Let's make sure, as we educate readers about Labor issues, that they can follow up with a little research of their own.

To that end, the name of the company is Universal Health Services, not United. They are for-profit, making aobut half their money off their 23 (I think that's current) acute-care hospitals and another half off their over 100 behavioral health centers around the country. On the latter tip, they've really been on an acquisition binge, buying up little facilities (both for-profit and, more frighteningly, previously non-profit) at a rapid clip, since that kind of density gives them a lot of power on the pricing end.

Which, I'm guessing, is one reason why SEIU is taking them on in Vegas, to get people more aware of just how predatory this company is. (They cut staff everywhere, the main way for-profits make money--of course, they call it "economies of scale"!)

Want to learn if they own anything near you? Their website has a locator map:
http://www.uhsinc.com/hospitals.php

Dig in...

I got that form letter too. Here's what I mailed back on Friday (no response yet):

Thanks for your response, if rote. I deeply respect Sen. Kerry--worked for him in 2004 (in MO), look forward to doing so again.

But while the numbers below are impressive and believable (I didn't go to the website that steered me here for solid numbers), they don't address the two that matter: How much is left in Sen Kerry's campaign fund, and how much more will he give to the DSCC this year?

Personally, I'd like Sen Bayh to give all of his, as I don't like him much, and Sen. Clinton at least half, since she so clearly can replace it easily. (I know neither will happen.) As I said I respect Sen Kerry quite a bit-- more than them--but I'd like to see him donate at least one third more, along with all his great efforts on the stump.

I do worry that those who want to run for Pres in 2008 aren't as keen to see all of Congress in Dem hands as the rest of us. Prove that Sen Kerry isn't that foolish--give more--then make a challenge to Clinton, Bayh, etc. to match it.

I disagree. While it's certainly true that many nurses are not happy with their job (who would like a job where you work long hours and can then get hit with MANDATORY OVERTIME? Is there a more repellant concept?), they say in many polls I've read that if they were able to practice nursing as they were trained, they'd stay--in fact many would come back.

And while pay is low in many non-union settings (and SEIU helped launch lawsuits against price collusion this past year, which I hope Stern mentions in his book), nursing still pays better than most other "women's work"--though the most talented women now can become docs instead. And nursing could pay even better if the collusion stopped and actual "market forces" were allowed to work on a key sector that's been in shortage for a decade.

I agree that this is a blow to unions, but especially in very necessary jobs like nursing, this could a great opening for nurses willing to step up and save their professions, with union help.

In a nice bridge between the two parts of this post, Andy Stern is going to be the guest on tonight's Colbert show. SO even if you have to skip part of the Daily SHow (tonight's guest: Dennis Miller, ugh), Stern and Colbert should be an interesting combination...

I called Sarbanes' office, told a staffer how I felt. I'm told they're getting a lot, mostly in favor of the bill, but that the senator hasn't made up his mind yet. I ended by saying that if he still wasn't sure, he certainly couldn't sign on to Stevens' bill, sleazy as it was...

Staffer agreed, but halfheartedly. Keep those calls coming!