RNs on strike

OC_An Khe · Nov 28, 2001

-jt

Thanks for the info on this latest NYSNA fight for adequate staffing and other working conditions. By any chance do you have a link that would give information on the NLRB ruling about concerted action regarding voluntary OT? Did this occur during the contract or after it expired?

-jt · Nov 29, 2001

I had it & Ive been looking for 20 minutes & cant find it. I wrote a long post here explaining the whole thing & then my connection was lost & I lost the post. And since I cant cut a long story short:

The nurses were filling staffing holes by agreeing to requests that they work VOLUNTARY OT. The RNs were trying to help out & do what they could until the hospital hired more staff but with so many nurses reluctantly working OT, the hospital didnt have a need to hire anybody. It could just fill its holes by working the nurses to the bone when needed. And since the nurses were saying OK when asked to work OT, it was voluntary.

The nurses were concerned that they were enabling the hospital to abuse them, that the hospital was using them to avoid facing the chronic short-staffing problem, & they expressed their concern over this in their local bargaining unit meeting. Their colleague, a staff nurse who is the chair (president) of their local bargaining unit suggested they all just say NO to volunatry OT. And they did. All of them.

Suddenly the hospital had no staff for those hours. The hospital was livid. Since so many nurses were refusing to volunteer to work extra & that suggestion had been made by the nurse who was the lead union delegate there, and there was a contract in effect, the hospital called it a "concerted effort" It filed charges with the NLRB for illegal union activity, the same as if the nurses had taken a job action & walked off their jobs. All because they no longer were VOLUNTEERING to work ot.

The hospital was trying to FORCE the nurses to volunteer for

ot. Incredible? You havent heard the half of it!

In a recent decision, the NLRB AGREED with the hospital & held the union accountable for illegal activity. The NLRB said that the nurses deciding not to volunteer for overtime was the equivalent of a STRIKE! And an ILLEGAL STRIKE because no 10 day notice was given to the hospital. Imagine that! LUDICROUS.

Imagine your employer says: YOU CANT REFUSE TO VOLUNTEER FOR OT!! If you all dont volunteer, thats the same as striking! And we'll sue you because you didnt give us a strike notice!!!!"

Youd laugh at the employer right? (well I would) but then you get the shock of your life when you get into court & the powers that be AGREE with your hallucinating employer!!

This is ridiculous but its what just happened. The NLRB has stated that nurses can decide together to refuse to volunteer for ot but have to give a 10 day strike notice first. What is the meaning of the word VOLUNTEER anyway? Doesnt have to do with making your own choice?

Oh well, this backwards NLRB decision in NYC was even being talked about last month in Las Vegas last month - where nurses there had heard about it. Its the "decision" heard across the country. Weeks before their real strike this month, nurses at St Catherines of Siena, Long Island, became the first in the nation to file a 10 day notice that they would no longer choose to volunteer for overtime.

In the meantime, this is not the end of this.

For more info & articles contact the email address on the website:

http://www.NYSNA.org

-jt · Nov 29, 2001

NYSNA/UAN nurses at St Catherines on Long Island, NY and.......

on the verge in Michigan.......

Forced OT, Wages and Benefits, Staffing Issues Drive Strike Vote at Sparrow

11/20/01

Health care professionals at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Michigan, today over whelmingly authorized a strike if negotiations do not move forward. Negotiations sessions with a mediator are scheduled for Nov. 27. The Michigan Nurses Association/UAN represents nearly 1,800 registered nurses, medical technicians, physical therapists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals at the facility.

Negotiations continuing with Sparrow Hospital

Wednesday, November 28, 8:00 a.m.

The Michigan Nurses Association bargaining team, representing the nearly 1,800 registered nurses, medical technologists, physical therapists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals, met into the night with Sparrow's management.

An agreement has not been reached, but significant progress was made last evening. Both sides are hopeful that an agreement can be reached today. The bargaining teams will reconvene on this afternoon.

The major issues in the negotiations continue to be:

* Mandatory overtime: Healthcare professionals have critical

judgment skills and must be able to exercise these skills in making a decision to accept an additional shift. Mandatory overtime as a staffing practice must be eliminated.

* Floating: Floating is the practice of moving nurses to different units of the hospital, as the need arises. However, registered nurses, when temporarily assigned to a different unit, must be competent to provide safe patient care in that unit.

* Wages: To maintain its Top 100 status, Sparrow Hospital needs to recruit and retain the best in healthcare workers. The salary scale now focuses on the recruitment of new nurses and other healthcare workers, but fails to adequately address the hospital's retention problem. For example, nearly half of all Sparrow registered nurses have less than five years experience.

* Retirement benefits: Retirement benefits have eroded over the last few years. As patient stays have been reduced, and patient acuity levels have increased, benefits to retain skilled, experienced professionals are critical to patient care.

* Health and safety issues: Workplace issues such as latex

allergies, back injuries and violence are also greatly impacting the healthcare workforce. MNA has several proposals on the table to minimize the impact of these concerns.

For more information,

Welcome to UAN - The Union for Nurses, by Nurses

http://www.UANnurse.org

-jt · Nov 29, 2001

The Registered Nurses on strike at

St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center

in Smithtown, Long Island, NY

will be featured on CBS

The Early Show

Thursday, November 29 at 7:48 a.m. (Eastern time)

mopsi · Nov 29, 2001

There it is again........What's with the ...REPLACEMENT NURSES.....I just posted on Scab Nurses...People ...we must stick together.....Shame on the REPLACEMENT NURSES...... Good luck to those with the fortitude to strike..I'll try to catch the show if I can get off this addictive site....

OC_An Khe · Nov 30, 2001

-jt

Lets see if I understand this Catch 22 NLRB ruling. The RNs that actually filed a 10 day notice of refusing voluntary OT were working without a contract.

So if the contract was in effect, and had the usual no strike/no lock out language the RNs couldn't refuse voluntary OT because that would be an illegal strike because CBA in effect. But if the Union doesn't tell them to refuse Voluntary OT its then not a concerted effort and they can refuse the OT.

-jt · Nov 30, 2001

That NLRB decision has got us stumped too. Shocked was the word, actually.

It appears that the reason why the NLRB said it was a "concerted effort" ie: STRIKE - was because they ALL refused to volunteer & they all refused to volunteer EVERY time they were asked to. The NLRB viewed that to be the same as a sick-out or a walk-out.... even though they hadnt walked out on their jobs - just on VOLUNTARY ot. The big thing for the NLRB was that there was no 10 day notice given before the nurses "walked-out" on volunteering. Thats why the union was cited for illegal activity - it did not serve a 10 day strike notice informing the hospital that the nurses would not be volunteering for ot. NLRB said nurses could refuse to volunteer but only after giving a 10 day notice because the refusal to VOLUNTEER is the same (according to the NLRB) as a strike, & must follow the same legal requirements as with a strike.

Hard to believe, isnt it?

The NLRB made no distinction that it was VOLUNTARY ot the nurses were refusing to work & not their regular jobs. (That amazes me every time I say it!) Last I knew, the word "voluntary" means you can decide whether you want to or not. The NLRB apparently doesnt see it that way.

Its not only because of the contract being in effect. It was because they ALL declined the OT EVERY time they were asked to do it & HAD NOT GIVEN A 10 DAY NOTICE that they would be declining.

In a strike, whether the contract is in effect or not you still must give a 10 day notice that there will be a strike. Our contracts specifically state we will not strike during the life of the contract. Some unions do not operate that way & might walk out mid-contract. Either way, you cant just walk out. There has to be a 10 day notice. The union, however, never considered there to even be a strike. There was no vote on a strike, no intent to strike, & nobody regarded themselves to be striking. So why in the world should they think to serve a strike notice when they werent going on strike?? They didnt.

But incredulously, the NLRB decided that everyone refusing to VOLUNTEER to work ot WAS a strike & it said the union was guilty of illegal activity because it didnt give a 10 day strike notice!

In my mind, when you are ASKED to do something, rather than being TOLD to do it, you have the choice to say no. The NLRB disregarded that little detail and viewed the nurses' refusal to volunteer for ot as the equivalent of a walk-out without giving notice (which is illegal activity whether there is a contract in effect or not).

For us, when our contract is in effect, walk-outs are illegal. When a contract is expired, these are not illegal activities but ONLY if a 10 day notice is given to the employer first. There was no 10 day notice because the nurses werent taking any job action and the union wasnt leading any strike. The nurses were just exercising their right to choose not to volunteer for overtime.

The union didnt tell the RNs to refuse OT. The nurses decided amongst themselves that they werent going to do anymore OT because that was letting the hospital avoid hiring needed staff. The union had nothing to do with their decision. The RNs had the discussion with each other at a bargaining unit meeting over the issue. The union was charged with illegal activity because the NLRB decided it was a strike, no 10 day notice was given, and because the person who made the suggestion to do it wasnt just a staff nurse, she was also the bargaining unit chairperson for the nurses at her hospital, therefore an extension of the union authority (some may call her position "shop steward"). The argument was that the union, through the bargaining unit chair, conducted an illegal strike (illegal because there was no notice given). That was news to the nurses because they never voted to strike, the union wasnt conducting a strike, and everybody was at work.

You know how it goes..... we're sitting around having coffee & griping about how theres not enough staff, I say to you "well why should they hire any more staff when they got us to fill in. I myself did 8 hrs of OT last week." You say "yeah and I worked 3 extra days OT this pay period". And Mary says "I stayed till 11pm 2 times this week". Then Nancy (the bargaining unit chair aka "shop steward") says "so they dont see the real need & true picture because we're picking up the slack. If we just stop volunteering to fill the holes, it will show how much staff is really needed. No big deal - Its our choice, right? Its voluntary - not MANDATORY - so we can choose to work it or not to work it. Lets just say NO next time we're asked. "

So we all look at each other & agree we arent volunteering for anymore OT this month.

The NLRB called that a Strike

and charged the union with illegal activity for not giving strike notice. With that, the jaws of union nurses across the country hit the floor. Its a really unbelievable interpretation that the NLRB made here. Bad enough lots of nurses still have mandatory ot forced on them but now we even have VOLUNTARY ot forced on us???.... unless we inform the hospital with a 10 day strike notice that we arent available for ot. Amazing.

An article was published by the Bureau of National Affairs in its "Legal News", Vol. 15, No. 33. Additionally, the NLRB website (http://www.nlrb.gov) has a copy of the decision:

http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=060336354481+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

mopsi · Nov 30, 2001

Jeeze....It's seems to me we need to start getting our CEU's in LAW..Being able to descibe wounds or describe signs of child abuse seem secondary to being able to survive against the corporate giants and their force of slick attorneys.....

-jt · Dec 1, 2001

youre so right.

The thing that is really galling is that the hospital brought this charge against its nurses because they wouldnt volunteer to bear the burden of the hospital's own mismanagement. The hospital refused to hire additional needed staff & then went full guns after its own nurses for refusing to voluntarily clean up the mess it made itself. If the hospital had put half the effort into investing in its own nursing workforce & correcting the workplace problems that it put into going after these charges, it might not have such a shortage of nurses who are willing to work there.

Its hospitals behavior is despicable. To continuously & knowingly schedule staffing holes, do nothing to address those staffing holes, make no attempt to correct the problem & then feverently seek to legally punish the nurses for not being willing to voluntarily bail the hospital out of the hole it dug itself into is the ultimate of arrogance.

Because of this NLRB decision, the nurses at St Catherines of Siena on Long Island did serve a notice that they would no longer volunteer for OT. That was weeks ago. Youd think the hospital would get the message? Well, rather than work with the nurses to improve conditions for them to work in & step up recruiting/retention initiatives to fill their scheduling holes, the hospital chose to force them to strike this month.

Then it hired scabs.

Really makes you wonder how they can say they value & respect their nurses at the same time they are taking these actions against their nurses. The word "propaganda" comes to mind.

CBS News interviewed RNs on the strike line in Smithtown, Long Island Tuesday morning, November 27. The report is scheduled for broadcast on CBS News' The Early Show on Tuesday, December 4, 7:38 A.M.

A Strike Rally will be held at 50 Rte. 25A in Smithtown, Saturday, December 1 from 11:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. Featured speakers include NYSNA President Robert Piemonte and Economic and General Welfare Director Lorraine Seidel, representatives from the UAN and other labor organizations, and entertainment (!) from the ICU nurses from New Jersey's St. Barnabas Hospital.

Latest developments, news reports, media coverage:

NYSNA | Current Collective Bargaining | St. Catherine of Siena STRIKE

http://www.nysna.org/NEWS/current/stcath.htm

RNPD · Dec 1, 2001

"Recruiting registered nurses has become very, very difficult for every health care provider in the country," (Wilson) said. ~St Cath's Pres, Jim Wilson

"Hospital officials said yesterday they had brought in more than 100 replacement nurses to staff the hospital and that no cutbacks in service are planned."

--------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it strange that these 2 statements can co-exist? Funny that for a hospital that is finding it "very, very difficult" to recruit nurses, they were able to recruit over 100 scabs in only 10 days when they were willing to pay the price for them. Goes to prove once again-there is no shortage of RNs in this country, only a shortage of RNs willing to work in a hospital, under the current conditions and with the current compensation offered.

-jt · Dec 1, 2001

Funny that for a hospital that is finding it "very, very difficult" to recruit nurses, they were able to recruit over 100 scabs in only 10 days when they were willing to pay the price for them. Goes to prove once again-there is no shortage of RNs in this country, only a shortage of RNs willing to work in a hospital, under the current conditions and with the current compensation offered.

Couldnt be more true. Remember these nurses agreed to give-backs in their prior contract in order to save the hospital from closing & allowed the sale to another facility to go thru. This is what got as a way of thanks from their administration.......

I received this today from a nurse on strike at that hospital:

POINTS OF INTEREST ON FRIDAY

Today the Times of Smithtown, St. James and Nesconset ran a letter on pg. 63, regarding our strike. It was written by a Mr. Joseph Latini, Exec. Loan Officer from Hartford funding.

In short what he said was, Mandatory OT should go away, and that we should not force the hospital to spend $500,000 /yr for essentially the same health benefits we have now.

I quote, "..... it serves to do nothing more than allow the union a tighter grip over the already fiscally stangulated hospital. This is just the type of negligent expenditure that caused the rapid demise of St. John's Hospital. ....Let us not forget the CHS saved the hospital from closing because they are proven to be extremely competent healthcare managers."

Now you all know I can't let that go unchallenged, so I sent the following to the Editor.

To whom it may concern;

I am responding to the letter written by Joseph A. Latini Jr., regarding the nurses on strike at St. Catherine of Siena. Although I appreciate Mr. Latini's sensitivity to the issue of mandatory overtime I believe he is very misinformed about a few key issues.

We are asking for the NYSNA medical plan for several reasons;

CHS is a self insured employer, which means they can and have changed

the coverage three times since they took over and have increased the cost

of prescriptions by 33%. without union input.

Most importantly the NYSNA medical plan is currently working on providing medical retirement benefits for our nurses. Which do not exist in the private sector of health care to my knowledge.

I am one of the more fortunate nurses to sit at the negotiation table with CHS. I am also very confused about some of the issues. Each time we sat down with management the cost of the NYSNA plan changed. Mr. Wilson sent a letter to the entire staff and stated the plan would cost $250,000.00/yr. In his latest press release he said it is $500,000.00 so which is it Mr. Wilson, let the public know the truth. Next week it will be a million.

Let them know how you can look them in the eye when you deliberately mislead them with this gross distortion of the truth.

Let them know NYSNA offered ways to reduce this cost for you.

Tell them how CHS even said the "NYSNA plan was a better one," and that the rest of the employees would all want in.

Mr. Latini seems to think "the health coverage is virtually no change in service". Not true is it Mr. Wilson?

Tell them how we agreed to take less than 3% raise in the last year to help fund this plan.

Tell them how we offered to increase the contribution by our part time members to offset the costs.

Tell them how we offered to allow an opt out clause to encourage people to not take the plan, thereby reducing the cost to management. You see, right now 60 nurses opt out of the CHS plan for $1000.00/yr. Our plan is so good the hospital now assumes those 60 will want back in and hence Mr. Latini, is where the cost difference comes from. With an attractive opt out that cost almost goes away.

Let them know how you just spent over $500,000.00 on nurses from all over the country to come and take care of their family and neighbors and you didn't think that the women and men that saved and served their community hospital were worth that same sum to safe guard their retirement.

I wonder if the public was even aware that after retiring from the medical field after 20, 25 or 35 years that all nurses that work for CHS walk away empty handed. No medical benefits even as a bridge to Medicare.

We spend our careers taking care of the health needs of an entire community and retire with our own health needs in jeopardy. This, Mr. Latini, is the single biggest reason to acquire the NYSNA plan.

CHS has said openly at the table, "We are not interested in nurses retiring, there is a shortage you know." What would they say then to this aging population of men and women, "grease up your walkers and grab the support hose, we are in for the long haul"?

I wonder why the nurses on the hill would not agree with Mr. Latini when he stated, "CHS saved the hospital from closing because they are proven to be extremely competent healthcare managers." And in the same letter he states that the "hospital is fiscally strangulated." Surely not by those "competent healthcare managers," the 1700 employees know it had more to do with the fact that we all lost everything and CHS walked in debt free and had absolutely no regard for the dedicated staff that stayed and pulled this organization out of the hole that promised to consume it. Competency is in question when you are fortunate enough to hire 109 nurses in 16 months and allow over 70 to quit do to poor management and horrific working conditions. Seems like that bit of "competent business management", cost about $350,000.00 over the last 16 months.

Is it wrong to want for ourselves that which we provide everyday of our professional careers to the people of the communities we serve. Can you tell me why any religious organization could want to deny all their employees this basic human need?

Come on CHS, come back to the table, it is time to practice what you preach.

Respectfully,

Barbara Crane, RN

President of NYSNA Bargaining Unit at

St. Catherine of Siena Hospital

email: [email protected]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>