scecile

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/health-care-unions-california-nurse-to-patient-ratio_n_1602969.html?view=print&comm_ref=false Health Care Unions In California Split Over Nurse-To-Patient Ratios Health Care Unions In California Split Over Nurse-To-Patient Ratios One labor union's position on nurse-to-patient ratios in California hospitals has outraged other unions that represent registered nurses in the state. In California, hospitals are required by law to maintain certain nurse-to-patient ratios at all times -- a hard-won legal stipulation that went into effect in 2004 and has wide support among nurses as well as patient advocates in the state. Although labor groups also strongly back the ratio law, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which represents hospital workers of all kinds, signaled this week that in the face of state budget cuts to hospitals it might be willing to partially sacrifice mandated ratios. During a call with other labor leaders on Thursday, SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan suggested that the California Labor Federation, an alliance of the state's unions, should not stand in the way of any new legislation that would temporarily suspend ratios while nurses are on meals and breaks, according to RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, who was on the call. DeMoro said that eliminating the ratios during breaks would undermine or even gut the ratio law entirely, since breaks in large hospitals occur all the time. Calling the ratio law a "holy grail" for nurses, she said that she considered the recommendation an affront to her own union. The union leaders on the call voted overwhelmingly against the recommendation, she said. "This is just historically unprecedented," DeMoro said. "These are bedrock labor issues -- workplace safety, public safety ... This is a fundamental issue to these nurses. He was attempting to undo a fundamental reform." Steve Trossman, a spokesman for SEIU-UHW, said that the union supports ratios and believes they should remain in place, and that Regan expressed his support for nurses ratios on the call. He said the union voted that the federation stand "neutral" on ratios during breaks only because of California's budget situation. A large portion of the union's members are in lower wage hospital jobs, and Trossman said many of them, such as maintenance and food-service workers, could end up losing their positions. "The reality is that front-line hospital workers are going to bear the brunt of [cuts] -- we think there will be hundreds if not thousands of layoffs," he said. "When you're in a budget situation like this, everything is worth taking a look at. That's what we did." The president of the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), which is not part of the state labor federation, said he was also angered by the suggestion that unions not fully support the ratios during breaks. "It's outrageous," said Sal Rosselli, whose union was formed after a split from SEIU-UHW. "In the private-sector hospital industry, profits are unprecedented. Suspending these ratios that we all fought for for years ... the industry has been trying to do this." Trossman said the significance of the SEIU-UHW's vote on the matter has been blown out of proportion. "It was quickly rejected," he noted. "We move on." And despite the drama surrounding the call, there is no imminent danger of nurses losing their ratios during breaks or otherwise, as no such legislation has been introduced. Yet DeMoro, who said her union has been "inundated" with emails from nurses due to Thursday's call, doesn't seem likely to forget the incident. She said that rather than show solidarity among labor groups, the vote "pit nurses against low-wage workers." "It might signal some of the trouble that the labor movement is in," she said. CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly listed RoseAnn Demoro's first name as Roseanne.

Urgent Letter to California State Legislature June 14, 2012 Dear California State Legislature, The proposed budget language to suspend the nurse-to-patient ratios for every patient on every unit in the acute care hospitals for the entire period that nurses are away from their patient assignment for meal and rest breaks undermines patient safety in every hospital setting. Intensive care units, neonatal intensive care units, pediatric units and all other medical-surgical and oncology units where patients receive critical acute care nursing services would find that their RN' s patient care assignment would be doubled during a significant portion of each shift. The proposed budget language means that on a medical-surgical unit where two RNs each have an assignment with the maximum number of patients per RN (5 patients), for two hours out of every eight hour shift, an RN would be required to provide care for 10 patients each. In effect, during one quarter of the shift an RN would be required to provide care for 10 acutely ill hospitalized patients. That is double the number of patients that the DHS found was consistent with safe patient care. Patients will see delays in care impacting pain management and severely reducing RNs ability to provide protective surveillance of patients in the acute care setting increasing the likelihood that there will be increased "failure to rescue" patients, a significant contribution to inpatient deaths.1 The requirement that minimum ratio standards be in place at all times including meals and breaks has been in place for nearly 40 years in the ICUs, Neonatal Intensive Care Units and the Operating Room. Just before implementation of the nurse-to-patient ratios in the remainder of hospital units in 2004, the California Hospital Association filed a lawsuit claiming that the Department of Health Services (DHS) "at all times" interpretation was inconsistent with the language of the regulation and was not clearly stated as a requirement during the lengthy rulemaking process. Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the California Hospital Association's (CHA) was aware of the requirement with respect to maintaining the minimum nurse-to-patient ratios at all times, including meal and rest breaks and that it was the only reasonable interpretation of the nurse-to-patient regulation. Judge Ohanesian stated that "[a]ny other interpretation would make the nurse-to-patient ratios meaningless."2 [Emphasis added] She went further in characterizing CHA's arguments against meal and break replacement as " ... an attack on the ratios themselves. "3 During the years that followed implementation of the ratios a seminal study of the first in the nation California ratios compared patient outcomes and staffing levels of California hospitals to those of two other states, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The study determined that there would have been 13.9% fewer death of surgical patients in New Jersey and 10.6 % fewer deaths in Pennsylvania if these state's had staffed according to the ratio standards in California.4 In 2007 a 539 page technical review of 96 studies related to nurse to patient ratios staffing between 2000 and 20065 also noted: "Higher registered nurse staffing was associated with less hospital-related mortality, failure to rescue, cardiac arrest, hospital acquired pneumonia, and other adverse events. The effect of increased registered nurse staffing on patients safety was strong and consistent in intensive care units and in surgical patients. Greater registered nurse hours spent on direct patient care were associated with decreased risk of hospital-related death and shorter lengths of stay." (emphasis added) This proposed language would be a major set back in the progress made in California as a result of the first in the nation nurse-to-patient ratios and, as Judge Ohanesian so wisely observed, would be an attack of the ratios themselves. Sincerely, Bonnie Castillo Director, Government Relations California Nurses Association Cc: Governor Jerry Brown 1 : Clarke SP and Aiken LH Failure To Rescue: Needless Deaths Are Prime Examples of the Need for More Nurses at the Bedside, American Journal of Nursing, 1 03(1 ), Jan 2003 pp.42-47 2 : CHA v DHS, Superior Court of Sacramento, No. 03CS01814, May 24, 2004, p. 5 3 : Ibid, p.8 4 : Linda H. Aiken, et. allmplications of the California Nurse Staffing Mandate for Other States, 2010., p.l 5 : Robert L. Kane, MD et. al., Nurse Staffing and Quality of Patient Care, AHRQ Publication No. 07-EOOS, 2007 {539 pages).

Here's another funny "What People Think Registered Nurses Do." Can you relate to some of these?

many nurses with national nurses united will be taking part wednesday in solidarity rallies at the consulate general of britain in five cities -- orlando, chicago, boston, san francisco and los angeles - and the embassy of the united kingdom in dc. they are supporting the millions of public sector workers, including tens of thousands of nurses, who are participating in a massive strike in protest of the british government's attack on their pensions. if you can't make a rally, you can send them a message via this solidarity form https://donate.nationalnursesunited.org/page/signup/solidarity-message/source?=uk-social http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/11/29-1#.ttuedukpdqq.facebook us nurses stand by uk nurses rallies in six us cities to say: stop cuts to retirement security with up to two million british workers expected to join the biggest strike in the united kingdom in a generation wednesday, nov. 30, the largest union of registered nurses in the u.s. announced today that it will hold support rallies for british nurses and other workers in six u.s. cities wednesday. u.s. nurses, joined by other union members in washington and several other cities, will hold noon rallies at the british embassy in washington and at british consulates in boston, chicago, los angeles, orlando, and san francisco. the actions come amidst huge corporate cash reserves on both sides of the atlantic while government officials in both nations push reductions in retirement security and other cuts. in the u.k., some 30 unions representing nurses, teachers, paramedics, civil servants, and other public workers will protest plans by the conservative government to cut public pensions. in the u.s., support rallies will also remind the public of threats to social security as well. u.s. rally locations, all actions at 12 noon local time: washington, dc - embassy of the united kingdom, 3100 massachusetts ave nw boston - consulate, one broadway, cambridge chicago - consulate, 625 n. michigan ave. los angeles - consulate, 11766 wilshire blvd. orlando - consulate, 200 south orange ave. san francisco - consulate, one sansome st. in both countries, politicians seek to slash deficits at the expense of working people. unions in both countries warned that deficit reduction as proposed will lead to increased levels of economic inequality, unemployment, and poverty, exacerbating the crisis in both nations. in a letter to be delivered wednesday to sir nigel sheinwald, great britain's ambassador to the u.s., nnu executive director roseann demoro said u.s. nurses strongly support british workers "who are standing up for their rights and for the integrity of public services in your country." "we urge the british government to stop its attempt to make public-sector workers pay more and work longer to receive a smaller pension when they retire. the government's plans will impact women the most, who already suffer from lower pensions. this attack on the people who provide patient care at the national health service, teach school children, and provide essential public services is unconscionable," demoro said. among major participants in the u.k. strike is unison, whose members include many nurses and other healthcare workers. the strikers are saying no to "pay more, work longer, get less," a so-called "triple squeeze" in which pensions are reduced and age eligibility extended. "the plans are just a cynical move to raise 4 billion [british pounds] to pay down the deficit caused by the bankers," said karen jennings, unison's assistant general secretary. one solution put forward both in the u.s. and in the u.k. is for passage of a financial transaction tax (ftt) - in britain termed a "robin hood tax." an ftt is a sales tax aimed at speculative trading and would raise up to $350 billion a year in the u.s. alone. "nurses see what this economy is doing to our communities in stress, dislocation, and poverty," said karen higgins, rn and nnu co-president. "we are going out in support of unison, drawing the line against cuts to retirement security and other essentials for working families."

saw this and thought everyone should be aware. if it has happened to your or someone you know, this offers some steps to help fight back. this must stop. http://www.prevention.com/health/health/healthy-living/health-insurance-and-gender-discrimination/article/b5577255a8983310vgnvcm10000030281eac____/5#.tsl6srleyuo.mailto health insurance and gender discrimination health insurance and gender discrimination in most states, health insurance companies can turn a woman down for coverage simply because of her gender. here's what you can do to help make health care fair by [color=#108896]jenny deam [color=#108896] when the company her husband worked for announced late last year that it could no longer pay health insurance premiums for employees' families, pamela rice panicked. she and their two teenagers who still lived at home had been getting coverage through the small construction firm's group plan for 13 years. but staying on that plan would now cost them $1,600 a month. that would be a hefty and unaffordable increase over their former $480-per-month payroll deductions. so in january, her husband reluctantly opted out, and rice went searching for private insurance for the family. after she was unable to get a family policy that would cover them all, the then-44-year-old stay-at-home mother from greenville, ky, applied online to half a dozen insurance companies for individual policies for herself, her husband, and the kids. she assumed that her coverage might cost somewhat more than an average policy because she suffers from [color=#108896]fibromyalgia, a chronic condition that causes severe muscle and joint pain. however, her occasional flare-ups were well controlled with medication and she'd never been hospitalized, so she hoped her rate wouldn't be too much more expensive than everyone else's. but what happened was even worse: she was flat-out refused by all six companies. her husband, greg, also 44 at the time, was accepted by the same companies that turned her down--even though during the past 3 years, he'd been to the emergency room 3 times for kidney stones and had been hospitalized for an appendectomy. plus, unlike her, he was a smoker. [color=#108896]14 worst hospital mistakes to avoid suspicious, rice began re-applying. each time, she filled out the form twice--once as a woman and once claiming to be a man--and checked off exactly the same preexisting conditions, ranging from [color=#108896]arthritis to [color=#108896]cancer, for both sexes. when she said she was male, two out of her six applications were accepted; as a woman, she was denied every time. "i was outraged," she says. rice's husband and kids are now covered by a policy that costs $263 a month, but the only option rice found for herself was her state's high-risk pool--which would have charged her about $900 a month. since the family can't afford that, she still has no health insurance. the insurance gender gap rice had run smack into the little-known but widespread insurance practice of gender discrimination. "in most states, a man and a woman of the same age and health status will be charged different rates for exactly the same individual health insurance policy, a practice called 'gender rating,' " explains lisa codispoti, senior counsel for the national women's law center, a washington, dc, nonprofit that studies legal and social issues affecting women. "a woman can be charged more or turned down altogether simply because she is a woman." insurance companies generally aren't required to tell anyone why they're being turned down or billed at a higher rate. but the nwlc's research shows that often, as with fibromyalgia (a condition affecting 7 times as many females as males), preexisting conditions more common in women trigger denials faster than those that tend to affect men. "insurers may deny you for things that seem maddeningly simple--from [color=#108896]acne to being [color=#108896]pregnant to having had a c-section," codispoti says. just ask alysha leidel, a 32-year-old tampa interior designer who lost her employee group coverage when she decided to quit her job after her daughter was born. her husband was self-employed, and his private [color=#108896]insurance plan covered him and the baby. but when leidel tried to sign on to the policy as an additional insured, she was denied--because, the company explained, her daughter had been delivered by c-section. she appealed but was again denied. "i finally got a 'last and final denial letter,'" she remembers. "it basically said, 'stop contacting us.' it really made me feel like a leper." leidel and her husband want more children, so in february 2011, he reluctantly closed his financially successful business and joined a firm just so leidel would be covered by his employer's group plan. right now, 37 states still allow health insurance companies to charge women more for individual policies--and to outright refuse them coverage. in 2009, according to an nwlc study of america's best-selling individual plans, 95% of the companies practiced gender rating and/or gender-related denials. for example, 60% of those plans charged a 40-year-old woman who didn't smoke more--up to 63% more--than a 40-year-old man who did, for the same coverage. and no, women's policies are not more expensive because of costs associated with giving birth--87% of individual policies for 30-year-olds don't cover prenatal or childbirth care. even so, in some cases, 25-year-old women pay 84% more than men of the same age and health, even though maternity coverage is specifically excluded from their policies. so no matter how you twist the excuses, being female just costs you money--or coverage. what's behind the gender bias? how do health insurance companies justify gender discrimination? it's just business, they say. the actuarial formula insurers use to calculate rates has been around for decades and is rooted in data that shows that, up to about age 55, women typically go to the doctor more often than men do (at minimum, for a yearly gynecological exam) and take more medications (such as birth control pills). in their mid-50s, men tend to start seeing the doctor just as often, so their rates usually catch up, says robert zirkelbach, press secretary for america's health insurance plans, a trade association that represents the health insurance industry. but that still means that a woman may have paid as much as 84% more in any given year up until then. "there are many factors that go into determining cost, and gender is just one of them. it's about risk. this is exactly how it works in auto insurance and life insurance too," zirkelbach says, pointing to the higher premiums usually charged to male teenage drivers and men who want life insurance. he also denies that people are shut out of the insurance market, saying that "surveys show that nine out of ten consumers who apply are offered a policy." of course, whether that policy is affordable is another story. not everyone finds the insurance companies' justifications defensible. similar actuarial data was once used to charge different rates to people of different races, since nonwhite populations had--and continue to have--higher incidences of chronic conditions such as [color=#108896]diabetes and sickle-cell anemia. despite these "numbers," during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, companies self-regulated and voluntarily stopped race rating, codispoti points out. as for the car insurance comparison: "it's not relevant, since people don't die if they can't get car insurance," she says flatly. young and middle-aged women do use more health services than men of the same ages, concedes marianne j. legato, md, director of the partnership for gender-specific medicine at columbia university. however, she says, they ought to be applauded for this, not penalized. early testing and exams save lives and can cut medical costs over the long haul for the whole health care system. she adds that insurance companies "are draconian about paying for tests for prevention. i have to fight with them all the time on behalf of my patients." [color=#108896]health test secrets your doctors don't tell you the rising risk within a group policy, such as those offered by large employers, it's illegal to charge men and women different rates for the same coverage. but as the american economy changes, fewer companies are providing health benefits, fewer workers can afford the skyrocketing payroll deductions, and more people are out of work, meaning that increasingly more of us must turn to individual policies--or go without. what's more, even what in the past seemed like safe havens--such as high-risk pools and some group plans for companies that hire mostly women--are also subject to gender discrimination. in an attempt to protect women against this bias in health insurance, federal law finally outlawed these practices as part of the omnibus health care reform patient protection and affordable care act, signed into law by president barack obama on march 23, 2010. "being a woman will no longer be a preexisting medical condition" is how then speaker of the house nancy pelosi (d-ca) put it at the time. the provision reaches full force in 2014, when much of health care reform is scheduled to become active. at that point, specific protections and penalties will go into effect to give the law teeth. "massive changes will be implemented to eliminate gender rating and other discriminatory practices in one fell swoop," says judy waxman, vice president of health and reproductive rights at the nwlc. unfortunately, there's a real danger that this won't ever happen. conservative opposition to health care reform may kill the entire act, allowing gender rating to continue to flourish indefinitely. current speaker of the house john boehner (r-oh) has said of the patient protection and affordable care act, "i'm fighting to repeal this controversial new law so we can start over with commonsense solutions that get health care reform right." however, he doesn't mention how--or whether--his party would deal with the issue of gender rating, and calls and e-mails from our reporter went unanswered. if you care about ending gender rating, write to your state representative to say so. your life may literally depend on it. 4 reasons why women aren't welcome insurance companies may deny coverage or charge higher rates for reasons that could pertain to either sex--but apply more frequently to women. some of these causes: 1. working for a company that employs mostly women. insurers can and do charge a whole firm higher rates based on the gender of most of its employees. linda bettinazzi is president and ceo of the visiting nurse association of indiana county in western pennsylvania, and all but five of her 160 employees are women. in 2010, she paid $7,764 for each worker enrolled in her group health plan. that's roughly $2,700 more per employee than the national average. 2. being a rape survivor. chris turner, 47, a st. petersburg, fl, woman, was raped in 2002. her assailant was never caught, so her doctor prescribed anti-hiv drugs as a precaution, and she underwent counseling. three months later, her insurer claimed her policy had lapsed because she hadn't paid. (turner says she had.) it refused to consider her again until she wasn't in counseling and could prove she'd been hiv free for 3 years. 3. being the victim of domestic abuse. in 2006, when albuquerque attorney jody neal-post tried to switch plans, she was denied coverage because 4 years earlier, she'd undergone counseling and taken [color=#108896]antidepressants after her ex-husband tried to strangle her. neal-post filed a complaint with the new mexico public regulation commission and got the decision overturned. but eight states and the district of columbia still allow domestic abuse as grounds for denying insurance to the victim. 4. considering adoption. san francisco insurance broker kevin sullivan recalls a healthy client in her mid-30s who was denied coverage because she'd talked to an agency about adopting a child. companies are concerned about adopted kids' possible health problems, he says. in most states, they must cover a child after he's adopted, but can exclude parents still in the planning stages. how to fight back if you're denied if you believe you've been declined by a health insurance company because you're female, "the most important thing is to get educated and understand your rights," says joanna morales, director of the cancer legal resource center. below, your first steps. get the legal facts. call your state's insurance commissioner to find out whether gender rating is legal in your state. if it's not, the commissioner's office may be willing to help you build a case against the insurance company. keep shopping. if gender rating is legal in your state, it's worth trying other insurers, says judy waxman, vice president for health and reproductive rights at the national women's law center. "you can ask the original company to reconsider, but it'll probably be more productive to shop around elsewhere." she also suggests contacting an insurance broker, who may know which providers are likely to be more flexible. consider public alternatives. a good starting point is to log on to healthcare.gov, a us department of health and human services web site, which can point you to appropriate state-and federally funded choices. be sure to keep your denial letter, because you may need to include it with your application.

[color=#990000]cna/nnu executive director roseann demoro sent a letter today to sutter ceo pat fry regarding the lockout involving thousands of california nurses. [color=#3b5998]http://nationalnursesunited.org/page/m/6c0b08d1/ac47662/714c384b/1685a056/2864742538/vese/ september 25, 2011 pat frychief executive officer sutter health dear mr. fry: following the tragic death of a patient at your alta bates summit medical center campus in oakland, i find it unconscionable that you are refusing to engage in a discussion with me that i had requested through your attorney which could serve to alter sutter's course in its ongoing lockout of your regular registered nursing staff. your attorney's response that you believe that all the nurses working are qualified and competent and that you have no intention of changing your strategy is shocking under the circumstances today and given the issues that are at the heart of the dispute between you and the sutter nurses. i personally requested that you involve yourself in a discussion and further have suggested that as the ceo of sutter that you personally engage in settling this ill conceived dispute with dedicated sutter nurses and present yourself to hear from the nurses in bargaining their specific patient care issues that are at the heart of our differences. i make those requests again. the nurses and the community are deeply concerned that this terrible incident raises substantial concerns about public safety in the facilities where a lockout is presently underway. as you are probably aware, on friday, even before the latest incident, we had contacted the california department of public health asking them to investigate whether all the replacement nurses employed during the lockout at alta bates summit were meeting california law, particularly in guaranteeing demonstrated clinical competency and appropriate certifications for the hospital areas where they were assigned. that request to the cdph was prompted by specific reports that had been brought to our attention about problems with competency and certification among the replacement staff. further, that request occurred hours before reports of the death of one of your patients which the san francisco chronicle reported, was due to "what the hospital described as a 'medical error' made while she was under the care of a replacement nurse." your decision to retain the out-of-state replacement nurses, in light of this grave incident, rather than return the regular nurse staff to work and end your imposed lockout in order to prevent any further such incidents, is senseless. this recent patient death follows a previous incident early friday morning when a replacement nurse was found to be incompetent to perform her duties, and cna was contacted under emergent circumstances to have the regular nurse returned in order to safeguard the patient's health. as you know, kaiser permanente, where 17,000 rns also held a one-day strike thursday, september 22, elected not to lock out any nurses, a clear reminder that a lockout at sutter facilities was unnecessary and unwarranted and, as circumstances have proven, unconscionable and untenable. as you also are aware, i have been trying to reach you since last night when the incident occurred. i will be available at any and all times to meet with you and your representatives along with sutter nurses to resolve all differences so that the patients who utilize sutter facilities will know that they have the security of the expert care provided by experienced, permanent sutter nurses who are free to advocate for their patients without fear of reprisal. roseann demoro executive director california nurses association/national nurses united cc: governor jerry brownattorney general kamala harris congresswoman barbara lee senator lonnie hancock assemblyman sandre swanson oakland mayor jean quan

Did you see last night's GOP debate on CNN? There was a point where the topic was on medical care and members of the audience cheered when the commentator asked Ron Paul if society should let an uninsured-man in his 30s die. Today, people -- including nurses -- are speaking out about that. From nursing union: National Nurses United

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/23000-rns-to-hold-one-day-strike-september-22/ 23,000 RNs to Hold One-Day Strike September 22 Demands for Cuts in Patient Care, RN Takeaways, and Support for Kaiser Strikers Key Focus; Walkout to Affect 34 California Hospitals More than 23,000 registered nurses at 34 Northern and Central California hospitals will hold a one-day strike Thursday, September 22, the California Nurses Association/National Nurses United announced today. The strike affects two of California's largest and most profitable hospital chains, Sutter Health and Kaiser Permanente, as well as Children's Hospital Oakland. A centerpiece of the strike at the Sutter hospitals is Sutter's unprecedented demands for some 200 sweeping cuts in patient care and nurses standards on top of months of widespread reductions in availability of patient care services, motivated by commercial concerns, throughout the greater Bay Area. Kaiser RNs will engage in sympathy strike activity to support other frontline healthcare workers who face demands for significant cuts in health benefits, which follow a steady series of local service reductions Kaiser has been enforcing for nurses and patients in Northern and Central California. For Children's Oakland RNs, it will mark their third strike over efforts by the hospital administration to limit healthcare coverage for nurses and their families. "Nurses will not accept drastic, unwarranted, and unconscionable cuts that harm our communities, harm our colleagues, and harm our families," said CNA Co-president Deborah Burger, RN. Sutter, for example, wants to restrict the ability of many of its nurses to advocate for patients in making clinical assessments of staffing and other patient needs; force nurses to work when sick, exposing fragile patients and themselves to illness; subject nurses to arbitrary discipline based on benchmark budget goals; and sharply raise out-of-pocket costs by thousands of dollars for nurses and their families. All despite amassing $3.7 billion in profits the past six years. "We staunchly refuse to be silenced on patient care protections," said Sharon Tobin, a 24-year RN at Sutter Mills-Peninsula in Burlingame. "A common theme throughout management's proposals is removing our presence on committees that address important patient care issues and nursing practices. As nurses, we speak up, and we insist on standards that safeguard our patients, but Sutter doesn't want to hear about anything that might cut into their huge profits." "As nurses we are the frontline defense for patient safety. In every community Sutter corporate has a presence but has placed the safety of our patients and our communities second to their profits," says Efrén Garza, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center RN. "Sutter has cut healthcare services in every area that serves those persons most in need, as well as those which provide women's healthcare. We refuse to bend to Sutter's ideology of placing profits before people and will continue to address those issues which attempt to compromise our patients' health and wellbeing and the nursing profession." Kaiser RNs will strike in sympathy and support for Kaiser social workers, optometrists, psychologists, and other frontline workers who are striking September 22 to protest substantial reductions in healthcare and retirement coverage. Like Sutter, Kaiser is extremely wealthy, and hardly needs to be exacting severe cuts from employees, reporting over $1.9 billion in profits last year alone. "When we are all struggling to keep our head above water it is unconscionable for Kaiser Permanente to attempt to extract cuts from direct healthcare workers," said Catherine Kennedy, who is a neonatal intensive care nursery RN at Kaiser Roseville. "If Kaiser wants to cut, it should be from the 14 Kaiser executives who are making over $1 million dollars a year, not the healthcare employees who have devoted themselves to the patients and the community," Children's Oakland RNs have been in dispute with hospital managers for a year over hospital demands, especially increases in out-of-pocket healthcare costs they say are punitive and would make it prohibitively expensive for nurses to bring their own children to get care at the hospital where they work. The employer has also refused to address the safe staffing issues of charge nurses not having a patient assignment and providing break relief at times when it does not interfere with patient care needs in the professional judgment of the nurse. "Children's administration has decided in the past to spend millions of dollars on forcing nurses to strike rather than on employee benefits and safe staffing," says Children's RN Martha Kuhl. "They are taking advantage of the economic times and trying to roll back improvements we have won over many years through our CNA contract. Everyone deserves healthcare and if nurses can't afford healthcare, who will be able to? I am a caregiver and patient advocate and that extends into my community as well." Sutter hospitals affected by the strike include Alta Bates Summit facilities in Berkeley and Oakland, Mills-Peninsula in Burlingame and San Mateo, Eden Medical Center in Castro Valley and San Leandro, and Sutter hospitals in Vallejo, Santa Rosa, Antioch, Novato, and Lakeport. Kaiser hospitals affected by the RN sympathy strike include facilities in Sacramento, Roseville, San Jose, Santa Clara, Redwood City, San Francisco, South San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Hayward, Fremont, Santa Rosa, San Rafael, Vallejo, Vacaville, Walnut Creek, Fresno, Stockton, Manteca, and Modesto.

fri sep 02, 2011 at 05:06 pm pdt thousands of nurses storm 60 congressional offices in a week that recorded no new jobs being created in the u.s. for the entire month of august, and many people struggling with what to do about it, nurses around the u.s. sent an entirely different message -- get out in the streets and demand change. on thursday, thousands of nurses, joined by other labor and community supporters, went to the doorsteps of 60 members of congress in 21 states across the u.s. their common message -- america is hurting, we've had enough, and we have a solution. tax wall street to fund the recovery to pay for jobs at living wages, quality schools, guaranteed healthcare for everyone, and freedom from hunger, housing, and retirement insecurity. to read more on the daily kos:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/02/1013006/-thousands-of-nurses-storm-60-congressional-offices#comments

This is why we need to tax Wall Street. They got us in this mess. They made billions while the rest of us lost and keep losing. The masterminds behind our recession are sitting pretty from all the bailout money and golden parachutes. Adding a tiny bit of tax on Wall Street transcations would raise billions. That's why I totally support the Main Street Contract and encourage others to get beind it, too. It's not taking a political side -- both Democrats and Republicans screwed us. It's standing up and fighting back as a community.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/16/1007604/-Stories-from-Main-Street:-Nurses-Say-We-All-Deserve-The-Right-To-Retire-With-Dignity-?v Posted on the Daily Kos Stories from Main Street: Nurses say everyone deserves to retire with dignity For years, Americans believed if we worked hard, took care of our families, and followed the rules that we would eventually be allowed to retire with dignity. That's not the case anymore. The economic crisis - the situation created by greedy Wall Street executives-has forced older workers to keep punching the time clock each day rather than enjoy the senior years of their lives. Catie Sager, an RN who works in Leawood, Kan., tells the story of her parents in this video. Her father has struggled with medical problems. Her mother keeps working as they exist paycheck-to-paycheck. Sager lives with them and helps pay the mortgage. Health woes forced Sager's mother to take money out of her 401(k) to help pay the mounting medical bills. c7wxwJZ5YN0 The Orlando Sentinel did a story recently about how even people with health insurance can't afford treatment and are declaring bankruptcy. Her parents' retirement plan-like too many Americans - is being pushed back again and again. They had wanted to retire in their mid 60s. Now, her mother is prepared to work until at least 75. National Nurses United, the largest union and professional organization of registered nurses with 170,000 members across the U.S., has collected hundreds of stories of people who are struggling in these hard economic times. These stories are part of our campaign for a new Main Street Contract for the American People. It's a movement where everyone in our country will have jobs at a living wage, access to quality education, guaranteed healthcare for all, good housing, protection from hunger, a healthy environment, and a just taxation system. Sager's video highlights another goal: A secure retirement and the ability to retire with dignity. The overall labor force participation rate for older adults has grown to 40 percent - the highest level since 1975, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. This trend will continue to grow, the institute reports, because people need access to health insurance and can't afford to retire. That's why the Main Street contract for the American People is so important. And, why we support taxing Wall Street transactions, a move that would raise more than $350 billion that could be reinvested in America. In our country, we have a right to retire with dignity. Please share your own story of how our country's financial downfall is hurting you and learn more about the Main Street contract. Go to www.MainStreetContract.org for more details.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/nurses-union-to-university-of-michigan-no-cuts-to-benefits/ nurses union to university of michigan: 'no cuts' to benefits by juliana keeping carrying signs with slogans like "chop from the top," and chanting "nurses united will never be divided," hundreds of university of michigan nurses rallied saturday to show support for a favorable contract for their 4,000-member union. "we have built the reputation the university of michigan health system enjoys and we work hard every day to uphold that reputation," said katie oppenheim, president of the u-m nurses union. "...that's why patients come here from all over the world." the nurses, oppenheim said, want a "fair contract," with no cuts to benefits. [who's big fish? | what's the best restaurant for seafood ?cast your vote ] the nurses are asking for raises, oppenheim said at a press conference in early august; but neither the nurses union its employer has provided details on the details of the contract dispute. the two sides disagree over pensions, health-care benefits, paid time off and other items and haven't resolved the differences in 37 meetings held since negotiations began in april. the union and the employer called in a state mediator thursday who will sit down with the sides tuesday to try to resolve differences. friday, umhs released a statement that noted saturday's picket was not a strike, and that the event wouldn't impact patient care. but there was some talk of a strike at the event. the the nurses gave no indication they planned to back down during the negotiations. "we will win this fight," oppenheim told the crowd. a registered nurse from the university of chicago medical center told the crowd about her 1,300-hundred member union's recent contract battle, which included threats of a strike. "that's when the administration started listening," dawn peckler told the crowd, to cheers and applause. university of michigan registered nurses tiziana berlasty, right, cheers with other nurses at saturday's rally. angela j. cesere | annarbor.com nurses, their family members and supporters from numerous unions and activist groups showed up near the medical campus in red to display their support, oppenheim noted while speaking before the crowd at noon saturday. hundreds of nurses wore shirts that bore the slogan "nurses make the michigan difference." supporters who spoke at the event characterized concessions more broadly, as an attack on the middle class by corporate america and a battle between working families and the wealthy few. nurses, they say, are among other labor groups who are being asked to do more for less pay. after about a half hour of speaking, the group marched around the hospital area while chanting support. linda gibb, one of the participants, said that the nurses are key to the health system's revenue, since people go there because of the excellent patient care provided by the nurses. michelle saldana, another attendee, said the health system's benefits make it a draw for nurses at the top of their profession. but saldana, who commutes an hour to work each day, said "i might look elsewhere" if those benefits are cut. juliana keeping covers general assignment and health and the environment for annarbor.com. reach her at [email protected] or 734-623-2528. follow juliana keeping on twitter tags: juliana keeping,

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-08-05/health/os-nurses-picket-central-florida-regi20110805_1_nurses-contract-national-nurses-united-nurses-union nurses picket sanford hospital over staffing issues registered nurse jessica wood protests with other nurses about... (jacob langston, orlando sentinel) august 05, 2011|by eloísa ruano gonzález, orlando sentinel sanford-a nurses union is accusing central florida regional hospital of understaffing and jeopardizing patients' health. more than 50 registered nurses, members of the national nurses united and the national nurses organizing committee-florida, picketed outside the hospital on friday. they held signs reading, "central nurses say safe staffing now," and "patients are our only priority." nurses complain that hospital officials assign them to short-staffed units, such as cardiology, for which they're not trained. "one specialty does not translate to another," said carl ginsburg, spokesman for the national nurses united. "a delay in addressing the staffing needs puts the patients in jeopardy. the hospital would not directly respond to the nurses' claims, but issued a statement: "the hospital has been bargaining in good faith with nnoc-fl since april of this year over a nurses contract. as bargaining moves ahead, we will continue to provide uninterrupted, high-quality healthcare to our patients and the community we serve." the for-profit hospital is owned by the nashville-based hca. it owns 164 hospitals and 106 freestanding surgery centers in the u.s. and great britain, according to its website. jessica wood, a registered nurse in the oncology and medical-surgical floors, said she's been asked several times to work in the pulmonary unit. she has filed objections to the assignments, but hospital officials send her anyway. the written objections protect her from losing her license in case anything goes wrong, she said. however, she still worries. "i can't afford to lose my license if something [goes] wrong with a patient," said wood, who has worked at the hospital for six years. more than 140 assignment objections have been filed at the sanford hospital since december, ginsburg said. "this is a lot of filing in eight months," he added. nurses turned to hospital officials last month and asked to form a task force to look into the staffing problems. the hospital objected to the idea, so nurses decided to picket, ginsburg said. "we're doing this in regards to our patients' safety. we want them to get the best care," wood said before the rally, where she called for additional nurses and technicians on the floors. "i've gone through many nights giving up my breaks and working 14 hours to make sure my patients are taken care of," she said. while nurses argue the hospital has problems, consumers said in the hospital consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems survey the hospital generally offered good services. the patients' ratings were similar to the state and federal averages. [email protected] or 407-650-6673

To me, this is a staggering figure: 42 percent of large U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years the past decade. Fair share means that large corporations and CEO's need to pay taxes just like everyone else. The government is giving them a legal pass when tax-paying Americans are struggling. You can learn more at www.mainstreetcontract.org

Here's a video the National Nurses United did that reflects the real faces of America. It's powerful to watch and shows how the organization is going beyond fighting for nurses --- NNU is fighting for everyone.