Town Square

Post a New Topic

It's NOT about the Money; not for the Nurses anyway.

Original post made by Jane Benedict on Apr 12, 2010

It's NOT about the Money -- Not for the Nurses anyway!
By : A Stanford ICU Nurse

It is NOT about the money. The recent contract negotiations between Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Lucille Packard Children's Hospital and CRONA (the Union representing the nurses at both of these hospital) have been incredibly stressful and disheartening.
The hospitals have released statements to the public emphasizing the $3000 bonus they will offer prorated for each nurse and a 4% raise across the board. Of course, if these were the only issues one would have to ask why don't the nurses want to accept the contract? On Wednesday April the 6th 2300 nurses voted on the hospitals' "Last, best and Final offer" with a 90% rejection. There must be more to this than meets the eye. After all in these economic times shouldn't these nurses be glad to have a job at all?
There are essentially three critical issues in this contract that the nurses are passionate about. The new "Professional Nurse Development Program", the inability for the union to represent us in matters of promotion and discipline and perhaps most importantly the cutting of our health insurance.
In every profession there are experts. These are people whom we work with that have been doing this job longer than some of us have been alive. They have seen it all and can deal with it all. Nursing is no exception. Colleagues with this level of expertise surround me. These are nurses who I respect tremendously and aspire to be like. They are the very fiber of our institutions. In this new "Professional Nurse Development Program" these nurses are going to be demoted to a level that does not recognize the level of expertise or the years of experience that they bring to the bedside. The hospitals claim they are not demoting anyone; not today they aren't. But in three years if these expert nurses are unable to qualify under the new system, demoted is exactly what they will be. It will be very difficult to get promoted under the new system, which is exactly what the hospitals want. When the hospitals don't have to pay expert nurses the wage that expert nurses deserve they will save approximately 15-20 Million dollars a year. Essentially these expert nurses will be lumped together under the same title as a novice, a nurse with six months of experience. It doesn't sound like much of a professional development program to me.
Under this new proposed contract our union and lawyers will have little to no ability to advocate for us when we are unfairly denied promotion, demoted or disciplined. If you have ever been disciplined or counseled in the workplace you know, it can happen to any of us. No matter how experienced or professional we are, none of us are perfect. We are fighting to protect our rights. Innocent until proven guilty is the way it supposed to work isn't it?
Lastly and perhaps most importantly are the changes to our health care. We have great benefits when we are healthy. Under the new proposed contract we will have 12 weeks of health care insurance if we are unable to work because of long-term illness or disability. Twelve weeks! No health care coverage for the caregivers. After that time nurses will be required to pay COBRA rates or find insurance elsewhere. COBRA rates for a single person start at $800/ month and for a family begin at $1850/month. That's a lot of money for someone who isn't working. Interestingly enough, these 12 weeks of coverage is only provided once in a 12-month period. For example, if I want to have a baby and take a 12-week leave from work I will have health insurance. BUT -- if I get in a car accident later that year I have already used up my 12 weeks and there is no more insurance for me. That is why the nurses do not want to accept this proposed contract. Under our current contract we have 6 months to fight cancer or recover from a trauma before we have to find our own insurance. We want to keep what we currently have.
I cannot speak for everyone but I know that I speak for many nurses at Stanford and Packard when I say that entering this negotiation period we were not asking for bonuses. This $3000 bonus the hospital is advertising is somewhat misleading. That would be $3000 for a nurse that works 40 hours/week. Many of us work 36 hours/wk or less. After taxes, that bonus is approximately $1800 paid out over 3 years is about $25 dollars per paycheck. Not much of an incentive to sacrifice health care coverage is it? Also, Stanford is not a hospital that offers bonuses to its nurses as a general rule. In the past they haven't needed to. So one should ask, why now? The answer is simple. They want to make it about money. It's much cheaper for them to offer us a bonus and a raise than it is to reward our expertise and experience or to take care of us when we are sick.
Nurses are people who care for people. We care for you and your loved ones. We became nurses because we want to help you when you are going through a difficult time in your life and you need our help. Now we need your support. This is not about money, not for the nurses anyway. We are glad to be employed when so many are out of work. That is not a reason to allow our institutions to take advantage of us. We don't want a bonus; we don't even need a raise. We just want health care, union representation and a fair professional development program that recognizes the expertise of our experts.
In conclusion, the institutions are making changes to our current contract that are demoralizing and discouraging and ultimately may compromise patient care and the reputation of Stanford Hospital and University. The hospitals are going to save money by not recognizing the expertise and experience of the nurses currently employed there. They can get away with it because a patient doesn't know what quality of nurses he/she is getting. The patient just knows there are nurses...and may think they've all been trained the same and are interchangeable. Ultimately if the hospitals proposal is not amended, many of the best and most qualified nurses will leave and go to hospitals that treat their nurses well. Others will retire in the next few years. The hospitals would like this; then they can replace us with inexperienced nurses to save a buck -- ultimately compromising the quality of care you receive when you are a patient at Stanford and compromising the reputation of the institution.

Comments (30)

Posted by Me Too, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Jane, maybe I'm missing something, but if the professional development levels = higher pay for nurses, then that part is about money. If the health insurance part is about the who pays for insurance, that is about money. If have union reps/lawyers help fight over discipline and promotion, that is largely about money. It's not about salary, which the hospital sounds ready to give on - it's about the non-salary items, which sound like they cost the hospital a lot.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it sounds like for both sides, it's about the money.

Posted by Anonymous, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Apr 12, 2010 at 10:30 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 12, 2010 at 10:34 pm

I wouldn't expect CRONA to reveal too much of its negotiating position, but, for the sake of argument, suppose everything stayed exactly the same as today-- same wages, same wage scale, same health benefits, everything. How would that compare to the 15-20 Million that Stanford will save under its proposal? Cost the same as today, or, as I would expect, escalating cost?

As I said, I wouldn't expect public disclosure of a negotiating position. But, if it were up to me, I would propose a small wage cut and keep everything else the same.

Posted by Jeff, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 12, 2010 at 11:11 pm

I'm an ICU nurse. I am a highly skilled, experienced nurse. Every day, all day I hold a person's life in my hands by using my critical intuition, technology and potent phamaceuticals. I counsel grieving, anxious families. I deal with violent patients and families. I have been punched, bitten, kicked, verbally abused, vomited on and shit on. I have been closed into isolation rooms with TB patients, H1N1 patients, VRE, MRSA, Cdiff, influenza and meningitis for 12 hours a day. I have been degraded, devalued and insulted. I have seen humanity at it's worst and I have stayed. In my heart and in my mind I know the good I do for my patients, my community and my world. For this, I feel I deserve a stable middle income and the mediocre benefits that my employer provides. My family deserves food on the table, a roof over their heads and a good education for the work I do, the sacrifices I make and the risks I take. I, nor any nurse I work with, is greedy or looking to get rich. This contract is horrible for the nurses who give everything to their patients. It's despicable that the public can't look past 5 second sound bites or headlines designed to further degrade nurses. Who do you trust? The nurse who is committed to saving your life for a stable middle income or the high paid administrator committed to preserving their well padded bottom line, and who will get millions in bonus' and promotions. Stanford & Packard do not hold their nurses in "high regard". They insult them, devalue them and degrade them and now they ask the general public to do the same. This is big business at it's worst, and it's despicable.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2010 at 2:52 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Management that cannot recognize the level of skills of employees unless that has been validated by external organizations is, on the face, incompetent. Generally a ticket gets you in, proven performance keeps you in. Way back when I was an organization guy, we referred to such management practice as this proposed PD package as a Russian Circumcision. [definition available in plain brown wrapper to adults only]. I wonder what Scott Adams would say about this?

Posted by CRONA RN, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Apr 13, 2010 at 3:08 am

While I agree with your reasoning, I must say there are a few things you have gotten worng. 1) If you are given a verbal warning or counseling, you are not prohibited from promoting. It is only in the cases where you have been given a written warning or are being investigaed; 2) The $3000 bonus is paid in full (prorated, of course) during the second pay period following ratification. It is the 2% bonus' offered in the 2nd and 3rd year of the contract that is paid out quarterly; and 3)Not all nurses whom have been practicing for 20+ years are experts. Many SN III and IVs are currently getting that title without doing any of the work. Is this management's fault- yes! But some nurses who face demotion are angry because they will now be forced to work for their title.

I do not agree with the hospitals approach, do I think there needs to be changes- yes! But we also need to realize that some of their proposals have been blown out of proportion.

Posted by cabgpatchkid, a resident of another community
on Apr 13, 2010 at 5:43 am

CRONA RN said: "It is only in the cases where you have been given a written warning or are being investigaed;"

Okay, so you get that written warning. First, it stays in your personal file FOREVER with this new contract. Second, the warning will be available to all on the "panel" who are deciding whether you deserve promotion or not (no privacy whatsoever here when it comes to our own peers). And third, BECAUSE of that written warning you are INELIGIBLE to apply for promotion for 2 YEARS...24 months. Even if that written warning is for arriving to work late.

Tell me CRONA RN, how is this good?

Also, can you elborate on this: "It is the 2% bonus' offered in the 2nd and 3rd year of the contract that is paid out quarterly;"

What exactly do you take this to mean? I take it as meaning that in the 2nd and 3rd years those RN's stuck in the old SN III and IV positions (which be a MAJOIRTY of nurses) will not see any kind of regular increase to count on in their checks.

Maybe this is a little bit about money. But it's about trying to AT LEAST keeping what we have. The hospitals will NEVER payout any of that $3,000. Don't fall for it. They are going to FORCE us to give notice of strike by not coming back to the table and at least try being reasonable. Then they'll be able to get an idea of just how many of us are willing to walk over this crappy offer. Once we vote like we did the first time, they'll finally HAVE to make some changes that will benefit all concerned.

btw, Walter E Willis, you hit the nail on the head and it's a very good point you make about having to send us out to be validated. They aren't incompetent, they know exactly what they're doing.

Posted by JL, a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 13, 2010 at 9:08 am

Wow, no dog in the fight and yet you apparently sound like you do. I am a hi-tech executive and have negotiated many contracts over the years. My wife (aka my dog in this fight) asked me to read the offer from Stanford Hospital and here is what I told her :

1. The hospital is reserving the right to change the agreement at any time purely at their discretion - no negotiation, no union objections, no vote.

2. The hospital is imposing a new professional development structure that 90% of the nurses believe is unfair and unattainable. The hospital claims no one will be demoted, so why won't they put that in writing if no one will be demoted.

3. The hospital is claiming to be offering a 4% increase and yet expects to save $20MM per year... well which is it ? A pay increase 4% across the board should cost money not save money right ? Seems to me someone is misrepresenting the facts here.

4. Why in the world would a 4% pay increase and a $3,000 bonus make 90% of the nurses reject this offer ? This makes no sense. Can 2300 nurses all be greedy, selfish, arrogant... and all at the same time in a down economy ? How can this be a reasonable action to reject this wonderfully generous offer from the hospital's administration ?

While I do have a dog in the fight (and she will object strongly to my use of this term), I have to say the hospital's administration is being disingenuous at best when they claim the nurses are getting a pay raise. This type of misdirection is more typical of management in the 1930's and not the kind of professional and honest conduct we would expect from Stanford ... or any one else for that matter in the 21st century... but especially from Stanford. What a disgrace that this administration would attempt to behave this way.

Shame. Shame on the administration and their lack of sincerity.

My wife told me that if they had offered a 5% across the board pay cut that she would have accepted the contract.

This is not a pay increase. This is banana republic politics by old theory X managers and they should be fired for gross incompetence.


Posted by Me Too, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2010 at 11:40 am

JL - yep, sounds like you have a dog in the fight ;-) I do not. I'm just saying it's mostly about money, especially future money, which it sounds like you agree with. I don't think the nurses are greedy and arrogant (more than anyone else); nor do I think the hospital is (based on what I've seen). And I figure both sides are putting their positions in the best possible light, which will sound disingenuous to those on the other side.

It sounds like Stanford let their labor structure get out of control - overall too many high-ranked nurses and so average cost too high. And possibly above market benefits, though I haven't seen any data on that. Probably has gone on for a while, and they figure with cost-containment coming at them big time, this is the time to try to fix things. I don't know if they are handling it well or not (the nurses certainly don't think so) - but a lot of organizations, public and private, are doing the same, as they always do during a labor slump - City of PA couldn't reach agreement with SIEU and imposed a new contract, for instance. It happens.

It's a tough situation - the nurses I believe have gotten a good deal for a long time - lots got promoted and pay raises kept coming. It's no fun losing that, anyone would be unhappy. But I'm not sure that makes the hospital the bad guy.

Posted by SunnyCali, a resident of another community
on Apr 13, 2010 at 12:17 pm

@Me too - Nurses should be paid fairly for what they do. On the contrary to what you think a nurse does by watching ER or another awful medical show, you clearly have no idea what nurses do. Another question, would you be happy if admin cut your pay? No, probably not.

Stanford RN's stay strong, and just because the public doesn't understand what you do, other nurses do. And I for one, an unrepresented RN, stands behind you. I know what it's like to do compressions. Don't let your hospital under value you.

Posted by Me Too, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2010 at 3:15 pm

SunnyCali, you are right, I'm certainly no expert on nursing duties. And I would not like it if my pay was cut (as it was last year) - I don't think anyone would. Luckily I'm my own boss now, so to berate the idiot in charge I can just check my bathroom mirror ;-)

Nurses, like all of us, have their pay and benefits determined ultimately by the labor market. Looks like that market is being tested by both sides. In the end, there will be a "fair" result - a market payscale. It will be interesting to see where it lands.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2010 at 4:42 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Since the Hospital negotiating team is obviously incompetent, I suggest the hospital hire a team of traveling negotiators and let the home team go back to supporting staff as is their appropriate function.I suggest that professional development be measured by Professionals. Doctors and nurses are separate, coequals in the healing arts and facilities management is a support, subordinate function.

Posted by JL, a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 13, 2010 at 5:20 pm

I agree that all businesses need to evaluate their cost structures and potentially reduce salary costs - among their many expense items. I see nothing wrong with this. I guess my chagrin is based on the manner in which management at Stanford / Packard have approached the problem.

Recently, a spokesperson (Sarah Staley) made some comments and characterized the nurses as not wanting to be held to a new standard and in her words this new set of standards was consistent with other leading institutions. Sarah and the rest of the management team at Stanford/Packard have taken the approach of making the nurses out to be villains by refusing to accept their so-called reasonable offer.

The approach taken to deal with the nurses by Stanford / Packard smacks of the hostile labor negotiations of another era where management actually wanted to antagonize their employees. I have not seen this type of labor negotiation played out in the media for some time - and certainly not by a leading institution like Stanford.

The tactics have been :

1. Treat the nurses as not smart enough to truly understand the implications of changes being made,
2. Characterize the changes as a pay raise - complete with signing bonus, and then be amazed that any one would think they might be used to demote en masse and reduce costs,
3. Arrogantly claim the performance standards are reasonable and consistent with other leading institutions (when they are completely ridiculous),
4. Completely disregard the opinions of the staff and simply impose your will on them

The resultant effect is to demoralize and insult the nursing staff creating higher levels of distrust and distance between staff and management. Kudos to the management team at Stanford if that is what they were intending to accomplish. Unfortunately, I doubt this was intended and is merely the side effect of playing hardball when you are too incompetent to manage and lead your staff in an open and honest manner.

My wife (and many of the other nurses) recognize that costs need to be lowered and that may mean changes in pay rates. She also recognizes that there needs to be constant improvement in professional standards. If management had taken an upfront, professional approach to working with the nurses rather than ignore, insult, intimidate, etc then the deal would be done - even with an across the board pay cut.

The management team's lack of effective leadership and management skill is the real problem here as they attempt to obscure their real motivations with some BS final offer where they disingenuously claim "demotions, there won't be large scale, arbitrary demotions to reduce costs...." at least for a couple week any ways.

Yes, that does make management the bad guy here.


Posted by Me Too, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2010 at 7:48 pm

JL, you undoubtedly have studied the offer more closely than I have. In the NY Times, the hospital spokesman is quoted as "deny[ing] that any demotions were possible under the recent offer." Perhaps that is a lie or half truth, but that's the quote. Web Link You seem to think demotions will happen - maybe that's right, can you enlighten us?

On #2 - The hospital is undoubtedly offering a current pay raise, right? 4% across the board and a bonus that is a max of $3000 for a full-time nurse.

On #3 - The proposed ranking standards, apparently, are similar to what are used at other elite hospitals. That seems readily subject to verification, though I haven't seen any data either way. I assume the union would be pointing out how out-of-the-norm the proposed standards are if they were, so I am assuming that they are in fact are similar to others.

On #1 and #4 - That the hospital seems to have antagonized the nurses does not seem in dispute. Whether they meant to or not is a good question. It does seem like there is a big bid-ask spread, especially with regard to the ranking system. Maybe the nurses would have accepted a 5% pay cut - I've never seen anything like that, but maybe. And maybe that would address the structural cost issue the hospital has - but maybe not. I'm sure from labor's point of view, management looks like idiots and jerks - they usually do.

I hope your spouse gets a contract she can live with and bosses she can tolerate.

Posted by Yawn, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 13, 2010 at 8:34 pm

Sorry, it's always about the money. Anyone who says otherwise is not being truthful.

Frankly, I see a lot of whining. If you don't like what Stanford is offering you, go somewhere else. As an old mentor of mine once told me, change your attitude or change your location.

There's a huge RN shortage right now, and rather than sit and complain about a contract, do what the rest of us in the real world do - pick up your stuff and find a better place.

What I'm starting to see here is that unions are the work equivalent of Prop 13 - all it does is ossify organizations and keep people from moving to other, probably better situations.

Posted by @ yawn, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 13, 2010 at 9:23 pm

You think people aren't already looking for new jobs? Not as in-the-event-we-strike-jobs, but rather the I-want-to-be-appreciated and I would rather work somewhere else jobs. I would like to say I work at a world class institution that values their employees, but I can't. I can not stay at an institution that does not provide recognition for a job well done every once in a long while. As we can see by the nurse week nurse gifts the hospital gave to the RN's last year ... to the hospital all our hard work is worth is an INSULATED GROCERY BAG. People are out there already looking for alternate positions. I am among them.

Posted by Stupified, a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 13, 2010 at 10:38 pm

Don't forget about the info packet Stanford Hospital sent to all the nurses detailing the financial hardships they will incur (front page of the packet) if they vote reject the Hospital's offer or ultimately go on strike! The hospital was very clear to remind the nurses of the monetary loss, temporary loss of benefits and decline in public support if they decided against the offer....

To convince one to accept an offer based on all the ills that will befall them if they don't is a sleazy way to do business in my opinion....and 90% still rejected it...maybe the nurses are smarter than we think

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 14, 2010 at 4:37 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The continuing "It's about the money" dirge is annoying. With very few exceptions a job is what we do to earn a living.

Posted by Yawn, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 14, 2010 at 6:39 am

The only way Stanford will improve how it treats its RNs (ahem, pays them more) is if it needs to hire more RNs. That's the way the at-will job market works.

And it's only going to get worse in the future and we realize that we can't pay for Obamacare, and the government starts rationing healthcare through reduced reimbursements. Guess whose salaries are going to get hit the most? Certainly not Big Pharma - they got their deal in. It'll be the practitioners like RNs and docs that will get hit the most.

Posted by Dark Corners of Town, a resident of another community
on Apr 14, 2010 at 7:40 pm

To 'Stupified' - That's how the game is played. Unions are just as sleazy in their dealings, making threats about how life will be if a demand is not met.

Posted by JL, a resident of Menlo Park
on Apr 15, 2010 at 1:29 pm

@Me Too.

The professional development program is a means to mass demotion. The additional terms put into this contract offer by Stanford that allow them to make changes without consent, demote without union participation etc and refusal to "grandfather" existing nurse levels help them down that path. The supposed 4% pay raise is a misdirection and quite frankly, a dishonest attempt by the administration to obscure the real issue - power and a desired $20MM salary reduction.

Again, I have no problem with the cost restructuring and I will state my wife would have accepted a pay cut if the offer was straight up. Would the rest of the nurses ? Who knows. What we have instead are 2-bit, dishonest tactics not worthy of an institution of Stanford's stature and a staff of some 2700 nurses that are now antagonized enough to vote 90%+ to reject Stanford's offer.

Who is the head clown at Stanford that thought this strategy up ? Great job pal. Go back to school and study negotiation strategy so that the hospital, the patients and the staff can all win. Right now it looks like a lose-lose scenario to me.

Whatever happened to the elite institution hiring elite managers that know how to lead.

Posted by Money!, a resident of University South
on Apr 15, 2010 at 3:01 pm

It's always about the money - and I agree with those who say that if the nurses don't want to accept the offer, they should look elsewhere. I don't see a lot of other better options. Unions now seem to want to hold others "hostage" - and can't care about their patients (as they claim) if they can just walk away at a moment's notice - leaving critically ill babies to fend for themselves. I know the hospital is well-prepared, and while it would be unfortunate and unnecessarily painful, I think that there are other nurses who would be happy to step in and accept what is currently on the table. Others will cross the line as time passes.

Posted by Stanford ICU RN, a resident of Stanford
on Apr 15, 2010 at 5:33 pm

I personally do not care about a raise. What I find important is an individuals potention to grow within an institution. You want goals of recognition to be obtainable and particular to that aspect of nursing. The criteria they propose is for someone who is NOT a bedside nurse, that is probably educated beyond there intelligence. You want real goals, criteria and relevance on bedside nursing. Writing articles to be published does not make you a good bedside nurse. PNDP should be rescaled to a focus of items that pertain to bedside nursing; improving quality of care, new ideas to improve patient outcome, collaberative care that grows the group of nurses as a team. We are the people that you trust when you cant take care of yourself or the one you love. Wouldn't you like to know there are obtainable incentives for which the nurses are motivated to be better and not discouraged by unobtainable goals. We just want to keep our benefits the same, cut the raise. All this falls under an old category "Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness". Now isn't that the American Way. Nurses will persuit it elsewhere.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 16, 2010 at 9:09 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Were I to write a critically received analysis on the kinetics of the right cross that would qualify me to get in the ring with Mike Tyson?
We have another example of the problems with academics in the failure of the Stanford charter school. Sometimes it's the application. Management that lacks the ability to monitor performance on the line should back off.

Posted by ICU nurse, a resident of another community
on Apr 16, 2010 at 9:48 am

Who achieved MAGNET status for Stanford Hospitals and Clinics? A credential awarded to the hospitals for the strength and quality of their nurses. Nurses who deliver excellent patient outcomes. Nurses who have a high level of job satisfaction. The nurses, who believe Stanford is / was a great place to work. Nurses who recognize the standard of practice did not end in a classroom. Perhaps the critics of the Magnet Program were correct. Are nurses at Magnet Hospitals really any better off than nurses at any other hospital? Looks like the 'Magnet' recognition will only be a promotional tool for the hospital.

Posted by choukie, a resident of another community
on Apr 17, 2010 at 4:47 am

I moved to California a couple of years ago to work in Stanford. It was such a nice place to work with. The nurses were good and very skillful. Unfortunately, i also began to see that the management has no love for their nurses. They have already taken some of the benefits the other hospitals in the bay area has such as Health Retirement Benefits years ago. Now, they would want to take more. In the last few months of negotiations, they have shown nurses no respect at all. Its sad.. the community would very much suffer from this stance they have been showing their employees. I have taken care of my patients well and will continue to do that with the best of may ability. Unfortunately, i also have to take care of myself and my family.. and that is exploring my other options. Hopefully, "stanford" hospital realizes what its name stands for.. which is basically caring for patients, their nurses, their employees and their community.

Posted by mmmmmmMom, a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 30, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Although I am employed as a R.N; I am not employed @ Stanford. Interestingly, when I moved to the Bay area 15 years ago, I was warned by numerous other R.N.s about administration's attitudes towards Nurses & Nursing. Just for the heck of it, I interviewed anyway. What an eye opener! Yes, they wanted me/my credentials & experience, but it was very clear to me that Stanford was definitely not a place I wanted to work. (They called me back 3 times; couldn't believe I was turning them down.)

I have been working @ another local hospital, & altho my commute is longer, I have never once regretted my decision. I am absolutely appalled @ the tactics of Stanford during these contract negotiations. Magnet hospital? Hah! I hope that CRONA & the Stanford Nurses will not back down on this contract. FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!! Nurses everywhere are behind you! Start sending letters to local newspapers; their coverage has been so misleading as to be suspect.

And don't forget folks, Stanford is ready to shell out huge bucks for agency Nurses to cover for their own Nurses, should they be left no option but to strike. And if you think for a moment that you will get the same level of care from an temp Nurse, think again.

Posted by cabgpatchkid, a resident of another community
on May 5, 2010 at 8:46 am

@mmmmmmMom....thanks for your encouragement. As of yesterday afternoon the hospital REFUSED AGAIN to return to talks. I don't know what else can be done to try. The union has exhausted every idea and have accepted some of what the hospital proposed such as the hospital proposed wage scale. STILL they say no. If our proposal doesn't meet their standards then forget it. They have never negotiated. This is the third or fourth time they've said no to a union counter-proposal. I lost count.

It's time to VOTE. It's time to WALK. I'm done being the punching bag for this institution's wealthy administration. They should be ashamed of themselves for causing such havoc with their own. They don't give a rats-azz about any nurse's well-being, their family, their life. The same goes for the patients and family members of patients. It's all about the bottom line.

If anyone thinks any different, you just don't get it.

Posted by Me Too, a resident of Midtown
on May 5, 2010 at 6:28 pm

Class warfare, huh? - it's fun hearing nurses sound like Teamsters.

It looks like the hospital is going to the mat. I assume the nurses are working without a contract now. What happens next? Can the hospital do a lock-out? Can they impose a contract? It's not clear why the nurses would strike if they can just keep working under their current contract. Does anyone know how things work in hospital labor law?

Posted by Schadenfreude, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 6, 2010 at 7:09 am

Everyone, including most nurse unions, wanted health care "reform"..

careful what you wish for, when you get it you can be shocked.

Sitting here watching the train come down the track, as predicted by all of us 'fear mongers' over the last 2 years and now finally being reported on by the MSM and SHOCKED Dems who voted for the "Reform' bill.. here come da train with rising private health insurance premiums, lower pay for health care workers, fewer jobs in health care, less care for 'govt' patients and fewer private sector jobs as employers must choose between higher premiums and more employees.

ain't change great?

Watching Greece burn, with 1/3 of all its employees being government funded ( yes...2 private employees support one government employee) and wondering how long before we learn?

If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,439 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,744 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 930 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 819 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 568 views