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

[imkw_np]

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.

[lindarn]

To Cali nurses who don't like the CNA- Why don't you come to Texas and work, where you will get 12-13 pts all by yourself on med-surg, no aides, no unit clerks, just you and ALL your pts-and where the hospitals don't have Workman's Comp, because Texas says they don't have to?

I was injured on the job here, and the facility refused to pay my ER bill- I had to pay it myself to preserve my credit rating.

Also, most hospitals and nursing homes here do not offer any kind of health ins plan whatsoever to nursing staff.

Cali nurses- you don't know how good you have it.

AMEN!!

I live in Spokane, Washington, and we have a joke called the Washington State Nurses Association. The negotiated a contract with the Sacred Heart, where the nurses go no retoractive pay from when the contract expired in December, to when it was finally voted on in March throuhg no fault of the nurses or WSNA. THey also accepted a 5% pay increase with a 20% increase in the cost of medical benefits to the nurses. Even a mathematically challenged person like myself, can figure that they received a 15% pay cut with the new contract. As the nurses came in and voted on the contract, they put in the paperwork to get out of WSNA membership. They just don't get it. Well, you know, the hospital had to pay for the new Children's Hospital somehow, didn't they? As usual, JMHO, and my $0.02.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

[Nancy2]

To Cali nurses who don't like the CNA- Why don't you come to Texas and work, where you will get 12-13 pts all by yourself on med-surg, no aides, no unit clerks, just you and ALL your pts-and where the hospitals don't have Workman's Comp, because Texas says they don't have to?

I was injured on the job here, and the facility refused to pay my ER bill- I had to pay it myself to preserve my credit rating.

Also, most hospitals and nursing homes here do not offer any kind of health ins plan whatsoever to nursing staff.

Cali nurses- you don't know how good you have it.

My best friend lives in Texas (the Fort Worth area). She works med surg. She normally has 5 to 6 patients, there is an aide for the unit and she gets paid $28 an hour. I asked her about the Workers comp thing and she said that an employer has the choice of being in the state comp fund or being self insured. (If you have documentation that you were injured at work and they refused to pay, I'd talk to a lawyer.) Her benefits are way better than mine, and I work in a CNA represented facility.

I know Texas is a big state, but her Texas doesn't sound anything like yours!

Where do you live?

[PMHNP10]

Nurses will SAY "We could do it ourselves if we could stick together..."

forever.

But- they don't and they didn't.

The CNA can and did!

So you've had a taste of CA nursing and u like I'm guessing? I missed my job the day I leff out of the hospital. And now that I'm back in TX I'm looking again...not for a floor position though cause it's just unsafe. Unfortunately that might be what I have to turn to if I wish to pay the mortgage.

[BillEDRN]

I am a union supporter but, I think decertification elections are important and a good thing. If the union does things that people don't like and they've changed their mind about representation, they should have a chance to vote on it and change representation, if the majority wants a change.

I agree that if the union is not representing the will of the members, it should change. However, that is not what happens when you "decertify" a union facility. If you decertify you lose the ability to have union representation for a year, and then you have to go thru the entire process of getting a union back inplace, which as anyone who has participated in the formation of a union at a workplace can tell you.

It would be far better for the members to regain control thru participation, elections and governence of their union so as to direct it's activities to represent it's members goals.

Hope that helps clarify things, especially if you are thinking about decertifying at your facility.

Aloha.

[Sheri257]

I agree that if the union is not representing the will of the members, it should change. However, that is not what happens when you "decertify" a union facility. If you decertify you lose the ability to have union representation for a year, and then you have to go thru the entire process of getting a union back inplace, which as anyone who has participated in the formation of a union at a workplace can tell you.

It would be far better for the members to regain control thru participation, elections and governence of their union so as to direct it's activities to represent it's members goals.

True. But that doesn't take into account people who may not want union representation at all. If there's a majority that doesn't want a union, period, then they should have that option.

To say it would be too hard for the union to get back into the facility so ... they should stay no matter what ... violates the spirit of democracy. If the union has done such a bad job and screwed up so badly that a majority wants them out, I don't think changing officers, etc. is enough.

Again, I am totally pro-union. But, I don't want to force union representation if the majority doesn't want it.

Scripps just went through this in one of their facilities and the union prevailed. I think it's really good thing because everybody knows where the majority stands. Without that vote, the union would be in a much weaker position.

Decertification elections make the whole process more democratic and, it also makes the union more accountable for their actions.

[rstewart]

AMEN!!

THey also accepted a 5% pay increase with a 20% increase in the cost of medical benefits to the nurses. Even a mathematically challenged person like myself, can figure that they received a 15% pay cut with the new contract.

Actually that would only be true if their wages and insurance premiums were equal-----which they are not.

[Sheri257]

Just a quick update on decertification news ...

Looks like St. Vincent's joined Scripps Encinitas in defeating decertification efforts ...

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

But there's now a decertification effort underway at Inland Valley Medical Center ...

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/27/news/californian/21_40_4911_26_05.txt

[Sherwood]

True. But that doesn't take into account people who may not want union representation at all. If there's a majority that doesn't want a union, period, then they should have that option.

To say it would be too hard for the union to get back into the facility so ... they should stay no matter what ... violates the spirit of democracy. If the union has done such a bad job and screwed up so badly that a majority wants them out, I don't think changing officers, etc. is enough.

Again, I am totally pro-union. But, I don't want to force union representation if the majority doesn't want it.

Scripps just went through this in one of their facilities and the union prevailed. I think it's really good thing because everybody knows where the majority stands. Without that vote, the union would be in a much weaker position.

Decertification elections make the whole process more democratic and, it also makes the union more accountable for their actions.

Thank you Lizz. Well put. I wish I would have seen this post sooner.

[lindarn]

I don't fear them. I object to their public behavior because it reflects badly on nursing. I don't believe the CNA leadership has the nursing profession's best interests as their central mission. Expanding membership, collecting dues and partnering with other "service unions" seem to be the top priorities. Strong-arm tactics and blatent rudeness do not advance our profession. Nor do they lend a strong and intelligent voice to vital health care issues which nursing must speak to. The staffing ratios legislation was a great victory for nursing and for patient safety but haggling over the delay in further reducing from 6:1 to 5:1 is not necessary.

Well, how has being "Mr. Nice guy", gotten nurses any thing?. If I am not mistaken, the ANA, State Nurses Associations, and nurses in general, have not accomplished anything at all to help nurses with increasing wages, (not a dirty word), improving benefits, and pensions, and of course, staffing ratios. In fact, the reason that CNA withdrew from the ANA was because, in the 1990's, the horrendous effects that care redesign had on staffing ratios, patient care, the lack of improved pay and benefits, etc, the silence of these organizations was deafening. The effect that these misguided policies has had a terrible effect on nurse retention, and mortality rates in hospitals, and lets not forget, patient satisfaction with their health care and hospitalizations.

So, sometimes the CNA does not pattern their public relations demeanor with, "Miss Congeniality". It is a small price to pay for what they accomplished. And for what ALL OF THE NURSES IN CALIFORNIA, (and the public), HAVE BENFITED FROM. The dues that they collect paid for the lobbying, and tripps that they made that allowed these very beneficial policies to happen. Lets not forget how much money the Hospital Associatins, drug companies, etc., have contributed to the defeat of staffing ratios in other parts of the country. They also copntribute heavlily to the state nurses associations to buty influence that has allowed the de skilling of care at the bedside, and the dumbing down of our professional practice. These are the enemies that every nurse in the US should be fighting against. I would be thrilled if CNA or the NNOC ever decided to try to organize the nurses here in Spokane. Our state nursing association is, as we said in NY, is about as useful as tits on a bull. JMHO.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

[Sherwood]

Well, how has being "Mr. Nice guy", gotten nurses any thing?. If I am not mistaken, the ANA, State Nurses Associations, and nurses in general, have not accomplished anything at all to help nurses with increasing wages, (not a dirty word), improving benefits, and pensions, and of course, staffing ratios. In fact, the reason that CNA withdrew from the ANA was because, in the 1990's, the horrendous effects that care redesign had on staffing ratios, patient care, the lack of improved pay and benefits, etc, the silence of these organizations was deafening. The effect that these misguided policies has had a terrible effect on nurse retention, and mortality rates in hospitals, and lets not forget, patient satisfaction with their health care and hospitalizations.

So, sometimes the CNA does not pattern their public relations demeanor with, "Miss Congeniality". It is a small price to pay for what they accomplished. And for what ALL OF THE NURSES IN CALIFORNIA, (and the public), HAVE BENFITED FROM. The dues that they collect paid for the lobbying, and tripps that they made that allowed these very beneficial policies to happen. Lets not forget how much money the Hospital Associatins, drug companies, etc., have contributed to the defeat of staffing ratios in other parts of the country. They also copntribute heavlily to the state nurses associations to buty influence that has allowed the de skilling of care at the bedside, and the dumbing down of our professional practice. These are the enemies that every nurse in the US should be fighting against. I would be thrilled if CNA or the NNOC ever decided to try to organize the nurses here in Spokane. Our state nursing association is, as we said in NY, is about as useful as tits on a bull. JMHO.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

I also thank you Lindarn for your eloquence, professionalism and to your contributions to this forum and to the profession of nursing.

[redem2]

I agree that decertification is not the way to do it. If as a member you think your union is not doing what it's supposed to do you have to get active and participate. What is not working? I believe the union's success depends on each and every member's participation.

I'm a member of CNA and I urge non union RNS to check

on what CNA as a union and prof. organization is doing

for RNS not only in California but outside.As healthcare providers we need to think of other people, like the uninsured or the minimally insured and how they affect

ER admissions and ultimately affect hospital admissions .

If we have a better healthcare system in this country

ERs don't have to be crowded with patients who don't have insurance.Hospital admissions would be in control

thus staffing/pt ratio will be more or less predictable.

As a CNA member I look forward to this, when all citizens

have equal access to healthcare.

[Nancy2]

I don't look foward to the day when or if we have socialized medicine as CNA wishes. I don't look foward to paying 50% taxes and then having a bureaucratic panel decide who gets a heart or a hip or whatever. If you talk to people from Canada you hear how people have to pay outside of there system to get a lot of things they need and they still have to pay all those high taxes. Universal healthcare is not the answer to our problems! We need to come up with something better. In theory, it all sounds good, but whenever we put the government in charge of anything, it becomes more complicated and more costly NOT less.