I find it both bewildering and amusing at the same time that contract workers, the State contract attorneys in this instance, want to take action against their employer for not making them public service attorneys.
It is in my opinion that the contract workers freely choose to take up contracts at a particular salary. I want to believe that they were not forced into taking up such contracts. Further, they can terminate their contracts according to the conditions when they feel like.
It is also my opinion that it is up to the State or Judicial and Legal Services Commission to decide if and when they want to hire additional public service attorneys, at what salaries, despite the existence of vacancies, etc.
Who do the contract workers feel they are to be entitled to fill these public service attorneys vacancies? It might be good that they may fill such vacancies especially if they have the necessary qualifications and experience, but this should not be an entitlement that they would want to sue. Did their contracts give them this expectation to this public service attorney position?
Put yourselves in the employer's position. I employed contract workers, I also have permanent workers. I have vacancies for other permanent workers. I pay permanent workers a higher salary than the contract workers who agreed to the lower salary. The contract workers are now threatening to sue me for not making them permanent workers.
Well, I am not too sure how long the contract workers will last in my place or if their contract would be renewed.
I am quite eager to see how the court rules on this matter. It seems a real bold-faced move!
S Williams