As a result of the layoff notices received by some of our members, the Union Executive Board is taking steps to make sure that the rights of our members facing layoff are protected and our members are fully informed during this process. For this purpose, the Executive Board is scheduled to meet with AFSCME representatives next Wednesday to cooperate on issues such as rehire rights, COBRA, and to check the accuracy of the seniority used in the layoff process. If members facing layoffs have any questions you want us to address to AFSCME, please call Brendan Max at (773)869-2423. After the meeting with AFSCME, the Executive Board will conduct in-person meetings with members facing layoff to fully inform these members of all their rights and protections. We will schedule these meetings in the near future.
The layoffs will also likely cause some re-shuffling of remaining attorneys in the Office. We are aware that there are many concerns about how this re-shuffling is accomplished. We have begun conversations with Management to try to ensure that this process is as fair as possible for our members and is consistent with our Collective Bargaining Agreement. We will report more on this as the staffing plan is developed.
New information: Subsequent to this message in its original format, we have learned that the first phase of the re-shuffling will be voluntary through the normal bidding process. By this afternoon (Wednesday, April 4th) or tomorrow, the Office will post multiple openings in First Municipal and Civil. After the response to these postings is assessed, further plans will be considered if staffing levels are still inadequate. Therefore, if any members are interested in working at these sites, check the postings and bid.
April 4th, 2007
Julie Hull Says:
April 4th, 2007
I saw the postings for 9 grade 2 positions in Abuse and Neglect and 8 grade 2 positions in 1st Municiple. As some of you might know, the Legal Resources Division will be losing a supervisor on 4/15. It, therefore,appears to be a legitimate concern of the 10 grade 2 attorneys and the 7 least senior grade 3 attorneys that management intends to involuntarily transfer them to fill any of the positions posted but not filled via the bid process. For example, if non-layed off civil attorneys bid for the 1st Municipal slots and get them, but no one bids for the civil positions, will management involuntarily transfer Legal Resource attorneys to fill those slots and prevent them from bumping the less senior civil attorneys from 1st Municiple positions? Does the union support the right of those grade 2 attorneys, who do not participate in the bidding process but are involuntarily transferred, to bump less senior grade 2 attorneys at other locations through out the office?
When the Appeals Division and Post-Conviction Unit were abolished, all of those bargaining unit attorneys were forbidden (with union consent) from bumping into other divisions. We were given the choice of bidding on the Legal Resources Division or being involuntarily transferred. I certainly hope for my colleagues that the union has not agreed to abrogate bumping rights for Legal Resource Attorneys as was done before. Some of these colleagues have felony trial experience and the seniority to bump into the felony trial division. Again, I hope the union does not ignore these colleagues rights.
Leave a Reply
April 4th, 2007
Can the union explain why, if there are 15 announced layoffs, there are 17 positions being announced as “new openings?” Are 2 positions being erroneously included into this category of the “first phase of the re-shuffling” that is “voluntary through the normal bidding process,” as it has been explained thus far to us?
April 5th, 2007
I think it is really sad that people are already upset adn whining about involuntary movement within the office and it has not even occurred yet. It is terrible that it has to happen, but at least they/you still have your job. Have you forgotten that there are 15 attorneys who will be unemployed?
April 5th, 2007
I think its a sad situation when people have to write on this website without identifying themselves. Sad Situaution, is there some fear of speaking your mind freely and identifying yourself?
For me, and I think for Julie too, I am not whining about involuntary movement, or my job, which I fought hard to get and to keep. I know Julie’s work ethic too. She’s one of the best. She’s not a whiner. She has the guts to identify herself too, when she writes here. I just want to know what the score is. Are there 15 reshuffled positions or 17? We lost 15, so why put up a post for 17 positions?
As far as the 15 who are going to be unemployed, it is sad. I know it I am 48 years old, and I have lost jobs and have had to deal with unemployment myself.
April 5th, 2007
To the Union Leadership: is your silence an acknowlegment that involuntarily transferred attorneys will have no bumping rights?
To Sad Situation: Perhaps any job in the public defenders office is desirable to recently hired attorneys or recent law school grads. Some of us with 20 years experience have worked in 1st Municipal, Juvenile, Felony Trial and Appeals, and have a preference, a love and passion for our work whether it is representing juveniles, trying capital cases, or writing appeals. Some of us also actually had careers as appellate lawyers in the office of the cook county public defender until four years ago. We love the law, writing, trying to persuade higher courts that our trial colleagues work was undermined by prosecutors actions and judges rulings and actually making case law. Appellate work is different than trial work, not better or worse. And, after many years of service to this office, I have the right to express an informed preference. I venture to guess that if 17 attorneys who love trial work and desire to make it to the murder task force were told they were being involuntarily transferred to Legal Resources Division to write appeals and supplemental petitions, they would be unhappy, too, knowing their career had been derailed. To some, having a crappy job may be better than not having a job. To others, having a career one is passionate about is certainly better than a crappy job.
April 6th, 2007
Before I am laid off, will I have the opportunity to help the (hopefully voluntarily) transferred attorney who is taking over my caseload become familiarized with my caseload? Leaving a summary will not do my clients justice. Finally, please go easy on the person who did not post his/her name. It is extremely jarring to arrive at work and see those postings on the wall. I know it is procedure, but the postings take away a little more hope that this ’situation’ will be resolved and that we will keep our jobs. So please show some compassion toward your fellow union members.
April 6th, 2007
I think Mike has stated it very well…It’s not that Sad Situation or anyone being laid off does not feel for the PD’s who have been here for years and whose positions are in jeopardy of changing. But, please at least understand that while I understand that your situation is far from ideal, we-the less experienced attorneys-also have a great passion for what we do…and, with the lay offs, we don’t have any option of practicing what we love in any capacity. Seeing the postings on the walls and hearing people around our office complain that they might be transferred and that it might take them ‘even longer’ to get to 26th Street, is not easy. I think the Union put up a fight for a while but at this point, I do not feel like anyone is doing anything for us…
I know there have been a handful of people who have left the office and/or will be leaving. I would think the Union would be speaking up that these vacancies should thus be filled by those who would otherwise be laid off…but, I haven’t heard of anyone speaking up…we have heard nothing. It definitely feels like the Union has given up 3 weeks before our last day actually arrives.
As far as anonymous postings-just because someone doesn’t attach their name to their posting does not mean they should not be treated with respect or that their opinion is not valid. That posting does not seem to be an attack at any individual, nor is mine, but merely a way for that person to vent. We should all be in this together.
April 6th, 2007
Shelly:
Your post reflects a basic misunderstanding of how our union — Local 3315 AFSCME — works. Our union is YOU and YOUR friends and colleagues…it is not just some office in Washington D.C. Yes, you pay union dues for professional staff and legal help, but the strength of the Local depends on the commitment and work of the local members. The phrases in your post the “Union has given up” or “I do not feel anyone is doing anything for us” must mean that YOU have given up and or expect some help from somewhere you should not expect help from.
This is a democratic union. All our executive board members are volunteers. Elections are this month. Stewards are always needed. PEOPLE, the political action arm of the union, always needs volunteers and new members. If members don’t have the gumption to use their own names here, or express their views in the office, or run for union office, or show up to demonstrate or strike, then just maybe they are in the wrong business. I do think we are all in this together and I hope you are able to continue to do work here or elsewhere that you are passionate about.
April 6th, 2007
As a former attorney from the felony trial division with 15 years seniority, I would prefer to go back to the felony trial division by bumping a less senior union member than being involuntarily transferred to the civil division. Respecting seniority and bumping rights by the executive board are essential to maintain a strong collective bargaining unit. This administration presented a budget to the county board that eliminated L1 and L2 Positions by not leaving a $1 for these full time positions. At the same time, the budget only eliminated 2 L4 and 2 L1 FTE positions in Legal Resources. I would argue that the administration should not be allowed to circumvent bumping rights by resorting to “operational necessity” to involuntarily transfer more senior Legal Resource Division attorneys into full time positions that were not budgeted for $1. In the future, the union should not sacrifice members seniority to make it easy for the administration to raid the Legal Resource Division every year there are layoffs.
April 6th, 2007
Bruce-I did everything I was aksed to do in this fight-took a day off to attend the protest, attended the commissioners’ meetings, wrote letters, made phone calls, got about 150 other people I know (outside of the office to write letters and make phone calls), spent weekends collecting petitions…etc. If there was anything else I could do, I would be happy to do it. I guess what my post intended to convey was that we have not been given any options on further action we can take nor have we had any news/info shared with us that there has been any more action taken.
April 7th, 2007
If anyone called me at the office they would know I was on vacation this week; spring break for my dependants was determined and calendered way before Old Man Stroger even got his stroke. I know our union President was also on vacation this week. I hope the members can respect the right of a board member to go on a scheduled vacation whether or not members are receiving layoff notices. The Board will be meeting next week (week of 4/9/07 and will make the necessary and proper decisions that are required of the board. With respect to the people who comment on this blog, it should be noted that I am glad to consider the views of our members but understandably, consider views of unidentified members with some degree of caution.
April 9th, 2007
Look at how people attack people on this site, I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to post their name on this web blog.
April 9th, 2007
Response to K.S. Galhotra posting of April 7, 2007.
Even if two executive board members went on vacation last week, there are other board members who can respond to the postings. It should not be a prerequisite for union members to call the president and vice president before they reply to any postings.
If the executive board would prefer that members call them and leave messages on their office phones, then please amend the website to “Leave a Reply Only After Contacting the President and Vice President at their Office Phone.” However, I suspect that their voice messages would quickly fill up so that their clients would be unable to leave messages.
Nor is it necessary for our executive board members to bring in political comments referring to “Old Man Stroger” to divert attention away from the concerns of our union members. As union members, we should all be sensitive and considerate to our fellow union members. As paying union members, we have every right to ask questions of our executive board members who chose to run for executive office and were elected to their positions.
Respect goes both ways.
April 9th, 2007
Ingrid:
1. Members call me all the time about union issues and I welcome their calls.
2. No deals have been cut with management regarding any re-shuffling or restructuing of the office.
3. Politics, believe it or not, is very much a part of what has happened to the County and its budget. To say the budget process was not a political exercise is to have a very loose grasp of reality. I used “Old Man Stroger” in order to distinguish him from his son, Todd.
4. The entire focus of the union has been and continues to be on the members.
5. The will answer union members questions to the best of our ability.
April 10th, 2007
Bob:
1. It is nice to know that you welcome phone calls from members; however, there are advantages to communication via private emails or public postings that you overlook.
a. Phone voice messages are limited by the limited amount minutes and volumne of messages that the county’s system can handle. Web postings do not have these limitations.
b. Members may want to address the entire executive board, rather than only the vice-president. I respect your dedication to this union; however, the entire executive board has to address seniority issues, not just the president and vice president.
2. It is nice to know that the executive board has not “cut a deal with management regarding and re-reshuffling or restructuing of the office”; however, you have not answer the concerns of the LRD attorneys as to what are the objective benchmarks that allows management to resort to “operational needs” to involuntary transfer senior members of this collective bargaining unit.
3. My grasp of reality as to county politics is tighter than you can ever realize. Political name calling is an evasive response
I knew President John Stroger. He was a man who cared for working people. He never laid off doctors, nurses,and assistant public defenders despite the deficit because he knew that they were essential public servants.
Many of our members voted for President Todd Stroger because of the belief that the apple does not fall far from the tree; however, many failed to consider that when the apple falls it is either because it is rotten or it did not withstand adverse weather. The political reality is that the current county board commissioners approved this budget only after lobbying by unions”.
As the vice-president, you have ever right to speak for me in your criticism of President Todd Stroger for the lay offs of union members. However, as an African American, I find your reference to President John Stroger as “Old Man Stroger” to be cultural insentive. You do not have to agree with President John Stroger, but you have to respect him for his strong support of organized labor.
The political reality is that many of the current commissioners respect President John Stroger and would never refer to him as “Old Man Stroger” publicly. Since you may need their support in the future, you may want to take their lead.
4. I do not doubt that entire focus of the union has been and continues to be on the members since the union is its members; however, I do not know what the executive board is focusing on as it relates to seniority’s impact on the reshuffling of its members: county seniority? CCPDO seniority as of the attorney’s Illinois bar admission? CCPDO Division seniority? Since I do not have a copy of the ratified contract either in paper format or pdf electronic format, I do not know what seniority rights I now have under the current contract.
5. I assume you meant to type:
“The executive board will answer union members questions to the best of our ability.”
I know that already since I post my questions frequently on this website.
Could the executive board post on the website the time and place of the elections for the executive board. I did not receive any notice in the mail.
April 10th, 2007
Ingrid:
The time and place of the elections have been posted on the Calender section of this website for several weeks. Also, the chair of the election committee, Sister Erin Farrell, mailed the postcards with the notice as required by our bylaws to the last known address of each full member, If you did not receive the blue postcard with the notice, then you may want to take it up with your letter carrier. Perhaps you moved and did not update your address.
Speaking of politics, maybye you want to run for union offfice and subject yourself to the crucible of the democratic process. The nomination meeting is tommorrow, 4/11/07 at 2650 S. California 7th Floor Library at 4:00pm.
April 10th, 2007
Although I cannot agree with almost anything that sister Gill writes in post 15 above, I do think that it is high time that our “new” contract, that expires at the end of 2008, be printed and distributed to our members. As it is the County’s responsibility under the contract, to print the contract, can I surmise that the County’s financial problems have prevented payment to the union printers who do the job? In any case, its my understanding that those sections of our contract that control seniority, filling of vacancies, promotions, etc, have not been changed from the previous contract. That contract is available on this web site at the Stewards and Grievances link.
April 11th, 2007
Bruce:
Unless you participated in the union negotiations and have first hand knowledge of the wording of the most recently ratified comments, your “understanding” of the contract fails to alleviate my concerns. If you do have a copy of the ratified contract, please forward it to my email address or fax it to LRD.
Bruce, do you not think that it would be malpractice to rely on an expired unnion contract rather than the ratified contract to provide legal advice to a client?
As a LRD attorney, the expired contract does not address some of my rights since my division is not recognized in the old contract. Therefore, I suggest that your understanding is flawed because it overlooks newly created divisions not included in the expired contract.
While it might be the responsibility of the county to print the contract, it is also the responsibility of the executive board to convey those changes in the contract beyond the payroll increases and insurance benifits. The county may never get around to printing this contract. Then what?
Is there any reason that our local cannot post a pdf version of the union contract that was approved by the county board? It should be a public record. Is there a county department that we can send a FOIA request to in order to get a copy? Better yet, is our contract still tenative as some of the county commissioners inferred?
Specifically, have the call back provisions from layoffs been extended from one year to two years?
April 11th, 2007
Bob:
One is subject to punishment, not to elective office. Public service is a privilege, not a burden.
I will be there.
April 11th, 2007
Wow - the tone of these posts lends creedance to what I have always maintained: the union operates under a ridiculous conflict of interest. We are losing 15 talented, dedicated, energetic, enthusiastic, creative and deserving lawyers (not to mention the 21 support staff members who make our jobs more pleasant every day) and this is sad beyond sad. These 15 young lawyers (many recruited, by the way, from out of state - with no local family support) have always been left out to dry at the expense of more senior members. Take note, for instance, of how the union never submitted to the membership the notion of bond court concessions in an effort to save jobs. No vote on the issue, not even a discussion.
Now more senior members of the union have come to the realization that this budget process will personally impact them and they come forward to protect their interests (or “rights”) by bumping less senior members into presumably undesirable positions. There will, of course, be some resoluntion to this problem and one group or another will be unhappy. So you see, more people will be sold out at the expense of other “bothers and sisters” in the union. It’s just a question of who.
And before anyone chooses to attack me on my lack of involvement with this budget process or my unwillingness to be a member of the executive board, let me say this: I organized juvenile court in this budget process. I created committees who in turn put on a press conference, created and submitted petitions with thousands of signatures, organized letter-writing and phone-calling campaigns, held informational meetings, attended public hearings and the rally downtown. I will also say I was roundly critisized by some members of the union executive board who felt that I had overstepped.
It is sad beyond sad in so many ways.
April 11th, 2007
Kathy:
I agree that when dedicated hard working people lose their jobs and an opportunity to do important work it is very sad. I’m also impressed by all the work you indicate you have done on our behalf. That said, I think your anger should not be directed at the only organization that cares about the work and the jobs of our members. What is your suggestion for conflict free layoffs? Should the most senior members of the union who have dedicated their entire working lives to this office and our clients be those first in line to lose their jobs? Or maybe we should throw darts? Would you rather that the office use the systems just employed by the non-unionized State’s Attorneys’ office…lay off the 46 people you don’t like because they are not “old boys” or they have suffered a stroke and are not as able as they once were, or are spending too much time caring for ageing parents.? (One judge I know said the State let go of the “broken toys”.) In short, our economic system sometimes involves layoffs. For the first time in the history of this union, 15 dedicated lawyers and union members are,it appears,going to be laid off. That process will follow the rules and regulations set out in a contract that was bargained for in good faith and approved overwhemingly by our membership. It is very sad though.
April 11th, 2007
I don’t understand any of this. Have you looked at the budget? The budget adds 40 positions! Why is anyone getting laid-off? Go to the County website and see for yourself.
http://www.cookcountygov.com/bof4/07approbill/07%20G%20Department%20Budget.pdf
Am I missing something here?
April 11th, 2007
What happened at the meeting today? There are 12 work days left before I am supposed to be layed off and no one has talked to me about anything.
April 12th, 2007
Regarding Contract Printing: The drafts have gone back and forth between AFSCME and the County and there were errors that needed to be corrected. That is a major reason for the delay in printing per my conversation on 4/11/07 with the Associate Director of Council 31. Among the changes in our current, not yet printed contract, from the contract posted on this website are the following: An expedited arbitration clause; enhancement of the bargaining unit work language; and recall from layoff rights are extended from one year to two years for members with more than two years on the job and from six months to one year for members with less than two years on the job. There are other enhancements as well in provisions relating to the Educational Fund, Courses and Conferences, Bereavement Leave and Veterans Conventions.
April 13th, 2007
Like I said, what happened at the meeting YESTERDAY? There are 11 (yes now 11) days until I am supposed to be layed off. Should I just not show up on the 30th and look back upon my days as a PD with fondness, or is someone going to actually speak with me about what the Union (and I say union meaning local and or national) has done to try to keep my job and what they (again I say union meaning local and or national) are going to do to get me back. I realize I am #4 from the bottom (speaking in terms of seniority), but I thought that as a member of a CBA (collective bargaining agreement - not the premier bar association) I could expect my interest would be protected by using the power of all members as a whole. At this point I have no idea what our union has done to try to save my and the 14 other attorneys’ positions. Perhaps you have all spent hours negotiating and there is simply no money to keep us around. Perhaps you have worked hard to make sure the 15 of us will be called back before the 4th of July. Perhaps you have done absolutely nothing and we’ll all take our lay offs with minimal discomfort to you (who ever is in charge). I just don’t know. I do not know who needs to do something, but you have 11 work days left. If you can’t do anything, just tell me and I will collect my unemployment and love that I do not have to smell the rancid breath of PD clients as I cover the bench on a violation day. Just please someone talk to me.
April 13th, 2007
JOE: Pick up the phone and call your steward…then your local board members…then the union guys at council 31…then the national office… until all your questions are answered. In other words, act like a real lawyer!
April 13th, 2007
Joe and anyone else who is about to lose their job has a right to be upset. At this time we are trying to gather the best information for the attorneys facing layoffs. There are two things that everyone must realize. The first is that there have never been layoffs before. Everything we do now will set the stage for future situations. The second is that this present Cook County government is reckless and obviously care little about our Office or anyone else’s. Why not direct your anger and spite towards 118 N. Clark or your Commissioners… the people that created this mess.
April 16th, 2007
Kathy,
For those of us old enough to remember what it was like before the union, involuntary transfers was a major problem and, thus, an incentive to unionize. One day I walked into work and First Assistant Public Defender Justine Knipper walked out of her office, pointed and me and said, “You. You’re going to juvenile.” There were no questions asked. No consideration of my desire to write appeals. Additionally, women were placed primarily in the “pink collar ghettos” of the time; Juvenile and Appeals. Among other things, unionization eliminated gender-based divisions in the office. We were provided the opportunity to bid on positions based upon seniority and grade qualification (i.e., transfers and promotions). I understand that these excited and passionate new attorneys facing layoff are upset and rightly so. However, seniority rights protect all of our members by ensuring that older, higher paid, and more experienced attorneys are not laid off in order to keep the payroll or wages low overall. I also understand that it is often difficult to step into another’s shoes when one is emotionally upset. Empathy is, however, a two-way street. Unionization has prevented 15 attorneys in the 50s, making 86K to 105K and just short of retirement, from losing their pensions and their salary’s likely unreachable in the current the legal job market. Many of our younger members will one day be glad that our union protects the seniority, transfer and employment rights of our experienced attorneys.
And, thanks for your hard work in the office and the political sphere.
April 16th, 2007
I heard that there was supposed to be meeting today between the local and AFSCME today. Did anything productive happen at that meeting? There are now nine works days left and still no one has contacted me.
April 17th, 2007
JOE, PLEASE CHECK THE IN THE NEWS FOR THE TIME AND PLACE THAT THE BOARD WILL MEET WITH YOU AND YOUR SIMILARLY SITUATED BROTHERS AND SISTERS.