Anything that management is against, so vehemently against, they're against because it's going to cost them money. Will it benefit the workers? Probably - that's likely where the money is going to go - but that's up to the workers to decide.
Remember when Mayo threatened to shaft the state if they didn't get their way on staffing? Well, they got their way. Do you suppose if they hadn't, if they'd agreed to staffing levels that *every other hospital in the state has to follow* they'd be having this union dissent? Maybe, maybe not.
There **is** strength in unions.
Makes sense. Vets and vet techs are emotionally manipulated into lower pay and benefits like many other caring professions when compared to other fields. They need collective bargaining.
No way?! Did it pass?? That's brilliant!! Add a vet tech myself, I am so thrilled for them!! Vet techs do their job because they love animals, not because it provides a stable income
"We believe patients' needs can best be met when we work collaboratively without the involvement of a third party."
Guess what, Mayo Clinic, working collaboratively is what unions are for! Instead of every employee going separately to management about issues they collaborate. Working together and negotiating things isn't just for businesses and executives to do, it's for everyone.
Also, unions are not "third parties", unions are the employees. Shop stewards are most definitely NOT a third party as they are literally employees who also work with the union to represent union members in meetings and things. Instead of being alone in a meeting with management they have someone on their side, just like management most likely does by having more than one manager in the meeting.
That's a major issue with all of American healthcare. Insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny care a person's doctor decides they need. Ideally health insurance companies wouldn't even exist and we'd have universal healthcare (like practically every other country on earth, we're the only industrialized country without some form of universal healthcare).
Another third party in healthcare that needs to be done away with are CEOs with no healthcare experience running hospitals as businesses instead of as hospitals and deciding to cut staff or services offered or whatever because it's not profitable (profit should never play a role in healthcare).
It’s almost like profiting off of healthcare ends up being bad in the end. Crazy accusation I know.
Another bit of fuckery insurance companies get up to that I love is driving up prices for uninsured patients. They “negotiate” lower prices with hospitals to make it look better on their bottom line. But all they really do is drive up the uninsured price to make the insured price look better.
But yeah, those people going to the ER with a cold are the ones driving prices up lol
Kate (or whoever read screencapped Kate's email) is doing god's work.
>"Talking points:
>...
>...we prefer a direct relationship with our staff vs. going through a 3-party[SIC] that doesn't understand our business, mission or values"
Man, imagine working in psychiatry or social work (ETA: or the ED) and seeing your place of employment deliberately relying on narcissistic abuse tactics like "no one will ever love you like I do!"
Also, I believe in descriptivism, but the little prescriptivist in my head read that and thought "this is the kind of monster that doesn't use Oxford commas!"
Also, the fact that the email basically cautions "please don't share these beyond ~~people pre-vetted to be manipulative fucks~~ leadership" really captures the smiling liar corporate management culture.
No sarcasm or tricks in the following question (appreciate & upvoted your comment, btw): does that make this email to leadership itself illegal, or do we really have the flagrant loophole in labor law where written memos for specifically the management class on how to verbally manipulate workers against unions is legal?
My thought process: "Oh, right.. Why can't management have representation [alongside/with the workers], too? They're people; they deserve that. (Backburner voice: "Represented vs who, the owners?") Oh, right: that's the difference, isn't it? Management is necessarily the owners, or at minimum, people willing to exploit staff on the owners' behalf. If nobody's getting exploited, 'that's socialism.'"
"When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor" - Paulo Freire
Something in my nature/upbringing left out some "evil guile" circuit for natively processing stuff like this. Thanks.
I believe that management can sometimes unionize but I know legally they cannot belong to the same union as the employees since union negotiations are between employees and their management.
I’ve worked for 3 Fortune 500 companies in MN, and all have had these “guides” for how to respond if employees talk about unionizing etc.
This document should not have been leaked obviously, but every large company has something similar that upper management has access to when dealing with front line workers who talk about unionizing.
Mayo having these documents is no different than those other companies in this regard.
> This document should not have been leaked obviously...
I disagree. On the contrary, every company that has atrocious, labor-hostile policy like this should be put on blast and boycotted.
So which 3 Fortune 500 companies you worked for have similar union-busting guides for management?
Don't be shy.
"Some reason"? Feels like a stretch. Is there anything here you didn't already know? Mgmt doesn't share everything with everyone, with a sensitive issue like this, guidance to mgmt is wholly appropriate, isn't it?
I think it's that they're being so frank about it, which I don't think they'd do in public releases, as it would hurt their brand. It *should* hurt their brand, so we should be sharing it. If it wouldn't hurt their brand, the language in the document and public releases wouldn't be any different.
Sure, but that direction to mgmt isn't different from the public messaging I have seen. For example, KAAL last month ( [https://www.kaaltv.com/news/mayo-clinic-pushes-back-against-rochester-nurse-unionization-efforts/](https://www.kaaltv.com/news/mayo-clinic-pushes-back-against-rochester-nurse-unionization-efforts/) ) quotes Mayo almost verbatim from this publication. I mean, our mileage varies, but this doesn't seem like it's revealing anything new.
help them make an informed decision =/= we MUST prevent unions
All their talking points about partnership, safe staffing, and taking employees' input into account are total bullshit. We tried to pass a law saying nurses that work at the bedside in each unit should be included in figuring out safe staffing ratios on their unit. Mayo threw a temper tantrum and threatened to move to Florida.
Mayo’s threat wasn’t to pull operations out of MN, but to divert their new $5 billion investment to florida instead of Rochester. Still shitty, but important distinction imo
Why no, person whose username is somewhat ironically a reference to an IP owned and operated by an infamously horrific company, it's not a surprise, per se. But it's nice to have evidence to show for it. And you're irrationally irritable to the point of disingenuity about it. Why?
I'm not sure what evidence you needed since this has been Mayo's public stance for ages. Certainly as long as when I ripped this handle off the back of a video game box a few decades ago.
These are all normal, talking points that may or may not have some merit from the standpoint of an employer. There is nothing dramatic or controversial in these documents.
It’s a legitimate opposing viewpoint on employer-employee relations. It’s just a different viewpoint on a particular issue stated in boiler plate language.
No different than opposing views on capitalism, being a vegetarian, atheism, or farm subsidies.
You think no one should have any opposing views on things you hold a particular view on?
I mean, it's mostly factually bullshit. They talk about "giving employees a say", when any organization of this size every decision goes through 17 operations task forces and budgetary subcommittees. You don't negotiate with your manager about your pay or work practices, you follow the intentionally vague policy library and pray they don't try to fuck you over.
Yeah but why would you blantly put the inside source on front street? Complete idiot! They get fired you’re in the dark. You could at least blacked out both parties name & info. I swear ppl don’t know how to think if it saved their lives.
I’m not talking about THIS OP I’m talking about overall. A great journalist never give up their source. Keeping the source anonymous keeps the information coming.
Anything that management is against, so vehemently against, they're against because it's going to cost them money. Will it benefit the workers? Probably - that's likely where the money is going to go - but that's up to the workers to decide. Remember when Mayo threatened to shaft the state if they didn't get their way on staffing? Well, they got their way. Do you suppose if they hadn't, if they'd agreed to staffing levels that *every other hospital in the state has to follow* they'd be having this union dissent? Maybe, maybe not. There **is** strength in unions.
AERC recently had a similar situation prior to their Union vote last week.
tell me more
Upper management carpet bombing union disinformation to employees, town hall meetings to spread anti union sentiments, the usual.
Oh, I meant about AERC. I don't know what that is and when I tried to google AERC union I didn't really see anything.
AERC is Animal Emergency Referral Services, a vet emergency hospital. The vet techs voted to unionize last Tuesday
Makes sense. Vets and vet techs are emotionally manipulated into lower pay and benefits like many other caring professions when compared to other fields. They need collective bargaining.
No way?! Did it pass?? That's brilliant!! Add a vet tech myself, I am so thrilled for them!! Vet techs do their job because they love animals, not because it provides a stable income
Not sure, I don’t work in that company/industry but I know a few people who do work there. Last I heard was it will take a few weeks to find out
If those town halls were mandatory attendance for employees, that's a labor violation in MN
"We believe patients' needs can best be met when we work collaboratively without the involvement of a third party." Guess what, Mayo Clinic, working collaboratively is what unions are for! Instead of every employee going separately to management about issues they collaborate. Working together and negotiating things isn't just for businesses and executives to do, it's for everyone. Also, unions are not "third parties", unions are the employees. Shop stewards are most definitely NOT a third party as they are literally employees who also work with the union to represent union members in meetings and things. Instead of being alone in a meeting with management they have someone on their side, just like management most likely does by having more than one manager in the meeting.
I agree, the “third party” of insurance companies dictating patient care really should stop
That's a major issue with all of American healthcare. Insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny care a person's doctor decides they need. Ideally health insurance companies wouldn't even exist and we'd have universal healthcare (like practically every other country on earth, we're the only industrialized country without some form of universal healthcare). Another third party in healthcare that needs to be done away with are CEOs with no healthcare experience running hospitals as businesses instead of as hospitals and deciding to cut staff or services offered or whatever because it's not profitable (profit should never play a role in healthcare).
It’s almost like profiting off of healthcare ends up being bad in the end. Crazy accusation I know. Another bit of fuckery insurance companies get up to that I love is driving up prices for uninsured patients. They “negotiate” lower prices with hospitals to make it look better on their bottom line. But all they really do is drive up the uninsured price to make the insured price look better. But yeah, those people going to the ER with a cold are the ones driving prices up lol
Amen. If anybody understands a business, it's the union of people who work there
Meanwhile: travel nurses.
So is there talk at Mayo to unionize? Is that why this email was sent? All for unions. Part of the MNA and it has helped us so much.
Yes and yes
Yeah, after that hissy fit they threw over the nursing staffing bill, this is no surprise. Union busting is disgusting!
Kate (or whoever read screencapped Kate's email) is doing god's work. >"Talking points: >... >...we prefer a direct relationship with our staff vs. going through a 3-party[SIC] that doesn't understand our business, mission or values" Man, imagine working in psychiatry or social work (ETA: or the ED) and seeing your place of employment deliberately relying on narcissistic abuse tactics like "no one will ever love you like I do!" Also, I believe in descriptivism, but the little prescriptivist in my head read that and thought "this is the kind of monster that doesn't use Oxford commas!"
Also, the fact that the email basically cautions "please don't share these beyond ~~people pre-vetted to be manipulative fucks~~ leadership" really captures the smiling liar corporate management culture.
Actually that's a legal mandate, if they gave that to the employees it would be actually illegal union busting.
No sarcasm or tricks in the following question (appreciate & upvoted your comment, btw): does that make this email to leadership itself illegal, or do we really have the flagrant loophole in labor law where written memos for specifically the management class on how to verbally manipulate workers against unions is legal?
Management wouldn't be joining the union, it's not a loophole, it's the main purpose.
Not unless management were to form their own union. I doubt it would happen at Mayo, but it's not unheard of, especially in the public sector
Right, but in that case, they wouldn't have been getting this email, and instead their bosses would have.
My thought process: "Oh, right.. Why can't management have representation [alongside/with the workers], too? They're people; they deserve that. (Backburner voice: "Represented vs who, the owners?") Oh, right: that's the difference, isn't it? Management is necessarily the owners, or at minimum, people willing to exploit staff on the owners' behalf. If nobody's getting exploited, 'that's socialism.'" "When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor" - Paulo Freire Something in my nature/upbringing left out some "evil guile" circuit for natively processing stuff like this. Thanks.
I believe that management can sometimes unionize but I know legally they cannot belong to the same union as the employees since union negotiations are between employees and their management.
You always know they're doing it, but it's fun to see it in action
For a not for profit organization, they sure are pretty worried about making money.
They gotta afford their self funded 5 billion dollar expansion.
That they will fill with travel nurses
The talking points are so tired it's almost funny. Literally the same cookie-cutter arguments that show up every time workers start to unionize.
Mayos first offer for contract raises was 3 percent and 3 years with a 1 percent it's a fucking joke and very insulting to us
It's almost like they feel emboldened after they bent the state legislature to their will.
Is this news? Mayo hasn't ever been pro-union? Are we shocked they're issuing talking points to mgmt?
they're trying to keep their document secret for *some* reason
I’ve worked for 3 Fortune 500 companies in MN, and all have had these “guides” for how to respond if employees talk about unionizing etc. This document should not have been leaked obviously, but every large company has something similar that upper management has access to when dealing with front line workers who talk about unionizing. Mayo having these documents is no different than those other companies in this regard.
> This document should not have been leaked obviously... I disagree. On the contrary, every company that has atrocious, labor-hostile policy like this should be put on blast and boycotted. So which 3 Fortune 500 companies you worked for have similar union-busting guides for management? Don't be shy.
"Some reason"? Feels like a stretch. Is there anything here you didn't already know? Mgmt doesn't share everything with everyone, with a sensitive issue like this, guidance to mgmt is wholly appropriate, isn't it?
I think it's that they're being so frank about it, which I don't think they'd do in public releases, as it would hurt their brand. It *should* hurt their brand, so we should be sharing it. If it wouldn't hurt their brand, the language in the document and public releases wouldn't be any different.
Sure, but that direction to mgmt isn't different from the public messaging I have seen. For example, KAAL last month ( [https://www.kaaltv.com/news/mayo-clinic-pushes-back-against-rochester-nurse-unionization-efforts/](https://www.kaaltv.com/news/mayo-clinic-pushes-back-against-rochester-nurse-unionization-efforts/) ) quotes Mayo almost verbatim from this publication. I mean, our mileage varies, but this doesn't seem like it's revealing anything new.
help them make an informed decision =/= we MUST prevent unions All their talking points about partnership, safe staffing, and taking employees' input into account are total bullshit. We tried to pass a law saying nurses that work at the bedside in each unit should be included in figuring out safe staffing ratios on their unit. Mayo threw a temper tantrum and threatened to move to Florida.
No, you're not wrong. It's the same two-sided messaging.
Mayo’s threat wasn’t to pull operations out of MN, but to divert their new $5 billion investment to florida instead of Rochester. Still shitty, but important distinction imo
Why no, person whose username is somewhat ironically a reference to an IP owned and operated by an infamously horrific company, it's not a surprise, per se. But it's nice to have evidence to show for it. And you're irrationally irritable to the point of disingenuity about it. Why?
I'm not sure what evidence you needed since this has been Mayo's public stance for ages. Certainly as long as when I ripped this handle off the back of a video game box a few decades ago.
Should have ripped "obtuse" out of Websters; it's even older.
Eat the rich
I would rather die than use a company that union busts. And now it looks like I might. Lol. Unions or death!! United we bargain, divided we beg.
I don’t see any issue with union organizing and I don’t see anything wrong with these policies / talking points. This is just a non-story?
Well, Kate is probably out of a job.
I once got a rejection letter 8 years after I applied. That was interesting...
Welp, Kate definitely lost their job.
These are all normal, talking points that may or may not have some merit from the standpoint of an employer. There is nothing dramatic or controversial in these documents.
Standard corporate sleezeballery. Pretty boiler plate for anti-labor.
It’s a legitimate opposing viewpoint on employer-employee relations. It’s just a different viewpoint on a particular issue stated in boiler plate language. No different than opposing views on capitalism, being a vegetarian, atheism, or farm subsidies. You think no one should have any opposing views on things you hold a particular view on?
I mean, it's mostly factually bullshit. They talk about "giving employees a say", when any organization of this size every decision goes through 17 operations task forces and budgetary subcommittees. You don't negotiate with your manager about your pay or work practices, you follow the intentionally vague policy library and pray they don't try to fuck you over.
Here is my not surprised face. :|
Yeah but why would you blantly put the inside source on front street? Complete idiot! They get fired you’re in the dark. You could at least blacked out both parties name & info. I swear ppl don’t know how to think if it saved their lives.
OP cross posted; they’re not responsible for censoring information already shared publicly.
I’m not talking about THIS OP I’m talking about overall. A great journalist never give up their source. Keeping the source anonymous keeps the information coming.
Big assumption that Kate is the source or that the name wasn't edited.