. . . And ballot lunacy

The Massachusetts Nurses Association is at it again — asking voters this time to help micromanage hospital staffing levels.

Yes, the same union that cost Tufts Medical Center millions of wasted dollars with its strike last month (which accomplished what, again?), has filed two ballot initiatives with the attorney general’s office demanding that voters weigh in on appropriate nurse-to-patient ratios at Massachusetts hospitals for a variety of medical conditions.

For example, according to State House News Service, the maximum number of urgent, non-stable patients one nurse could care for would be two; psychiatric patients, five. During childbirth one nurse for the mother, a second for the baby until both are deemed stable, then one could care for both.

The real point is that it’s nothing short of insane

(1) for anyone other than hospital administrators, operating under their own collective bargaining agreements, to delve into this level of detail and

(2) even crazier for the voting public to be asked to weigh in.

But sometimes you just can’t keep a bad idea down. And what the MNA has traditionally done is use the possibility of a ballot measure as a cudgel over the Legislature to get what it wants in terms of statewide staffing mandates. It worked back in 2014 when the union settled for nurse staffing ratios for intensive care units.

Now the the MNA is back for more — adding a measure of duplicity about that 2014 agreement to their many flaws. This time they’ve set their sights on the 2018 ballot — unless once again the Legislature caves to their demands.

At a time when lawmakers and consumers are concerned about rising health care costs, it behooves both groups to push back against a union with serious credibility issues.