NAGE Responds to Lawyers Weekly Editorial
The following letter from National President David Holway was sent to the editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in response to an August 17 editorial that appeared in that publication
As the union representing court officers, we object to your characterization of unions and collective bargaining agreements as the roadblock to encouraging and promoting an appropriate retirement age for court workers.
The union has long fought for changes in the retirement system that would establish a maximum age for court-officer retirement. We have put a great deal of resources behind this fight and our members fully support it.
You are right to say that court officers are the only defense when it comes to courthouse violence, and I assure you that no one cares about court safety more than the officers who must maintain it.
The roadblock to ensuring continued safety in our courthouses can be lifted only with legislative action that will change the retirement system to allow these dedicated and hardworking court officers to retire at an appropriate age with decent benefits and dignity.
We pledge to continue our efforts on this issue and urge the legal community to join with us.
Editorial in the August 17, 2009 edition of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly
The weak links among court officers
Published: August 17, 2009
Why do court officers have no mandatory retirement age?
It's no secret that people are living longer and reporting to work literally at "senior" levels. This is a good thing, but poses a genuine problem when it comes to court officers.
Court officers are the first, last and only line of defense when it comes to courthouse violence. They may on occasion be called to wrestle with a defendant, deal with disgruntled family members, and generally diffuse a litany of possibly explosive situations.
The majority of court officers keep the peace with remarkable presence and poise. A stern look or a reassuring gesture can provide a welcome blanket of safety for judges, litigants and lawyers.
Many court officers also play an important role in keeping court business moving, playing an active role alongside court staff throughout the day's proceedings.
The problem is that a small but significant number of court officers are incapable of posing any physical threat whatsoever. Some are in their 80s. Some are hard of hearing. Some even show signs of dementia. Others are in poor physical shape.
Yet these elderly or infirm workers continue to report to work, some out of duty or pride. "What else would I do?" ask veteran court officers.
Politics and the union's collective-bargaining agreement have conspired to ensure that most court officers can keep their jobs for life. It is, quite simply, hard to get rid of anyone. There is no periodic evaluation of any kind.
Court leaders should examine this situation with an eye toward reform. Could officers be granted a status that allows them higher pay rates yet also requires them to meet certain annual performance metrics? Could early retirement be negotiated for court officers who are not up to physical snuff?
No one wants to usher a loyal employee out the door - but no one wants a feeble court officer in the room when violence erupts, either. Massachusetts should address this problem before a regrettable incident forces the issue.