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

U.S.A. California

Published

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 people do not represent me. I am NOT a memeber nor do I want to be. I have made job decisions based on whether I would have to belong to CNA. I find the leadership self-serving and power-drunk and I have since moving to Northern Cal in 1991. When CNA made the split with ANA it became very clear to me that CNA did not have my professional well being in mind. The union affiliations CNA have sought and gained make no sense to me. The hiring of Rose Ann DeMoro was the clincher. Anyway, I would love to hear from others who feel the same way since CNA has been successful in getting all over the press and running down the image of nurses as highly educated, skillfull and professional people.

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/ecouncil/ec08112004a.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.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
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

Up Vote Up Vote ×
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 ... :confused:

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?

:confused:

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Interested persons may want to check out these web sites:

notinourhouse.org, and stopunions.com. they are both done by employees and have a lot of information for people asking questions about CNA ( and SEIU ) Not everyone thinks unions are the answer....

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Interested persons may want to check out these web sites:

notinourhouse.org, and stopunions.com. they are both done by employees and have a lot of information for people asking questions about CNA ( and SEIU ) Not everyone thinks unions are the answer....

Ok ... now that I've looked at these websites, I'm more confused than ever. :confused:

If you look at the stopunions.com site, for example, there's this page called "The Math" where they compared how much people would make under a CNA contract versus no CNA contract at all.

http://www.stopunions.com/the_math.htm

By their own accounting, RNs would still have made more money with CNA than not, even taking into account union dues.

Their argument is that it's "only" $1,300 to $1,400 more per year but, I find it fascinating that any anti-union site (with an obvious bias) would find any benefit to a CNA contract at all. Especially since they didn't account for the things like the tax deductibility of union dues which actually make the dues less expensive than they claim.

So, again, I'm trying to figure out what's the problem here? Especially since even an anti-union website still found a net benefit? What's so horrible about that? :confused:

It also looks like they have more of a problem with SEIU than CNA, and I don't blame them for that. I'm not a great fan of SEIU or other unions that aren't run by RN's. I've always believed that RNs should represent RNs.

:coollook:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Ok ... now that I've looked at these websites, I'm more confused than ever. :confused:

If you look at the stopunions.com site, for example, there's this page called "The Math" where they compared how much people would make under a CNA contract versus no CNA contract at all.

http://www.stopunions.com/the_math.htm

By their own accounting, RNs would still have made more money with CNA than not, even taking into account union dues.

Their argument is that it's "only" $1,300 to $1,400 more per year but, I find it fascinating that any anti-union site (with an obvious bias) would find any benefit to a CNA contract at all. Especially since they didn't account for the things like the tax deductibility of union dues which actually make the dues less expensive than they claim.

So, again, I'm trying to figure out what's the problem here? Especially since even an anti-union website still found a net benefit? What's so horrible about that? :confused:

It also looks like they have more of a problem with SEIU than CNA, and I don't blame them for that. I'm not a great fan of SEIU or other unions that aren't run by RN's. I've always believed that RNs should represent RNs.

:coollook:

I believe the point of the math is that the union did not deliver what it promised!!! And union dues are not entirely tax deductible. They go into the box on schedule A with scrubs and other stuff and the amount that is over 2% of your Adjusted Gross Income (including your spouse's income if you're married) is then deductible. For most people it is NOT deductible. That is a common misconception. You can find these rule on the IRS website.

If all you found on that website was the "Do The Math" page, and you found no other reasons listed anywhere, why RNs would not want to be represented by a union that is headed by a teamster who pays her husband to do research for them and calls it science then I'm afraid you have already made up your mind and are not confused at all. Good Luck!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I was there when the union took over CNA and disaffiliated from ANA. The union people (mostly Kaiser nurses--they have a very good communication network) told the membership a bunch of lies about ANA, got themselves elected to the Board, and then voted to disaffiliate from ANA. Now they are using my dues money to go to other states to try and get them to pull out of ANA as well. The question is always "what does ANA do for you?" If the nurses are not up-to-date about what ANA is doing in Washington, then they may wonder what ANA does for them. But I can testify to the hard work ANA does for bedside nurses, for ALL nurses, and does not deserve the flack it's getting from CNA.

Yes, I still belong to CNA. I look at paying my union dues like paying my --my dues are my insurance that someone will be on my side if I'm wrongfully terminated. But I don't participate in running the organization anymore. And I don't hesitate to explain to people how CNA is attempting to undermine the work of ANA.

I have to give CNA credit for getting the ratio law passed, but their aggressive tactics are a turn-off for the general public. Overall, the public has little opinion of the activist tactics of any group. It is definitely more professional to work through the system. I belong to the ANA\Calif. and give my full support to ANA, a professional organization, rather than to a union.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
But I can testify to the hard work ANA does for bedside nurses, for ALL nurses, and does not deserve the flack it's getting from CNA.

I have to give CNA credit for getting the ratio law passed, but their aggressive tactics are a turn-off for the general public.

I have to disagree with a couple of points here:

The ANA failed to get nurses out of the overtime regulation last year, which exempted certain professions, including nurses, from overtime pay. That doesn't impact California RN's much because this state has a strong overtime law but, it could seriously hurt RN's in states that don't have mandated overtime compensation. Police and fireman were able to get out of the regulation but, the ANA failed to do the same for nurses.

Maybe the ANA doesn't deserve all the flack it's getting from CNA. But I was disappointed with their performance on the overtime issue.

As far as the general public, Schwarzenegger's approval rating is down 20 points since CNA began their campaign and protests. If the general public was really "turned off" his approval rating would be up, not down.

I don't think the general public has a problem with CNA.

:coollook:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I believe the point of the math is that the union did not deliver what it promised!!!

Ok. Where did the union not deliver what they promised? That page shows a net benefit and doesn't talk about the union not delivering (at least that I can see) so, if you have another reference or link, I'd love to see it. :confused:

And union dues are not entirely tax deductible. They go into the box on schedule A with scrubs and other stuff and the amount that is over 2% of your Adjusted Gross Income (including your spouse's income if you're married) is then deductible. For most people it is NOT deductible.

True. Good point. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

If all you found on that website was the "Do The Math" page, and you found no other reasons listed anywhere, why RNs would not want to be represented by a union that is headed by a teamster who pays her husband to do research for them and calls it science then I'm afraid you have already made up your mind and are not confused at all. Good Luck!

Huh? I'm not sure what you're talking about with the teamster. Could you post a link? And are you talking about SEIU or CNA?

I am pro-union. But, believe or not, I'm also interested in understanding the reasons why some people find unions so objectionable.

:confused:

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The ANA is very professional, I'll give them that. I just don't know how effective they are and I want results.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I have to disagree with a couple of points here:

The ANA failed to get nurses out of the overtime regulation last year, which exempted certain professions, including nurses, from overtime pay. That doesn't impact California RN's much because this state has a strong overtime law but, it could seriously hurt RN's in states that don't have mandated overtime compensation. Police and fireman were able to get out of the regulation but, the ANA failed to do the same for nurses.

Maybe the ANA doesn't deserve all the flack it's getting from CNA. But I was disappointed with their performance on the overtime issue.

As far as the general public, Schwarzenegger's approval rating is down 20 points since CNA began their campaign and protests. If the general public was really "turned off" his approval rating would be up, not down.

I don't think the general public has a problem with CNA.

:coollook:

You have to remember that we have a Republican Congress. ANA is working as best they can within the system. ANA also took a giant step a few years ago and formed the UAN, the union for nurses within ANA. UAN represents a number of nurses in states where the state nursing association does not have a union arm. If nurses want overtime pay, they can organize under UAN and get contract language like California has.

As far as Arnold is concerned, nurses aren't the only ones protesting his tactics. Teachers, police and firefighters are also campaigning against his waffling on a number of subjects. And that's why his approval rating is down. I don't think the general public has a problem with CNA per se, but I was totally embarrassed that they disrupted the conference recognizing accomplishments by women--there has to be a better way.

By the way, do you belong to CNA? If you do, try asking them why they're spending your dues money on disrupting other states. They won't even recognize your question. I've already tried.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
The ANA is very professional, I'll give them that. I just don't know how effective they are and I want results.

Do you belong to ANA? Are you active? Do you write your congressmen/women with information that is factual and shows common sense? If you want results from your organization, then participate!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment