CCPOAIronwood.com - Internet Bulletin Board for Members of ISP Chapter CCPOA

For those who walk the toughest beat in the state, as well as for those who live behind the wall - it has never been more clear that change needs to happen within California’s prison system than it is today. Three federal judges convened this week under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PRLA) in an attempt to rectify the current overcrowding situation within California’s prison system. Overcrowding has been a problem for a long time within this state – and unfortunately, the State has not done much to solve it. The panel will be deciding what steps need to be taken in order to alleviate the current situation as quickly and as appropriately as possible.

Below is an excerpt from a report on this hearing from CaliforniaProgressReport.com. At the end you will find a link to the full article. It is rather long but is well worth the effort:

While there were the statements of those defending the State of California that the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the cases representing the prisoners had the burden of proving that overcrowding was the primary cause of this denial of basic constitutional rights, much of the hearing focused on the size of the reduction of the prison population and the appropriate remedy under the PRLA.

Of note is the presence of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA)–the state’s prison guards–on the side of the prisoners who want reductions in the prison population to the level that adequate medical care can be delivered. This represents a sea change in the CCPOA that has been developing for some time, as both individual prisoners and some groups concerned about inmate rights have often vilified the guards. But yesterday in open court, Ron Yank, the attorney for the CCPOA sitting at the table with Don Spector of the Prison Law Project, took the lead in suggesting a procedure to speed up preparation for the trial and in ringing tones stated that his client was opposed to even “one day of delay for settlement talks.” He also said the mess “isn’t going to be done without prison reform–sentencing reform.”
FULL STORY at CaliforniaProgressReport.com

It was good to see a decent turn-out at this weekend’s meeting with CCPOA President Mike Jimenez, considering the last-minute notice that we got regarding the gathering. [SEE STORY: LINK] There’s a lot going on with the union right now, so information is vital and passing that information down to the membership is of the utmost importance.

If there are other meetings in the future we will let you know - and as always, all chapter members are invited to attend the general monthly sessions meetings that occur every 3rd Wednesday of each month, alternating in Indio and Blythe to reach a majority of our members. Please speak with a job steward, Board Member or visit this website for the meeting schedule.

At Saturday’s meeting the topic of the State’s last, best and final offer implementation was discussed, information was handed out [SEE RE-PRINT OF HAND-OUT: LINK] and many questions were asked on behalf of the membership by local chapter representatives - not just at Ironwood, but at surrounding institutions.

We would like to thank Mike Jimenez for making the trip down to So.Cal to speak with the membership - we appreciate it and agree that it was definitely needed at this time. We will keep you updated on changes and happenings in the coming days. A special thanks to all who contribute here either by sending in links and data or by posting (truth_hurts) comments here on the blog. If you are interested in blogging, just click the blue button on the left-side of the page here and register. Then e-mail the webmaster at CCPOAIronwood.com to receive a blogging status upgrade.

URGENT MEETING to ALL ISP CCPOA MEMBERS:

Attention all BU6 members Mike Jimenez will be at the Residence Inn 38305 Cook St. Palm Desert, Ca Saturday September 22, 2007 8:30 am to answer question concerning what the State of California is implementing on its last best and final offer.

MEMBERS FROM ALL LOCAL INSTITUTIONS ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND.

PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE ON TO CO-WORKERS and FRIENDS AT OTHER INSTITUTIONS ASAP!!!

View Larger Map

IMPORTANT MEMO to ALL CCPOA MEMBERS:

This memo is from Chuck Helton (CDC Vice President) and Louie Adame (CYA Vice President) Regarding the CPA/CDCR Memorandum Dated 9/18/07. The original (in .pdf format) will be at the end of this post if you would like to see it on letter head. The text is provided for you HERE in the CCPOAIronwood.com Blog however so that everyone may read it.

September 20, 2007

To: All CCPOA members

From: Chuck Helton, CDC Vice President
Louie Adame, CYA Vice President

Subject: Clarification of the DPA/CDCR Memorandum dated September 18, 2007

As most of you are now aware, DPA and CDCR Management have implemented their “last best and final” offer, or at least a portion of it. Management is currently distributing a memorandum dated September 18, 2007, addressed to all Unit 6 employees. The subject of this memorandum is “Changes to Compensation and Personnel Policies.”

Please be aware tht this memorandum is nothing more than a document of assumptions and half-truths, designed to manipulate the CCPOA membership into thinking this is a good and fair deal. This document lists salary and benefit increases that neither the DPA nor CDCR can guarantee. It also describes their new “policies” in vague, incomplete terms that are not a totality of the truth. This document appears, on the surface, to make this look like a good deal. We assure you it is not a good deal. This last, best and final reverses 25 plus years of collective bargaining and eliminates or destroys many of the rights and benefits we have secured over the years.

This memorandum promises salary increases and benefit increases which DPA and CDCR state are guaranteed. These salary increases and benefit increases are in no way a “for sure” thing. As was stated in the memorandum, this expenditure will require legislative approval and the legislature is out of session until January 2008. There are no guarantees that DPA and CDCR will introduce legislation to approve these increases, nor is there a guarantee that the legislature or Governor will pass any such legislation. DPA and CDCR claim that these salary and benefit increases are valued at, and will cost the State, $609.3 million. Upon hearing this dollar figure it is imperative to refer to the Governor’s September 11, 2007 press release where he stated, “I did not veto $700 million from the budget to give it all to CCPOA in a backroom deal.” This last, best and final is nothing more than a backroom deal done in the backrooms of DPA and CDCR, and the Governor has already made it clear that he has no desire to give that money to CCPOA. These salary and benefit increases are definitely not guaranteed (See Government Code 3517.7).

This memorandum also refers to a “New Recruit Bonus” that will pay a Unit 6 employee a $2000.00 bonus for recruiting a new C/O or YCO who subsequently graduates from the Correctional Officer Academy. If you read the actual proposal language instead of this “sugar-coated” synopsis, you will see that this is merely a pilot program and can be cancelled by the State at any time. This in turn means the State can cancel the program without paying any Unit 6 employee a single dime. Furthermore, should the State fail to honor this offer, the dispute cannot be grieved.

The State’s last, best and final offer also lists increases in uniform allowance over the next two years. DPA and CDCR appear to portray this as an increase they are giving as a good employer. Truth is, uniform allowance, and necessary adjustments, are required by law (see California Government Code Section 19850.2). This is no favor from our employer. We are entitled to this by law.

The State also lists four items in their memorandum that they claim, “represent the only major modifications to personnel policies being implemented by the State.” This wording that was used is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the employees and insult our intelligence. The State is accurate when they say that there are only four major modifications to personnel policies being implemented by the State. This is due to the fact that everything else that would have been a major modification they just simply elimitated. On September 18, 2007 DPA sent CCPOA a chart listing each last, best and final proposal the State intended to implement. In this chart the State eliminated 41 sections, 15 Sideletters and 4 Appendix items that were previously in the MOU. Therefore, that left them only 4 major things to modify.

In the State’s memorandum they provided a brief description of each of the 4 major modifications they referred to. The brief synopsis the State provided is only a small portion of the truth about each of these proposals. The words, whether intentional or not, are extremely misleading.

The first major modification the State refers to is in regards to sick leave. Upon legislative approval, the State will no longer count sick time as time worked for determining overtime. This will apply to voluntary, as well as involuntary, overtime. Furthermore, the State has indicated that they will be implementing policies that will allow them to take corrective or disciplinary action on any Unit 6 employee they feel is using too much sick leave, which, in some circumstances may be a violation of State law (California Labor Code Section 233). The State has also changed the exhaustive list of when medical verification is required and has made it so that they may request medical verification whenever they desire to do so. This would require Unit 6 employees to see their personal physician, or possibly even make an emergency room visit, for simple illnesses such as common colds, headaches, minor aches and pains, etc. This could possibly result in large medical bills for many Unit 6 staff.

The State also lists aspects of Post and Bid that they intend to change within the Adult Division. Upon reading the State’s vague description of this change it would appear that the only thing they want is to make Security Squads, Transportation Teams and Gender restricted positions exempt. They have made this sound like it is not a significant change to the old MOU as Squad and Transportation are already exemptions, however, in the old MOU these expempted positions were calculated as part of management’s 30%. Under this new procedure, they will be exempted prior to the 70/30 split being calculated. They will no longer be calculated as part of management’s 30%. This will reduce the number of preferred RDO positions that are available to bid for by seniority. The State, in their memorandum, also fails to mention that they will be permitted to redirect you out of your post and bid position for up to four hours everyday, even in non-emergency situations. The State’s proposal also failed to mention that Post and Bid for Youth Correctional Counselors in DJJ will be completely eliminated and will be replaced with an RDO / Watch Preference bidding system.

The State has also indicated that they will chang the lateral transfer policy and will limit lateral transfer by seniority. The State’s language allows them to implement lateral transfer freezes if an institution has a 10% or more vacancy rate. This will allow the State to stop any Unit 6 member from transferring when management fails to staff vacant positions at an institution. Management created this staffing shortage and now wants to solve it on our backs.

DPA and CDCR Management have also gutted the entire Grievance process. They have restricted the types of grievances that can be filed and have set the system up so that they do not have to respond to the grievances, with absolutely no accountability for not doing so. They have eliminated the arbitration process so no grievance can be arbitrated to solve the matter. That means that the next time our employer skims money from our paychecks (like they did in Pay Arb I), we cannot arbitrate the matter to get the money they owe us. Furthermore, the State has eliminated the section which allows CCPOA to arbitrate against the State when they refuse to defend a Unit 6 employee against an inmate initated civil lawsuit. Basically, under the old MOU, if the State declined to defend you against an inmate lawsuit, CCPOA could arbitrate the matter to force the State to defend you. Now, under their new system, this is not subject to arbitration. The State can decide not to defend and there is nothing that can be done to stop that decision.

DPA and CDCR have also made a significant number of major modification to our working conditions by simply eliminating multiple sections from our MOU.

DPA and CDCR virtually eliminated the entire MOU article on CCPOA Representation Rights. This will make it so that CCPOA representatives will have little or no access to our members for representation matters. This elimination also requires that the leadership of CCPOA (the State President and Vice Presidents) return to their institutions. This would be detrimental to our fight against this impasse situation. DPA and CDCR appear to be attempting to make it impossible for our leadership to pose any type of rebuttal to the State’s actions.

The State has also eliminated the Protected Activity section of the MOU. This makes it extremely difficult for CCPOA Representatives to fight for your rights. When representatives approach management to solve a problem on a member’s behalf, the rights that protect that representative are now eliminated.

The State has also elected to eliminate MOU Section 16.06. This is the section that requires them to eliminate a workload before re-directing staff. Without this section management will be free to re-direct as they please, oftentimes creating unsafe working conditions.

The State also fails to disclose in their memorandum the elimination of YCC Staffing Ratios. This elimination could result in fewer staff to supervise wards within the DJJ. Fewer staff to supervise the wards creates the potential for drastic increases in violence in the youth facilities.

One of the most significant changes the State is making is the elimination of Section 27.01 of our MOU. This is the section that requires the State to negotiate with CCPOA on both Statewide and local issues, and makes these subsequent negotiations part of the MOU. Also, the elimination of this section basically voids all our local agreements. Our local agreements ensure our rights for things such as overtime hiring, standby vacation, staffing packages and man other things that affect our everyday working conditions. This is a huge change and we are unable to even begin to express the negative impact this will have on our working conditions.

There are just a few of the changes that DPA and CDCR failed to disclose in their memorandum. They have attempted to convince us that they are offering something that they are not. They have only offered us a multitude of take-a-ways, accompanies with a few salary and benefit increases that they cannot guarantee we will ever get. From our personal involvement in the negotiations process, we can tell you first hand that the State did not negotiate with us in good faith. They showed up with an agenda to screw the employees of Unit 6 and they never backed off that stand. This department is plagued with problems that affect the welfare of all the employees: staff vacancies, low morale, unsafe working conditions and management that does not care about their workforce, to name a few. Implementing a last, best and final offer such as the State’s is sure to compound these problems. Do not judge the State’s offer solely on their memorandum, please take the time to read the entire proposals. You will find that DPA and CDCR have failed to be upfront with their employees.

CLICK HERE to view the original memorandum in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) version.

I don’t know if I’m allowed to post this… but the DPA has a copy on their website so I’m going to assume that this is OK for public record. Actually, at this point, I don’t really give a shit - the membership has every right to see what their state government is attempting to impose upon them - these folks you probably voted into office, these folks whose paychecks you PAY. The media will really stir it up and twist it around against the officers and CCPOA - as it always does - so it’s better for you and your family to have the facts in front of them before they are confronted with that myriad of bullshit.

This is the letter dated yesterday, September 18th from the DPA stating that because CCPOA and the state could not come to an agreement on the MOU they are hereby electing to impose the last, best and final upon CDCR - operating WITHOUT an MOU. Where’s the bargaining in that? It’s more like a dictator imposing his final rule upon the people… that certainly seems what’s happening here. I’ll save the commenting for the membership - just read it for yourself:
Last, Best & Final + Memo - 9/18/07 Adobe Acrobat .pdf format - pops in a new window.

The DPA has included a “grid” - a summary overview of the last, best and final offer in with the 1st link memo. This is deceiving, as many of the other items handed down by them have been through this entire process. Here is the link directly to the DPA’s website with the full proposal. Some of the language is a bit - well, lawyer-y - you can see by reading the way that these things get twisted around why CCPOA has been so careful and has had to hire such a top legal team. I can assure you that they are working on this as we speak.
Last, Best & Final - 9/12/07 Adobe Acrobat .pdf format - pops in a new window.

PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS HERE - or post informed, well-thought out comments on public forums like Paco Villa, in reply to editorial bullshit on publication websites like SacBee.com, LATimes.com and others who will no doubt attempt to join in on the DPA’s attempt to “put CCPOA in its place” with this latest maneuver. The media is going to have a field day - don’t get sucked in.

An arbitrator has ruled that the state’s correctional officers are not entitled to a pay raise based on an increase the California Highway Patrol union negotiated for its members last year.

In his Sept. 1 ruling, arbitrator Norman Brand found that the state did not violate its since-expired contract with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association it when rebuffed the union’s claim that a raise must follow the increase awarded to the CHP.

The CCPOA filed a grievance last September saying members should have gotten the raise based on the union’s old contract. The expired agreement established a methodology that paid the CCPOA members $666 a month less than CHP officers.

….

CCPOA spokesman Ryan Sherman said the union will appeal the decision to Superior Court.

“The contract is still in place for everything else,” Sherman said. “We’re still being required to live under its terms, even though the (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) isn’t.”

To read the full article visit: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/363248.html
PLEASE post your comments at SacBee’s website… SacBee has a reputation for being very “one-way” against CCPOA-related topics/issues and as a result many of the readers are jaded against CCPOA as well. Read the comments approved for posting. CCPOAIronwood posted a comment and it wasn’t “approved” for posting despite the fact that it was well-written, contained no profanity or derogatory remarks. Some publications hire paid blog posters - it seems like some of these comments may come from an “inside source.” There’s a lot of mis-information out there - it’s time to get the truth out and lay it all on the line.

This updated document was just posted on CCPOA.org. I was unable to provide a direct link to the .pdf file (Adobe Acrobat) on their site so we have a copy here for you on CCPOAIronwood.com.

The .pdf file contains a letter from CCPOA following the 2007 convention that occurred in Temecula, California the last week of August along with a Q&A document from the representatives/members who attended that conference in reference to the DPA’s “last and final” offer in the current contract negotiations.

It also contains the response to the Q&A - along with some half-assed replies to the questions posed by the membership - from the DPA. And finally, it contains the response from CCPOA’s Executive VP Chuck Alexander to the reply by DPA.

This is a lot of reading - but well worth the effort. For those who had questions about the current MOU negotiations, this will perhaps paint you a more clear picture of what CCPOA has been up against. If you read the media reports, CCPOA is just out for “more money” - yet somehow, they keep turning down the state’s offers of increase monetary compensation. Why? Why would anyone turn down a 20% pay increase over the life of the new contract? Because in “trade” for the pay raise, CCPOA members would lose the portions of the contract that safeguards their working conditions… all the things that CCPOA has fought for on behalf of the membership to ensure that they had safe and fair working conditions - the DPA essentially wants to take away.

But don’t take our word for it - read it yourself. It’s all there in black and white.

Q&A .pdf from CCPOA.org