Kudos to the MNA-represented nurses at U. Mass/Memorial Medical Center in
Worcester for their successful negotiation and ratification of an excellent
new contract that, like their cross-town colleagues at St. Vincent
Hospital/Worcester Medical Center, includes strong language to limit
mandatory overtime, including the right to refuse overtime if they feel to
fatigued to safely care for their patients. Worcester has become ground zero
for a national movement to mobilize nurses to address the national staffing
crisis and the issue of mandatory overtime.

UMass/Memorial Medical Center Nurses Ratify Two Year Contract

Contract Includes Language to Limit Mandatory Overtime Similar to
that Won by St. Vincent Hosp. Nurses, As Well as Salary Hikes to
Make UMass Competitive With Other Facilities in Region

After more than 11 months of negotiations with hospital management over their
union contract, the registered nurses of U. Mass/Memorial Medical Center of
Worcester last night voted to ratify a new two-year pact that includes a
salary increases of between 12 – 25% depending on experience, as well as
language that grants the nurses the right to refuse mandatory overtime,
similar to the language negotiated last year by the nurses at St. Vincent
Hospital/Worcester Medical Center. The nurses at UMMMC, like the nurses at
St. Vincent Hospital, are represented by the Massachusetts Nurses Association.

Mandatory overtime, which has become the hot button issue for nurses across
the country, has been a major problem at UMMMC for more than three years.
This issue is well known to the Greater Worcester community following the
49-day strike in the city last year by the MNA-represented nurses at
Worcester Medical Center. The settlement that ended the strike has been
hailed as a model for health care facilities across the country.

"While the nursing community throughout the state and the nation continue to
struggle with the issue of forced overtime, the Massachusetts Nurses
Association is proud to have negotiated two contracts that make Worcester an
example for other communities across the country in dealing with this crucial
public health issue," said Julie Pinkham, RN, MNA executive director.

The nurses, whose contract expired on April 1,2000, have been negotiating
their new contract since April 24, 2000. A total of 24 negotiating sessions
were held with a tentative agreement reached on Feb. 27, 2001. The nurses at
UMMMC were adamant in their demand for strong language to deal with mandatory
overtime, as their facility assigned more mandatory overtime than any other
of the 85 facilities represented by the MNA. The new pact runs from April 1,
2000- April 2, 2002.

Mandatory Overtime Language

"Protection against mandatory overtime is essential in nursing today. Not
only is the practice dangerous for patients and nurses, it is a real
disincentive for young people to go into the profession," said Kate Maker,
chair of the UMMMC negotiating committee. "Hospital nurses routinely work
weekend, holidays and rotate shifts, why would someone go into a profession
that regularly forces 16 hour shifts with one or two hours notice. People
need to have control over their lives; they need to know that when their
shift is over they can continue on with daily lives. This language addresses
that problem by strictly limiting the amount of overtime, it forces the
hospital to work with us to address the underlying causes of the problem, and
it ultimately grants nurses the right to refuse overtime all together if he
or she feels too fatigued to work extra hours."

The overtime language in the new contract limits the amount of mandatory
overtime assigned to a nurse to no more than 4 hours for an 8-hour nurse and
no more than 2 hours for a nurse scheduled to work a 10-hour shift. Nurses
who work 12-hour shifts can never be mandated to work overtime. The contract
also limits the amount of times a nurse can be assigned overtime to 8 times
per year.

Most important of all, the mandatory overtime language includes a provision,
which grants every nurse the right to refuse a mandatory overtime assignment
if he or she feels to fatigued or ill to work safely.

The language calls upon the hospital to exercise its best effort to maintain
full staffing in order to prevent the need for mandatory overtime, and it
requires the hospital to carefully document each and every instance of
mandatory overtime, and to review those occurrences with a staffing committee
made up of unionized nurses and management. The goal of this process is to
limit the use of mandatory overtime and develop solutions to correct
conditions, such as inadequate staffing, that contribute to it. If the two
sides cannot agree on problems that arise, the language calls for the issues
to be presented for expedited arbitration.

UMMMC Bargaining Unit Vice Chair Kathy Logan was well aware of the problem of
mandatory overtime, as she was the union member charged with tracking the
problem. She credits her colleagues at St. Vincent Hospital for laying the
groundwork for this contract through their courage in conducting a successful
strike over this issue last year. "U.Mass has had one of the highest amounts
of forced overtime in the state. Last year I collected over 400 mandatory
overtime documents stating that nurses were forced to work above and beyond
their scheduled shifts. Many of these nurses worked 16 hours straight and had
to come back to work for the next day. Thanks to courage and the convictions
of our fellow nurses at St. Vincent's (Worcester Medical Center), we at
U.Mass have mandatory overtime language that limits the hours and amount of
time a nurse is forced to stay. We also have the ability to refuse if we do
not feel safe to work, and that is the main issue for our patients: it’s all
about safe patient care."

Salary Increases Needed to Recruit Staff in Wake of Shortage

The nurses also sought and received salary increases to bring their pay
scales up to par with other similar facilities. In the midst of a growing
nursing shortage, UMMMC was losing qualified nurses to other better-paying
facilities, which was exacerbating the staffing problems that underlie the
need for mandatory overtime.

The nurses contract calls for an across the board 4% salary increase
retroactive to April 1, 2000, another 4% increase effective April 1, 2001,
and another 4% increase in October. In addition, a new salary step has been
added to the nurses’ 9-step salary scale, which will grant the most
experienced nurses at the facility an additional 6.8% on April 1, 2001, and a
second new step of 6.8% on April 1, 2002. As a result, all nurses will
receive a minimum of 12% over the life of the contract, and nurses as the top
of the scale will receive a 25% increase.

The nurses are satisfied with the salary increases, but they still believe
there needs to be additional increases in the future if UMMMC is going to be
able to compete with other facilities of comparable size and sophistication.

The contract also contains important provisions granting nurses strong
seniority protections and broad bumping rights should there be a reduction in
force at the facility or future consolidation of services.

"We are pleased that we have finished this contract and that our patients and
our nurses will have protections that will improve the care delivered here,"
said Maker. "We also acknowledge the hospital’s willingness to recognize the
need to pay nurses what they need and deserve for the vital role they play in
this institution," Maker concluded.

David Schildmeier
Director of Public Communications
Massachusetts Nurses Association
800-882-2056 x717 (Within Mass. only)
781-830-5717
781-821-4445 (fax)
781-249-0430 (cell phone)
508-426-1655 (pager)

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

Letter to the Editor, Boston Globe

It is important that the devastating impacts of the Nurse Shortage on our
healthcare system are acknowledged and that we must seek solutions. (A
looming nursing crisis, J.L.Reinertsen, Fri. 3/15)

The Nurses of this state bear witness daily to the impacts of the shortage.
Medication errors can be directly linked to unsafe nurse staffing. Emergency
Room Diversions, which result in increased suffering and a recently reported
death, are the result, not of a lack of beds, but a lack of nurse-staffed
beds.

Mandatory overtime, which resulted in a strike at St. Vincent Hospital, as
well as considerable labor strife throughout the Commonwealth, exacts a cruel
toll on both patient and nurse.

As front-line nurses can best assess the cause of the problems due to their
daily experiences, so too are they the best able to identify the solutions.
In addition to the legislation sited in the recent Op-ed, the ultimate
solution to this crisis lies in passage of a Safe Staffing Bill introduced in
the Legislature, which would set minimum nurse-to-patient ratios that will
restore safety to our system.

If we do not deal with the staffing issue, all other measures are doomed to
fail - for we must not only bring nurses to the bedside but we must make it
personally, physically, mentally and professionally possible for them to
stay there.

Denise C. Garlick, RN
President
Massachusetts Nurses Association

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

President Kathleen Connors speaks out
Federation of nurses unions criticizes nurses association as "Wrong"

OTTAWA, Mar 13, 2001 (Canada NewsWire via COMTEX) -- Reacting to a union
contract that makes Alberta nurses the best paid in Canada, Canadian Nurses
Association President Ginette Lemire Rodger said that it could prompt a
migration of nurses. She also criticized making "settlements in isolation of
one to the other." Her comments were aired yesterday on CFRA Radio - Ottawa,
a member station in the CHUM Group.

"In yesterday's criticism of the contract negotiation process and of unions
by implication, the CNA President was wrong," said Canadian Federation of
Nurses Unions President Kathleen Connors.

"The only way to get nurses the wages they deserve is to negotiate good
contracts, just as the United Nurses of Alberta have done. The contract
concluded last week by UNA and Alberta's health employers will provide nurses
with wages equivalent to journeymen in the skilled trades, the highest wages
for nurses in Canada.

"The newly established wage level in Alberta is not the problem. Nurses are
caring, skilled and grossly overworked professionals who deserve that and
more. Further, if there is the possibility, as Roger worries, that nurses
might migrate to where wages better reflect their worth, then politicians
from Mike Harris in Ontario to Dr John Hamm in Nova Scotia to Ujjal Dosanjh
in British Columbia better take notice.

"Rodger implied that nurses aren't working together. That's just plain wrong
again. Through nursing unions and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions,
nurses are working together.

"The CNA has never negotiated a raise in wages or benefits for nurses. If it
was left up to negotiating with health care employers as individuals, nurses
would still be back in the dark ages when the privilege of nursing alone was
supposed to be enough compensation.

"In the future the CNA, a federation of nurse licensing bodies, should be
more prudent in its comments," Connors concluded.

CONTACT: For further information: Tom O'Brien, 613-526-4661, Cell:
613-294-3592

News release via Canada NewsWire, Ottawa 613-563-4465

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

Forwarded Message:

Subj: A UAN Dilemma: Conditions Under the Arizona Nurses Association
Date: Monday, March 12, 2001 4:06:49 PM
From: TucsonSoundOff
To:
dlwa@ana.org, mnnurses@mnnurses.org, info@nysna.org,
execoffice@calnurses.org, mna@mnarn.org, MAINENURSE, info@hawaiinurses.org,
Marlaazna

March 12, 2001

Cheryl Johnson, Chairperson
United American Nurses
600 Maryland Ave, SW
Suite 100 West
Washington, D.C. 20024

Dear Ms. Johnson:

I am a registered nurse in Tucson, Arizona and have been an intermittent
member of the American Nurses Association over the last 26 years of my
nursing career. As a current member of ANA and a dissident member of the
Arizona Nurses Association, I am writing to inform you about conditions that
exist here in Arizona in relation to AzNA's position on collective
bargaining. Unfortunately, these conditions have convinced me that UAN/ANA is
not a viable option for nurses seeking union representation because of the
inherent conflicts of interest that exist between the needs of staff nurses,
nurse executives, educators and the healthcare industrial complex. It is with
much regret that I take this position because of the excellent staff-nurse
representation provided by many of the collective-bargaining CMAs and the
goodwill displayed in forming UAN.

Approximately 2 years ago I re-joined ANA through the Arizona Nurses
Association in order to advance collective bargaining and other pro-active
programs. My own experiences in Arizona had convinced me that nurses cannot
vigorously advocate for themselves or their patients, inside or outside their
place of employment, without contract protection from unjust termination. I
therefore consider collective bargaining an essential tool in the "arsenal"
that bedsides nurses must now possess in order to protect their practice and
patients from profit-motivated predation.

AzNA, however, has blocked every effort I have made to communicate with
nurses on this issue at the state and chapter level. For example, AzNA's
board of directors denied permission for the distribution of flyers for a
discussion on workplace issues, collective bargaining and unionization at the
last state convention. Mention of collective bargaining was edited out of the
November 2000 AzNA newsletter report ("Health Care and Chaos?") on a
discussion focused on remedies for recruitment and retention of nurses. Most
recently, the board of directors of the Tucson chapter of AzNA blocked
further development of a forum on collective bargaining - a project on which
I had worked with them since last September. (Because of leadership and
participation issues, the Tucson-chapter board has coincidentally chosen to
explore the option of dissolving the chapter.)

These are only some of the experiences of only one individual member. I
imagine that over the years many staff nurses have approached AzNA with an
interest in collective bargaining only to be similarly isolated, contained
and censored or diverted toward the association's professional advocacy
initiative. There is currently a very courageous and vocal Phoenix-based AzNA
member, Steve Lee, who is also struggling with the association on this and
other issues. At the national level, AzNA leadership probably projects the
impression that there is little indigenous interest in collective bargaining
here in Arizona. This is a gross misrepresentation since the compounding
factors of isolation, containment, censorship, fear and resultant low
staff-nurse membership in AzNA distort the association's voice.

AzNA's behavior in regard to collective bargaining only serves to reinforce
the fear and intimidation around this issue that exists for nurses and other
healthcare workers in Arizona. Staff nurses here cannot even feel safe
voicing their interest in collective bargaining within their own professional
organization. AzNA does not need to provide or even support collective
bargaining, but it does have an ethical obligation to support freedom of
speech and association and at least make it safer for nurses to pursue their
legal and human right to organize and bargain collectively if they so choose.

Unfortunately, one has to wonder if the local healthcare industrial complex
thoroughly controls the agenda of the Arizona Nurses Association via the
nurse executives and even some educators that make up the majority
membership. Tragically, some positions taken on collective bargaining in
these groups may also be heavily influenced by potential endangerment of
career and economic security. Undoubtedly there are sympathetic nurse
executives and educators who covertly support the essential protection that
collective ba