Editor’s note: This commentary is by Mark Nash, of Charlotte, who has been a psychotherapist in private practice in Burlington. Prior to that he was executive director of Vermont Stage for 11 years.
[A]s a member of this community who has been following the negotiations between the UVM Medical Center and the nurses union, I listened to the recent “Vermont Edition” program covering this issue with great curiosity. I consider myself a fair-minded individual, and knowing that there are always two sides to an argument, I truly was interested in hearing management’s perspective on why the nurses’ salary requests could not be met.
Granted, I had heard that last year the medical center showed a $70 million surplus, so I was perhaps a bit skeptical of the notion that 13 percent over three years was as much as the hospital could afford, but I was ready to take seriously any cogent argument for management’s position.
Instead, what I heard from UVMMC CEO Eileen Whalen was platitudes about “listening,” non-specific assertions about the “unrealistic” nature of the requests, a pseudo-psychological analysis of “anger as a proxy for sadness,” and a manipulative invocation of the Dalai Lama as a way to call for compassion.
The most striking thing about listening to her was how uncomfortable I felt almost as soon as I heard her speak. This is ironic, I suppose, because I could hear the smile in her voice, and a tone that I imagine was intended to convey caring, understanding and empathy. Instead, though, it registered as inauthentic, practiced and smooth to the point of slickness. At no moment in the interview did I hear anything beyond well-rehearsed talking points.
For all her talk of “listening,” I never got the impression that she was genuinely interested in the nurses’ concerns, but rather that she was using the idea of listening as a tactic to placate the nurses. Every time she said she was listening, it came across as disingenuous at best, and at worst, patronizing.
As for the substance of her argument, well, I just couldn’t discern any. When she says the demands are “unrealistic,” what does that actually mean? Why are they unrealistic? “Unrealistic” is an opinion, not an objective fact. I wanted to hear some hard numbers — numbers that I have a hard time believing Whalen doesn’t have at her fingertips — and as the interview went on and no numbers were presented, I was forced to conclude that there was no concrete reason why the hospital CAN’T meet the nurses’ demands; they just don’t WANT to.
And so rather than providing fact-based evidence for her position, she kept turning the discussion towards addressing the nurses’ feelings.
As a psychotherapist, in my opinion, this is where I felt she truly wandered into unhelpful territory. It is always a risk to suggest that one knows what another person is feeling. And it is an even greater risk to make suppositions about the feelings UNDER those feelings.
So when she said she knows how angry the nurses are, I could give her a pass, as that anger has been on full display. But when she posited that anger is a “proxy for sadness,” that struck a sour note for me.
It is deeply presumptuous to purport to “know” what others are feeling, but even more so to suggest that one knows what’s behind that feeling. And as a matter of science, the literature suggests that it is fear that underlies anger, not sadness. Fear of a threat to one’s well-being or livelihood.
And finally, as a Buddhist, I was distressed to hear her quote the Dalai Lama in an effort to deflect from the validity of the nurses’ request for higher wages. She seemed to suggest that since a nurse’s job entails compassion, they should focus on being compassionate towards their patients and not worry so much about the money. As if demanding to be paid fairly is somehow incompatible with compassionate caretaking.
She kept implying that this isn’t really about the money; that it’s really about respect and feelings and being heard.
I wonder if Whalen knows the old saying: Whenever someone insists it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.
And this is where her counterpart in the interview, Laurie Aunchman of the nurses union, came across as so much more authentic, straightforward, and to be frank, likable. She made it crystal clear that it IS about the money, and that while the changes that have been agreed upon are a good step, what they really need is a raise. So they can fill open positions. And earn a living wage in Chittenden County. Clear, simple, honest. I heard real emotion in her voice, not practiced sympathy.
If Whalen wants to truly be seen as having nurses’ best interests at heart, I believe she would be better served by speaking authentically. And if the nurses’ well-being is not her top priority, it would be best to be honest about it.
