As many of you may have seen from the posted position statement by the Court, we did not offer a counter to the Court's package proposal on September 3rd. While this is accurate, we want to clarify the reasons behind our decision.
During the previous meeting, we declared an impasse because it was clear that the Court had no intention of addressing the demands we had clearly articulated at the table. Given the lack of legitimate movement towards reaching an agreement, declaring an impasse was the logical next step.
Before the September 3rd meeting, the Court reached out to UPE to express their desire to present a counter proposal, which was essentially the same as what they had previously proposed. One proposal would be a one-year term with only the COLA that they had proposed, and the second would be a two-year term with only the addition of their current wellness proposal. Neither included longevity nor anything towards the Tahoe subsistence pay. As a result, we maintained our position that we were still at an impasse.
Specifically, regarding our proposal on "wellness leave," we have reiterated multiple times the importance of counting this leave as time worked. This is crucial due to the impact of unscheduled overtime and would allow our members to take leave without facing penalties for using any leave balances.
Our decision not to respond with counters to the Court's last two proposals was based on the fact that neither offered any movement in our direction.
To reiterate, our priorities for agreeing to a successor agreement remain clear: longevity, counting additional hours for wellness leave as time worked for overtime calculations, an increase to the Tahoe subsistence pay, and the need for the Court to increase its position on the Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA).
We are scheduled to begin the impasse meeting on September 24th and will provide an update to everyone once the meeting concludes.
