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.

As always Charles, well said.

I have a question that I would like thought about while this discussion is going on. What would happen if nurses right to strike was taken away? Don't laugh or say it wouldn't happen. As something that is considered essential services it is conceivable that either state or federal gov't could at some point say, that nurses do not have the legal right to strike anymore. Particularly as this shortage gets worse. I ask this because when I think of nurses in unions it leds me to think of other professionals that are in unions as well. In my state, Michigan teachers no longer have the right to strike legally. If I remember right that happened about two years ago. It is not as if teachers do not have large powerful unions either. I have pondered on this since the recent supreme court ruling. From what I can ascertain nurses in nursing homes are considered supervisors therefore not eligible for union membership. Can this also not be argued for hospital nurses? Most hospitals have some sort of patient care tech or certified aides that we supervise, and as an RN I supervise LPNs as well by the defination that the supreme court ruled with. Since there is such a push now from the ANA/UAN and the CNA for unionization as a way to unify nurses voices I can't help but wonder what the future could potentially bring us in the form of new provisions as the nursing shortage worsens and the public truly becomes worried about a nurse being able to provide appropriate care. With the supreme court ruling what are our professional associations looking towards? Would only true primary care nurses be eligible for unionization? I know it is entirely possible that nurses not being able to strike may never happen, police still have that right, just wondered what would happen if it did. Any contingency plans out there? How about what would those that have been so bitter and angry towards one another do then? Could you still be able to work with one another to build something new and different to help each other? Just wondering.

How interesting...Allina systems nurses voted today (they own the bulk of the health care in the Twin Cities) and one more hospital votes Sunday; otherwise all but three of the hospitals here averted a strike...so far. We'll all know by tommorow night. And the replacement nurses that USNURSING CORP brought in? Saw them on the news last night, whining how they are in this cramped hotel with NOTHING to do, no transportation anywhere (bummer, no Mall of America)and they hadn't been fed yet!!! And they are saying that they are not getting their bonus' as promised in the recruitment ads!! However they do get $250/day to "stand by." Doesn't sound like such a good deal after all, huh!!! One lady said she left her nursing job in Calif. with the hopes of making about $7,000 in two weeks. SUCKERS!!! I almost felt bad enough to care...haha :D

Specializes in Critical Care,Recovery, ED.

rncountry

You raise a particular timely question in light of the recent Supeme Court decision. But you need to carry it a step further. What if Nurses aren't allowed to form or join unions at all? Very possible to return to those days.

A Texan who lives in a democratic country? After that election result? You must be joking, right? Be that as it may, any worker who consciously undermines another's efforts to better their condition by use of their ultimate sanction,invites opprobrium to be heaped upon themselves.

ps. Since when were democracy and socialism mutually exclusive?

In reference to the Supreme court decision-there are many contingency plans in motion. Things shall be revealed in the proper time frames.

But what we Must realize is this:

This decision determining these nurses as supervisors under the NLRA and therefore not entitled to collective bargaining is based upon the position that these nurses, while exercising "independent judgment" in responsibly directing other employees-do so in the primary INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYER.

This decision on a much deeper level rips away the nurses primary role as patient advocate. This ruling says a nurses responsibility is to the employer FIRST, not the patient.

However, this ruling does not affect our state statutory obligations to act in the interests of our patients. Why our role-our responsibility-as patient advocate-was not argued before the court boggles my mind. I can tell you I personally wrote each nurses association, union, etc.-and beseeched them to write amicus briefs on this issue. Only the ANA responded and did so, but from how I see it their language in the brief only sealed this fate, and did not help us at all.

This effectively places a noose around our necks at the state level, and ties our hands behind our backs at a federal level.

I for one am not willing to give up my role as the primary patient advocate, union or no union. The battle has just begun.

I must remember when posting that although we are next door to each other- Canada and the US are still very different.......in Ontario we are unionized- all hospitals (except 2) are in this province.

The nurses (RN's) have a strong union and although there are always issues- we are fairly well protected.

We have pension plans- we have a good benefit package (if you are full time) If you are part time- well then you get 6 per cent vac. pay and right now about 11 percent in lieu of- all of this tacked on to a starting wage of 20.50 per hour. The top RN here is getting approx. 30.25 per hour. We do have mesures in place if the work load is too heavy- and we do grieve situations that are unsafe. All of the reasons above are SOME of the reasons I have stayed in Canada- despite numerous job offers from various states. You see, Canadian nurses are constantly being wooed by US hospitals to "come on down". I considered it, seriously, but for now have decided to stay put. But I have not ruled it out.

I do have a problem with the US health system. It has some good quailites- don't get me wrong- BUT I had a hard time coming to grips with the fact that NOT ALL CITIZENS had equal and fair access to health care. I just don't know if I could look the other way on that issue.

JMP

Is it so difficult to understand that while those nurses are in there "filling in the gap", they are PREVENTING the striking nurses from resolving the issues and PROLONGING the strike. Its not about making a point with the community. The community knows & is behind us in every such situation. Its about forcing the hospital to make real efforts to address the problem. Strike-breakers let them avoid doing that. And thats what the striking nurses are so upset about. They think How could another nurse do this to us?

For whatever reasons scabs are there - altruistic or mercenary - as long as they are there, the hospital will ignore the issues rather than sit down & negotiate a settlement. They ignored it in Nyack, NY for 6 MONTHS & almost bankrupted their own hospital just to keep its nurses down & paid the scab agency $19 million $$$ to help them avoid discussing the nurses issues.

Strike-breaker nurses will not look at what this term means & will not recognize how they hurt the striking nurses. Where do they think the word strike-breaker came from? They may be there for love of pts instead of the quick salary, but the hospital is using them to break the strike. Why wont strike-breaker nurses see how they are being used or see the negative effect their actions have on the ability of the striking nurses to gain improvements?

It is a fact that they diminsh the bargaining power of the strikers, tip the scales towards the hospital, & help it hold out longer in the hopes that the striking nurses will fold first. Strike-breaking nurses remove the incentive for the hospital to come back to negotiations & to make the best offer it can. With strike-breaking nurses there holding down the fort, the hospital can play games with offers, offer bits & pieces, & avoid the full issues.

Without strike-breakers they are more serious about finding solutions & working together to reach a settlement because if they dont, there will be a strike & they will lose much more if they have to shut down services. That threat alone gets them back to the table BEFORE the strike begins & usually there is no strike - like we have just seen happen in Minnesota. I dont know why it is so hard for non-union people to understand that.

To support the striking nurses in their efforts to improve the situation for themselves & their pts but then support the strike-breaker for going in "to fill the gap" is contradictory. The second impinges upon & hinders the first. The nurses would not have to go out on strike if there were no "replacements" because the hospital would make damn sure to settle the issues before the strike began, as we have just witnessed in Minnesota & the improvements would be made without a strike but because of the threat of one.

Why cant some people understand that as long as striking nurses see other nurses come in and help the hospital stop them, there can be no unity. If you want unity, stay home in unity & solidarity for your colleagues who are trying to make improvements & let the threat of a strike force the hospital to negotiate with the striking nurses BEFORE the strike begins.

Just look at what happened in Minnesota. 12 hospitals were going on strike - those nurses could have shut down healthcare in those cities. The hospitals COULD NOT GET ENOUGH "REPLACEMENTS" for 8000 RNs & would have lost millions if they had to shut down services. So what did the hospitals do? One by one they came back to the table BEFORE the strike began & found ways to address the safety issues that nurses were going to strike over - and settlements were reached. Something they couldnt bring themselves to do before a strike notice was served.

If this had been one or two hospitals, the hospitals would have gone for the strike in the hopes of making the RNs give in to their demands because they would have had a good number of "replacements" to handle it & there would have been NO settlement.

Without thousands of scabs to replace 8000 striking RNs, the hospitals came back to the table, & the pt safety issues & all the others are being addressed.... AND the strike was averted.

Its that simple.

How can anyone talk of "unity" while nurses are so willing to cross the strike lines of other nurses & help their employers beat them down? That is the ultimate example of disunity if ever there was one. The striking nurses would welcome nurses from other states who wanted to show their unity by walking with them but crossing over them is a slap in the face - for whatever reason the strike-breakers do it.

The term "crossing the line" has negative connotations in our language. Guess where it came from.

Its not an accusation. Its a fact.

Scabs refuse to recognize that they do undermine the striking nurses. I suppose they have a right to avoid opening their eyes to that too.

Thanks for posting your website & proving us right. However it did go underground after all the publicity last year against it. It used to be an open website. Now its retricted access.

Specializes in CV-ICU.

It is 11:22 and I just found out that my hospital accepted the contract we were presented with this morning. We did get the improvement in the health care package we asked for; we did get the longevity bonuses addressed; we did get the patient flow with unit autonomy addressed. We only got a 19.3% raise over the 3 years, but we did tell the media that it isn't about the money.

I did vote for the strike this morning; but after thinking and talking about it all day, I really felt that I'd made a mistake and should have voted for the contract instead of against it. After all, we got the 3 big issues addressed, and the (nearly) 20% raise isn't peanuts. We also have found that we are stronger than we previously thought-- the hospitals blinked before we did.

I don't know what is happening with the other hospitals votes yet, each of these hospitals have slightly different contracts with different concerns. We are all being offered the same amount of base salary, though, for parity. So some hospitals are getting slightly >20%, some (like mine) slightly

We are not done fighting yet by any means. We got some of the big concerns (heallth and dental insurance caps, addressing longevity, and patient flow and safety) this time; next contract: $$$$$$$$$$$!

This has been a very long week, I'm exhausted from the worry, anger, and suspense.

If any of the hospitals do go out on strike here; there are many nurses who are ready and able to go out and picket with them.

Again I ask...This is my fourth posting on this issue...Not yet an answer.Surely somebody among all of these brilliant minds could please educate me.Seriously.I am first off not a current "replacement worker" and have not ever been.I have very little knowledge of organized labor actions.I grew up having no experience with them.I did work in one nursing home many years ago as a PT aide when a union was being organized and was treated very poorly by co-workers because I did not choose to join their union when approached within the first week on the job and I must admit, this experience left a bad taste in my mouth.I was treated very rudely and in a manner that I would never treat another person-but that aside, I have not yet been enlightened on this concern:When the nursing staff choose to go on strike in a LTC facility what measures are taken to ensure that the old people are cared for?Hospitals give a 10 day notice-what about nursing homes?I feel very strongly that elderly, confused people should not be made to move from their homes for the purpose of a strike.It seems like a mandatory eviction to me.It has been my experience in LTC that there are different standards and regulatory agencies that govern staffing ratios, etc. than do hospitals.Should not these agencies be contacted and the unsafe conditions reported to the proper governing bodies rather than moving to strike?I have felt unsettled about this issue since seeing an advertisement for replacement CNA,LPN, and RN's for several LTC facilities going on strike.I know very well the anguish involved in caring for an elderly person in the home, as I have been caring for my husband's grandmother-now 95 yrs old -in our home for 2 yrs.She will be going to a nursing home soon, and I truly am upset about this issue.I hear everyone's comments about "scabs", and I hear everyone's comments about their reasons to strike and I don't have an answer to the future of nursing but I do know that we are not talking about canned vegetables here.Somebody has to take care of these old people in the nursing home.If I thought that there was not enough nursing staff at the nursing home due to a strike, I would - yes, volunteer to go into that facility and bath, change, dry, feed, and nurture these people because it is my ethical responsibility.Would you hate me for crossing that picket line?

"(Both sides are just greedy and don't care about patients "

Not true. If the nurses who are forced to strike didn't care about their patients, and the work conditions they are forced to provide care under,[which ultimately determines the level of care provided] then they would just take Charles' advice, and leave hospital nursing and just worry about themselves. In fact, that is why there is a nursing "shortage" for clinical nursing as we speak. Because so many have done exactly that, follow their ID and take care of themselves. And they have every right to remove themselves form the abusive work conditions that exist.

But these Nurses are not. They are mustering up their courage, and fortitude and standing up for those that cannot stand up for themselves-the ill patient in the bed. They are working to preserve the profession by creating decent reasonable work conditions.

They are standing up for the rights of patients to receive safe, quality care, and they are fighting for the right of the RN to provide that caliper of care under safe equitable work conditions.

As I said before, sure, this is a free county. Carpetbaggers, SCABS, whatsoever you want to cal them, they are opportunists who feed off the weakened system-kinda like the definition of a parasite actually.

Accuse me of name calling if you wish. My position is that these SCABS take high wages that could pay for multitudes of nursing in the communitas these hospitals serve. They are flown around the country, held up in first rate hotels and accommodations, meals, etc., paid for, so that a corporate action to keep the little nurses laborer in line will be successful.

When they fly off into the sunset to undermine the next unified effort of their professional colleagues, they brag about their money [see the AJN SCAB ad] and start the cash register for the next ride.

Least that should happen is they are called out publicly for what they are, for their lack of integrity and greedy actions.

In Ontario (canada) we are the only provience (like a state to the US crowd) where it is illegal for RN's to strike. WE are deemed an essetial service. We have a strong union- and after reading these threads I am glad we can not strike. What an awful postion for nurses to be in- on both sides.

JMP

+ Add a Comment