UPMC in the wrong II
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, Feb. 10, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the registered nurses of UPMC Altoona, who have been preparing to go on strike. It is important to recognize that this strike isn't for higher wages or more vacation time. The issues at stake are those that nurses in Altoona have earned over the years: appropriate nurse/patient ratios, competitive wages and comprehensive benefits.
Without these, UPMC Altoona is going to become a revolving door for newly trained nurses who work there only until they gain the experience necessary to get a job at a more competitive hospital. The nurses who have years of invaluable work experience will no longer be a fixture in Altoona. Patient care will no doubt suffer without these trained nurses.
Through striking, nurses hope to demonstrate the need for UPMC Altoona to maintain the current benefit and pay structure and guarantee that measures such as proper staffing levels are in place so patients receive the highest level of care.
The nurses of UPMC Altoona aren't asking for unreasonable things. They want to be fairly compensated for the work they do, be properly staffed and ensure that the rules and regulations that the hospital administration imposes do not have an adverse affect on their patients. They deserve our support in this strike.
The writer's mother is a UPMC Altoona registered nurse represented by SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Math in common?
- Putin’s actions I
- Obstacles to hiring
- Putin’s actions II
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Funding priorities questioned
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Conspicuous by absence