Comments on: Update on Filling Spots in Civil and 1st Municipal http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/ Latest news involving the Cook County Public Defenders Association AFSCME LOCAL 3315 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:23:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Bruce Mosbacher http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-539 Bruce Mosbacher Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:48:46 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-539 Sounds like poster 4 above, would like to apply to be a member of the Public Defender's management team. If he is successful, he would get a very small raise which would be mostly eaten up by the requirement to pay a larger share of his health insurance benefits. He would lose whatever seniority rights he has earned which include protection against layoffs and transfers. Unless he has tons of political clout, if he was ever fired, he would remain fired. He would also lose the contractually guaranteed right to work hours "commensurate with his professional responsibilities"...and be required to be in the office from 9-5 everyday. He would lose the right to free representation in case he is harmed by the Public Defender or by the County Board President. He would gain the "right" to be sued by disgruntled clients of lawyers he supervises...even, or perhaps, because he knew nothing about their cases. He would gain the pleasure of supervising overwhelmed and overworked young lawyers who wanted so much to represent poor people, often without having much of a clue about what that meant. He would gain the responsibility to write numerous reports and evaluations that nobody ever reads and spend hours in meaningless meetings. Good luck number 4...is it any wonder that you will have very few and very weak competitors for that management slot? Sounds like poster 4 above, would like to apply to be a member of the Public Defender’s management team. If he is successful, he would get a very small raise which would be mostly eaten up by the requirement to pay a larger share of his health insurance benefits. He would lose whatever seniority rights he has earned which include protection against layoffs and transfers. Unless he has tons of political clout, if he was ever fired, he would remain fired. He would also lose the contractually guaranteed right to work hours “commensurate with his professional responsibilities”…and be required to be in the office from 9-5 everyday. He would lose the right to free representation in case he is harmed by the Public Defender or by the County Board President. He would gain the “right” to be sued by disgruntled clients of lawyers he supervises…even, or perhaps, because he knew nothing about their cases. He would gain the pleasure of supervising overwhelmed and overworked young lawyers who wanted so much to represent poor people, often without having much of a clue about what that meant. He would gain the responsibility to write numerous reports and evaluations that nobody ever reads and spend hours in meaningless meetings. Good luck number 4…is it any wonder that you will have very few and very weak competitors for that management slot?

]]> By: Marienne Branch http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-532 Marienne Branch Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:21:48 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-532 Thank you Brendan for that cogent response. My, not so cogent, response to that most offensive post was that we must all pay our "dues". A certain degree of job insecurity or instability is an inherent part of being more recently hired than others. The situation in which we find ourselves is unprecedented for County employees. I think the union has done an amazing job & I am grateful for that. Thank you Brendan for that cogent response. My, not so cogent, response to that most offensive post was that we must all pay our “dues”. A certain degree of job insecurity or instability is an inherent part of being more recently hired than others. The situation in which we find ourselves is unprecedented for County employees. I think the union has done an amazing job & I am grateful for that.

]]> By: Ingrid Gill http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-530 Ingrid Gill Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:42:17 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-530 Brendan Max's reponse represents the opinions of many of our attorneys. I disagree with Mr. Goldstein definition of "conflict" here. Seniority rights among members of a collective bargaining unit is the only objective criteria to use for layoffs and involuntary transfers. A collective bargaining member should never be put in the position of being judged by another collective bargaining member as to who is less worthy for purposes of involuntary transfers and layoffs. The executive board is carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities per their elected office, and the ratified union contract. Attacks on their ethics is inexcusable. Also, I and many other more senior attorneys were out on the streets protesting the proposed layoffs of our less senior members. We were not facing either layoffs or involuntary transfers, but we were there for our members because that is what you do in a "collective", and we will continue to be there for our less senior members by forcing the county to comply with the call back provisions of the union contract. Brendan Max’s reponse represents the opinions of many of our attorneys. I disagree with
Mr. Goldstein definition of “conflict” here. Seniority rights among members of a collective
bargaining unit is the only objective criteria to use for layoffs and involuntary transfers.
A collective bargaining member should never be put in the position of being judged by another
collective bargaining member as to who is less worthy for purposes of involuntary transfers and
layoffs. The executive board is carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities per their elected
office, and the ratified union contract. Attacks on their ethics is inexcusable.

Also, I and many other more senior attorneys were out on the streets protesting the proposed layoffs of
our less senior members. We were not facing either layoffs or involuntary transfers, but we
were there for our members because that is what you do in a “collective”, and we will continue
to be there for our less senior members by forcing the county to comply with the call back
provisions of the union contract.

]]> By: Executive Board http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-529 Executive Board Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:05:36 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-529 Just a minor clarification: attorneys in our office who were members of the bargaining unit were laid off, not fired. They all have the right to recall within one year. Attorneys in management and attorneys at the State's attorneys office were"fired". Just a minor clarification: attorneys in our office who were members of the bargaining unit were laid off, not fired. They all have the right to recall within one year. Attorneys in management and attorneys at the State’s attorneys office were”fired”.

]]> By: Brendan Max http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-528 Brendan Max Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:12:42 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-528 I usually do not respond to comments printed here because I understand that this is a place to vent feelings, and I understand that often people assert things in this space that they may not upon reflection. But the comments above exhibit both a ignorance of fact and a basic misunderstanding of our Union that I feel needs response. To assert that the Union does not care for or fight for our newest attorneys displays ignorance of the fight that the Union made over the past months on behalf of the attorneys that were potentially facing layoff (all the newest attorneys in our office). Myself and a few others on the Union board spent countless hours fighting for our newest attorneys, including but not limited to: 1) dozens of meetings with County Commissioners, 2) organizing rallies and other forms of protest, 3) going to public hearings and speaking out against layoffs of our newest attorneys, 4) constant solicitations of media outlets for positive coverage for our plight, 5) organizing a press conference that was attended by all major media outlets in the city, 6) numerous site meetings to keep informed those attorneys who jobs were on the line, and 7) numerous other time-consuming acts. All of these acts were taken by volunteer members of the Union board who had enough seniority not to worry about their own jobs, and all of the acts were taken on behalf of the potentially effected attorneys in our office (by definition the newest attorneys in our office). These acts helped form the basis of the alternative budget proposal, caused Stroger to have to compromise on his original plan, staved off deeper cuts to our ranks of new attorneys, and shifted some of the layoff pain from our newer attorneys and to members of administration downtown. Any attorneys in our office who truly cared about the potential layoff of the newest attorneys in our office were invited to take part in these many events. And the ones that do truly care about the newest attorneys in our office provided more than belated lip service, they provided the time and effort it took to support these attorneys. Therefore, I take it as an uninformed insult when the poster above states tht "the perception is that the Union does not fight for [newer attorneys]." In fact, I have been meeting in the last fews days with our newest attorneys who are going to be laid off in the next few days, and they are appreciative of the fight the Union has made on their behalf. As far as the Union's position on how involuntary transfers should take place, it is not a conflict of interest to advocate that the transfers be done according to seniority: it is in fact the very interest of the Union to advocate this position. One of the most basic principles of unions is that seniority counts. In fact, if the poster above would have taken the time to read our Collective Bargaining Agreement, he would see that this basic union belief is codified there. It is a primary job of the Union to make sure that Management does not disregard this principle whenever it wants. While the poster above worries that involuntary transfers "creates a near impossible situation for [newer attorneys] and their family," I fail to see how this disruption is lessened by involutarily transferring attorneys in our office with 10+ years of seniority. We at the Union have not acted "blindly" at any step during this process. While the poster above acknowledges that "there are no easy answers here" regarding involuntary transfers, he does not offer any alternative plan for the involuntary transfers that will happen in this office. Our doors are open, and the poster is invited to come in and tell us the names of assistant public defenders he thinks we should not fight for because he thinks that they don't work hard enough. One of the primary reasons why this Union was formed by the attorneys who fought for it was to prevent Management from being able to make arbitrary and incorrect claims that some attorneys "quality of work" should preclude them from a raise, a good work assignment, or a promotion. Ask any attorney who was around during those days and they will tell you that the benchmark of "quality of work" that is advocated above was simply cover for management's unfettered whimsy. As far as the wonderings above about what type of message we are sending to newer attorneys through the actions of this Union, it certainly is not one of failure to fight. Those attorneys who face layoff have watched the fight, have attended our rallys and meetings at the County Board, have listened to our press conferences, have read our informational releases, have attended our site meetings, have read our 1/2 page ad in the Law Bulletin advocating on their behalf, and are informed about the countless solicitations of County Commissioners made by the Union on their behalf. They understand how in times of need in the workplace, the Union is the only partner they have. They are insightful enough to look to their law school classmates who work at the State's Attorney Office during this budget crisis and realize that they had no group organized to fight for them in the way that we have at the Public Defender Office. They know well what this Union has done for them. I believe that members who post here have a duty to be informed and base their comments on fair and accurate statements of fact. I believe that the posting above failed to live up to this standard. I usually do not respond to comments printed here because I understand that this is a place to vent feelings, and I understand that often people assert things in this space that they may not upon reflection. But the comments above exhibit both a ignorance of fact and a basic misunderstanding of our Union that I feel needs response.

To assert that the Union does not care for or fight for our newest attorneys displays ignorance of the fight that the Union made over the past months on behalf of the attorneys that were potentially facing layoff (all the newest attorneys in our office). Myself and a few others on the Union board spent countless hours fighting for our newest attorneys, including but not limited to: 1) dozens of meetings with County Commissioners, 2) organizing rallies and other forms of protest, 3) going to public hearings and speaking out against layoffs of our newest attorneys, 4) constant solicitations of media outlets for positive coverage for our plight, 5) organizing a press conference that was attended by all major media outlets in the city, 6) numerous site meetings to keep informed those attorneys who jobs were on the line, and 7) numerous other time-consuming acts. All of these acts were taken by volunteer members of the Union board who had enough seniority not to worry about their own jobs, and all of the acts were taken on behalf of the potentially effected attorneys in our office (by definition the newest attorneys in our office). These acts helped form the basis of the alternative budget proposal, caused Stroger to have to compromise on his original plan, staved off deeper cuts to our ranks of new attorneys, and shifted some of the layoff pain from our newer attorneys and to members of administration downtown.

Any attorneys in our office who truly cared about the potential layoff of the newest attorneys in our office were invited to take part in these many events. And the ones that do truly care about the newest attorneys in our office provided more than belated lip service, they provided the time and effort it took to support these attorneys.

Therefore, I take it as an uninformed insult when the poster above states tht “the perception is that the Union does not fight for [newer attorneys].” In fact, I have been meeting in the last fews days with our newest attorneys who are going to be laid off in the next few days, and they are appreciative of the fight the Union has made on their behalf.

As far as the Union’s position on how involuntary transfers should take place, it is not a conflict of interest to advocate that the transfers be done according to seniority: it is in fact the very interest of the Union to advocate this position. One of the most basic principles of unions is that seniority counts. In fact, if the poster above would have taken the time to read our Collective Bargaining Agreement, he would see that this basic union belief is codified there. It is a primary job of the Union to make sure that Management does not disregard this principle whenever it wants. While the poster above worries that involuntary transfers “creates a near impossible situation for [newer attorneys] and their family,” I fail to see how this disruption is lessened by involutarily transferring attorneys in our office with 10+ years of seniority.

We at the Union have not acted “blindly” at any step during this process. While the poster above acknowledges that “there are no easy answers here” regarding involuntary transfers, he does not offer any alternative plan for the involuntary transfers that will happen in this office. Our doors are open, and the poster is invited to come in and tell us the names of assistant public defenders he thinks we should not fight for because he thinks that they don’t work hard enough.

One of the primary reasons why this Union was formed by the attorneys who fought for it was to prevent Management from being able to make arbitrary and incorrect claims that some attorneys “quality of work” should preclude them from a raise, a good work assignment, or a promotion. Ask any attorney who was around during those days and they will tell you that the benchmark of “quality of work” that is advocated above was simply cover for management’s unfettered whimsy.

As far as the wonderings above about what type of message we are sending to newer attorneys through the actions of this Union, it certainly is not one of failure to fight. Those attorneys who face layoff have watched the fight, have attended our rallys and meetings at the County Board, have listened to our press conferences, have read our informational releases, have attended our site meetings, have read our 1/2 page ad in the Law Bulletin advocating on their behalf, and are informed about the countless solicitations of County Commissioners made by the Union on their behalf. They understand how in times of need in the workplace, the Union is the only partner they have. They are insightful enough to look to their law school classmates who work at the State’s Attorney Office during this budget crisis and realize that they had no group organized to fight for them in the way that we have at the Public Defender Office. They know well what this Union has done for them.

I believe that members who post here have a duty to be informed and base their comments on fair and accurate statements of fact. I believe that the posting above failed to live up to this standard.

]]> By: Aaron Goldstein http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-527 Aaron Goldstein Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:46:51 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-527 Reading all these messages its been hard not to reply, but after reading this most recent letter, I think a reply is in order. The Union suffers from a serious conflict. While it is quite natural that there were would be a conflict within a large groug such as a union, it is quite evident here. The conflict is between the attorneys with more senoirity versus the ones with less. I believe that an individual who has worked longer deserves deference but it is intelectually dishonest for anyone to say that there is not a conflict. Young attorneys (who pay dues) have been fired and now been subject to forced transefers. They have taken the brunt of these budget cuts with really no gain. What will the Union do when the subjects of these forced transfers want to grieve because the move creates an near impossible situation for them and their family? There is no easy answer here but it is important to at least acknowledge the problems the Union has. It is no secret that the Union appears to put a much stronger foot forward for those with seniority than those without. While senoirity is one factor, what about quality of work or dedication to the office as a factor of who will be supported? Or what about the fact that Civil is over staffed to begin with and there is no need to transfer people there at all. The Union is quick to grieve on behalf of an older attorney who comes in to work at 11 and leaves at 1, yet a young attorney gets fired and the union members celebrate because there are no furlough days. I wonder if we are creating a generation of young attorneys who have no desire to be in the Union because, right or wrong, the perception is that the Union does not fight for them. There are no easy answers here but blindly acting as if there is no conflict is wrong. Reading all these messages its been hard not to reply, but after reading this most recent letter, I think a reply is in order. The Union suffers from a serious conflict. While it is quite natural
that there were would be a conflict within a large groug such as a union, it is quite evident here. The conflict is between the attorneys with more senoirity versus the ones with less. I believe
that an individual who has worked longer deserves deference but it is intelectually dishonest for anyone to say that there is not a conflict. Young attorneys (who pay dues) have been fired
and now been subject to forced transefers. They have taken the brunt of these budget cuts with really no gain. What will the Union do when the subjects of these forced transfers want to grieve because the move creates an near impossible situation for them and their family? There is no easy answer here but it is important to at least acknowledge the problems the Union has. It is no secret that the Union appears to put a much stronger foot forward for those with seniority than those without. While senoirity is one factor, what about quality of work or dedication to the office as a factor of who will be supported? Or what about the fact that Civil is over staffed to begin with and there is no need to transfer people there at all. The Union is quick to grieve on behalf of an older attorney who comes in to work at 11 and leaves at 1, yet a young attorney gets fired and the union members celebrate because there are no furlough days. I wonder if we are creating a generation of young attorneys who have no desire to be in the Union because, right or wrong, the perception is that the Union does not fight for them. There are no easy answers here but blindly acting as if there is no conflict is wrong.

]]> By: Eileen Pahl http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-525 Eileen Pahl Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:13:31 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-525 Thanks also. It was shocking to learn that management intended to involuntarily transfer an attorney from our division who has more than 13 years seniority. When I was on the Board about 10 years ago, we fought hard with management over a proposal to eliminate all bidding rights and protection from involuntary transfer for Grade II attorneys. It looks like management is using this layoff situation to try to get what they couldn't get at the bargaining table. Thanks also. It was shocking to learn that management intended to involuntarily transfer an attorney from our division who has more than 13 years seniority. When I was on the Board about 10 years ago, we fought hard with management over a proposal to eliminate all bidding rights and protection from involuntary transfer for Grade II attorneys. It looks like management is using this layoff situation to try to get what they couldn’t get at the bargaining table.

]]> By: Ingrid Gill http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-523 Ingrid Gill Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:00:58 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-523 Thanks to our executive board for a proposal that fights to maintain seniority rights to all of our members. Thanks to our executive board for a proposal that fights to maintain seniority rights to all
of our members.

]]> By: Maria http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/comment-page-1/#comment-522 Maria Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:33:35 +0000 http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2007/04/23/update-on-filling-spots-in-civil-and-1st-municipal/#comment-522 "when attorneys are returned from layoff" Is that a typo or good news? “when attorneys are returned from layoff”
Is that a typo or good news?

]]>