Good point. AND projection budgeting is a sham. What happens when the projected (often inflated numbers) doesn’t materialize?
4 Likes
That’s our issue with CPF. Over the years the work wonders for our local partners, which is great. But they have actually come out against us and slandered us in favor of our local partners.
CPF seems happy to take out money and we are their largest contributor, but they seem to have little interest in helping us when the time comes.
2 Likes
There are a number of misconceptions I’ve heard floating around regarding the 3.11 staffing model that Ehoss mentioned. Maybe an experienced member can provide some additional clarity.
I’ve heard many people explain 3.11 as 3 on an engine at a time. My understanding is that the minimum engine staffing is written 2/0 referring to an engine being staffed with 2 personnel, 3/0 for an engine staffed with 3, etc. Maybe someone can explain the significance of the /0 at the end, as I cannot remember right now.
This is in contrast to the staffing numbers written as 2.33 or 2.67 or 3.11 and so on that refer to the number of positions budgeted for each seat filled.
Thus, an engine that is Blue Booked or contracted for 3/0 minimum staffing under the 2.33 model would have a total of 7 positions budgeted in order to cover for sick, vacation, etc. (2.33*3)
Likewise, the same 3/0 engine under the 2.67 model would have 8 positions budgeted and under the 3.11 would have 9.33 budgeted.
There’s a big difference between having to transition from 2/0 staffing to 3/0 staffing on every engine, which would require hiring significantly more people than increasing the model from 2.67 to 3.11.
Don’t get me wrong, moving from 2.67 to 3.11 statewide would create a huge number of positions, but not nearly as many as increasing all engines to 3/0.
2 Likes
To put it succinctly you have it correct. It is moving from 2.67 per seat to 3.11 to seat.
1 Like
You nailed it spot on.
2.33 at 3/0 is a total of 7 people for 7 day a week staffing
2.67 at 3/0 is a total of 8 people for 7 day a week staffing
3.11 at 3/0 is a total of 9-10 people for 7 day a week staffing.
Something to keep in mind is how the 3.11 formula was created.
An employee is only available 40 out of 52 weeks in a calendar year(76% of the time) when adding up AAV time, CPT time/JAC/Training time. So 3.11 maintains 3/0 staffing year round and still gets employees their AAV/CPT/Training commitments.
Lastly, all the FF2 02350 engines and all of the FF1 crews have been staffed using the 3.11 staffing formula. IMHO, the next step would be to get existing 02350 funded positions raised from 2.33/2.67 to 3.11. Doing that alone would result in less force hires. Then it would be up to the Sch A & Amador contracts to raise their staffing when contracts are renewed or switch to a different staffing plan(loss of contract)
2 Likes
Does everyone here wok for cal fire?
2 Likes
Legeslative Analyst summary of the contract.
2 Likes
Has anybody asked themselves, if we switched to 56 and still had to go through the committee and implementation process in order to come on-line Nov, 2024, given all the current stipulations (which likely would still be in place) would all these angry questions still be coming up? How many of us, when heard when a 56 might be coming, asked ourselves how long that might take to implement? Did any of us ask ourselves what other impacts might this create, as a result of a decreased work week from 72-56 (Beyond extra bodies to help cover shifts. I’m simplifying I know)? Likely the questions you present, are only going to be small pieces that you are aware of, and other SME’s will likely counter your thought process with other considerations. Sometimes legal, others will be time constraint, but most likely logistical and fiscal impacts are going to large topic of concern as this 66 gets worked out.
This job is hard, it has been since I started 28 years ago, and please keep in mind, that although it may seem like this is the pinnacle of the fight, what you are asking for has already taken decades to achieve. We all work for a STATE agency and because of that, our wheels of progress turn slower, it’s the nature of our system, like it or not. What I challenge each of you to do is be more involved, educate yourself,
don’t rely on rumors, here say, and of aboce all else don’t use emotions to drive or derail all the progress that has actually happened. It wasn’t that long ago that I worked four-19’s and was happy to get a nickel. Also keep in mind that given the changes that are happening, it’s up to you to take care of you, help each other on the way, but at the end of the day it’s about what’s best for you and your family. We all have choices, I encourage you to ask yourself, what are yours?
10 Likes
EPBL41, had the proposal been for a 56, I think there would still be many questions, but at least the membership would be able to see that there is a clear path to the end goal. I think that’s what’s missing here.
As I noted above, is this 66 hour proposal a necessary pit stop on the path to a 56 or does the state see this as a long-term fix? That is not clear to me.
I think that is one thing that is breeding the “angry questions”, as you put it. Without laying out a solid long-term path to a 56, the lack of clarity and lack of messaging from L2881 is making people’s head spin.
I don’t think anybody anywhere thinks that any path exists to a 56 without experiencing some significant challenges. Even the Director has said that while he supports the 56, he is also fully aware that we may lose contracts as a result. He seemed to be OK with that-as am I-as that’s the cost of doing business.
We cannot have our entire workforce suffer-even if it saves a few hundred CAL FIRE jobs. If Schedule A contracts leave because CAL FIRE is bringing working conditions in line with industry standards, I’d like to see them provide the same level of service on their own. I look at the contracts that have left in recent years and it seems many have low pay, less desirable overall working conditions in spite of working a 56, minimal employee training programs, and high turnover. There are absolutely some that are doing well, but many, to me, seemed more stable as a Schedule A contract.
The Schedule A contracts need to be educated on the ancillary benefits of a CAL FIRE contract that do not easily translate to bottom line dollars and cents.
I’m sure all the Schedule A contracts pay attention to personnel costs, unfunded liabilities, disciplinary and labor issues, and potential legal liability, but is the effort being put in to educate them on the harder to quantify benefits?
How many non-contract departments receive free additional staffing during times of high fire danger when the state puts on a staffing pattern? How many times do state resources respond to a Schedule A department’s incident-vegetation, structure, or otherwise-and the “who pays” question never even crosses anyone’s mind? How many times has a Schedule A person been on vacation and a Schedule B person filled the overtime, reducing short-term (single days here and there) staffing strain the Schedule A contract would have experienced had they been a stand alone department? What about not having to develop employee manuals, vehicle specifications, and soliciting bids for PPE? The ancillary benefits of a CAL FIRE contract are numerous, yet can be difficult to quantify.
Those are the types of things we need to start educating the Schedule A contracts about now that will help ease future transitions-whether that transition is to a 56 or simply an increase in personnel costs due to minimum wage.
9 Likes
100% SPOT ON.
THANK YOU!
1 Like
I think we are saying the same thing. I agree with a lot of what you put out. I do also think a little more transparency, is needed in this. At this point, since CAL HR posted the tentative agreement, L2881 should have been more prepared to address this in short order. Completely agree. Perhaps they will take that as some constructive criticism as a way to improve communication with its members and not allow the weekend to let “heads spin”. It should be assumed that it’s human nature to fill in the blanks when communication is lacking, and often what happens is, a negative story is inserted when information is not available. I think that part is what L2881 might need to improve. I think they are trying, but as with everything, if we aren’t constantly evaluating shortcomings, we are bound to make the same mistake again. We are very lucky to have an outspoken Director that understands the impacts placed on his workforce. And yes, I hope our members are ready to perhaps go from an A ride to a B ride, if in fact, our contracts can’t handle the increased dollars to their agreements. I joined this organization because I did love B land, so I’m a bit biased, but we may be headed closer to a corrected course of our Departments priorities.
4 Likes
I wouldn’t care at all if we lost Schedule A contracts so that L2881 members were compensated at the level we should be. Schedule A contracts do nothing for the members, actually to the contrary, Schedule A contracts hurts our members. We as employees end up subsidizing cheap fire protection for municipalities, why? This makes no sense for us as members.
If someone is so dead set on working on a type 1 engine, then you should go do that. Im tired of subsidizing cheap fire protection so some members can go play big city firefighter, while the rest of us suffer. Because you know, god forbid we loose a Schedule A contract.
The notion of loosing Schedule A contracts in itself is ridiculous. Schedule A contracts are a package deal, they aren’t just paying for the people in the seats. There is a reason that a large number of municipalities in LA county contract with LA Co Fire, it’s not the cheapest buts it’s the best bang for there buck, our Schedule A contracts are no different.
Remember during the 2017 contract negotiations, Butte County was all up in arms about increasing members pay. The county looked into forming there own FD, and guess what the outcome was? Butte unit not only still has the Schedule A contract but Butte unit now has even more schedule A contracts then in 2017. Weird. Happens every time, municipalities start squawking about local control and other hubbub, pay a consultant a stupid amount of money to tell them CAL FIRE is the best option then quietly all the hubbub goes away.
4 Likes
Speaking of Sch A, why are we still running a one person engine companies in Merced County? For this day and age that is criminal. If we are so BIG on Safety how do u justify that?
6 Likes
While I agree that we shouldn’t be held hostage by the Schedule A contracts, I disagree with your perception that Schedule A contracts do nothing for the members.
How would we staff a large incident without having thousands of Schedule A employees to draw from?
Without having a vast pool of Schedule A employees, there would be a massive number of Local Government people needed to fill ICS positions. It would be a whole different experience at camp. (This is in no way intended to be a shot at the capabilities or competency of any other departments. It’s merely speculation based on standard order processing practices and knowing how confusing CAL FIRE’s internal policy and procedures are.)
With our Schedule A programs sending overhead virtually seamlessly through the ROSS/IROC system, there is little delay in getting those DIVS/OPBDs/HEQBs and other positions filled for a rapidly expanding incident.
How nice is it to have a full ICP set up (and often a hot meal) when you come off the line that first morning? Could you imagine how long it would take to get folks in place if we had to get all those BCMGs, FACLs, and FDULs from local government via OES’s ordering channels?
You like having the Time Unit do your eFC33? How awesome would it be to come in off the line and hand your timesheet over to a LG person working as a PTRC and then having to spend the next two hours explaining our confusing shift patterns to them? It would be the exact same with CAL FIRE employees doing LG time cards. There’s a reason OES does LG’s time and CAL FIRE does CAL FIRE time.
I know every unit operates differently, but just as I noted that a Schedule B employee may be assigned a Schedule A assignment for a day, the reverse also occurs. Without Schedule A people, there couldn’t be that “shell game” that occasionally happens to cover when one program is short for the day.
Not only that, but how much innovation and progress and additional training opportunities have been made available as a result of the Schedule A influence. I feel I could make a strong case that CAL FIRE would operate very similarly to other state and federal forestry departments without our Schedule A contracts.
There are certainly benefits to having Schedule A programs in your unit-even if you never intend on working a Type 1 engine or can’t stand going to structure fires. Not that losing Schedule A programs is desirable, but we need to understand that losing one or more is part of the risk of our standing up for a humane work schedule.
You were absolutely right on as far as the Schedule A contract government’s squawking being a flash in the pan. Every contract’s governing body (city council, board of supervisors, etc) has squawked when 2881 negotiates a raise, but very rarely does that ever translate into a reduction in service or, even more rarely, loss of a contract.
7 Likes
That’s some extremely close minded thinking.
2 Likes
What is the mission statement of CF?
What is the mission?
While @IAfire is blunt, they are not wrong with the Assessment. I know of several potential contracts that cannot afford CF services(Calimesa, Canyon Lake in RRU) plus several more than “kicked the tires” and saw the costs.
At what point do we focus on the 02350 mission VS the various Sch A contracts? There is actually an argument (right or wrong) that SOME contracts are taking advantage of CF and indirectly getting “gifts” of state services.
I understand 100% who and what CF is, but what is the PRIMARY MISSION?
5 Likes
Watershed. It’s next to the toolshed Hoss
5 Likes
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection serves and safeguards the people and protects the property and resources of California.
4 Likes
The first two priorities sound awfully schedule A oriented.
Also, glad you guys don’t care about the hundreds of paramedics that would lose their income because you don’t like sched A. Brotherhood at its finest.
2 Likes
There is an acute & chronic shortage of Paramedics in not only California but the nation. If you think “Poof” all the Sch A contracts went away every Medic would not be able in short order to find a job, you are sorely mistaken. RVC could go the way of the Dodo Bird and every position that RRU lost RVC would need to fill or lower the standard of care. Sch A is NOT the mission of CF. No different than when BDU lost BDC, TUU lost TLC or MVU lost the SM contract. People had to change job locations and some had to change PCA coding. But of a LG Sch A contract won’t raise their staffing standards to the reality of 2022. What would be your solution to the 25-35% staffing shortage?
As far as I know, there is only 1 Sch A contracts in the state staffed above 3.11. What do you do with the other 99% that aren’t even 3.0 where some are not even 2.33?
How would you propose to solve this problem?
4 Likes