Inside Kaiser’s Playbook for Managing a Multi-Week Healthcare Strike
Over 31,000 nurses and healthcare professionals walked off their jobs at Kaiser Permanente facilities in California and Hawaii, launching an open-ended strike with no predetermined end date. Two weeks later, 3,000 pharmacy technicians and laboratory scientists joined them. Union strategists called this a “second wave” designed to pile on pressure. By mid-February, Kaiser faced one of the largest coordinated healthcare labor actions in recent California history.
National bargaining between Kaiser and the Alliance of Health Care Unions—a coalition representing more than 60,000 Kaiser employees—had begun in May 2025. By December, the organization stopped those negotiations, a move that union representatives characterized as abandoning the Labor-Management Partnership agreement that had governed relations for 26 years without strikes. The contract covering United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (UNAC/UHCP) members expired September 30, 2025, leaving workers three and a half months without a new agreement when they hit the picket lines.
The Phased Escalation Strategy
The decision to bring pharmacy and laboratory workers into the action on February 9 rather than January 26 wasn’t accidental. These workers, represented by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Locals 135, 324, and 770, had authorized strike action in December 2025 but waited to join.
Todd Walters, President of UFCW Local 135, explained the logic: “Returning to work does not mean this fight is over. It means you showed your strength, applied pressure, and are prepared to escalate again if the organization refuses to do the right thing.” The pharmacy and lab workers conducted a three-day action, then returned to work February 12—maintaining the threat of renewed strikes while the nursing action continued indefinitely.
Rather than striking all workers simultaneously, unions can prevent employers from getting back to normal operations. As soon as management stabilizes contingency staffing for one group, adding new striking categories forces fresh rounds of recruitment and training.
The 2023 United Auto Workers “Stand-Up Strike” employed similar logic, selectively striking Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis facilities in waves rather than all at once. That strategy proved successful, with workers achieving 33% compounded wage increases.
Kaiser’s Operational Contingency Response
The organization had already managed a three-day strike in October 2023 involving 75,000 workers, which ended with tentative agreements including 21% wage increases and commitments to hire 10,000 new workers. That experience informed a response strategy that worked on several fronts: operational, legal, financial, and public messaging.
The health system deployed three overlapping approaches. First, they reassigned existing staff to strike-affected locations. Second, management-level clinicians—pharmacy directors, senior staff, administrators with clinical credentials—provided patient care. Third, they recruited contract workers, many of them former employees or experienced professionals from other systems.
The organization acknowledged that while “hospitals and nearly all medical offices remain open,” certain services experienced disruptions. Some pharmacies closed entirely or operated on reduced hours. Laboratory services faced delays. Non-urgent procedures were rescheduled. Virtual care platforms saw increased demand.
Pharmacy and Lab Workers Created Unique Pressure
The February 9 expansion targeting pharmacy and laboratory operations created compounding pressure that contingency plans appeared less equipped to handle than nursing shortages.
Pharmacies represent choke points in patient care. Prescription fulfillment can’t be fully automated. Pharmacists and technicians require specialized certification and knowledge of individual patient medications. Any delay in medication availability impacts multiple downstream patient care decisions.
Laboratory operations depend on certified personnel, specialized equipment calibration, and quality control procedures that temporary staff can’t rapidly master. Internal communications documented that “pharmacies were closed at strike locations, laboratory services faced delays, and walk-in clinics operated with reduced hours.”
A systematic review found that emergency department visits and hospital admissions drop during strikes, but that different services experience disruptions differently. For this health system, simultaneously disrupting medication availability and diagnostic testing capacity affected two building blocks doctors need to make decisions throughout the system.
The Financial Leverage Game
The organization’s ability to maintain operations during a multi-week action comes from massive cash reserves. As of 2025, Kaiser Permanente and its Risant Health affiliates reported $67 billion in total reserves, $9.3 billion in net income for 2025, and $127.7 billion in operating revenue for 2025.
The 2025 annual financial results, released February 6 during the action’s second week, showed these figures along with $4.8 billion in capital spending commitments. These numbers became central to union messaging about the organization’s claimed inability to fund wage and staffing investments.
The gap between what unions and management wanted remained substantial as the action entered its third week. UNAC/UHCP had sought 38% wage increases over four years but reduced this to 25% during negotiations. Management maintained that even the reduced demand was unsustainable, adding up to $3 billion in annual payroll costs.
The counter-offer: 21.5% wage increases over four years, with 16% front-loaded into the first two years, plus increases from step raises and local adjustments totaling 30% in total compensation increases. From management’s perspective, this represented the “strongest national bargaining offer ever.”
The Arithmetic of Compensation Disputes
The assertion that 30% in “total compensation increases” (including automatic step increases and local adjustments) equaled a generous offer compared to a 25% base wage demand raised questions about the starting point and which categories should count.
Union communications characterized the offer as inadequate given the organization’s financial position, the 2023 precedent of 21% wage increases plus hiring commitments, and persistent understaffing driving worker burnout. Charmaine S. Morales, President of UNAC/UHCP, framed it: “Caregivers should not be pressured or frightened for standing up for patient safety. This strike is about restoring safe staffing levels, timely access to care, and respect for the professionals who deliver that care every day.”
Union leadership raised equity concerns that the proposed structure would create two-tier compensation paying newly unionized workers—particularly Certified Nurse-Midwives newly organized in Northern California—significantly less than experienced counterparts. One striking worker articulated this: “They want us to sell future staff down the river by signing something that says we’re okay with new hires being paid half of what we’re paid.”
The Public Messaging Battle
The action generated media attention in regional and national outlets, appearing in major state newspapers including the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle, alongside national industry publications.
Union communications maintained narrative focus on patient safety and staffing concerns rather than permitting the dispute to be reframed as wage demands—a messaging strategy that historically strengthens public support for worker labor actions.
The “ghosting” accusation—that management had stopped responding to union bargaining requests—created a media narrative around bad-faith negotiating. Geraldine Doronio, a certified registered nurse anesthetist and member of the national bargaining team, stated: “Kaiser has ghosted us. Our bargaining teams have reached out for dates multiple times with absolutely no response—not even a courtesy reply.”
Quotes from striking workers describing working conditions provided human stories that media outlets featured. Elisabeth Cochran, RN at the San Diego Medical Center, described a patient hemorrhaging in postpartum care with inadequate staffing. The union compiled worker testimonies in a report titled “Profits Over Patients,” connecting understaffing to profitability.
Kaiser’s Counternarrative
Management messaging emphasized that the action was “unnecessary” given the company’s wage offer, that employee compensation already exceeded comparable positions at other systems by 16-24%, and that disruption harmed patients.
Communications challenged union claims about fines for returning to work, characterizing such allegations as disinformation designed to coerce continued participation. This positioning—centering on the generosity of offers and unnecessary disruption—represented a choice to emphasize that management was being reasonable rather than engaging patient safety claims.
The Legal and Regulatory Dimension
UNAC/UHCP filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board on December 17, 2025, alleging that the organization was “unlawfully refusing to bargain” and “attempting to bypass the national bargaining process.” Management disputed these accusations, arguing it was attempting to shift bargaining to local tables where issues could be addressed more expeditiously.
Employees who strike to protest an unfair labor practice can be neither discharged nor permanently replaced—meaning that if the NLRB sustained union allegations, striker job protection would be enhanced compared to economic strikes where employers retain more latitude to replace workers permanently.
The December decision to pause bargaining and subsequent communications to workers attempting to bypass union negotiators put the organization at legal risk. However, the company’s massive financial capacity to withstand extended disruption gave them a counterbalancing advantage—even if the NLRB sustained union allegations, the remedy would likely involve back-pay and reinstatement rather than forcing contract concessions.
Historical Precedents
The 2023 action involving 75,000 workers in a three-day walkout represents the most relevant precedent. That action achieved a tentative agreement including 21% wage increases for all union members over four years, with increases applied equally across all states and regions—a break from prior practice that had permitted regional wage variation.
The agreement included minimum wages of $25/hour in the state and $23/hour outside, commitments to hire 10,000 new workers, continued limits on subcontracting and outsourcing, and commitment to “rebuild” the Labor-Management Partnership that had governed labor relations for 26 years.
The 2023 outcome established baseline expectations for 2026 negotiations. Union representatives figured that the organization wouldn’t propose less favorable terms in 2026 than it had offered in 2023, particularly given strong 2024 financial performance. Instead, management offered 21.5% base wage increases plus compensation—a proposal that leadership characterized as generous but that unions viewed as insufficient improvement over the 2023 deal.
The Broader Healthcare Strike Wave
The 2026 action occurred as part of a wave of worker unionization and activity spanning 2023 through early 2026. Between 2021 and 2025, the sector witnessed over 150 strikes, with activity concentrated in 2023 and continuing through 2025.
Major actions included 15,000 staff at NYC hospitals in early 2024, 3,100 workers at Tenet Healthcare hospitals in October 2025, and numerous smaller actions addressing understaffing, wage stagnation, and unsafe working conditions.
Common themes included: persistent understaffing creating unsafe workload pressures, wage stagnation for professional workers despite rising industry profits, weakening of guaranteed pension plans and retirement security, and employer resistance to unionization or contract improvements justified through claims of financial constraint despite documented profitability.
Solidarity Maintenance Challenges
The scale of the action—34,000 workers in multiple states for multi-week duration—created financial pressures. UNAC/UHCP and affiliated unions maintained assistance structures to provide emergency funds and benefits to striking members, though research on sustainability indicates financial hardship emerges after two to three weeks when accumulated lost wages create rent, childcare, and expenses that benefits can’t fully cover.
The three-day UFCW pharmacy and lab worker action meant these workers bore more manageable financial burdens compared to the staff in their fourth week when the second wave launched.
Maintaining unity across different unions and job types, experience levels, and geographic locations presents organizing challenges. Factors enabling solidarity included: regional committees organizing activities rather than centralized coordination, rotating picket schedules allowing workers to balance participation with personal obligations, and digital communication tools enabling rapid information distribution.
Possible Trajectories
As the action entered its third week, management and union leadership hadn’t returned to bargaining sessions, according to union accounts. The dispute over management’s alleged “pause” in national bargaining remained unresolved, with the organization maintaining that local table bargaining represented the next step while unions insisted that national bargaining represented the established process the company was legally obligated to continue.
If pharmacy and laboratory worker participation in the second wave created sufficient operational pressure, management might decide that the costs of continued disruption were higher than costs of movement toward union positions. Under this scenario, parties would resume bargaining in mid-February, potentially achieving tentative agreement within four to six weeks if the organization made movement on wages, staffing commitments, and benefits.
Alternatively, if leadership calculated that operational costs of contingency staffing and lost revenue were manageable relative to cost of wage concessions, management might maintain bargaining positions while workers remained out through February and into March. This trajectory would test union financial sustainability and worker solidarity while potentially creating increasing regulatory scrutiny of patient care impacts.
A middle-ground outcome would be gradual movement by both parties after four to eight weeks: the organization increasing wage offers toward 24-25% range, unions scaling back some staffing demands in exchange for staffing committees with enforcement power, and negotiation of benefits compromises including partial restoration of pension protections.
Industry-Wide Implications
The outcomes of the February 2026 action will ripple through labor-management relations in the state system and potentially influence labor patterns nationally. Union outcomes—wage increases approximating 25-30%, staffing protections, benefits restoration—would likely spark organizing and tougher bargaining at competing systems including Sutter Health, Dignity Health, and UC Health.
Conversely, if the organization resisted union demands and workers returned to work after extended action with minimal concessions, this would weaken union power in the sector and discourage organizing at competing systems.
Workers at competing systems were watching the dispute to inform their own organizing decisions, while labor historians and movement scholars were evaluating whether the phased escalation strategy represented a sustainable model for worker actions.
Tens of thousands of workers with patient care responsibilities believed that their work conditions had become unsafe and unsustainable, that the organization’s financial position permitted investment in staffing and compensation but that management had chosen not to make such investment, and that job action represented their way to force change.
Management maintained that it was offering generous compensation increases limited by how much insurance companies pay hospitals, that staffing levels were adequate despite worker perceptions, and that unions were pursuing unrealistic demands that would harm patient affordability. Between these competing views, the action would continue until either financial pressure forced movement, government regulators forced change, or political will for settlement emerged from one or both parties.
This article analyzes protest and activism tactics for educational purposes. We aim to contribute to effective and ethical efforts across the political spectrum, and we present diverse viewpoints and ideas without endorsement.