Kaiser Permanente Negotiation Preparation

Kaiser Permanente Negotiation Preparation

Trident University

Module 2, Case Discussion

Kaiser Permanente Negotiation Preparation

        When Kaiser Permanente and its labor unions agreed to a collaborative bargaining agreement in 2000, it was a triumph and testament to the use of collaborative negotiation.  However, this was not an overnight success as the groundwork for the agreement began with negotiations in 1996.  Thus, both Kaiser and the labor unions had nearly 4 years to train in collaborative bargaining, prepare for the negotiations, and work though issues together to come to a final agreement.  With this frame work, both the labor unions and Kaiser Permanente were able to identify their interests, determine their entering and leaving points within the negotiation range, and reach a mutually agreeable position that made both sides happy.

        For the labor union, their interests were centered on wage increases and pay equity.  For instance, following the formation of the bargaining task groups (BTG) made of personnel from the labor unions, the agreement was reached to give money to each regional labor union to pay for equity, work reclassification, and shift differentials (Leventhal 2006).  One of the interests of the labor union was adequate compensation for equity, work reclassification, and shift differentials.  Shachar (2011) defines interests as non-negotiable needs that form the unchangeable basis upon which flexible positions are formed.  Since these workers would have not done this for free, this was an interest of the labor union.  This demand for compensation represented one of the minimum standards for the labor unions’ leaving point.  This interest never wavered and the labor union’s position stemmed from this point.  Additionally, several labor unions’ interests were to maintain local wage rates, as several local unions believed that a national bargaining agreement would lower wage rates.  At a minimum, maintaining current wage rates constituted the minimum requirement for the labor unions.

The labor union’s entering point probably consisted of wage rate increases and increases for work compensation, a price that Kaiser was probably not willing to pay.  On the other end of the spectrum, the labor unions’ leaving point consisted of the minimum interests that needed to be fulfilled in order to keep them in the negotiation.  This included adequate compensation for equity, work reclassification, and shift differentials and no wage rate decreases.  Cronin-Harris (2004) writes that “money represents other needs”.  This is certainly true for the labor unions.  While the money from Kaiser alleviated this problem, what the labor unions wanted the money for was for equality and the ability to get new training for job advancement or promotion.  Both of these concepts go beyond just dollar signs, but the money was put towards programs that treated all employees with a greater amount of respect and opportunity.