February, 26 2018, 02:00pm EDT

RNs Warn of Threat to Patient Care as Court Begins To Hear Corporate Attack on Workers, Union Rights
Concurrent with the Supreme Court hearing today on a corporate-pushed case that would sharply erode worker and union rights, National Nurses United, the nation's largest union and professional association of registered nurses is warning of dangerous implications for safe patient care.
The focus is a case called "Janus v. AFSCME," solicited, pressed and bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives, which is expected to receive a friendly hearing by the pro-corporate majority on the court.
WASHINGTON
Concurrent with the Supreme Court hearing today on a corporate-pushed case that would sharply erode worker and union rights, National Nurses United, the nation's largest union and professional association of registered nurses is warning of dangerous implications for safe patient care.
The focus is a case called "Janus v. AFSCME," solicited, pressed and bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives, which is expected to receive a friendly hearing by the pro-corporate majority on the court.
Janus is openly intended to weaken public sector unions by encouraging employees in unionized public sector workplaces to refuse to pay dues -- while they enjoy the rights and benefits of a union contract and representation, including their wages, benefits, and workplace conditions.
For nurses, and other healthcare workers, the threat to the public posed by the case is especially ominous. With hospitals and other public health employers increasingly cutting patient services and eroding other care conditions that put patients at risk, nurses need the collective support of their colleagues, through a union, to have a strong voice to advocate for their patients and communities, says NNU.
Martese Chism, a nurse at Chicago's John H. Stroger Hospital, says: "The power of solidarity is what enables us to be strong patient advocates. Budget cuts frequently threaten to close services that the community desperately needs. When the system threatened to close pediatric services at Stroger, we came together with other public sector unions at County and fought to keep pediatrics open."
"With the union I have that platform where I can safely speak out for patient care," says Maureen Dugan, RN, who works at the University of California San Francisco. "It's the union that brings many safety laws in legislation and public regulatory protections. It's the union dues that fund those efforts," says Dugan.
"As a public health nurse, I am a public servant, committed to serving Cook County's most vulnerable communities. My union makes it possible for me to speak up on behalf of patients and the public, without fear of retaliation," says Joanne Lingle, Cook County Public Health Nurse.
"Union protection absolutely saves lives," says Sue Phillips, an RN who works at Palomar Medical Center in Escondido, Calif.
In advance of the Court hearing, NNU, joined by community supporters and elected leaders, sponsored rallies late last week in California and Chicago and joined other protest gatherings over the weekend.
NNU today cited seven reasons why they oppose the Janus case:
1. When hospitals cut corners on spending, they cut corners on human lives. From pushing patients out of the hospital while still ill, to stocking lifesaving supplies at a bare minimum, to having no limit on how many patients they assign to one overwhelmed RN, hospitals often make decisions that are good for profits -- and bad for people. Who best to standup for patients in those situations? Empowered union nurses.
2. Unprotected nurses = unprotected patients. When nurses see a threat to patient safety, they must be able to speak up without fearing retaliation, thanks to the backing of their union. RNs with strong unions are more effectively able to challenge employers that want to cut patient care services, close hospitals and clinics, and force nurses to work in unsafe conditions.
3. Nurses know better than billionaires. Bankrolled by billionaires and corporate CEOs, "Janus" encourages employees to refuse to pay dues, while they enjoy the rights and benefits of a union contract and representation. A not-so-hidden goal is to decimate unions financially, crippling workers' ability to challenge employer abuses. Nurses need union support to ensure profits for the rich and powerful do not come at the expense of public health and safety.
4. "Right to work" laws threaten public health. Janus is based on so-called "right to work" laws now in place in 28 U.S. states. In those states, household incomes are more than $8,000 less, people under 65 are 46% more likely to be uninsured, life expectancy rates are lower, and infant mortality rates are 12% higher.
5. Attacking nurse unions also jeopardizes patient care in non-union facilities. Because RNs in unionized facilities are better able to advocate for and win critical patient and nurse protections, non-union hospitals sometimes match these protections simply to keep their nurses from leaving. When union protections are destroyed, working conditions -- and patient care conditions -- in non-union facilities will also suffer.
6. "Janus" sets stage for silencing ALL nurses. "Janus" currently applies to unionized workers in public settings, but it sets the stage for a future case to disempower all unionized U.S. workers. This has already happened in the 28 states that have enacted so-called "right to work" laws. For patients, that would mean a future of disempowered nurses, no matter where lifesaving treatment is sought.
7. Case comes during flu epidemic, opioid crisis, when empowered RNs needed most. With thousands of U.S. patients dying in an especially harsh flu season, and an opioid crisis killing more than 115 Americans per day (according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse), our healthcare settings need a strong voice for safe patient care. Nurses are that voice. Weaken unions, and patient care suffers, at a time when we need strong nurse unions the most.
Watch this video for more information: https://vimeo.com/257209933/9a1f4368c9
National Nurses United, with close to 185,000 members in every state, is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in US history.
(240) 235-2000LATEST NEWS
'We Will Not Accept This Intimidation,' Mamdani Says of Trump Threat to Arrest Him
"That Trump included praise for Eric Adams in his authoritarian threats is unsurprising, but highlights the urgency of bringing an end to this mayor's time in City Hall," said the New York City mayoral candidate.
Jul 01, 2025
Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani made clear on Tuesday that he would not be intimidated by Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to arrest him.
A journalist who falsely described Mamdani—a democratic socialist—as a "communist" asked Trump about the candidate's pledge not to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), whose agents are working to carry out the president's promised mass deportations.
"Well then, we'll have to arrest him," said Trump, a former New Yorker who has taken aim at Mamdani since his victory in last Tuesday's Democratic primary. "Look, we don't need a communist in this country."
Mamdani, who currently serves in the New York State Assembly, was born in Uganda to Indian parents and moved to NYC as a child. He was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2018. Throughout his campaign, the 33-year-old has faced numerous Islamophobic attacks, and after his primary win, Congressman Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) urged the Trump administration to target him with "denaturalization proceedings," in line with a broader effort at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Trump said Tuesday that his administration would be watching Mamdani "very carefully." The president, a well-documented liar, added that "a lot of people are saying he's here illegally—you know, we're gonna look at everything... and ideally he's gonna turn out to be much less than a communist, but right now he's a communist, that's not a socialist."
Trump also blasted Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a supporter of Mamdani, and praised the city's current mayor, Eric Adams, who is seeking another term as an Independent. After Trump returned to office in January, the DOJ instructed prosecutors to drop federal corruption charges against Adams, triggering widespread outrage over the attempted "illegal quid pro quo," as some critics called it.
Responding to Trump's remarks in a lengthy statement, Mamdani said Tuesday that "the president of the United States just threatened to have me arrested, stripped of my citizenship, put in a detention camp, and deported. Not because I have broken any law, but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city."
"His statements don't just represent an attack on our democracy but an attempt to send a message to every New Yorker who refuses to hide in the shadows: If you speak up, they will come for you," Mamdani continued. "We will not accept this intimidation."
"That Trump included praise for Eric Adams in his authoritarian threats is unsurprising, but highlights the urgency of bringing an end to this mayor's time in City Hall," he asserted, directing attention to the GOP budget bill advanced by the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.
Mamdani said that "at this very moment, when MAGA Republicans are attempting to destroy the social safety net, kick millions of New Yorkers off of healthcare, and enrich their billionaire donors at the expense of working families, it is a scandal that Eric Adams echoes this president's division, distraction, and hatred. Voters will resoundingly reject it in November."
In addition to Mamdani and Adams, the general election candidates are Republican Curtis Sliwa, Independent Jim Walden, and disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary. According to results released Tuesday, Mamdani got 56% of the vote compared to Cuomo's 44%.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Demand Answers About 'Reckless' Trump Admin Use of AI Social Security Chatbot
Artificial intelligence systems, the four senators argue, "represent a troubling pattern that if continued, would significantly impede Americans' ability" to access their benefits.
Jul 01, 2025
Four U.S. senators—three Democrats and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders—demanded answers Tuesday from the Trump administration about its "reckless rollout" of artificial intelligence chatbot technology into phone systems "that have blocked people from accessing their earned Social Security benefits."
"These AI programs, which the agency deployed with little consultation with Congress, advocates, or other key stakeholders, appear to have been developed in haste and represent a troubling pattern that if continued, would significantly impede Americans' ability to access their Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits," the senators said in a letter to Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Frank Bisignano.
While Sanders, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (Ore.), and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) acknowledged that "AI can be a helpful tool to simplify some workloads," they contended that artificial intelligence "is not a panacea for all challenges facing SSA."
The letter continues:
SSA is entrusted with ensuring accurate and timely payment of mtore than $1 trillion in Social Security and SSI benefit payments to over 73 million seniors, individuals with disabilities, and their families each year. Considering the agency's important mission, it is critical that SSA is responsibly deploying any technology system, including AI. For example, whether incorporating newer technology like generative AI to improve customer experience and increase efficiency or leveraging predictive AI to provide disability examiners support in the disability determination process, it is critical that SSA meaningfully engage stakeholders, including its customers and employees, the advocacy community, and members of Congress, throughout the entire process to avoid harm to claimants and beneficiaries.
"The agency's hasty AI rollouts on its national 1-800 number phone system and the phone system for its 1,200 field offices, which resulted in significant impediments for Americans simply trying to access their earned benefits, demonstrate our concern," the senators wrote. "In April, SSA announced it would be deploying an anti-fraud AI algorithm to verify the identity of callers seeking to file for benefits on its national 1-800 number, arguing—without providing any evidence—that its telephone service was rife with fraud."
"However," the lawmakers noted, "the proposal was scrapped shortly after implementation after the system found it identified two claims out of over 110,000 as potentially fraudulent. Moreover, the new program slowed claim processing by 25% and led to a 'degradation of public service.'"
The senators are asking Bisignano to:
- Provide a detailed description of the new AI-based chatbot, including how it determines whether it has successfully answered a caller's questions before hanging up;
- Describe which metrics is SSA using to determine whether this AI-based chatbot is successful at improving service delivery at the national 1-800 number;
- Explain the metrics SSA used to evaluate the successes or challenges of this AI-based chatbot before rolling it out nationwide to field offices;
- Disclose which stakeholders, especially those who represent beneficiaries and employees, were consulted pre- and post-deployment of this AI-based chatbot;
- Explain whether SSA is planning to procure, develop, or implement any new AI systems this year; and
- If the answer to the above question is yes, list and provide a detailed description of these AI systems.
The AI rollout is part of Bisignano's "technology agenda" to boost productivity at SSA amid staffing and other cuts implemented by the Trump administration and its Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. In February, SSA announced its intent to fire 7,000 workers, or about 12% of its historically low staff.
Many SSA staffers also resigned, including nearly half of the agency's senior executives. This has adversely affected SSA beneficiaries. An analysis published last week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that one SSA staff member must now serve 1,480 beneficiaries—over three times as many as in 1967.
Last week, Warren sent a letter to Bisignano—who one advocacy group described as "a Wall Street CEO with a long history of slashing the companies he runs to the bone"—accusing him of misleading the public about longer beneficiary wait times resulting from the Trump administration and DOGE taking a "chainsaw to Social Security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House to Take Up GOP Megabill Serving 'Oil Company CEOs, Hedge Fund Donors, and Climate Deniers'
"Senate Republicans advanced the most anti-environment, anti-job, and anti-American bill in history," said one campaigner.
Jul 01, 2025
After U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday sent President Donald Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" back to the House of Representatives, defenders of the planet sounded the alarm on several provisions that remain in the massive budget reconciliation package.
"This is a vote that will live in infamy," said Greenpeace USA deputy climate program director John Noël after Vice President JD Vance broke a tie to advance the legislation. "This bill is what happens when a major political party, in the grips of a personality cult, teams up with oil company CEOs, hedge fund donors, and climate deniers. All you need to do is look at who benefits from actively undercutting the clean energy industry that is creating tens of thousands of jobs across political geographies."
"The megabill isn't about reform—it's about rewarding the superrich and doling out fossil fuel industry handouts, all while dismantling the social safety nets on which millions depend for stability," Noël added. "It is a bet against the future."
Although Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) provision to force the sale of public lands as well as a proposed excise tax on wind and solar projects were removed, other controversial policies survived, including required onshore and offshore fossil fuel lease sales, mandates for timber harvesting, the recision of various Inflation Reduction Act funding, an end to a moratorium on new coal leasing, and attacks on clean energy.
"Make no mistake, while the Senate did not include a punitive new excise tax on wind and solar projects, the bill is still devastating for the clean energy transition," warned Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) president Gretchen Goldman. "The bill would spike energy costs, threaten energy reliability, and strand hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy and transportation investments along with the tens of thousands of domestic jobs that come with them. The provisions attacking clean energy and clean transportation are not about the budget, but rather Congress using the budget bill to boost fossil fuels by crushing these booming new industries."
Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous declared that "today, Senate Republicans advanced the most anti-environment, anti-job, and anti-American bill in history."
"This shortsighted plan will put lives at risk, endanger our growing economy, and raise electricity rates on families and small businesses," he said. "The proposal expands drilling on public lands and in the Arctic, guts cost-cutting clean energy investments and the thousands of stable jobs they've created, and includes massive giveaways to corporate polluters and the very wealthiest Americans."
Jealous celebrated that public outrage led to the federal land sales and excise tax provisions getting axed, but added that "even with those important changes, a terrible bill is still a terrible bill, and this proposal fails the American people in every measure."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, also highlighted how the legislation—if signed into law—will benefit rich individuals and corporations while causing working-class Americans to lose their jobs and pay higher energy bills.
"The Senate has turned its back on our clean energy future, raising our utility bills while mortgaging our health and environment to deliver massive tax breaks for billionaires," Alt said. She warned of job losses and increased climate pollution, meaning "kids will struggle with asthma and other respiratory problems. And, more people will suffer from devastating extreme weather catastrophes."
Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, similarly said that "with spiking power demand and rising bills, we need more clean, affordable American energy, but Senate Republicans just voted to kill jobs and deliver the largest utility bill increase in U.S. history."
"Every senator who voted for this bill chose tax cuts for the wealthiest over the rest of our health, pocketbooks, public lands and waters, and a safe climate," Bapna argued. "This is like Robin Hood in reverse. The very rich will get richer and the rest of us will have to pay the price."
After 27 hours, Republicans passed their Big Ugly Bill—a catastrophic assault on health care, food, and climate.They chose Trump and billionaires over families and our future.This fight isn't over. Now it’s the House’s turn to stop it.We can't agonize—we must organize.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey (@markey.senate.gov) July 1, 2025 at 1:22 PM
The bill not only "will race us toward climate catastrophe" while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog Public Citizen, it also "steals assistance from vulnerable Americans, the bill would supercharge Trump's barbaric mass deportation policy, and throw an extra $150 billion at Pentagon contractors."
"Any member of Congress with a conscience knows that this bill must not become law," she added. "It's time for the House to stand up to President Trump and vote against it."
The GOP-controlled House had already passed a version of the megabill before every Senate Republican but Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) advanced the latest edition on Tuesday. Now, the lower chamber's leaders plan to take up the new version in hopes of sending it to Trump's desk by his July 4 deadline.
"House members got it wrong the first time but have another chance now to do their jobs," said Goldman of UCS. "They must reject this bill, voting with their constituents in mind, not simply to avoid the ire of the president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular