When the state Legislature created the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) in 1983, it did not include the new agency or its employees in the statute that governs collective bargaining and outlines which public employees are permitted to unionize.
The vote on Nov. 3 could change that.
Ballot Question 2 asks voters if they agree to specify that CPCS employees are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. The CPCS is the state public defender agency for Massachusetts, established to oversee and provide legal representation to low-income individuals.
“We’re in court every day with probation officers who have a union, and we interact with DCF workers — they have a union — and teachers and nurses; all those groups of people can collectively bargain,” said Chrisiant Bracken, a CPCS defense attorney based out of Northampton, speaking in a personal capacity.
She mentioned the CPCS has employee retention issues and there have been about five attempts to allow them to collectively bargain.
“I really like doing this. It feels really meaningful to me. I like meeting my neighbors. I mean, I live in the community I work in,” Bracken said. “It can be fun some days; it can be tragic other days. I want to be able to do it long-term. I want it to be sustainable. And that is the point of collective bargaining.
“It’s really important that the people who show up in that moment are not stressed because they’re worried about their job security,” she added.
The CPCS’ main headquarters is in Boston. It also operates 20 regional and trial offices across Massachusetts, including in Northampton, Springfield, Worcester, Brockton and Salem.
The public defense cases not taken by CPCS are handled by bar advocates, private attorneys who accept court appointments. While they will not be affected by Question 2, some have nevertheless expressed support for its adoption.
“Most are in favor of this. The general tone is that a rising tide raises all ships,” Greenfield attorney John Godleski said. “We want to see our colleagues prosper, obviously.”
Bar advocates are dealing with their own labor issues, as fewer are willing to take on the workload due to the pay, which is sometimes less than half that of neighboring states.
Godleski said he and others hope adoption of Question 2 could have a ripple effect that eventually extends to a referendum pertaining to bar advocates.
“That’s the big picture,” he said.
The Massachusetts Association of Private Appointed Counsel (MAPAC), which represents attorneys providing court-appointed defense to low-income defendants, has unanimously endorsed Question 2.
“We help our friends and neighbors at their darkest moments,” CPCS public defender Daniel Werner said in a statement. “But without a contract, it’s hard to plan for our futures. Organizing won’t cost the state money, and by improving retention, it may even save it.”
“Every worker has the right to speak up, together, for fair treatment,” MAPAC President Sean Delaney said in a statement. “Public defenders spend their careers giving voice to others. They deserve one of their own.”
As of the printing of the state’s voter information booklet, there was no organized group urging a “No” vote on Question 2. However, the Secretary of State’s Office compiled information, in part, from arguments presented in the Legislature’s Majority Report.
According to the booklet, allowing CPCS employees 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,” it reads. “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,” it continued, “particularly if they limit the agency’s ability to respond flexibly to fluctuating caseloads, staffing needs and court demands.”
