By Kolby LaMarche

Burlington’s City Council approved a resolution Tuesday night supporting union contract negotiations at the University of Vermont Medical Center.

The non-binding measure urges the hospital to reach fair agreements with more than 3,700 workers represented by three different unions. It passed on a voice vote following a short but pointed discussion.

The issue stems from ongoing labor talks that began in January between UVMMC and the Committee of Interns and Residents. More recently, the Vermont Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals and Support Staff United started joint bargaining with the hospital. 

Together those groups make up over half of the non-management staff at Vermont’s largest medical center. 

Household income needed to buy a median home has jumped more than 60 percent since 2020, while actual incomes have risen less than 35 percent. 

Federal changes to Medicaid funding are expected to disrupt care for more than 170,000 Vermonters, including many hospital workers. This could mean patients delay treatment until conditions worsen, putting extra pressure on an already strained system and staff, like nurses. 

The state is also dealing with a primary care doctor shortage of 115 physicians that is only forecasted to grow. 

The resolution, sponsored by Progressives Carter Neubieser and Melo Grant, argues that fair pay, benefits, staffing, time off, housing access, and workplace safety are necessary to prevent burnout and keep skilled professionals in the area.

It also highlighted the broader economic benefit of raising worker wages and strengthening unions in the local economy, with the money being re-invested in the community, councilors claimed.  

The council agreed to send copies of the approved resolution to UVMMC leadership and the state’s Green Mountain Care Board.

During debate, however, Democrat Evan Litwin of Ward 7 challenged Progressive Councilor Carter Neubieser, the resolution’s sponsor. Litwin pointed out that Neubieser’s wife works for one of the unions involved in the talks and, in fact, Neubieser may be involved too, in his work within labor unions. 

He called it a conflict of interest and questioned whether the councilor could approach the issue with full impartiality.

.Neubieser, closing and opening his laptop a couple times during Litwin’s remarks, responded that his support came from years of concern about healthcare access and keeping medical talent in Vermont, not personal benefit. 

He maintained that councilors regularly vote on matters affecting their communities and added that there was no money attached to the resolution, thus – it seems – even if a conflict was present, Neubieser argued, it didn’t matter.

Burlington City Council follows Vermont’s statewide Municipal Code of Ethics. A conflict of interest exists when a public official or an immediate family member has a direct or indirect personal interest that could influence impartial decision-making. 

Those rules are not limited to issues involving city spending or budgets. They apply to any matter before the council, including non-binding resolutions, where there is a real or apparent conflict, according to state guidance.  

If a councilor’s spouse has an employment tie to an organization affected by the discussion, it may create an appearance of bias. In such cases, disclosure and possible recusal are generally expected, though seemingly not required.

Neubieser, who seemed frustrated by the comments, did not recuse himself as sponsor of the resolution nor did he recuse himself in a council vote.  

Democrats hold seven of the 12 seats after the most recent election. Neubieser, first elected in 2023 and reelected in 2025, remains one of the more vocal Progressives on labor topics.

A small number of union members and residents spoke or wrote in favor during public comment, describing long hours, staffing shortages, and the difficulty of living in Burlington on current wages. No one spoke against the resolution at the meeting.

After the vote, council leadership said the action shows support for essential workers without interfering directly in bargaining. Hospital officials have said in the past that talks are continuing in good faith.