scubanurse Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 The nurses at WHC are some of the best I had the chance to work with and put up with a ton of CRAP....but is it ethical of them to strike? The article does not go into contingencies in place to ensure patient safety and care during the strike, but I find it hard to believe the patients won't suffer as a result. The hospital utilizes a lot of LPN's and tech's and I could see them just increasing those positions during the strike, but would that compromise safety? Thoughts? http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-DC-Nurses-Vote-to-Strike-117018123.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island emt Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) It wouldn't surprise me if the hospital has already contracted with an agency to provide RN coverage in case of a walkout. Nurses at a hospital north of here threatened a walkout a while back and the hospital brought in a crew of travelers and locked out the union nursing staff for a couple days to show them that could be replaced. Edited February 28, 2011 by island emt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It wouldn't surprise me if the hospital has already contracted with an agency to provide RN coverage in case of a walkout. Nurses at a hospital north of here threatened a walkout a while back and the hospital brought in a crew of travelers and locked out the union nursing staff for a couple days to show them that could be replaced. It sounds like the employer was very close to violating Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act by doing that. I realize that patient care might have been an issue, but that doesn't give the employer free reign to violate the National Labor Relations Act just to 'prove a point that the striking workers can be replaced' (See the link at the bottom of this post for the specific language of the law as it applies in this situation). You Have the Right to ... Participate in meetings to discuss joining a union; Distribute, read and discuss union literature (in non-work areas during breaks and lunch time); Wear union buttons, stickers, t-shirts, and hats to show support for the union; Sign a UE membership card and demand union recognition; Circulate and sign petitions, or ... Join together in other activities to protest unfair treatment or demand improvements in wages, hours and working conditions; Organize other employees to support the union, sign union cards, or to file grievances. These rights are protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (and similar state laws), which gives you the right to join or support a union. It is Illegal for Your Boss to ... Fire or threaten to fire, layoff, discipline, harass, transfer, or reassign an employee because they support the union; Favor employees who don’t support the union over those that do in promotions, hours, enforcement of rules or any other conditions; Close or threaten to close your place of employment or take away benefits or privileges in order to discourage union activity; Promise employees a pay increase, promotion, benefit or special favor if they oppose the union; Ask your opinion of the union. Under Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (and similar state laws) it is illegal for your boss to commit any of the acts listed above.1 1. http://www.ueunion.org/org_rights.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 You Have the Right to ... Participate in meetings to discuss joining a union; Distribute, read and discuss union literature (in non-work areas during breaks and lunch time); Wear union buttons, stickers, t-shirts, and hats to show support for the union; Sign a UE membership card and demand union recognition; Circulate and sign petitions, or ... Join together in other activities to protest unfair treatment or demand improvements in wages, hours and working conditions; Organize other employees to support the union, sign union cards, or to file grievances. These rights are protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (and similar state laws), which gives you the right to join or support a union. It is Illegal for Your Boss to ... Fire or threaten to fire, layoff, discipline, harass, transfer, or reassign an employee because they support the union; Favor employees who don't support the union over those that do in promotions, hours, enforcement of rules or any other conditions; Close or threaten to close your place of employment or take away benefits or privileges in order to discourage union activity; Promise employees a pay increase, promotion, benefit or special favor if they oppose the union; Ask your opinion of the union. Under Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (and similar state laws) it is illegal for your boss to commit any of the acts listed above.1 1. http://www.ueunion.org/org_rights.html Just for informational sake, has anyone told this to the governor of Wisconsin? For EMT City members outside of the North American continent, the Governor of the US State of Wisconsin wants to do away with the rights of unionized state workers, such as collective barganing, medical coverage, and other items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Correction, the Wyoming Governor does not want to force anyone out of a union, he wants to give everyone the right to choose to be in a Union or not. If you will compare the economies of "right to work states" versus those who have mandatory unions, you will see a stark contrast. If you like unions, move to detroit or pittsburg and see how unions have ruined this country. PS: Anyone that has a job in this economy that pays above minimum wage and has benefits, is an idiot of they choose to go on strike. Edited February 28, 2011 by crotchitymedic1986 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Just for informational sake, has anyone told this to the governor of Wisconsin? For EMT City members outside of the North American continent, the Governor of the US State of Wisconsin wants to do away with the rights of unionized state workers, such as collective barganing, medical coverage, and other items. United States labor law is a heterogeneous collection of state and federal laws. Federal law not only sets the standards that govern workers' rights to organize in the private sector, but overrides most state and local laws that attempt to regulate this area. Federal law also provides more limited rights for employees of the federal government. These federal laws do not, on the other hand, apply to employees of state and local governments, agricultural workers or domestic employees; any statutory protections those workers have derived from state law. The pattern is even more mixed in the area of wages and working conditions. Federal law establishes minimum wages and overtime rights for most workers in the private and public sectors; state and local laws may provide more expansive rights, Similarly, federal law provides minimum workplace safety standards, but allows the states to take over those responsibilities and to provide more stringent standards. Finally, both federal and state laws protect workers from employment discrimination. In most areas these two bodies of law overlap; as an example, federal law permits state to enact their own statutes barring discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin and age, so long as the state law does not provide less protections than federal law would. Federal law, on the other hand, preempts most state statutes that would bar employers from discriminating against employees to prevent them from obtaining pensions or other benefits or retaliating against them for asserting those rights. United States labor law is a heterogeneous collection of state and federal laws. Federal law not only sets the standards that govern workers' rights to organize in the private sector, but overrides most state and local laws that attempt to regulate this area. Federal law also provides more limited rights for employees of the federal government. These federal laws do not, on the other hand, apply to employees of state and local governments, agricultural workers or domestic employees; any statutory protections those workers have derived from state law. The pattern is even more mixed in the area of wages and working conditions. Federal law establishes minimum wages and overtime rights for most workers in the private and public sectors; state and local laws may provide more expansive rights, Similarly, federal law provides minimum workplace safety standards, but allows the states to take over those responsibilities and to provide more stringent standards. Finally, both federal and state laws protect workers from employment discrimination. In most areas these two bodies of law overlap; as an example, federal law permits state to enact their own statutes barring discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin and age, so long as the state law does not provide less protections than federal law would. Federal law, on the other hand, preempts most state statutes that would bar employers from discriminating against employees to prevent them from obtaining pensions or other benefits or retaliating against them for asserting those rights. The United States Congress has not ratified the International Labour Organization Convention on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 The United States Congress subsequently tightened those restrictions on unions in the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which also regulates the internal affairs of all private sector unions, providing for minimum standards for unions' internal disciplinary proceedings, federal oversight for unions' elections of their own officers, and fiduciary standards for union officers' use of union funds. Congress has since expanded the NLRB's jurisdiction to health care institutions, with unique rules governing organizing and strikes against those employers. The NLRA does not, on the other hand, cover governmental employees, with the exception of employees of the United States Postal Service, a quasi-public entity. The Federal Labor Relations Act provides for much more limited rights for employees of the federal government; Congress has, moreover, excluded a number of these workers in the United States Department of Homeland Security and elsewhere from even these limited protections. Federal law does not provide employees of state and local governments with the right to organize or engage in union activities, except to the extent that the United States Constitution protects their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. The Constitution provides even less protection for governmental employees' right to engage in collective bargaining: while it bars public employers from retaliating against employees for forming a union, it does not require those employers to recognize that union, much less bargain with it. Most states provide public employees with limited statutory protections; a few permit public employees to strike in support of their demands in some circumstances. Some states, however, particularly in the South, make it illegal for a governmental entity to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a union. The Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 outlawed the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes by federal courts. While the Act does not prevent state courts from issuing injunctions, it ended what some observers called "government by injunction", in which the federal courts used injunctions to prevent unions from striking, organizing and, in some cases, even talking to workers or entering certain parts of a state. Roughly half the states have enacted their own version of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. For the most part the NLRA and RLA displace state laws that attempt to regulate the right to organize, to strike and to engage in collective bargaining. The NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an employer has engaged in an unfair labor practice and to decide what remedies should be provided. States and local governments can, on the other hand, impose requirements when acting as market participants, such as requiring that all contractors sign a project labor agreement to avoid strikes when building a public works project, that they could not if they were attempting to regulate those employers' labor relations directly.1 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_labor_law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubanurse Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Correction, the Wyoming Governor does not want to force anyone out of a union, he wants to give everyone the right to choose to be in a Union or not. If you will compare the economies of "right to work states" versus those who have mandatory unions, you will see a stark contrast. If you like unions, move to detroit or pittsburg and see how unions have ruined this country. PS: Anyone that has a job in this economy that pays above minimum wage and has benefits, is an idiot of they choose to go on strike. ?? What's happening in Wyoming????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Correction, the Wyoming Governor does not want to force anyone out of a union, he wants to give everyone the right to choose to be in a Union or not. If you will compare the economies of "right to work states" versus those who have mandatory unions, you will see a stark contrast. If you like unions, move to detroit or pittsburg and see how unions have ruined this country. PS: Anyone that has a job in this economy that pays above minimum wage and has benefits, is an idiot of they choose to go on strike. Obviously you've never had to have someone step in on your behalf to ensure you got a 'fair deal' from an employer that would rather work you like a dog and give you nothing more than the pittance that the law provides. Unions aren't what’s wrong with this country, and to place all of the woes at their feet is simply ludicrous! Could it be that there are other reasons that those with a union job are on strike? Like unfair labor conditions/practices on the part of the employer? Don’t the union members deserve more than minimum wage? Are you happy only making minimum wage? Employers for the most part will only give their employees only what the law demands they must. In an ‘at will employment’ situation, the employer can fire you for any reason (for example, if they don’t like the color of your shoes, you’re fired). If employers were looking out for more than their ‘bottom line’ and taking care of their employees (who just happen to be directly related to the employer’s ‘bottom line’ in the first place), there wouldn’t be such a need for unions. Until employers start treating their employees better than an expendable resource, the unions will continue to fight for the worker’s rights. Maybe you like having your livelihood dependant on the employer’s whim and mood, then by all means stay out of a union shop. But if you want your voice heard through collective bargaining, maybe you should actually see what a union does before you blame them for all the things that are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crotchitymedic1986 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Unions are the reason that general motors is the largest purchaser of viagra in the US, I will let you figure out the symbolism of this fact. No government employee should ever be allowed to be in a union. This is not the 1920's anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Obviously you've never had to have someone step in on your behalf to ensure you got a 'fair deal' from an employer that would rather work you like a dog and give you nothing more than the pittance that the law provides. Unions aren't what's wrong with this country, and to place all of the woes at their feet is simply ludicrous! Could it be that there are other reasons that those with a union job are on strike? Like unfair labor conditions/practices on the part of the employer? Don't the union members deserve more than minimum wage? Are you happy only making minimum wage? Employers for the most part will only give their employees only what the law demands they must. In an 'at will employment' situation, the employer can fire you for any reason (for example, if they don't like the color of your shoes, you're fired). If employers were looking out for more than their 'bottom line' and taking care of their employees (who just happen to be directly related to the employer's 'bottom line' in the first place), there wouldn't be such a need for unions. Until employers start treating their employees better than an expendable resource, the unions will continue to fight for the worker's rights. Maybe you like having your livelihood dependant on the employer's whim and mood, then by all means stay out of a union shop. But if you want your voice heard through collective bargaining, maybe you should actually see what a union does before you blame them for all the things that are wrong. LS for someone that argues so many Republican causes sometimes you certainly sound liberal. I challenge you to support your argument that the vast majority of business/industry is paying minimum wage unless employees are protected by a union. I've not worked a minimum wage job in 25 years or more and I've never been part of a union. Unions support unions. They protect you so that you can pay your dues. They fight for your increased wages so that you can pay increased dues. Am I at the mercy of my employer because I don't belong to a union? Of course not. My employer paid me $7500 dollars to entice me to accept their offer of employment. Because if you pay good people then you get to use and retain good people. You can't run most sophisticated business on uneducated labor and most folks with an education or even significant experience won't work for minimum wage. If I create a job, create the position from whole cloth, I have the right to put anyone in it that I believe will make me money. If your shoe color costs me money then you're gone, and it's a liberal belief that someone should protect you from that. And it's a foolish argument to believe that successful businessmen are firing productive, money making employees on a whim. Perhaps the losers are doing such things, but if you make money for a winner you future is pretty much secure, unless you're a money maker and also an asshole. The unions are, and have been greedy bullies since their inception. What was that union...hmm....one of the biggies...that went to court, spent a gazillion dollars to block their janitorial staff from unionizing at their home office? They claimed that it would be a conflict of interest. It just shows you that even the unions believe that unions are bullshit. Are there good unions? Maybe...Have I ever heard of a union that makes sure that their demands won't damage the company that feeds their members? No...but I've heard a bunch of stories of them shutting businesses down and creating a bunch of unemployed people. Do a google search for the HBO documentary involving the last non unionized trucking businesses in the country.. I don't know why the nurses are striking, but I'm guessing that it's not because they're working in a sweat shop sewing Nikes for 3 bucks a day. But no worries LS, let the union kill the hospitals...the govt will come in and save the day..that's what they're for, right? Dwayne Edited March 2, 2011 by DwayneEMTP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts