DPA posts disappointing Official Tentative Agreement

Mar 29th, 2011 | By | Category: Negotiations
Share

The Department of Personnel Administration website has been updated to include the official Unit 6 Tentative Agreement.

It’s a mess.

Click this link to review it at http://www.dpa.ca.gov.

After reviewing the long awaited document,  Paco is puzzled what the wait was about.

This is NOT a text document and is, in fact, comprised of handwritten annotations on photocopies of the old MOU,  scribbled side-letters and, well, crap.  I can’t imagine how anyone who did not sit at the main table could decipher its meaning in countless areas.

How much longer it will be before we see  a properly typed and indexed proposal is anyone’s guess.  Presumably, the leaflets to be dropped over the prisons will not look like  this thing…

 

 

Ad Nauseum

81 Comments to “DPA posts disappointing Official Tentative Agreement

  1. Bing says:

    My bad paco i should scrolled more ha ha:”)-

  2. Bing says:

    Paco do not believe everything you read on state websites. I have a motto i live by and it’s never been proven wrong. Do not believe it until it happens. And we will have to wait until 05/01/11 pay day :”). We will only know i’m wrong if the contract does not pass and they implement it i guess. And we all know it will pass because people talk one way and then vote another.

  3. Bing says:

    2/3rds parole is at the table as we blog negotiating article 19 bro. I personally do not know why they did the negotiations seperately. Honestly i think they did it like this because it was so time consuming for the main MOU or they wanted it seperate because of the SB 85 realignment.

  4. 2/3rdsCobra says:

    I actually took the time and read through the whole contract; I found most if not all of the contract deals with all BU6 PO/FF positions except PA’s. The general stuff that applies to all BU6 members such as pay, PLP, Overtime etc…. is there of course but there isn’t any language specific to PA’s work week, workload or safety equipment. In fact, all of the previous Article 19 sections are missing.

    If the Governors new plan is to keep parole for what amounts to 1192.7/667.5 cases, you would think that there would be some language that either removes, amends or adds PA specific rights/responsibilities into the proposed contract. To clarify, the last few pages speak to the PA’s new FTO program, but that’s it.

    FWIW, I haven’t decided whether to vote yes or no on this proposed contract. It really stinks to high heaven but I am aware of the state of the State as well as public perception of CDCr right now. Hell, our own director publicly lambasted us on a local Sacramento talk radio show claiming he was not only in support of the realignment package but believes that CDCr can’t offer the same rehabilitative services local government/communities can. At this point, IMHO whichever way we go with this proposed contract, we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

  5. wow says:

    CCPOA is counting ballots so it goes without saying that this will pass, so I’m voting no so I can say I did. CCPOA EC has way too much riding on this personally with the RTB, they will assure it passes as UPL is dead and failure will result in them going back to the joint

    • pacovilla says:

      WOW! You completely ignore all the posts and comments CLEARLY indicating what you are saying is untrue. Next time do your homework and you won’t come off looking silly.

    • mehrgeld says:

      I’m voting no too, and I’m making a copy of my ballot as evidence of my no vote. I think everyone should do that too so that we all have evidence in case this horrible contract gets ratified anyway.

      Remember, only during the 12 month plp program are we protected from furloughs. After that, furloughs plus the concessions we made in the new contract can occur.

  6. Bing says:

    Flygirl there not gone until we have anew MOU>

    • f j says:

      Bing – incorrect. DPA has posted a “Personnel Management Letter” instructing personnel offices on the process to end the furlough program and implement the new PLP process effective 4/1/2011. This does not require an MOU ratification. It is done. The existing furlough program for Unit 6 is gone for at least 12 months.

  7. fyigirl says:

    I’m curious why there hasn’t been any comments regarding the dpa website stating furloughs have ended for all bargaining units, including unit 6. Scroll down and you’ll find where “fj” posted the website. It was issued 3/30/11 and states it will be in affect on 4/1/11. At that time, the plp begins.

  8. LadyCatie says:

    I don’t think anyone likes this MOU. But, with budget talks having broken down between Brown and the legislature, it sure feels like a hurricane is about to hit. That has to be the only reason CCPOA (and the last remaining unions) agreed to these TA’s. It feels to me like this MOU, as crappy as it is, is our way of taking cover before the hurricane of cuts arrives. What can Brown do to us besides keeping the furloughs going or adding more furlough days? I’m not sure. Could less expensive private prisons be used, more parole services be “realigned”, cars gone, layoffs, etc…? Seriously, get creative. And remember, the only reason we considered Brown a friend is because he took our money. That does not make him a friend. That just makes him the guy that took our money (and I’m guessing laughed about it with his insiders). What does Brown’s Last Best and Final Offer look like? Do you somehow think it will get better than this? Why, because he took our money? How does being the only union to not ratify, and in a time of severe budgetary crisis, endear us to the public and the legislature who can at some point in time have a say in things such as pension reform and compensation. It takes a lot of guts and is very macho to tell the state to shove this contract. It also took a lot of guts and was very macho of Mike Jimenez to curse Schwarzenegger and put up the flabby governor in a speedo billboards. Yes, we can and should blame the negotiators and union leadership for negotiating such a dog of a contract. But if we (the membership) tell the state to shove this contract, we won’t have Jimenez to blame for the aftermath… it’ll be flat out on us. Do you believe for a second that we will somehow get a better contract on a second go around at the very time Brown is considering an “all-cuts” budget (hurricane)?

    And I thought I read somewhere in the contract (I can’t find it now, so if anyone has the page number from the DPA’s copy please post it) that if other unions contracts have better provisions, we will also get those provisions. Can anyone explain the details of how that could work? Seeing as every union seems to have negotiated better than us, it seems like it would work in our favor. Could that be our negotiators strategy?

    Anyway, a hurricane is about to hit. There’s a time for macho and a time to take cover. It doesn’t seem smart to run out into the hurricane and tell it to shove it. I might call it having a lot of guts and being macho. What would you call it? Stupid?

    • mike says:

      like i said, i have 24 years of service. Im not a lawyer but i have seen only one contract fail and that was not to pass a 5% pay raise! what a better life then, in around 1991! now? vote yes! there is too much out there to hurt us, pension reform, and congress.the public will never like us , but they put pressure on congress. this contract is bad ! eaither way we hurt! But i think i would vote a very, very, weak yes. and if no, it wont get that much worse , because in the contract ,were not protected by much anyway!