It’s very simple and I don’t understand why some people are having such a hard time comprehending this point. We all as employees of CAL FIRE subsidize cheap fire protection for municipalities with a Schedule A contract.
It has nothing to do with A vs B, or bashing anyone.
It’s simply a fact that CAL FIRE employees subsidize cheap fire protection for the schedule A contracts.
RRU does not have 101 stations! There is station 101 but not all of those stations from number 1 to101 are open.
So…how about that new union contract?
…or am I in the wrong thread?
This is all in depth discussions on why or why not support it.
Well I can’t speak for sitting at the table but I’ve heard from numerous chiefs in numerous units. The same line. If that passes we will lose all schedule A. In fact I heard it this week from a union rep. So to say it isn’t a factor in bargaining is absolutely wrong.
But, is Sched A the core mission? 
All,
You have done so very well at maintaining civility this far, yet the slip into finger pointing at sched. A contracts vs. Sched B land is tipping the scale to the non- productive side.
CAL FIRE PROPOSED MOU CHANGES is the thread topic and shall remain the subject of discussion. Feel free and please start a separate thread to discuss Sched A/B if desired.
Keep up the fine discussion and I personally appreciate the education.
Carry on!
MC
Sure is…and the perceived pros and cons of Schedule This or Schedule That are part of it.
I was just curious what people think of the other aspects of the proposal.
No, schedule a is a side piece in the states eyes.
Per Chief Tyler’s Town Hall this afternoon the portal to portal for managers and supervisors is with Cal HR. Sounded promising.
This problem is not just a CF Problem.
Every time I check in here, there is like 50 more comments. Nice job with all your focus on this CALFIRE.
Hope this works out for you all. Interesting topics and some good takeaways for all of us to learn from.
Thanks
Fight On.
I’m not trying to rile things up with this question, I’m just looking for some historical context.
While I started with the 4 day workweek and “the nickel”, I worked in a unit with very little Schedule A influence at the time we transitioned to a straight 72 and social media hadn’t really existed yet. For those reasons, I’m wondering if concerns over losing Schedule A contracts existed and I just didn’t hear about them or if it wasn’t even a concern at that time.
I’d be curious to hear from some people who worked in and around Schedule A contracts in the late 1990s and early 2000s when we were moving toward a straight 72 ito see if those concerns existed or not.
I figure that going from what was essentially a 96 to a 72 is a 25% reduction in hours and going from a 72 to a 56 is about a 23% reduction, meaning I would think both switches would have similar effects on staffing needs and, thus, Schedule A contracts.
That said, while the change from a 96 to a 72 shook out a couple already weak hands, I don’t remember a large number of Schedule A contracts going away, but maybe my memory is fading with my old age.
Can anyone elaborate on their memory of how things went? Did the concern exist? Did we lose contracts?
I’m my experience, working that early on, it’s always been the same. We will never get new contracts which we have. We will lose a bunch of contracts which we haven’t. Contracts are always going to leave us because it would be better which has never been wide spread and usually is never better.
Amen to this.
That schedule switch was only seasonal FF hours. Permanent EEs have had the 72 for many years. Most Sch A contracts did not have seasonals, I say most but some did until the mid 90s
While the BDU/BDC breakup had other issues at hand. The cost to the county of SB was published and talked about extensively in the NEWSPAPER and at BOS meetings. Now it is a fact that the numbers were in fact “cooked” to make the split look better and almost 20yr later, the true costs of breaking away has been more expensive than advertised by the proponents at the time.
I think the #1 difference this time as opposed to the BDU/BDC or TUU/TLC is this is starting with 02350 PCA not the other way around. Reading the LAO report and the financial impact that is mentioned. There will be a HUGE 1 time shock to the budget similar to what happened when the IRA/NIRA to years round IRA occurred. The biggest difference today compared to then is the politics of California. The Democrats have super majorities in Sacramento and hold ALL major offices. When back then the state leaned left of center not was hard left of center.
Finally, remember Governor Newsom vetoed the 4800 time law this past March. That law passed both chambers with veto proof majorities. His comments at the time were “this should.be dealt with during collective bargaining”. Fast forward to July, and L2881 got a side letter signed in the MOU for 4800 time.
I have been hearing the same doom and gloom about loosing contracts since I stated in the early 2000’s.
The reality is that CAL FIRE averages around 120 cooperative contracts at any given time, some leave and others come on board.
A lot of people thought San Miguel Fire leaving was a big deal since it was an 8 station contract. What most people didn’t realize though was as all the San Miguel talks were going on, San Diego County Fire was opening 1-2 station every month for over 2 years. Some come and some go.
Bottom line is the state needs to tell the contracts, come up to 3.11 or find a new provider. No more doing more with less, it might be awesome for the contracts but not for us, the employees.
I think you’re failing to account for the 12% admin fee that goes to the state on every A contract. So yes, they will start providing their own personnel onto their already owned equipment.
The admin fee has nothing to do with the staffing levels on the equipment. 3.11 refers to equipment staffing not any administrative personnel or functions.
Also, as it was pointed out by others above, for most LG departments budgets administration is around 25%, so at 12% it’s a steal for the contracts.
Owning equipment and employing staff are two very different things. Owning equipment only has maintenance cost for forward but for personnel the municipalities would be responsible for salaries, benefit, retirement, workers comp, unemployment tax, etc. all of which are reflected as a liability on their balance sheet. Which a schedule A contract the state is responsible for all those employment costs, the municipalities only have to pay the contract obligation, that’s it.