[teeituptom]

Originally Posted by fergus51

I've been offered strike work before. The pay really wasn't that good. You can make almost the same amount on a regular travel assignment out here.

Really, I make out quite well. I even had one place throw in green fees for me.

[pickledpepperRN]

I remember 2 strikes this century, both in 2002.

Long Beach: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._94270657/pg_1

Los Angeles: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...24/ai_92808155

Strike facts for CNA is on page 17: http://www.calnurse.org/assets/pdf/cna101.pdf

Kaiser 1997: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...06/ai_n8775037
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54C0A961958260

NO to labor/management partnership! http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastb...l?jst=pn_pn_lk

[HM2Viking]

MNA also struck in 2002(?). The union won a fair contract. Last round of negotiations both sides were very respectful of each other and nurses won a good contract for nurses practicing in MPLS/St Paul.

[Freedom42]

Thanks for these references. What I'm trying to assess is whether strikes really happen all that often. It doesn't appear that they do, and when they do, they don't last very long. In the examples cited above, strikes were last resorts, and nurses came away victorious.

It's interesting that the possibility of striking is nonetheless frequently raised by posters as a reason for being anti-union. Could it be fear-mongering promoted by management?

I'm still curious as to whether I'll hear about any facility that's been shut down by a nurses' labor action. Or is that a management-touted scenario, too?

[fergus51]

Originally Posted by teeituptom

Really, I make out quite well. I even had one place throw in green fees for me.

2 companies called me about $40 an hour assignments for a potential strike in Northern California not long ago. I don't do strikes anyways, but was surprised at the low wage. $40 an hour is the same as what a different company was offering for regular travel contracts at my current hospital in my specialty. A regular per diem job up there would pay almost twice that. People talk about all the money they make doing strikes, but no one wants to be specific. What hourly wage makes it worthwhile?

[HM2Viking]

not for a 1000/hr.

[ZASHAGALKA]

A scab is somebody willing to do the same job for less money or more work for the same amount of money. This is certainly not the case with nursing replacement workers.

All emotions aside, nurse replacement workers enable nurses to strike. It's that simple. Without them, the hospitals would have to close down. Closed down, the hospitals would be in a position to simply outwait strikers.

Result: hospitals would win any strike that results in forced closure.

The unions should thank replacement workers for being strike ENABLERS.

Nursing IS different then other jobs. At other jobs, there are tons of non-union workers willing and able to 'steal' a union worker's job for less money. Scabs undermine a strike by allowing management to continue without a hitch or cost.

There are no scabs in nursing. Crossing the line costs hospitals far more than any other thing a union could hope to happen.

The more nurses they can recruit in this fashion, the closer they can come to operating 'normal'. The needs of the community would normally demand that they spend with reckless abandon to do just that.

Spending with reckless abandon on temp workers has a way of encouraging appreciation for your own staff.

Like most strikes: money is the bottom line. Even safety issues come down to what they cost. Unions should be thrilled about the concept of hospitals bleeding money in this fashion.

Personally, I think making a fortune to cross a picket line IS keeping solidarity with those 'on the line'. Nothing will bring about the solution you desire as a union member FASTER then management having to spend MORE money then it would take to just settle the dispute.

Unlike non-professional jobs, management cannot simply wholesale replace workers. These workers aren't out to get YOUR jobs; they are just out to make a bundle off of management's stupidity. When all is said and done, your jobs remain safe, management bleeds like a sieve, and strikes cost so much for management to maintain, that they simple MUST return to the bargaining table faster.

Union supporters will say, though, that without replacement workers, the hospitals would be forced to close, thereby requiring that they MUST negotiate with strikers, before that could occur.

NO, they would simply move their patients out and close down during a strike. Ultimately, that costs LESS money to do so. Without the concern for inpatients, those hospitals would be free to wait it out for long periods of time.

IF patients weren't at issue, such strikes could last for months. And the hospital would always have the power to simply outwait strikers. After all, the 'shareholders' will understand that a complete standstill for a time is just the cost of doing business.

Hospitals are based on location more than non-locational demands. As such, they do not lose significant business 'share' by waiting out a strike, unless they provide substandard care. And no matter how well a replacement worker does the job, the whole operation cannot measure up to the 'standard' of a full compliment of staff.

But, that same reputation means that they can't just close down if other options are available. After all, the claim to fame for most hospitals is serving the communities they are located in.

As a result, the hospitals are FORCED to use replacement workers. And that comes at a premium cost. And it keeps the patients in-house which keeps the concerns for reputations at the forefront of discussions and/or concerns.

From a reputation perspective, hospitals are 'danged if they do, danged if they don't'. And that is not a bad place from which to negotiate from - if you are the union.

The WORST nightmare for a nurses' strike would be a completely closed down facility without the immediate patient concerns to come to the table. Such a facility would ALWAYS be able to outwait the strikers.

Replacement nurses keep those issues at the forefront, and puts pressure on hospitals to return to 'standard' staffing. As such, while replacement nurses benefit from desperate employers, they do NOT do so at the expense of strikers. Far from it, they keep the striker's concerns on the fire by making the hospital's reputation a continuing concern.

Replacement workers are strike enabling. It's the hospitals that are in a bind. They MUST keep as much of their doors open as possible; serving the community is their claim to fame. So they must pay the exorbitant fees; fees that would make a sane person reconsider what it would take to settle a strike.

Replacement workers bring pressure to bear on management to settle. When emotions take over, logic goes out the window. That's just being human. Logically however, replacement workers DO keeps the doors open - and that's a good thing for the striking nurses. Otherwise, I hope you have months and months of savings; you'll need it to outwait corporations with millions of dollars at their disposal - and no patients to be concerned over. . .

~faith,
Timothy.

[fergus51]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

All emotions aside, nurse replacement workers enable nurses to strike. It's that simple. Without them, the hospitals would have to close down.

Or they would actually have to deal with their nurses to avoid closing down (and the hospital doesn't want to close its doors).

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by fergus51

Or they would actually have to deal with their nurses to avoid closing down (and the hospital doesn't want to close its doors).

Read everything I wrote, as I addressed this. From a financial point of view, hospitals can afford to close much more readily than staying open during a strike. They cannot afford to close - not because of money - but because of reputation to serve the community.

They are stuck between a rock and hard place: an excellent place for them to be - if you are the union.

Given no choice but to come to the table immediately - or close: what makes you think they will deal instead of close? In THAT case, they could just close and excuse it to the community: the nurses left us no choice.

If the replacement workers weren't there, in all likelihood, hospitals WOULD close during a strike.

Not only would that mean that they can wait you out, it also means that ancillary staff would be out of work, as well. Many would have to leave to find other work. The rest would hold you in contempt, and rightly so.

Thankfully, for the unions, replacement workers avoid all that.

~faith,
Timothy.

[fergus51]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Given no choice but to come to the table immediately - or close: what makes you think they will deal instead of close?

Because like you yourself said in the paragraph above, they can't afford to close their doors because of their reputation.

I have never seen any proof that striking nurses are in fact more expensive than a hospital closing their doors. I seriously doubt a hospital would close rather than reach a reasonable agreement with their nurses. Strikebreakers do what they do, and that's their decision. I'm not naive enough to believe they are doing it for the patients or that their actions help the nurses on strike. That's one of those don't pee on me and tell me it's raining kind of things.