Calif RN disagrees with CNA in many ways. Am I alone? - page 3

Hello! I am new to this site but felt compelled to ask the question. Am I the only RN in Calif that disagrees with CNA's "teamster tactics" regarding important health care and nursing issues? These... Read More

  1. by   Jenny99
    The California Nurses Association has a bad reputation and is getting much, much worse as the days go on. Their "teamster like tactics" are getting on the outragous side and if they continue on this track, I think the might find themselves on the short end of the stick pretty quick here.

    CNA really has alot to learn in the legislative arena in California. Putting their "tigers foot forward" all the time is not benefical in the long run. You all watch and see.

    Jenny99
  2. by   Nancy2
    Quote from lizz
    I'm not trying to claim, by any means, that all CNA members are saints. I'm sure there are some who behave badly. Just as hospital administrators behave badly. When CNA organized a hospital in my area, the administrators did some really bad things, just as, I'm sure the union has done.

    So yeah ... I think we can agree to meet in the middle on this one.

    Humans can behave badly and nobody on either side is exempt from that.

    I was just pointing out that, in this particular case, there wasn't any hard evidence. The board essentially said that the rumors about the phone calls may have tipped the balance in a very close election.

    So, are you saying that sworn testimony by RNs working in that hospital is not what you would call "hard evidence". If you gave sworn testimony against your administration, would you want it to be considered "hard evidence" and then if that testimony was coroborated by 19 other RNs, what would you call that?
  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    ANYONE could have made the calls.
    An ex, the "consultants", the other union involved, management, disgruntled subordinate, anyone.

    Every time I am able to provide safe, effective, therapeutic, patient care. Each time i have the time to help patients and families understand what is going on, lend a listening ear, ensure no one dies alone on my watch I am glad for the CNA and our safe staffing ratios. The governor flaunted the law for the sake of his big money donors.
    What did it take for women to get the vote?
  4. by   Sheri257
    Quote from Nancy2

    So, are you saying that sworn testimony by RNs working in that hospital is not what you would call "hard evidence". If you gave sworn testimony against your administration, would you want it to be considered "hard evidence" and then if that testimony was coroborated by 19 other RNs, what would you call that?
    Of course that's not "hard evidence." Just like it's not hard evidence when you claim you performed nursing care but didn't document it. Rule number one in nursing: If it's not documented, it doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. Same situation here.

    19 RNs didn't receive the calls. I'd have to look at the record again but, if memory serves, there were only two, maybe three people who received the alleged calls.

    What's the number one rule with legal issues in nursing? Document, document, document.

    These RN's not only didn't document or record these calls. They couldn't even remember when the calls took place. They couldn't even remember which month the calls occurred, and changed their stories on which months they received these alleged calls.

    That's also why the Labor Board records still state that these calls were "anonymous" because neither the source nor the dates in which these alleged calls occurred were proven.

    Last edit by Sheri257 on Mar 17, '05
  5. by   Sheri257
    I'd also like to add that I really don't have a problem with a new election being called in this case. The vote was so close that it's probably a good idea to call a new election since CNA didn't have a clear mandate.

    Do I think some CNA members got out of hand? Probably.

    Do I think the anti-union people exaggerated what happened to overturn the election?

    Sure.

    That's politics, and both sides are probably guilty, so to speak.

    Last edit by Sheri257 on Mar 17, '05
  6. by   Nancy2
    Quote from lizz
    I'd also like to add that I really don't have a problem with a new election being called in this case. The vote was so close that it's probably a good idea to call a new election since CNA didn't have a clear mandate.

    Do I think some CNA members got out of hand? Probably.

    Do I think the anti-union people exaggerated what happened to overturn the election?

    Sure.

    That's politics, and both sides are probably guilty, so to speak.

    I agree with you. A new election would have been great, but CNA withdrew the petition. Were they afraid they'd lose?
    It seems like everytime they fear a loss, they just run away instead of "having a loss on their record". Then they told the nurses at Cedars that they were only postponing the vote and that they would not have to start at square one with card signing. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE NLRB SAYS
    In order to file a new petition for an election, CNA would have to gather support from at least 30% of the RNs that work there, thus signature gathering, ie;card signing. Why would the organizers lie?
  7. by   Sheri257
    Quote from Nancy2
    I agree with you. A new election would have been great, but CNA withdrew the petition. Were they afraid they'd lose?
    It seems like everytime they fear a loss, they just run away instead of "having a loss on their record".
    Or, maybe they simply had bigger fish to fry, like the Governator.

    Since the vote was so close, and you've now got a Labor Board that's anti-union, it simply might be better to cut your losses and put your money and resources into other battles ...

    Like defending the ratio law.

  8. by   Nancy2
    Quote from lizz
    Or, maybe they simply had bigger fish to fry, like the Governator.

    Since the vote was so close, and you've now got a Labor Board that's anti-union, it simply might be better to cut your losses and put your money and resources into other battles ...

    Like defending the ratio law.

    Maybe.... but it is a pattern. Monterey Park, St Joseph in Arizona, and a few others in the last couple of years that I can't recall right off. Sometimes they just miscalculate and lose anyway like at Western Medical Center Santa Ana. They lost that dispite the "peace accord"!!!
    By the way, all Labor Board employees are UNION. They are government employees, it's amazing that management ever gets a ruling in their favor. Regardless of who is president. (And by the way I am NOT a manager.)
  9. by   Sheri257
    Quote from Nancy2
    By the way, all Labor Board employees are UNION. They are government employees, it's amazing that management ever gets a ruling in their favor. Regardless of who is president. (And by the way I am NOT a manager.)
    Are you saying that members of the National Relations Labor Board belong to a union, just because they're government employees?

    I don't think so. The National Labor Relations Board is appointed by the President to serve five year terms. They're political appointees and, thanks to Bush, the board is now run by Republicans.

    Not all government employees are union. And I've never heard of political appointees who serve in executive positions as being union.

    Last edit by Sheri257 on Mar 18, '05
  10. by   Nancy2
    Quote from lizz
    Are you saying that members of the National Relations Labor Board belong to a union, just because they're government employees?

    I don't think so. The National Labor Relations Board is appointed by the President to serve five year terms. They're political appointees and, thanks to Bush, the board is now run by Republicans.

    Not all government employees are union. And I've never heard of political appointees who serve in executive positions as being union.

    No! Not The Board members, the employees who work for the board. The board agents that review unfair labor practice charges, the agents that hold the elections and count the votes. The people who review objections to elections. Not the Washington DC board, they are the only people appointed by the President, and only two of the 5 were appointed by Bush.
    Thank you for an opportunity to clear up that confusion.
  11. by   Sheri257
    Quote from Nancy2
    No! Not The Board members, the employees who work for the board. The board agents that review unfair labor practice charges, the agents that hold the elections and count the votes. The people who review objections to elections. Not the Washington DC board, they are the only people appointed by the President, and only two of the 5 were appointed by Bush.
    Thank you for an opportunity to clear up that confusion.
    If the NRLB was really pro-union, then the AFL-CIO would be happy. They're not, and have condemned many of the NRLB decisions since the Bush appointees took over.

    http://www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ec...c08112004a.cfm

    While there are five positions on the board, only three are filled. Two of the three positions are Bush appointees. Therefore, it's a Bush dominated board with anti-union policies.

    http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/about/structure/board.asp

    The board makes decisions in cases like Cedar-Sinai. Not rank and file workers who may, or may not, belong to a government union.

    Last edit by Sheri257 on Mar 19, '05
  12. by   Hawaii RN
    Quote from fergus51
    I prefer a unionized workplace, so I sought that out when looking for employment. If you aren't a member, they don't represent you so you should have nothing to fear about anything they do that you disagree with.
    I too prefer a unionized work place, I don't want CNA to be my union. I live in Hawaii and belong toThe Hawaii Nurses Association. CNAhas been spending your dues money on a 3 year raid attempt. The latest is a lawsuit they have filed on behalf of our members against us? The are causing havoc within our union while we are getting ready for major contract negotiations.

    Aloha
  13. by   Sheri257
    Quote from Hawaii RN
    I too prefer a unionized work place, I don't want CNA to be my union. I live in Hawaii and belong toThe Hawaii Nurses Association. CNAhas been spending your dues money on a 3 year raid attempt. The latest is a lawsuit they have filed on behalf of our members against us? The are causing havoc within our union while we are getting ready for major contract negotiations.

    Aloha
    I'm trying to figure out what your beef with CNA is ...

    On a similar thread you posted, another Hawaii RN stated that CNA was invited by members who weren't happy with their current representation. They also pointed out that the AFL-CIO had only gotten a 3 percent raise for RNs and no pension benefits for new RN hires in Ohio.

    Just FYI, CNA typically does a hellava lot better than that in their California contracts. Typically 20 percent raises and exellent pension benefits.

    Since you didn't dispute what the poster said about what's happening in Hawaii (and Ohio), I'm just wondering if you've actually looked at CNA's contracts because, they do tend to deliver. Not to mention, they got the ratio law passed in California which, I assume, most RNs would like to have in Hawaii as well.

    If some Hawaii RNs ultimately don't want CNA involved, that's fine but, if other Hawaii RNs aren't happy with the AFL-CIO's record and representation, is it necessarily wrong for them to challenge that?

    Last edit by Sheri257 on Apr 11, '05

close