Understood, but an PERB action could be started against bad faith bargaining by the State. They have to keep having a track record of good faith bargaining. You can’t just implement last, best, and final without a process of building a record, or they leave themselves open. I’ve been through many of these processes in government. With this current deal only being the 1st blush at a vote by the Union there’s a long way to go before last, best, and final.
2 Likes
You are absolutely correct a PERB action could be started, IF the state was negotiating in bad faith.
The issue with that is, CalHR and L2881 have already signed a tentative agreement, which means the state has already established a track record of negotiating in good faith. If we as the members do not ratify the contract and we go back to the negotiating table and than the bargaining team can not come to an agreement with CalHR, as long as what the state implement under Section 3517.8 (b) is the same as the already agreed upon tentative agreement, the state would not be negotiating in bad faith just because we didn’t get what we wanted.
This isn’t my first rodeo, either.
1 Like
Easy solution. You can only control your controllables. Either stop contributing funds to the union or if you want the 56 hour work week so bad go work for a Dept that has it. I can guarantee without a doubt when all of the complainers on here took this job you knew you were working a 72 hour work week, minimum. If you don’t like it leave it! I’m so tired of all the complaints. Call the union don’t complain on here. Vote for it or don’t, guess what, it’s still gonna get approved
1 Like
Yes!!! Never try to make anything better. Overweight, eat more, don’t work out or diet. Have no money, get some credit cards and go into debt.
With that attitude we’d still be working 5 days a week for half time and no pay at night 
4 Likes
Anything better!? A 6.5% raise over two years!? That’s not more money in your pocket!?
All of you that have never set at the negotiation table don’t see exactly what is occurring. They are passing this onto the next budget cycle. The 66 hour is literal smoke and mirrors. You can’t negotiate for something out of the contractual timeframe.
2 Likes
I think you are right on with your logic and figures. What needs to happen is a date like January 1 2023 we go to new shift schedule and work week with no loss of comp. Heres the rub, we will never have the workforce to fill the third shift in a 48/96, but that’s ok, we all get forced all the time multiple times per month. We cover all the hours needed to work and if tomorrow we got to a 48/96 we will still cover and be forced. But now we have a definite schedule not the BS they are purposing that our Union bought off on this will help with the attrition and we will see more and more applying to Calfire. With this BS they are purposing does not fix the attrition and recruitment. WE NEED them to approve it now.
2 Likes
you mean the drunk fest where no work gets done
3 Likes
Yes you are right they are distracting us from what’s really going on its a delay tactic they will keep pushing this off. Don’t forget if we get a new governor he or she may try and take all this away
1 Like
I think we are on the same side on this brother. I just don’t like when we tell people stop complaining when they are trying to make things better.
2 Likes
Pretty much all I’ve seen so far has been the case against ratification.
I would like to see some of the arguments supporting the agreement. Will someone please lay out the positives of this agreement?
I am not being sarcastic. This is an honest request. I’m wanting to understand the other side of the proposal that the “no” camp might be missing.
I know this is looking like a pretty polarizing topic, so please keep it civil.
6 Likes
The best alternative path forward to this issue is to get a statewide Proposition on the ballot to change the California Government Code for how the State is required to compensate CAL FIRE. This would take the issue it to the voters. The current polling indicates overwhelming support for CAL FIRE Firefighters (watch Senator McGuires press conferences, he says it multiple times that Californias are overwhelmingly in support).
This is similar to what the CHP was able to accomplish legislatively (through the state legislative chambers). Figuring that the legislative route is not viable (would require assembly and governor approval, which seems unlikely), the best path is to get a Proposition on the next statewide election.
Here is what the Government Code currently says about how the state must compensate the CHP:
CA Government Code § 19827. (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, in order to recruit and retain the highest qualified employees, the state shall pay sworn members of the California Highway Patrol who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 5 the estimated average total compensation for each corresponding rank for the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, San Diego Police Department, Oakland Police Department, and San Francisco Police Department. Total compensation shall include base salary, educational incentive pay, physical performance pay, longevity pay, and retirement contributions made by the employer on behalf of the employee.
Here is what the Government Code currently says about how the state must compensate the CAL FIRE:
California Code, Government Code - GOV § 19827.3
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.
Here is what the Proposition would change in the California Government Code:
In order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the state shall pay sworn members of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 8 the estimated average compensation for each of the corresponding ranks of other fire jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California. Total compensation shall include hours worked, base salary, educational incentive pay, physical performance pay, longevity pay, and retirement contributions made by the employer on behalf of the employee.
THIS is the path forward. Californians across the state are aware of the Wildland firefighter compensation issues (mainly due to the USFS low pay), use the strong public support and awareness to the members advantage. Democracy in action, fix the issue with a Proposition.
13 Likes
OK, I just got to say…
No one ever thought of trying that ID until now? 
1 Like
Thanks for posting this. I remember hearing that’s what CHP does.
2 Likes
Remember, the Union counsel bills ALL their work during these times, so all of this is GREAT business for them. They have zero incentive to push a statewide ballot measure, they want billable hours (which your hard earned dues pay) and more bargaining. It even says it on their website: “Our attorneys form one of the most experienced teams of union-side litigators, negotiators, and representatives in all of California”. Translation: Your problems are our profit, more prolonged problems, more longterm profits!
4 Likes
Do You Support Proposed 6.5% Raise For CalFire Firefighters, Shifts Down To 66 Hours?
- Yes (65%, 311 Votes)
- No (27%, 131 Votes)
- Don’t Know (8%, 39 Votes)
Total Voters: 481
In MyMotherlode.com.
Let’s see where this goes, it will be up for a few more days for viewers to vote on.
2 Likes
This is pure genius, and something that should be seriously considered. Has anything brought anything like that to a chapter or district officer?
It’s been discussed at the state level
And?? What’s was the outcome or reason for not pursuing it?
1 Like
Maybe we should send this forum to KCRA to let them know and let the general public know what we all think of this contract. As a lay person might think “ 6.5% raise and less days worked, that’s a hell of a deal”
But does the general public actually know what’s going on……
1 Like
Here’s some history trivia:
CHP’s pay parity under Government Code 19827 was enacted in 1981.
CDF/CAL FIRE’s “…shall consider prevailing salaries and benefits…of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters…” language under Government Code 19827.3 was added under section 17.2.1 of 2881’s 1999 to 2001 MOU.
That’s 20 years longer it took CDF/CAL FIRE to achieve significantly less powerful language than CHP’s.
Obviously, the CDF/CAL FIRE language is much weaker, as it says it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits versus CHP’s language that says the state shall pay.
That said, how CalHR can look at their own salary survey that shows a 23.6% lag in CAL FIRE pay on an annual basis and 59.4% on an hour for hour basis, yet only offers 6.6% over 2 years that is offset by an 8% reduction in pay when EDWC is reduced at the end of the contract for a net zero deal does not seem like the state ever truly “considered prevailing salaries and benefits”, but what do I know.
Point being, CDF/CAL FIRE’s struggles at the bargaining table pre-date the careers of most current employees. Actually, it probably pre-dates the birth of most current employees.
As I recall, Resolution BR&F 4-15 was adopted at the 2015 Local 2881 convention in an effort to reconcile the deficiences in the language of CAL FIRE’s Government Code 19827.3 with CHP’s 19873 parity language.
This resolution remains to this day in the 2881 Operating Procedures Handbook 1500 as a continuing resolution.
This is obviously a heavy lift and I know 2881 has been actively exploring avenues to achieve this.
I encourage all 2881 members to become active in your local chapter. Only by fighting for our working conditions together will we ever be able to achieve a fair compensation package and working conditions.
5 Likes