Tweet
Twin Cities nurses reject contract, one-day strike planned
By Jeremy Olson
jolson@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 05/19/2010 10:40:52 PM CDT
Nurses voted overwhelmingly Wednesday against contracts offered by 14 Twin Cities' hospitals, setting the stage for a historic strike unless last-chance negotiations produce a deal in the next 10 days.
Nurses rejected the contracts by a 9-to-1 ratio in a vote that was predictable given the Minnesota Nurses Association's stance that hospital executives weren't taking concerns about patient safety and under-staffing seriously enough.
Barring a last-minute agreement, the strike by about 12,000 registered nurses would be the largest in the profession's history in the U.S.
"It remains our hope and our goal that an agreement can be reached," union spokesman John Nemo said, "but our nurses felt like their hand was forced, and they had to take this step."
The union plans a one-day strike to make a point, then have nurses resume work — holding off a longer work stoppage unless negotiations falter. But it may not be that simple. To lure enough temporary nurses to cover for one day, the hospitals may need to sign them to longer contracts and lock out the regular nurses until those contracts are up.
The nurses voted on proposed cuts to their common pension plan, then voted separately on wage and benefit proposals offered by their respective employers — the Allina, Children's, Fairview, HealthEast, North Memorial and Park Nicollet hospital systems.
No system fared better than any other in the voting by nearly 10,000 of the union nurses.
The hospital systems offered similar proposals, including wage increases of 1 percent and 2 percent in the second and third years of the contracts. Hospital leaders have agreed that nurse staffing can be problematic — both when there are too many patients and too few. They had sought more flexibility in staffing, including the ability to send nurses home more often on so-called "low need" days.
All of the hospitals already "float" nurses to busier units, but the Allina and Children's contracts had sought to expand their ability to do that.
Underlying the dispute is a power struggle over the Minnesota union's alignment with National Nurses United. Union leaders believe the hospitals are being more aggressive in negotiations because they fear the nurses are gaining clout. Hospital leaders believe the new national organizer is pressing unions to take a hard-line.
"The hospitals think we're putting forward a reasonable effort to negotiate, and we're expecting a reasonable effort back from the union," said Maureen Schriner, a spokeswoman for the hospital group. "But the union keeps focusing on a strike."
Plots and politics weren't the topic of the evening at Tom Reid's pub, where nurses gathered to await results from the nearby convention center. Obstetrics nurse Peggy Wiseman said her no vote was for her patients at St. John's Hospital, though she worries how they'll fare during a strike.
"I'm concerned about what's going to happen to our patients," she said. "I'm worried they're not going to have enough temporary nurses to take our places."
History gives the nurses confidence. More than 6,000 Minnesota nurses went on strike in 1984 — to date the largest nursing strike in U.S. history — and returned after 35 days. Fairview nurses also gained contracts after a month-long holdout in 2001.
Just this spring, nurses at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia claimed a 28-day strike gained them the wage and tuition reimbursement benefits they sought.
Martha Awoji, a nurse at Fairview Southdale, remembers striking in 2001, when she didn't have children or as many responsibilities. She voted no on the latest contract, because she fears it will give back the gains of 2001 and force nurses into unsafe situations of caring for too many patients.
"There's 12,000 of us," she said after voting Wednesday afternoon. "I'm hoping we can send a message."
The nurse association's leaders said a one-day strike would be disruptive for hospitals but not as much as for patients. It's not unheard of. Crews for British Airways and teachers in Oakland, Calif., have used this strategy in recent months.
A one-day strike also puts pressure on hospitals. The initial cost of bringing in temporary nurses for 14 hospitals has been estimated at $15 million — when considering salary, recruitment bonuses, travel expenses and lodging. Switching from regular nurses to temps, then back, in the span of two days is unreasonable, Schriner said.
"It's not a car driving down the street that can take a U-turn," she said. "This is like (turning around) a train."
A study released in March by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that prolonged strikes affect patient outcomes and survival. Reviewing outcomes in New York during nursing strikes, researchers found a 19.4 percent increase in hospital mortality and a 6.5 percent increase in 30-day readmissions — an indicator that patients received inadequate care or discharge instructions.
Both sides argue their proposals are best for patients.
The hospitals believe they can manage with existing nurses if they had more flexibility to send them home on low need days, call them in when demand peaks and "float" them to busier units for which they are qualified. Budgeting for more nurse hours would add millions in costs that would be passed along to insurers and to the public through higher premiums.
The union believes hospitals need to budget for more than their expected bed capacity so that nurses don't get overloaded with patients and always are available for new admissions.
Several studies suggest lower nurse-to-patient ratios can reduce patient falls and improve safety, which by extension reduces the cost of additional tests and procedures.
Nurses said they hoped renewed talks in the next few days would produce a deal, but they were prepared to strike.
Mary Anderson blanched at the thought of higher patient ratios in her psychiatric unit at North Memorial Medical Center in Robbinsdale: "It would raise the potential for more patients getting hurt."
By Jeremy Olson
jolson@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 05/19/2010 10:40:52 PM CDT
Nurses voted overwhelmingly Wednesday against contracts offered by 14 Twin Cities' hospitals, setting the stage for a historic strike unless last-chance negotiations produce a deal in the next 10 days.
Nurses rejected the contracts by a 9-to-1 ratio in a vote that was predictable given the Minnesota Nurses Association's stance that hospital executives weren't taking concerns about patient safety and under-staffing seriously enough.
Barring a last-minute agreement, the strike by about 12,000 registered nurses would be the largest in the profession's history in the U.S.
"It remains our hope and our goal that an agreement can be reached," union spokesman John Nemo said, "but our nurses felt like their hand was forced, and they had to take this step."
The union plans a one-day strike to make a point, then have nurses resume work — holding off a longer work stoppage unless negotiations falter. But it may not be that simple. To lure enough temporary nurses to cover for one day, the hospitals may need to sign them to longer contracts and lock out the regular nurses until those contracts are up.
The nurses voted on proposed cuts to their common pension plan, then voted separately on wage and benefit proposals offered by their respective employers — the Allina, Children's, Fairview, HealthEast, North Memorial and Park Nicollet hospital systems.
No system fared better than any other in the voting by nearly 10,000 of the union nurses.
The hospital systems offered similar proposals, including wage increases of 1 percent and 2 percent in the second and third years of the contracts. Hospital leaders have agreed that nurse staffing can be problematic — both when there are too many patients and too few. They had sought more flexibility in staffing, including the ability to send nurses home more often on so-called "low need" days.
All of the hospitals already "float" nurses to busier units, but the Allina and Children's contracts had sought to expand their ability to do that.
Underlying the dispute is a power struggle over the Minnesota union's alignment with National Nurses United. Union leaders believe the hospitals are being more aggressive in negotiations because they fear the nurses are gaining clout. Hospital leaders believe the new national organizer is pressing unions to take a hard-line.
"The hospitals think we're putting forward a reasonable effort to negotiate, and we're expecting a reasonable effort back from the union," said Maureen Schriner, a spokeswoman for the hospital group. "But the union keeps focusing on a strike."
Plots and politics weren't the topic of the evening at Tom Reid's pub, where nurses gathered to await results from the nearby convention center. Obstetrics nurse Peggy Wiseman said her no vote was for her patients at St. John's Hospital, though she worries how they'll fare during a strike.
"I'm concerned about what's going to happen to our patients," she said. "I'm worried they're not going to have enough temporary nurses to take our places."
History gives the nurses confidence. More than 6,000 Minnesota nurses went on strike in 1984 — to date the largest nursing strike in U.S. history — and returned after 35 days. Fairview nurses also gained contracts after a month-long holdout in 2001.
Just this spring, nurses at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia claimed a 28-day strike gained them the wage and tuition reimbursement benefits they sought.
Martha Awoji, a nurse at Fairview Southdale, remembers striking in 2001, when she didn't have children or as many responsibilities. She voted no on the latest contract, because she fears it will give back the gains of 2001 and force nurses into unsafe situations of caring for too many patients.
"There's 12,000 of us," she said after voting Wednesday afternoon. "I'm hoping we can send a message."
The nurse association's leaders said a one-day strike would be disruptive for hospitals but not as much as for patients. It's not unheard of. Crews for British Airways and teachers in Oakland, Calif., have used this strategy in recent months.
A one-day strike also puts pressure on hospitals. The initial cost of bringing in temporary nurses for 14 hospitals has been estimated at $15 million — when considering salary, recruitment bonuses, travel expenses and lodging. Switching from regular nurses to temps, then back, in the span of two days is unreasonable, Schriner said.
"It's not a car driving down the street that can take a U-turn," she said. "This is like (turning around) a train."
A study released in March by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that prolonged strikes affect patient outcomes and survival. Reviewing outcomes in New York during nursing strikes, researchers found a 19.4 percent increase in hospital mortality and a 6.5 percent increase in 30-day readmissions — an indicator that patients received inadequate care or discharge instructions.
Both sides argue their proposals are best for patients.
The hospitals believe they can manage with existing nurses if they had more flexibility to send them home on low need days, call them in when demand peaks and "float" them to busier units for which they are qualified. Budgeting for more nurse hours would add millions in costs that would be passed along to insurers and to the public through higher premiums.
The union believes hospitals need to budget for more than their expected bed capacity so that nurses don't get overloaded with patients and always are available for new admissions.
Several studies suggest lower nurse-to-patient ratios can reduce patient falls and improve safety, which by extension reduces the cost of additional tests and procedures.
Nurses said they hoped renewed talks in the next few days would produce a deal, but they were prepared to strike.
Mary Anderson blanched at the thought of higher patient ratios in her psychiatric unit at North Memorial Medical Center in Robbinsdale: "It would raise the potential for more patients getting hurt."
what a bunch of horseshit. 
let us just throw aside the whole recession, reduced federal money, etc etc etc... we are jut going to pull money out of our ass! 
Comment