We arrived at bargaining yesterday expecting very little from the Employer, as management typically stonewalls the first session after a strike. They did not disappoint us.
From the beginning, they were provocative, intimating that they might not schedule future bargaining dates unless we make movement on their three takeaway proposals and once again declining mediation. Then they gave us another comprehensive proposal, noting that it was the exact same proposal they gave us four weeks earlier.
We seized on this opportunity to engage management in a dialog about their three big takeaway proposals. In the process, management confirmed the following:
- Elimination of the 1:5 ratio – management is seeking the “flexibility” to schedule intake appointments into return appointments whenever management sees fit, without consultation with the provider. Their proposal, unlike ours, has no provisions that would ensure timely access requirements are met.
- “Patient Care Time Improvement” – the intent of this proposal is to increase Direct Patient Care. It decreases Indirect Patient Care (IPC) time by shifting case consultation conferences and required trainings to IPC time and by eliminating group prep/charting time. It allows management the “flexibility” to fill canceled and FTKA appointments without consulting the provider. And most nefariously, the proposal allows management total flexibility to book appointments into IPC time.
- Model of Care and Management Rights – this proposal would open the door for the Employer replacing bargaining unit positions with outside providers, which they cannot do under the current language. This proposal eliminates the concepts of consultation and collaboration with providers and replaces it with management having final say on clinical practice decisions. As one management representative stated, they want “to have complete control over what programs are available and to have complete control over those programs.”
Management repeated several times that the intent of their proposals is to give them “flexibility to meet the needs of patients.” But the language of their proposals makes it clear their intent is to have the flexibility to add patients to providers schedules at will, which in turn will take away the flexibility providers currently have to meet the needs of their patients.
We also presented a revised proposal on New Technology/Artificial Intelligence that incorporates language from Kaiser’s media and employee messaging: “Artificial intelligence cannot replace mental health clinicians.” Kaiser representatives are claiming publicly that they do not intend to replace mental health clinicians with A.I. and suggest that anything we say otherwise is a “false narrative.” So we are asking them to put it in the contract and agree to the language the Employer agreed to in Southern California.
