Sharp Talk

Earlier in the week, an e-mail was sent out by Mike Murphy, the President and CEO of Sharp HealthCare. While I hope my employer is very open about the contents of these e-mails being seen by those outside Sharp, I carefully pick and choose what I take from the e-mails when posting them. I stick to things which have been said by the media, as well as things related to Sharp policies.

The e-mail contained information regarding Union negotiations, and Sharp policies for nurses.

Noted in the e-mail were actions take by SPNN/UNAC. I need to write up a page on all abbreviations used, so at least I keep track of them for myself, let alone readers. Claims of actions taken include SPNN/UNAC making inaccurate and disparaging allegations and statements about Sharp HealthCare, and the work Sharp employees do daily. Also, SPNN/UNAC has questions Sharp’s status of tax exemption, citing Sharp’s charity care as not being enough to qualify for this status. This lead to filing the “largest quality of care claim in the history of California” with the Department of Health Services, meant to bring light to unfavorable health care quality, alongside the lawsuit filed over missed breaks.

It is my personal understanding that SPNN/UNAC failed to raise certain concerns during prior discussions, and instead have worked to ruin Sharp’s good standing views to the public. If I may interject a touch of personal bias, I would not want someone representing me to disparage my place of work while trying to help me. What I might gain would be at the same time my company’s loss, which could be felt if consumers chose another health care provider as their provider of choice. If Sharp HealthCare is the best in San Diego, and Sharp is such a bad place, this really says something about our competition in the health care field. Sharp HealthCare has actively worked at improving the environment for not only its patients, but its employees as well.

Mike Murphy’s e-mail outlines remaining issues between Sharp and SPNN/UNAC, which is good, as there are still many things I don’t know about.

The first issue listed is the Union calling for an increased voice in quality of care. Sharp’s response has been an offer to “clearly identify within the contract that the Registered Nurse Advisory Committee (RNAC) should be utilized to present and discuss any quality of care concern.” There is also a proposed committee in case the aforementioned method cannot be resolved. Union or no union, I would hope that any Sharp employee would have an equal chance to propose improvements in the area which they work. Not all changes can be implemented for a variety of reason, and I hope fellow employees will understand this. If you propose an improvement in something, but the improvement is unreasonable for any reason, a logical next step would be either to find a way to overcome that reason, or consider alternate methods to reach the same (or a similar) goal.

The second issues is retirement benefits. Sharp HealthCare is confident its retirement program, as a whole, “is very competitive in the San Diego market place.” While I’m not going to judge the retirement program when I know little about it (but it’s something I definitely need to look into this year, as I’ve been working at Sharp for more than a year now, with no plans to find a new employer), I do feel it’s a bit shortsighted to be “competitive in the San Diego market place” only. Why not “competite in the southern California marketplace”? Or California as a whole? I don’t know must about the retirement program, nor do I know how Sharp HealthCare compares with other health care providers nationally. Therefore, this is not a criticism of my employer’s benefits, only a hope that one day every aspect of Sharp HealthCare may be brightly compared on a national level. We’re already competing nationally when it comes to quality of health care, and being a top place to work in IT. As a final thought, there are companies which have given health care benefits which turned out to be unrealistic, requiring them to pay out money to countless employees after retirement. This kind of benefit can only drain a company’s monetary resources, thus removing the company’s ability to do what it does. I would not want to see Sharp HealthCare lose its ability to provide quality health care in the interest of providing extraneous benefits due to employees not planning for their own retirements (which, again, is something I need to look into this year!)

The third cited issue is “reasonable access” for Union representatives to each of Sharp’s hospitals. From the e-mail, “Sharp has defined reasonable access as two to three representatives per shift (depending upon hospital size), two times a week.” I can understand this, as my first thought was, “allowing too many people too often can disrupt the flow of work”. The Union rejected a definition of “reasonable access” prior, although I do not know if the definition they rejected is the same quoted here from the e-mail; the e-mail states offering “a more generous” definition, which was rejected. I would like to see the Union’s definition of “reasonable access”, as I find myself wondering if Sharp’s isn’t too disruptive for employees and potentially for patients.

The final item mentioned is “Closed Shop”. Before reading about this, I wondered if the use of capital letters meant this was a term with a specific meaning. I decided to look it up on Wikipedia. Quoted from Wikipedia, with my own emphasis added:

A closed shop is a business or industrial establishment whose employees are required to be union members (often of a specific union and no other) as a precondition to employment.

Personally, I find this to be a bad situation for potential nurses. If I want to work somewhere without being represented to join a union, without having to pay dues for services I do not want, I hope Sharp HealthCare remains such a place. While the job I perform isn’t the kind which Unions would be interested in seeing unionized, my words still apply were I aiming for a job where unions are typically seen. Were I to become a teacher, it would be my choice not to join a teachers union, for example. Some nurses might prefer to use their own methods for suggesting improved health care services. Such nurses might be planning their own retirement savings. These nurses might be working hard in hopes to be paid what their worth for the work they perform, rather than being paid based on their job title alone. Other nurses may find a being part of a Union more suited to their needs. Let’s keep it a choice.

Within the e-mail, Mike Murphy suggests a Closed Shop, which would require all nurses working at Sharp to pay Union dues (money from their paychecks) to SPNN/UNAC, would increase SPNN/UNAC’s income by “$1.6 million annually in membership dues and fees or more than $4.5 million over the three years of a new agreement”. He states that Sharp will not take away the freedom of its nurses to choose whether to join a union, and pay union dues.

Whether there is a strike or not starting tomorrow, Sharp has contracted replacement nurses. The quality of care and dedication to Sharp’s patients who have chosen use for their care must not be diminished during a striking period.

Later in the week, an update e-mail was sent out by Mike Murphy.

In this e-mail, various topics related to the negotiations are addressed. It tells about the development of a new proposal for formally addressing quality concerns. This sounds like it’s a step in the right direction. Hopefully a system will be put in place where nurses can provide ideas and insights into the need for improved care directly to higher positions within Sharp, which hopefully will result in detailed explanations as to why said ideas cannot be implemented (if they cannot be), with room for partial implementation, or instead reply positively on how to take the first steps toward implementing the requested improvements.

Also presented in the e-mail is proposal for medical coverage for long-term Sharp Registered Nurses over a certain age. As well, there is mention of further discussion (which has already by the time I’m writing this) with the Union on “hospital access”

Because I’m only seeing one side of the story, I visited the UNAC of California web site. I don’t know if there’s a more informative web site to check for Union members, so this will be my starting point. They have a PDF format file covering questions and answers about the strike, which appears to be informative for striking RNs.

According to the page：

SPNN nurses never make a decision to strike lightly. UNAC members haven’t gone on strike since 1980. However, (Sharp) management gave the union its “last, best and final” offer of a new contract. That offer shows a lack of respect for our hard work and our desire to have a strong voice in improving patient care. So our only recourse is to strike. We cannot force (Sharp) management to continue negotiating if they take the position that they are finished and no longer want to talk. By going on strike, we will show that we refuse to accept this unacceptable contract offer.

Unfortunately, this conflicts with e-mails about hopes of Sharp and nurses to continue discussions, rather than entering a strike. I do not know if “our desire to have a strong voice” refers to the Union, or to nurses.

The next question addresses something I have been wondering about. A newspaper article (in the San Diego Union Tribune) had stated that RNs voted overwhelmingly in favor of the strike. It took me by suprise to learn that so many of Sharp’s Registered Nurses voted this way. From this page, the following tells who decided RNs should strike.

Informational meetings were held throughout the day on Friday, June 29. Voting by secret ballot, the overwhelming
majority of SPNN nurses attending those meetings voted to authorize a strike.

Contrary to what the newspaper article I read said about a majority of nurses voting for the strike, it turns out it was a majority of the nurses who attend the meetings. Just as it’s the involved parents who go to PTA, it’s likewise the involved RNs who agree with the Union’s views who will be at the meetings. This is not a criticism of said meetings, only an observation, as the Union Tribune stated, “Union nurses at Sharp HealthCare hospitals voted overwhelmingly yesterday to authorize a strike,” giving the appearance to me that all Union RNs voted. Very “live and learn” for me here.

The next question is a good one, asking why an RN should strike if they like working at Sharp and caring for their patients. The given answer is: