Peter Ottley PRESIDENT Peter Byrne SECRETARY-TREASURER John Kelley EXECUTIVE VICE-PRES Peter Cutolo GENERAL ORGANIZER George Hughes AECORDING SECRETARY • REGISTERED NURSES GUILD • LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSES GUILD • CIVIL SERVICE GUILD • TECHNICAL GUILD • CLERICAL & NON-PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES "OCAL 144 HOTEL, HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME & ALLIED HEALTH SERVICES UNION 233 WEST 49th STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019 Hon. Harrison Williams United States Senate Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Williams: (212) 265-2366-7-8-9 On Monday, August 7th, by a vote of 285 to 95, the House of Now there is an ammendment afoot in the Snate which would We strongly urge that this obvious subterfuge be seen for what We urge its passage on the grounds that it will help every Local 144 urges you to vote for Bill 11357 - without any ammendments and with all possible speed. On behalf of this labor organization which numbers more than 5000 members, I am urging that you support H. R. Bill No. 11357 as passed by the House. RJ/mc Very truly yours, R Johansen Robert Johansen The enclosed editorial from The New York Times reflects the views of the The Massachusetts Nurses Association, as bargaining representative for more than 7,000 registered nurses in Massachusetts, wholeheartedly supports the concept of collective bargaining and believes that hospital employees must have a voice in determining their employment conditions. Massachusetts General Law 150A declares the policy of Massachusetts "in the interests of preserving the continuity and improving the quality of health care" to be the promotion of collective bargaining and the protection of nurse employees' right to organize. Nurses involved in the support of state legislation in 1964, extending the Massachusetts Labor Relations Law to nurses, recognized the unique nature of health care facilities and gave the right to strike, accepting arbitration as a tool for the resolution of any impasse. The Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission has included in bargaining units all registered nurses, except directors and assistant directors of nursing service, and almost eight years of experience with that unit determination has confirmed its wisdom. Nurse bargaining units routinely resolve diverse interest among their members, and bring reason and stability to employer-employee relationships. This amendment, H.R. 11357, is strongly supported in Massachusetts by the Massachusetts Hospital Association, which serves as labor relations counsel to hospital management. When employers seek to include themselves under Federal Labor Law, the inevitable conclusion as that the change is not in the best interest of employees. Member of the American Nurses Association The Honorable Harrison Williams, Jr. August 14, 1972 As the largest single group of providers of health care service, nurses in this state do not choose to give up their rights under the State Law, to face an uncertain status under Federal Law. We urge you to oppose H.R. 11357 unless it should be amended to except those states which already grant collective bargaining rights to hospital employees. Hospital Strike Passport With only a few weeks of politically suffused deliberations left to the expiring Congress, an effort is well advanced on Capitol Hill to nullify the statutory safe topted by New York State to prohibit hospital makes sale assuring equity to hospital employes. The tort takes the form of an innocuous-sounding com.nendation by the House Education and Labor Committee to remove from the Taft-Hartley Act the quarter-century-old exemption of employes of voluntary hospitals. To the extent that such a change would put hospital workers on a par with millions of other workers in legal protection for unionization and bargaining rights, such a change has much to commend it. However, there is one important distinction between chective bargaining in hospitals and collective bargaining in soup factories or tin mills: A strike of hospital mployes on a citywide basis creates intolerable danger to the lives of patients. In recognition of this distinction, Governor Rockefeller and the State Legislature-with the enthusiastic cooperation of Local 1199 of the Drug and Hospital Union-fashioned and passed in 1963 a model law to guarantee fair treatment for both employes and public. That law, especially as improved by amendments in 1963, has proved remarkably effective. It provides for rbitration, rather than strikes, as the final method Praesolving disputes. It has enabled nonprofessional workers in the hospitals, once among the worst-exploited elements in labor, to bring their minimum pay into the $150-a-week zone. It has also opened the way for unionization of supervisory nurses, residents and internes. At least seven other states have somewhat similar laws. If Congress wants to establish a legal underpinning for hospital labor-management relations on a national casis, would be wise to pattern it after this state's excellent statute. As a minimum, it ought to include in e Federal bill a specific waiver of applicability in states with adequate laws of their own. The House committee made a small obeisance in this direction by including In its report--but not in the bill A plea to the National Labor Relations Board to cede jurisdiction over hospital cases to states that have laws "substantially equivalent" to the Federal statute. Un-fortunately, the board's history affords little basis for hope that it will go along. It has had authority for 25 years to shift jurisdiction in all other types of cases, but has yet to shift its first case. Just by way of making sure that record is kept intact for hospital workers, eight committee members have filed a separate statement emphasizing their belief that nothing in the new law doesor should-mandate a changed approach. Without a clear-cut mandate for priority of state law, enactment of the present House bill would be an invitation to wholesale hospital strikes and an accelerated escalation of hospital costs. |