A lot of talk on here which is good. Has any Leadership from Chapter Director and up in the units sat down and discuss the new MOU that being presented to the members? Thats the job of the elected positions they are in. What are they saying? The membership needs to be educated in the new MOU contract. The good, the bad, and the ugly of it. Like I stated before giving up 3% @ 50 was Ludicrous.
If your contract looks like crap, smells like crap, taste like crap well then it most likely is crap. Just remember the State of Calif is not looking out for your best interest. You have to do that yourself.
Myself, I have always felt that we should pay outside professional negotiator’s to bargain. Thats what they do!
4 Likes
The chapter directors have a meeting coming up in the next few days to learn the info that they will be bringing back to membership. So as of right now the reps don’t have anymore info then the rest of us.
We technically did not give up 3% @ 50. Which is the reason the formula wasn’t changed for those currently employed with the state when PEPRA was enacted. Brown realized that he would have a hell of a fight to change the current memberships formula. But L2881 could not bargain for future employee, who were not current members and that’s the retirement he went after. This is the reason that everyone hired after PEPRA has a different formula.
4 Likes
I will preface this by saying that I am a supporter of L2881. There are those of us who still recall making 15k-20k a year as FF1’s, 100 hours of unplanned OT to take home 1k on an OT check, working 4 on 3 off. There have been a lot of gains in the 20+ years I have been with the department.
With that being said, I have a few thoughts that maybe someone else will be able to clear up for me:
A 66 hour work means 6 hours less of EDWC each week, 4 weeks in a pay period, hence the 24 hours less of EDWC. With the compounding “raises” we receive, what we are being told is that we are getting frontloaded with this “raise” so when we lose that 24 hours, it will not be such a large “hit” to any of our paychecks. Our Base Pay will go up the compounded 7.25% which will raise our OT Rate by 7.25%. Multiplied by the 52 hours which we now become our new EDWC, I am not seeing where this is anything but a wash. We are in fact losing 31.5 % of our EDWC hours. Now the argument may be made that hey, your OT rate is going to go up so you will be making more money when you are working past your shift. That is not what the membership wanted, those were not the marching orders.
This brings us the the 56 hour work week. It has not been brought up and I am sure the math here is murky, but bare with me. If we agree to this Contract in its current form, and with the numbers presented in the previous paragraph (66 Hour, 24 Hours less EDWC), is it wrong to think that once we make the hard push for the 56 CalHR will come back with, “We support your 56 hour work week. Like previously bargained, with the reduction of hours to your work week, your EDWC will be lowered in kind, 10 hours per week (66-56=10), 40 hours per pay period.” So with that math does that mean that potentially we are going to lose 64 hours of EDWC? Are we going to then try to bargain to make up for that loss? If all that’s the case, you would see potentially HUGE base Salaries for CAL Fire employees, which in turn would be astronomical OT rates, which we all know would become fodder for our legislature/media. I may be wrong, and if so, someone steer me right.
All the other what I call “tag on’s” are needed in a sense with some stipulations:
Education Incentive (Am sure we all have similar thoughts on JAC lol)
Extra money for Insurance (Gone up 34% in the last 2 years personally)
OPEB: Now dropping it down by 1% is sorely needed. This whole being able to raise or lower it yearly by 0.5% is complete… Well you get it. You mean to tell me while Insurance prices continue to go up substantially each year, they are going to actually decrease the amount we pay into OPEB. FAT CHANCE. Additionally, and I have brought this up to many, they they just don’t pay attention to their checks. Starting with Pay Period 9/21 of last year, OPEB now comes out of both Straight Time and Overtime. Check your stubs. It used to just come out of our Straight Time. No one has given me a clear reason why this is.
Longevity Pay: I think it is great those with the years are getting an extra 2% bump. Like I said when I started, we took lumps financially 20+ years ago. However, this does nothing for recruitment, maybe a little bit for retention, but I think this is just a way to try and get some our truly experienced leadership to stick around for just a little while longer. It is what it is, if you have the time to get a bump in Longevity, then Amen.
My biggest fear is we don’t have those selling points to recruit enough people to fill all these positions with quality employees. With what we require now just to be a FF1 in our Agency, these same people can get a job with a Municipal Department for more pay and less hours with better benefits. It is really hard to compete with that. It has me worried.
If bargaining wants to keep the whole process under wraps and only present us with the final product (which I am beginning to find very unacceptable), then how about they present us now with all of the offers that were exchanged. It doesn’t effect this contract at all, but at least it will give people an idea of what we actually asked for and what CalHR thinks of us as a Department.
One last thing on the blanket email that I am pretty sure got sent out to membership. “This contract has no take-aways or losses, it is very rare that we get raises without giving something up, not to mention the possibility of adding new positions to staff behind the 66 hour work week.” Whoever wrote this needs to remember something. Words matter. I can tell you what I have given up in the last five years. I have given up being there to see my kids take their first steps. I have given up having any other types of relationships outside CAL Fire. I have given up plenty of Birthdays/Holidays. A lot of us have sacrificed our marriages. So be very wary with what we write. Once again, words matter.
Sorry for the novel, but I have been thinking about this a great deal. I support our Union, for an organization as big as we are, we NEED it. However, I think we need to do a better job of communicating with membership. A letter needs to be drafted and once the bargaining team agrees, you press the send button and blast membership with what was agreed upon. No interviews, no quotes until Membership has been informed.
8 Likes
I still haven’t made up my mind on this 2yr agreement.
What I do know is this
6.4% General Salary increase that is PERS able
1% deduction in OPED that can change up to .5% year.
2% longevity pay increases
$75 more per month in education bonuses PERS
$260 More per month for medical(non PERS)
While I agree and see all the points here. I have even changed my mind as More info is presented. The 56Hr, 66Hr is NOT PART of this agreement. Rather it would not take effect at the soonest till 11/1/24. This agreement is set to expire in 6/30/24.
It seems everyone sees the same thing with Gov Newsom and his Presidential aspersions in 2024 or 2028 at the latest. Does anyone really think they would go backwards on "his word"
in 2024 while running for President?
The point having been made several times that minimum wage is going up $0.50 on 1/1/23 and more than. Likely the same amount on 1_l/1/24. That assumes(yeah I know) the same things as the 56/66 clock changes. It is 100% true these 6.5% raises are all but absorbed and don’t keep up with minimum wage and inflation. But look at what just happened yesterday in the Legislation with AB257 and the push to raise minimum wage for FF workers.
At the end of the day is L2881 stronger with CPF & IAFF when compared to the juggernaut that is SEIU?
Organized labor is far from Organized and the “divide & conquer” mentality at some point has to end.
Finally, I understand and agree with the logic of saying no now to get out of the BU6 clause that is a poison pill. However, wouldn’t we be doing the same type if IGM thinking that BU6 did with their agreement? Look at BU10 and their holding out, why did BU6 settle, because of the clause and they saw what BU10 is holding out for. Which comes back to my original point, I see valid arguments on both sides and still have no clear choice to approve or decline to approve this agreement.
But this thread has over 350+ responses. So that says something.
3 Likes
First and foremost thank you to everyone for chiming in, this thread has been great. Great discussion that is echoing the conversations at every kitchen table in every CF firehouse.
My chapter has a meeting scheduled in the coming weeks to present the Union’s power point to explain the contract. I have had discussion with chapter officers from multiple districts, they all seem to be in the dark with the rest of us. VERY disappointed in 2881 for not being out ahead of this.
I can’t imagine there’s an angle or spin they can put on this that everyone is missing??? For me it’s a NO, the numbers aren’t adding up if it does result in a reduction in 24hrs of EDWC. That’s almost $1000 hit, so all the additions bring it’s to a wash or a slight riase? At the end of the day thats not worth it for one day off a month.
Im also shocked the union has failed to address biggest b*tch most members have: Without properly spaced out MOU Vac, guys and gals are working 30+ days straight. Still using a vaguely worded directive written 2 or 3 directors ago for the 21 day rule. 66, 56,or whatever doesn’t fix this problem.
3 Likes
OK, this takes the cake…
Just got 2881’s Fire Front newsletter in my email box…the FIRST article is a link to the KCRA news clip with an interview with President Edwards talking about the Tentative Agreement. No other mention of the agreement or it’s terms anywhere else in the newsletter.
How about holding off on the Fire Front newsletter until you’ve informed your membership?
The optics of this keep getting worse. It’s a communications nightmare for the members.
2881, please stop digging this hole!
No more emails, no more interviews, no more nothing until you’ve properly addressed the membership regarding this deal.
That should be the priority right now, not some routine monthly newsletter.
Right now, I need information on the Tentative Agreement directly from those who fought so hard to bring it to us. What I don’t need right now is a recipe for lemon bars and an advertisement for CAL FIRE gear from 2 Hot!
5 Likes
A little tone def, shake my head, don’t forget the second article, highlights from the IAFF convention
3 Likes
Thank you for the amount of info on your current agency. Its ridiculously funny how many folks mention “they know of” another agency, “That does this”. Just state the facts, you cant be worried of stating the facts of any government agency. I have 3 vetted friends at ALCO, and 2 at COCO. JC, what does ALCO offer to laterals for Retirement formulas? Do they honor the 3 at 50? or do they give there percentage at a higher age? What is a off the street hire given these days at well? Thank you kindly and cheers. Very envious.
P.S. How was that SEAL style academy??
4 Likes
PERPA… sigh… Can the union fight for a better rate than the current? Does PERPA stop say 2.7 at 50 or 3 at 52? Thanks
1 Like
2881 finally spoke!
They gave us a link to the KCRA website!
When I say “an agency I know of,” I’m speaking of one I worked for. I was on the union board and one of my duties was contract comparisons. I choose to leave them nameless so as not to cause collateral damage.
3 Likes
I have been a supporter of our bargaining team my entire 25 year career. But for the first time, this is just not a deal I can get behind. If you are poised to retire in the next two years, you are likely happy about it. But if you have more to go, you realize it’s not real great; or a great recruiting tool. If we want quality candidates, you are going to have to compete for them. If CF grows as much as they say, our candidate pool may not be the best, if we are paying like we’re not. Times have changed and the department has to change with it or potentially get left behind.
2 Likes
Not sure if this has been added yet or not but answers questions about Calpers reform law. Hope it helps
3 Likes
SteepNrocky- most agencies retirement formulas for laterals take into consideration what plan they were in at their previous agency. I know with CON and I think with ALCO laterals are considered legacy. I came to CON after PEPRA but with 3% at 50 from another agency. I have 3% at 50 with CON as well as I am legacy hire.
2 Likes
The retirement formula can not be changed through bargaining. For the retirement formula to be changed, the legislature would need to amend PEPRA. From my understanding L2881 and our lobbyist are working towards getting that changed with the help of people like Senator Mike McGuire.
3 Likes
Ya copy, I think it was Stockton or Maybe Manteca, they never had 3 at 50, but if they got a legacy hire from CF, they would match the percentage but not the age? Shoot I can’t remember. Something to do with “stackable”. Thank you, just interested in how it works.
2 Likes
Typically what will happen is you will end up with a split-formula. So you would end up with say, 15 years of 3@50 and 15 years of 3@55. Unless the department keeps you at your legacy rate, which very few still do.
1 Like
Spoke to who? It wasn’t the Dues paying members! From what it sounds like on here most members are in the dark. You members need to start asking some serious questions.
1 Like
But L2881 could not bargain for future employee, who were not current members and that’s the retirement he went after. This is the reason that everyone hired after PEPRA has a different formula.
That’s LAME.
You try to build on what you have, not lose what you had. Like some of us stated before. we gave up a lot that I and a lot of members will never get back for 3% @ 50. We did it for us and the future hires knowing how this job tears down your body. 2% here and 2% there etc. As stated in other post that’s not even keeping up with inflation. Your medical, gas, electricity, food and just about everything else has went up.
A little history lesson…State of Calif way in the black, Gray Davis is governor. Things are looking good for us in CDF for a nice raise. Then a little thing called the Energy Crisis hits and the state goes bankrupt in a year or so. Get it now while the going is good.
4 Likes
I completely agree, it was lame and all the future employees got boned and it is now severely affecting recruitment and retention.
My point was it was a piece of legislation and had nothing to do with collective bargaining. There was nothing that L2881 could have done to stop the legislation from passing. Also, PEPRA didn’t just affect L2881, if affected all CALPERS departments.
Like I have said, my vote is a NO on this one.
1 Like