Administrator's Salaries - page 5

The Registered Nurses at St Catherines of Siena Catholic Health Systems (CHS) on Long Island, NY have been on strike for 20 days because their employer refuses to address their serious concerns about... Read More

  1. by   -jt
    I think youre falling in love with me, W.

    If I remember correctly, didnt you just post the other day, 12/25, I think, that you never tell anyone how to act or what to do???
  2. by   wildtime88
    That I did JT, but I thought I would never see another nurse post something that said that other nurses were actually not concerned if patients die while under their care.

    YOU did.

    I could never fall in love with anyone who would stoop this low.
  3. by   prn nurse
    You wrote you do not mind congress voting themselves a liitle raise...a new law was written in 1994,,,, they all receive a raise every year,,, they can vote to refuse it if they wish, and in this year of crisis and war, and recession, they could have voted last week to refuse it. they did not. there was a huge article last week on the front page of the local newspapter about it. anyway, by 2004, they will have doubled their salaries in ten years....with their "little salary increases " every year. How many of us nurses will double out salaries from 1994 levels? And we do not have anywhere near the benefits and perks the elected characters have.....these are worth $$$$
  4. by   Mijourney
    Hi prn. The context of that quote you took from my post dealt with the original post about the exorbitant salaries made by hospital or health care administrators. Some of these administrators are amassing what seems to be huge fortunes in in the millions in light of not only a worldwide nursing shortage, but a shortage of many healthcare workers in general as well as an increasing presence of managed care, increasing healthcare costs, increasing insurance premiums and decreased health care benefits.

    I share your concern about increases in government spending or congressional salaries. But to try to look at it from their perspective, members of Congress cover alot of territory in their representation of the public, frequently more so than a hospital CEO. Like in healthcare, the issues that Congress confront have become increasingly complex, so I'm guessing that the salaries were upped to try to compete somewhat with the private sector for those few good men (or women) and to make their salaries reflect their job responsibilites.

    PRN, you know you don't have to convince me about the inadequacy of nurses' salaries. I just hope that you've taken the time to contact your various "leaders" regarding the plight of nurses and patient care.
  5. by   Burden of Proof
    "If CEO's are about greed and we, as nurses, think they should sacrifice some of their income because they manage a healthcare industry, then shouldn't we do the same?"

    This is the kind of brainless "reasoning" that KEEPS nurses locked into performing work under slave labor conditions that ultimately destroys us - exposure to AIDS, patients who physically attack us, high stress levels, etc. HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS ARE NOT EARNING THOSE OUTRAGEOUSLY INFLATED SALARIES: IT'S THEIR "REWARD" FOR PAYING NURSES LESS! If you believe the above quote, the hospital administrators are laughing AT YOU - all the way to the bank.

    The truth is also found at:
  6. by   RNed
    Burden of Proof: Brainless reasoning might be a bit strong. I understand their are some who blindly believe what they are told. Or it may be they want to believe it. I don't know.

    However, the quote is meant to bring to light that we should be fighting for higher nursing compensation and we should be cautious of what we use in that fight.

    If there is a moral cause to limit or reduced CEO incomes, just because they run healthcare systems, then by default, we are establishing a moral cause to maintain low nursing incomes.

    I personally don't care what CEO's make, nor, do I believe a reduction of CEO salaries will cause an increase in nursing wages.

    I do believe nurses should be compensated more and I believe supply and demand will be the biggest factor in making this change.

    If Hospital adminstrators are laughing it is most likely because they recognise we are without leadership and without leadership " brainless reasoning" overcomes strategic planning. It is interesting that hospitals have five, ten, and fifteen year strategic plans and at the same time those nurses working in the facility are planning for the next union negotiations one, two or three years from now. Does anyone see a problem with this ?

    Just food for thought !
  7. by   wildtime88

    You are on the right track.

    Here is something else that I have seen.

    Nurses come away from a strike with a 3% raise cheering about it. A 3% annual raise does not even keep up with inflation. A 15% raise over 3 years is 5% a year and that barely keeps up with inflation.

    They have the sense that they actually won something. The Hospital on the other hand does not think that have lost a thing. And actually they haven't. You see the prices set for services will be raised to meet the price of inflation. Also the hospital goes into negotiations with an understanding on how much they are already willing to relinquish, but they know if they just concede that amount without a fight that the next time the union will ask for more. So they put up a fight on the outside the whole time laughing on the inside. The fight is more about power and control than anything else. Eventually the nurses back down and settle for less while the whole time the original demand was already preapproved as an acceptable concession on the hospital's part.

    I remember recently talking with someone at one of the hospitals I used to work that just went through a strike. She is in administration. She said the hospital had already preapproved much more than the nurses actually settled for. She said the original demands were less than half of what was preapproved. These were here exact words at the end of the conversation, "If nurses had better leadership and did not value themselves so low, then we would all be much farther ahead." Maybe I forgot to mention I used to work side by side with her when she was a staff nurse.
  8. by   WashYaHands
    Sounds to me like this administrator who is a nurse and once was a staff nurse let her nurses down in a big way by not allowing the preapproved larger pay raise to go through. Talk about pitting nurse against nurse. Sounds like she is the ineffective leader when she blocks a better pay raise for her facilities nurses simply because they were union members and asked for less. A good leader in that position would have advocated for the staff nurses and let the preapproved bigger pay raise take effect rather than punish the staff nurses for being union members. If the facility already had a preapproved plan for pay raises, why didnt they present the offer before the strike? It doesn't make sense to me.
    She said the hospital had already preapproved much more than the nurses actually settled for. She said the original demands were less than half of what was preapproved.
  9. by   wildtime88
    Actually this nurse was put on the opposite end by the union. Remember she is in management and can not belong to the union.

    If there had been someway that she could have been included in a fight against the hospital, then it would have been a much different story.

    This is a problem with the labor movement within the nursing profession. It draws battle lines that pit nurse against nurse and excludes the direct participation of other nurses that work at the same facility.

    It is not a preapproved plan for raises. It is a preapproved amount that they are actually willing to relinquish. Nurses in administration are powerless to actually approve funds for raises and benefits. They can only distribute funds that have been actually released or approved by the baord, CEOs, CFOs, or corporation.
    Last edit by wildtime88 on Jan 4, '02
  10. by   -jt
    <she is in management and can not belong to the union.

    If there had been someway that she could have been included in a fight against the hospital, then it would have been a much different story.

    This is a problem with the labor movement within the nursing profession. It draws battle lines that pit nurse against nurse and excludes the direct participation of other nurses that work at the same facility. >

    It has nothing to do with pitting staff nurse against nurse manager and the fact that the nursing supervisor cannot belong to the staff nurses union is not something that is confined to the nursing profession. Its federal law. NO management personnel in any field or profession in this country can belong to the same union as the workers they supervise.
    Think about it. That law makes sense.
  11. by   wildtime88
    The law might make sense, but the whole concept does not if you are trying to unite nurses.

    If the major focus with in nursing is to unite every nurse and to achieve optimum results, then the concept of a labor union that pits nurse against nurse and excludes other nurses who work in the same facility is counter productive under this arrangement.

    Simply put, can't we do better for everyone with out segregating or putting up battlelines amoung ourselves? This is what a labor union in our profession actually does.
  12. by   WashYaHands
    I understand that management cannot belong to the union. What does not make sense to me is that as an administrator, especially a former staff nurse who worked up the ranks to administration, does not advocate for the nurses (union or non-union). Just because she cant be a member of the union does not mean she has to be put on the opposite side of the union and her nurses. Apparently I am either misunderstanding her position or this administator by virtue of her title has become a "yes man/woman" to the CEO.

    You comment that the administrator is powerless. I disagree with that. How about having an administrator with the knowledge to crunch some numbers and demonstrate to the CEO the value of the nursing staff (in bu$ine$$ language). How about an administrator who has the intestinal fortitude to secure a place on the board meeting agenda and present to the CEO, CFO the cost savings of retaining satisfied staff and avoiding a strike. How about a administration leader who will meet the CEO on their turf and speak in their language....."Giving our staff a 5% raise in pay will cost us $xx. If our staff strikes it will cost us $xxxxx in strike breaker pay and we will still end up giving a 3% pay raise just to get our staff back. Factor in the negative publicity that the facility will receive and the cost of our HR department verifying the licenses of the strike breakers as well as replacing the striking nurses who will pursue other jobs with other hospitals because they are unhappy with their employment here..." How about an administrator who reviews incident reports and approaches the CEO with proof in hand that most med errors and adverse incidents are occuring during the hours that our nurses are working mandatory overtime. How about an Administrator who presents valid scientific research on the positive correlation between positive health outcomes of patients and a manageable nurse to patient ratio. Discuss with the CEO past research and regulation of airline pilots and truckers who are required by law to have limits on the number of hours they can work before they must stop and rest (to protect the safety of the public).
    I'm not talking about unions here. I'm talking about administrators who are not afraid to challenge the CEO's in their own back yard. Leadership does not emerge from blind obedience to anyone, not even a CEO/CFO.

  13. by   wildtime88
    Nurse managers and administrators do just this, but when it actually comes to implementation or adoption they are not the ones who have the authority to do so. All they can do is suggest.

    During negotiations they can not reveal what management has talked about. Many have signed contracts that actually forbid this. It is also grounds for dismissal. They can not simply break confidentiality and then drop back to a staff nurse position either. You have to also remember that the union does not protect their position.

    The main function of a labor union is to separate labor from management and to give labor a unified bargaining position.
    Last edit by wildtime88 on Jan 6, '02