Hospital Workers' Forum
To be printed in the Third Edition of Critical Engagement
By Alex Goldenberg

From October through May of 2003-2004 the nurses of the Illinois Nurses Association (INA) at the University of Chicago Hospital (UCH) were in contract negotiations. After an embittered battle a compromise was reached and a potential strike avoided. The nurses displayed perseverance by coming together in solidarity, as displayed by the April 7 vote to authorize a strike by an overwhelming majority of the nurses (633 to 61). This took great courage in the face of a condescending management, which was quick to misconstrue their organized fight for dignity as an act of greed. This was the first strike vote ever by the INA, marking an historic and important moment in the labor movement here in Chicago.

On Thursday, April 29, four nurses, and an INA staff representative, Sheilah Garland-Olairan, spoke at an open forum addressed to the University and surrounding community. Organized by SOUL (Students Organized and United with Labor), the event brought together approximately 50 workers, students, and community members.

Following introductory remarks by Sheilah Garland-Olairan, Richard Berg, a member of the Teamsters Local 743 New Leadership Slate, discussed the history of the university's policy toward unions. There used to be one bargaining unit for all Teamsters, Berg explained, and contracts of all unions would expire at the same time which would allow for solidarity across unions. In the past 15 years however, the university has separated from the hospital and the power in the hospital has transferred from the doctors to the “money people.” Maintenance and nurses salaries went from among the top in the state to mediocre among union jobs. The slogan of the UCH is that it is at the forefront of medicine, however, Berg suggested that it would be more accurate to say that the UCH is at the forefront of allowing market forces to govern patient care. Consequently, it is also at the forefront of driving down wages and splitting unions apart so they cannot fight together. There is an answer, Berg added, workers must unite with each other, patients, students, and intellectuals of conscious, and we must support each other.

Linda Jennings has been a nurse since 1977 and was on the INA's negotiating team. She explained that the prior to 1996 implementation of the strike clause in the INA bylaws there was a system of negotiations whereby federal mediators were brought in if an impasse was reached, which allowed for interest arbitration. This practice had a moral character that is helpful to nurses and patients because it allowed them to continue working together. Mrs. Jennings expressed that with the new strike clause the nurses are treading new water. She proudly proclaimed that this is a historic moment because for the
first time since 1968 the nurses have voted in solidarity, with 1100 strong collectively bargaining. She pointed out that the hospitals made huge profits this year and that the sheer numbers: 750 of the 1100 INA nurses voted, and of them, 653 rejected the contract offered by management, is a sign that management lacks respect for the nurses and is “treating them like children in the back seat of a car.” Though some nurses are PHD candidates, management has told them that they lack knowledge when it comes to patient care. Management, she stressed, must be understood as a profit driven business not necessarily concerned with patient well-being.

Mrs. Lucker, who is a pediatric nurse, followed Mrs. Jennings. She explained that patient care entails more than commonly believed. For instance, it often involves dealing with families in crisis. To enable the UCH to attract and retain competitive nurses she contends it must pay the same wages as other hospitals.

Garland-Olairan noted that “turnover for nurses at the UCH is high considering that UCH represents itself as being at the forefront of medicine. Registered nurses at UCH should only leave for personal or family reasons rather than because they are unable to provide safe patient care in an environment where the necessary tools and resources are available. They should not leave because they would rather work in a collegial environment with their nursing managers rather than one where it seems that many managers would prefer discipline than take a look at where the system failed not only the nurse, but also ultimately the patient. The turnover rate was situated in the double digits at the end of 2003. The cost of recruiting and training a new nurse runs above $60,000 per new nurse. It is in the financial interest of the hospitals to figure out that in order to retain nurses they need to focus on doing what it takes to bring nursing to the forefront at UCH: that is, collegial relationships that do not result in Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges being filed at the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) against the UCH for continuously violating the nurses' contract and telling them to arbitrate if the nurses do not like it. And of course, what was just witnessed with the overwhelming majority of nurses voting to authorize the union to strike. This is not an environment conducive to attracting, recruiting, and retaining nurses.”

Management, the nurses explained, emphasized that the reason nurses are not deserving of economic increases in the double digits is because patient satisfaction is down. Management acted as though the contract was a hand out while in fact the patient nurse ratio has increased from 3:1 to 5:1 over the past few years.

The INA sought a base-wage increase for more than 1,100 nurses of 15 percent over three years. They finally settled on May 12, 2004 for 13 percent. The union also wanted to improve step increases based on seniority and the increases to be retroactive to September. The contract offered prior to the strike vote did not allow a step increase for senior nurses until three years. These are nurses who until the third year of the contract would not be rewarded for handling numerous crises and training countless nurses who will get increases and then leave the hospital. In addition the 3 to 4 percent raises management proposed would have been entirely eaten up by healthcare costs that rose 33% in recent years. The nurses finally agreed on the compromise arrived at May 4 which called for a 216 month step at 3% to be added at the top of the schedule the first year of the contract and all nurses currently at 192 months who qualify will move to this new step two pay periods after the contract ratification. Any nurse currently at step 9 who has the accumulated years will move to step 10 two pay periods after contract ratification. The nurses also rejected a so-called 2 percent retention bonus, which the union said would be less than retroactive pay. They finally settled on retro-pay to October 1, 2003 which includes all hours worked including overtime.

It is crucial to dispense with management's accusations that the nurses were greedy in rejecting their preliminary contract. These nurses expressed a true passion for their work and a sincere calling felt for it. They simply demand respect and dignity for their work. Had they gone on strike, they would have had to notify the hospital 10 days before, and the largest nurse strike breaking company would be called which requires a 1 million dollar non-refundable deposit. Had they gone on strike SOUL was prepared to organize
student solidarity efforts ranging from standing in the picket line to putting on educational events such as the forum.

The hospital is the largest industry in the South Side employing more than 5000 people. It is necessary, the nurses stressed, that students become aware of the conditions of the nurses and that the nurses' issue is not perceived to be in a political vacuum. Though they settled for the contract, Sheilah Garland-Olaniran notes that there is a great deal of work to be done. For instance, short-term disability is only 35% of a nurses' salary which is
hardly enough to survive on. The nurses saw a 5% improvement in day slots as opposed to night slots, but much more is needed because they remain overworked. Perhaps the most ironic and glaring aspect of the nurses' struggle is that they cannot afford to get sick or old. In contract negotiations management went as far as to propose a healthcare cost increase of up to 80%.

On a final note Garland-Olaniran commented that the nurses' struggle is one that exists on a national level, which includes the need for universal healthcare for all. The outreach of the nurses by way of this public forum was an important first step in what could expand to become a more organized network of community support and solidarity for and with campus labor.



End Notes
For more info about the Nurses' struggle, visit:
www.illinoisnurses.com
www.743newleadershipslate.org

Or to contact SOUL, email:
soul (at) listhost.uchicago.edu
or Alex, agoldenb (at) uchicago.edu


Special thanks to Sheilah Garland-Olaniran and Shawn Lavoie for comments and input on this article.