- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trigger Warning: UMC nurses in NO vote to unionize
Posted on 12/11/23 at 3:24 pm to wackatimesthree
Posted on 12/11/23 at 3:24 pm to wackatimesthree
If there is a shortage and they need them then the jobseeker should conceivably have the upper hand, right?
3
Posted on 12/11/23 at 3:43 pm to KiwiHead
quote:You're assuming market forces?
If there is a shortage and they need them then the jobseeker should conceivably have the upper hand, right?
Healthcare is not marketforce driven. Healthcare reimbursement is fixed.
Hospitals can hire fewer low quality RN temps at equal or higher pay, then flex them off prn, quality be damned. "Costs" (money not lives) are saved, and Admin bonuses escalate.
Problematically, med reimbursement is not quality based. If doctor's orders are for a patient to be turned Q 3hrs, and the Locum Filipino RN hiree ignores the order, often nothing happens ... except of course for the patient, who develops a decubitus ulcer ... which can be a painful death sentence. Meanwhile, patients still seek care at the facility because RN quality deficit is opaque, or poorly understood, until it's too late.
Until reimbursement is permanent-staff based, and RN ratio based, unionization is a reasonable interventional option.
Posted on 12/11/23 at 3:59 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
If there is a shortage and they need them then the jobseeker should conceivably have the upper hand, right?
Yeah, except that depending on who you ask, the nursing shortage isn't a true shortage.
Hospitals routinely understaff these days and nurses end up getting the biggest shaft from that practice. Someone mentioned nurses making $90k+ earlier and he may be right, but I don't think pay is the biggest gripe—not from most locales, anyway (nursing compensation varies widely depending upon where we're talking about).
It's not the big gripe I hear from nurses, anyway. The big gripe I hear is that they need 20 nurses on a floor to do everything they are required to do, but the hospital only keeps 15 on staff.
So there are actually plenty of nurses available to do the jobs, but the hospitals don't hire enough and more and more nurses are getting fed up with being overworked and part of a team that is understaffed.
Notice that not once have I said on this thread that I don't think nurses have any legitimate gripes. They probably do.
But I think the practical reality of the situation prevents unions from being a true answer, and I think (know) that no matter how much the CEO of the hospital makes, it has no impact on nurses' salaries, etc.
Posted on 12/14/23 at 4:20 am to KiwiHead
quote:
If there is a shortage and they need them then the jobseeker should conceivably have the upper hand, right?
You would think so.
However, hospital systems collude with one another to keep wages down for their employees.
It’s a house of cards. They bring in travelers, pay them more, but save on benefits.
And sign on bonuses in many cases are an illusion, because many of the new hires get tired of being screwed staffing wise and leave early.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News