Costs added up as nursing strike loomed

Costs added up as nursing strike loomed

There are 39 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Sep 13, 2010, titled Costs added up as nursing strike loomed. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

To deal with a one-day strike and planning for a subsequent walkout that didn't happen, hospitals in the Twin Cities spent $23.8 million this year to maintain operations during a contentious contract dispute with nurses.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Wow

Rosemount, MN

#2 Sep 14, 2010
One day 24 Million. Everyone thought the hospital's had the nurses by the purse. After reading this it is clear the Union's won and the hospital's simply couldn't afford a long term strike.

Do the math. It would have cost the hospital's at least a 50 million a week. That is a low estimate. The hospitals folded and the nurses won on this one.
Mr future

Minneapolis, MN

#4 Sep 14, 2010
Strikes are very rare- remember this statement because strikes are to become the unions future weapon of choice to deal with a increasingly hostile work enviornment on the management side. blame the worker, waste money instead of a fair contract. This has become a -who is going to back down first- with management playing the bully at the publics exspense. here is a future example 5 one day strikes at a cost of 119 million dollars. If you want a stronger America with jobs that count the employees will run the show and the managment side of the business that wastes share holders money because of ego will not be tolorated in the future.
Good TImes

Maple Grove, MN

#5 Sep 14, 2010
$23.8 million is chump change for the CEO's of these corporations.
butch

Wayzata, MN

#6 Sep 14, 2010
The layoff off notices will show how the cost will be paid for.
The union did a disservice to their members as usual and will try to kill yet another industry as they always do with their overreach. They are irrelevant, make for less career stability, and only make goods and services more expensive.

Where is the WOW

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Sep 14, 2010
"The hospitals folded and the nurses won on this one"

What did the nurses win, same contract for three more years - WOW what a victory. It was the nurses going back and begging for the same contract the union turned down.
Janet Humphrey

Saint Paul, MN

#8 Sep 14, 2010
I was quite disgusted with the comments by hospitals' management blaming nurses for inflicting "unnecessary" costs on the system. The strike was completely necessary. Over 35 years of progress made in many ways in our contracts would have been tossed out the window. The "proposal" they wanted us to take or leave was 100 per cent give-backs. It would clearly have set the profession back many years and made nursing a far less desirable profession. This strike was absolutely necessary and the hospitals' inflammatory proposal and refusal to negotiate with the nurses at all on anything was totally responsible for the strike. Strikes are not something we undertake frivolously. I don't think there was a single nurse who really wanted a strike. But to vote in favor of the "proposal" management put on the table would have been disastrous for our patients, our hospitals, and our profession. Hospitals are well served when nurses are empowered. This "proposal" would have been completely dis-empowering.
Really

Minneapolis, MN

#9 Sep 14, 2010
the writer is a member of the papers union and that should be disclosed with his byline
MFB

United States

#10 Sep 14, 2010
The cost of this strike will be paid by the poor chumps in the hospital beds and their insurance companies. The CEOs will still get their bonuses but "we,the people" will pay through the nose.
None

Saint Paul, MN

#11 Sep 14, 2010
"Even so, Sojourner said he thinks the one-day strike was constructive. That's because the walkout helped show the strength of both sides — the union pulled it off, and hospital management operated without major missteps, he said."

Yeah, because it is really hard to not work for a day. The nurses folded by not having an indefinite strike because they were not willing to do anything difficult.
Missed Opportunity

United States

#12 Sep 14, 2010
The hospitals should have locked the union nurses out for a day or more, thereby getting their $23.8 million worth in sending a signal to the nurses: "Look. You can be replaced."
nurses union

Saint Paul, MN

#13 Sep 14, 2010
why don't the nurses take the money they pay to be in the union and use it to either give themselves the extra money they want or i bet it would even be enough to hire more nurses assistants (the ones who do all the gross jobs for $10-$13/hr) and then the nurses would have less of workload. Then they would be able to handle the extra patients they've been assigned.

“I am always right.”

Since: Oct 09

Former MN Taxpayer

#14 Sep 14, 2010
This expenditure was just stupid and petty on the part of the hospital management. The disclosure of this information shows that hospitals care nothing about their employees

They would not use the money on their loyal and "valued" employees - the nurses. Plus they certainly could never agree to the regulations regarding improving patient care because it would cost way too much money.

Yet here they go and throw $24 million towards scab workers simply to make sure their current employees do not have a say in patient care, and do not get any more money than absolutely necessary in their paychecks.

How ridiculous.
butch

Wayzata, MN

#15 Sep 14, 2010
MFB wrote:
The cost of this strike will be paid by the poor chumps in the hospital beds and their insurance companies. The CEOs will still get their bonuses but "we,the people" will pay through the nose.
Class warfare will make your argument moot. Just eliminate hospitals because they value their skill sets and you don't have a clue. If you can do the job for less really, why not apply and save all that money. Because you are not qualified to do the CEO job, stop whining fool! Have to be an obummer voter who is still waiting to have your gas tank filled and your diaper changed too. Get off the teet fool!!!
Joe Merlot

Saint Paul, MN

#16 Sep 14, 2010
Janet Humphrey wrote:
I was quite disgusted with the comments by hospitals' management blaming nurses for inflicting "unnecessary" costs on the system. The strike was completely necessary. Over 35 years of progress made in many ways in our contracts would have been tossed out the window. The "proposal" they wanted us to take or leave was 100 per cent give-backs. It would clearly have set the profession back many years and made nursing a far less desirable profession. This strike was absolutely necessary and the hospitals' inflammatory proposal and refusal to negotiate with the nurses at all on anything was totally responsible for the strike. Strikes are not something we undertake frivolously. I don't think there was a single nurse who really wanted a strike. But to vote in favor of the "proposal" management put on the table would have been disastrous for our patients, our hospitals, and our profession. Hospitals are well served when nurses are empowered. This "proposal" would have been completely dis-empowering.
Your post is very telling. You spent a great amount of time talking about "The Profession" and "Givebacks" and then mention patients in passing in your last sentence. This approach mirror's the union position during the conflict greatly. You know, the one that used "patient safety" as a rationalization to maintain the "profession". Let's be honest, that's what this was always really about for the nurses. For the union, it was about something else entirely. For the union, it was about creating an environment that fostered their ranks with "mandates" and they sold the nurses on the intellectually dishonest arguments that the Nurses bought into and played echoed in public forums.

In the end, the Nurses avoided the give backs that the hospitals wanted and got a moderate bump in their pay while the hospitals avoided labor guidelines that were unsustainable and the insured population that uses the hospitals services are footing the bill.

You are right, it was disgusting.
Fellow Hospital Employee

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Sep 14, 2010
Putting patients first is a crock and the nurses know it, it was about them all the way through and to prove it they accepted a contract that only benefited themselves! No other way to look at it. They took a contract that changed nothing for anyone but the nurses.

Since: Mar 10

United States

#18 Sep 14, 2010
Wow wrote:
One day 24 Million. Everyone thought the hospital's had the nurses by the purse. After reading this it is clear the Union's won and the hospital's simply couldn't afford a long term strike.
Do the math. It would have cost the hospital's at least a 50 million a week. That is a low estimate. The hospitals folded and the nurses won on this one.
if you're a shareholder in the companies' hospitals, i would have to wonder if you really want this set of ceo's.

if you lean to the right, they weren't anti-union enough and should have leveraged the whole company to the point of bankrupcy. if you're a more left-leaning person, the it's an unjustified expense that could have gone to not raising rates this year. if you're fiscally conservative, i'm going to lose a dividend because you spent money and still lost.

either way, the CEO's and boards are overpaid. hell, in the US in general, CEO's are overpaid compared to the rest of the world of CEO's.
derf

United States

#19 Sep 14, 2010
$1600 -$2400/day for a substitute nurse. WOW! To think that we pay a substitute teacher about $10/day.

Well, just had my car repaired for $90/hour.

Seems something if a little out of whack here.
Mike

Wadena, MN

#20 Sep 14, 2010
And guess who's paying for all of that. Yes, they don't know the price of your operation today, but they'll pick one after it's over based on whatever factors they feel like. Five different people can have a gallbladder operation and none of the costs will be even close to the same, and if you ask, they can't tell you how much yours will cost or why. And we wonder why healthcare is out of control...
Mike

Wadena, MN

#21 Sep 14, 2010
butch wrote:
<quoted text>
Class warfare will make your argument moot. Just eliminate hospitals because they value their skill sets and you don't have a clue. If you can do the job for less really, why not apply and save all that money. Because you are not qualified to do the CEO job, stop whining fool! Have to be an obummer voter who is still waiting to have your gas tank filled and your diaper changed too. Get off the teet fool!!!
Then, you must be a CEO, here to tell us all how we can't do without you. Because you can gouge us, doesn't mean it should be happening. The "if you can do-it-yourself" attitude shows your compassion. Again, the world has changed, and it's all about me and what's in it for me. Don't bring your "I'm better, smarter or richer" than you attitude here and expect it to fly.
Ted

Saint Paul, MN

#22 Sep 14, 2010
IrishMN wrote:
This expenditure was just stupid and petty on the part of the hospital management. The disclosure of this information shows that hospitals care nothing about their employees
They would not use the money on their loyal and "valued" employees - the nurses. Plus they certainly could never agree to the regulations regarding improving patient care because it would cost way too much money.
Yet here they go and throw $24 million towards scab workers simply to make sure their current employees do not have a say in patient care, and do not get any more money than absolutely necessary in their paychecks.
How ridiculous.
Scabs are a good thing. A scab promotes healing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Nicollet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
My Dear Kasota Childhood Friend Nov '17 RASBF 1
Tanning (Jun '17) Jun '17 Drift45 1
News This artist is famous, but his name is a secret (Oct '16) Oct '16 chad hatten denver 1
News Four new hotspots you want to know about, plus ... (Jul '15) Jul '15 space ace 1
News Depression program shows promise (Dec '08) Jan '14 Orelie 10
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Minnesota ... (Oct '10) Jan '14 DutchQ 11
News A Transit Fantasy: Take the Pink Line from Frid... (Aug '13) Aug '13 PB in Saint Paul 1

Nicollet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Nicollet Mortgages