Negotiations
May 15, 2008
Schwarzenegger administration, unions negotiating collective bargaining pacts
Unions representing thousands of state employees have begun hammering out labor contracts: The state has presented its initial proposals, the unions are responding–many did so earlier–and both sides are preparing for a major round of face-to-face negotiations.
One of the state's 21 bargaining groups, the California Highway Patrol, has negotiated an agreement–it was negotiated two years ago and runs until 2010–and 18 others are in the midst of doing so. The two remaining groups, the correctional officers and the state's attorneys, are working with expired contracts.
The state has about 189,000 rank-and-file employees covered by union contracts or about 235,000 employees when supervisors, managers and exempt employees—typically political appointees—are included. When higher education, judiciary and legislative employees are tallied, the number totals about 340,000…
LINK - CapitolWeekly.net
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
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
July 2, 2006
Motion for Stay of Hearing
Charging Party is the exclusive representative for employees in State Bargaining Unit 6. The parties memorandum of understanding expired on July 2, 2006, and the parties engaged in negotiations through mediation and impasse.
