In his op-ed, “Unionization at Mass General Brigham puts doctor training at risk” (Opinion, April 3), Dr. William Curry wrote that the resident was his “only partner” in the operating room, but it’s David and Goliath at the negotiation table when residents and fellows bargain with the Commonwealth’s largest private employer. Once upon a time, the attending, resident, and patient gathered in a room, but the hospital is no longer just the room itself. Rather, “the hospital” is in the room with us — a corporate entity whose “flexibility” can work residents like laborers but tally them as students. Residents are tired of being fleeced, whether in gifted Patagonia or promised Shangri-la by our “only partners.” I’d rather they secured a bathroom break.
Community doctors’ practices and partnerships have shrunk, but hospital-owned physician organizations like the kind Curry’s hospital uses have grown. These help human resources keep account of their employed doctors but do not help them hold accountable institutions. If I understand senior faculty as spent forces and academic figureheads as impotent totems, then I see no champions and feel no partners. Just sympathizers. Collective bargaining is a natural consequence of a perceived moral threat and professional perversity. Unionization of young doctors is part of a larger generational trend that increasingly values systemic accountability over personal authority.
Michael P.H. Stanley, MD
Fellow, Neurology
Brigham & Women’s Hospital
Boston
As a staff physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, I was disappointed to read the op-ed penned by the chief medical officer of MGH in opposition to the house staff’s unionization drive. The anti-union rhetoric is redolent of that used by large corporations such as Starbucks and Amazon.
Along with Senators Ed Markey and Bernie Sanders, I support their efforts to unionize in order to achieve adequate compensation as well as safe and healthy working conditions.
Mark Eisenberg, MD
Cambridge
In 2014, I started my infectious diseases fellowship at Mass General Brigham. Within a few weeks I felt overwhelmed and anxious, and needed a brief medical leave of absence. I was able to return and complete the fellowship, but it was difficult, and I could have received more support from the institution.
Years later, I am no longer employed by MGB, but I fully support the efforts of residents to unionize. I still am a Mass General patient, and I am certain that if the residents were unionized, the quality of patient care and house staff education would improve.
Philip A. Lederer, MD
Jamaica Plain
William Curry’s op-ed opposing unionization for resident physicians at Mass General Brigham essentially says, “Trust me.” Alas, if residents and patients like me had been able to trust MGB all along, there would be no need for a union.
A union for resident physicians won’t solve all of medicine’s problems, but it will at least give young doctors a voice to try to fix the mistakes the older generation has made.
Sue Bass
Belmont
Dr. Curry’s reaction to the current organizing drive by doctors at Mass General is well meaning but lacks a critical understanding of why they want a union. The residents and interns at the Brigham want a direct role in improving the overall care of their patients, since our health care system in the United States is broken. In addition to receiving excellent clinical training, these doctors are fighting for a role in decision-making to improve the health of their patients, not just a specific procedure. These doctors are not forming a union simply for better wages and benefits, they have a much larger agenda.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how the challenging working conditions of nurses, doctors, and other front-line health care staff had a direct impact on patient care in troubling ways. These circumstances helped crystallize for many residents and interns, in numerous hospitals in the United States, that increased collective actions are needed by them, and other health care staff, to improve access and quality of care. They view these activities complement — in important ways — their clinical education.
Having a union for doctors doesn’t take away from the clinical training of doctors but provides them opportunities to have a broader impact on the health of patients and our communities.
Peter Lazes, PhD
West Stockbridge
The writer is a visiting professor and co-coordinator at the Healthcare Partnership Initiative, School of Labor and Employment Relations, at Penn State University, and coauthor of “From the Ground Up: How Frontline Staff Can Save America’s Healthcare.”