February 28, 1991
1991.02.28: Weekly Organizer #37 (PDF)
February 1, 1991
1991.02.01: ALAA Weekly Organizer #35 – One-Day Strike is Giant Success
1991.02.01- ALAA Weekly Organizer #35- One-Day Strike is Giant Success — OCR
One-Day Strike is Giant Success
In a spectacular display of unity and
determination, Legal Aid lawyers across
the city overwhelmingly observed the
Association’s one-day strike on Tuesday,
January 29th, the most dramatic union
action at the Society since the 1982 strike.
The strike lasted through COD night
court, and was highlighted by a mid-day
press conference at a rally attended by
hundreds of people at Manhattan
Criminal Court. It was followed the next
day by a bargaining session in which
management announced for the first time
that the health benefit plan is in much
worse shape than previously disclosed
[see article this page].
In every way, the strike accomplished,
and often outstripped, its immediate
goals.
Widespread Observance
Overall, approximately 895 out of 939
staff attorneys citywide (19 of whom are
not union members), or some 95%,
observed the strike. Almost all of the
remaining 5% who scabbed were
concentrated in a few relatively small
offices.
Continued on Page 2
Management Plays Health Card, Again
Management’s most immediate response to the one-day strike has been to signal
greater threats to attorney health benefits at the January 30th bargaining session.
Meanwhile, since Management has not increased its contribution to the health benefits
fund, the 20% premiums increase insisted upon by the insurance carrier has not been
paid since it was imposed in October.
As a result, the carrier, Connecticut
General (CIGNA), has threatened to cease Continued on Page 3
One-Day Strike
Continued from Page 1
Thus, management and the City hves
been effectively put on notice Legal Aid
lawyers will stick together. A divisional
summary is given below.
CDD: Only one lawyer scabbed on the
strike in the 180-strong Manhattan CDD
office; with the exception of the
11-attorney Staten Island unit, all other
CDD offices had comparably fine
observance.
Surprisingly, one of several scabs in
Bronx CDD was Jay Kisloff, one of the
union’s three pension fund trustees.
Upon the Bargaining Committee’s
unanimous recommendation, he is being
removed from that position forthwith.
CABl No one crossed the line at the
100-attorney Criminal Appeals Bureau.
Civil: No scabs were reported among
the 100 + Civil Division.
JRD: Observance in Brooklyn JRD
was complete, and nearly so in
Manhattan. However, management
successfully played on feelings of
vulnerability among probationary
attorneys in the Bronx and Queens JRD
offices.
CLO: Complete observance.
Confidence & Experience
In nearly every other area, the strike
fully accomplished its purpose. Once the
strike began, attorneys quickly overcame
lingering apprehension and gained
valuable experience and confidence in
ourselves as a group. Spirited
picketlines, often led by new attorneys,
were common throughout the City. Each
location also held a 1 p.m. rally.
The central rally in Manhattan was
chaired by Manhattan CDD bargaining
representative Robin Frankel Speakers
included Maquita Moody (Manhattan
CDD), Michael Williams (union health
February 1, 1991
trustee and bargaining representative,
Park Place Civil); Elsie Chandler
(Manhattan JRD alternative delegate);
Brigitte LaForest (bargaining
representative, Park Place Civil);
Michael Letwin (president); Akil
Al-Jundi (1199 representative);
parent-union District 65 officers Bill
Tate and Julie Kushner; a representative
of striking Daily News workers; and
Harold Mendlowitz, president of the
striking Greyhound workers in the
northeast. In addition, a message of
support was received from Frank
Barbaro, Chair of the State Assembly
Labor Committee.
Broad Support
The union also received significant aid
from Local 1199 support staff members
who joined the picketlines on their
breaks, wore ribbons in solidarity while
on the job, and spoke at local rallies
around the City. At some sites, court
personne~ private attorneys, clients and
other trade unionists also joined the line,
and in at least one bora, judges sent
coffee out to the pickets.
Press Coverage
Despite the domination of news by the
Gulf War, the strike received favorable
coverage on channels 2, 4, 7 and 9, radio
stations WINS, WNEW, WCBS, WBAI
and WNYC. Largely favorable articles
appeared in The New Yorlc Times, New
Yorlc Newsday, The New York Post and
The Law Journal.
Through the media, union members
were particularly effective in
communicating the threat of cuts in
salaries and/or health benefits, the
importance of affirmative action, and the
fact that at the heart of our dispute with
ALAA Weekly Organizer #35
management is the issue of quality
representation for poor people.
Interestingly, while in last week’s press
coverage management accused the union
membership of caring only about money,
during the strike it argued that members
wanted too much out of Legal Aid in the
area of quality representation.
Immediate Fallout
To the union’s knowledge, there has
been no management retaliation against
any attorney, including those on
probation, for observing the strike.
Nonetheless, the pressure applied by
management to probationary attorneys,
particularly in JRD, makes it essential
that they be effectively supported in
participating in future actions.
Although some attorneys expressed
concern prior to the strike over the
possibility of judicial sanctions, to date
they have been threatened against only
one attorney, Steven Pokart of
Manhattan CDD, who on Wednesday
morning was fined $10 by Judge Altmann
for non-appearance on a case which had
been covered by office head Nina
Epstein. By Wednesday afternoon,
however, the sanction was revoked.
Another issue in dispute is
reassignment of cases arraigned on
Tuesday by CDD supervisors to staff
attorneys. So far, CDD attorneys in
Manhattan and Brooklyn have agreed to
grieve reassignment for violation of
continuity representation.
Strike Benefits
The union has applied to parent union
District 65 for benefits of $20 (1!5th of
weekly benefits) for each person who
observed the strike. Before such benefits
can be received, District 65 rules require
that each delegate provide to the union
office a list of each person who observed
the strike, together with their current
annual salary level.
Conclusion
In the end, the strike was successful
beyond anyone’s hopes. It sent a strong
message, unified us, and helped to pave
the way to a fair contract. We need now
build on this victory. Membership
meetings should be held in each office to
evaluate the strike and other
developments.
Page2
Health Benefits requested an extension of this dead-line
untiiMarch 1st, arequesttowhich CIGNA
Continued from Page 1 ultimately agreed.
Meanwhile, the Union Bargaining
Committee is asking a health benefits
consultant to evaluate the options
outlined by awaiting a report from its own
health benefits consultant concerning the
options outlined by Management.
issuing claim checks after the end of
February, a fact which Management had
not brought to the attention of the Union
or staff.
“Crisis” Says Batterman
In a bargaining session on January
30th, a day after the one-day strike,
Management counsel Robert Batterman
announced to the Union that staff
attorney health benefits were in greater
danger than ever.
Although it has still not met with the
City concerning finances, he said that
Management still anticipates having only
15% to deal with this and all other wage
and benefit costs.
According to Batterman, Management
was contacted earlier this week by the
major medical insurance carrier,
Connecticut General, which said that
because of increased experience (claims
paid) premiums will go up even more
than the 20% increase that was effective
on October 1, 1990, but which itself
remains unpaid. [In fact, the letter
referred to blames the increase on the
fact that the fund’s reserve fund has been
drawn down low].
The result, he said, is that the health
fund will be unable to make its March 1st
payment. Batterman also said that a
further 20% premium increase could be
expected in October 1991. [Union
trustee Bill Rold comments that “there is
no way to know what kind of premium
increase can be expected in the fall.”)
Benefits Are “Too Good”
Batterman went on to say that Union
health benefits were too generous and
that, as Arch Murray later put it in a
January 31st memo to staff, “the Society
simply does not have the money to pay
these premiums without some
modiciation of the current health plan.”
Unless changes were made in the plan,
he said, staff would go without any
coverage, a development which
Management would not allow to happen.
Batterman then outlined several
“suggestions” made by a consultant
which Management has hired. Some
Page3
consisted of apparently innocuous
administrative changes. But others would
raise deductibles, reduce psychiatric
benefits, require employee contributions to
premium payments, and increase
coinsurance levels.
However, Batterman warned that even
if all of the consultant’s proposals were
Rational Conclusions
Seven months after it received them,
Health Insurance Increases
Amount in Arrears (10/90-1/91): $150,000
Additional Amount of Increase Thru 10/91: $800,000
Approximate Total: $950,000
Existing Legal Aid Money Which Could Be Used to Meet
Increased Costs, Not Including New City Money*
Savings from One-Day Strike: $150,000
5% Cut in Management Salaries: $700,000
50% cut in Proskauer (Batterman) fees: $100,000
Approximate Total: $950,000
Additional sources of funds, if necessary: $29,000 for each
cancelled new fall hire, e.g. 50 = $1.45m + $200,000 in benefits
*At least 1.5%, with possible additional funds for benefit increases.
adopted, there were not be enough
savings to compensate for the huge
premium increases.
Hold on Benefits Payments
On January 31st, the day after
Batterman’s presentation, Union health
trustees received a copy of CIGNA’s
January 29th letter to which Batterman
had apparently referred. It states that
Connecticut General is calling for an
additional increase because the health
plan’s Stabilization Fund had dropped
below $215,000.
The letter also announced that, the
fund is in arrears in its payment of the 20
percent increase instituted last October,
an amount which “must be paid by
February 1st to avoid a hold on claims.”
Management made no mention of the
latter information at the previous night’s
meeting.
In subsequent conversations with
CIGNA. Union and Management trustees
ALAA Weekly Organizer #35
Management has so far declined to
address Union proposals such as job
security, quality of representation and
terms of employment, among others.
Overall, it seems clear that
Management intends to punish members
for their activism, particularly as
expressed in the one-day strike, and to
use the issue to panic us into accepting a
poor contract.
In fact, however, as the adjoining table
shows, Management has a number of ways
to cover health increases and a decent
wage settlement as well. Moreover, it has
yet to meet with City officials, and fight
there for the funds necessary to cover our
health benefits.
Therefore, the challenge before us is to
remain united in order to win a fair
contract increase with no compromise of
our health benefits.
February 1, 1991
ALAA Calendar, February 1991
Monday, February 4
6:30p.m. Legal Aid Lawyers Against the War,
Union office.
Tuesday, February 5
1 p.m. Queens CDD ACLA meeting,
2d Floor Conference Room
3p.m. Health Trustees Meeting
4p.m. Bargaining Session #10
Executive Committee
Agenda
February 7, 1991
Adoption of Minutes
Bargaining
A 1-Day Strike Evaluation
B. Report on Health Benefits
C. Strategy (including future actions)
Officer Elections (Tabled from last meeting)
Civil Affirmative Action Grievance
Bronx Civil Office Condition
6 p.m. Civil ACLA Meeting, 5th Floor
Wednesday, February 6
1 p.m. Manhattan CDD ACLA Meeting,
9th Floor Conference Room
Thursday, February 7
4 p.m. Bargaining Session #11
6:30p.m. Executive Committee Meeting
” … and we are all being asked to make
sacrifices … “
February 1, 1991 ALAA Weekly Organizer #35 Page4