X-Sender: kristina.hobson@pop.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu (Unverified) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:38:06 -0800 To: ron@risley.net From: Kristina Hobson Subject: Ron: I know I'm probably opening up Pandora's box here, but here it goes anyway. First, let me say that although we clearly have different opinions on this issue, I still have "a good deal of respect" for you, your intelligence, and your dedication to a cause you obviously feel very strongly about, though you infer you've lost your respect for me in your memo. Second: In the interest of the accuracy you promote, I should let you know I actually have 3 years left of residency, more than most people voting. I subsequently have a VERY vested interest in resident conditions, and do not have interests that "...fall more with the university than with other residents..." as you suggest. For whatever that's worth. Third: While I did not write the memo that has caused such a turmoil, I did endorse it. It was not, as you suggest on your web-page, solicited by the admin., but rather the brain-child (or brain-mutant, you may feel:)) of one of the RMSC members. We were all presented with the memo. It is not presented as a product of the RMSC bacause we didn't express 100% agreement with its position. There WAS 100% agreement, however, on the fact that it should be distributed to residents on the grounds that we all have the right to hear both opinions on the issue. I myself endorsed it because I thought it was only fair we heard the propaganda from both sides. Then let the residents decide from an educated position which is the right choice for them. You must admit, we've all received plenty of propaganda expressing the union's point of view. I just didn't want it to be one-sided. Fourth: Throughout this whole admittedly painful process, I have done my best to make sure the surgical residents are educated as to the issues at hand. For example, I personally arranged for the union reps to come speak to the surgery residents one morning, and personally called residents and advertised the meeting to achieve as high an attendance as possible so the residents could be fully informed when it came time to vote. We had around 40 residents at that meeting (an estimate). Fifth: I did not research any of the claims the memo made. Perhaps I should have. But I do know the 1.5% figure came from the mouths of the union reps themselves. And the bit about reductions in hours also came from them. And at the University of Rochester, the union DID succeed in eliminating QOD call, and as a result, the surgery dept now regularly pays heavy fines b/c they decided they'd rather work the hours than add extra time on at the end of residency to meet the required number of cases. (This info is admittedly heresay; one of the surgery residents was a med student there and she was the one who pointed this out. The union reps did not deny it.) Finally: (Whew! This is turing out much longer than I had intended it to be. Sorry.) In the interest of staying educated on the issue, I WOULD like to read the CIR constitution and bylaws. I was surprised it wasn't on the CIR web-site. Maybe it was, but in my computer naivete, I couldn't find it. (I must admit, I'm a little nervous about tackling a legal document for pleasure reading. You promise it won't put me to sleep?) Can you e-mail me copies of both? Thanks. Nina Hobson