Friday, May 28, 2010
Final report-out on National Bargaining
Brothers and Sisters,
** We WILL NOT BE ON THE TIME SYSTEM!
** We have kept all of our BENEFITS, INcluding ALL of our SICK Days!
** We got three years of raises,
** AND will be negotiating locally for a differential for the Chapter, for our HARD-to-FILL CLASSIFICATION!
At National Bargaining, management insisted on settling, and finalizing all, "economic" issues. They did not want to bargain locally on anything that would cost them money.
We negotiated one exception, for our Chapter!
The Medical Social Work Chapter will have the ability to negotiate over
one ADDITIONAL economic issue, which the bargaining team believes should be a wage differential for our Chapter, due to the fact that we are a, "Hard-to-Fill" classification.
THIS IS IN ADDITION TO OUR 3% WAGE INCREASE:
10/1/2010 3% Across the Board
10/1/2011 3% Across the Board
10/1/2012: 3% Across the Board, if no new National Agreement is reached in 2012,
You last heard from me on Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 11:35 PM. We had been in and out of bargaining/caucusing all day. We were called back to caucus at 1:30 AM, Friday morning (May 28, 2010), went back to sleep at about 2:30 AM only to be awakened at 3:00 AM for another caucus, specifically on the negotiation of our MSW issues.
We discussed, caucused, bargained until around 6:45 AM, had breakfast, and while returning to the 8:00 AM Coalition final planetary session, were handed the final agreement from management.
We were limited to one economic issue, and three non-economic issues.
We spent hours analyzing and costing out each item, we conference-called with bargaining unit members who were not present. We presented the following list to management.
The non-economic issues are broad, enabling us the ability to fold multiple issues into each category.
Management has agreed to BARGAIN locally with us, starting June 15-August 15, 2010.
These bargaining sessions will be conducted using Interest Based Bargaining, with a facilitator.
Our Medical Social Work Chapter will bargain on the following:
1. A Wage differential for ALL Medical Social Workers in the bargaining unit, based on our, "Hard-to-Fill" classification.
There were multiple economic issues we had to choose from. The reason why we choose the Hard-to-fill classification was that it would allow every single Medical Social Worker in our bargaining unit to get an additional raise, regardless of per Diem, short hour, regular full time, MSW or LCSW.
EVERY MEMBER OF OUR CHAPTER WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE THIS NEGOTIATED DIFFERENTIAL!
2. Job postings and bidding.
This may include (and is not limited to) our job descriptions included in the contract; postings to last 7 days as opposed to 5; the ability of OUR bargaining unit members to bid on, and hold more than one Medical Social Work position at a time.
If the held positions add up to 20 or more hours a week, the member would become a benefited employee. If the position requires the employee to travel between different medical facilities on the same day, Kaiser pays for travel time and mileage. The creation of contract language stating all new MSW positions for new programs, changed programs, or changes to job duties aside from those duties outlined in our job description, are subject to mandatory bargaining. (We actually got this language into the National Agreement).
3. Scope of Practice.
We need to define what we do as Medical Social Workers; MSW and LCSW, how our practice relates to Ca law, what differentiates us from all of the other disciplines, and diagnosis specific Social Work services. This will involve membership engagement, is a huge undertaking, and is long overdue.
4. The Professional Standards and Issues Committee converting to a Regional Labor Management Partnership Committee. Elections would be held for these seats. Agreements made on this committee would have enforceable language. This could be a structure for resolving such issues such as Staffing & Backfill. We could propose a sub-committee, the Contract Maintenance committee, to discuss and standardize contractual issues across the region. In this way, local contract interpretation would become standardized and not left up to different local Employee Labor Relations Consultants.
*************************************************************************************
The following is a summary of other important wins!
What we won in 2010 National Bargaining
Protected All Benefits:
No changes to existing benefits (Healthcare, Retiree Health, Pension).
Everything remains the same through September 30, 2013!
There will be a new joint committee that will examine current and future employee healthcare costs and ways to control cost increases in the future while preserving quality healthcare benefits for Kaiser employees, retirees and their families. Any recommendations must be made only with agreement by the unions and management. No changes to benefits will be implemented during the life of this Agreement.
Healthcare Reimbursement Account (HRA), from the 2008 Reopener, is now a part of the National Agreement. The HRA allows employees to convert 80% of unused sick time into an account to supplement existing medical, dental, and vision benefits after retirement.
Secured Long Term Job Security:
The Employment and Income Security Agreement will remain in effect. This Agreement guarantees at least one year of pay in the event of a position elimination. It also requires extensive efforts to redeploy workers into other comparable jobs rather than lay them off.
Added new language that requires the parties to engage in workforce development and planning (which includes education, training, and career counseling, among others) as soon as the union has been notified of the need for redeployment or position eliminations.
A top-level Committee of leaders in Kaiser and Partnership unions, called the Joint Strategic Initiative for Growth, will be established. This committee’s goal will be to ensure that Kaiser’s membership grows as a result of National Healthcare Reform and other changes in the healthcare market, thus enhancing the long-term job security of existing Kaiser employees.
Increased Wages:
10/1/2010 3% Across the Board
10/1/2011 3% Across the Board
10/1/2012: 3% Across the Board, if no new National Agreement is reached in 2012.
Improved Sick Day Cash-out:
Employees who have one year’s worth of sick leave in their sick leave bank since 2006 will be able to cash out up to 10 days of that time at an increased rate of 75% at the end of each year (up from 50%). If you don’t have a full year in the bank, you can still cash out up to 10 days of unused sick time at 50% (this does not apply to our Chapter).
Beginning in 2011, Sick days will now be frontloaded on the anniversary of the date of hire instead of on January 1st. To avoid any gaps or loss in sick time during the first year while Kaiser transitions to the new frontloading dates, Kaiser will frontload a pro-rated amount of sick days on January 1st and the full amount on your anniversary date of hire. (The Medical Social Workers already have this system in place).
o EXAMPLE: Jane Smith receives 12 sick days annually. Jane’s anniversary date of hire falls on July 1. In the first year, Jane will get 6 days of sick leave on January 1 and then she will get her full allotment of 12 days on July 1st.
Better Defined Performance Sharing Program (PSP):
New language to provide that PSP bonuses will be based as much as possible on goals that are more directly connected to your work.
New language to clarify that PSP factors are determined jointly by labor and management. They will be agreed on by the end of each year and communicated in January. Progress on meeting PSP goals will be reported quarterly to employees, where possible.
Strengthened Unit Based Teams (UBTs):
New language to affirm that UBTs are the operating model for Kaiser Permanente.
UBT goals need to be aligned with national, regional, facility and unit goals.
New language that clarifies the 5 levels of UBT performance and recommends steps to improve the performance of UBTs.
New goals and timelines over the next 3 years to increase the performance of UBTs.
UBTs will be rated and tracked in a uniform, national system, which will be able to track high-performing teams so they can be recognized and rewarded. Mechanisms will be developed to identify and support under-achieving UBTs.
Greater Accountability and Funding for the Labor Management Partnership:
Kaiser will increase its annual contribution to the LMP Trust to $10 million, which funds partnership activities, including LMP Trainings, UBT Trainings, Workforce Development, and many others.
All newly hired Partner union and management employees should be scheduled for LMP training within 4 months of hire.
A new committee was created to develop recommendations on how to build joint and direct accountability and for improving the Partnership, including a mechanism for frontline union workers and managers to give each other feedback on their partnership activity.
The Leaders of the LMP will sign the National Agreement to create greater accountability.
The Leaders of the LMP will work toward faster resolution of grievances and other disputes, resolving issues at the lowest level possible, providing necessary information to resolve disputes and empowering frontline managers and union stewards to solve problems collaboratively.
The LMP Strategy Group’s committee on Healthy Workforce and Attendance will now include a union member.
A new committee was created to address issues including staffing, backfill, and related budget matters. Continued Commitment to Education and Training:
Kaiser will contribute 0.27% of total annual payroll of coalition represented employees to the Education Trusts to fund education and training programs for Kaiser employees (SEIU – UHW-W & Joint Employer Education Fund).
National Agreement only for Partnership Unions:
New language states very clearly that the rights and benefits provided in the National Agreement only apply to workers represented by unions that are members of the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions.
Non-economic Local Bargaining to take place between June 15th and August 15th, 2010: (this list is for the Service Group)
Local bargaining will focus on the following issues:
o Best practices between NCAL and SCAL on identified non-economic issues
o Schedule changes and schedule postings
o Conversion of on-call employees from non-benefited to benefited status
o Creation of float pools by service area and/or multi-site where possible and by
mutual agreement
o Co-management of contract specialists
o More effective joint management of steward training time
o Transfer process
o Working outside of job description
Term of the Agreement--for all UHW bargaining units
2 years: 10/1/2010 – 9/30/2012
Local Agreements (which incorporate the wages and benefits of the National
Agreement) are extended for two years, now ending 9/30/2013.
All existing Sideletters and Memoranda of Agreement are extended with this
Agreement.
************************************************************************
The singed, Tentative Agreement document will be available at your local Contract Ratification/membership meetings--watch for the schedule!
In Unity, Rachelle
Monday, May 31, 2010
Day 12 of 2010 National Bargaining
National Bargaining update
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Brothers and Sisters,
I am totally exhausted and exhilarated at the same time. Today was incredible.
I lost track of how many times we met with management, had our UHW labor caucuses, and attended our labor Coalition caucuses.
I have never in my life had to think so hard, for so long about such important issues.
Nor have I had to sound calm and articulate, over a lengthy period of time while being basically brain-dead.
Thank goodness for my Sisters, Yolanda, Jenna and Alexandra I., who are all here as members of our local bargaining team/observers of the National Bargaining team, representing our Chapter. I am grateful for their support, wisdom and encouragement.
It makes a huge difference to have a group of Medical Social Workers present.
There isn't much I can report on today because we are still waiting for management to make up their minds about all we have presented them with. We still believe that we are headed in the right direction, or we wouldn't still be here.
I am just hoping that we get the good news sooner, rather than latter. It is already 11:35 PM and we are waiting to go back in to meet with management. I am told they can call us back to reconvene at any time during the night.
I will keep you posted.
In Unity, Rachelle
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Brothers and Sisters,
I am totally exhausted and exhilarated at the same time. Today was incredible.
I lost track of how many times we met with management, had our UHW labor caucuses, and attended our labor Coalition caucuses.
I have never in my life had to think so hard, for so long about such important issues.
Nor have I had to sound calm and articulate, over a lengthy period of time while being basically brain-dead.
Thank goodness for my Sisters, Yolanda, Jenna and Alexandra I., who are all here as members of our local bargaining team/observers of the National Bargaining team, representing our Chapter. I am grateful for their support, wisdom and encouragement.
It makes a huge difference to have a group of Medical Social Workers present.
There isn't much I can report on today because we are still waiting for management to make up their minds about all we have presented them with. We still believe that we are headed in the right direction, or we wouldn't still be here.
I am just hoping that we get the good news sooner, rather than latter. It is already 11:35 PM and we are waiting to go back in to meet with management. I am told they can call us back to reconvene at any time during the night.
I will keep you posted.
In Unity, Rachelle
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Day 11 of 2010 National Bargaining
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Brothers and Sisters,
My blog is a bit different today. I am starting it off with an email from a Sister Steward in Sacramento. She points out the difficulties we sometimes have with the consequences of bargaining Partnership principals and concepts in the National Agreement with one set of managers, and then being left to implement, as she puts it, “enforce” those bargained on principals’ with another set of managers.
I felt it was important to include her viewpoint and voice. As your elected representative, a good part of my "representative" duties are around moving forward the agenda of our Chapter/profession; providing a platform for our voices to be heard, our professional needs acknowledged, educating management on what we do and how we help Kaiser/our patients across the continuum, and increasing our professional visibility.
I then respond to her and give you an update on the events which transpired at bargaining today.
Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 2:00 pm
Subject: Re: Rachelle's blog from National Bargaining Day 10
Rachelle, Yolanda, Alex and Jenna; Hang in there! Appreciate all you efforts. It seems some of bargaining is scripted. Kaiser sends in their deal makers but then it must be approved by those in power; much like we have to get ratification from our membership. The difficulty is always; the contract brokers (be they Leadership or Upper management) cut the deals and then they are gone. On to other positions; other programs or out of the System and we are left with people who never really were the ones who bought into any of the bargaining issues. We are left with trying to enforce concepts and contracts. I hope that you know that we are all thinking about you and want to support you while you go through this process. Sandy G. /Sacramento
My response and the update:
Sandy,
Thanks, and yes, at times it does feel scripted and at other times it feels incredibly organic and spontaneous.
During these bargaining sessions, important changes to the National Agreement have been made around increasing the accountability of management, and implementing the process of the, “Partnership.”
You are so right about when all is said and done, that we are left with management who were never at the table during bargaining, to try and implement or, “enforce” what was agreed on.
Nothing like experiencing an, "enforced" Partnership.
Even sounds vaguely vulgar. Like an arranged marriage where neither party wants the chosen mate.
The bargained on agreements, that were agreed on, by consensus, by both labor and management in the Common Issues Committee, and then by the National Bargaining Coordinating Committee, are 35 pages long. A complete report will go out sometime shortly after Friday.
Some exciting news: I heard today that the Coalition and Kaiser have really appreciated our Social Work feedback and comments during these negotiations.
We have never had representation at National Bargaining. This session we have three observer/participants (Yolanda, Alex I., and Jenna) in addition to my participation as our representative.
I really think that our presence and voices have increased the "visibility" of Social Work, thereby adding value to our profession in the eyes of both management, and our brothers and sisters in the Coalition Unions.
Just this evening, I was told by a member of the Executive Strategy Committee (the highest Partnership committee) that Medical Social Workers need to be included on more regional committees because of our breath of knowledge, depth of ability to provide culturally competent care to multiple demographics, and, expertise in systems assessment/management.
A large majority of the 32 million people who are to become eligible for health care in July are of the MedCal/Medicare demographic. The reimbursement rate for this demographic is very small. These are the folks who we will be providing services to in the Special Needs Program. Kaiser has already admitted that they do not have the knowledge or the experience to provide excellent patient care to this patient population, while at the same time profiting, or even breaking even.
Who better to educate Kaiser, and demonstrate to them that we, as an organization can provide excellent patient care which is cost-effective, than Medical Social Workers? It isn’t always about the bottom line.
As far as today went, we had very intense and very sensitive discussions.
Caucusing, more labor caucusing, and more labor caucusing.
We believe that there still is a way to reach agreement on the National Agreement which adheres to our goals:
Raises, no takeaways, and increase our job security.
Therefore, we are still at the bargaining table and fighting hard, but smart, for all of us!
In Unity,
Rachelle
Brothers and Sisters,
My blog is a bit different today. I am starting it off with an email from a Sister Steward in Sacramento. She points out the difficulties we sometimes have with the consequences of bargaining Partnership principals and concepts in the National Agreement with one set of managers, and then being left to implement, as she puts it, “enforce” those bargained on principals’ with another set of managers.
I felt it was important to include her viewpoint and voice. As your elected representative, a good part of my "representative" duties are around moving forward the agenda of our Chapter/profession; providing a platform for our voices to be heard, our professional needs acknowledged, educating management on what we do and how we help Kaiser/our patients across the continuum, and increasing our professional visibility.
I then respond to her and give you an update on the events which transpired at bargaining today.
Sent: Wed, May 26, 2010 2:00 pm
Subject: Re: Rachelle's blog from National Bargaining Day 10
Rachelle, Yolanda, Alex and Jenna; Hang in there! Appreciate all you efforts. It seems some of bargaining is scripted. Kaiser sends in their deal makers but then it must be approved by those in power; much like we have to get ratification from our membership. The difficulty is always; the contract brokers (be they Leadership or Upper management) cut the deals and then they are gone. On to other positions; other programs or out of the System and we are left with people who never really were the ones who bought into any of the bargaining issues. We are left with trying to enforce concepts and contracts. I hope that you know that we are all thinking about you and want to support you while you go through this process. Sandy G. /Sacramento
My response and the update:
Sandy,
Thanks, and yes, at times it does feel scripted and at other times it feels incredibly organic and spontaneous.
During these bargaining sessions, important changes to the National Agreement have been made around increasing the accountability of management, and implementing the process of the, “Partnership.”
You are so right about when all is said and done, that we are left with management who were never at the table during bargaining, to try and implement or, “enforce” what was agreed on.
Nothing like experiencing an, "enforced" Partnership.
Even sounds vaguely vulgar. Like an arranged marriage where neither party wants the chosen mate.
The bargained on agreements, that were agreed on, by consensus, by both labor and management in the Common Issues Committee, and then by the National Bargaining Coordinating Committee, are 35 pages long. A complete report will go out sometime shortly after Friday.
Some exciting news: I heard today that the Coalition and Kaiser have really appreciated our Social Work feedback and comments during these negotiations.
We have never had representation at National Bargaining. This session we have three observer/participants (Yolanda, Alex I., and Jenna) in addition to my participation as our representative.
I really think that our presence and voices have increased the "visibility" of Social Work, thereby adding value to our profession in the eyes of both management, and our brothers and sisters in the Coalition Unions.
Just this evening, I was told by a member of the Executive Strategy Committee (the highest Partnership committee) that Medical Social Workers need to be included on more regional committees because of our breath of knowledge, depth of ability to provide culturally competent care to multiple demographics, and, expertise in systems assessment/management.
A large majority of the 32 million people who are to become eligible for health care in July are of the MedCal/Medicare demographic. The reimbursement rate for this demographic is very small. These are the folks who we will be providing services to in the Special Needs Program. Kaiser has already admitted that they do not have the knowledge or the experience to provide excellent patient care to this patient population, while at the same time profiting, or even breaking even.
Who better to educate Kaiser, and demonstrate to them that we, as an organization can provide excellent patient care which is cost-effective, than Medical Social Workers? It isn’t always about the bottom line.
As far as today went, we had very intense and very sensitive discussions.
Caucusing, more labor caucusing, and more labor caucusing.
We believe that there still is a way to reach agreement on the National Agreement which adheres to our goals:
Raises, no takeaways, and increase our job security.
Therefore, we are still at the bargaining table and fighting hard, but smart, for all of us!
In Unity,
Rachelle
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Day 10 of 2010 National Bargaining
Tuesday, May 25, 2101
Over the last two weeks the writing team has been working nonstop to craft the language around the concepts we agreed on with management during our last bargaining session. They have been working hard to navigate where in the National Agreement our recommendations should be added, fit in the changes to the existing language, and organize our other recommendations such as the signing of the National Agreement. Those agreements were important and precedent setting.
Today in our Coalition labor caucus, the writing team presented the results of their work. Additionally, they shared the process of working with the National Bargaining Coordinating Committee (senior labor and senior management leaders) for about ten hours yesterday.
Some of these, "senior management leaders" had not participated in our bargaining sessions, nor had they participated on our subcommittees. Because they had not participated, and apparently did not understand or agree with some of the, “agreements” made by their own managers, our "agreements" which we already had agreement on, were seemingly open to debate. Seems that these, "senior management leaders," are the true, "decision makers." Reportedly, labor prevailed on most accounts, yet a few of our previously agreed on issues were moved to the, “unresolved” list.
Once again, as I previously stated in my earlier blogs, for the better part of most of bargaining, we have been negotiating with the, non-decision makers.
Now, finally, we have the decision makers in the room.
In the Coalition labor caucus, we went through all of the agreements, language changes, additions and unresolved issues. We came to consensus on the agreements, strategized on how to get the most important unresolved issues back on the table and agreed to scrap others.
Then we waited, and waited and waited for management.
When we finally met with them (close to 5:00 PM), we went through the same process. We gained consensus on all of the newly crafted agreement language and changes, and went through the unresolved issues list. Additionally, we presented ways in which some of the unresolved issues could become resolved through the creation of subcommittees here at bargaining and in the Executive Strategy Committee. We once again gained consensus on the signing of the National Agreement by the Common Issues Committee.
Then, rather than spend time on the unresolved issues, we wanted to go straight into wages and benefits.
After all, we need to know that management is in agreement with not trying to get concessions (impose co-pays or rescind some of our retiree benefits). Because if we don’t get that agreement, then we won’t have a National Agreement settlement because we will walk away from the table.
So, some time after 9:00 PM senior labor leaders were sending a message to the senior management leaders (the decision makers who are finally here with us) that we are calling the question: Are we here to settle this without loosing any benefits or not.
Until tomorrow, my brothers and sisters,
In Unity, Rachelle
Over the last two weeks the writing team has been working nonstop to craft the language around the concepts we agreed on with management during our last bargaining session. They have been working hard to navigate where in the National Agreement our recommendations should be added, fit in the changes to the existing language, and organize our other recommendations such as the signing of the National Agreement. Those agreements were important and precedent setting.
Today in our Coalition labor caucus, the writing team presented the results of their work. Additionally, they shared the process of working with the National Bargaining Coordinating Committee (senior labor and senior management leaders) for about ten hours yesterday.
Some of these, "senior management leaders" had not participated in our bargaining sessions, nor had they participated on our subcommittees. Because they had not participated, and apparently did not understand or agree with some of the, “agreements” made by their own managers, our "agreements" which we already had agreement on, were seemingly open to debate. Seems that these, "senior management leaders," are the true, "decision makers." Reportedly, labor prevailed on most accounts, yet a few of our previously agreed on issues were moved to the, “unresolved” list.
Once again, as I previously stated in my earlier blogs, for the better part of most of bargaining, we have been negotiating with the, non-decision makers.
Now, finally, we have the decision makers in the room.
In the Coalition labor caucus, we went through all of the agreements, language changes, additions and unresolved issues. We came to consensus on the agreements, strategized on how to get the most important unresolved issues back on the table and agreed to scrap others.
Then we waited, and waited and waited for management.
When we finally met with them (close to 5:00 PM), we went through the same process. We gained consensus on all of the newly crafted agreement language and changes, and went through the unresolved issues list. Additionally, we presented ways in which some of the unresolved issues could become resolved through the creation of subcommittees here at bargaining and in the Executive Strategy Committee. We once again gained consensus on the signing of the National Agreement by the Common Issues Committee.
Then, rather than spend time on the unresolved issues, we wanted to go straight into wages and benefits.
After all, we need to know that management is in agreement with not trying to get concessions (impose co-pays or rescind some of our retiree benefits). Because if we don’t get that agreement, then we won’t have a National Agreement settlement because we will walk away from the table.
So, some time after 9:00 PM senior labor leaders were sending a message to the senior management leaders (the decision makers who are finally here with us) that we are calling the question: Are we here to settle this without loosing any benefits or not.
Until tomorrow, my brothers and sisters,
In Unity, Rachelle
Friday, May 7, 2010
Day 9 of 2010 National Bargaining
Brothers and Sisters,
May 6, 2010
Today we met with all of management. I was expecting a long drawn-out battle, compromises, suggestions of takeaways, and disappointment.
When the spokesperson for management calmly got up in front of our bargaining team and stated that management accepted our recommendations, you could hear a pin drop in the room. I thought that there had to be a catch. I couldn't be hearing it correctly.
I was speechless.
For those of you who know me, I am not speechless on many occasions.
So I can now say with confidence that the long description of what we bargained on below has been accepted and agreed to by Kaiser.
The actual contract language that will go into the National Agreement will be worked on over the next two weeks. When we come back together again on May 25-27 for our last session of bargaining on wages and benefits, we will review this language, revise as necessary, and decide by consensus if it is acceptable.
In Unity,
Rachelle
May 6, 2010
Today we met with all of management. I was expecting a long drawn-out battle, compromises, suggestions of takeaways, and disappointment.
When the spokesperson for management calmly got up in front of our bargaining team and stated that management accepted our recommendations, you could hear a pin drop in the room. I thought that there had to be a catch. I couldn't be hearing it correctly.
I was speechless.
For those of you who know me, I am not speechless on many occasions.
So I can now say with confidence that the long description of what we bargained on below has been accepted and agreed to by Kaiser.
The actual contract language that will go into the National Agreement will be worked on over the next two weeks. When we come back together again on May 25-27 for our last session of bargaining on wages and benefits, we will review this language, revise as necessary, and decide by consensus if it is acceptable.
In Unity,
Rachelle
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Days 7-8 of 2010 National Bargaining
May 4, 2010-May 5, 2010
The following recommendations listed below, will be presented to Management in the Common Issues Committee this morning (May 6, 2010). Although very positive, until we convene with all of management, and agreement is reached by consensus, this list of recommendations and agreements are tentative and pending.
Thus far, our labor/management Common Issues Committee Subgroups, through the use of interest based bargaining, came to consensus on these recommendations.
These recommendations were then discussed and agreed to, by consensus, in a labor caucus, which included all of the labor representatives in the Coalition unions who participated on the subgroups.
Personally, as a participant in the LMP subgroup, I thoroughly enjoyed the exhilarated exhaustion I experienced as a result of bargaining with my brothers and sisters.
The management team in our subgroup was respectful, engaged and articulate. They demonstrated a genuine appreciation for the process and an investment in the outcome.
Not only did we use the principals of interest based bargaining, in many instances, we jointly bargained from the context of the value compass, agreeing that both labor and managements gains needed to benefit our patients. Humm…a new phrase for inclusion of the value compass in bargaining: “integrated interest based bargaining.”
Attendance Subgroup
Yolanda Esparza, MSW, Local Bargaining Member Observer, reports:
WE ARE NOT LOSING OUR SICK DAYS
WE ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO GO ON PTO
We continue to be left alone with regard to our current sick leave and vacation benefits.
Consensus was reached on increasing the amount of sick time that our brother and sister in the purple book can sell back from 50% to 75%
Workforce Planning and Development Subgroup
Alexandra Ivonosky, LCSW, Local MSW Bargaining Member Observer reports:
Consensus was reached to recommend addressing the gaps and needs in the following areas:
Communication Jointly develop an overall Workforce Planning and Development communication s Strategy for the entire organization led by National Workforce Planning and Development, with Regional participation.
Redeployment The sentence, “…Once the local union has been notified of the need for redeployment or position elimination, WFPD will be engaged,” will be added to the National Agreement.
HARD-TO-FILL JOBS “Within six months of the execution of the National Agreement, WFPD will establish an on-going, joint, cross-regional taskforce through the term of this agreement to include representatives from Recruitment and other key operational and labor leaders. This taskforce will identify barriers to filling hard-to-fill positions, designated by the regional Workforce Planning and Development teams. The taskforce will develop a business case for funding and recommendations such as, but not limited to
Preceptorships, intern programs, experience requirements…
MEDICAL SOCIAL WORK POSITIONS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE, HARD-TO-FILL, CATEGORY.
This is a huge success for us! It opens up potential funding and assistance with recruitment, retention and professional advancement within the Kaiser system.
Education Trusts Consensus was reached on services provided by both Trusts.
Base Services and Variable Services. Base included, but was not limited to, Cohort Training, Professional development, Hard-to-fill/critical Needs. Variable included, but was not limited to, the increased need for educational implications of unforeseen events, such as the need for staffing of new facilities, the impact of health care reform in the US. The base service funding agreement was that annual funding should be based on a percentage of payroll. Consensus was not reached on funding of the Variable Services and will go to the larger CIC group.
Performance Improvement
Consensus was reached that all newly hired Partner employees should be scheduled to receive Labor Management Partnership training within four months of being hired. As sponsors, the appropriate LMP leadership will be accountable to ensure the takes place.
Language is needed to clarify the current “3% payout at target…” on page 85 of the National Agreement, to better educate us all. The current language is unclear. There is to be no change to any of the allocation, process, practices, or mechanisms.
Labor Management Partnership Subgroup
Joint Accountability for Partnership Success The leaders of KP, the Permanente Medical Groups, the Coalition Union and the members of the CIC should sign the National Agreement.
A joint committee should be formed to develop and implement a means to build direct accountability for improving the partnership, including a method for front line leaders to provide reciprocal feedback.
Consistent and Transparent Communication Support the work of the Executive Committee of the Strategy Group to: Raise the consciousness of the “middles” (physicians, middle management, HR, ELRC’s, labor representatives). Develop educational curricula for business literacy, union literacy and contract literacy.
Timely Resolution of Disputes Encourage resolving issues at the lowest possible level. Disclose information needed to resolve problems. Empower and prepare front line representative and mangers to solve problems.
Recommend the development of a scorecard to monitor performance on timely and effective processing of grievances (HR). Creation of a joint oversight committee to monitor grievances for timeliness and removal of barriers. Expedited arbitration for all open cases.
Partnership Funding Expand the trust resources to at least maintain current operations and continue to build support for the UBT’s and for the advancement of the Partnership.
Funding to be determined by the CIC.
I have not included all the recommendations reached by consensus in our subgroups, or all of the recommendations discussed, and agreed on, in our labor caucus. That said, the information given is detailed and should provide a context highlighting how we as Medical Social Workers could be affected, thus far, by the work in National Bargaining.
In Unity,
Rachelle
The following recommendations listed below, will be presented to Management in the Common Issues Committee this morning (May 6, 2010). Although very positive, until we convene with all of management, and agreement is reached by consensus, this list of recommendations and agreements are tentative and pending.
Thus far, our labor/management Common Issues Committee Subgroups, through the use of interest based bargaining, came to consensus on these recommendations.
These recommendations were then discussed and agreed to, by consensus, in a labor caucus, which included all of the labor representatives in the Coalition unions who participated on the subgroups.
Personally, as a participant in the LMP subgroup, I thoroughly enjoyed the exhilarated exhaustion I experienced as a result of bargaining with my brothers and sisters.
The management team in our subgroup was respectful, engaged and articulate. They demonstrated a genuine appreciation for the process and an investment in the outcome.
Not only did we use the principals of interest based bargaining, in many instances, we jointly bargained from the context of the value compass, agreeing that both labor and managements gains needed to benefit our patients. Humm…a new phrase for inclusion of the value compass in bargaining: “integrated interest based bargaining.”
Attendance Subgroup
Yolanda Esparza, MSW, Local Bargaining Member Observer, reports:
WE ARE NOT LOSING OUR SICK DAYS
WE ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO GO ON PTO
We continue to be left alone with regard to our current sick leave and vacation benefits.
Consensus was reached on increasing the amount of sick time that our brother and sister in the purple book can sell back from 50% to 75%
Workforce Planning and Development Subgroup
Alexandra Ivonosky, LCSW, Local MSW Bargaining Member Observer reports:
Consensus was reached to recommend addressing the gaps and needs in the following areas:
Communication Jointly develop an overall Workforce Planning and Development communication s Strategy for the entire organization led by National Workforce Planning and Development, with Regional participation.
Redeployment The sentence, “…Once the local union has been notified of the need for redeployment or position elimination, WFPD will be engaged,” will be added to the National Agreement.
HARD-TO-FILL JOBS “Within six months of the execution of the National Agreement, WFPD will establish an on-going, joint, cross-regional taskforce through the term of this agreement to include representatives from Recruitment and other key operational and labor leaders. This taskforce will identify barriers to filling hard-to-fill positions, designated by the regional Workforce Planning and Development teams. The taskforce will develop a business case for funding and recommendations such as, but not limited to
Preceptorships, intern programs, experience requirements…
MEDICAL SOCIAL WORK POSITIONS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE, HARD-TO-FILL, CATEGORY.
This is a huge success for us! It opens up potential funding and assistance with recruitment, retention and professional advancement within the Kaiser system.
Education Trusts Consensus was reached on services provided by both Trusts.
Base Services and Variable Services. Base included, but was not limited to, Cohort Training, Professional development, Hard-to-fill/critical Needs. Variable included, but was not limited to, the increased need for educational implications of unforeseen events, such as the need for staffing of new facilities, the impact of health care reform in the US. The base service funding agreement was that annual funding should be based on a percentage of payroll. Consensus was not reached on funding of the Variable Services and will go to the larger CIC group.
Performance Improvement
Consensus was reached that all newly hired Partner employees should be scheduled to receive Labor Management Partnership training within four months of being hired. As sponsors, the appropriate LMP leadership will be accountable to ensure the takes place.
Language is needed to clarify the current “3% payout at target…” on page 85 of the National Agreement, to better educate us all. The current language is unclear. There is to be no change to any of the allocation, process, practices, or mechanisms.
Labor Management Partnership Subgroup
Joint Accountability for Partnership Success The leaders of KP, the Permanente Medical Groups, the Coalition Union and the members of the CIC should sign the National Agreement.
A joint committee should be formed to develop and implement a means to build direct accountability for improving the partnership, including a method for front line leaders to provide reciprocal feedback.
Consistent and Transparent Communication Support the work of the Executive Committee of the Strategy Group to: Raise the consciousness of the “middles” (physicians, middle management, HR, ELRC’s, labor representatives). Develop educational curricula for business literacy, union literacy and contract literacy.
Timely Resolution of Disputes Encourage resolving issues at the lowest possible level. Disclose information needed to resolve problems. Empower and prepare front line representative and mangers to solve problems.
Recommend the development of a scorecard to monitor performance on timely and effective processing of grievances (HR). Creation of a joint oversight committee to monitor grievances for timeliness and removal of barriers. Expedited arbitration for all open cases.
Partnership Funding Expand the trust resources to at least maintain current operations and continue to build support for the UBT’s and for the advancement of the Partnership.
Funding to be determined by the CIC.
I have not included all the recommendations reached by consensus in our subgroups, or all of the recommendations discussed, and agreed on, in our labor caucus. That said, the information given is detailed and should provide a context highlighting how we as Medical Social Workers could be affected, thus far, by the work in National Bargaining.
In Unity,
Rachelle
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Days 5 & 6 of 2010 National Bargaining
April 21, 2010 & April 22, 2010
The National Agreement is an amazing document. Our Partnership with management, although significantly lacking in some areas, is preeminent in laying out the groundwork for a strategic business plan to advance Kaiser and engage labor at every level.
Yet, does management partner with management?
We as labor, pride ourselves in our caucuses where all may have a voice and be heard.
We as labor do not speak for all of labor, prior to having these caucuses.
Only then do we put our collective bargaining choices to the membership for a vote.
Management on the other hand does not seem to take breaks during bargaining to talk to each other about each others opinions.
One Management leader talks for most of management.
That is traditional bargaining as opposed to interest based bargaining.
They strive, during bargaining, to hear labor; yet they do not seem to strive to hear one another.
How can they truly partner with labor if they are not treated as partners themselves, by each other?
Labor expects, and at times, demands, partnering behaviors from our managers on the front line. These managers, in turn, do not seem to engage in partnering relationships with their peers or with the managers above them. Their management structure is still based on the old Military model.
How crazy is this?
On April 21 & 22, in my Labor Management Partnership Common Issues Committee (LMP/CIC)we spent a lot of time discussing what management described as, the “Middles,” who are the front line managers, middle managers, and physicians.
These “Middles” were identified as the group most in need of increased education on Union literacy, Contract literacy, Partnership Behaviors and the National Agreement.
These “Middles” were also identified as the least accountable in their LMP behaviors.
It strikes me as incredibly ironic that our bargaining team (labor and management)has identified, this "Middle" Kaiser demographic, as a significant barrier to the success of the Partnership. These "Middles" are those who are the least partnered with, by each other or by their senior leadership. Who from management is modeling partnership behaviors for them?
Of course I am being presumptuous.
The word, "scapegoat" comes to mind.
That being said, these "Middles" do need to be held accountable to the LMP, continuously, and supported towards that end.
On April 21st, we as labor, jointly,spent time brainstorming through all of our previous interests, and agreed on a condensed list of our options:
*Make the Partnership Better
Jointly develop and implement the following annual (or?)trainings:
The "Partnership" business plan for educating the "middles"/timeline and accountability's--the Partnership is not an option
Curriculum on business literacy for labor
Curriculum on union literacy for management
Curriculum on contract literacy for management provided jointly by labor and management (not just at the Masses meetings)
Metrics for accountability -- a way of measuring if management is partnering.
Curriculum for contract literacy--mandatory/annual compliance trainings for managers on the partnership
*Position Partnership for future success and provide job security:
More funding from Kaiser
Jointly research how to deliver high quality health care
Jointly work on the infrastructure to advance the KP model externally
Work together through public policy to counter the health care systems that are not providing quality health care and are ripping off the public and the system.
Jointly create goals, benchmarks, and Metrics
Work together to capture the 32 million Americans who will soon be eligible for health care.
Adequate partnership funding
*Grow the Union Membership:
Beef up the neutrality provisions of the National Agreement.
Accrete LMP positions doing bargaining unit work.
Guarantee Union leave time off for the purpose of organizing Union eligible KP positions.
*Jointly establish goals/benchmarks for high performing UBT's over the term of the new contract.
*Incorporate the a high level of commitment into the National Agreement such as having the it signed by Kaiser, Coalition and Union leaders.
*Interest Based Bargaining at all levels with facilitation provided for all sessions by OLMP.
Timeline for decisions on grievances (with penalty).
Union delegated partner for each manager.
LMP activity at the local level is funded by the business.
We presented our list to management. They were impressed, as we had concrete, documented examples of how to achieve our goals.
End of Day 5.
On April 22, we waited for management to present their options.
And we waited, and we waited.
They arrived at 11:50.
They were happy and bubbly.
They responded to our options by saying that the level of alignment in what we(labor and management) want to do is strong, real and concrete.
Then they proceeded to be non-committal on all suggestions aside from those already in the National Agreement.
Why is it that the themes I keep hearing from management, at every level of bargaining is that they don’t think that they have enough of the right information they need to make decisions, they may not have the right people in the room, and that they are not sure if, “this bargaining forum” is the right place to be discussing and deciding on the issues labor is bringing up?
It’s easy to talk about strengthening, fixing and making better what already is.
It isn't easy talking about doing business differently so we can continue to strengthening, fix and making better what already is.
We want to expand the partnership because we want to help Kaiser capture the market of the 32 million Americans who will soon be eligible for health care.
There is no reason why we cannot work on both our internal partnership challenges while at the same time helping Kaiser grow the membership.
Management then presented their options:
* They need to be able to rely on and move forward on decisions made with their union partners.
* They want to work together to enhance flexibility.
* They want to share and adopt best practices relative to quality, service, affordability and best place to work to better serve our patient and members.
Hum…"flexibility," the, “f” word. A code word for management wanting us to allow them the, “flexibility” to violate the contract to suit their operational needs. We, as labor, know this is unacceptable, and have already voiced such. Yet, flexibility language does exist in the National Agreement. Thus,this should provide a colorful context when resuming negotiations at our next bargaining session.
End of Day 6.
In Unity, Rachelle
The National Agreement is an amazing document. Our Partnership with management, although significantly lacking in some areas, is preeminent in laying out the groundwork for a strategic business plan to advance Kaiser and engage labor at every level.
Yet, does management partner with management?
We as labor, pride ourselves in our caucuses where all may have a voice and be heard.
We as labor do not speak for all of labor, prior to having these caucuses.
Only then do we put our collective bargaining choices to the membership for a vote.
Management on the other hand does not seem to take breaks during bargaining to talk to each other about each others opinions.
One Management leader talks for most of management.
That is traditional bargaining as opposed to interest based bargaining.
They strive, during bargaining, to hear labor; yet they do not seem to strive to hear one another.
How can they truly partner with labor if they are not treated as partners themselves, by each other?
Labor expects, and at times, demands, partnering behaviors from our managers on the front line. These managers, in turn, do not seem to engage in partnering relationships with their peers or with the managers above them. Their management structure is still based on the old Military model.
How crazy is this?
On April 21 & 22, in my Labor Management Partnership Common Issues Committee (LMP/CIC)we spent a lot of time discussing what management described as, the “Middles,” who are the front line managers, middle managers, and physicians.
These “Middles” were identified as the group most in need of increased education on Union literacy, Contract literacy, Partnership Behaviors and the National Agreement.
These “Middles” were also identified as the least accountable in their LMP behaviors.
It strikes me as incredibly ironic that our bargaining team (labor and management)has identified, this "Middle" Kaiser demographic, as a significant barrier to the success of the Partnership. These "Middles" are those who are the least partnered with, by each other or by their senior leadership. Who from management is modeling partnership behaviors for them?
Of course I am being presumptuous.
The word, "scapegoat" comes to mind.
That being said, these "Middles" do need to be held accountable to the LMP, continuously, and supported towards that end.
On April 21st, we as labor, jointly,spent time brainstorming through all of our previous interests, and agreed on a condensed list of our options:
*Make the Partnership Better
Jointly develop and implement the following annual (or?)trainings:
The "Partnership" business plan for educating the "middles"/timeline and accountability's--the Partnership is not an option
Curriculum on business literacy for labor
Curriculum on union literacy for management
Curriculum on contract literacy for management provided jointly by labor and management (not just at the Masses meetings)
Metrics for accountability -- a way of measuring if management is partnering.
Curriculum for contract literacy--mandatory/annual compliance trainings for managers on the partnership
*Position Partnership for future success and provide job security:
More funding from Kaiser
Jointly research how to deliver high quality health care
Jointly work on the infrastructure to advance the KP model externally
Work together through public policy to counter the health care systems that are not providing quality health care and are ripping off the public and the system.
Jointly create goals, benchmarks, and Metrics
Work together to capture the 32 million Americans who will soon be eligible for health care.
Adequate partnership funding
*Grow the Union Membership:
Beef up the neutrality provisions of the National Agreement.
Accrete LMP positions doing bargaining unit work.
Guarantee Union leave time off for the purpose of organizing Union eligible KP positions.
*Jointly establish goals/benchmarks for high performing UBT's over the term of the new contract.
*Incorporate the a high level of commitment into the National Agreement such as having the it signed by Kaiser, Coalition and Union leaders.
*Interest Based Bargaining at all levels with facilitation provided for all sessions by OLMP.
Timeline for decisions on grievances (with penalty).
Union delegated partner for each manager.
LMP activity at the local level is funded by the business.
We presented our list to management. They were impressed, as we had concrete, documented examples of how to achieve our goals.
End of Day 5.
On April 22, we waited for management to present their options.
And we waited, and we waited.
They arrived at 11:50.
They were happy and bubbly.
They responded to our options by saying that the level of alignment in what we(labor and management) want to do is strong, real and concrete.
Then they proceeded to be non-committal on all suggestions aside from those already in the National Agreement.
Why is it that the themes I keep hearing from management, at every level of bargaining is that they don’t think that they have enough of the right information they need to make decisions, they may not have the right people in the room, and that they are not sure if, “this bargaining forum” is the right place to be discussing and deciding on the issues labor is bringing up?
It’s easy to talk about strengthening, fixing and making better what already is.
It isn't easy talking about doing business differently so we can continue to strengthening, fix and making better what already is.
We want to expand the partnership because we want to help Kaiser capture the market of the 32 million Americans who will soon be eligible for health care.
There is no reason why we cannot work on both our internal partnership challenges while at the same time helping Kaiser grow the membership.
Management then presented their options:
* They need to be able to rely on and move forward on decisions made with their union partners.
* They want to work together to enhance flexibility.
* They want to share and adopt best practices relative to quality, service, affordability and best place to work to better serve our patient and members.
Hum…"flexibility," the, “f” word. A code word for management wanting us to allow them the, “flexibility” to violate the contract to suit their operational needs. We, as labor, know this is unacceptable, and have already voiced such. Yet, flexibility language does exist in the National Agreement. Thus,this should provide a colorful context when resuming negotiations at our next bargaining session.
End of Day 6.
In Unity, Rachelle
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Day 4 of 2010 National Bargaining
April 20, 2010
Brothers and Sisters,
Even for a Social Worker, sometimes going through a known process is very difficult. Interest Based Bargaining is a process which requires patience, stamina and the ability to keep focused on our objectives:
Raises, no take-aways, and job security.
Today in the LMP Common Issues Committee labor and management shared interests, asked each other questions to gain a better understanding of each others interests, and looked for and identified commonalities. The idea was not to necessarily gain support for each others interests, but to further develop our relationship through a sense of understanding for these interests. Jumping straight to options and solutions bypasses the opportunity for gaining an understanding of a perspective other than ones own.
And it can also be tedious, boring and at times very frustrating.
We found that we had many interests in common, got hung up on wording and bordered on forgetting that we only disagree with each other in our caucus.
Management gave us a financial presentation on the LMP Trust and educated us on additional the funding of the Partnership and where that funding comes from. Apparently there are three "buckets." The LMP Trust, the Union and Kaiser.
It was very enlightening and yet I felt it wasn't sufficient to labors needs. We could have benefited from further education, or perhaps being given this information sooner.
We learned about the various supportive constructs in place that are designed specifically to grow the Partnership, of the quantitative date that is used to determine success or the need for improvement. I was amazed at number of resources available, and of the programs we fund through the LMP Trust.
Management shared a draft of their vision for the future created out of a recent Kaiser Permanente Leadership Retreat in which they met with leaders from the Permanente Medical Groups, the Kaiser foundation Health Plan, and the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions to refine how they will address our challenges and seize opportunities together in partnership. The summary outlined the steps they determined we need to take to actualize their vision and used phrases such as, "We'll demonstrate leadership by turning intentions into action."
Lastly, during our final labor caucus, we decided if we needed more data to facilitate our process.
There were times throughout the day when labor definitely disagreed with each other. Yet we still moved forward. We spoke our minds, got over it, and continue to keep focused: Raises, no take-aways, and job security.
In Unity Rachelle
Brothers and Sisters,
Even for a Social Worker, sometimes going through a known process is very difficult. Interest Based Bargaining is a process which requires patience, stamina and the ability to keep focused on our objectives:
Raises, no take-aways, and job security.
Today in the LMP Common Issues Committee labor and management shared interests, asked each other questions to gain a better understanding of each others interests, and looked for and identified commonalities. The idea was not to necessarily gain support for each others interests, but to further develop our relationship through a sense of understanding for these interests. Jumping straight to options and solutions bypasses the opportunity for gaining an understanding of a perspective other than ones own.
And it can also be tedious, boring and at times very frustrating.
We found that we had many interests in common, got hung up on wording and bordered on forgetting that we only disagree with each other in our caucus.
Management gave us a financial presentation on the LMP Trust and educated us on additional the funding of the Partnership and where that funding comes from. Apparently there are three "buckets." The LMP Trust, the Union and Kaiser.
It was very enlightening and yet I felt it wasn't sufficient to labors needs. We could have benefited from further education, or perhaps being given this information sooner.
We learned about the various supportive constructs in place that are designed specifically to grow the Partnership, of the quantitative date that is used to determine success or the need for improvement. I was amazed at number of resources available, and of the programs we fund through the LMP Trust.
Management shared a draft of their vision for the future created out of a recent Kaiser Permanente Leadership Retreat in which they met with leaders from the Permanente Medical Groups, the Kaiser foundation Health Plan, and the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions to refine how they will address our challenges and seize opportunities together in partnership. The summary outlined the steps they determined we need to take to actualize their vision and used phrases such as, "We'll demonstrate leadership by turning intentions into action."
Lastly, during our final labor caucus, we decided if we needed more data to facilitate our process.
There were times throughout the day when labor definitely disagreed with each other. Yet we still moved forward. We spoke our minds, got over it, and continue to keep focused: Raises, no take-aways, and job security.
In Unity Rachelle
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Day 3 of 2010 National Bargaining
Raises, no takeaways, and create long term job security by expanding the Partnership externally. These are the three big issues we, as labor, all agree we want to get out of National Bargaining. Specifically:
Raises across the board.
No takeaways, including our sick leave.
Expanding the Partnership jointly with management to include capturing our market share of the 32 million soon-to-be-insured Americans, thereby "growing Kaiser's membership" and creating long term job security.
As we are in Interest Based Bargaining, the goal of today was for labor and management to finish developing our interests separately and then to present them to each other and try to "understand" each other’s perspective. The goal was not necessarily to agree with each others interests but at least to understand them. Some groups were able to finish, others were not.
Some groups came up with lists of 34 Interests and others distilled them down to smaller categories. None of the groups were able to move on to the next step in the process where we would have moved towards gaining consensus with management on common options.
The Attendance CIC labor participants related that one of the first interests management presented was to put everyone on PTO and stop giving us our sick time at the beginning of the year. Labor and management in this group also chose to disregard the process and create a list of interests together, instead of separately. Labor is very clear that "no takeaways" includes not changing our current vacation/sick time structure.
The Workforce Development CIC (Central Issues Committee) apparently had a very colorful day, debating and developing their Interests.
The PSP CIC reported that they also worked to develop their interests and did multiple information requests.
In the LMP CIC, I was surprised at how similar our interests were to managements. Basically we had two categories: One for internal partnership interests and one for external partnership interests.
The theme that seemed to echo through all of the CIC's was that the National Agreement is a sound document that doesn't necessarily need to be changed. That said, it does need to be actualized at every level in Kaiser, and by all levels of management and executives.
Ideas such as having the National Agreement signed, managers getting annual Partnership training and competency evaluations on their partnering behaviors implemented by labor, and having their Partnership performance tied into their bonuses were all discussed.
Accountability is a huge issue around the National Agreement and one that is shared by all four CIC's.
The day wrapped up in a large labor caucus where all had a chance to voice concerns, observation, and suggestions.
The next bargaining session is April 20-22 in San Francisco.
In Unity,
Rachelle
Raises across the board.
No takeaways, including our sick leave.
Expanding the Partnership jointly with management to include capturing our market share of the 32 million soon-to-be-insured Americans, thereby "growing Kaiser's membership" and creating long term job security.
As we are in Interest Based Bargaining, the goal of today was for labor and management to finish developing our interests separately and then to present them to each other and try to "understand" each other’s perspective. The goal was not necessarily to agree with each others interests but at least to understand them. Some groups were able to finish, others were not.
Some groups came up with lists of 34 Interests and others distilled them down to smaller categories. None of the groups were able to move on to the next step in the process where we would have moved towards gaining consensus with management on common options.
The Attendance CIC labor participants related that one of the first interests management presented was to put everyone on PTO and stop giving us our sick time at the beginning of the year. Labor and management in this group also chose to disregard the process and create a list of interests together, instead of separately. Labor is very clear that "no takeaways" includes not changing our current vacation/sick time structure.
The Workforce Development CIC (Central Issues Committee) apparently had a very colorful day, debating and developing their Interests.
The PSP CIC reported that they also worked to develop their interests and did multiple information requests.
In the LMP CIC, I was surprised at how similar our interests were to managements. Basically we had two categories: One for internal partnership interests and one for external partnership interests.
The theme that seemed to echo through all of the CIC's was that the National Agreement is a sound document that doesn't necessarily need to be changed. That said, it does need to be actualized at every level in Kaiser, and by all levels of management and executives.
Ideas such as having the National Agreement signed, managers getting annual Partnership training and competency evaluations on their partnering behaviors implemented by labor, and having their Partnership performance tied into their bonuses were all discussed.
Accountability is a huge issue around the National Agreement and one that is shared by all four CIC's.
The day wrapped up in a large labor caucus where all had a chance to voice concerns, observation, and suggestions.
The next bargaining session is April 20-22 in San Francisco.
In Unity,
Rachelle
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Day 2 of 2010 National Bargaining
Tuesday April 7, 2010
Logistics: 24 elected Union Brothers and Sisters on Common Issues Committees, (CIC's), and 97 Observers from local UHW bargaining teams.
Common Issues Committees: Workforce Planning and Development, Attendance, Performance Improvement & Performance Sharing Program, (PSP), and Labor Management Partnership, (LMP).
The CIC's are the labor participants with management on the above four committees. The Observers are also divided between the groups and although in the rooms where the committees meet, do not sit at the table with the CIC's and management. They participate verbally during labor caucus's or pass notes to labor representatives during sessions with management.
I am participating as a CIC representative on the LMP committee.
Today was the foundation training for the CIC's. This session was intended to provide the grounding for bargaining and interest-based bargaining, (IBB). All bargaining guidelines were discussed and agree to by consensus.
The timeline for National Bargaining is to expedite the process and finish by the end of May.
For the first time since this kick-off session began, I can feel the tension in the room.
I look around to see who joins me on the LMP committee. Dave Regan, SEIU-UHW Trustee is one of our labor Co-Leads. Therese Flemming, the IBHS Contract Specialist and Marilyn Vance, the UBT IT from Santa Rosa are familiar faces. I recognize many of the observer Brothers and Sisters who are seated very closely, behind our square table. Leo Butterbaugh in EVS from Vallejo, Jolen Camp from Roseville and Dennis DeMaio from the International. I gain comfort in knowing these Brothers and Sisters. Although they are not in my bargaining unit, we are all here together as "Labor" to support one another and present as a united front.
We are treated to several hours of Interest-based bargaining education from two facilitators. One is Charlie Huggins from the Restructuring Associates Institute, (RAI), who talked altogether too much and a woman named Carol, from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).....Frankly, as long as management is in the room I am not bored with the review. My opinion is always that management can always use training, training and more training.
Therefore, I thoroughly enjoyed the review.
Process was stressed, the importance of labor and management separately stating our Interests as opposed to, positions. Examples were given and labor was tested as far as presenting as a united front.
As you can imagine, get a group of labor folks together with management in the room, we want to be heard. Interests and some positions were voiced.
Dave Regan talkes about how the Partnership itself is focused nearly completely internally inside of Kaiser. That there are no measures to deal with the external world such as the 32 million people who are to soon to become eligible for health care and Kaiser has no plan on how to get them insured with Kaiser, and grow the membership.
He proposes using the Partnership to jointly grow the membership. That the most job security we can obtain is from Kaiser growing the membership. This will preserve our benefit structure. He spokes about jointly promoting Kaiser's integrative health care model and joint Partnership work on public policy advocacy. He again challenges Kaiser to Partner with us on calling out the alleged "bottom feeders" in the health care industry, such as Prime Health Care in S. Ca.,
Labor voices are expressing passionately that the Partnership is not working in many areas, that we need to work on our internal challenges as well as expanding the Partnership externally.
Some CIC members bring up contentious issues, and some from management take offense, especially to not having a concrete plan different from what Kaiser is already doing to grow the membership, and not wanting to confront Prime Health Care about their allegedly unethical behavior in the health care industry.
Labors voice is strong and loud, proclaiming how dare Kaiser refuse to fight to change the Medicare reimbursement rates to better reflect the high quality and service scores provided by Kaiser. We let them know that Kaiser has no right to use the Partnership only when it is convenient for them.
About this time I began to really feel like the facilitators were talking too much. To me, they seem to be attempting to "guide" us way too much.
Issues are brought up by labor that supposedly are not supposed to be brought up, and our "united front" image is a bit challenged. But that is what a caucus is for!
During our caucus, all of labor, including the observers have a chance to air our differences, tell each other what we think and move on.
Soon after resuming with management, we all agree to meet separately to discuss/brainstorm on our Interests. 10 flip charts latter, with all of labor engaged we have a list of about 50 interests.
All feel they had a voice in the process and all felt heard.
Tomorrow we meet again with management. The idea is for us to "understand" each others interest, not necessarily agree with them.
Until then...In Unity, Rachelle
Logistics: 24 elected Union Brothers and Sisters on Common Issues Committees, (CIC's), and 97 Observers from local UHW bargaining teams.
Common Issues Committees: Workforce Planning and Development, Attendance, Performance Improvement & Performance Sharing Program, (PSP), and Labor Management Partnership, (LMP).
The CIC's are the labor participants with management on the above four committees. The Observers are also divided between the groups and although in the rooms where the committees meet, do not sit at the table with the CIC's and management. They participate verbally during labor caucus's or pass notes to labor representatives during sessions with management.
I am participating as a CIC representative on the LMP committee.
Today was the foundation training for the CIC's. This session was intended to provide the grounding for bargaining and interest-based bargaining, (IBB). All bargaining guidelines were discussed and agree to by consensus.
The timeline for National Bargaining is to expedite the process and finish by the end of May.
For the first time since this kick-off session began, I can feel the tension in the room.
I look around to see who joins me on the LMP committee. Dave Regan, SEIU-UHW Trustee is one of our labor Co-Leads. Therese Flemming, the IBHS Contract Specialist and Marilyn Vance, the UBT IT from Santa Rosa are familiar faces. I recognize many of the observer Brothers and Sisters who are seated very closely, behind our square table. Leo Butterbaugh in EVS from Vallejo, Jolen Camp from Roseville and Dennis DeMaio from the International. I gain comfort in knowing these Brothers and Sisters. Although they are not in my bargaining unit, we are all here together as "Labor" to support one another and present as a united front.
We are treated to several hours of Interest-based bargaining education from two facilitators. One is Charlie Huggins from the Restructuring Associates Institute, (RAI), who talked altogether too much and a woman named Carol, from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).....Frankly, as long as management is in the room I am not bored with the review. My opinion is always that management can always use training, training and more training.
Therefore, I thoroughly enjoyed the review.
Process was stressed, the importance of labor and management separately stating our Interests as opposed to, positions. Examples were given and labor was tested as far as presenting as a united front.
As you can imagine, get a group of labor folks together with management in the room, we want to be heard. Interests and some positions were voiced.
Dave Regan talkes about how the Partnership itself is focused nearly completely internally inside of Kaiser. That there are no measures to deal with the external world such as the 32 million people who are to soon to become eligible for health care and Kaiser has no plan on how to get them insured with Kaiser, and grow the membership.
He proposes using the Partnership to jointly grow the membership. That the most job security we can obtain is from Kaiser growing the membership. This will preserve our benefit structure. He spokes about jointly promoting Kaiser's integrative health care model and joint Partnership work on public policy advocacy. He again challenges Kaiser to Partner with us on calling out the alleged "bottom feeders" in the health care industry, such as Prime Health Care in S. Ca.,
Labor voices are expressing passionately that the Partnership is not working in many areas, that we need to work on our internal challenges as well as expanding the Partnership externally.
Some CIC members bring up contentious issues, and some from management take offense, especially to not having a concrete plan different from what Kaiser is already doing to grow the membership, and not wanting to confront Prime Health Care about their allegedly unethical behavior in the health care industry.
Labors voice is strong and loud, proclaiming how dare Kaiser refuse to fight to change the Medicare reimbursement rates to better reflect the high quality and service scores provided by Kaiser. We let them know that Kaiser has no right to use the Partnership only when it is convenient for them.
About this time I began to really feel like the facilitators were talking too much. To me, they seem to be attempting to "guide" us way too much.
Issues are brought up by labor that supposedly are not supposed to be brought up, and our "united front" image is a bit challenged. But that is what a caucus is for!
During our caucus, all of labor, including the observers have a chance to air our differences, tell each other what we think and move on.
Soon after resuming with management, we all agree to meet separately to discuss/brainstorm on our Interests. 10 flip charts latter, with all of labor engaged we have a list of about 50 interests.
All feel they had a voice in the process and all felt heard.
Tomorrow we meet again with management. The idea is for us to "understand" each others interest, not necessarily agree with them.
Until then...In Unity, Rachelle
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Day 1 of 2010 National Bargaining
Tuesday April 6, 2010
After a day of training with my Kaiser Brothers and Sisters, today we came together with all of our Coalition Brothers and Sisters and Kaiser Management.
Management presented a very lengthy power point presentation that included lots of colorful charts and graphs. Basically, they were trying to set the stage for doom and gloom with regards to the economy and, preparing us for take-aways. It was very clear that Management was preparing us for proposed reductions in benefits.
But the thing about statistics is that they can be interpreted differently depending on the context.
John August, the President of the Coalition then used some of the same data from those graphs and sides to demonstrate how, through the Partnership, labor has been the driving force for accomplishing so many of Kaisers goals/deliverables. He went on to further outline how investing in the Partnership, in front-line employees is the key strategy for shared success. The challenges we face today are largely external and that the Partnership is designed to keep us safe from these forces. That the Partnership is an opportunity for us to navigate through difficult times.
Additionally, SEIU-UHW Trustee Dave Regan gave a very eloquent and passionate speech reinforcing that the Partnership is the key to Kaiser's "sustainability", ( a key word used repetitively by Management). He challenged Kaiser to join with labor to create social change politically through legislative action. He challenged Kaiser to show us Kaiser's plan to capture the market share of the 32 million people who will soon be eligible to have health care as a result of the new health care reform. He made it very clear that we will not accept any reduction to our benefits.
Jeffrey Weisz, Executive Medical Director of Southern California Permanent Group tried to tell us that National Bargaining was not unlike having a "Family Meeting." And at the same time he latter tried to engage Dave in a contentious argument about Attendance.
It didn't work, as Dave was able to bring the dialogue back to what is important to labor -- that we will not accept any reductions and do not want Kaiser to think of labor as the problem causing Kaiser's financial troubles.
He reemphasised that we have to work together on finding the solutions, expanding the focus of the Partnership to include shaping the external world (policies and capturing the share of the soon to be newly insured).
After a day of training with my Kaiser Brothers and Sisters, today we came together with all of our Coalition Brothers and Sisters and Kaiser Management.
Management presented a very lengthy power point presentation that included lots of colorful charts and graphs. Basically, they were trying to set the stage for doom and gloom with regards to the economy and, preparing us for take-aways. It was very clear that Management was preparing us for proposed reductions in benefits.
But the thing about statistics is that they can be interpreted differently depending on the context.
John August, the President of the Coalition then used some of the same data from those graphs and sides to demonstrate how, through the Partnership, labor has been the driving force for accomplishing so many of Kaisers goals/deliverables. He went on to further outline how investing in the Partnership, in front-line employees is the key strategy for shared success. The challenges we face today are largely external and that the Partnership is designed to keep us safe from these forces. That the Partnership is an opportunity for us to navigate through difficult times.
Additionally, SEIU-UHW Trustee Dave Regan gave a very eloquent and passionate speech reinforcing that the Partnership is the key to Kaiser's "sustainability", ( a key word used repetitively by Management). He challenged Kaiser to join with labor to create social change politically through legislative action. He challenged Kaiser to show us Kaiser's plan to capture the market share of the 32 million people who will soon be eligible to have health care as a result of the new health care reform. He made it very clear that we will not accept any reduction to our benefits.
Jeffrey Weisz, Executive Medical Director of Southern California Permanent Group tried to tell us that National Bargaining was not unlike having a "Family Meeting." And at the same time he latter tried to engage Dave in a contentious argument about Attendance.
It didn't work, as Dave was able to bring the dialogue back to what is important to labor -- that we will not accept any reductions and do not want Kaiser to think of labor as the problem causing Kaiser's financial troubles.
He reemphasised that we have to work together on finding the solutions, expanding the focus of the Partnership to include shaping the external world (policies and capturing the share of the soon to be newly insured).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
