Sep 17, 2008  
Bargaining – 9/16/08
 
The union’s proposal included some new major concessions. Those concessions – along with management’s reluctance to pay the service unit the same kinds of wages which similar workers receive at St. Elizabeth in Red Bluff, the two hospitals in Redding, and Fremont-Rideout in Marysville -– forced us to also reduced the period of the contract from four years to two years.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Today, the union’s bargaining team met with management’s team and gave them a counter proposal dealing with all the issues that had been left outstanding, economic and otherwise. The union’s proposal included some new major concessions. Those concessions – along with management’s reluctance to pay the service unit the same kinds of wages which similar workers receive at St. Elizabeth in Red Bluff, the two hospitals in Redding, and Fremont-Rideout in Marysville -– forced us to also reduced the period of the contract from four years to two years.

One of our major concessions was agreeing to management’s position of not putting unresolved staffing issues in front of a neutral arbitrator for a final decision, which then would allow management the option to finally ignore the concerns of our staff.

Another major concession was agreeing to their position that if the hospital were to change ownership, management would not insist on the new owners accepting our contract. This concession forces us to have only a two-year contract, as we don’t think the hospital’s financial position would deteriorate in two years, though with a history of poor management decisions and the possibility of unresolved staffing concerns, four years might be a different story.

Concerning wages…
The wage scale part of our proposal kept the hospital’s awkward ten-step format with its 2.5% “hire anniversary” increases from one step to another, which, of course, applies to only those employees who have worked at Enloe for under ten years. Our proposal also had a “contract anniversary” raise of 4% between the two years of the life of the contract. All service unit employees would be eligible for that raise.

In another attempt to show our seriousness in trying to compromise, we put a top cap on any service unit employee’s raise for the first year at only 12%, and for the second year at 10%, for a total maximum wage increase of only 22% for the two years. Remember, there are some of us service unit employees who are underpaid even to the tune of up to 40-some percent below our “Red Bluff standard.” But by capping these raises at 22% we reduce the overall wage costs to the employer. If you’re one of the employees who are only underpaid 22% or less than our market standards, then these caps will not affect you.

We also proposed minimum raises of at least a 5% in the first year, and at least 4% in the second.

A few weeks back, we agreed to lengthen our three-year contract to a four-year contract because we, again, were trying to show the administration that we were seriously trying to compromise and get closer to their wage figures. A three-year contract stretched to four years would have the effect of reducing those costs.

After several sessions of discussions among our members, we were able to reduce from our originally proposed 43% increase over Enloe’s overall wage costs – which would have immediately raised us to the fair market standard enjoyed by other north state hospital workers – to only a 24% increase over the hospital’s wage costs.

The obstacle…
A couple of bargaining sessions ago, the administration had said that our ballpark figure of 24% was acceptable, but then last session came up with figures that were $2 million less than ours! They gave us no explanation or reasoning behind their results. This, you can imagine, was confusing to our team. Every time Heath, our ‘coster’, addressed a question from Carol Linscheid – Enloe’s V.P. of Human Resources – and her team, they seemed to come up with yet another question. Not only confusing, but frustrating. Finally, after meeting with Christine Sarrico – Enloe’s Chief Financial Officer – and her refusal to budge with their figures, we decided that the administration really was not serious about “good faith” bargaining.

Today’s compromises were another attempt by us to show our good faith. After the administration’s team took a look at our counter, asked a few questions, they left the room to review it. They came back with a counter of their own, insisting again on a 4-year contract with a reduced average of a 9.6% raise for the first year (varying from classification to classification) and an increase from their 3.5% to 4% for each of the other 3 years. Charlie, our chief negotiator, said their proposal was going backward, as their first year raises have gone down from their original proposal of about 11% to 10.72% and now to their 9.6%.

Other stuff…
Even with all of the union’s concessions to try and move forward, management still won’t accept the union’s position on our “no strike” clause. They said the already agreed upon “grievance-arbitration” clause should be enough to settle disputes, while we said our members should have the right – in their off time – to stand with coworkers in other units if the administration is unresponsive to their concerns.

Just as the administration refuses to let the nurses use meeting rooms at the hospital, they refuse us also. As trivial as this may seem to most of us, for them it’s just part of their program to marginalize unions at Enloe.

Finally…
As you can see, we are still working hard to achieve a fair outcome, and have shown the administration over and over again we are willing to move toward common ground. The administration, on the other hand, has been unwilling to treat us as anything other than a “market factor.” They may talk about Planetree and Employee Engagement, and maybe they think they believe in these things. But Planetree and Employee Engagement require a certain kind of responsiveness. There can be no real responsiveness as long as they see us more as market items than as struggling and concerned human beings.

We ended the day with no set date for our next session. The mediator suggested that we wait on setting a date and let the Enloe team digest what happened today. We will let you know when and where the next bargaining session will be. If there are any questions, please email me at pfcalo@yahoo.com and I will try to find an answer or direct you to someone who knows. You can ask any bargaining team member or call Pat Alvarez at 624-4256 for clarification.

PS…
A few of our bargaining team members met with a few members of the Board of Trustees this past weekend to tell them our side of the story, to inform them as to what has happened and where we are. There were several long conversations with these trustees, and we really welcomed the opportunity to have their attention. It has mostly been our contention that our Board has not been given our side of the issues from our perspectives. Hopefully, we all can get on the same page, and work together to make Enloe into the primo institution of the north state.