Skip to main content

View Diary: Temple Tells Nurses: The Constitution Doesn't Apply to You (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What an "economic strike" means (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    IANAL, but there are "economic strikes" and "unfair-labor-practice strikes."  An "economic strike" is any strike undertaken in a dispute over mandatory subjects of bargaining -- wages, hours, and working conditions.  A ULP strike is a strike undertaken to protest actions by the employer that violate the National Labor Relations Act.

    If, in this case, Temple had just unilaterally imposed the new rule on the RNs, then the RNs could define this as a ULP strike -- they would be on strike to protest Temple's illegal, unilateral change to the RNs's working conditions.  Once Temple reversed the unilateral imposition, the RNs would have to end the strike, or if they continued it, it would become a regular, "economic" strike.

    It's likely that the union has officially stated that they believe that Temple has refused to bargain in good faith, and would claim that as part of the basis for the strike.  But this is really an economic strike:  they're striking in order to win the contract that they want, not to protest the employer's illegal behavior.

    The difference is that the law allows the boss to hire permanent replacements in an economic strike, but not in a ULP strike.

    [Disclosure:  I used to work for the union that's on strike here]

    "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

    by Pesto on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 09:12:42 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Union (0+ / 0-)

      I appreciate your response, and the part that I understand, makes sense. I know several nurses there, and really feel bad for them. I have a feeling that this will not end positively for them.

      •  Well, to the extent (0+ / 0-)

        that you're basically calling the workers stupid and greedy, or at the very least incredibly gullible and publicly dishonest (since you think the strike can't be about the gag order even if the workers say it is), and to the extent that you side with the boss on the merits of the dispute, I'm not sure how to take your sense that it "will not end positively for them".

        "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

        by Pesto on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:13:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

          to  much of your remarks.
          What do you think this strike is about?
          I know it is about

          1. free college tuition for their children
          1. maintaining ultra rich health benefits. The gag order has ZERO to do with the strike. So, yes, they are being dishonest (why do their sign say put patients first-strike has nothing to do with the patients!)

          Yes, I think this strike is stupid and greedy. The nurses are well-paid and have tremendous benefits. They are risking a lot.

          •  You keep saying that the gag order (0+ / 0-)

            has nothing to do with the strike, and now say that it "has nothing to do with the patients).

            How do you know this?

            "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

            by Pesto on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:31:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Please (0+ / 0-)

              Do you really think the strike is about the gag order?

              •  So you have no reason to think what you think (0+ / 0-)

                What I'm gathering from your comments on this thread is that you think unions are "greedy" and "evil".  You concoct contract proposals out of thin air and berate the workers for not agreeing to them -- despite, as far as I can tell, your having absolutely no idea whatsoever what the current contract says or what the boss or the workers have put on the table.

                So, you hate unions and assume that workers go on strike for bad reasons.  That's not a very persuasive position to take.

                And yes, I do believe that these workers would go on strike against this employer largely because of this kind of issue.  As you can tell from the statements from HR and other bosses, Temple Hospital (and Temple University, too) is a nasty, manipulative, arrogant employer.  They have earned the enmity and distrust of their own employees.  And when workers feel like you've been treating them like shit for years, they are unlikely to give you the benefit of the doubt or to just ignore the gazillionth time you've treated them with contempt.

                Neither you nor I knows exactly what was on the table in negotiations, nor does either of us know what it's like to work for Temple.  These workers, however, voted to go on strike, which is not an easy thing to do.  And I think your assumption that they're just greedy or dupes is foolish and frankly reactionary.  The fight is on.  I know which side I'm on.  It looks like you know which one you're on, too.

                "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

                by Pesto on Fri Apr 02, 2010 at 09:48:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Temple U. (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes, unions are greedy and evil. They are beneficial to those employees who hold jobs, but detrimental in so many other ways. Two examples- I know many, many businessmen and real estate investors that refuse to do any work in the city of philadelphia, due to the fact that they will avoid dealing with unions at all costs. Result- significantly less jobs for Philadelphians! Second example is the Comcast Center. You familiar with the blackmailing of Pipes to nowhere?
                  Listen, we just have completely different viewpoints-you see employers being evil and I see unions (not the workers) as being evil.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site