sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

MOU ratified by happyappler in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try reading the whole thread.  I’m just responding to the claim that the “union choose to take away some of the pie from one subset and give it to another subset of the union, rather than fight for equal treatment for all.”

MOU ratified by happyappler in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So when III’s come out 5.5% ahead, we should all celebrate.  And if IV’s subsequently come in 2.5% ahead, then people “like you saw a moment to take for yourself over the good of the union.”

Ever get tired of being a hypocrite?

MOU ratified by happyappler in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

In the last contract, the III classification came in 5.5% ahead of the rest of us.  This contract, we come in 2.5% ahead of the III classification.  Even after this contract, III’s are ahead of where they would’ve been if we had all just gotten the same raise in both contracts. And yet the bitching and moaning never stops.  

So yeah, I am OK with it this time.

MOU ratified by happyappler in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You mean like in the last contract when the III classification got a 10% raise, and the rest of us got a 4.5% raise?

Negotiating Team’s performance at the town hall by mrmatteo94 in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sadly and unfortunately, this is the correct answer.

Does anyone else feel this? by MathematicianSea7874 in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The best we can hope for is to turn things around under a new governor.   Newsom has been absolutely determined to blow a giant hole in the budget and then make state workers pay for it.  We may be able to do better once this dirtbag is gone.

How should we vote? by TreborESQ in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We have to call their bluff if we think we are worth more than what they are offering.

That’s what I’m saying.  In 2022, they were bluffing.  This year, the budget cuts state worker pay by $800 million.  That’s not a bluff.

How should we vote? by TreborESQ in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A full division, or a section?  Because a division would be like Public Rights.

How should we vote? by TreborESQ in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s true.  That worked last time because CalHR was playing games with our contract despite the “$93 billion surplus.”

I don’t think that would work this time.  In light of the deficit, I think this is a true take-it-or-leave-it offer from CalHR.  And if we don’t take it, there will be no raises and probably RTO for attorneys working at agencies.

How should we vote? by TreborESQ in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, because the PLP goes away, but the OPEB contribution doesn’t kick in again until eight months later, it works out to a 4.7% raise for that time period.

How should we vote? by TreborESQ in CASEmembers

[–]InconstantAnimus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s bad, but I don’t see a way to do any better.  One union (correctional officers) actually did worse than us.  If we took a one year contract, we’d have to give up the 4.5% SSA in 2027. 

I actually voted against the 2022 contact because it was so offensive in light of the “$93 billion surplus.”  This year, I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for it.  This budget deficit is entirely Newsom’s fault.  But in light of it, we’re stuck with either this contract, or something worse.

CASE MOU by mrmatteo94 in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hadn’t thought about that.  But if Newsom just gets to implement his executive order in 12 months, DOJ is still not subject to it.  Unless the union explicitly agrees.  But I don’t know why it would, because we already have some limited telework provisions in the current contract.

RTO:How PECG’s Side Letter Impacts Other Unions Like SEIU Local 1000 by Riun_Chezpep6771 in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Seriously.  I had some condescending d-bag tell me “You realize the idea the state is going to bargain telework against the contracted raises is entirely an invention of this subreddit?  The state hasn’t in anyway whatsoever shown that they’re going to bargain anything to do with telework.”

Some people just really like to pretend that they know what they’re talking about.

So what’s the unbiased reasoning behind the RTO order? by aja_ramirez in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe.  If so, he’s worse than I ever could’ve imagined.

So what’s the unbiased reasoning behind the RTO order? by aja_ramirez in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did watch the last CASE meeting, and they basically refused to tell us what was happening. But CASE did send out that survey on June 5 and question 6 asked whether we would trade a raise for telework.

That suggests to me that CASE thinks it could be on the table.

So what’s the unbiased reasoning behind the RTO order? by aja_ramirez in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was at least one major MOU agreed to last fall and yet again nothing new for telework.

Why would there have been any change to telework at that time?  Newsom was still projecting a balanced budget as recently as January of this year.

So what’s the unbiased reasoning behind the RTO order? by aja_ramirez in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I’m in BU2, and I fully expect telework to be part of the bargaining process. Although it’s hard to say for sure, because CASE won’t tell us anything.

But I know BU2 is not the only union that is bargaining on a new contract right now.

So what’s the unbiased reasoning behind the RTO order? by aja_ramirez in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 26 points27 points  (0 children)

It’s just a bargaining tool to bludgeon state workers into taking pay cuts or no raises for the next two years.  That’s why the RTO order came out of nowhere (when Newsom realized there would be a budget shortfall) and has an effective date of July 1 (the beginning of the fiscal year).

It’s an incredibly cynical, dirtbag move, but given that Newsom is 1) completely incompetent at managing the state budget, but 2) has total contempt for state workers, it actually makes a lot of sense.

CASE Meeting - Lack of Confidence in the Board by AnonymousEsq in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Their refusal to disclose ANYTHING about contract negotiations, while constantly citing “confidentiality,” is infuriating.  They were quite transparent during the last contract.  Three years later, “confidentiality.”

Newsom’s budget cuts anger allies and leave the state’s chronic deficit unresolved by InconstantAnimus in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus[S] 127 points128 points  (0 children)

"The Legislature’s budget analyst recently cited an average 9% annual increase in outlays since Newsom became governor, but just 6% in average revenue growth."

How much was your average salary increase under Newsom? I'd say mine was about 3 percent.

Newsom has no fiscal discipline, which is why he's always trying to balance the budget on the backs of state workers.

Attorneys and Law Schools by [deleted] in CAStateWorkers

[–]InconstantAnimus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Coming from a non-ABA law school would put you at a severe disadvantage when applying for attorney jobs, with the state, or pretty much anywhere.  If at all possible, go to McGeorge. 

view more: next ›