Mou
December 13, 2011
Statewide Agreement: VYCF DIGITAL CAMERA POLICY
November 17, 2011
Statewide Agreement: PAII Conversion
Statewide Agreement between CCPOA and DPA:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding reached by and between the parties at the conclusion of Meet and Confer negotations on November 10, 2011 regarding the conversion of Field PAII Specialist positions to PAII Supervisors...
November 10, 2011
High Desert State Prison Gym Facility B Agreement
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding, reached by and between the parties, at the conclusion of the meet and confer negotiations on August 30, 2011 regarding the HDSP Realignment of Medical Guarding and Deactivation of Non-Budgeted Administrative Segregation Unit Overflow Positions...
October 19, 2011
More October Meet & Confer Notices
Please see the attached Notices that we received from Labor Relations regarding:
AB 109 Institution Conversion – Wasco State Prison
AB 109 Institution Conversion – SQ Reception to Level II General Population
AB 109 Institution Conversion – High Desert State Prison
Activation of 64 New Single Cell High Custody Intermediate Treatment Center Beds at
Vacaville Psychiatric Program – Supervisory
Activation of One Mental Health Residential Unit at Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility
October 18, 2011
Alternative Custody Statewide Agreement
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding reached by and between the parties at the conclusion of Meet and Confer negotiations on October 12,2011, regarding the Implementation of the Alternative Custody Program (ACP). This Agreement becomes an addendum to the current State Bargaining Unit Six Memorandum of Understanding...
October 18, 2011
CDCR Notices, Meet & Confer Requests for Week of October 17, 2011
September 20, 2011
Statewide Agreement – Realignment & Post Release Community Supervision for Corr. Counselors
Please see attached agreement on Realignment & Post Release Community Supervision for Correctional Counselors. This negotiated agreement regarding “Implementation and Training on PC 3450 Post Release Community Release Supervision” now becomes an addendum to the Bargaining Unit 6 Memorandum Of Understanding...
September 20, 2011
FMLA/CRFA Change Agreement
Beginning with the calendar year 2012 the method for calculating Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave for represented employees in State Bargaining Unit 6 has been changed from the 12-month rolling year method to the 12-month calendar year method...
August 9, 2011
Labor Issues Update - August 9, 2011
August 4, 2011
CCPOA UPL case in the news
Attorneys for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association have until Sept. 12 to file an opening brief in the $4.4 million union paid leave lawsuit the state has brought against the union, according to an appellate court notice posted this week.
The suit involves money CCPOA allegedly owes as reimbursement to the state for wages and benefits paid to members who were on leave so they could engage in union business.
The union says the matter should go to arbitration. Their argument relies on the union's collective bargaining agreement, which expired in 2006 and wasn't picked up again until earlier this year...
LINK - SacBee.com (The State Worker)
April 8, 2011
MOU Fiscal Analysis Bargaining Units 6 and 13
Fiscal Analysis Required by State Law. Section 19829.5 of the Government Code - approved by the Legislature in 2005 - requires the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to issue a fiscal analysis of proposed MOUs...
March 25, 2011
Sac Bee reports on changes to CCPOA tentative agreement
The state is ending contributions to a retirement fund for Bargaining Unit 6 employees, according to state officials, in exchange for a higher deferred pay raise and to maintain the current leave system for the 32,000 or so correctional and parole officers represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.
Our earlier report, based on a letter to members by union Executive Vice President Chuck Alexander, said that the program, called POFF II (Peace Officer and Firefighter) would be temporarily suspended to help offset the state's cost to bring CCPOA members' health coverage even with the rest of the state work force. State payments into the fund -- an employer contribution equal to 2 percent of base salary -- were to resume in January 2014...
March 24, 2011
SacBee on recent state contracts and cost savings
Feelings are facts – and sometimes they're the most important facts when you're talking about resolving conflicts.
How else to explain the nearly three months – and unnecessary furlough days for 60,000 affected state workers – for six unions to reach new labor deals with Gov. Jerry Brown?
"These were very tough negotiations," said Brown's labor chief, Ron Yank. "There are still some hurt feelings. I understand it."
Brown brought in Yank, a former state labor lawyer, to get contracts with the groups that didn't reach deals with then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger...
LINK - SacBee.com
March 17, 2011
CCPOA Chapter Presidents at CIM, CIW discuss tentative agreement (proposed MOU)
When Kathleen Jones opened an email informing her that a tentative agreement was reached between her union and Gov. Jerry Brown, the first words out of her mouth were "Thank you!" "
We have been working without anything in place to properly represent our membership," said Jones, a correctional officer at California Institution for Women in Chino. "Now there is a light at the end of the tunnel."
The state Department of Personnel Administration earlier this week came to its first labor agreement since 2006 with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association - if approved by the union and then ratified by the Legislature...
LINK - DailyBulletin.com
March 16, 2011
Prison guards, governor reach contract agreement
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the union representing prison guards, parole agents and fire captains, announced today that its leaders have reached a contract deal with Gov. Jerry Brown, ending years of uncertainty for its members.
The 31,000-member CCOPA has been working under a contract imposed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger since 2007, when talks with the former governor broke down. The latest deal, reached at 5 a.m. today, is likely a big relief for both sides -- Brown came into office with a handful of outstanding union contracts, the CCPOA's the most closely watched.
Perhaps most importantly for the deficit-plagued state is the fact that the deal will end three-day-a-week furloughs imposed on the prison workers by Schwarzenegger...
LINK - SFGate.com
March 16, 2011
Calif. prison guards reach tentative contract deal
A union representing state prison guards reached a tentative contract agreement Tuesday with Gov. Jerry Brown's administration _ five years after former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger imposed a contract stripping the union of much of its power in prison operations.
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association supported Brown in last year's gubernatorial campaign after years of being at odds with the Schwarzenegger administration.
Union spokesman JeVaughn Baker said negotiators were constrained by the state's nearly $27 billion budget deficit...
LINK - NCTimes.com
March 16, 2011
California prison guards union reaches contract
After years without a contract, the union that represents California's prison officers and parole agents has a new labor deal.
If approved by union members and lawmakers, the tentative agreement would end the furloughs for the 32,000 members of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association that have cut their pay by roughly 15 percent.
The union's bargaining team agreed to a contract that calls for one unpaid day per month for a year – roughly a 5 percent reduction of pay and hours – and for members to pay 2 percent more of their pay toward their pensions. The highest-paid officers also would get a yet-unspecified raise at the end of the contract...
LINK - SacBee.com
March 16, 2011
Correctional officers agree to new contract
California's Department of Personnel Administration and the union representing State correctional officers have reached agreement on a new contract that, if ratified, generates immediate budget savings by requiring correctional officers to pay a greater share of their pension cost and take a day of unpaid leave each month for a year.
The Legislature and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) must approve the agreement, which will run from April 1, 2011 to July 2, 2013. The last CCPOA contract expired in 2006. Negotiations for a new contract failed, and since 2007 the union has operated under imposed terms...
LINK - DPA.ca.gov
March 15, 2011
Contract Agreement Reached
After the roughly 3 month contract negotiation process with Governor Brown’s administration, we have reached a tentative agreement on a successor MOU at 5 a.m. The tentative agreement expires July 2, 2013 and contains enhancements as well as concessions...
March 15, 2011
LA Times reports CCPOA reaches MOU with administration
California prison guards, who are represented by one of the largest and most politically powerful state-employee unions, have reached a contract agreement with Gov. Jerry Brown.
Neither the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. nor the governor's office would provide details of the long-awaited contract on Tuesday afternoon, but David Gay, a spokesman for the Department of Personnel Administration, confirmed a deal was struck early Tuesday morning.
The prison guards, who have a reputation for being among the best paid state employees, have been operating without a formal contract since reaching an impasse over wages and benefits with former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006...
LINK - LATimes.com
January 21, 2011
California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association 2011 SUPERVISORS Contract Survey
This survey is designed to get Supervisory Members’ input on matters that are of the most concern of those who work the toughest beat in the state. In offering their comments, members should bear in mind the difficult fiscal condition of the State budget. The information gathered through this survey will be used to formulate proposals to submit to the new administration.
The survey will conclude Sunday night, January 23rd, so please complete this survey TODAY so we can get to work on implementing the results.
January 20, 2011
California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association 2011 Contract Survey
This survey is designed to get Members’ input on matters that are of the most concern of those who work the toughest beat in the state. In offering their comments, members should bear in mind the difficult fiscal condition of the State budget. The information gathered through this survey will be used to formulate proposals to submit to the new administration.
The survey will conclude Sunday night, January 23rd, so please complete this survey TODAY so we can get to work on implementing the results.
July 18, 2009
DPA sends CCPOA their LBF implementation plan
On Sept. 18, 2007 DPA sends to CCPOA their LBF implementation plan. Accordingly over 40 sections of the MOU that were never even discussed previously are now eliminated. The State's initial 6 issues have now grown to over 40 issues. [DPA Memo & CCPOA Response]
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 15, 2008
Gilb’s February 15 letter
Dear Mr. Jimenez:
I am in receipt of your letter dated February 7, 2008, in which you continue to mischaracterize and distort the status of Labor Management Relations with Bargaining Unit 6. I will address each of your false assertions below.
First, however, I must address the last paragraph of your letter, which threatens unlawful conduct by your organization and your members. As the CCPOA President, you state, "I will immediately consult the CCPOA Executive Council to call for a vote on a job action. which may include a strike." (Emphasis original). Your threat demands a response because, as you concede, engaging in such a job action "places California in a perilous position." As sworn peace officers it is incumbent upon correctional officers not to use public safety...
January 30, 2008
MOU Letter “Response to Request to Commence Post-Implementation Bargaining”
Dear Mr. Alexander and Mrs. Branine:
We have just reviewed your letters of December 12, 2007 and January 16, 2008 and must decline your request to commence post- implementation bargaining. We respectfully disagree that any of the events described in your letters constitutes a "change of circumstances" that revives bargaining.
January 16, 2008
MOU Letter “Request for Clarification Regarding Bargain in Good Faith”
Early this year, CCPOA and DPA met at PERB to attend a mandatory settlement conference. Although the case didn't settle, the parties did discuss the December 27, 2007, letter. During that discussion, DPA asked for clarification which was provided by CCPOA legal counsel in a letter to them (DPA) dated January 16, 2008. That letter is important in that it reiterated our position and followed up on the question we specifically asked during that meeting at PERB. The final paragraph of the letter from January 16 states:
If the State is not prepared to return to the bargaining table based on the terms outlined above, please advise me under what terms, if any, the State is prepared to return to the bargaining table.
September 12, 2007
September 2007 “Last Best and Final Offer”
On September 12, 2007 the State issues its "Last Best and Final package offer. It includes some very minor changes to its previous offer of August 22, 2007. [Last, Best & Final Offer, 09/12/07]
September 12, 2007
MOU Letter “Three Year FIscal Certainty Package”
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).
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
August 29, 2007
CCPOA seeks response from the State concerning August 2007 package
August 29, 2007, CCPOA's General Assembly directs the bargaining team to seek responses from the State to a series of written questions concerning the latest package offer and to agree to accept the mutually acceptable sections of the MOU that the State has identified "roll-over." [DPA Q&A]
June 25, 2007
MOU Letter “Information Request Response”
Dear Mr. Weiss:
This correspondence provides information and documentation responsive to CCPOA's most recent Information Request. For CCPOA's convenience, the State had numbered the information requests and identified the States responses in italics.
May 10, 2007
MOU Form “Determination of Impasse”
A request for impasse determination must be filed with the appropriate regional office (see PERB Regulation 32075). A request which is not jointly filed must be served.....
April 6, 2007
MOU LETTER “Information Request”
Re: Information Request
In July 2008, almost one year ago, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) promised that they would provide us the rationale behind each of the state's proposals and what factors prompted the state to seek these particular changes to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).....
April 6, 2007
MOU LETTER “REVISED PACKAGE OFFER”
Dear Mr. Jimenez:
As you are well aware, over the last several months, the Sate of California (State) and CCPOA have participated in formal negotiations to reach agreement on a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)...
