Am not so much worried about Pacmans as I am about losing what benefits we get for going above and beyond 212 hours in a Pay Period. Am sure someone is familiar with it, I just don’t have the knowledge of how it all works.
IA: What do you think we should be willing to give up? It seems like with most negotiations we have to have a give and take. Do you think we are at a point that we we just go hardline? Since we cannot strike and there are only so many other PERSable jobs out there, what is our bargaining chip?
Remember the unions stance is if we reject this we are fine with current pay and working conditions instead of this contract proposal is unacceptable. That puts the members at a huge disadvantage.
PACMANS isn’t our problem, for sure. I recall reading somewhere that PACMANS is going to be updated. Since they’ve been happy to use a 40 year old system this long suggests to me it’s being updated to accommodate shifts that work using a pattern that fits with a work period shorter than the 28 day/212 hr pattern.
The pensionable extended duty week wages are what’s at stake going to a 56. During contract comparisons, I believe including the EDWC wages in total compensation somehow misses the fact that we are working much more for that “comparable” pay. Base salary has to go up with less EDWC.
I think it gets lost in the discussion that we are not voting on the 56 in this contract. The 56 will take months if not years to implement. Seems the issue is to take a 7.5 percent raise while they work on it, or continue with current wages while we fight for months for the same thing. OPEB being a variable in this. I remember the ONE time I took a variable home loan for the lower initial rate.
I guess I am just playing devils advocate, but looking at it from a bean counter perspective it’s gonna be a hard sell from our side to work less hours and get paid the same amount. In their eyes the loss of EDWC isn’t a pay cut, we are working less hours so therefor we are not getting paid for hours not worked. In the 9-5 world it’s what they call cutting their employees hours, not giving them a pay cut. I do realize that’s not the type of job we work, but Maybe that’s how SCO looks at it.
I believe when we did the contract comparison/survey it actually did us a disservice in a sense that it riled up the membership without laying out a foundation and pathway. Honestly, coming into this job 20+ years ago, I never expected to be financially compensated like a LG department, especially not like LA and San Fran and some of the higher dollar departments. I honestly don’t know what we have gained financially since the comparison came out because I am sure whatever raises we have gotten since, LG has received at least that and more.
I don’t have answers for this, only questions. I think we are all having a hard time coming to terms with this because we thought with after the salary comparison, the hellacious fire seasons of the last 5 years, and “surplus” the state said we had coming out of the pandemic, I really think people thought we would be going to this 48/96 (hate the term 56), we would be compensated not only by adjusting our base rate to match what we are receiving by straight/EDWC as well as a raise on top of it. I am not sure what the final dollar sign would be for this, but I imagine it would be astronomical.
Why is the illusion that we always have to give something up such a pervasive thought process in this department?
No serious negotiator walks into any negotiation willing or planning to give ANYTHING up.
Sure, there may be something that comes up as part of the process when the other side FORCES YOUR HAND in order to compromise, but to START with the mentality that you are willing to give up ANYTHING is a LOSER’S mindset.
The problem is that I’ve heard the mantra that “we have to give something to get something” repeated over and over again by top 2881 officers, including past Presidents and past State Rank & File Directors.
“You want more X? Well, we’ve got to give up Y.” I say that’s a pile of garbage.
We have “bargaining chips” that are plainly obvious:
We are losing people faster than we can hire them;
We don’t have enough people to hire as evidenced by hiring lists repeatedly being exhausted;
The state has lost millions of acres in recent years because we can’t keep firefighters;
Those fires have cost Billions upon Billions of dollars of economic impacts within California and Trillions of dollars nationwide.
The overriding factor in the above three items is that CAL FIRE’s firefighters are poorly paid, overworked, and work in miserable conditions.
The discussion with CalHR needs go something like this: “We’ve given up X, Y, and Z over the past 20 years that’s gotten us to this spot. We have nothing left to give up…we’re a minimum wage fire department working more hours than anyone else in the country that cannot recruit fast enough or keep the experienced people that we’ve spent Millions of dollars and thousands of hours training. If the Governor wants to stop this department’s bleeding and for us to have a fighting chance against these disastrous fires in the future, the ball is in your court. Your move.”
This feeling that we always have to give something up to get something is exactly what’s gotten us to the point of being the lowest paid fire department that works the longest hours under the worst conditions.
We’ve given and given and given over the years with the promise that it’ll come back to us in the future. Well, I’m still waiting.
As I said before:
And, now that more details have come out about the current TA, I’m no longer buying the notion that the current TA has no takeaways. They’re just hidden behind the smoke and mirrors facade.
The OPEB portion opens the possibility of ever-increasing employee contributions.
The GSIs don’t keep pace with inflation-that’s a huge opportunity cost.
The $260 medical contribution is in lieu of COVID pay, doesn’t apply to those who elect COBEN cash, doesn’t factor into your overtime rate, and ends in July 2024.
The 66 hour work week takes 8% of our PERSable compensation.
Those are huge takeaways.
We need to stand firm and make sure we aren’t being blindsided by these hidden details.
At this point, I feel we need to stand our ground, call CalHRs bluff and forge ahead ON OUR TERMS.
The “what are we willing to give up to get something else" mentality needs to stop.
The world’s not fair. This isn’t Little League…everyone doesn’t get a trophy. We’re in the Big Leagues…let’s play like it.
I take no offense from anything you just wrote. It is just my opinion, and I think it is great to have these conversations. I guess I just want to see the cold hard numbers behind what you think a FF1/FAE/FC and so forth should be paid hourly/monthly and on what type of shift. This is a huge machination we are dealing with with lots of moving parts I personally don’t get to see humping hose up the Klamath.
S159, I fully support your stance, and personally I would be 100% ok with with kicking this back to the table and say try again, as my vote I cast backs that up.
I was told by a chapter rep that OPEB would change according an index, but only through contract negotiations. It’s not automatic. And, check me on this, can only change .5 per year.
If we do not ratify this contract and we go back to negotiations. The state could not offer us less than what is already offered in the TA. If the state attempted to give up anything less what is in the TA, the state would be in violation of the Dills act.
To legally unilaterally impose a contract on us with out a ratification vote if BU8 and CalHR came to an impasse, the state would have to offer us its “last, best and final offer”. A last, best and final can’t be less than what’s on the table already. After a last, best and final offer is issue, which did not happen, it’s start the impasse process. The impasse process involves a fact finding process by the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) which will examine all negotiating material from both side, after that there is arbitration. Finally after all of that if we are still at impasse at that point the state could unilaterally implement the last, best and final offer without a ratification vote.
As you can see there is a process to this. So for any Union officer to say if we go back to the table we could end up with less or nothing is completely incorrect. With our Union officers do not understand how the negotiating process works or they are flat out lying to the membership about the process.
That’s why we should all vote on a resolution to hire or some how build a union team made of lawyers. They know all the legal language to make sure we don’t get pushed over by the state. Would help us get a better written contract I would say. But just a thought.
Such a resolution has been submitted in the past and had been voted down by the membership.
If I remember correctly, the rejection statement was something to the effect of “we already have an attorney that leads the bargaining team” or something like that. Maybe someone with more knowledge of this can fill in the details.
Also, for reference, I believe the 66 hour language was actually written by 2881’s legal team.
Regarding what happens if the TA is voted down, when President Edwards was visiting units this past month, I heard him say that if 2881 rejects this TA, it will be interpreted as sending the message that the membership doesn’t want a shorter work week and it will be a slap in the face to CPF and IAFF since they were instrumental in getting this TA.
As every 2881 member knows, this is absolutely not the message that those who vote no are sending.
If this deal is rejected, 2881 needs to stand firm that the deal was rejected because it doesn’t go far enough, not because we’re happy with a 72 and a shorter work week isn’t wanted or needed.
2881 needs to vigorously defend the membership against the political narrative that will say “2881 turned down the TA because they don’t want a shorter work week” and make sure that it is widely known that the membership has spoken and we deserve a clear path to a 56 with NO LOSS OF PERSable COMPENSATION…including the effect of inflation.
In my mind, the 56 is a completely independent issue from any other GSI or contract renewals and needs to be negotiated separately so we can make sure there aren’t any shell games or unintended consequences.
I just see CalHR intermingling a GSI with a 56 to give the appearance of no loss of compensation when, in reality, we’d be forgoing a GSI (and, thus, forgoing keeping up with inflation) for the illusion of not losing compensation.
Moving to a 56 in four years at the same PERSable salary we earn today isn’t “no loss of compensation” in my book.
If I remember correctly, the rejection statement was something to the effect of “we already have an attorney that leads the bargaining team” or something like that. That’s pretty weak!
Since I retired over ten years ago a lot of big takeaways have taken place.
You guys need a New attorney in my eyes, better yet a Professional Paid Negotiating Team is needed.
With the amount of Union Dues you pay you should have Top Notch Attorney’s or Paid Negotiators, Good luck membership wish you the best on this contract.
I have heard the same thing, and I have been asking to see that in writing. I have yet to see anything. In Section 13.13(a), that is not at all what the contract language reads. It states “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”.
Why would the state have to renegotiate something we are agreeing to in the TA? Does “each fiscal year thereafter” sound like it would ever need to be discussed again?
I really can not believe the amount of completely wrong information I have been hearing come from L2881 officers from Edwards on down. Where does it say that the adjustment is tied to an index? The contracts says adjustments will be based on actuarially determined total normal cost. All this means is an actuary will determine the adjustment annually. An actuary is simply someone who analyzes the financial costs of risk and uncertainty, i.e. Sacramento bean-counters. It does not mean the adjustment is based on an index.
Over your career, how many times have you seen the cost of our healthcare premiums go down?
Government code for OPEB. Probably need to hire a lawyer to understand it all. BU8 specifics is in 22944.5 section B, subsection 9. Codes Display Text.
On CALHR FAQ on OPEB it says actual percentages are in the bargaining contracts which sorta lines up with the claim that OPEB changes only occur through bargaining. Wish I could find more locked down language. https://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/Pages/opeb-faq.aspx
“Over your career, how many times have you seen the cost of our healthcare premiums go down?”
My earlier comment about my one and only adjustable rate mortgage is exactly this. It never went down either. Really, though, my premium went down this year when plans were combined. Others went up. The only time mine has ever gone down.
The actual percentages are already in the bargaining contract. “Furthermore, the increase or decrease to the employer or employee contribution in any given fiscal year shall not exceed 0.5 percent per year.” We are agreeing to allow the state to adjust OPEB annually.
Based on the two section of 13.13(a) “and July 1 of each fiscal year thereafter” along with “Furthermore, the increase or decrease to the employer or employee contribution in any given fiscal year shall not exceed 0.5 percent per year.” clearly spells out what the state will be allowed to do, if we ratify this contract.
An actuary could use CPI or another index in their determination. The issue is the methodology for that adjustment is not clearly spelled out. All it says in an actuary will determine the adjustment annually.
Instead of berating the membership if they vote down the contract President Edward’s should taking a leadership roll and explaining the pro’s and con’s of this TA. It’s the membership that gets to decide. It seems every negotiation the negotiating team and President take things so personal if the membership isn’t on their same page. All the membership is trying to say is this is the time to make a stand, period. ( If the no’s prevail ). It’s not a personal attack. If not now, when? It’s time to make noise and make a stand that this TA sells 2881 short and doesn’t go far enough.
Can the membership make is a resolution for a vote of no confidence regarding the President of 2881? Why do we continue to fund CFP with a portion of our dues? I’m curious, doesn’t seem they are listening to the membership.
