Minnesota nurses union plots next move in labor dispute

The union representing 12,800 Minnesota nurses plotted its next move Friday after a group of Twin Cities hospitals placed conditions on their offer to return to the bargaining table.

The group of 14 hospitals said Thursday that they’d resume negotiations, but only if the Minnesota Nurses Association agrees to postpone any strike until after July 31. That may be a tough compromise for the union to swallow since it views the threat of a strike that could cost the hospitals millions as its greatest source of leverage.

The hospitals’ latest gambit starkly illustrates how far apart the two sides are, as they’re essentially “negotiating over negotiating,” a labor relations expert told the Star-Tribune. The two sides haven’t sat down at the bargaining table since June 4. The union didn’t respond Thursday to the hospitals’ proposal and didn’t return a call Friday morning.

Twin Cities Hospitals said its offer to resume negotiations could be the “last opportunity to avoid a lengthy strike,” with the union poised to vote Monday to authorize a strike.

But the hospitals’ insistence on adding conditions to their offer to negotiate could wind up backfiring by further antagonizing the nurses, said Peter Rachleff, a labor historian at Macalester College in St. Paul.

“This is another way [for the hospitals] to avoid genuine negotiations,” Rachleff said. “To arbitrarily pick the July 31 date without offering an explanation seems like refusing to negotiate.”

An overwhelming vote in favor of a strike could push the hospitals back to the table, and the nurses certainly hope it will. A vote in favor of a strike doesn’t necessarily mean that the union will call for a work stoppage, just that it has the authority to do so. The union is required to give the hospitals 10 days’ notice of a strike.

Of course, the union risks losing the battle for public opinion if it’s seen as unwilling to return to negotiations. That’s why the nurses must take care to explain exactly why they find the hospitals’ imposition of conditions unacceptable — assuming they do, Rachleff said.

The two sides have been sparring since March over work rules and wages, with little evident progress.

The union says patient safety is its top priority and so demands that a new contract include rules mandating a strict patient-to-nurse ratio. Hospitals argue tough economic times necessitate flexibility in staffing schedules.

If the nurses’ top concern is patient safety, then it doesn’t make sense to threaten a strike — which could harm patient safety — as a means of achieving that goal, said Phil Wilson, president of the Labor Relations Institute, a consulting firm that works with employers that have labor-relations issues.

“It’s like throwing a beer bash to raise funds for Alcoholics Anonymous,” he said. “If this was really about patient care, the union would run at the chance to negotiate.”

A one-day strike last week failed to draw the sides closer together and seemed only to harden each side’s position, despite likely costing the hospitals millions of dollars. It’s highly likely the union will vote next week to authorize a strike, but that’s a far cry from deciding to actually walk out, a move that could test the union’s resolve and stretch individual nurses’ finances.

“At the end of the day, strikes are about two things: money and power,” Wilson said.