A New National Union for ANA?

I agree with you. I think it is very unfortunate that the nurses who are in management throw a political wrench in any ANA union since they would obviously be excluded. I am not sure if there would be room to grow another coalition of state unions. I'm betting that the conversation is more about joining another large labor union together.

Seems to me like the whole ANA mindset and the idea of an effective union are not compatable. To be an effective labor union for nurses, an organization has to first and foremost represent the interests of staff nurses, which will never be identical with the interest of management and academic nurses. And the orgnization has to truly understand and actualize the common interest of nurses and patients - which, again are not compatable with the interest of hospitals and insurers etc.

We see this play out in the ANA refusal to back real ratios, but allying itself with the hospitals to promote sham legislation to undermine ratio laws. Fortunately, when we went through the ratio fight in California, the ANA is pretty much non-existant here. But in other states, they have played a major role in the anti-ratio forces - Illinois, Ohio and Massachusetts, just to name a few.

In the breakup of UAN, we see the beginning of the end for ANA as a credible force. It will be superseded by a real nurses organization that knows how to fight for the interests of the bedside nurse. How that organization will form is not yet clear, but I suspect it will happen in the rather near future.

I agree. There would be a stronger ANA if they were not so exclusive. It seems like conventions are by invitation, they are not well advertised, and other educational offering are few & far between.

The magazine is good, but not as great as AJN. There is another example of the alienation. I really think the leaders in ANA/c are great, but the ratio thing really hurt their rep. And plus alot of activity in Sacramento area & not so much down South.


For ANA to survive, it will need a reboot. Like this guy...
>>

First the ANA should not be, or act as, an agent of organized labor. To do so runs counter to the idea that they represent all nurses (yes that includes the staff nurse, the nurse manager, the academic nurse, and the advanced practice nurse, and all of us who disagree with unions on political or philosophical grounds, among others).

Second, the ANA needs to improves it's presence among all nurses and get involved in lobbying for issues that are significant to the nursing profession, reach out to those in a position to effect changes - including nurse managers and academics - and work in a collegial relationship with them (instead of an adversarial relationship), and produce a journal that in clinically significant to nurses and respected outside the nursing world.

Third, the ANA needs to look forward and work to overcome it's legacy of obstructing nursing's advancement as a profession (banning male nurses at it's inception, failing to back APNs, failing to back CRNA's, failing to work with other healthcare organizations to advance common goals, and providing little if any clinical education for a long time; to name a few).

Nursing needs a professional organization that represents and lobbies for issues that affect our profession, not a union that pits one nurse against the other. The ANA had the potential to do that, a maybe it still does, but only if it rises above being an agent of organized labor.

If you want a nationalized union for nurses, fine; but it won't represent a lot of us and as a profession, we really need to have a group that does.

Just my two cents on the issue though.

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I recently went to our state nurses' association convention. The new CEO of the ANA was there and spoke about a new super nurses union that will be forming in December, in Scottsdale, AZ. The federal gov't is working to force unionize firefighters and first responders on a national level. They just made it law that people working on new federal construction jobs have to be union, or else pay union fees in order to work the jobs. There is legislation in the works to over-rule state laws that make unionization voluntary. If that happens, nurses and other healthcare workers will be forced to join a union in order to be able to get paid or even work. This is coming and if you don't want it, you need to speak up now before it's too late. It doesn't sound like the ANA is going to be on the side of the average nurse.

http://nrtwc.org/

There are probably two things worth noting here: One is the NRWTC is of course extreme anti union organization run be a tiny number of very wealthy people who want to keep working people from joining unions. The other is that all of the "facts' presented are simply made up out of nothing - no truth in any of them. I assume not made up by the person who posted them, but made up nonetheless.

Can you please tell me what of this info is not true please?

I've been receiving info from the NRTW group for over 2 years and I don't see them the way you characterized them. They are trying to inform workers that their rights are about to be trampled. Voluntarily joining a union is one thing, being forced is another, and it's wrong. Do you understand what can happen to you if forced to join a gov't mandated union? If they need to make that health care program "deficit neutral", they will cut whatever needs to be cut to make it work. And if you are in a union that is controlled by the gov't, they can cut your pay or your job. Don't be fooled into thinking that this super union is going to be on the side of the nurses. AARP and the AMA endorsing something that majority of their members don't want should be a clue.

Super Union:
http://nursing.advanceweb.com/Editor...=208883&PRG=18

Federal Jobs:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...on-job-center/

Firefighters Unionization bill (HR 413)(would override states' rights):
http://righttoworkcommittee.org/pfmbb1.aspx

Drafting doctors (would nurses be next):
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bla...12/271348.html

Forced union dues diverted:
http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/compulso...acorn-09172009

SEIU and extortion?:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110751

Have you seen what's in the latest draft of the health care bill? If they can cut doctors out of something as simple as hospice, don't think that they won't do something to you as a nurse.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

Each of the sources listed is to a far-right, virulently anti-union, anti-Obama "source". Each and every one of them has a well established history of simply making things up. If you want to present something credible, go to an original source, like the actual text of a bill or executive order, with a link to the original so that people can see the whole context, not the kind of distorted taken out of context quotes that are standard fare in those publications.