Chico City Council to give IAFF notice

Chico City Council to give IAFF notice

Posted in the Richvale Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
ken

Yuba City, CA

#1 Apr 10, 2014
Good news, good news! April 15th the city council will consider giving the firefighters union (IAFF) 3 years notice of intention to consider alternate firefighting options. It's much too little too late, but at least it's a move in the right direction.
Statty McStats

Oroville, CA

#2 Apr 10, 2014
I just saw on the news that councilor Randall Stone has been asking for this for a while and that it has now been brought up.
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#3 Apr 10, 2014
Any idea as to what those options might be? Private contractors?
Local

Lucerne, CA

#4 Apr 10, 2014
A negotiating tool. I would be very surprised if the IAFF allows this to go much further. Let's see if they are really that friggen spoiled.

Privatization push: Can fire departments survive?
There's a big move to privatize not just EMS service delivery but fire departments as well
http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-ems/articles/...
Statty McStats

Oroville, CA

#5 Apr 10, 2014
Not privatize. CalFire. Paradise did it. Temecula did it. Oroville is doing it. Others?
The right is wrong

Sacramento, CA

#6 Apr 11, 2014
Statty McStats wrote:
Not privatize. CalFire. Paradise did it. Temecula did it. Oroville is doing it. Others?
I thought you righties were against "taxation without representation”. Oh, my bad, it's not bad if you're the beneficiaries.

The fire protection you mention takes more out of the general fund than the people who benefit from said fire protection put in it

Butt that seems to be the M O of the right. Bitch about the government all the while trying to screw the average taxpayer every way you can

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of contracting out to CDF, if I get a say in fire regulations, zoning etc. in the area served by the contract fire people.
Dumbo

Oroville, CA

#7 Apr 11, 2014
CalFire IS the government. It is a public agency. It is a state agency.

Local government IS local regulations. Local government IS the zoning authority. Local government IS the contracting body. Local government IS the authority in these cases.

You're not left. You're not right. You're just stupid. You give us lefties a bad name. Grow up and read up.
The right is wrong

Sacramento, CA

#8 Apr 11, 2014
Dumbo wrote:
CalFire IS the government. It is a public agency. It is a state agency.
Local government IS local regulations. Local government IS the zoning authority. Local government IS the contracting body. Local government IS the authority in these cases.
You're not left. You're not right. You're just stupid. You give us lefties a bad name. Grow up and read up.
What the hell are you talking about?

Here let me put it this way, If the people of the state have to pay for your local fire protection it isn't a local issue anymore. Everyone who pays for that service should have a say in the regulations.

You're the stupid one here.
Statty McStats

Oroville, CA

#9 Apr 11, 2014
Nobody is saying or has said that the "state (has) to pay for your local fire protection." When a local jurisdiction contracts with CALFire they are contracting the personnel. The state doesn't pay for the fire service, the local jurisdiction pays for it the same way they have paid for it before the contract. The personnel usually are all the same as well. All the old employees usually work for CALFire in the same trucks, uniforms, and equipment they did before since the jurisdiction owns the trucks, uniform logos, and equipment. Instead of negotiating a new contract with the IAFF every year or so they now negotiate with CALFire for x number of years.

Pay is lower with CALFire and there are fewer engines chasing medical calls frivolously. They can still run medical calls. But the driving effort to increase response times to justify salary increases is gone. So the fire fighters no longer want to run medical calls. It doesn't boost their bottom line so they don't care anymore.
ken

Yuba City, CA

#10 Apr 11, 2014
Statty McStats wrote:
Nobody is saying or has said that the "state (has) to pay for your local fire protection." When a local jurisdiction contracts with CALFire they are contracting the personnel. The state doesn't pay for the fire service, the local jurisdiction pays for it the same way they have paid for it before the contract. The personnel usually are all the same as well. All the old employees usually work for CALFire in the same trucks, uniforms, and equipment they did before since the jurisdiction owns the trucks, uniform logos, and equipment. Instead of negotiating a new contract with the IAFF every year or so they now negotiate with CALFire for x number of years.
Pay is lower with CALFire and there are fewer engines chasing medical calls frivolously. They can still run medical calls. But the driving effort to increase response times to justify salary increases is gone. So the fire fighters no longer want to run medical calls. It doesn't boost their bottom line so they don't care anymore.
Thanks Statty. Do you know if Chico would be able to negotiate a pension cap, say 90% of 2900 straight time hours of highest paid year? And could Chico get a time management specialist to set up work scheduling to get rid of overtime abuses? Or would it be just a bid of X dollars for so many firefighters?
Statty McStats

Oroville, CA

#11 Apr 11, 2014
The pension cap is a function of CalPERS in Chico. The city could propose changes and vote on them. But contracts cannot be uniliaterally changed. Also pensionable hours are pensionable hours. There's only so much you can do. Chico's time management specialist is the chief of fire or chief of police. They should be free and clear of union influence. The chiefs are in another union. To hire a time management specialist is to hire a chief that cares about overtime and overtime budgets. That could be one reason why Chico doesn't have a chief but an interim chief.
Chico Bad boy

Yuba City, CA

#12 Apr 11, 2014
Statty McStats wrote:
The pension cap is a function of CalPERS in Chico. The city could propose changes and vote on them. But contracts cannot be uniliaterally changed. Also pensionable hours are pensionable hours. There's only so much you can do. Chico's time management specialist is the chief of fire or chief of police. They should be free and clear of union influence. The chiefs are in another union. To hire a time management specialist is to hire a chief that cares about overtime and overtime budgets. That could be one reason why Chico doesn't have a chief but an interim chief.
what is the "other union" the chiefs are part of and are they promoted from the IAFF or CALpers to their position as Chief? In other words do they or will they have previous allegiances to either union?
Ken

Yuba City, CA

#13 Apr 11, 2014
Statty McStats wrote:
The pension cap is a function of CalPERS in Chico. The city could propose changes and vote on them. But contracts cannot be uniliaterally changed. Also pensionable hours are pensionable hours. There's only so much you can do. Chico's time management specialist is the chief of fire or chief of police. They should be free and clear of union influence. The chiefs are in another union. To hire a time management specialist is to hire a chief that cares about overtime and overtime budgets. That could be one reason why Chico doesn't have a chief but an interim chief.
If you could define "pensionable hours" and or give examples of current pension formulas used to calculate any Chico firefighter's pension, it would eliminate speculation. If you're not privy to those formulas please don't speculate.
Ken

Yuba City, CA

#14 Apr 11, 2014
Statty McStats wrote:
The pension cap is a function of CalPERS in Chico. The city could propose changes and vote on them. But contracts cannot be uniliaterally changed. Also pensionable hours are pensionable hours. There's only so much you can do. Chico's time management specialist is the chief of fire or chief of police. They should be free and clear of union influence. The chiefs are in another union. To hire a time management specialist is to hire a chief that cares about overtime and overtime budgets. That could be one reason why Chico doesn't have a chief but an interim chief.
when you say"Chico's time management specialist is a chief of fire or chief of police" do you mean they have specific training or degrees in time management? Are they truly qualified independent time schedulers?
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#15 Apr 11, 2014
Statty McStats wrote:
Nobody is saying or has said that the "state (has) to pay for your local fire protection." When a local jurisdiction contracts with CALFire they are contracting the personnel. The state doesn't pay for the fire service, the local jurisdiction pays for it the same way they have paid for it before the contract. The personnel usually are all the same as well. All the old employees usually work for CALFire in the same trucks, uniforms, and equipment they did before since the jurisdiction owns the trucks, uniform logos, and equipment. Instead of negotiating a new contract with the IAFF every year or so they now negotiate with CALFire for x number of years.
Pay is lower with CALFire and there are fewer engines chasing medical calls frivolously. They can still run medical calls. But the driving effort to increase response times to justify salary increases is gone. So the fire fighters no longer want to run medical calls. It doesn't boost their bottom line so they don't care anymore.
Hello! If Chico contracts fire with CALFIRE Chico only pays a portion of the cost, and the rest is paid for out of general fund.

I'm not saying that's what is happening now, just that is how it works if Chico does contract with CALFIRE.

And if that were to happen, IF, people all over the state who pay taxes would be helping pay for your fire protection without having a say in local fire regulations.

That would be taxation without representation..
The right is wrong

Lincoln, CA

#16 Apr 11, 2014
Statty McStats wrote:
Nobody is saying or has said that the "state (has) to pay for your local fire protection." When a local jurisdiction contracts with CALFire they are contracting the personnel. The state doesn't pay for the fire service, the local jurisdiction pays for it the same way they have paid for it before the contract. The personnel usually are all the same as well. All the old employees usually work for CALFire in the same trucks, uniforms, and equipment they did before since the jurisdiction owns the trucks, uniform logos, and equipment. Instead of negotiating a new contract with the IAFF every year or so they now negotiate with CALFire for x number of years.
Pay is lower with CALFire and there are fewer engines chasing medical calls frivolously. They can still run medical calls. But the driving effort to increase response times to justify salary increases is gone. So the fire fighters no longer want to run medical calls. It doesn't boost their bottom line so they don't care anymore.
And by the way, YOU mentioned contracting out and YOU listed several areas where it's being done.
Local

Lucerne, CA

#17 Apr 11, 2014
Statty McStats wrote:
Not privatize. CalFire. Paradise did it. Temecula did it. Oroville is doing it. Others?
Perhaps you are correct.......... however, if the council honestly wants to investigate its options, privatization should be considered.

Fire Protection Privatization: A Cost Effective Approach to Public Safety
Questions and Answers About the Private Sector Fire Service
http://reason.org/news/show/fire-protection-p...

This report looks at the experience of fire protection privatization. The report uses two basic methods to accomplish this task. The first is to examine case studies to see how private fire protection services are provided in different contexts—subscription, special districts, municipal contract, and industrial—and why they are successful. This examination will include a look at how one private company provides fire services to half the population of Denmark, while simultaneously providing a number of other emergency services.

The second method is to look at empirical studies which evaluate the comparative performance of private-sector and public-sector fire services. The chief study examined is the University City Science Center's 1989 analysis of the privately operated Scottsdale (Arizona) Fire Department. This comprehensive study compares private- and public-sector performance in terms of cost and quality, and discusses how private-sector fire companies achieve cost savings.
GRANDPA NICOLAI

La Mesa, CA

#18 Apr 11, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello! If Chico contracts fire with CALFIRE Chico only pays a portion of the cost, and the rest is paid for out of general fund.
I'm not saying that's what is happening now, just that is how it works if Chico does contract with CALFIRE.
And if that were to happen, IF, people all over the state who pay taxes would be helping pay for your fire protection without having a say in local fire regulations.
That would be taxation without representation..
Hey dumbazz!!!! How many times do we have to tell you STAY OUT OF CHICO POLITICS!!!!!!!!!

You're last couple of posts show you no not of what the eff is going on locally!!!

Keep to your Lincoln bs and the fighting zebras.

Really....... Just stay the eff out!!!
GRANDPA NICOLAI

La Mesa, CA

#19 Apr 11, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello! If Chico contracts fire with CALFIRE Chico only pays a portion of the cost, and the rest is paid for out of general fund.
I'm not saying that's what is happening now, just that is how it works if Chico does contract with CALFIRE.
And if that were to happen, IF, people all over the state who pay taxes would be helping pay for your fire protection without having a say in local fire regulations.
That would be taxation without representation..
No wonder our state is effed up with people like you as retired state employees....

I am sure you were part of a "special" work program..

Really just STFU and watch the cars go by on the bypass!!
Statty McStats

Oroville, CA

#20 Apr 11, 2014
The right is wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello! If Chico contracts fire with CALFIRE Chico only pays a portion of the cost, and the rest is paid for out of general fund.
I'm not saying that's what is happening now, just that is how it works if Chico does contract with CALFIRE.
And if that were to happen, IF, people all over the state who pay taxes would be helping pay for your fire protection without having a say in local fire regulations.
That would be taxation without representation..
Huh?

If Chico contracts fire with CALFIRE Chico pays the full portion of the cost just as it does right now. 90 percent of that cost is from the General Fund. 30% of the General Fund is fire according to councilor Randall Stone. The General Fund isn't a state fund. It is the city General Fund. It is spent by the councilors. They are elected by the voters of Chico. That's generally how it works. You elect the members. They govern. Representation. Taxation. And all taxes must be voted on. Not sure where your mixup is. But I've got some guesses.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richvale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jennifer Lawrence Apologizes to Hawaiian People 31 min Rocky 1
Trump OWES MILLIONS to GOLDMAN 2 hr StupidIsStupid 19
TRAITOR sides with RUSSIA 4 hr ByeByeUSA 2
The TRUMPGATE Disgrace is on it's way to your TV! 22 hr GRANDPA NICOLAI 11
Corrupt A.F 22 hr GRANDPA NICOLAI 5
Trumps EPA Pick is an OIL INDUSTRY PUPPET! 23 hr Land of TRUMP 1
Trumps BILLIONAIRE Cabinet is taking shape. Scr... Fri Pride in Corruption 3

Richvale Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richvale Mortgages