Bargaining Update 07.15.2026

Bargaining update 07.15.2026 | Ground Rules - Union Provisions (emails) - Uniforms - Moonlighting

Ground Rules

Both parties have officially reached a tentative agreement upon ground rules!

OHSU agreed to consider alternative implementation/expiration timelines for proposals throughout negotiations. At the table, we reached a mutual understanding that such agreements are substantive and can be addressed in future proposals– a sign that bargaining is going well. This is a unique agreement that will play out more depending on the disposition of bargaining and gives us an opportunity to be more creative with our proposals. 

• Example for early implementation– our union may propose early implementation of changes to our grievance procedure before July 1, 2027 if agreed upon by both parties.
• Example for early expiration– our union may propose early expiration date of Article 12 of our current contract (January 1st instead of July 1st), which will give us more options for labor actions within the bargaining timeline as opposed to delaying any actions into the next academic year.

More importantly, with the ground rules agreed upon, this will now allow us to stream the bargaining sessions for any member interested in attending as an observer.

Union Provisions

1. Union communication with its members via email
   OHSU’s  proposal:  (1) Loosening the language around receiving and opening Union communications via email at work as long as it does not interfere with work performance. 2) They rejected our language that “union communications will follow state and federal laws” in replacement of restricted uses. 3) They also added language to serve as a reminder that OHSU is a public institution and therefore any communication that occurs over OHSU’s systems/ servers may be subject to public disclosure. 
   OHSU’s rationale: (1) Expansive language that gives House Officers more flexibility with checking union emails. (2) They are concerned that state and federal policies do not cover aspects of internal OHSU standards for communications. (3) They want HOU members to be aware OHSU email communications are subject to public records requests. 
    

2. New House Officer Onboarding Logistics
   OHSU  proposal/rationale:  Limiting the number of House Officer representatives to 2 for the Union “check-in” style onboarding, opposed to the originally proposed 5 representatives. They cited the limited amount of table space and logistics of ordering food for the representatives who attend. 
   OHSU  proposal/ rationale:  Removing the proposed clause regarding the allotment of protecting time/accrual of ACGME training hours for House Officers who staff the check-in table. They discussed that, while each program has different clinical/hour requirements, program directors do not have jurisdiction over what qualifies as training versus non-training hours which is decided by the ACGME and various specialty boards.

   Our union’s bargaining team pushed back on this by requesting more information about training minimums, and the input program directors have with interpreting those minimums. Our team also asserts that interacting with colleagues as leaders meets ACGME sub-competiency definitions for training.

Uniforms

1. Increasing OHSU provided uniform attire
   Our union proposed: In addition to the 2 white coats and 3 sets of scrubs that are already offered, allowing each House Officer to choose 1 jacket from the OHSU campus store upon hire as well as issuing a $150 stipend for the purchase of work shoes each academic year.
   Why it matters: Ensuring optimal attire for the House Officer’s duties, such as a jacket for comfort and warmth and non-slip shoes for safety.

Moonlighting

OHSU GME policy 18 details OHSU’s policies on moonlighting. Within this policy, “in-scope” moonlighting, which is moonlighting that covers the scope of experiences House Officers will receive during training, is not allowed. Given that program requirements are dictated by ACGME, our team asked OHSU to clarify why “in-scope” moonlighting is not allowed. 

Our current contract dictates that work outside of the House Officer’s training program must be in accordance with GME policy 18. Understanding the “in-scope” clause of this policy will better allow us to accurately bargain for moonlighting opportunities.

If you would like to read more on GME Policy 18: https://www.ohsu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-08/GME%2018%20-%20Moonlighting%20Policy%201.pdf

As always, if you have any ideas for other things you’d like us to get into the contract, let us know. 

Happy Bargaining!

HOU Bargaining team