Jul 31, 2008  
Bargaining – 7/29/08
 
...In effect, if we make suggestions and work to reduce the number of our coworkers per bed by a little over 1/4 of an employee (actually, 0.28 of an employee) by the end of fiscal year 2010, then approximately 25% of the "gain" that is accomplished will be "shared" by those employees who are still employed.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Bargaining was very productive in that it wasn't productive at all. Let me back up a bit to give you a context.

The administration – on our previous bargaining date, 7/14/08 – told us they would come back on 7/29/08 with a counter to the union's very substantial compromise of a week earlier saying, "We would not have asked for another date [the 29th] if movement on our part was not possible." Charlie Ridgell, our chief negotiator, asked Tom Dowdalls, the administration's chief negotiator, for some assurance there would be substantial movement. Though Dowdalls would make no firm commitment to "substantial movement," he did ask Charlie to read between the lines. With this "assurance" Charlie asked our team to give the administration another chance. We on the bargaining team then voted on the 14th to wait and see what the administration would bring to the table on the 29th.

The 29th arrives...
First, Dowdalls complained about our ads and how Enloe was made to look in a bad light, implying we – including the service unit – give poor patient care. Spin. Of course, we all know WE don't give poor care, and this is verified by patient comments. What we also know is that management's bad decision after bad decision, and their failure to listen to – and take seriously – their workers' concerns is what is holding Enloe back from being the great medical center it could be.

Then they gave us their "counter." What they brought to the table was virtually little movement in their previous wage scale proposal. While we asked for a wage scale that would pull all of our service unit employees away from the living-paycheck-to-paycheck poverty level many of them now experience, to the standard now enjoyed by other north state unionized hospital workers, the administration came back with an offer of an "additional dollars over 3 years of $839,770." Let's break that down: that averages $425 per service unit employee per year, or, $0.20 per hour.

There was absolutely no movement on the 'non-financial' items we wanted, such as "No Subcontracting," or, arbitration of stalled staffing disputes, or, a no "gagging" on our freedom of speech, and so on. There also was no movement on our request for eight more PTO hours for the added Martin Luther King holiday, or, our request for 100% of our cash when we cash out our PTO. Also there was no movement toward a fully paid for and USEFUL health insurance plan (the "Classic Plan" as opposed to the very restrictive and not very useful "Value Plan").

The let's-reduce-our-workforce-in-order-to-share-our-gain proposal...
The only thing that was substantially different was something they call "Gain Sharing." This was proposed by the administration as part of their financial package for the first time on the 29th. It really should have been presented as an efficiency or productivity proposal.

In effect, if we make suggestions and work to reduce the number of our coworkers per bed by a little over 1/4 of an employee (actually, 0.28 of an employee) by the end of fiscal year 2010, then approximately 25% of the "gain" that is accomplished will be "shared" by those employees who are still employed. Where the other 75% of the "gain" goes was not divulged. Did you say "WHOA!!!"

This, of course, is the administrator's mind being creative. The formula these bottom line administrators use is: FTE/AOB. FTE means Full Time Equivalent [Employees] and AOB means Adjusted Occupied Bed. Enloe's present FTE/AOB is 5.97, so we were told. The statewide average is 5.35. Of course, we are a trauma II level hospital with especially intensive nursing needs; more intense than the statewide average. But this is the formula these administrative types insist on using. It's funny that these administrators use 'caregivers per bed', instead of 'caregivers per level-of-patient-needs'. At any rate, they're basically telling us we have too many employees. Was that another "WHOA!!!" I heard.

Enloe has around 300 beds, though not all are occupied at any one time. Still, that means a goodly number of workers would have to be reduced in order to get a "payout" of at least $1000 at the end of fiscal year 2010. If we achieve only a reduction of only .27 employees per AOB, what then? No payout?

The administration said we could "bargain" over any suggestion they wished to implement, BUT if no agreement was reached, they could implement the suggestion anyway. I know, I know...that does not sound like bargaining to me either.

Productive in that it wasn't productive...
So, it turns out, their insistence on July 14th that we bargain on the 29th, and that this was the earliest day they could bargain, was just another stalling tactic. They must have heard our scuttlebutt about going on strike on the 29th. The reason this 'unproductivity' was 'productive' is now we know better what to expect from this batch of executives and Board members. We compromised; we patiently waited; we were bamboozled. What did President Bush say: "Fool me once ... uh ... shame ... shame ... uh ... you're not going to fool me again!"

Stay tuned...
There are two more dates scheduled for possible bargaining: August 4th and the 6th. If you want even further info, call Pat Alvarez at 624-4256, or Jim North at 521-6723. If we don't have your email address, please send it to: dizzysteer2@yahoo.com. Your bargaining team will be getting you further information in the next couple of days. Stay tuned.