Perb
November 30, 2011
State panel may require more steps before impasse is declared
A state board’s interpretation of a new law could profoundly change future labor negotiations in the city of San Diego and other public agencies in California if it requires additional action before a city can impose contract terms on union workers.
The legislation, authored by state Assemblywoman Toni Atkins and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October, would require public agencies to create an advisory fact-finding panel if mediation over labor contracts fail. The goal is to provide better transparency and recommend a reasonable settlement for both sides...
LINK - SignonSanDiego.com
August 2, 2008
Workers union files suit to block Schwarzenegger’s layoff order
A workers union sued the state Friday in an effort to reverse more than 10,000 layoffs ordered by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as criticism of the decision mounted and Californians began to feel the effect on government services.
The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court by Local 1000 of the Service Employees International Union, was one of at least three actions employees took in the wake of the governor's Thursday order, which Schwarzenegger said he issued to save money until he and state lawmakers were able to negotiate a budget.
SEIU and another union, the California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment, each filed a complaint — called an unfair labor practice charge — with the state's Public Employment Relations Board…
LINK - LATimes.com
March 17, 2008
Governor’s Latest Appointees: March 2008
Yvette Marc-Aurele, 53, of Stockton, has been appointed superintendent of O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility. She has served as acting superintendent at the O.H. Close YCF in Stockton since 2006. From 2004 to 2005, Marc-Aurele was deputy director at the Institutions and Camp Branch in Sacramento and, from 2002 to 2004, was executive superintendent for the Northern California Youth Correction Center in Stockton. From 2000 to 2002, she was executive superintendent at DeWitt Nelson Youth Correctional Facility in Stockton and, from 1998 to 2000, was superintendent at O.H. Close YCF. Prior to that, Marc-Aurele was assistant superintendent at DeWitt Nelson Youth Correctional Facility from 1997 to 1998, treatment team supervisor at the Karl Holton Youth Correctional Facility in Stockton from 1990 to 1997 and parole agent at O.H. Close YCF from 1986 to 1990. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $125,892. Marc-Aurele is registered decline-to-state.
Matthew Martel, 59, of San Bernardino, has been appointed warden of the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). He has held various positions at the CRC since 1982 including acting warden since 2007, chief deputy warden from 2006 to 2007, correctional administrator from 2003 to 2006, facility captain from 2002 to 2003 and correctional counselor II supervisor from 1995 to 1999. Prior to that at CRC, Martel was correctional counselor II supervisor from 1989 to 1995, correctional counselor I from 1986 to 1989, correctional educator from 1984 to 1986, emergency operations-negotiations management team member from 1984 to 1995 and correctional officer from 1982 to 1984. Additionally, he was facility captain at the Community Correctional Facilities Administration at Adelanto from 1999 to 2002 and facility captain at Ironwood State Prison in 1995. Martel served in the U.S. Air Force Reserve from 1980 to 2002. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $129,108. Martel is a Republican.
Terri McDonald, 44, of Sacramento, has been appointed associate director of reception center institutions for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). She has served as acting associate director of reception centers for CDCR since 2007. From 2006 to 2007, McDonald was chief deputy administrator of correctional programs for California out-of-state correctional facilities and, in early 2006, was chief of the classification services unit for the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO). From 2004 to 2006, she was correctional administrator for general population level II and III institutions for DAI and, earlier in 2004, was a correctional captain and facility captain at Folsom State Prison. From 1990 to 2004, McDonald held various positions at California Medical Facility including correctional captain from 2001 to 2004, correctional lieutenant from 1996 to 2001, correctional sergeant from 1993 to 1996 and correctional officer from 1990 to 1993. She began her career as a correctional officer at Sierra Conservation Center from 1988 to 1990. This position does require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $135,564. McDonald is registered decline-to-state.
LINK - Gov.CA.gov (California Governor's Home Page)
March 13, 2008
Opposition to Request for Injunctive Relief
March 12, 2008
Request for Injunctive Relief
On March 12, 2008 CCPOA filed this "Request for Injunctive Relief" with the DPA, a demand to return to the bargaining table.
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.
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 27, 2007
MOU Letter “Demand to Bargain in Good Faith”
Dear Mr. Gilb:
On December 7, 2007. the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued an unfair practice complaint against the State alleging that the State cannot lawfully implement all three years of its last best and final offer (LBFO) which was imposed on Bargaining Unit 6......
December 14, 2007
Chuck Alexander Memo 12-14-07
Yesterday, December 13th, 2007, we sent you a copy of the Department of Personnel Administration's (DPA) initial response letter to the public Employment Board (PERB). In this letter...
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
Request for dismissal
The California Correctional Officer's Association (CCPOA), in its Second Amended Unfair Practice Charge, alleged that the State engaged in a number of unfair practices. On December 7th, 2007, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) agreed with CCPOA on two matters and...
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.
October 18, 2007
Court May Get Contract Dispute
California's Public Employment Relations Board has declined to issue an injunction to block the state from imposing contract terms on the correctional officers union. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association sought the injunction from PERB after contract talks stalled last month and the state unilaterally imposed its "last, best and final offer" on the 31,000-member union…
LINK - SacBee.com
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 1, 2007
Chapter 1: “Are We Getting Anywhere in Mediation?”
By now most members of CCPOA should be aware that the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) has declared that negotiating with CCPOA over the terms and conditions of a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is futile. As such, DPA sent a request to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to grant them a declaration of "impasse" and assign a mediator to assist with negotiations.
Their request was granted. A shocking turn of events in light of the fact that the presiding members of the board responsible for rendering the decision are all Gubernatorial appointees. I'll bet you'll never guess which Governor appointed them. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed them all. He even has the authority to make temporary appointments to the Board. Theoretically, he could appoint someone for as little as one day, or even for just one decision. These might be difficult decisions to defend publicly, but in light of the current tone of mediation, nothing would be a surprise.
That ought to give you some idea of how the mediation process is moving along. We are proceeding in "negotiations" with the assistance of a PERB assigned mediator. At the onset, which has been the only time we actually sat in the same room with the state's team, the mediator informed us that he expected complete confidentiality from both parties while mediation is going on. Under most circumstances this might be understandable. But our MOU, if we manage to get the state to negotiate in good faith and reach agreement, will be subject to legislative hearings, judicial review, and intense media scrutiny of every detail of the final product.
Considering the attention the "prison crisis" has received in California, and CDCR's inability to stay under the radar, the thought of not commenting about the specifics of negotiations had never once crossed my mind. It has always been the expectation to be grilled about our MOU in every forum possible. But for now, we are expected to be quiet.
My comments about restricting external communications are not meant to criticize the mediator; it appears to be part of the process. But as it turns out, secrecy, or perhaps silence, seems to be exactly what the state representatives need to continue down their current path towards impasse. That is precisely where they have been headed from the onset of bargaining for our new MOU. That's why it doesn't make sense for CCPOA to remain silent, and that's why we haven't.
You may remember when we started bargaining, we brought in camcorders and audio equipment. We wanted to establish an objective record of the proceedings. We believed at that time, based on the way DPA had tried to swindle us on our pay in the 2001-2006 MOU, that they would play fast and loose with language, intent, and the substance of any agreement made. DPA refused to allow any recording of the process.
They said we "ambushed" them with the recording devices. We didn't, we had them out in the open. This is unlike the session when DPA hired a transcriber, who unbeknownst to the entire DPA team, ran a tiny microphone under the table and secretly recorded an entire negotiation session. They apologized repeatedly at the time. We have a letter that says they had no idea that she was recording. They felt so bad about it; they could hardly wait to use it as evidence in their request for impasse.
It didn't get any better after that incident. Every day of bargaining, DPA would show up less prepared than the day before. They were unable to answer even the most basic questions about their 300 plus page proposal. They weren't able to provide any information about what the background was to their proposals and they refused to bring anyone that could. Generally, after about an hour (or less) they would remove their team for a caucus, and then leave for the day. No real negotiations ever occurred. We have spent less than 24 hours bargaining. The last MOU took somewhere in the area of 1000 hours to finalize a deal. DPA has no intention of putting in that kind of effort.
As stated earlier, their intentions were obvious from the start. The mediation process that Dave Gilb swore would help things move along hasn't provided a single signature on a proposal. DPA wont even put their names on a "sign in sheet." It looks like they are just going to spend enough time and taxpayer money to make it look like they tried and then they will request a formal declaration of impasse. That's bargaining in bad faith. We could file an unfair labor practice charge against DPA, but that goes in front of PERB too. So we have a bit of a problem on our hands don't we?
Some of you may ask, "Why don't we just take the 18% pay raise they offered us and call it good?" The truth is they never offered us 18% in the first place. That's the story for the media and the legislature to consume. It's for the members' consumption as well. They want the media and Legislators to accept once and for all we are just a bunch of "greedy prison guards." They want the CCPOA membership to believe our negotiating team walked away from a great deal. Neither is true and neither will survive the disinfectant properties of daylight.
Over the next couple of weeks while there are no meetings with the mediator or the state planned, we are going to send you information about the status of negotiations. While we are going to maintain the level of confidentiality about the mediation process that we are required to, we think its important that you know what DPA is demanding from you.
We plan on providing you with the last proposals from our last meeting on March 29, 2007, (you can't really call it negotiations), with some analysis from CCPOA along with hyperlinks to the proposals and background information as well. It would be nice if DPA had exerted the effort to answer questions so we could give you the intent of their proposals, but instead we must guess about what is the truth beyond their written words. I will leave you to make up your own mind about how much your employer values and understands the difficulty, danger, and demands of the job that you do every day and night, 24-7-365.
You will also see how our employer has intentionally withheld pay and benefits from new staff while telling the Legislature, the media, and a federal judge how hard they are working to fill the vacancies. Talk about a "code of silence." Employers in the private sector face hefty fines and the possibility of criminal charges for this type of conduct. It appears that State employers are immune from criminal charges, but that doesn't mean there isn't a consequence and every single manager across the state has to be aware of that. DPA gave us a proposal to continue this inequitable practice. They expect us to agree to it. In fact, DPA is demanding we agree to it, without any compromise.
DPA expects us to waive state and federal law for future use of leave credits while we are injured, ill, or caring for one of our children. They want us to return to the days when "sick leave abuse" was what we got from the boss when we felt our worst or when our family needed us most. They want the ability to make us choose between the comfort, concern, and care of our family and ourselves and our financial security. Again, they have no compromise.
For those of us awaiting transfers, especially after CCPOA's victory in the recent arbitration decision there is more bad news. DPA has decided they shouldn't have to negotiate at the main table on this issue. Mr. Gilb couldn't possibly allow any leveling of the playing field. No, they have noticed CCPOA of their decision to negotiate on a statewide basis away from the main table. That way their ability to implement their last, best, and final offer on August 1, 2007, isn't hampered by their tactics of regressive bargaining on our master contract.
It isn't difficult to point out the obvious designs of management to continue the pattern of blaming the rank and file for all the failings of the department while enjoying significant pay raises and increased opportunities to make our jobs more difficult. They have proposals to allow every Warden to change the vacation or holiday policies and schedule in any fashion they desire without having to agree to, or honor, the new procedure for a week, a day or even an hour.
DPA is insisting that we waive our right to enforce staffing levels, workload agreements, post and bid agreements, and overtime procedures, along with many other employee rights whether guaranteed by law or not. DPA is set on eliminating all benefits associated with seniority by designing a grievance procedure that provides no enforcement by CCPOA or its members. The demand is one of absolute control and the return of management's ability to punish us without having the procedural safeguards we fought long and hard for.
And about that 18% pay raise DPA is allegedly offering, we must first all waive our rights to any back pay for wages or benefits for the current year, (potentially several thousand dollars) and then accept the new pay formula developed by DPA which cannot be enforced through their new grievance process (previously mentioned) for any amount over $250,000.00. That change alone would have reduced the $7,000.00 check we just received to $10.00 (ten dollars) each.
And in case anyone forgot, unless and until the Governor and the Legislature enact a budget that fully funds all expenditures out of the general fund, (like our MOU in 2004), any agreement we enter into would become void of additional pay and/or benefits. We would be forced to renegotiate. As long as the statute (and for that matter the Governor) that forced us back to the table in 2004 remains in place, long term contracts don't seem very wise.
Not to mention that by DPA's own projections for the next four years and new DPA formula, the CHP will get 28%-29% over the same time period they are allegedly offering us 18%. The CHP deal also has absolutely no takeaways, no retirement smoothing, no sick leave punishment, and no transfer freezes - just bushels and bushels of money. Lets be very clear, for us it's not just about money, but we all know that money is part of it.
The list just keeps going on and on. Rather than try to say it all in one letter, you will receive a new message with new information every few days for a couple of weeks. By the end of this week we hope to have an e-mail address set up for you to provide questions, comments or thoughts on DPA's proposals. We'll be happy to share your thoughts with the State team. We can remove identifiers from messages before delivery if you want, not that any retaliation might occur. After all, it is against the law for management to retaliate.
Be aware, some members of the public and most managers will see this as nothing more than complaining by a group of people, (all of us) who are used to getting our way. When this message lands in Dave Gilb's hands, rest assured that he will get it to one of Arnold's sycophant media trolls and they will try to make something out of it. That act of and by itself should tell everyone who reads this message what this fight is all about. It's about respect for men and women doing a tough job in an overcrowded negative environment, without enough staff, space, resources, equipment, or management support to get it done. It's about DPA and this Governor recognizing and acknowledging the effort that goes into the comfort and safety they feel when they go to bed each night. The CHP doesn't get it done all by themselves!
Thank you for helping us get information to you by providing us with an e-mail address for contact. You will receive the most updated information available, right from the horse's mouth, (so to speak). Feel free to share the information and also to respond when our public mailbox is set up.
We do have a plan for success, but it will need the support of our members. This is not a union of one; it's a union of 30,000 men and women working the toughest beat in California. In our minds and hearts it's our union, in the state of California, and across the nation it's THE UNION!
BE SAFE! TAKE CARE.
