[workingforskies]

Originally Posted by wtbcrna

If you would take the time to go back and look at the problems that unions have caused in the U.S. as well as helped you would understand where that comment comes from. At what point is there enough benefits...? There are thousands of out of work people because their unions basically put them out of job. I am for cutting any CEOs salary, but over a large hospital system with thousands of nurses how far do really think that will go?
If you don't care if the hospital system goes bankrupt why not just go find a new job now, and what will happen to your pension if the hospital goes bankrupt?

Another counter point: You are comparing apples and oranges. Car companies, for example, have considerable leverage over their unions because they can always play the 'outsource' card. The health care system cannot play that card on a grand scheme. (There are only so many Philippino nurses to go around.)

This current nursing shortage was created by the health care system with it's collective, incredibly short sighted, 'redesign' debacle that in a greedy, self induced, orgasmic frenzy, they jumped all over.

The only way it is going to be fixed is when the industry, collectively decides to invest into the long term education of more people to fill it's current and future needs. There are plenty of anecdotal efforts by some entities to do just that. But it is not nearly enough. Only when the giant companies put more effort into training and retaining as opposed to concentrating on the modern day capitalist's holy grail of earnings per share will this situation even start to reverse course.

I don't think that will happen in my life time to be honest. (I am 42). As such, I am looking out for me and my sisters and brothers. AND THAT IS IT!!! Wall Street be damned.

You also tell me to "go back and look at the problems that unions have caused in the U.S." I would counter challenge you to take that same advice and go back a bit further and look at the problems that big business was causing the average person prior to the union age. Not one of those unions was founded by a collective of happy, well paid, fairly treated employees. Unions, like labor reform laws were all REactive, not PROactive.

[wtbcrna]

Originally Posted by workingforskies

You also tell me to "go back and look at the problems that unions have caused in the U.S." I would counter challenge you to take that same advice and go back a bit further and look at the problems that big business was causing the average person prior to the union age. Not one of those unions was founded by a collective of happy, well paid, fairly treated employees. Unions, like labor reform laws were all REactive, not PROactive.

I have always said unions have done good and bad things. My historical perspective is pretty good after 27credits in undergraduate history. Unions did great things in some industries like coal mining and some other industralized labor practices at the turn of the century and early 20th century, but many of the things they were fighting for are now covered under federal laws/regulations..ie OSHA regulations and so on. Yes, that makes the federal government reactive, but tell me what the unions are doing for all nurses what state and federal regulations are they fighting for.

Anyways, you guys have beat me into submission. I am just a poor misguided uneducated nurse that knows nothing about history, and cares nothing about the professional image of nurses. I must also be mistaken in remembering all the organized crime, murders, political corruption, dues/pension thefts, blackmail, and all the other things that unions are also well known for....good and bad...but let's forget all the bad, because I am now guaranteed my two 15 min breaks and my wage is a little higher than it used to be (although now I have to pay off the unions to ensure all those little perks for the rest of my working career).

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by wtbcrna

I have always said unions have done good and bad things. My historical perspective is pretty good after 27credits in undergraduate history. Unions did great things in some industries like coal mining and some other industralized labor practices at the turn of the century and early 20th century, but many of the things they were fighting for are now covered under federal laws/regulations..ie OSHA regulations and so on. Yes, that makes the federal government reactive, but tell me what the unions are doing for all nurses what state and federal regulations are they fighting for.
Anyways, you guys have beat me into submission. I am just a poor misguided uneducated nurse that knows nothing about history, and cares nothing about the professional image of nurses. I must also be mistaken in remembering all the organized crime, murders, political corruption, dues/pension thefts, blackmail, and all the other things that unions are also well known for....good and bad...but let's forget all the bad, because I am now guaranteed my two 15 min breaks and my wage is a little higher than it used to be (although now I have to pay off the unions to ensure all those little perks for the rest of my working career).

Arizona - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/arizona/?print=t

Illinois - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/illinois/?print=t

Maine - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/maine/?print=t

Ohio - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/ohio/?print=t

Texas - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/texas/?print=t

And of course California - http://www.calnurses.org/nursing-pra...x.html?print=t

[wtbcrna]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Arizona - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/arizona/?print=t

Illinois - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/illinois/?print=t

Maine - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/maine/?print=t

Ohio - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/ohio/?print=t

Texas - http://www.calnurses.org/nnoc/texas/?print=t

And of course California - http://www.calnurses.org/nursing-pra...x.html?print=t

Nice unbiased links...., but the general idea is there at least. I am all for nurse-patient ratio laws, but unless I am wrong no other state has passed a nurse-pt ratio law except California.
I am politically active. I write my state legislatures on a regular basis for nursing reforms as it comes up. I support my national organization, and I would consider a one time donation to the CNA/NNOC for the right federal/state cause such as nurse-patient ratios but I will not join a union. I think I have supported my statements well enough and acknowledged that unions do great things upon occassion. Each to their own, if you think unions are your best national/state representative you should join a union. I on the other hand disagree on this fundamental point, and don't think unions could ever provide the representation that is needed for nurses on the state and federal level.

Good Luck to everyone on their nursing careers, but since I can't control myself to continously responding to this thread I am unsubscribing to this thread and going back to studying.

[pickledpepperRN]

It is not necessary to join a union or to donate to help in getting a ratio law. We are very happy to have supporters write letters, make phone calls, talk with their friendss and neighbors, or attend a rally.

It takes a majority of the people supporting it.

WE were able to get safe staffing ratios because it is the right thing to do.
We had to educate the public.

[pianaplayernurse]

Originally Posted by Michael_Savage

Unions are for the birds - I used to have one in my hospital and they came around begging me for money and I told them "no thanks, unions are for the birds".

I am really not impressed at all with the maturity or the intellectual level of your attitude. If you would take part in your union and use it to change what you think is keeping we nurses from fulfilling our pledge, I guarantee that you feel a huge surge of power that being in a group all dedicated to the same purpose can give you! The only reason you think unions are for the birds is because you don't care about bettering our practice, or the plight of our patients.

[pianaplayernurse]

Thanks you for your elegance. I only disagree with one thing you said. CNA is not an advocate for nurses!! They let SEIU do all the work of organizing a hospital, then step in at the last minute, make themselves look good, and don't leave enough time for the nurses to figure out that they are not on their side. The CNA forms bonds with administration that completely undoes the staff's ability to use the union for positive change.

[stephrnmedsurg123456]

In answer to wtbcrna's post that only in California are there ratios, I found something to the contrary on the Daily Kos showing other laws union nurses have passed that improve staffing:

Florida: SEIU Healthcare Florida nurses are leading a coordinated campaign to pass the Patients Right to Know Act. The campaign has seen a constant flow of nurses lobbying, roundtables with cosponsors, making progress, building relationships and building awareness on staffing and MOT at the same time.
Pennsylvania: 2008 SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania nurses leading on aggressive lobbying and a strong media campaign to vote ban on mandatory overtime out of committee.
Washington: 2008 SEIU 1199NW nurses out in front on passing legislation which requires bedside nurses at staffing decision-making tables; reporting by hospitals of actual staffing and nursing sensitive indicators; and whistleblower protection.
2007 legislation puts bedside nurses at safe patient handling decision-making tables to set policies; mandates lifting equipment and staff training; gives hospitals a tax credit for purchase of lifting equipment.

by SEIU on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:32:34 PM PDT
[ Parent ]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3...980/894/475080

[RN Power Ohio]

Originally Posted by stephrnmedsurg123456

In answer to wtbcrna's post that only in California are there ratios, I found something to the contrary on the Daily Kos showing other laws union nurses have passed that improve staffing:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3...980/894/475080

All of these SEIU activities are wonderful things. I will address staffing specifically. There is a difference between the committee approach for safe staffing and the mandate approach. It is highly controversial among nurses. I do not agree with the committee approach because there is too much wiggle room for the employer and no accountability. It is clear that these committee laws are ineffective in the states they have been passed in. The approach is similar to the requirements for Magnet. I don't know about you but I have worked at Magnet hospitals that were dangerously staffed.

SEIU supports the "industry legislation" when it comes to staffing both in the states and at the national level.

I guess it really comes down to how much "good faith" you think the hospital industry will have when it comes to these bills.

It is true that the only 2 places in the world with minimum mandated staffing are Victoria, Australia and California, US.

I wish more RN's felt free to discuss these issues in their workplace.

[stephrnmedsurg123456]

I have heard really mixed things about the CA ratios from travelling nurses who have worked there. Yeah, many hospitals have the appropriate number of nurses now, but support staff has been cut in many places leaving nurses to do non-nursing work and/or lots of mandation. Anyway, the fact that CNA and other groups have been working for ratios state by state for years and have not achieved them anywhere outside of California suggests to me that these other efforts may be more worthwhile.

As for the comment about ratios being less flexible, somebody still needs to enforce them. None of these laws mean anything if direct care nurses are not organized in each and every hospital to enforce them when and where it matters.