Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

are State nurses associations that are improving the economic status of their members without having any success in negotiating agreements. Progress, though slow, is being made.

Subject Matter of Agreements

The agreements included many subjects usually found in other collective bargaining arrangements: recognition, coverage, salary, shift differential, special services differential, on-call pay, sick leave, vacations, holidays, seniority, health programs, and adjudication of grievances. Although agreements within a State followed the general pattern established in the minimum standards, which are formulated on a statewide basis, they were not identical; for example, salaries of general duty nurses varied within the same State. Coverage also varied. Some included only the staff nurses; others covered all professional nurses performing nursing services, including supervisors (assistant head nurses and head nurses) but excluding assistant nursing directors and directors.

Under some agreements, all professional nurses either had to be members of the State nurses association or become members within 30 days after the contract date or subsequent hiring. If any nurse failed to become a member or to remain a member in good standing, she was subject to dismissal by the hospital on request of the State association. In other agreements not requiring membership in the ANA, elective membership was highly recommended. The checkoff of association dues, if a certain number of nurses requested it, was also provided in some agreements.

Most of the agreements examined included automatic increases in salary after a specified period of continuous service (for example, 6 months or 1 year) up to a maximum for each category of nurses. All provided for premium pay on the afternoon and evening shifts. A special service differential was usually provided for nurses assigned to work in the operating or delivery rooms or to communicable disease nursing. Under the on-call pay clauses, nurses on call for duty in both the operating and delivery rooms received additional pay, usually one-half the straight-time rate for each 8-hour day. Several of the agreements had a report-pay clause under which the nurse reporting to work and sent home because of a low patient census received 4 hours' pay.

598406-61- -2

The 40-hour, 5-day week was standard. Overtime was to be compensated at time and a half or compensatory time off was to be given within a prescribed number of days. Work on more than 2 of any consecutive 4 Sundays was to be compensated at a premium rate, usually time and a half. The work schedule generally provided for 2 consecutive days off each week, to be Saturday and Sunday every other week. Many of the agreements prohibited split shifts unless they were mutually agreeable. Provisions for leaves of absence covering maternity, education, and illness were universal. Another prevalent clause dealt with posting work schedules in advance.

Paid holiday and vacation arrangements were also included in all agreements. In most instances, there were 7 paid holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Good Friday or Washington's Birthday. If a nurse worked on these holidays or if the holiday fell on her day off, she was to have an alternate day off. Vacation allowances were fairly standard for the first year of continuous service-usually 2 weeks (10 working days). For longer service, there was considerable variation, ranging from 4 weeks of vacation pay after 5 or more years of service to 3 weeks after 10 years.

Health programs were almost uniform. A preemployment and an annual physical examination were provided without cost by the employer. Some employers provided Blue Cross coverage without charge to eligible nurses; for example, full-time regular professional nurses or those covered by the agreement.

Only one agreement provided for a pension plan, and that covered industrial nurses in a large manufacturing firm.

Most agreements examined were silent on seniority arrangements and procedures to be followed on promotions, reduction of work force, or recall.

Most agreements contained grievance procedures covering any controversy arising over the interpretation or proper application of the terms of the agreement. The number of steps in the procedure varied, because some did not include arbitration as the terminal step. A typical grievance procedure in one State had four steps:

1. Nurse and immediate supervisor or director of nursing.

2. Nurses' committee and hospital management.

3. Referral by the nurses' committee to the State nurses association, whose representative was to meet with the hospital management within a prescribed time.

4. Referral to a committee, composed of representatives of both the hospital and the State nurses association, whose decision is final and binding.

The agreements with such a procedure were silent as to what would be done if this committee

failed to agree.

In another State, step 4 involved an "adjustment board" composed of two representatives from the hospital and two from the State nurses association. If the board did not resolve the grievance, it was to go to arbitration.

The largest multiemployer agreement (covering 20 hospitals) had both a "joint committee of interpretation" and a grievance procedure. The former, composed of two representatives of the hospitals and two from the State nurses association, would consider any questions of interpretation or application of the terms of the agreement referred to it. If the committee could not agree, the grievance was to be referred back to the individual hospital and the State nurses association for resolution through a grievance procedure in which the final step was a board of arbitrators, with one representative from the hospital, one from the State nurses group, and a neutral.

The method of selecting the neutral member of a board of arbitrators varied. In one agreement, he was to be appointed by the State labor conciliator and in another, in the same State, by the judge of the county probate court. The supreme court of the State appointed the neutral arbitrator in a third, while in still another, the presiding judge of the local superior court did so.

Agreements usually were of 1- or 2-year duration. None exceeded 2 years and most were for 1 year, with provisions for automatic renewal unless either party gave notice. None of the 2-year agreements contained a reopening clause.

One of the more striking features of these agreements was the provisions relative to part-time nurses. It has been estimated that almost onesixth of all professional nurses in the United States are employed part time; 24 in hospitals and related institutions, the proportion is probably much higher. All hospital agreements examined contained clauses dealing with these nurses. A regular part-time nurse was generally defined as one working at least 20 but less than 40 hours a week during a prescribed period. Some of the

agreements also covered staff relief nurses who worked less than 14 consecutive working days a month, nurses who worked less than 20 hours a week, and those who did not work a regular, predetermined schedule.

The regular part-time nurses were usually paid at an hourly rate based on the basic minimum salary specified in the agreement. They received most of the supplementary benefits on a prorated basis, although certain benefits (for example, group health insurance) were sometimes restricted to regular full-time nurses. The staff relief nurses were usually compensated at the daily rate received by a private-duty nurse for an 8-hour period. These nurses normally did not receive supplementary benefits. In some agreements, the part-time nurses, especially those working less than 20 hours a week, received a differential; for example, 10 percent above their regular hourly rate in lieu of benefits.

Problems and Prospects

Since the ANA officially adopted its economic security program in 1946, progress, as noted, has been steady but slow. The obstacles impeding a more rapid extension appear to be the following: (1) the attitude of the nurses themselves; (2) employer resistance; and (3) inadequate legal protection.

Active support of the program by professional nurses has been slow in developing. Nurses by training have been primarily concerned with the nursing arts. Speaking out on such matters as economic standards and improved working conditions for their group is a relatively new concept. Nurses, as a group, appear to feel uneasy in this new role, which they view as unprofessional.25 There is also uncertainty and confusion regarding the relationship between the nurses' professional ethics and collective bargaining.26 Collective bar

24 As of January 1960, of the estimated 504,000 professional nurses in the United States, at least 90,000 are employed part time (ANA news release, Jan. 19, 1961).

25 For a ready acceptance of this role, see Patricia D. Horgan, "It's Not Just A Matter of Higher Salaries," RN, April 1961, pp. 38-45.

28 For more discussion on this point, see Herbert R. Northrup, "Collective Bargaining by Professional Societies," in R. A. Lester and J. Shister, eds., Insights Into Labor Issues (New York, Macmillan Co., 1948), ch. VI, especially pp. 137-142. Also see his article, "Collective Bargaining and the Professions," American Journal of Nursing, March 1948, pp. 141-144. For a similar point of view, see J. B. Gillingham, "Collective Bargaining and Professional Ethics," American Journal of Nursing, April 1950, pp. 214–216.

gaining is confused with unionism, which is regarded as incompatible with professional ethics. It is felt that by engaging in activities normally associated with unionism, the profession will lose prestige. One phase of the economic security program, the education of the membership, has a twofold purpose: to moderate this viewpoint and to develop nurses' support for collective bargaining.

Employer resistance represents another critical barrier to expanding the program. Despite growing recognition that nurses' salaries and working conditions need to be improved, employers of nurses, as a group, appear to oppose collective bargaining. Apparently they want complete freedom and independence in determining employment conditions. The prevalence of this attitude has led to the charge that "hospitals are the last bulwark in our society to retain authoritarian administration." 27 Another recent criticism is that hospitals have "outmoded administrative practices." 28 Employers have tended to view the economic security program solely as a means to raise the economic status of nurses. Its ultimate objective, however, is to improve the quality of

"Address by Theresa Wolfson, December 8, 1960, ANA Economic Security Conference held at Cornell University, December 4-9, 1960.

Ella B. Stonsby, quoted by ANA in Legislative News, April 3, 1961, p. 3. Flatbush General Hospital and Local 144, Hotel and Allied Service Employees Union, 126 NLRB No. 22 (Jan. 13, 1960). The basis on which the Board declined to assert its jurisdiction was that, even though the hospital met the Board's jurisdictional standards, such hospitals service local residents, their operations are subject to regulation by States, and the 1959 amendments to the act provide for State assumption of jurisdiction in situations where the Board does not assert its jurisdiction. The New York State Labor Relations Board had previously determined that it was without jurisdiction over such hospitals.

The Board has asserted jurisdiction over a proprietary hospital only where the hospital was located in the District of Columbia, where its operations vitally affected national defense, or where it was an integral part of an establishment whose operations met the Board's jurisdictional standards.

For a brief review of these laws, see State Laws Affecting the Rights of Public and Private Employees to Bargain Collectively (ANA Memorandum, Feb. 25, 1961). See also "Trends in Labor Legislation for Public Employees," Monthly Labor Review, December 1960, pp. 1293–1296.

# Sterling D. Spero, Government as Employer (New York, Remsen Press, 1948), p. 223. See also Morton Robert Godine, The Labor Problem in the Public Service: A Study in Political Pluralism (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 233–259.

For a discussion of these substitute actions, see Collective Bargaining by State, County and Municipal Employees. (ANA Memorandum, Mar. 29, 1954.)

For a thorough discussion of these acts as they relate to hospitals, see David R. Kochery and George Strauss, "The Non-Profit Hospital and the Union," Buffalo Law Review, Winter 1960, pp. 255-282. For an excellent study of the experience of one State, see Hyman Parker, "The Laws Governing Labor-Management Relations in Michigan Hospitals," in Labor Relations in Hospitals (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Bureau of Hospital Administration, 1960), pp. 5-27.

patient care. Through both consultation and the provision of information, State nurses associations have sought to promote employer understanding of this objective and, at the same time, to develop support for economic improvements for its members.

Inadequate legal protection is a third factor retarding collective bargaining in the nursing profession. Many nurses are denied protection in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, which exempts from coverage nonprofit hospitals and publicly owned hospitals, both Federal and non-Federal. Moreover, the National Labor Relations Board has declined to assert jurisdiction over most proprietary hospitals.29 On the other hand, no Federal law bars nurses from engaging in collective bargaining to improve their economic status.

State laws affecting the rights of public and private employees to bargain collectively are few in number, but they vary considerably.30 The conduct of collective bargaining for nurses employed in State, county, and municipal units poses special difficulties. Generally, the State prescribes unilaterally the terms of public employment, though there are examples of formal and informal arrangements between heads of State institutions or operating departments and employee organizations. The ability of county or municipal hospitals to bargain collectively depends, in most instances, on the public policy of the State; but in more and more States, the local governments are permitted to decide for themselves. Despite these statutory provisions on bargaining, various limited or substitute actions are possible for public employees.32 For nurses in nonprofit and proprietary hospitals, collective bargaining is not barred, but legal protection is extremely limited. Only 12 States and Puerto Rico have labor relations acts, and their coverage of hospitals is not uniform.33 For example, five of the acts offer no protection to bargaining in private hospitals and four are silent on nonprofit hospitals. To the extent that the legal framework, Federal and State, affects collective bargaining of professional nurses, one aspect of the economic security program is to seek improvements in labor legislation as it affects the rights of nurses.

EDITOR'S NOTE.-The article which follows is part of a series of reports on special labor force subjects studied in connection with the regular monthly surveys of the labor force. Preprints (No. 2369) of this article are available upon request to the Bureau or to any of its regional offices (listed on the inside front cover of this issue).

The Employment of Students, October 1960

CARL ROSENFELD*

YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN who combine school with work are a small but important segment of our work force. While they comprised only 5 percent of all employed persons in October 1960, they represented a much larger proportion of all workers in some occupations and industries. More important than their numbers is the fact that employment enables many of the students, especially those of college age, to continue further with their education and training than would otherwise be possible. These student workers are a substantial nucleus of our potential labor supply of professional, technical, and skilled workers who will be needed in ever expanding numbers during the coming years to meet rapid technological developments in our industrial society.

About 2.1 million students of high school age (14 to 17 years old) and 1.1 million of college age (18 to 24 years old) were working in October 1960; another quarter of a million were looking for work (table 1). About the same numbers of students were employed and unemployed in 1960 as a year earlier, but since the total attending school increased, the proportion in the labor force declined.1

In contrast to the stable level of employment among students, employment of persons 14 to 24 years of age not in school edged upward over the year by about 4 percent, a rise in line with the increase in population in that age group.

The information presented in this article on employment and unemployment of school-age persons in October 1960 is derived from the

monthly survey of the labor force conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2

Employment Trend, 1950-60

Employment of students 14 to 24 years of age rose much faster during the past 10 years than total civilian employment. The number of young students working full- or part-time jumped 35 percent from October 1950 to October 1960, rising from 2.3 million to about 3.2 million, while total civilian employment of persons aged 14 and over rose by less than 10 percent. Although the gain in the number of men students working was much larger than for women, 500,000 and 300,000, respectively, the increase was relatively greater for women students. (See table 2.)

The upsurge in employment of students reflected the substantial gain in school enrollment since 1950 rather than in the proportion of students working outside school hours. Enrollments rose by almost 50 percent while the proportion of students who were employed or looking for work remained almost unchanged at about 25 percent. However, there were sharp changes in labor force participation rates for some groups of students during the 10-year period. For men 14 to 17 years of age, the rate declined appreciably between 1950 and

*Of the Division of Manpower and Employment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

1 The survey on employment of students in October 1959 was analyzed in the July 1960 issue of the Monthly Labor Review (pp. 705-709) and BLS Special Labor Force Report No. 6. Previous surveys of the labor force status of young persons have been summarized by the Bureau of the Census in Current Population Reports, Series P-50, Nos. 90, 83, 71, 64, 58, 51, 47, 41, 32, 25, and 14. Basic data for school enrollment appear in the Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports, Series P-20.

2 Since the estimates presented in this article are based on a sample of households, they may differ from the figures that would have been obtained from a complete census. The sampling variability may be relatively large in cases where the numbers are small. Therefore, smaller estimates, or small differences between estimates, should be interpreted with caution.

1953 and then increased in subsequent years, but was still below the October 1950 level when the most recent survey was made. On the other hand, the participation rate for both male and female students aged 20 to 24 rose significantly over the decade.

Average yearly expansion in employment of students between 1950 and 1960 tends to minimize the full extent of the growth during most of the postwar period because employment of these persons was significantly higher during the survey week in 1950 than in immediately prior or subsequent years. More students were working in October 1950 than would normally prevail due to accelerated business and industrial activity resulting from the start of the Korean conflict and the large number of young persons employed in agriculture that year because of a relatively late fall harvest season. By October 1953, when the Korean hostilities had ended and the 1953-54 recession was in its early stages, only 1.8 million students under age 25 were working, about the same number as in the fall of 1948 and 1949, but one-fifth fewer than in October 1950. Between 1954 and 1960, employment of enrolled persons rose nearly every year.

In contrast to the rise in the number of working students during the 1950's, the employment of persons 14 to 24 years of age not attending school dropped by 16 percent to about 8 million. This

trend was due primarily to the decline of about 1 million in the number of persons not in school as enrollment rates moved up substantially during the past decade. For example, the rates increased from 71 percent in 1950 to 83 percent in 1960 for persons 16 and 17 years old, and from 29 to 38 percent for those 18 and 19 years old.

Labor Force Participation Rates

One-fourth of all students 14 to 24 years of age were in the labor force in October 1960, working either full- or part-time or actively seeking work. During the past 5 years, this rate has remained relatively stable, varying not more than 2 percentage points. However, the extent of labor force participation for different student groups varies widely at any one time depending on sex, age, color, level of school in which enrolled, residence, and marital status.

More than a fifth of the students of high school age were in the labor force in October 1960 (table 3), but a considerably larger percentage of the boys (26) than the girls (17) were in the labor market. These ratios are relatively low primarily because employment opportunities for youth are limited by child labor laws which prohibit or restrict their employment.

Students 18 to 24 years of age are more likely to be in the labor force than younger ones, possibly

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES FOR STUDENTS AND NONSTUDENTS 14 TO 24 YEARS OLD, OCTOBER OF 1958-60

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »