Comments on: Layoff Proceedings

By: Executive Board

Executive Board — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:55:50 +0000

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.

By: Joe Stachler

Joe Stachler — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:28:33 +0000

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.

By: Julie Hull

Julie Hull — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:27:43 +0000

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.

By: Monique Patterson, Chief Steward

Monique Patterson, Chief Steward — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:58:50 +0000

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.

By: anomymous pd

anomymous pd — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:44:40 +0000

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!

By: Joe Stachler

Joe Stachler — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:18:16 +0000

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.

By: Kulmeet Galhotra

Kulmeet Galhotra — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:17:02 +0000

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.

By: Joe Stachler

Joe Stachler — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:14:27 +0000

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.

By: Patti

Patti — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:13:28 +0000

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?

By: Bruce Mosbacher

Bruce Mosbacher — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:21:06 +0000

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.