I want to update the membership on a few topics.
The Cook County Jail Correctional Officers are having elections on MARCH 17 and MARCH 19 to decide which labor union will be representing them. If they vote for AFSCME, they will help keep AFSCME the largest union representing Cook County workers. That strength in numbers (3000 additional members) can pay big dividents at the bargaining table. So it is in our interests to encourage them to vote AFSCME. When heading to the jail for visits, don your sticker that says “VOTE AFSCME” – it should be available next to the jail sheets next week. Need one? See me.
Speaking of bargaining table, most of you should have now signed a postcard that we will send to President Stroger to remind him we want a fair contract at the table. So far, the County has only been talking about takebacks and have presented no wage increase. This is a job action folks. The union wants complete participation. It’s even easier than wearing a button or sticker to court - and a lot easier than walking a line while holding a picket. So please make sure you sign one and if you need one, call union local secretary, Amy Thompson at 26th street (869-6989).
The 1% arbitration went well on February 27th. We were represented well by Catherine Struzsinsky of AFSCME. The union called two witnesses, Mike Newman and Peter Schmaltz, who both handled the negotiations at the table during the last contract bargaining. The County was represented by ASA Greg Vaci and he called one witness, Jonathon Rothstein, who was a special labor counsel to John Stroger at the time. Due to time constraints, I cannot abstract the hearing here in this post. But a decison from the arbitrartor is expeceted shortly and I am very optimistic about the outcome and very satisfied with the testimony heard at the arbitration.
Our local elections are coming up on May 7th, 2009. But first, there will be a nomination meeting at 3:30 pm on Thursday, April 2, 2009 at the cafeteria on the second floor of the Cook County Criminal Courts Administrations Building located at 2650 S. California. Come and nominate a candidate of your choosing to run for union office. You must be present to nominate someone. The constitution is available on our website as a link under the Stewards and Grievances tab and notices were sent out by U.S. Mail to the address the local has on file. The notices went out the week of 2/16; if you didn’t get it, it’s probably an old address we have, so please update your address in writing with the local.
And yes, it looks like A.C. Cunningham will be Ed Burnette’s successor. I will have more to say about Judge Cunningham, in a future posting.
In Solidarity,
K.S. Galhotra
March 15th, 2009
Some of us knew A.C. Cunningham was Ed’s successor months ago.
I guess it was the unspoken game plan around 26th Street not to talk about the Ed demise as to not upset the bosses.
LMAO!!!!
Guess what, somewhere down the line some of these people are going to retire , get transferred or told to actually work for a living because maybe A.C. doesn’t feel the need to have his ass kissed in Bullshit Downtown meetings by a certain small segment of the Office that became bosses simply because they were either “tired” of going to court, had no business on this job in the first place, or were professional whiners in a Courtroom…..This time the Union leadership should not get involved in the ongoing drama of what A.C. is going to do about filling non Shakman protected positions.
If some of these bosses thought it was a good idea to listen to the wit and wisdom of “X”, Fields and Lauren instead of going to Court and getting their brains kicked in like the rest of us, their plight is well earned.
March 15th, 2009
Any truth to the rumor that there will be a retirement party for Ed hosted and paid for by former ‘Chief of Staff” Lauren?
Is it any wonder that Burnette was shown the door?
March 15th, 2009
Justice:
Don’t forget the bossses who got their jobs via lawsuits claiming various forms of discrimination.
Not surprisingly, a good number of our current bosses, even those supervising felony trial lawyers, can’t even get first chair death qualified (a rather low standard) because they have not tried enough cases! I certainly hope the new PD changes that. Enough of the old adage “those who can’t…teach, and those who can’t teach supervise”.
Bruce
March 16th, 2009
It is questionable whether Shakman should still be mandated in light of Illinois’ subsequent passage of Federal Hatch like legislation. In fact, this was the very reason for Chief Justice Swygert’s dissent in Shakman in 1970. Similarly, Connick v. Myers 461 US 138 (1982) more specifically calls into question the continuing validity of the antiquated Shakman decree. In light of these points, then, the Shakman decree is equivalent to telling someone “stop doing what you were likely doing 39 years ago, and we will monitor you under those 1970 laws even though there are new laws exactly on point.” What I hope for is that we can move on from the Shakman/Freudian analysis and simply have those who are best for various positions.
March 16th, 2009
Hey,
If you help out AFSCME this week by leafletting during shift-change at Division 5, you send a message to the correctional officers that AFSCME is a better union than the Teamsters – who are currently under trusteeship due to their financial irregularities. You get a kelly green AFSCME hat too! So get out there.
March 27th, 2009
Still waiting for that future posting about A.C. Cunningham…
March 29th, 2009
Bruce, I can’t wait to watch SOME of these useless bosses squirm.
The same lack of ability, common sense and people skills that they so miserably displayed as APDs in a Courtroom now get to be displayed for A.C. Cunningham as they rush to tell him how brilliant he is.
The Union’s Position is that NO ONE gets back in the Union…..What are we going to do, take one of these geniuses back and get sued by the rest?
IF SOMEBODY APPLIES TO BE A PROFESSIONAL ASS KISSING BOSS IN THIS OFFICE, THEY GET WHAT IS COMING TO THEM.
A REAL JOB!!!!!
LMAO!!!!
March 29th, 2009
If I am A.C. Cunningham, I want the resignations of EVERY BOSS WHE EVER FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE OFFICE…..NO QUESTIONS ASKED…NO EXPLANATIONS NECESSARY.
GET RID OF THE “AGGRIEVED” BEEFERS FIRST!!!!
These inept morons just wanted to get out of a Courtroom by any means necessary!!!!
March 29th, 2009
Tell good Old Henry to STOP endorsing political candidates…..What a track record!!!!
Endorsing Fritchey and sending out the letter trashing Quigley and Sara was a stroke of sheer brilliance….Quigley is going to be the Congressman and Sara is REPLACING QUIGLEY ON THE COUNTY BOARD!!!!
WAY TO GO, HENRY!!!!
How dumb can you get!!!!!
March 29th, 2009
JC,
Suppose anyone asked for the “resignations of anyone who filed a lawsuit against the office” wouldn’t that be per se unconstituional?
Don’t you also think that Quigley and Sara will quickly forgive AFSCME come election time?
Lastly, I have worked with some really good supervisors. And I know that must not always be the case with everyone, based on some anecdotes I have heard.
Anyway, thank you for your comments.
March 29th, 2009
These clowns who filed suits against the Office have to go…de facto…by any means necessary if I am the boss.
PERIOD….no raises…assignments not geopgraphically convenient…and not just for those who have sued…for other inept fools who didn’t have the ability or courage or skill to do the job we do.
THIS UNION IS ABOUT ITS MEMBERSHIP….NOT ITS FORMER MEMBERS WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO BECOME NODDING DONKEYS FOR A DOWNTOWN MYTH.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE SARA AND QUIGLEY NEED AFSCME OR HENRY’S USELESS ENDORSEMENT?
March 29th, 2009
I am happy there are some really good supervisors……all of those important boot licking skills they learned DOWNTOWN may help them when they finally become REAL LAWYERS in every sense of the term.
March 29th, 2009
Hey Justice Carbozo:
1. The contract controls who comes back to the union. The first contract was written by people, many who were going to become supervisors but were unsure of leaving the bargaining unit. It has allowed the return to the bargaining unit of former supervisors. If you need a copy of the contract, come see me or go to it on this website. Some provisions have not changed since our first contract and the controlling one is a good example.
2. The fact that supervisors want to come back to the union speaks volumes about the strength and job security of a union job that many take for granted.
3. In recent years, I can think of at least two of our brothers and sisters who went into management positions in our office only to return to the bargaining unit. I am sure they are attorneys you respect too.
4. Organized labor in general, and not just Henry in particular, supported Fritchey and not your personal friend, Quigley. Remember that Henry and AFSCME Illinois broke from the International and backed Barack and not Hillary.
March 29th, 2009
I know how you feel JC. I am just saying that if someone were to start firing people right away, and that class of people just happened to be former litigants against the office, you would have a strong argument based on employment discrimination, i.e., retaliatory discharge.
Quigley and Sara are politicians. They seek praise and support, so yes I think they “need” AFSCME support. Could they get elected without it? Maybe, maybe not. That depends on who runs against them. And that depends on what they run for.
And I think you can be a good supervisor without being a chronic bootlicker.
March 29th, 2009
My Man, Bobby, if you want to bring them all back as Grade 2s with ZERO time credited to Union seniority while they served in their DOWNTOWN BOOTLICKER positions, go for it.
TOSS THEM ALL BACK IN A COURTROOM!!!!!
March 29th, 2009
Don’t you think some Union Member who is a #3 or #4 who has labored for years should be the “boss” in Traffic Court or in Branch Courtrooms without officially being management?
I have zero problem with Reyes being rehired…His ass should have been thrown in a Courtroom.
There are too many official “boss” positions in this Office.
Common sense should tell you that someone who has been in the Courtroom for 10 years or on the Task Force for 10 years should be allowed to rotate out for a year to keep an eye on the kiddies in the Branch Courts and Traffic Court.
NOT SOMEONE WHO DIDN’T LIKE PRIVATE PRACTICE.
March 29th, 2009
Do we move to having upper grade attorneys supervisor lower grade attorneys without actually being management? This of course, would reduce the number of actual “management” supervisors needed. Which reminds me that if supervisors are not required to try cases then we should definitely be entitled to more than the 1% being arbitrated so as to pick up the slack. Nevertheless, the implications of having upper grades supervise might also mean moving upper grade attorneys into courtrooms and not being vertical. It would probably also mean eliminating the extra attorneys in the civil division so as to move them, and post-convictions and forensic science attorneys, into actual criminal trial courtrooms. These seem to be some implications of upper grade attorney supervision duties that probably requires a lot more reflection. With respect to the litigation to management route… it seems that the past couple of Public Defenders have done a lot to professionalize our office. However, there is also the law of diminishing returns. After all, we are unique adversarial litigators. A law firm/government model is probably just not going to work here except to make us all into timid, gossip-jockeying bureaucrats. We need bold leadership born of confident experience, not fear of consequences; lieutenants not sycophants. Initiative, courage and common-sense would be helpful.
March 30th, 2009
I guess you are not a proponent of imbeciles who couldn’t cut it in the Courtroom trotting DOWNTOWN to kiss the ass of the Public Defender!!!!!
March 30th, 2009
The contract has to be rewritten to say that if a BOOTLICKER comes back to the bargaining unit, they get ZERO seniority for time spent kissing ass DOWNTOWN.
March 31st, 2009
I disagree with you Cardozo. There is no reason to fire anyone; I think everyone is genuinely trying to do the best job they can. I also think that management should be able to come back to the bargaining unit with seniority.. provided they went DIRECTLY from the bargaining unit to management. The whole idea that you can be arbitrarily fired or punished because of various grudges creates the very timidity that I was complaining about just above.
April 1st, 2009
There are people who left the union and became management because they didn’t want to continue the day-to-day job that we do. However, some continue to represent clients and seek out cases as well as help those who work under them. We need them to continue to be supervisors whether they sued the office or not. Some supervisors are there to fill a chair and get paid and do some paperwork but don’t bother them with problems or issues with clients or legal issues. They need to go. They aren’t doing the job they get paid to do and are a drag on the office. Stick them back in a courtroom or they can go elsewhere.
The ass-kissing has already started and will be greatest among those who are laziest.
I think all supervisors, chiefs, directors should be required to have a case load. About 10-15 cases except task force where it can be a little less.
I disagree with Chris- there are a few who don’t give a damn and don’t try to do their best. Its very few but there are some.