poll on hospitals that give retirement defined pensions and medical benefts

lee1 · Jul 13, 2003

Lopsided vote authorizes nurses' strike

Published in the Home News Tribune 7/11/03 By APARNA NARAYANAN

HEALTH WRITERNEW BRUNSWICK: Registered nurses at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital yesterday paved the way for a possible strike by overwhelmingly voting against a proposed labor contract."Thank God," said registered nurse Patricia Avila, after a vote count showed hospital nurses had authorized a strike. "I'm very discouraged they would treat nurses in such a disrespectful manner."Robert Wood Johnson nurses, members of the Professional Health Care Division of PACE Local 300, argue their compensation levels are below industry standards. Their chief concerns -- for higher salaries and retirement benefits -- were not satisfactorily addressed in the new package, they said."I know what's going on in nursing, and Robert Wood Johnson needs to get on the bandwagon," Avila said.The nurses' poll on a new three-year contract began at 6:30 a.m. yesterday and closed at 7 p.m. Out of 792 votes, 618 were against the contract, 173 in favor, and one was declared void.To authorize a strike, two-thirds of the votes had to be against the contract. The job action does not take effect immediately because federal law requires the nurses' union to give the hospital 10 days' notice of intent. Over 1,000 Robert Wood Johnson Hospital nurses are members of Local 300.During this period, the federal mediator, who has so far participated in contract negotiations, will "officially direct negotiations," hospital spokesman John Patella said yesterday."We value our nurses and will explore whatever opportunities remain to reach a settlement," he said.If a nursing strike does occur, the hospital "has contingency plans that will allow it to remain open and continue providing patients with quality care," Patella added, declining to discuss the plans.Hospital nurses also expressed hope that a settlement would be reached.Ellen Quinlan, a registered nurse at Robert Wood Johnson since 1980, said she expects the hospital to be back at the bargaining table within days."Robert Wood Johnson cannot afford to run without its nurses," she said, adding "our needs were not addressed, much less met, by this contract."Negotiations began in April between the nurses' union and hospital management on a new three-year contract. The hospital made its final offer on June 30, but the nurses' negotiating committee, describing the contract as inadequate, unanimously rejected it on July 1."It fell far below our expectations," Karen Carey, a registered nurse, said yesterday. The nurses' chief demands are for higher pay and retirement benefits.The entry-level wage for a nurse at the hospital is $24.54 an hour. The average starting salary for a registered nurse in New Jersey is between $24 and $30 an hour, or between $40,000 and $50,000 yearly, according to the New Jersey Hospital Association.Robert Wood Johnson nurses sought wage increases of 15 percent in the first year of the contract. The proposed contract offered wage increases of 5 percent in the first year, with a $2 market adjustment by the end of 2003.The 15 percent increase to the hourly rate that nurses seek will bring new hires up to the industry standards, hospital nurses argue. They especially oppose the peak hourly rate of $31.72, which is reached in the 15th year and remains flat thereafter.Although starting wages seem attractive, nurses' salaries "flatline" early and afford no long-term benefit to staying in the profession, they said.Robert Wood Johnson nurses demanded making each year in nursing a "pay step," with a corresponding hourly rate increase each year. The proposed contract adds three "pay steps" at years 20, 25 and 30, and makes each 50 cents higher than the previous pay step."It's too little, too late," Carey said. "At year 20, 25 and 30 you're looking to retire and the hospital is offering a 50-cent increase?"Nurses also described the hospital's proposed improvements to the existing pension plan as falling short of their expectations. In addition, they sought retirements benefits -- including a defined monthly pension and a yearly medical stipend of $3,000 -- demands that were rejected by hospital management.Their demand for a 36-hour work week to qualify for full-time benefits also was not adequately met, they said. Like her colleagues, registered nurse Judy Danella said she hopes a settlement could be reached on a new contract."None of us wants to strike. It hurts us as a hospital," she said. "But we feel we have the best nurses in the state. I hope they'll resolve it." Contributing: staff writer Raven Hill

lee1 · Jul 27, 2003

Does anyone else have a defined pension AND the option of a 403B with match from their hospital even though it might be only 2% like the above????

lee1 · Aug 1, 2003

Can't seem to generate much discussion on retirement benefits which I thought that ALL nurses cared deeply about. I wonder why????

lindalee · Aug 2, 2003

This is probably why we don't have retirement security. Perhaps everyone has simply given up. We have a 401K with a 5% match if we contribute 5% of our income. We also have a 403B plan available with no match. Of course with the market so far down, retirement is certainly not an option for long tenured employees. Perhaps the value of the retirement accounts will one day recover, but perhaps not. Low salaries have limited our ability to save for retirement--not that anyone is concerned, after all there is a shortage and they do not want us to be able to retire.

OC_An Khe · Aug 3, 2003

Linda,

Agree that low salaries are a hindrance to saving for retirement.

A question though, where do you think the capital in the defined benefit pension programs are invested? The market is immaterial as to whether it is high or low. Prudent investment choices will provide an adequate level of retirement income. This is an area that everyone needs to be basically educated on.

Ideally one should have both programs from their employer.

lindalee · Aug 3, 2003

Ideally one should have both programs from their employer.>>> Yes, everyone should be educated on investing. Our education through our employer continued to encourage us to invest aggressively--the message was that being too conservative would not allow your money to grow and you would have inadequate savings for retirement. This message was continued all through the last three years. I have continued to invest at the same rate through all of this, while I watched my accounts drop by about 50%. So I think some of the education seminars are a huge problem. Yes, my independent investment counselor told me the same thing. Now perhaps when all is said and done we will be fine, but it does not feel comfortable at the moment. I fully understand that the money is not pulled out the day you retire, but it is a major worry that I did not really have three years ago. Three years ago I thought I would be able to retire, or at least work part time by the time I was 62. Now it looks like I will be working full time until 66 or later and even them perhaps not be well positioned to leave the work force. I think the advantage of a defined pension benefit is that there is a guarantee that you will have a set income coming in every month when you retire. Big business most likely gets far better investment information than does a small investor. It is difficult to save large sums when your base salary is kept low. Of course the hospitals want us to continue to work extra shifts and into old age so they have no incentive to raise salaries or provide us with retirement benefits or health benefits after years of service.