August 19th
Labor and Management met for another bargaining session today. With 42 days left until contract expiration, everyone is starting to feel pressure to resolve the remaining issues. Management did not move significantly on their counterproposal and continues to strip key language from our proposals. We called them out on several such omissions, which led to some productive discussion. Below is Management’s most recent package proposal:
Article 8.B – Differentials
No change from Management’s previous offer: $1.00 for “in lieu of benefits” and a new $1.50 weekend differential. Labor is still pushing for increases to all other differentials, excluding standby.
Article 8.C – Wage Scale
Management increased their offer by just 0.25% for a new 7-year (+14,000-hour) experience step. 0.25%. Really? 0.25%? Is that what they think our experience is worth? They need to seriously reconsider, because we all know the value we bring is far greater than that. Their proposal now totals a $0.88 increase (up from $0.75). Compared to the approximately $2.00 increases between other steps, Management is finally moving in the right direction, but they are still far from where they need to be.
This proposal also reverts to Management’s original position of delaying the increase until 120 days after ratification. Labor pushed back, suggesting a lump-sum payout to offset the administrative burden of retroactive implementation. Management responded that, while they “loved the creativity and out-of-the-box thinking,” the issue came down to cost, and they were unwilling to pay more to deliver the increase sooner. Unacceptable.
Article 4.C – On-call Employee
Management presented language identical to what the Tech Bargaining Unit agreed to last month. An on-call employee would need to provide availability for 12 shifts and three weekend shifts per six-week block, and must meet at least 50% of the employer’s projected staffing needs during that time.
While Labor’s original intent was to align On-Call language with the Tech CBA, this version may be more restrictive than desired. It raises concerns about how on-call employees could be used to staff sites in the future, which we are still reviewing. Work will continue on this article.
Article 5.E-F – Shift Trades
No change. Both parties are in agreement.
Article 13.A – Internal Transfers
Management agreed to some of Labor’s last counter, but this remains a controversial article. While we are closer to an acceptable framework for transfer restrictions, Labor is not convinced the trade-offs are fair.
The current proposal begins the restriction period from an employee’s initial working day within a department (as Labor proposed), but extends the restriction from 6 months to 18 months. Management also revised exception language. They exempted transfers within the same department, except for SAM and Tox at AWL. When asked why SAM/Tox was singled out, Jude explained that, although SAM and Tox are technically one department, only a few positions are cross-trained to both, and the complexity of the work means they are treated as “different departments” for training purposes. This rationale reflects a past restructure in SAM/Tox that does not account for its current state. Essentially, Jude wants to have it both ways. Work continues on this exception, though other exceptions in the proposal are slightly more acceptable.
Management proposed exemptions only for employees upcoding or downcoding by eight or more hours, and for transfers between WMC Lab and SMC Lab or between Medical Office Building and Urgent Care Clinic labs. When Labor asked why AWL Core Lab was removed from the list, Management said moving from Core to a medical center lab was not equivalent because of additional work (Blood Bank, ABGs, and certain kit testing) performed at hospital labs but not at AWL. Labor responded that while moving from Core to a hospital lab would require extra training, transfers to Core should not. Management admitted they “hadn’t even thought about that” and said they were open to including Core.
This proposal also reduced the employee Right of Return period from 45 days (Labor’s proposal) to 21 days, and gave Management discretion to exercise the right of return if they determine the employee is not competent. Labor raised major concerns about this management rights clause. Jude accused Labor of lacking trust in managers’ discretion—something we have raised multiple times this cycle. Many Lab Pros have been harmed by poor management discretion, and rebuilding trust takes more than words.
Article 7.H – eWOP
No change. Both parties are in agreement.
Molecular Career Pathway
No change, though Jude reported that the position posted in May 2025 (referenced in this article) was cancelled by KP National Recruiting. The position will be reposted and a new bid list generated. This section will need revision to reflect the change.
This package contains major proposed changes for our Bargaining Unit. Labor has not agreed to accept it and will continue working to reshape it into something that benefits the most members. Because of the complexity and implications, bargaining team members will be holding information sessions over the next few weeks.
We need your feedback on Management’s package proposal. A survey will be sent out in early September, along with a video outlining the proposal. Please attend an information session if you can. The goal is to ensure everyone fully understands the issues on the table before completing the survey.
We will be at the AWL Bistro on Wednesday, September 3, from 11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. and 4:00–5:00 p.m., and at the WMC Cafeteria on Tuesday, August 26, from 2:00–3:00 p.m. and 5:00–8:30 p.m. Since several members of our bargaining team work at SMC and are available to answer questions most days, we will not be holding an official tabling session there. If you are unable to attend one of these sessions, please reach out to a steward. Lab Pro stewards will be provided with talking points at both the All-Alliance Steward Council on August 28 and the AWL Steward Council on September 3. Members can also check in with their CAT Members and Coordinators for additional information.
Our next bargaining session is on Monday, September 8. Please register here if you would like to attend as an observer.
Bargaining actions are also ramping up, so please stay tuned and check in with your CAT for asks and updates. The only way we can get a fair contract is to show Kaiser that we are united in our solidarity, so please, treat every work day like a Red Up day and keep the pressure on!
August 4th, 2025
This morning, Labor requested an extended caucus to continue working on a counter to the comprehensive financial package Management presented at our last session. While we weren’t able to finalize our counterproposal, we asked Management to return to the table for further discussion and hoped to receive their promised counter on Article 5.B-C: Emergency Overtime and Double Time. Unfortunately, that hope was in vain.
Management told us they had no new proposals and likely wouldn’t have any today. When we asked about the Article 5 proposal Labor submitted on 4/16, Management finally responded that they intended to keep the language “status quo”—meaning they had no plans to submit a counterproposal. Labor’s proposal aimed to clarify what qualifies as “unforeseen emergent circumstances” (i.e., legitimate emergencies), to give Management the ability to offer double time in true emergencies outside of consecutive-day language, and to add a notification timeline for employees who’ve bid into overtime shifts. Management said they saw no need to clarify or expand the language. But we believe clearer assignment timelines—and a definition of what constitutes a real emergency (a disaster event versus a known, unfilled shift)—would benefit everyone. This is yet another example of Management not living in the same reality as Labor.
The two sides did agree to schedule additional bargaining dates: August 14 and 19, with locations to be determined.
Before the lunch break, Labor and Management discussed key sticking points in Management’s financial package. Specifically, that Management expects us to give up a great deal for very little in return. They seemed surprised we weren’t more enthusiastic about the proposed 1.5% 10-year experience step—saying they had “gone to bat for us” and “fought hard” to get it. While we appreciate the effort, they’ll need to fight harder if they want to meet our needs. Labor has made it clear that we prioritize flexibility and autonomy for our members. Proposals that add restrictions—like those on internal transfers—don’t align with that. If Management wants to limit internal mobility, they need to offer meaningful incentives. Based on today’s discussion, it’s clear they believe they’ve already done that. We strongly disagree.
As a reminder, Labor has seven remaining proposals in this package. With Emergency Overtime and Double Time now set aside, these are the final items left on the table:
Article 8.B – Differentials
Labor re-submitted the same increases to differential categories as on 7/23, excluding Standby and Holiday Standby. We requested a higher Weekend differential than the proposed $1.50, and reinstated language clarifying that differentials stack—so a weekend night shift would receive both the weekend and night differentials.
Article 8.C – Wage Scales
We increased our ask for the 10-year experience step to 4% of Step 4 and included a one-time “administrative fee” upon contract ratification. Management had previously stated retroactive implementation was too costly, so we proposed a $1,350 lump sum to compensate. Pay increases should take effect upon ratification. We also restored the 15-year longevity step and modified step calculations to be based on years rather than hours—bringing internal candidate tracking in line with external hiring practices and with other OFNHP units.
Article 4.C – On-Call Employee
We updated our proposed availability matching period from one month to six weeks, to better align with schedule posting timelines and the Tech Unit’s contract language.
Article 5.E-F – Shift Trades
No further changes were made. Labor and Management are in agreement on this section. Were it not part of a package, this would be considered a tentative agreement.
Article 13.A – Internal Transfers
Labor countered Management’s proposed 2-year restriction with a 6-month limit, including exceptions for transfers within the same department, changes in shifts or FTEs, and moves between departments with similar instrumentation. We also proposed eliminating language that blocks transfers for employees on Level III or higher Corrective Action—an outdated clause unique to our CBA that no longer serves us. We added a requirement for transfers to be completed within two pay periods (unless mutually agreed otherwise) and introduced a 45-day “Right of Return” for employees to return to their previous role if the new position isn’t a good fit. We did not include a Management-initiated Right of Return, which led to a lengthy discussion. Ultimately, we made clear that Labor is not responsible for defining Management’s rights. If Management wants that language, they are free to include it in a counterproposal.
Article 7.H – eWOP
No changes were made. Labor and Management are aligned on offering three optional eWOP days. This is another item that would be tentatively agreed to outside of the package structure.
Molecular Career Pathway
We continued working toward alignment with the existing Molecular II job description and posting. After removing unclear language from Management’s version (seriously, what is “up-skilling”?), most of Labor’s original proposal remained intact.
After a brief afternoon caucus, Management informed us they had nothing further to present and would see us at our next session on August 14.
We were joined today by an observer from our Bargaining Unit who stayed for the entire session. Thank you—we truly appreciate your presence and support!
OFNHP has a full week of actions planned to support our National Bargaining Table during this historic session from August 4–8. Check out the full schedule here. And thank you to everyone who participated in today’s OFNHP Walk-In Action!
July 31, 2025
TONIGHT: Friday, August 1st, join us for an URGENT Town Hall on the state of Kaiser negotiations: use this link to join at 6:30 p.m. tonight.
At bargaining yesterday, management took an extended caucus, and did not come to the table until 10:30am. Before any proposals were presented, Labor read a statement of solidarity to express our disappointment about KP rescinding the Successorship tentative agreement from the local common issues table. Partnership and bargaining are built on trust, and Kaiser Northwest’s inability to have their agreements upheld at a National level has severely shaken our faith in this process. Lead HR Negotiator Emily Gaffney assured us that the decision-makers are present at our table. That remains to be seen. We then moved into the business of the day – the long-awaited, “comprehensive” financial package. (Don’t get too excited. It definitely needs work.) As with their last package proposal, in order to accept any part of this package, we have to accept the entire package.
Management’s big ticket items appear to be creating internal transfer restrictions and sunsetting the Molecular II LOU.
This “comprehensive package” encompassed most of the issues that remain on the table, with the exception of Article 5.C – Emergency Overtime and Double Time and Article 7.K – Personal Flexible Days (NEW). When questioned about these two outstanding proposals, Management said that they are not able to provide Lab Pros with Personal Flexible Days and that eWOP days were offered to make up for that. (Keep in mind that this is the same thing they said last week about eWOP in relation to our proposal to expand Bereavement leave. It seems that those eWOP days are meant to do a lot of heavy lifting!) They did promise us that they would have a counterproposal for Emergency OT and DT at our next bargaining session on Monday, August 4. Our session next Monday is the last one Lab Pros currently have scheduled, though we anticipate the need for additional dates.
Management’s “comprehensive package” includes:
- Article 8.B – Differentials: Management removed all the differentials we included in our counterproposal and kept their original offer intact. $1.00 in lieu of benefits and $1.50 weekend differential. There were no changes or increases to any other differential category.
- Article 4.C – On-call Employee: This proposal remained intact, though Labor expressed an interest to match the 6-week availability window the Tech Bargaining Unit tentatively agreed to earlier this week. Management said they are amenable to matching that language.
- Article 5.E-F – Shift Trades: Labor’s counterproposal included a 7-day window for supervisors to approve shift trades, but Management removed it. They cited that supervisors covering departments that are not their own might not feel comfortable approving trades within a required time period, which was why they removed the language. Labor expressed concern that some department supervisors (one at WMC in particular) might be inclined to let these requests pend indefinitely, which is why we had included an approval window. Jude assured us she would follow up on this issue, as there was no reason she could think of for a supervisor to delay the approval of cost-neutral shift trades.
- Article 13. A – Internal Transfers: This is a BIG ONE. Management does not want employees to be eligible to transfer to a new position for two years after the date they are fully signed off as trained and competent to perform testing on all assigned areas or benches in their department. Labor has numerous issues with this proposal. In our July bargaining survey, 97% of respondents said that they would not agree to stay in a position for two years before being able to apply for a new position, though 74% said they would agree to that if Right of Return were an option. We will not be agreeing to this without a significant incentive to do so. Management has yet to provide us with a significant incentive.
- Article 8.C – Wage Scales: This one was disappointing for several reasons. While Management did agree to add an additional 1.5% increase in base pay for a 14,000+ hour (10-year) experience step, they presented language that would not implement the increase until 120 days after contract ratification. Not only is this less than the 2.5% bump we initially asked for, it is not in line with any of our current step increases. Additionally, Management stated that the 120-day waiting period would not result in a retroactive pay out as it has in previous years. The increase would only go into effect FOUR MONTHS after ratification. They said this was due to the “significant administrative burden” a retroactive payout would create. Management also removed the 15-year longevity step we proposed. We believe they can do better, and that our members deserve better.
- Article 7.H – eWOP: Management initially offered two eWOP days, we countered with four days. The current offer from Management is three days.
- Molecular II LOU: Management listed Molecular II as a “hard to fill” position. When questioned why they consider it a “hard to fill” position rather than one that requires a lengthy training process, they couldn’t really give us an answer. They said they had consulted with the Management Tri-chair for Workforce Planning and Development and that this was the language she had suggested. They also struck the language Labor proposed about re-negotiating the Molecular job description, though they did retain the rest of Labor’s proposal. Work continues on this issue.
After spending much of the afternoon in caucus reviewing Management’s package proposal, we went back to the table after lunch to receive Management’s counter to the PTO language Labor presented on 7/23. We were able to come to a tentative agreement on Article 7.F PTO that embeds our PTO accrual table into our contract. We also refreshed some of the out-dated language in this section and agreed that vacation rule negotiations will be completed by September 16th of each year. PTO accrual has been a point of contention between Labor and Management in recent years, and embedding this grid in the contract means that we will not be dependent on finding this information in HR Connect the next time a dispute occurs.
A note from Gina Mann, Lab Pro Chair regarding the Molecular II LOU: I understand the concern our members have about the currently on-hold Molecular II position, its associated grievance, and the sunsetting of the Molecular II LOU and what it means for the members of our bargaining unit. There are many factors at play here, and there are some big emotions associated with this. Know that this is a key issue for Management, and we aim to capitalize on that as much as possible. Whatever decisions we make at the table are intended to do the most good for the most people. My aim in this process, and all BU-associated issues, is to get work groups what they need while also promoting access and equity for all of our members and providing quality care for our patients. The decisions I make may not be popular, but they are made with the best of intentions and are not intended to promote any one member or department above another. I highly encourage all Lab Pros to come observe one of our bargaining sessions and see for yourselves what we’re up against at the table. It is only through our collective action that we can move Management. Red Up, Show Up, Rally Up! This is the moment we’ve been preparing for. It’s time to come together and demand the fair contract we deserve.
OFNHP has a full week of actions and activities planned to support our National table at our historic bargaining session August 4th through 8th. Be sure to check out more details here.
To RSVP for our Rally to Support Healthcare Workers at Kaiser on August 7th, register here.
To observe National Bargaining August 5th-7th, register here.
To observe Lab Pro Local Bargaining August 4th, register here.
July 23rd
Management started today’s session by announcing a change in lead negotiators for their side of the table. Emily Gaffney will take over for Elizabeth Amaya-Crawshaw, who will be out for the foreseeable future. As Emily has been a part of the management bargaining team from the beginning of this bargaining cycle, we don’t anticipate this change causing any major disruptions.
We went through some housekeeping related to outstanding proposals on both sides, and Labor removed the proposal we presented last month regarding Successorship (Article 1, Corporate Transactions) as that was tentatively agreed to at the Local Common Issues table on Monday. This is a welcome win for us in the laboratory, as it provides stability and the assurance that our contract will remain intact even if business ownership changes. This proposal was created specifically to address concerns that we could be bought out by Lab Corp the same way Providence and Legacy labs were in 2023 and 2024, respectively.
Management presented a “non-comprehensive” package that included three language concessions and one financial counter to the Article 8 Differentials proposal we gave them back in May. This was offered as a whole package, meaning take it all or leave it all. So if we accepted one proposal, we would have to accept all proposals.
So what was in the package?
Well, they offered to increase our In-lieu-of benefits differential to $1.00, up from $0.40, and added a $1.50 weekend differential that would be new to our contract. They did not offer increases to any other differentials, though we did include differential increases in our initial financial proposal.
Also included in this package was language we proposed for Article 5.F to clarify the shift trade process, as well as an agreement to change MLS On-Call Employee availability requirements (Article 4, Definitions). Our original proposal aimed to match the language in the Tech contract so that all On-Call employees within the laboratory have the same availability requirements. The final portion of the package would allow us two Emergency Without Pay (eWOP) days in exchange for sunsetting the current Molecular II Letter of Understanding (LOU) and the on-going grievance associated with it. The eWOP days were offered to allow employees additional scheduling flexibility and to cover the additional days we requested as part of our proposal for Article 12 Bereavement.
We did not accept this package proposal.
We countered by including increases to the remaining differentials, as well as the 7-year experience step and the 15-year longevity step from our original financial proposal; some minor language changes to the On-Call and Shift trade wording; increased the offered eWOP days from two days to four; and included the option to sunset the Molecular II LOU, only if management agrees to specific provisions around a Workforce Planning Pathway and joint renegotiation of the current Molecular job description. Labor also included an option that would enable Management to move ahead with offering the Molecular II position that is currently on hold pending the outcome of the on-going grievance. Labor and Management would jointly review the list of candidates for the Molecular II position that was posted in May 2025, and determine the order in which the position would be offered based on seniority and the current Molecular II position requirements. This would offer a solution to the impasse with the position while meeting the staffing needs of the Molecular Department.
Before breaking for the day, Labor and Management also discussed the language in Article 7 PTO that we have been passing back and forth since April. Laboratory management wants a one-size-fits-all model for our vacation sign-up process that would make things easier and more efficient, but would take away autonomy at the work group level.
All of us would have the same vacation rules, from the MOBs to AWL to the Med Centers. A department of forty people would have the same vacation rules as a department of four. Part of the reason we haven’t been able to come to an agreement on this language is because Labor believes each department has unique wants and needs, and we want to maintain every work group’s ability to maximize their time away from work while still providing excellent patient care. As we are nearing the end of our bargaining sessions, with only two more scheduled on 7/31 and 8/4, both parties agreed to consider keeping the original contract language in this section. This was originally an interest from management, but as we have not been able to reach agreement, past and current practice might win out.
We also had an observer from the Pro Bargaining Unit at part of our session today. One of the members of their bargaining team came out to show support and solidarity for us, which our team greatly appreciated. It would be amazing to see some of our members observing local bargaining as well! If you would like to observe on your own time, please register here.
Our next bargaining session will be on Wednesday, July 31st, at the Kaiser Permanente Building.
Lab Pros are also preparing for a Town Hall on August 12th, so use the Zoom information below. Contact your CAT Team Member with any questions, comments, or concerns. Your bargaining team wants to hear from you!
Lastly, it will take all of us taking action together to win a contract we can be proud of. Wear red on Tuesdays, observe a local or national bargaining session, talk to your colleagues about bargaining, and get ready to observe other sessions!
And make sure to sign our petition demanding Greg Adams live up to our agreements at the table!
Topic: Lab Professional Bargaining Unit townhall
Time: Aug 12, 2025 06:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82351752296?pwd=Y7h50TJC72lrkoufUBkb19yYAaO8Rg.1
Meeting ID: 823 5175 2296
Passcode: OFNHP
July 7th
Labor and Management met today for our ninth bargaining session.
Labor arrived prepared with counter-proposals on Jury Duty (Article 12.C), Holidays (Article 7, NEW), and PTO (Article 7.F) — all proposals Management presented last week. Management, however, came prepared with… nothing. This marks the third consecutive session where Management has failed to provide a counterproposal to the economic package we presented back on May 20th. In fact, during a planning meeting last week, Management requested to cancel today’s session altogether, claiming they “wouldn’t have anything to present and there isn’t anything else to work on.”
In addition to the economic proposal we’ve been waiting on for weeks, Management has seven other proposals from Labor still awaiting a response. With only three more bargaining sessions on the schedule and a number of proposals still in process, the question becomes: What exactly is Management waiting for? And what do they think we’re doing here?
We don’t know — and our bargaining team decided not to wait around to find out.
This morning, Labor engaged Management in a discussion to clarify the intent behind Management’s most recent PTO proposal to establish a backup process for work groups that do not complete their annual vacation sign up negotiations by mid-September. We wanted to understand what the practical application of the process would look like and what it would mean for our work groups if they need to use it. Management confirmed that the process they proposed would not be considered a vacation sign up round, and therefore any requests would not automatically be approved; this would fall under the category of routine requests for time off and could be denied at any point prior to schedule posting. They said it would be an “LB Lite free-for-all” that would only see requests approved or denied by the Staffing Department when the schedule was posted. The threat of having to implement this process was intended to motivate work groups to finalize negotiations. While Labor agrees that the process as proposed would certainly motivate workgroups to come to an agreement, we believe that both parties are equally responsible and should thus be equally motivated. We countered this proposal with a process that would require Labor and Management to meet every two weeks for 90 days and then transition to an Issue Resolution process if agreement could not be reached. Management expressed concern with this suggestion, but feels they have a better understanding of Labor’s interest in this process and they believe we can find a way to reach agreement on this proposal.
In the afternoon, Management returned with counterproposals on both our Jury Duty and Holiday proposals. The edits were minor and largely left the substance intact, allowing us to reach tentative agreements on both proposals.
The revised Jury Duty language gives off-shift employees flexibility in returning to their regular work schedule after jury service. Employees can now choose to take an additional day off, with or without pay, or arrange to work an alternate day, allowing for rest before reporting back to work.
The Holiday language establishes a new section in our contract that formally integrates a 2006 Letter of Understanding (LOU) on Holidays. While this language doesn’t change existing practices, it memorializes the ability to continue banking holidays and ensures this practice is formally included in our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
On a day when Management originally wanted to cancel bargaining altogether, our Lab Pro team secured two additional pieces of contract language. This is just one more reminder of why it matters to show up — because you never know what you might be able to achieve.
And speaking of showing up, our next local bargaining session is Wednesday, July 23. Anyone interested in attending local bargaining is welcome to do so by completing the Bargaining Observer Registration form. Attendance must be on unpaid time.
June 23rd
Labor and Management met this morning to discuss the interest and intent behind several outstanding proposals. Management indicated they would not be willing or able to provide a financial counter-proposal today, but expect to have one ready for our next session on July 7th.
During previous sessions, Management stated they did not want to embed the banking language from our Holiday Letter of Understanding (LOU) into the contract, claiming the process was too difficult for the Staffing Department to track. As a reminder, we currently have no Holiday section in our contract, so this would create a new section under Article 7. Labor’s counter-proposal this morning included the option of transferring banked holidays into our Paid Time Off (PTO) accrual bank for easier tracking.
After some discussion, Management returned with a counter-proposal that closely resembled the language Labor originally proposed back in April, which would allow for banking holidays. When asked about the sudden change, Management said they believe the new Kronos timekeeping system will likely support tracking banked holidays — a solution that would only be possible if the LOU language is embedded in the contract.
This pattern reflects a broader, ongoing issue we’ve seen from Management throughout local bargaining: Labor provides reasonable proposals, Management counters by removing most of our language with few, if any, improvements. We revise our proposals to address their stated concerns, only for them to later return our original language and act like it’s a concession. It’s clear Management has come unprepared for these sessions, relying on our Labor bargaining team to do the heavy lifting — researching and drafting proposals in our own time well in advance of meetings.
Labor also provided a counter to Management’s PTO proposal for Article 7.F, which would establish a seniority-based, equitable rotation as a backup process if work group Staffing Committees fail to complete the annual negotiations for our vacation sign-up process before mid-September. Labor has advocated for an escalation pathway sending unresolved issues to the Lab Pro Regional Staffing Committee for review, but Management claims this would not sufficiently motivate Staffing Committees to reach timely agreements. That said, both parties appear to be moving closer to an agreement on this issue. Management presented a second counter-proposal this afternoon, indicating a willingness to support our counter with a few additional stipulations. Work continues on this proposal.
Additionally, Labor submitted a proposal for Article 1.G, Corporate Transactions, designed to strengthen protections during the sale of all or part of laboratory operations. This proposal responds directly to LabCorp’s recent purchases of multiple regional laboratories and ensures our existing contract would transfer intact to any new entity that acquires one or more of our labs. It’s a vital worker protection measure that prevents us from having to renegotiate established contract language if Kaiser sells operations out from under us. Labcorp has been driving down wages across our industry and it is up to us to push back on their erosion of laboratory standards and to support Labcorp workers who are organizing to ensure better working conditions and a future for patient care.
Management also countered our Article 12.C, Jury Duty, proposal from last session. Both parties are getting closer to an agreement that would address the issue of being required to report to work for an off-shift after serving jury duty during day shift hours.
In a frustrating move this afternoon, Management attempted to push a “Take It or Leave It” package deal on a topic both parties had previously agreed to address outside this bargaining cycle. They tied this unrelated issue to a minor proposal we introduced regarding the inclusion of Emergency Without Pay (eWOP) days in our contract — a move that completely disregards the priorities of our members. This is not how Partnership should work and is instead disrespectful treatment that ignores the hard work we put in. If this is how management wants to behave then we will have to escalate our pressure and tell them we refuse to be treated like garbage by Management.
Your feedback from the financial bargaining survey we sent earlier this month was heard loud and clear: members want to maintain the ability to bank float holidays, secure a weekend differential, preserve every-other-weekend-off positions, and oppose transfer restrictions on new positions without a Right of Return. These remain our guiding priorities at the table, no matter what obstacles Management presents. Our goal is to secure what will benefit the greatest number of members, and those principles continue to guide our decision-making.
Anyone interested in attending local bargaining is welcome to do so by completing the Bargaining Observer Registration form. Attendance must be on unpaid time. Our next session is scheduled for Monday, July 7.
May 20th
Labor and Management reached a tentative agreement on Article 4.B Float Employees, addressing Labor’s interest in embedding our active Letters of Understanding (LOUs). Our Cytotechnologist Floats are specifically referenced in this new subsection, which outlines their primary assignment and function. This marks the sixth tentative agreement our team has secured.
Lab Pros passed financial proposals today to convert differentials to a percentage of base pay and increase the amounts across all differential categories. Labor also proposed adding a weekend differential — a first for any Kaiser Permanente (KP) region with hospitals. In addition, our financial proposal includes the creation of a Seven+ year experience step, as well as 15- and 20-year longevity steps, along with longevity provisions for members hired in at the top experience step.
Management passed one proposal regarding medical leave, aiming to address the evolving scope of State and Federal leave language.
Lab Pros also passed proposals regarding Emergency Without Pay (eWOP) days and embedding EISA into our local Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Labor revisited the proposal to expand Bereavement language, specifically the definition of eligible family members. Management acknowledged our intent to honor the diversity of our membership and the people they consider family, but expressed concerns about how to do so meaningfully without creating unknown financial risk for the organization.
Our next bargaining session is scheduled for June 10th, where we expect to see counter proposals from Management now that they have our full list of economic proposals.
Keep an eye out for a bargaining survey in the coming weeks — your bargaining team needs your input!
April 28th
We had a bit of a rocky start this morning as Labor called out Management for not matching our effort to prepare and pass proposals. Management seems to have difficulty completing their homework in a timely manner. Maybe it’s time for them to remember that you only get credit for the assignments you turn in! Jude Hanley, their Lead Negotiator, was unexpectedly absent from today’s proceedings, and Erin Cornell stepped in to fill the role.
While Management was surprised by Labor’s critiques, it seemed to light a bit of a fire under them, as we ended this session on a very productive note.
Our bargaining team signed two Tentative Agreements (TAs) today, for a total of five in all. The newest TAs focus on language clean-up for "Flex Benefits" in Article 7 — now referencing the National Agreement — and "Temporary Employees" in Article 4, which now requires employees to complete the temporary contract they were hired for before being eligible to accept an internal position.
Management passed a package proposal covering eWOP, Holidays, and Bereavement, spanning two contract articles. Labor declined to bargain the items as a package. Instead, we will rework some language addressed in Management’s package and submit individual counter-offers. Management also passed a counter-proposal to Definitions in Article 4, seeking to retain full-time coding as 40 hours instead of the 32 hours Labor proposed at the last session. Both groups have been passing counter-proposals around issues including Holidays and the ability to bank Holidays, PTO, Voluntary Overtime (OT) and Emergency OT assignments, On-Call, and Definitions. Labor is also awaiting a counter-proposal from Management regarding our request to add Personal Flexible Days to the CBA.
In an effort to subvert a common interest table, Management submitted a proposal to amend the grievance process, now that we no longer have access to Federal Mediators due to recent Executive Orders and changes at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). When questioned, Management admitted that while similar language is being presented to each Bargaining Unit, it is not identical. This divide-and-conquer tactic is exactly what a common interest table would prevent — and it would make the process far more efficient. (Please sign the Common Interest Petition to show your support!)
Our next session is May 20th , where both sides anticipate discussing economic proposals such as differentials, step increases, and Sabbatical language. Stay tuned! Things are about to get interesting.
April 14th
Lab Pros met with management on April 14th for our third session of local bargaining. We were able to reach Tentative Agreements (TA) on three separate issues.
We embedded the Seniority Tiebreaker LOU from 2024 into our new contract that uses birthday to determine seniority between members with the same hire date. We also included Molecular Biology certification in the Recognition section of our contract to ensure Compensation knows which Bargaining Unit they belong to as that portion of our contract determines which wage scales to apply. The third TA clarifies that the Paid Travel Time Section of our contract applies specifically to the KP Northwest Region. It also renames the “Washington Service Area” as the “North Service Area” and includes the Interstate Campus as part of the East Service Area.
Labor presented management with two additional proposals around matching MLS on-call language to that of the on-call language in the Tech Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and creating a section outlining Holiday pay, eligibility, definitions, and the ability to “bank” holidays. Management is reviewing these proposals and is expected to submit counter proposals at our next local bargaining meeting on April 16th.
Management gave labor two proposals regarding PTO and shift trades. The PTO language changes are intended to match PTO requirements to state law around protected absences. Management also stated that it is also intended to avoid being too restrictive about employees being required to use PTO to offset things like short–term disability. Management believes that the shift trade portions of the CBA are contradictory and are trying to bring the language into alignment. They added language to increase management oversight of shift trades and tighten requirements around eligibility. Labor is reviewing and planning our counter proposals.
March 24th and 25th
Lab Pros and Management met for our initial bargaining sessions on both the 24th and the 25th. We touched on a number of different topics over these two bargaining sessions, and each side will come prepared to our third session on April 14th with proposals to review. A finalized list of bargaining priorities will be submitted by both sides no later than April 29th.
Management reviewed a number of interests, including:
- Internal transfer
- Availability for additional hours, OT/DT tracking process
- Shift trading
- Retention and Recruitment
- Contract Language Clean Up
- - Medical Leave
- - Limited Certification
- - Paid Travel Time
- - Schedule Patterns
- - Stand-by Reporting Requirements
- - Reduction in Hours
Our bargaining team reviewed our own interests that are the priority:
- Flex Personal Time
- Emergency Without Pay (eWOP) days
- Emergency OT/DT
- Retention and Recruitment
- Bereavement Language
- Embed Letters of Understanding and PTO/ESL Accrual Tables
- Cytotechnologist and Float Position
- Molecular II Position
- Holidays
- Missing CBA Grandfathering Language
- Washington Meal and Breaks
- Seniority Tiebreaker
- On-call MLS Language
- Contract Clean Up
- Variable Schedule Patterns
- Remove references to specific sections of the National Agreement
In Interest-Based Bargaining (IBB), identifying and stating these interests is the first part of the work and becomes the foundation for all negotiations that come next. Stay tuned as we finalize our interests and receive management’s and then move into the serious work of negotiating for what types of changes we want to see in our next contract.