 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Laboratory / November 2005Are Lab Techs in America Unionized?
Is there a Union an American Lab Tech could join? 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 > Is there a Union an American Lab Tech could join? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > > 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 > Why do you ask? Just trying to gauge the amount of control a corporation can exercise over an employee in this vocation. 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 > Just trying to gauge the amount of control a corporation can exercise over > an employee in this vocation. > 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.  SignatureMike Collins UK Mike&heather-at-oakwellmount-dot-freeserve-dot-co-dot-uk 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 > Hundreds? > My section of the lab reports 15,000 tests a day. > We are trained to do this through comprehensive schooling > that, for MT's, occurs after college in approved schools of medical [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. 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 > Maybe someone with all that training can tell me, > If I plot a graph of Triglycerides against Time after a heavy meal, what [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The lab that provided my results calculated my LDL even though my TG was > 222. > Someone here recently indicated (if I interpreted it correctly) that the > formula [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. SignatureJohn Gentile Editor Rhode Island Apple Group > > We are trained to do this through comprehensive schooling > > that, for MT's, occurs after college in approved schools of medical [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. > "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. > 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 > 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 "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. > "Shylirin" <shylirinsplinter@cox.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. > > "Shylirin" <shylirinsplinter@cox.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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. > 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. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.