We are a registered nurse in her late 20s and an elected official and policy professional in her late 50s. We are writing together as community members with a shared vision for justice and passionate support of YES on Question 1.
Question 1 is a measure not only for patient safety, but also to provide nurses with a humane work environment — a point that has largely been absent from the conversation. This absence implies that nurses are expected to suck up their difficult work conditions and be silent. Yet nurses work long shifts, all hours of the day and night, often without breaks, juggling many tasks at once to provide care. They deserve to feel respected in their profession and to set parameters to protect their own safety and well-being.
The opposition to Question 1 is a blatant reflection of many systemic oppressions in this country. It is corporate greed — health care systems that pay their executives millions of dollars while claiming there isn’t enough money to hire nurses. It is sexism —suppression of the predominantly female profession of nursing as we demand justice. It is white supremacy and capitalism — preservation of a corrupt health care system that consistently underserves the most marginalized while protecting those in power.
I (Gillian) work on a unit that already has patient limits, so I see the positive outcomes and high quality of care with safe staffing. It has been deeply upsetting that the health system for which I work adamantly opposes implementing this measure on all units. In fact, Baystate Health has spent over $12 million publicly opposing Question 1, hanging “NO on 1” banners on its hospitals and website, and trying to convince nurses and the public to oppose it, too.
And Baystate is not the only one. The Massachusetts Office of Campaign & Political Finance reports that the Massachusetts Health & Hospital Association and individual hospitals have spent over $26 million towards defeating Question 1 — money that could be spent on hiring nurses and caring for patients. This exorbitant spending illustrates that their concern is about profit at the expense of patients and the nurses who care for them.
There are claims that Question 1 will force hospitals to eliminate positions and units or close altogether due to lack of funds. This is simply untrue. In California, where ratios were implemented 14 years ago, not a single hospital closed. Question 1 also mandates that ancillary and support staff — those in lower salary tiers — cannot be terminated in the process of implementation. This point is essential in rebutting the argument that nurses are being selfish and putting others’ jobs at risk. Hospital CEOs in Massachusetts earn anywhere between $1-5 million a year. If they took even a small cut to their enormous salaries, think of how many nurses could be hired. In fact, Judith Shindul-Rothschild, a researcher who studied the financial implications of Question 1, concluded that most hospitals could meet their requirements by shifting roughly 3 percent of their budget that is currently used for managers and administrators to nurses.
Another argument is that the government shouldn’t tell nurses how to do their jobs, but it was bedside nurses who did the extensive research and work to write Question 1. Safety limits would offer protection from being overworked and exploited, not prevent nurses and their managers from exercising discretion with assignments, as some claim. Rather, nurses with safe assignments can provide a higher quality of care because they actually have time to attend to their patients. The result? Better patient outcomes, the reduction of unnecessary wait times and a more efficient discharge process leading to open beds for new patients who need care.
It is not an overstatement to say that safe staffing is the difference between life and death. It’s what makes patients and families feel they actually matter. It’s what allows nurses to eat, drink and use the restroom during their long and difficult shifts. It’s what provides nurses with the support and resources they need to do their jobs as well as they know they can.
Don’t let the scare tactics used by the NO campaign convince you that Question 1 will put you at risk. Safe staffing is better for nurses, better for patients, better for us all. Nursing is renowned for being the most trusted profession. So, trust nurses by joining us, along with U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and U.S. Representative Jim McGovern, in voting YES on Question 1 on November 6.
Gillian Cannon is a registered nurse at The Birthplace at Baystate Franklin Medical Center, and a community organizer based in Northampton.
Alisa Klein is a Northampton City Councilor who works professionally as a public health policy analyst and advocate.