AFSCME Local 910
Legal Professional Unit
 Archives
  
This page provides access to past web pages and stories of Local 910.

 
  AFSCME News Photo Archive Ad

 

L.A. SUPERIOR COURT EMPLOYEES’ POOR
 COST-OF-LIVING PAY RAISE

9/14/06

Cost-of-living pay raises reported from other county courts substantially exceed the mere 2.5 percent per year for two years given by Los Angeles Superior Court to all of its employees. For instance, San Diego Superior Court employees received a 15 percent pay raise over four years.

Given uniquely drastic leaps in housing expenses in Los Angeles, employees will need much larger cost-of-living increases in their salary just to cover their bills. In order to catch up with this local economy’s trends, after being shortchanged on cost-of-living increases in the court for years, court employees bargaining next time will need to insist adamantly upon a 25 percent increase in pay over three years, and more if inflation continues, as many predict.

Los Angeles area rents are among the nation’s highest.   The average monthly rent for an apartment at the end of 2005 was $1,416.00, and rent can be expected to increase seven percent, as reported by CBS.

Also, the median price of houses in Los Angeles increased to $438,000 in May of 2006, and will continue to increase, as reported by CNN Money.

Additionally, increased costs for gasoline, and other energy sources, further have had the effect of substantially reducing the pay of court employees. For example, in May of 2006, the average price of gasoline in Los Angeles was about $3.029, as reported by USA Today.

The federal courts equitably have pay levels taking into consideration the cost of living in the local area where the employees work, as reported by the Office of Personnel Management and U.S. Courts.

Likewise, given the increasingly high cost of living in Los Angeles, the judges and Executive Officer controlling the salary levels should feel compelled to include a locality pay adjustment for employees working for Los Angeles Superior Court, who increasingly struggle to make ends meet.

Nevertheless, the tradition continues, and court interpreters have authorized a strike, because they were offered only a 2.5 percent raise, as reported by the Metropolitan News Enterprise, on July 25, 2006.

 

 

RESEARCH ATTORNEYS IN LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT ARE  THE LOWEST PAID IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

8/21/06

The Research Attorneys of Los Angeles Superior Court have been fully aware of the pay differentials they see as compared to the trial courts in other California counties.  Overwhelming evidence is found easily.

In Los Angeles Superior Court, a Research Attorney who survives in employment beyond two years earns approximately $90,000.00 maximum.  By way of contrast, in Orange County Superior Court, a career attorney earns up to $122,000.00 per year.    Similarly, in San Diego Superior Court, a Staff Attorney earns up to about 115,000.00 per annum.  As another example, in San Bernardino Superior Court, Judicial Staff Counsel III earn up to approximately $100,000.00. At Ventura Superior Court, research attorneys earn up to $95,503.46 annually. At Santa Barbara Superior Court, Judicial Staff Counsel III is paid up to $99,756.00.  San Luis Obispo's trial court pays its attorneys up to 108,000.00.  In U.S. District Court, a law clerk to a District Judge earns as much as $124,572.00.  Also, an Appellate Court Attorney earns up to around $104,000.00.    

Given that the trial court of Los Angeles is the largest in the state, bringing with that heavy workloads and diverse and complex tasks, the pay disparities are more unjust.  The difficult local situation exists in Los Angeles notwithstanding that managing executive officers and presiding judges of other trial courts in California offer employees better treatment. Moreover, the California Judicial Council approved a budget priority of trial court staff negotiated salary increases.

 

Express  Your Views About Judges Of The Los Angeles Superior Court

8/19/06

Attorneys are invited to contribute comments and complaints about judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  The feature is hosted by the Los Angeles County Bar Association.  Reportedly, contributors may transmit comments anonymously if desired.  The Association states that it will post verified  information in their Judicial Profile database as to a bench officer at http://www.lacba.org.  To complete the form, click here .

 

JUDGES OF LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT FOREGO FULL-TIME RESEARCH STAFF FOR OVER A DECADE AND MANY RECALL BETTER TIMES

7/4/06

Those who worked in Los Angeles Superior Court before the mid-1990s may recall that judges of Civil Independent Calendar Courts used to have the full support of one research attorney or law clerk.  Then apparently for the purposes of spreading existing support among additional Independent Calendar courtrooms without incurring additional expense, the judges' support was cut in half and they began to share one research attorney or law clerk between two judges.  On February 12, 1996, Judge Victor Chavez stated "'I have half of a law clerk and a full calendar clerk,'" as reported by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise .  On June 20, 2003, Presiding Judge William A. MacLaughlin said "'Every one of us would love to promote every law clerk position to a research attorney. It’s strictly a financial issue, '" as reported by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

Ever since that support cutback made long ago, the Los Angeles Superior Court has not returned to the prior tradition of allocating one research employee, full-time, for each judge. The stretched allocation of resources has meant that research staff generally could no longer provide support in all areas of litigation, such as any assistance with motions in limine or in writing court trial decisions.  In contrast, courts of other counties allocate one research staff attorney per each Civil Independent Calendar courtroom, such as San Diego Superior Court.  Even better, the appellate courts and federal trial courts have multiple research employees assigned to each judicial officer.

With the budget situation continually improving, it is time for the Court Executive Officer and judges' committees to consider reinstating full support for the judges.  After approximately a decade of shared research staff, how much longer must judges wait to have the full support that they used to enjoy?

 

 

 

L.A. SUPERIOR COURT'S LIMITED-TERM RESEARCH STAFF:  GOING AGAINST THE TRADITION OF THE PAST AND OF OTHER CALIFORNIA COURTS

7/4/06

Understandably, people are perplexed as to why any trial court would mandate in these times an inflexible practice of hiring law clerks for a duration of six months to two-and-one-half years, as "limited term" employees receiving temporary benefits, while going against both the commonly accepted practice of the California courts and what was the traditional norm of having unlimited terms for many years in Los Angeles. As reported by the Metropolitan News in 2003, Los Angeles Superior Court then instituted a previously unheard of cap on the terms of law clerks. 

Chief Justice Ronald George reportedly explained the decision made long ago to phase out annual law clerks in the California Supreme Court, as follows:  "'The quality and quantity of the court's output favor having professionals.'"  "Recent graduates often lack both practical legal experience and life experience necessary to get the job done...."  "'If you looked at any kind of enterprise... very few entities would be willing to spend half a year to train somebody and have them on their way out and replaced.'"  See Itir Yakar, Unseen Staff Attorneys Anchor State's Top Court, 119 No. 103 LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL, May 30, 2006, at pp. 1, 7.

As reported by McGeorge School of Law, such limited term positions are rare in California courts which overwhelmingly hire career research staff.  Below is a quote:

"There are almost no fixed-term clerkships available in California. Presently, in the California Supreme Court there is only one such clerkship ... and none with the Courts of Appeal. These courts and, with rare exceptions, the trial courts in California, hire experienced career "research" or "staff" attorneys instead. San Francisco and Los Angeles Superior Courts do hire a limited number of graduating law students as term clerks...."

In the federal District Courts, law clerks can be appointed for career positions, depending upon each judge's preference, and not dictated by court management.

That predominant approach of California trial courts to hire legal research staff into career positions, is what the public and judges deserve, because the demands and workloads of the state trial courts these days are very difficult and rigorous, frequently involving highly complex legal analyses, to be handled by limited staff resources, consisting typically of only one employee providing support for two or more judicial officers.  The alternative of hiring "limited term" employees for one or maybe two years, at relatively low pay, providing the benefits given temporary employees, generally results in the ongoing loss of  valuable training and skills that new employees acquired during the limited period, lowered employee moral, and a higher incidence of premature resignations.  Other negative factors are the potential for a lower quality of work product, and the dissatisfaction of employees who want to stay and of those judges who prefer the option to have the assistance of experienced research attorneys.

 

 

 
Governor Vetoed Proposed Legislation Concerning Limited Term Employment  In Superior Court

9/6/05


On September 6, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill AB 176 that would have restricted "limited term" law clerk employment to six months before a transitioning into regular status employment. On May 31, 2005, the California Assembly had passed that bill, clarifying legislative intent related to the definitions of "temporary" and "limited term" employees, in enacting the Trial Court Protection and Governance Act, Section 71601 of the Government Code. The Assembly Floor Analyses, dated May 28, 2005, includes comments that some trial courts are mislabeling their employees as "limited-term" to circumvent employee protections provided in the California Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act. Government Code 71601 (m) was amended by SB 2011 to limit temporary employment in the trial courts to 180 days. This statute was passed to address trial courts' temporary employment that deprives long-time employees of their for-cause protection and of full benefits, such as pension rights. The growing public policies against such "permatemps" have been addressed nationally, in cases and legislative acts. E.g., Metro. Water Dist. of So. Cal. v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 491 (temporary employment limited to 180 days). Los Angeles County Superior Court's law clerks are hired for much longer than 180 days, yet have been classified under "M Status" which is "Monthly Temporary Trainees," and are given inferior benefits. There is no memorandum of understanding in effect to justify that classification.


With all due respect, our union leaders believe the Governor's given reasons for the veto fail to reflect the real facts and governing law.
Primarily, as to advocating a policy of leaving resolutions to collective bargaining without interference, the Governor overlooked that there are countless examples of laws that restrict collective bargaining and employment relations in the interests of enforcing important public policies. 
For example, the California Legislature did not leave it up to the chance of collective bargaining to determine whether managers may discriminate against employees. Instead, public agencies and employee organizations both are prohibited from discriminating against public employees because of their exercise of their rights. Government Code § 3506 ("MEYERS-MILIAS-BROWN ACT").

Another example is legislation requiring trial court employers to allow court interpreters to engage in outside employment, unless specific reasons apply. Government Code §71812.5(a) ("TRIAL COURT INTERPRETER EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR RELATIONS ACT"). Again, that restriction was not left up to the hopes of agreement between union members and managers.
Moreover, Governor advocates Proposition 74 that would mandate that teachers have a five-year probationary period and face firing after two unsatisfactory performance evaluations. That new law would interfere with teachers' collective bargaining by regulating their probationary period. 

Laws recognize that collective bargaining cannot be relied upon to resolve important issues of public policy, because the results depend upon many factors, such as the dynamics of power. If collective bargaining were really the cure-all solution for employee needs, legislators and reviewing courts simply could sweep away the many laws long in place that have restricted employer-employee relationships.

So fitting soundly within the trends of the law, would be legislation defining "limited term" to exclude "permatemps," as part of a nationally growing public policy against them.

Second, as for having enough money, there are multiple funding sources to cover the very negligible expenses associated with only small percentages of employees, such as the legislature's allocations based upon recent "SAL" formula, and employees possibly accepting lowered incomes if that became necessary. The miniscule amount of funding connected with AB 176 is imperceptible as compared to the whole of California's and court's resources, and would not have any noticeable impact.
Third, the many other California courts have implemented permanent research staff positions without any apparent problem of a lack of work after limited durations of time. Los Angeles courthouses need not be a rare exception. Moreover, many have been heard to say that the court has a substantial shortage of research employees, with typically only one law clerk or research attorney assisting two judges, and many judges working without any research and writing assistance. So, there is more than enough work for all. Reaching a labor saturation point at the court, is not on the foreseeable horizon.

Finally, we note that the Governor did not state and advocate a reason that employer mentoring and training of recent law school graduates would be any justification for keeping "revolving door" employees.

 
Majority Approve Tentative Contract For Research Attorneys And Law Clerks Of Los Angeles Superior Court

11/14/05


The meeting to vote on the Memorandum of Understanding was held on Monday, November 14, 2005, at 12:00 noon, in room 222, at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles. After some questions and answers, and vigorous debating about the pro and cons, a majority of members in attendance voted to accept the tentative provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding. The provisions are available on-line for union members to review. Research Attorneys and Law Clerks interested in downloading the proposed Memorandum of Understanding may e-mail, from outside of work, webmaster@lasuperiorcourt.net, or one of the union officers listed under the "Contact Us" button on the left side of this page. A password would then be e-mailed in reply to a non-work e-mail address, for accessing the documents via the "members only" web page. (The members' login box is at the bottom-right of this page). Alternatively, Local 910 members can request that the Tentative Agreement be e-mailed to them (about two megabytes of memory, in Adobe Acrobat PDF format). The Tentative Agreement still must be ratified the Superior Court's Executive Committee before it becomes effective. To give some background, on Friday, November 4, 2005, the Local 910 Bargaining Committee members met almost all day with the Superior Court's in-house Court Counsel, Manager and outside attorney, Joe Wiley. To briefly summarize the negotiations completed on November 7, the Bargaining Committee accepted the employer's 2.5 percent cost-of-living pay raise for this year and next, commencing November 1, 2005. Additionally, the committee accepted a six-month limited term added on to the current term for law clerks.
 
 
Reclassification Study Leads To Resounding Rejection Of Court-Imposed Last, Best And Final Offer

9/22/05

The Los Angeles Superior Court management has imposed the last offer upon the court employees, including limited raises, starting October 1, 2005.

Management had called union negotiators into a meeting held on September 16, 2005.  However, instead of negotiating, the managers had only tweaked one of their offers regarding implementation of the employee classification study, and then gave employees a "last, best and final" offer. 

The five union locals had a joint general membership meeting on Thursday, September 22, 2005, to get a sense of direction and input from employee members. After Business Representative Damian Tryon, Executive Director Cheryl Parisi and Political Director Willie Pelote updated the members about the last, best and final offer from Los Angeles Superior Court, some members made motions regarding the taking of votes on the offer. The employees unanimously voted to reject the employer's offer.

Employees who wish to file grievances about their reclassification, may contact one of the AFSCME representatives. AFSCME will explore other legal and political avenues.

Among the intolerable ramifications of the last, best and final offer mentioned at the meeting were:

  • Minimal pay raises below market rate (e.g., 3% for Judicial Assistants).

  • No pay raises for some employee groups, leaving them behind at well below market rate (e.g, 0% for  Research Attorneys).

  • Unfair treatment in giving administrators, managers and supervisors better raises.

  • Concerns of the group as a whole about sticking together to avoid particularly bad unfairness to some classifications of employees.

  • Open-ended language that the Court may reassign any employee to do any other duties without restriction.

  • Refusal to provide specific information to employees as to what each individual's proposed classification and salary will be, to allow workers' knowing and informed voting without being tricked into unpleasant surprises.

  • Leaving open an alternative possibility that salaries could be reduced as to employees in positions whose salary ranges were recommended for reduction ("Y-rated employees").

  • Refusal to implement pay increases retroactively.

  • Reliance on an outdated classification study from 2001

 

 

The Makings Of An Outstanding Court Executive Officer

9/22/05

There are various attributes that make an exceptional court executive officer, like the ability to accord fair and respectful treatment to employees. For example, Gary Blair, Executive Officer of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, in 2002, was reported as saying "the new union will help him and county court staff in lobbying the California state government for more funding to increase worker wages, benefits and workplace conditions."  Below are some  prestigious awards and honors given to court executive officers:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2006 AFSCME Local 910