[-jt]

<Perhaps it's because it's posed here as a cure all, >


Again - thats your perception. No such thing has been posted by anyone.

If you read a little closer, you will see that people are giving you their experiences & for them, their situation improved after they became a union because, as a legally recognized union at their facility, they have more legal power and the employer HAD to address their issues. No one is talking about any particular union being better than another and not one person has said you must unionize and all your problems will be solved.

You asked certain questions & the answer to those questions is that the union of nurses has it much better because there are laws that give them an equal hand in the process. If they are a union, by law, the employer may no longer ignore their issues and is obligated to address their concerns to their satisfaction.

That does not mean that all their problems are immediately solved & this has been pointed out, I dont know how many times. All it means is that they now have an avenue in which to follow to solve their problems & they have the law behind them giving certain rights to get those problems solved - whereas non-union nurses have neither, & must either just take what they are dealt or move out.

The discussion was about the difference between union vs non-union. Thats the difference. Its just a matter of fact. And after that, its a matter of choice. But there is no denying that it is much better to have a guarantee of and some control in determining your conditions of employment than it is to be dependent on the good graces of some administrator, and just hoping he does the right thing by you. After all, he himself didnt leave HIS conditions of employement up to the board of directors and what they will allow, did he? HE has a guaranteed contract that HE helped determine and agreed to, doesnt he?

Make your own choice. If you want information, ask the questions but there is no need for any bashing or insinuations in an intelligent conversation.

In case you havent noticed, I have no problem answering questions. But now for a question you have been asked and havent yet answered:

As a non-union nurse, your recourse when your nurse manager and adminsitrators choose not to address your issues of mistreatment, and otherwise blow you off is.......what?

[-jt]

Another difference between union and non-union is this fact reported by the RNweb:

How Union Membership Affects Pay -

"Approximately 16% of our survey respondents said they belong to a union, about the same percentage as in previous surveys. And as they did in 1999, union nurses this year reported earning more than their non-union counterparts. The average annual income for union nurses is $50,400, which is 11% more than nonunion RNs. This $5,115 gap is much larger than the roughly $1,600 difference between the two groups reported in our last survey. On an hourly basis, union RNs earn an average of $26, compared to nonunion nurses' $23.40.

Recent developments suggest that nurses' unions may soon carry more political weight than they have in the past. In June, the United American Nurses (UAN) National Labor Assembly voted to affiliate with the AFL-CIO, the voluntary federation of 64 of America's unions, which represent more than 13 million workers nationwide. The UAN is the national union arm of the American Nurses Association and includes more than 100,000 RNs.

Locally, unions have made significant gains. For instance, last June 2,600 RNs represented by the United Nurses Association of California (UNAC) negotiated and ratified a new three-year contract with one facility that strengthened their influence over patient care decisions, severely limited the use of mandatory overtime, and provided compounded wage increases of more than 23% over the life of the contract........."

Medical Economics
http://www.rnweb.com/be_core/r/templ...salsurv01.html

[nurs4kids]

Originally posted by -jt
[b]Another difference between union and non-union is this fact reported by the RNweb:

How Union Membership Affects Pay -

"Approximately 16% of our survey respondents said they belong to a union, about the same percentage as in previous surveys. And as they did in 1999, union nurses this year reported earning more than their non-union counterparts. The average annual income for union nurses is $50,400, which is 11% more than nonunion RNs. This $5,115 gap is much larger than the roughly $1,600 difference between the two groups reported in our last survey. On an hourly basis, union RNs earn an average of $26, compared to nonunion nurses' $23.40.

]

Was geographical area and cost of living taken into account in this survey????? It's easy to look at nothing more than the salary #'s and say it's better, but there are other variables affecting salary.

[nurs4kids]

Originally posted by -jt

BTW, I, as well as others, have previously answered the question of where our union dues go - several times in the past on this board. They go to service the members, advance the profession, & to fight to improve the situation for nurses at work.

Once again, If you go to the website of any professional nurses association, understand that EVERY single thing you see available from that association is paid for by the members dues (including the website youre using while there) - even things that may be available to non-members and benefit the non-member, like CE courses, funding community awareness rallies, media events, forums with community leaders and elected officials, and also funding things like the nurse addiction assistance program which NYSNA nurses recently developed for all NY nurses who need help kicking an addiction. Also paid for by members dues is the nursing legislative efforts in your state that will improve your working conditions and will protect you (like the fight to get mandatory ot prohibited & whistleblower protection laws passed in your state, for instance).

[/b]

ahhhhhhhh, so the TRUTH FINALLY!!!! The unions and the ANA ARE the same then, eh? I mean if UNION dues go to pay for "ana" supported things... ROFLMAO..I KNEW you'd eventually let that slip. THAT is why rnkitty was believed, jt. It's not so much about knowledge as it is the honesty and integrity behind the knowledge.

[nurs4kids]

Originally posted by RNPD
"When I think of union, I think of less "respectable" careers (ie; mining, auto, steel, atheletics, etc). The closest career to nursing that I can think of that is unionized is teachers, and we all know that hasn't done much for their profession. "~nurse4kids

This is somewhat of an elitist attitude, is it not? Why would you consider these careers to be "less respectable"? And the teachers' union happens to be an extremely strong union that has done wonders for teachers' salaries and benefits. If you think otherwise, you need to read up on the AFT. If nursing had a similar union, we'd be in great shape today! BTW, even some docs are beginning to unionize, are they "less respectable" as well?

Have you ACTUALLY checked a teacher's salary lately?????

As for the elitist attitude..everyone keeps screaming about nursing not being treated as professionals. Those careers I addressed above are not considered professional. We can't have it both ways. We can't throw out one image and expect another. Every man in my family works an industrial job that is unionized. By no means do I feel elite to them or their careers. It'd be pretty stupid to even think nursing is elite to those listed above, they all make more than nurses. However, they are not considered professional.

[nurs4kids]

RNPD,
It's my right as an American citizen to form ANY opinion I wish. It's also my right to post it on this bb. It's ALWAYS obvious here that the expressed is the opinion of the writer, unless there is UNBIASED data presented to back the opinion. So, do NOT try to tell me what and how to conduct myself. I know you're in the same ana/union as jt, and I apologize if I'm stepping on some toes, that's NOT my goal. My goal is to be educated by discussion that is honest and straightforward. I'll do whatever it takes to gain this information.

Jt,
You feel personally attacked ANYTIME someone questions the activity of the ANA and it's union. That's not something I can change. All I have asked for is objective data, and you are unable to give it. YOU twist information to your benefit and post it here. You attack me for being honest enough to admit I do not know things, yet you aren't honest enough to admit the downfalls of the ANA and it's union. I ain't going away, nor will my opinions


I still believe that a union has no more bargaining power than a group of nurses. In case anyone has missed the news, [SIZE=2THERE IS A NURSING SHORTAGE[/size]. What employer in his right mind would fire a GROUP of nurses? Where on earth would he find replacements??? Why do you act as if the bargaining power is greater for a union? Yes, by law, an employer is forced to negotiate with a union, but all the employer has to do is not meet your demands. That leaves the union no stronger than a group of nurses. If he doesn't meet your demands, that leaves you two options: 1. work under the previous conditions. or 2. walk. A group of nurses has the same options. Only difference, the group of nurses have not poured their hard-earned money into a union.

[fergus51]

LOL! I am with you on the teacher's salaries point! I do agree unions are more often associated with trades than professions, but I think that'll change. Doctors here have bargained collectively, even "withdrawn their services". To me that's the same as a union strike, but they choose to be called a group or association and use euphamisms like withrawing services in order to sound more professional. A rose by any other name....

[wildtime88]

Finally someone brought forth the power of a non-union group. Physician’s groups are becoming quite common especially in emergency medicine and cardiology services in the U.S. Both of these groups have the power to dictate how they practice and the conditions they practice under. In many hospitals they set the rules in contrast to what the individual hospital actually tries to impose. These physicians simply say as a group without a formal union affiliation we will not work under these conditions and if they are not changed we will no longer provide our services. The conditions are quickly changed to meet their demands. There is no reason why nurses can not do the same thing as a non-unionized entity and achieve the same results. It is also ludicrous to believe that a hospital would fire 200 or 300 nurses simultaneously who stood united in a non-unionized group.

When everything is said and done it all falls down to the cohesiveness and the resolved and thought process of the group it’s self.

This is all going to be a mute point though if the ANA has it’s way and the present proposed legislation is passed to replace nurses who say “I will not work under the present conditions”, as well as the one’s who have already left for the same reason.

[fergus51]

I TOTALLY agree wild that it is all about the cohesiveness of a group. The only real difference between the doctors group is that there isn't anyone to replace them if they go so they tend to get an easier time barganing than nurses do. Look how many hospitals in the states bring in scab nurses to try to work without their whole staff. I do believe a hospital is willing to eventually fire all its nurses, or we wouldn't have strikebreakers.

The way our system is set up, the unionization gives us job security and a forum for voicing concerns and engaging in collective action. The other benefit is that members have to abide by whatever job action the majority decide on. We voted 96 or 97% in favor of a job action in the spring and EVERY nurse in the province has to abide by it whether they voted against it or not, thereby guaranteeing that cohesiveness we both value. It isn't a perfect system by any means, and I would love to see nurses get together as a group or union or whatever to demand change, but I am pretty satisfied with my union and how it serves my interests. The problem I see with a large group of nurses would be guaranteeing cohesiveness. If everyone isn't willing to put things on the line then the group is powerless.

[wildtime88]

Replacement nurses or scab nurses as you call them are only temporary and are not permanent replacements. These nurses would not accept a permanent position. It has also been stated in the past that replacement nurses are covered under some kind of strike insurance. I do not believe the insurance companies would pay out for a hospitals cost of actually firing it’s nurses.

So this part of your argument does not hold water. This is also more of a union scare tactic used to recruit new membership that has been used for decades.

Nurses are not easily replaceable as are production workers, farm laborers, and other generalized laborers. You can not hang a sign out side the door and hire right off the street. You also can not provide on the job training of these individuals off the street to replace nurses. This very concept of being easily replaced is where unions in general have gained their power and a toe hold in the U.S. work force. They have gained strength off the basic fears of their membership. A profession who realizes they have nothing to fear and the strength to conquer does not need a formal union in the first place. A profession who is actually in control of their practices dictate rather than bargain or compromise.

The hospitals dictate and mandate to nurses how to practice our profession as due many other employers. This is evident in the U.S. by just switching from one hospital to the next and the difference in policies and procedures that a nurse practices under. In other words, what a nurse can do at one place they might not be allowed to do across town or the staffing levels might be very different. This even varies from one unionized hospital to the next with the same union in place.

As for the solidarity, let us not forget what happened in Minnesota this last spring. One union strike after another caved in without regard for the nurses at the other hospitals. I can still remember JennyP and others posting “next time we will……..”. So where is the true solidarity that you speak of? If this had been one large single group of nurses with the same demands and not willing to back down until all their demands were reached by all the hospitals in question, then things would have been far different. It would not have made one difference if they did not belong to a formal labor union. In fact, if the hospital could not count on reimbursement for the cost of temporary replacement nurses then they might have agreed with the demands much faster.

I do agree with you about this. “If everyone isn't willing to put things on the line then the group is powerless.” This holds true for non-unionized and unionized alike.