DEBRIDE the SCABS

Nurses General Nursing

Published

Replacement nurses arrive to prepare for possible strike http://www.startribune.com/viewers/qview/cgi/qview.cgi?template=health&slug=nurs30

Alternately titled....

SCABS-R-US on the move......

Replacement nurses arrive to prepare for possible strike

Maura Lerner

Star Tribune

Wednesday, May 30, 2001

A small army of replacement nurses has started to arrive for training in the Twin Cities, as a dozen hospitals in the area brace for a probable walkout Friday by more than 7,700 registered nurses.For now, hospital officials are doing their best to keep the incoming nurses out of the public eye. They've scheduled orientation sessions for today and Thursday at secret locations and won't say where the nurses will be housed.

"It's a security thing," said Linda Zespy of the Children's Hospitals of Minneapolis and St. Paul."It's just the way that it's done with replacement nurses," Zespy said.So far, no new talks have been scheduled. But the hospitals called on the Minnesota Nurses Association on Tuesday to let its members vote on the latest contract offer, which the union's negotiators rejected last week."The hospitals have heard from some of their nurses that they would like the opportunity to vote on the proposals," said Shireen Gandhi-Kozel, spokeswoman for the Minnesota Hospital and Healthcare Partnership.She said four of the six negotiating teams, which represent nurses and managers at the 12 hospitals, agreed on staffing, which is one of the thorniest issues.

The main stumbling block was money, she said, with the hospitals offering a 19.1 percent increase over three years and the union seeking a 35 percent increase."We're asking the Minnesota Nurses Association to put the proposals to a vote," she said.But the union said it has heard no such request from its members. "That's the intent of the hospitals, to override the negotiating committee," said Jan Rabbers, the union's spokeswoman. "But what they'll find is that the membership is the one that's driving the demands." On May 17, the nurses voted overwhelmingly to reject the hospitals' contract offers, which included an 18 percent raise over three years. But nurses say staffing levels are a major issue because they're often stretched too thin to care for patients safely.Hospital officials said replacement nurses would need a day or two of training before replacing the striking nurses Friday. They scheduled the sessions off-site, at secret locations, to keep them away from any possible harm.

"I can understand why they wouldn't want to disclose the location and have 10, 20 media people descend on them, as well as picketing going on outside," said Gandhi-Kozel. "The primary focus is to make sure that they receive education, and we need to have a productive environment for that to happen." Hospital officials said that the replacement nurses, hired by agencies that specialize in strike staffing, have a minimum of two years' experience in hospital care and an average of five to 12 years in their specialty areas. "Whether we're talking about physicians or nurses, we have national standards," said Dr. William Goodall, vice president of regional medical affairs at Allina Health System, which owns four of the affected hospitals. "So if you are a degreed and licensed RN, it's highly likely that you're competent to begin with." Thousands of replacement nurses will be arriving, although the hospitals won't say just how many. They will be expected to work 12-hour shifts six days a week, hospital officials said.

In return, they'll get $40 an hour, plus free housing, transportation and other perks.At HealthEast's three hospitals, 340 visiting nurses are expected to replace 1,100 striking nurses, many of whom are part-time. And the two Children's Hospitals expect 300 replacement nurses to help fill in for the 1,200 or so who will go on strike. To help orient them, officials have brought ventilators, IV systems and other hospital equipment to the off-site training location, Zespy said. "It won't be the same; we want our nurses back," she said. "But in the meantime, we'll assure the high-quality, safe care that we're known for."-- Maura Lerner is at [email protected] .

Return to top

© Copyright 2001 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Christina Terranova RN, LNC

Our Unity is our Power www.geocities.com/nurseadvocate

www.florenceproject.org

The Florence Project, Inc.

-jt, you are eloquent, factual, and to the point as usual.

What all these people who are pro scabs or defensive of scabs don't seem to understand:

the HOSPITAL CAUSES the strike-not the nurses. The strike occurs when the HOSPITAL refuses to negotiate further and announces that the nurses will have to accept their proposed contract or strike.

the SCABS ENABLE the strike-that is they enable the hospital to carry on business as usual-or at least the illusion of it-and not lose money during the strike (not always factual as seen by the Nyack strike). They also PROLONG the strike-no scabs, no strike. The hospital would be forced to NEGOTIATE FAIRLY with its staff, who are willing to compromise with some issues, but not any longer with patient or staff safety.

Once the strike occurs, personalities and egos enter in. According to local papers the former CEO of Nyack, as well as spokespeople, were arrogant and rude, and some outright lied about the costs. It became a battle of wills and the loser lost big. Thank God it wasn't the nurses. All the mean and nasty comments to the effect of "we don't need them (Reg staff) because there are plenty of nurses out there", "the replacements are so good they are actually better than staff" (as noted by the Brocton spokesperson), "everything is running smoothly, we hardly know they are gone", and most especially the hurtful & insensitive comments by doctors who have no sense whatsoever of team spirit and could care less who is following their orders, so long as they make their money with the least possible effort.

The pain due to lack of respect that is inflicted by a strike is never forgotten. No one wins-not the nurses or the hospital, and certainly not the scabs. Because money isn't everything in this life-you need self respect as well as the respect of your peers. Once you have that, no one can ever take it away.

Originally posted by berry:

>The RN's have the right to strike just as the scabs have the right to cross. You need to repect the right, not agree with it.

I am not surprised at all that there is little understanding and/or tolerance for both sides of an issue. These attitudes are merely extensions of the need to control others, demean others, and make oneself look important at the expense of someone else. It happens in every aspect of life. We fear to explore another perspective, because we fear we might have to change our own.

chas

to keep their doors open>

And thats a perfect example of how strike-breaking nurses hurt the striking nurses. Because if there were no strike-breaking nurses willing to cross another nurses strike line, the hospital would HAVE to sit down & compromise on ALL the demands placed by the nurses - not just some - to avoid the strike. The alternative would be to close their doors & that is incentive enough to bring them back to the negotiating table and address EVERY issue - not just SOME. Having scabs available eliminates this threat from the equation, thereby undercutting the nurses bargaining leverage, and enabling the administration to allow a strike to happen. Thats one way that scabs hurt the striking nurses.

If the two strike issues for the nurses are, say, safe staffing & elimination of abusive practices like forced overtime & there are no scabs available, the hospital would be forced to sit down & address BOTH issues to a settlement before the strike start date or have a strike & shut down operations. Of course they would choose to address BOTH issues & reach a settlement during the 10 day notice before the start date & there would be no strike at all. It used to happen like that all the time.

Now we have "crisis staffing" agencies from Colorado that interfere with that process.

If the hospital can get enough scabs so it doesnt have to worry about shutting down services, they REFUSE to discuss either of the strike issues, force the nurses to strike, & continue to refuse to discuss either issue for weeks or months, hoping that the nurses would get tired, beaten down, financially starved & give in.

With scabs helping it, the administration could stall as long as it wants, continue the strike going for as long as it wants, & offer just bits & pieces of both issues or address only one because it doesnt care - it has "replacements" keeping the place a float. They can write off the expense.

Scabs help the hospital prolong the strike & thats another way they hurt the striking nurses.

Strike-breaker nurses help the hospital to avoid having to make compromises & help it to meet less of the striking nurses demands than it would have if there were no scabs there at all. (as you said "concede to at least SOME of the demands" - instead of ALL the demands) Scabs help the hospital force the nurses to accept less than what they could have gotten (financially or in workplace improvements)

if the alternative was for the hosptial to either raise the bar or close the doors.

So they undermine the striking nurses bargaining power and thats another way scabs hurt striking nurses.

Look at it like this:

No scabs available - nurses will strike unless hospital agrees to staffing ratios & eliminates mandatory ot, unfreezes vacant RN positions & actively recruits RNs to meet the staffing ratios. NO SCABS available - hospital either negotiates ALL these issues or the nurses walk. Hospital says OK OK lets discuss this. And negotiates agreements to ratios & all the rest.

Scabs readily available - same scenario as above - hospital says we arent giving you that. We arent talking about it any more. Strike if you dont want what we're giving you.

Nurses strike - scabs come in.

5 weeks or 6 months later - whenever THEY choose, administration says ok we'll talk about LIMITING your Mandatory OT - not eliminating it - & we arent hiring anymore RNs so you can forget about the staffing ratios.

They can do this because they have nothing to worry about - they have "replacements" - costly but its a write-off - so no problem.

See????? How much plainer can it be?

Scabs put the ball in the hospitals court & thats another way they hurt the striking nurses.

The worst part is that they refuse to understand any of this & dont care about any of it - just so they get their free travel to OT opportunities.

Remember the many days, that you are just too damn busy to go to the bathroom, take a break, or have a drink. That is what we are fighting for, the unsafe staffing, the poor pay. The patients are now more acute, there are now more things to be done, the patients have high expctations of the service we provide, and we have to live up to that, as professionals it is our job to provide excellent care. How care we do that when we are understaffed. If we were more fairly paid, then more people would join the nursing profession, then there would be someone to care for us when we grow old. I am fed up of not being able to provide proper care because there is too much to do in the time allowed. I try to do the best I can, but sometimes I dont take a break so I can get things done. Am I wrong to think that we work hard, that we deserve a pay rise, and that maybe sometimes it would be nice to not be short staffed. One good thing that is coming from the strike, is that people are trying to pick up extra shifts, so we arnt as short staffed as we usually are. The management say that if all the nurses worked full time, then there wouldnt be a shortage. Well I was so fed up sleeping during my day off, when I worked day/nights full time, because I had the work a day shift the following day, that I changed to 0.8. I now make more money working 4 days a week and picking up double shifts. Maybe the management should give some incentive to working full time, instead of sleeping. I hope we strike, I know that I am going a 5.30Am to picket, If they dont listen to the nurses, why dont they listen to the patients,

>

Excellent idea...... propose starting with permanent shifts & eliminate that rotating shift business. Not even cops do that anymore here.

offer flex time & self scheduling (all on one shift!)

Improve full time benefits

Increase the pension...etc etc etc

If they want people to work FT, they have to make it worth their while.

This whole discussion line personifies why nurses took so long to turn to unions as a way to handle their problems. I remember, as a kid, hearing horror stories from the local factory about how those non-union folks were treated ("swirlies", harassment, threats, beatings) and my first thought of unions was "Ugh!". It took me a long time to pay money to ANA because they function as a nursing union and my connotation of unions was so negative. So here we have a whole thread devoted to name-calling of people who decide to cross a union picket line. Deja vu.

Please do not think that I believe this to be a simple issue with a right or a wrong. Many of you will recognize from my previous posts that I am not a current bedside nurse. I cannot say whether I would cross a picket line right now if I were hospital based. The PAIN that bedside nurses experience in watching their goal of good care get subverted by profit margins is not joke and any reader of this bb knows that, as bad as things have "always" been, they are far worse now. Nurses, I believe, are caught in the death throes of a dying system.

I have always believed that the bottom line question for me if I had to decide to cross a picket line would be, "Are my patients better off with me or without me?" Depending on HOW BAD things are, the answer could well be "without me." Something has to happen where folks put their foot down. BUT that watermark will set at a different place for all of us, but what I hear from this board, it has been reached for many and if I were in their shoes, it may well be reached for me.

That said, I don't think I could name-call, harass or second guess the motives of a nurse for whom the water mark has not been reached. It would take quite a bit more than _money_ for me to go into a hospital that is operating in crisis mode and try to give high quality care consistent with this new-to-me institution's policies. Given options, I might choose a nice root canal instead of that experience.

There will be a tomorrow after the stikes. Let us respect each other's position sufficiently so that we can join hands and work together on the morrow.

>

Just to clarify, the use of the term "scab" is not name calling. It is a noun & an accepted form in the dictionary referring to workers who cross a strike line. And, just as the ANA has pointed out when they use the term in their publications and editorials, they are merely using the same term by which "replacement" nurses refer to themselves on their own website www.SCABS.org.

(see editor's note The American Nurse 2001 Nov/Dec)

You have some very valid comments & I can see someone feeling like that about their own hospital in their own community but there is no denying the truth that out-of-state nurses are travelling to strikes in other states simply to make money & are paying no attention to how their presence damages the entire situation.

press release:

"The ANA certainly understands and empathizes with the anger and sadness that nurses, particularly those who have made the difficult decision to go on strike, feel over the issue of strikebreakers. The ANA shares their concerns about this type of advertising and the damage that strike-breaking nurses and the companies that engage in strike-breaking can do to the goals of nurses who are on strike......

ANA strongly condemns companies that participate in these

practices and has picketed such firms in the past. ANA knows that strike-breaking endangers patients, undermines nurses and delays strike resolutions......." httP://www.ana.org

Hi JT, I appreciate your dignified reply and really disagree with nothing you have written EXCEPT that "scabs" is derogatory name calling and it isn't going to help our future. I can find, in the dictionary a load of nicknames that might describe certain segments of the society we deal with every day, but we would never use those terms in our charting or in other professional discourse.

And I am certainly not saying we ought not strike. And I certainly agree that at a certain point, a strike must happen but I would reserve the right of each individual to determine when that happens for them. Notice the language of ANA in the posts you quoted. It was always very professional and didn't use the "S" word.

We can most eloquently discuss our problems if we do not resort to name calling even if those that we disagree with do so.

Maybe another way to look at this is that we maintain solidarity and avoid violence (even verbal violence) and volatile emotions the best if we avoid name calling. This is important to me and I think it will be to others.

Thanks for your willingness to hear this.

[ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: MollyJ ]

:confused: Why Am I not seeing anything regarding this strike on the national new?? Seems like a nursing strike of this magnitude deserves some serious coverage. :confused:

The Associated Press has been writing a lot on it. Maybe your local papers dont think its important enough to run. You might want to send them a note & ask why they havent picked up the AP articles on it. Enlighten them.

(see the thread titled Strike Makes the News)

PIONEER PRESS :

A makeshift sign is posted on the door of the neurology unit at United Hospital in St. Paul, explaining that patients have been moved to other areas in the hospital.

Sue Maile, a registered nurse at Phillips Eye Institute in Minneapolis, works on a sign that will be used should a strike occur. Maile, who has worked at Phillips since it opened about 14 years ago, is an operating room nurse. The sign she is making at the Minnesota Nurses Association office in St. Paul, will say "Scabs: Shop Until You Drop," referring to reports that replacement nurses will receive spending money to use at the Mall of America.

Can replacements fill strikers' shoes?

As a nursing strike looms in the Twin Cities, hospital officials have stood by their claims that services won't falter. But some experts in the health care field said Wednesday that math and common sense dictate otherwise.

The affected hospitals have said they plan to replace the 7,800 striking nurses with 4,000 replacements, most from out of state. By Wednesday, they had nearly 3,000. And local union members fear their replacements won't be familiar enough with hospital policies and procedures to properly care for the patients.

Elayne Best recalled working with replacement nurses during a 1989 strike in Morris, Minn.

"There was very high tension. When they came in they had little or no orientation," Best said.

Pauline Hendrickson, who has been a nurse for 38 years, echoed Best's comments.

"Our techs are going to end up pulling double duty," she said.

"The simplest way to explain it is, it takes a lot of people to do a lot of work. So if you've got fewer people, you can do less work," said Vernon Weckworth, a professor of health care administration at the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management.

If agreements can't be reached between registered nurses represented by the Minnesota Nurses Association (UAN) and a dozen local hospitals, the union plans to strike beginning at 5:30 a.m. Friday.

Firms that recruit replacement workers have been trying to round up nurses for several weeks.

Perhaps the largest of them, Denver-based U.S. Nursing Corp., is offering compensation packages that actually make nursing financially attractive: salaries of up to $5,000 a week, free travel here, a $500 "arrival bonus" for just showing up, $300 a week shopping money, free lodging, free transportation to and from the hospital, free Internet access and a concierge service, according to its Web site.

The firm, which did not respond to repeated requests for an interview, also promised to pay the nurses' Minnesota licensing fee at $100 a pop.

All that raises the question: "If you're going to pay that kind of money, why don't you pay your own nurses that?" asked Jo Stone, an official with Nursefinders, a nurse recruiting company in Fort Worth, Texas, that isn't involved in finding nurses for this strike.

"It sounds real good that they're going to pay those wonderful salaries and they're going to give them $300 a week to spend at the Mall of America," Stone said. "My question would be, where is that money coming from?"

It's coming from the hospitals and comes from the pockets of the patients and insurance companies, said Shireen Gandhi-Kozel, spokeswoman for the Minnesota Hospital and Healthcare Partnership.

It's cheaper for the hospitals to pay whopping salaries and bonuses to strike-breaking nurses than to meet the union's demand for a 30 to 45 percent increase in wage and benefits over three years, said Gandhi-Kozel.

Nurse-recruiting firms abound because nurses' strikes aren't uncommon. But the size of this one would be, said Suzanne DeMass Martin, a spokeswoman for the United American Nurses, the labor arm of the American Nurses Association, the country's largest nursing group.

While many of the nation's hospitals are reporting a shortage of available registered nurses, Martin said the shortage is a "manufactured" one. "The RNs ARE out there," she said. "But the working conditions are so abysmal that many of the RNs are not wanting to work or stay in the hospitals."

Indeed, Allina Hospitals & Clinics spokeswoman Maureen Schriner said the majority of their system's nurses work part time. With the replacements, she said, they intend to have full staffing in their emergency rooms, obstetrics units, intensive care units and behavioral health facilities, and about 75 percent staffing in the other areas.

Although declining to give specific numbers, Allina has been busy training replacement nurses in its hospitals' policies and procedures, said Barb Knudtson, director of Allina's Education Research Department.

"We'll be putting them through the same orientation we provide other nurses," she said.

But Stone of Nursefinders -- a nurse herself for 20 years -- said it isn't always that simple.

"Could you plunk any nurse down in a hospital and expect them to work like an experienced person? No," she said. "But there are some basic skills there that an experienced nurse can know. We may not know where the linen is, but we know what kind of tube to put the blood in when you're drawing blood."

http://www.pioneerplanet.com/news/mtc_docs/59068.htm

Scabs betray nursing profession and patients

By Julie Semente, RN

Many nurses across the country have secured protections for themselves and their patients by making the difficult and courageous decision to strike. Their victories have been victories for us all, for they put hospitals nationwide on notice that unsafe workplace and unfair labor practices are unacceptable.

That victory is bittersweet, however, because many other nurses have been thwarted in their attempts to secure similar protections by strikebreaking nurses. These "SCABS" (caps mine) sweep into a hospital during a strike and take away from the nurses the one bargaining tool that could force hospital administrators to negotiate fairly.

What most scab nurses don't see is that their very existence as strikebreakers is a detriment to the entire nursing profession. In an attempt to justify their actions, some have said, "The first set of nurses initiated the strike -- the second set of nurses is taking care of patients while the first set is choosing, for its own selfish reasons, to strike." .........

From the ANA website-"The American Nurse", Sept/Oct 2000. To see the rest of the article go to:

http://www.ana.org/tan/sepoct00/bu/asiseeit_v1.htm

So you see, the ANA not only condemns the scabs but condones the use of the word. If the scabs themselves are proud of the word and use it to name their website, how can it be considered derogatory? (Of course if you heard my tone of voice when I use the word, you would know that I MEAN it in a derogatory way).

+ Add a Comment