Are your sympathies moving one way or the other in the nurses' labor dispute?
Posted at 5:00 AM on June 16, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(31 Comments)
Filed under: Economy, Health
Twin Cities nurses plan to vote Monday on whether to go out on strike again. Today's Question: Are your sympathies moving one way or the other in the nurses' labor dispute?
Comments (31)
Super inoframtive writing; keep it up.
Look at the data; The more patients a nurse needs to watch The more patients DIE. The more patients a nurse watches, the higher the profits are for the hospitals.Which do you want more profits or more deaths? Look it up!
CL
Your attitude is just so--what's that word again, oh yeah--insufferable. Hopefully you are still in your teens or twenties, that way you still have some time to get over being an idiot/snob.
I strongly side with the nurses. A number of commentators on this site have mentioned, often without citation or support, a number of claims that ought to be addressed.
First: Rachel says, "Minnesota provides some of the best health care in the nation so the hospitals must be doing something right!" This is true, on the whole (though let's not confuse Mayo Clinic for the entire state), but I challenge her dichotomy between the "hospitals" and the nurses. Nurses are part of a complex system of health care delivery and are increasingly involved in the total care of patients. Many nurses are the primary point of contact for patients with their care team, and increasingly physicians rely on the highly trained judgment of nurses in the execution of patient care. I encourage readers to check out Julie Fairman's book "Making Room in the Clinic" on the evolving role of nurses that led to the development of the Nurse Practitioners movement.
Second: Steve Carlson says, "They are overpaid already when you look at the level of education they have. Nurses are paid far more here than in other countries. There are people with four year degrees that make half of what the nurses do. Nurses' salaries and benefits are one of the reasons health care costs are so high."
The level of education of our nurses is indeed on the rise. The increasing involvement of nurses in specialist fields has led to specialist education, up to and including Doctors of Nurse Practitioner degrees. But level of nurse education in other countries is not as disparate as Steve would have you think. A simple Google search, for example, shows that the entry degree for nursing in both Greece and the U.K. is a Bachelor's degree (Bakalis et al., "International Nursing Review" 2004). This is not true in this country. So while we may have more nurses with advanced degrees, a lot of the nurses on the floor have Associates degrees. I suppose, but Steve's logic, that they ought to be paid even less. The same would be true for Bill Gates, the Harvard drop-out, right? Also, why are my colleagues and supervisors at the University, all of whom have PhDs, not paid accordingly? Connecting education level to "just" rate of pay is a tricky job, and I don't think Steve is the one to do it. Additionally, a recent study by the Carnegie Foundation actually found that new nursing graduates need MORE clincial education, not less, to better prepare them for the demands of clinical life. (Brenner et al., "Educating Nurses: A Call for Radical Transformation" 2009).
And make no mistake, nursing is a demanding profession. My partner is a nurse. She works 12 hour shifts overnight and comes home every morning tired but satisfied from her work. The notion that somehow her degree and the work requirements of the job makes her "overcompensated" are pretty absurd. As for their level of pay, it's true that nurses make more on average here than elsewhere, but please do recall that "elsewhere" has government-run health systems that are able to better regulate costs, and that said nurses do not have to pay for their own health insurance, as ours do. As for those with comparable levels of education who make less, well, it seems to me that is a case for more unions, not fewer unions.
Those who want to blame the nurses for the current state of health care economics are misguided, and in fact are simply wrong. Our faults, dear readers, are not in our nurses but in our selves - costs are directly related to the consumer mentality of the patients, reflected in their insurance providers and the marble floored foyers, the duplication of costly machines at every single hospital, and the over-compensation of physicians and hospital executives. I recommend Rosemary Stevens for a history lesson on these points - she is boring but very informative.
Finally, I'd like to direct readers to a recent column in the "Globe and Mail" by Margaret Wente, where she made the case that hospital administrators and university presidents need to remember that they don't run businesses (OK, some hospital administrators in the U.S. DO, but hey, she's Canadian, so I guess she's just lucky that way) and ought not to be compensated as such. CEOs of Twin Cities hospitals do make a lot of money, but let's not conflate Abbott Northwestern with Target Corp. Wente's column is here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/boom-days-over-as-duty-calls/article1526847/
I'd just like to note on a personal level that I am proud of my partner and I was proud to march with the nurses on Thursday. I am also grateful to their Teamster brothers from UPS who, rather than break a picket line with their trucks, did not deliver to United in St. Paul.
We will all be better off if the nurses and the hospitals can agree on safe-staffing levels - I hope it doesn't come to a long strike, but if it does, I'm ready to march!
My sympathies have changed away from nurses after seeing how much money they make and have defined benefit pensions, too. I don't know enough about staffing levels, but that could be an important point on the nurses' side. They should drop the negotiations about salary and pension and concentrate on staffing levels.
I think the nurses' strike is needed, but it is a bit unprofessional. It's been said that rofessionals negotiate while LABORERS strike. The nurses are really typing themselves here...
Just to clarify, the amount by which the suits are overpaid compared to the workers is not counted as "profit" to the business. Am I wrong about that?
Nurses don't have the corner on the market for patient safety. As a non contract RN working in one of the 14 hospitals, I care deeply about patient safety and the best outcomes for our patients (and I am not alone).
The unions and nurses should have a course on health care economics, and consider the state of our fragile economy. A bankrupt hospital benefits nobody!
Contrary to MNA opinion, the hospitals are not loaded with money. Profits they make go back into healthcare technology in this very competitive market.
There are good people on both sides. Let us be caring and professional as this dispute is resolved.
The nurses. My wife is an ER nurse at Southdale. I wonder how the corporate suits would feel if they were denied the lunch break due to over crowding or being a nurse short. Anyone involved in a hospital malpractice should demand the time sheets for staff on discovery. You will see how the suits work the nurses into the ground.
Must we continue the contentious side-choosing? Big picture: We acknowledge that hospitals must stay in business. They need skilled nursing staff. Realizing we all need each other, let's be rational; get back to talking and work it out. BTW, I am a nurse involved in this. If the hospitals will not agree to meet and respectfully listen to us, I will vote to strike.
I don't have a side in this fight.
If I were a hospital, I'd be looking at the impact of the one-day strike & how we delivered services that day & be thinking about how quickly I could fully staff the nurses' positions if they held an indefinite walkout. If I were a nurse, I'd be thinking about what the hospitals' 'Plan b' might be, before voting to strike again.
I am a nurse, and very proud to be a nurse. After a career as a non-contract employee, I never imagined that I would be grateful to be represented by a union. Years later, I see that it is only with the help of the union that nurses have a voice. It amazes me, and saddens me profoundly, that the public does not understand what this fight is about, and that so many people are turning against us. Obviously, the huge effort by the Twin Cities Hospitals to manipulate the public and turn public opinion against us, is working, and the media is not reporting the message we are trying so desperately to get out. This is NOT about money. It IS about ensuring that language is written into the new contract that protects us from having more patients than we can safely care for.
The union is asking for a 3% pay raise, but we know we won’t get it. Many nurses have asked our union representatives to drop the issue of a pay increase and have been told it’s nothing more than a bargaining chip to get the hospitals back to the table; John Nemo, the MNA spokesperson has said this publicly and clearly. We are fully prepared to concede any raise if the hospitals are willing to have a discussion about safe staffing levels, our real issue.
90% of nurses voted to reject the hospitals’ offers (93.5% in the system in which I work according to the union). The real story should be WHY we so overwhelmingly rejected the offer and risked a strike. Hospital administrators should be asking themselves what about their leadership and lack of understanding about our world lead to this significant rejection of their offers, and how we can begin to repair the damage and move forward together with a shared vision. They should be clamoring to get back to the bargaining table, ready to stay there until an agreement is reached, rather than walking out at 2 in the afternoon on a recent Friday saying that not “one word, one sentence” of what we have to talk about and propose is of interest to them.
We fully understand that these are difficult times and that we all need to be flexible. But what does that flexibility look like? It does NOT, apparently, mean management giving up huge raises and bonuses and making the decision to sacrifice the inlaid marble floors, pianos and fireplaces for the good of the organization’s financial health. It does NOT mean spending more than the merest token amount of time on the units with the staff to formulate a real understanding of the workers’ and patients’ needs and the workflow.
Flexibility has meant staff, all staff on the floors, doing more with fewer and fewer resources. For nurses it has meant more “heads on beds”, so that you get a new admission or surgical patient within minutes of discharging a patient, even as your other patients haven‘t been checked on as often as they should; it means giving up anything resembling a break to go to the bathroom, quickly have something to eat or drink, because there’s too much happening on the unit with your patients you don’t dare step away; it too often means clenching your jaw and holding back tears because you have to be in three or four places at once. We can’t possibly BE any more flexible than we have been in recent years! Maureen Schriner likes to say that the nurses at Twin Cities hospitals give excellent care, and we do; but neither she nor anyone in management seems to understand to what lengths a nurse goes and what he or she sacrifices on any given day in order to give that care.
The nurses, WANT to get back to the table, we WANT this to be resolved and to move forward. But we also want our employers to realize that we are too often at a breaking point that they will never understand unless they walk our walk with us, and that we need language that protects us from disaster and tragedy. The public is hearing that we’re asking for “more staffing”. We do need to hire more nurses. Almost every day, every shift in May staffing called the units and begged the nurses to work double shifts because they were so short staffed. Double shifts are expensive (time and a half to double time) and dangerous; you don’t really want a nurse who’s in their 12th or 14th hour on the job caring for you, do you? Conversely, if we are overstaffed, nurses are always willing to take a low census day without pay; in our system we took almost 10,000 such days last year, saving the corporation $3.6 million.
We currently have a staffing ratio, on my busy medical/surgical unit, of one nurse to four patients at one time, which could mean five or six patients over the course of a shift with discharges and transfers (“heads on beds”). We are NOT asking for that ratio to shift downward, but we ARE asking that it not change in the months or years to come. Is it not reasonable to ask for language that protects us from doing even more than we do on a barely controlled day? This is what negotiations and a potential strike are about.
I strongly support the nurses. Haven't seen the biggies high up take big cuts. Why the nurses? They work hard to become--and stay--qualified to do an often complex job. Would you want a highly skilled OB nurse trying to assist your neurosurgeon? No way could I have ever managed the hours my highly skilled OR nurse daughter-in-law is expected to handle. Their main request isn't even pay jumps. I don't want to join folks I know who are going across the border(s) for medical care.
From my experience with two strikes the only folks who benefit are a few corp. lawyers and union mgmt. I am disappointed the media has not reported at all about health insurance company involvement. Two weeks in a German hospital results in a one-page bill vs the ream US citizens receive from over-paid, paper-pushing "non-for-profit" insurance megaliths. A nurse should make more than the many, many highly-paid insurance employees whose job is not to provide actual health care but figure out 'legal' ways to steal more money from US citizens. The insurance industry is destroying our country. What is the total income (including stock, bonses, etc.) for all the hospital and insurance CEOs, mgmt, sales reps, etc.? I'll bet it would pay for more than a few nurses without stealing their pensions.
MPR reporting feedback - post optional:
I am really tired of MPR commentators actively supporting the taking of pension funds. I realize commentators have their own opinions and obviously aren't offered pensions, but some balance is needed. Companies and government entities offer this benefit in lieu of other benefits. When my peers were making six-figure salaries I opted instead for a lower salary with a pension. The same way I opted for a fixed 30-year mortgage instead of gambling with a variable mortgage. Now the same folks that think gambling with interest rates should be subsidized by those of us who didn't gamble are the same folks who are salivating over our pensions.
I support the hospitals. The nurse's union is after better benefits and pay raises for nurses. The media needs to do a better job of reporting both sides of the issue and not be so biased towards the nurses. Minnesota provides some of the best health care in the nation so the hospitals must be doing something right!
I am against the nurses. They are overpaid already when you look at the level of education they have. Nurses are paid far more here than in other countries. There are people with four year degrees that make half of what the nurses do. Nurses' salaries and benefits are one of the reasons health care costs are so high.
The what now?
Seriously: unions are beneficial at times, but in many cases they encourage laziness, mediocrity, and a sense of entitlement that never ceases to amaze me. I don't know if this applies to nurses' unions, but I've seen it so often that, despite the erstwhile benefits of unionization, I wonder if it's not time for massive labor reform (nudge, nudge) Surely somebody in Washington can fix this?? (!).
Don't know enough about this issue to offer an informed opinion, but I do wonder how a fight between employers & employees affects customers.
As previously pointed out: hospitals are business machines, designed & operated to make money. That is their single primary and overriding function. The fact that their services (should?) help people live better lives is, at best, secondary.
Disappointed with both sides so sympathy declining for all, except the patients who may see a decrease in quality of care as the groups bicker over money.
On a side note, the quality, tone, and presentation of press releases from both sides has been contentious. They seem to be focused on intimidating their rival rather than winning public opinion.
The unions are greedy, and the execs who run businesses do it out of the goodness of their hearts? Riiiiight! No one is saying businesses shouldn't make a fair profit, but it's a bit hypocritical when an overpaid exec complains that there's no money to pay workers fairly.
Wow! I don't hate business but I do side with the nurses. They are dedicated and really hard working. I do believe they are concerned for patients' welfare. I don't think the healthcare industry has been so up front and honest all the time. I think we saw that trying to get healthcare reform passed.
I love all the hate for business, which doesn't come as a big surprise seeing that this is an MPR board. Without big evil profitable business unions would not exist! The nurses are on track to bankrupt hospitals just like the unions bankrupted auto makers and the airlines. Every time some altruistic nurse comes out and makes a statement about how this is all for the sake of the patients just makes them look like pandering liars. Everybody knows this is all for the nurses personal gain, that's what unions are for. At least if they were honest about why they are striking they would have a little more respect from me. And one more thing for all you union types, you can't love employees and hate employers.
I will side with the nurses.....who actually provide direct services to their clients. The aim of hospitals and their management people is to keep as much money in their pockets, paying it out in bonuses and other forms of compensation to themselves for exactly that...keeping costs down any way possible. What is going on now shows a total lack of respect for these professionals and the important work they provide. I wish them well.
I tend to side with unions because businesses tend to always analyze the cost of doing businesses, and frequently the cost they get rid of first is employees. Furthermore, our society tends to think businesses generally make good rational decisions. Well, businesses are run by human beings, and human beings make errors all the time. Just ask Tom Petters, British Petroleum, Fannie Mae, and Bernie Madoff, or Enron and Tyco executives. But more to the point, businesses always expect us as employees or voters to see things from their point of view, but they are generally unwilling to see things from our point of view: we have children, sick old parents, mortgages, bills, and vacation time. We can't take care of any of these things without the money businesses charge us, the public to enjoy them. And costs are always going up. The only time costs come down is during short sales periods and going out of business runoffs.
I am in strongly favor for the nurses position, my sister is a nurse in Cambridge & says the union busting stuff management being tried in Twin Cities is working its way up there. She believes that the union executive officiers are not stating the membership's case strongly enough. It has all to do with union busting, pressuring younger nurses to give up workplace protections/rules and seniortiy. And that is just a start. When people say union people make too much money, why aren't they themselves asking in turn--maybe I don't make enough money. My husband & I will walk the picket lines with them. Solidarity forever !
When the CEO's of the healthcare industry, (yes it is still a private industry) make millions of dollars a year in salary and bonuses, then say they can't afford to staff enough nurses to take care of patients, I have to be skeptical. As far as unions go, while they are not perfect, they are still needed to keep management accountable and protect working people. Even non-union workers benefit by default. There would not be paid time off, over time pay, and other benefits if unions had not demanded them over the years.
I support unions for the services and support they provide workers. If my profession unionized, I would totally join in. However, I don't believe that the nurses demands are appropriate at this time. If it was 100% about patient care, I would support their cause. But given they are asking for rather significant pay raises, I have trouble supporting them. Hospitals are losing millions of dollars with the changes in GAMC and from people without health insurance who seek treatment. Sometimes we all need to make sacrifices in order to keep our jobs. If the nurses can't accept their average salary of $75,000 then I can't sympathize.
I'm pro union all the way. People (not necessarily here) tend to forget that Hospitals are for-profit institutions, NOT some sort of benevolent force doing all they can to help. Just like many other businesses, they'll cut and cut and cut to increase their profits until something bad happens because of the cuts (BP, Toyota, etc.) and then we'll be right back here where it all started. The problem is that when something bad happens in a hospital, people die.
Towards the hospitals. From what I have heard from people involved (this includes a couple nurse opinions), the nurses appear to be out of touch with the reality of current economic times. They were hoping for a PR victory last week and it did not happen. It is time to drop some unreasonable demands and become more serious about the negotiations.
Those greedy nurses should get off their duffs, so the noble, hard-working health-care executives can get back to the important business of profiteering from sick people.
Unions are all greedy. Let the compay rot as long as we are compensated. Look at GM, where union workers were paid to sit in a rubber room for years. What company can afford these demands.
Get back to work nurses or you should all be terminated and replaced!
My sympathies have not changed. I still support the nurses. Contrary to right-wing rhetoric, there has not been a "government takeover" of health care. Health care is still in the private sector, and as long as it is, labor needs the leverage of collective bargaining to level the playing field with management.
| June 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock