Twin Cities Nurses ratify contract

[riverwalker]

(A lesson in solidarity. The hospitals made a last minute offer of maintaining our current contract in it's entirety, including the pension. This was incredible, since their only goal was to break up our union, and shred our current contract at any cost. The hospitals spent unlimited funds on a PR campaign against the nurses union. in full page ads, radio ads, a expensive PR firm, union busting consultants. It was dirty, nasty public fight. As the open ended strike date (of which 87% of us approved) of July 10th approached, they realized not enough scabs were available, and the massive exodus from the union did not happen. They had no choice but to make us this offer. Raises are 0%,1%, and 3%, but it was never about the money. We preserved the contract language that supports safety, in not floating to unfamiliar areas of the hospital. Our safe staffing mission will best be serve at the legislative level, and not in our contract. So that fight goes on, but we are in a better position with our union remaining solid, unified and strong. We looked a huge unified corporate entity of 14 hospitals right in the eye, and they blinked. We did not get the patient/nurse ratios we fought for, but this a huge victory for organized labor and Twin Cities nurses.)

http://www.twincities.com/ci_15454200

Twin Cities nurses approve 3-year contract; 90 percent vote for agreement

Just one week after they seemed poised to mount a massive strike, nurses at 14 hospitals in the Twin Cities voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to ratify new labor contracts.

The voting ended any chance that some or all of the more than 12,000 nurses represented by the Minnesota Nurses Association would strike over contract terms that now will be in effect for three years.

"It's Official: Twin Cities RNs Ratify Contract," the union reported on its website late Tuesday night.

<more>

[rurallib]

1. Congratulation!

proud to be the first rec.

[MineralMan]

2. Unfortunately, they did not get the one thing they said was at

the core of their reason for a strike: nurse:patient ratios. Throughout the strike, their entire focus was on that issue. The pay, pension, and health care "wasn't important," according to dozens of interviews by union negotiators.

In the end, though, with nothing but a token single-day strike, 90% voted for a tiny raise over three years, and maintenance of the current pension and health insurance benefits. Nothing really changed regarding nurse:patient ratios, staffing concerns or patient safety issues.

I'm afraid that the sentiment here in the Twin Cities is not with this contract. Even a few days on strike would have demonstrated a commitment to the non-financial issues. That commitment clearly was not the prime concern for most of the nurses.

It's a sad thing, really, in my opinion. In the eyes of the general public, the feeling is that patient safety was never the real issue, despite their constant saying that it was the primary issue. I believe that this labor action did damage to the Minnesota labor movement overall.

[eilen]

3. What the heck do you have against nurses?

I ask because you have posted negatively about the nurses frequently here. They are pursuing safe patient ratios on the legislative level. This way all hospitals in Minnesota will have safe ratios, not just the union ones. What is wrong with fighting to preserve your pay, insurance and pension? Nurses have a very difficult job. They also won some language in the contract preventing floating between specialties -- You don't want an orthopedic nurse floated to Pediatrics, ICU or Oncology or vice versa.

Nurses do have a large stake in patient:nurse ratios. High ones lead to burnout and errors. It is and will always be a big issue and it is not limited to Minnesota. Nurses have been fighting for sane ratios in many states. New Jersey legislature passed safe patient ratio rules and we lobby NY all the time.

Many nurses don't want to strike because a strike would negatively affect patient safety. When the hospital indicated it was willing to negotiate the contract again, the strike was cancelled. The union is always going to look to the best deal they can get for their members. I don't think their legislative arm will drop the patient staff ratios and will be applying pressure at the respective state legislatures.

The hospitals are looking for profit anyway they can. That is why they incorporated with each other. Their association represents a monopoly in the area, fixing wages and preventing competition.

[MineralMan]

4. I have absolutely nothing against nurses. I believe the only posts

I've made regarding nursing are in this thread and in another thread where I discuss this labor action.

My criticism is not about nurses or nursing. It is about how this action was done. This post is about labor, not any specific profession. It's about public perception, not about nurses. To promote a labor action as being based on one thing, then to abandon that one thing without so much as a real strike says loudly and clearly that that wasn't the real issue.

I know exactly what the settlement contained. I've been following this from the very beginning. It is the public perception that I'm talking about. I'd be saying the same thing if it were any union that made a mistake in presenting the reasons for an action.

Just yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend who is a nurse, and has been one for over 20 years. She said to me, "I hate this. People are getting the wrong idea from this settlement. It's going to make it that much harder in the future." She blames the organizers for the action for over-emphasizing the staffing issue, then bailing on it when it became clear that the rank-and-file were going to rebel against the strike.

[riverwalker]

5. it was NEVER going to happen

I spoke with negotiators. Believe me, patient ratios were NEVER going to happen. The hospitals vowed they would go under rather than agree to ratios in a labor contract. A strike would weaken our contract, and we would lose what ever safety language was already there. We would end up with no ratios, AND the loss of what protections we did have. We are not masochists. We would not win public support regardless of what we did. If we went on strike, we are endangering our patients. Not strike? We are greedy. A labor contract is for 3 years, and any ratios would not be permanent. Legislation would make it a law. I know the public would prefer we stand in front of a speeding bus and get flattened for something that we realized was NEVER going to come. Sorry to disappoint you and whatever selfless and sacrificing madonna/maternal martyr image you have of nurses. The public reaction has been that of a child whose mother has asked to be paid to love them.

[MineralMan]

6. I have no particular view of nurses. Each nurse is his or her own

person. You seem to misunderstand my point. It is not that the nurses do not need a better contract. I think they should have one that's far better than the one they got. It is a matter of how the labor action was characterized and how it was settled that concerns me, and how that affects future labor actions.

I've known many nurses. My sister was one, until she retired. One of my best friends is a nurse. I've seen them on the job. Some are wonderful. Some are just there earning a living. There is no single thing I could say that would characterize nurses in general.

My complaint has nothing to do with nurses. It has to do with a labor action that presented one issue as primary, but then settled for a contract that only dealt with issues that were presented as minor, secondary ones.

This leads to distrust of this particular union, and of unions in general, and is a strategic mistake.

Will the legislature mandate nurse:patient ratios? Not right now, they won't, but that's another issue altogether.

Striking for something you KNOW you are not going to get and emphasizing that issue to the media while minimizing the issues that you may succeed in getting is not good strategy, in my opinion. Three years down the road, there will be another contract negotiation. People will remember the one that just concluded, but they will only remember the headlines of it.

[eilen]

10. Sorry, I'm sensitive about this.

Most nurses when they look for a job look first for their specialty because we invest so much time in certification. Then we look for a decent environment, one where we have a little autonomy over our shifts and off hours. The very last thing we look at is pay unless it is very low. Benefits are expected but you would be surprised how many nurses will forego them for some control over their work lives.

[kernelfarmer]

7. Congrats!

The best line in your description:

"We looked a huge unified corporate entity of 14 hospitals right in the eye, and they blinked."

That is what organized labor is all about, and I am proud for all the nurses in doing what is right.

[Omaha Steve]

8. I agree

It was a stacked deck against the nurses the entire time. Mn is a very good labor state btw.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

9. K n R for Nurses & Labor!

Fighting for workers rights is a marathon, not a sprint. You'll get there if you stay united.