Figured I start a new post with Heath Floras latest attempt to get a bill signed to compensate CalFire employees commensurate with their local partners. Despite his party’s lack of support for him he has put together a bill which is similar to the one that was vetoed. It looks like the difference is that rather than legislatively mandating pay parity it requires the state “shall bargain in good faith” to reach within 15% of the average pay of the 20 departments the state currently salary surveys.
Now what that actually means on the ground someone who has actual knowledge of how negotiations work in the room can speak to it. TBH it seems like it gives the state an out but then I’ve never been involved in negotiations and when the process has been explained I am at a loss as to how negotiations ever works (I’d be banging my head on the desk 10 minutes into the room). Currently the bill is sitting at the printer and has not been heard in the house. First up will be in a committee hearing on Mar 21st.
Now shooting from the hip I would think this bill would be much more likely to be signed by the governor since his veto message essentially says to do what this bill does.
The one word “shall” is what gets HR in a bind. Shall = state must meet the language in bill. Many years ago DPA changed shall to may or should ( forgot which one) for supervisors pay and ignored the sup bill done in 1999. Unless the word Shall stays in bill I would be concerned.
I can’t find any evidence of Flora’s party not supporting his reintroduction of the bill, but have heard that multiple times. Anyone have a reference to that?
It’s not necessarily this bill they don’t support (the previous version was passed almost unanimously in both houses). It’s him. Supposedly not in line with where the party is right now. The rank and file in the areas he represents have endorsed an opponent though the state party has not yet endorsed. Don’t want to drag too much politics into this but Mclintock has endorsed his opponent also and he’s as right wing as they come so there is that. Could be he just hasn’t made the right friends.
Figured I’d toss this one into the mix. A bill to modify retirement benefits. AB 1383 seeks to lower the possible retirement age from what I think now is 57 to 55 and increase the calculation from 2.7%/yr to 3%. All would be subject to negotiations and is not retroactive. So far very little legislative opposition, but a lot of local governmental opposition.
Personal opinion is the PEPRA went a little bit too far but it was in response to the comparatively few bad apples gaming the system and making us all look bad.
Just a brief update…AB 2129 passed out of appropriations and goes on to the house floor where it will pass then onto the senate where it will most likely pass. Seems to be following the same path as AB 1309. It will end up with Newsom again and whether he thinks the changes met his desires to not mess with the bargaining process.
The wording was changed from “shall pay within 15% blahbah bah” to “shall bargain in good faith to pay within 15%”. (1309 vs 2129)
This puts it back into the bargaining game but I think it gives more credence than the current “it is the policy of the state/shall take into consideration” bs. With the exception of the “shall pay” vs “shall bargain” the language pretty much mirrors exactly the language CHP has.
The following is the current language CalFire has…
In order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. In order to provide comparability in pay, the Department of Human Resources shall take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.