Honestly I’m not comfortable with putting on this site and don’t want to put up information that may be inaccurate. I have read a lot of comments on here that say this is a big loss for us or a rotten apple. In my opinion after using the formula in the MOU I’m not seeing the big loss from what I currently have. My big concern is pensionable income which i believe dosnt decrease from what I am currently making when we move to a 66hr. Like others have said make your own decision but please do all the math this isn’t a bad contract in my opinion.
1 Like
“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.“
Well said.
1 Like
Just because it’s not a “bad” contract doesn’t make it a good contract…
To my knowledge, L2881 has never voted against ratifying a contract, so why would CalHR give us anything more than the bare minimum possible when they know we’re going to accept what ever they throw our way.
2 Likes
Thank you.
Great point. Taking the first offer has gotten us nowhere in the last few decades. Time to try something different.
1 Like
I completely agree, I think we should send this back to the table. Though I do not trust CalHR or the governors office, so my fear is they would try to invoke the impasse clause.
Dills Act, Section 3517.8 (b) If the Governor and the recognized employee organization reach an impasse in negotiations for a new memorandum of understanding, the state employer may implement any or all of its last, best, and final offer. Any proposal in the state employer’s last, best, and final offer that, if implemented, would conflict with existing statutes or require the expenditure of funds shall be presented to the Legislature for approval and, if approved, shall be controlling without further legislative action, notwithstanding Sections 3517.5, 3517.6, and 3517.7. Implementation of the last, best, and final offer does not relieve the parties of the obligation to bargain in good faith and reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding if circumstances change, and does not waive rights that the recognized employee organization has under this chapter.
While the state would still be required to bargain in good faith with BU8 until an agreement is reached, under section 3517.8 (b) the state could implement its last, best, and final offer. This means the state could unilaterally implement sections of the current tentative agreement such as the change to post-retirement health benefit contributions.
Honestly, I’m willing to take that “risk”.
If we vote it down, it seems like the worst case scenario is that we get the current offer put to us.
I honestly don’t see the down side. We get an opportunity to improve the agreement and, if that fails, we get the offer we have now.
What am I missing?
PS: I told you we are on the same side!
4 Likes
Yes I agree, it’s a risk we need to be willing to take to get what we rightly deserve.
You’re not missing anything, I just really do not like the changes to post-retirement health benefit contributions. It’s a complete bait and switch by the State. The state dropped the contribution by 1% which appears to be a savings, though in reality we all know that what the state really want is to not have the contribution at a fixed 4.4%. The state wants to be able to continue to raise that contribution indefinitely. It would be like switching from a fixed rate mortgage into an adjustable rate mortgage, it makes zero sense for us to do.
We’re definitely on the same side!
2 Likes
So…you’re saying you don’t have ONE dollar to trade for my SEVEN dimes?
They’re all new and shiny…
…and there’s SEVEN of them.
1 Like
possible trigger warning
Why don’t we just give ourselves a ~$1,500/year raise and stop paying union dues?
3 Likes
Absolutely not.
You’re right…trigger it is.
We already addressed this earlier in this thread.
This agreement may not be great and it’s probably obvious that I’m not a fan of it, but 2881 has put in a tremendous amount of work behind the scenes in recent years to lay the foundation for the 56 hour week we all need.
Everything from advocating for more staffing by partnering with Senator McGuire to getting us off the 72 hour OT divisor to fighting off the special interests that seem to want nothing more than to destroy public safety benefits as a whole.
Remember that “COVID Cut” you took when all the other BUs lost 10%?
Right. You don’t.
Want to know why?
Because 2881 was there to spin it into a net neutral-or even a gain-by getting everyone onto a 53 hour divisor instead of the 56 we had been on.
Without 2881, I’m certain CAL FIRE employees would have taken a huge hit and had no say when-or if-that hit ever went away.
You can pick apart 2881s missteps through the years, but your union folks are working hard EVERY DAY looking out for the employees’ best interest.
It may not be YOUR best interest on any one single topic, but overall, whether you know it or not, your working conditions are considerably better because of the work of 2881.
I don’t agree with some of the things 2881 does and have had my personal let downs with 2881 over the years. Big ones. Career changing ones. But never once have I considered leaving the union.
Try living in this department without union support. Unless you are very well educated on labor issues and have an attorney on retainer, you’ll be getting the short end of the stick over and over and not even know it.
Leaving the union is not the answer. We need to be in this battle together.
It’s a battle we can’t afford to lose…for ourselves and for our families.
15 Likes
I agree with you. I wouldn’t ever leave the Union.
I was being facetious in that last comment. That’s why prefaced with the warning…
I am a volunteer and now 65 years old. I worked in fire prevention for the US Forest Service in Sierra National Forest above Fresno area in my younger days. I was not aware you’ all worked 72 hours per week. If so, thank you for your service and sacrifice. Do you work the 72 hours per week because now-a-days there is not enough manpower or people in the industry? Or just more fires ? Or more people live in the Wildland Urban Interface?
Everyone is aware of all the hard work L2881 has done, and yes I appreciate it. It just boils down to the fact that it doesn’t add up and we need to be assured that the loss of EDWC hours (dollars) are rolled into base pay in 2024 cycle when the new contract would go into effect. That reassures membership, we aren’t losing any money. That seems to be the broader issue, all math aside.
If we take the contract, like we always do, how do we expect any change?? The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome.
Please vote how you want, thats the beauty of this, all opinions aside. I’m just saying, my vote is NO, from what I can see, tabulate and compare. Our current raise(s) are the concrete in all of this, it’s just this lingering 66 and loss of EDWC that seems, well a little unplanned. Yes, you have two years to come up with it, but since it’s been such a lack of transparency, even now, how can I truly trust that we will be informed along the way. I can’t, we just have to trust, and hope that things will improve. I’m sorry, but I’m just not there anymore.
3 Likes
Hello all.
It pains me to hear that as powerful as L2881 is (or has been) that they did not turkey bargain for you all. I was a member of L2881 for 13 years. I worked in 4 units and promoted on up. I left CALFIRE in 2019 for Alameda County fire. We recently negotiated our contract and some of the benefits are as follows; 1) lifetime medical at 90/10 for you/spouse/dependents. This can never be renegotiated. It is set in stone. 2) 15% pay increase over the next 5 years. 3) 4% longevity pay for members with 28 years of service. 4) $1500 annual education incentive and a number of other items. We are a 48/96 Deparnent with 28 stations and lot of upward mobility. We are hiring Laterals in august of 2023.
I know all of the pain you guys go through as I was once there. Leaving CALFIRE (in my opinion, the best fire department in the country) gave me financial freedom (I make double as a FF with ALCO than I did as a top step FAE). Decrease in stress. (I work less and no endless staffing patterns. Consistent work schedule. (I know my days and my BC can’t move them around twice in 28 days) Endless trade opportunities. ( I now live in Idaho and my trade partner, who also left the state as a captain, now lives in Texas. Better Family life. My kids actually get to see their Dad.
I write all of this because I still have a lot of good brothers who work for the state, but at some point the “mission” doesn’t mean anything when you are divorced and trying to make ends meet. If you are tired of the state, apply for ALCO’s lateral academy next year. Every department has its issues, but at least I don’t have to bring these ones home.
Stay strong everyone and keep grinding.
23 Likes
Last, best, and final would give you exactly what’s on the table. If the State went that direction and it didn’t negotiate in good faith, it’s actionable. Litigate. So, that’s not really a place to hang your hat on. If right now isn’t the time to fight back, then BU8 never will, ever. And, the State knows it. With the current state of affairs this is the time to fight, and fight on.
3 Likes
If you read my posts, I have said multiple times that now is the time for action. I do not like this contract and I will be voting no on the ratification.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be looking at all angles the state might try to take with this, I’m simply doing my due diligence. If an impasse was reached between CalHR and BU8 that would not be the state negotiating in bad faith, it just means that CalHR and BU8 can’t come to an agreement. L2881 would not be able to file suit, since under Dills Act, section 3517.8 (b) the state could implement its last, best, and final, even without ratification from L2881 membership.
2 Likes
Can anyone tell me where the ICP is or if there is an IAP for this incident? 
6 Likes
Not sure, but I think I saw a couple requests for PIOs in IROC!
3 Likes
Tell me if I’m wrong. I seem to recall imposed contracts can only be for 1 yr since that’s the budget cycle and who knows where finances will be year to year.
It would seem that when a bunch of money is set aside for transporting out of state, non California residents for sanctuary type medical procedures, that it would be frowned upon when claiming bargaining in good faith that there wasn’t money available.
2 Likes