Crisis/strike travel

NedRN · Oct 28, 2015

Strike nurses replace striking nurses. Pretty simple.

Crisis (or rapid response) is simply a facility that has an urgent or critical need and are willing to pay more for getting open positions filled fast.

One undercuts nurses who are trying to improve working conditions, and the other is actually helping overworked staff.

chivon101 · Oct 28, 2015

Thanks for your input as always, Ned! I think I probably would feel a little guilty hurting union nurses because it would be nice if all states were union.

I just sent you a PM

nurseactivist · Nov 3, 2015

I remember seeing a bumper sticker in Louisiana (I worked offshore) around 1975 that said: "Right to work - for less". I wondered what that meant for 20 years. Now I get it - funny! My fellow construction workers were vehemently anti-union. I had no idea of the issues at the time growing up in a rural area of the Midwest, and as an offshore welder, I was treated like royalty and paid like a physician.
Sometimes people have cause to be anti-union. I met a Fastaff traveler on my last assignment whose first job was at a union hospital. A union nurse made a big fuss when she found out he made almost as much as she did, and his pay was lowered $4 an hour (I assume he was brought in above union scale for no seniority). So he feels like unions have too much power and he enjoys taking them down a peg or two and making great money doing so.
(This guy also gave me the strike worker definition of scab: it isn't them, it is staff that crosses the picket line. New definition to me! Clearly made up so they feel like the label is incorrectly applied to them. Yakking on nurse forums, there are a ton of rationalizations that strike workers use to feel better about the work they do that has so many negative connotations. All BS, the only valid reason to do it is the money, that is a reason I can respect but few will admit to it).
But most people are pro or anti-union based on where they grew up. Sometimes people learn about the history of unions as I did and how they have brought up all workers (laws such as child labor, overtime, and the 40 hour week all came about from unions) and change their opinions. And some become anti-union when they see abuses of power, and of course seeing union workers that do a minimum of work for big pay. Slackers come pretty equally in both varieties, and there are abuses of power in all positions of power. Not a reason to hate, but it is human nature.

Anyone who crosses a picket line and works is a scab in my book. Traveler's who specifically work during labor disputes top the list, frankly.

I read about the terrible conditions in the south and their anti-union stance. The answer is not to become a scab in a neighboring state. The fact that California has ratios is directly correlated to the strength of the nurse unions in California.

People have died walking picket lines in the past. That is how we got an 8 hour day, holidays, weekends, etc. Many young people today, sadly, do not know the history.

DanidelionRN, BSN, RN · Nov 5, 2015

I am originally from Wisconsin- and I really supported their anti-union legislation recently. Previously, when I was looking for jobs in WI, I did not really see ANY differences between union and non-union positions, in the way of staffing, or pay, except that the union jobs paid a tiny bit higher, and then basically the whole difference went to the union. I don't like the idea of being FORCED to give money to someone who claims they are going to make my workplace better for me, without them having to actually prove that they can/are doing it, to get my money. That's the whole idea of "Right to work"---- that if the union is crap and isn't actually improving the work environment, I don't have to pay them for their efforts.

In the past, I believe unions had a purpose- particularly in the time without things like OSHA. Today, however, I really don't know of any particular things that a union has done that is worth paying them my money. To me it's essentially the same pattern as the feminism movement- right to vote and equal rights, was a wonderful accomplishment, and very important... but the people who call themselves feminists today are vastly different in values and goals than the "original" feminists who accomplished the women's right to vote.

Beyond that, I REALLY loathe the democratic party, and I will not work somewhere, where a portion of my wages gets donated to them- and most unions pour money into the coffers of the democratic candidates. I care too much about vulnerable people who cannot speak for themselves, to be okay with the policies of the democratic party, in regards to abortion and euthanasia. If I want my money donated to a political cause, I'll put it there myself, thanks very much.

NedRN · Nov 5, 2015

Competition always ensures that pay in a given area is similar between different employers for the same job. This is also true when there is a mix of union and non-union employers in one area. So if you are from such an area and have never been anywhere else, it looks like from your perspective that there are no advantages to being union. However, the pay is always higher where there are unions. If you compare your area of Wisconsin to a non-unionized area, your pay is higher. It is easy to see these broad differences. Simply look at unionized areas of the Midwest compared to non-unionized areas. Or any nursing job in the heavily unionized west coast versus any nursing job in the South. This long current thread in Allnurses includes several posts from Indiana nurses who talk about the very low pay throughout the state, except the northwest portion close to unionized Chicago where pay is significantly higher.

You are clearly unaware of even recent nursing history where nurses were some of the lowest paid workers in the country. Historically, most unions evolved in mostly male environments. So nurses missed out on a lot of the benefits for workers that came as a result of unions in the industrialized era. This started to change very slowly in the 1960's and because of the efforts of unions (and some other trends), nurses are now well paid (excepting non-unionized areas such as the South).

Unions were the driving force for many worker benefits we now enjoy, they were directly responsible for the 40 hour week (half of what nurses used to work), overtime, child labor restrictions, all of which are now baked into federal law. But it took a lot of effort, and even a good number of lives were lost in labor battles over the rights of workers in this country. Nursing unions are so strong in California, a few years ago they forced through a state staffing ratio law. As a result, working conditions at all hospitals in California are well above average. So is patient care which we are supposed to care about as nurses.

Even in an area with union and non-union hospitals where pay is similar, there are benefits to working at a unionized hospital. If you work at a non-union hospital, you are an at-will employee and can be terminated without a reason. That is pretty tough on a worker who is the sole family supporter during a period where the job market is poor. Unions have contracts that not only require a legitimate reason for termination, but also represent the worker directly. Pretty hard to deal with an employer by yourself - very unequal power position without a union! Most union contracts also address staffing ratios, mandatory overtime, and similar issues that non-union employers don't have to. Yes, in union areas, competition forces some of these benefits on non-union hospitals, but make no mistake, they don't do it without that union influence.

Finally, right to work laws eviscerate unions. If you don't have to pay union dues, the union doesn't have the money to ensure that contract negotiations and defense of the contract is carried out. In every state where right to work laws were passed, average pay goes down.

No offense, but any worker who backs anti-union legislation uniformed. Such workers have completely bought into the propaganda of the rich and powerful backing employers over workers. Simple as that. No one who understands the history and current labor dynamics would support such legislation. There are some emotional issues and belief systems out there (much depends on where and how you were raised), but there are no rational reasons why workers would support right to work or other anti-union legislation. The rich and powerful do have good reasons to support such laws of course.

As far as unions playing in politics, why would they want to stand by silently when worker rights and the contracts they have fought so hard and long for are threatened?

elkpark · Nov 5, 2015

That's the whole idea of "Right to work"---- that if the union is crap and isn't actually improving the work environment, I don't have to pay them for their efforts.

No, "the whole idea of 'Right to work'" is to cripple and, ideally, destroy unions. Right to work laws ensure that, even if the union IS doing a lot to improve the workplace and benefit workers, workers are able to freeload and enjoy the benefits the union provides without having to contribute to providing them.

nurseactivist · Nov 5, 2015

The needle safety devices came from unions. Right now in California the unions are working on OSHA standards for preventing workplace violence. Any union is only as strong as its members.

Psychcns · Nov 5, 2015

I don't plan on doing this since I am pro Union and it would go against my beliefs. But. I can see a place for strike nurses. It could allow a facility to stay open until an agreement is reached. Am I missing something?

NedRN · Nov 5, 2015

The needle safety devices came from unions.

As an OR nurse, safety needles actually decrease my safety when scrubbed. That said, I appreciate the value of them hospital wide. I would have thought admin would appreciate the benefits of reducing worker's comp claims (another union mediated universal benefit).

NedRN · Nov 5, 2015

I don't plan on doing this since I am pro Union and it would go against my beliefs. But. I can see a place for strike nurses. It could allow a facility to stay open until an agreement is reached. Am I missing something?

Good question. Things are complicated. Limited strikes such as one, two, three days are tactics, not all out war. Unions do it to hurt hospitals financially and increase bargaining power, not an open ended strike because negotiating or less than nuclear options are not working. So yes, even the unions depend on strike workers to keep the hospital open in this scenario.

That said, if workers were not willing to cross picket lines and strike companies and insurance didn't exist, this particular tactic (limited strikes) would not be needed. Additionally, the scab label and all the negative perception still applies to strike workers.

So there is an amazing range of rationalizations that strike workers employ so they don't feel bad about what they do. Frankly, working only limited strikes is a good one - I haven't heard anyone use that except me though. That was my rationalization for doing several (I had a couple more that are too minor to mention) - but of course, everyone believes in their particular rationale.

Examples:

Unions are evil and abuse their power.

Someone has to take care of the patients.

Patients and admin really love us.

Strike workers are special, the only ones willing to help.

I love the strike community and meeting old friends at strikes.

And from a post in this thread: I loathe Democrats.

Fox_RuN, BSN · Mar 28, 2017

We are nurses. What's a weekend and holiday, much less a "day"? Because I, and many of us, don't get them. P.S. coming from a union hospital here. :yawn:

8-ball, BSN · Apr 5, 2017

Here is my 2 cents. I have never worked a strike but I would if given the chance. Why? For the money of course, therefore the compensation would have to be right and I wouldn't cancel a travel job to do it since they often cancel before day 1. Having said that I am pro union, in that I wish more places were unionized like TN where I am from. In TN staff are treated so poorly and paid so little that I feel a union would help alot. CEO's have too much power and can treat thier staff poorly while lining their pockets. So why would I work a strike in another state? Not that it really matters to anyone other than the nurse working it but my thought is they are paying out big money to strike nurses and therefore it hits them where they notice (wallet). I am anti CEO's