Our local hospitals nurses voted to strike because they are not getting what they want with their contract (a 11% raise and no more floating are the major reasons). I'm not a nurse so I don't understand their reasoning to strike to "protect their patients". Could someone please explain to me why striking will help protect their patients. I have always felt that there are some professions that shouldn't be able to strike (walk off the job), police, fire and nurses and doctors. My husband is a correctional officer and they had to solve their contract (which they did) without striking so I know it can and does get done.
I'm not trying to start a huge debate, I just want to understand why striking will help the patients. I know that in the long run it will help, but what about the patients now? Let me finish off by saying that I feel that the nurses are not asking for anything out of line, I just don't understand how walking out is going to help solve anything.
Thanks for your input
Erin
ps I think that nurses rock and that is why I am going to school to be one.
A scab is somebody willing to do the same job for less money or more work for the same amount of money. This is certainly not the case with nursing replacement workers.
All emotions aside, nurse replacement workers enable nurses to strike. It's that simple. Without them, the hospitals would have to close down. Closed down, the hospitals would be in a position to simply outwait strikers.
Result: hospitals would win any strike that results in forced closure.
The unions should thank replacement workers for being strike ENABLERS.
Nursing IS different then other jobs. At other jobs, there are tons of non-union workers willing and able to 'steal' a union worker's job for less money. Scabs undermine a strike by allowing management to continue without a hitch or cost.
There are no scabs in nursing. Crossing the line costs hospitals far more than any other thing a union could hope to happen.
The more nurses they can recruit in this fashion, the closer they can come to operating 'normal'. The needs of the community would normally demand that they spend with reckless abandon to do just that.
Spending with reckless abandon on temp workers has a way of encouraging appreciation for your own staff.
Like most strikes: money is the bottom line. Even safety issues come down to what they cost. Unions should be thrilled about the concept of hospitals bleeding money in this fashion.
Personally, I think making a fortune to cross a picket line IS keeping solidarity with those 'on the line'. Nothing will bring about the solution you desire as a union member FASTER then management having to spend MORE money then it would take to just settle the dispute.
Unlike non-professional jobs, management cannot simply wholesale replace workers. These workers aren't out to get YOUR jobs; they are just out to make a bundle off of management's stupidity. When all is said and done, your jobs remain safe, management bleeds like a sieve, and strikes cost so much for management to maintain, that they simple MUST return to the bargaining table faster.
Union supporters will say, though, that without replacement workers, the hospitals would be forced to close, thereby requiring that they MUST negotiate with strikers, before that could occur.
NO, they would simply move their patients out and close down during a strike. Ultimately, that costs LESS money to do so. Without the concern for inpatients, those hospitals would be free to wait it out for long periods of time.
IF patients weren't at issue, such strikes could last for months. And the hospital would always have the power to simply outwait strikers. After all, the 'shareholders' will understand that a complete standstill for a time is just the cost of doing business.
Hospitals are based on location more than non-locational demands. As such, they do not lose significant business 'share' by waiting out a strike, unless they provide substandard care. And no matter how well a replacement worker does the job, the whole operation cannot measure up to the 'standard' of a full compliment of staff.
But, that same reputation means that they can't just close down if other options are available. After all, the claim to fame for most hospitals is serving the communities they are located in.
As a result, the hospitals are FORCED to use replacement workers. And that comes at a premium cost. And it keeps the patients in-house which keeps the concerns for reputations at the forefront of discussions and/or concerns.
From a reputation perspective, hospitals are 'danged if they do, danged if they don't'. And that is not a bad place from which to negotiate from - if you are the union.
The WORST nightmare for a nurses' strike would be a completely closed down facility without the immediate patient concerns to come to the table. Such a facility would ALWAYS be able to outwait the strikers.
Replacement nurses keep those issues at the forefront, and puts pressure on hospitals to return to 'standard' staffing. As such, while replacement nurses benefit from desperate employers, they do NOT do so at the expense of strikers. Far from it, they keep the striker's concerns on the fire by making the hospital's reputation a continuing concern.
Replacement workers are strike enabling. It's the hospitals that are in a bind. They MUST keep as much of their doors open as possible; serving the community is their claim to fame. So they must pay the exorbitant fees; fees that would make a sane person reconsider what it would take to settle a strike.
Replacement workers bring pressure to bear on management to settle. When emotions take over, logic goes out the window. That's just being human. Logically however, replacement workers DO keeps the doors open - and that's a good thing for the striking nurses. Otherwise, I hope you have months and months of savings; you'll need it to outwait corporations with millions of dollars at their disposal - and no patients to be concerned over. . .
Or they would actually have to deal with their nurses to avoid closing down (and the hospital doesn't want to close its doors).
Read everything I wrote, as I addressed this. From a financial point of view, hospitals can afford to close much more readily than staying open during a strike. They cannot afford to close - not because of money - but because of reputation to serve the community.
They are stuck between a rock and hard place: an excellent place for them to be - if you are the union.
Given no choice but to come to the table immediately - or close: what makes you think they will deal instead of close? In THAT case, they could just close and excuse it to the community: the nurses left us no choice.
If the replacement workers weren't there, in all likelihood, hospitals WOULD close during a strike.
Not only would that mean that they can wait you out, it also means that ancillary staff would be out of work, as well. Many would have to leave to find other work. The rest would hold you in contempt, and rightly so.
Thankfully, for the unions, replacement workers avoid all that.
Given no choice but to come to the table immediately - or close: what makes you think they will deal instead of close?
Because like you yourself said in the paragraph above, they can't afford to close their doors because of their reputation.
I have never seen any proof that striking nurses are in fact more expensive than a hospital closing their doors. I seriously doubt a hospital would close rather than reach a reasonable agreement with their nurses. Strikebreakers do what they do, and that's their decision. I'm not naive enough to believe they are doing it for the patients or that their actions help the nurses on strike. That's one of those don't pee on me and tell me it's raining kind of things.
Because like you yourself said in the paragraph above, they can't afford to close their doors because of their reputation.
I have never seen any proof that striking nurses are in fact more expensive than a hospital closing their doors. I seriously doubt a hospital would close rather than reach a reasonable agreement with their nurses. Strikebreakers do what they do, and that's their decision. I'm not naive enough to believe they are doing it for the patients or that their actions help the nurses on strike. That's one of those don't pee on me and tell me it's raining kind of things.
Fortunately, you'll never have to find out how fast hospitals would close if they could during as strike, because replacement workers will always be there.
I just can't see how unions can really be all that upset about hospitals having to bleed cash to stay open.
If I want 100 dollars from you and it will take me 25 dollars a day to keep from having to pay you the extra hundred, how many days could I hold out before it's just not worth it to resist any longer? 4 you say? NO. Because 4 days from now, the cost of finally giving you that hundred will now cost me 200 hundred. By day 2, the realities of the costs of holding out would begin to set in.
Now, multiply that by millions.
I like your quote, even if it isn't accurate. A more apt one: don't bite the hand that feeds you (or in this case, helps get you what you want).
starbulletin.com | news | /2006/10/25/nurses will vote tomorrow to ratify a new three-year contract and put an end to the longest nurses strike in kauai history.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
11% raise? Thats huge! I always got 3% and at my current newer job I got 5% which is unheard of. I think they are greedy. As for floating...I do not agree with floating from floors to ER or units otherwise floating is acceptable if you have had orientation to that floor.
Don't you think it's important to know how much they are making now before pronouncing them to be greedy? Perhaps they are being paid way below the going rate in their area, or maybe they've already gone a few years without a raise. It is important to have all the facts before deciding that a request for an increase of this size is out of line.
2 companies called me about $40 an hour assignments for a potential strike in Northern California not long ago. I don't do strikes anyways, but was surprised at the low wage. $40 an hour is the same as what a different company was offering for regular travel contracts at my current hospital in my specialty. A regular per diem job up there would pay almost twice that. People talk about all the money they make doing strikes, but no one wants to be specific. What hourly wage makes it worthwhile?
My contractor gets me anywhere from 80 to 90 dollars an hour, plus all the perks. I wasnt joking when got me green fees also at course.
2 companies called me about $40 an hour assignments for a potential strike in Northern California not long ago. I don't do strikes anyways, but was surprised at the low wage. $40 an hour is the same as what a different company was offering for regular travel contracts at my current hospital in my specialty. A regular per diem job up there would pay almost twice that. People talk about all the money they make doing strikes, but no one wants to be specific. What hourly wage makes it worthwhile?
The quotes that I have heard for Med/Surg in 2002, was about $80/hr, guaranteed 48-60 hours per week, plus the usual transportation, housing, meals provided, etc.
Your level of education is irrelevant. I am also a diploma grad, and I happen to strongly disagree with your view of crossing a line. When you do that, you undercut what those nurses are striking for and you give your support to the management who have not been willing to negotiate in good faith with the nurses.
Prettify what a "scab" is all you wish, crossing picket lines hurts the nurses who are out there fighting for better conditions for patients and nurses.
Actually, I'm not "prettifying anything. It's very simple. I would cross the picket line with absolutely no feeling that I was undercutting what the nurses were striking for. I wouldn't look at it like that at all. I'd be crossing the line to take care of my patients and not have them get caught in the middle of something that should be accomplished by other methods. I would also cross the line in order to continue my regular paycheck that I happen to need. I can't afford to miss pay because I'm out on strike. I am not interested in undercutting myself and my family. Those nurses on the sidewalk have the right to do whatever they choose. I just don't choose to follow them onto a strike line. I'm sure the union organizers will get their regular paycheck. The nurses on the strike line will not.
It just happens that I see it differently but that doesn't mean that I have no respect for others who don't share my views. We just have two different viewpoints. I don't think going on strike solves much.
My contractor gets me anywhere from 80 to 90 dollars an hour, plus all the perks. I wasnt joking when got me green fees also at course.
Interesting. I wonder if this has changed since more nurses do it or what. It was On Assignment and Fastaff that were stalking me about the strike (3 calls a day from one of them before I lost it and had them change my number). I don't think it ever even happened anyways. I worked with 2 girls who do strike nursing and they were making in the 50s. Again, it hardly seemed worth it to me when you consider the uncertainty of the work and the strike baggage.
I realize some people claim it helps the striking nurses, but I don't buy that for a second and it isn't worth it to me. I can make good enough money as a nurse without doing it.
Interesting. I wonder if this has changed since more nurses do it or what. It was On Assignment and Fastaff that were stalking me about the strike (3 calls a day from one of them before I lost it and had them change my number). I don't think it ever even happened anyways. I worked with 2 girls who do strike nursing and they were making in the 50s. Again, it hardly seemed worth it to me when you consider the uncertainty of the work and the strike baggage.
I realize some people claim it helps the striking nurses, but I don't buy that for a second and it isn't worth it to me. I can make good enough money as a nurse without doing it.
I do it to see different parts of the country. We really have a beautifull country. And to see different golf courses.
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
A scab is somebody willing to do the same job for less money or more work for the same amount of money. This is certainly not the case with nursing replacement workers.
All emotions aside, nurse replacement workers enable nurses to strike. It's that simple. Without them, the hospitals would have to close down. Closed down, the hospitals would be in a position to simply outwait strikers.
Result: hospitals would win any strike that results in forced closure.
The unions should thank replacement workers for being strike ENABLERS.
Nursing IS different then other jobs. At other jobs, there are tons of non-union workers willing and able to 'steal' a union worker's job for less money. Scabs undermine a strike by allowing management to continue without a hitch or cost.
There are no scabs in nursing. Crossing the line costs hospitals far more than any other thing a union could hope to happen.
The more nurses they can recruit in this fashion, the closer they can come to operating 'normal'. The needs of the community would normally demand that they spend with reckless abandon to do just that.
Spending with reckless abandon on temp workers has a way of encouraging appreciation for your own staff.
Like most strikes: money is the bottom line. Even safety issues come down to what they cost. Unions should be thrilled about the concept of hospitals bleeding money in this fashion.
Personally, I think making a fortune to cross a picket line IS keeping solidarity with those 'on the line'. Nothing will bring about the solution you desire as a union member FASTER then management having to spend MORE money then it would take to just settle the dispute.
Unlike non-professional jobs, management cannot simply wholesale replace workers. These workers aren't out to get YOUR jobs; they are just out to make a bundle off of management's stupidity. When all is said and done, your jobs remain safe, management bleeds like a sieve, and strikes cost so much for management to maintain, that they simple MUST return to the bargaining table faster.
Union supporters will say, though, that without replacement workers, the hospitals would be forced to close, thereby requiring that they MUST negotiate with strikers, before that could occur.
NO, they would simply move their patients out and close down during a strike. Ultimately, that costs LESS money to do so. Without the concern for inpatients, those hospitals would be free to wait it out for long periods of time.
IF patients weren't at issue, such strikes could last for months. And the hospital would always have the power to simply outwait strikers. After all, the 'shareholders' will understand that a complete standstill for a time is just the cost of doing business.
Hospitals are based on location more than non-locational demands. As such, they do not lose significant business 'share' by waiting out a strike, unless they provide substandard care. And no matter how well a replacement worker does the job, the whole operation cannot measure up to the 'standard' of a full compliment of staff.
But, that same reputation means that they can't just close down if other options are available. After all, the claim to fame for most hospitals is serving the communities they are located in.
As a result, the hospitals are FORCED to use replacement workers. And that comes at a premium cost. And it keeps the patients in-house which keeps the concerns for reputations at the forefront of discussions and/or concerns.
From a reputation perspective, hospitals are 'danged if they do, danged if they don't'. And that is not a bad place from which to negotiate from - if you are the union.
The WORST nightmare for a nurses' strike would be a completely closed down facility without the immediate patient concerns to come to the table. Such a facility would ALWAYS be able to outwait the strikers.
Replacement nurses keep those issues at the forefront, and puts pressure on hospitals to return to 'standard' staffing. As such, while replacement nurses benefit from desperate employers, they do NOT do so at the expense of strikers. Far from it, they keep the striker's concerns on the fire by making the hospital's reputation a continuing concern.
Replacement workers are strike enabling. It's the hospitals that are in a bind. They MUST keep as much of their doors open as possible; serving the community is their claim to fame. So they must pay the exorbitant fees; fees that would make a sane person reconsider what it would take to settle a strike.
Replacement workers bring pressure to bear on management to settle. When emotions take over, logic goes out the window. That's just being human. Logically however, replacement workers DO keeps the doors open - and that's a good thing for the striking nurses. Otherwise, I hope you have months and months of savings; you'll need it to outwait corporations with millions of dollars at their disposal - and no patients to be concerned over. . .
~faith,
Timothy.