| |
Massachusetts Nurse :: January/February
2005
A primer on the dangers of 'shared
governance'
By Roland Golf
Director, MNA Labor Program
As a labor union as well as a professional
association, the MNA advocates improved
terms and conditions of work, and advocates
for improved patient care not only because
it is right to do so, but because these issues
are inseparable.
As a union, members have a legally
protected right to discuss and negotiate
any proposed changes in work terms and
conditions—either through the negotiation
of a new contract or through regularly scheduled
labor-management meetings, where the
union and administration sit as equal partners.
In contract negotiations and in the labor
management process, you have the right to
say "no," or at least to engage in good faith
negotiation to a reasonable agreement.
Shared governance/practice councils and
similar bodies are strategies employed by
health care administrators as a means of
undermining the rights of union members
to negotiate over terms and conditions of
employment that effect nurses and patients.
Employers create these bodies either as an
employer-dominated labor organization or to
remove issues from the negotiations or labor/management meetings to a forum in
which
they dominate the decision making process—an employer-dominated labor organization
in disguise. Merely having the opportunity
to "have input" or to "make suggestions" or
to "share your ideas and opinions" is not
real "shared governance." In these settings,
if you make a suggestion and management
doesn't like it, what recourse do you have?
The answer is you have none.
For nurses in unionized settings, it is time
that we re-establish our right to have all issues
related to working conditions—including
improved patient care—brought to the union
contract negotiations or labor/management
meetings where you have a real voice and,
more importantly, the legally protected right
to challenge management and to negotiate
your position.
At the beginning of the 20th century the biggest
threat to employee-led labor unions was
the company-dominated labor organization,
and it may be re-appearing at the beginning
of the 21st century. The Wagner Act granted
employees the right to organize into unions
that would bargain collectively over terms
and conditions of work. The union provided
employees the right to organize themselves
to bargain collectively with the employer
over terms and conditions of employment.
Unions empowered employees to address
their working conditions and be advocates
for better social-welfare programs.
Shared governance/practice councils, in
its many forms, claims to enhance accountability,
empower nurses and provide for
patient advocacy. Merely listing the characteristics
of shared governance/practice
councils indicates that employers instituting
these bodies are seeking to create a mutant
unionism that destroys employee-led labor
organizations.
An employer engages in an unfair labor
practice pursuant to Section 8(a) (2) when
it dominates a labor organization of its
employees. How do you determine when
shared governance/practice councils stop
becoming a method to communicate with
employees and starts an unfair labor practice?
The National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) ruled that an employer dominates
when "the impetus behind formation of an
organization of employees emanates from the
employer and the organization has no effective
existence independent of the employer's
active involvement, a finding of domination is
appropriate if the purpose of the organization
is to deal with the employer concerning conditions
of employment." (Electromation, Inc.,
and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Local No. 1049).
This definition, applying to unionized
and non-union facilities, covers many
issues addressed in shared governance/
practice council bodies (e.g. new technology,
scheduling, job descriptions, required
duties), and we must review each issue to
determine if the shared governance/practice
council body is infringing on the legal territory
established for the union in federal
labor law. Employers retain the right to
communicate with their employees and seek
their opinion, but it cannot replace negotiations
and labor/management meetings with
shared governance/practice councils when
the issues involve terms and conditions of
employment.
Combating employer domination
Depending on your situation, there are
several ways to combat attempts of employer
domination. If you work in a facility that does
not have any type of shared governance/
practice councils, then you should block
attempts by the employer to create any such
body. First, educate your fellow bargaining
unit members about the principle that their
union is their voice on all matters that affect
their work including issues traditionally
identified as professional—your ability to
care for patients is a condition of employment.
Second, inform your employer that
you view any attempt to circumvent negotiations
or labor/management as an unfair
labor practice and assure the employer all
the issues may be raised at negotiations or
labor/management meetings.
If you work in a facility that has some type
of shared governance/practice council, then
in addition to educating your fellow bargaining
unit members and informing the
employer that raising issues about working
conditions is illegal, you must monitor the
shared governance/practice council discussions.
You must infiltrate the committee,
voice concerns about issues that you believe
must be taken to the union or at least keep
(or receive) minutes of the meetings. The
recorded minutes and documents creating
the body are the essential evidence in establishing
an unfair labor practice of creating an
employer dominated labor organization.
|
|
