CALFIRE proposed MOU changes

California & Hawaii Hotlist Questions and Discussion
#520

I believe we are looking at it through similar glasses except the distance. Our near sight is similar. I see it as the JLMC will figure out how to put us on the 66 with no loss in compensation (meaning increase Salary for the loss of EDWC) with the ratification of this TA, whereas your stance is more refuse the current terms in favor of hammering out the 66 hour work week now in this current agreement to vote now as opposed to later. My fear is, if we do that we lose the guarantee of anything in this agreement. No longevity increases, no $260 a month healthcare incentive, no GSI except for entry level positions and we start the vicious fight we had in the mid 2010’s of compaction amongst ranks and the multi year long process it took to sort that out. This TA at least gives us something and allows a JLC to fight for the no loss in compensation for the next contract starting now, instead of what we just went through of lobbying and union resolutions to fight for it again. I do think this is the start of the process, while there is no guaranteed start date of a 66, it does guarantee a committee (made up of our union, the governors office, and Cal HR) that at least is talking about it now rather than just in negotiations with the constant opportunity to always say NO to our terms like what is happening with the engineers union.

The way I’m seeing it is we accept our current wages and watch the minimum wage increases only help the lowest rung of the ladder while we fight for what we want without receiving anything until a new election cycle come 2024, or accept GSI’s and some other financial improvements over the next 2 years while we are for sure working on a better schedule with labor relations.

I can make what I make now for the next 2 years and work a 72 hour schedule and hope it changes to a decreased work week until 2024,

Or

I can receive GSI’s, lower deductions, and a stipend style healthcare over the next 2 years and hope I get a decreased work week.

Either option I’m hoping for a decreased work week but one of the options I’ll make more money.

1 Like
#521

Thank you for your insight.

I think when I really try to figure out what bothers me about it is the fact that there’s a set start date with no details and, once this TA is approved by the membership, the membership has zero say in approving the terms…and the fact that those terms may involve loss of PERSable income.

Had the TA simply stated that something like “a JLMC would be formed to develop a 66 hour work week with a report due to the Director of Finance by July 1, 2023, and will be presented to the membership for final ratification prior to a tentative November 1, 2024, implementation date”, I think I could get behind it 100%.

But, that’s not the deal we are being presented.

When I think really deeply, I think it’s the lack of membership feedback regarding the details of the 66 that bothers me. There’s no “safety check” to make sure the membership is good with the details.

1 Like
#522

Notwithstanding any of the points brought up by s159, which are spot on for what we need to be considering long term, not just what’s right in front of us like CalHR wants us to by cramming this down our throat last minute.

What is on the table in this TA and what will result in a loss in take home pay exponentially over our career is the change to OPEB. Health care cost will not go down, they will continue to raise annually just like they always have. So no matter how many new members we get which will eventually hit a peak, healthcare cost will continue to raise annually forever, it’s a market driven industry.

Ratifying this agreement basically guarantees we will take a .5% reduction in take home pay annually. For a permanent FAE who is 27yo and has 30 years before retirement at 57, they will effectively loose 15% of there take home pay over their career. That also means we would already be at a 2% disadvantage going into negotiations every contact. So the bargaining team would have to get a 2% GSI increase over what we already should get just to keep our pay from being eroded 2% every contract.

It doesn’t matter if other bargaining unit have this provision in their contract for an adjustable rate OPEB, our contract is already very different than any other BU. We did not agree to an adjustable rate OPEB, we agreed to a fixed rate OPEB that increased every year for that contract capping out at 4.4%, which is where it should stay.

The state didn’t force L2881 into OPEB, it wasn’t a take away, L2881 negotiated OPEB into our contract. The reason for this was so that during future negotiations the state could not try to take away our lifetime medical, since we did not contribute to it. OPEB is not new it’s been around for a long time, it’s run by CALPERS for its member municipalities and the state. Most other public employees have always had to pre-fund future medical, the state just never made BU8 for contribute to OPEB. Tim Edwards explains all of this on the Going Direct Podcast #5 in a discussion with the CHP Union.

Other than 3%@50, probably the other single best benefit to working for CAL FIRE and staying with the state was free lifetime medical for you and your spouse. 3@50 is gone. Free lifetime medical is gone. Now CalHR want to take away the fixed rate OPEB that we agreed upon when we negotiated our way into OPEB.

The change to OPEB alone is more than enough reason we should be voting NO on this TA.

2 Likes
#523

I completely understand your apprehension on rejection this contract. Here is the way that I see it though. If we reject this contract we go right back to negotiations at the beginning of the year. The state has to continue to negotiate in good faith or they open themselves up to litigation, and they know L2881 has no problem suing the state as we do it all the time. So if the state gave us any last best and final offer it would have to be at least as good as the offer they have already given us or they would not be negotiating in good faith.

While you are correct that we would not immediately see the GSI’s and other increases, if we went back to the table and got something better or even came out with the same as what’s on the table, all of that pay would be retroactive back to July 1, 2022. Just like it is in this current TA and is past precedent on other contracts.

We need to have a long term outlook on this TA. We should not be stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.

The number one thing we should focus on is rejecting this contract, sending it back to negotiations and telling CalHR under no circumstance will we agree to any changes to OPEB.

3 Likes
#524

Very good insight I hadn’t thought of. I do feel like this was hastily pushed out to us with Cal HR trying to paint a bad light on the Union so we would be irate over the details. I do very much care about the long term pensionable income. I’m no where near retirement age so the current salary and EDWC stipulations do matter very much to myself.

1 Like
#525

Remember, it’s your best 12 months, not your last 12. So you can fall back to 12 months when you had 72/wk if it works out better than 66/wk.

2 Likes
#526

From what I’m hearing, as part of the back-and-forth negotiations, 2881 pushed across a solid deal that would have taken us to a 56 hour week over 4 years. All details worked out. Tentative workweeks planned. Gradual transition to allow for additional hiring. No loss of compensation.

After 2881 presented variations of this proposal for a second (or third?) time, CalHR went radio silent. No meetings for weeks, if not a couple months.

Then, all of a sudden, with just a few days left in the legislative session, CalHR came back with this deal and basically a “take it or leave it” mentality.

I don’t know why 2881 didn’t insist on pumping the brakes at that point to give time to digest of the proposal, but that is a topic for another thread on another site on another day.

Regardless, this seems to be CalHRs playbook. They did it to us with the Christmas Eve TA in 2016. They did it to us this year along with 2 or 3 other BUs, whose contracts expired July 1.

The LAO expressed frustration with this too and even went so far as to propose a moratorium on new TAs after May 15 of each year to avoid this happening over and over again year after year. Not only does it put the membership at a disadvantage, it also pressures the legislature to make a decision without having time to look it over in detail.

In my mind, the chaos that this TA has created is going exactly according to CalHR’s plan and we’re just the pawns.

We need to come together and tell CalHR to pump the brakes, work out the details, and come back with a more black and white proposal.

2 Likes
#527

Right, but you will have no increase in your best 12 months for a number of years after you lose 8%.

#528

For sure. In no way did I mean to imply I support the TA.

#529

Or as it is for a lot of employees now, an average of your three highest years.

#530

Last publication I saw from PERS said best “12mo or 36mo”(this is for industrial though). Unless a person got demoted or step reduction right at the end, I don’t see how 36 is an advantage. Anyone else?

#531

It’s the highest consecutive 12 or 36 months throughout your career. May or may not be the last 12 or 36 months.

My understanding is that it’s 12 months for classic members and 36 for PEPRA. It’s not that there’s a choice between the two.

#532

For employees hired prior to 10/31/2010 their retirement formula is 12mo average, for everyone hired after 10/31/2010 they are 36mo average. I believe this change happened prior to PEPRA when we were still 3%@50.

The 2010 fire season was the last year to get in at 3%@50 on a 12mo average. Interestingly, that was also the year we went from 4/0 on every engine back to 3/0 and we didn’t hire any firefighters for the 2010 fire season. In fact, firefighters were displaced from their units and some didn’t get brought back all together, with some of those laid off not coming back for two or three seasons. Coincidence? I think not.

1 Like
#533

Unit 6 Agreement Includes Reopener if Other Bargaining Units Get Higher Pay Increase. Bargaining Unit 6 is represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) and includes state correctional peace officers and parole agents. As we indicated in our June 25, 2021 analysis of the 2021 Unit 6 agreement with the state, the Unit 6 agreementprovided Unit 6 a 2.5 percent GSI in 2022-23 and specified that CCPOA could choose to reopen that agreement should another bargaining unit receive a GSI in 2022 that is greater than 2.5 percent. The Legislature ratified the agreement that included this clause

Basically, after 2022 we are able to negotiate a GSI higher than 2.5% without triggering BU6’s re-negotiations. Why would the union not negotiate something comparable to rising inflation starting 2023?, closing the 24% pay gap between cal fire and 20 other local depts. that a study was done.
We will accept the 2.5% for 2022 but then we should be asking for 8,9,10, 15% increases for 2023 and beginning of 2024.

2 Likes
#534

Let’s be honest about this…. A FF1 is technically a bare minimum qualification job. Yes, I understand it takes more than a drivers license and high school diploma/GED to actually get a job, but the minimum requirements are not on par with a job that should pay more than minimum wage. Now the FF2 classification and above is a different story and that is where the union should be fighting for increased raises and increased minimum qualifications. I recently talked with some FSA’s from a Southern California fire department and our FF1’s make almost twice what they make in a year and we give our FF1’s a full benefit package as well. We have fought so hard to make the FF1 classification receive so much of the same benefit as the promotional classifications I think it has actually started to hurt the upper level floor ranks (FF2, FAE, FC, BC) so that we aren’t on par with other agencies of the same size. Don’t twist my words though, I do think FF1’s should be compensated how they are because they are standing next to us on the same emergency incidents. I think the balance is now more in favor of FF1 and we need to bring it back more towards the other ranks to even it back out.

So how that all plays into the GSI’s of 2023 and beyond is that we should fight for more pay in the year round staffing ranks and allow that FF1 rank to stay an entry level wage position. So while FF1’s get 2.0% to keep up with minimum wage hikes, the other classifications get 2.5 or 3.0 to start decreasing the gap between CF and other like sized agencies.

#535

CalHR wont normally do a big deal on a short contract. Look at BU12’s contract from 2015, 5 year contract, SSA to most classes of 3-5%, 3.5% GSI the first 4 years for a net of 18.2-20.5% raises depending on class. This last contract they did got them 11.7-14.9% for most classifications, and 7.4% for the rest.

To make up the 24% in this 2 year contract, it would be a 2.5% July 2022, 10% Jan 2023, and 10% July 2023. BUT, that does not account for the 8.x% inflation last year, or the likely 8.x% inflation for this year, or the (hopefully only) 6% the year after.

I really think that if we wanted to fix this one, we would have to do a lot more than a 2 year contract. We would have to do a 5 year or longer contract, and roll the dice on inflation returning to historic levels soon.

As it is, and looking at other BUs, we did not get a very solid offer.
Synopsis of others that negotiated this round:
BU2- 5.6% GSI, SSAs of 4.5%-10% for all members.
BU9- 7.7% net GSI, Numerous R&Rs of 200-300 monthly, and some one time $2600 R&Rs, numerous shift/activity differentials bumps (10-25/hr ), Longevity adjustments, and some other benefit adjustments.
BU12- 7.4%-14.9% GSI/SSA for all classes, Shift/duty differentials increases, Uniform/tool allowance increases, 50/50 OPEB not to adjust more than 0.5% per year.
BU13- SSA net of 10.9% for all classes, 50/50 OPEB not to adjust more than 0.5%/year, Uniform allowance increase.

1 Like
#536

I respectfully disagree…adamantly.

Just because the FF1 minimum qualifications are so low because the SPB refuses to increase them doesn’t mean that their skillset and personal risk should not be compensated.

This department virtually abandoned the FFIs up until the early 2000s, leaving them to a 96 hour work week having to earn their “nickel” while everyone else was on a straight 72. Even until recently, by leaving them on a 72 hour OT divisor when everyone else was on a 56. Oh…yeah…who doesn’t get Bill of Rights protection? The FFIs, that’s who.

They’ve been left behind time and time again.

To me, it is because we discredited and stepped on our FFIs to benefit the higher ranks that we are in the predicament we are in right now. How has the department dealt with minimum wage going up? The didn’t change FFIs salary. They changed the FFIs OT divisor. Classic CalHR shell game smoke and mirrors math.

I feel strongly that it is because of the mistreatment of our FFIs that the upper ranks saw little, if any, wage growth. We made our own bed over the past 30 years.

FFIs are absolutely just as important and just as skilled as anyone else in this department and deserve to be treated as part of the team.

And no, I’m not a FFI. Haven’t been one in 20 years. I just respect what they have to offer this department.

NOBODY that risks their lives on a daily basis deserves to be paid less than the person taking your order at In-N-Out.

To me, this statement is offensive and perpetuates the twisting of facts that has kept us in the basement for so long.

Your previous posts show you are a smart person, so I know you understand the difference between hourly wage and annual pay.

Of course a FFI MIGHT make more on an annual basis than a LG firefighter. Compare the number of hours worked. How many staffing patterns and force days and out of county assignments did that FFI endure while already working 72 hours a week while the LG person worked their 56?

My buddy at an LG department made $105,000 last year working a 56 BEFORE WORKING ANY OVERTIME. That’s more than many of CAL FIREs TOP STEP CAL FIRE FAEs make INCLUDING ALL THEIR OVERTIME.

Bottom line, theres a HUGE disparity between CAL FIRE and LG. Leaving our FFIs in the dust will only make this problem worse.

Bringing the FFIs up to a respectable entry HOURLY pay will benefit every rank.

A rising tide lifts all ships.

Nobody left behind.

6 Likes
#537

I would have to think that L2881 taking opposing views to Newsom on upcoming initiatives may play into the offer presented.

Prop 30 being one of them

Prop 30

1 Like
#538

My buddy at an LG department made $105,000 last year working a 56 BEFORE WORKING ANY OVERTIME . That’s more than many of CAL FIREs TOP STEP CAL FIRE FAEs make INCLUDING ALL THEIR OVERTIME .

Strange argument we aren’t that far off from that pay, other than the hours. What rank is this for at LG what’s the benefit package look like there as well? This contract gets us closer to the above stated for your buddy.

1 Like
#539

I’m not sure you’re seeing the point of his comparison. A top step Cal Fire engineer with overtime making less than a LG Firefighter before OT. The LG Firefighter works a 48/96 too.

1 Like