February 2, 2010 in Business

Sacred Heart nurses picket over breaks, benefits

Informational protest does not constitute strike

• Print
• Email
• Share

Barb Ormsby, a cardiac nurse for 23 years at Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center, joined dozens of other nurses at an informational picket on South McClellan Street on Tuesday Feb. 2, 2010. The nurses are upset about bathroom breaks, staffing levels and a move to change their retirement benefits from the security of a pension to a stock market based plan to a 401(k).
(Full-size photo)

Nurses are accusing Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center of pushing unfair and unsafe new workplace rules that would curtail rest breaks and trim staffing levels.

The hospital’s 1,600 registered nurses, who are in contract negotiations with the hospital, on Tuesday held a boisterous informational picket outside that collected honks and cheers from supportive motorists driving past.

The picket was not a strike and nurses protested on their own time, often before and after shifts.

The nurses’ union, represented by the Washington State Nursing Association, said the hospital is threatening patient safety by leaving nurses already working long shifts – up to 12 hours – exhausted and stressed.

At issue is what constitutes a break. Nurses say they need the flexibility to use the restroom and have a drink of water without it constituting a formal 10-minute break. They are being penalized for taking care of themselves, said nurses Kristie Dimak and Kathy Ormsby.

Patrick Clarry, the hospital’s vice president of human resources, said the hospital is not trying to strip rest breaks from employees, but instead is attempting to strike a balance that ensures the best use of peoples’ time.

The nurse’s labor contract expired Dec. 31. The sides have engaged in seven negotiating sessions and are scheduled to meet with a mediator Wednesday.

Nurses also are upset with the hospital’s proposal to change their retirement benefits, essentially ending contributions to a traditional pension plan that gives a guaranteed payment and replacing it with a riskier retirement plan exposed to stock market gyrations.

Such changes have become commonplace across corporate America as traditional pensions get phased out in favor of plans such as a 401(k). “We don’t like it one bit,” said Camille Sturdivant-Daly. She has been at Sacred Heart for 30 years and said the changes would erase the prime pension-earning years for those like her with long service to the hospital. “They’re trying to change the rules on us at the end of the game.”

Clarry said Providence would continue to give the same amount of money to employees for their retirements, but shift the opportunity and risk to the employees.

Two comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  westside on February 02 at 6:53 p.m.

  Yep get rid of the 1950 pension plans and give them the 401K!! Then THEY are the money managers of their own funds. To bad state and city gov don't change to 401k plans..but they are scared sh–less! “401k plans are for the peasants..we have guaranteed pensions for life..even if stock market crashes”… Just shows why gov is in debt..everything they take in goes to their employees!!

• 

  steveberde on February 02 at 7:47 p.m.

  I must disagree with Westiside and his or her comments on pension plans vs. 401K plans - All they're doing is shifting the cost from the employer to the employee, thus saving themselves a lot of money.

  True enough, if an employee starts at age 25 and works at the same place for 35 or more years, contributes 5 or 10% of his or her income to a fund and it grows at a decent rate it will most likely allow for a nice retirement all other things being equal.

  We all know that is not the case - the entire US has shifted away from traditional employer paid plans whether they be pension or “profit” sharing plans and have transfered the contrubtions to the employee. Don't be duped for a minute. We are seeing millions of our workers retiring with nothing - and that is all because of the advent of the 401 K REPLACING traditional plans - they were never intended to replace traditional retirement plans they were intended to be an adjunct to allow an employee to make a tax deductible contribution.

  Sadly it's far from that in todays working world

  Steve