Just so I’m clear is a No vote meaning you do not accept the terms? Just want to clarify in your statement.
1 Like
I don’t eat apples with worm holes…let alone one that’s ½ rotten!
Put the rotten apple back and pick one that’s not rotten at all.
1 Like
It seems as though this contract not one you can debate Union about. They have become too emotionally invested in this. Best just to let your votes do the talking and let them know, that we need a better deal. If that means we keep what we have, so be it. Union representations job is then to tell the story of why we denied it, not argue with membership on why we voted the way we did.
1 Like
Time to start a picket line in front of the Union Taj Mahal downtown and the capital. As they say, “Stay the course”
2 Likes
Cool still losing money that’s neat a pay cut once again. Tim Edward’s sure had enough time to do an interview on the news yet here we are with no information. Once again smoke a mirrors. I love how the put that we are getting raises the first 3 lines. This is a joke we are going to be losing way more than we have now. Good job.
3 Likes
As I said 31.58% of my pay would be wiped out if we go down the 66 Hour Rd that proposes we put our faith in CAL HR and Legislators to do the right thing. Just like the teacher says, please show your math…
Current EDWC Hrs= 76
Proposed EDWC Hrs=52
76-52= 24
24/76=.315789
.315789x100= 31.58%
2 Likes
Definitely a NO vote for me.
2 Likes
Now you do the math. Times 31.58 by your current EDWC, that’s how much you will deduct from your check.
It’s a lot.
2 Likes
Do the math again, is that more or less than the “raise” we just got.
1 Like
Did the math and EDWC is pretty much the same for 66 hr after the raises
I am tired of hearing that this is a step in the right direction or that it’s a start to get to 56. I say screw that, give us a legitimate pathway of getting to a 56 now, now in two years, not in 6 years, right now this year!
I get that we can’t just go straight to a 56 due to the need to hire the additional people, but that doesn’t mean they cant have a pathway right now in this agreement that shows how we’re going to get to a 56 not a 66.
This department is hemorrhaging personnel, how are we supposed to get the additional employees needed to ever get to a 56 when we loose people faster then we can hire and train them…
3 Likes
The IAFF has help serving up the Koolaid again, L2881 leadership has a drink.
Remember IAFF and L2881 leaders stood and supported Biden 100% in 2020.
**VOTE NO ! **
16 Likes
Other BU’s already have a 40 hr work week, industry standard.
Any dinosaurs on here that can tell us how the rest of the nation went from 2 platoons to 3 back in the 70’s when the FLSA made the change to 53 hours?
1 Like
Pretty much??
So you are telling me that let’s say your EDWC IS 100 dollars
And you make 200 dollars in base pay
Done with compounding:
You just received. 025 which equals 205
Ed Incentive (150) is equal to +/- .02 = 209.10
Longevity .02 which brings you up to 213.28
Jan is .02 up to 217.54
Last raise 0.2 equals 221.89
Health (260) +/-3.25% NOT PERS but let’s do it anyway. = 229.10
So you increased pay by 29.10.
Now what is EDWC loss of 24 hrs: 3158 *100= 31.58
29.10 - 31.58 Net Loss of -$2.48
And that’s just with the easy math. Do that with your check; and a wing and a prayer with Cal HR, Leg and Union.
2 Likes
The problem with your math is you didn’t do all the real numbers. My edwc will go do by 179.64 but my salary will increase by 381.25. In the end my Pers able amount will be more by 3139.68. I did not figure for the medical or retirement health care.
At the end of the day, vote what you think. Just consider it all before you do. Have a good evening and hopefully you enjoyed doing some math. We are all brothers and sisters in the end, no matter what. This is just a pivotal moment for our careers and department.
1 Like
Please show me your steps because I am not seeing what you are. I only see words.
I would gladly show you the steps in but not on the site
Why not here? I’d love to see it, I’m sure others would as well
3 Likes
Correct. A no vote means you don’t want the deal.
If this is voted down when the vote comes in October, then what?
Well, our current contract remains in effect and there would be no changes in pay, schedule, or working conditions until a new agreement is reached and goes into effect.
Word on the street is that the next opportunity to begin bargaining would be early spring…maybe February or March.
To me, that’s fine because it gets us out from the overhang of BU6s reopener clause that says if any other BU gets more than 2.5% in 2022, BU6 gets to come back to the table for more raises. Interesting to note, BU6 is one of the biggest in the state, so CalHR probably wants to avoid triggering that reopener.
This is why everyone got 2.5% in a year when inflation is 8%. Hence the bad apples analogy someone made earlier. Read the LAO report and it will all make sense.
There are a ton of moving parts on this, so I don’t see it likely that the second agreement would come easy, so it might take a while…a few moths or more, most likely.
Like I said, BU10 has gone 2 years without a contract and are holding firm for 43%, contending that their scientists deserve equal pay for equal work compared to the engineers they work alongside. A 43% increase is a huge ask and BU10 is holding strong. I am pulling for them.
For reference, 2881 is 59% under paid on an hour-for-hour total compensation basis compared to local government departments we work along side.
Word on the street is that Newsom may have 2024 presidential aspirations and I hear IAFF President Kelly has vowed to withhold endorsing him unless CAL FIRE is solidly on a path to a 56. If true and the IAFF holds to their word, that bodes well for 2881s 56 hour cause.
Any new agreement would be presented to the membership, as this one was.
In all, the current deal feels like a half baked plan that was crammed together in order to get something done before the end of the legislative session today.
The LAO report is highly critical of this “cram it down your throat” tactic by CalHR and I’m disappointed that L2881 even brought it to the membership instead of telling CalHR “no thanks” and remaining in negotiations.
As far as I can tell, the wind is at our back with lots of support all around.
If not now, when?
5 Likes