That's not how that works. Like at all. Hospitals carry insurance against labor issues. The nurses and technicians who do strike work are all totally qualified to provide care.
They are totally devoid of all the things a dedicated staff has though. Familiarity with the other staff, facility, local population and shortcomings of fellow nurses. Its most likely a diminished product.
In an actual example of a union being cancer on an industry, California Nurses Association. Want to see a group lobby for expanded Medicare and one tier insurance for every Californian and then go on strike when they're asked to use it instead of an insane legacy plan that hasn't been reasonable since Reagan?
Want me to give up my negotiated medical benefits that my union took in lieu of other compensation? If the new ones are more comprehensive, sure. If not, pay me.
How about trying to remove career nurses who didn't get a BSN? Get rid of LPNs?
Pushing for higher education standards which should be met with better compensation and increasing positions in the job title you represent thus creating a better job market. Why should the union shy from either of those things in an increasingly corporate healthcare industry?
There are actually very good arguments to be made against professional unions. Trade unions are an amazing resource that we should all support. Unions for people with advanced degrees? I'm not so sure.
People listened to this argument and agreed for sixty years and now you need a bachelors degree to answer phones, get the humans coffee and have your boss fart on you twice a day. Blue collar unionized work is mostly relegated to public sector jobs and Republicans have been winning elections on a platform of screwing us and breaching our contracts because everyone else is bitter that they do not have a forty hour workweek anymore.
Lets try the thing where millionaires and billionaires see their bank accounts and retirement prospects shrink for the next sixty years and call it a wash.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I wasn't aware Manitoba, Canada was a part of the United States and shared our healthcare system.
I wasn't aware that I was American either!
(I'm pretty sure New York is though! So you're going to have to keep trying to find irrelevant vectors on which to sustain your rabidly ideological anti-union attacks!)
Pretending strike nurses aren't skilled nurses is ridiculous. It's ignorance of the entire industry.
If you came to my current hospital needing an appendectomy. There's a 20% chance right this second you'd get care from both a travel nurse AND scrub tech. All six I work with are very competent and also do strike work when necessary.
Edit: That's just in surgery. Who knows what kind of shiftless unqualified devil would check you in at triage down in the ER or see you in Pre-op/PACU or on the floor.
Pretending strike nurses aren't skilled nurses is ridiculous. It's ignorance of the entire industry.
If you came to my current hospital needing an appendectomy. There's a 20% chance right this second you'd get care from both a travel nurse AND scrub tech. All six I work with are very competent and also do strike work when necessary.
Edit: That's just in surgery. Who knows what kind of shiftless unqualified devil would check you in at triage down in the ER or see you in Pre-op/PACU or on the floor.
It's unlike literally every other industry.
The previous study does seem to indicate that there is a difference, though, which is weighted a bit stronger than your insistence that there's no difference. Do you have any studies that show otherwise? Cause if it's your word vs science, that's not super balanced
I'll happily read more about the study. It reads as though it was simulated for some pretty specific criteria comparing 16 months to 31 days. I don't know anything about Canada but there are patient nurse ratios mandated and the idea of a hospital in United States having a physician forego a C-section for the stated reason in what appears to be a simulation is weird.
Travellers do tend to have a bigger variety of skills and are usually (edit)compensated better than average.
It appears that hospitals are hesitant to discuss whether they used strike replacement labor. Outcomes do go down during strikes, but of the hospitals in the study only 13 admitted to using outside nurses. The hospitals that did use outside nurses did not do better than those that did not, but they also did not reduce the number of patients being admitted. Those that did not hire replacements reduced the number of patients significantly. So nurses strikes impact outcomes, and I could be reading it wrong but it sounds like replacement workers didn't really factor in at all.
Even analysis of the study by a few of the articles I'm reading says replacement nurses are qualified, though unfamiliarity with the facility can impact care (supply locations were specifically mentioned)
I'd be interested in reading a study of current hospital outcomes that use replacement nurses, as the practice wasn't common before the mid-late 90's and the study pulls data from the early 80's onward.
Dude we expressly need unionization for degreed work.
Software development immediately comes to mind.
They are essentially the new factory workers, and they are expected to do 80 hour weeks, without any kind of overtime or compensation, to make up for managerial malfeasance and incompetence. With their job constantly under threat and no control over if they are replaced by outsourced labor or straight up robots at a moments notice.
Unions are almost always beneficial as otherwise there is no power in the hands of the workers and the owners get to do whatever they like regardless of the fact that their wealth is born on the backs of the workers.
It is why almost every business owner stamps out even the mere mention of unionization. Because it will force their hand to not be a complete shit to their workers.
It turns out that an agglomeration of labour capacity and knowledge has greater leverage in a negotiation than an individual in that agglomeration.
You know, like an organization in capitalism.
You'd think strictly on those lines even the hyperbolically capitalistic who are employees in non-executive positions would recognize that it's an optimal decision.
It turns out that an agglomeration of labour capacity and knowledge has greater leverage in a negotiation than an individual in that agglomeration.
You know, like an organization in capitalism.
You'd think strictly on those lines even the hyperbolically capitalistic who are employees in non-executive positions would recognize that it's an optimal decision.
The problem is people haven't been taught to think that way. People have been taught that 1. Unions are a relic of the past or 2. Laughably corrupt and/or there to get in the way of business when in fact unions built an equitable working world at the start of the 20th century. Something the upper class of society has chafed at and worked to undo for the last 50-60 years and have largely succeeded at that goal.
What needs to be done is we need to have a modern industry unionize and remind people that while they have the money, ultimately the workers have the power when they exercise it. All the money in the world won't do shit if no one will make anything for you for that money.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Honestly, I would love it if one of the non-asshole wealthy people, for example Warren Buffett sponsored a whole workforce at a plant where they can't be quickly replaced to strike long that the owner ends up taking financial damage. We have a bunch of shitheads with money in this country that don't care about others, feel they are god's gift to mankind and feel they are running a charity when they hire people. These fuckers need to be reminded that they don't make a fucking penny without having someone else do the work for them.
It turns out that an agglomeration of labour capacity and knowledge has greater leverage in a negotiation than an individual in that agglomeration.
You know, like an organization in capitalism.
You'd think strictly on those lines even the hyperbolically capitalistic who are employees in non-executive positions would recognize that it's an optimal decision.
The problem is people haven't been taught to think that way. People have been taught that 1. Unions are a relic of the past or 2. Laughably corrupt and/or there to get in the way of business when in fact unions built an equitable working world at the start of the 20th century. Something the upper class of society has chafed at and worked to undo for the last 50-60 years and have largely succeeded at that goal.
What needs to be done is we need to have a modern industry unionize and remind people that while they have the money, ultimately the workers have the power when they exercise it. All the money in the world won't do shit if no one will make anything for you for that money.
I'd actually like to see some newer unions form as well. Many of the unions don't necessarily traditionally have experience representing the workers in some fields. Someone who works in a sterile processing facility isn't really the same as someone who works in a Safeway as a florist. There are a good number of brand new industries and industries that have changed enough that new/different representation would be beneficial. One of the chief complaints people have about unions is that the people who are running things have either never done the jobs of the people they represent, or haven't done it in decades. I've seen a few new unions pop up which were sponsored by older unions and the employees represented seem way happier about it and more involved. Like CHEU. Some of these people were formally part of SEIU and it was kind of awful. (I was one of these people). Big weirdly dysfunctional union CNA actually did a good thing there.
More news like that would be encouraging.
Edit: Unfortunately, many unions are just as awful to one another as the employers they're bargaining with. Union members are a hot commodity and a source of income, there are lots of stories about unions actually interfering with each others efforts to unionize. Ohio nurses had such a thing recently. I'm currently a member of OFNHP and they seem to do things right. Part of hospital orientation is half a day meeting your union representatives and going over how collective bargaining works, along with discussing the national and regional contracts and when they will be up again. It's pretty important that you have access to the people who represent you beyond just stewards, so our contract specialists still work in the department for 4 days a month doing their normal jobs which helps a lot.
Edit: Unfortunately, many unions are just as awful to one another as the employers they're bargaining with. Union members are a hot commodity and a source of income, there are lots of stories about unions actually interfering with each others efforts to unionize. Ohio nurses had such a thing recently.
That reminds of the fractured unions in Hollywood, who almost always get successfully turned against each other by the Producers Guild of America when negotiations come up. Rather than learning from the past and maintaining a solid front they continually get divided and conquered.
Edit: Unfortunately, many unions are just as awful to one another as the employers they're bargaining with. Union members are a hot commodity and a source of income, there are lots of stories about unions actually interfering with each others efforts to unionize. Ohio nurses had such a thing recently.
That reminds of the fractured unions in Hollywood, who almost always get successfully turned against each other by the Producers Guild of America when negotiations come up. Rather than learning from the past and maintaining a solid front they continually get divided and conquered.
It's right there in the title. "Union" not "50 disparate groups that try to fuck each other over to get theirs" If they could coordinate that shit, it could've/could lead to some actual change going down.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Edit: Unfortunately, many unions are just as awful to one another as the employers they're bargaining with. Union members are a hot commodity and a source of income, there are lots of stories about unions actually interfering with each others efforts to unionize. Ohio nurses had such a thing recently.
That reminds of the fractured unions in Hollywood, who almost always get successfully turned against each other by the Producers Guild of America when negotiations come up. Rather than learning from the past and maintaining a solid front they continually get divided and conquered.
It's right there in the title. "Union" not "50 disparate groups that try to fuck each other over to get theirs" If they could coordinate that shit, it could've/could lead to some actual change going down.
Primary issue is in the case of organizing new markets and employers every union is definitely interested first in expanded membership and second in whether the members goals and industry align within their current scope.
My opinion is that we need more unions of modest size which are aligned with one another. When it becomes a career ladder to climb, what happens in every workplace with people jostling for promotions ends out taking the focus off employees. In some cases just having a good "local" is enough for things to stay attached to the workers.
It's really hard to want unions specifically to be political. Most of the laws protecting workers are a result of their efforts but many devote substantial energy and finance to things I find questionable. The reputation suffers from the perception of being a corrupt political tool instead of advocate for workers rights because recent history has had some strange interactions between the politics of government and the internal politics of union money and endorsement. If you're paying 150$ a month and your union endorses someone no one likes, it feels like you're a victim of extortion. Most of the time you can pay representative dues and not any of the political donation/activity dues, but never by default and they definitely won't tell you about it.
Obfuscation of the process isn't our ally. Though I've met stewards who think the title gives them leave to act like God Kings and shit stirrers to be wary, I don't think they're all that way.
It leaves employees in a bind and I'm not sure how to fix it.
Also when we left SEIU for CHEU the old SEIU stewards were fucking furious. It was the most enjoyable part of it. Watching people who thought they were made men lose something that was never intended to be a vestment of power.
We need more unions. We probably do need them to look into a setup that prevents a bunch of ugly personal conflicts from interfering with the unions' goals. One of those might be that we need more local unions that then use regional, interstate and national liaisons. People are just going to have to accept that there is a certain amount of politics that happen anywhere you go (I mean if your family argues over whether or not someone is allowed to get Hawaiian pizza for dinner, that is more or less politics right there since your family unit is debating policy over what's for dinner). In order to be effective unions do have to engage with politicians because that's what every business does to get an edge. If you don't engage with politicians, then you can't head off efforts that businesses will employ their political connections to undermine union efforts. "Right to work," which is really right to fire, came about because scummy businesses wanted to weaken unions and get workers to think the law would help them.
We need more unions. We probably do need them to look into a setup that prevents a bunch of ugly personal conflicts from interfering with the unions' goals. One of those might be that we need more local unions that then use regional, interstate and national liaisons. People are just going to have to accept that there is a certain amount of politics that happen anywhere you go (I mean if your family argues over whether or not someone is allowed to get Hawaiian pizza for dinner, that is more or less politics right there since your family unit is debating policy over what's for dinner). In order to be effective unions do have to engage with politicians because that's what every business does to get an edge. If you don't engage with politicians, then you can't head off efforts that businesses will employ their political connections to undermine union efforts. "Right to work," which is really right to fire, came about because scummy businesses wanted to weaken unions and get workers to think the law would help them.
I think knowledge of the fact that you can pay only representational dues and opt out of the political donation fund may be beneficial to prevent right to work from spreading. I'm not sure whether all unions offer it, but it did blunt some complaints I've heard. It's known as being an agency fee payer and while it does not give you full membership it still requires the union represent you in labor dealings, contract negotiations and such. It's not perfect but it does fund improvements to working conditions and payscale. It is certainly preferable to being in a right to work state.
Pretending strike nurses aren't skilled nurses is ridiculous. It's ignorance of the entire industry.
No one is saying that.
Imagine your current job. Tomorrow you'll do same job, except it's completely different building, with different co-workers and different work-culture. Also tools/supplies you use are similar, but not exactly same.
Are you honestly saying you would be 100% as good on your first week as you were on the last job of 5 years?
jammu on
+1
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
“We originally wanted to strike professionally — not blocking the service entrance, not engaging with customers unless we were engaged first, only picketing the front of the store,” said John Bisbikis, a service technician. “And that’s how we started until provoked with letters and salesmen driving on the sidewalks at us.”
It's really hard to want unions specifically to be political. Most of the laws protecting workers are a result of their efforts but many devote substantial energy and finance to things I find questionable. The reputation suffers from the perception of being a corrupt political tool instead of advocate for workers rights because recent history has had some strange interactions between the politics of government and the internal politics of union money and endorsement. If you're paying 150$ a month and your union endorses someone no one likes, it feels like you're a victim of extortion. Most of the time you can pay representative dues and not any of the political donation/activity dues, but never by default and they definitely won't tell you about it.
Unions have to be political by their very nature - the things they fight for are governed ultimately by laws, so choosing to be apolitical is tantamount to disarmament. The problem is with the "hardhats" - socially conservative union members who would rather vote for the guy who appeals to their social position, even though he also wants to undermine their position as workers.
“We originally wanted to strike professionally — not blocking the service entrance, not engaging with customers unless we were engaged first, only picketing the front of the store,” said John Bisbikis, a service technician. “And that’s how we started until provoked with letters and salesmen driving on the sidewalks at us.”
STRIKE STRIKE
Even though I am "the man," sometimes a strike is necessary, and also they (the company) seam like colossal dick heads, who are probably violating labor laws in regards to unions and striking.
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
That definitely would trash the industry.
As always, perhaps the industry should be trashed if it can't survive without working people to death 24/7.
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
That definitely would trash the industry.
As always, perhaps the industry should be trashed if it can't survive without working people to death 24/7.
It's really not doing that though. And suggesting that the technology industry should be trashed is pretty goddamn bloodthirsty.
I prefer to feed my family even if I have to work 50 and get paid for 40. You go trash your own industry if that's the best you have to offer.
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
That definitely would trash the industry.
As always, perhaps the industry should be trashed if it can't survive without working people to death 24/7.
It's really not doing that though. And suggesting that the technology industry should be trashed is pretty goddamn bloodthirsty.
I prefer to feed my family even if I have to work 50 and get paid for 40. You go trash your own industry if that's the best you have to offer.
"trash the industry" rhetoric aside I don't think you could argue that the burden and relationship between labor and capitol is particularly fair in said industry right now.
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
That definitely would trash the industry.
As always, perhaps the industry should be trashed if it can't survive without working people to death 24/7.
It's really not doing that though. And suggesting that the technology industry should be trashed is pretty goddamn bloodthirsty.
I prefer to feed my family even if I have to work 50 and get paid for 40. You go trash your own industry if that's the best you have to offer.
Ultimately that attitude gets you working 55..60..70..80..and still paid for 40.
I don't think the culture as it is could survive but I don't think the industry would nessasrily be worse off after.
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
That definitely would trash the industry.
As always, perhaps the industry should be trashed if it can't survive without working people to death 24/7.
It's really not doing that though. And suggesting that the technology industry should be trashed is pretty goddamn bloodthirsty.
I prefer to feed my family even if I have to work 50 and get paid for 40. You go trash your own industry if that's the best you have to offer.
But, wouldn't it be better if you worked the 50 and got paid the 50 as well? I mean, wouldn't that be a better outcome for you, your family, and your employer?
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
That definitely would trash the industry.
As always, perhaps the industry should be trashed if it can't survive without working people to death 24/7.
It's really not doing that though. And suggesting that the technology industry should be trashed is pretty goddamn bloodthirsty.
I prefer to feed my family even if I have to work 50 and get paid for 40. You go trash your own industry if that's the best you have to offer.
But, wouldn't it be better if you worked the 50 and got paid the 50 as well? I mean, wouldn't that be a better outcome for you, your family, and your employer?
Definitely not for the employer. They'd rather pay 37 hours and no benefits and get 80 hours of work, because you're a replaceable cog.
The problem is Engineering culture is such that you're taught that you're the smart guy in the room, and most behaviors that would be debilitating in other fields are not punished or sometimes even incentivized because of an individual's skills. This definitely leads to "fuck you, got mine" dynamics that management loves to encourage.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
That definitely would trash the industry.
As always, perhaps the industry should be trashed if it can't survive without working people to death 24/7.
It's really not doing that though. And suggesting that the technology industry should be trashed is pretty goddamn bloodthirsty.
I prefer to feed my family even if I have to work 50 and get paid for 40. You go trash your own industry if that's the best you have to offer.
But, wouldn't it be better if you worked the 50 and got paid the 50 as well? I mean, wouldn't that be a better outcome for you, your family, and your employer?
Definitely not for the employer. They'd rather pay 37 hours and no benefits and get 80 hours of work, because you're a replaceable cog.
They may think that's a good deal, but overwork cuts productivity pretty badly is my understanding.
I will never understand getting paid for 40 but working more.
Never.
The majority of professional jobs aren't paid for 40 hours of work in a week. Software engineers and lawyers in Big Law, as an extreme example, are highly compensated because there is an expectation that you will work more than 40 hours per week when it's required. As @Polarite pointed out there is scientific evidence that this isnt a good trade for either the company or the individual, but that's somewhat separate.
I will never understand getting paid for 40 but working more.
Never.
The majority of professional jobs aren't paid for 40 hours of work in a week. Software engineers and lawyers in Big Law, as an extreme example, are highly compensated because there is an expectation that you will work more than 40 hours per week when it's required. As @Polarite pointed out there is scientific evidence that this isnt a good trade for either the company or the individual, but that's somewhat separate.
That all depends where you work to the point where saying it's "the majority of professional jobs" is ridiculous. There's tons of, say, software engineering jobs where huge crunch time bullshit hours are not a thing. It's specific to certain regions and parts of the industry only and mostly just exploitation by the employers when they are allowed rather then an assumed part of the pay structure. I mean, the games industry is notorious for this shit and it's not happening because those people are so well compensated. Shit, the government employs a ridiculous number of professionals, by either definition of the term, and if there's one thing you know about white collar government work it's that everything is clocked.
Posts
They are totally devoid of all the things a dedicated staff has though. Familiarity with the other staff, facility, local population and shortcomings of fellow nurses. Its most likely a diminished product.
Want me to give up my negotiated medical benefits that my union took in lieu of other compensation? If the new ones are more comprehensive, sure. If not, pay me.
Pushing for higher education standards which should be met with better compensation and increasing positions in the job title you represent thus creating a better job market. Why should the union shy from either of those things in an increasingly corporate healthcare industry?
People listened to this argument and agreed for sixty years and now you need a bachelors degree to answer phones, get the humans coffee and have your boss fart on you twice a day. Blue collar unionized work is mostly relegated to public sector jobs and Republicans have been winning elections on a platform of screwing us and breaching our contracts because everyone else is bitter that they do not have a forty hour workweek anymore.
Lets try the thing where millionaires and billionaires see their bank accounts and retirement prospects shrink for the next sixty years and call it a wash.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I wasn't aware that I was American either!
(I'm pretty sure New York is though! So you're going to have to keep trying to find irrelevant vectors on which to sustain your rabidly ideological anti-union attacks!)
I actually enjoy being in a union, in a hospital. I've been in several at several hospitals and have even seen them voted out for good reasons.
Pretending all unions are infallible is strange.
That would be strange. Less strange, though, than pretending that other people are pretending that all unions are infallible.
Pretending strike nurses aren't skilled nurses is ridiculous. It's ignorance of the entire industry.
If you came to my current hospital needing an appendectomy. There's a 20% chance right this second you'd get care from both a travel nurse AND scrub tech. All six I work with are very competent and also do strike work when necessary.
Edit: That's just in surgery. Who knows what kind of shiftless unqualified devil would check you in at triage down in the ER or see you in Pre-op/PACU or on the floor.
It's unlike literally every other industry.
The previous study does seem to indicate that there is a difference, though, which is weighted a bit stronger than your insistence that there's no difference. Do you have any studies that show otherwise? Cause if it's your word vs science, that's not super balanced
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Travellers do tend to have a bigger variety of skills and are usually (edit)compensated better than average.
It appears that hospitals are hesitant to discuss whether they used strike replacement labor. Outcomes do go down during strikes, but of the hospitals in the study only 13 admitted to using outside nurses. The hospitals that did use outside nurses did not do better than those that did not, but they also did not reduce the number of patients being admitted. Those that did not hire replacements reduced the number of patients significantly. So nurses strikes impact outcomes, and I could be reading it wrong but it sounds like replacement workers didn't really factor in at all.
Even analysis of the study by a few of the articles I'm reading says replacement nurses are qualified, though unfamiliarity with the facility can impact care (supply locations were specifically mentioned)
I'd be interested in reading a study of current hospital outcomes that use replacement nurses, as the practice wasn't common before the mid-late 90's and the study pulls data from the early 80's onward.
It's "Some unions might need to get their shit together then"
Much like the answer to certain parts of government having issues isn't "Fuck it let's burn it all down who wants to form a tea party?"
Software development immediately comes to mind.
They are essentially the new factory workers, and they are expected to do 80 hour weeks, without any kind of overtime or compensation, to make up for managerial malfeasance and incompetence. With their job constantly under threat and no control over if they are replaced by outsourced labor or straight up robots at a moments notice.
Unions are almost always beneficial as otherwise there is no power in the hands of the workers and the owners get to do whatever they like regardless of the fact that their wealth is born on the backs of the workers.
It is why almost every business owner stamps out even the mere mention of unionization. Because it will force their hand to not be a complete shit to their workers.
You know, like an organization in capitalism.
You'd think strictly on those lines even the hyperbolically capitalistic who are employees in non-executive positions would recognize that it's an optimal decision.
The problem is people haven't been taught to think that way. People have been taught that 1. Unions are a relic of the past or 2. Laughably corrupt and/or there to get in the way of business when in fact unions built an equitable working world at the start of the 20th century. Something the upper class of society has chafed at and worked to undo for the last 50-60 years and have largely succeeded at that goal.
What needs to be done is we need to have a modern industry unionize and remind people that while they have the money, ultimately the workers have the power when they exercise it. All the money in the world won't do shit if no one will make anything for you for that money.
I'd actually like to see some newer unions form as well. Many of the unions don't necessarily traditionally have experience representing the workers in some fields. Someone who works in a sterile processing facility isn't really the same as someone who works in a Safeway as a florist. There are a good number of brand new industries and industries that have changed enough that new/different representation would be beneficial. One of the chief complaints people have about unions is that the people who are running things have either never done the jobs of the people they represent, or haven't done it in decades. I've seen a few new unions pop up which were sponsored by older unions and the employees represented seem way happier about it and more involved. Like CHEU. Some of these people were formally part of SEIU and it was kind of awful. (I was one of these people). Big weirdly dysfunctional union CNA actually did a good thing there.
More news like that would be encouraging.
Edit: Unfortunately, many unions are just as awful to one another as the employers they're bargaining with. Union members are a hot commodity and a source of income, there are lots of stories about unions actually interfering with each others efforts to unionize. Ohio nurses had such a thing recently. I'm currently a member of OFNHP and they seem to do things right. Part of hospital orientation is half a day meeting your union representatives and going over how collective bargaining works, along with discussing the national and regional contracts and when they will be up again. It's pretty important that you have access to the people who represent you beyond just stewards, so our contract specialists still work in the department for 4 days a month doing their normal jobs which helps a lot.
That reminds of the fractured unions in Hollywood, who almost always get successfully turned against each other by the Producers Guild of America when negotiations come up. Rather than learning from the past and maintaining a solid front they continually get divided and conquered.
It's right there in the title. "Union" not "50 disparate groups that try to fuck each other over to get theirs" If they could coordinate that shit, it could've/could lead to some actual change going down.
Primary issue is in the case of organizing new markets and employers every union is definitely interested first in expanded membership and second in whether the members goals and industry align within their current scope.
My opinion is that we need more unions of modest size which are aligned with one another. When it becomes a career ladder to climb, what happens in every workplace with people jostling for promotions ends out taking the focus off employees. In some cases just having a good "local" is enough for things to stay attached to the workers.
It's really hard to want unions specifically to be political. Most of the laws protecting workers are a result of their efforts but many devote substantial energy and finance to things I find questionable. The reputation suffers from the perception of being a corrupt political tool instead of advocate for workers rights because recent history has had some strange interactions between the politics of government and the internal politics of union money and endorsement. If you're paying 150$ a month and your union endorses someone no one likes, it feels like you're a victim of extortion. Most of the time you can pay representative dues and not any of the political donation/activity dues, but never by default and they definitely won't tell you about it.
Obfuscation of the process isn't our ally. Though I've met stewards who think the title gives them leave to act like God Kings and shit stirrers to be wary, I don't think they're all that way.
It leaves employees in a bind and I'm not sure how to fix it.
Also when we left SEIU for CHEU the old SEIU stewards were fucking furious. It was the most enjoyable part of it. Watching people who thought they were made men lose something that was never intended to be a vestment of power.
I think knowledge of the fact that you can pay only representational dues and opt out of the political donation fund may be beneficial to prevent right to work from spreading. I'm not sure whether all unions offer it, but it did blunt some complaints I've heard. It's known as being an agency fee payer and while it does not give you full membership it still requires the union represent you in labor dealings, contract negotiations and such. It's not perfect but it does fund improvements to working conditions and payscale. It is certainly preferable to being in a right to work state.
No one is saying that.
Imagine your current job. Tomorrow you'll do same job, except it's completely different building, with different co-workers and different work-culture. Also tools/supplies you use are similar, but not exactly same.
Are you honestly saying you would be 100% as good on your first week as you were on the last job of 5 years?
Unions have to be political by their very nature - the things they fight for are governed ultimately by laws, so choosing to be apolitical is tantamount to disarmament. The problem is with the "hardhats" - socially conservative union members who would rather vote for the guy who appeals to their social position, even though he also wants to undermine their position as workers.
Even though I am "the man," sometimes a strike is necessary, and also they (the company) seam like colossal dick heads, who are probably violating labor laws in regards to unions and striking.
I wish people in my field didn't hate unions. I'd like to not work 9 hour days with unpaid lunch and no breaks so 9.5 hour days. Engineers are dumb
See: that "booooooo, diversity" screed by a Google Engineer going around the 'net at the moment.
If engineers figured out how to successfully unionize, Silicon Valley would be turbofucked overnight. (And as we go on, I'm not 100% certain that's a bad thing)
That definitely would trash the industry.
As always, perhaps the industry should be trashed if it can't survive without working people to death 24/7.
It's really not doing that though. And suggesting that the technology industry should be trashed is pretty goddamn bloodthirsty.
I prefer to feed my family even if I have to work 50 and get paid for 40. You go trash your own industry if that's the best you have to offer.
"trash the industry" rhetoric aside I don't think you could argue that the burden and relationship between labor and capitol is particularly fair in said industry right now.
Ultimately that attitude gets you working 55..60..70..80..and still paid for 40.
I don't think the culture as it is could survive but I don't think the industry would nessasrily be worse off after.
Never.
Pushed further I'll never understand treating your relationship with your employer as anything better than cordially oppositional.
But, wouldn't it be better if you worked the 50 and got paid the 50 as well? I mean, wouldn't that be a better outcome for you, your family, and your employer?
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Definitely not for the employer. They'd rather pay 37 hours and no benefits and get 80 hours of work, because you're a replaceable cog.
They may think that's a good deal, but overwork cuts productivity pretty badly is my understanding.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The majority of professional jobs aren't paid for 40 hours of work in a week. Software engineers and lawyers in Big Law, as an extreme example, are highly compensated because there is an expectation that you will work more than 40 hours per week when it's required. As @Polarite pointed out there is scientific evidence that this isnt a good trade for either the company or the individual, but that's somewhat separate.
That all depends where you work to the point where saying it's "the majority of professional jobs" is ridiculous. There's tons of, say, software engineering jobs where huge crunch time bullshit hours are not a thing. It's specific to certain regions and parts of the industry only and mostly just exploitation by the employers when they are allowed rather then an assumed part of the pay structure. I mean, the games industry is notorious for this shit and it's not happening because those people are so well compensated. Shit, the government employs a ridiculous number of professionals, by either definition of the term, and if there's one thing you know about white collar government work it's that everything is clocked.