First, two thumbs up and mad props for a well researched and well written piece.
You have my respect and my attention, my friend.
Now down to business…
I have a few concerns with some of your key points. Nothing we can’t figure out, but things that should be discussed, none the less.
I disagree that “the 66 hour work week…is NOT a part of this contract.” It seems pretty clear that it will start November, 2024, although it lacks details. Like I said above, if it’s in the TA, it’s part of the agreement as far as I’ve ever been taught. Even though it will take effect after the expiration of the contract, there is still an agreement that this is what is going to happen. Maybe I don’t understand. Can someone explain how terms that are written in the contract are not part of the contract?
I also find it interesting that the language in the TA posted on the CalHR web site states “the JLMC will begin to meet no later than September 1, 2022.” According to the date the TA was signed, August 24, 2022, that’s a 7 day window for the first meeting to occur and well before any ratification vote. Has this meeting happened? If not, is there already a breech of contract?
This may be, but I will gladly trade the 6.6% to keep my EDWC. In fact, I would go so far as to say I would happily GIVE BACK 6.6% to keep my EDWC. GSIs will come and go, but EDWC will NEVER come back.
I don’t understand your chapter saying that the OPEB is set for the duration of the contract.
The TA clearly reads, “Effective July 1, 2023, the contribution percentages will be adjusted based on the actuarially determined total normal cost…” and can adjust every July 1 thereafter by up to 0.5%.
The contract expires July 1, 2024. It is true that a number of other Bargaining Units have similar language, so maybe I’m the one that doesn’t understand, but the way I read it, there could be TWO adjustments prior to the end of the contract. Please explain where you are seeing something different.
The Legislative Analyst’s Report seems to think it’s likely the state will meet the criteria to back out of the 66.
It reads, “Under the budget agreement adopted in June, the administration’s multiyear estimates beyond the budget window reflect a negative balance in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, the state’s main operating account. Consequently, under these estimates, the budget likely would not have the capacity to absorb this policy change without reductions to other expenditures. Given the heightened economic uncertainty at this time, this provision of the agreement is particularly risky."
As far as I can tell the 66 hour work week may very well just be a mirage on the horizon.
To me, there needs to be a set term for when and how a 66 (or a 56) is going to happen, not just vague terms that the state seems to already have a plan in place to skirt.
Read the LAO report for your self. it’s very informative. Unit 8 (Firefighters) MOU Analysis
I agree. however, it must be said that, regardless of whether we take this TA or not, come 2024, entry level firefighters will be making minimum wage.
Period.
There isn’t any fancy CalHR math that changes this fact.
If we don’t take this deal and only the FFI and maybe the FFII ranks get increases with minimum wage, it will increase compaction. There is no doubt about that.
But, think about it, to me, that almost seems like it would be to 2881’s benefit, as it coils that spring even tighter showing the inequities in CAL FIRE compensation versus local government.
Maybe I’m the odd ball, but that potential scenario doesn’t scare me one bit, especially when compared to the sure thing of losing EDWC.
Please read this again to yourself. “we should see another salary increase”…”If that happens, then we should subsequently see another salary increase”…” then hopefully another adjustment”.
To me, this entire logic is based on hope and a prayer.
Like I said before, after 20+ years with this organization, I have yet to see any unwritten promise, hope, should, or whatever you want to call it actually pan out in future contracts.
What’s on the table today is what’s on the table today.
Bargain for tomorrow on another day.
The FLSA 7k exemption requires a pay period of between 7 and 28 days.
Check it out for yourself https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/whdfs8.pdf.
In order to be exempt from paying overtime after 40 hours for fire suppression personnel, the longest pay period you can have is 28 days. Then you must pay overtime after 53 hours.
Every other fire department in the country has figured out how to work a 56 hour week into a pay period that’s between 7 and 28 days. They had to. It’s the law.
Why the word on the street is that CAL FIRE can’t do that is beyond me.
I appreciate the effort you put in to working out the math. Most people don’t take the time to do that and it shows your work ethic. I respect that.
That said, look at your numbers, they actually seem to disprove your theory.
Your “today” income is $94,609.15.
Your income after the 66 goes into effect in 2024 is $90,689.
Two years later and you’ve lost 5% of your salary…after accounting for the 6.6% GSI…and enduring two years of inflation.
This means YOUR PERSable INCOME will be 5% less in 2 years than it is today and will remain so UNTIL YOU RETIRE.
This is a disaster for anyone who doesn’t retire within 12 months of the 66 taking effect.
I see you’re trying to use the $260 a month to offset the difference. To me, this is a fallacy.
First, the $260 is not PERSable. Period.
Second, the $260 expires at the end of the contract, so it will not continue to offset the 5% reduction in pay into the future.
Third, the $260 is actually our “HERO pay” for COVID. It’s not explained anywhere, but 2881 chose to take the $1,500 in HERO pay that will be paid up front and the remainder of the HERO pay over time instead of a lump sum. Mathematically, this actually works to 2881s advantage, so I’m not complaining about this, but this is the actual reason that the $260 ends at the end of the contract.
If this was truly a great deal, you wouldn’t have to work so hard to “make the numbers perfectly match up”, as you said.
I feel like people are wanting this to be a good deal so badly that they’re willing to forego basic math and common sense in order to justify supporting it.
If it was such a great deal, the numbers would add up using simple math and it would be obvious. Instead people are inventing new trigonometric equations to make it work.
Three band new shiny quarters will never equal an old wrinkled up dollar. There’s no getting around that.
My lack of enthusiasm for this TA is mostly focused around this loss of EDWC.
Had there been a TA with all the other provisions, I probably could have gotten behind it.
Then we could have a separate vote for or against a 66 (or 56) with all the details spelled out ahead of time. Having them bunched together taints the whole package for me.
Meanwhile, my buddy’s local government department got a 3 year deal giving them 18%-that’s 6% a year for each of the 3 years…with no concessions…and they just hired some CAL FIRE folks in their last academy.
If you think people are jumping ship now…just wait.