Bargaining in the Kaiser Permanente

Bargaining In the Kaiser Permanente negotiations of 2000, both sides had numerous interests. For the company's part, they were operating in a complex environment at the time. They worked with eight national and international unions and twenty-six local unions. Kaiser itself operated as eight separate companies. One of their main interests was therefore to simplify their union negotiations. The main motivation for this being a major interest was to avoid a bargaining quagmire. With thirty-three separate negotiations, it made sense for Kaiser to streamline the process.

The ability to approach the negotiations with an overriding framework was crucial to achieving a satisfactory outcome. Continuity of operations was another interest. There was fear that strikes could ensue. If just one of the bargaining situations degraded into strike, the other unions could follow suit in support, crippling the entire company. It was imperative to Kaiser that they avoid this situation. Each unit of Kaiser had its own interests.

One of the company's main interests was to align the goals of each of their operating units and each of their unions. In a company with such a segregated corporate structure, and complex labor-management structure, it can be difficult to achieve a unity of purpose. Defining a sense of direction for all of the company's 130,000 employees was a therefore a key interest. The union was faced with an equally complex situation. Wages were a key union interest. For the unions, this was an internal interest.

Many local areas felt they could do better at the bargaining table if they bargained independently of one another - that a national framework would hurt them at the local level. The maintenance of local autonomy, particularly with respect to wages, was a key interest of the unions. Another key interest was that of job loss. Union leaders were concerned that co-operating with the company would allow for restructuring that cost them jobs. It was critical to the unions that the negotiating process did not result in job loss.

The third interest of the unions was to preserve their bargaining power. The fear among union leaders was that in the situation they were faced with, traditional modes of protest were not going to achieve success. This reality could have had long-term negative impacts on the ability of the unions to "win" a traditional-style collective bargaining, and could erode union unity. By bringing the various unions together, they were able to foster greater unity, thus ensuring the strength of their position for future rounds of bargaining.

2) the above-listed interests were not positions. A position is set on a fixed objective or outcome that is either achieved or not achieved. In a way, a position can be seen the healing of a symptom, whereas an interest focuses on the root issue. The issue of continuity of operations is an example. Kaiser could have stated this as a position - no strikes. However, their interest is not "no strikes" but rather a continuity of operations.

The union could have responded to a position of "no strikes" by finding other means of protest, or by taking offense to the suggestion that they surrender one of their core rights. Rather, the union expressed their own interest and the two sides were able to agree on a framework whereby these key interests of both sides were met. 3) Kaiser's had a couple of key entering and exiting points. The first key entering point was when adoption of the initial proposal from DeCicco.

The next was the creation of the framework for differentiating national and local issues. In the case of the former, the step was key because it recognized that not only did they have issues but the union did to and it was in everyone's best interest to work through them with a common goal in order to simplify their operating environment. The latter was key because it allowed the negotiations to progress.

Whereas Kaiser undoubtedly felt that a national negotiation would be simpler for them, they understood clearly that the issue of national/local differentiation was one of the most crucial interests for the unions. Kaiser's key exit point was when the internal conflict threatened the process. This was a point where the management teams at Kaiser needed to decide if they were going to continue in.