Strike Nurses?

  1. Hello everyone

    I was just wondering whether there are nurses who just work during strikes. A class mate of mine told me she has a friend who travels to different states and only does strikes. Is there such a thing?

    Just wondering
  2. Visit Rudegal2020 profile page

    About Rudegal2020

    Joined: Aug '02; Posts: 45


  3. by   2banurse
    I'm sure there are some, and they are probably well compensated. For myself, however, I would not cross a picket line no matter how much.
  4. by   doitt
    I too would be interested. Part of me says, go for it, but part says it's unethical and disloyal to nurses. However, patients do need to be take care of and the hospital is suffering even paying scabs-- I would think that the money they shell out for coverage would make them want to settle faster. They can't keep up the outlay forever. Any comments pro or con?
  5. by   teeituptom
    Howdy yall
    from deep in the heart of texas

    One of my good friends and golfing buddy does just that. He primarily works strikes and gets very big bucks for doing it. I've even done some strike nursing. They pay your way there, you generally get room and board, they for your licensure for that state, and give you extremely good pay to do it. Bill does it and a little agency work in between and makes excellent money doing it.
    And he has more time to play golf and has a handicap a little lower than mine. He is almost a scratch golfer now.
    It all depends on what you want to do with your life as to whether its good for you or not. If its what you want to do then dont let those pro unionists talk you out of it.

    doo wah ditty
  6. by   kavi
    There is a strike going on now about an hour from here. There is an Agency in Denver that apparantly specializes in providing Nurses during strikes. According to the newspaper, they make $40. an hour. However, I think it's sad. The nurses on the picket line are trying to get better nurse to patient ratios and decent benefits.

    The hospital's administration says there is no money. Yet they are paying these scab nurses $40. an hour. The union is new, and rumor has it that the hospital wants to 'break' the union. To me, these nurse's are profiting off of other nurses. Very sad.
    Last edit by kavi on Nov 26, '02
  7. by   cactus wren
    Hospitals have insurance that picks up the tab for the don`t go all teary eyed about that.
    I have never worked as a scab, and don`t know if I would, as there aren`t many union jobs in my area. But whatever floats your boat...I don`t get upset one way or the other...
  8. by   Stargazer
    Paging -jt....
  9. by   Tweety
    I knew someone that did it. She made big bucks and said the nurses on the picket line were kind to the people crossing to go take care of the patients. They knew they were there to take care of the patients, not because the were not supportive of the nurses on strike.
  10. by   2banurse
    How would the nurses on this site feel if a fellow nurse crossed the picket line? Knowing how hard it is for nurses to get fair treatment in some hospitals, I would feel disloyal.
  11. by   Tweety
    Originally posted by 2banurse
    How would the nurses on this site feel if a fellow nurse crossed the picket line? Knowing how hard it is for nurses to get fair treatment in some hospitals, I would feel disloyal.

    My coworker who has done "strike nursing" in the past, claims the nurses didn't want the patients to suffer and were o.k. with those nurses crossing the picket line. Especially since those nurses didn't actually work for the organization. If their coworkers crossed the picket line that would be another story I'm sure. But they new the "strike nurses" were there to take care of the patients. I don't know. I don't live in a unionized area and have never seen it. Just going by what my coworker said.

    To me, that would be the decent thing, if I were striking. I'm not striking against the patients, I want them to get the best care, I would be striking against the hospital.
  12. by   -jt
    Stargazer believe me I had to bite my fingers to stop myself from answering in this thread. And here I am getting dragged right back in! : )

    This discussion has taken place here so many times already but I just want to clear up one misconception:

    Hospitals dont care how much they spend on scabs because its not coming out of their own pockets - theyre using TAX PAYER dollars - including state grants, business loss deductions, and medicare/medicaid monies to pay for their strike-busting tactics.

    If strike workers cost the hospital any pain at all, theres no way hospitals would be provoking their own staff RNs to go out on strike or keep them out for months at a time. Last year in Oregon, the hospital spent millions of dollars of state grant money on one month of strike busting - more than what the staff RN contract would have cost over an entire 2 yr period. The hospital settled the strike a few days before the state legislature was to have a special meeting to rescind millions more of the hospitals state funding because of how they used the money. A couple of years ago in NY, the RNs stayed out on strike from Christmas to Mothers Day because their employer wouldnt negotiate with them over safe staffing, banning mandatory ot & improving wages to recruit & retain more staff RNs. Since they had enough strike workers to keep business going, the hospital didnt feel any pressure to address the staff RNs issues, & ignored the strike. That strike-busting cost $33 MILLION but it didnt cost the hospital that money. Do you think the hospital would take $33 MILLION out of its own pockets just to avoid having to negotiate with its RNs?

    It was TAX PAYER money that the hospital shellled out without a blink of an eye. And the states attorney general is investigating the hospitals board for misappropriation of funds.

    As far as pts being cared for --- thats what the 10 day notice is for. So the hospital can make arrangements to have the pts cared for someplace else or come to its senses & settle before the strike starts.

    There is absolutely no reason to be a strike-buster other than to help keep the strikers out longer & reap the bounty reward for "crossing the line."

    People will do what their morals allow them to do. Everybody makes up their own mind. But this is where the term "crossing the line" came from & there is a reason it means something negative.

    If more nurses had the conviction that the striking nurses had, they might fight to improve wages at their own facilities too & wouldnt have to cut down another nurses chances of obtaining better wages just so they can earn a decent salary themselves for a few weeks. It would be far better for all in the long run if everyone fought for better wages where they are.

    Funny that people are suddenly so concerned about the pts in hospitals in other cities & other states when RNs go on strike for better wages & working conditions. We have a national shortage of RNs who are willing to work at the hospital bedsides of their own communities, but they come out of the woodwork when RNs in other states go on strike. All out of concern for the poor pts?? They have hospitals in their own communities where nurses are NOT on strike but the pts there still dont have an RN at their bedside. Is anybody flocking to those hospitals?

    Wheres all the concern for those pts?

    Anyway, theres a lot about this topic here. Use the search button & youll see a ton of discussions on it.
    Last edit by -jt on Nov 26, '02
  13. by   Gomer
    Originally posted by -jt
    Hospitals dont care how much they spend on scabs because its not coming out of their own pockets - theyre using TAX PAYER dollars Last year in Oregon, the hospital spent millions of dollars of state grant money on one month of strike busting -
    . [/B]

    Oh -jt, how you go on....I doubt if you and I would agree on which direction the sun sets.

    Yes, if you want to consider Medicare/Medicaid revenue as money from the tax payer I can understand your point. But the strike in Oregon was at a state owned and run university hospital. The state legislature had to foot the bill, they own the hospital.

    Last year when my hospital was attacked by a union the union-buster's (consultants, not nurses; as our RN's voted down the union) bill was paid out of the general fund which is made up of any revenue the hospital had ($$$ from insurance companies, private payors, Medicare/Medicaid funds -- less than 30% of our patients are either, investments, donations, etc.). No grants $$$$ were used.
  14. by   bagladyrn
    Thanks for posting jt! My fingers were itching to get into this also! You stated what I wanted to say better than I could have. As a traveler, I will NOT work a strike, will not work for a company that specializes in working strikes, even on other assignments, and if a hospital I am contracted at goes out on strike, I will not cross the picket line. My company is well aware of this. I will do whatever it takes to support striking nurses. Others can do what seems right to their conscience, but this is my stance.