To: union-list@risley.net, Family Practice Housestaff Discussion List , Psychiatry Housestaff Discussion List From: Ron Risley Subject: the "Do We Need a Union?" memorandum Cc: Kristina Hobson , Brian Hunt , Terence Witham Hi! Like you, I received a memo in my mailbox today entitled "Do We Need a Union?". I was shocked and saddened by it partly because of its vicious nature, but even more so because three of the signatories are residents whom I know personally and for whom I have had a good deal of respect. What's wrong with the memo? Apart from the fact that it was authored by senior residents whose interests fall more with the University than with other residents, it is, quite simply, full of lies. To cite one example, at the end of the second paragraph they say: "Do we need to pay a for-profit, non-physician entity 1.5% of each paycheck to negotiate changes?" Perhaps we do. Perhaps we don't. But the question is irrelevant because: -> Dues at CIR-affiliated housestaff unions in California are 1.25%, not 1.5% -> CIR is *not* a for-profit entity. -> CIR is *not* a "non-physician entity." It is owned and operated by and for physicians. The regional vice president of CIR is a classmate of mine from UCSD School of Medicine. Want to see who runs CIR? Look here: http://www.cirdocs.org/our.htm and you'll notice that every single member of the executive committee is a practicing physician. The entire memo is composed as a series of questions. I guess that's so, if someone calls the authors to the carpet under the University's academic honesty policies (as I plan to do, if they do not issue a timely retraction), they can try to weasel out with something like "we never said CIR was for-profit, we just asked if we needed a for-profit entity..." It goes downhill from there, but you've received enough propaganda to read without my adding to the burden. This weekend I'll post a page on my website detailing, point-by-point, the other lies in the memo. You can check it out if you're interested, and ignore it if you're not -- but I'm sure you've figured out that if they cannot even correctly quote the amount of the dues, they're likely wrong on just about everything else as well. /union I do hope that doctors Gill, Hobson, Hunt, Witham, and Won took this step deliberately and with their eyes open. There are good arguments both for and against housestaff unions, but it would be a shame if they decided to sacrifice their professional credibility solely because they allowed themselves to be misled by profit interests of the University. Their statements suggested that they have never read the PERB decision, the CIR constitution and bylaws, or any of the CIR-negotiated contracts. I have, and would gladly supply copies to them if they so desire. If they *were* misled, I trust they will rectify the situation by issuing a retraction and an apology -- tomorrow, before more damage is done. --Ron -- "Collective bargaining by unions has proved to be the most effective way to resolve worksite issues for these young doctors." Dr. Jack Lewin, CMA Executive Vice President announcing CMA's endorsement of CIR