Nurses at Osceola Regional Medical Center in Kissimmee, Fla., Joins NNU

Nurses Union

Published

NNU voted in to represent Osceola Regional Medical Center , 92% - 8% .

Welcome to NNU.

You're joking? Right? Following the last election there is something like 25+ democrats/progressives in the entire legislature.

Fantastic! Maybe we can kill RTW in FLA from the inside....

Is anyone ever thrilled with their pay increases, Matt? Seriously? The fact is that with minimal overtime (i.e. one-extra shift/week) I made well over $100K last year...and I'm a staff nurse, not management like you alluded to. Hec, we'd all like more $$ but what we earn is commensurate with the cost of living in our area...if not more than fair considering our county ranks #1 in foreclosures and among the top-5 for unemployment in the state. You are correct in that our insurance rates did increase this year, we're in our enrollment period now, but did increase 1-3 times like HR said they might.

So, I take it from your post that you are happy with your 3% pay raises while the management gets HUGE increases? Heck, that 3% will be eaten up from the massive insurance increases HCA is rolling out. "rumor has it they have a year to get a contract". That quote tells me you understand nothing about collective bargaining. Sounds like your a manager upset that 93% of your employees were fed up with your unsafe staffing grids, poor pay, etc. The employees have spoken, time to reap what you sow.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond, Chico David.

I am hardly a representative of any organization greater that myself, David. You are correct vis a vis the neutrality agreement in the behaviour that both the hospital and union were subject to...and against. Since the hospital could take no stand, either for or against the union with their employees, how would you suggest those of us who were opposed to the union get our message out? None of us were obviously skilled in the endavour, while the union had teams or organizers in our facility who were specially trained.

Don't tell me for a minute that there was no specific promises made. I know of at least 10+ employees who were specifically told they would receive a 17% pay increase, two of whom were told in my presence by one of the union reps. I called BS on the statement immediately and engaged the rep...only to have her immediately use her cellphone to call the escort to leave the break room.

The fact is that Florida is NOT California, and while the union made a lot of effort to show their negotiated California pay-rates and contract they never provided anything contract, pay scale, or nurse:patient ratio's for ANY Florida facility that they represent. There are, quite honestly, nurses here who expect to receive a 17% pay increase in the new contract and expect to not have to contribute towards their health care expenses. What planet to they live on?

No one seems to be aware that the process of negotiation involves give and take from both sides. Were they honestly ever told that in order to reap the totality of promises made to them that they're likely going to have to give-up something they currently have? Not likely.

I'm moved to reiterate a comment I have made before in similar circumstances. Most nurses join this site in the regular way much like I did. I joined and read threads for a while. I eventually started to feel at home enough to post some comments. I finally started to post some threads of my own. And, while I mostly post in this area, I do visit other parts of the site as well and discuss a variety of nursing issues.

Our union (CNA/NNOC and/or NNU) is a very political union and a very vigorous organizing union. In the process, we make big enemies. We have tangled with other unions, insurance companies, powerful politicians and hospital chains. Whenever we get into one of those fights, we get one or two people who show up here with a brand new membership and are here for one purpose only - to attack us.

It was more like 64% of the total nurses eligible to vote, NICURN. While 64% of the vote is still impressive considering, the union still couldn't be honest enough to say what the actual figure was.

For all intents and purposes, HCA did tell us to vote in a union. Since they couldn't actively campaign against it, or at least present an alternative case scenario, the union was allowed to tell people anything they wanted to hear in order to get out the vote.

Seems a case of why let facts interfere with your politics / point of view , but contributors like Oceola will never let things like reality bother them .

92% to 8 % seems to signify a large problem with the management . But rather than see that, it's all a conspiracy to get a union into a faclity , if thats the case why doesn't HCA just tell all its nurses they have to join a union , forgo the tiresome bother of going through elections?

Actually, David, the margin was more like 64% if you look at the total number of RN's employed and eligible to vote. During the two days immediately preceeding the vote at least one union rep was telling those who had informed him they were voting no that it wasn't important for them to vote, or to not vote at all.

That's a spectacularly irrelevent comment. Every election I've ever been involved with is decided by those who vote. By your measure, our presidents are usually elected with the support of only 20% of the population. So what? And did those who were voting no take that alleged advice as gospel for some reason? If you were voting for one party and a representative of another party told you not to vote, would that cause you not to vote? It's useful to apply a little common sense in these cases. If there actually was a person (highly doubtful) who was planning to vote no and decided not to vote at all because a union rep said not to bother, that person is obviously too dumb to be walking the streets unsupervised, let alone working as a nurse.

Osceola RN wrote:

"No one seems to be aware that the process of negotiation involves give and take from both sides. Were they honestly ever told that in order to reap the totality of promises made to them that they're likely going to have to give-up something they currently have? Not likely."

In all the first contracts bargained by our union no one has ever lost anything they already had. You again betray your total lack of understanding of the bargaining process. What you have now is the bare minimum management felt they had to give you just to remain minimally competitive in the market place, without you having the leverage that comes from bargaining as a group. So now you add that additional power and make gains on top of what you already have. That thing about giving up something you already have in order to make other gains is a standard union buster lie that only someone who has never been involved in the process would swallow.

I never said the comment was necessarily relevant :-) It just seems dishonest when the union keeps promoting the "92%" number without clarifying that almost 25% of the nurses failed to vote, which was the equivalent of them voting yes. I don't know how many people may have been influenced by the union rep telling them not to vote. What I do know is that two people from separate units who didn't know each other and worked on different nights were told the same thing by the same person. That, in and of itself, would seem to be a violation of NRLB rules, but I'm under no illusion that the NLRB cares about any potential violation from a union, only the employer.

That's a spectacularly irrelevent comment. Every election I've ever been involved with is decided by those who vote. By your measure, our presidents are usually elected with the support of only 20% of the population. So what? And did those who were voting no take that alleged advice as gospel for some reason? If you were voting for one party and a representative of another party told you not to vote, would that cause you not to vote? It's useful to apply a little common sense in these cases. If there actually was a person (highly doubtful) who was planning to vote no and decided not to vote at all because a union rep said not to bother, that person is obviously too dumb to be walking the streets unsupervised, let alone working as a nurse.

David, I never meant to imply that I had a great "understanding of the bargaining process." What I do know beyond any shadow of a doubt is that what I recieve for compensation and benefits is fair. Before chosing to work here I was here as a traveler, and also at the other two large hospital systems in the central Florida area as a traveler. The difference in pay here is +/- 1.75/hour. While slightly higher differentials exist at the two other hospitals they're also attempting to staff hospitals with >500 beds.

What kind of leverage do you expect the union to exert here during negotiations/bargaining. If it's no longer about give and take but rather about meeting demands "or else" why call it negotiating or bargaining? Call it what it is....extortion. Could our benefits package be better. Of course. Who's couldn't.

The simple point I've been trying to make is that the union was making promises that they'll in no way be able to deliver on. There are dozens of people who honestly believe that their 17% pay raise is "just around the corner," and that they'll no longer be paying for health care because someone who they'll never see again came in and told them so. It's laughable that I wouldn't be outraged when my friends, my work "family" have been lied to. No one would buy a car or a house sight unseen. No one would agree to purchase insurance or invest in a 401K without comparing plans. Yet the union wants people to sign-up for membership (i.e. dues) without having a contract in place. I say wait until something is worked out and if it's in your favour...go for it. Hell, if they deliver on all of their promises I'll even sign-up. What I don't buy, however, is that there's power in the numbers. One of the reasons I wanted to work here, and chose to work here, is because it felt like "home," and my colleagues felt like "family." When push comes to shove no one here, except the extreme militants, would ever consider striking...would ever consider walking away from their patients in the community we all live in and serve. While I have no great knowledge on the bargaining process I do know more about my colleagues than you do, more about my community than you do. I might be dense, but I'm not stupid. Nor is my administration, who I like, admire, and support. I'm more profoundly depressed that my hospital would not stand and fight against the union than I ever will be that my colleagues voted it in.

Osceola RN wrote:

"No one seems to be aware that the process of negotiation involves give and take from both sides. Were they honestly ever told that in order to reap the totality of promises made to them that they're likely going to have to give-up something they currently have? Not likely."

In all the first contracts bargained by our union no one has ever lost anything they already had. You again betray your total lack of understanding of the bargaining process. What you have now is the bare minimum management felt they had to give you just to remain minimally competitive in the market place, without you having the leverage that comes from bargaining as a group. So now you add that additional power and make gains on top of what you already have. That thing about giving up something you already have in order to make other gains is a standard union buster lie that only someone who has never been involved in the process would swallow.

Fantastic! Maybe we can kill RTW in FLA from the inside....

Hopefully, there are enough of us who believe in RTW that it won't happen......

I agree with you, ominous. I was always vaguely aware of what it meant to live in a Right to Work state, but in the last 45 days I've learned a lot about it and have become involved with the awesome people at the National Right to Work Legal Foundation.

I've also been outraged that my personal information was released by my hospital to the union without my consent...under any other circumstance this requires a court order. I'll be working with my state senator and representative during the next session to investigate whether a remedy might be available to this at the state level. At an absolute minimum I should have been allowed to opt-out of any release of information. I'm concerned about what happens to my information once it's released to the union, in whose custody it remains, and who has access to it. I'm still waiting for an answer from the union, if I don't receive one, I'll seek legal remedy.

The unions only care about their right to organize not anyone's right to privacy! We have a castle law here that would prevent them from harrassing staff members...they would just be shot......

I never said the comment was necessarily relevant :-) It just seems dishonest when the union keeps promoting the "92%" number without clarifying that almost 25% of the nurses failed to vote, which was the equivalent of them voting yes. I don't know how many people may have been influenced by the union rep telling them not to vote. What I do know is that two people from separate units who didn't know each other and worked on different nights were told the same thing by the same person. That, in and of itself, would seem to be a violation of NRLB rules, but I'm under no illusion that the NLRB cares about any potential violation from a union, only the employer.

Congratulations! Lot's of anti-union people make irrelevant arguments, but you're the first one to admit it. It requires an odd twist of thought to believe that reporting the results in exactly the same way the results of every other election in this country are reported is somehow dishonest. And no, not voting is not "equivalent to voting yes". It is in fact equivalent to not voting. Like in every other election, those who choose to vote get to make the choice. Those who choose not to vote choose to take themselves out of the process and let other people make the choices that affect their lives. Sadly so. I still think it's highly unlikely that any organizer told anyone not to vote - other than maybe in the joking way I might suggest it to my Republican relatives - Or they to me. But even if they did, so what? Did they have any power to enforce that? Any threat to make? Did they use any deception to convince someone they couldn't vote. If someone said to you "If you aren't going to vote for me, don't vote" would you say "Oh, I guess I won't then"? It's a patently absurd point.

+ Add a Comment