NEW BRUNSWICK-The Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital nurses union yesterday overwhelmingly rejected the hospital's latest labor contract offer, opening the door for a strike to begin at 7 a.m. on Aug. 24, according to union officials.
"The membership is sending a clear message to the hospital that health-care coverage is just substandard, and they won't accept it," said Jeanne Clark, a spokeswoman for the nurses union and a nurse at the hospital for 16 years. "We've got more work to do."
The nurses rejected the revised contract by a vote of 616 to 252, with one member abstaining.
The nurses rejected the hospital's original offer by a 765-165 vote on July 27.
You're correct that I might not know all the reasons for the strike. But this is a salient point: I only know the UNION's POV, as expressed in these threads.
And even then, I think demanding that the hospital spend millions because it is simply inconvenient for employees to seek healthcare where they work is excessively unreasonable.
If it's not too far to drive to work, then how is it too far to seek non-emergent care?
A university hospital is at even more at risk from taking all sundry of non-insured care. With >1100 employees, your union represents one of their biggest insured contracts. It's not only a loss of that revenue, it's SPENDING it elsewhere. And, it affects the insured/non-insured mix that allows the hospital to competitively negotiate for other contracts, not to mention secure gov't funding. You are talking about MILLIONS of dollars, even BEFORE you talk about the real issues at stake and their costs.
So, you are demanding that your employer spend millions to combat minor inconveniences to seek care. I'm not talking about real deficiencies in your plan: I'm talking solely about the choice of hospital demand.
No wonder they won't come to the table. . . it's simply worth a long strike to defeat such financial insanity. But, I think this one demand calls into question which party isn't 'bargaining in good faith'.
It's nice to know the hospital is lacking nurses and therefore must turn business away to other facilities....This means that despite the $60/hr plus bonuses, hotel, travel (+ food?), not many nurses are willing to undermine their own profession....The Company providing the replacement nurses is still advertising for replacements and recent posters here have reported the hospital calling them to come back to work......Check with the Union---it may be illegal for the hospital to contact strikers individually while the dispute is in progress---this, I believe, is partly an ethical issue so that the hospital lawyers don't intimidate individuals....if the hospital and/or its lawyers are encouraging/permitting these contacts to be made by managers, that could be an issue of bad-faith negotiation.....Hang in there!--Thanks for all you are doing to benefit nurses not just locally, but nationwide!
Zashagalka - Please note through other postings that there are other nurses out there that DO feel we are fighting their fight, too. We are hard-working, educated PROFESSIONALS and we are not "lucky" to get whatever multimillionaire administrators want to give us, we are entitled to and deserve excellent compensation and benefits.
Secondly, harassment and intimidation is a little more that "a letter and a phone" call. Furthermore, I'm note sure where "I admitted" that this strike was about pride because it is not. It is about violation of Federal Labor Laws, for which a complaint has been filed with the NLRB already. We are also entitled to strike under that same premise. Why are you opposed to nurses banding together and standing up for what is right? I am happy for you that you work in a facility that is shangri-la, however, most nurses that I know don't. Most nurses I know are verbally, physically, and emotionally abused on a regular basis. It is time for administrators to stop treating nurses like glorified chambermaids and treat them like the educated, highly-trained professionals that they are! I'm glad for you that you have that, too many don't.
Zashagalka - Please note through other postings that there are other nurses out there that DO feel we are fighting their fight, too. We are hard-working, educated PROFESSIONALS and we are not "lucky" to get whatever multimillionaire administrators want to give us, we are entitled to and deserve excellent compensation and benefits.
Secondly, harassment and intimidation is a little more that "a letter and a phone" call. Furthermore, I'm note sure where "I admitted" that this strike was about pride because it is not. It is about violation of Federal Labor Laws, for which a complaint has been filed with the NLRB already. We are also entitled to strike under that same premise. Why are you opposed to nurses banding together and standing up for what is right? I am happy for you that you work in a facility that is shangri-la, however, most nurses that I know don't. Most nurses I know are verbally, physically, and emotionally abused on a regular basis. It is time for administrators to stop treating nurses like glorified chambermaids and treat them like the educated, highly-trained professionals that they are! I'm glad for you that you have that, too many don't.
I'm not opposed to nurses banding together for what is right. I've mentioned that you quite possibly have several issues that you SHOULD rightly fight to gain.
I'm opposed to nurses banding together and making unreasonable demands.
I'm suggesting that demanding choice of hospital is akin to demanding that Ford buy its employees a Toyota. It's a non-starter. And I'm suggested that it is the one UNREASONABLE demand that is keeping all other valid demands off the table.
And all the other issues not related to real benefits: they're picking on me, they have it coming: that IS pride. I don't see how it benefits your members to keep them out of work over matters of pride. You want the hospital to come to the table? Try dropping the one unreasonable demand and focus on ones that are actually possible and reasonable to negotiate.
To the extent you are being quite unreasonable, you don't 'fight the good fight', you set it back.
How far do you set back the real working relationship of the RNs with management in your facility, for years? For what? The right to take your business to its competitors - on their dime? And how does THIS message fly: we demand that the hospital acknowledge that WE are the nuts and bolts of its business, but yet, WE want the right to choose another business for ourselves. What a meta-message.
I had a conversation w/ my brother about this tonight, and he's a union steward.
Here's what he said: sometimes, when you want a week's vacation you start out by asking for a trip to disneyland in order to negotiate down to just the time off.
Agreed.
But, in this case, it seems BOTH sides are fixated over the trip and the time off isn't even under discussion.
The trick to negotiating from strength is that your initial position must at least be in the same universe, or why bother even talking? And, as if to prove the point, that is EXACTLY the response that's been engendered.
How long do regular joe union members have to go without a paycheck before the discussion actually moves away from the unrealistic rhetoric and to the real issues?
I had a conversation w/ my brother about this tonight, and he's a union steward.
Here's what he said: sometimes, when you want a week's vacation you start out by asking for a trip to disneyland in order to negotiate down to just the time off.
Agreed.
But, in this case, it seems BOTH sides are fixated over the trip and the time off isn't even under discussion.
The trick to negotiating from strength is that your initial position must at least be in the same universe, or why bother even talking? And, as if to prove the point, that is EXACTLY the response that's been engendered.
How long do regular joe union members have to go without a paycheck before the discussion actually moves away from the unrealistic rhetoric and to the real issues?
~faith,
Timothy.
You're not addressing a major issue involved, which is raised in the following thread: the serious privacy concerns that arise when effectively forced to get your health care from your employer (far different than buying your employer's car---with which, frankly, most employees probably wouldn't have a problem because you'd get a discount)...But, even besides the privacy issue (which you haven't addressed), it sounds like this health plan is lacking in availability of providers and percent-of-coverage---some nurses say they went through the plan on this thread for NONelective surgery and had out-of-pocket of about $10K that didn't even get applied to the deductible because it was considered too high a charge---and that was the charge of a provider in the plan! I strongly feel these RWJ nurses are fighting the fight for RNs nationwide....it's good for you that your non-union health plan is adequate, but don't forget that Union struggles keep your Non-Unionized employer on their toes....I also want to suggest that you try to address the issues comprehensively and not with pithy quotes and comments---you are sitting from a position of being employed, relaxing on a weekend drinking coffee and these RWJ nurses are already 3 weeks without pay...You don't have to agree, but please don't be cavalier, as in "Sheesh, this is so easy to resolve...."
You're not addressing a major issue involved, which is raised in the following thread: the serious privacy concerns that arise when effectively forced to get your health care from your employer (far different than buying your employer's car---with which, frankly, most employees probably wouldn't have a problem because you'd get a discount)...But, even besides the privacy issue (which you haven't addressed), it sounds like this health plan is lacking in availability of providers and percent-of-coverage---some nurses say they went through the plan on this thread for NONelective surgery and had out-of-pocket of about $10K that didn't even get applied to the deductible because it was considered too high a charge---and that was the charge of a provider in the plan! I strongly feel these RWJ nurses are fighting the fight for RNs nationwide....it's good for you that your non-union health plan is adequate, but don't forget that Union struggles keep your Non-Unionized employer on their toes....I also want to suggest that you try to address the issues comprehensively and not with pithy quotes and comments---you are sitting from a position of being employed, relaxing on a weekend drinking coffee and these RWJ nurses are already 3 weeks without pay...You don't have to agree, but please don't be cavalier, as in "Sheesh, this is so easy to resolve...."
[/url]
Perhaps the issues aren't 'easy to resolve', I haven't really addressed that. What I have said is that they are nigh impossible to resolve when the sticking point is an untenable demand.
From my understanding, based solely on reading the articles posted on THIS thread, management offered to lower co-pays and do what it takes to keep and add more docs to the system. And I can see demanding that a reasonable 'out of network' option exist for emergencies and being well outside the geographic area, whether on vacation or kids away at school. My healthcare plan has both stipulations and I think it's reasonable.
But, demanding the right to go to the competitor across town on the hospital's dime? Completely unreasonable. If you wonder why the hospital won't come to the table, it's because this demand is such a non-starter as to not be worth discussing.
I understand the importance of unity of nurses and I am very proud of the nurses at RWJ for sticking together during this strike. I have many friends that work at the hospital that are sticking to their word of not crossing the picket line and very adamant about their beliefs in fair healthcare. I also have a few friends that have gotten hired in August right before the strike so I was wondering-- are new nurses at RWJ that were on orientation in August or will be starting this week for the September orientation considered to have "crossed the picket line?"
It's easy to sit back and criticize when you're all fat and happy in your current position.
I'm behind the nurses. You should at least have a choice; perhaps the premium for a plan that offers non-RWJH facilities, maybe a little bit more in deductible, but at least some coverage.
I would share your concerns re: privacy. And if many of the docs at your hospital don't participate in your plan, what on earth are you supposed to do?
I understand the importance of unity of nurses and I am very proud of the nurses at RWJ for sticking together during this strike. I have many friends that work at the hospital that are sticking to their word of not crossing the picket line and very adamant about their beliefs in fair healthcare. I also have a few friends that have gotten hired in August right before the strike so I was wondering-- are new nurses at RWJ that were on orientation in August or will be starting this week for the September orientation considered to have "crossed the picket line?"
Absolutely. Not only that, if you mean "new nurses" as in "new grads", If I wanted to protect my shiny new license, I would not set foot in there to be oriented by scabs!
Does the hospital also administer and/or own the health insurance plan for their employees?
Did they hire "Union avoidance" consultants?
Yes. The plan is a co-op of self-insured hospitals. While I don't know if they hired union avoidance consultants, I would imagine they did. The hospital's number one goal all along has been to break the union rather than negotiate fairly.
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
You're correct that I might not know all the reasons for the strike. But this is a salient point: I only know the UNION's POV, as expressed in these threads.
And even then, I think demanding that the hospital spend millions because it is simply inconvenient for employees to seek healthcare where they work is excessively unreasonable.
If it's not too far to drive to work, then how is it too far to seek non-emergent care?
A university hospital is at even more at risk from taking all sundry of non-insured care. With >1100 employees, your union represents one of their biggest insured contracts. It's not only a loss of that revenue, it's SPENDING it elsewhere. And, it affects the insured/non-insured mix that allows the hospital to competitively negotiate for other contracts, not to mention secure gov't funding. You are talking about MILLIONS of dollars, even BEFORE you talk about the real issues at stake and their costs.
So, you are demanding that your employer spend millions to combat minor inconveniences to seek care. I'm not talking about real deficiencies in your plan: I'm talking solely about the choice of hospital demand.
No wonder they won't come to the table. . . it's simply worth a long strike to defeat such financial insanity. But, I think this one demand calls into question which party isn't 'bargaining in good faith'.
~faith,
Timothy.