As most people know, the legislature has failed for ten years to pass a bill approving judicial compensation, essentially holding the judicial branch hostage and using it as cover until such time as the legislature feels it's safe to vote itself a pay raise.
Having been taken hostage, the judicial branch ( O.C.A. ) is now holding-up some of its own.
The unions for the judicial branch have approved, and are submitting for ratification, an O.C.A .-proffered "take it or leave it" contract which precludes any employee making $115,000 or more from receiving any annual increases. The contract patterns the pay increases already granted to the executive branch (3%, 3%, 3% and 4% for the years 2007 through 2010) but, of course, no one in the executive branch is being held hostage before their pay increases take effect. For some reason, the unions have decided they have no other choice but to accept O.C.A. 's non-negotiable contract.
The rationale used by O.C.A. and the judiciary is that housing court judges earn only $115,000, so that no employee should be able to make more than a judge. This ignores the fact that the qualifications for housing court judges/attorneys is political support and five years admission, whereas those employees/attorneys making $115,000 generally have been working for more than fifteen years in the judicial branch and have no political backing.
Unlike many judges, the legal staff employed in the court system are not politicos and elected officials. Unlike the judges, the legal staff cannot enlist the aid of bar associations and other groups to speak on their behalf, cannot file lawsuits armed with all-too-eager pro bono (publico?) counsel, and do not have many of the benefits such as state cars, unlimited sick time, and superior health care benefits.
It's ironic that the judicial branch ( O.C.A. ) is now adopting the legislature's "take hostages" approach, and utilizing it on those who are even less powerful.
