CNN Article - Psychologists to Strike

Started by AbnormalPsych
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
AbnormalPsych said:
Regarding the LVN thing, In this article:

calmatters.org

The new face of No on 30: Gavin Newsom

Opponents of a California proposition to fund electric car incentives want voters to keep one thing in mind: Gavin Newsom’s face.
calmatters.org calmatters.org

There is a link that if you click that takes you directly to the complaint that is published online:

Click to expand...
I don't understand what these "replacement" nurses are doing
 
msc545 said:
True. In theory, they could outsource their mental health services but it would probably be unacceptably costly for them to do that, and they could not control costs as they do now by underpaying providers and attenuating care to the point that many of their members simply get no care, apparently.
Click to expand...
If you're back to Kaiser the insurance, they don't care. Zero consequences. Especially if the CA psychologists don’t understand the importance of their ability to admit patients.
PikminOC said:
I can't go unpaid for five weeks.
Click to expand...
I can go over a decade. There is no way yours is an income problem. Lifestyle creep is your enemy.
 
Last edited:
LVNs are apparently making mental health decisions at Kaiser - illegally since it is not within the scope of their license.
 
Sanman said:
My unsolicited advice, you need a 6 month emergency fund minimum. I'm not sure exactly how long we could go with zero income, but it can be measured in years.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I am not good with money at all, but just recently went about six months without my income. My spouse still had her income coming in, but that was about 1/3 of mine. Regardless having the ability to weather significant financial hit is kind of key to being able to have more negotiating power because you can walk and in my case have the resources to start up a business.
 
Sanman said:
My unsolicited advice, you need a 6 month emergency fund minimum. I'm not sure exactly how long we could go with zero income, but it can be measured in years.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You should have at least 6 months in very liquid assets for an emergency fund. And, if you are a high earner, you should probably have at least an extra year in easily liquidable assets in other areas. I already lived a financially insecure life growing up, doing my best to never have that happen for me or my family again.
 
PsychPhDone said:
It has taken all my willpower not to reply to Kaiser recruiters with the striking therapists' tiktoks
Click to expand...
Is there any reason that people can think of for not replying to recruiters and just respectfully declining and citing their business model that favors profit over patient care and employee wellbeing as reasons for it? I was planning to do that, but should I worry about burning bridges?
 
Seven_Costanza said:
Is there any reason that people can think of for not replying to recruiters and just respectfully declining and citing their business model that favors profit over patient care and employee wellbeing as reasons for it? I was planning to do that, but should I worry about burning bridges?
Click to expand...

I would just reply with an exorbitant salary demand. I'd cross that picket line for $300/hour for clinical work.
 
Seven_Costanza said:
Is there any reason that people can think of for not replying to recruiters and just respectfully declining and citing their business model that favors profit over patient care and employee wellbeing as reasons for it? I was planning to do that, but should I worry about burning bridges?
Click to expand...
I think as long as you aren't a jerk it's fine. I replied similarly. But I have no intention of working for them in their current state.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
cara susanna said:
A lot of people are unable to save that much. I don't even have that.
Click to expand...

You could, you'd just have to scale back your lifestyle. If you're falling into that trap, you should be very concerned about retirement.

Go take a social history of an old people who "couldn't" save for retirement. A substantial proportion of them will tell you about their vacations, expensive car, nice houses or neighborhood, expensive hobby, eating out regularly, cable bill, etc. They sacrificed their future for those luxuries.
 
PsyDr said:
You could, you'd just have to scale back your lifestyle. If you're falling into that trap, you should be very concerned about retirement.

Go take a social history of an old people who "couldn't" save for retirement. A substantial proportion of them will tell you about their vacations, expensive car, nice houses or neighborhood, expensive hobby, eating out regularly, cable bill, etc. They sacrificed their future for those luxuries.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this was important to us. We still lived at the lifestyle level of fellow/resident status for several years after both getting FT positions. It made the first several years after having kids soooo much easier.
 
cara susanna said:
A lot of people are unable to save that much. I don't even have that. It's not really a choice we're making.
Click to expand...

It may not be much of a choice for those on minimum wage or lower income levels, but it is definitely a choice for those of us with professional incomes. As others mentioned, it involves scaling back lifestyle, managing debt, and picking the correct jobs. Certainly the average person in the U.S. does not attain the income of even a psychologist, let alone a physician. They are not homeless or starving. My wife and I have chosen to live a more middle class lifestyle despite a high income. We recently graduated to upper middle class when buying our first vehicle that cost more than $20k in our lives. The recipe is simple, does not mean it is easy. As @PsyDr mentioned, I am reminded of the consequences of not doing so daily as a Geropsychologist.
 
Seven_Costanza said:
Is there any reason that people can think of for not replying to recruiters and just respectfully declining and citing their business model that favors profit over patient care and employee wellbeing as reasons for it? I was planning to do that, but should I worry about burning bridges?
Click to expand...
Yes, worry. Kaiser has tons of money and is very politically powerful. You don't want to be on their bad side.
 
msc545 said:
Yes, worry. Kaiser has tons of money and is very politically powerful. You don't want to be on their bad side.
Click to expand...
Seven_Costanza said:
Is there any reason that people can think of for not replying to recruiters and just respectfully declining and citing their business model that favors profit over patient care and employee wellbeing as reasons for it? I was planning to do that, but should I worry about burning bridges?
Click to expand...


Kaiser won't necessarily even know if you say no to recruiters, who are the middlepersons. If you explain your reasoning to recruiters, there's no guarantee that it will be communicated to Kaiser.

That said, if you contact Kaiser directly and share your concerns, there's more of a chance they'll read it, which is a good thing.

What bridge will you burn if you don't work for them and you don't plan to? They aren't that interested in what an individual thinks as a huge system. I personally wouldn't worry about providing them that feedback in terms of professional consequences and would consider it very low risk.
 
foreverbull said:
Kaiser won't necessarily even know if you say no to recruiters, who are the middlepersons. If you explain your reasoning to recruiters, there's no guarantee that it will be communicated to Kaiser.

That said, if you contact Kaiser directly and share your concerns, there's more of a chance they'll read it, which is a good thing.

What bridge will you burn if you don't work for them and you don't plan to? They aren't that interested in what an individual thinks as a huge system. I personally wouldn't worry about providing them that feedback in terms of professional consequences and would consider it very low risk.
Click to expand...
There's no guarantee that it will not be communicated to Kaiser. I would worry about personal consequences. These people have a lot of money and no regard for the law.
 
msc545 said:
There's no guarantee that it will not be communicated to Kaiser. I would worry about personal consequences. These people have a lot of money and no regard for the law.
Click to expand...

The Kaiser e-suite does not care about individual providers who choose not to work for them. No matter in which manner that provider makes it known. And yes, the recruiters rarely pass anything on to the people making hiring decision in the department aside from completed applications. I sincerely doubt there would be any personal or professional consequence of any kind if someone were to tell the recruiter to pound sand. I doubt it would even preclude that person from employment with that same recruiter down the road.
 
WisNeuro said:
The Kaiser e-suite does not care about individual providers who choose not to work for them. No matter in which manner that provider makes it known. And yes, the recruiters rarely pass anything on to the people making hiring decision in the department aside from completed applications. I sincerely doubt there would be any personal or professional consequence of any kind if someone were to tell the recruiter to pound sand. I doubt it would even preclude that person from employment with that same recruiter down the road.
Click to expand...
You can bet your own life - I want to keep mine.
 
WisNeuro said:
The Kaiser e-suite does not care about individual providers who choose not to work for them. No matter in which manner that provider makes it known. And yes, the recruiters rarely pass anything on to the people making hiring decision in the department aside from completed applications. I sincerely doubt there would be any personal or professional consequence of any kind if someone were to tell the recruiter to pound sand. I doubt it would even preclude that person from employment with that same recruiter down the road.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I had a recruiter call me for an entry level position in a company that competed with my old employer. When I laughed at him and pointed out I was a senior manager with the main competitor making significantly more money, he just asked if I was interested again without missing a beat. They don't care, they just want their recruitment bonus.
 
WisNeuro said:
Are you seriously saying that Kaiser would kill someone who disrespected them in a recruiter search? Do you realize how unhinged that sounds?
Click to expand...
I am not saying they would or would not as I don't know. I am not ruling it in or out. I know very well what money does to people. I don't know where you live, but I live in California in a place where Kaiser has clinics.
 
PsychPhDone said:
Uh what exactly do you think they would do to someone who says "nah I don't like how your company arranges mental health services" to a recruiter?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I think the recruiter doesn't care, but the guys making all the money at Kaiser might if someone went public with it.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I understand that sadly you cannot tell the difference when it comes to yourself.
 
This thread has taken some turns.

I've been thinking about this and a month is a very long time. I am not sure what the consequences are for Kaiser if the gov't does not get involved. It is blatantly obvious (to me) that Kasier doesn't want to be in the mental health game. I don't see if there are negative consequences for Kaiser from any of this (again, unless it brings on regulatory scrutiny). I am pro-union and support the strike but a union is relatively powerless against an employer that actively does not want these employees.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
Mod note: Let's steer back on track and away from any personal attacks/insults, etc.

Everyone is welcome to pursue any issues or concerns with specific members via private message.

Thanks all.
Click to expand...
Yes. Sorry, I don't like being referred to as "delusional" because I disagree with someone.
 
DynamicDidactic said:
This thread has taken some turns.

I've been thinking about this and a month is a very long time. I am not sure what the consequences are for Kaiser if the gov't does not get involved. It is blatantly obvious (to me) that Kasier doesn't want to be in the mental health game. I don't see if there are negative consequences for Kaiser from any of this (again, unless it brings on regulatory scrutiny). I am pro-union and support the strike but a union is relatively powerless against an employer that actively does not want these employees.
Click to expand...

Just watch out for the Kaiser Rouge hit squads roaming through CA. I hear it's like Mad Max out there.
 
DynamicDidactic said:
This thread has taken some turns.

I've been thinking about this and a month is a very long time. I am not sure what the consequences are for Kaiser if the gov't does not get involved. It is blatantly obvious (to me) that Kasier doesn't want to be in the mental health game. I don't see if there are negative consequences for Kaiser from any of this (again, unless it brings on regulatory scrutiny). I am pro-union and support the strike but a union is relatively powerless against an employer that actively does not want these employees.
Click to expand...

Kaiser is an insurer first and a healthcare provider second. If they can't provide services in house at a cheaper rate, they will just fire everyone and contract it out like every other insurer.
 
Kaiser has a lot more options than the union does. They can hire contract workers although I think they are loathed to do so because it drives up costs; they can hire more employees at their current employment rate and gradually replace strikers (again difficult due to bad press and a shortage of qualified people willing to work for them); they can increase their outsourcing of mental health although again this costs them more; they can implement some combination of the above and remedies I've not thought of as yet. OR - they can just keep doing what they are doing now, which is to tell the union to buzz off and ignore state regulators and the law - leading probably to lawsuits and years of litigation from providers which they can afford to defend based on their revenues which are now in the billions; this actually may be their cheapest option.

Rest assured that they have bean counters working day and night to find the cheapest way out of this. They should never have implemented such a greedy, abusive, illegal system to begin with.

Who knows, if they have to settle and it costs them some profits, some of their executives may have to forego that additional vacation home or European trip after all. Tragic.
 
Last edited:
Sanman said:
Kaiser is an insurer first and a healthcare provider second. If they can't provide services in house at a cheaper rate, they will just fire everyone and contract it out like every other insurer.
Click to expand...
They might, but I think that would impact their profits to a degree they would find unacceptable. I might be wrong and while we need reasonably priced health care, Kaiser premiums have become unreasonable especially in light of what they don't do well, which is more than mental health.
 
I wouldn’t worry too much about these big companies crushing specific individuals as typically they just crush us in a less targeted way as they are doing what they do. Now if an individual begins to exert enough influence to threaten the system and that comes to their awareness, then perhaps, but I doubt it. I don’t think the multimillionaires who run Kaiser will even care much about the person or people in union leadership who started this whole thing when this is all over. It’s not personal, it’s business. In the end, the execs that run Kaiser will win that game no matter how much the serfs get paid.
 
smalltownpsych said:
I wouldn’t worry too much about these big companies crushing specific individuals as typically they just crush us in a less targeted way as they are doing what they do. Now if an individual begins to exert enough influence to threaten the system and that comes to their awareness, then perhaps, but I doubt it. I don’t think the multimillionaires who run Kaiser will even care much about the person or people in union leadership who started this whole thing when this is all over. It’s not personal, it’s business. In the end, the execs that run Kaiser will win that game no matter how much the serfs get paid.
Click to expand...
Yep only the government does that
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
They are going in to week 7 according to this:


"Mental health therapists rejected Kaiser Permanente’s latest contract offer with a vote of 1,349 to 222, opting to remain out on strike rather than accept what they described as incremental changes that will not remedy patients’ long waits for treatment."
 
ClinicalABA said:
Obviously your post was not "just off the cuff", and this would seem to be a relatively lean system as far as CEO pay (but, heck, cut it to 1 million). I would disagree that it is a "non-starter in negotiations" though- a starter is exactly what it is.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that if you pay your CEO a million dollars, you'll get a CEO that is worth a million dollars. Not many decent executives will work for that pay in a system that large because plenty of other places will pay more. I've seen enough good and bad CEO leadership over the years to know that a good CEO is worth paying for and a bad one will put people out of jobs as a system bleeds red
 
Mad Jack said:
The problem with this is that if you pay your CEO a million dollars, you'll get a CEO that is worth a million dollars. Not many decent executives will work for that pay in a system that large because plenty of other places will pay more. I've seen enough good and bad CEO leadership over the years to know that a good CEO is worth paying for and a bad one will put people out of jobs as a system bleeds red
Click to expand...
Good point. They should ALL have a 1 million dollar salary!
 
ClinicalABA said:
Good point. They should ALL have a 1 million dollar salary!
Click to expand...
Then anyone decent would leave for better paying jobs outside of healthcare. Then we'd end up with either incompetent executives or people that are in the position for a sense of power despite the lack of money more often than not. Finding competent people that just want to do the job out of the kindness of their hearts when they could make more elsewhere isn't realistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sanman
Aetna reducing rates for psychologists on Alma
2
Replies
72
Views
6K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
F
What kinds of issues get expert psychologists/psychiatrists dismissed/disqualified/excluded?
Replies
7
Views
352
ForensicPsychFightClub
F
N
Question for current or former VA psychologists
Replies
0
Views
1K
noworkftw
N
N
VA hiring psychologists again
Replies
35
Views
10K
Therapist4Chnge
T
PsyDr
BLS says psychologists make 34 CENTS more per hour than RNs
Replies
26
Views
3K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy