National Bargaining Continues in San Francisco April 19-21

Second of four three-day sessions

San Francisco, April 21 – In the second three-day session of national bargaining, four subgroups tackled improving Partnership, attendance and healthy workforce, workforce planning and development, and performance improvement and performance sharing.  The negotiations are being conducted by a 111-member Common Issues Committee. The CIC is composed of 68 union members and 43 KP leaders.  In addition, local unions brought more than 100 frontline observers to the meetings.

As in 2000 and 2005 national bargaining, the parties are using the interest-based bargaining (IBB) process.  This process has resulted in better and more durable national agreements in past years. Under IBB, negotiators follow these steps:

1. caucus separately and articulate their interests to each other
2. agree on common interests
3. brainstorm options that meet both common and separate interests, and
4. prioritize and agree on some or all options

For more information see www.bargaining2010.org.

The subgroups spent this week’s sessions articulating interests, agreeing on common and separate interests, and brainstorming options.  By the next session, which takes place May 4-6 in Los Angeles, each subgroup is expected to present its recommendations to the full CIC.  In the final session May 25-27, the CIC will consider these recommendations as well as complete the wage and benefit negotiations.

The Labor Management Partnership subgroup members of the CIC advanced discussion on separate and common interests regarding the future of the LMP.  As Patt A. Gibbs, Esq. one of the union co-leads of the subgroup, explained, "Our goal is to make sure the Partnership lives up to expectations.”

Key points of discussions centered on: full accountability for the success of unit-based teams shared among partners; adequate and transparent funding for LMP operations; resolving disputes; and positioning KP and Coalition Unions for success.

The Union interests included growing union membership; positioning Kaiser Permanente as a model for health care; strengthening the Partnership by jointly developing and implementing benchmarks, goals and metrics to measure progress; dispatching lingering grievances and increasing business literacy and budget transparency. The members also presented options that often focused on labor and management jointly establishing business, union and contract literacy curricula for all partners.
Management committee members discussed various interests that included enhancing flexibility to meet UBT goals, finding better ways to share best practices and help other teams adopt these practices.
The subgroup continued sharing interests and options with the aim of developing common interests for the CIC.

The Workforce Planning and Development subgroup agreed to some common interests and is working to develop more.

“We’ve analyzed the National Agreement thoroughly and everyone agrees it is very good,” said Charles Rader, UFCW and union co-lead for the Workforce Planning and Development subgroup. “But we’ve identified some implementation and enforcement issues and determined some key areas need emphasis and improvement.”

The subgroup reached a consensus that more communication is needed about the workforce planning and development program. Communications should leverage UBTs, include best practices, manage impact and expectations and make use of existing communications channels.

Labor and Management negotiators also agreed that they both have an interest in:

• Getting ahead of the vacancy curve to fill jobs
• Developing the workforce to meet the changing needs of the organization
• Positioning the organization for rapidly changing environment, in light of the health care reform legislation
• Enabling employees to give their best potential
• Enhancing employment security
• Not renegotiating existing workforce planning and development goals
• Maintaining joint oversight of funding

To address these interests, they grouped options into five areas: redeployment, hard-to-fill or critical needs positions, communications, oversight and accountability of the program and funding.

The Attendance subgroup discussed a wide range of options, staying focused on their goal of developing specific recommendations on programs, processes and strategies that will result in significantly improved absenteeism rates.

Union members of the attendance subgroup expressed a strong interest in enforcing the 2005 National Agreement. “We have a Ferrari,” Ronald Jackson said holding up the contract.  “But we’re only driving it 55 miles an hour. We need to let it perform at its full potential.”  Jackson is a member of SEIU-UHW and is a medical assistant at the Irvine medical office building in Southern California.

Together, union and management members brainstormed options to address issues negotiated in 2005 and 2008 including sponsorship and accountability, flexible personal days, the cashing-out of sick time, the new Health Reimbursement Account, frontloading, integrated disability management, the attendance intervention model, and staffing and backfill.  The team analyzed data from within Kaiser Permanente and from other health care employers, as well as literature from other industries.

The Performance Improvement/Performance Sharing Program subgroup agreed on nine joint interests in the areas of performance improvement and 10 for improving the Performance Sharing Program (PSP). Some of these joint interests include:

• Improve the ability of unit-based teams to be successful;
• Patient at the center of performance improvement;
• Ability to motivate and reward performance at a level we can influence/improve.

“This group is really looking at three big, important areas—performance improvement, the PSP and unit-based teams,” said Meg Niemi, SEIU Local 49, one of the group’s two union co-leads.  “But I’ve always found that when you get together with a roomful of committed, passionate, smart people, you get good solutions.”

Building on their joint interests, the group then developed options to recommend to the CIC for consideration.  With regard to performance improvement, options addressed issues such as training and education; expectations, metrics, tracking; staffing, resources and union capacity; and accountability/structure. For PSP, options included funding/finance; eligibility; goals and metrics; administration/timelines. The group is now working to reach recommendations on performance improvement/PSP for the full CIC.

The sub-groups will wrap up recommendations and present them to the full CIC during the next bargaining session, May 4-6 in Los Angeles. 
For more information, go to www.bargaining2010.com.