CALFIRE proposed MOU changes

California & Hawaii Hotlist Questions and Discussion
#540

Entry level BLS firefighter in an ALS department. Yes, a 48/96 schedule.

The $105,000 annually for a FIRST YEAR BLS Firefighter works out to $36 per hour.

Just for reference, a TOP STEP CAL FIRE Captain A is at $6017 per month. Divide by 4.33 and then by 53 and to get the hourly rate of $26.22.

Yep, my buddy as a first year BLS Firefighter riding backwards on a 3 person engine makes $10 more an hour on straight time than a CAL FIRE TOP STEP Captain A.

When you think about it, with a $15 per hour gap in Overtime rates, the LG firefighter continues to widen the gap with each OT hour worked.

Oh…the benefits package comparison, you ask?

Classic hired before 2012: 3@50
Classic hired after 2012: 3@55
PEPRA: 2.7@57
No profound difference from CAL FIRE.

$2,350 towards health insurance. For reference, in 2023, the state family contribution will be $1,931 for CAL FIRE.

Same health insurance options…It’s all CalPERS standard plans and rates.

Automatic life insurance.

Automatic long term disability insurance.

Educational incentives for college degrees and CSFM certifications.

$700 uniform allowance versus CAL FIRE’s $2,130. Ok, you got me!

9 different specialty pay add ons ranging from tiller operator to arson investigator to rescue team

$500 per month toward medical care after retirement after 25 years of service.

No staffing patterns.

Out of county assignments are voluntary.

His wife just about lost her mind when he got mandatoried for 12 hours…lets just say, she’d never make it as a CDF wife!

Here are the two kickers:
First, due to LGs 56 hour work week, they work 36 less duty days per year and still get:
6 vacation days per year (CAL FIRE gets 13)
12 Holidays per year (CAL FIRE gets 13)
6 sick days per year (CAL FIRE gets 12)

Everyone raves about “how much time off” CAL FIRE gets. Well, I hate to break it to you, but when you do the math, even if you were allowed to use all your accrued leave credits (including sick) each year (many CAL FIRE units limit you to only two weeks a year), you’d still be working the same as my buddy’s LG department before they use any of their leave credits.

…and they just signed a new contract worth 18% over 3 years, totaling 6% each year.

When you look at it, it’s no wonder CAL FIRE is the training ground for every other department in the state!

4 Likes
#541

LA Co? Another large dept? Not too many depts mix bls and als firefighters. It doesn’t work for fill behind.

The fact that this offer was not a last, best suggests there’s still wiggle room. Then the word that’s out that they’re updating payroll sounds promising, too, since PACMANS can only deal with a 28 day work period.

Meh, kick it back and see what shakes out.

1 Like
#542

Every MOU negotiation since I came into the department, I believe, have always been take the 1st offer and run. The bargaining team always promotes this is the best and only deal we’ll get, etc., etc. etc.,. CalHR has always expected and received a 1st offer acceptance by the membership @2881, BU8. This year and this negotiation is the time to kick it back and say we need more! If the State counters that they need more years to justify a better deal, we should consider it, depending on the deal. If you never ask as a membership, not as the bargaining team, you’ll never get. I’m retired now, but have vast experience in Local and State Govmt. politics. It’s time for BU8 membership to say no and kick it back. It’s part of the art of the deal. They aren’t expecting it and we need more. That’s my 2 cents!

5 Likes
#543

I don’t think it matters what department it is. I’m not trying to single anyone out.

Many departments across the state have a similar compensation plan…some offer more, some offer less.

Not trying to start a war, but the only departments I’ve found that offer a compensation package comparable to CAL FIREs are smaller organizations that lack a tax base…far from the largest all-risk fire department in the country that is recognized as the worldwide leader for cutting edge wildland fire suppression and prevention capabilities.

2 Likes
#544

Actually, the dept does matter. The wealth, and subsequent tax revenue, of its base determines fire protection (and other services). This is SFM Company Officer 101.

I’ll use a very large county as an example. This county has been the 5th and 6th highest wealth producing county for decades. The commercial taxes of a few generate enough revenue to pay for full staffing at many fire stations beyond their borders and outside their interests.

The areas receiving the benefit no where near generate the benefit they are receiving. But the poverty county wide, in this case, has spread so thin the butter that it impedes the ability to provide adequate staffing and pay the FD members a comparable/competetive wage to the point I’ve seen top step FC apply for FF wages next county over. Sound like CF?

So when doing comparisons and saying “look what they have!”, the dept’s matter. There’s a balance to be met. Granted when the govnah of the Golden state expands programs to out of state recipients and declares surplus, there’s much room left for negotiation. But there are some, several, departments we’re never coming close to for reasons above.

1 Like
#545

I don’t think this is necessarily applicable at the state level.

On a local level, it makes sense to me. No “rich” jurisdiction wants to subsidize a neighboring “poor” jurisdiction when there is no tangible benefit to the “rich” jurisdiction.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but at the state level, the dynamics change. Tax funds are collected statewide and redistributed for projects and programs that benefit the state as a whole.

San Francisco County residents pay state taxes that are funneled through the state coffers to CAL FIRE even though SF County has zero SRA because it is in SF County residents’ best interest to support wildland fire suppression. Just as we saw each of the last few summers, the people in SF County suffered significant impacts from wildland smoke and, in fact, the entire “rich” Bay Area experienced personal and economic losses due to the smoke coming from the relatively “poor” rural areas of the state.

To me, this is why I disagree with the argument that the tax base doesn’t support higher wages. It may be true on a local department level, but not when considering that this is a statewide issue.

Also, recruitment and retention are a big problem. It doesn’t matter where another, better paying, department is because good people will leave CAL FIRE for that department, regardless of whether it’s across the street or across the state. CAL FIREs wages need to be competitive.

This is the reason behind Government Code 19827.3.

“In order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. In order to provide comparability in pay, the Department of Human Resources shall take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.”

There’s no differentiation on the jurisdictions’ tax base for comparison to CAL FIREs, just that it must employ 75 or more firefighters. It just doesn’t seem like CalHR is taking this into consideration like the statute seems to require.

2 Likes
#546

No war intended. I’m just saying, the state collects the property taxes and returns most back to LG. A few wealthy areas in the state may not make enough butter to go round. Especially with negative contracts. And “state must consider,” I consider all the silly stuff my kid asks for, too. There’s no obligation to do.

The only thing is all the extra that’s available right now.

#547

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 agreement provided 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.

2022!!! That’s the key word(s)!! Why is our BU settling for the 2% increase in 2023 and 2024?? There is no reopener! We need to be pushing for higher GSI percent! I’ve been going back and forth on yes/no. My vote is a NO! Negotiate that higher GSI. We don’t need to focus on the 66 hour, that’s for us to focus on July 2024! Don’t turn a blind eye on the bare minimum, default, 2-2.5% crumbs. We need a large piece of the pie.

1 Like
#548

I suggest everyone read California Labor Code related to minimum wage, 1182.12

Law section.

Unless there is a fiscal emergency(recession) or the Federal Consumer Price index( CPI) drops below 3.5%. There will continue to be minimum wage increases of $0.50 every January in perpetuity because of the the LAW at current inflationary levels. Keep in mind the federal reserve has a CPI target of 2.5% hence the reason interest rates keep going up to slow down and lower inflation. Doing some basic math tells me that under current conditions, minimum wage will be $20/hr In 2028(using the Federal Reserve target of 2.5% CPI)

Rejecting this agreement will cost me personally keeping the same medical benefits with the 18% premium increases I’ve seen in the 2023 open enrollment information.

Approving this agreement, I will barely keep up with my medical premium increases while continuing to suffer from the inflationary pressures of 8.1% increases(CPI)

2 Likes
#549

So, if I read clause (c) (1) of the minimum wage law you cited correctly, minimum wage will increase a minimum of 3.5% per year unless the CPI increases more than 3.5%, in which case minimum wage increases at the rate of CPI.

If that’s right, our meager 2% GSIs will always result in increasing compaction of our ranks. That doesn’t make me feel very optimistic for the future.

Also, are you saying that our current situation is a loser whether we approve it or not? At least if we vote it down, there’s a chance (however small that may be) that something better could come of it, right?

1 Like
#550

I think you are misunderstanding my intent and I also didn’t go into detail because this thread is about the contract and not my personal opinion on classifications but to touch on it briefly we need to decrease the FF1 ranks and increase the FF2 rank. The FF1 folks work too hard and invest too much to be “seasonal.”

At the end of the day when I look at the contract, knowing where we currently sit with the governors office, after having publicly fought him since 2019, I don’t think we will get too much better. While we should receive actual raises it’s not going to happen with where we currently sit politically and the IAFF and CPF are focused on our work week, not our pay.

Looking at the current TA, reading the black and white, we aren’t losing anything. It’s hard to justify a “NO” vote on something where you are literally giving nothing up and only gaining something. Is it what I think we should be given? 100% no, but it’s better than sitting idle saying we should get more and the state just able to kick the can down the road never giving us an offer that’s truly up to the standard of what we should get.

1 Like
#551

Sorry if I misunderstood your previous post. You are absolutely right about consolidating the two Firefighter ranks. Having a single Firefighter rank with permanent and limited term categories would serve the state, the employees, and the public well.

It’s too bad implementing that concept has been stalled out since it was first proposed over a decade ago.

3 Likes
#552

3.5% or CPI which ever is lesser, not to exceed $0.50/hr per year. Is how I read and understand everything I’ve read.

This choice on this vote to me is between a Dog Turd Sandwich and A Dog Turd Sandwich with Mustard. At least the Mustard makes taste “LESS BAD” but at the end if the day

ITS STILL A DOG TURD SANDWICH! :rage:

4 Likes
#553

Over the years, I’ve found sauerkraut with the hot “Rooster” sauce makes it more palatable up front, although that tends to cause some ring sting on the back end! :grin:

The problem is that the membership is starving and will gobble up anything thrown at them without looking at the ingredients.

8 Likes
#554

Isnt it interesting that there is a COLA for inflation built into the minimum wage law but not the BU8 MOU…

6 Likes
#555

I hadn’t seen details on Prop 30 until 2881’s email (below) came out to the membership this morning.

This isn’t exactly what was being discussed above, but it’s along the same lines and appears to provide additional funding that would support increased wages and better staffing in the long term, which is a similar end goal.

A Message from the President

Brothers and Sisters:

By now you have likely seen the ads asking Californians to vote yes on Prop. 30. CAL FIRE Local 2881 supports Prop. 30, an initiative that I worked closely with our policy team to help write, and will provide vital funding for the prevention and suppression of wildfires by making the hiring of more firefighters a state priority.

In an effort to earmark a particular funding source strictly for CAL FIRE, we have partnered with a coalition of environmental and business interests to support an initiative that makes fiscal sense for working class taxpayers. At the same time, Prop. 30 reduces car pollutants and realistically prepares an infrastructure for the state mandated movement toward carbon free vehicles.

Your Union has gone public about the physical and mental stresses that have been placed on our firefighters and our families through years of brutal fire seasons. We have advocated through every means possible for badly needed staffing and better working conditions.

Our successes are now a matter of record. Our work has been validated by the addition of Firefighter I hand crews, 13 more permanent engines staffed by Firefighter II’s, and bringing forth a contract that that will decrease our work schedule by 13 days a year. This was achieved within the constraints of a state budget shredded by the multitude of hands reaching for a piece of the pie.

CAL FIRE Local 2881 has always made protecting the people of California and preserving the health and safety of our members our top priorities.

Prop. 30 generates approximately one billion dollars a year for twenty years of ongoing financial support for suppression and prevention personnel. The hiring of new firefighters is the number one purpose for these new fire safety funds. They will improve staffing levels, reduce our archaic work week, reduce our exposure to toxic conditions, and decrease the far too much time spent working away from home.

Prop. 30 is a tough, but worthwhile battle. Our Union will engage in creative and aggressive ways to protect our members.

CAL FIRE Local 2881 encourages you to vote yes on Prop. 30.

It looks like Prop 30 would provide 3 to 5 Billion per year over the next 20 years to “fight and prevent wildfires” as well as subsidies for clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging infrastructure via a 1.75% income tax on people earning more than $2 Million per year.

It looks like 20% ($600 Million to $1 Billion annually) of the funds are earmarked for Wildfire Suppression and Prevention to be administered by the California State Fire Marshal (25%) and CAL FIRE (75%) for projects including “retaining, housing, training, and hiring CAL FIRE permanent and seasonal firefighters necessary to prevent and suppress wildfires”, among other uses such as wildfire alert cameras, home hardening grants, and forest resilience programs.

Please don’t turn this thread into a politicized debate, but can anyone elaborate on how the passage of Prop 30 might impact funding for CAL FIRE and what effect it may have on the many questions raised concerning the Tentative Agreement?

Obviously, the election isn’t until after the TA ratification vote, but it’s an interesting concept to consider.

1 Like
#557

Can’t speak to

but what you quote from the proposition is deemed a priority by the proposition and the proposition specifically calls out that this can’t be a substitute for other funds. If I were to guess, that part was written (nonsupplantation / verification process) in order to more easily steer some of the money to pay for the major increased the costs associated with reducing the workweek to 56 hours. i.e It’s over and above what is currently being spent. Actually that part of the bill is pretty well crafted, more so than what I’ve seen for other nonsupplantation props.

Note though as in all things politics, the intent is not always followed…see our current “Public Safety” Sales Tax more which should be more accurately titled as the Supplemental Law Enforcement Sale Tax.

Full Disclaimer: I haven’t made up my mind on this bill. I disagree with legislation through balloting (a CA birthright) and funding the state gov’t primarily through a significantly volatile source. I am leaning to support it though.

1 Like
#558

Does anyone remember when California voted for the Lottery?
It was sold to the citizens as “additional funds for schools”

I know, I’ve aged myself :rofl::rofl::rofl:

14 Likes
#559

** Raises for CHP officers are double what California is paying to other state workers**

May I direct your attention to todays Sacramento Bee article about the raises CHP is getting.

2 Likes
#560

The benefits of pay parity language, something the state would take away in a heartbeat if they could, and something they will never give to anyone else. Cal Fire has had pay parity bills that mirror CAHP, I believe 3 times now, hit the governor’s desk and all were vetoed quickly.

4 Likes