Correctional Peace Officers
February 7, 2008
LAO: Don’t Give Prison Guards a Raise
The Legislative Analyst's Office has recommended that the Legislature reject Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to give the prison officers' union a 5 percent pay raise this year at a cost of $260 million. In a report released today, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill said that the 30,000 employees represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association already make enough money, with a base pay for the top-step officer reaching to approximately $73,000 a year…
LINK - SacBee.com
February 7, 2008
Opinion: Lining Up for State Prison
After talks failed to produce a replacement for a prison guard contract that expired in July 2006, the administration imposed its "last, best and final" offer under a rarely used law. The tactic allowed the administration to change disputed work rules that were a sticking point in contract talks. The administration said the work rules obstructed prison management, but the union said they protected guards. Now the administration needs legislation for a 5 percent pay raise package in its final offer, estimated to cost $260 million. The analyst recommended that the Legislature reject the administration's pay raise plan…
LINK - SignonSanDiego.com
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time you have received, or perhaps had the time to read this message, you will have most likely heard that CCPOA has withdrawn from the mediation process.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
