The June 1 deadline for a walkout imposed by the Twin Cities nursing collective is still somewhat virtual. As of today, the possibility for what is being sensationally plugged by the media as the “biggest in history” (even if for just 1 day) is still a tentative one. The Minnesota Nurses Association, which is organizing the possible strike, has now apparently decided to utilize a federal mediator^[1] as it returns to the bargaining table. To date, the majority of Twin Cities hospitals against whom the nurses are threatening walkout, have yet to accept union proposals that call for an increase in real wages of over 19 percent over the next three years.^[2] Hospitals contend that such expenses would incur an almost quarter billion dollar commitment in the short term, thwarting planned investments in innovation and other future costs.

UPDATE: A press conference is called for today at 1 PM. | LINK

UPDATE: New strike date — 6/10. Twin Cities hospitals feel a little put off . | LINK

It is disappointing that the nurses’ union used the pretext of returning to negotiations just one day ago to then turn around and one day later order a strike. Consistent with their pattern, the union makes representations of willingness to negotiate while driving toward a strike. There is an inherent barrier to good faith negotiations when one party is actively engaged in planning for a strike.

In the high-stakes game of hospital revenues and healthcare market share, is it really surprising that any perceived good faith by either side is just that — perception?

1. a move which enhances neutrality among sides during collective bargaining [↩]
2. This proposed increase would be in addition to 3 percent average increases already built-in as a step-increase for employees. [↩]