Nurses at Central Maine Medical Center vote against forming a union

October 15, 2000

LEWISTON (AP) -- Central Maine Medical Center nurses voted against joining a
union Thursday night.

Nurses voted 192-136 against the bid to join the Maine State Nurses
Association.

Hospital officials cheered the vote. They say it's now time for the hospital
to move forward as one organization.

The hospital in Lewiston says it will hire more registered nurses and that
the heart center it plans to create will provide new opportunities for nurses
already working there.

Union supporters had said that CMMC nurses need a greater say about staffing,
scheduling and other working conditions.

Last month, nurses at Maine Medical Center in Portland voted not to join a
union.

All content © Copyright 2000, WorldNow and WMTW.

---------------------------

War of words over health reforms heats up outside insurer's offices

by Elisabeth J. Beardsley, State House News Service
Elisabeth@statehousenews.com
<http://www.statehousenews.com>

October 18, 2000

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON. Doctors and nurses took to the streets today to accuse
HMOs of spending patient money for political gain, but opponents of the
health care ballot question countered that HMO members must be made aware of
the consequences of the sweeping reform proposal.

Question 5 requires that a comprehensive patients' bill of rights be in place
by Jan. 1, 2001; universal health care coverage by July 1, 2002; and places
an immediate moratorium on for-profit conversions of hospitals and HMOs.

Supporters of the ballot question splintered in July after lawmakers passed a
long-awaited HMO reform law. Some activists were satisfied with the new law
and abandoned their support of the ballot question, but others have forged
ahead, saying the Legislature's version leaves much undone.

On the fundraising front, the referendum is shaping up to be one of the
costliest and most lopsided of this year's eight ballot campaigns. The
state's HMOs have lined up in opposition, amassing more than $2 million, much
of it for TV and radio ads, since the end of July. Supporters have raised
$124,000 in that same period, according to the Office of Campaign and
Political Finance.

This afternoon, a group of about 35 supporters - including doctors and nurses
in white lab coats, stethoscopes and surgical scrubs - picketed outside Blue
Cross/Blue Shield's downtown Boston offices. Marching in a circle, the
protesters carried signs such as, "Blue Cross, Stop Spending Patient Care
Money to Defeat Question 5." Activists stopped people on the street to
explain the details of the question, and leafleted up and down sidewalks
teeming with lunchtime crowds.

The HMOs' millions of dollars would be better spent on patient care, said
registered nurse Ann Eldridge, a home care practitioner for the Boston
Visiting Nurses Association and a faculty member at the University of
Massachusetts.

"That's a public outrage that is shared by the citizens and the front-line
health care professionals that see already $2 million from Blue Cross/Blue
Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, Tufts, Fallon and Aetna being the five leading
contributors, diverting patient care dollars to fearmongering adds that
distort the truth of Question 5," Eldridge said.

Opponents of the question, who watched the protest from inside Blue Cross'
offices, said they have an obligation to spend money on ads that bring the
flip side of the argument to consumers. No On 5 spokesman Stephen Allen said
the cost to HMO members is negligible, but the stakes are high.

"HMOs have an obligation to present the facts about Question 5 to their
members," Allen said. "This can cause insurance costs to go up $1,000 a year.
This advertising campaign is probably 50 cents a member. I think it's a great
investment because you're not hearing from them what it will cost. You're not
hearing from them that it will make health care institutions financially
weaker."

Back outside, activists were particularly unhappy with one TV ad that shows a
doctor and patient being drowned in red tape, which is what the HMOs contend
would result from the ballot question. "Who invented red tape?" Boston
pediatrician Dr. Alan Meyer shouted into a megaphone. "Ask them how much time
we waste every day, ask any patient how much time they waste trying to deal
with their insurance companies."

Dr. Paul Ling, a member of the Ad Hoc Committee to Defend Health Care and one
of the original supporters of the question, argued that the question would
actually reduce red tape by requiring that HMOs spend 90 cents out of every
health insurance premium dollar on the delivery of health care. "That is
indeed how we will fund universal health care, by cutting the fat out of the
bureaucracy," he said.

The July HMO reform law is "good as far as it goes," but doesn't adequately
address the working poor, freedom of choice, trimming bureaucracy or
for-profit conversions, Ling said.

But Allen, with the opposition, said the 90-10 administrative cost provision
would cramp HMOs' ability to support community outreach activities, undertake
public education initiatives, and upgrade technology. He cited a recent
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report that found that passage of the
ballot question would weaken the financial condition of institutions that are
already struggling.

"This is going to put a wrecking ball to the health care system in
Massachusetts," Allen said. "When I want to fix my car, I don't take it to a
chop-shop. I take it to a repair shop."

The question's moratorium on for-profit conversions could be damaging to
rural hospitals, for which the only way out of a fiscal morass sometimes is
sale to a for-profit entity, Allen said. "I'm not advocating that. I'm saying
once again that they've taken a basic tool away," he said.

Allen accused the activists of wanting a government-run health care system
akin to those in Britain and Canada. "They want the same bureaucrats that
make us wait in line to get our drivers licenses, those long conga lines,
they want them running the emergency rooms," Allen said. "That's not the role
of state government."

--------------------------------------------

SEIU/1199 Ends Decertification Campaign at Bronx-Lebanon

SEIU/1199 has withdrawn its petition to represent the registered nurses at
Bronx Lebanon, ending an attempt to decertify NYSNA, which began officially
on October 2. The election scheduled for November 15 has been cancelled.

NYSNA remains 100% committed to the nurses at Bronx Lebanon. We are proud of
their skill, hard work, and dedication to patients. Now, with the
decertification campaign over, we will be able to focus all our efforts on
negotiating their new contract.

SEIU/1199 has also agreed to end its decertification attempts at all other
NYSNA represented facilities. ANA/UAN, NYSNA, SEIU/1199, and AFL/CIO will
begin discussions about ways we can work together to address issues of common
concern to all RNs.

Talks Continue on UAN Application for AFL-CIO Charter

John J. Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO has informed the United American
Nurses (UAN) that their application for a charter to join the AFL-CIO is
currently under discussion with other AFL-CIO affiliates. Discussions on this
issue include talks between ANA/UAN, NYSNA, and SEIU/1199.

Copyright © 2000 New York State Nurses Association
Last modified: October 25, 2000

------------------------------------------

The Washington Hospital Center RN strike continues ...

Positions Harden in Washington Hospital Strike


by Avram Goldstein, Washington Post
October 19, 2000

Negotiators for Washington Hospital Center and about 1,100 striking nurses
offered little hope yesterday for an end to the work stoppage soon, and
nurses marked four weeks on strike with a rally.

No new negotiating sessions are scheduled, and the two sides are far apart on
a wage package and rules governing how often the hospital can schedule a
nurse to remain on the job at the end of a regular shift.

The union has cast its strike more as an expression of principled concern
over deteriorating patient care than as a battle for better pay and working
conditions.

"The nurses are strong and courageous," said Evelyn Sommers, executive
director of the D.C. Nurses Association. "They plan to stay out. They are
patient [care] advocates, and that's what they're going to do."

Contract talks have dragged on under the supervision of a federal mediator,
but the situation has not remained static. So far, about 150 nurses in the
union have crossed the picket line, and an additional 25 to 50 have expressed
interest in doing so, hospital President Michael H. Covert said yesterday.

Sommers disputed those figures, saying the number of union members who
returned to work is less than 90. "We still have 90 percent-plus out on
strike--that's really the important message," she said.

Perhaps more importantly, the hospital's wage offer has been steadily
shrinking as the cost of expensive replacement nurses mounts. Covert said he
is delighted with the performance of more than 600 temporary nurses imported
from across the nation by Denver strikebreaker U.S. Nursing Corp.

However, the service is expensive, Covert said. "You could be talking about a
maximum of $500,000 a week in losses," he said. "In terms of the reserves of
the institution, that's not what we want to do. It's not just salaries, but
housing and travel. But we can go as long as we have to go."

The hospital has withdrawn its proposal of a 16.5 percent wage increase over
three years and now is proposing 13 percent over the same period.

"At some point, the employer has to make the call that the expenses during a
strike affect funds available for other operations," said the hospital's lead
negotiator and labor counsel, Victoria Houck. "Four weeks into the strike, we
concluded we had to make that decision."

Covert said the hospital, the region's largest medical facility, has
continued operating at full steam. "We had a record month last month," he
said. "Nothing fell off, and that may have come as a surprise to a number of
people."

The 907-bed hospital counted 788 patients yesterday morning, and recently the
average weekday census has ranged from 750 to 790, he said.

Among the key remaining issues are mandatory overtime and night work. The
hospital has offered to limit forced overtime for each nurse in most
departments to one added eight-hour shift every six weeks. In some
specialized departments, that would be higher.

Hospital officials also want to be able to rotate operating room nurses
through a full week on the evening shift to accommodate an increase in
elective surgery that doctors have been performing late in the day.

At union meetings nurses have said they want to hold out for more than that,
Sommers said.

"We certainly have very lively discussions," she said. "Nurses are smart
people and looking at all the options--but they have not discussed giving up.
There is enormous unanimity about the issues they will stay out on."

Just before joining the spirited rally and march last night, a veteran
Washington Hospital Center nurse, Joanne Lower, 53, of Bowie, said she should
not have to change her schedule because of the hospital's persistent staffing
problems.

"When you're working permanent day shift and you have to change to an evening
shift, it disrupts your family and social life," she said.

In the meantime, nurses like Lisa McGuire, 44, of La Plata, say they won't
consider crossing the line. "The nurses that are out realize that if we stick
together things are bound to get better," McGuire said.

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

--------------------------------------------

Many Strikers Outmatched

by Fredrick Kunkle, Washington Post

October 23, 2000

On a normal day, punch-in time is 7 a.m. at the nurse's station at Washington
Hospital Center. Phyllis Walker's routine begins: Checking pulses and blood
pressure levels. Taking patient histories and calls from worried family.
Hooking up EKG's and handing out medicine. Figuring out whether someone's
chest pains are a heart attack or a bad pastrami sandwich.

"And that's all before lunch," Walker said. "You've got to run up and down
these halls. Literally."

But on this balmy October day, Walker, a nurse in the cardiology unit,
trudged in circles on the pavement outside the hospital, a union placard in
her hands.

More than four weeks after 1,200 nurses went on strike, Walker's hopes for a
favorable settlement remain strong. But as bargaining positions harden,
others say they are less sure that the D.C. Nurses Association's walkout will
deliver what they want.

"If we compromise too much, the question will be, 'Why did we come out here?'
" said Vanessa Gore, a single mother from Silver Spring who also works in the
cardiology unit.

Although organized labor has flexed its muscles in recent years--boasting of
successful strikes against United Parcel Service, Verizon Communications Inc.
and others--effective work stoppages have been confined in recent years to
atypical situations nationwide, several labor experts say. And those
successes represent only incremental progress in the face a 50-year decline
in union membership.

"Under certain circumstances, the strike is still an effective means of
pressuring the employer," said Steve Babson, a labor program specialist at
Wayne State University in Detroit. "But the environment has changed in ways
that are obvious."

Globalization, the deregulation of traditionally unionized industries and
more aggressive tactics by management--including the use of permanent
replacement workers--have reduced the number and attractiveness of strikes
nationwide, particularly in the private sector.

From the 1940s to the 1970s, strikes of more than 1,000 workers happened all
the time. In 1974, for example, there were 424. But last year, there were 17.
As of April, there were eight nationwide this year, according to the most
recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

One reason there are fewer strikes is that there are fewer union members as a
proportion of the labor force.

"Unions are really an island in the big sea of non-unionism," said William B.
Gould IV, former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board and now
Beardsley professor of law at Stanford University.

The number of card-carrying union members stood at 13.9 percent of the work
force last year, an anemic level compared with the 1950s, when more than
one-quarter of the labor force was unionized.

"Unions were very much accepted as part of the American economy," said Kent
Wong, director of the UCLA Center for Labor Research and Education. "People
saw that they enabled blue-collar workers to enjoy the American dream, send
their kids to college, buy houses. Now there's just not the same experience."

Strikes have diminished, too, because globalization of the world's economies
has been a double whammy for unions. Greater international competition has
squeezed corporations, allowing them less leeway to give in to union demands,
and it has allowed companies to shift production from a strike-threatened
plant to sources overseas. And deregulation has prompted smaller,
non-unionized companies to enter fields that had been dominated by a handful
of major, unionized players.

But it was President Ronald Reagan's handling of the air traffic controllers'
strike in 1981 that made calling a strike a particularly risky business,
several labor experts said. Although the Supreme Court in 1938 recognized an
employer's right to permanently replace striking workers, the practice was
all but unheard of until nearly 12,000 members of Professional Air Traffic
Controllers Organization went on strike, snarling travel nationwide.

Calling the strike illegal, Reagan fired them, inspiring other employers to
follow the administration's lead. Strikes declined by one-third the following
year, to 96 from 145. Public sympathies shifted, too, away from unions.

Although recent low unemployment rates have strengthened the hand of
unions--because workers are hard to find and employers want to keep them
happy--that cannot offset the disadvantage unions face when employers hire
replacements during a strike, said Gould, the former NLRB chairman.

Even temporary replacements can substantially undercut a strike by reducing
the pressure on the employer to settle, he said. Since the nurses' strike
began, for example, Washington Hospital Center has imported a smaller, more
expensive nursing staff from U.S. Nursing Corp. of Denver.

"If they didn't come in, we may have had a chance to resolve these issues,"
said Ellen Sullivan, a nurse who joined the hospital shortly before the
strike.

But now labor experts say public attitudes have tilted back at least
somewhat, thanks to the 1997 UPS strike. "That falls in the category of what
I'd call atypical disputes," Gould said. "There was a lot of public sympathy
for the strikers. The union was extremely well-organized. The Teamsters
received a lot of sympathy from the public."

Health care is another field in which unions have enjoyed success. There is a
shortage of nurses, who are highly skilled and not easily replaced. Employers
cannot farm out their jobs to China. And yet, a 50-day strike at two
hospitals in Stamford, Conn., ended with nurses backing away from their
initial wage demands and cutting a deal that was almost not accepted by the
rank and file.

"Management still has the upper hand, even if you look at health care," said
Richard Hurd, professor of labor studies at Cornell University.

Barbara Ware, a spokeswoman for Washington Hospital Center, said operations
are normal despite the strike. She said that management's previous proposal
of a 16 percent raise over three years was one of the most generous in the
nation. And although nurses have identified mandatory overtime as the major
stumbling block to a pact, Ware said the double shifts affect only 10 percent
of the nursing staff, most of whom volunteer for the extra hours.

On the picket line, the nurses wave at passing drivers who honk horns in
support, and they say other unions also have buoyed their spirits. Yet, the
easy confidence of the first few days has given way to a more guarded mood.
No strikers believe they will lose their jobs. Many have found work at
nursing agencies and hospitals elsewhere.

Although they worry about the outcome, several acknowledge that time off has
been a pleasant interlude. Gore, 33, has been able to take her 12-year-old
son to school and spend more time with him, though dwindling savings have
crimped their budget.

"My son and I would always do something on Friday night--dinner, movies,
something like that," she said. "We had to cut that out."

Gore said she managed to pay for his school clothes, but they put off buying
new tennis shoes. She also finds herself keeping a running tally at the
grocery store, forgoing some items to save money.

Another month on strike, Gore said, and she will have to find work with a
nursing agency. Several strikers have already received letters saying that
they will have to start paying full fare for health insurance. Other nurses
have stayed on the job or crossed picket lines because they could not afford
the health coverage.

"I certainly feel a lot more sympathy for the nurses who chose to stay
inside," said Sullivan, 33. "It certainly changes your opinion of where you
work. It makes you feel discouraged about hospital management."

Sullivan said she has not been surprised at how difficult a strike can be,
but she acknowledged being "in denial" about the looming showdown before the
strike began.

"I was thinking, 'This can't go on too long; look how much money they're
losing.' But here we are," she said. She has no regrets, however.

"If we don't take a stand, we're never going to resolve these issues."

No more negotiations have been scheduled.

© 2000 The Washington Post Company

--------------------------------------------

North Carolina:

Vote Count: DUMC Nurses Union Election

The mood in the room was one of anxiety on Saturday, October 14 at 9pm. The
National Labor Relations Board staff separated the brown envelopes with 182
challenged ballots from the green ballots that would tell the story.

We all watched as the pile on the right side of the table grew. Some nurses
whispered, "it's not so bad." Those of us who recognized the insurmountable
resources of millions of dollars and control of employees understood winning
against those odds would be something akin to a miracle. So, we worked hard
in the final 21 days to try and make it happen or at least reduce the margin
of defeat for the union.

The count: 624 yes votes for the International Union of Operating Engineers
(IUOE), Local 465; 1042 no votes. Out of 2413 eligible voters, 563 employees
on the list didn't cast a ballot. There were 2 void ballots belonging to
voters who appeared to change their minds in the voting booth. Their decision
to vote yes or no wasn't clear.

Well, that sums it up. Some of us will continue to analyze what happened. The
small core group of Nurses United for Patient Advocacy (NUPA) remain
determined. They see the vote as a battle in a campaign for dignity and
respect. After all, they built an organization with the ability to
communicate with all nurses and win significant community support. I think
they learned some valuable lessons about organizing and inclusion. As one
NUPA organizer and election observer remarked, "I had no idea there were so
many Black nurses working at Duke." A recognition of the many
African-American nurses who turned out to vote.

Thanks to Barbara McKnuckles, a Data Terminal Operator (DTO) at Duke
University Medical Center, 1967-1997 that turnout was better than
anticipated. Barbara made numerous calls to nurses she worked with in her 30
years and 11 months at DUMC. She's sure they were among the more than 600
*yes* votes. She knows they will continue support for the union. Barbara has
3 sisters who work at Duke. One is a registered nurse who was not afraid to
put her name and quote on the *Vote Yes* flier.

Other support came from a network of black women who want a union and are
determined to organize. They attended the NUPA rally on October 4. They work
as LPNs and phlebotomists. They live in the neighborhood surrounding Duke
where many former and current employees of DUMC reside. They tell stories of
an attempt to organize with the 1199 Hospital and Health Care Employees Union
five years ago. They contacted IVT registered nurses to get their support.
They say, "After all these years, it's still a plantation."

Talking with them reminded me of the book, *Caring by the Hour: Women, Work,
and Organizing at Duke Medical Center* by Karen Brodkin Sacks. I pulled it
off the shelf to refresh my memory of the story of race, class and gender and
union organizing at Duke over 20 years ago. Not much has changed. It's just
bigger.

Nurses United for Patient Advocacy (NUPA) will continue to sort out the
lessons from this first attempt at unionization. We're sure to continue
hearing from them. They have pledged to outlast the bosses that organized
against them.

Theresa El-Amin
Southern Anti-Racism Network
<www.projectsarn.org>

----------------------------------------

Unprecedented national nurses school outlines new, dynamic agenda

by Carl Bloice, The California Nurse

October, 2000

It was upbeat from the beginning. The nurses had come from as far away as
Maine, Oregon, Hawaii and Canada with a lot of things on their minds. The
first North American School for Nurse Activists and Patient Advocates is
where much of it came together.


The increasing inability to provide the quality of patient care for which
they had been trained and to which they devote their lives.

Hospital staffing reductions and spreading requirements for mandatory
overtime that leave nurses tired, frustrated and threaten the quality of
patient care.

The assault of corporate healthcare causing hospital closures, rapidly
increasing numbers of people without healthcare insurance, and the
undermining of community public health services.

From the evening of Sunday, September 17 through mid-morning on September 20,
individual nurses and representatives of nursing unions and associations
detailed for each other the problems they face in today's healthcare
environment. They explored and debated what actions they could take to
improve the situation. And, while full agreement did not emerge on all issues
discussed, the result of the gathering was a clear consensus that major
shifts are taking place in nursing and healthcare delivery and that staff
nurses are destined to play the major roll in shaping and leading the
organized response.

"I agree with everything I've heard,' a New England RN told one of the
breakout groups on the school's third day. "The corporations are sucking the
lifeblood out of our profession and healthcare in general. But there is one
thing that I think should be added and that is the effect of all of this on
our personal lives. There is not one RN that I know that has not had her
personal life negatively affected by all this. I know that what affects me
most is that I am not able to provide the quality of patient care that I
should. That weighs very heavily on me."

In another workshop, a participant said the whole situation she and those
with whom she works could be summed up in one word: "burnout." "Mandatory
overtimes is just killing us at the facility," she said. "Nurses are
exhausted, feeling frustrated and are experiencing accidents and injuries.
And, when that that happens, they put us on light duty because they find that
it is cheaper that doing anything about the situation." "We need to be
empowered," she continued. "We need to be able to say, 'This is wrong and
it's got to change'."

The venue for the school was the Claremont Hotel and Spa perched on the
hillside behind Berkeley, California. The windows and the terraces afforded
broad vistas of the San Francisco Bay and the surrounding area. The setting
was enhanced by three days of brilliant sunshine and warmth, rare for the
region most of the year but common enough at the beginning of fall.

Highlights of the school included a warm welcome from Jerry Brown, the mayor
of the adjacent city of Oakland, a pledge of support and offer of
collaboration from the United Steelworkers Union delivered by Kim Siegfried
and a moving and spirited Tuesday evening concert by renowned
singer-songwriter Holly Near.

The school was a gathering quite unlike national nurses meetings in the past.
While much of the time was devoted to lectures, discussion groups and a
sharing of experiences, most of those who came were attuned to the need to
also hold separate strategy sessions to at least begin the shaping of a
common national response to the crisis in nursing and healthcare.

A cheer went up from those in attendance at the opening session when Julie
Pinkham, director of Labor Relations for the Massachusetts Nurses
Association, said, "It's clear in my eyes that the leadership for nursing is
here in this room. Instead of waiting for others to take the lead, others who
are not going to do it, it is for us to do it because if we don't we are
going to witness the destruction of our profession."

One topic widely discussed during the course of the school was the proposal
that has been advanced by some participants to coalesce into a new national
nurses organization. Expressions of support for the idea came from
participants from some of the major nurse associations and most agreed to
continue the dialogue while striving for greater national coordination of
efforts by the various associations and unions.

Following the formal welcoming from CNA President Kay McVay, Pinkham and CNA
Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro made brief remarks following which
representatives of the nurses unions and associations spoke of the work of
their organizations, their views about the future of healthcare and the work
the groups could undertake together. Presentations were made by Karen
Higgins, RN, chair of the Massachusetts Nurses Association; Teri Evans, RN,
CEN, president of the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied
Professionals; Kathleen Conners, RN, President of the Canadian Federation of
Nurses Unions; Kathy Olson, RN, president of the Minnesota Nurses
Association, Linda McDonald, RN, vice-president of United Nurses and Allied
Professionals of Rhode Island; Candace Owley, RN, president of the Federation
of Nurses and Health Professionals (AFT); Linda Bingham, RN, New York State
Nurses Association, Susan Bianchi-Sand, director of United American Nurses
(ANA), Teresa Yee, RN, Hawaii Nurses Association; Linda Roberts, RN, program
director of the Economic and General Welfare section of the Illinois Nurses
Association and Bud Campbell, RN, chair of the Economic and General Welfare
Commission of the Maine Nurses Association.

School participants expressed considerable interest in the presentation on
healthcare restructuring delivered by Don DeMoro, director of the Institute
for Health & Socio Economic Policy. DeMoro spelled out in detail how the
evolution of the corporate model of healthcare has
impacted the ability of nurses to act as patient advocates. He also pointed
to an eminent new round of structural changes that will, if carried through,
have a further negative affect on nursing and patient services. "As the
public and private sectors are competing over these resources, including
enormous funds still held by public institutions, RNs must now more than ever
assert their needs and at the same time, the needs of their patients and
their communities," said DeMoro. "Otherwise, it will be the insurers,
financiers, pharmaceutical corporations and hospital chains who will command
the resources.

"It wasn't always this way. The resources that went into health care and the
responsibility for health care used to be substantially controlled by
communities. What has changed is that large corporations made a decision to
take-over health care. They called it inevitable, they called it a good idea
and they also called it restructuring."


A presentation entitled "CNA Landmark Legislative Victories" led Hedy Dumpel,
RN, CNA chief director of Nursing Practice and Patient Advocacy, produced a
lively workshop discussion of nursing and government relations. Speaking of
the unprecedented safe staffing law enacted last year in California, Dumpel
said, "Now our bill is out of the legislative arena and into the regulatory
arena. The State Department of Health Services (DHS) will implement the bill
and it's a fight there, too. The California Hospital Association and the
industry front CalNoc are trying to influence the setting of minimum ratios
as well as trying to redefine the various units. They are not interested in
ensuring that the law is both flexible. They do not want to allow for the
exercise of judgment by nurses."

Another highpoint of the school was a plenary addressed by labor consultant
Bob Muehlenkamp, former director of organizing for the Teamsters Union and
former head of healthcare union Local 1199 in New York, on responses to the
corporatization of healthcare. He drew the participants' attention to
hospital managements' increasing use of hardball anti-union consultants in an
effort to deny effective collective bargaining rights to healthcare workers.
In the discussion following Muehlenkamp's presentation, nurses from around
the country spoke of their experiences with union-busting firms. Special
mention was made of the Burke Group, which while the school was underway, had
employed an array of dirty tricks but was defeated in its attempt to thwart
RNs at Enloe Hospital in Chico, Ca. from affiliating with CNA.

In the end, the participants in the school had come together in an
exhilarating and hopeful atmosphere, benefited from the lectures and
instructions, shared knowledge, expressed to one another their hopes,
apprehensions and aspirations and, as nearly as can be determined, had a good
time. There appeared to be a clear consensus that there needs to be a united
national response to the crisis facing nursing and healthcare. Although no
firm organizational decisions were reached, there was general agreement to
act in common when possible, to continue the dialogue and consider
alternatives.

"It was highly informative," said a Boston RN. "The exchange of ideas of
nurses throughout the country was invaluable and the CNA did a wonderful job
as host. "Thanks, CNA, for giving us the forum to meet with nurses with the
same aspirations and hopes to give nursing back to staff nurses."

-----------------------------------------------

Web Directory:

Sandy's Links <http://users.rcn.com/wbumpus/sandy>
Massachusetts Nurses Association <http://www.massnurses.org>
District of Columbia Nurses Association <http://www.dcnaonline.com>
New York State Nurses Association <http://www.nysna.org>
California Nurses Association <http://www.califnurses.org>
Yes on Question 5 <http://www.question5.org>
Massachusetts Labor Party <http://www.masslaborparty.org>

-----------------------------------------------

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has
not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making
such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.