Replacement-Nurse Company: Undermines Progress

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Sep 9, 2006

moderator's note: i'd like to remind everyone to please keep this discussion civil, and to debate the topic, not other posters. thank you.

lindarn · Sep 9, 2006

If it were that easy for them to go to another hospital, they'd have gone there, first. Then the other hospital would have to pony up staff to take care of them, probably agency nurses.
What's really bothering you--that there are replacement nurses or that they're making a good living? Should they work for nothing? They're flying in on short notice, going into a hostile environment, with absolutely no core staff to orient them, probably enduring catcalls and taunts from the folks on the picket lines, working ridiculously long hours, running the potential of their assignment being cancelled at any moment, and they should make nothing?
And no, before you ask, I've never worked as a replacement nurse.

If hospitals did not have strikebreakers to help them stay in business, than nurses would have more bargaining power than they do now. Especially when they have to give a 10 day notice which gives the hospital time to plan how to break the strike and the union.

Years ago, my dad and my uncle both worked for the Post Office. The Post Office was the worst paid of the Federal Agencies. Many years ago, I believe it was March of 1970, the Post Office workers had had enough of being left by the way side with the Government. They took the unprecedented step to vote to go on strike. The Post Office went on strike in all 50 states. They brought this country to its knees in just three short days. They got everything that they wanted, and had asked for. But there were no strike breakers then, or firing the employees, as Reagan did, that unfortunately set a very bad precedent.

The moral of the story is, that the Post Office stood tall, and struck while the iron was hot. Nurses need to do the same thing. If there were no strikebreakers, strikes would be settled in days, not months or years. Who will take care of the patients while nurses go out on strike without the scabs? Who cares? It is not our problem. It is the management's and administration's problem to figure out. It is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO STAFF THE HOSPITAL. LET THEM DO IT WITHOUT THE NURSES. Quit taking responsibility for stuff that is not yours to take. Leave it to the individuals who caused the problem in the first place- the administration.

Oh wait, I can hear it now from the martyr marys in the audience- how can you say that, and think that nurses should not give adequate notice, go out on strike, and heavans to betsy, be MILITANT! In case no one has ever told you this, nice guys finish last, and nurses are always the nice guys, and ALWAYS FINISH LAST. Connect the dots. A little militancy would go along way to improve nursing in terms of pay, benefits, and working conditions.

JMHO, and my NY $0.02.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

cinja · Sep 9, 2006

Linda, you need to write a book.

catlady, BSN, RN · Sep 9, 2006

If hospitals did not have strikebreakers to help them stay in business, than nurses would have more bargaining power than they do now. Especially when they have to give a 10 day notice which gives the hospital time to plan how to break the strike and the union.
Years ago, my dad and my uncle both worked for the Post Office. The Post Office was the worst paid of the Federal Agencies. Many years ago, I believe it was March of 1970, the Post Office workers had had enough of being left by the way side with the Government. They took the unprecedented step to vote to go on strike. The Post Office went on strike in all 50 states. They brought this country to its knees in just three short days. They got everything that they wanted, and had asked for. But there were no strike breakers then, or firing the employees, as Reagan did, that unfortunately set a very bad precedent.
The moral of the story is, that the Post Office stood tall, and struck while the iron was hot. Nurses need to do the same thing. If there were no strikebreakers, strikes would be settled in days, not months or years. Who will take care of the patients while nurses go out on strike without the scabs? Who cares? It is not our problem. It is the management's and administration's problem to figure out. It is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO STAFF THE HOSPITAL. LET THEM DO IT WITHOUT THE NURSES. Quit taking responsibility for stuff that is not yours to take. Leave it to the individuals who caused the problem in the first place- the administration.
Oh wait, I can hear it now from the martyr marys in the audience- how can you say that, and think that nurses should not give adequate notice, go out on strike, and heavans to betsy, be MILITANT! In case no one has ever told you this, nice guys finish last, and nurses are always the nice guys, and ALWAYS FINISH LAST. Connect the dots. A little militancy would go along way to improve nursing in terms of pay, benefits, and working conditions.
JMHO, and my NY $0.02.

My uncle has been a shop steward for the post office for over 30 years. I studied labor law and labor history before most people in this forum were born. In case no one has ever told you, Leo Durocher didn't actually say nice guys finish last. Kindly lose the condescending tone.

lindarn · Sep 9, 2006

My uncle has been a shop steward for the post office for over 30 years. I studied labor law and labor history before most people in this forum were born. In case no one has ever told you, Leo Durocher didn't actually say nice guys finish last. Kindly lose the condescending tone.

I never said that Leo Durocher made that quote. I said it to remind nurses that we, as a group are too nice, and we pay a heavy price for it in respect (or lack thererof), pay, and compenstion. Nurses need to realize that we allow hospitals to take advantage of us. I tire of individuals who rationalize that it is OK to allow scabs to staff hospitals that allow hospitals to prolong the day of reckoning, where they will have to settle the contract with the nursing staff. And prolong the pain of the staff nurses who have to put up with being on strike. I agree with the person that hospitals are 100% responsible for war goes on with contract negotiations. My post was not meant to be condescending, but to point out where the blame lies in the contract battle being fought by our fellow nurses. And the "martyr marys" of the nursing profession are the enablers who have kept nursing in the "handmaiden mode". Who fight nurses who are trying desperately to improve nursing, in terms of pay, benefits, working conditions. And they get fought against tooth and nail for their efforts.

I stand by what I have said, because I know that I am right.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

clcrtrn · Sep 9, 2006

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

k_cole21 · Sep 9, 2006

Definition of a SCAB

http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/WarOfTheClasses/scab.html

Some of you who use this term so loosely should really read about what it really means.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Sep 9, 2006

Strikes are about power who has it, who doesn't. By developing the "strike replacement nurse", we've effectively tipped the power base away from nursing.

Hospitals exist because patients need 24/7 NURSING care; otherwise services would all be provided in profitable outpatient centers. Don't know of any 24/7 physician staffed facilites that provide physician hands on care like seen in Grey's Anatomy. :rolleyes:

Have never heard of a strike in a facility where nursing is considered equal partners and the KEY reason for facilities existence. Prolonged strikes only serve to drive a wedge in staff and community that takes YEARS to make ammends....and profits years to rebound.

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Sep 9, 2006

FYI, here's the posting on the web site of U.S. Nursing Corp., which supplies replacement workers, including RNs, to employers during strikes, that is now seeking replacement RNs for the ongoing strike in NJ at the Robert Wood Johnson Hospital. Yes, the workers have a legal right to work and they have families to feed, but with the supposed nursing shortage, why must they benefit to the tune of $60/hr plus travel, housing AND bonuses, all while undermining the progress of RNs to earn greater respect and pay in the workplace, which can lead to better nurse-patient ratios and improved patient care. I think it's unforgivable what they're doing....
http://www.usnursing.com/nurses_pos_current.shtml

First, let me say that as a traveler, I do not and will not work a strike. No I do not like unions, but I do support that all workers have the right to organize and strike.

I prefer working in nonunion facilities. I know that attitude and what I am about to say will tick some off - but I find the environment in nonunion facilities more professional and better to work in than union facilities. That goes for nursing AND nonnursing staff. Union facilities tend to harbor way more dead wood and poor work attitude than nonunion facilities. That is based on this nurse's experience in 13 different facilities, and the some incidents have been listed on this BB, previously.

Now, grant you, the bad attitudes may have to do with facility conditions that merited the union organizing.

That said:

Why are you surprised about US Nursing? There have been numerous threads about US Nursing (and Fastaff, etal) and their strikebreaking. They will never adequately replace local nurses, and much of their pay involves being treated like crap by the management and the locals, living in lousy conditions (sorry, but even the Marriot sucks, when you work massive OT, are away from home for long periods), serious inconvenience, lots of highly unsafe floating, massive OT, and little future.

There was an incident, wasn't there, of a couple of US Nurses that collapsed and one that died on assignment, of health issues aggravated by overwork.

If I were even so remotely inclined, it would require much more than $60/hr w/ bonuses to even temp me to risk my license. You can get that much perdiem in places in Philly.

The hospitals could transfer patients to other facilities, or cancel nonemergent procedures. They are choosing not to - therefore they are partially at fault. Yes, they can whine, "But who will care for the patients", but if it was really about that, they would take the previously mentioned actions, which would minimize patient load. They would also have worked with their nurses better.

I personally have never seen nurses strike unless there was very good reason for it.

clcrtrn · Sep 9, 2006

Whenever anyone tries to paint one side as "completely to blame," I know they need to hold up the mirror to their own face.
There is no way that you have come to such an impasse solely due to the action of one side alone. You are both responsible. You walked out on your patients. They let you walk. Shame on both of you.

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.

nyforlove · Sep 9, 2006

I have no quibble with what you've said....Just like I don't hold these Replacements in high regard (given the premium pay, our commonality as RNs, and the availability of work elsewhere), I also don't hold "dead wood w/an attitude" that refuses-to-work-cuz-they're-in-a-union in high regard either....I take pride in my work, but think the RWJ nurses have an imp't point at issue....HOW WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR CO-WORKERS, BOSSESS, SUBORDINATES KNOWING YOUR PERSONAL HEALTH INFO, WHICH CAN HAPPEN IF YOU MUST GET ALL NON-EMERGENT CARE AT RWJ?...SURE, THERE ARE STATE AND FEDERAL PRIVACY PROTECTIONS (INCL. HIPPA), BUT IT'S NOT HARD TO SEE SOMEONE ENTERING A UNIT FOR A PROCEDURE AND CHARTS ARE UNFORTUNATELY EASILY ACCESSIBLE, PARTICULARLY TO DOCTORS AND PERHAPS ANYONE WILLING TO CHUMMY UP TO A CLERK IN MEDICAL RECORDS???? I THINK THIS IS AN IMP'T POINT AND THE HOSPITAL MUST ADDRESS IT----IF IT COSTS THEM MORE $ TO ALLOW PROCEDURES ELSEWHERE FOR THE NURSES, THEN THAT MAY VERY WELL BE A FACTOR IN WAGE DISCUSSIONS, BUT I FIND IT OBJECTIONABLE FOR THE HOSPITAL TO STONEWALL ON THAT ONE POINT.

First, let me say that as a traveler, I do not and will not work a strike. No I do not like unions, but I do support that all workers have the right to organize and strike.
I prefer working in nonunion facilities. I know that attitude and what I am about to say will tick some off - but I find the environment in nonunion facilities more professional and better to work in than union facilities. That goes for nursing AND nonnursing staff. Union facilities tend to harbor way more dead wood and poor work attitude than nonunion facilities. That is based on this nurse's experience in 13 different facilities, and the some incidents have been listed on this BB, previously.
Now, grant you, the bad attitudes may have to do with facility conditions that merited the union organizing.
That said:
Why are you surprised about US Nursing? There have been numerous threads about US Nursing (and Fastaff, etal) and their strikebreaking. They will never adequately replace local nurses, and much of their pay involves being treated like crap by the management and the locals, living in lousy conditions (sorry, but even the Marriot sucks, when you work massive OT, are away from home for long periods), serious inconvenience, lots of highly unsafe floating, massive OT, and little future.
There was an incident, wasn't there, of a couple of US Nurses that collapsed and one that died on assignment, of health issues aggravated by overwork.
If I were even so remotely inclined, it would require much more than $60/hr w/ bonuses to even temp me to risk my license. You can get that much perdiem in places in Philly.
The hospitals could transfer patients to other facilities, or cancel nonemergent procedures. They are choosing not to - therefore they are partially at fault. Yes, they can whine, "But who will care for the patients", but if it was really about that, they would take the previously mentioned actions, which would minimize patient load. They would also have worked with their nurses better.
I personally have never seen nurses strike unless there was very good reason for it.

Sheri257 · Sep 9, 2006

Let them hire the replacement workers ... hopefully, it will cost them a fortune.

The University of California strike last year cost them $9 million for just one day. After that, the union got a pretty good contract.

Sometimes these expensive replacement workers can actually help the union get what they want because the cost of replacement workers can sometimes far exceed whatever the union is asking for.

:typing.