• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

确定合适的医疗保健谈判单位:美国国家劳动关系委员会具有历史意义的规则制定举措。

Determining appropriate healthcare bargaining units: NLRB's historic rule making move.

作者信息

Hepner J O

机构信息

Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.

出版信息

Case Stud Health Adm. 1987;6:157-65.

PMID:10313574
Abstract

On August 25, 1974 the Taft-Hartley Amendments (Public Law 93-360) took effect and mandated that voluntary not-for-profit hospitals enter into the process of collective bargaining. The belated entrance of these hospitals into the process stems from a change in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 where the law specifically exempted voluntary hospitals from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. In deleting this exemption, Congress extended labor relations protection to employees of voluntary hospitals and all other healthcare institutions except those under government and public ownership. As far as most hospital chief executive officers were concerned, labor relations would never be the same again.

摘要

1974年8月25日,《塔夫脱-哈特利修正案》(公法93-360)生效,规定自愿非营利性医院要进入集体谈判程序。这些医院姗姗来迟地进入该程序,源于1947年《塔夫脱-哈特利法案》的一项变动,该法案明确将自愿医院排除在1935年的《国家劳动关系法》(NLRA)之外。国会取消了这项豁免,将劳动关系保护扩展至自愿医院及所有其他医疗保健机构的员工,但政府和公有制机构的员工除外。就大多数医院首席执行官而言,劳动关系从此将大不相同。

相似文献

1
Determining appropriate healthcare bargaining units: NLRB's historic rule making move.确定合适的医疗保健谈判单位:美国国家劳动关系委员会具有历史意义的规则制定举措。
Case Stud Health Adm. 1987;6:157-65.
2
The NLRB's proposed rule for the determination of health care bargaining units: is the AHA barking up the wrong tree?美国国家劳资关系委员会关于医疗保健谈判单位确定的拟议规则:美国医院协会是否找错了目标?
Spec Law Dig Health Care Law. 1992 May(159):7-30.
3
The NLRB's first rulemaking: an exercise in pragmatism.美国国家劳动关系委员会的首次规则制定:一次务实之举。
Duke Law J. 1991 Nov;41(2):274-324.
4
The National Labor Relations Act and health care institutions: the persistent paradox.《国家劳动关系法》与医疗保健机构:持续存在的矛盾
Employee Relat Law J. 1978;4(3):357-76.
5
Effect of NLRB rulings on collective bargaining by hospital pharmacists.美国国家劳资关系委员会(NLRB)的裁决对医院药剂师集体谈判的影响。
Am J Hosp Pharm. 1977 May;34(5):541-4.
6
NLRB's St. Francis decision signals broader-based bargaining units.
Health Prog. 1985 May;66(4):50-3.
7
Union elections and the NLRB. The healthcare industry continues to challenge bargaining unit determinations.工会选举与美国国家劳资关系委员会。医疗行业继续对谈判单位的确定提出质疑。
Health Prog. 1990 Jan-Feb;71(1):96-101.
8
Bargaining units in acute care hospitals: the Supreme Court upholds NLRB rulemaking.急症护理医院的谈判单位:最高法院维持美国国家劳资关系委员会的规则制定。
Employee Relat Law J. 1991 Autumn;17(2):307-15.
9
The prospects for multifacility bargaining units in the health-care industry.医疗行业多机构谈判单位的前景。
Employee Relat Law J. 1987 Autumn;13(2):322-38.
10
Rulemaking: the National Labor Relations Board's prescription for the recurring pains of the health care industry.
J Contemp Health Law Policy. 1993 Spring;9:377-418.