After 5 years, firing of crossing guards before high court
5:57 PM Mon, Sep 22, 2008 | Permalink
Email
 |
 |
Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« R.I. Primary Day: Plagued with little problems |
Main
| Corruption trial co-defendant Driscoll falls, is hospitalized »
Rhode Island Supreme Court justices sharply questioned the legality of former Cranston Mayor Stephen P. Laffey's five-year-old decision to fire the city's crossing guards and hire private replacements, as lawyers argued the long-simmering case before the state's highest court this morning. Laffey fired the guards in July 2003, in a move that made his reputation as the bete noir of public employee unions in the state. A Superior Court judge upheld the move two years later. But the union representing the guards appealed the decision. And the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning. At issue: A "no-layoff" clause in the crossing guards' contract. Justices, interrogating the city's labor lawyer, suggested that Laffey had violated the clause. A decision is expected in six to 12 weeks. -- Journal staff writer David Scharfenberg 
CommentsLeave a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
Tags 
New comments
New photos
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
"Sharply criticize" the action after five years? I think the only sharp item was the pencils the judges were using to clean out their ears while they sat on this for five years. Bravo to Laffey for ridding that city of the egregious contract. The union lawyer can thump his chest all he wants opine on the virtues of the sanctity of collective bargaining. Sanctity, schmanktity - paying folks $45 beans a day for an hours work and compensating them with full benefits needed to stop. If the judge was ready with his judicial morality verbal lashing on past acts then perhaps he could speak out on the original contract that was obviously crafted in a back room under dubious circumstances. That is what should be criticized, not the actions of a Mayor that saved his city $500,000 and did not reduce services or safety of the children or taxpayers.
Report Abuse
I wonder how Kevin will feel if and when the Courts uphold the validity of the contract and these illegally laid off employees gain compensation for being denied the right to work for 5 years at their former positions. With lost wages, benefits, interest, etc. I think Laffy's decision will cost the citizens probably about $1 million including the legal fees when all is said and done.
Report Abuse