in response to charges that workers can't make ends meet, upmc opens employee food pantry (Pittsburgh: university, deductible)

[SorryIMovedBack]

I think it's Wisconsin that has unionized nurses. Most of them are very happy with that. In discussions on AllNurses, WI was one of the destinations for experienced RNs for pay and benefits and also it was perceived as better working conditions.

[UKyank]

The SEIU is nothing more then a sieve to pay union chief's salaries & funnel money to political campaigns & as it keeps losing members it desperately needs to find new blood to continue their ponzi scheme - it stopped being about workers a long time ago & if I was upmc I sure as hell would keep them out of my organization.

[groar]

that's all well and good, but they still can't do illegal things to avoid unions.

their workers have the right to unionize. upmc has the right to tell the workers why they shouldn't (and believe me, they have spent millions of dollars already on consultants to do this). then the workers get to make the decision. upmc doesn't get to threaten, discipline and fire people for exercising their rights just because you think it's right for them to not want a union.

if you don't like that, you can write your representatives about changing the labor laws, but til then companies that break the law are going to face (probably tiny) consequences.

[Clint.]

Healthcare and insurance industries are recipients of so much money that a lot of people want a piece of it, so it's not surprising with so much money floating around that low level employees want a bigger share. It can be a very lucrative career. Of course patients are ostensibly paying for doctors and other clinical staff that generally directly generate revenue for the hospital, so many will question how much the employees advocating for unionization 'deserve' a share of the larger revenue pool if they are basically just along for the ride. But when you have career paths that max out at $12 an hour where there is frequent contact and providing support for other employees making maybe $130 an hour there is going to be a little resentment.

You're never going to change the minds of people who smile as they kill - you need to make laws to ensure fair treatment for those who aren't at the top. In an age of globalization it can be harder to do that because they can take their money out of the free and widely prosperous countries in which the wealth was generated in the first place and seek ultra-preferential treatment in oligarchic paradises. But healthcare is not an industry where that is easy to do, so if any industry can weather unionization it's healthcare.* Of course, I don't intend to lump surgeons in the same category as someone like Sheldon Adelson or other really rich billionaires, top hedge fund guys, etc., just that it's an industry that is basically constrained to local practice (with exceptions made for whatever they can manage to outsource, like claims processing, etc. to keep executive income and consumer prices high).

All that money is going into various people's pockets, so once costs are controlled (if they ever really come under control) some people are going to be getting less, and probably not be happy about it. Regarding UPMC specifically, I don't know really where it goes...probably a good chunk to property acquisition, construction, infrastructure improvements (at certain sites), and of course salaries. Probably some other stuff that isn't casually apparent, no doubt. It will be interesting to see how possible unionization would affect certain employees in an age of burgeoning healthcare reform.

Regarding the larger issue of healthcare spending (and, of course, employee wages), here is an interesting little bit comparing the U.S. with other countries. How Much Do Doctors in Other Countries Make? - NYTimes.com. The article notes that doctors who make less, even in el-cheapo cost of living backwaters like Copenhagen or Zurich, start careers with virtually no education debt because of those countries higher education policies. Which, of course, shows how these "big problems" in the U.S, like education spending or healthcare, are really just failures of our American culture to be sensible or provide freedom and justice for all. Nothing new about that.

*If all parties behave prudently then virtually any industry should be able to remain successful while having large and successful union membership. That's a big if.

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by UKyank

The SEIU is nothing more then a sieve to pay union chief's salaries & funnel money to political campaigns & as it keeps losing members it desperately needs to find new blood to continue their ponzi scheme - it stopped being about workers a long time ago & if I was upmc I sure as hell would keep them out of my organization.

Even given the heated election, SEIU spent $34 per member on political causes (that's using the lower estimate of member, 1.5 million, of the two I found).

Service Employees International Union: Summary | OpenSecrets

The salaries they pay their leaders work out to less than 1/2 of what UPMC pays its leaders.

Union Facts: Service Employees (SEIU) Profile, Membership, Leaders, Political Operations, etc.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

Even given the heated election, SEIU spent $34 per member on political causes (that's using the lower estimate of member, 1.5 million, of the two I found).

Service Employees International Union: Summary | OpenSecrets

The salaries they pay their leaders work out to less than 1/2 of what UPMC pays its leaders.

Union Facts: Service Employees (SEIU) Profile, Membership, Leaders, Political Operations, etc.

Where does this number come from: SEIU Campaign Spending Pays Political Dividends - WSJ.com

$85 million vs $1.5 million (granted its a different year, but still doesn't line up) is a pretty big reporting discrepancy. Now I'm genuinely curious which is more correct

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Where does this number come from: SEIU Campaign Spending Pays Political Dividends - WSJ.com

$85 million vs $1.5 million (granted its a different year, but still doesn't line up) is a pretty big reporting discrepancy. Now I'm genuinely curious which is more correct

The 1.5 million was the number of members. Other places said 1.9, but since the first link had the spending and said "more than 1.5 million members," I took 1.5 million as the membership and the spending (in millions) as $18.7, $.7, and $31.0 for 2012.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by Moby Hick

The 1.5 million was the number of members.

Score -1 for my reading comprehension

[Goodjules]

Originally Posted by SorryIMovedBack

I think it's Wisconsin that has unionized nurses. Most of them are very happy with that. In discussions on AllNurses, WI was one of the destinations for experienced RNs for pay and benefits and also it was perceived as better working conditions.

I believe CA nurses are unionized too.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by Clint.

D
*If all parties behave prudently then virtually any industry should be able to remain successful while having large and successful union membership. That's a big if.

That's a humongous "if". The problems that employers have with the unions is that union work rules provide a real roadblock to changes in procedures that any healthy industry or business does regularly.

Coming up with new ideas and innovations that boost productivity- but on the other hand reduce the number of dues-paying union members- are not gladly embraced.

Healthcare is a field that is constantly changing, the exact duties of hospital staff changes regularly, I can see where UPMC would be a bit skittish about embracing the unions coming in.