Pay parity has never made it past the Governor’s desk. This one is a bit watered down though, within 15% of an average of a wide range of pay scales.
1 Like
What’s the next step?
If your asking about AB-1309, sometime in Aug (probably towards the end) the Senate Appr committee will have a hearing regarding bills in the suspense file, which is where AB-1309 currently resides. The committee will vote yea or nay on it to send it to (I think) the senate floor. In the last session the similar bill by Flora was passed I believe 7-0, however there are 5 new members this year. There has been no opposition recorded.
In case anyone is wondering the Departments which would be considered for the comparisons are the cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Mateo, Santa Monica, and Torrance.
The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, the Novato Fire District, and the Counties of
Los Angeles and Ventura
1 Like
Any idea how or why those departments were chosen?
“To ensure the recruitment and retention of qualified firefighters,
Government Code section 19827.3 requires CalHR to “consider
prevailing salaries and benefits” of local fire departments in California
employing 75 or more full-time firefighters.”
Those departments listed above mirror the departments selected in 2014/2020 salary surveys
“In 2014, CAL FIRE Local 2881 identified 68 fire departments in
California with 75 firefighters or more, which CalHR verified. At
CalHR’s recommendation, the five fire departments with the highest
base salaries, and the five fire departments with the lowest base
salaries, were removed from the list. Then 20 departments were
randomly selected to be surveyed.”
Stockton and Huntington Beach got the axe 
in the current bill.
Side rant:
Wouldn’t hurt to probably update 19827.3 to current depts, or change it to maybe departments with 125 or 150 FF’s, but let not make perfect the enemy of the good.
2 Likes
Here is the link to the 2023 salary study done by CalHR
2 Likes
I agree with the side rant, why the 75? Even 150 seems odd. We have fire centers that have more people, even the smallest units exceed this.
I have always thought that the “randomly” selected departments have a historic average that we have always been within a few points of at least within 15 percent.
For the casual reader of this thread (and not most of us who are familiar) and who looks into the “comparative analysis” by the state, I feel obligated to point out their surveys’ major flaw. Even though they mention it towards the end and don’t give it the weight it deserves, CalFire hours worked for their total compensation are significantly more than their “comparative” LG fire depts.
Using the same methodology if CalHR looked at the following two employees they would conclude that employee B earns 25% more than employee A and thus does not need adjustments. I leave it to the casual observer to determine if this is correct.
Employee A: Earns $100/ day. Day=4 hours of work ($25/Hr)
Employee B: Earns $125/ day. Day=12 hour of work ($10.41/Hr)
2 Likes
That is a great point to make. If and when a 56 hour workweek is implemented some day, I guess this bill would then be closer to comparing apples to apples.
1 Like
1 Like
Both 581 and 1309 have started moving again. 1309 is headed to the senate floor (with “no” opposition so far) for a final vote where 1254 (similar bill died) last session. 581 passed the all important Assembly Appr Committee. Flip a coin as to whether either makes it to the governors desk. 581 being the most likely as the legislature has already passed bills indicating their intent to transition FF1s year 'round.
2 Likes
What is the difference between 581 and the year round FF1 language already folded into the budget?
Just a conjecture but I’m guessing the budget bills say “Hey, here’s a bunch of money to transition certain FF1 to perm employment”. If you’ve worked in admin then you know they read that and think to themselves “sure, thanks, I’ll try and do that if I can”
SB 581 says " hey, this is what you will do and we are requiring you do it and don’t whine about the money because we’ve already given it to you and were eventually going to give you more money to apply to to all FF1s".
Note that the budget bill did not provide enough money to get all FF1s permanent.
Since everybody (with the exception of the governor) has gone on record saying they support this I think this just a case of cleaning up language and updating the government code in addition to telling HR and other departments to get on with it. In case someone in the future sees things differently, it would now be hard coded in legislation.
Last week a letter came put from CalHr. All Positions, FF1-FC were rewritten. Existing eligibility lists were ended on 8/30 with new announcements coming out 9/2 for new testing to establish list eligibility. The biggest change was the Medic Ranks are now part of each rank instead of FF2 & FF2-PM and so on. Interesting is the FF1. Now says “Temporary” not TAU in the description. Also, to have a job offer for a permanent position, the candidate MUST have list eligibility AND A VALID CPAT. So FF1 and those seeking lateral transfers will need to keep their CPAT current year round.
As with anything, the devil is in the details which there are few beyond what CalHR put out. But i will remind all of what happened last year with the roll out of 66hr. Most employees believed the dept was switching to a 3-platoon (A-B-C Shift) model. When in fact the only change was the employee works 11 days in a 28 day cycle instead of the 11 days with the 72hr work week.
Finally, just like the Side letter dayed 7/25/25 bringing back 6hr of PLP. A new side letter came out on 8/18/25 that supersedes the 7/25/25 that has negative financial impacts on the calculation of EDWC when compared to the 7/25/25 side letter.
1 Like
“Finally, just like the Side letter dayed 7/25/25 bringing back 6hr of PLP. A new side letter came out on 8/18/25 that supersedes the 7/25/25 that has negative financial impacts on the calculation of EDWC when compared to the 7/25/25 side letter.”
Could you ellabotate a little further on this. Im guessing most people arnt informed on this side letter.
Get on the CalHR website and find BU 8. Click on the side letter tab and read the different letters.
1 Like
I read the side letter dated 8/18/25. Im not seeing anything that is a negative impact to EDWC
Bills moved on again with no opposition last week. Anyone know what the next step is? Says they are ordered to engrossing and enrolling, assuming that means to the governor for signature?
Edit: looks like 581 was ordered to third reading but 1309 is to the governors desk
1 Like
Here is some info I found on what engrossing and enrolling
Engrossing and Enrolling Staff | Office of the Secretary of the Senate
1 Like
The governor has until the 20th to veto 1309 or it become law. Note that last year, Floras bill did not make it out of the legislature, so this legislation is already farther than it has been in the past. So for whatever the reason was for Flora to pull it last year it wasn’t applicable this year. Again as a reminder, Newsom has been pretty consistent against putting pay language in legislation.
Third reading = Floor of the respective house…In the case of SB 581 it is to be voted on by the entire assembly (where it will pass) and then on to the governor.
Edit: Interestingly a recent addition to the bill (1309) required CalHR to do a “cursory” survey of the salaries and benefits for the fire chiefs of 5 specific large departments.
2 Likes