Resident Physician Labor Unions
Adam E. Mikolajczyk,Colin Goodman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.21634
2024-07-18
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:Resident physician labor unions have existed in a limited capacity in the US for decades, but this landscape has been rapidly changing for the past 5 years. Resident labor unions first appeared in 1934 in New York to advocate for compensation (there was none), ultimately forming the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR) in 1957. 1 ,2 Amid a more intense period of activism in the 1970s, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in 1976 that resident physicians are students, not employees, and therefore are not protected by federal law. 3 This ruling stifled any substantial change until 1999, when the NLRB reversed this decision and declared resident physicians as employees entitled to the right to organize and collectively bargain. 4 As of May 2024, the CIR represents 32 000 trainees, about 20% of the resident workforce. 5 Although not the majority, this number was only 16 000 (10%) in 2019. 6 In fact, since late 2021, trainees from at least 14 institutions have voted to unionize, reflecting an accelerating pace of change. 7 ,8 It has been suggested that changing work attitudes shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed this movement, but little research has explored trainee perceptions. Foote et al 9 present a thought-provoking qualitative analysis assessing general surgery residents and program faculty and leadership perspectives on trainee unionization. Amid 15 site visits that occurred in 2019 to 2020 to study resident well-being, they identified and reviewed 22 interviews from 2 programs (one with a union in place for over 20 years and one program that has recently unionized), including 13 resident-focused interviews (with representation from each year of training), in which unionization was discussed. Three major themes emerged from this work: (1) surgical residents unionize for voice and agency, (2) union-negotiated benefits have varying levels of efficacy and relevance to surgical residents, and (3) unionization affects the educational environment. It is important to remember that the data analyzed were not derived from a study that focused on unionization but rather from further analysis of the unionization theme in the context of a more extensive study. This design serves as a strength by eliminating any bias influenced by the targeted questions about unionization. Still, it may have also thwarted other themes from being uncovered and limited the generalizability of the findings (as compared with those from a study that intentionally included trainees from more specialties and leadership teams from more institutions). With that being said, the themes generated from the exploratory analysis by Foote et al 9 take a crucial step forward by helping the graduate medical education community begin to close the substantial gaps in knowledge of unionization's effects on various learning environments. With surgical residents giving the majority of the interviews (13 of 22) in the study by Foote et al, 9 themes 1 and 2, which reflect surgical resident perspectives, are sound given that the number of interviews is in a range to achieve saturation. Surgical residents unionizing for voice and agency (theme 1), which provides a more straightforward path to enact change, is entirely consistent with why groups of laborers have unionized throughout history. In fact, the CIR itself advertises, "Through our union, we have a powerful voice in the fight to improve our healthcare system ... and solve problems we see in our hospital every day." 2 The corporatization of medicine, which inevitably creates systems focused on throughput and the bottom line, places trainees in systems that can overemphasize work and deemphasize education. This environment in the broader context of stark generational differences and changing societal attitudes toward work likely explains the impetus behind this theme. 6 Further data are needed to confirm that it extends beyond surgical trainees, but it is not difficult to imagine that it does. Union-negotiated benefits have varying levels of efficacy and relevance to surgical residents (theme 2), and most gains were felt to be primarily financial, from direct salary increases to other nonsalary benefits (meals, educational stipends, parking, etc). Other union-negotiated benefits were less consistently appreciated or accessible. For instance, time-off benefits had several reported barriers, including potentially extending training time, inadequate coverage of required patient care duties, and possibly perceived judgment from colleagues. Depending on specialty-specific cultural and educational norms, these barriers will be present in varying degrees in different training programs. Furthermore, negotiated contracts must preserve the educational requirements dictated by regulatory bodies (eg, eligibility for board e -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal