clcrtrn

I believe that was the purpose of my second post in response to yours. I saw the possibly confusing nature of my first post and replied that it was just that-my opinion. However, I did start the first by saying "I think..." certainly that should imply that an opinion would follow. I would like to clarify my statement, however. I dont think (opinion) they feel beaten, rather, I think (opinion) they feel they have gotten as much out of the hospital that they could at this juncture. A no vote would put more people in finacial difficulties and more apt to cross the line breaking the union. Beaten was an inaccurate word choice.

Just my opinion-and you probably know the old joke about opinions (it's not appropriate for this forum!); I am not part of the negotiation team so what I said is just that, an opinion, acurate or not. Regardless of what I posted everyone needs to vote what he/she feels. Enough of us are still pretty angry at the manipulation by administration with the offers they have made, including this one and will reject it as well. Administration's decisions are based on well thought out maneuvers ahead of time and our responses to them, not on the opinions of a nurse on a bulliten board.

I think at this point BOTH sides, hospital administration and our union leadership are thinking the same thing: we're (the nurses) tired, fed up and reaching the point of not caring anymore. The hospital is banking on us either voting the contract in OR crossing the line in huge numbers if it is voted out. The union leadership is feeling beaten at this point and are hoping we vote for the contract so that we DON'T cross and break the union. As for the nurses on the line? I've been getting feelings from both sides: "fed up and I'm voing yes" and "fed up and voting no." I think it's gonna be a close vote this time around.

We'll have to wait until Sunday at the info sessions to get all the information, however, I don't think there is anything else they can tell us. It looks like this is, again, the final offer. Are the changes significant? The only thing new from the previous final offering is that emergent care out-of-network will be covered as if in-network. We're still steered to go to RWJ for all other proceedures to forego any penalties. Just some observations, to put everything in perspective: Initially we we're going to have to pay more for our insurance; those of us who are with RWJ for a while are getting their insurance for free were going to have the most significant change in that they would now be paying. Under the new proposed contract those changes will not occur. We would now get emergent care at an out-of-network facility as if it were inner circle. The other changes as outlined are minor and don't affect everyone as do the healthcare issues. Is it enough? That's for each one of us to decide individually. Regardless of the outcome of the vote we all have a lot to be proud of. We still show an increadible amount of resolve and solidarity. The weather sucked for a good part of the strike but we've been out there every day. We have a HUGE amount of support from the community, other organizations, politicians and even a Hollywood celebrity! The candle light vigils were very inspiring and helped to cement our solidarity. We even made YouTube and Wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wood_Johnson_University_Hospital Could things have been done differently? Hind sight is 20/20. Chalk it up to a learning experience all around. We probably should have gone out when we first said we would before Corzine stepped in and asked us to hold off. There was no way the hospital was ready then; our leverage would have been much stronger. Saturday night picnic candle light vigil! :smiley_aa Everone show up; lets all show how united and strong we are before the vote!

Update 9/13: Looks like it might be over soon; there will be a vote on a new contract Sunday. The website explains all the changes we will vote on: http://usw4-200.org/strike913.htm

No has asked for or would ever expect free healthcare. Our biggest complaint is the penalties for out-of-network and the increasing difficulty to find in-network doctors within a reasonable timeframe. Ignorance is the disease....researching all of the info is the cure.

quote: originally posted by clcrtrn again, there is more to the issue than the choice of hospital. an increasing number of doctors at rwj are dropping their acceptance of the current plans due to difficulties in receiving or decreases in reimbursements. nurses have been denied coverage for proceedures because there are no doctors within the rwj inner circle to perform them. the union has presented an alternative package that would save the hospital $1.5 million over the life of the contract. from lee1: so, you are trying to get better out of network for nonemergency care? i agree with zashagalka that will cost them much money. how about just one point?? as i stated, we presented a plan to save the hospital 1.5 million...more if they included all the rwj network hospitals.

Again, there is more to the issue than the choice of hospital. An increasing number of doctors at RWJ are dropping their acceptance of the current plans due to difficulties in receiving or decreases in reimbursements. Nurses have been denied coverage for proceedures because there are no doctors within the RWJ inner circle to perform them. The union has presented an alternative package that would save the hospital $1.5 million over the life of the contract.

Again....read all posts; I've tried to update with the facts of the matter on a regular basis. Check the website. Part of the reason is the hospital's refusal to talk, to bargain in good faith. great Wilfred Owen quote by the way!

There is a whole lot more to the issue than what you have simplified it to ZASHAGALKA. If you read all the posts and even check out our union website you'll get the entirety of the situation rather than call our valid reasons silly.

yes, fedup, you got it! the figures were inflated and reported by the hospital to smokescreen the issue of our wanting a better healthcare package. this article acurately adresses the salary issue as well as the amount of money they are paying the scabs: http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?aid=/20060908/news/609080459&searchid=73256369895576

"We are always ready to sit and listen to what the union has to say," said John Patella, the hospital's spokesman. "We've offered them a great deal that keeps them as some of the best-paid nurses in the state and an excellent health plan. We hope they take another look at the great offer we've made them." Home News Tribune Online 09/9/06 Let's hope there are some meaningful negotiations and offerings from the hopital. If the preceeding quote is an example of how the hospital is going to come to the table it will be business as usual. We've heard the same line from Patella from the begining. The last line doesn't sound as if they are coming to bargain, rather they're coming back with the same offer.

Understand the facts prior to the strike: During the weeks prior to our initial intent to strike we had several meetings in order to come to a resolution; in all cases the hospital refused to talk. The only response they had was that their offer was final. We postponed our strike at the request of Gov. Corzine in order for the hopital to initiate an effective contingency plan. At a final meeting before the strike day, administration literally walked in and walked out, without a word. They have refused to bargain in good faith from the begining. Understand the facts since the strike: The union has been relentless in their attempts to get the hospital back to the bargaining table. We have had news conferences maintaining this stand; Our last included the presence of and promised support from local and state legislators to try and get the hospital back to the table. We went to a town hall metting at UMDNJ and spoke with Gov. Corzine asking for his help in getting us back to the table. There has been an unending letter writing campaign to state and local officials and news media about our wanting to get back to our patients where we belong. And still the hospital refuses to talk. I'll reiterate, and perhaps clarify: THE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION is to blame for the continuance of the strike simply by refusing to talk. Yes, WE are the ones who went on strike. To "blame" us would mean that one does not accept the right to bargain collectively, which includes the right to strike. Striking was the last thing we wanted: we knew the first to suffer would be our patients. It was the hospital's responsibility to assure the quality of care if we did go on strike. We were told, as were patient family members and the community, that an effective contingency plan was in effect. In their arrogance administration underestimated our solidarity and commitment. They were not preparred as they had mislead everyone to believe.

the tone of these posts have turned decidedly confrontational. please, lets all remain civil while exercising our right of free speech.

Administration is completely to blame for the current situation. They pushed us to a strike thinking that we would not remain united and instead, accept the healthcare plan as poor as it was. During the last couple of meetings between the hospital and the union, the hospital adamently refused to talk. At the last meeting, administration walked in and walked out-literally. They have refused to bargain in good faith from the begining. We have always maintained that we want to get back to the patients and repeatedly asked the hospital to come to the table, negotiate and put and end to the strike. They have consistently refused. THEY are the reason the strike is lasting as long as it is. THEY continually refuse to talk. THEY are putting the patients at risk.