Bargaining Unit 6
April 30, 2009
Budget crisis leaves union contracts in limbo
Against the backdrop of a faltering economy and a budget still in crisis, the Schwarzenegger administration continues to negotiate contracts with nearly nine public employee unions.
The biggest union—the Service Employees International Union Local 1000, representing about half of the state's 190,000 unionized workers—started negotiating their deal last year, when the economy was bad, but not as bad as now. SEIU 1000 won numerous concessions around worker furloughs and other issues.
Now some unions are rumored to want a deal that's as good, while others say the SEIU 1000 deal wasn't good enough. Meanwhile, the bill needed to ratify that contract, AB 964, is widely rumored to not have the Republican votes needed to get to the governor's desk…
LINK - CapitolWeekly.net
April 22, 2009
Newly Created Fire Chapter Election Information
On April 18th, the CCPOA State Board of Directors met, voted on and passed a proposal to create a new chapter of CCPOA to represent Unit 6 Fire Officers. This chapter shall represent all dues paying Fire Captains and Fire Chiefs...
April 3, 2008
Letter to the Editor: DPA discusses bargaining with CCPOA
The following is a "letter to the editor" submitted to Capitol Weekly by Julie Chapman, Deputy Director of DPA:
Your report (Capitol Weekly, March 27) describing attempts by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association to "force the state back to the bargaining table" conveys an impression that this administration has refused to bargain with CCPOA. In fact, we've been open to negotiating a new contract…
LINK - CapitolWeekly.net
March 27, 2008
Prison guards union seeks court action
California's prison guards union, which has been without a labor contract for 21 months, is going to court to force the state back to the bargaining table. The unusual legal maneuvering is an end-run around the Public Employment Relations Board, which earlier rejected an attempt by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association to get the state to resume negotiations. But the 30,500-member CCPOA said PERB's denial paved the way for the prison officers to seek other legal remedies, including a Superior Court suit. The geographic region of the suit has not yet been determined.
The state Department of Personnel Administration, which represents the governor in negotiating collective bargaining agreements with state employee unions, made its final offer to the union in September 2007 and does not plan to resume talks…
LINK - CapitolWeekly.net (Capitol Weekly)
February 25, 2008
President’s Message: 2-25-08 Update
Last week, CCPOA received a letter from DPA (Dave Gilb) dated February 15, 2008, in which he continues to deny any culpability for the status of labor relations between CCPOA and CDCR.
He tries to be clever in asserting "facts" that only show that he either:(I) has no knowledge whatsoever of his department's failed attempts to negotiate with CCPOA; or more likely that (2) he simply has no concept of words like truth, honesty, or good faith negotiations. He does make it abundantly clear however, that he doesn't believe he will ever be called to answer for his dealings with CCPOA. I won't use this forum, or my time to address all the false statements, but will respond to some of the more critical issues raised in his letter.
Make no mistake, it is Mr. Gilb and his Department that have placed the people of California in harm's way, if that is where we all collectively stand at this moment. His continuing efforts to evade any public review of the facts surrounding the negotiations between the State and CCPOA force the elevation of consequences. It is painfully obvious that they have no understanding of the resolve of this union, its leadership, or the members that we represent. Our position could not be any clearer.
When each and every CCPOA member puts on a badge, we swear an oath to the people of California to voluntarily give our lives to protect the life of a citizen, a coworker, and every inmate, no matter what crime he or she committed.
What would give them the impression that we would allow them to steal the past twenty years of effort by this member run union, without engaging them with every ounce of strength we can muster and every penny we can beg or borrow? How do they presume that we fear their threats more than serious injury or death?
Their threats of retaliatory or punitive actions will have no effect on our future decisions. Managers like that already make such threats every day to Unit 6 members working on the line. We are used to this type of behavior. A threat to hold CCPOA responsible for any job action we undertake means nothing, insofar as they are already seeking an author for legislation to destroy CCPOA and our members' rights under the Dills Act. The inference that CDCR or DPA will terminate our employment, or have us imprisoned, only strengthens our resolve to move forward with a vote.
The claim that a law or statute exists that specifically prohibits CCPOA and its members from engaging in a labor action that may include a strike is just plain false. There is case law that may favor that position, but the statement "we both know that a strike is unlawful" is further evidence of their chronic inability to tell the truth.
As we have previously stated, it's evident that the State knows the five members of the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) are all Governor Schwarzenegger appointees. Such people are not likely to fairly adjudicate CCPOA's complaints. The deck has been stacked against us in the very forum where we would normally take labor management disputes. At a minimum, this forum (PERB) will take years to hear our issues if their current "speed" is any indication.
However, the probability of our success is not the prevailing factor in determining whether or not to take on this fight at PERB or in any other forum. Mr. Gilb and his sycophants' tactics require us to respond with unconventional methods when fundamental rights are under attack. Under no circumstance will CCPOA stand idly by and allow them to take away our right to collectively bargain. The legislation devised to implement their self-proclaimed "last, best and final offer" does precisely that and you, as members need to know that. The legislation strips the protections of the Dills Act from the members of Unit 6 and this Administration would have it done quietly and without the knowledge of our members and the people of California. We cannot permit that to occur.
CCPOA does not seek a job action of any kind. A job action appears to be the one ofthe few options still available, as the DP A and CDCR have systematically attempted to eliminate all other forums and methods available to us. We cannot let them take the rights of our members without fighting them every way we can.
Their actions allow no forum, and therefore no other options!
In the attached letter responding to Gilb's February 15 letter, we did challenge Mr. Gilb to what amounts to a "lie detector" test. We challenged him to agree to voluntarily appear before a committee of the whole of the Legislature to answer questions while under oath about the acts, by him, or his underlings on behalf of his department, while engaged in negotiations with CCPOA. We committed to make ourselves part of that same "hearing" in order for the public and the Legislature to hear the truth. CCPOA has no fear of the truth being revealed. [CCPOA response letter to DPA]
Unfortunately, Mr. Gilb and I both know that if such a hearing occurs, this Administrations behavior will not withstand the scrutiny. DP A and this Administration have never engaged in good faith negotiations with CCPOA. They never intended to get a MOU with CCPOA, and from the start they intended to destroy the rights of Unit 6 members. The truth will reveal this simple fact, which is the reason they have so diligently avoided bringing their tactics into the light of a public forum. It is time to bring all the facts into the open.
In my February 7 letter, I stated that their immediate return to good faith negotiation provided one path to avoid drastic action by CCPOA. They of course refused to take this path. In an effort to do everything possible to avoid job action, and because they will not negotiate fairly with CCPOA, what we are seeking, at this point, is a chance to show their conduct to the public in the fair and open forum described above. Rest assured Mr. Gilb, that we shall not stop until you are required to defend the deplorable tactics you have utilized during negotiations with CCPOA, while under oath, in a forum that is immune to the influence of you or this Administration.
Mike Jimenez, President
Documents:
Gilb's February 15 letter
CCPOA response letter to DPA - February 22
February 7, 2008
MOU Letter “Labor Management Relations in Bargaining Unit 6”
Dear Mr. Gilb:
Since the implementation of the last, best and final offer (LBFO) began on September 18, 2007, labor relations in Bargaining Unit 6 could fairly be describes as abysmal. Management has begun to unilaterally force new post and bid systems .......
January 1, 2008
President’s Message: “It’s a LIE!”
Dear Member:
It is with great sadness that we must inform you of the latest Administration LIE regarding our expired contract. If you haven't already seen the December 14, 2007, memo from the Department of Personnel Administration addressed to all Unit 6 employees, you soon will as the Department was ordered to disseminate it immediately. This memo, signed by D. Gilb and J. Tilton, would result in dishonesty charges and an allegation of "code of silence" if it were a report written by anyone of us.
IT's A LIE
If you read the two bullet points that are made by Secretary Tilton and Director Gilb, they would have you believe that the state has legal problems with " three years of it economic offer." Therein lays the LIE.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued a complaint dated December 7, 2007, that is attached to this letter. In reading the complaint, at numeral 5 you will note the specific charge which Tilton and Gilb are lying about. It reads: by implementing terms and conditions for a three year duration, Respondent acted contrary to the provisions of Government Code sections 3517 and 3517.8, and thus violated Government Code sections 3519(c). No mention was made whatsoever about this charge being limited to "economic " issues or "offers" as Tilton and Gilb write. In fact, "terms and conditions" encompasses everything associated with a contract, not just the economic issues. This charge means that the State violated the law by imposing any and all of its last offer for more than the time allowed.
Included below are the specific code sections referenced in the PERB charge:
3517. The Governor, or his representative as may be properly designated by law, shall meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations, and shall consider fully such presentations as are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action.
"Meet and confer in good faith" means that the Governor or such representatives as the Governor may designate, and representatives of recognized employee organizations, shall have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to the adoption by the state of its final budget for the ensuing year. The process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses.
3517.8. (a) If a memorandum of understanding has expired, and the Governor and the recognized employee organization have not agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have not reached an impasse in negotiations, subject to subdivision (b), the parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the provisions of the expired memorandum of understanding, including, but not limited to, all provisions that supersede existing law, any arbitration provisions, any no strike provisions, any agreements regarding matters covered in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 201) of Title 29 of the United States Code), and any provisions covering fair share fee deduction consistent with Section 3515.7.
(b) If the Governor and the recognized employee organization reach an impasse in negotiations for a new memorandum of understanding, the state employer may implement any or all of its last, best, and final offer. Any proposal in the state employer's last, best, and final offer that, if implemented, would conflict with existing statutes or require the expenditure of funds shall be presented to the Legislature for approval and, if approved, shall be controlling without further legislative action, notwithstanding Sections 3517.5, 3517.6, and 3517.7.. Implementation of the last, best, and final offer does not relieve the parties of the obligation to bargain in good faith and reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding if any circumstances change, and does not waive any rights that the recognized employee organization has under this chapter.
3519.5. It shall be unlawful for an employee organization to:
(a) Cause or attempt to cause the state to violate Section 3519.
(b) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter.
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith with a state agency employer of any of the employees of which it is the recognized employee organization.
(d) Refuse to participate in good faith in the mediation procedure set forth in Section 3518.
As you can read in the code sections, Gilb and Tilton left out the portion regarding the PERB complaint as related to "terms and conditions" and made a point of rescinding the "economic" portion of the offer. This is nothing new from this Administration, remember the last contract and the concessions we made? This alone should convince you that there was never any intention on this Administration's part to reach a fair contract with us. We were never offered anything less than a three year all or nothing deal specifically in writing to us from DPA "a rejection of any part of a package proposal constitutes a rejection of the entire package proposal" (attached memo from DPA dated September 12, 2007), and now they claim that the economic portion has to be withdrawn due to a complaint initiated by CCPOA.
In closing their memo of lies, Tilton and Gilb write that the "complaint does not affect any of the other changes to policies or procedures cited in our September 18, 2007, correspondence. Therefore, the changes to various provisions, which include, but are not limited to, the grievance procedure, employee requested transfers, sick leave, and post and bid procedures will continue consistent with the State's implementation."
In other words, they are just going to take away the promised monies and go forward on taking away non economic items from the contract. They fail to tell you that they are taking away post and bid from the Youth Authority, or that the sick leave they are proposing is a standard that is less than current State law (which is why they need Legislative approval). They fail to tell you that they are, at least under the language given to us, able to transfer you anywhere and anytime they deem it necessary, or tell you that they can deny you State representation if you are sued by an inmate for doing your job. They leave out the change to the employee grievance process and don't mention the entire deletion of the section dealing with parole agent workload, and a host of other issues too numerous to point out here. However, they are trying real hard to get you to believe that if we don't get the promised monies from this year, it won't be their fault; after all they still claim to "hope" to reach a new agreement with CCPOA.
You can read the entire PERB complaint, (attached) and judge for yourself. We will file an official rebuttal with PERB and request that this charge be upheld and continue forward, as the State has NOT resolved this case by retaliating against us in rescinding only the monetary portion of the last best and final offer. It's quite ironic that the LAST, best and FINAL offer has changed multiple times since being issued, (DPA letter of September 12, 2007, is just one example) and that is exactly what happened at the negotiations table, which made it impossible to reach agreement.
- Mike Jimenez
Download the .pdf versions of these supporting documents:December 14, 2007
DPA Letter to EEs - Dated 12.14.07
SUBJECT: Status of Implemented Terms
In correspondence to you dated September 18, 2007, we informed you of our intention to implement certain terms and conditions of employment following the rejection of our final offer by CCPOA. In that correspondence we, informed you of our intention to implement all three years of the economics contained in that offer.
December 14, 2007
CCPOA Memo re: DPA Letter - Dated 12.14.07
State Board,
Yesterday, December 13,2007, we sent you a copy of the Department of Personnel Administration's (DPA) initial response letter to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). In this letter, DPA has withdrawn the second and third year "economic proposals" of its (State's) implemented package. The significance ofthis is quite obvious in that, as we predicted long ago, this Administration never intended to honor any multiyear year package including any pay increase to Unit 6. Also, with the current budget problems created by this Administration, it remains to be seen whether the pay promised to Unit 6 for this year will happen.
In reading the letter further, you will note that the State "agrees" with CCPOA's complaint regarding the "omission" of the vice presidents' leave (VPL) in the last best and final. As a result, this section ofthe LBF will presumably be honored by the State. That remains to be seen.
December 13, 2007
DPA Letter - Dated 12.13.07
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California, et al.
UPC No. SA-CE-1621-S
Request for Dismissal
Dear Mr. Smith:
The California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA), in its Second Amended Unfair Practice Charge, alleged that the State engaged in a number of unfair practices. On December 7,2007, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) agreed with CCPOA on two matters and issued a complaint against the State of California (State). (See, separate PERB letters, dated December 7,2007, Notice of Complaint and Partial Dismissal.)
December 13, 2007
DPA Letter - Dated 12.13.07
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California, et al.
UPC No. SA-CE-1621-S
Request for Dismissal
Dear Mr. Smith:
The California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA), in its Second Amended Unfair Practice Charge, alleged that the State engaged in a number of unfair practices. On December 7,2007, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) agreed with CCPOA on two matters and issued a complaint against the State of California (State). (See, separate PERB letters, dated December 7,2007, Notice of Complaint and Partial Dismissal.)
December 7, 2007
CCPOA vs. PERB - Official Complaint
It having been charged by Charging Party that Respondent engaged in unfair practices in violation of California Government Code section 3519, the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), pursuant to California Government Code sections 3513(h), 3514.5 and 3541.3(i) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32640, issues this COMPLAINT on behalf of PERB and alleges:
December 7, 2007
PERB Partial Dismissal - Dated 12.07.07
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1621-S (Second Amended Charge)
PARTIAL DISMISSAL
Dear Mr. Adam:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed on September 25,2007, and amended on October 2,2007. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) alleges that the State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (State or DPA) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)...
December 7, 2007
PERB Complaint - Dated 12.07.07
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1621-S
Dear Parties:
The Office of the General Counsel has issued the enclosed COMPLAINT in the above-entitled matter. The Respondent is required to file an ANSWER within 20 calendar days from the date of service of the COMPLAINT, pursuant to PERB Regulation 32644. The required contents of the ANSWER are described in Regulation 32644(b). If you have not filed a Notice of Appearance form, one should be completed and returned with your ANSWER.
November 16, 2007
CCPOA Update on “Fair Share” Status
This is an update on the recent action the Department of Personnel took toward "Fair Share" status.
As of November 1, 2007, there is no Fair Share category. Former Fair Share participants have been removed from:
- CCPOA Primary Dental
- Western Dental
- CCPOA Vision (with $120 frame allowance and 2nd pair)
- $20,000 Life insurance
- $5,000 Accidental Death
- Basic CCPOA Legal Defense Fund
- Basic Family Legal Plan (Caldwell USA)
If you have a BU6 non-member who would like to regain these benefits, he or she needs to immediately take action.
Steps to becoming a full dues paying member and reinstating CCPOA benefits with no lapse in coverage:
1. Fill out a union application. Mail a check for $159.74 (two [2] month's dues) with the union application to the CCPOA. You can download an application at member-app.pdf.
2. Go to personnel before November 30th with your union application and fill out dental form (STD 692) and vision form (STD 700) to re-enroll in the CCPOA dental and vision plans.
3. Keep a photocopy of all paperwork you turn into personnel. You will need to immediately fax all three applications to the Trust at 916-779-6355 to avoid a break in coverage.
Personnel has been instructed by the DPA to retroactively enroll newly-applying CCPOA members as of November 1, 2007, CCPOA dental and vision coverage. Those newly applying will NOT need to make retroactive payments for dental or vision as previously reported. The Trust will reinstate the applying member to 11/1/07 for dental, vision, life insurance and legal programs.
We will update you with dental and vision benefit information for non-members as soon as these benefit schedules can be determined. We do know that for those who are non-members, there is a significant loss in benefits, especially legal, life insurance and vision coverage.
For assistance with dental or vision questions or in the event of a dental emergency, please have the newly applying member call the Trust at 1-800-IN-UNIT-6.
Heidi Smith
Communications Director
CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund
Direct: (916) 779-6349
Fax: (916) 779-6357
October 18, 2007
President’s Message: PERB Denies Relief Request
This afternoon CCPOA received notification from the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that our request for PERB to file an injunction to halt the implementation of the State's last, best, and final offer was "denied without prejudice." The one sentence response further states that the PERB did not believe that sufficient grounds exist to warrant the filing for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA).
This comes as no surprise to CCPOA. We knew the threshold of "irreparable harm" was difficult to establish in this circumstance and anticipated this response. However, we were expecting a response that gave much more substantial information about the rationale of the Board in reaching their decision and also some indication of the course of action for addressing the merits of the Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges CCPOA filed. Neither were included, nor offered verbally upon contact with the Board. Upon reading the following document, please take note of the three Board members (listed at the bottom) who were responsible for rendering this decision. Their bios, taken directly from the PERB web page are included as well.
Notice that all three are appointees of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and two of them have less than sixty days on the Board. Please also take note of the positions that each recently held before their appointment. It should help explain the brevity and rationale of the decision.
We will now have to wait for a hearing date to be set in front of PERB to address the merits, both individually and collectively, of the ULP that CCPOA filed against DPA. The law has specific requirements that need to be met when adjudicating the ULP and we are optimistic that future decisions, which will receive more public scrutiny, will be based on the spirit and intent of law and include acknowledgement of our legitimate complaint. Just remember, this is not a sprint, it's going to be a marathon. We still have a very, very long way to go before we win. PERB's decision was anticipated by us and does not equate to a setback.
As our past experiences have taught us, this Administration is more than willing to deal from the bottom of the deck whenever necessary to win. If money is on the table, we must also look for marked cards. Thus far, the impasse process has been an extension of the tactics and treatment shown by the Governor's representatives at the negotiating table.
We all have extensive experience with clever people who possess quick hands and occasionally, a good line of BS. Perhaps in the future the Administration will stop trying to be "clever" and really attempt to solve the understaffing and overcrowding crisis, be quick to extend a hand when help is needed, and keep the BS for fertilizer and use it to save the environment. At some point, hopefully, this Administration will realize that the attempts at distraction and deception only add to the ongoing disrespect they have shown the men and women who continue to work "the Toughest Beat in the State." We know in our hearts that Correctional Peace Officers are not second-class peace officers in any manner whatsoever. We know, and the citizens of California know, that the job we do is equal in stature to, and importance of, any other law enforcement agency in the nation. We protect the same children, schools, hospitals, bridges, government, society and way of life from those who would cause harm, like all the men and women who don a badge every day. None of us is expendable. Our friends, our families, our children, and the people we protect and serve need us to return home every day in the same condition we were in when we reported for duty. It's time this administration acknowledges what the citizens of California already know – we provide a vital service to the state. And we know, that despite what the Governor and his newspapers say, this conflict is not about money, it's not about power and it's not about control. IT'S ABOUT RESPECT! It's about this Administration continually blaming every failure of the system they created on the men and women who spend their lives on the line; for far too many hours, 24-7-365. It's about being honest; working hard and being able to provide for and take care of those we love. It's about spending time with our children and providing them more choices and opportunities than our generation enjoys.
None of our lives, hopes, dreams or memories is for sale. Nor are those that belong to our families. They are priceless. If something cannot be bought, it damn sure won't be taken, NOT ON MY WATCH, NOT WITHOUT A FIGHT!!! Be safe, stand tall, and stand together.
Mike Jimenez CCPOA State President
Injunctive Relief Request (.pdf Adobe Acrobat format)
PANEL MEMBERS FOR CCPOA v. DPA-Injunctive relief
(Emphasis added)
Sally M. McKeag:
On February 23, 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reappointed Sally M. McKeag to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). She has served in this capacity since March 2005. Having previously served as Chief Deputy Director of the California Employment Development Department from 2004 to 2005 and as deputy staff director for the Office of Governor-Elect Schwarzenegger from 2003 to 2004, she will continue her public service in the Schwarzenegger Administration as a Member of PERB. Her term ends on December 31, 2011. Sally returned to California after two years in Washington, D.C., working for the U.S. Department of Labor. Specifically, she was recruited to serve as Chief of Staff to the Employment and Training Administration Assistant Secretary. Prior to her employment at the Department of Labor, Sally served in a variety of capacities for the California State Senate and Governor Pete Wilson. Specifically, she served as Director of Public Affairs for the Senate Republican Caucus. Under Governor Wilson, she served as Deputy Director of Operations for the Department of Consumer Affairs, Acting Deputy Director of the Department of Fish and Game, and Director of Constituent Affairs.
Before coming to California to work for Governor Wilson, Sally served in the Reagan and Bush Administrations in Washington, D.C. She was the Director of the Executive Secretariat at the Environmental Protection Agency. She also served as Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior.
Karen Neuwald:
KAREN L. NEUWALD has enjoyed a 25-year career in state government service. Karen was appointed to the Public Employment Relations Board in July 2005, and was designated the Chair in August 2007. Prior to her appointment to the Board, she was the Chief of Governmental Affairs for the California Public Employees' Retirement System for two years. From November 1996 to July 2003, she served as the Assistant Director for Legislation, running the legislative program for the Department of General Services. For 11 years prior to DGS, Karen worked at the Department of Personnel Administration. She began her career at DPA working on policy and legal issues, and then spent six years directing DPA's legislative program. Karen had her entrée in state government in 1982 working as an analyst at the Legislative Analyst's Office. As a legislative analyst, she worked on budget matters related to employee compensation, collective bargaining, health care, and retirement issues. Karen is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas, where she received a master's degree in public affairs.
Tiffany Rystrom:
Since 2001, she has been of counsel with the law firm Carroll, Burdick & McDonough. From 1983 to 2000, Rystrom was a partner in the law firm Franchetti & Rystrom, previously known as Franchetti & Franchetti. Previously, she served as a deputy attorney general for the California Attorney General's Office from 1980 to 1983 and a deputy district attorney for the Marin County District Attorney's Office from 1978 to 1979. Rystrom is a member of the California State Bar.
October 11, 2007
Press Message 10-12-2007
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) Injunctive Relief Request No. 530
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1621-S
Dear Parties:
By direction of the Board, the request for injunctive relief in the above-entitled matter is denied without prejudice; sufficient grounds therefore not having been demonstrated.
September 12, 2007
Package Offer - Dated 09.12.07
The State of California (State) hereby makes the following last, best and final offer to CCPOA to settle and conclude negotiations over a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The State proposes a 3-year package offer which provides fiscal certainty for the State and guarantees specific and transparent pay increases to the members of Unit 6, the State's employees.
This offer is a formal offer and supersedes all others. This is a package offer which must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.
September 12, 2007
Letter from DPA - Dated 09.12.07
Dear Messrs. Adam, Jimenez, Weiss and Alexander:
On August 22, 2007, the State of California (State) provided a package offer to you. We received the California Peace Officer Associations (CCPOA's) rejection of this offer on September 5, 2007. Although we appreciate CCPOA's agreement to rollover language, CCPOA failed to address all of the sections identified on the summary sheet, and added other sections that were not a part of the respective sheet...
September 12, 2007
President’s Message: “Thank you Sir, may I please have another?”
By the time you have received, or perhaps had the time to read this message, you will have most likely heard that CCPOA has withdrawn from the mediation process. If you heard it from "the Boss", it was likely followed by "the State has once again made a generous financial offer and only requested modest language changes to the MOU."
You can make up your own mind about the "generosity" of the offer and the "modesty" of the language changes by reading the summary or the specific language of the State's all or nothing package proposal. A summary was provided to CCPOA by DPA and is available for review on the CCPOA website.
Or if you choose to do so, either before or after reading the State's package offer, you can read the following opinion from one person intimately engaged in all aspects of the negotiations process. As the Statewide President of CCPOA, my sole responsibility is to advocate on behalf of the members of Bargaining Unit 6. Therefore, I make no attempt to feign objectivity.
The following is an attempt at a brief and, admittedly, jaundiced review of the latest insult from the State to the men and women of CCPOA in the form of a piece of crap proposal.
We received the documents, approximately 350 pages, (I haven't counted) at CCPOA headquarters at about three o'clock on the afternoon of August 22, 2007. Ironically (note the sarcasm), we received calls from legislators and the media to comment on the proposal before it was delivered to CCPOA. This boorish tactic deserves to be trademarked by this administration.
This was approximately three hours after CCPOA notified the State mediator that we would no longer be participating in the mediation process. We withdrew from participation because we believe that the mediation process has been totally non-productive. Further meetings, absent good faith from the State, are meaningless as well. Our respective teams have only met face to face for ten minutes in the last four months.
The State team refused to sign a "sign in" sheet. They refused to identify the participants from their side. They (whomever they are) rejected, (through the mediator) without consideration, every proposal CCPOA brought forward. They refused to answer, or were non responsive, to questions about their proposals.
Are Future Meetings Meaningless?
Time has almost expired for moving an MOU through both houses of the Legislature before they adjourn on September 14th for the rest of the year. You may recall SB 621 by Senator Jackie Speier, signed into law by this Administration, that requires all MOUs to be in final format, with an analysis by the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), and in the Legislator's hands for 10 (ten) days before any vote can be taken. Clearly the State timed their offer to allow the minimum amount of review and debate by the legislature.
In reading through the State's package offer you may notice that most of the sections with financial implications are inapplicable unless, and more importantly UNTIL, ratified by both houses of the Legislature and the membership of CCPOA. But if you take a look at the *DPA fiscal analysis* the State provided to CCPOA (and presumably the Legislature and the Media), the dollars are inflated to make things appear as if the State is willing to retroactively apply funds back to July 1, 2007 no matter when the MOU is approved. If the raises don't "take effect" until the MOU is ratified, then they are by definition not retroactive to July 1, 2007. This is just one more example of the dishonesty we constantly encounter, the disrespect this Administration shows our profession, and the disdain the State has for its employees.
The mediation process might have worked if we were negotiating with an employer who had a modicum of interest in having an MOU with their employees. It could have been meaningful had the employer engaged the negotiation process in good faith and with an eye towards the enormous task of filling the almost 4,000 rank and file Correctional Peace Officer vacancies. But as you can plainly see, they have no plan to fill the vacancies. They do however want to charge us for recruiting 3650 cadets at $2000.00 for a cost of $7.3 million) *DPA Fiscal Analysis*
This Administration continues to gauge the character of the men and women in our profession by the managers they chose to run the agency and its respective departments. I do not include Secretary Tilton in this category on the belief that he will demand justice for his employees.
As they have stated time and time again, this Administration really does believe that all of us would forsake our profession and forget where we came from for a few pieces of silver to put in our pockets. They are convinced, and use the media to try and convince others, that we are nothing more than selfish, greedy, money-grubbing guards.
They are certain the only item of concern to us is money. After all, they exchanged raises of 27% to 49% for middle and upper managers for their silence about the problems plaguing our department like critical overcrowding and dangerous staff shortages. Have you ever wondered why the managers aren't all screaming bloody murder about the crisis conditions in every institution? If so, please ask to see copies of the memos they have sent up the food chain demanding better conditions for the staff to work and the inmates to live. Ask for the memos demanding more staff to carry out the stated mission of rehabilitation. Forward us a copy of any that you find please. Don't be disappointed to find that promises were made and gifts were exchanged (or perhaps purchases made). If those requests do exist, that also serves us well.
Be Still My Heart, the Generosity
The first two pages of the summary of the State's package offer prominently display the economics to be considered. It appears that the Administration believes that we are all dullards, or maybe just shallow, in addition to greedy and won't look beyond the first two pages. We did, nonetheless, lets look at the economics:
The State's package offer has a 15% guaranteed (emphasis not added) pay raise broken down in 5% increments beginning on July 1, 2007, with another 5% on July 1, 2008, and the final 5% on July 1 2009. The package offer also includes a $2000.00 bonus for every soul you can convince to join you in the quagmire, Increases in shift differentials($ .50 to $ .75 and $ .75 to $1.00 per hour) and weekend differentials of ( $ .65 to $ .90 and $ .90 to $1.25 per hour on 07-01-07 and 07-01-08 respectively), uniform allowance ($530 to $730 on 07-01-07 and $730 to $880 on 07-01-08), mileage and travel, health benefit contributions, and a $500 per month-(currently $175)- recruitment incentive for San Quentin, CTF and SVSP (backdated to 07-01-07). The package offer also includes an annual bonus of $2400 to be an additional economic incentive at SVSP, CTF, HDSP, and CCC (excluding camps) backdated to 07-01-07.
Can you feel the love? Can it be that we are finally recognized and financially rewarded for the job we do? The CHP has got to be green with envy.
Well NOT EXACTLY!
Almost everything the Administration is offering to us with start dates that are unknown or just behind us was GIVEN to the CAHP last year on July 1. In most instances the CAHP is GIVEN more, but all of them began last July, except health benefit increases which began in January. Another difference is the Recruitment bonus, which is a 40 hour increase in vacation for the CAHP vs. the $2000 for us. By taking more vacation, Patrol Officers may just live long enough to enjoy life on the money we contribute to PERS. Working all the forced overtime certainly doesn't increase our chances of spending it.
But we can still look at the bright side, with all that money we must be right on par with the CAHP in pay. That must really piss them off.
Well NOT EXACTLY!
You see, the CAHP was GIVEN an additional 3.5% on July 3, 2006 for what is called "donning and doffing." This "stipend" is given to every member of BU 5 in addition to their regular pay for performing duties like vehicle inspections and putting on safety equipment regardless of their duty assignment. The 3.5% is one of the key elements of the CCPOA pay arbitration #2 that is pending a decision. In order to get any of the package offer, DPA is demanding that CCPOA drop all pending economic grievances and accept the future raises as payment in full. This includes any consideration of back pay for shift and weekend differentials, health benefits, uniform, donning and doffing, and any other economic items they collaboratively hid in an effort to avoid extending the benefit to us. The potential value may be in the thousands to every member of CCPOA. But it isn't a certainty by any means. Clearly there is a downside to consider.
If Not in the Mouth, Where Should I Look at a Gift Horse?
All in all, things could be worse. At least the Administration only wants "modest" reforms. As long as everyone has to eat them in some fashion, I guess CCPOA can eat some too. Surely the compromises in working conditions were taken from the CAHP too.
Well NOT EXACTLY!
In the *LAO analysis* of the BU 5 MOU there is no indication of any takeaways from the CAHP. The bargaining notes that we acquired in Pay Arbitration #1 don't show any indication of takeaways either. By all appearances, DPA walked into negotiations with the CAHP with their checkbook in one hand and their pen in the other. The takeaways that are being demanded from BU 6 are exclusive to CCPOA and the CDCR. That should help explain the capitalization of the word GIVEN when referring to the CAHP MOU.
The takeaways are far too many and the significance varies far to much to cover them all in this message and still hope to remain brief. But I want to highlight a few big ones. Some of the takeaways that DPA is demanding strike at the heart of our collective bargaining history and are designed, in our opinion, to destroy the morale of staff in BU 6. We feel that ultimately CCPOA is the target. There is another pension initiative on the horizon and the Governor is still trying to define his legacy. At the moment, it looks like he will have the distinction of being the Governor who screwed up public safety so bad that crime and punishment became the number one and two issues on his watch.
We have exposed his failings in the past, and we may do so in the future. Maybe he is trying to pay us back, maybe he is trying to pay us forward. Regardless, he wants every element of our current MOU that provides BU 6 members with a voice or with a choice.
Your Voice
The language that DPA is demanding in Section 27.01 will eliminate all local agreements including, but not limited to overtime procedures, holiday procedures, vacation bid procedures, sick call procedures, swap policies, post and bid agreements, vacancy plans, staffing agreements, etc., etc., etc., and any/all local policies or procedures that currently require negotiations prior to implementation. Please read this language very carefully. It gives every Warden, Superintendent or Administrator the ability to change any policy, procedure, or practice at their whim and waives any existing rights for you or CCPOA to complain.
Those sections of the MOU that aren't eliminated by specific reference are emasculated by the elimination of the grievance process. Apparently DPA has become the spot that lazy people go about 20 years before they retire. They don't like to work. When a member of BU 6 files a grievance, it results in work for them. If a grievance goes to arbitration, oh my gosh, that requires several days of work, possibly all in a row. Their answer, make it so almost nothing remains grievable. If anything remains, make it so confusing it is impossible to follow. Then make the penalty a loss to the grievant for not following every detail of the process at each and every level. That should clear up the backlog of arbitrations. It should also improve DPA's win/loss ratio.
Your Choice
Their package offer also reduces Post and Bid in the Adult Division to nothing more than words. Management can redirect you at anytime for any reason they want. Through additional exclusion of posts going up for bid, management should be able to have every weekend post on every watch reserved for that special someone. That isn't that offensive. Besides, you couldn't grieve it anyway.
In the DJJ, DPA refuses to even leave the words Post and Bid in the agreement. According to DJJ management, the Farrell consent decree mandates the elimination of post and bid and instead allows only shift and RDO bid. We searched through all of the individual plans but were unable to find any such directive. But we can't imagine why the management team would lie about something like this.
The transfer freeze arbitration that was recently won by CCPOA would be replaced with language that is something to the effect of "If you aren't willing to quit over it, why would I let you transfer. Besides, you can't grieve it anyway."
The sick leave language that DPA is demanding is beneath state law and will once again allow management to write you up for being pregnant, having cancer, having a sick child, spouse or family member, or for just being a bit sickly or accident prone on your own. If you are PIE, you will not be able to use sick leave for any reason whatsoever. You no longer have a choice to be sick and keep your job. In any case if you don't like how you are treated, it's too bad, because you can't grieve it anyway.
In paroles there will no longer be any restrictions on management to assign workload as they see fit. No points, no automatic overtime, no restrictions on what hours you are scheduled to work, and if any of the prior statements are incorrect, it doesn't matter because you can't grieve it anyway.
One last item worth mentioning is the decertified and unlawful Joint Apprenticeship Program that CDCR continues to indenture cadets into. DPA is demanding we quit saying it is decertified or unlawful because they are going to reduce costs to the departments by taking money from the most needy of the employees. While no rationale was ever offered for the need to be dishonest with new employees, it must have something to do with the thought, "If they can make it through the academy with no insurance, and then live on wages that are unlawfully lowered to make the Boss look good, they might make someone a good C/O. If they can't make it, its too bad, because they can't grieve it anyway."
The End of the rainbow
Though a 15% pay raise over a three year period is attractive, according to Government code section 19827.1, the CAHP is one of the agencies we must remain competitive with in order to attract and retain the quantity and quality of peace officers needed in the CDCR. It is impossible to imagine how the CDCR plans on overcoming the monumental hurdle of hiring enough officers to fill the vacancies.
If and when the implementation of this package offer occurs, recruitment of new staff will be more difficult than ever and retention of the same will be impossible. For some unknown reason, this Administration believes that the more miserable they make our jobs, and as a byproduct our lives, the more apt they are to be able to beat us into submission.
Lets face it. When you look at the proposal that is on the table today there is one and only one theme, PUNISHMENT!
It isn't about the legitimate needs of management to manage. It isn't about changes that need to be made in order to accomplish reform. It isn't about complying with consent decrees or court decisions. It isn't about milestones to be met in order to implement Assembly Bill 900. And it isn't about making an agreement that is consistent with a long-term plan to fill vacancies throughout the Correctional Peace Officer Series.
IT IS ABOUT THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
It is about changing the language in the sick leave section so the Administration can say that even CCPOA recognizes that all of its members are abusing sick leave. It is about changing post and bid so the administration can tell the Federal judges that with the recent changes to the MOU they should be able to manage the workforce better. It is about giving every warden and superintendent the ability to change local policies and/or procedures without consequence or conscience, even if that choice results in death. And it is about changing a grievance/complaint process so dramatically that there is no chance that management will ever have to worry about losing another arbitration again (like the one that cost them $200,000,000).
It is about beating us into submission so we will gladly accept blame for the dilapidated condition the prison system is in. It is about us being forced to accept that our lives, our families, our hopes and all our dreams are worth less than our counterparts in other law enforcement agencies. And most of all, it is about us hanging our heads and willingly accepting that all of the above is true. That is our punishment. Besides, you can't grieve it anyway.
With that it is time to close, and I'm well aware that I failed at the attempt at brevity. I have just one more request:
THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!
Be Safe, have faith.
MJ
June 11, 2007
Arbitration Proceedings DPA Case No. 06-06-0299
This Arbitration arose pursuant to Agreement between the California Correctional Peace Officers Association Bargaining Unit 6, hereinafter referred to as the "Union, and the California
Department of Personnel Administration, hereinafter referred to as the "State", under which C.
ALLEN POOL was selected by the parties to serve as the Arbitrator. The Parties stipulated that the matter was properly before the Arbitrator and that his decision shall be final and binding.
The parties further stipulated that the interaction of Section 4.01 Management Rights and Section 27.0 1 Application and Duration, Entire Agreement imposes Dills Act obligations on the parties.
April 6, 2007
CCPOA Bargaining Unit 6 Package Offer April 6, 2007
The State of California (State) Herby amends its offer of March 22, 2007 by adding a 4-year option. This 4th-year option includes another year of general salary increases based upon the "$666" formula, another year of increases for health benefits and modifies the retirement formula for new employees hired on or after July 1 ,2007.
June 9, 2006
Unit 6 negotiations - June 9th, 2006
By signing below, the undersigned acknowledge the they have full authority to bargain, and reach a...
July 1, 2003
Supervisory - Enhanced Benefits
DPA Personnel Management Liaisons (PML) Retirement Formula Change for Supervisors and Managers in Positions Affiliated with Bargaining Unit 6 PML 2006-011 and 3.0 @ 50 ONLY
(Updated 4/13/2011)
July 1, 2001
Memorandum of Understanding archive 7-01 through 7-06
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Bargaining Unit 6 - Corrections
July 1, 2001 - July 2, 2006
July 1, 1999
Memorandum of Understanding archive 7-99 through 7-01
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Bargaining Unit 6 - Corrections
July 1, 1999 - July 2, 2001
July 1, 1998
Memorandum of Understanding archive 7-98 through 7-99
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Bargaining Unit 6 - Corrections
July 1, 1998 - June 30, 1999
