In summary
Cal Fire firefighters tend to earn less money than their counterparts in city fire departments. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law meant to narrow the gap.
Cal Fire firefighters are closer to getting a significant raise.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday night signed a law that’s meant to bring their compensation near to what cities and counties pay firefighters, narrowing a disparity that Cal Fire union representatives say leads to high turnover.
The law does not explicitly promise a raise, but it requires the next governor to “bargain in good faith” toward lifting Cal Fire pay to within 15% of the average compensation at 20 fire departments around California.
A 2025 salary survey showed Cal Fire paid on average, about 27% less than local fire departments. Cal Fire also has what firefighters regard as a more difficult schedule that requires them to work about 20 more days a year than their counterparts in cities and counties.
The salary lag varies by rank. The total monthly compensation for a Cal Fire engineer, for instance, was $21,700. The same rank at a local department earned $26,500 a month.
“This is a big one,” said Cal Fire Local 2881 President Tim Edwards. “The signing of this by Gov. Newsom is showing that he actually appreciates the men and women on the front lines of the megafires and the pandemic.”
Last year, Newsom vetoed a similar proposal that was more direct in calling for raises at Cal Fire. He wrote in a veto message that the bill would “create significant cost pressures for the state and circumvent the collective bargaining process.”
Officials estimated the bill would have cost between $373 million and $609 million in its first year.
The new law could have a similar price tag depending on how Cal Fire Local 2881 bargains with the next governor. The union’s current contract expires on June 30, about six months after Newsom leaves office.
Assemblymember Heath Flora, a Ripon Republican, carried the version of the bill Newsom vetoed. He reintroduced it in a form that gave the governor’s office more power to negotiate. The bill passed the Assembly 77-1 and the Senate 40-0.
Edwards said it could take more than a year to close the pay gap, but he believes it could be accomplished over a two- or three-year contract. The law “actually mandates (the California Department of Human Resources) to come to the table in good faith and start negotiating a fair and equitable wage compared to our local government counterparts,” he said.
Cal Fire grew substantially during Newsom’s administration. The department had fewer than 6,000 firefighters as recently as 2019. Today, Edwards’ union represents some 9,500 firefighters.
Only one state public employee union gets raises without having to bargain with the governor: The California Association of Highway Patrolmen. By state law, California Highway Patrol officers receive raises through a formula based on compensation at five large California police departments.
Newsom over the past week rejected two other bills that would have boosted compensation or changed retirement perks for police and firefighters, writing that it risked.
He rejected a proposal last week that would have allowed them to retire younger and offered them more generous retirement formulas. Newsom wrote in a veto message that it risked weakening changes Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law 14 years ago that were meant to stabilize California’s public pension systems.
Then, on Sunday, Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed CHP officers and Cal Fire firefighters to access an alternative retirement plan. The bill would have let them stop contributing money toward their pension in the last five years of their careers and instead put the money in an investment account managed by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Upon leaving civil service, they would have been able to cash out that account in a single lump-sum check.
California public safety unions have been trying to persuade governors to allow that kind of deferred retirement plan for nearly 30 years. Governors have vetoed 10 similar bills, although some cities and counties allow them.
In his veto message, Newsom wrote that the kind of retirement account the bill called for can “create long-term fiscal and administrative pressures on departments by altering employee tenures and retirement costs.” He said those questions belong at the bargaining table between the governor’s office and the unions rather than in the Legislature.
