Blogs

Ron,
Having been exposed to both unionized healthcare and non-union, several things come to mind. One is, when we become a licensed RCP, abandoning a patient to strike for a higher wage is frowned upon. The other is that the quality of care decreases in non-competitive markets. Why would a therapist work hard to ensure his work ethic is pristine if he knows someone has his back?
"The evidence also suggests that certification leads to lower care quality in less competitive markets and perhaps higher quality care in more competitive ones. In more competitive mar- kets, the likelihood of a severe deficiency decreases 18.9 (9.6) percent with certification and the point estimate on total deficiency count is negative, also consistent with higher quality of care. Negative employment effects accompanied by positive quality effects suggest positive productivity effects in more competitive markets. In contrast, in less competitive markets, where staff declines are sharper, the evidence suggests negative effects on care quality. Total deficiency counts go up by 2.93 (1.36) and the signs on private pay percentage and severe deficiency results are similarly signed. The effect on productivity in less competitive markets is ambiguous. Certification has significantly worse effects on two of the three quality mea- sures in less competitive markets compared to more competitive markets: total deficiency count (p=0.02) and percentage private-pay (p=0.09). However, none of the differences in staffing level effects are significant. This finding strengthens the empirical foundation for an earlier literature that suggested more positive union productivity effects in more competitive product markets and more concern about negative productivity effects in less competitive product markets (Hirsch and Addison, 1986)."
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17733.pdf
There are also negative aspects for employers that have driven many healthcare organizations to drop the use of unions.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-union-membership-employers-perspective-33242.html

Ron, I would agree with Tim that the AARC's mission is such that adding union related activities to their list of things to do today would be to say the least an interesting endevour.
If you and your colleagues feel that a union representing you at your place of employement to negotiate for wages, benefits and work conditions. You need to research carefully before you embark down that road. What I do know about unionization is that unions must be voted in by the group of employees they would potentially represent and all the union needs to get in is a simple majority. The flip side of that is that if you have decided the union has outlived it's usefulness you, the employees must put together the drive to vote them out, you can not just go to your employer and ask them to do that for you. It is YOUR union not the employers. Either case the National Labor Relations Board supervises any voting in or out of a union.
Some states are "closed shop" states others are not. What that means in a closed shop state all members of a union class must be members of the union and pay dues. If you are in a right to work state, the union must represent all members just as they would in a closed shop state, however employees do no have to be union members. This has the potential to cause rifts, especially if the union needs money to carry on business.
Lastly if a union attempts to organize your whole hospital, workers are grouped by NLRB definitions and the last time I worked in a hospital where the nurses were attempting to unionize, had it gone hospital wide, we would have been grouped with Radiology Techs, Lab Techs and the Nurses would have had their own separate "contract." This doesn't mean that only RT's couldn't be the ones to organize, but think of this from a business perspective from the union side. Do I want to go through the work of organizing for just 10, 20 or 30 RT's or would it be more worth my time to get RT's, X-ray, CT, MRI, Lab techs and anyone else that would fit into the same class of employees. This has the potential to diminish the unions interest in representing your specific needs versus the general needs of everyone.
So please for your own sake if you are considering this, check out all the fine details for yourselves because there are a lot of pros and cons to a union.

OK Tim.. I see you like your tax free status.. we all pay taxes, maybe the aarc should become for profit. Whatever.. It boils down to that Respiratory is in a nurses scope of practice & the bean counters of the world will see us ( RT's ) as not as necessary as a nurse. Respiratory does a lot of procedures that aren't billable, why you ask? because we don't have the medicaid billing codes for some reason. I'm sure the nurses do! It boils down, that our job is slowly being taken away from us & one day we will be replaced by a robot if something isn't done.

Rob's comment regarding a "respiratory union" comes up often in discussions, so I will attempt to answer that question from an AARC perspective instead of a more global perspective.
First and foremost....as a not-for-profit organization, the AARC is held to activities that support its Mission or is at risk of jeopardizing its not for profit status. That Mission is:
"The American Association for Respiratory Care (AARC) will continue to be the leading national and international professional association for respiratory care. The AARC will encourage and promote professional excellence, advance the science and practice of respiratory care, and serve as an advocate for patients, their families, the public, the profession and the respiratory therapist."
So the word advocacy creates a "grayness" for many and often leads to speculation that the AARC is (or should be) a labor union for respiratory therapists. When you look closer at polices and procedures developed by the elected leadership of the organization, this is not an outlined function of the AARC not the intent of advocacy.
An on-line legal dictionary defines a Labor Union as: An association, combination, or organization of employees who band together to secure favorable wages, improved working conditions, and better work hours, and to resolve grievances against employers.
There are rules and regulations by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that outlines private and public union development as well as their roles and responsibilities. Labor Unions also are required in addition have both federal and state policies that must be followed.
When reading the NLRA more closely, the AARC does not fit that description or definition. That is why there are NO professional medical associations that serve as a "union" for its members in 2014. In addition, the dues of most unions are much, much higher than a $78.50 digital membership currently selected by the majority of our membership.
Legally this would definitely fall outside the AARC's not-for-profit status and is not permitted, so it is a non-issue in that aspect. There are local and national groups that have organized unions for RTs. I will not speak in a pro or con favor of them as I have no personal experience as such.
Having been in the profession for over 25 years and an AARC member since 1986, I have never question what the AARC "does for me". It is intuitively obvious as such.....publications, science journals, CPGs, continuing education of the highest qualities, work on national recognized and accepted credentials, assistance with licensure in 49 states and 3 territories, advocacy and representation of the profession with other medical associations, federal agencies and patient advocacy organizations to name a few things......
Even if I paid $100 a year in membership dues for 25 years at a cost of $2,500 to me over that time span, I would consider that an INCREDIBLE investment in my profession and career and money well spent. So I never question the "What" from that aspect. Does AARC make mistakes, absolutely as it is made up of humans and no one is perfect.
But it is my humble option that the AARC is not , nor should it ever be an organized union for respiratory therapist in 5,000 US hospitals. It is not feasible or plausible from a legal or regulatory standpoint.