0900 – to the table
- Agreement within the Alliance to have all interests presented by the end of the month. This is our last bargaining session this month so we decided to review interests from day 1 now.
- Labor –
- Art 2, 5, 9, 13, 16, 21, 29 passed already
- Art 4 have a counter
- Art 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 32, 33,
- App C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J
- Sunset app S & L
- App O & P joint with ONA
- Management
- Art 4 and App J passed
- Art 8, 10, 15, 13, 3, 5
- LOU/LOA
- Art 28 is new, they have a proposal
- Labor –
- Sam – we have had some proposals but then received your proposal, if at any time you choose to withdraw the proposal we would like the opportunity to present our proposal. Alli – with the understanding that any language that had been agreed upon was part of your proposal. Agreed, there is no intent that labor will withdraw any of our proposals.
- Sam – OFNHP indicated that you had additional proposals but were waiting, from management’s point of view they just like to view them so we can focus our work on. Maybe develop a PACKAGE or put something together we can TA. I think it will be helpful as we move into the second half.
- For perspective – Packaging unrelated articles or sections together is a tactic that management has historically used to push some shady things through. It is often used at the end of bargaining to finish up but results in some big takeaways.
- Alli – we also have interest in Article 28 (end of previous conversation)
- Management passed a proposal in Article 28 Grievance procedure.
- It has become increasingly challenging to schedule grievances. Part of scheduling federal mediators which was difficult already but with the current administration may be impossible in the future. Also would like to level set that core participants are management, employee, and steward and mutual agreement for others to attend. Setting timeframes for filing and appealing. Discussion that we could still bring in people to train/shadow without previous approval, these people do not impact scheduling.
- Sam – this is language we are presenting at all the tables
- KJ – we will need to wait until it is proposed at all the table before we can counter.
- Sam – well this is for the nurses.
- KJ – we cannot respond to a proposal that impacts all of OFNHP, this would be best discussed at a common issues table.
- Sam – there might be a world that one table would object. Luana – are you saying that this table will not approve if others object. KJ – yes
- Alli – this is why we asked for a common issue table. You expressed that you are also coordinating across tables.
- KJ – we do not rep all 5K, the employer is not going to agree to different processes for each table. Again why we asked for a common issue table. [sign the petition here: insert link]
- Sam – we did present at ONA
- KJ – level setting, this will go on the back burner until all tables have seen it (Note Rachel ONA bargaining chair is at the table)
- Management passed article 10 L temporary re-assignment.
- Management struck through working around partnership council as they did not know what it was . . . UBT?
- Looking to clean up the language, taking away the voluntary portions of it.
- Management struck that at least 75% of staff on the unit have at least 1 year of experience.
- MF - – since the pipeline currently is new grads, it will become increasing more difficult to staff the hospital and meet the requirement
- Labor passed counter to Art 4
- Before passing KJ gave a passionate speech about intent:
- Before we walk you through the counterproposal, we want to take a moment to address the heart of what your proposal represents- and why labor cannot and will not support it as written.
- Let’s be clear: your proposal removes the union’s ability to review and respond to the use of travelers. It eliminates our role in identifying internal solutions. It removes accountability. And it sends a very clear message that labor is not part of the solution.
- That’s not just disappointing, it’s offensive!
- In a perfect world, travelers would be used exactly as intended: as a temporary resource. But this proposal moves us further away from that ideal. It cements a model where travelers are no longer the exception, they become the plan . A model where temporary staff fill our hospitals, while permanent staff are pushed to the side and burned out under the weight of chronic short staffing.
- That is not a sustainable solution. That is not a sustainable solution. That is not continuity of care. That is not the Kaiser Permanente we’ve all claimed to believe in.
- Management says this process is slow, clunky, outdated. But let’s be honest – what’s truly absurd is requesting dozens of travelers at once because the system is bleeding permanent staff faster than it can replace them. That’s not a process issue. That’s a retention issue. That’s a leadership issue!
- And that is not labor’s failure.
- Labor didn’t create this staffing crisis. Labor didn’t cut incentives. Labor didn’t allow burnout to fester. Labor didn’t allow working conditions to deteriorate to the point where RNs are walking away from the profession altogether. You did.
- This proposal punishes labor for a crisis we didn’t cause. It attempts to paper over the organization's failures with short-term fixes instead of real investment. And we will not allow the blame to be shifted onto us.
- We know what will fix this. Improvements to working conditions. Competitive wages. A commitment to developing and retaining our existing workforce.
- That’s how we reduce dependency on travelers. That’s how we get back to a model where agency use is rare, not routine. That’s how we protect both patients and the people who care for them.
- Our counterproposal reflects that. It provides structure, transparency, and room to collaborate. It does not block you from addressing urgent needs-but it ensures those needs are met responsibly, not reactively. It keeps labor at the table, where we belong.
- Because no matter how you frame this- this proposal tells us, your long-term, loyal workforce, that we are expendable.
- We are not.
- So as we walk through our counter, I urge you to consider: Do you want a future where Kaiser is staffed by committed, permanent, experienced nurses? Or a future where continuity of care is a luxury-and travelers are the standard?
- We know the answer. And if you’re serious about solving this, you’ll work with us, not around us.
- Before passing KJ gave a passionate speech about intent:
- We reviewed 700 grievances for common themes and believe the changes could clarify and greatly decrease the number. We took language from the national agreement and are bringing forward language from the IR in 2014 held up in arbitration in 2021.
- We are suggesting that probationary period be reduced to 90 days to match ONA contract and the industry standard. The 6 months is a deterrent for new hires.
- Labor passed article 19 – Holiday
- KJ: We are combining inpatient and outpatient into one contract, working holidays have not historically been a problem for inpatient but they are for outpatient. Yvonne and I spent a painful year in lactation working on holiday rotation. UC is not equitable or fair and all do it differently.
- We are introducing “prime time” into this contract that exists in ONA and in current contract is not a fair and equitable process. Prime time guides requesting time off for holidays and other popular times to take vacation (ie Christmas and Spring break).
- We have followed other Kaiser contracts in introducing a new holiday which is your birthday.
- This would in theory sunset Appendix F & G which are clarifiers.
- Labor passed article 8 Category definitions
- KJ – the major focus of this is updating language employee to RN, combining inpatient and outpatient, intent to introduce casual on-call for inpatient. It is something in outpatient and have members in the position currently they have to work 12 shifts per year. This comes from the alliance staffing committee when Trish Rojas was the head. How do we help the pipeline? We need educators, we need professors. We have lost nurses b/c they could not meet the requirements of being on-call and also be a professor. This would allow educators to continue to work for us. Last time we had initially had headway but then management decided they were not interested but there is interest in these positions.
- We have members that are interested in weekend only positions, Peacehealth offers weekend only. It is a satisfier for some parents that need to work opposite their partner. The bulk of the language comes from the Peacehealth contract. Alli read through the changes and new language.
- Oncall will give 6 days of availability in 6 weeks. Will need to be able to be booked for all shifts without driving consecutive pay or OT. Will give 2 weekend shifts and meet employer needs 50% of the time.
- Management passed the rest of counter for Article 16
- KJ – is this the same that was passed for ONA?
- Sam/Luana – we are in the process of counter proposal
- KJ this is a joint proposal should be the same.
- Sam - the intent in this area is that nurses can pick up if qualified in units covered by the other contract. We did strike through some that language b/c we do it already. Some we did strike through b/c there were too many scenarios where we could run into some real problems.
- Discussion around posting that a unit would invite cross training nurses (there is a cost to the unit to train staff).
- KJ – Covid kinda forced our hand. The agreement used to be once you’re outpatient bye, not more picking up in the hospital. Then we were shown there is value in being able to pick up both. We want to maintain talent. We want to be able to call on people who are trained but we didn’t have a way to maintain competency. We want a process that also protects management so that they are not backed into a corner. We can counter the counter but it gutted the intent, I don’t think the intent of it came through.
- Alli – this is an area where we have a shared interest. The paragraph seems like overkill but unfortunately it is a reality. Jamie Dobbs spoke of being floated to a department and put in charge which she wasn’t qualified to do. Making sure people are protected, they know what they are getting info, and everyone is safe.
- KJ – you all love flexibility. This is a win-win-win.
- Sam – there is a lot of shared interest, if we continue to work this we can get some good things. Perhaps not all of it but . . .
- Labor passed counter to Article 16F
- We heard management that the title was confusing so changed to extra shifts and cross-training. We have back in the orientation process, we want to assure we have qualified nurses not just decide they want to work in a dept they have no knowledge of. We accepted most of your language for the experienced and qualified staff.
- Alli read through the counter-proposal. Cross training opportunities will be posted on an electronic platform. RNs will have an orientation as determined by the manager and RN prior to the RN assuming patient care responsibilities. The RN will work a minimum of 1 shift every 3 months to maintain competency. Clarifying that we will allow RNs in both the ONA and PRO unit to pick up shifts. As this is a co-proposal with ONA they will be given priority.
- KJ – we rejected that nurses will go through the regular orientation/training. We put ours back b/c that is not needed for all nurses, it depends on if you worked in that department and how long it has been since leaving. We do not want to lock anyone into an orientation that is not needed.
- Alli – we removed floating as it was confusing as it is defined in another section. Replaced with extra shift