Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T11:38:55.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nonprofit Hospital Amendment to the National Labor Relations Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Barbara F. Katz
Barbara F. Katz*
Affiliation:
Center for Law and Health Sciences, Boston University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Until the passage of a recent amendment by Congress, nonprofit hospitals were excluded from coverage by the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act (NLRA), which had established as the national policy the right of workers in most industries affecting interstate commerce to organize themselves into unions. Such exclusion from NLRA jurisdiction primarily affected the unskilled nonprofit hospital employees. such as general aides, orderlies, porters. nursing aides, housekeeping and maintenance personnel as opposed to professional and technical hospital employees.

When there were indications that the nonprofit hospital exemption was being reevaluated. numerous arguments in favor of its retention were advanced by its proponents.

First, it has been contended that unions tend to break down discipline and that once unionized, employees may be less willing to give immediate obedience to orders.

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1975 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 29 U.S.C. § § 151 et seq. (1970).Google Scholar

2 See, e.g., Johnson, Disputes Settlement in Atomic Energy Plants. 13 IND & LAB. REL. REV 38 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Vladeck, Collective Bargaining in Voluntary HospitaIs and Other Nonprofif Operations, in Proceedings of New York University Nineteenth Annual Conference on Labor 221,222 (T. Christensen ed. 1967).Google Scholar

4 See Raskin, A Union with “Soul.” N.Y. Times, March 22,1970, §6 (Magazine). at 24.Google Scholar

5 See, e.g., L. Osterhaus, Labor Unions in the Hospital and Their Effect on Management 380-400 (Ann Arbor, Michlgan: University Microfilms). cited in J. HEPNER, J. BOYER & C. WESTERHAUS. PERSONNEL AOMINISTRATION AND LABOR RELATIONS IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES 245-246 (1969).Google Scholar

6 120 Cong. Rec. 6934 (1974); Miller and Shortell, Hospital Unionization A Study of the Trends, 43 HOSPITALS 67, 71-72 (1969); Vladeck, supra note 9, at 232.Google Scholar

7 29 U.S.C. § 151 (1970).Google Scholar

8 U.S. DEPT OF LABOR, HANDBOOK OF LABOR STATISTICS 348 (1970); Pointer, Toward a National Hospital Labor Relations Policy: An Examination of Legislative Exemption, 22 LABOR LAW J. 238, 245 (1972).Google Scholar

9 120 Cong. Rec. 6935-38 (1974).Google Scholar

10 Hospitals argue that, among other things. the ten day notice prior to a threatened strike is wholly inadequate, and that transferring patients is rarely an acceptable alternative to maintaining the continuity of reasonable or quality patient care.Google Scholar

11 120 Cong. Rec 4588 (1974).Google Scholar