One hospital administrator rebutted SDS's contention that such a strike would not be detrimental to patient care by claiming that there are no non-essential workers in a hospital "when you come right down to it." "Even the housekeeping staff is essential to prevent the spread of infection, to maintain the antiseptic environment." But SDS's point is that hospitals can find temporary replacements to perform these functions if they are given advance notice of the strike.

Although the present organizing drive is still in its early stages at all the hospitals, the initial response has definitely been better some places than others. SDS is considering concentrating on just the most promising hospitals, but there is an advantage to hitting all GBHC hospitals at once.

These hospitals have interlocking boards of directors. Benenson and other members of the Labor Committee fear that if they just hit one of the hospitals at a time, the others in the council will be able to relieve the labor pressure with money and by sharing facilities. For example, if one hospital were struck, it might be able to resist worker demands by transferring many of its patients to another hospital and waiting out the strike. Of course this couldn't happen if all the hospitals were in danger of being struck simultaneously.

Conventional Bag

Benenson claims that the GBHC has met to discuss a unified strategy against the movement, but so far the hospitals have resorted to a pretty conventional bag of tricks to discourage the workers. They have threatened to fire workers who become involved in the movement. They have not carried out the threats, realizing that such action would just unite the workers behind the movement.

They have also tried what Raudenbush calls sweet-talking. They call a worker in and say, "We like you and have a lot of hope for your advancement. But we don't think you should get involved in this union." "This tack breaks down when the workers start talking and realize everyone's been promised advancement, Raudenbush said:

One GBHC hospital even carried out a ten cent raise. "This is to make the workers think their bosses are such a bunch of nice guys that there's no need for a union," Raudenbush said. He attributed the raise entirely to the pressure that the drive was beginning to exert in that hospital. There would be more raises when they really got organized, Raudenbush explained to the workers.

The hostility of the hospital administrations is one reason why many workers are so cautious about joining the union. There is a definite air of the underground to the movement. For example, Raudenbush related, "you never sign up a worker outside a hospital in plain view. They're afraid their bosses might see them. Some workers won't even talk to us they're so frightened."

But Raudenbush admits there are other reasons for the slowness with which the movement is progressing at some of the GBHC hospitals. In particular, he feels that students are handicapped by their youth when they try to organize adults. "When you've been getting the same salary for 25 years and supporting your family at a certain standard, and some kid tells you he's going to change your life, you're inclined to be skeptical."

Another reason for the slowness is that the organizers slacked off during Christmas vacation and exam period after a concerted drive in the fall. "If you stir up a lot of enthusiasm and then desert for a few weeks, you kill morale," Raudenbush said. "You've got to keep at it." Apparently impressed by the Jewish Memorial success, the teamsters recently asked SDS Labor Committee to help them organize insurance workers. The Committee declined in order to devote themselves entirely to hospital organizing.

Some workers are suspicious of the whole labor movement. "I was in a union for ten years at another job and all it did was take my money" is a typical complaint. But SDS has an answer for these workers: "We agree with you about the American labor movement and we hope to form a different kind of union here."

Essentially, SDS criticizes the labor movement for being undemocratic and for limiting itself to bread-and-butter issues. A good union, SDS believes, operates through participatory democracy. All questions--how shop stewards will be appointed, the amount of dues, the nature of the contract--should be referred to the rank-and-file to be decided by majority vote.

A good union also should create a political consciousness in its members by taking stands on a broad spectrum of questions which affect the workers, like civil rights and Vietnam. The union should educate its membership on these issues through film series, lectures and discussions.

The general worker response to a statement of SDS ideals is an unbelieving. "You really think you can succeed in doing that?" Even Raudenbush admits it's a very big question. After all, SDS doesn't run the unions they help organize. It has limited itself to a purely advisory role.

When the workers at Jewish Memorial invited SDS to take one seat on the committee that negotiated with Fertel, SDS refused. "We don't want to get involved in the bureaucracy of it," Benenson said. But neither do they intend to desert unions they have succeeded in forming. They continue to attend union meetings at Jewish Memorial and help plan educational programs. SDS speaks at the meetings, and SDSers are convinced that it speaks with great influence. Benenson says, "They respect us because we fought with them from the beginning. Several SDSers at Jewish Memorial have as much influence in the meetings as any of the members of the union.