Probation Officers and the Horseshoe Nail

We've all heard the "For Want of a Nail" proverb, in which a kingdom is ultimately lost because something as seemingly unimportant as a horseshoe nail was missing. A two percent raise for Northampton County probation officers is a small matter. Making it retroactive to the beginning of the year, which was done for all other career service workers, would cost the county just $69,982. Treating all career service workers the same is clearly the fair thing to do. But last night, Northampton County refused to be fair, disappointing about 64 court-appointed professionals This might just be that horseshoe nail. This trifle could result in dire consequences for Executive Lamont McClure and the Council members who voted against making the raise retroactive.

McClure relied on 7,000 votes from county workers and their families to ensure his election. I question whether those votes will be there when he seeks a second term. Morale is already terrible, nearly everywhere. Deputy sheriffs are walking on eggshells, afraid of the Sheriff McClure appointed. Corrections officers are very unhappy with an arbitration award that failed to address mandated overtime and constant turnover. 911 workers are underpaid and overworked. There are 11 vacancies in Children and Youth, nine of which are caseworkers. Gracedale is ready to revolt over understaffing. In the face of all these problems, the last thing the county should want to do is aggravate another block of employees. But that's precisely what happened last night.

As I told you yesterday, Northampton County's court-appointed professionals were represented by AFSCME. This never made any sense. They serve at the pleasure of the court, and no union can protect them if a judge decides to can one or all of them for any reason, even a bad one. That's the nature of at-will employment.

These court-appointed professionals petitioned last year to have their union decertified. This happened on January 21 of this year when the union agreed to an amicable divorce.

At the beginning of this year, all career service employees received a two per cent wage hike. But not probation officers. They continued receiving the same salaries they were getting at the end of the year.

Exec McClure recently decided to recommend that they get a two percent payhike like the other career service employees. That's only fair. But the raise only goes into effect on July 28 instead of being effective at the beginning of the year, like it was for all other career service employees. That's unfair.

So far as I can tell, the reason July 28 was picked is because it corresponded with a pay period. So you'd think that when court-appointed professionals asked to make it retroactive, McClure would readily agree. But he sat mute as two Council members who double as union agents bashed probation officers for daring to leave the union. I refer to Council members Kevin Lott, business agent for the Carpenters' Union; and Bill McGee, business agent for the Insulators' Union.

Lott's words at a committee meeting make clear he wanted to punish these workers:

"They made the choice to leave the union and that was their choice ... . They could have stayed there and got what was offered. Now the employees are coming back six months later and are saying, 'Forget your budget. We made a choice but we don't really like that choice' ... I think there was [sic] some bad choices made by employees here."

McGee and Lott both said this group of workers would have to live with the consequences of their decision to leave the union.

Before the vote last night, about ten probation officers were in the audience, making me wonder if I failed yet another urine test. Fortunately, they were not there for me, but to see how their government would treat them. Arky Colon, a pretrial services officer and 29-year veteran, asked Council to "do the right thing."

Council member John Cusick tried. He offered an amendment to make the raise retroactive to the beginning of the year.

"These folks here make up the backbone of the court system," said Cusick. He argued that the pay should be made retroactive to the beginning of the year.

Council member Peg Ferraro seconded. "I strongly feel that these employees are being punished for leaving the union. I also feel it's an affront to these loyal employees ... " She suggested those who opposed retroactivity should "take off their union hats and put on their 'Do what's right for our employees hat.'"

Agreeing with Cusick and Ferraro, Council member Bob Werner said that even if these probation officers made a bad decision, "that doesn't mean they should receive economic hardship."

Council President Ron Heckman also sided with court-appointed professionals, saying they were "wards of the county" once their union was decertified. He heard no strong reason why July 28 was the date the increase should become effective. Actually,noreason at all was offered.

Union agents Lott and McGee of course continued to be vindictive and punish probation officers for daring to leave the union. They were joined by Council members Tara Zrinski and Lori Vargo Heffner.

Zrinski, who is running for State Representative against Marcia Hahn, noted that she's never been a member of a union. But clearly, she wants their money for her campaign.

Heffner claimed to have done her own investigation, which consisted of a phone call to Human Resources Director Elizabeth Kelly. This "investigation" included no calls to probation officers. She made clear what motivated her when she told another member of Council, after the meeting, that she resented probation officers for making more money than she does as a social worker.

Perhaps Kevin Lott can tell her she made a choice and has to live with it.

Cusick's amendment failed by a 4-4 vote. Cusick, Ferraro, Werner and Heckman voted Yes. The others voted against the workers.

Council member Matt Dietz, who almost certainly would have sided with the workers, was unfortunately absent. He was busy stuffing backpacks for Backpack Pals in Bethlehem.

Sitting quietly throughout this exchange was Executive Lamont McClure. He could have spoken up for the workers, but did not. He could have told them that the July 28 date was used because it corresponded with a pay period, but did not. His silence was a message in and of itself.

He may think he's headed to an overwhelming re-election. That won't happen if he continues to alienate his workforce. He can ask former Executive John Brown how that worked out for him. McClure, who railed against vacancies in Children and Youth, now has just as many as Brown did.