Well what do we know now that this is 3 weeks old? Can someone knowledgeable layout pros and cons for those who don’t read instructions when they buy electronic equipment?
Thx in advance
2 Likes
I’m trying to understand the opeb. The Tentative agreement states: it will drop from 4.4% to 3.4%. But will then increase .5% January 1, 2023 to 3.9% and then January 1, 2024 increase again .5% to 4.4%.
This is where the confusion lies. Is it written where it can potentially increase .5% every year after? Or will it stop until a new agreement is reached July 1, 2024?
I believe all other bargaining units in the state contribute between 1% and 4.4%. Those numbers are based off of how much each bargaining employees make ( I think?). If BU8 continues to rise after July 1, 2024 then we will be paying the highest in the state. If it stops at 4.4% until a new agreement is Reached July 2024 then I see no issue.
1 Like
Referencing the 66 hour work week Nov.1, 2024……it’s not completely hashed out yet, I believe there will be a working group that determines the work schedule but one idea would be:
Week 1: work 3 days / off 4 days
Week2: work 3 days / off 4 days
Week 3: work 3 days / off 4 days
Week 4: work 2 days / off 5 days
It could potentially lower edwc approximately $200 per month, but make up for it through GSI and overtime rate increase. A side letter would have to be enacted sometime between July 1, 2024 and Nov. 1, 2024. This letter would be separate that the bargaining that would be going on during that time.
Again. It’s still in the works. But in actuality, it would be included with the bargaining around July 1, 2024 ( 66 hour workweek). It’s not completely pertaining to this tentative agreement that’s upon us now, even though it’s written in the current agreement.
1 Like
First, I want to thank CAL FIRE Local 2881, and the bargaining team in particular, for the extraordinary effort they have put into these negotiations. There are a lot of moving parts and external factors that many of us who are not part of the bargaining team may not realize. Over the years, CalHR has proven to be tough negotiators and, from what I am hearing, the development of this Tentative Agreement seems to have been no different.
To CAL FIRE Local 2881 and the bargaining team, you deserve considerable credit for your efforts and my commentary below is my personal opinion and is in no way intended to downplay the tremendous work you have put in. You have a tough job that requires additional time away from your families without additional compensation while you fight for the membership as a whole. The work that has been put in behind the scenes to set the stage for a reduction in the 72 hour work week cannot go unrecognized. Thank you for all you have done for or membership.
In response to RidgeReaper, here are the Pros and Cons as I see them in the order listed in the summary on the CalHR web site:
Pro #1:
GSI of 6.6% compounded, consisting of:
2.5% Retroactive to July 1
2% January 1, 2023
2% July 1, 2023
Con #1:
- Inflation the past 12 months has been 8%. The 6.6% of this deal does not make up for the 8% loss of spending power over the past year, let alone the inflation that will occur over the course of the two year agreement.
- January 1, 2023, minimum wage increases 3.3% from $15.00 to $15.50. The state will have to account for this regardless of whether this agreement is ratified by the membership or not.
- Even if inflation subsides to near historical levels today, we’re still on track for another 50 cent increase in minimum wage January 1, 2024. That’s another 3.2% increase in minimum wage before this contract would expire June 30, 2024. This is a 6.6% compounded increase in minimum wage that will have to be factored in to wages regardless of whether the agreement is ratified.
- Long story short, whether this deal is ratified or not, in 2024, CAL FIRE’s entry level Firefighter Is will still be making minimum wage.
- CalHR’s own 2020 California Firefighter Total Compensation Salary Survey showed a 23.6% lag in CAL FIRE compensation. As a reminder, this 23.6% lag is on a monthly basis. When adjusted to an hour-for-hour basis, the actual lag is 59.4%.
- This 59.4% lag was in 2020, before 8% annual inflation. On top of this, many of the departments referenced in the survey have since negotiated annual increases of 5% or more each year of a multi-year contract, which only increases the lag.
Personal commentary 1: If the agreement is not ratified and wages must be increased due to minimum wage, it is possible that the state would only increase the lowest ranks, which could exacerbate the existing compaction issue. That said, in my mind, increased compaction just winds the spring tighter, reinforcing the fact that CAL FIRE’s compensation structure needs a long-term fix. Just my opinion.
Personal commentary 2: GSI in calendar year 2022 is limited by BU6 having a reopener clause that states if any other bargaining unit receives more than the 2.5% in 2022, BU6 gets to reopen negotiations for additional pay increases. As the Legislative Analyst Report states, "Unit 6 is the largest General Fund supported bargaining unit, representing about one-third of the state’s General Fund payroll costs. Any Unit 6 pay increase above what is currently scheduled could significantly increase state General Fund costs.” In my opinion, BU6s reopener clause precluded BU8 from obtaining a GSI in 2022 that kept up with inflation, much less closed the 59% hour-for-hour compensation lag noted above.
Pro #2:
Longevity pay increases of 2 percentage points for all years of service that already receive longevity pay.
Personal commentary: Personally, I see no downside to this.
Pro #3:
Educational pay incentive (“JAC Pay”) increased from $75 to $150.
Personal commentary: Personally, I see no downside to this.
Pro #4:
BU8 members can now be reimbursed 100% for using public transit or carpooling.
Personal Commentary: As the Legislative Analyst’s Report states, “The administration’s fiscal estimates indicate that no Unit 8 members use this benefit.” After all, how many CAL FIRE facilities have public transit near by? Even if they did, how many firefighters have to swap stations mid-shift and how cumbersome would that be if you carpooled or rode public transit? To me, this one doesn’t seem very well thought out and doesn’t seem to add any value to the membership.
Pro #5:
Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) contributions will decrease from 4.4% to 3.4%.
Con #5:
The current FIXED 4.4% contribution will be “reduced” to a VARIABLE 3.4% that can adjust up to 0.5% per year with no floor or ceiling.
Personal commentary: Theoretically, by the date this two year TA expires, the OPEB contribution could be right back to 4.4% with no mechanism to stop it from continuing to increase. I see this as a potential shell game that could end up increasing OPEB contributions, but I also see that a number of other Bargaining Units have already agreed to similar language in their recent contracts.
Pro#6:
Additional state medical care contribution of $260 per month.
Con #6:
This additional medical care offset expires when the contract expires June 30, 2024.
Personal commentary: I have heard that there is a “promise” that the expiration of the $260 is simply boiler plate language and this $260 will continue indefinitely. Personally, I have a hard time trusting anything that is not in writing. Just my opinion.
Pro #7:
Local 2881 shall cooperate with the state’s planned payroll system updates.
Personal commentary: Personally, I see no downside to this.
Pro #8:
Forestry Fire Pilots can now be assigned a 7-day shift pattern.
Personal commentary: This was a resolution that was passed at convention a couple years ago and I understand some Forestry Fire Pilots welcome this change. Not being in the aviation world, I don’t see any downside to this.
Pro #9:
Reduction of the current 72 hour work week to a 66 hour work week with development of a Joint Labor Management Committee (JLMC) to work out all the details prior to the tentative implementation date of November 1, 2024.
Con #9:
- Each year in recent memory, the number ONE priority at the Local 2881 annual convention was to achieve a “56 hour work week with no loss of compensation”. It is true that the 66 might be the first step toward a 56, but this agreement does not, in itself, guarantee a 56 at all and there are a great many questions that are left to be answered until after the vote.
- What is not addressed at all in the PowerPoint presentation distributed by 2881 leadership, is what effect the change to a 66 will have on EDWC. My understanding is that this will be negotiated by the JLMC prior to implementation of the 66 hour week. Is there a chance that there will be no loss of EDWC? Sure, but there is the very real possibility that CalHR will take the stance that 24 fewer hours worked equals 24 hours less pay. For reference, 24 hours of EDWC equates to about 8% of PERSable monthly salary.
- The agreement contains language that allows the state to postpone or modify the implementation of the 66 hour week if the Governor declares a fiscal emergency. The Legislative Analyst’s Report states it is likely that there will be budget shortfall projections in 2024 and beyond, which may jeopardize implementation of the 66 hour week.
- As fireslacker said, the exact format of the 66 hour schedule will not be determined until after the vote.
Personal commentary 1: One rumor going around is that it will be OK if we lose 8% of our PERSable salary in 2024 because by then we will be in negotiations for the next contract and should be able to make up the difference with a GSI. I cannot recall a time CalHR has given an 8% GSI to any bargaining unit, so, to me, it seems highly unlikely that the loss of EDWC could be entirely offset in the next round of contract negotiations.Again, just my opinion.
Personal commentary 2: Another rumor going around is that Local 2881 will negotiate a 56 hour week as part of the 66 hour week JLMC negotiations. Why would CalHR even entertain the concept of a 56 when the agreement was for a 66? This doesn’t make sense to me.
Personal commentary 3: Is a 66 hour work week a pit stop on the path to a 56 or is it seen by CalHR as the long-term solution? I don’t know if that question can be answered by anyone.
Overall, there are certainly many aspects of this Tentative Agreement to consider and many differing viewpoints.
Personally, I have a hard time voting for an agreement that does not have all the details spelled out in black and white.
Not knowing for certain whether I am going to lose 8% of PERSable income in 2 years is a huge question mark for me. This could have a signifiant impact on those who are planning on retiring in the next 3 to 15 years or so.
Add in the fact that there is absolutely no clarity on what the 66 hour work week might look like and it’s just a lot of uncertainties for me to be super comfortable voting in favor of.
On the flip side, at least I feel like there might actually be a real possibility that a 56 will happen before I retire, which is encouraging.
For me, I think I’m wrestling with sticking with the knowns of what I have now while sending this deal back to be worked out in more detail or closing my eyes and voting yes with the trust that somehow things will all magically work out in the end.
This is not a vote to be taken lightly. There is a lot at stake.
I have gone back and forth a number of times over the past few weeks and still not yet made up my mind which way I will vote.
I look forward to a thoughtful, CIVIL, and fact-based discussion on the pros and cons.
14 Likes
I think it’s important to note and it was said in the unions podcasts
You cannot bargain for benefits outside the current contract. With that said, the 66 hour work week technically would be in the next contract. So all the talk of a 66 is just smoke and mirrors. The next CalHR bargaining team has no mandate to follow the language provided in this contract.
Something I learned as well from a union representative was that contract wasn’t handled like any contract in the past. The offer we received was directly from the governors office.
2 Likes
This forum is totally inappropriate. Each L2881 chapter will be holding meetings to share information on the Tentative Agreement. You must be at a meeting where the information is shared to vote!!
2 Likes
The union turned to KCRA & SacBee before they talked with their members. The members turned to this because their union never spoke a word.
Great insight S159 and couldn’t agree with you more USAF2CDF
3 Likes
That may be, but the union’s not doing itself any favors. I emailed them directly two weeks ago and received no response to many of the questions that are in this thread. I also have asked my union representation within my unit and largely receive no answers to any of these questions.
I think the majority of people on this forum would disagree with your statement, but that’s the beautiful thing about a forums. Feel free to opt out when you dislike Komeara. Inappropriate? Yikes
3 Likes
Unfortunately the “union” didn’t turn to KCRA and the Sacramento Bee, they reached out to the Union based on information posted by CALHR. There is a process and that is why it is called a “Tentative Agreement “ and it is not done until the Legislature through a bill approves the Tentative Agreement to go to the Governor for signature.
Upon approval by the Legislature, the L2881 takes the “Tentative Agreement “ to the Membership (oh by the way, you have to be a member of L2881 to be able to vote, so if you are not a member your opinion really does not matter because you elected to remove your voice in the discussion). This is a 60 day process to allow meetings to be held where the “Tentative Agreement “ is explained, which you have to attend to vote.
Go to the Meetings to express you thoughts!!
2 Likes
Let’s keep this thread to the topic of the terms of the agreement.
The communications concerns were noted previously and we can’t have this thread go sideways and get it closed again.
There are many differing viewpoints. Each has its own validities.
I do my best to thoroughly research the points I bring up, but people need to independently validate information gathered from any source, whether it’s a major news outlet, social media, the government, or wherever.
Use the viewpoints presented here to develop a list of questions that matter to you and bring them to your local chapter meeting to discuss.
Then vote based on what you feel is best considering all the information you’ve gathered from all the sources.
Again, stay open minded and let’s please keep it civil and on topic.
2 Likes
In the tentative agreement process, is there anything that says that the union can’t publicly educate the union membership? In the state rank and file email they said some cleanup language would be coming. That was over a week ago.
3 Likes
Komeara,
This is a forum I like to utilize to get other members thoughts that I normally would never get to hear. I am a L2881 member. I hear thoughts, feedback, questions, answers from members in my own Unit, but this forum allows me to hear others thoughts, questions, feedback etc. from other units within the state that I would probably never get to hear without having this forum. Like others have said, it will generate questions that I can bring to my local membership. I have listened to the first (of many to follow) zoom meeting from L2881, some questions weren’t fully answered, so I look to this forum to see if other L2881 members received answers to my questions. I hope that all makes sense.
3 Likes
Well said, fireslacker.
I also look forward to hearing viewpoints from across the state.
Life in my unit is different than in neighboring units, let alone a unit hundreds of miles away that has a completely different set of concerns. I see this forum as a great information sharing opportunity.
That said, there have been missteps along the way by both 2881 as well as CalHR and we can debate the past actions for days, but that gets us nowhere.
Right now, I feel the focus needs to be on sifting through the facts of the Tentative Agreement that is currently on the table and determining how voting a certain way might affect you, your family, the department, and the membership as a whole.
Use this forum as ONE of MANY sources of information and as a thought provoking conversation starter with those in your local area.
As was said earlier in this thread, stay open minded, do your own research, think for yourself, and don’t be a blind follower.
4 Likes
SPOT ON ASSESSMENT!
Has anyone heard the saying “A bird In the hand is worth 2 in the bush”
That is exactly what this Tentative Agreement is all about.
ANYTHING, I MEAN ANYTHING
Beyond July 1, 2024 is not in the TA. So this Agreement boils down to
6.6% GSI between now and 6/30/24. The comments are the OPED are 100% correct. Lowering to 3.4% but can go up/down .50% a year with no floor or ceiling. VERY CONCERNING
However, looking at other BU, this is in line/boiler plate information and process. Something to keep in mind, the hiring of 2,000+ FF1 (last year, this year, next year) has increased the base of contributing personal with different retirement formulas(2.7% @ 57) and when/if they get lifetime medical. Meaning that many more people are contributing to the pool.
Does this agreement keep up with inflation
NOPE, NOT EVEN CLOSE
Is this agreement better than our current agreement.
IMHO it is absolutely better then what we have
Finally, Kudos to the bargaining team for getting a 2yr agreement on the table to vote. That was done by design and to have the POLITICAL MUSCLE from both CPF & IAFF on our side in the “Event Governor Newsom” decides to primary POTUS Biden.
Keep up the discussion. My mind has changed twice on this topic as I’ve read THIS THREAD and ASK QUESTIONS while READING, REREADING, & REREADING A 5TH TIME this tentative agreement.
5 Likes
I was gonna go but then I was forced.
2 Likes
I have turned to this form after a friend who is a Vice President of a district didn’t have the answers ( he is normally a go to for answers…) I was seeking for this tentative agreement… as for a union meeting, our local unit has even scheduled a meeting… so until I have the opportunity to go I will continue to communicate with my brothers and sisters on here about our tentative agreement. @s159 spot on!!! I really enjoyed your pros and cons list. Very simplified and easy to ingest. Thank you!
6 Likes
San Diego is having 1, the second of 4
1 Like
Ehoss, like you, my mind has changed a few times regarding my thoughts on the Tentative Agreement. I want to like this agreement, but I am having a hard time with that.
Right now, I’m leaning towards voting against the agreement.
When I talk to people locally, those that say they’re voting in favor of the agreement tend to give one of the following reasons:
- It’ll probably pass anyway, so I might as well just vote yes.
- This is the best we’re ever going to get, so we might as well just take it and move on.
- If we vote no, we can’t start negotiating again until January, 2023, and negotiations could take months, so I’d rather have 2.5% now instead of holding out for the possibility of something better.
- I’m retiring before November, 2024, so what happens with the 66 (or 56) won’t affect me. I’ll take what I can get while I’m still here.
- The 66 hour work week is a step towards the 56 hour week we’ve been trying for and the 56 is coming…eventually.
Other than the 66 hour week being a step towards a 56, I haven’t really heard or seen any solid, fact based reasons why this is a good agreement for the membership.
To me, the first two reasons sound like the rationale of people who are so used to taking their lumps that they have no energy left to think for themselves or stand up for themselves.
Reason 3 makes sense, but, to me, seems like the apathetic mentality that’s kept CAL FIRE a minimum wage fire department for many decades.
I really can’t blame someone who’s retiring in the next couple years for having the thought process behind reason number 4. I got mine, right?
As I read through this thread, I see a number of concerns with this agreement and I feel very few of them have been rebutted in this thread, much less adequately addressed by the information that has been distributed by 2881.
Below are my top concerns.
- Lack of clarity as to how the 66 hour work week will affect EDWC. Losing 6 hours of EDWC per week is 8% of PERSable income, which has a big impact if you don’t retire before it takes effect.
- The promise of a “56 with no loss of compensation” hinges upon CalHR playing nice when we go back to negotiate the next contract in 2024. To me, history has shown that CalHR tends not to “play nice”, or even take into consideration past concessions by 2881.
- If we lose EDWC when going to a 66, what’s going to happen when (if) we go to a 56? The precedent will have already been set for us to lose 10 more hours of PERSable income we’d be losing every week. That’s about 10% or more of our PERSable income. That would be an 18% haircut off the top of your retirement. That’s scary to me.
- No clear path to a 56 hour work week.
- The LAO report already said the state will likely meet criteria to delay or modify the start of the 66 hour week, so there is no guarantee the 66 will ever happen…much less a 56.
- No clear path toward closing the 59% hour-for-hour pay gap between CAL FIRE and local government departments.
- At the end of this two year agreement, CAL FIREs entry level firefighters will make minimum wage.
- The 1% reduction in OPEB can be erased due to the increased cost of medical care and could, in theory, exceed the current 4.4% in the future since there is no cap on how high it can go.
- The $260 medical insurance contribution goes away when the contract expires. History has shown that medical insurance costs don’t go down, yet the $260 will.
Is there a risk that comes along with the membership rejecting this agreement? Sure, but look at Bargaining Unit 10, who has been without a contract for 2 years in an effort to close a 43% wage gap. They’re holding their ground and, if nothing else, showing the public how inequitable their compensation plan is.
CAL FIRE’s compensation is 59% behind local government peers, yet has been on the forefront of every major disaster this state has faced for the past, literally risking life and limb to save lives, protect property, and safeguard the environment, all while working hard to prevent the next disaster.
Can someone please post why my concerns may not be valid and/or present an argument as to how this agreement doesn’t pose a substantial risk of losing PERSable income for those of us who aren’t retiring before 2025?
Like I said, I really do want to vote yes, but I’m having trouble getting there. Please help me get there.
2 Likes
As Chris placke and the negotiating team stated in their PowerPoint presentation, the 8% loss in compensation due to the loss of 24 hours of EDWC IF we went to the 66hr work week would be off set by “working an extra day of overtime”. I had some serious reservations about this comment showing the membership that L2881 and the bargaining teams mindset of working more to make up the loss wages…the exact opposite mindset we should be having. Every other comment citing no OPEB floor or ceiling, $260 health contribution going away, and GSI not keeping up with minimum wage makes this contract a huge NO for me.
2 Likes