think anything crazy has happened in the JLMC meetings beyond deciding the number of positions to create and what the scheduling would look like for a 66. Like I said, nothing is solidified yet, so it would be silly to release specific details like that and get people’s hopes up. Everything that has been delivered to the membership via email or the publication is really all there is to know at this point.
1 Like
I’m as information hungry as anybody, but it dawned on me the other day that if the “top” minds in government can’t figure out whether the statewide deficit we’re facing is closer to $35 Billion or closer to $75 Billion, how can anyone expect a “small” state department like CAL FIRE (who, with a budget of just $4 Billion essentially amounts to “budget dust” as our former governor so graciously put it) be expected to put together a solid plan for the future? It’s all guess and speculation until those at the “top” figure out which way is up.
For this reason, the information that people so badly seek doesn’t exist yet. I personally think this is a farce on many levels, but that’s a story for another day.
There are also always those people who look for any information to be released so they can sabotage the process and try to implement their own agenda. I don’t like it, but I understand why the leadership team is so tight lipped some times.
Not making excuses, just saying there are a number of factors going on behind the scenes that determine what, if any, information can be disseminated and when.
2 Likes
That’s exactly mine and every union member I’ve spoken to frustrations. Little to no information about the “closed door meetings.” Pretty funny that in November information was shared that traditional staffing on state mission type 3s would be explored to create spots for the addational FAEs needed while simultaneously reducing seasonal hiring due to one time spending from previous budget years would be removed/reallocated.
LAO mentioned it but yet crickets from the Union.
Am I frustrated? That’s an understatement.
Where’s the unions statement on AB 1254? Dead or not they were silent on that as well
2 Likes
in addition, I"m hearing a number of people talk about being apprehensive to move to a new position out of fear of what may happen when (and if) this thing rolls out.
The main concern Im hearing is that moving to a Prevention, Camp, Training, Air Attack, ECC, or a similar position or promoting to BC from an engine right now may seem like an opportunity to try something new. However, if things play out the way I’m hearing they will, most (if not all) non-fire-suppression-apparatus-based positions are planning on being left out of the transition to a 66. Anyone who transfers to one of these positions now would still be held to a 2 year commitment on a 72 hour, 4 day work week, which may not be as desirable as had you stayed put and transitioned to the 66 with everyone else.
Similarly, this carrot has been dangling for a long time-well over 1 and probably at least 2 decades from my memory. 15% of CAL FIRE’s employees are age 50 or over and another 15% are 45-49. These folks have been promised that a 56 is coming for their entire career and some have postponed retirement to be a part of its implementation. Here, I see 3 likely scenarios:
- 66 hour workweek implemented smoothly, creating some 2400 openings due to new positions
- 66 hour workweek is postponed or abolished due to fiscal emergency, the 15% of employees that are over or approaching 50 have little reason to stay, creating 1,000 openings due to separations at the FC rank and higher
- 66 hour workweek is implemented but rollout is muddled, and schedules are not employee friendly, creating some 2400 openings due to new positions as well as turning off the 15% of employees who have been waiting their whole career for this and end up retiring out of disgust.
Either way, there will be a huge number of vacancies to be filled.
3 Likes