re: Trigger Warning: UMC nurses in NO vote to unionize

quote:

---

They care about creating jobs, not safe environments.

---

Facts not in evidence. However, in a this particular instance where increased Pt-RN ratios, and diminished (locums) RN quality lead to poor outcome, the "customer's" interest uniquely aligns with that of the unions.

quote:

---

You have admitted you don’t know that it will.

---

Link?
As far as I'm aware, unions push against temp hires, for favorable workload, and against non-union staff.

Do you see this scenario as uniquely different?

quote:

---

despite zero evidence of a union in any industry ever improving the quality of employee

---

Well, that is not just false, it's ridiculous.

quote:

---

You dont work with union personnel

---

My mother was union. My grandfather was union. You don't work in the industry. I get the anti-union bent. In virtually every other circumstance we'd be on the same side.

What you are missing is the overarching and unique concern. The concern here is a broken RN staffing model. Hospital Admins are not going to address it unless they are forced. The repair falls dead center in the union wheelhouse.

quote:

---

Which is one reason we have to cancel so many of our journeys.

I'm team scab. If some union dick doesnt show up and someone wants his job, I'd love to give it to them.

---

I get that. I agree wholeheartedly.

quote:

---

If you love doing other peoples work, you'll be pro union. I dont believe youre a slacker and you would have to pick up all the slack.

---

Again. I get it.

However, the temp issue in hospitals is not what it is in your experience. In fact, it is diametrically opposite.

In the medical environment, temps are the ones slacking or incapable of pulling their load. The temps are the ones dumping work. The temps are the ones getting paid more for doing less. Temps are the ones shielded from critique. As they've been brought in, facilities shed more and more permanent staff. Quality of care suffered. Patient-RN ratios increased.

quote:

---

Unions are a de-incentivizer by design.

---

Absolutely.

they still work in the construction trades, mainly because dudes work as much for the union as they do the contractor, they hire guys straight out of the union hall and benefits come from the union.

quote:

---

I say we come to an agreement that both union dicks and corporate dicks coexist.

---

Very true, the corporate dicks just have 10x the responsibility and are rewarded for such.

quote:

---

No. I've said that in an industry where quality is critical, and should be paramount, healthcare marketforces instead ARE NOT QUALITY DEPENDENT!

---

Yes you did, you moron. You equated the two, but you did so in the context of claiming that healthcare EXPENSES (I was very specific) were not market driven, which they very clearly are.

And I quote:

quote:

---

If "market forces" (aka care quality) drove healthcare expenses...

---

The problem is that apparently you think "quality" is synonymous with "market forces."

quote:

---

You're assuming market forces?

Healthcare is not marketforce driven.

---

quote:

---

(Me) Market forces do indeed drive healthcare expenses
(You) False.

---

quote:

---

If market forces were at play

---

Look, if you're going to start calling people idiots, you might want to make sure you're not looking in the mirror first. At least I know what I actually said this whole time. You appear not to know that.

quote:

---

I've pointed out that facility reimbursement is predetermined dependent on facility-type and ownership, rather than facility-set charge or equipment cost.

---

Yes you have, but the problem with that is that that has absolutely zero to do with whether market forces influence healthcare expenses.

Let me explain some very simple economic concepts to you.

"Quality" is not an economic driver of anything. Perception of quality may be a factor in a customer's choice, but that's about it.

Limiting fees based on what equipment or supplies cost you is not an economic market force equation. It's the opposite.

Price is set by demand, not by what it cost to produce the product or service. THAT'S an actual market force principle.

Again, YOU DON'T WANT A FREE MARKET AT WORK. Everything you argue is against it, but because you apparently think "free market = I get paid based on my cost," or "free market = some notion of quality," you're making a fool of yourself here. You're like the cubbies poster who is so unintelligent that she thinks everyone else is wrong but can't even mentally grasp the points anyone is making.

I said profit motive is a market force and you said this:

quote:

---

Tell it to Madoff's victims.

Tell it to occupants burned alive in Ford Pintos.

---

You're telling me that Ford didn't do what they did out of the desire to maximize profits? Same with Madoff?

You have correctly stated that healthcare facilities do not get paid based on market forces, but the expenses that healthcare facilities incur are absolutely influenced by market forces.

A an actual free market looks like this: I deliver health care and charge as high a fee as I think people will pay regardless of what it costs me to deliver the service. If enough people are willing to pay it, which they will decide based on how badly they want the service, how willing and able they are to get the money for the service, how many substitute options there are to choose from, and other minor factors, then I'm happy. If I end up with too many empty exam rooms and beds because people aren't willing to pay it, then I may lower my fee to try to fill up the beds or I may decide it's not worth the trouble and just go out of business.

That's a free market.

That still exists on the expense side of healthcare. I don't get to call my medicine supplier and tell them, "Hey, they decreased the reimbursement for this procedure, so you need to lower my cost on these medications by 30%."

I can tell nurses, hey, BC/BS stopped paying for XYZ procedure, so we're going to need to reduce your pay by 20%, but some or all of them may walk if I do.

You called me an idiot for saying this:

quote:

---

what you really want and what you keep arguing for again and again is a system that is NOT influenced by market forces like profit motive.

---

I'd like for you to break it down for me then. What was the point of the story about the CEO making decisions based on maximizing profits and killing people?

You thought it was great, or you're against it?

Or are you denying that profit motive is what drove the decision?

Those are the only two things I asserted, so which one of those makes me an idiot?

EDIT: I already know what the problem is. The problem is that you have made up in your head this equating "quality" with "market forces," which is ridiculous.

But go ahead, tell me that I'm the idiot.

quote:

---

The scenario of wanting their pay and your benefits is not possible

---

Union propaganda appeals to the emotional, not the rational.

Just remember every union leader is Democrat, and they use the exact same type of propaganda to cause workers to unite that they do races and sexual preferences.

Once again, you prove yourself to be a fricking dumbass