AB 1254 (CalFire Pay)

General Discussion
#36

So it looks like the author of the bill (Flora - R) requested it be pulled (by Jones). So the optimistic take is he’s got something in the works that is beneficial (hopefully related to PR).

AB 2538 has yet to be taken up, they’re grinding through all the bills.

I was mistaken in my description of the Senate consent calendar. Apparently for the Senate, it is where all the bills get listed to be voted on individually in the full chamber. My exposure to a consent calendar is different, my apologies.

#37

What would be more beneficial than that bill?

#38

From what I read by a bill being put to this inactive file is it created urgency for a bill especially in the last week of the voting cycle. So basically my understanding it can be put in there to be taken back out and voted on… I don’t understand how it makes sense outside it’s government lol.

#39

Screenshot_20240827-071558
Screenshot_20240827-0715581344×2992 522 KB

#40

My pessimistic mind would presume that the author didn’t plan on it going this far

2 Likes
#41

Well, not looking good. The bill is stuck in the inactive file. Not sure why the author would do this except for possibly the reason @Maybe1 listed. Seems like its a long way to get there as there are easier ways to kill a bill. Again, Sat looks to be the deadline.

Regarding AB2538, this passed the Senate and is back in the house for concurrence on the senate amendments where I’m guessing (?) it will pass. The weird thing is, both the senate and assembly analysis states that this bill is unconstitutional. If so, then I can see Gov Newsom vetoing it for that reason. Maybe this Flora character is just generating messaging bills.

#42

Spoke to a friend who works in political circles in Sacramento. He said that basically the governor signaled his opposition to the bill so it was killed. His wasn’t going to sign it because of the budget shortfall. It was the same for the pay increase for nurses.

#43

Then why not let it get to that point so it’s known WHO actually opposed it? It should be made known and clear so he doesn’t get our support ever again.

2 Likes
#44

That’s a question best left to those who pulled it. I would have liked to see it go to the governors desk so he could or couldn’t sign it. But I do trust my friend. He’s run multiple campaigns for central valley assemblymen.

1 Like
#45

It might not be good ju-ju to make the governor look bad by not signing a wage increase bill.
Someone else down the chain can withdraw or tye it up and gain favor of the governors staff for the future.

Otherwise, in house “Politics”.

3 Likes
#46

It’s called politics… Anyone in the legislature who wants to continue in their political career must consider the political ramifications of going against the governors office.

3 Likes
#47

Neither bill was taken up for vote and since the 2023-2024 legislative session ended 8/31/2024 both bills are dead and would have to be reintroduced next legislative session and go through the voting process again.

#48

Believe this is actually is (just completed) year one of the two year legislative bill cycle. Meaning the bills aren’t dead and will continue on into the next legislative cycle in 2025.

#49

This is the second year, bills are never carried over new elections. First session odd years, second session even years.

Incorrect. Both bills were taken up, AB1254 passed the assembly with no “no” votes. It passed everything in the senate with no “no” votes. Prior to final passage in the senate (third reading, full senate) the author pulled it. AB2538 (eliminations of 9 months maximum for FFs) was passed by both houses and will be sent to the governor to be signed or vetoed.

2 Likes
66 Hour Work Week
#50

Yep, I had the years backwards.

1 Like
#51

Any ideas or thoughts as to why the author pulled AB 1254. It appears it had traction, along with bipartisan agreement in both the House and Senate. Personally having been involved with CDF/Cal Fire for 26 years. Parity is more important to the future of this Department than a 66/56 hour work week. Obviously both would be ideal.

1 Like
#52

I’m not hip to the magical arts of politics, however I think @IAfire, @arff and @USAF2CDF s suggestions above are plausible. If accurate is it something sneaky by the governor? Yea, however nothing would ever get done if everyone was able to view the sausage getting made. Even though I am disappointed that AB1254 was not passed I look at everything in its totality. There’s a meme out there that I think explains it very well.

Voting isn’t marriage, it’s public transport. You’re not waiting for “the one” who’s absolutely perfect: you’re getting on a bus, and if there isn’t one to your destination, you don’t not travel- you take the one going closest.

In totality, the current administration/legislature has been very supportive of CalFire employees versus previous administration/legislatures. Just compare the improvement in MOUs recently to the improvement in MOUs from 10+ years ago. The change is quite remarkable.

I’d encourage everyone to continue to push for those issues that better the employees. The current momentum is allowing change to happen. Go back 10 years when the “momentum” was not there and you can see what that does in regards to relatively poor MOU’s.

5 Likes
#53

Thanks for the clarification, I didn’t see the final assembly vote on the log for AB2538, must have overlooked it the first time.

1 Like
#54

AB 2538 was vetoed. 9 month maximum continues. Reasons given was due to the new onboarding of more employees over the next few year indicates to him that it is not necessary. Not sure I agree with that as administratively its a PITA. I think he listed that more to send a message about trying future bills like this. Main reason is his office (and the LAO) all think it is violate the CA constitution (which is not short and covers all kinds of things).

As an aside, just saw his signature and boy is it a scribble. I couldn’t make out any of his letters…yikes!

2 Likes
#55
2 Likes