CALFIRE proposed MOU changes

California & Hawaii Hotlist Questions and Discussion
#123

I can’t speak for anyone else commenting here, but, I absolutely support the existence of Schedule A contracts.

That said, it’s going to be a a lot of work to achieve a 56 and, as with any hard fought battle, there will likely be unintended consequences. One of those will likely be effects to Schedule A contracts…it’s the nature of the beast. As much as I would love to say we could keep all Schedule A contracts, I don’t think we can afford to sacrifice the health and welfare of the membership as a whole in order to placate all the contracts.

At the risk of coming across the wrong way, I see it like using eminent domain to construct an Interstate. There is no question that it is incredibly life changing for the people who may lose their property as a result, but, hopefully, the communal benefit of the new interstate outweighs the personal loss. Hopefully, through cooperation, foresight, and proper planning, measures are implemented to reduce, offset, or minimize the effects of those directly affected.

I don’t see any way a 56 wouldn’t affect Schedule A contracts, but, hopefully, with proper foresight and planning, those effects can be minimized. I see so many mutually beneficial aspects to those contracts like I noted before in addition to economies of scale and operational efficiencies and would hate to see any of them go away.

We just can’t be scared to forge forward and advocate for ourselves while being in fear of changes that may or may not come to fruition.

4 Likes
#124

I was going more off you saying guys want to play big city fireman since there’s a very large amount of people in the schedule A contracts that make up the work force. Sched A & B both get the same colored pay warrant and wear the same patch. It’s regressive thinking like this that makes us not move forward.

1 Like
#125

This is completely false. Unless the department is a non calpers department, then this is not the case about 3@50. Lifetime medical, sure, many departments still offer that, but 3@50 is no longer offered to new hires of any calpers agency. In fact, the funding for “classics” (3@50) is completely separate from “pepra” (2.7&57 etc.)

1 Like
#126

The arguments which you have brought up as to the benefit of Schedule A are the same
I have heard my whole career, the same arguments which have held us hostage to Schedule A contracts.

How would we staff a large incident? The same way we do right now. Are you familiar with the California Fire Assistance Agreement or the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement? Have to been to a basecamp lately? Basecamp are staffed with a massive number of LG employees, and they have been for several years now.

How is one of our Schedule A contracts sending overhead to a fire any different then another LG department sending overhead to fires?

So the entire logistic section is purely CF?

You are correct, there is a reason OES does LG time and CAL FIRE does CAL FIRE time. The reason is because LG time is recorded on OES form F-42 and CAL FIRE time is recorded in ePay.

From my first hand experience working in multiple units with Schedule A contracts and working in both Schedule A and B, it’s almost always Schedule A which has staffing issues not Schedule B.

So again like I said, we as employees personally subsidize cheap fire protection so some municipality can save money. How does that make any sense to anyone… You want to talk about brotherhood, what about those of us who don’t get paid what we deserve to get paid, so that we don’t loose any Schedule A contracts. Yeah, that’s really watching out.

Trust me, I felt the same way that you did during the beginning of my career. Then I was young, I though that every fire department in the state should be a schedule A contract. I believed all of the pro Schedule A agreements, the same which you just recited. Though, over time I came to realize that we as employees personally subsidize cheap fire protection for municipalities.

3 Likes
#127

You’re absolutely right. Many Sched A contracts will be ending those contracts if cdf goes to a 56. Many contracts are already on the verge of being unaffordable for the contracting city, county, district, etc.

#128

Well stated @IAfire.

I will ask again, what is the 1st step/solution?
Increase staffing to eliminate shortages and bring all the contacts to 3.11? Increase pay, less work(66 vs 72) and make a bad staffing shortage worse?

Now for some historical context. It was just 5yr ago that 2 engine Sch B stations had the following:
2 FC
2 FAE Perm
1 FAE LT
Now in 2022 that same stations has the following
2 FC
4 FAE Perm
Now a lot has changed in the last 5yr, especially the 2.5yr since the Pandemic But looking at the historical context, the dept on the 02350 side has come light-years forward.

Someone mentioned MMU and 1/0 staffed Sch A engines. How many more people would have to be hired to increase the staffing to 3/0? How much would that cost if MMU decided to stay with CF? Look at TLC and their staffing since they broke away from TUU. Now apply that to any unit that has a Sch A contract that is less than 3.0 staffing?

The Director has worked every rank in the agency and worked for “The Nickle”. He is on record as supporting the 56.

Finally, what would you rather have given 2 choices, increased staffing to reduce the forces? Or increased pay, decreased work by 1 day a pay period at the risk of losing anything not 02350?

Carry on the discussion

2 Likes
#129

I believe the first step in solving the staffing issue is addressing the retirement formula which in turn would address recruitment. 2.7% @ 57 is completely garbage. Most people do not understand that 2.7% @ 57 is actually 2% @ 50 with a .1% annual increase from 50 to 57. So someone who started at 20 and retired at 50 with 30 years would receive 60% pay in retirement.

One of the major benefits of working for CAL FIRE was always that while our pay want the same as LG, our retirement was better then most LG. Now that’s not the case, so how do we recruit new employees when we say come work for CAL FIRE, you’ll get paid less, work more and have a worse retirement…

Then once that issue is resolved we need a legitimate department policy on work/rest ratio. A policy that states after an employee has been on duty for x days they will be afforded y days off-duty. No more 21 and 2 in a hotel, it’s crap. The family issues within CAL FIRE are huge, it would make it so much better in families if they knew for sure the day their loved one would be home from work.

3 Likes
#130

If you re-read my post, I think you’ll see that we’re on the same side.

We should absolutely not be held hostage to Schedule A contracts. Our people deserve a better quality of life. No question.

That said, I do not believe it should be SRA or the highway. I do think there are many mutually beneficial features of Schedule A contracts, but I also know that a Schedule A contract may not be viable for some jurisdictions.

I think with cooperation, foresight, and pre-planning, we can achieve a 56 hour week while maintaining as many Schedule A contracts as possible.

This is far from my first summer away from home, yet I still see a future CAL FIRE where both a 56 hour work week and Schedule A contracts can coexist.

2 Likes
#131

In the past, I worked for a large LG County FD. Said FD had contracts with several cities and districts within the county. They were only asked to pay the base wages in their contracts. All but 1 paid much less. Some only paid 10%. How do you think that went over when the BOS said there’s no money for raises with county ff’s?

A new city councilman of the city that paid the full cost just knew his city was getting ripped off by the county. He called for an immediate vote to end the contract. The Chair suggested tabling it until the next session for further discussion (she knew they had a good deal!), but he wouldn’t back down. The vote passed 3/5 to end the contract immediately…

The Co Chief canceled all his appts the next day and met with the council. He pointed out they didn’t pay for any benefits, retirement, investigators, admin people like payroll and HR, training personnel, inspectors, battalion chiefs, a fire chief, mechanics, had no reserve engines, hell they didn’t even pay for the front line engines.

The council called for an emergency session and reinstated the contract.

The Co BOS later informed the Chief that no contracts would be approved that didn’t cover 100% of the costs. There hasn’t been one contract that didn’t get renewed.

The LG’s that are signing with less than safe staffing are doing it because it’s being offered. Talk about throwing your brothers under the bus! If Madera drops because they can’t afford it, then it’s just not in the cards for them. They will figure out what’s best for them. Maybe they add a $100 per parcel fee so they can afford the contract. There’s a way, they just haven’t been forced to look.

Nobody, repeat, nobody will lose a job over contracts ending. Somebody hates sched B amd thought they were going to work A their whole career? Sorry, you signed up for Cal Fire, no one ever promised that.

What about RVC? If RVC ended the contract, at least half the RRU guys would jump over to the new RVC dept. Many would get promotions of at least one rank. Saw it happen in TUU.

If ya’ll want to be considered a modern professional department, accept nothing less than professional standards and practices. The 72, staffing and wages are all separate issues. Cost of one may affect the other, but we knew it was a 72 when we signed up. Keep fighting for 56! We should NOT accept inadequate staffing in a contract.

5 Likes
#132

Cal Fire firefighters could get more money for less work with new tentative contract
‘We have to start making home life the priority to the men and women of Cal Fire’

Updated: 2:48 PM PDT Aug 28, 2022
Erin Heft
Reporter
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
California state firefighters could get three raises and reduced hours all within the next year after a new tentative contract was struck Thursday with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration.

The contract would afford Cal Fire firefighters a retroactive raise of 2.5% from July 1, 2022, plus 2% on Jan. 1 2023 and another 2% raise on July 1, 2023.

Fire personnel shifts would also be reduced from an average of 72 hours per shift to 66 hours.

“We have to start making home life the priority to the men and women of Cal Fire, and not work life,” said Tim Edwards, President of Local 2881, the Cal Fire union pushing for change.

“If you’re working 72 hours and running multiple calls, and you don’t have time to rejuvenate and decompress from what you’ve seen and saw, it’s going to stick in your head,” said Edwards, noting an uptick in firefighters experiencing Post Traumatic Stress Injuries, or PTSI.

The union said the new tentative contract could help recruit, filling the gap in staffing shortages, while incentivizing personnel to stay with Cal Fire.

Also included in the contract: a $260 per month stipend to help cover health insurance, a bump to longevity stipends and a reduction to the contributions made toward retirement health insurance, according to the union.

“I think the money speaks for itself, right? Cal Fire firefighters are the lowest paid in the state as of today… I also think the most significant deal in this contract is the commitment from the administration to start reducing work hours of the Cal Fire firefighters. As you said, we work a 72-hour shift already, the longest in the fire service anywhere in the country,” Edwards said.

According to the union, the state has until Wed., Aug. 31 to approve the contract in the budget, at which point it would move to the union members for a vote.

If approved, the agreement would increase state spending by $126 million per year starting in 2024.

#133

This, contracts will figure it out or they won’t. Often times they get a phenomenal deal and don’t even know it. If they can do it better on their own, get after it.

1 Like
#134

Well said. We cannot live in fear of what might or might not happen. We have to stand up for ourselves while doing what we can to make sure the other aspects work themselves out with the best outcome possible given the circumstances at the time.

2 Likes
#135

Okay, how do you pay for it? PERS is returning approx 6-8% R.O.I when they budget 9-11% R.O.I. guess who has to make up the shortage? The local government agencies that, that adds 2-3% to the cost of a contract. Now, we all know know people that are currently in the 3%@50 that have 30 years and with longevity and COLA in 5-8yr of retirement are making as much or more than when they were working.

How do you seel/pay for that if your a city manager? That’s basically funding 2 employees while only getting the services of one. Now look at all the depts that have been started the last 5yr. Most if not all have revolving doors of hiring because they have 2.7 @ 57, 2.5@55 a 401K etc.
Name a dept that doesn’t have a staffing shortage? I’ll wait for that answer. One of the L2881 podcasts talked about $0.93 of every tax dollar sent to Sac is committed to something other than wages. So we are now talking about $0.07 of every tax dollar for wages, benefits, health, welfare, & retirement. How do you budget for that in 2022 political climate in America, let alone California?

Demographics have changed in 30yr. 30yr ago LAFD accepted the 1st 20,000 applications and the process closed. You waited 4-8hr to get in your application in one of those 20,000. In 2022, LAFD had a major media campaign accepting applications from February till June. What changed in 30yr? Where there use to 20+ people for every vacancy today there are 2-3. I’ll say it again, how do you solve the DEMOGRAPHICS problem in America?

The 66hr proposal on the table would reduce the work period to 11 days in a 28 day cycle. That 8% decrease in time scheduled to work. If the union hold the line on the reduced work schedule with no reduction in pay, THATS A WIN. But I will concede THAT IS A HUGE IF. The director is on record supporting a 56. He is also on record stating the dept will lose contacts, but not lose positions. That means the staffing problems facing the dept will.be solved by 2 means, hiring new people to fill new positions and reassignment of displaced people to existing and new positions.

#136

Municipalities usually figure out how awesome of a deal they are getting, when they want to get rid of CAL FIRE and being in the consultant. Those consultants come up with a report, which essentially states the same thing every time, that the municipality would be insane to end the contract or even take the contract to RFP. Then the municipality quietly lets the issue go. Hmm, I wonder why…

1 Like
#137

Your statements are the Schedule A scare tactics I have mentioned which keep us as employees hostage to the Schedule A contracts.

If CF goes to a 56 hour workweek, the department would suddenly loose a bunch of contracts. What options would those contracts have? They would have to start their own department, which would work a 56 or contract with a department which works a 56, so how would it be any different?

Most people don’t know this but the 72 hour shift for firefighters is illegal under state law but the state exempted itself from its own laws. CF is the only department on the ENTIRE country that works 72 hours straight. When San Miguel Fire terminated the Schedule A contact they originally planned to work a 72 but the state would not allow them too because it’s not legal, go figure…

1 Like
#138

IAFire, doesn’t DOD Fire work a 72 hour week? I think they used to, unless it changed.

2 Likes
#139

Assuming someone who started at 20 years old got perm. It’s counted in months. PERPA is the ROAD BLOCK. It will take massive litigation and negotiation to change. I had a phone call with CalPers 2 months ago and was told actually BU8 2.7% members can’t retire at 50 and draw, they actually have to wait to 52. But I fully agree, bring back 3%. Shoot even 2.7 at 50. But that seven years pretty much seals the deal on getting some quality years of life left before the occupational cancer facts wear down on you.

2 Likes
#140

Please excuse me if I’m taking this out of context, but it appears President Edwards gave KCRA an interview to discuss the agreement before giving any sort of details to the membership other than the generic “we got a deal but stand by for more” email that was sent last Friday morning?

If I’m wrong, what did I miss?

If I’m right, that seems to be either a poor choice of priorities or really bad optics.

Or am I completely off base?

3 Likes
#141

Assuming Department of Defense? DOD is FED. Above state laws governed by congress. State laws don’t apply.

2 Likes
#142