Stakeholder #3

You might be wondering "who makes the rules" in the UW hospitals system, and what their role is in the controversy. There are two organizations that contribute to the regulations.

"A view of campus". 4/12/08 via wikimedia. CC0 Public Domain.

The University of Washington Medical School Administration is in charge of facilitating the school and making sure everything functions smoothly. Whether the sun rises or sets over the space needle, it is their job to ensure the hospitals affiliated with the university are content, safe, and thriving. Although the people working for the administration touch paper, computers, and hear the sounds of staplers and printers, it is their duty to ensure the doctors in UW affiliated hospitals can confidently touch medical equipment and comfortably walk through the halls.

The University of Washington is nationally recognized for it's top-tier medical school, so the pressure to ensure everything runs according to plan is always in place. The administration therefore is seen as serious and punctual by students and staff. It is diligent and productive, while maintaining health interrelationships among staff and students.

The medical school administration also works alongside the Accredited Council got Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which analyzes physician work environments and suggest ways to improve learning and patient care. These two groups generally work together to ensure the hospitals affiliated with UW are safe and physicians are being taught properly. To the public, ACGME is like a wise advisor who proposes new ways to improve work environments.

Specific Claims (All excepts from reply to petition)

• "Residents and fellows are not 'employees' for purposes of Washington labor law".

• Even if the residents and fellows can be deemed to be employees, Washington's statutory framework for collective bargaining rights has not been extended to cover them".

• "The University compensates residents and fellows by paying them an annual stipend, which is intended to defray the cost of living and other expenses during training...The stipends are tiered to the individual's training year, not to the hours worked, to participation in patient care, or to the specific residency program".

Validity of Claims

• The document cites state law on status of employees, seems credible.

• However, in the next section, it uses "even if", as in implying they are not entirely sure, but even if the residents are considered employees, they have a different reason for not meeting the requests, this lowers credibility

• This statement serves as logos, it logically explains the process of stipends and why residents are not paid specifically for the work they do, but rather as a whole for their training. This appeals to the audience because it is credible (since they know how their schools function) and logicial.

Similarities and Differences from other Stakeholders

• ACGME and the UWHA share the mission of making work environments safe for physicians as well as patients 
• ACGME put into place a regulation that physicians should not exceed 80 hour work weeks, which the UWHA does not have a problem with, but they do have a problem with pay rates and the fine lines of the regulation(on call hours are not included in the limit)

•  City Council and ACGME agree physicians do valuable work, but City Council wants to see pay raises and a change in regulations

Do you think it would be easier to focus on only one of these organizations, instead of both?