Calif RN disagrees with CNA in many ways. Am I alone? - page 5

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   JustMe
    Do you remember the RCT squabble? The AMA came up with this brilliant idea that they would invent registered care technologists to "help" the nursing shortage without asking nursing for its input. ANA went to the AMA's national convention and demanded to be heard. "Thanks, but no thanks." The docs heard us loud and clear--no RCTs.

    ANA has also managed to negotiate nursing school scholarships from the federal governement--an effort to get people into nursing and ease the shortage. ANA has testified endlessly in the regulatory process for research funds, privileges for advanced practice nurses, preventive care for the poor, etc, etc, etc. ANA attempts to help individual states with major problems that they realize may become national issues, i.e. licensure, education, reciprocity, and practice encroachment.

    In the 1992 presidential election, ANA was the third largest PAC contributor in the health care field--behind only the AMA and the dentists. We contributed more than even the hospital association.

    ANA is the professional organization for ALL nurses, across the country, across practice lines. Instead of belonging to a dozen professional organizations, I can belong to just one and know that my voice will be heard in Washington and the world (ANA also belongs to the International Council of Nursing).
  2. by   fergus51
    No RCTs? Maybe, but we have UAPs everywhere. A rose by any other name.... It's was CNA that put ratios into law specific to RNs.

    Scholarships? Good. Even better if it doesn't bring up the old ADN vs BSN as entry to practice thing. Ahnold is even putting money into nursing scholarships, despite his disputes with CNA.

    Testifying? Good if it gets results, otherwise it's completely wasteful. The new OT laws are an example. It's something that has to be done, but I don't see why state BONs couldn't do it as well.

    Third largest healthcare contributor to PACs in 1992... Ok so they gave more than the hospital association and.... I don't know who else (I can't even think of another big health care group right now). Am I the only one who doesn't really care too much about what they did 13 years ago? I was in high school at the time.

    I'm just more simple minded and practical than that. I want to know when I go into work tomorrow, how would being an ANA member affect my job and the care I provide to my patients? The answer is clear with CNA. I can even see the obvious applications of belonging to a specialty organization. I just can't see it with ANA. I see a toothless tiger when I think of them.

    As far as representing ALL nurses, I thought ANA was an RN only association? I work with LVNs and call them nurses too.
    Last edit by fergus51 on Apr 24, '05
  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    The CNA sponsored AB 394, enabling legislation for the ratios also placed legal restrictioms on unlicensed assistive personnel. This is the Board of Registered Nursing advisory:
    http://www.rn.ca.gov/practice/pdf/npr-b-29.pdf
  4. by   JustMe
    Quote from fergus51
    No RCTs? Maybe, but we have UAPs everywhere. A rose by any other name.... It's was CNA that put ratios into law specific to RNs.

    Scholarships? Good. Even better if it doesn't bring up the old ADN vs BSN as entry to practice thing. Ahnold is even putting money into nursing scholarships, despite his disputes with CNA.

    Testifying? Good if it gets results, otherwise it's completely wasteful. The new OT laws are an example. It's something that has to be done, but I don't see why state BONs couldn't do it as well.

    Third largest healthcare contributor to PACs in 1992... Ok so they gave more than the hospital association and.... I don't know who else (I can't even think of another big health care group right now). Am I the only one who doesn't really care too much about what they did 13 years ago? I was in high school at the time.

    I'm just more simple minded and practical than that. I want to know when I go into work tomorrow, how would being an ANA member affect my job and the care I provide to my patients? The answer is clear with CNA. I can even see the obvious applications of belonging to a specialty organization. I just can't see it with ANA. I see a toothless tiger when I think of them.

    As far as representing ALL nurses, I thought ANA was an RN only association? I work with LVNs and call them nurses too.
    Sorry you feel the way you do. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. That's the great thing about our country, right?
  5. by   Sheri257
    Quote from spacenurse
    The CNA sponsored AB 394, enabling legislation for the ratios also placed legal restrictioms on unlicensed assistive personnel. This is the Board of Registered Nursing advisory:
    http://www.rn.ca.gov/practice/pdf/npr-b-29.pdf
    Ah ... very interesting.

    Thank you Spacenurse!

  6. by   begalli
    Quote from lindarn
    I also put blame on the Boards of Nursing for the selling off of our professional practice to the highest bidder. It is one thing to allow un-licensed assitive personnel to give bed baths, etc. It is quite another to allow them to take over a professional practice, like giving meds. If I decided that I wanted to do brain surgery, and took a 6 week class on the "how to's of doing it", I would think/hope that the AMA and the State Boards of Medicine would put a stop to it. Where is the ANA and the State Boards of Nursing? Why is it OK to dumb down RN profesisonal practice to unlicensed personnel, and not OK to dumb down the practice of medicine? Or for that matter Physical Therapy, or Occupational Therapy?
    This is a great post. Thank you Linda.
  7. by   Sherwood
    The California Nurses Association's self serving actions have done nothing to advanced the profession of nursing. The actions of the CNA only embarrass the professionals it boldy claims to serve.
    The politics of the CNA are also alarming. While they did not endorse a political candidate in the 2004 presidential election, in 2000 the CNA actively endorsed Ralph Nader. The CNA also promotes a policy of "Universal Healthcare" otherwise known as socialized medicine. This extremely expensive policy only further alienates those it claims to help by increasing taxes and creating long waiting lists for procedures and visits to specialists.
    The California Nurses Associations Executive Director is also NOT A Nurse. Rose Ann DeMoro is a former grocery store checker and Teamster.
    For more information visit www.onevoice-ourvoice.com and www.stopunions.com these websites and your own independant search will confirm what I have already stated.
  8. by   PMHNP10
    Quote from Sherwood
    The California Nurses Association's self serving actions have done nothing to advanced the profession of nursing.
    If by self serving you are referring to self as the CA RNs, then you are only half correct. The ratios that the CNA fought so hard for serve the needs of the patients as well. I provide much safer, caring care to 6 patients on a m/s floor vs 10-12 patients. It's even better now that it's 5:1. I would think the same would hold true for the patient lift teams. Furtermore, both concepts serve both pts and nurses on more than one level. On the basic level, lower pt:nurse ratios protect patients directly; this law also serves nurses because it has brought thousands of nurses to the state of CA, and it is a step towards bringing back/keeping nurses in the hospital setting where they we are desparately needed. The lift teams in theory would cut down on the number of back injuries which would keep nurses working. Again, I could care less how they accomplished this, or what others perceive as their true motives. Bottom line for all the concrete thinkers out there is that fewer patients = better outcomes. Check the studies and you will see that what I say is true.

    http://www.icn.ch/matters_rnptratio.htm

    NOTE: The study I'd like to post was conducted by JAMA, but in order to post it on here I'd have to purchase it, which I'm not inclined to do.
    Last edit by PMHNP10 on May 9, '05
  9. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from psychrn03
    If by self serving you are referring to self as the CA RNs, then you are only half correct. The ratios that the CNA fought so hard for serve the needs of the patients as well. I provide much safer, caring care to 6 patients on a m/s floor vs 10-12 patients. It's even better now that it's 5:1. I would think the same would hold true for the patient lift teams. Furtermore, both concepts serve both pts and nurses on more than one level. On the basic level, lower pt:nurse ratios protect patients directly; this law also serves nurses because it has brought thousands of nurses to the state of CA, and it is a step towards bringing back/keeping nurses in the hospital setting where they we are desparately needed. The lift teams in theory would cut down on the number of back injuries which would keep nurses working. Again, I could care less how they accomplished this, or what others perceive as their true motives. Bottom line for all the concrete thinkers out there is that fewer patients = better outcomes. Check the studies and you will see that what I say is true.

    http://www.icn.ch/matters_rnptratio.htm

    NOTE: The study I'd like to post was conducted by JAMA, but in order to post it on here I'd have to purchase it, which I'm not inclined to do.
    I did buy it. Here is the summary:

    Vol. 288 No. 16, October 23, 2002
    Hospital Nurse Staffing and Patient Mortality, Nurse Burnout, and Job Dissatisfaction
    Linda H. Aiken, PhD,RN; Sean P. Clarke, PhD,RN; Douglas M. Sloane, PhD; Julie Sochalski, PhD,RN; Jeffrey H. Silber, MD,PhD
    JAMA. 2002;288:1987-1993.

    Context The worsening hospital nurse shortage and recent California legislation mandating minimum hospital patient-to-nurse ratios demand an understanding of how nurse staffing levels affect patient outcomes and nurse retention in hospital practice.

    Objective To determine the association between the patient-to-nurse ratio and patient mortality, failure-to-rescue (deaths following complications) among surgical patients, and factors related to nurse retention.

    Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional analyses of linked data from 10 184 staff nurses surveyed, 232 342 general, orthopedic, and vascular surgery patients discharged from the hospital between April 1, 1998, and November 30, 1999, and administrative data from 168 nonfederal adult general hospitals in Pennsylvania.

    Main Outcome Measures Risk-adjusted patient mortality and failure-to-rescue within 30 days of admission, and nurse-reported job dissatisfaction and job-related burnout.

    Results After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics (size, teaching status, and technology), each additional patient per nurse was associated with a 7% increase in the likelihood of dying within 30 days of admission and a 7% increase in the odds of failure-to-rescue.

    After adjusting for nurse and hospital characteristics, each additional patient per nurse was associated with a 23% increase in the odds of burnout and a 15% increase in the odds of job dissatisfaction.

    Conclusions In hospitals with high patient-to-nurse ratios, surgical patients experience higher risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and failure-to-rescue rates, and nurses are more likely to experience burnout and job dissatisfaction.

    Author Affiliations: Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research, School of Nursing (Drs Aiken, Clarke, Sloane, and Sochalski), Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Drs Aiken, Clarke, Sochalski, and Silber), Department of Sociology (Dr Aiken), Population Studies Center (Drs Aiken, Sloane, and Sochalski), and Departments of Pediatrics and Anesthesia, School of Medicine (Dr Silber), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Center for Outcomes Research, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa (Dr Silber).
  10. by   fergus51
    Self serving makes me laugh when ALL nurses and patients in California get to benefit from the ratios, not just union ones.
  11. by   Nancy2
    Quote from fergus51
    Self serving makes me laugh when ALL nurses and patients in California get to benefit from the ratios, not just union ones.
    CNA is definately self serving! Just take a look at www.notinourhouse.org. and www.stopunions.com to see some of these self serving tactics. Take a look at how they spend the dues money.
    Do they ask their members if they want to contribute $10,000 dollars to the LABOR Party? Did their members vote on that one. They lie when the tell you "you are the union"
  12. by   fergus51
    Quote from Nancy2
    CNA is definately self serving! Just take a look at www.notinourhouse.org. and www.stopunions.com to see some of these self serving tactics. Take a look at how they spend the dues money.
    Do they ask their members if they want to contribute $10,000 dollars to the LABOR Party? Did their members vote on that one. They lie when the tell you "you are the union"
    Yes, actually we can decide whether or not to support the political activities of CNA. There are nurses who choose not to for various reasons. Some people have philisophical and religious reasons not to support a union and they are not forced to. I don't know if you've ever worked in a union job or not, but from what I understand that is a national rule.

    The self serving comment strikes me as funny because their activities benefit all nurses in California, not just union members. If they only cared about themselves, they would have just put staffing ratios into their contracts, not worked to get them put into legislation.
  13. by   Nancy2
    Quote from fergus51
    Yes, actually we can decide whether or not to support the political activities of CNA. There are nurses who choose not to for various reasons. Some people have philisophical and religious reasons not to support a union and they are not forced to. I don't know if you've ever worked in a union job or not, but from what I understand that is a national rule.

    The self serving comment strikes me as funny because their activities benefit all nurses in California, not just union members. If they only cared about themselves, they would have just put staffing ratios into their contracts, not worked to get them put into legislation.
    So why would the CNA insist on "union security" or "union shop" if they don't mind RNs not paying dues to support them? If it is a choice, why not leave it an open shop for RNs to choose. You can file a religious objection to union dues, but not a political one that I'm aware of. And you must do this in writing by certified mail, then you may opt for the same amount of money as dues to go to a non-religious charity instead of CNA, but you still are forced to pay someone. What about the nurses who just want to keep their hard earned money? NOT AN OPTION IN A "UNION SHOP". So why is CNA insisting on forced union dues. They claim it is for "patient advocacy" I am unable to understand how paying the union money is related to patient advocacy. Frankly, I'm a little insulted that they are insinuating that anyone who doesn't want to pay dues is not a patient advocate. By the way, you still didn't answer my question about whether members get to vote on how their money is spent? Do they?

close