The "Do We Need a Union?" Memo

a detailed response

On or about last Wednesday, February second, a memorandum appeared in residents' mailboxes all across the UCDMC campus that purported to argue against a housestaff union at UCDMC. While there are many good arguments for and against a housestaff union, the authors of this particular memo chose the low road and disseminated lies instead of useful factual information. I posted a brief response to the memo on several of the discussion lists I host, but wanted to provide more in-depth information for those who were interested.

Sadly the memo's authors, Raminder Gill, MD; Kristina Hobson, MD; B. Kelly Hunt, MD; Terence Witham, MD; and Rosa Won, MD have chosen to sacrifice their personal and professional integrity on the altar of administrative greed. None have contacted me or in any way attempted to redress the harm done by their actions, even after I pointed out the inaccuracies in their statements.

Let's begin at the beginning. "Memo", not written on UCDMC stationery. This gives the illusion that this isn't an official statement but the personal work of the signatories. But if you have ever tried to distribute a piece of paper to all resident mailboxes (I have), you know it's virtually impossible without a lot of money or official support. I'm guessing the memo was created on UCDMC computers, reproduced on UCDMC copiers, distributed via UCDMC campus mail, and probably carried an official UCDMC cover letter asking UCDMC department employees to distribute it to residents. Why do they feel they have to hide their official connections?

(Incidentally, this website is produced on my own computers and on my own time, and distributed via my own web server using my own Internet connection. No UCDMC or union support here.)

Next, we have the names and department affiliations. No mention that they're senior residents and chiefs, with little to gain from a future contract with improved working conditions. True, many senior residents support the housestaff union, but they do so on principle -- and the authors of this memo appear to have checked their principles at the door.

One other thing: the Resident Medical Staff Committee has members from every department, all of whom were probably asked to sign on to this mailing. How come only five chose to do so?

First, we were not "approached by many individuals from a union." After several untoward events, including the meal card fiasco and health insurance cuts, we decided that it was time to investigate options for organizing ourselves. We decided that CIR offered the best option for responding to these changes, and we invited them to come and present to us. How do I know? I was there, though much of the actual work was done by Denise Greene (PGY-2 in Psychiatry and Family Medicine). Dr. Witham was invited to those early discussions -- a fact he seems to have forgotten.

Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won ought to be concerned about "the possibility of a decision being made without thorough investigation," as they seem to have failed to do even the most cursory of investigations for themselves.

Read on...

Are the terms and conditions of our employment unacceptable? I didn't think so until several recent changes. At that time I discovered that the University has the right, under present agreements, to make virtually any change they deem desirable to our employment conditions -- and to do so unilaterally and without advance notice. The only option residents have under the current system is to seek employment elsewhere; hardly practical in a match-based competitive residency market. Is it unacceptable for the employer to hold all the cards and have a captive worker base? I think that the answer is "yes."

Are the conditions we work under inhumane? I am just finishing a rotation in which I have worked about 384 hours in 28 days for an effective wage of $7.23/hour gross. Remember, too, that I'm a PGY-4 and probably have a significantly higher salary than you.

They imply that CIR is "a for-profit, non-physician entity." It is, in fact, a not-for-profit entity, run by and for physicians. Every member of the executive board is a practicing physician. They state the dues will be 1.5% per month, when the actual figure is 1.25%. All this information is in the public domain and easily available, yet Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won couldn't even get these simple facts straight.

This entire paragraph is pure fabrication. I invite Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won to take the ten minutes or so to read the CIR constitution and bylaws. They would learn how the union dues are controlled -- by local representatives elected by us to our local union organization. Instead of "seriously question[ing] what percentage of our money will be allocated for our needs," they could have just looked it up. Of course, their "very conservative" estimate of revenues is based on a falsified figure for the dues that is 20% higher than reality.

Here the authors take credit for our plush "call room amenities" (did you know that there are no call rooms whatsoever in the new Davis Tower?), our spiffy new meal plan, and the substantial cuts in our health plan benefits. In addition to these stellar accomplishments, they take credit for the ER admissions grid, the refill clinic closure, and the impressive new Clinical Information System.

With friends like these...

Amazing that an organization that was so incredibly active in recognizing and responding to your needs could operate so quietly and efficiently that you never even knew it existed!

If Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won had bothered to read the PERB order calling for this election (it's a public document, guys -- it took me one three-minute phone call to have a copy delivered to my mailbox the next day), they would have seen that both PERB and the California Superior Court have rejected the argument that forming a union leads to strikes (PERB Decision No. 1359-H 28 October 1999):

The University also argues that permitting collective bargaining for housestaff may lead to strikes. However, it is widely recognized that collective bargaining is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism which diminishes the probability that vital services will be interrupted.

If Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won feel that they know labor law better than PERB, they should change professions.

The entire argument about media relations seems somewhat loose and tangential, but even so it hinges on the same invalid assumption that permeates their entire document: that the union is somehow an independent and corrupt entity outside of our control. "What control do we have...?" The fact that we elect the union leaders from amongst our own. That process isn't perfect (I assume that Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won were elected to their RMSC posts, though I cannot recall voting for any of them), but it's far, far better than any media relations we have now.

Here some folks who have never even bothered to look at the fundamental aspects of CIR organization are speculating about the outcome of future negotiations that haven't even been planned yet. At least they acknowledge CIR's almost universal success in the past, and point out that the worst possible outcome is to keep the contract we have now.

You're still reading this? Perhaps you should get a life! Perhaps I should, too.

No union representatives have ever indicated to me that they would have the Q2 call schedule abolished (though the ACGME is contemplating forcing residency programs to do this). None of their printed material makes this claim. This is just another lie.

Remember that the union is us. We're smart enough, I hope, not to shoot ourselves in the feet.

I challenge Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won to find one example where a program has been lengthened as a result of CAIR activities.

I'm glad you're still here, as this is the most heinous lie of all. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won didn't present any. Because they can't.

Would you want somebody capable of this level of subterfuge (or at least poor scholarship) as your doctor? In your call group? Representing your interests to your employer? By promulgating such misinformation, Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won have proven themselves incapable of performing the very job they suggest we entrust to them instead of our own elected representatives.

I'm sounding like a broken record, here, but this isn't loss of control. We have no control now, unless you trust the secretive and invisible RMSC who so effectively governed while administrators abolished the refill clinic, destroyed our health plan, and diminished our meal benefits. Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won would have you trust the AMA model -- which might include selling out to Sunbeam.

Once again, they attack a straw organization that bears no relation to the physician-founded, physician-led, physician-funded, local, not-for-profit CIR affiliate unions. How can Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won be so badly misinformed? If they are "educated professionals that [sic] can organize and create change" they should start by taking the time to get a few basic facts straight.