- This topic has 680 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by
jstoesz.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM #662040February 1, 2011 at 1:45 PM #660920
bearishgurl
ParticipantI think some of you Piggs are barking up the wrong tree, here. The AG, county counsels and city attorneys can do nothing about CA’s budget problems, except “beg.” In essence, their “hands are tied.”
There’s only one way out, folks, and that’s city, county, school district, state bankruptcy OR mass retirements from these entities and no rehires to take their places. (This is already happening to some degree.) I’m not even sure filing for BK would completely negate or eradicate ALL the promises made in the past to employees by government entities. The horse left the barn long before many Piggs were a twinkle in their parents’ eye. The law in this area is well established and isn’t going anywhere.
It is known as the Meyers Milias Brown Act, (referred to as the “MMBA” and codified as Cal. Government Code section 3500 et. seq.
see: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=59745414467+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
History and Overview of California Public Sector Bargaining Laws Covering Local Agency Public Safety Employees
Presently under federal law public safety employees do not have the right to collectively bargain with their employers. However, 34 states, including California, have passed laws that allow police officers, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel to participate in collective bargaining.
Prior to the 1960s, California public safety employees had very few organizing or bargaining rights. Although Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 to protect the rights of employees and employers and encourage collective bargaining, the act did not apply to public sector employees. While interfering with a firefighters’ right to join a labor organization was prohibited in 1959, firefighters did not have the right to collectively bargain. Instead, firefighters were permitted to present and discuss grievances and recommendations regarding wages, salaries, hours and working conditions to the governing body. In 1959, firefighters were statutorily prohibited from striking, which remains the law today.
In 1961, California passed the George Brown Act, which was the state’s first public sector bargaining law. Under the act, labor organizations had the right to meet and confer but the act failed to identify the scope of bargaining or provide for bargaining units, recognition, impasse procedures or labor agreements.
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The MMBA provides public agency employees — including firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel employed by cities, counties, districts and other political subdivisions of the state — with substantial bargaining rights. The MMBA’s purpose is to promote full communication between public sector employers and employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The MMBA also includes procedures for unit determinations and elections of employee organizations.
Under the MMBA public safety employees have the right to form, join and participate in an employee organization’s activities or abstain. Employers are prohibited from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing or discriminating against public safety employees because they exercise their rights. Similarly, representatives of employee bargaining units are protected from punitive action or threats of punitive action as a result of exercising their rights.
The MMBA provides local government agencies with the authority to enact rules governing labor relations. Most cities and counties have enacted local rules to implement the MMBA that provide, for example, procedures for determining bargaining units, recognition and impasse resolution.
The MMBA specifically entitles police officers to a bargaining unit composed only of other “peace officers” as defined by the Penal Code. However, police officers must request such a unit and without making this request can be grouped with other non-sworn employees. Even if police officers request a separate bargaining unit under the MMBA, the local agency may require separate units for management and non-management employees.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has exclusive jurisdiction to administer and enforce these laws as they apply to firefighters and emergency medical personnel but does not have jurisdiction over most peace officers, management employees, the majority of transit district employees and Los Angeles City and County employees.28 Judicial review of PERB decisions can be sought by filing a writ petition in the district court of appeal.
Labor relations disputes between involving peace officers, as defined by Penal Code section 830.1, are adjudicated solely through the judicial system (that is to say, the claim will be filed first in superior court).
The scope of bargaining under the MMBA is similar to that under the National Labor Relations Act, the law the regulates collective bargaining in the private sector.
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/statutes.asp
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/mmba.asp
http://cper.berkeley.edu/pocketguide/guide5.html
CA public educators at all levels also have the right of collective bargaining in different bodies of law.
I also believe about 30-35% of CA government employees at ALL levels have the right to retire now if they choose to but are still working.
About 5% of CA public employees have =>30 years of service. These employees would have the same income if they retired now but are either in critical positions that are hard to fill due to the particular position they are occupying needing a lot of institutional knowledge, they occupy high-level positions such as dept/agency heads or they are elected officials. A few just enjoy working for something to do. For this 5% or so, their only costs to taxpayers are healthcare premiums that would otherwise be taken from their monthly pension annuity (which taxpayers will partially be on the hook for in the near future). These healthcare premiums are at a very large group rate of about $400 per employee with no regard to age.
Piggs, short of mass BK, there is no “fix” for CA’s massive budget deficit for the long term. The only solution I see, short of BK, is mass reduction in the public workforce. The only way this could be accomplished is with less population and less students to serve, thus a need for less services. I believe 25-50% (depending on county) of government services/court processing in CA are sought and/or obtained, either voluntary or involunarily, by illegal immigrants. Those who don’t have a legal right to be in the US should be deported and should not be able to receive services. Unfortunately many minor children are US citizens while their parents are “illegals.” If these children don’t have a “guardian” who is in the US legally, then they should follow their parents out of the country in order to attend school. Bottom line is that the CA Education Code section which prohibits districts from asking students to prove citizenship (as well as any Federal laws) will have to be repealed in order for these changes to take place.
This is why we need to insist our congressmen/women continually introduce bills and push congress to toughen the laws on government procedures and policies of the various agencies of the US Dept of Homeland Security and also seek constant reimbursement for these “unfunded mandates.” It is these very “mandates” that will eventually bankrupt our state and, as a consequence of that insolvency, bankrupt many of our cities and counties.
There’s no “easy fix,” here. Our representatives need to stand up in Washington for us, every day and hammer CA’s massive “illegal immigration” problem into the ground without letup.
February 1, 2011 at 1:45 PM #660983ParticipantI think some of you Piggs are barking up the wrong tree, here. The AG, county counsels and city attorneys can do nothing about CA’s budget problems, except “beg.” In essence, their “hands are tied.”
There’s only one way out, folks, and that’s city, county, school district, state bankruptcy OR mass retirements from these entities and no rehires to take their places. (This is already happening to some degree.) I’m not even sure filing for BK would completely negate or eradicate ALL the promises made in the past to employees by government entities. The horse left the barn long before many Piggs were a twinkle in their parents’ eye. The law in this area is well established and isn’t going anywhere.
It is known as the Meyers Milias Brown Act, (referred to as the “MMBA” and codified as Cal. Government Code section 3500 et. seq.
see: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=59745414467+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
History and Overview of California Public Sector Bargaining Laws Covering Local Agency Public Safety Employees
Presently under federal law public safety employees do not have the right to collectively bargain with their employers. However, 34 states, including California, have passed laws that allow police officers, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel to participate in collective bargaining.
Prior to the 1960s, California public safety employees had very few organizing or bargaining rights. Although Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 to protect the rights of employees and employers and encourage collective bargaining, the act did not apply to public sector employees. While interfering with a firefighters’ right to join a labor organization was prohibited in 1959, firefighters did not have the right to collectively bargain. Instead, firefighters were permitted to present and discuss grievances and recommendations regarding wages, salaries, hours and working conditions to the governing body. In 1959, firefighters were statutorily prohibited from striking, which remains the law today.
In 1961, California passed the George Brown Act, which was the state’s first public sector bargaining law. Under the act, labor organizations had the right to meet and confer but the act failed to identify the scope of bargaining or provide for bargaining units, recognition, impasse procedures or labor agreements.
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The MMBA provides public agency employees — including firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel employed by cities, counties, districts and other political subdivisions of the state — with substantial bargaining rights. The MMBA’s purpose is to promote full communication between public sector employers and employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The MMBA also includes procedures for unit determinations and elections of employee organizations.
Under the MMBA public safety employees have the right to form, join and participate in an employee organization’s activities or abstain. Employers are prohibited from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing or discriminating against public safety employees because they exercise their rights. Similarly, representatives of employee bargaining units are protected from punitive action or threats of punitive action as a result of exercising their rights.
The MMBA provides local government agencies with the authority to enact rules governing labor relations. Most cities and counties have enacted local rules to implement the MMBA that provide, for example, procedures for determining bargaining units, recognition and impasse resolution.
The MMBA specifically entitles police officers to a bargaining unit composed only of other “peace officers” as defined by the Penal Code. However, police officers must request such a unit and without making this request can be grouped with other non-sworn employees. Even if police officers request a separate bargaining unit under the MMBA, the local agency may require separate units for management and non-management employees.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has exclusive jurisdiction to administer and enforce these laws as they apply to firefighters and emergency medical personnel but does not have jurisdiction over most peace officers, management employees, the majority of transit district employees and Los Angeles City and County employees.28 Judicial review of PERB decisions can be sought by filing a writ petition in the district court of appeal.
Labor relations disputes between involving peace officers, as defined by Penal Code section 830.1, are adjudicated solely through the judicial system (that is to say, the claim will be filed first in superior court).
The scope of bargaining under the MMBA is similar to that under the National Labor Relations Act, the law the regulates collective bargaining in the private sector.
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/statutes.asp
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/mmba.asp
http://cper.berkeley.edu/pocketguide/guide5.html
CA public educators at all levels also have the right of collective bargaining in different bodies of law.
I also believe about 30-35% of CA government employees at ALL levels have the right to retire now if they choose to but are still working.
About 5% of CA public employees have =>30 years of service. These employees would have the same income if they retired now but are either in critical positions that are hard to fill due to the particular position they are occupying needing a lot of institutional knowledge, they occupy high-level positions such as dept/agency heads or they are elected officials. A few just enjoy working for something to do. For this 5% or so, their only costs to taxpayers are healthcare premiums that would otherwise be taken from their monthly pension annuity (which taxpayers will partially be on the hook for in the near future). These healthcare premiums are at a very large group rate of about $400 per employee with no regard to age.
Piggs, short of mass BK, there is no “fix” for CA’s massive budget deficit for the long term. The only solution I see, short of BK, is mass reduction in the public workforce. The only way this could be accomplished is with less population and less students to serve, thus a need for less services. I believe 25-50% (depending on county) of government services/court processing in CA are sought and/or obtained, either voluntary or involunarily, by illegal immigrants. Those who don’t have a legal right to be in the US should be deported and should not be able to receive services. Unfortunately many minor children are US citizens while their parents are “illegals.” If these children don’t have a “guardian” who is in the US legally, then they should follow their parents out of the country in order to attend school. Bottom line is that the CA Education Code section which prohibits districts from asking students to prove citizenship (as well as any Federal laws) will have to be repealed in order for these changes to take place.
This is why we need to insist our congressmen/women continually introduce bills and push congress to toughen the laws on government procedures and policies of the various agencies of the US Dept of Homeland Security and also seek constant reimbursement for these “unfunded mandates.” It is these very “mandates” that will eventually bankrupt our state and, as a consequence of that insolvency, bankrupt many of our cities and counties.
There’s no “easy fix,” here. Our representatives need to stand up in Washington for us, every day and hammer CA’s massive “illegal immigration” problem into the ground without letup.
February 1, 2011 at 1:45 PM #661588ParticipantI think some of you Piggs are barking up the wrong tree, here. The AG, county counsels and city attorneys can do nothing about CA’s budget problems, except “beg.” In essence, their “hands are tied.”
There’s only one way out, folks, and that’s city, county, school district, state bankruptcy OR mass retirements from these entities and no rehires to take their places. (This is already happening to some degree.) I’m not even sure filing for BK would completely negate or eradicate ALL the promises made in the past to employees by government entities. The horse left the barn long before many Piggs were a twinkle in their parents’ eye. The law in this area is well established and isn’t going anywhere.
It is known as the Meyers Milias Brown Act, (referred to as the “MMBA” and codified as Cal. Government Code section 3500 et. seq.
see: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=59745414467+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
History and Overview of California Public Sector Bargaining Laws Covering Local Agency Public Safety Employees
Presently under federal law public safety employees do not have the right to collectively bargain with their employers. However, 34 states, including California, have passed laws that allow police officers, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel to participate in collective bargaining.
Prior to the 1960s, California public safety employees had very few organizing or bargaining rights. Although Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 to protect the rights of employees and employers and encourage collective bargaining, the act did not apply to public sector employees. While interfering with a firefighters’ right to join a labor organization was prohibited in 1959, firefighters did not have the right to collectively bargain. Instead, firefighters were permitted to present and discuss grievances and recommendations regarding wages, salaries, hours and working conditions to the governing body. In 1959, firefighters were statutorily prohibited from striking, which remains the law today.
In 1961, California passed the George Brown Act, which was the state’s first public sector bargaining law. Under the act, labor organizations had the right to meet and confer but the act failed to identify the scope of bargaining or provide for bargaining units, recognition, impasse procedures or labor agreements.
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The MMBA provides public agency employees — including firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel employed by cities, counties, districts and other political subdivisions of the state — with substantial bargaining rights. The MMBA’s purpose is to promote full communication between public sector employers and employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The MMBA also includes procedures for unit determinations and elections of employee organizations.
Under the MMBA public safety employees have the right to form, join and participate in an employee organization’s activities or abstain. Employers are prohibited from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing or discriminating against public safety employees because they exercise their rights. Similarly, representatives of employee bargaining units are protected from punitive action or threats of punitive action as a result of exercising their rights.
The MMBA provides local government agencies with the authority to enact rules governing labor relations. Most cities and counties have enacted local rules to implement the MMBA that provide, for example, procedures for determining bargaining units, recognition and impasse resolution.
The MMBA specifically entitles police officers to a bargaining unit composed only of other “peace officers” as defined by the Penal Code. However, police officers must request such a unit and without making this request can be grouped with other non-sworn employees. Even if police officers request a separate bargaining unit under the MMBA, the local agency may require separate units for management and non-management employees.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has exclusive jurisdiction to administer and enforce these laws as they apply to firefighters and emergency medical personnel but does not have jurisdiction over most peace officers, management employees, the majority of transit district employees and Los Angeles City and County employees.28 Judicial review of PERB decisions can be sought by filing a writ petition in the district court of appeal.
Labor relations disputes between involving peace officers, as defined by Penal Code section 830.1, are adjudicated solely through the judicial system (that is to say, the claim will be filed first in superior court).
The scope of bargaining under the MMBA is similar to that under the National Labor Relations Act, the law the regulates collective bargaining in the private sector.
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/statutes.asp
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/mmba.asp
http://cper.berkeley.edu/pocketguide/guide5.html
CA public educators at all levels also have the right of collective bargaining in different bodies of law.
I also believe about 30-35% of CA government employees at ALL levels have the right to retire now if they choose to but are still working.
About 5% of CA public employees have =>30 years of service. These employees would have the same income if they retired now but are either in critical positions that are hard to fill due to the particular position they are occupying needing a lot of institutional knowledge, they occupy high-level positions such as dept/agency heads or they are elected officials. A few just enjoy working for something to do. For this 5% or so, their only costs to taxpayers are healthcare premiums that would otherwise be taken from their monthly pension annuity (which taxpayers will partially be on the hook for in the near future). These healthcare premiums are at a very large group rate of about $400 per employee with no regard to age.
Piggs, short of mass BK, there is no “fix” for CA’s massive budget deficit for the long term. The only solution I see, short of BK, is mass reduction in the public workforce. The only way this could be accomplished is with less population and less students to serve, thus a need for less services. I believe 25-50% (depending on county) of government services/court processing in CA are sought and/or obtained, either voluntary or involunarily, by illegal immigrants. Those who don’t have a legal right to be in the US should be deported and should not be able to receive services. Unfortunately many minor children are US citizens while their parents are “illegals.” If these children don’t have a “guardian” who is in the US legally, then they should follow their parents out of the country in order to attend school. Bottom line is that the CA Education Code section which prohibits districts from asking students to prove citizenship (as well as any Federal laws) will have to be repealed in order for these changes to take place.
This is why we need to insist our congressmen/women continually introduce bills and push congress to toughen the laws on government procedures and policies of the various agencies of the US Dept of Homeland Security and also seek constant reimbursement for these “unfunded mandates.” It is these very “mandates” that will eventually bankrupt our state and, as a consequence of that insolvency, bankrupt many of our cities and counties.
There’s no “easy fix,” here. Our representatives need to stand up in Washington for us, every day and hammer CA’s massive “illegal immigration” problem into the ground without letup.
February 1, 2011 at 1:45 PM #661725ParticipantI think some of you Piggs are barking up the wrong tree, here. The AG, county counsels and city attorneys can do nothing about CA’s budget problems, except “beg.” In essence, their “hands are tied.”
There’s only one way out, folks, and that’s city, county, school district, state bankruptcy OR mass retirements from these entities and no rehires to take their places. (This is already happening to some degree.) I’m not even sure filing for BK would completely negate or eradicate ALL the promises made in the past to employees by government entities. The horse left the barn long before many Piggs were a twinkle in their parents’ eye. The law in this area is well established and isn’t going anywhere.
It is known as the Meyers Milias Brown Act, (referred to as the “MMBA” and codified as Cal. Government Code section 3500 et. seq.
see: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=59745414467+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
History and Overview of California Public Sector Bargaining Laws Covering Local Agency Public Safety Employees
Presently under federal law public safety employees do not have the right to collectively bargain with their employers. However, 34 states, including California, have passed laws that allow police officers, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel to participate in collective bargaining.
Prior to the 1960s, California public safety employees had very few organizing or bargaining rights. Although Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 to protect the rights of employees and employers and encourage collective bargaining, the act did not apply to public sector employees. While interfering with a firefighters’ right to join a labor organization was prohibited in 1959, firefighters did not have the right to collectively bargain. Instead, firefighters were permitted to present and discuss grievances and recommendations regarding wages, salaries, hours and working conditions to the governing body. In 1959, firefighters were statutorily prohibited from striking, which remains the law today.
In 1961, California passed the George Brown Act, which was the state’s first public sector bargaining law. Under the act, labor organizations had the right to meet and confer but the act failed to identify the scope of bargaining or provide for bargaining units, recognition, impasse procedures or labor agreements.
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The MMBA provides public agency employees — including firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel employed by cities, counties, districts and other political subdivisions of the state — with substantial bargaining rights. The MMBA’s purpose is to promote full communication between public sector employers and employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The MMBA also includes procedures for unit determinations and elections of employee organizations.
Under the MMBA public safety employees have the right to form, join and participate in an employee organization’s activities or abstain. Employers are prohibited from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing or discriminating against public safety employees because they exercise their rights. Similarly, representatives of employee bargaining units are protected from punitive action or threats of punitive action as a result of exercising their rights.
The MMBA provides local government agencies with the authority to enact rules governing labor relations. Most cities and counties have enacted local rules to implement the MMBA that provide, for example, procedures for determining bargaining units, recognition and impasse resolution.
The MMBA specifically entitles police officers to a bargaining unit composed only of other “peace officers” as defined by the Penal Code. However, police officers must request such a unit and without making this request can be grouped with other non-sworn employees. Even if police officers request a separate bargaining unit under the MMBA, the local agency may require separate units for management and non-management employees.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has exclusive jurisdiction to administer and enforce these laws as they apply to firefighters and emergency medical personnel but does not have jurisdiction over most peace officers, management employees, the majority of transit district employees and Los Angeles City and County employees.28 Judicial review of PERB decisions can be sought by filing a writ petition in the district court of appeal.
Labor relations disputes between involving peace officers, as defined by Penal Code section 830.1, are adjudicated solely through the judicial system (that is to say, the claim will be filed first in superior court).
The scope of bargaining under the MMBA is similar to that under the National Labor Relations Act, the law the regulates collective bargaining in the private sector.
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/statutes.asp
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/mmba.asp
http://cper.berkeley.edu/pocketguide/guide5.html
CA public educators at all levels also have the right of collective bargaining in different bodies of law.
I also believe about 30-35% of CA government employees at ALL levels have the right to retire now if they choose to but are still working.
About 5% of CA public employees have =>30 years of service. These employees would have the same income if they retired now but are either in critical positions that are hard to fill due to the particular position they are occupying needing a lot of institutional knowledge, they occupy high-level positions such as dept/agency heads or they are elected officials. A few just enjoy working for something to do. For this 5% or so, their only costs to taxpayers are healthcare premiums that would otherwise be taken from their monthly pension annuity (which taxpayers will partially be on the hook for in the near future). These healthcare premiums are at a very large group rate of about $400 per employee with no regard to age.
Piggs, short of mass BK, there is no “fix” for CA’s massive budget deficit for the long term. The only solution I see, short of BK, is mass reduction in the public workforce. The only way this could be accomplished is with less population and less students to serve, thus a need for less services. I believe 25-50% (depending on county) of government services/court processing in CA are sought and/or obtained, either voluntary or involunarily, by illegal immigrants. Those who don’t have a legal right to be in the US should be deported and should not be able to receive services. Unfortunately many minor children are US citizens while their parents are “illegals.” If these children don’t have a “guardian” who is in the US legally, then they should follow their parents out of the country in order to attend school. Bottom line is that the CA Education Code section which prohibits districts from asking students to prove citizenship (as well as any Federal laws) will have to be repealed in order for these changes to take place.
This is why we need to insist our congressmen/women continually introduce bills and push congress to toughen the laws on government procedures and policies of the various agencies of the US Dept of Homeland Security and also seek constant reimbursement for these “unfunded mandates.” It is these very “mandates” that will eventually bankrupt our state and, as a consequence of that insolvency, bankrupt many of our cities and counties.
There’s no “easy fix,” here. Our representatives need to stand up in Washington for us, every day and hammer CA’s massive “illegal immigration” problem into the ground without letup.
February 1, 2011 at 1:45 PM #662055ParticipantI think some of you Piggs are barking up the wrong tree, here. The AG, county counsels and city attorneys can do nothing about CA’s budget problems, except “beg.” In essence, their “hands are tied.”
There’s only one way out, folks, and that’s city, county, school district, state bankruptcy OR mass retirements from these entities and no rehires to take their places. (This is already happening to some degree.) I’m not even sure filing for BK would completely negate or eradicate ALL the promises made in the past to employees by government entities. The horse left the barn long before many Piggs were a twinkle in their parents’ eye. The law in this area is well established and isn’t going anywhere.
It is known as the Meyers Milias Brown Act, (referred to as the “MMBA” and codified as Cal. Government Code section 3500 et. seq.
see: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=59745414467+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
History and Overview of California Public Sector Bargaining Laws Covering Local Agency Public Safety Employees
Presently under federal law public safety employees do not have the right to collectively bargain with their employers. However, 34 states, including California, have passed laws that allow police officers, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel to participate in collective bargaining.
Prior to the 1960s, California public safety employees had very few organizing or bargaining rights. Although Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 to protect the rights of employees and employers and encourage collective bargaining, the act did not apply to public sector employees. While interfering with a firefighters’ right to join a labor organization was prohibited in 1959, firefighters did not have the right to collectively bargain. Instead, firefighters were permitted to present and discuss grievances and recommendations regarding wages, salaries, hours and working conditions to the governing body. In 1959, firefighters were statutorily prohibited from striking, which remains the law today.
In 1961, California passed the George Brown Act, which was the state’s first public sector bargaining law. Under the act, labor organizations had the right to meet and confer but the act failed to identify the scope of bargaining or provide for bargaining units, recognition, impasse procedures or labor agreements.
In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The MMBA provides public agency employees — including firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel employed by cities, counties, districts and other political subdivisions of the state — with substantial bargaining rights. The MMBA’s purpose is to promote full communication between public sector employers and employees by providing a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The MMBA also includes procedures for unit determinations and elections of employee organizations.
Under the MMBA public safety employees have the right to form, join and participate in an employee organization’s activities or abstain. Employers are prohibited from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing or discriminating against public safety employees because they exercise their rights. Similarly, representatives of employee bargaining units are protected from punitive action or threats of punitive action as a result of exercising their rights.
The MMBA provides local government agencies with the authority to enact rules governing labor relations. Most cities and counties have enacted local rules to implement the MMBA that provide, for example, procedures for determining bargaining units, recognition and impasse resolution.
The MMBA specifically entitles police officers to a bargaining unit composed only of other “peace officers” as defined by the Penal Code. However, police officers must request such a unit and without making this request can be grouped with other non-sworn employees. Even if police officers request a separate bargaining unit under the MMBA, the local agency may require separate units for management and non-management employees.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) has exclusive jurisdiction to administer and enforce these laws as they apply to firefighters and emergency medical personnel but does not have jurisdiction over most peace officers, management employees, the majority of transit district employees and Los Angeles City and County employees.28 Judicial review of PERB decisions can be sought by filing a writ petition in the district court of appeal.
Labor relations disputes between involving peace officers, as defined by Penal Code section 830.1, are adjudicated solely through the judicial system (that is to say, the claim will be filed first in superior court).
The scope of bargaining under the MMBA is similar to that under the National Labor Relations Act, the law the regulates collective bargaining in the private sector.
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/statutes.asp
http://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/mmba.asp
http://cper.berkeley.edu/pocketguide/guide5.html
CA public educators at all levels also have the right of collective bargaining in different bodies of law.
I also believe about 30-35% of CA government employees at ALL levels have the right to retire now if they choose to but are still working.
About 5% of CA public employees have =>30 years of service. These employees would have the same income if they retired now but are either in critical positions that are hard to fill due to the particular position they are occupying needing a lot of institutional knowledge, they occupy high-level positions such as dept/agency heads or they are elected officials. A few just enjoy working for something to do. For this 5% or so, their only costs to taxpayers are healthcare premiums that would otherwise be taken from their monthly pension annuity (which taxpayers will partially be on the hook for in the near future). These healthcare premiums are at a very large group rate of about $400 per employee with no regard to age.
Piggs, short of mass BK, there is no “fix” for CA’s massive budget deficit for the long term. The only solution I see, short of BK, is mass reduction in the public workforce. The only way this could be accomplished is with less population and less students to serve, thus a need for less services. I believe 25-50% (depending on county) of government services/court processing in CA are sought and/or obtained, either voluntary or involunarily, by illegal immigrants. Those who don’t have a legal right to be in the US should be deported and should not be able to receive services. Unfortunately many minor children are US citizens while their parents are “illegals.” If these children don’t have a “guardian” who is in the US legally, then they should follow their parents out of the country in order to attend school. Bottom line is that the CA Education Code section which prohibits districts from asking students to prove citizenship (as well as any Federal laws) will have to be repealed in order for these changes to take place.
This is why we need to insist our congressmen/women continually introduce bills and push congress to toughen the laws on government procedures and policies of the various agencies of the US Dept of Homeland Security and also seek constant reimbursement for these “unfunded mandates.” It is these very “mandates” that will eventually bankrupt our state and, as a consequence of that insolvency, bankrupt many of our cities and counties.
There’s no “easy fix,” here. Our representatives need to stand up in Washington for us, every day and hammer CA’s massive “illegal immigration” problem into the ground without letup.
February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM #660945Djshakes
ParticipantBut this would be mean. They just come here to work and make life better for themselves. We are a nation of immigrants. Why do you like hurting these people? CA was theirs to begin with. It doesn’t matter if they took it from the Spanish and occupied it for barely 20 years. THIS LAND WAS THEIRS!
February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM #661008ParticipantBut this would be mean. They just come here to work and make life better for themselves. We are a nation of immigrants. Why do you like hurting these people? CA was theirs to begin with. It doesn’t matter if they took it from the Spanish and occupied it for barely 20 years. THIS LAND WAS THEIRS!
February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM #661613ParticipantBut this would be mean. They just come here to work and make life better for themselves. We are a nation of immigrants. Why do you like hurting these people? CA was theirs to begin with. It doesn’t matter if they took it from the Spanish and occupied it for barely 20 years. THIS LAND WAS THEIRS!
February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM #661750ParticipantBut this would be mean. They just come here to work and make life better for themselves. We are a nation of immigrants. Why do you like hurting these people? CA was theirs to begin with. It doesn’t matter if they took it from the Spanish and occupied it for barely 20 years. THIS LAND WAS THEIRS!
February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM #662080ParticipantBut this would be mean. They just come here to work and make life better for themselves. We are a nation of immigrants. Why do you like hurting these people? CA was theirs to begin with. It doesn’t matter if they took it from the Spanish and occupied it for barely 20 years. THIS LAND WAS THEIRS!
February 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM #660940Participant[quote=pri_dk]But one thing won’t work: Making teaching even less attractive as a profession.[/quote]
Agree with this, pri_dk.
There’s at least a dozen teachers at every high school around here that have =>30 years on the job. Middle and elem schools avg 6-8 with =>30 years on the job.
How can all these teachers be replaced (most w/bilingual skills). Of the handful of unemployed (in the education field) teachers I know, they don’t have proper credentials to teach here. And most of them are not bilingual.
These 30+ yr teachers don’t make any more by getting up and going to work every day. Many just love kids and teaching. What if they all retired tomorrow??
February 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM #661003Participant[quote=pri_dk]But one thing won’t work: Making teaching even less attractive as a profession.[/quote]
Agree with this, pri_dk.
There’s at least a dozen teachers at every high school around here that have =>30 years on the job. Middle and elem schools avg 6-8 with =>30 years on the job.
How can all these teachers be replaced (most w/bilingual skills). Of the handful of unemployed (in the education field) teachers I know, they don’t have proper credentials to teach here. And most of them are not bilingual.
These 30+ yr teachers don’t make any more by getting up and going to work every day. Many just love kids and teaching. What if they all retired tomorrow??
February 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM #661608Participant[quote=pri_dk]But one thing won’t work: Making teaching even less attractive as a profession.[/quote]
Agree with this, pri_dk.
There’s at least a dozen teachers at every high school around here that have =>30 years on the job. Middle and elem schools avg 6-8 with =>30 years on the job.
How can all these teachers be replaced (most w/bilingual skills). Of the handful of unemployed (in the education field) teachers I know, they don’t have proper credentials to teach here. And most of them are not bilingual.
These 30+ yr teachers don’t make any more by getting up and going to work every day. Many just love kids and teaching. What if they all retired tomorrow??
February 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM #661745Participant[quote=pri_dk]But one thing won’t work: Making teaching even less attractive as a profession.[/quote]
Agree with this, pri_dk.
There’s at least a dozen teachers at every high school around here that have =>30 years on the job. Middle and elem schools avg 6-8 with =>30 years on the job.
How can all these teachers be replaced (most w/bilingual skills). Of the handful of unemployed (in the education field) teachers I know, they don’t have proper credentials to teach here. And most of them are not bilingual.
These 30+ yr teachers don’t make any more by getting up and going to work every day. Many just love kids and teaching. What if they all retired tomorrow??
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.