Existing law provides that in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources, in order to provide comparability in pay, to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.

This bill would require the state to pay firefighters who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 8, employed by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in 20 listed California fire departments. The bill would require the state and the exclusive representative for State Bargaining Unit 8 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries for those fire departments. The bill would also require the Department of Human Resources, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct and report to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection a cursory survey on the salaries and benefits for the prior year of each of the fire chiefs for 5 listed California fire departments.

The bill would provide that when determining compensation for uniformed classifications of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions listed, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons. The bill would require any salary increase for firefighters under these provisions to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding, in accordance with specified procedures governing collective bargaining agreements. The bill would include legislative findings and declarations related to its provisions.

Existing law provides that in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources, in order to provide comparability in pay, to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California.

This bill would require the state to pay firefighters who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 8, employed by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in 20 listed California fire departments. The bill would require the state and the exclusive representative for State Bargaining Unit 8 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries for those fire departments. The bill would also require the Department of Human Resources, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct and report to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection a cursory survey on the salaries and benefits for the prior year of each of the fire chiefs for 5 listed California fire departments.

The bill would provide that when determining compensation for uniformed classifications of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions listed, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons. The bill would require any salary increase for firefighters under these provisions to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding, in accordance with specified procedures governing collective bargaining agreements. The bill would include legislative findings and declarations related to its provisions.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 1309

Author:(Flora)

As Enrolled Ver:September 8, 2025

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Requires comparative pay for rank-and-file state Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 firefighters employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) similar to those of other California fire departments, as specified, and among other provisions.

1. Toward recruiting and retaining the highest qualified and skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE, requires the state to pay rank-and-file state BU 8 firefighters within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by state BU 8 and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) in 2017:
2. The cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, Torrance, and Ventura;
3. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department;
4. The Novato Fire District; and,
5. The County of Los Angeles.
6. Require the state and the state BU 8 exclusive representative to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries of the immediately aforementioned departments based on the projected average total salary for those departments as of July 1 of the year in which the survey is conducted.
7. Require, on or before January 1, 2027, the CalHR to conduct and report to the CAL FIRE a cursory survey on the salaries and benefits for the prior year of each of the fire chiefs for the following fire departments:
8. The cities of Fresno and San Diego.
9. The counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino.
10. The City and County of San Francisco.
11. Establish that it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdiction, as specified, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE's uniformed classifications.
12. Provide that any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters, as specified, resulting from these provisions must be implemented through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act), and establish that if these provisions are in conflict with those in a MOU, the MOU must be controlling without further legislative action, except if the MOU requires the expenditure of funds, then the provision must not become effective unless approved by the Legislature and the Annual Budget Act. Include uncodified legislative findings and declarations for these purposes.

Governor's Veto Message

"While I appreciate the author's intent, this bill would create significant cost pressures for the state and circumvent the collective bargaining process. State employee salaries, along with other components of compensation such as health and pension benefits, should be determined through collective bargaining. Establishing a statutory floor for employees of a single department undermines this process, to the detriment of both the state and other bargaining units."

COMMENTS

State BU 8 (Firefighters) MOU Fiscal Analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office

On August 6, 2024, the administration submitted a proposed MOU between the state and state BU 8 to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) for review.

While the MOU, which is effective from July 1, 2024, though June 30, 2026, included provisions relating to the reduction of the duty week, among other things, provisions relating to pay include: 1) 2024-25 special salary adjustment (8.5%) to most of the BU, but not specialty classes; 2) a 2.5% general salary increase that increases the base pay for all steps in each classification's pay range; 3) a 2025-26 firefighter special salary adjustment (4.25%) for the firefighter I and fire lookout classifications; 4) a pay differential of 5% of base salary for a) CAL FIRE peace officers assigned to certain designated peace officers, b) peace officers appointed under Section 8302 (g) of the Penal Code and remain in good standing receive pay differential of 2.5% of base pay, and c) CAL FIRE peace officers who serve as a field training officer and assigned a trainee would receive a $250 weekly stipend for each week a trainee is assigned; 5) specified classifications depending on their helicopter (helo) pilot qualifications and/or CAL FIRE helo program responsibilities receive qualification incentive payments established as a percentage of base pay ranging from 2.5% to 10% of pay, among other specified provisions; 6) $50 to employees who are not in a designated paramedic position, but maintain an emergency medical technician-paramedic license in good standing for each day they work voluntary overtime behind a paramedic position vacancy; and, fire mission pay where CAL FIRE is changing its overall staffing model from ramping up and down based on fire season, to one where it maintains base-level staffing during certain months of the year with no transition period. This fire mission pay is provided during peak staffing periods, increasing the amount of time that eligible employees receive the pay.

The analysis of the LAO further notes that, the compensation study required under existing law compares employer cost for salary, cash benefits, and health and retirement benefits, among others, and compares the state with 20 fire departments across California, and noted that "state firefighter compensation [is] found to lag local fire department compensation," where a 2023 compensation survey found that the lag rests between 11 percent to 29 percent, depending on the classification. However, the survey does not compare federal firefighters.

Please see the various policy committee analyses for a full discussion of this bill.

According to the Author

"In an effort to pay CAL FIRE firefighters a more reasonable and competitive wage, this bill seeks to bring [parity] and appropriate compensation for state firefighters."

Arguments in Support

Among other things, the CAL FIRE, Local 2881 states that, "[this bill] codifies an agreement regarding the protocol of comparative pay that was reached between state BU 8 and the CalHR in 2017.

"Devastating wildfires have become a regular occurrence in California, exacerbated by a changing climate and years of dry conditions. Large scale incidents such as the Dixie Fire, the Camp Fire, and the Eaton and Palisades Fires have strained not only the resources of fire departments to the limit, but placed unimaginable burdens onto the firefighters employed by CAL FIRE who are on the front lines of many of these blazes. Deployments during wildfire season, which now can stretch through the entire year, can extend up to and over 60 days in a row, with exhausting 48-hour shifts lined up back-to-back with little to no opportunities for rest. And even when they are not on the forefront of pushing back against mega-fires that threaten entire communities, CAL FIRE firefighters work daily to protect their communities and the entire state with every ounce of dedication and skill employed by their peers in other departments. For years however, the wages for CAL FIRE have lagged significantly behind what is offered in municipal and county departments, devaluing the critical work done by these professionals and making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain firefighters where they are desperately needed. Short staffing only compounds the dangers inherent to this work through exhaustion and critical stress, but also presents long-term health impacts from extended exposure to toxic smoke with no respiratory protection as well as the negative repercussions for behavioral health from lack of sleep, overwork, and months on end spent away from family. In order to retain the skilled and trained firefighters that are so desperately needed at safe levels it is imperative. [This bill] will ensure that the full-time professional firefighters of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are paid a wage that is within 15 percent of the average salary of similar ranks averaged from 20 fire departments across California."

Arguments in Opposition

None.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the CalHR indicates that this bill would result in first-year costs of $373 million to $609 ($246 million to $401 million General Fund), and between $28 million to $115 million ($18 million to $75 million General Fund) annually thereafter. The range of costs for initial implementation depend heavily on the results of a future salary survey, which would be the State's first opportunity to account for BU 8 wage increases related to the transition to a 66-hour work week. To the extent that wages for the local jurisdictions did not increase at the same pace as state wages, the bill's cost would likely be on the lower end of the range."

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT: 7-0-0

YES: McKinnor, Lackey, Alanis, Boerner, Elhawary, Garcia, Nguyen

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-1-1

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer‑Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO: DeMaio

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lee

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes

UPDATED

VERSION: September 8, 2025

CONSULTANT: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957 FN: 0002137

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1309

Author: Flora (R)

Introduced: 2/21/25

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/25/25

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Strickland, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/29/25

AYES: Caballero, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-1, 6/3/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: State employees: compensation: firefighters

SOURCE: CAL FIRE Local 2881

DIGEST:

This bill 1) requires the state to pay Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) Bargaining Unit 8 (BU-8) firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in specified local fire departments; and 2) requires CalHR, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct a survey on the salaries and benefits for fire chiefs and report to CALFIRE, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Creates the state civil service that includes every officer and employee of the state except a limited number of specified, exempted officers and employees. Existing law also requires that the state make “permanent appointment and promotion in the civil service under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination.” Case law and custom refer to this provision as the merit principle and it governs the administration of the state’s civil service system. (California Constitution (CA CONST.) art. VII, §1 and §4)
2. Creates, under the Dills Act, a system of collective bargaining between the state and its employees’ exclusive representatives to negotiate for terms and conditions of employment (Government Code (GOV) §3512 et seq.)
3. Requires CalHR to 1) establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position, as specified, on the principle that the state shall pay like salaries for comparable duties and responsibilities; and 2) consider the prevailing rates for comparable service in other public employment and in private business in establishing or changing these ranges. (GOV §19826 (a))
4. Prohibits, however, CalHR from establishing, adjusting, or recommending a salary range for any employees represented by an exclusive representative, as specified. Instead, existing law requires CalHR to submit to the respective parties that are meeting and conferring over the salaries and to the Legislature, a report containing CalHR’s findings relating to the salaries of employees in comparable occupations in private industry and other governmental agencies at least six months before the end of an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) or as otherwise specified. (GOV §19826 (b)-(c))
5. Requires the state to pay, as specified, sworn members of the California Highway Patrol who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 5 the estimated average total compensation for each corresponding rank for the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, San Diego Police Department, Oakland Police Department, and San Francisco Police Department. Total compensation shall include base salary, educational incentive pay, physical performance pay, longevity pay, and retirement contributions made by the employer on behalf of the employee. (GOV §19827)
6. Declares that it is the state’s policy to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE and requires CalHR to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California in order to provide comparability in pay. (GOV §19827.3)

This bill:

1. Makes various findings and declarations regarding the increasing frequency of wildfires and the health of CAL-FIRE firefighters.
2. Requires the state to pay rank-and-file BU-8 firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by BU-8 and the CalHR in 2017:
3. The cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Mateo, Santa Monica, and Torrance.
4. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department.
5. The Novato Fire District.
6. The counties of Los Angeles and Ventura.
7. Requires the state and BU-8’s exclusive bargaining representative to jointly survey and calculate the comparable departments’ estimated average salaries based on their projected average total salary as of July 1 of the year in which the parties conduct the survey.
8. Requires CalHR, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct a cursory survey on the salaries and benefits for the prior year of each of the fire chiefs for the following five California fire departments and report to CALFIRE:
9. The City of Fresno
10. The County of Los Angeles
11. The County of San Bernardino
12. The City of San Diego
13. The City of County of San Francisco
14. Declares that, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE's uniformed classifications, it is the state’s policy to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons.
15. Requires the state to implement any increase in salary for BU-8 firefighters resulting from this bill’s provisions through an MOU negotiated pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512) of Division 4 of Title 1).
16. Provides that if this bill’s provisions and an MOU conflict, the MOU shall control without further legislative action except that if the MOU’s provisions require the expenditure of funds, the provision shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature and the annual Budget Act.

Background

Bargaining Unit 8 (BU-8). BU-8 represents state-employed firefighters, almost all of whom work for CALFIRE. BU-8’s current MOU went into effect on July 1, 2024 and expires on June 30, 2026. The MOU includes several provisions intended to increase firefighter retention. Specifically, it reduced the duty workweek from 72 hours to 66 hours, modified staffing schedules, increased general base pay by 2.5 percent, and specified special salary adjustments for each of the two covered fiscal years.

Existing law requires CalHR, when determining compensation for state firefighters, to take into consideration the compensation provided by jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California. The most recent compensation survey found that state compensation for firefighters lags behind compensation provided to local fire department firefighters by as much as 11 percent to 29 percent, depending on the classification.^[1] Additionally, the survey found that state firefighters work more days of the year than local department firefighters.^[2]

Bargaining Unit 5 (BU-5) Highway Patrol (CHP). AB 1309’s provisions are modeled after BU-5’s pay structure. Existing law requires CalHR to survey the total compensation provided to peace officers in five specified jurisdictions to determine salary increases for sworn members of the CHP who are rank-and-file members of BU-5. The five jurisdictions are Los Angeles County and the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. This statutory requirement, established in 1974, predates the state employee collective bargaining process established by the Dills Act. Due to the high cost of living in the specified jurisdictions, sworn members of the CHP consistently receive annual salary increases far greater than other state employees.

This Bill. AB 1309 would require the state to pay CALFIRE BU-8 firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in specified local fire departments. Any salary increase would be implemented through an MOU negotiated pursuant to the Dills Act. Unlike the author’s previous version of this bill (AB 1254, Flora of 2023) AB 1309 would also require CalHR, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct a survey and report to CALFIRE on the salaries and benefits for fire chiefs in five specified fire departments.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 252 (Bains, 2025) would have required CAL FIRE to maintain no less than full staffing levels throughout the calendar year and meet specified staffing requirements. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 393 (Connolly, 2025) would require the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of State Hospitals to take specified actions before entering into a personal services contract to fill a Bargaining Unit 16 physician position and a Bargaining Unit 19 psychologist position. This bill is pending on the Senate Floor.

AB 2872 (Calderon, Vetoed, 2024) would have required the state to pay sworn members of the Department of Insurance who are rank-and-file members of Bargaining Unit 7 the same compensation paid to corresponding rank-and-file sworn peace officers of the Department of Justice.

AB 1677 (McKinnor, Vetoed, 2024) would have required the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center to undertake a study of the existing salary structure and provide recommendations for alternative models, if applicable, as applied to rank-and-file scientists in State Bargaining Unit 10, among other provisions.

AB 1254 (Flora, 2023) was nearly identical to AB 1309 and would have required the state to pay CAL-FIRE firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in 20 listed California fire departments. This bill was ordered to the Inactive File on the Senate Floor.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

“CalHR indicates that this bill would result in first-year costs of $373 million to $609 ($246 million to $401 million General Fund), and between $28 million to $115 million ($18 million to $75 million General Fund) annually thereafter. The range of costs for initial implementation depend heavily on the results of a future salary survey, which would be the State’s first opportunity to account for BU 8 wage increases related to the transition to a 66-hour work week. To the extent that wages for the local jurisdictions did not increase at the same pace as state wages, the bill’s cost would likely be on the lower end of the range.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/25)

CAL FIRE Local 2881 (Source)

California Professional Firefighters

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The sponsors of the bill, CAL FIRE Local 2881, argue:

“On behalf of the almost 10,000 CAL FIRE Firefighters who confront disasters on the front line, we are proud to sponsor AB 1309, which requires pay for rank and file members of Bargaining Unit 8 within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks within the cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, Torrance, and Ventura, the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, the Novato Fire District and the County of Los Angeles.

An agreement was made in 2017 between Bargaining Unit 8 (CAL FIRE Local 2881) and CalHR to follow such protocol. This bill codifies that agreement.

CAL FIRE has the most diverse mission and with a new pattern of historically catastrophic fires, our men and women work onerous schedules that have physical and psychological risk. Comparative pay is essential. Because of low pay, more than 400 firefighters in the past couple of years have left CAL FIRE for better paying departments. This bill will help stanch the loss.”

According to the California Professional Firefighters:

“Devastating wildfires have become a regular occurrence in California, exacerbated by a changing climate and years of dry conditions. Large scale incidents such as the Dixie Fire, the Camp Fire, and the Eaton and Palisades Fires have strained not only the resources of fire departments to the limit, but placed unimaginable burdens onto the firefighters employed by CAL FIRE who are on the front lines of many of these blazes…

For years however, the wages for CAL FIRE have lagged significantly behind what is offered in municipal and county departments, devaluing the critical work done by these professionals and making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain firefighters where they are desperately needed. Short staffing only compounds the dangers inherent to this work through exhaustion and critical stress, but also presents long-term health impacts from extended exposure to toxic smoke with no respiratory protection as well as the negative repercussions for behavioral health from lack of sleep, overwork, and months on end spent away from family. In order to retain the skilled and trained firefighters that are so desperately needed at safe levels it is imperative that wages are commensurate with the critically important work that they perform.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-1, 6/3/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: DeMaio

NO VOTE RECORDED: Lee

Prepared by: Emma Bruce / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

8/30/25 16:40:59

**** END ****

1. “2023 California Firefighter Total Compensation Survey,” CalHR, May 2024, 2023-California-Firefighter-Total-Compensation-Survey.pdf ↑

2. Ibid ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1309 Hearing Date: June 25, 2025

SUBJECT: State employees: compensation: firefighters

KEY ISSUE

This bill 1) requires the state to pay Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) Bargaining Unit 8 (BU-8) firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in specified local fire departments; and 2) requires CalHR, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct a survey on the salaries and benefits for fire chiefs and report to CALFIRE, as specified.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Creates the state civil service that includes every officer and employee of the state except a limited number of specified, exempted officers and employees. Existing law also requires that the state make “permanent appointment and promotion in the civil service under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination.” Case law and custom refer to this provision as the merit principle and it governs the administration of the state’s civil service system. (CA CONST. art. VII, §1 and §4)
2. Creates, under the Dills Act, a system of collective bargaining between the state and its employees’ exclusive representatives to negotiate for terms and conditions of employment (Government Code §3512 et seq.)
3. Requires CalHR to 1) establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position, as specified, on the principle that the state shall pay like salaries for comparable duties and responsibilities; and 2) consider the prevailing rates for comparable service in other public employment and in private business in establishing or changing these ranges. (Government Code §19826 (a))
4. Prohibits, however, CalHR from establishing, adjusting, or recommending a salary range for any employees represented by an exclusive representative, as specified. Instead, existing law requires CalHR to submit to the respective parties that are meeting and conferring over the salaries and to the Legislature, a report containing CalHR’s findings relating to the salaries of employees in comparable occupations in private industry and other governmental agencies at least six months before the end of an existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) or as otherwise specified. (Government Code §19826 (b)-(c))
5. Requires the state to pay, as specified, sworn members of the California Highway Patrol who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 5 the estimated average total compensation for each corresponding rank for the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office, San Diego Police Department, Oakland Police Department, and San Francisco Police Department. Total compensation shall include base salary, educational incentive pay, physical performance pay, longevity pay, and retirement contributions made by the employer on behalf of the employee. (Government Code §19827)
6. Declares that it is the state’s policy to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE and requires CalHR to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California in order to provide comparability in pay. (Government Code §19827.3)

This bill:

1. Makes various findings and declarations regarding the increasing frequency of wildfires and the health of CAL-FIRE firefighters.
2. Requires the state to pay rank-and-file BU-8 firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by BU-8 and the CalHR in 2017:
3. The cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Mateo, Santa Monica, and Torrance.
4. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department.
5. The Novato Fire District.
6. The counties of Los Angeles and Ventura.
7. Requires the state and BU-8’s exclusive bargaining representative to jointly survey and calculate the comparable departments’ estimated average salaries based on their projected average total salary as of July 1 of the year in which the parties conduct the survey.
8. Requires CalHR, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct a cursory survey on the salaries and benefits for the prior year of each of the fire chiefs for the following five California fire departments and report to CALFIRE:
9. The City of Fresno
10. The County of Los Angeles
11. The County of San Bernardino
12. The City of San Diego
13. The City of County of San Francisco
14. Declares that, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE's uniformed classifications, it is the state’s policy to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons.
15. Requires the state to implement any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters resulting from this bill’s provisions through an MOU negotiated pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512) of Division 4 of Title 1).
16. Provides that if this bill’s provisions and an MOU conflict, the MOU shall control without further legislative action except that if the MOU’s provisions require the expenditure of funds, the provision shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature and the annual Budget Act.

COMMENTS

1. Background:

Bargaining Unit 8 (BU-8)

BU-8 represents state-employed firefighters, almost all of whom work for CALFIRE. BU-8’s current MOU went into effect on July 1, 2024 and expires on June 30, 2026. The MOU includes several provisions intended to increase firefighter retention. Specifically, it reduced the duty workweek from 72 hours to 66 hours, modified staffing schedules, increased general base pay by 2.5 percent, and specified special salary adjustments for each of the two covered fiscal years.

Existing law requires CalHR, when determining compensation for state firefighters, to take into consideration the compensation provided by jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California. The most recent compensation survey found that state compensation for firefighters lags behind compensation provided to local fire department firefighters by as much as 11 percent to 29 percent, depending on the classification.^[1] Additionally, the survey found that state firefighters work more days of the year than local department firefighters.^[2]

Bargaining Unit 5 (BU-5) Highway Patrol (CHP)

AB 1309’s provisions are modeled after BU-5’s pay structure. Existing law requires CalHR to survey the total compensation provided to peace officers in five specified jurisdictions to determine salary increases for sworn members of the CHP who are rank-and-file members of BU-5. The five jurisdictions are Los Angeles County and the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco. This statutory requirement, established in 1974, predates the state employee collective bargaining process established by the Dills Act. Due to the high cost of living in the specified jurisdictions, sworn members of the CHP consistently receive annual salary increases far greater than other state employees.

This Bill

AB 1309 would require the state to pay CALFIRE BU-8 firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in specified local fire departments. Any salary increase would be implemented through an MOU negotiated pursuant to the Dills Act. Unlike the author’s previous version of this bill (AB 1254, Flora, 2023) AB 1309 would also require CalHR, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct a survey and report to CALFIRE on the salaries and benefits for fire chiefs in five specified fire departments.

2. Need for this bill?

According to the author:

“CAL FIRE are overworked and severely underpaid comparative to local agencies. CAL FIRE works a 72 hour workweek compared a 54 hour work week for local fire departments. [AB 1309] Requires the state to provide comparative pay for rank-and-file state firefighters in Bargaining Unit 8 employed by CAL FIRE, ensuring their salaries are within 15% of the average salaries for corresponding ranks in 20 specified fire departments across California. This compensation standard must be implemented through collective bargaining, along with other related provisions.”

3. Proponent Arguments:

The sponsors of the bill, CAL FIRE Local 2881, argue:

“On behalf of the almost 10,000 CAL FIRE Firefighters who confront disasters on the front line, we are proud to sponsor AB 1309, which requires pay for rank and file members of Bargaining Unit 8 within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks within the cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, Torrance, and Ventura, the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, the Novato Fire District and the County of Los Angeles.

An agreement was made in 2017 between Bargaining Unit 8 (CAL FIRE Local 2881) and CalHR to follow such protocol. This bill codifies that agreement.

CAL FIRE has the most diverse mission and with a new pattern of historically catastrophic fires, our men and women work onerous schedules that have physical and psychological risk. Comparative pay is essential. Because of low pay, more than 400 firefighters in the past couple of years have left CAL FIRE for better paying departments. This bill will help stanch the loss.”

According to the California Professional Firefighters:

“Devastating wildfires have become a regular occurrence in California, exacerbated by a changing climate and years of dry conditions. Large scale incidents such as the Dixie Fire, the Camp Fire, and the Eaton and Palisades Fires have strained not only the resources of fire departments to the limit, but placed unimaginable burdens onto the firefighters employed by CAL FIRE who are on the front lines of many of these blazes. Deployments during wildfire season, which now can stretch through the entire year, can extend up to and over 60 days in a row, with exhausting 48-hour shifts lined up back-to-back with little to no opportunities for rest. And even when they are not on the forefront of pushing back against mega-fires that threaten entire communities, CAL FIRE firefighters work daily to protect their communities and the entire state with every ounce of dedication and skill employed by their peers in other departments.

For years however, the wages for CAL FIRE have lagged significantly behind what is offered in municipal and county departments, devaluing the critical work done by these professionals and making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain firefighters where they are desperately needed. Short staffing only compounds the dangers inherent to this work through exhaustion and critical stress, but also presents long-term health impacts from extended exposure to toxic smoke with no respiratory protection as well as the negative repercussions for behavioral health from lack of sleep, overwork, and months on end spent away from family. In order to retain the skilled and trained firefighters that are so desperately needed at safe levels it is imperative that wages are commensurate with the critically important work that they perform.”

4. Opponent Arguments:

None received.

5. Prior Legislation:

AB 252 (Bains, 2025) would have required CAL FIRE to maintain no less than full staffing levels throughout the calendar year and meet specified staffing requirements. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 393 (Connolly, 2025) would require the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of State Hospitals to take specified actions before entering into a personal services contract to fill a Bargaining Unit 16 physician position and a Bargaining Unit 19 psychologist position. This bill is pending in Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2872 (Calderon, Vetoed, 2024) would have required the state to pay sworn members of the Department of Insurance who are rank-and-file members of Bargaining Unit 7 the same compensation paid to corresponding rank-and-file sworn peace officers of the Department of Justice. Governor Newsom’s veto message stated:

“This bill requires the state to pay sworn members of the California Department of Insurance who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 7 the same compensation paid to corresponding rank-and-file sworn peace officers of the Department of Justice. While I appreciate the author's intent, this bill effectively circumvents the collective bargaining process and the California Department of Human Resources' salary-setting authority. By setting a salary for one state department's employees, in statute, the bill limits the state's ability to consider factors that impact the state or other state employee bargaining units when proposing compensation packages through collective bargaining. For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.”

AB 1677 (McKinnor, Vetoed, 2024) would have required the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center to undertake a study of the existing salary structure and provide recommendations for alternative models, if applicable, as applied to rank-and-file scientists in State Bargaining Unit 10, among other provisions. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.

AB 1254 (Flora, 2023) was nearly identical to AB 1309 and would have required the state to pay CAL-FIRE firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in 20 listed California fire departments. This bill was ordered to the Inactive File on the Senate Floor.

SUPPORT

CAL FIRE Local 2881 (Sponsor)

California Professional Firefighters

OPPOSITION

None received.

-- END --

1. “2023 California Firefighter Total Compensation Survey,” CalHR, May 2024, 2023-California-Firefighter-Total-Compensation-Survey.pdf ↑

2. Ibid ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1309

Author:(Flora)

As Introduced Ver:February 21, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires comparative pay for rank-and-file state Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 firefighters employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) similar to those of other California fire departments, as specified, and among other provisions.

Major Provisions

1. Toward recruiting and retaining the highest qualified and skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE, requires the state to pay rank-and-file state BU 8 firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by state BU 8 and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) in 2017:
2. The cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, Torrance, and Ventura;
3. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department;
4. The Novato Fire District; and,
5. The County of Los Angeles.
6. Require the state and the state BU 8 exclusive representative to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries of the immediately aforementioned departments based on the projected average total salary for those departments as of July 1 of the year in which the survey is conducted.
7. Require, on or before January 1, 2027, the CalHR to conduct and report to the CAL FIRE a cursory survey on the salaries and benefits for the prior year of each of the fire chiefs for the following fire departments:
8. The cities of Fresno and San Diego.
9. The counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino.
10. The City and County of San Francisco.
11. Establish that it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdiction, as specified, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE's uniformed classifications.
12. Provide that any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters, as specified, resulting from these provisions must be implemented through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act), and establish that if these provisions are in conflict with those in a MOU, the MOU must be controlling without further legislative action, except if the MOU requires the expenditure of funds, then the provision must not become effective unless approved by the Legislature and the Annual Budget Act.
13. Include uncodified legislative findings and declarations for these purposes.

COMMENTS

State BU 8 (Firefighters) MOU Fiscal Analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office

On August 6, 2024, the administration submitted a proposed MOU between the state and state BU 8 to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) for review.

While the MOU, which is effective from July 1, 2024, though June 30, 2026, included provisions relating to the reduction of the duty week, among other things, provisions relating to pay include: 1) 2024-25 special salary adjustment (8.5%) to most of the BU, but not specialty classes; 2) a 2.5 percent general salary increase that increases the base pay for all steps in each classification's pay range; 3) a 2025-26 firefighter special salary adjustment (4.25%) for the firefighter I and fire lookout classifications; 4) a pay differential of 5 percent of base salary for a) CAL FIRE peace officers assigned to certain designated peace officers, b) peace officers appointed under Section 8302 (g) of the Penal Code and remain in good standing receive pay differential of 2.5% of base pay, and c) CAL FIRE peace officers who serve as a field training officer and assigned a trainee would receive a $250 weekly stipend for each week a trainee is assigned; 5) specified classifications depending on their helicopter (helo) pilot qualifications and/or CAL FIRE helo program responsibilities receive qualification incentive payments established as a percentage of base pay ranging from 2.5% to 10% of pay, among other specified provisions; 6) $50 to employees who are not in a designated paramedic position, but maintain an emergency medical technician-paramedic license in good standing for each day they work voluntary overtime behind a paramedic position vacancy; and, fire mission pay where CAL FIRE is changing its overall staffing model from ramping up and down based on fire season, to one where it maintains base-level staffing during certain months of the year with no transition period. This fire mission pay is provided during peak staffing periods, increasing the amount of time that eligible employees receive the pay.

The analysis of the LAO further notes that, the compensation study required under existing law compares employer cost for salary, cash benefits, and health and retirement benefits, among others, and compares the state with 20 fire departments across California, and noted that "state firefighter compensation [is] found to lag local fire department compensation," where a 2023 compensation survey found that the lag rests between 11 percent to 29 percent, depending on the classification. However, the survey does not compare federal firefighters.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

According to the Author

"In an effort to pay CAL FIRE firefighters a more reasonable and competitive wage, this bill seeks to bring [parity] and appropriate compensation for state firefighters."

Arguments in Support

Among other things, the CAL FIRE, Local 2881 states that, "[this bill] codifies an agreement regarding the protocol of comparative pay that was reached between state BU 8 and the CalHR in 2017.

"Devastating wildfires have become a regular occurrence in California, exacerbated by a changing climate and years of dry conditions. Large scale incidents such as the Dixie Fire, the Camp Fire, and the Eaton and Palisades Fires have strained not only the resources of fire departments to the limit, but placed unimaginable burdens onto the firefighters employed by CAL FIRE who are on the front lines of many of these blazes. Deployments during wildfire season, which now can stretch through the entire year, can extend up to and over 60 days in a row, with exhausting 48-hour shifts lined up back-to-back with little to no opportunities for rest. And even when they are not on the forefront of pushing back against mega-fires that threaten entire communities, CAL FIRE firefighters work daily to protect their communities and the entire state with every ounce of dedication and skill employed by their peers in other departments. For years however, the wages for CAL FIRE have lagged significantly behind what is offered in municipal and county departments, devaluing the critical work done by these professionals and making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain firefighters where they are desperately needed. Short staffing only compounds the dangers inherent to this work through exhaustion and critical stress, but also presents long-term health impacts from extended exposure to toxic smoke with no respiratory protection as well as the negative repercussions for behavioral health from lack of sleep, overwork, and months on end spent away from family. In order to retain the skilled and trained firefighters that are so desperately needed at safe levels it is imperative. [This bill] will ensure that the full-time professional firefighters of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are paid a wage that is within 15 percent of the average salary of similar ranks averaged from 20 fire departments across California."

Arguments in Opposition

None.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, this bill would result in costs between approximately $373.4 million to $609.1 million ($245.6 million to $400.7 million General Fund (GF)) in the first year of implementation, and between $28 million to $114.6 million ($18.4 million to $75.4 million GF) annually thereafter, to the state to increase BU 8 compensation. CalHR notes that the range of costs for initial implementation depends heavily on the results of the state's next salary survey, which will be the state's first opportunity to account for BU 8 wage increases related to the recent transition to a 66-hour work week. If the wages for local jurisdictions do not increase at the same pace as state wages, costs would likely be at the lower end of the range.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT: 7-0-0

YES: McKinnor, Lackey, Alanis, Boerner, Elhawary, Garcia, Nguyen

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez

UPDATED

VERSION: February 21, 2025

CONSULTANT: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957 FN: 0000802

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1309

Author:(Flora) – As Introduced Ver:February 21, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the state to pay State Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 firefighters within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in certain local fire departments.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the state to pay rank-and-file BU 8 firefighters employed by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in 20 specified local fire departments.
2. Requires the state and BU 8 to annually jointly survey and calculate the estimated average salaries for those specified local fire departments.
3. Requires, by January 1, 2027, the Department of Human Resources (CalHR) to report to CAL FIRE a cursory survey of the prior-year salaries and benefits of each of the fire chiefs in five specified local fire departments.
4. Sets the policy of the state when determining compensation for CAL FIRE’s uniformed classifications and requires a salary increase be implemented through a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs between approximately $373.4 million to $609.1 million ($245.6 million to $400.7 million General Fund (GF)) in the first year of implementation, and between $28 million to $114.6 million ($18.4 million to $75.4 million GF) annually thereafter, to the state to increase BU 8 compensation. CalHR notes that the range of costs for initial implementation depends heavily on the results of the state’s next salary survey, which will be the state’s first opportunity to account for BU 8 wage increases related to the recent transition to a 66-hour work week. If the wages for local jurisdictions do not increase at the same pace as state wages, costs would likely be at the lower end of the range.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “In an effort to pay CAL FIRE firefighters a more reasonable and competitive wage, this bill seeks to bring [parity] and appropriate compensation for state firefighters.” This bill is sponsored by CAL FIRE Local 2881 and supported by the California Professional Firefighters.
2. State Firefighter Compensation. The current BU 8 MOU, which is effective from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2026, includes provisions relating to a reduction in the duty workweek from 72 hours to 66 hours to address concerns about firefighter welfare, a 2.5% general base pay salary increase, specified special salary adjustments for each of the two covered fiscal years, and other provisions related to pay. Existing law requires CalHR, when determining compensation for state firefighters, to take into consideration the compensation provided by jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California. Regarding this survey, which compared the state with 20 fire departments across California, an analysis of the current MOU conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded:

The 2023 compensation survey found that state compensation for firefighters lags compensation provided to local fire department firefighters by between 11 percent to 29 percent, depending on the classification. The survey found that while both state and local firefighters work 24-hour shifts, state firefighters work more days of the year (156 days compared with 121 days for the local fire departments in the survey). The result is that state firefighters work more hours of scheduled overtime than local firefighters. Based solely on local government compensation levels and hours, the pay increases proposed in the agreement appear reasonable.

This bill requires the state to pay BU 8 firefighters within 15% of the average of the salary for corresponding ranks at 20 local fire departments, with the salary increase implemented through an MOU.

1. Related Legislation. AB 252 (Bains) requires CAL FIRE to maintain full staffing levels throughout the calendar year. AB 252 is pending on this committee’s suspense file.
2. Prior Legislation. AB 1254 (Flora), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, was substantively similar to this bill, except AB 1254 did not include this bill’s fire chief survey. AB 1254 was ordered to the Senate Inactive File.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 2, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Tina S. McKinnor, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1309 (

Author:Flora) – As Introduced Ver:February 21, 2025

SUBJECT: State employees: compensation: firefighters

SUMMARY: Requires comparative pay for rank-and-file state Bargaining Unit (BU) 8 firefighters employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) similar to those of other California fire departments, as specified, and among other provisions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Towards recruiting and retaining the highest qualified and skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE, requires the state to pay rank-and-file state BU 8 firefighters within 15 percent of the average salary for corresponding ranks in the following 20 California fire departments, as agreed to by state BU 8 and the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) in 2017:
2. The cities of Bakersfield, Chula Vista, Corona, Escondido, Fullerton, Hayward, Milpitas, Ontario, Oxnard, Rialto, Roseville, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Monica, Stockton, Torrance, and Ventura;
3. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department;
4. The Novato Fire District; and,
5. The County of Los Angeles.
6. Requires the state and the state BU 8 exclusive representative to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries of the immediately aforementioned departments based on the projected average total salary for those departments as of July 1 of the year in which the survey is conducted.
7. Requires, on or before January 1, 2027, the CalHR to conduct and report to the CAL FIRE a cursory survey on the salaries and benefits for the prior year of each of the fire chiefs for the following fire departments:
8. The cities of Fresno and San Diego.
9. The counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino.
10. The City and County of San Francisco.
11. Establishes that it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdiction, as specified, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons, when determining compensation for CAL FIRE’s uniformed classifications.
12. Provides that any increase in salary for BU 8 firefighters, as specified, resulting from these provisions must be implemented through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act), and establishes that if these provisions are in conflict with those in a MOU, the MOU must be controlling without further legislative action, except if the MOU requires the expenditure of funds, then the provision must not become effective unless approved by the Legislature and the Annual Budget Act.
13. Includes uncodified legislative findings and declarations for these purposes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides and establishes that, in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for CAL FIRE, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. In addition, to provide for comparability in pay, the CalHR must take into consideration the salary and benefits of jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California. (Section 19827.3, Government (Gov.) Code.)
2. Requires the CalHR to post, in a clear and conspicuous manner on its internet website, each MOU that has been submitted to the Legislature for determination, as provided, and that has been ratified by the affected union membership, among other provisions. (Section 19829.6, Gov. Code.)
3. Governs collective bargaining in the private sector under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) but leaves to the states the regulation of collective bargaining in their respective public sectors. (Sections 151 et seq., Title 29, United States Code.)

While the NLRA and the decisions of its National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) often provide persuasive precedent in interpreting state collective bargaining law, public employees generally have no collective bargaining rights absent specific statutory authority establishing those rights.

1. Provides several statutory frameworks under California law to provide public employees collective bargaining rights, govern public employer-employee relations, and limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and recognized public employee organizations or their exclusive representatives. These include the Dills Act, which provides collective bargaining for state employees of the executive branch and establishes a process for determining wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for represented employees. (Sections 3512 et seq., Gov. Code.)
2. Requires the Governor and the recognized state employee organizations to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and, if they reach an agreement, to jointly prepare a written memorandum of understanding (MOU), which the Governor shall present, when appropriate, to the Legislature for determination. (Sections 3517 et seq., Gov. Code.)
3. Establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), a quasi-judicial administrative agency, charged with administering the several statewide collective bargaining statutes covering public employees including school, college, state, local agency, and trial court employees. (Sections 3541 et seq., Gov. Code)
4. Provides for the payment of compensation and specified state employees through the annual Budget Act. (Sections 19829.7 et seq. of the Gov. Code.)
5. Recognizes the historic problem of recruitment and retention of peace officers of the Department of Corrections and Department of Youth Authority; the trend in recent years to improve salaries and benefits for correctional peace officers; the need to fill vacancies to recruit and retain such officers; provide for compatibility of pay with large peace officer employers, and that salaries must be improved and maintained by the state for officers in the Departments of Corrections and Youth Authority, respectively. In addition, the department is required to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other large employers of peace officers in California. (Section 19827.1, Gov. Code.)
6. Requires after completion of the first year in a position, each employee must receive a merit salary adjustment equal to one of the intermediate steps during each year when the employee meets the standards of efficiency as the department must prescribe by rule, and includes provisions relating to the supremacy of a Dills Act MOU if the provisions of the statute are in conflict with those in a MOU. (Section 19832, Gov. Code.)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is flagged as fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Brief Background Regarding the Eponymous Dills Act

Resulting from legislative efforts during the 1970s to enact a single and comprehensive statute that would cover all public employees in California, proponents of collective bargaining for state employees were successful when former Senator Ralph C. Dills introduced a measure (i.e., the “Dills Act”), backed by the California State Employees Association, that was passed in 1977 and signed into law by former Governor Edmund “Jerry” G. Brown, Jr. in July1978.

1. The Purposes and Core Mechanics of Public Employee Collective Bargaining

The core purpose (and principle) of the Dills Act (and the several other various statewide collective bargaining frameworks) is to limit labor strife and economic disruption in the public sector through a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment between public employers and their employees or their exclusive representatives.

The core mechanics of collective bargaining are twofold: a) Each party must give up something to get something else in return to, b) achieve the manifestation of the art of compromise represented by a written and signed agreement that is formally executed as a MOU. Thus, achieving the agreement, i.e., contract, is identical to the common law principles of the formation of a contract, i.e., offer, acceptance, and exchange of consideration.

Here, to achieve an agreement assumes that the collective bargaining process and negotiation strategy or tactics used by both the employer and employee organization are in good faith and not to reach an impasse, nor the employer driving negotiations in a manner ultimately to be able to unilaterally implement (also commonly referred to by employee organizations, as “impose”) what might be considered by the employee organization as an unfair or objectionable contract.

1. Subjects Within Collective Bargaining and the Scope of Representation Under the Dills Act

Generally, the subjects of collective bargaining and the scope of representation under each of the state’s various collective bargaining statutes cover “wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.”

The subject of “wages” under the scope is relatively self-explanatory. Generally, this refers to pay, salary, compensation, or remuneration for official work performed by the employee for, or on behalf of, the employer. The subject of “hours” under the scope also is relatively self-explanatory. Generally, this refers to the hours in which an employee works to perform official work for, or on behalf of, the employer. The category of “other terms of conditions of employment” is not as readily self-explanatory. Here, “terms and conditions of employment” acts similarly as a category of “other” when compared to the specific categories of “hours” and “wages.” It is not specifically defined, but has been interpreted to include, among other things, health and welfare benefits, vehicle transportation expenses, transfer and reassignment, and organizational security matters, as examples.

Overall, the PERB has interpreted the Dills Act’s scope of representation which has resulted in what is largely a well-settled rule. That is, subjects are within the scope of bargaining “if they involve the employment relationship and are of such concern to both management and employees that conflict is likely to occur, and if the mediatory influence of collective negotiation is an appropriate means of resolving the conflict.” However, decisions that concern “essential managerial prerogatives” are not within the scope of representation under the (Dills) Act.”^[1]

1. State BU 8 (Firefighters) MOU Fiscal Analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office

On August 6, 2024, the administration submitted a proposed MOU between the state and state BU 8 to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) for review.

The MOU contains provisions relating to a reduction in the duty workweek from 72 hours to 66 hours finding that firefighters are compensated differently than most employees; the previous MOU set the stage to reduce the duty week to 66 hours; 2024-25 enacted budget included funds to reduce the duty week; and, the duty week change aims to address concerns about firefighter welfare.

While the MOU, which is effective from July 1, 2024, though June 30, 2026, included provisions relating to the reduction of the duty week, among other things, provisions relating to pay include: (1) 2024-25 special salary adjustment (8.5 percent) to most of the BU, but not specialty classes; (2) a 2.5 percent general salary increase that increases the base pay for all steps in each classification’s pay range; (3) a 2025-26 firefighter special salary adjustment (4.25 percent) for the firefighter I and fire lookout classifications; (4) a pay differential of 5 percent of base salary for (a) CAL FIRE peace officers assigned to certain designated peace officers, (b) peace officers appointed under Section 8302 (g) of the Penal Code and remain in good standing receive pay differential of 2.5 percent of base pay, and (c) CAL FIRE peace officers who serve as a field training officer and assigned a trainee would receive a $250 weekly stipend for each week a trainee is assigned; (5) specified classifications depending on their helicopter (helo) pilot qualifications and/or CAL FIRE helo program responsibilities receive qualification incentive payments established as a percentage of base pay ranging from 2.5 percent to 10 percent of pay, among other specified provisions; (6) $50 to employees who are not in a designated paramedic position, but maintain an emergency medical technician-paramedic license in good standing for each day they work voluntary overtime behind a paramedic position vacancy; and, fire mission pay where CAL FIRE is changing its overall staffing model from ramping up and down based on fire season, to one where it maintains base-level staffing during certain months of the year with no transition period. This fire mission pay is provided during peak staffing periods, increasing the amount of time that eligible employees receive the pay.

The analysis of the LAO further notes that, the compensation study required under Section 19827.3 of the Gov. Code compares employer cost for salary, cash benefits, and health and retirement benefits, among others, and compares the state with 20 fire departments across California.

In addition, the LAO noted that “state firefighter compensation found to lag local fire department compensation,” where a 2023 compensation survey found that the lag rests between 11 percent to 29 percent, depending on the classification. However, the survey does not compare federal firefighters.^[2]

1. Conflict Notification to the Author

The author is informed that Office of Legislative Counsel has issued a conflict notice regarding this bill and Senate Bill 605 (Cortese). A conflict exists when two or more bills and/or constitutional amendments amend, add, repeal, or amend and renumber the same section, article, chapter, division, title, or heading.

The enactment of these measures in their present form could give rise to a serious legal problem that may be avoided by appropriate amendments.

As such, the author is advised to address this matter at the appropriate time in the future.

1. Statement by the Author

“In an effort to pay CAL FIRE firefighters a more reasonable and competitive wage, this bill seeks to bring [parity] and appropriate compensation for state firefighters.”

1. Comments by Supporters

CAL FIRE, Local 2881 states that, this bill codifies an agreement regarding the protocol of comparative pay that was reached between state BU 8 and the CalHR in 2017.

“CAL FIRE has the most diverse mission and with a new pattern of historically catastrophic fires, our men and women work onerous schedules that have physical and psychological risk. Comparative pay is essential. Because of low pay, more than 400 firefighters in the past couple of years have left CAL FIRE for better paying departments. This bill will help stanch the loss. This bill is different to a similar bill last year that was successfully moving through the Legislature. We pulled it back at the last moment because we recognized that the CAL FIRE director… has a profoundly difficult task as a leader of the largest fire department in the United States,” and “… is also amongst the lowest paid at his position. Consequently, recent directors have departed for greener pastures. We included a cursory survey regarding director pay to provide perspective for contract negotiators and policy makers.”

Among other things, the California Professional Firefighters state that, “[d]evastating wildfires have become a regular occurrence in California, exacerbated by a changing climate and years of dry conditions. Large scale incidents such as the Dixie Fire, the Camp Fire, and the Eaton and Palisades Fires have strained not only the resources of fire departments to the limit, but placed unimaginable burdens onto the firefighters employed by CAL FIRE who are on the front lines of many of these blazes.

“Deployments during wildfire season, which now can stretch through the entire year, can extend up to and over 60 days in a row, with exhausting 48-hour shifts lined up back-to-back with little to no opportunities for rest. And even when they are not on the forefront of pushing back against mega-fires that threaten entire communities, CAL FIRE firefighters work daily to protect their communities and the entire state with every ounce of dedication and skill employed by their peers in other departments.

“For years however, the wages for CAL FIRE have lagged significantly behind what is offered in municipal and county departments, devaluing the critical work done by these professionals and making it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain firefighters where they are desperately needed. Short staffing only compounds the dangers inherent to this work through exhaustion and critical stress, but also presents long-term health impacts from extended exposure to toxic smoke with no respiratory protection as well as the negative repercussions for behavioral health from lack of sleep, overwork, and months on end spent away from family. In order to retain the skilled and trained firefighters that are so desperately needed at safe levels it is imperative.

“This bill] will ensure that the full-time professional firefighters of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection are paid a wage that is within 15 percent of the average salary of similar ranks averaged from 20 fire departments across California. The cross section of departments enumerated in this legislation cover a wide variety of departments from small to large cities as well as county departments and fire districts. Given the size of CAL FIRE’s workforce and the geographic diversity of the communities they serve, this approach provides the clearest picture of firefighter compensation across California to ensure fair and competitive wages.”

1. Comments by Opponents

None.

1. Prior or Related Legislation

Assembly Bill 252 (Bains, 2025) proposes to require the CAL FIRE, on or before January 1, 2028, to maintain full staffing levels throughout the calendar year at all fire stations and facilities under its jurisdiction; implement staffing requirements on a schedule; and to annually report to the Legislature on progress toward implementation, among other provisions. This bill is currently pending in the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.

Assembly Bill 1254 (Flora, 2023) proposed to require comparative pay for rank-and-file state BU 8 firefighters employed by the CAL FIRE similar to those of other California fire departments, as specified, and among other provisions. This bill was held on the Senate Inactive File.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

CAL FIRE, Local 2881, IAFF, AFL-CIO (Sponsor)

California Professional Firefighters

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Michael Bolden / P. E. & R. / (916) 319-3957

1. California State Employees Assn. v. State of California (Dept. of Transportation) (1983) PERB Decision No. 361. ↑

2. “MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 8 (Firefighters),” LAO, August 14, 2024. ↑