[Ludlow]

Originally Posted by kat nurse advocate

...

This thread also discusses union raiding. For nurses who believe this is the real topic, I would ask you look deeper. The whipped up emotion concerning "raiding" is a diversion from a more important issue. The issue is democratic union functioning vs union/corporate partnerships. Do so many nurses out there really believe any union is better than no union?
What if a union gives away your rights in the interest of corporate profit?
As a nurse, your rights to safe working conditions acts also in the interest of patient safety.

Corporate health care is the issue. In the quest for more and more profit, the patients for which I care are being dangerously short changed. As a unified group , nurses could change this scenario. Unions are more than a bargaining unit to which folks pay dues and in return receives raises. Unions gave us the working conditions which this country enjoys. I do not think anyone would be interested in returning to the days of enforced child labor.

I would suggest nurses research a little history on each union of interest. Emotional responses to trigger words, like "raiding", and "open shop" do not service nurses or our patients.

Here's a great site to go to for research about the differences:
http://www.calnurses.org/seiu-watch/facts/

[herring_RN]

Nurses who leafleted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDILOA2Ktfs

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by kat nurse advocate

In my opinion, the previous comment was made by a rugged individualist. I have never found nursing to be an individualist profession. Yes, we are each responsible for our nursing practice. But without the support and mentoring we provide for each other when we are working, it would be impossible to do our jobs safely and adequately. It is telling when an individual is willing to enjoy the benefits others have worked to achieve, without appreciation or participation in the process.

I believe we have all noticed the down sizing of nursing staff. Or has it been that way so long, and you are so new to nursing, that you know no other manner of caring for sick patients, except to be totally understaffed?

This thread also discusses union raiding. For nurses who believe this is the real topic, I would ask you look deeper. The whipped up emotion concerning "raiding" is a diversion from a more important issue. The issue is democratic union functioning vs union/corporate partnerships. Do so many nurses out there really believe any union is better than no union?
What if a union gives away your rights in the interest of corporate profit?
As a nurse, your rights to safe working conditions acts also in the interest of patient safety.

Corporate health care is the issue. In the quest for more and more profit, the patients for which I care are being dangerously short changed. As a unified group , nurses could change this scenario. Unions are more than a bargaining unit to which folks pay dues and in return receives raises. Unions gave us the working conditions which this country enjoys. I do not think anyone would be interested in returning to the days of enforced child labor.

I would suggest nurses research a little history on each union of interest. Emotional responses to trigger words, like "raiding", and "open shop" do not service nurses or our patients.

A few points.

1. I've been an RN for 15 yrs.

2. I never suggested that I would like all the benefits of a union and none of the responsibility. I SAID that I figured this applied to about half the nurses that voted for the union in Cy-Fair (about an hour from me).

3. That union passed only because there was an explicit understanding that joining would be optional. "Open Shop" means something, it's not just a 'trigger word'. It means the union has no power and so, there is no real need to oppose it.

4. I don't think a union WOULD particularly benefit me. Instead, I have taken my 'rugged individualism' and found a place to work that provides me with everything I need. Here in back-hick, anti-union Texas, I have one of the highest cola-adjusted salaries in the nation. My 100k house on a cul-de-sac opposite a park suits me well, as does my more-than-manageable 900/month mortgage/escrow (the value of my home has gone up 10% in the last 18 months; there is no housing crisis here, except for a shortage of good homes to buy). My CCU ratio is 2:1. Tele where I work is 4:1. Med/Surg 5:1. Without a union. I have a 503 retirement account that my employer matches some on. In addition, I have a pension fund. Last month, my employer gave me 16hrs of extra vacation time, as a reward for a productive year in 2007. Not just me, every hospital employee. It has been announced that in June, we are to receive, on top of our annual 3% cola raise, yet another 'market based adjustment' (competing with the Houston and Dallas markets). The last such adjustment, in 2006, was a 10% raise. On top of the yearly 3% raise.

My health insurance plan last year spent about 600,000 dollars on the birth of my preemie newborn. MY share was about 5 grand. Our plan went up 14 dollars/month this year. It is now $228/month for six of us.

In back water Texas. Oh, And. We're hiring.

Do I need a union? Why on God's Earth would I want to antagonize my wonderful employer? No, thank you. Unions have their place, I have never denied that. I do dispute that unions are universally beneficial. NO, they are not.



~faith,
Timothy.

[PsychRN03]

Timothy,

As a nurse working in the Great Nation of Texas, you are very fortunate to be in the situation you are in, and if you are honest with everyone, you'd agree many hospitals in TX aren't anywhere near as "nurse friendly as yours"--they don't give annual raises, keep ratios at a reasonable place, and from your description, work to please their employees as much as possible.

I absolutely agree your hospital doesn't at all sound like it needs to worry about unionizing. However, check out Conroe Regional with their 7:1 tele ratios (not stepdown) and maybe a tech or 2; or Harris County Psych where the ratios are 12 or 13:1 at best (and that is really unsafe), but could go up to 24-26:1; or St. Joe's where I've heard (although I can't speak from experience) that ratios can dip in the 2x digits; they don't care how their nurses feel, and the nurses have obviously been able to do nothing to convince mgmt to listen to them, so what alternative is there but to organize through a union?

Now whether or not the union is successful is completely up to the nurses; if noone wants to be active and pay their tax deductible dues, then all they have done is spun their wheels. But if they truly do want to improve their situation, they now have a voice that can be heard loud and clear, without fear of termination for speaking out. If they are stong they can refuse an unsafe assignment and their union can fight for them to prevent them from being terminated (as has happened to many, but I'm thinking of a thread started yesterday, in particular).

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by PsychRN03

Timothy,

As a nurse working in the Great Nation of Texas, you are very fortunate to be in the situation you are in, and if you are honest with everyone, you'd agree many hospitals in TX aren't anywhere near as "nurse friendly as yours"--they don't give annual raises, keep ratios at a reasonable place, and from your description, work to please their employees as much as possible.

I absolutely agree your hospital doesn't at all sound like it needs to worry about unionizing. However, check out Conroe Regional with their 7:1 tele ratios (not stepdown) and maybe a tech or 2; or Harris County Psych where the ratios are 12 or 13:1 at best (and that is really unsafe), but could go up to 24-26:1; or St. Joe's where I've heard (although I can't speak from experience) that ratios can dip in the 2x digits; they don't care how their nurses feel, and the nurses have obviously been able to do nothing to convince mgmt to listen to them, so what alternative is there but to organize through a union?

Now whether or not the union is successful is completely up to the nurses; if noone wants to be active and pay their tax deductible dues, then all they have done is spun their wheels. But if they truly do want to improve their situation, they now have a voice that can be heard loud and clear, without fear of termination for speaking out. If they are stong they can refuse an unsafe assignment and their union can fight for them to prevent them from being terminated (as has happened to many, but I'm thinking of a thread started yesterday, in particular).

I have checked out Conroe in the past to work PRN as it's close to me (I decided against). A local hospital not mine normally keeps med/surg/tele ratios at 6-7:1. I know this. I'm just saying, there is power in voting with your feet.

But, more to the point - an ineffectual union is not going to significantly change that. And make no mistake: a voluntary union that has the support of maybe a fourth of a hospital's nurses is NOT an effectual organization. 230 Nurses at Cy-Fair, 119 voted for the union, BUT - HOW MANY WILL JOIN? My guess is around half, about 60 nurses.

60 unionized nurses out of 230 total is NOT the epitome of union power. At that point, it's just a nuisance to management, and not much more. What is the union going to do, strike? So?

But it's worse. By the time negotiations get to the point of a strike, in a few years, that number of actual dues-paying unionized nurses will likely be down to 30-40. You don't even need strike breakers to combat that, just an offer of generous overtime for the overwhelming non-unionized majority that remain on the job. You can't even appeal to your co-workers. Being non-union, they could not strike without being terminated.

The ONLY way to give the union any power is to make joining completely painless: $5/month dues. In that case, the 30-40 active members could speak for a possible majority of unionized nurses. That's not a sure thing; Texas is very anti-union; many wouldn't join if you PAID THEM to join. Also, a largely uninterested majority of union nurses would not likely authorize any strike, under any conditions. That would be obvious in the negotiations. In ANY case, while the union might be of benefit for Cy-Fair if it's painless dues-wise to join, it does so by making Cy-Fair a drain on the national union. That might make sense to make a point, as is the case here. However, it just isn't an effective strategy for unionizing the State.

Is this a moral victory for the union? Absolutely. But, it's not much more than symbolic. I doubt seriously it's the start of a wave of unionization. If you think otherwise, then, you likely don't know or have much experience with Texas.

~faith,
Timothy.

[kat nurse advocate]

I have noticed that the conversation regarding unions in Texas revolves around paying dues, and nurses not interested in joining a union. I have also learned that some nurses are able to take care of themselves, live a good life, and do not need no stinking union. All of these pieces relate to $$. What about the facts concerning the corporate health care assault on nursing practice through out this country? Who is determining how nursing practice will proceed into the future? If nurses do not have a unified voice regarding nursing practice issues, and patient safely issues, we have failed as a profession. Unions and how they approach bargaining are different, one from another. There are unions that are democratic, with members driving the agenda. There are unions that are union/management partnerships, having predetermined contracts that support corporate profits at the expense of the nurses and patients. Seems like the hospital in Texas with the decent ratios is paying attention to California, for those are the ratios which together for over ten years, the nurses in California fought. I am interested in nursing as a profession that supports and cares for the sick, does it safely, with adequate competences. If you are only interested in how much you can make, and what an awesome life style you live, I would challenge you to become involved in the fight for our profession. Since when has collective work for an honorable cause been out of style? This dialogue is about more than $$.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by kat nurse advocate

I have noticed that the conversation regarding unions in Texas revolves around paying dues, and nurses not interested in joining a union. I have also learned that some nurses are able to take care of themselves, live a good life, and do not need no stinking union. All of these pieces relate to $$. What about the facts concerning the corporate health care assault on nursing practice through out this country? Who is determining how nursing practice will proceed into the future? If nurses do not have a unified voice regarding nursing practice issues, and patient safely issues, we have failed as a profession. Unions and how they approach bargaining are different, one from another. There are unions that are democratic, with members driving the agenda. There are unions that are union/management partnerships, having predetermined contracts that support corporate profits at the expense of the nurses and patients. Seems like the hospital in Texas with the decent ratios is paying attention to California, for those are the ratios which together for over ten years, the nurses in California fought. I am interested in nursing as a profession that supports and cares for the sick, does it safely, with adequate competences. If you are only interested in how much you can make, and what an awesome life style you live, I would challenge you to become involved in the fight for our profession. Since when has collective work for an honorable cause been out of style? This dialogue is about more than $$.

I agree that nurses need a unified voice for the profession. Unions cannot BE that voice, for several reasons:

1. Many unions are in direct competition with each other. How can there be a 'unified' voice unless one union wins a monopoly and crushes all others?

2. Unions are first and foremost required to promote local governance issues. That means that national issues need take a backseat.

3. Not all hospitals need a union and not all areas of the country are union-friendly.

4. Professionals are best served by professional organizations. What we need is to kick the ANA to the curb and have a real professional organization.

As far at it being about dues in States like Texas, yes. 'Open shop' creates an untenable 'free rider problem'. Why pay when I can take the same ride, for free? THAT is almost an insurmountable problem.

~faith,
Timothy.

[herring_RN]

100% of the Flagstaff Arizona firefighters choose to be union members:

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill...874/index.html

[Sherwood]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

A few points.

1. I've been an RN for 15 yrs.

2. I never suggested that I would like all the benefits of a union and none of the responsibility. I SAID that I figured this applied to about half the nurses that voted for the union in Cy-Fair (about an hour from me).

3. That union passed only because there was an explicit understanding that joining would be optional. "Open Shop" means something, it's not just a 'trigger word'. It means the union has no power and so, there is no real need to oppose it.

4. I don't think a union WOULD particularly benefit me. Instead, I have taken my 'rugged individualism' and found a place to work that provides me with everything I need. Here in back-hick, anti-union Texas, I have one of the highest cola-adjusted salaries in the nation. My 100k house on a cul-de-sac opposite a park suits me well, as does my more-than-manageable 900/month mortgage/escrow (the value of my home has gone up 10% in the last 18 months; there is no housing crisis here, except for a shortage of good homes to buy). My CCU ratio is 2:1. Tele where I work is 4:1. Med/Surg 5:1. Without a union. I have a 503 retirement account that my employer matches some on. In addition, I have a pension fund. Last month, my employer gave me 16hrs of extra vacation time, as a reward for a productive year in 2007. Not just me, every hospital employee. It has been announced that in June, we are to receive, on top of our annual 3% cola raise, yet another 'market based adjustment' (competing with the Houston and Dallas markets). The last such adjustment, in 2006, was a 10% raise. On top of the yearly 3% raise.

My health insurance plan last year spent about 600,000 dollars on the birth of my preemie newborn. MY share was about 5 grand. Our plan went up 14 dollars/month this year. It is now $228/month for six of us.

In back water Texas. Oh, And. We're hiring.

Do I need a union? Why on God's Earth would I want to antagonize my wonderful employer? No, thank you. Unions have their place, I have never denied that. I do dispute that unions are universally beneficial. NO, they are not.



~faith,
Timothy.

A point well made!!
While the nurses in Houston may have voted in the CNA/NNOC, an important point is that Texas is a "right to work" state. This means that it is not mandatory for any of the nurses to pay dues or become union members. The union is "in" but does it have a victory?
California is not a "right to work" state. If the union is voted in the ALL the nurses MUST pay dues or the union will DEMAND their TERMINATION.

http://k.b5z.net/i/u/6011029/i/CNA_D...ollections.pdf

The exception to this in California was at Scripps Encinitas Medical Center in San Diego, California. The nurses were able to obtain an "open shop" contract, free from a "union security clause". This forces the union to actually make good on it's promises or lose support. The California Nurses Association FAILED to make good on its promises at Scripps Encinitas and the nurses eventually dropped membership and stopped paying dues. This then lead to a DECERTIFICATION vote and the union on April 23rd and 24th 2008 was voted out of the hospital. Scripps Encinitas is now union free.
So, Texas RN's have basically made a statement to the California Nurses Association; "Actions Speak Louder Than Words", Here is your chance. How many nurses at Cypress Fairbanks will choose to pay dues? Let's make this information public record!

Tenet Healthcare, who shamefully has sold out their employees to neutrality agreements across the country want a second look at the Houston vote.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....ab06fd7d.html

Sherwood

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by Sherwood

A point well made!!
While the nurses in Houston may have voted in the CNA/NNOC, an important point is that Texas is a "right to work" state. This means that it is not mandatory for any of the nurses to pay dues or become union members. The union is "in" but does it have a victory?
California is not a "right to work" state. If the union is voted in the ALL the nurses MUST pay dues or the union will DEMAND their TERMINATION.

http://k.b5z.net/i/u/6011029/i/CNA_D...ollections.pdf



Sherwood

I read your link. The union cannot demand termination under the law. Hiring/Firing is a management right NOT a union right. What the document does reference is a fairshare agreement. Fairshare means that bargaining unit members in effect pay for the costs associated with representing members in the collective bargaining and grievance processes but not expenses associated with the local.