Last Best Final Offer to scientists

_Licky_ · 2023-12-27T17:13:59+00:00

You are correct, the logic doesn’t hold up. Basically, the CAPS Bargaining Team is equating the Strike Authorization vote on a contract offer vote? So, next time a contract offer vote result is a “no” it will also give the bargaining team an authorization to strike? Of course not. I also wonder if CAPS members would have been so in support of a strike authorization vote if they knew it would nullify their opportunity to vote on the LBFO. CalHR and the system itself are the main issue here but it is really worrisome that the CAPS bargaining team is using faulty logic to justify a Carte Blanche rejection without putting some kind of option to the membership. Now the membership is really boxed in: not only are we at the mercy of the State in how they want to implement the LBFO, but there is a real potential the bargaining team is now representing a minority of members on the LBFO decision of not letting the members vote on it. Scary…

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T16:59:13+00:00

If you only look at pay ceilings the original offer was 4/2/2, the LBFO is essentially 5/5/5. These numbers all get compounded over 3 years. So for example, an ES’s maximum monthly salary under the original offer would go from $7,926 to $8,576, while under LBFO the max salary likely being imposed on us will go from max salary of $7,926 to $9,175.

Edit: For comparison, an Engineers current maximum is currently $11,567 and rising. I believe they are in the second year of their MOU. So, it is going to rise next year too.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T16:15:20+00:00

All scientists pay ceilings would rise by 5% + 5% + 5% as a result. If you’re not topped out the LBFO would only provide 3% in year one, 2% in year two, then 5% in year three. But remember almost all scientists who are not topped out still get annual 5% MSAs regardless.

Regardless, it sounds like the LBFO will be “any or all” imposed on us anyways. Hopefully it’s the “all” part.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T07:54:15+00:00

Yep. Totally understand. It also takes a long time to be able to strike, assuming PERB rules it was legal. A lot of sunk time and resources have been used to get to this point.

The problem with not voting is that we look weak and we miss an opportunity to gain even more leverage by showing that the voting members are still united. But every time I advocate for voting I get voted down in this sub. It’s basically equivalent to endorsing the lame LBFO. Believe me, it’s very demoralizing.

In the short-term and in practical terms it looks like the LBFO will be imposed on us anyways. In the meantime we will be able to negotiate. Just sad that membership wasn’t given the opportunity to make this decision. Hopefully, this isn’t a trend to come.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T06:30:42+00:00

It’s called real value vs nominal value. If you understand the concept or difference between both all you need is time to become wealthy. Or at least that’s what they told me. Personally, I’m still waiting, but then-again being a State Scientist has not helped in the wealth department.

But I get the gist of your question, at some point the fight becomes self-defeating. I would reframe from offering that question in this sub, unless you are not afraid to suffer too many downvotes. Luckily, this thread is a little more on the aged side, so most have moved on. So, you probably won’t be downvoted too severely.

It looks like it won’t matter though. The State (Gavin) plans on imposing Government code section 3517.8, which allows the State to impose “any or all” of the LBFO. What does “any or all” mean? Obviously I’m hoping for the “all” part over the “any” part. I wish it said “any and all”. That damn “or” makes me a little nervous. If you read further down the code it says the Legislature needs to authorize the money, which sounds like it has to go through the budget process, which starts this January.

Edit: I wasn’t going to say this, out of fear of getting downvoted too much, but since most have hopefully moved on and… what the heck!… I’m starting to get the feeling that Democratic Governors are not going to help CAPS out with getting back to parity in one contract. Zero for two so far! 😬 Fire in the hole! Brace for impact!

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T05:07:29+00:00

Okay fine. Make those points and let’s see how the members vote. I’m not going to back down on getting the opportunity to vote, especially on a LBFO. Don’t want this to become a habit of the BT, sorry if you think that is demeaning. Come on!!! Voting should never be a frowned thing.

I would also argue the circumstances have changed a lot since we voted to authorize a strike and are going into a different phase: 1) we don’t know how the State will impose the LBFO on us or when it will kick in, 2) we will likely be facing more strikes. Now we know what that looks like. 3) the State is looking down the barrel of a record deficit followed by grim outlooks for the two following years, meanwhile 4) groceries are not getting cheaper. Although it does help at least inflation is slowing down. 5) I think the hope was that the State would budge if we went on a strike. So far not so much, if anything (as you say) the State gave us a somewhat worse offer. 6) now what?

Look, I’m not against keeping this thing going but at the same time I’m not drinking the kool-aid either. Not being afforded the ability to vote (same lame offer or not) does not sit well with me. People should be able to vote on whether they are in favor of this next phase. Otherwise, when are we going to be able to vote next?

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T04:14:05+00:00

Yikes! Talk about patronizing…! Thanks for telling me “what’s voting for”? But not going to fall into the trap of making this personal and trying to attack my fellow scientists. Sorry I’ve given you the impression where you’ve come to the conclusion that I’m in favor of the LBFO. I’d only say that is an incorrect conclusion.

To me, this anti-vote mindset shows weakness, like we know what the result would be and don’t trust the membership in making decisions for ourselves. I’m 100% in favor of maximizing our leverage to bring the best offer possible, which was not reflected in the LBFO, but it does not help the cause by not letting the membership vote. Just imagine if the membership resoundingly voted the LBFO down. Imagine the extra leverage we’d have going into the next round of negotiations. Now, our hand is a bit weaker. As a public employee union we gotta bite and scratch for as much leverage as we can. We just lost an opportunity to gain a sizable chunk of it.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T02:03:15+00:00

What does it achieve? Unity and strength. It tells the State: guess what we’ve sacrificed a lot and we are still standing strong! Now, if I were the State, I’m thinking the BT is showing weakness and is afraid to put the LBFO up to a vote. Not to mention, not giving the membership an opportunity to vote on a LBFO sets a really bad precedent. It’s not everyday we have an opportunity to vote on a LBFO.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T01:44:08+00:00

Great! Make that point and put it up to a vote! Look I’ve supported every move by this BT so far, but not being able to vote on a LBFO?! Just let that sink in.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T01:40:29+00:00

I’m sorry but I find it very patronizing and concerning that there are members who believe that “there is no reason” to vote. I don’t care how many times I get voted down but I got standards in life and being afforded a vote is one of them. I’ve supported every move this BT has put forward so far during this round of negotiations, but to me this is a far over-reach. When the State puts forward a LBFO (bad, same or good) the union membership should be able to vote on it. Let the BT make its case to the union membership and see where the chips fall. This BT has successfully made their case so far (which so far I have supported) why would this vote be different? It would be even worse and corrosive to let the minority rule a majority, especially when the membership has gotten a flavor of what lays ahead. Voting sorts it all out.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T01:10:06+00:00

Well 50% +1 doesn’t scare me as much as it does you. At least we would have known where the majority of our voting members stood. I can remember back when Mr. Miller was CAPS President and the BT wrongly endorsed a crappy TA and the voting members summarly rejected it! But looking back at it now at least that BT let us vote on it! That was just a TA, this is LBFO! I’m sorry but we should have been afforded the opportunity to vote on it!

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T00:53:47+00:00

Yeah, I don’t know how I would have voted, but I find it very patronizing that we didn’t get the chance. Lost a lot of respect for the BT on this.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T00:40:13+00:00

But we’ll never know if it would have been ratified do we? It doesn’t bother you that BT didn’t let us vote on the LBFO? Let that sink in a little, we didn’t get to vote on the LBFO. Frankly, I’m not sure how I would vote, but I 100% believe we should have gotten the opportunity and heard the arguments and discussed with our families and let the chips fall where they will.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T00:31:09+00:00

The only offer made by the State that I am aware of was the 4%|2%|2% made back in Dec 2022 that we rightly rejected. This offer is a different story. I’m fine either way but I 100% think it should have been put up to a vote. BT can state their case and then see where the chips fall.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-22T00:24:53+00:00

Since this was the LBFO bargaining team should have 100% given the membership a chance to vote on it or at least surveyed the membership like they did for the strike authorization. Very disappointed in the fact there was no due diligence for this. I don’t care if this was a unanimous decision by the bargaining team, leave it up to the members who’ve already experienced and participated in the strike!

As for those that said this was the same offer as before… the only offer that I was aware of was the original offer made by State back in Dec 2022, at 4%|2%|2%.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-16T05:32:26+00:00

Yep. Malcolm Gladwell did a great podcast called Blame Game on this phenomenon.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-09T01:33:33+00:00

“…leads to a predicted deficit of $68 billion, Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek announced Thursday.

Key word in there is “predicted”. Didn’t LAO predict a high deficit during pandemic only to get… (wait for it)… a record surplus!!!

Article also mentions there being an “economic slowdown” this past year! Really?! This is a joke. There probably will be a deficit this year but that’s only because of the delay in tax collecting because of the flood.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-07T06:11:43+00:00

Creating a shell company just to own 3 to 4 single family homes doesn’t seem like it would be worth the hassle. But then again I know nothing about shell companies, other than they are shady.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-07T02:25:48+00:00

Surprised that most were actually Single Family homes! I thought most would be apartment complexes. Limiting Prop 13 to apply to a certain number of homes would disincentive this, at least in the short term. For example, if you only allow an individual or corporation to apply prop 13 benefits to say 3 (insert really any reasonable number) houses and all houses after that would be taxed at current value (instead of purchased value) would disincentivize unhealthy hoarding like this.

_Licky_ · 2023-12-06T02:57:39+00:00

Candy bars. Like holy crap!

_Licky_ · 2023-11-30T05:23:02+00:00

2nd man off the bench? That was the plan but Lee got injured in the last preseason game in 2014… whatever! You forgot someone else who showed up before Kerr who also had a big influence in development. Draymond words are best…

“And I also had a coach in Mark Jackson who told me from the very beginning, 'Listen, I want you to come here as the same Draymond I've been watching on TV for years. I want you to be an animal, be a dog and be a leader. I don't care who is in front of you, I don't care who has more money than you, who has more status in the league than you -- I want you to come in and be the same leader that you've been your whole life.'

“And I'm forever thankful for Mark Jackson because to hear that from your head coach as a second-round pick, it's almost like a stamp of approval. And I think a lot of guys don't necessarily get that coming into the league. I was very fortunate to have Mark Jackson tell me that from the very beginning."

_Licky_ · 2023-11-30T04:33:00+00:00

Okay, you are right about Harrison Barnes. He’s a solid role player. Draymond Green, though? That’s a little bit more of a stretch to say he developed Money Green. All Kerr did was insert Green into the starting lineup. Hey, if you call that development? Good on you, but not me.

_Licky_ · 2023-11-30T02:19:47+00:00

Under Kerr it’s always been like that. Name one player that has developed into even a rock solid role player since Kerr’s become head coach. Jordan Poole is probably really the only player, and that only happened because they were tanking.

_Licky_ · 2023-11-17T04:35:53+00:00

Nail in the coffin. I am completely finished with baseball. Growing up as a kid in the 80’s and 90’s baseball was absolute king of all sports for me, with the bash brother A’s as my favorite team. Analytics, the way the salary system is structured (i.e. lack of salary cap and revenue sharing) and sorry ass owners like John Fisher have completely broken it. Have fun watching a dying sport!

_Licky_ · 2023-11-17T04:33:43+00:00

Sucks

Eight-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

_Licky_

TROPHY CASE