April 26, 2010
Update on Issues Concerning Supervisor Members
Dear Supervisory Member,
First off thank you for the e-mail responses to my last memorandum. Some were quite informative, and some were shall we say less than flattering. But that’s okay, when I woke up this morning this is still the United States of America and many fine individuals have given, and continue to give, their lives so that you can share your point of view. I don’t have to agree with you or you with me. But the issues are important. Sometimes you have to lance a wound to make it heal. I plan on opening a few of those wounds to do just that.
That being said, currently all e-mails are sent out through the CCPOA statewide secretary to ensure your personal e-mails are protected etc. Therefore when you simply reply the reply goes to Perry Speth and he forwards them to me. If you would like to communicate directly please take the time to insert my e-mail address into the response before you send it. This is the only way to ensure I receive it and you receive an answer. Again my address is kevin.raymond@ccpoa.org.
Moving on to a couple of the questions I received through those responses.
Regarding furloughs, lovely furloughs. All right so it’s June 30, 2010 and the furloughs have ended. Now what? This is the sixty-four thousand dollar question. Will the administration choose to go with straight pay cuts, which will have a long term effect on your hourly wage, leave credit buy out and retirement itself? Will the legislature go along with this to reach a budget deal? Or will the Governor play the minimum wage card as he has threatened to do?
Honestly at this point no one really knows. The May Revise when released in a couple of weeks should give a real good indication on what direction they will choose to go. I don’t have a crystal ball - but I don’t see it being pretty. Billions of dollars still need to be cut from the budget and state workers seem to have a large target on their backs.
There are problems with the implementation of minimum wage, but that doesn’t mean the administration won’t try it and wait for a court decision as they have done with almost every other issue. Our furlough case is before the court and has been for a while now. The Judge can rule at any point he wishes. All parties have filed all motions. If we are successful there is one last avenue for appeal for the state – The California Supreme Court. You will receive an update regarding any of these items as they become available.
The pay parity lawsuit is another issue that comes to mind. Below is the end of the court decision concerning this issue.
“Finally, turning to the facts on hand, CCPOA has failed to establish any violation of section 19849.18. CCPOA has presented no evidence to suggest that DPA has maintained an inadequate pay differential, ignored a serious compaction problem, or allowed the rank-and-file members to receive greater salary or benefits than their correctional supervisors. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the contrary. DPA properly concluded that the supervisors had received other benefits above and beyond those granted to the rank and file members such as a substantially higher medical contribution rate ($1097/month, as compared to $859/month). In light of the fact that supervisors enjoyed an 11.45 percent compensation differential, DPA acted reasonably in only granting a 3.125 percent base pay increase. Under these circumstances, section 19849.18 does not compel DPA to effectuate additional salary and benefits increases.”
As you can see there are different ways of interpreting pay and benefits. The state goes with whatever suits them at the time. When it came to comparing the 2001-2006 Unit 6 Law Enforcement Methodology MOU language and the benefits provided to Unit 5 (CHP) certain benefits were conveniently left out, hence the ruling in Pay Arb I in the first place. As you can see in the above ruling the difference in medical payment is one of the issues the state lays back on. In the original answer to this issue DPA also noted Sergeants & Lieutenants get more paid into PERS on their behalf than Officers. This as far as they are concerned is an increase in a benefit.
The language within 19849.18 is the problem as it states “at least generally equivalent.” This is what I’ve been harping on all along. The language is weak and open to interpretation. As you know Unit 5 has government code which ties them to 5 local agencies. Are you aware that Unit 6 also has government code language? The problem with ours is it states the state should consider other large statewide law enforcement agencies (CHP) when setting salaries. Again, weak language and open to interpretation. Basically the answer is “I considered it and no you can’t have it.”
This is why we must strive to include supervisors in the collective bargaining process. These issues need to be addressed in a forum (MOU), which is not open to the same interpretation or at least enforceable.
Lastly, if you are still with me, I need to go back to the coming seven months. This is an issue I will continue to pound on. We have been at odds with this administration for the last six years; we’ve been something less for the last four years. The Governor is gone in January and a new day will dawn that much is certain. What that new day brings is totally up to us. This is an election year for the Legislature and the Governors Office - we can make an impact. We can be that lone voice in the wilderness or we can rise up as 30,000 voices multiplied by our families, extended families, friends and acquaintances. We have the ability to send the message. It is up to us, we control our own destiny.
Kevin Raymond
CCPOA Interim Supervisory Vice President
