148 Workload
History of Local 148 Negotiations Regarding Workload
The first Union proposal
After our successful decertification campaign, we began negotiations with the County in September, 2021. Negotiations began in order to complete a short 6 month contract, so recognizing we would subsequently enter negotiations for the full 3 year contract soon, our initial proposal was modest. A key element of this initial proposal, made on October 7, 2021, was focused on workload issues. We demanded two things in that initial proposal:
- Create a committee to negotiate over a “weighting system” by which we could determine a reasonable workload for line attorneys; and
- Recognizing that the negotiations in #1 might take some time, create a second, smaller committee to negotiate some sort of immediate relief for line attorneys.
The Office responded in December, 2021 with a proposal that had no provisions for immediate relief, and suggested the creation of a committee (without any real negotiating power nor recourse to the grievance/arbitration process in the MOU) to “collaborate on the feasibility of establishing Deputy Public Defender workload standards.” The committee would “provide a forum to exchange information and develop recommendations regarding Deputy Public Defender workload measurements and standards to submit to the Department head for consideration.”
Basically, the response was “No immediate relief, and we’ll listen to you, but we won’t negotiate, and we won’t promise to do anything.”
The second Union proposal
The Union made an out-of-negotiations effort to get the Office to go Unavailable, by creating a letter/petition to Mr. Garcia, that was signed by over half of the line attorneys, garnering media attention, and meeting with the offices of the BOS to highlight the workload issues in our office. Those efforts were also ignored.
The union made a second proposal in late March, 2022. We proposed:
- That the Office commission an outside contractor with experience in conducting studies of “attorney workload standards” to conduct a study to assist us in determining appropriate caseloads; and
- That the Office immediately cap caseloads at 50% of the 1973 ABA recommendations.
The Office responded to our proposal in April, 2022 refusing to include our proposed immediate relief, while offering no alternative solutions. They proposed a study to “recommend and/or validate [current CCMS] methods of measuring the complexity of cases,” and to use that to create a system to determine a reasonable workload.
The second Management proposal
The third Union proposal
Obviously, the near sole reliance on CCMS is very problematic. CCMS does not capture key elements of our work, particularly the amount of time it takes to accomplish an innumerable number of tasks that our cases require, including something as basic as time waiting in court. Second, we know that the CCMS data is very flawed. Third, relying on CCMS data only captures work actually being completed on cases and not the work that should be completed. Finally, the management proposal made no mention of union input into the selection of the contractor, nor to negotiating the implementation of the results.
The Union made a third proposal in August, 2022. In it, we proposed:
- The Office cap caseloads at 100% of the 1973 ABA recommendations, until such time as new recommendations are issued (which is supposed to happen this Summer); and
- The Union and the Office work jointly to select and direct an independent contractor to study the workloads. The study would include data from CCMS, a Delphi (time allocation) study, with an eye toward “best practices” (so that we don’t study the situation now and set the standard, but to look at how things should be done).
Management made a proposal the same day that still offered no immediate relief. The proposal does not include any union input into the selection of the contractor or the methodology of the study. The proposal eliminates the Delphi and “best practices” references.
The third Management proposal
The fourth Management proposal
Management updated their proposal the following week, August 11, 2022, incorporating some of the language from the Union’s proposal, but still leaving out any immediate relief, Union input into the contractor for the study, and any references to the Delphi method or “best practices.”
Where we are now
In the session following the fourth Management proposal (August 18, 2021), we engaged in an extensive discussion about the study. Management told us that the CEO was already planning a study, which is connected to the motion made by Supervisor Holly Mitchell regarding funding for indigent defense. Management told us that it is unclear how the vendor for the study is going to be selected, and it is unclear how much input the Management is going to have into the parameters of the study or in the selection of the vendor. We were also told that this study would be completed in a matter of a couple months, further solidifying that this study is not at all similar to the studies we were asking for that can involve organizations such as the ABA and RAND Corporation and typically take 18 months to yield accurate results.
Management has conceded that workload is a mandatory subject of bargaining. However, they rejected all of our proposals for immediate workload relief and have have offered no proposals of their own. This contract (MOU) will be in place for the next 3 years. If we want to force management, and the County, to offer some sort of workload relief in this contract, we have the most leverage now. Once the MOU is signed, we will have more limited options, as it relates to collective action, until we negotiate our next contract. But, our only power comes from our members. As detailed above, we as your Board and Negotiations Committee have taken the steps that we could to address the issue. Now is the time to show them that our members are united and willing to take action.