Since we filed our brief in the Boston Quinn Bill case, the City filed its opposition, and we filed our reply on behalf of the plaintiff officers. Again, the suit claims that the City of Boston violated the Quinn Bill when it reduced educational stipends to officers. The City responds that it reduced the payments due to the Commonwealth’s shortfall in Quinn reimbursement, and that it was entitled to do so due to the collective bargaining agreements with the three Boston Police Unions. The only problem with the City’s response is that the law is clear that parties can’t bargain about everything, and can’t bargain to cut Quinn. The only state court judge to reach this issue found just that, and we believe the SJC will too.
The most recent development is that the Massachusetts Municipal Association has filed an Amicus brief in the case defending the city. This brief is amazing in that the MMA’s counsel waxes poetic about the virtues of bargaining over EVERYTHING. This is the same MMA that for over 30 years has claimed that it CANNOT bargain about most things – that everything is “an inherent managerial right.” The MMA saying we should bargain everything is like Michele Bachmann saying something sane. It’s like the Boston Globe saying that Police Details are great. It’s like Snookie saying she thinks sobriety is way cool. You get the idea – it’s a complete 180.
We’re getting ready for, and looking forward to, the argument. As always, we’ll keep you posted.
Don’t take my word for it. Here are all of the briefs in the case:
Labor, The Law & Social Justice
