MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Unit 10
(Professional Scientific)

On August 8, 2024, the administration submitted to our office a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the state and Bargaining Unit 10 (Professional Scientific). This analysis of the proposed agreement fulfills our statutory requirement under Section 19829.5 of the Government Code. Unit 10 consists of state scientists (including environmental scientists, toxicologists, pest prevention assistants, and other scientific classifications) and is represented by the California Association of Professional Scientists (CAPS), now a Local of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). CAPS became affiliated with UAW in 2024. Throughout this analysis, “CAPS” refers to the union representative of Unit 10 before the union affiliated with UAW and “CAPS-UAW” refers to the union representative after affiliation.

The administration has posted on the California Department of Human Resources’ (CalHR’s) website the full agreement, a summary of the agreement, and their estimated fiscal effects of the agreement. (Our State Workforce webpages include background information on the collective bargaining process, a description of this and other bargaining units, and our analyses of the agreements proposed in the past.)

Background

Unit 10 Bargaining

Long-Standing Disagreement Between Union and State Regarding Appropriate Level of Compensation for Unit 10. For many years, there has been significant disagreement between CAPS and the state as to how much state scientists should be paid. The disagreement primarily stems from union-raised pay equity concerns between two sets of employees: (1) between Unit 9 (Professional Engineers) and Unit 10 rank-and-file workers and (2) between unit 10 rank-and-file workers and their supervisors. The disagreement resulted in CAPS union membership rejecting a 2014 tentative agreement negotiated with the Brown Administration after the Legislature had already ratified the agreement as part of the 2014-15 budget. Since the rejected 2014 MOU, the state and Unit 10 have ratified three subsequent MOUs: a one-year MOU that was established through mediation and expired July 2015, a three-year MOU that expired July 2018, and a two-year MOU that expired July 2020. As is common practice, the parties began meeting to negotiate the terms of a successor agreement before the expiration of the current Unit 10 MOU. However, as we discuss in greater detail below, though the parties were able to agree to side letter agreements over the period, the parties repeatedly failed to ratify a successor MOU over the past four years. As a result, Unit 10 members have worked under the terms of the expired agreement since 2020.

Parties Agreed to Side Letter to Reduce Employee Pay Through Personal Leave Program 2020 (PLP 2020)… To help address a projected state budget problem in 2020-21, the state negotiated reductions in employee compensation with all 21 state bargaining units. On June 25, 2020, the state and Unit 10 signed a side letter agreement that reduced Unit 10 pay by 9.23 percent in 2020-21 and 2021-22 under PLP 2020.

…And Subsequent Side Letter to Restore Employee Pay in 2021-22. The anticipated budget problem did not materialize in 2020-21. The administration began negotiations with state bargaining units near the end of 2020-21 to end PLP 2020. In the case of Unit 10, the parties agreed to a side letter agreement on June 9, 2021 to end PLP 2020.

Parties Reached Agreement to Successor MOU in December 2022, but Union Membership Rejected Agreement and Relations Deteriorated. On December 22, 2022, our office received a proposed MOU between the state and Unit 10. In February 2023, the union announced that its membership rejected the proposed MOU with nearly 60 percent of the ballots cast voting “no.” Bargaining for a new agreement progressed slowly over the next several months and relations between the administration and the union deteriorated. On September 1, 2023, CAPS membership voted to authorize a strike, allowing the union leadership to call a strike.

Impasse Declared in September 2023. The union requested that the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) officially determine that the state and Unit 10 had reached an impasse. In a September 26, 2023 letter, PERB issued its determination that the two parties were indeed at an impasse. With the impasse declared, PERB assigned a mediator to work with the parties. The parties entered mediation on November 8, 2023.

Unit 10 Three-Day Strike in November 2023. On November 9, 2023, CAPS informed its membership and CalHR that it would stage a three-day strike the next week. On the evening of November 9, 2023, CalHR filed with PERB an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge against CAPS arguing that the union’s strike was unlawful. The three-day strike occurred as announced. The strike was the first time that a California state employee union went on strike. The ULP charge against CAPS for this action (Case SA-CO-526-0S) remains pending before PERB and has not yet been decided.

Governor Presented—and Union Rejected—Last Best and Final Offer (LBFO) in December 2023. The mediation process ended on December 13, 2023 with the parties failing to reach an agreement. The administration submitted its LBFO to CAPS on December 19, 2023. The union rejected the LBFO on December 21, 2023.

Union Leadership Voted to Approve Affiliation With UAW in February 2024. The CAPS Board of Directors unanimously voted on February 24, 2024 to approve an affiliation agreement with the UAW. Before going into effect, the union members would need to ratify the agreement.

Governor Moved to Impose Terms in March 2024… Subsection (b) of Section 3517.8 of the Government Code allows the Governor to implement “any or all” of his LBFO if the parties “reach an impasse in negotiations” for a new MOU. The law specifies that the implementation of an LBFO does not relieve the parties of their obligation to bargain in good faith and does not waive union rights established under the Ralph C. Dills Act. In a March 18, 2024 letter to CAPS, CalHR informed the union that it planned on imposing terms of its LBFO, but that “the state will not move forward with its implementation plan should CAPS wish to return to the table to bargain in good faith for a successor agreement.” The administration gave the union until March 21, 2024 to indicate that it would like to return to the table. In its March 21, 2024 response, CAPS indicated “it’s been four months since we rejected the State’s LBFO and nothing tells us why the State has a sudden interest in returning to negotiations.” In a March 22, 2024 letter, the administration notified the union that it would implement terms of its LBFO on April 5, 2024.

…And Sought Legislative Approval to Fully Implement LBFO. Though Section 3517.8 of the Government Code allows the Governor to unilaterally implement any or all of his LBFO, he may not implement it without legislative approval of provisions of the LBFO that (1) require the expenditure of funds or (2) conflict with existing statutes. On March 29, 2024, CalHR formally submitted to the Legislature its implementation plan of the LBFO and requested that the Legislature approve necessary statutory changes and funding appropriations for its full implementation. In its letter to the Legislature, CalHR indicated that, though the administration was preparing to implement terms of its LBFO, “the State prefers to return to the table to mutually negotiate a multi-year agreement.”

Unit 10 Affiliated With UAW at End of March 2024. On March 31, 2024, CAPS members approved the UAW affiliation agreement. Under its affiliation, CAPS is now an affiliated Local of the UAW and is referred to as CAPS-UAW in this analysis.

Governor Pulled Back LBFO Shortly Before Scheduled Implementation. On April 5, 2024, our office was informed that CalHR and CAPS-UAW agreed to return to the bargaining table to negotiate a successor MOU and that the administration no longer intended to implement its LBFO. The Legislature had taken no action on the Governor’s implementation plan before the Governor withdrew the implementation plan.

Proposed Agreement

Term. The proposed MOU would be in effect from July 1, 2024 through July 1, 2027.

Provisions Related to Pay

Special Salary Adjustments (SSAs) for Employees at Top Step Vary by Classification. The proposed agreement would increase the top steps of Unit 10 classifications by between (1) 6 percent and 12 percent in 2024-25, (2) 4 percent and 5 percent in 2025-26, and (3) 4 percent and 5 percent in 2026-27. Employees at the top step of their salary range would receive these pay increases as SSAs. About 36 percent of Unit 10 members are at the top step of their salary ranges. In the absence of this agreement, employees at the top step would not get pay increases as employees at the top step are not eligible for merit salary adjustments (MSAs). Compounded over the three years, the top step adjustments across the four groups of classifications would result in a total pay increase ranging from 14.6 percent to 23.5 percent. About 23 percent of Unit 10 members would receive the highest available SSA under the agreement.

SSAs for Employees Not at the Top Step. The proposed agreement would increase all other steps of Unit 10 classifications by 3 percent on three instances: July 1 of 2024, 2025, and 2026. Employees who are not at the top step of their salary range would receive these pay increases as SSAs. Employees who are not at the top step of their salary range typically receive a 5 percent MSA each year until they are at the top step. In the absence of the agreement, employees at the bottom step of their salary ranges most likely could expect to see their total salary increase by a compounded total of 15.8 percent over the three years from MSAs alone. If this agreement were ratified, an employee at the bottom step likely could see their salary increase an additional 10.2 percentage points—to a total of 26 percent—after accounting for the compounding effects of both the MSAs under current law and the SSAs under the proposed agreement. About 64 percent of Unit 10 members are not at the top step of their salary ranges.

Longevity Pay Differential. The proposed agreement would phase in a longevity pay differential that provides employees an additional specified percentage of base pay depending on their years of state service. The agreement specifies that this pay differential is considered compensation for the purposes of retirement. Effective July 1, 2024, Unit 10 members who have 17 years of state service would receive a payment of 2 percent of base salary and employees with 18 or more years of service would receive 3 percent of base salary. Effective July 1, 2025, the payments for 17 and 18 years of service remain but a new pay differential of 4 percent of base salary would be available to employees with 19 years or more of state service. Effective July 1, 2026, the payments for 17, 18, and 19 years of service would remain but a new pay differential of 5.5 percent of base salary would be established for employees with 20 or more years of service.

Geographic Pay Differential. Effective July 1, 2024, employees represented by Unit 10 whose designated reporting office is located in the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, or the City and County of San Francisco would receive a monthly $250 geographic pay differential. This pay differential would not be considered compensation for the purposes of retirement contributions but would be subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Bilingual Pay Differential. The employing agency may designate Unit 10 positions as eligible to receive bilingual pay. The proposed agreement would double the monthly bilingual, pay differential available to eligible Unit 10 employees from $100 to $200 per month. The administration indicates that around 65 employees represented by Unit 10 receive the bilingual pay differential. The provision related to bilingual pay in the proposed agreement specifies that employees who do not receive a bilingual pay differential would not be required to use bilingual skills.

Associate Hazardous Materials Specialists at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Effective the first day of the pay period following ratification, the proposed agreement would adjust the salary ranges for Unit 10 members who work at a CDCR institution in the Associate Hazardous Materials Specialist (Class Code 3528) or Senior Hazardous Material Specialist (Technical) (Class Code 3527) classifications. The administration indicates that this affects 13 employees represented by Unit 10.

Department of Industrial Relations Certification Credential Differential. Effective the first day of the pay period following ratification of the agreement, the agreement specifies that employees in specified classifications who achieve and maintain a (1) Certified Associate Industrial Hygienist Credential would receive a pay differential of 2 percent of base pay and (2) Certified Industrial Hygienist Credential would receive a pay differential of 3 percent of base pay. The agreement specifies that the pay differential would not be considered compensation for purposes of retirement contributions.

Veterinarian Continuing Education Reimbursement. The proposed agreement would increase the amount of money the state reimburses licensed veterinarians and licensed veterinarian specialists from $1,000 to $1,500 per year to cover continuing education costs for tuition, registration fees, association memberships, books, training materials, transportation, lodging, and all other work-related expenses for courses directly related to licensure or certification.

Increased Night Shift Differential. Employees represented by Unit 10 who regularly work specified night shifts receive an hourly pay differential. The proposed agreement would increase these night shift differentials. Specifically, the hourly differentials would increase (1) from 40 cents to $1.50 per hour for employees who work four or more hours of their regularly scheduled work between 6:00 pm and 12:00 am (midnight) and (2) from 50 cents to $1.50 per hour for employees who work four or more hours of their regularly scheduled work between 12:00 am (midnight) and 6:00 am. According to the administration, in 2023, a total of 137 hours were worked during these periods of time.

Fire Mission Pay Differential. Effective the first day of the pay period following ratification, the proposed agreement would provide Unit 10 members who are employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) and are Fireline qualified a pay differential equivalent to a one-step increase when CalFire has declared summer preparedness for the employee’s unit. This pay differential would not be considered compensation for retirement purposes. The administration estimates that 59 employees would be eligible for this payment.

Safety Footwear for Fireline Qualified Workers. Effective the first day of the pay period following ratification, the proposed agreement would provide Unit 10 members employed by CalFire and are Fireline qualified, as well as employees in specified classifications who are employed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and are Fireline qualified, up to $480 every year to be reimbursed for the purchase or refurbishment of National Fire Protection Association Wildland Fire Boots.

Expansion of Educational Pay Differential. Effective the first day of the pay period following ratification, Unit 10 members in various specified classifications would receive a 2 percent pay differential if they possess a master’s degree and a 3 percent pay differential if they possess a doctoral degree or Doctor of Medicine. The agreement specifies that these pay differentials would not affect employee pension benefits.

Treatment of Some Pay Differentials. Depending on the specific pay differential, an employee and the state employer might be required to contribute a portion of the payment towards Social Security, Medicare, or the employee’s pension benefit. The proposed agreement would change how some pay differentials are treated such that they no longer are considered pensionable compensation—meaning that the payment does not affect the employee’s pension benefits and do not require a contribution towards the pension benefit. The affected payments include the staff specialist compensation, diving/climbing pay, and out-of-class pay.

Business and Travel Reimbursement. Consistent with what CalHR has done with other bargaining units, the proposed agreement would tie the business and travel reimbursement rates available to Unit 10 members to those established by the U.S. General Services Administration.

Commuting Incentives. Effective the first day of the first pay period following ratification, the proposed agreement would increase the reimbursement available to Unit 10 members who use mass transit or a van pool from 75 percent to 100 percent the exclusion amount provided by the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, the agreement would incorporate CalHR’s bicycle commuter program in the Unit 10 agreement.

Provisions Related to Leave

Increased Vacation and Annual Leave Caps. The proposed agreement temporarily would increase the 640-hour cap on vacation and annual leave that currently exists by the equivalent number of PLP 2020 hours to which Unit 10 had been subjected. The higher leave cap would be in place until June 30, 2025. As of December 31, 2023, two employees represented by Unit 10 had vacation balances and two employees had annual leave balances that exceeded the established caps.

Holiday Credit for Working on Observed Holidays. Under the agreement, employees in Work Week Group 2 who are required to work on an observed state holiday would be credited eight hours of holiday credit in addition to the premium pay they otherwise would receive for working on the holiday.

Intent to Meet to Discuss Employee Donated Release Time Bank. During the term of the agreement, the proposed agreement specifies that CAPS-UAW and the administration would meet regarding the establishment of a Unit 10 Employee Donated Release Time Bank whereby Unit 10 employees would be permitted to voluntarily contribute identified leave credits to be used by Unit 10 employees identified by CAPS-UAW. Any resulting agreement between the parties during the term of the proposed MOU presumably would be submitted to the Legislature through the MOU addenda process established under Item 9800 of the annual Budget Act.

Other Provisions

State Disability Insurance (SDI). Similar to the rejected 2022 Tentative Agreement, the proposed agreement establishes a six-month transition period beginning upon ratification of the agreement to change the disability insurance program available to Unit 10 members from Non-Industrial Disability Insurance or Enhanced Non-Industrial Disability Insurance to SDI.

Withdrawal of ULP Charges. The proposed agreement includes a new side letter that specifies that, if the agreement were to be ratified, CalHR and CAPS-UAW each would ask PERB to stay and/or abey the two pending ULP cases brought by the parties. Specifically, (1) CalHR’s ULP charge regarding CAPS-UAW’s three-day strike (SA-CO-526-S) and (2) a ULP charge filed by CAPS-UAW against CalHR (SA-CE-2260-S).

Classification Review. During the term of the agreement, the agreement would require CalHR to initiate “an audit of work performed” by five Unit 10 classifications (mutually agreed upon by the parties) across two to four departments to determine if the work performed by employees in those classifications meet the classification specifications. The agreement outlines specific factors that CalHR would be required to use to determine if reviewed positions are consistent with the classification specifications. In the event that CalHR issues a Request for Proposal (RFP) to contract out the review, the agreement specifies that the parties would mutually agree upon the language of the RFP. The proposed agreement specifies that CalHR would submit the completed classification review to CAPS-UAW no later than six months prior to the expiration of the MOU.

Establishment of Joint Labor Management Committees (JLMCs). The proposed agreement would establish JLMCs for management and employee representatives to collaborate and make recommendations regarding specific issues. The topics to be discussed by JLMCs that would be established by the proposed agreement include potential consolidation of Unit 10 classifications; review of promotional pathways, including minimum qualifications of specified Unit 10 classifications; solutions on telework issues for Unit 10 members; and recommendations to reduce excess leave balances of Unit 10 members (upon request by either party).

Update to Telecommute/Telework Provisions. The state’s policy towards telework has evolved substantially since 2020. The proposed agreement would update the provisions in the Unit 10 MOU related to telecommute and telework to be generally consistent with state policy—including the telework stipend program which the Governor initially recommended eliminating as part of his January 2024-25 budget proposal. In addition, the agreement specifies that employees who require equipment that has not already been provided per the procedures outlined in the agreement may request and the department may elect to provide reimbursement to Unit 10 members for additional appropriate business expenses in accordance with departmental policies.

Union Access to Employees. The proposed agreement would increase or clarify union access to employees. The agreement would clarify that employees may meet with CAPS-UAW representatives on representational matters and CAPS-UAW may have access to employees both at a physical work site as well as virtually. The agreement also would require the state to provide CAPS-UAW additional contact information for new hires. Specifically, while the current agreement requires the state to provide the union with each employees’ home address, the proposed agreement would require the state to provide the union bargaining each unit member’s name; classification; department; work location; work, home, and personal cellular telephone numbers; and work and personal e-mail addresses on file with the employer. (The agreement specifies that the state would not provide the home address, personal cellular telephone number, and personal e-mail addresses for an employee who is protected as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking as set forth in Section 6206.7 of the Government Code.) The agreement specifies that the contact information shared with CAPS-UAW would not be deemed to be public records and would not be open to public inspection except as set for in Section 7928.300 of the Government Code. In addition, the agreement would establish opportunities for CAPS-UAW representatives and staff to meet with Unit 10 members for up to 30 minutes when they are first hired.

Limitation of Electronic Monitoring. The proposed agreement would establish a number of limitations on the state’s ability to electronically monitor Unit 10 members. The state would be prohibited from using an employee’s log on/off time, electronic access card entry/exit times, or other “online status” in any electronic application as the sole source of attendance reporting or as the sole reason of discipline. In addition, electronic location tracking could be used for operational efficiency, safety, and security; however, such data could not be the sole basis for disciplinary action unless an employee’s driving behavior or vehicle use constitutes cause for disciplinary action as defined by Section 19572 of the Government Code.

Ergonomic Evaluation. The proposed agreement would require the state, upon the written request of an employee, to provide an ergonomic evaluation of the employee’s primary workstation by a trained evaluator. The agreement specifies that the state would make ergonomic appropriate equipment available to the employee following the evaluation.

Release Time for Travel to Civil Service Examinations. The expired agreement requires the state to provide employees reasonable time off without loss of compensation to participate in a civil service examination that has been scheduled during an employee’s normal work hours. The proposed agreement would require the state to also provide release time for reasonable travel time to and from the examination site.

Administration’s Fiscal Estimates

Increased Annual State Costs. The administration estimates that the proposed agreement would increase state costs by $40.8 million total funds ($11.8 million General Fund) in 2024-25. Once fully implemented, the administration estimates that the agreement would increase ongoing state costs by $93.7 million total funds ($26.7 million General Fund) beginning in 2026-27.

Extension to Excluded Employees. While compensation is established for rank-and-file employees through the collective bargaining process, the administration has broad authority to modify compensation for employees excluded from the collective bargaining process, subject to legislative approval of necessary funds. If the administration extended the same terms to excluded employees as are included in the proposed agreement, the administration estimates that ongoing state costs would be about $12.3 million total funds ($3.5 million General Fund) higher beginning in 2026-27

LAO Comments and Recommendations

In this section of the analysis, we raise issues for legislative consideration when considering whether to approve the proposed agreement. To this end, we focus on potential concerns with proposals in the agreement, policy considerations or interactions, and other important issues.

Term Longer Than Two Years. The agreement would be in place for three years. This is longer than our long-standing recommendation (since 2007) that the Legislature not approve MOUs with terms that extend beyond two years. The basis of this recommendation is to preserve legislative flexibility to respond to changing economic conditions.

Last Unit 10 Compensation Study Reflected 2020 Compensation Levels. The most recent compensation study performed by CalHR was based on data from 2020 and was released in 2022. The study compared state-employed environmental scientists, epidemiologists, and chemists with those employed by local governments in California, the federal government, and the private sector (when available). When comparing the total compensation levels the state provides Unit 10 classifications with total compensation earned by employees who work for other employers in comparable jobs, the study found that environmental scientists were compensated 2 percent below market levels while chemists and epidemiologists were compensated 15 percent and 22 percent, respectively, above market. Without a more recent compensation study, it is difficult to assess how Unit 10 members’ compensation compares with similar employees employed by other employers.

Proposed Agreement Seems Focused on Retaining Most Senior Employees. Over the past 15 years, the years of state service attained by the median state worker has decreased slightly from eight years to seven years. In contrast, the median years of service attained by Unit 10 members during the same time period dropped from 10 years of service in 2008 to 6 years of service as of December 31, 2023. This drop in years of service could be, at least in part, attributed to (1) elevated levels of retirements as the Baby Boom generation exited the workforce during this time period and (2) the growth in the number of Unit 10 positions as the number of Unit 10 positions more than doubled between 2008 and 2023. It is possible that the decline also points to retention challenges; however, while the compensation study indicated that turnover among chemists was higher than the state average, it indicated that overall Unit 10 turnover at 5 percent was lower than the statewide turnover rate of 7 percent. The proposed agreement appears designed to prevent future retention issue, particularly among high-tenured staff. The agreement would provide employees not at the top step of their salary range a 3 percent SSA in each year of the agreement—a seemingly modest pay increase in light of (1) inflation levels since 2020 when the current MOU expired and (2) the union-asserted pay gap between Unit 10 positions and other positions. In contrast, the most senior Unit 10 members stand to gain significantly higher pay increases under the terms of the proposed agreement with top step employees’ pay increasing by as much as 23.5 percent over the course of the agreement and employees with more than at least 20 years of service receiving a 5.5 percent pay differential by the end of the agreement.

Proposed Agreement Appears More Generous Than Rejected 2022 Agreement or LBFO. While it can be difficult to compare one MOU with another, it seems that the proposed Unit 10 MOU provides larger pay increases (in aggregate) than the terms of the tentative agreement that CAPS members rejected in 2022 and the LBFO that the Governor sought to implement earlier this year.

Proposed Agreement Provides Pay Increases to All but Not Through General Salary Increases (GSIs). All Unit 10 members would receive pay increases under the proposed agreement. The most efficient way to provide pay increases to an entire bargaining unit is to establish a GSI that increases all steps of all classifications represented by the bargaining unit. The proposed agreement attempts a much more complicated approach by providing only SSAs and pay differentials to employees that vary by classification, tenure, and qualifications. This approach appears to be more precise or surgical in providing pay increases to bargaining unit members; however, it is not clear to us why the parties chose this approach or why some classifications were chosen for higher pay increases than others.

Reimbursement for Telework Costs Appears Different Than Other Bargaining Units. The agreement would allow employees to request, and the department to provide, reimbursement to Unit 10 members for business expenses for telework. This appears different from how other bargaining units are treated. Specifically, the side letters that established the telework stipend for other bargaining specify that the payment is in lieu of reimbursement for costs incurred related to teleworking.

JLMC Process Lacks Transparency. Most, if not all, MOUs include at least one JLMC or similar management/labor workgroup. These workgroups can be tasked with discussing a wide array of topics and can be advisory or can be directly involved in developing policy for implementation. While there can be a benefit to management and labor collaborating on policy, the process can also hinder public and legislative oversight. The JLMC process generally is excluded from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The administration considers the JLMC process as part of the collective bargaining process, which it considers confidential. Consequently, the administration may propose or implement policy changes that are formed through the JLMC process and be unable to offer a justification beyond that the policy change is “the product of the JLMC process.” Such a justification could be offered in the future to explain why the administration might want to implement telework or excessive leave policies for Unit 10 that deviate from the policies established for other bargaining units after the completion of the JLMCs proposed under the agreement. Such justification would make it difficult for the Legislature to understand what factors warrant one bargaining unit receiving different treatment than another.

Classification Review. The proposed agreement would require CalHR to submit a report of its classification review to CAPS-UAW within six months of the expiration of the MOU. The timing of this report is intentional so as to inform negotiations at the bargaining table for a successor agreement. There is no requirement under the proposed agreement that CalHR submit the classification review to the Legislature. In the event that a successor MOU includes significant changes to classifications that had been subject to CalHR’s review, we recommend the Legislature seek a copy of CalHR’s review to justify any changes to the affected classifications.

Explore Feasibility of Adopting a Uniform System of Locality Pay. Cost of living varies considerably across different regions of California. To account for this, the federal government’s pay scale (referred to as the General Schedule) distinguishes between six different geographical regions of California: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, Los Angeles-Long Beach, San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad, Sacramento-Roseville, Fresno-Madera-Hanford, and the rest of the state. The total compensation studies performed by CalHR includes a geographic comparison that compares the salaries earned by state employees with those of comparable employees in five distinct geographic regions across the state: the Sacramento region, San Francisco region, Los Angeles region, San Diego region, and the rest of the state. The state of California employs people in every county across the state. In the case of Unit 10, the compensation study found that the state’s lead/lag in compensation varied across geographic regions. For example, whereas state environmental scientists were found to lag the market in the San Francisco region by 28 percent, it was found to lead the counties not included in a distinct regional analysis by 17 percent. Despite the clear recognition that cost of living varies by region in California and that these differences can affect competitiveness of compensation, the state has never adopted a uniform system to provide geographic pay differentials. Instead, such pay differentials have been negotiated at the bargaining table for specific bargaining units, facilities, or regions. The result is an inconsistent policy that recognizes the regional differences for some state jobs in some regions but not for others. We recommend that the Legislature explore whether a uniform system of locality pay, potentially similar to what the federal civil service uses in California, could be a feasible option for the state civil service.