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
Thursday, April 22, 2010
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)
