UMRFA Response: Well, if they say they’re not doing it then it has to be the case right? They claim to have “an evidence-based practice” yet even when they did (on a rare occasion) cite a bit of empirical evidence, they very selectively picked out facts and left out the bits that were inconvenient to their argument. All the information that is supposedly based on the NLRA, case law, opinions, and experience seems to be dramatically lacking. Also, what “experience” are they referring to and why do they seemingly disregard all of our experiences and opinions? Hospital leadership does not seem to have considered even once that residents and fellows are free-thinkers who have determined for themselves that a union is clearly the best course of action.
Union-busting consultants often advise employers to project the appearance of helping employees to make an informed choice. We are not fooled. The employer has a perspective here: they like having the power to decide our terms and conditions of our employment unilaterally. They fear what we will propose if they have to sit down with us as equals at a bargaining table because they know we will propose what is best for physicians and our patients, not what is necessarily best for UMMC’s bottom line.
UMRFA Response: Response: This is a lot of talk and very little results. We all see the beds closing, the elimination of services. We will continue to bring this issue up because we strongly believe that this is a remediable situation that the hospital is choosing to leave this way. This just goes to show how this campaign for unionization is not only for the benefit of residents and fellows but also for patients and our co-workers in the hospital who share our dedication. We promise to hold them to account at every turn. We persistently push residents and fellow priorities to maximize our well-being and patient care because we actually support those things, unlike the hospital, which puts its financial bottom line first. They say “There is no way to predict the results of negotiations” - technically true. However, take a look at other resident and fellow unions out there and look at the contract wins they have gotten. We have not been getting anything close to that without a union so we think we all deserve a chance to fight for those wins.
UMRFA Response: Response: The keyword is “unilateral.” If they want to give residents and fellows a raise during bargaining, they can just ask the union bargaining team if they would object. What do you think a bargaining team, our bargaining team – made up of residents and fellows, would say to that? The reason that employers are prohibited from “conferring a benefit” when an election is pending is to avoid the appearance of bribery. It is also important to note that while we cannot guarantee the outcome on any particular issue that may come up in the course of contract negotiations, salary bumps are often extended retroactively. Further, there is nothing preventing the hospital from quickly coming to a contract deal with the union once negotiations start. They don’t have to play hardball and extend the process for this to become an issue. The employer will have complete freedom to advance respectful proposals that are in the best interest of all of UMMC’s stakeholders, or not.
UMRFA Response: We would love any evidence that this is the case. Any at all. We really hope this is true but there has been no indication that the hospital administration have even been communicating much with GME and PDs, much less engaging in efforts to ensure people have adequate ability to vote during these really meager slots.
UMRFA Response: “UMMC’s priority” (note how they characterize management’s priorities as UMMC’s priorities – are we not part of UMMC?) is to keep “the union” out. The administration evidently thinks it can persuade us, through a poorly written, patronizing website created by union-busting consultants, to vote against our own interests. They claim to want us all to have the chance to decide what is best, but if they wanted to respect our choice – the choice of an overwhelming supermajority of us who signed union authorization cards online – then they would have agreed to our demand for recognition, instead of delaying our inevitable choice to form a union.
Hospital administrators think that we are not smart enough to decide whether to sign a union card. We are. We know what is best for our patients and for ourselves and our families. Our choice to form a union is in the best interest of everyone at UMMC, except maybe for some managers the people who make many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (or more). Those of us who struggle to pay our bills, student loan debts, and more while working more hours and days than most of our families and friends can comprehend know who to trust.
UMRFA Response: This answer, clearly crafted by the administration’s union-busting consultants, is disingenuous…and unoriginal. Management often criticizes collective bargaining agreements for having a “one-size-fits-all” approach. It is simply untrue. What we have now is truly one-sized, or more accurately one sided – the management side. Ask yourselves, how could a document that we bargain and we have to agree to be as one-sided as management’s current approach of unilaterally dictating our terms and conditions of employment?
Notice how managements uses the word “may” frequently. The anti-union attorneys clearly had a field day with this one. Sure, a contract “may” no longer permit the benefits currently afforded to certain programs. Alternatively, a bargained contract could make those benefits better or even open the door for more opportunities. Importantly, as things currently stand, there is nothing stopping the hospital from taking away any bonus benefit offered at a moment’s notice when they decide they want to tighten their belts (or build a fountain for the new building or something). Once elements get into a contract however, they cannot just be retracted at the will of the hospital’s businesspeople. We can fight for these things during the negotiation process because we represent every resident and fellow. This answer is a really low underhanded threat from the hospital and they should be ashamed of themselves…we know that our upcoming contract negotiations will only be as difficult as management chooses to make them.
On the question of program director involvement, unions typically make PD’s lives much much better. They clear a lot of the minutiae that PDs have to deal with on a daily basis off their plates and open them up to deal with more important work that can benefit residents and fellows. Program directors at programs that have unionized typically have positive things to say about how the union has changed the nature of their work. Residents and fellows are smart enough to see through these obvious scare tactics by hospital administration. Many of us know friends and former classmates at unionized institutions and know that it is not the horror show the hospital is making it out to be.