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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
Yep, I had the years backwards.
1 Like
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
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
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
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
2 Likes