One of the problems when you criticize a union proposal is that you are at risk of being tarred as "anti-union." I'm not. But I'll take the risk of that response in criticizing one union's plans for a referendum here in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Nurses Association, which represents about 20% of the state's nurses, is preparing a petition that would impose nurse staffing ratios on the state's hospitals. This kind of proposal, akin to one in place in California, has been rejected many times by the state Legislature, which realizes that such matters are best determined by the clinical and administrative folks in hospitals rather than by regulation. California is the only state that has these kind of rules, based on a 1999 law, and there have been many unintended consequences.
The folks at the MA Hospital Association have correctly noted:
The arcane concept of applying ratios is especially disturbing in the rapidly evolving Massachusetts reform environment that is centered on rewarding hospitals and other providers based on quality of care delivered and patient satisfaction. Integrating care across the care continuum depends on continually changing patient care and assessment decisions arrived at by a full care-giving team, and not by inflexible, government regulation.
Here's a copy of the instruction sheet being handed out to the MNA members. It is interesting to note that nurses are instructed not to collect signatures from other bargaining units (i.e., other unions) in their hospitals. Might that be because a rigid nurse staff ratio could cause other unionized clinical assistants--who are valued members of the care delivery teams--to have fewer jobs?
The Massachusetts Nurses Association, which represents about 20% of the state's nurses, is preparing a petition that would impose nurse staffing ratios on the state's hospitals. This kind of proposal, akin to one in place in California, has been rejected many times by the state Legislature, which realizes that such matters are best determined by the clinical and administrative folks in hospitals rather than by regulation. California is the only state that has these kind of rules, based on a 1999 law, and there have been many unintended consequences.
The folks at the MA Hospital Association have correctly noted:
The arcane concept of applying ratios is especially disturbing in the rapidly evolving Massachusetts reform environment that is centered on rewarding hospitals and other providers based on quality of care delivered and patient satisfaction. Integrating care across the care continuum depends on continually changing patient care and assessment decisions arrived at by a full care-giving team, and not by inflexible, government regulation.
Here's a copy of the instruction sheet being handed out to the MNA members. It is interesting to note that nurses are instructed not to collect signatures from other bargaining units (i.e., other unions) in their hospitals. Might that be because a rigid nurse staff ratio could cause other unionized clinical assistants--who are valued members of the care delivery teams--to have fewer jobs?
0 comments:
Post a Comment