Thank You Governor Granholm For Your Panel !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Long But Worth It

[karbyr]

Panel: NMH mostly to blame for labor impasse

By Beth Anne Piehl News-Review staff writer

The Blue Ribbon Panel's report is in - and it's a biting reprimand of Northern Michigan Hospital officials' actions and an insistence that they return to the bargaining table to end the 10-month-long nurses' strike.

"The panel found indicators that the failure to (further bargain), to date, due in large part to the intransigent and ideological position of the NMH Board, has had serious and deleterious effects on NMH and the community," the report reads.

It continues its criticism: "Since Nov. 14, 2002 (the date of the strike), rather than acting as prudent stewards of this community asset, the NMH Board has authorized large additional expenditures to pay temporary nurses at premium rates, jeopardizing the hospital's already precarious fiscal stability prior to the strike - an expenditure amount that the board and administration have refused to release to the community or to the panel."

The Blue Ribbon Panel, convened by Gov. Jennifer Granholm earlier this summer to help end the bitter impasse at this area's largest employer, issued its report to the public this morning, Tuesday.

It addresses findings and recommendations, information on the status of health care at NMH, the national nursing shortage, the economic costs of the strike and financial data, community health care perceptions and NMH's role and accountability as a community asset.

Still, given the comprehensive nature of the report and the recommendations and insights offered from a third party, neither side - the Teamsters nor Northern Michigan Hospital - is required by law to obey or implement the panel's recommendations (see related story on recommendations).

After holding two public hearings in July and an additional fact-finding session with NMH officials, the panel returned to Lansing to pore over more than 400 letters of correspondence from area residents and the testimony of 105 patients, nurses and community members during the public hearings.

Among the many items of correspondence, there was one repeated plea: "... the overwhelming sentiment of those who communicated with us called for the parties to return to the bargaining table to solve this dispute. In our judgment, the residents of Northern Michigan have every right to expect both NMH and Local 406 to responsibly negotiate the remaining issues."

The hospital last December issued its final offer to the Teamsters Union Local 406. One of the main sticking points has been the hospital wanting to give its nurses the opportunity to choose whether to be represented by the union, a so-called "open shop," citing the close vote for unionization. The Teamsters have repeatedly requested further negotiation and have refused to sign NMH's final offer.

The panel is aware of the "closed shop" issue and addressed it in its report.

"Of note, too, is the fact that all other hospitals in Northern Michigan are unionized and no hospital in Michigan has an 'open shop,'" it reads.

The 35-page report also address patient health care concerns raised to the panel during the forums.

"NMH has long been considered a leader in the delivery of quality of health care. Yet the panel heard disturbing examples of questionable health care practices during the strike from both former patients and licensed health professionals, both strikers and non-strikers," the report reads. "While NMH has denied these charges, the number and significance of the complaints warrant additional independent review, particularly in the area of infection control and serious incidents involving patient care."

Hospital officials said they weren't prepared to comment on the report today.

"We did receive a faxed document ... and the hospital will not be commenting until we get a chance to fully evaluate the report," said NMH spokesman Tom Spencer.

Teamsters attorney Ted Iorio said the findings and recommendations sections of the report "give a clear signal to the hospital and address many of the community concerns.

"It addresses the veil of secrecy the hospital has engaged in regarding the cost of the strike and the committee goes as far as to tie in patient care, which is rather significant," Iorio said.

Iorio said he was also pleased to read the panel's comments regarding the "intransigent," or uncompromising, position of the NMH Board of Trustees.

"It says to the board: You don't have the right to have those kind of positions when you hold a position of public trust," Iorio said.

The report is addressed to David C. Hollister, the director of the Department of Consumer and Industry Services. It includes reasons the panel was assembled in the first place: because hospitals, both public and non-public, are community assets; the delivery of quality health care is in the public interest; elected officials have an obligation to assure that adequate health care services in the immediate vicinity are readily available to the public; and because a protracted and acrimonious labor dispute has the potential of disrupting delivery of adequate health care services to Michigan citizens.

One of the panelists, Pat Babcock, this morning noted the points of most concern to himself and the panelists as they reviewed the testimony and correspondence over the past couple of months.

"It's a combination from my perspective of two factors: One, what I think is the intractable position of the hospital board for ideological reasons," Babcock said. "I'm not saying their position is right or wrong, but they should go back and try to reach an agreement; the failure to do so really threatens the stability of the hospital fiscally and threatens the tranquility of the community."

His second area of concern is NMH's fiscal responsibility in weathering additional costs of the strike - a question posed to hospital president Tom Mroczkowski, who told the panel he didn't have figures immediately available, Babcock said.

"I find that highly implausible. I don't know many hospital administrators who don't know what the costs are."

He said given the hospital's previous precarious financial position - where two years ago it barely turned a profit - the high cost of traveling nurses earlier in the strike was a concern.

Still, the panel doesn't believe the issues cannot be resolved "if both parties make a serious attempt to do so."

"This is an issue that should've been resolved - and it shouldn't have taken nearly 11 months now," Babcock said.

Beth Anne Piehl can be contacted at 439-9352, or [email protected].

NEWS: Local/Regional

Blue ribbon panel recommendation

Following are the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel in its report, issued this morning, for the parties to resolve the ongoing nurses' strike at Northern Michigan Hospital:

1. The Michigan Department of Consumer and Industry Services should examine all minutes of NMH's Infection Control Committee held between Nov. 15, 2002, to the present date and all serious incident reports from November 14, 2002, to the present date. NMH should provide MDCIS with a complete report of infection and other health quality indicators.

2. To strengthen fiscal stewardship within the community, NMH should provide a public independent audit of all costs of temporary staff hired or under contract to fill vacancies resulting from the nurses' strike. This hospital is a community asset and the public has the right to know the costs associated with the board's actions and strategies.

To further stewardship with the community and promote better communications, NMH should publish its patient complaint review procedures. NMH should review each patient complaint received since Nov. 14. 2002, and assure that the complainant has received a thorough response.

3. Further, the panel recommends that MDCIS carefully review the testimony shared with the panel by patients, their families, and medical personnel regarding cases of inadequate care. If warranted, the state should not hesitate to seek a full state licensure and federal certification survey using state and federal surveyors.

4. The panel recognizes the devastating and divisive effect this dispute has had on the greater Petoskey community. It also recognizes that the dispute can only be resolved at the bargaining table. Therefore, the panel recommends that the parties immediately return to the bargaining table and, with the assistance of mediators from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the state's Bureau of Employment Relations, engage in intensive bargaining, particularly with respect to three key issues: Union security, management rights and compensation. If, after 30 days, the parties are not able to resolve this dispute at the bargaining table, the panel urges both parties to consent to binding arbitration.