|
|
| Author |
Message |
JT626
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:53 pm Post subject:
Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
|
Is there a Union an American Lab Tech could join? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JEDilworth
medicine forum addict
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:58 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
There are different ones, depending on the hospital worked in. I would
venture a guess that the majority of hospitals and/or techs are not
unionized. I'm sure it depends on the region of the country, etc.
One of our local hospitals has AFSCME. It is not a closed shop and the
techs do not have to join.
Our hospital is unionized by UAW, but the laboratory techs chose not to
join four years ago. There hasn't been a peep about unionization since
then. We get pretty much the same benefits the unionized nurses do, so
there's not much to complain about, as least from my point of view.
Management pretty much stated that if we went union, schedules would be
set months in advance with no switching of days, juggling of hours, etc.
Since most of the lab technologists are women with families, and labs
work just fine with juggling hours, switching days, etc. everyone just
couldn't imagine doing this. I think this was the biggest reason the
unionization didn't go through. Only about 20 techs out of 85 voted for
it.
Another union is trying to organize one of our sister hospitals, but
they've had no luck so far. I live in a very blue collar union town with
many auto workers. The only way they could get a Wal-Mart even built
here is with union labor, although the workers at WM are not unionized.
It was the only way Wal-Mart could get inside the city limits, so
apparently they decided they'd do it.
Why do you ask?
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
"JT626" <JT626*no_email_please*@aol.com> wrote in message
news:435fabb6$0$43234$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
> Is there a Union an American Lab Tech could join? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LC
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:28 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
| Quote: | Is there a Union an American Lab Tech could join?
|
Unions are facility-specfic, and most facilities in the midwest do not have
a union laboratory, with the possible exception of the VA hospitals.
However, there are a number of professional organizations who lobby for
their members and promote the laboratory field. Joining one of them may be
what you're looking for instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shylirin
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:31 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
"JEDilworth" <bactitech@nospamhortonsbay.com> wrote in message
news:v9ednflqu8hGwP3eRVn-1g@buckeye-express.com...
| Quote: | There are different ones, depending on the hospital worked in. I would
venture a guess that the majority of hospitals and/or techs are not
unionized. I'm sure it depends on the region of the country, etc.
One of our local hospitals has AFSCME. It is not a closed shop and the
techs do not have to join.
Our hospital is unionized by UAW, but the laboratory techs chose not to
join four years ago. There hasn't been a peep about unionization since
then. We get pretty much the same benefits the unionized nurses do, so
there's not much to complain about, as least from my point of view.
Management pretty much stated that if we went union, schedules would be
set months in advance with no switching of days, juggling of hours, etc.
Since most of the lab technologists are women with families, and labs
work just fine with juggling hours, switching days, etc. everyone just
couldn't imagine doing this. I think this was the biggest reason the
unionization didn't go through. Only about 20 techs out of 85 voted for
it.
Another union is trying to organize one of our sister hospitals, but
they've had no luck so far. I live in a very blue collar union town with
many auto workers. The only way they could get a Wal-Mart even built
here is with union labor, although the workers at WM are not unionized.
It was the only way Wal-Mart could get inside the city limits, so
apparently they decided they'd do it.
Why do you ask?
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
"JT626" <JT626*no_email_please*@aol.com> wrote in message
news:435fabb6$0$43234$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
Is there a Union an American Lab Tech could join?
|
Years ago there was an effort to unionize in our health system as well, and
it failed due to the restrictions that would be implemented such as the ones
you mentioned. There was a lot of discussion but in the end most techs (and
most healthcare workers) felt that there was no benefit to unionizing.
Shylirin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JT626
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:18 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
JEDilworth wrote:
Just trying to gauge the amount of control a corporation can exercise over
an employee in this vocation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JEDilworth
medicine forum addict
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:42 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
Apparently you're still convinced that the technologist who performed
your cardiac risk battery was in some conspiracy with some
pharmaceutical company and some doc so that you'd ultimately end up
taking a statin drug. I guess all of these people were standing right
there with the proverbial gun to the tech's head while they signed out
YOUR results. We knew you were coming in and we all got together over
lunch and decided to mess with your stuff.
I think you need to look more at the plate you have in front of you at
each meal than some far-fetched theory that we would hone in on YOUR
specimen and screw up YOUR result so YOU had to take some pills.
Do you have any conception as to how many tests a tech in a large
laboratory signs out PER DAY????? With large analyzers in chemistry this
can go into the hundreds due to state-of-the-art automation.
Bottom line is that techs all over the country/world are performing
tests at this very minute that can impact patient care. That is why the
tests are ordered by physicians. The docs want to take care of their
patients, and we are part of the team to provide this care, along with
radiology, pharmacy, pulmonary function, and many many other departments
in a hospital. We are trained to do this through comprehensive schooling
that, for MT's, occurs after college in approved schools of medical
technology.
http://www.ascp.org/general/technologists.asp
http://www.ascp.org/bor/medlab/index.asp
BTW, if you were not fasting at least 12-14 hours for your test results,
they need to be repeated with a fasting specimen. Triglycerides and HDL
are not accurate with a nonfasting specimen. It doesn't matter so much
with cholesterol.
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
| Quote: | Just trying to gauge the amount of control a corporation can exercise
over
an employee in this vocation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Collins
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
JEDilworth wrote:
| Quote: |
Do you have any conception as to how many tests a tech in a large
laboratory signs out PER DAY????? With large analyzers in chemistry
this can go into the hundreds due to state-of-the-art automation.
Hundreds? |
My section of the lab reports 15,000 tests a day.
--
Mike Collins
UK
Mike&heather-at-oakwellmount-dot-freeserve-dot-co-dot-uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JEDilworth
medicine forum addict
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:39 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
I was thinking of a "per tech" number. Most large labs have multiple
techs in chemistry, hence the thousands of results. I haven't worked in
chemistry since 1988, so I'm sure the throughput of the new analyzers is
far more than the last time I worked in that department. All the
equipment I used then doesn't even exist any more.
Anyway, it also points up how ridiculous it would be for a tech to focus
on ONE result to benefit a pharmaceutical company. There is absolutely
no incentive to a tech to skew a cholesterol result.
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
"Mike Collins" <mike&heather@acornwellmount.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:dk649h$jf$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: |
Hundreds?
My section of the lab reports 15,000 tests a day. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JT626
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:47 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
JEDilworth wrote:
| Quote: | We are trained to do this through comprehensive schooling
that, for MT's, occurs after college in approved schools of medical
technology.
http://www.ascp.org/general/technologists.asp
http://www.ascp.org/bor/medlab/index.asp
BTW, if you were not fasting at least 12-14 hours for your test results,
they need to be repeated with a fasting specimen. Triglycerides and HDL
are not accurate with a nonfasting specimen. It doesn't matter so much
with cholesterol.
|
Maybe someone with all that training can tell me,
If I plot a graph of Triglycerides against Time after a heavy meal, what
kind of curve would I expect to see?
Linear, exponential, S-Shaped ?
"fasting 12-14 hours" does not sound like a very scientific procedure to me.
How does individual metabolism affect Triglyceride levels?
I did fast 12 hours, and my TG was 222.
Someone here recently indicated (if I interpreted it correctly) that the
formula
LDL = Total Cholesterol - HDL - (Triglycerides divided by 5)
should not be used if the TG is over 150 or if the calculated LDL is under
100.
The lab that provided my results calculated my LDL even though my TG was
222. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JEDilworth
medicine forum addict
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:30 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
I have worked in microbiology for most of my 33 years in the business.
I'll defer these technical questions to my chemistry colleagues.
From what I remember, the triglyceride procedure measure endogenous
triglycerides. If you do not fast long enough, the procedure will
measure both exogenous (from your last meal) and endogenous. The doc is
only interested in endogenous (what your body is actually producing, not
from the Big Mac you ate for dinner).
I have never performed triglyceride testing (or any other cardiac risk
procedures), as I only worked chemistry briefly on second shift. Trig's
were a batched day shift procedure when I worked in chem, and I only
worked part time. This was many years ago.
It's been many many years since I studied this stuff, as I now work in
micro on a daily basis, and have not worked in any other department
since 1988. Hopefully the chem people will set me straight if I'm
incorrect.
I also don't know if labs automatically use the calculated LDL levels
unless the doc actually orders the quantitative one - there are
compliance issues with medical insurance. This means that the lab cannot
do or charge for any test not ordered by a physician. I'm not sure if
LDL comes under this or not, or if there are other determining factors
that decide when an LDL is calculated or determined directly.
Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology
"JT626" <JT626*no_email_please*@aol.com> wrote in message
news:436856e2$0$93634$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
| Quote: |
Maybe someone with all that training can tell me,
If I plot a graph of Triglycerides against Time after a heavy meal,
what
kind of curve would I expect to see?
Linear, exponential, S-Shaped ?
"fasting 12-14 hours" does not sound like a very scientific procedure
to me.
How does individual metabolism affect Triglyceride levels?
I did fast 12 hours, and my TG was 222.
Someone here recently indicated (if I interpreted it correctly) that
the
formula
LDL = Total Cholesterol - HDL - (Triglycerides divided by 5)
should not be used if the TG is over 150 or if the calculated LDL is
under
100.
The lab that provided my results calculated my LDL even though my TG
was
222. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Gentile
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
On 2005-11-02 00:47:05 -0500, "JT626" <JT626*no_email_please*@aol.com> said:
| Quote: |
Someone here recently indicated (if I interpreted it correctly) that the
formula
LDL = Total Cholesterol - HDL - (Triglycerides divided by 5)
should not be used if the TG is over 150 or if the calculated LDL is under
100.
The lab that provided my results calculated my LDL even though my TG was
222.
|
My lab cancels the calculation if the trig is greater than 400. I don't
know where the other numbers came from. We also offer a direct LDL
which we run when the calculated is canceled or if the patient is not
fasting.
--
John Gentile
Editor
Rhode Island Apple Group |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shylirin
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:02 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
"JT626" <JT626*no_email_please*@aol.com> wrote in message
news:436856e2$0$93634$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
| Quote: | JEDilworth wrote:
We are trained to do this through comprehensive schooling
that, for MT's, occurs after college in approved schools of medical
technology.
http://www.ascp.org/general/technologists.asp
http://www.ascp.org/bor/medlab/index.asp
BTW, if you were not fasting at least 12-14 hours for your test results,
they need to be repeated with a fasting specimen. Triglycerides and HDL
are not accurate with a nonfasting specimen. It doesn't matter so much
with cholesterol.
Maybe someone with all that training can tell me,
If I plot a graph of Triglycerides against Time after a heavy meal, what
kind of curve would I expect to see?
Linear, exponential, S-Shaped ?
|
It has been a while for me as well, so chem techs PLEASE correct me if any
info is incorrect. If I remember correctly, the curve should be bell
shaped, with peak levels occurring at about 4 hours post-ingestion, and
normal clearance at about 8 hours (though really high-fat meals can take
longer to clear). Levels will vary depending on caloric content and type of
food ingested. I would suggest that you get a good biochemistry book that
goes over this and educate yourself. Lipid metabolism is complicated and
has a great number of variables which makes me leery of providing anything
resembling a simple answer.
| Quote: | "fasting 12-14 hours" does not sound like a very scientific procedure to
me.
How does individual metabolism affect Triglyceride levels?
I did fast 12 hours, and my TG was 222.
|
What do you mean, not very scientific? There was research aplenty done to
determine the amount of time most people need to fast to obtain a baseline
triglyceride level. If you fasted (and that means NOTHING but water for
those 12 hours), then the result you received is scientifically valid.
| Quote: | Someone here recently indicated (if I interpreted it correctly) that the
formula
LDL = Total Cholesterol - HDL - (Triglycerides divided by 5)
should not be used if the TG is over 150 or if the calculated LDL is under
100.
|
I believe that the general normal range (this is GENERAL and NOT to be
specifically applied to any lab or instrumentation) is below 150mg/dL, and
it is at about 400 mg/dL that the trig is too high to effectively utilize
the equation. John G., my lab also uses 400 mg/dL as the cutoff point for
calculated vs. direct LDL. Our lab also performs a direct LDL any time a
physician orders it... which leave the physician with the responsibility of
knowing the patient's history and current condition, and utilizing that
knowledge to order the LDL test appropriate for each patient. Methodologies
for Direct rather than calculated LDL have not been refined enough to be
widely clinically utilized until the last few years (anyone have a better
grasp on the time frame for this?), if I recall. I think that in time, as
shown by ongoing and recent research, that eventually as direct LDL
methodologies become widespread, that this will become the choice method of
measurement rather than a calculated result. Please see the listed article
for more information, but remember that this is ONE study, that was
published in 2004, so is quite recent. All good "scientific procedures"
should be reproducible. Your biochem research should include information on
the scientific method to help you understand why one study doesn't write the
law.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/468792_print
| Quote: | The lab that provided my results calculated my LDL even though my TG was
222.
|
I would suggest calling the lab that performed your test and asking what
their cutoff value is for reporting a calculated LDL.
Thanks to all chem techs in advance for making sure my info wasn't more
mental cobwebs than good information.
Shylirin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1700
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:10 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
"Shylirin" <shylirinsplinter@cox.net> wrote in message
| Quote: | for Direct rather than calculated LDL have not been refined enough to be
widely clinically utilized until the last few years (anyone have a better
grasp on the time frame for this?), if I recall. I think that in time, as
shown by ongoing and recent research, that eventually as direct LDL
methodologies become widespread, that this will become the choice method
of
measurement rather than a calculated result.
|
We are already doing LDL directly on all specimens. It offers the advantages
on the new platform instrument vs the old one in which a manual pretreatment
separate procedure is undertaken to precipitate out and leave HDL. The
increase labor is not worth it so direct methods without manual handling is
the preferred way to go with both HDL and LDL.
There are differences in the direct LDL in low lipid specimens compared to
the calculated methods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shylirin
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:26 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
"Robert" <Robertsononlin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UJedneCXLpYhlPbenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@got.net...
| Quote: |
"Shylirin" <shylirinsplinter@cox.net> wrote in message
for Direct rather than calculated LDL have not been refined enough to be
widely clinically utilized until the last few years (anyone have a
better
grasp on the time frame for this?), if I recall. I think that in time,
as
shown by ongoing and recent research, that eventually as direct LDL
methodologies become widespread, that this will become the choice method
of
measurement rather than a calculated result.
We are already doing LDL directly on all specimens. It offers the
advantages
on the new platform instrument vs the old one in which a manual
pretreatment
separate procedure is undertaken to precipitate out and leave HDL. The
increase labor is not worth it so direct methods without manual handling
is
the preferred way to go with both HDL and LDL.
There are differences in the direct LDL in low lipid specimens compared to
the calculated methods.
Nice! I haven't run a Direct LDL myself in about 7 years (just read the |
articles now), but I do remember it was time-consuming. What platform are
you running? Our main hospital lab runs the Aeroset (for about 3 years now)
and I think this is what they are using for the Direct LDL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1700
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:52 am Post subject:
Re: Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
|
|
|
"Shylirin" <shylirinsplinter@cox.net> wrote in message
news:XzVaf.18103$IB.2415@dukeread11...
| Quote: |
"Robert" <Robertsononlin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UJedneCXLpYhlPbenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@got.net...
"Shylirin" <shylirinsplinter@cox.net> wrote in message
for Direct rather than calculated LDL have not been refined enough to
be
widely clinically utilized until the last few years (anyone have a
better
grasp on the time frame for this?), if I recall. I think that in
time,
as
shown by ongoing and recent research, that eventually as direct LDL
methodologies become widespread, that this will become the choice
method
of
measurement rather than a calculated result.
We are already doing LDL directly on all specimens. It offers the
advantages
on the new platform instrument vs the old one in which a manual
pretreatment
separate procedure is undertaken to precipitate out and leave HDL. The
increase labor is not worth it so direct methods without manual handling
is
the preferred way to go with both HDL and LDL.
There are differences in the direct LDL in low lipid specimens compared
to
the calculated methods.
Nice! I haven't run a Direct LDL myself in about 7 years (just read the
articles now), but I do remember it was time-consuming. What platform are
you running? Our main hospital lab runs the Aeroset (for about 3 years
now)
and I think this is what they are using for the Direct LDL.
|
The Abbott Architect allows for immunochemistry and regular chemistry
processing including iron binding by simply loading the specimen. The
linearity for the trigs is up to about 1400 and the LDL linearity is
6.6 -992 mg/dl.
Samples with a high Trigs does not interfere with the LDL determination or I
should say up to about 1300 mg/dl. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:38 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Business Credit Cards | Myspace Layouts | Mortgages | Debt Consolidation | Secured Loans
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
laboratory
