[RN Power Ohio]

I think this pretty much sums it up- for the visual learners!

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by RN Power Ohio

Here is a quote from another:

The study also finds that unionization is a successful strategy for raising nurses' wages. At the state level, hospital nurses who are union members enjoy a 13 percent wage boost compared to those who are not.
http://www.allbusiness.com/north-ame...4079318-1.html

And that figure does not include the value of improved pensions and PTO plans for union members.....

[Ludlow]

Originally Posted by diveRN

See, I'm not so sure that super high wages and huge raises are the be-all, end-all here. There comes a point when high wages and the cost of labor makes it prohibitive for a company to keep going.

I've seen some pretty large companies fold up shop because labor was costing them too much. Just like any market, corrections and negative shifts will take place. I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but an argument can be made that unions actually cost jobs in the long run.

It is the foolish union that drives its employer out of business. Believe me, my employer is awash in funds.

This is just to say how underpaid I was in 1997 at that non-union hospital.

I don't know if you remember the early 1990s, but nurses were being laid off and taking salary cuts because the hospital industry had decided that it didn't need registered nurses. As hospitals cut back, the supply of nurses became greater than the demand. Non union hospitals were able to save millions of dollars by scaling down RN pay. It wasn't that hospitals were broke, it was that they could maximize their profits by paying their nurses less. (and then of course nurses found other ways to make money and the next thing we knew we were in a nursing shortage, courtesy of the Hospital industry.)

Unionized hospitals had contract wage protections. Here in the San Francisco Bay area nurses continued to get cost of living raises while their sisters and brothers especially in Southern California took cuts. Even the SEIU- and UNAC-represented hospitals in Southern Cal acquiesced and agreed to pay cuts, but the CNA-represented hospitals stood their ground.

Hence even though the cost of living is not that much higher in the bay area than it is in LA (what would be $1 in SF is the cost-of-living equivalent of 85 cents in LA), Bay area nurses make about 50% more than LA nurses.

Because the SF Bay area has about an 80% union density, wages and benefits have remained excellent. Nurses who work together and stick together end up better off all the way around.

And the hospitals in the Bay area? Still making millions.

[Chico David RN]

From Ludlow:
don't know if you remember the early 1990s, but nurses were being laid off and taking salary cuts because the hospital industry had decided that it didn't need registered nurses. As hospitals cut back, the supply of nurses became greater than the demand. Non union hospitals were able to save millions of dollars by scaling down RN pay. It wasn't that hospitals were broke, it was that they could maximize their profits by paying their nurses less. (and then of course nurses found other ways to make money and the next thing we knew we were in a nursing shortage, courtesy of the Hospital industry.)

That brings back memories! I was in management at a non-union hospital in those days and I well remember the management gurus with their MBAs coming to teach seminars telling us that the downward trend in patient stay would go on forever, that unlicensed personel could do most of the work of nurses and that hospitals should all prepare to downsize.
Didn't quite work out that way, but they convinced enough people to manufacture a nursing shortage. Interestingly, it's taken medicine far longer to rebound from it than nursing. They were telling them the same thing - fewer doctors would be needed. So in the 90s many medical schools were cutting their class sizes and only in the last year or two have they realized how far wrong they were. My community has a desperate physician shortage in several specialty areas and in primary care most of all. The only bright side is it makes more work for Nurse Practitioners. Never trust a consultant or management expert.

[diveRN]

Originally Posted by Ludlow

It is the foolish union that drives its employer out of business. Believe me, my employer is awash in funds.
...

I guess the issue is pretty regional. Here in Central California, RN wages are among the highest in the nation. I make almost twice what an RN of equal time and experience in Kansas City makes and nearly a full 1/3 more than an RN working in a large Miami hospital. I know this because I have friends I went to school with who work in those places. And I don't live in a major metro area.

As for hospitals making millions, I would agree that bigger facilities in metropolitan areas are making money, mainly because their patients often have better insurance and can pay for the services they use. That's not always the case though. More than 70 hospitals have closed their doors in California alone since 1997 and several more are currently unable to meet the needs of the communities they serve. Ten hospitals in the LA area alone have closed since 2000. This doesn't even consider the financial challenges faced by smaller hospitals in more rural areas.

Now I'm not so naive to believe that the closures are the direct result of RN's high wages, but you can bet that if you analyzed the financials of the closed institutions that wages accounted for no small percentage of their operating deficits.

Before I became an RN, I ran a good business for 12 years. I sold it so I could figure what I wanted to be when I grew up. That experience taught me to read a balance sheet and P&L. I've seen the financials for a 360 bed, tier one trauma and teaching facility here in the area I live in ..a Tenet facility.. and they ain't pretty. They make millions sure, but their overall margins are scary small. I mean SCARY small. An NP friend of mine works at a CHW facility in Sacramento and their figures aren't much better. Fortunately, the not for profit facility that I work for is financially sound and remains the flagship of the 13 hospital group that it's apart of.

It appears that the RN labor markets are too diverse to classify into one group. Would I like to make more money? I'd be a fool to say no, but at the same time I wouldn't want to demand such a wage to jeopardize the financial wellbeing of the company I work for.

[herring_RN]

Tenet CEO compensation valued at $9.4 million

Posted: 2008-03-27

DALLAS (AP) - The chief executive of Tenet Healthcare Corp. received compensation valued at $9.4 million during 2007, a year in which the hospital operator sharply reduced its losses and showed signs of reversing a long decline in patient admissions, according to an analysis of a regulatory filing Thursday....

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/q...4/rfid86169712

[mdfog10]

Even my "public sector" hospital is making hundreds of millions in profit and getting record amounts in donations. Twice in 12 years it has been proven that this institution has improperly given bonuses, various expenses , and extra pension payments, etc . to the exeutive leadership. And all we (the lowly staff) get is manditory "ethics " classes and a promise that it won't happen again.

[RN4MERCY]

Originally Posted by diveRN

See, I'm not so sure that super high wages and huge raises are the be-all, end-all here. There comes a point when high wages and the cost of labor makes it prohibitive for a company to keep going.

I've seen some pretty large companies fold up shop because labor was costing them too much. Just like any market, corrections and negative shifts will take place. I don't necessarily subscribe to it, but an argument can be made that unions actually cost jobs in the long run.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the workers and their unions for demanding a fair compensation in exchange for their labor; the labor/productivity that earns the wealth for the company. What about mismanagement and fraud? Executives are paid huge salaries and given huge compensation packages, even when companies are failing.

http://consumerist.com/366783/wamu-r...responsibility

What about rising health care costs and prescription drug costs; they've been outpacing inflation for many years now. What about companies who are moving jobs across our borders or across the sea to take advantage of countries with a universal healthcare system? Companies can save hundreds of dollars per person in premiums, and make more of a profit by not offering those benefits.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=660848

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c.../full/41/14/12

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation wrote this in her Labor Day editorial in 2006: "...let's support policies and ideas that will make this economy work for those who have helped create this country's wealth. For a start: Stop the assault on labor and strengthen collective bargaining. Then, let's pass universal health care and a living wage, craft trade and industrial policies that create jobs and restore workers' rights, and rebuild our ravaged pension system. These are just a few steps toward a more humane, decent and rational system that would fulfill America's promise."

Let's start by demanding a MediCare for All, single-payer national health plan. It's the only way to control costs, increase access, and accountability.

http://www.medicareforall.net/1index.html

[loricatus]

I would just like to get back to basics for a moment.

If a union were able to get: mandatory safe patient loads, a grievance process instead of arbitrary at-will employment (being fired for no cause), guaranteed meal breaks & a nurse being paid for ALL time worked on behalf of the employer (with OT), isn't it worth it to pay a little contribution for it? And, I didn't even bring up the pay rate, which was $15.00 per hour lower than the job I took in the Northeast & no way accounted for the difference in the cost of living (and I received an hour and a half meal break & a 36 hour work week with that increase in pay). So, forgetting about the other things I mentioned, wouldn't it be worth it just to get a fair wage?

If nurses were able to do it themselves without a union, then why does Texas have such a poor work environment for nurses? I know it is a cultural thing in not wanting unions in Texas; but, sometimes you have to get out of the comfort zone of familiarity and realize that an abusive environment exists which has the employees as enablers.

The California union proved it can make things better for nurses. Yes, there are many other big city nursing unions that stink because they lost sight of the needs of membership. New York's NYSNA is one of them that only collects dues and will not even arbitrate on behalf of the nurse. But, the California Union is the one that is trying to organize Texas; and not some of the others that are being mentioned. So, what's the harm in helping them along and see if they could change things-if they don't prove themselves after a reasonable period of time, stop paying dues because Texas law does not permit closed shops, anyway.

[diveRN]

Please. I don't mean to appear insensitive or mean and it's not my intent to directly politicize this post, but your comments are nothing but liberal/socialist sound bites.

Originally Posted by RN4MERCY

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the workers and their unions for demanding a fair compensation in exchange for their labor; the labor/productivity that earns the wealth for the company. What about mismanagement and fraud? Executives are paid huge salaries and given huge compensation packages, even when companies are failing.

Fair implies comparison. Fair compared to what? If all the RNs in a given market are making X to Y dollars then what are you comparing to? If you (hypothetically) live in Alabama and I in California, you can't measure your wages to mine. Fairness has nothing to do with business. Labor is one cog in the business machine... without a good administration, there would be no company. The work force AND administration are both necessary to the operation of a company. BTW just for clarification, I'm just a lowly RN. I charge occasionally, but I'm not in management and have no desire to be. I left the business world for a reason ... too much stress.

So let me get this straight. Huge compensation is bad, even when a company is performing. Why? Because it's not fair? Would you rather pay a CEO $60 an hour? Do you think if this was a CEO's take home that those companies will continue to make the money they do and continue to provide you with a job? Who's going to run a multi-million dollar company for $60 an hour? You?

As for compensation when companies perform badly... when you were hired, if you could negotiate a separation package, regardless of your reasons for separation, would you do it? Sure you would. Don't blame the CEOs for getting the most they can, blame the boards of directors for giving it to them. Incidently, we agree on this. Bonuses should be tied to performance. Unfortunately, good CEOs are hard to come by so BoD's have to make some pretty serious concessions that have become the standard.

What about rising health care costs and prescription drug costs; they've been outpacing inflation for many years now. What about companies who are moving jobs across our borders or across the sea to take advantage of countries with a universal healthcare system? Companies can save hundreds of dollars per person in premiums, and make more of a profit by not offering those benefits.

What sociology class did you get this from? Your source is a biased newspaper. Did you ever stop to think that labor costs (including benefits AND wages) might be to blame? Hershey recently closed a plant nearby because they couldn't continue to operate at a profit. Why? Because their overhead was too big. This plant closure was directly tied to wages. They moved their plant to Mexico (who doesn't have universal healthcare) because they can produce the same product at a fraction of the cost.

I suggest you do some more research.

As for the cost of healthcare and drugs, well... that's an ENTIRELY different topic. Litigation and insurance payouts are significant factors here.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation wrote this in her Labor Day editorial in 2006: "...let's support policies and ideas that will make this economy work for those who have helped create this country's wealth. For a start: Stop the assault on labor and strengthen collective bargaining. Then, let's pass universal health care and a living wage, craft trade and industrial policies that create jobs and restore workers' rights, and rebuild our ravaged pension system. These are just a few steps toward a more humane, decent and rational system that would fulfill America's promise."

I read this as, "it's not fair! Whhaaaa." Life isn't fair.

Let's start by demanding a MediCare for All, single-payer national health plan. It's the only way to control costs, increase access, and accountability.

Yeah, that'll fix everything. Government run health care, no thanks. You've heard of the $300 toilet seats, the $250 hammer that government pays for? Think that $400 liter of saline will stay at that price? Nope. Further, try and get an elective MRI in a country that has universal coverage. Let me know how long it takes.

You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine. However, until you've signed both sides of a paycheck you can't truly have an understanding of what it takes to successfully run a business.

That's enough for me and this thread. I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but ignorance irritates me.