CALFIRE proposed MOU changes

I don’t think this comment is constructive at all. Creating chaos only hurts the cause.

The problem is the headwinds we face when negotiating. For decades, state leadership has shown profound indifference toward the health, safety, and welfare of the dedicated firefighters of CAL FIRE. As former Governor Brown put it, the feeling at the top is that CAL FIRE is nothing more than “budget dust”.

The events of the past decade or so has shown the plight of CAL FIRE’s personnel and I truly believe that the tide is starting to turn at the top.

The current tentative agreement is the result of years of groundwork that has been laid, not only by 2881, but also IAFF and CPF.

Anyone who has attended convention the last few years has heard the strong words of support offered by IAFF President Schaitberger and CPF President Rice, who stood before the 2881 membership and told 2881 President Edwards that, when he felt the time was right, just let them know and he will have the full support of both IAFF and CPF…no holds barred.

President Edwards was questioned in caucus that year why he hadn’t already asked IAFF and CPF for their support. He answered honestly when he said we didn’t have the proper groundwork in place at the time and, once that was in place, he would pull the pin. He explained that the groundwork consisted of additional staffing, additional training capacity, additional support staff, and a number of other items that were critical to the success of implementing a shorter work week. Without those things in place, fighting for a 56 was futile and, even if it were to be successful, would likely to end up being unsustainable.

After years of hard work, many of those prerequisites are now in the process of coming together.

This year, President Edwards pulled the pin and it has been full-court press. CPF adopting a resolution at their recent convention to fully support 2881 was groundbreaking. You also have to remember that current CPF Secretary-Treasurer Lopez was 2881 President when he was elected to CPF.

The measures taken by now IAFF President Kelly to crack the seal of the state’s unwillingness to discuss a workweek that is shorter than 72 hours are nothing short of a work of art.

We have the support of the public. We have the support of the legislature. All we need now is for the Governor to actually have our back instead of just using our stations and engines for flashy backdrops for his press conferences.

You may or may not like the current offer and you may or may not like President Edwards. However, what CAL FIRE needs now, more than ever, is a single, solid, unified voice. Dissension within the ranks will only create chaos and will ultimately lead to our downfall.

9 Likes

I appreciate you answering my questions. Thank you for the view point. I am a firm believer in actions and not just words. Only time will tell if the words hold true.

Single, soild, unified voice; as long as it is in alignment with taking this current TA.

Why is people voicing concerns considered Dissension? Isn’t the point to bargin, present the memberership the offer, take a vote, then push forward with what the membership has decided? And I’m sorry if this TA is the direct result of the combined might of IAFF and CPF, well I’m underwhelmed.

4 Likes

When is the vote count?

The issue is we do not have a single, solid, unified voice if our Union leadership and our union membership are on two completely different pages.

When members ask legitimate questions and are basically told to just accept the TA and don’t ask any questions, that is a problem. When leadership is too emotionally invested to even consider the concern of the membership, that is a problem. When union leadership has been disingenuous about the details of the TA and tells the membership there are no takeaways even though they are just hidden behind smoke and mirrors, that is a problem.

If leadership was not trying to be disingenuous, why was the fact that OPEB will be adjustable up to 0.5% annually, completely left out of the PowerPoint created by leadership to explain the TA?

2 Likes

All I’m saying is that some will like the TA and some will not. I don’t think there’s much debate that there are better ways 2881 could have delivered the TAs details to the membership. Maybe I’m a fool, but I do believe that 2881 has the members’ best interest in mind.

Having a discussion regarding the pros and cons of the TA and how it might be improved in the future is a healthy conversation that will breed additional ideas and improve future outcomes.

Talk of a vote of no confidence or going “fair share” as a way to show dislike for the TA is counterproductive and will spread like cancer.

Allowing the union to be divided is the fastest way to derail any improvement in working conditions that we could possibly see in the future.

3 Likes

You’ve been in this thread long enough to see that I’ve voiced as many concerns with this TA as anyone. I’ve picked it apart, studied it, and asked so many questions, I’ve driven my Chapter Officers nuts. I don’t think anybody should blindly cast a vote (for or against) without reading, researching, and discussing the details.

People may not like the TA (I certainly don’t), may not agree with how 2881 has handled the communications (I don’t), or may have whatever other gripes there may be with 2881 (I have many), but, to me, calling for a vote of no confidence takes it to a whole different level. There’s a huge difference between debating the facts and blatantly calling for the ouster of the leadership. To me, that’s where the dissension comes in.

Before going down the path of proposing a vote of no confidence or threatening to go “fair share”, I challenge people to attend Chapter meetings and see what’s actually going on “behind the curtain”.

I’ve seen more than one vocal naysayer go from a sideline sniper to a person who contributes to improving the cause. I know because I am one.

I used to spout off the same calls to see heads roll based purely on what I “thought” was going on. Meanwhile, I had never even been to a Chapter meeting, much less talked to a Chapter Officer to ask questions.

Then I worked an overtime day with a person who was involved in the union. Our discussions caught my attention.

Now, I haven’t missed a meeting in years. I have no interest in running for Chapter Office, but I help out when I can and do my best to stay in tune with current events. Sure, I still have my own opinions on what 2881 is or isn’t doing, but at least now my critiques are based on fact instead of knee-jerk speculation.

Whether this TA is ratified or not, there is a huge road ahead to attain the wages, hours, and working conditions enjoyed by our neighboring counterparts.

Civilly discussing the pros and cons as we move forward during and after this vote fosters a communal effort toward a better future.

Breeding distrust in 2881’s leadership will sink our ship before it even leaves the port.

8 Likes

Well stated!

You have perfectly summed up my thought process.

3 Likes

Apparently it passed, per email from L2881.

Keeping PERSable income needs to be the number 1 priority at convention this year.

President Edwards said there will be another vote in 2024 to ratify the exact terms of the 66 hour schedule once they are negotiated.

Just like the loss of 3@50 (although that was not necessarily avoidable), allowing the loss of PERSable income upon moving to a 66 (or a 56) would be a travesty that even our grandchildren’s grandchildren will never forgive us for allowing to happen. Once lost, we’ll never get it back.

6 Likes

Any indication of the final tally for and against?

Nope, that part was not mentioned. The email said only that all ballots were counted twice and they’re proud to announce it passed.

I’m just a random dues-paying employee and this is the mass announcement that went to all of us, so perhaps more details will come out in the next few days/weeks via those that know more.

1 Like

You know that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

Is anyone else getting tired of the spelling and grammatical errors in 2881’s communications?

Sure, CAL FIRE’s pay is a “parody” of LG wages…however, it is pay parity that the membership wants, deserves, and has earned!

5 Likes

I have heard a rumor that, in an effort to discourage members from switching to fair share. L2881 has/is looking into not allowing fair share member’s seniority to count toward things like vacation bidding?

Has anyone else heard this? Im assuming its just someone drumming up anti union conspiracies?

2 Likes

I belive there is no “fair share” anymore. You pay full dues or no dues. So ok, there’s gotta be some perks to being in the club.

At convention last year IAFF /CPF mention they would like to pass legislation to have seniority not count or taken away for folks who opted out of the union.

No more fair share , if you want out you have to do it while there is no contract currently in place. Then that dues money has to be given to a charity. Folks not in BU8 can just opt out and keep their dues that’s would be paid.

1 Like

"November 4, 2022

CAL FIRE Local 2881 was just notified that CAL HR released the Pay Letter regarding the one-time payment of 1500.00 for the Public Safety Recognition Payment to the State Controller’s Office for issuance. Payments should be issued soon.

Fraternally yours,

Peter Boctor

State Rank & File Director

A Message from your State Rank & File Director, Peter Boctor"

He didn’t write this. The spelling is correct.

3 Likes

Well…we still get the point, even with the incorrect stylization of “CalHR” and without the dollar sign!

But hey…nobody’s perfect, right?

I just hope they pay more attention to detail at the bargaining table.

1 Like