- Commentary/Letters

By HEATHER KEELY

It’s 6:45 p.m. and as I round the corner
onto the ward I wonder to myself what I'll
have to contend with for the next 12 hours.
Immediately I receive word that one regis-
tered nurse has just called in sick and the
other is fresh out of nursing school and
I’m expected to orient her to the job. I take
off my coat and scan the ward staff list to
see who I can try to get as a replacement.

After several unsuccessful attempts I
call the staffing centre. ‘I’m sorry, we’ve
got nothing for you,” the frustrated staf-
fing clerk reports. I explain that of my 22
patients, one is actively haemorrhaging,
four have just returned from the operating
room and two are completely immobile
and need regular turning through the
night. ““We’ll try to pull a practical nurse
from another floor for you but you know
what it’s like on the weekend.”

And so another shift begins for me and
thousands of other B.C. nurses.

When people ask me what has changed
since the 1989 strike, I have to answer:
everything and nothing.

Nothing has changed in terms of the
nursing shortage. In fact, St. Paul’s Hospi-
tal has closed more beds recently than
during the strike. Despite the monetary
and benefit gains that were achieved, the
drain of nurses to the U.S. continues
unabated. There, weekend and night shift
premiums are commonplace and often
subsidized housing, paid relocation fees
and paid education sweeten the package.
Still others continue to get out of nursing
altogether after one or two years of shift
and weekend work, and after stress and
lack of recognition wear them down.

With nursing ranking 87th on the list of
desired female occupations, nursing
schools can’t find enough students to fund
the necessary well-rounded programs.

On the other hand, everything has
changed for those of us who remain. We
now have the experiences of our strike to
learn from and there is keen interest in
seeing our union strengthened for the bat-
tles ahead.

It was in this spirit that delegates
debated the issues at the B.C. Nurses
Union annual convention held early this
month.

Delegates reacted swiftly to the execu-
tive council’s decision to base its assess-
ment of the strike on a phone poll that was
to involve five randomly selected members
from each hospital. Beth Ann Derkson,
chair of the union’s essential service com-
mittee, remarked: ‘There was a feeling
that there wasn’t enough time for regional
membership meetings on the subject.”
Delegates felt that time must be made and
demanded that a full membership debate
be initiated, with recommendations for
change arising out of this discussion.

A key debate in convention involved
the issue of who should have ultimate
authority to speak for the union during
bargaining —the council of the union, or
each bargaining committee. Bargaining
committee members felt their power had
been totally usurped by council during the
1989 strike while those of us on the left saw
it very differently.

We recalled that after the bargaining
committee’s proposed package met 65 per
cent rejection, there was widespread dissa-
tisfaction with the committee. Members
felt it was totally out of touch with their
needs and some called for the committees’
re-election. Council, faced with the politi-
cal reality, decided to appoint a member of
the “No Vote” campaign (which advo-
cated rejecting the tentative package) to
the bargaining committee, despite there
being no constitutional allowance for this.

Those of us who supported council’s
decision argued at the convention that
only council was elected by the whole
membership and carries the responsibility
to act for the whole membership while
each bargaining committee (there are sev-
eral) is elected only by its particularly con-
stituency and may not see the needs of the
whole.

Despite achieving a majority, we were
unable to convince the necessary two-
thirds of the delegates to adopt the bylaw
change to support council’s action.

Thus the Vancouver Sun’s headline on
Nov. 2: “Nurses order union council out
of talks.” Undoubtedly, unless the next
bargaining committee keeps abreast of the
members’ concerns, this issue will con-
tinue to haunt us.

The diverse concepts delegates had on
how to strengthen BCNU surfaced in dis-
cussion on a resolution proposing that the
union attempt to raid the Hospital
Employees Union and Health Sciences
Association of its practical nurses, order-
lies, lab technicians and other health care
workers.

Some well-intentioned proponents of
the resolution expressed privately the view
that it would allow us to better fight the
employers by helping to form one union
for all health care workers. Others saw it as
a chance to enlarge our constituency and
power base at whatever the cost.

Those of us who opposed the resolution
pointed out that raiding other health
unions would only divide us in the face of
the employer and would never result in a
united front of health care workers.

It was also pointed out that our organi-
zation has not yet come out clearly on
what concept of nursing care we support.
“Team nursing,” supported by HEU and
many registered nurses, involves RNs

After thé strike: a view from the ward

working in a group with practical nurses,
orderlies and other health care workers.
“Primary nursing” involves RN care only.

Many acute-care hospitals are moving
to primary care, causing the layoff of aux-
iliary staff and closing beds because there
aren’t enough RNs to do the work. Our
union would have to have a firm position
for team nursing before even considering
the question of incorporating practical
nurses and orderlies into our ranks.

Past president Colleen Bonner added
that at this point we have enough work
meeting our own members’ needs and stated
that the proposal was premature at best.

While the resolution was soundly
defeated, it was clear that a good measure
of narrow self interest, ignorance and out-
and-out chauvinism in the union is still a
problem to be reckoned with. If maximum
unity among all unions in health is to be
achieved, it will take a concerted effort by
all progressives to nurture understanding
and mutual trust. .

One way we can do this is to work
jointly on areas of common concern: the
fight against privatization, government
cutbacks, the Goods and Services Tax and
so on. Also, on a more immediate level,
workplace discussions between stewards
should be initiated (as at Vancouver Gen-
eral Hospital) to deal with the pressing
problem of practical nurse and auxiliary
staff layoffs, and concerns some RNs have
about “team” nursing. Common solu-
tions and proposals are absolutely neces-
sary if we are to end chronic bed closures
and provide quality patient care.

If we can build on every possibility for
unity, both within BCNU and with other
health care workers, we’ll all be able to say
after the next round of bargaining that
patient care and working life really has
changed for the better in B.C. hospitals.

emboldens the El
class — the

Letters

Canadian gov't echoing U.S. on El Salvador

Canada’s complicit role in the continuing

civil war in E] Salvador is disappointing, if
not surprising.

TV coverage of two recent demonstra-

tions by the Salvadoran community at the

U.S. embassy in Vancouver was, to my

knowledge, non-existent. Like American
censorship of U.S. support for the carpet
bombing of El Salvador in 1984, Canadian
self-censorship shores up support for the

recent entry of Canada into the OAS. Our
hypocritical embrace of American policy in

Central America further isolates the cause
of the FMLN in trying to negotiate peace

with the ARENA government. As U.S.
money to the tune of $2 million a day
Salvadoran ruling
coffee producers, army,
ARENA party and its goon squads —

against suing for peace with the Farabundo

Marti Liberation Front. The civilians are
the target population.

The timid appeals to liberal sentiment in
FMLN communities will not serve in the
decisive victory for the common people.
The FMLN is calling for conciliation and
increasing flexibility in dealing with future
peace negotiations. On the contrary, bow-
ing to U.S. interests will further weaken
their position — as history amply shows. A
proletarian government (rule by the people
for the people) should not include any of the

terrorist, army, ruling government and
property elite in their negotiations. These
forces for counter-revolution should be
excluded from any further active role in El
Salvador. Preferably, they should be kicked

out (and sent to Miami) — they are the
problem.

Make no mistake, the U.S. secretary of
state has said that the U.S. will support the
present El Salvadoran regime as long as
“communism” is still the problem. The
gradualist, social democratic reforms that
the FMLN promise to its civilian population
—the poorest of the poor in the
hemisphere — will not be tolerated by the
USS.., just as a social democratic government
has not been tolerated. Elements seeking
mild social justice are labelled “commu-
nist.”

Although North American workers have
often been manipulated by the most right-
wing elements of the AFL-CIO in defeating
reformist and revolutionary forces in Cen-
tral America, it is possible for a progressive
workers movement to stem the fascistic tide.
Canadian workers can join with their
American counterparts in powerful con-
frontations such as striking against and
boycotting the actions of their government
in such countries as El Salvador. -

Nina Westaway,
Vancouver

While we share the concern of IWA-
Canada members who lost wages due to
the protest at Sulphur Passage (when
environemntal groups blockaded log-
ging roads — Ed.), the recent court case
and settlement establishes a dangerous
precedent. It will limit the democratic
right of people, including the IWA-
Canada and its members, to protest
injustice and struggle for needed changes.

It is remembered that IWA-Canada
Local 1-85 has on many occasions taken
similar actions, to protest grievances.

_ They have shut down jobs and whole
operations to protect their rights. With
this precedent now, the employers, other
unions and even their own members
could sue for lost production, profits or

wages.

The 40-hour week, which we all enjoy
was won in a sharp struggle in which
wildcat strikes and job actions were
among the weapons used by the IWA.
The union’s actions benefited the whole
working class and the people of Canada.

Suit ‘dangerous precedent’

Would the union recommend that
similar actions in the struggle for the
needed 30-hour week, be met by suits for
lost production, profits and wages?

Many other benefits have been won by
similar struggles. In each case, union
members were accused of irresponsibility
and calls were made to “sue them” to
hold them “responsible for their actions.”

This court decision, if allowed to
stand, could be used against anyone who
shuts down a job as part of a protest or
struggle for rights or justice. It will serve
as a precedent to sue anyone, including
IWA-Canada members whenever it suits
the purpose of the employers.

We urge the IWA to reconsider its
position and on appeal, to intervene on
the side of the appellants to quash this
verdict. This would remove the threat
contained in the verdict against any per-
son or group, including the IWA, who
-may feel compelled to take similar action
to protect their rights.

Gary Swann,
Port Alberni

Pacific Tribune, November 27, 1989 ¢ 5 —