Bargaining Up Close

In my work as a Compensation professional, I support the IT organization in one of the largest healthcare providers on the West Coast, particularly in California. One functional unit within this organization has decided to become a bargaining unit, affiliated with the companies biggest labor union, SEIU-UHW. These are the desktop support folks in the California region.

I find myself in a totally different role in dealing with unions. In my past life back in the Philippines, I never sat at any negotiation table because there was no union to begin with. Because of the far-left orientation of the unions and how destructive they were in those days, my job was to prevent them from even organizing. There wasn't a whisper that I couldn't hear or a sign that I didn't see or a "teach-in" that I wasn't aware of. I was what you would call a union buster. But that's a whole different story that I probably don't want to share. It's one of those interesting times in my life, if you want to put it that way.

Anyway, negotiations have been undergoing for almost 2 years, and certain agreements have been made. However, there are key points that have yet to be settled, and these fall under my neck of the woods -- wages. As we approach this phase, I have been "officially" included as part of the company negotiating team. Although I have provided preliminary pay rate proposals (in variations iterations) over the course of almost 2 years, this time around it smells and feels more like the real thing because I now sit at the proverbial bargaining table.

My first encounter with the union leader, aka union chief negotiator (or whatever it is he is called), and the rest of the union reps, was at my last trip to Pasadena. But I was there in a somewhat different capacity. I was more a SME (subject matter expert) orienting them on the company's pay philosophy and practices.

With my new "official" role, I met them again yesterday. From the company negotiating team pre-meeting the day prior, we agreed that we would try to finalize the job descriptions, then move on to wages. The meeting was set for 9-5, but at the last minute, the union leader requested that we delay the start to 11am since some of his reps would be flying in from out of town.

Logistically, as in most negotiations, there are at least 2 conference rooms used. Ideally, 3. One is the main room for the negotiations, while the 2 other rooms are the caucus rooms, one for each team. For this day, we only have one room reserved, and this was used both as the negotiation room and caucus room of the union team. Meanwhile, the company team was relegated to a unoccupied work room for IT techs.

The meeting began just after 11, and off the bat, there were already some disagreements. Both sides agreed to complete discussions on the job description, but not on the second item. The company team wanted to talk about wages, but the union team wanted to talk about contractors instead. They felt this matter was far more important than wages. The union, from whatever information it gathered, thinks that there is a relatively high number of contractors compared to regular fulltime employees, and that they fear the ratio will increase even more, which will result in the loss of jobs for its members. If you are not familiar with the way the union thinks, at the end of the day, all it wants is protection of jobs for its members and a larger opportunity for its members to apply for jobs they think they are qualified for.

The union is not concerned about wages because they know their members are paid quite well for the job they do, compared to their counterparts within the industry, as well as outside. Since they've already made preliminary TAs (Terms of Agreement) as part of the larger labor partnership, they're already guaranteed a 3% across-the-board increase in October, without lifting a finger, and regardless of how good or bad their performance is. And the reason why the union insisted on talking about contractors is because these contractors are not part of their union. Therefore, they'd like to minimize, if not eliminate, the number of contractors and have more regular employees who are union members. It's all about the numbers.

As for management, we didn't want to discuss contractors because it was not on the agenda, as prescribed in the TA. Although there were no specific dates or order that certain topics had be discussed, the discussion around wages was the next most logical topic. Since both parties were not ready to give in to what each other wanted to cover for the day, everyone expected the day to be short.

First on the table was the job description. The union's primary concerns boiled down to 2 items. One was the term "related experience" for the associate level position, and the other was the "50 pounds" weight requirement someone had to be able to lift for any position. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the union aims to open up the job to as many of its members as possible. Defining (or trying to) what related experience means and reducing (if not eliminating) the weight requirement become less exclusive and open things up to their (would be) members. Interesting???

By 12, both sides agreed to break for lunch. These 2 groups never mingled (or never will) during breaks, and you'll definitely not see them share a table during lunch or coffee break. It is just the nature of system. Protagonist trying to agree, to be able to work together.

After about an hour and a half, the discussions continued with further scrutiny of the job descriptions. Not an hour has passed when both sides decided on another caucus, this time, to gather evidence on the 50 pound requirement on any job posting in the past 18 months, and some specifics that could be applied in relation to the term "related experience". I thought the caucus took longer than necessary. As a matter of fact, the break and the caucuses took longer than the actual negotiations.

By the time we resumed, it was past 3. We agreed on certain provisions of the job description, and promised to provide everyone with the latest iterations for another review. It was also agreed upon that no discussion on wages and/or contractors will be made that afternoon, and that the company will decide if they will ready to talk about contractors in the next scheduled meeting next week.

From my perspective, as a SME and not directly part of management or day-to-day operations, I find it fascinating how things can ever get accomplished with all the posturing and scrutiny of the most minute details. Can you imagine how unproductive this whole exercise is and how much resources are wasted every time these 2 teams meet? Truly fascinating.

This is going to be a very (very) long ride.