Every word of every legal agreement is chosen for a specific reason. I don’t think the 66 hour language can be ignored.
2 Likes
A wise man once said…
5 Likes
I agree, but its a negotiation opener, not a meaningful negotiation point right now. It might be a crack in the door or smoke and mirrors, its too vague at this point to tell.
True, but whether it’s smoke and mirrors or a crack in the door, I don’t know what’s on the other side and I’m not sure it’s worth the risk to find out.
In my mind, there are better ways to do business than agreeing to a contract that has any degree of vagueness.
If someone asks you to sign a deal for real estate but you don’t know anything about the property, do you sign?
Sure, it could be a huge mansion…
…but it also could be oceanfront property in Arizona.
Or there’s a third option…we hammer out the details before we sign.
It just depends on how much you trust the person asking you to sign (ie-CalHR).
2 Likes
Our unit had a chapter meeting today to discuss and go over the contract. One thing that everyone is getting into the weeds over is the 66 hour work week, which is NOT a part of this contract.
- The salary increases have been discussed above already and do compound to 6.6% increase in salary over the terms of the contract. The 1% OPEB reduction isn’t a raise, we already make that money and it is then deducted from our current paychecks, but it is 1% more into our bank accounts. These “raises” only keep par with the imminent minimum wage increases, but ultimately it is more than declining and hoping for more money which isn’t going to happen. Politically with the governor we aren’t cordial friends and even currently we are backing propositions he is against, so to think holding out will net us more money is a dream at best. How has that worked out for the engineers bargaining unit the last few years?
- OPEB. So what has been clarified to our chapter is that OPEB is a set rate for the duration of the contract. So if ratified we are set at 3.4% for the next 2 years. There is a contribution assessment yearly that can go up or down .5% every year, but it cannot be implemented until bargaining. Also, the formula is we contribute 50% of the costs to that OPEB, so as we increase staffing and members our contribution goes down. OPEB is one large number and with more people contributing to it each individuals contribution becomes smaller. Over a 3 year contract the contribution can go up or down .5% each year to a total of 1.5% during the next bargaining cycle. While there is no floor or ceiling, all one has to do is research other bargaining units to see how closely the State holds true to keeping the 50% split as just about every other bargaining unit has the same contractual language. Also FYI, we have that language in place now, it just so happened that during this bargaining term they determined we are paying too much.
- The 66 hour work week. This contract doesn’t establish a 66 hour work week. What it does establish is a joint labor committee (JLC) that will develop the 66 hour work week scheduled and staffing for the new duty scheduled to be implemented. It also includes language that the next contract will be a 66 hour work week unless there is a very serious reason to reopen negotiations. It isn’t an easy out for the state to say no, because they will then have to reopen negotiations for every other bargaining unit in the state, which they won’t do unless there is a really large reason (like the covid pandemic) to cause them to back out. Even then, we still make more towards pensionable retirement with this contract compared to today, so it’s better than todays terms. The contract in 2024 will include the 66 hour work week, this one is a vote to guarantee it.
- Compaction. Compaction keeps being brought up. A NO vote will bring about compaction amongst the ranks because the FF1’s will receive a salary increase on January 1st and no other classification will. Come January 1 2024 FF1’s and FF2’s will see an increase again, but the other classifications will not see an increase in wages, thus increasing compaction. With this agreement, each classification receives the same GSI and prevents compaction.
- Political climate. We didn’t back the governor during the reelection campaign, we publicly stated we took a pay cut during Covid, and now we are publicly backing propositions the governor is publicly against so to think we are on good terms is a far stretch. CPF and the IAFF (who did back the governor) used their leverage to get us the agreement we are voting on, so finally those unlinking contributions are paying off for our local. 2881 isn’t the governors favorite union right now, but the two larger union bodies are a major player in his campaign efforts and helped us bargain for better working conditions and wages.
- No loss in compensation. This one gets really really tricky and confusing. This comes back to no loss in compensation for June 2022 wages, while we were negotiating this agreement, or June 2024 wages if we accept this agreement. If that’s the case, come July 2024 we should see another salary increase to compensate for the 24 hour reduction in EDWC when we switch to the 11 day work cycle. If that happens, then we should subsequently see another salary increase with the next 24 hour reduction to a 10 day work cycle, then hopefully another adjustment with the true 3 platoon work cycle. I’ll explain this more later. So to explain “no loss in compensation” we will work with the current FAE class pay because there are plenty of top range Engineers not seeing any longevity bump for a long time.
Current top step engineer on JAC: (numbers taken from engineer exam flyer)
Salary $5362 EDWC $2663.04
OPEB 4.4%=$4354.37(12 salary and 13 EDWC)
Total annual income after 13 work periods: $98,963.52 for a 72 hour work week this year. Again, still on JAC.
Income minus OPEB $94,609.15
1st raise: 2.5%
Salary $5496 (5362 x 1.025)
EDWC $2729.92 (5496/4.33/53x1.5x76)
OPEB 3.4% = $3448.98
Annual income $101,430.96
Income minus OPEB $97,981.98
2nd raise: 2.0%
Salary $5606 (5496 x 1.02)
EDWC $2784.80 (5606/4.33/53x1.5x76)
OPEB 3.4% = $3518.04
Annual income: $103,473.40
Income minus OPEB $99,955.36
3rd raise: 2.0%
Salary $5718 (5606 x 1.02)
EDWC $2840.44 (5718/4.33/53x1.5x76)
OPEB 3.4% = $3588.46
Annual income $105,541.72
Income minus OPEB $101,953.26
NOW: the 66 hour work week
Salary $5718
EDWC $1943.45 (5718/4.33/53x1.5x52)
OPEB 3.4% = $3191.96
Annual income $93,880.85
Income minus OPEB $90,689
Annually a $3920.15 decrease… BUT where they make up for the no loss in compensation is the $260 allowance towards healthcare. $3120 a year (260 x 12) brings the annual income up to $93,809, only an $800.15 deficit for compensation for the 66 hour work week compared to the 72.
Some key points I haven’t seen pointed out yet with the 66 hour work week…
- OPEB goes down because it includes a calculation based on EDWC. Going from 76 to 52 results in an OPEB reduction on the employee portion.
- If we say no loss in compensation at the July 1, 2024 annual income… this results in new numbers of:
Salary $6200
EDWC $2107.28
OPEB $$3461.02
Healthcare $3120
Annual income $101,453.62
It’s close enough that I quit trying to make the numbers perfectly match up for the annual income of the 3rd raise at the 72 hour work week from above. A 24 hour OT day would be $972.59 compared to $896.98 on the 72 hour clock.
Now touching back on the 10 day work period I mentioned above. The way our work periods are written, we would need to work 10 days in a 28 day pay period. This would be 4 rounds of 49/96 with a 48/48 to finish it out. A standard 48/96 is a 30 day work cycle. So really, going to the 56 hour work week is still not a true “48/96” the way we get paid and log hours.
Now with the currently proposed agreement, we do make more money. It’s pretty easy to say yes to it because we aren’t losing any EDWC and retirement with this agreement, that would be the next contractual vote.
5 Likes
I do agree, it’s no right now for me. Seems like a Filler contract. More potatoes than meat. Gotta give ‘em something so how about double there educational incentive. If we shed a work day a PP then we can call it working less hours and not making less. We keep losing the big things. Including good employees. They’re going to PGE, Contractors and Local FDs. Retired O1’s- to captains all working for PGE while collecting 3% with lifetime medical saying I should’ve done this sooner are only enticing the current CF herd. Good for them. CalFire has completely lost its grasp of being the agency to work for because of its Perks. Not even close. Management at the top and lots of Union Leadership still has those perks. They should be on open forums and yelling on mega phones to make the 2.7’s and 25 YOS medicals understand that is there biggest priority. But it’s not. It’s little pay bumps and a irregular 66, someday, maybe… just wait till we’re at a 56, and it’s a normal pre 2015 season. Or maybe a few in a row. Or a year like this year. Next to no Staffing patterns. Reliefs and new employees filling the gaps. You’ve lost portions of your EDWC. But hey, your working less, go get a second job. We’re CF, our culture is a force, OT, make decent money, enjoy your off season and prep your spouse for the fire life. Keep your 56, 66 unless your giving me a HUGE pay raise. Bring back something that makes CF better than LGs. Gimme retirement sooner and point me to the fire. At 50 let the next gen do it again. C’mon 2881, make us proud.
4 Likes
One Question
Do you think BOB WOLF would have accepted this Contract ??
3 Likes
One word. NO.
3 Likes
Two Words…Hell No!
3 Likes
Actually, the CCC’s motto is much more fitting for CAL FIRE:
“Hard Work, Low Pay, Miserable Conditions and More!”
No joke…check it out…The California Conservation Corps | California Conservation Corps
4 Likes
Is there anybody from the Bob Wolf era on the bargaining team?
Couple things:
You’re trading salary - hard to take away in the future, for a health benefit - easy to take away.
Our OT is calculated on a 53 right now, so the “extra” daily OT calculation doesnt look right.
FLSA doesn’t allow a work period longer than 28, I’m confused where 30 is even in the conversation.
1 Like
Doesn’t seem like it
That’s too bad, I didn’t always agree with everything they did but there was a lot of years of bargaining experience in that group.
Don’t sacrifice tomorrow for today!
Wasn’t there supposed to be some Covid back pay?
That’s the $1,500 we are supposed to get next month. The rest was negotiated into the $260 medical contribution of this TA.
The math behind taking it as the medical contribution actually makes sense when you have it explained, but I’m not able to do that right now.
However, I didn’t think of it until right now, but that’s another reason this TA feels like a smoke and mirrors shell game…the HERO pay was supposed to be a separate deal but is instead rolled into this TA, which makes it look a little more palatable. Had me fooled until just a minute ago.
Peeling back the onion.
2 Likes
With us taking the last $1500 as a $260 a month health benefit, it’s now a $5200 payment over 20 months as opposed to $1500 at once taxed at 38%. It’s also now in contract that has to be bargained away, or continued into the future agreements.
1 Like
Per Tim Edwards this evening. This was NOT the “last, best, offer.”
If it gets shot down, then the bargaining team goes back to bargaining table most likely in Jan/Feb/March due to the holidays coming up.
1 Like
As for the “covid pay” or “ hero” pay. I believe corrections or CHP received $5. The union asked for 10k. The state said no. But they offered $260 per month instead of a lump sum pay of $1500. I’m still unsure if the $260 is the hero pay or if it’s due to rising health care costs, because other BU received $260/month increase also. Because why would the state gives us $260/mo vs $1500 lump sum? Either way, that’s $260 more dollars in my pocket ( minus taxes).
I seriously hope this is not the information that was given to the membership. A simple read of the TA shows that what you were told is completely wrong. Which makes me wonder, what else has not been communicated correctly about this TA.
This is directly from the TA -
Effective the first day of the pay period following ratification by both parties, the employer and employee contribution as described in Section 13.13 paragraph A.3. will be decreased by one percent from 4.4 percent to 3.4 percent.
Effective July 1, 2023, the contribution percentages described in paragraph A shall be adjusted based on actuarially determined total normal costs. Adjustments to both the employer and employee contribution percentages will occur if the actuarially determined total normal costs increase or decrease by more than half a percent from the normal total cost contribution percentages in effect at the time. If it is determined that an adjustment to the contribution rate is necessary. commencing no sooner than July 1. 2023, and July 1 of each fiscal year thereafter, the employer and employee contribution percentages will be increased or decreased to maintain a 50 percent cost sharing of actuarially determined total normal costs. Furthermore, the increase or decrease to the employer or employee contribution in any given fiscal year shall not exceed 0.5 percent per year.
So as you can see from the TA, the adjustments to OPEB begin July 1, 2023, not in two years on July 1, 2024. Typical contracts are 4 years not 3 years, so that is potential for a 2% decrease in take home pay, every contract. Health care cost will only continue to raise over time. So now just go get back to even each contract we would have to negotiate a 2% GSI on top of the GSI the state want to offer, or the compensation issues identified in CalHR’s own salary study will continue to compound.
I have spoken with multiple friends of mine who are union officers in industries outside of the fire service and their response has been unanimous. They have all saying the changes to OPEB alone, is more then enough of a reason to not ratify this contracts.
1 Like