The county I previously mentioned was the first LG dept to get 3@50. By demonstrating cost of 3@50 vs cost of injuries for age 50+ it made sense. That hasn’t changed, just the politics and PR spin on the optics of 3@50.
I am told there is a huge back log in SCIF due to all the injury claims. Cmon bean counters, spool up your adding machines! Maybe 3@50 isn’t the magic number, but maybe 3@52 is.
They wouldn’t necessarily need to be perm by 20, as CALPERS calculates a year by increments of 1/10, so ever 10 months of service equals 1 year of CALPERS time. So with almost all seasonals working 9 months, they are getting 9/10th of a CALPERS year every fire season.
I don’t think we’ll have to wait until the PEPRA generation reaches 50+ for the realization that 2.7@57 isn’t the best long term solution.
For decades, hiring for most departments (both fire and law enforcement) was an extremely competitive process. Today, the same departments are begging people to apply and are recruiting from their neighbors to fill their ranks.
Whether that’s pure coincidence or an early indication of 2.7@57s effect on public safety remains to be seen. My hunch is that it’s more than mere coincidence. Time will tell.
IAFire said-
“CF is the only department on the ENTIRE country that works 72 hours straight.”
Maybe DOD fire doesn’t work continuous 72’s? 
While attending a Southern California Foresters and Fire Wardens conference, Gordon Graham, a risk management expert, did a risk analysis of lengths of shifts.
Short story, he said any dept that has a more than 24 hour shift is nuts! This due to being up all night gives worse driving skills than .08 alcohol level. Any accidents after 1st 24 has huge liability problems. I think we don’t see many huge payouts because most personal injury attys don’t even think of that angle.
Now, due to staffing shortages, how many days in a row do you work on a busy A ride?
My apologies, I should have been more specific. CAL FIRE is the only state, county or municipal department in the entire country that works a 72 hour shift. DoD is federal and the feds can do what ever they want.
Cal fire is definitely not the lowest paid fire department in the state. Not even close. As far as decompressing from a busy, wild shift, it’s part of the job. Firefighters should know going into this career that they are going to see the worst of the worst. Be ready for it when you sign up.
Circling back to the topic that brought us here in the first place, here’s one way of looking at it…
We can take the deal as presented, in which case, we would get 2.5% now and 2% in January and again in July 2023 (for a total of 6.6% compounded) along with a chance at a 66 hour work week in a couple years and a couple other nickels and dimes that are great, but essentially boil down to feel good measures…
…or we reject the deal and go back to the negotiating table having sent the message that the membership feels the current offer does not adequately address the long-term issues that plague the department and the membership.
There will be those that say if we reject the offer, we could end up with a worse offer than we have now.
To me, is that possible? Sure. Anything is possible, but look at it this way…
The LAO report clearly points out that there is a high possibility that the state will face fiscal uncertainty that is sufficient enough to trigger the escape clause for postponing or modifying the 66 hour transition, so, to me, this agreement’s 66 hour terms amount to no more than an empty promise of a 66 hour week that the state will likely sidestep.
So, to me, the likelihood of a 66 hour week actually happening in November 2024 isn’t much better than a coin flip.
What about the 6.6% GSI over the next 12 months? Well, guess what? Minimum wage goes to $15.50 January 1, 2023. That’s 3.3% the state HAS TO give us, whether we take this deal or not.
Further, even if inflation were to moderate to more historically typical levels today, we’re still on track for another 50 cent minimum wage increase January 1, 2024. That’s another 3.2% before this agreement would expire June 30, 2024, for a total of…wait for it…6.6% compounded.
That’s 6.6% we’d get by January 2024 even if we reject the offer.
Hold on a second…is that the same 6.6% compounded that the Tentative Agreement offers? Yup. Interesting how the numbers work out.
To be fair, if we accept the current TA, we would get the 6.6% six months sooner than if we reject the current terms and are not able to renegotiate a new agreement within the next 12 months.
However, by accepting the current deal, we would be guaranteeing that CAL FIRE will remain a minimum wage fire department for at least two more years.
Personally, after patiently waiting decades for a schedule and compensation that is similar to the neighboring departments I fight fire alongside every day, I think I’m willing to risk having to wait a few extra months for a meager raise driven by minimum wage in order to have the opportunity to go back to the negotiating table to hammer out a new agreement that truly addresses the long-term needs of not only this department, but, most importantly, the needs of the membership.
I really wish 2881 would have distributed the details of this TA from the beginning so we could understand their reasoning and thought process because I really hope there’s something I’m missing or not understanding about this deal.
I really do want to like this deal, but the rational side of me is having a hard time with that right now.
So, I’m curious what all-risk fire department(s) in California pay their entry level firefighters less than minimum wage or is there another metric you’re using to determine the lowest paid?
If you’re using annual salary, you have to remember that anyone making minimum wage that works 72+ hours a week plus significant overtime would make that much. Hour for hour is the only true comparison in my mind.
A lot of times they’ll look at total compensation for comparison: wages + benefits. When that +benefits gets added in, it can tip the scales pretty hard. Problem is when you can’t afford to live on the wages. Or pick your favorite retail store is paying 20+/hr with benefits, trying to recruit is challenging.
It’s easily discovered with minimal research my friend.
Back in the day, the person left at the station was the /#…so if you left the station with let’s say 4 or 5 (yes there was room for 6 on the model 1/5’s) and left a guy at the station (cook, lookout, prevention) that was the #/1… it let the ecc know that there was someone at the station answering the crank phone.
I will add to your statement.
It is NOT just CALFIRE that had its retirement formula changed. Many agencies had it changed. PERS could not stay viable with the 3 at 50 formula, especially with this social and economic environment.
I think the 3 at 50 ship sailed for most public service agencies.
Another thing to keep in mind is that before PEPRA, a number of civil service classifications had qualified themselves for 3@50 by making the argument that their duties somehow fell under the definition of “public safety”.
I seem to remember a Sac Bee or USA Today article at the time that had a huge list of classifications with 3@50. Many of which I didn’t feel had the same physical or mental stresses that fire, law enforcement, and corrections personnel face.
DMV drive test examiners and meat inspectors are two that come to mind that had the public safety 3@50 that I thought were interesting to include.
In my mind, it was the thousands upon thousands of people getting 3@50 in addition to the fire, law enforcement, and corrections classifications for which 3@50 was originally intended that rapidly increased government’s retirement costs and finally finally broke the bank and fueled the movement toward PEPRA.
I think the easiest way to clean up the list of qualifying classifications and circumvent collective bargaining was to take 3@50 from everyone.
Well you see, therein lies the reason we have been held hostage by the Schedule A contracts. In the large scheme of things, for the most part, CALPERS is minimally funded as is and no one is making up the shortage. CALPERS currently has an unfinished pension liability of $1.5 TRILLION!
Back to your points, what does it matter to me and my family that some city manager needs to balance a budget off the backs of L2881 members?
I work for the State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. So again, that does it matter to me that some municipal budget is balanced, and the only reason it’s balance is because CAL FIRE employees personally subsidize cheap fire protection for the schedule A contracts.
How do we pay for wages, benefits, health, welfare & retirement for employees of the wealthiest state in the nation, which has the fifth largest economy in the world. Which also currently happens to have over $100 billion in surplus. Hmm… how could we possible pay for such things as public safely. Maybe have a few less social welfare programs and pay your firefighters adequately before you don’t have any firefighters left. What does it matter if the politicians feel good inside about their rainbows and butterflies, if no one shows up when you call 911?
This contract is not a huge win, this contract barely scratches the surface of beginning to solve the issues, the issues which has been front and center in the media. This is barely a carrot the state is throwing us so that we shut up and stop being stop featured in CalMatters articles. The first only way we will actually get what we deserve so to stand up to the state and tell the Union this contract is not adequate. At convention, the marching orders were clear, 56 hour works week. The fact that the union conceded to anything less, should be unacceptable to the membership. 66 hour workweek weren’t the marching orders, 56 hour workweek was. We need to make sure the state and the union hear loud and clear that we are done accepting the scraps and feel good provisions in this contract.
We are in agreement 90%. How do we get there is the question. A 56hr work week would require approx 800 additional positions in the 02350 & 03050 classification that require COA. The current budget has over 250 new FC and over 600 through 2026. We are closer than I believe everyone thinks. Now what do you do with the contracts? How hard of a line do you take when a contract comes up for renewal?
If you look back at the 2019 & 2021 strategic plans, you will see a sharp increase in perm staffing. Are we there yet, NOT EVEN CLOSE. But just like Rome wasn’t built in a day, new equipment, training centers(Infrastructure) won’t appear overnight either.
I agree 100% about the politics of Sacramento and where public safety rates and where it should rate. But the recall failed, inflation has risen to double digits in less than 24mo and the cost of EVERYTHING has gone up more than what’s in this proposal. There is a reason it’s only a 2yr agreement and it ends in June of 2024. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the motivation. Personally, a 66hr work week beginning 11/1/24 should be a starting point with a 56hr work week by 2026. That’s 4yr out and allows for existing contracts to be renewed with higher staffing or those employees can fill other vacancies in the aforementioned PCA codes.
Well there is a very simple way of getting there, it won’t be popular with many, but it’s the easiest path to a 56.
Schedule B goes to a 56 hour work week and Schedule A stays at whatever the contract the employee works in calls for.
Then when Schedule A contracts come up for renewal we take a very hard line, renew the contract at 3.11 or find a different service provider. Plain and simple. What are their options? 1) Stay with CAL FIRE and staff the contract adequately. 2) Start their own department, which would have to be on a 56 and the municipality would be responsible for unfunded liabilities such as pensions, injuries and administrative functions the state currently provides. 3) Contract with another fire department that already works a 56 and probably gets paid more than CAL FIRE.
I understand that it will take time to get people on the floor, but to say it’s gunna be an issue to hire all these people so let’s just no do it, is unacceptable.
If we do not stand our ground with the state on these issues, nothing will ever change and all this talk about health and wellness is just lip service. It’s time to tell the state, no we will not take your scraps anymore. Because if the Union doesn’t stand up and say no more, employees will do it on their own by finding a new place to work, which is already happening at an unsustainable rate.
I agree 100% with the taking a hard line on the Sch A side. However if we switched to a 56 on the B side without the personal in place. The force hire issues from the A also hit the B side and resulting problems.
A better plan would be to phase the 02350/03050 side in over several years.
Keep in mind, there is still the MASSIVE unbalanced positions in the FC / FAE Ranks due to the 03050 CDCR crews not having FAE’s. By massive approx 1800 FC positions exist in those 2 PCA’s where the FAE’S are approx 1200.
Not solving that problem only compounds the training and staffing issue’s not solving them.