Processed with

QUESTION 2: ALLOW EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES (CPCS) TO ENGAGE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THEIR EMPLOYER. THE CPCS PAYS FOR ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT INDIGENT PERSONS IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES.

This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would specify that employees of the CPCS are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. It would also require CPCS, after executing a collective bargaining agreement, to request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreement from the governor.

WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY:
“Vote ‘Yes’ on 2 because public defenders are underpaid as it relates to other states,” Tom McKeever, President of SEIU Local 888, told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Public defenders provide legal services for people that need it the most — the underprivileged and poor [including the] indigent population, our neighbors, constituents and residents in the commonwealth. Organizing public defenders and support staff will give predictably for the future. Security through just cause, protection through grievance processes. Fair compensation, safe working conditions and additional membership benefits through the union.”

McKeever continued, “[There is] no opposition to [Question 2] to speak of at this time. Our campaign received over 100,000 signatures in just over a month. SEIU Local 888 and partners National Association Government Employees are very happy with the momentum being built as we approach Election Day on Nov. 3rd.”

WHAT OPPONENTS SAY:

There is no organized group urging a “No” vote on this question.

Opponents in general say that CPCS is an independent agency of the judicial branch and allowing it to collectively bargain could cause problems. They say that any such agreement could affect the agency’s delivery of its legal services because of questionable specifics of the agreement that might limit the agency’s ability to have flexibility in responding to varying caseloads and other conditions.

OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, from each side of the question:

IN FAVOR:

“A ‘Yes’ vote will give employees of the CPCS the right to organize a union and collectively bargain with their employer if they choose to do so.

CPCS employees provide critical support for the constitutional right to counsel and help ensure that Massachusetts residents who cannot afford an attorney have access to legal representation. Yet, unlike other state employees, CPCS employees do not currently have the right to choose whether to organize and collectively bargain over wages, benefits and working conditions.

This ballot question would allow CPCS employees to form a union if they so choose. It simply gives CPCS employees the right to make that choice for themselves.

Vote ‘Yes’ to give CPCS employees the right to choose.”

AGAINST:

“Allowing employees of CPCS to collectively bargain creates serious operational and fiscal risks for the judiciary. CPCS operates as an independent judicial branch agency tasked with providing constitutional defense to indigent clients. Introducing collective bargaining into this framework could disrupt existing management and supervisory frameworks, introduce ambiguity into lines of authority and create operational inefficiencies.

Changes to labor relations policies of this scale could have unintended consequences for the delivery of legal services, particularly if they limit the agency’s ability to respond flexibly to fluctuating caseloads, staffing needs and court demands.”

WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES:

A “Yes” vote would allow the CPCS to form a union to collectively bargain with their employer.

A “No” vote is against allowing CPCS employees to form a union and collectively bargain with their employer.