Monday,
February 25, 2002
The
following is an Op-Ed piece written by Register Richard
Iannella and published in many area newspapers regarding the
lack of judicial participation in court employee furloughs:
In
courthouses all across Massachusetts, employees of the Trial
Court are outraged. While 7,900 Trial Court workers are set to
work eight days without pay in order to make up for a
$40-million court budget shortfall, their fury isn’t
necessarily about the lost wages. It’s about the fact that
the majority of judges in Massachusetts have refused to share
in the sacrifice.
Hoping
to prevent massive layoffs, unions representing these workers
gave their support to the furlough plan. For non-union workers
like elected clerks whose salaries are set by statute, the
payless workday plan is optional. Clerks and Registers of
Probate are letting their conscience be their guide - nearly
100% opted into the program. The judges are the highest paid
court workers, but have simply refused to join with fellow
workers in sacrificing eight-days pay. Worse yet, the Supreme
Judicial Court and Court of Appeals have completely exempted
themselves from the furlough process, and do not have to
consider payless workdays whatsoever. Three weeks ago, I wrote
to these justices to ask that they lead by example and join
hand-in-hand with rank-and-file court staff in making this
important sacrifice. I have yet to hear a response.
What
is clearly heard is the anger and resentment that has reached
a fever pitch: With starting salaries of about $23,000 most
court employees find it difficult to understand why they are
making this sacrifice, while judges who enter the system at
nearly five-times the salary – more than $112,000 – are
not. Considering that these lower-paid employees make the job
of a judge much easier by preparing cases, typing orders and
providing protection while in the courthouse, it is even more
difficult to understand why they refuse to contribute. To
many, it appears that the front lines have been drawn in a new
battle of class warfare. Adding to the ill will is the fact
that the judges are claiming exemption from the state’s
public records laws and are refusing to release a list of who
is on board and who is not. Clerks, Registers and union
employees strongly believe this list should be made public.
I
commend and respect the minority of judges who have stepped
forward to share the burden by sacrificing as the rest of us
have, but why have so many more held out? Perhaps these final
facts will jar them into reality: Even after massive cuts and
an early retirement program, a $2.5-million shortfall remains
in the Trial Court budget, and layoff notices went out to more
than 200 court employees just this week. Judges who decide to
give back eight-days pay return just about enough money to
cover the salary of one of these workers. Simply stated –
each judge who now decides to participate in the furlough
program can save the job of another court employee. If all of
the remaining 200 judges did the right thing, it is likely
that all of the laid-off employees could be recalled. Is this
fact enough to encourage these holdouts to change their minds?
It is still not too late.
In
the meanwhile, we want to know exactly who are the judges who
have turned their backs on those who have now lost their jobs.
Give us the list.
Richard
Iannella,
Suffolk
County Register of Probate
