What do you think a CEO or AHA think about pending legislation?

Nurses General Nursing

Published

Is this a possible CEO or AHA perspective on pending legislation?

The nurse recruitment legislation and the legislation to abolish mandatory OT are dream come through for the American Hospital Association. The CEO's have to be drooling over these 2 pieces of legislation. If I were a CEO of a hospital, I would be encouraging everyone to write to his or her legislator. I would even provide the postage as well as pay them 5 or 10 dollars to send a postcard in support of the recruitment legislation. I would on the other hand be publicly against the legislation against mandatory OT, but privately I would be telling all my other counter parts to allow it to pass without major resistance.

Now why would I do such a thing. It is simple in the long run it will be beneficial to me in keeping costs down and ensure that my personal income to rise.

How exactly would that happen you ask. Simple, the recruitment legislation will provide me with brand new needed personnel that I can use to replace the nurses who are harassing me for more money and benefits. All I have to do is to continue to pay the same stagnated wages and benefits once it passes. As experienced nurses leave, I can put in my request for more nurses. I will be paying a fare wage when compared to the other hospitals even though it might be as much as 5 dollars less than the national average. In fact, me and my friends have already talked about again freezing salaries across the country as soon as this legislation passes. Many of us have been talking about how we will be able to use this same legislation to put the reigns on the unions we have to deal with. The legislation will provide a way to cut the bargaining power the unions and nurses in general have at this moment. We as employers only need to show that we are not blatantly abusing nurses. This way the government will pay for the replacements that we will need and put us on the needs list. As an extra bonus to us, they will even prioritize on the women who are on welfare or other forms of assistance. This will be a blessing. They will see the wages we offer as a blessing even if they are lower than today's current level, not to mention the low self esteem and other unresolved negative personality issues they will be coming to us with that will allow us to keep them in check.

The anti mandatory OT issue will benefit us in 2 different way. The first one will be that of making our needs greater. If we can not use mandatory OT anymore then we will have to increase the nurse to patient ratios to provide nursing care. By doing this we will benefit in fewer staff and less out of pocket costs for staffing thus better profits. This will surely result in loosing more of the nurses who are tired and have been harassing us for better pay and benefits. We can offer extra incentives for OT in the short term while we wait for replacement nurses to show up and we can continue to slowly increase nurse to patient ratios at the same time. By the time legislation is passed and goes into effect, if ever, The first group of replacement nurses will be ready to step in. I do not foresee a problem with bogging down any type of legislation or getting a time frame set that is in our favor for compliance to start.

The way this is all coming together is great. We could not have done a better job if we would have done it ourselves. We owe the ANA a big thank you for all they have done on our behalf. Just think all this plus the increased limits on foreign nurses that will pass, we will have control once again, as though we ever actually lost it. We will all have to meet with the genius from the Cleveland Clinic to get his input as well.

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

I am not saying that one day recruitment legislation like this will not be needed and beneficial, I am just saying that it is going to undermine all the things we as nurses could improve today. In short, this legislation, if enacted, will help to defeat the real progress which nursing as a whole could benefit from. I hope that in a few years when someone asks what the ANA has done for you lately that you will remember this. This is going to take away yet again the chance that nurses can once and for all take control of our own professions and futures. Everyone is going to benefit from this legislation except the nurses who want to remain at the bedside.

If you have not taken the time to look over the legislation being pushed by the ANA, then I would encourage you to do so. It is easy to read. While you are reading it, keep in mind the climate that is going to exist in the minds of the public in general as each area chimes in declaring an emergency to get on the list of needs. What do you think will happen to any nurse opposition by saying no to their need for any reason? Please take the time to read through the entire bills, at first they start out a little different and become more. There are some parts that could be used today such as the advertisement/orientations to High Schools while focusing efforts on actually solving our problems first, but the way the way they are written, it is either all or nothing.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Nurse Reinvestment Act (S. 1597, H.R. 1436) and the Nursing Employment and Education Development Act (S. 721)

If you are not familiar whit what happened at the Cleveland Clinic and surrounding area please take the time to familiarize yourself.

https://allnurses.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=11674

To those who say that if you are not a ANA member you have no right to complain or get upset, if it directly affects your future then you do have a right. For the vast majority of us it is either the ANA or nothing, now as a nurse who wants to stay at the bedside why would I want to support an organization who is so intent on selling (not sailing) me down the river. Can anyone say who works at the bedside that this is good leadership?

If you are not up to date on ANA's stance on importing foreign nurses then take the time to look at this:

https://allnurses.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=12321

I am just a nurse who works at the bedside who would like to remain there and who is looking for a brighter future with real progress being made. How can I argue with the intelligence or logic of the ANA in this mater. They see a 7 to 8% membership ratio as a majority approval of how good of a job they are doing? This is probably close to the same percentage of members of the Taliban in Afghanistan who actually controlled the country. We need a new national organization with leadership who will attract nurses and change the direction and focus on the needs and wants of the majority of nurses without selling anyone down the river.

Someone said to me in another post to either lead, follow, or get out of the way. I refuse to get out of the way because this is my possible future and existence that is at stake here. I refuse blindly follow a group that is going to sell me down the river due to their lack of logic. Unfortunately I am a man in a female dominated profession and would not be seen as a good leader without fostering feelings of resentment in the long run as too the leadership style that is needed. A woman would be the best candidate even though she would probably get resentment in a different form, she by just the fact of her gender would be easier to accept and follow under the existing climate.

If you agree that the direction that the current legislation if passed will then take nursing away from actual change by undermining the position we have now, then let everyone know that you do not support the ANA as a nurse and /or the pending legislation. This is your future especially if you plan or want to stay at the bedside. It is your future do not let it go down the drain.

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/call/e-mail.htm

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Please remember that I stated a while back that legislation like this would zoom through congress because it would basically go unopposed. I also stated that any legislation that went to heart of our problems in nursing would drag on and be opposed at every turn. The ANA has found a way to appease the powers that be while at the same time setting up the nurses at the bedside for a hard reality of things to come. With leadership, and I use that term loosely, like this, is it any wonder we are in the shape we are in today?

Specializes in CV-ICU.

This thread is a prime example of why the nurses at the bedside can't organize independantly of any organization or union! Every single one of us reads the same piece of legislation and interprets it our own way. Should we each hire our own lawyer to walk us through the legalese so we can all be on the same wavelength? At least my state nursing organization has its own lawyer that we can talk to and get legal advice from.

YOUR "logic" may dictate that to you but YOUR logic is not the reality of it. There is nothing anywhere in the legislation that says anyone accepting a grant to fund their nursing school education forfeits their labor rights or automatically becomes a government employee with no right to strike, so therefore, your "logic" is flawed.

The legislation does not make any requirement for or mention of repaying the money in the event the nurse goes on strike, therefore what you suggest does not exist. If something is not written in the legislation, it doesnt happen.

The "contract with the government" is ONLY for the nurse to repay the grant with her time & skills at her choice of places where they are most needed - it has nothing to do with her employment contract or giving up her rights to labor union activity, including striking. Her rights as an employee remain intact & what she does at work or whether she goes on strike or not has no bearing on repayment of her loan.

All she is required to do to hold up her end of the bargain with the government is to be employed for a certain time period in an underserved area. Nurses on strike are outside on the sidewalk but STILL employed at their facility.

While this is just the first time it is being considered to be national law for nurses, conditional education grants & student loans such as those the legislation addresses are nothing new and they are found in many places, including my city. The nurse receives a grant to go to school and in return is employed for a few yrs in an underserved area or pays the money back. Period.

Teachers do it. Lawyers do it. Doctors do it. Nurses do it.

NOTHING in the legislation obligates any nurse to relinquish her right to strike. And if its not in there, it doesnt happen.

Now.....off to the party..... happy new year!

To anyone who still thinks that proposing legislation and seeing it enacted is a simple process. Please go to the following thread and read the reality.

https://allnurses.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=12812

The California situation looks like a good proving ground for the ANA leadership.

It's not that I want to disprove thier efficacy. Actually, it's just the opposite. It just seems quite a coincidence that tha ANA was kicked out of California and BadaBoomBadaBing, in the interest of California nurses(whether they were thinking of them or not) the Gov gets a safe staffing bill passed.

I think that the reason staffing levels, as found by the comission, have not been implemented is because they (the comission) can't face the reality of telling millionares (top hospital administrators) that they need to cut the fat. Imagine politicians faced with telling Big business "Thanks for the soft money, but we've got to help the nurses and patients at risk here". I don't think they had any idea when they formed this comission, the piss poor conditions and the reality of how understaffed the hospitals were in relation to humane and ethical tretment of both nuses and patients. I imagine they never pictured the shortage to be this imbalanced towards the little people.

They're just sitting with hands folded across thier laps waiting for the Hot potato to cool down. Yep, they just left this nursing shortage potato in the microwave a little too long and it just needs to cool off a bit so they can dump it while nobody's looking.

I don't think there's an oversight comittee to make sure they follow the guidelines of the bill. At least not one that isn't influenced by a few corporations somewhere in the gene pool.

They have the results, it's just that nobody but nurses and patients want to believe the data is valid.

Can't wait to see how this plays out.

It's what is called a precedent.

No one ever said that getting legislation passed into law is easy. But its easier to do when there is a strong, collective voter voice pushing for it. Are the majority of the over 1 million nurses working in pt care standing up & saying NO MORE - making their voices heard by their legislators re: safe staffing or anything else? No...... its just a % of all nurses who are doing that...... so getting federal legislation passed on nurse staffing is going to be that much harder. But not impossible. Getting ANA-supported legislations for nurses/pts passed has been done many times before.

Never say die.

Re: the California staffing law:

It did not happen overnight. It was a long fight & though they have had it since 1999 & it was supposed to be implemented last yr, putting it into effect had to be delayed a year because no one can agree on what the ratios should be. These are just ratios for only acute care hospitals and look at how difficult it has been.

Direct-care nurses groups dont even agree with EACH OTHER on what the hospital ratios should be.

So today is the day that law was to take effect but its being delayed again while they continue to hammer out what the ratios should be. Its not an easy process by any means.

California is not the only state where nurse staffing ratios legislation has been introduced. It is the 2nd worst state as far as numbers of nurses per pt population and it is a state whose Director of Dept of Health is not a doctor or businessman but an RN (from NY) who understands about nurses & patients and lobbied for the law. All of the direct-care nurse groups were involved in lobbying for it too - including the SEIU. And all of that helped in CA becoming the first state where legislation to set hospital staffing ratios was passed.

Nurse Staffing Legislations have been introduced in several states:

Nurses on strike in Oregon, one of their reasons is for better staffing.

"OHSU nurses strike to improve staffing...."

So if this legislation is so great why are they striking for better staffing. Don't they know that they are already gong to get it? Don't they know that the hospital they are striking against is going to penalized for non-compliance?

http://www.oregonrn.org/index.php

Legislation enacted PRIOR to 2001 (6 states: CA, KY, NH, NM, RI, VA)

Legislation introduced in 2001 (12 states: AL, CT, FL, IL, ME, NJ, NM, NY, OH, PA, SC, WV)

Legislation enacted in 2001 (1 state: OR)

Legislation introduced in 2001 can be generally classified into 2 categories - those requiring adherence to a valid staffing plan to ensure safe patient care - and those bills setting specific nurse-to-patient ratios.

Valid Staffing Plan legislation is in process in IL, ME, NY, OH, and PA.

Specific nurse-to-patient ratio-setting legislation in CT, NJ, and OR calls for nurse to patient ratios in all health care facilities.

Legislation introduced in AL, FL, NM, NY, OH, SC and WV also calls for specific school nurse to pupil ratios

Background:

Noting the decline in nurses on staff at many health care institutions and the substitution of cheaper, unlicensed personnel, ANA established the "Principles for Nurse Staffing." These Principles provide recommendations on appropriate staffing to reverse this trend and for reclaiming a safe environment for nurses and patients.

1998 saw the first legislation passed by KY and VA to set appropriate staffing methodology.

In 1999, CA passed legislation to require nurse-to-patient ratios in acute care hospitals. New Hamphire approved data collection on the rates of RNs per bed. New Mexico agreed to study the education and training mix necessary for personnel to meet state health care demands and RI adopted a House study on patient care and nurse staffing in acute care hospitals.

Legislation enacted in 2001 in Oregon requires hospitals to develop and implement nurse staffing plans and establish internal review processes. Penalties will result for noncompliance.

http://www.nursingworld.org

The Safe Nursing Care Act HB 2800 Becomes LAW

First in the Nation!

Elements of the new law include:

Staffing Standards

Staffing Plan Variances for Rural Facilities

Mandatory Overtime Restrictions

Patient Abandonment

Whistleblower Protections

Whistleblower Remedies - for nurses who have suffered retaliation by employers

Posting of Whistleblower law in every facility

Enforcement - penalties to the facility for violations of any element of this law >>

http://www.oregonrn.org/hb2800law.php

All achieved by the hard-fought efforts of nurses getting political & doing more than just sitting back & complaining.

Nurses on strike in Oregon, one of their reasons is for better staffing.

"OHSU nurses strike to improve staffing...."

So if this legislation is so great why are they striking for better staffing. Don't they know that they are already gong to get it? Don't they know that the hospital they are striking against is going to penalized for non-compliance?

http://www.oregonrn.org/index.php

So why are these nurses in Oregon striking for better staffing then?

They're striking because it's not over by any means.

There are no specific numbers for staffing. In an apparent compromise, the hospital will have to justify the crappy working conditions. That won't happen until it's enforced by legal action somewhere down the road. They are'nt just going to change what they've been making millions on overnight. It's a step on the moon, not an exploration. It's a good step because it's at least in the right direction, but they won't give in without a fight.

Mandatory Overtime Restrictions

" This also reflects the compromises that were necessary to gather the political support necessary to pass the bill. An allowance for two hours of mandatory overtime is included in the bill while the hospital seeks to find a replacement nurse. However, there is a firm limit prohibiting mandatory overtime exceeding 16 hours in a 24-hour period"

What kind of mandatory overtime statement is that? Why even bother to put that in? Couldn't they just work you doubles while they "try" to find replacements?

I know it's not easy but to come all this way and not take away their magic wand of automatic staffing is a waste of the chance for change.

I am refreshed by the fact that there does seem to be some progress and I'm very pleased that Oregon nurses are willing to try to make that happen. I hope that I'm wrong and this somehow makes their work enviroment bearable. They deserve it for their effort.

They need to keep the unions in this country for bargaining power. The unions don't have to be radical. They could simply follow the same ground rules as hospitals and observe and enforce those laws that protect nurses by the threat of a strike and a negotiation of a new contract with more threatening language than the laws. No threat of government fines and penalties is going to impress the hospitals. Historically the government has offered big business a compromise in lieu of a financial penalty, so I think the unions are the only way to enforce it realisticly.

+ Add a Comment