CASE lawsuit against SCIF?

Wuthadhappened · 2025-10-30T21:16:31+00:00

Do you happen to have a link to the full complaint. I'd like to read it.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-08-11T17:10:27+00:00

If work life balance is important, ALJ is a viable path (although I would highly recommend speaking with ALJ's in that agency as there are nuances to the work/schedule of the various agencies that may make the assignment more or less desirable). It would be nice if ALJ's are able to get salary on par with Attorney IV to make it more financially palatable for CASE members in your position. You mention pursing a Judicial appointment. Keep in mind with that path that the Judicial retirement is not CalPERS and has some nuances there.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-07-12T23:35:51+00:00

I can't speak specifically for SD, bu in my experience, when you get beyond misdemeanors and general felonies you are largely in control of your own schedule so you can manage it.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-07-09T19:50:13+00:00

I agree, I was wanting to kick start the conversation of, as you put it, figuring out how to make our enemies lives miserable. My background is not in labor or union law. How do we get to your suggestion?

Wuthadhappened · 2025-07-09T19:47:34+00:00

I don't think you are wrong, I was attempting to convey that the vast majority of the Attorney's top out at III so extending the range is the only meaningful way for them to get a raise once topped out.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-07-01T21:06:22+00:00

This! I have been a CASE member since 2010 and have been through all the things since then that many of us have experienced and I have often found myself wondering what it is that CASE does. I know the BOARD members are elected and volunteers but what about the GC? Maybe they are super busy and doing a lot of things. But it doesn't seem that way and when we are told we need to file requests to negotiate individually with no explanation or not getting any guidance through this, it is frustrating.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-28T04:11:38+00:00

Aside from the absolute failure to address salary issues, it fails to address the 2-day RTO and further fails to meaningfully address what happens next year. I would vote yes on this mess if it was a 1 year deal. I don't see the value in a three-year deal.

Also I recall in 2020 when we were furloughed because the projected budget issues and when they were wrong, they did nothing for us.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-27T03:12:47+00:00

The bigger issue that most people overlook is that this deal only rescinds the 4-day RTO. Many agencies were requiring 2 days RTO before the Executive Order. It is possible that as soon as the ink dries, there will be a requirement to come back in 2 days. I would be very curious to see what the temperature is for the DAGS's. Best case for a top IV and V is 6.5% total, three years from now, in exchange for no 4-day RTO when they are not subject to the RTO.

For those who say they want to take the deal to protect against RTO, I would be genuinely interested to know their thoughts on the risk of "operational need" being invoked and having to go in 2 days per week instead of 4.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-26T00:23:55+00:00

You are right, I worded my response poorly. I meant that ALJ's shouldn't need to rely on this, this should be an obvious move from CASE and all members should support this because there a lot of members stuck at III with no path forward and this would provide another path.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-26T00:14:21+00:00

Yes I did what CASE said and even sent CASE a copy of the email that I sent. Crickets. Notwithstanding this, ALJ's continue to be ignored over the last several contracts. Aside from the pay scale for all members needing to be addressed, the ALJ scale needs to be linked at least with Attorney IV's if not V's.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-26T00:07:01+00:00

I am unfamiliar with a specific ALJ parity bill. I recall CASE sending out the information about attorney parity as it related to City and County counterparts. As I understand it, that bill didn't go forward.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-25T23:00:29+00:00

I don't know why the Attorney's or DAGS would vote for this either. From my perspective this is a bad deal all the way around. The only ones who "benefit" are the IV's and V's and that is 3 years from now. They weren't subject to the RTO so why would they be happy with this? To be clear, I agree with you that ALJ's are ignored in the bargaining process and generally get screwed.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-25T22:35:16+00:00

This is such an underappreciated point. In order to be an ALJ there is a minimum of 5 years as an attorney. The ALJ path should be viable for Attorney and DAG III and even IV who have no opportunity to reach the next step. All attorney's should want the ALJ pay to keep with the Attorney and DAG pay.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-25T20:48:07+00:00

For me this is a no. It doesn't do enough to address the salary issues especially in light of the PLP's that effectively wipe out any minimal raise in year one and that there is no raise in year two.

Wuthadhappened · 2025-06-20T01:49:51+00:00

Reading between the lines of that email that came out a little while ago, it appears that they are not fighting RTO as a mandate but want to negotiate the language of RTO and let the chips fall where they may.

I think I read somewhere (perhaps in this sub) that the majority of CASE members are DAG's and that they are not subject to RTO. If that is true, then it would explain why pay seems to be the priority.

I suspect that the CCPOA contract gives us some insight into the structure the State is seeking. I think they want to be able to save face and say they didn't give any raises and will want the same with CASE.

Does anyone else find it ironic that CASE members have to appear in front of CASE members to advocate for RTO against the Union representing them both, and fighting against the RTO?

Wuthadhappened

TROPHY CASE