KP Alliance Update | February 18, 2026

Local Bargaining in lieu of National Bargaining Would be Disastrous

Kaiser Permanente continues to insist that moving from National Bargaining to local bargaining is faster, delivers enhanced wages and benefits, and is “the best path to deliver a comprehensive contract” for Alliance members.

KP proposes to do this by appending to the local contracts the 2021 National Agreement, economic memorandums of understanding (MOU), national tentative agreements agreed to thus far, and an additional MOU related to local agreements overriding national agreements.

Here are three ways that moving away from National Bargaining to local bargaining would be disastrous for Alliance members.

1. KP’s proposal would undercut wage increases for many Alliance Unions whose contracts have different expiration dates.

For months, management has talked about their proposal for 21.5% wage increases in a four-year contract. But their proposal to end National Bargaining would make that offer worse for 18 bargaining units, including OFNHP Techs and Hygienists, UFCW 770 Kern, UFCW Local 7, UFCW Local 27 and UFCW Local 400 Health Professionals, HNHP RN’s, ILWU, Teamsters, IUOE, KPNAA and many more.

At National Bargaining, KP’s proposal was 21.5% over 4 years. That means another raise to be bargained October 1, 2029, at the expiration of the National Agreement. With KP’s new proposal to pivot to local bargaining, members in 18 Alliance bargaining units would get 0% raise on October 1, 2029, and would wait much longer for the chance to bargain their next raise. That’s right, 0% in 2029 – no raise, no bargaining. Many members would have to wait until August 2030 or August 2031 for their raise. That’s KP’s proposal, also known as regressive bargaining.

On top of this, KP is saying no retroactive pay for the months Alliance members have gone without an increase since the National Agreement expired in October.

Don’t be fooled. Eliminating National Bargaining only helps Kaiser Permanente.

The Solution – National Bargaining for a National Agreement

2. Management’s proposal erodes your rights and protections.

Hidden inside KP’s “package proposal” is a timebomb that can destroy Alliance member rights across the board.

KP says that the local contract “supersedes” or overrides the National Agreement and any other Alliance agreements “regardless of whether such agreements contain superior terms” and regardless of “past practice.” Sounds technical and complicated, right? That’s the point – to confuse people into giving up their rights.

If the terms of the local contract supersede terms in the National Agreement or other standing agreements, what happens to EISA (Economic and Income Security Agreement) and to no cancellation? Those are national agreements too, but if the local agreement gives KP the right to lay off people or subcontract work, KP can say that the local contract prevails. Similarly, what happens to the “no subcontracting” provisions of the national agreement? The list goes on and on. If management has stronger rights in a local agreement, they will use those to take away national protections.

The Solution – National Bargaining for a National Agreement

3. KP’s proposal does not “honor” the National Agreement.

KP has publicly announced they want to “honor the National Agreement.” But their proposal does the opposite. It splits the National Agreement and divides bargaining units. It says the local agreement prevails over the National Agreement, no matter what. That’s not honoring the agreement! That’s gutting the National Agreement!

The solution – National Bargaining for a National Agreement