<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Summer Update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2009/07/17/summer-update/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2009/07/17/summer-update/</link>
	<description>Latest news involving the Cook County Public Defenders Association AFSCME LOCAL 3315</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:38:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kulmeet Galhotra</title>
		<link>http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2009/07/17/summer-update/comment-page-1/#comment-4965</link>
		<dc:creator>Kulmeet Galhotra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cookcountypd.org/blog/?p=508#comment-4965</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;Here is a previous entry on the website explaining the 1% arbitration:&lt;/em&gt;  On April 14, 2009, an arbitrator ruled that “The Public Defender Salary Schedule shall be modified to provide an additional 1% increase for Public Defenders at Step 3 or above effective June 1, 2008…”

In the last contract negotiations, AFSCME proposed an additional step and a 2% increase for all assistant public defenders at Step 3 and above in addition to negotiated wage increases.  The County flatly rejected the proposed additional step, but made a counter proposal offering a 1% increase.  In response, the Union dropped it’s request for another step and proposed a 1.5% increase.  The 1% counter proposal was never retracted during the negotiations.  On June 1, 2008, the County started paying the additional 1%.  But a few weeks later, the County claimed that the parties had never agreed to the 1% increase and reduced paychecks accordingly.

The Negotiation Ground Rules state that “All Tentative Agreements will be reduced to writing, initialed and dated by the Spokesperson of each Party.”  No tentative agreement prepared by either party referenced mutual assent to the 1% increase.  For this reason, the County argued that the additional 1% proposal inadvertently “fell of the table” without mutual agreement.  However, Tentative Agreements were formalized and jointly signed off during the negotiation process onlywhen there were structural changes in a pay plan.  Other contractual changes were adopted without a sign off  The 1% increase is not a structural change in the plan such as adding a new step to the pay grid.  Further, the 1% appeared in the salary schedule prepared by the County during negotiations.  Both parties reviewed the salary schedule and made corrections, but the 1% increase was never changed.  Thus the parties reached a binding, mutual agreement and the 1% increase is a part of the contract.

M.S.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Here is a previous entry on the website explaining the 1% arbitration:</em>  On April 14, 2009, an arbitrator ruled that “The Public Defender Salary Schedule shall be modified to provide an additional 1% increase for Public Defenders at Step 3 or above effective June 1, 2008…”</p>
<p>In the last contract negotiations, AFSCME proposed an additional step and a 2% increase for all assistant public defenders at Step 3 and above in addition to negotiated wage increases.  The County flatly rejected the proposed additional step, but made a counter proposal offering a 1% increase.  In response, the Union dropped it’s request for another step and proposed a 1.5% increase.  The 1% counter proposal was never retracted during the negotiations.  On June 1, 2008, the County started paying the additional 1%.  But a few weeks later, the County claimed that the parties had never agreed to the 1% increase and reduced paychecks accordingly.</p>
<p>The Negotiation Ground Rules state that “All Tentative Agreements will be reduced to writing, initialed and dated by the Spokesperson of each Party.”  No tentative agreement prepared by either party referenced mutual assent to the 1% increase.  For this reason, the County argued that the additional 1% proposal inadvertently “fell of the table” without mutual agreement.  However, Tentative Agreements were formalized and jointly signed off during the negotiation process onlywhen there were structural changes in a pay plan.  Other contractual changes were adopted without a sign off  The 1% increase is not a structural change in the plan such as adding a new step to the pay grid.  Further, the 1% appeared in the salary schedule prepared by the County during negotiations.  Both parties reviewed the salary schedule and made corrections, but the 1% increase was never changed.  Thus the parties reached a binding, mutual agreement and the 1% increase is a part of the contract.</p>
<p>M.S.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: K. S. Galhotra</title>
		<link>http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2009/07/17/summer-update/comment-page-1/#comment-4964</link>
		<dc:creator>K. S. Galhotra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cookcountypd.org/blog/?p=508#comment-4964</guid>
		<description>Joe, the retro checks and the 1% issue applies to all at step 3 and above.  Call me and I will explain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe, the retro checks and the 1% issue applies to all at step 3 and above.  Call me and I will explain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Stachler</title>
		<link>http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2009/07/17/summer-update/comment-page-1/#comment-4961</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Stachler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cookcountypd.org/blog/?p=508#comment-4961</guid>
		<description>Can someone explain to me why I didn&#039;t get a retro check?  I asked my union steward and she doesn&#039;t seem to know why people got retros/why I didn&#039;t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can someone explain to me why I didn&#8217;t get a retro check?  I asked my union steward and she doesn&#8217;t seem to know why people got retros/why I didn&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Stachler</title>
		<link>http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2009/07/17/summer-update/comment-page-1/#comment-4943</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Stachler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cookcountypd.org/blog/?p=508#comment-4943</guid>
		<description>Is there any progress on the contract negotions?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any progress on the contract negotions?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arleen floren</title>
		<link>http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2009/07/17/summer-update/comment-page-1/#comment-4856</link>
		<dc:creator>arleen floren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:12:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cookcountypd.org/blog/?p=508#comment-4856</guid>
		<description>To the Executive Board:

Thanks so much for the party last night.  Great company, great location, great food, 
and a great time.  I&#039;m really glad I went!

p.s.  Beatrice Santiage adds her thanks.  It was really a lot of fun
arleen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To the Executive Board:</p>
<p>Thanks so much for the party last night.  Great company, great location, great food,<br />
and a great time.  I&#8217;m really glad I went!</p>
<p>p.s.  Beatrice Santiage adds her thanks.  It was really a lot of fun<br />
arleen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Mosbacher, Executive at Large</title>
		<link>http://cookcountypd.org/blog/2009/07/17/summer-update/comment-page-1/#comment-4848</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Mosbacher, Executive at Large</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cookcountypd.org/blog/?p=508#comment-4848</guid>
		<description>Re: 1%

You can can put it on the board YES!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: 1%</p>
<p>You can can put it on the board YES!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
