In 2020 it cost between 2.2 million and 6.8 million to get a statewide ballot initiative qualified.
1 Like
I would say to submit a resolution at this years’ convention for a 1 year dues increase to raise the funds…then I did the math. Even if we had 11,000 employees working year round, it would take $50 per month to raise the 6.8 million. That’s a lot.
2 Likes
Filing a Proposition measure costs about $2-4K. After that, almost all of the cost is the signatures. The “price of a signature” ranges from $5-$15/signature (average price for signature in 2020 was $7.22) depending on how many initiatives are on the ballot and time until the election (the sooner the election, the higher the per signature cost). There are third party companies that pay those people sitting outside Safeway to gather signatures, it’s big business. You need roughly 650,000 registered voters signatures to qualify. There is an argument to be made that with a large organization such as CAL FIRE, and starting the process soon (for a 2024 ballot), grassroots members standing in front of Safeway’s across the state will be able to gather the signatures without paying a third party company. After that its advertising and messaging, which CPF and IAFF have decent mechanisms.
1 Like
Great idea.
Problem is, in our chapter, we can’t even get people to show up for a chapter meeting, much less an event…and we have food and sodas at the meeting…at least come for the free meal!
We recently supported a local political candidate by walking a neighborhood to distribute flyers. How many members showed up to help? FOUR! Three chapter officers and one member-at-large.
If our membership won’t even show up for a free dinner at a 1 hour chapter meeting, how are we going to motivate them to stand in front of Safeway for hours on end to collect signatures?
GREAT idea in concept, but we would need to get many more of our members actively involved in order to pull it off. It absolutely can be done, but it will take a change in the “what are you going to do for me” mentality.
1 Like
Yes, well, that is the crux of it all. Change takes a lot of sweat and personal sacrifice. Change at this level takes action en-mass, as history has shown.
I would suggest you not get your hopes up too much about a ballot measure to change the Government Code. Don’t forget that CALFIRE is known and liked in the areaa that it works and serves, (Sierra Foothills, Shastas, Coast, RVC etc) but that’s not where the majority of the voters are in California.
LA, SF, ORANGE, SAC and even the urban/semi urban counties that have a small CALFIRE presence, (CZU,SCU,BDU,MVU) a CAL FIRE rig driving through an urban area is an anomaly, and the contract counties sure are not singing CALFIRE‘s praises, plus McGuires press conferences were actually very poorly attended by the press.
You are simply not going to get the state level politicians in the big Democratic cities to take up the torch of CALFIRE and get their constituents to vote for that. Especially as we head into what has all the appearances of a major recession. Frank in Culver City and Lisa in the SF Financial District have bigger issues to worry about and vote on and CALFIRE isn’t one of them.
Newsom will be gone soon running for President. If he or his staff cared about a 56 AT ALL, it would’ve been written to take effect at a certain date, as it is now, it is vaguely written to be discussd about implementing a 66 hour work week over the next 10 months, that is about as noncommittal as you can be.
The best L-2881 can hope for is Governor candidates who are supportive and understand the mission.
Until then VOTE NO.
4 Likes
Can you really blame members for not showing up most of the time? The same problem we’re discussing here is what affects the decision to show up. 72 + force + OOC +…
What little time off there is, even if nothing planned to do, with family is golden! Now throw in a commuting work force and it costs a lot more than an hour. I would need 8 hours to attend a 1 hour meeting. It seems like half of CF at any one time is commuting 1/2 way up the state due to recent promotion, waiting for the next vacancy to transfer back. No point uprooting the family and moving closer for just a few months. I know I’m preaching to some of the choir here, and some would say you took the choice to promote and travel.
The fact that these things are happening hopefully doesn’t divide us over promotion and commuting decisions. It SHOULD however, underscore and exclamation mark how pervasive into our personal lives the 72 + forces (due to staffing, caused by wages and working conditions) actually is!
I’ve had to ask myself while holding a position on a union board, am I there to serve the membership or be served? It took getting creative to get the word out to membership like looking for middle ground to bring the message to them, such as driving to each battalion and having a presentation prior to a multicompany drill, etc. The drill keeps staff happy with moving around equipment and people! Split the load up among chapter representatives.
I’m definitely NOT pointing a finger at the union leadership. I know how committed you are! I’m just spit balling ideas to get past a hard line of showing up at a chapter meeting. How about video conferences?
I’m a short timer and voting yes would help me. But I know change doesn’t come without sacrifice and I’ll vote no if it’ll help the next generation. I probably won’t be around for the next vote if this contract proposal is defeated.
Thank you for your time
This just in from 2881:
A Message from your State Rank & File Director, Peter Boctor
Regarding the Tentative Agreement:
I want to address a couple of rumors circulating about this tentative agreement.
-
The 2.62% does NOT go away! Back in June, I sent all of you a blast regarding this matter, and I signed a side letter agreement with the State solidifying this.
-
The 53 Hr EDWC Clock also remains in full effect. It did NOT go back to a 56 Hr clock.
Last week when we signed off on the Tentative agreement on Thursday night, CAL HR was supposed to give us 24 to 48 hours to be able to put an educational piece for all the members. We obviously were not given that professional courtesy. What CAL HR put on their website was a very rough draft of this T/A with absolutely no clean-up of language. We cannot control or sensor what they put on their website.
Some members are coming to their own conclusions without our Union being able to produce an educational and informative product for all of you. I have had our Bargaining Team working diligently on producing this component so that all of you can make an informed decision for yourselves.
Fraternally,
Peter Boctor
CAL FIRE L2881
State Rank & File Director
As I’ve said, I’m a complete supporter of 2881.
That said, I am disappointed that this communication has zero details of the agreement.
This letter says “CAL HR was supposed to give us 24 to 48 hours to be able to put an educational piece for all the members”.
Well, the way I see it, getting 24-48 hours from CalHR is now irrelevant, because it’s been a week (168 hours), and there has been no educational piece that I’ve seen.
I see this as a missed opportunity to engage with the membership.
The communications faux pas of giving media interviews, sending requests for photos, and distributing the monthly newsletter (with a link to the KCRA interview, no less) before distributing the hard facts of this potentially watershed agreement to the membership does not foster confidence in the membership. (No pun intended.)
Like I said, 2881, please stop digging the hole! I know there is a lot going on behind the scenes, but the membership needs you to lead in a visible manner right now.
By the way, Mr Boctor, it’s “censor”, not “sensor”.
7 Likes
Exactly !! The 48 hrs excuse is long past. What else have they possibly been doing that could be more important in the intervening time?
1 Like
In my unit we get about 3 days notice of a chapter meeting.
I know 2881 tried, but all this letter did was provide( I’m trying to be nice here), it provided more obscurity to an already obscure situation, and to blame CAL HR, for the 24-48 hours and still no discussion with membership, is showing how in disarray the Union currently is. As I’ve stated before, I have been a supporter for a long time, but in order to improve, we have to identify the deficiencies. If all we get in return is being defensive and blaming other entities from 2881 how do they expect us to trust them. I’m disappointed, not broken or in complete “over it mode” just disappointed in the communication and professional courtesy that is due to the 2881 members.
2 Likes
I would have expected this within 24 Hrs, not 7 days later
1 Like
I think about it this way, the item (66Hrs) is such a huge shift in our department that it deserves a lot of communication.
I also think about this, if a CAL FIRE administrator were to be lacking this much communication over a departmental paradigm shift of CAL FIRE culture, the Union would be up in arms. Be better, period.
3 Likes
I see this this offer-and, more importantly, the result of the ratification vote-as a watershed moment in CAL FIRE history. There is a lot at stake. A lot.
We all know that a 56 without loss of compensation will go a considerable distance toward stabilizing CAL FIRE’s workforce.
Is this 66 hour deal THE path to a 56 or is a 66 mistakenly viewed by CalHR as the solution to all that ails CAL FIRE? Is there a huge difference.
If CalHR thinks a 66 is the SOLUTION, voting it down sends a clear message that we’re not an easy pushover and more needs to be done.
If going to a 66 truly is a solid path to a 56 without loss of compensation, it seems this offer would deserve serious consideration, as it would be a monumental move forward for CAL FIRE’s future.
If that were the case, 2881 needed to articulate that right away with clear messaging of the long-term vision and a clear path forward that addresses how a 66 now gets us to a 56 later.
The details I’m seeing is that we’re looking at a 66 that cuts 24 hours from EDWC, which equates to an 8% annual pay cut when it goes into effect and relies on the hope that CalHR will entertain the 56 hour concept while negotiating the exact terms of the 66 hour schedule.
Personally, if I were CalHR that signed an agreement for a 66 hour work week, why would I even consider a 56? I would laugh you out of the room for even bringing it up. 2881s logic on this doesn’t make sense to me.
But what scares me the most is that allowing a reduction of EDWC when the 66 goes into effect sets the precedent for CalHR to stand firm on the same pattern of cutting EDWC and salary further if we ever do negotiate a 56. That’s not my definition of no loss of compensation.
Like I said before, I feel that if 2881 really felt this was a great deal, they would have been prepared with clear messaging from day one and would probably be organizing a parade to a press conference on the steps of the capitol to announce the union’s “win”.
Instead, I feel like I’m seeing the exact opposite, which is a bit terrifying.
If it was such a great deal, selling it to the members would be easy and it wouldn’t take a week to develop a positive spin on this deal.
Will someone please post a rebuttal supporting the agreement that’s on the table? I am very open minded and honestly do want to see the positives of this offer.
3 Likes
L-2881 is very corrupt in my opinion and MANY OTHERS. They spend your union dues on alcohol, food, golf, own condominiums fully stocked with alcohol, airline flights constantly for union president to fly from Riverside to Sacramento and back. If L-2881 really cared about getting a solid MOU contract (48/96), they would be spending money from dues to bus us up to Sacramento on our days off and protest at the State Capital steps. The union president should be on every news channel possible blasting this absolute dumpster fire proposition. However, he is not. Keep paying your union dues, L-2881 is very thirsty and golf is fun! If you really want to make change, stop paying dues until L-2881 gets us a 48/96 work schedule. If you take money away from a business, the business either folds or makes drastic changes and thrives. We definitely need a union, just not L-2881. They represent 18 job classifications. We need a real fire union that represents 1 classification, FIREFIGHTERS ONLY (FF1, FFII, FAE, & FC). No BC’s, no Forresters, no prevention, no airplane pilots. No more alcohol, food, condominiums, and golfing with union dues. That is just criminal. No other fire union allows this type of frivolous spending of union dues.
5 Likes
Those concerns are understandable.
It always bothered me that 2881 sponsored a “bar crawl” at the union convention that’s led by the Honor Guard’s pipes and drums as it parades around Downtown Sacramento just blocks form the Capitol presents a horrible perception to not only our members, but the public and the legislators.
However, the behaviors like that that bred the stereotypes that convention is all about alcohol under previous Union leadership have considerably moderated under President Edwards.
Even with the change in union leadership behavior, trying to change the members’ perceptions will take time.
1 Like
**Mod Note: ** As this thread has seriously digressed from discussion of the puts and takes in the MOU to a bashing of everybody, combined with the level of activity in fire incidents, this thread is now going to be closed. If at some point, the discussion can remain relevant and civil, we can consider reopening.
18 Likes
At the request of an individual on this Forum, I am going to reopen this thread, with the expressed requirement that any and all discussion remain tightly focused on the MOU specifically. If there is any further bashing of the Union, the Agency or individuals, this topic will be closed again and not reopened.
Carry on constructively and civilly.
9 Likes