To add to what the LAO has been saying
California tax revenue were down 11% in August
That’s good but the union should make it a priority to be transparent with voting
As Dozer_Keith said when reopening this thread, lets keep this on topic and not start down the rabbit hole of thoughts on what the Union has or hasn’t done. We all know 2881 has the membership’s best interest in mind and is up against a tough negotiator in CalHR.
Not making excuses, but for those not in the know, 2881 was put in a tough spot by CalHR at the 11th hour and is doing what they can with what the hand they were dealt.
If you want to discuss your thoughts on what 2881 has or hasn’t done, start another thread on another site so we can keep this one open and focused on the pros and cons of the proposed agreement.
3 Likes
You’re absolutely right.
1 Like
One year when Bob Wolf was president and the state was on fire retirees took the ballots to ICPs around the state. Silver Dollar fairgrounds, Red Bluff fairgrounds and Covelo, to name some.
3 Likes
If this agreement was good, the union would be on the roof top screaming about what a great deal we’re getting.
Since it’s all crickets you know the TA is a steaming pile.
4 Likes
Just to be devil’s advocate, I would like to believe that 2881 wouldn’t bring a proposal to the membership unless they believed it was a good deal. Maybe I’m too trusting.
But you’re right, if this was a clear path to a 56 without loss of compensation or another big win, they’d be planning a parade through downtown Sacramento right now and gloating about how the years of laying a foundation finally paid off.
Unfortunately, that’s not what I’m seeing and it has me worried.
3 Likes
When negotiators are handed a last, best and final offer, they are required to present it. Was that language used?
Are we sure the offer was a last, best, and final? In most governmental negotiations an offer is made, goes to the membership, and comes back a few times before a last best and final. Now, the negotiating team for 2881 might have gone back and forth with CalHR but a last, best, and final is a last resort. Just say’in!
Don’t know. That’s why I’m asking. Just wondering if anybody knows and could clear up where we’re at in the process.
The question was asked in a union presentation today in BDU. This was the state “Last, Best, Offer” and it came from the Governor’s office.
2 Likes
Thank you for clearing that up.
Can you provide any additional details that may have been presented at the meeting?
I am hearing a number of units have yet to have any meetings and it might be good to hear some facts that are being presented by 2881 both in favor of and against the offer so people can develop some questions to bring to their unit’s meetings.
Also, maybe there were some questions that couldn’t be answered at your meeting today that other people could bring up at their local meeting.
1 Like
First
Very open and transparent meeting. No games or gimmicks just facts. Some people didn’t like what was said. However most if not all of those things revolve around things not in the TA and would happen 7/1/24 and beyond.
Second
The union acknowledged the potential for additional salary compaction due to state law with minimum wage come Jan 2024 and beyond.
Third
This was the states last, best, final offer and it came from the Governor’s Office after CPF & IAFF got involved
Fourth
If this TA passes all the gains would continue till a new TA which wouldn’t take effect till after 7/1/24 or a reopened agreement if that happened.
Is this TA the best L2881 could get, In my opinion YES.
Finally, the language for the OT clock at 53hr and not 56Hr as 1st put out by CalHR has been corrected. Additionally, the union attorneys have vetted the 66 JMLC(Joint Management Labor Committee). If approved, the move to a 66hr Calender will move forward with a planned implementation date of 11/1/24. What, how that Will look like is TBD. They did show a potential calendar showing a 4 week WP
3 weeks 72 /96, 1 week 48 / 120. Additionally, any changes involving work periods (13 WP / 26 WP) involves SCO. SCO is a control agency and can veto changes they do not support. The programs used by SCO are old and outdated but that is for a different conversation.
ONE LAST THING
Take the time to educate yourself before voting. I also recommend reading the Zerohedge link posted referencing the states tax receipts in July and Aug.
I believe this is as good as it will get.
2 Likes
Was there any clarification regarding the loss of EDWC when going to a 66?
1 Like
Yes we are losing it and we wont get it back.
By definition we will lose EDWC hours (Pers-able) for a 66 and a 56 work week. The question is not that. The question is how much pay bump (or lack there of) do we get between here and there.
Additionally the implementation, negotiations, and repercussions for a 66 are not today and now. That is for the next contract. Take the 66 out of the the equation for a minute and view it as a future promise we should get.
I believe you should vote on everything else and although we didn’t get everything we wanted I believe that the true battle has unfortunately been pushed back 1.5 years.
For a short contract ~12-13% is acceptable to me.
I don’t love it and I don’t hate it.
2 Likes
BirdDog, with all due respect, after 20+ years with this department, I have yet to see the promise of “just take this mediocre deal now and we’ll do better next time” play out in 2881s favor.
I honestly think the reason there are “no takeaways” this time is because there isn’t anything left for CalHR to take.
They can’t pay less than minimum wage.
We already work more hours than any other department in the country.
State law dictates sick and vacation for all employees state wide so they can’t take any of those.
They took 3@50.
They moved qualifications for retiree medical to 25 years instead of 20.
They cut the retiree medical benefit to 80% from 85%.
We have to contribute toward Post Retirement Benefits (OPEB).
Our uniforms are no longer PERSable.
What’s left?
EDWC!
That’s all we have left…
…and they’re going to take it!
The argument I’m hearing for why it’s “OK” for us to lose EDWC is that “we’ll make up for it when we’re back at the table in 2024”. When has any bargaining unit ever obtained an 8% GSI? It’s always 2 to 3% a year…unless minimum wage forces it to be higher.
Even if we did get 8% in 2024, what about the excessive inflation between now and then? We’d still be on the losing end as far as my crystal ball can tell.
Reminds me of that “fool me once…fool me twice…” saying.
Well, what is it when we’ve been fooled four or five times? Who’s the shame on then?
7 Likes
I was under the impression we were only getting a net 6.64% for the upcoming contract? 12-13% would be a bit of a game changer for me, 6.64% is a touch low for my taste when I am paying more than that difference in inflation added expenses.
Longevity is a big deal, and a nice bump. No complaints about that and I am happy to see it raised, even though I have a few years before I see it.
The rest is fluff, and nothing substantial in my mind. There is no guarantee with the 66hr so it doesn’t mean anything to this contract.
1 Like
This. Funny how the offer is made just as the next crisis is being proclaimed. Never happens during the boom, though.