The ANA supports physician funding over safe patient ratios!

Is the 94k including benefits? I kinda believe it if it does.

Anyway, shaking my head at the rest of it. Wth.

Agreed, but even if it includes benefits the report is still overestimating the cost of salary + benefits at $870 million. $94k x 5900 RNs (number of additional nurses needed)= $550 million. Let's even go deeper into this fantasy land of a 94k average salary across Massachusetts and then add 25% for salary + benefits. The total figure is still short of $870 million.....by about $200 million. At their rate we'll be making $500k/year in no time.

Another highlight, "It is important to note that the average wage of RNs in Massachusetts already far exceeds the national average for RNs by 21% and is 44% higher than the average wage for all jobs in Massachusetts".

Well, this makes sense given that the Massachusetts COLA is about 40% higher than the average state (so we're underpaid in that regard, thanks for hammering this home for us). God forbid people aside from executives and doctors earn a few extra bucks - and deservedly so. Nurses make 21% more than the average salary, you say? Well that kind of makes sense given our education and talent.

I don't know if anyone else caught that CNN featured a front page story all day about the nursing shortage (we all know this is fabricated), but make no mistake, this was by design. The ANA, AHA, and AMA will be flexing their muscles as November approaches. Good move on their part. Every legislator in this state certainly reads CNN (largely democrats in our state congress) and would've seen it this morning, or they were directed to it by the opposition lobby before/after the hearing. They were certainly trying to make the point that they're no nurses to hire!

Nursing schools are rejecting thousands of applicants -- in the middle of a nursing shortage

Pay doesn't matter in a safe staffing issue. You can make $50 hour but that doesn't magically enable you to give decent care with an unreasonable assignment.

Or is the ANA is lobbying for lower pay...?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, explain if you would.

I think I agree with you, that this isn't about pay. However, the opposition (not just the ANA) is coming at nursing from any direction they can, as I was trying to show - subtle implications that nurses are 'already' paid well enough.

They will obviously have to hire more nurses if ratios are implemented. And while I fully support safe ratios, I understand that means for our pay.

We can't have it all. They money has to come from somewhere. I personally want physicians to be funded as well. I'm sure we all know what a treasure it is to have a physician who cares about the patients. It makes my week so much better on the icu when I have a good physician.

I don't think an icu nurse should ever have more than two patients. That's our ratio right now, but I'm seeing things happen that lead me to believe we will be taking 3 soon. It's not safe. Floor nurses should be 4 or less. I get too many rapid responses from the floor that probably could have been prevented but the nurse has 6 patients and therefore a couple fall through the cracks. It's not their fault, it's the system.

But it's going to come at a cost. The first thing to be cut will be our salaries. I make very little as a nurse as it is. I know that if I job hopped a little I could up my hourly pay, but I like my unit. I like my coworkers. It's a trade off. 4-5 dollars an hour means nothing if I'm miserable.

There are no quick and fast answer here.

Lower pay is a scare tactic used by the union busting anti-ratio crowd and is nothing more than a lie. Salaries will not be cut - basic economic principles....