[HM2Viking]

Here is the other moral argument for a strong labor movement:

All work that makes a contribution to the community has dignity and is not degrading. But, unfortunately, many jobs are degraded.
A degraded job is one that pays too little — one-quarter of all jobs in the United States pay wages so low that a full-time worker earns too little to lift a family of four above poverty.
A degraded job is one that is potentially unsafe. Each year some 5,000 workers are killed on the job and about 5 million are injured or become sick due to their job.
A degraded job is one in which the worker is treated unfairly or illegally. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, essentially all poultry processing plants and 60 percent of nursing homes fail to properly pay workers for overtime hours worked, pay less than the legally-required minimum wage, and/or violate child labor laws.
A degraded job is one where the employer discriminates in hiring or promotions. These abuses occur in firms large and small, in local businesses and within Fortune 500 companies.
A degraded job is one in which a worker has too little autonomy or control over her work, resulting in high levels of stress and even physical illness.
Unfortunately, U.S. labor law provides few protections against many of these abuses. Existing laws are often poorly enforced and penalties typically are small and ineffective.
Workers need jobs, even bad jobs, if those are the only ones available. But how can they improve their workplaces and gain dignity on the job, especially the three-quarters of all workers who don't have a college degree and have little bargaining power with their employers?
One important way workers can address workplace injustice is by joining and participating in a labor union.
All of us are indebted to the union struggles of the past for many of the workplace benefits we take for granted. Yahweh gave us the Sabbath but unions brought us the weekend, the 8-hour day, paid vacations, holidays, health insurance, and pensions.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...06/b99064.html

What struck me most about this article was the idea that without a strong labor movement there can be no middle class. Unless we as professionals speak up for the interests of the 30% of workers whose jobs put them at below 200% of the poverty line we put our own benefits and pensions at risk.

The labor movement speaks for ALL workers not just those fortunate enough to have the protections of a collective bargaining agreement.

In Solidarity....

[Chico David RN]

From HM2viking:
What struck me most about this article was the idea that without a strong labor movement there can be no middle class. Unless we as professionals speak up for the interests of the 30% of workers whose jobs put them at below 200% of the poverty line we put our own benefits and pensions at risk.

The labor movement speaks for ALL workers not just those fortunate enough to have the protections of a collective bargaining agreement.

In Solidarity....

this is a very key point for all those who in one way or another think "I've got mine..." It's clear from history that when a few workers have a much better deal than everyone else, those few get pulled down to the level of the many. There was a time when many American unions had won really good wages and benefits but became complacent and contented themselves with trying to protect what they had rather than pulling other workers up. Now those workers are losing what they fought to win and no one is there to help them. Many nurses today have decent wages and benefits and see no need to make good healthcare available to everyone. In the long run, the only way to keep what we have won is to extend it to others also. California nurses have the best wages and benefits in the country, but we know that to keep them, we have to bring other nurses up to the same level. In the long run, the goal of labor must be a fairer society for all.

[Julia RN]

Originally Posted by Chico David RN

this is a very key point for all those who in one way or another think "I've got mine..." It's clear from history that when a few workers have a much better deal than everyone else, those few get pulled down to the level of the many. There was a time when many American unions had won really good wages and benefits but became complacent and contented themselves with trying to protect what they had rather than pulling other workers up. Now those workers are losing what they fought to win and no one is there to help them. Many nurses today have decent wages and benefits and see no need to make good healthcare available to everyone. In the long run, the only way to keep what we have won is to extend it to others also. California nurses have the best wages and benefits in the country, but we know that to keep them, we have to bring other nurses up to the same level. In the long run, the goal of labor must be a fairer society for all.

Yep- You're on your own vs. We're in this together.
And I prefer the latter.

Chico- interesting that your post makes an argument for the industrial model (as in all healthcare workers in the same union) while you seem to believe more in craft unionism (as in an RN only union). Just an observation that there are valid reasons behind both ways of organizing and representing workers as this debate which has shaped much history in the labor movement continues today.

[bittersweet symphony]

Tenet has an sweetheart agreement with the union. there is no union bashing going on. do your research. CNA has done nothing and has decerts right in there own state. they want your dues. Nurse patient ratios are just that, nurses, NOT RN, read the legislation..........WAKE UP PEOPLE

[Ludlow]

Originally Posted by bittersweet symphony

Tenet has an sweetheart agreement with the union. there is no union bashing going on. do your research. CNA has done nothing and has decerts right in there own state. they want your dues. Nurse patient ratios are just that, nurses, NOT RN, read the legislation..........WAKE UP PEOPLE

Be sure to check out the adjudicated clarification to the Ratios law. It was upheld in court that 'nurse' meant 'RN' when it came to pt-to-nurse ratio (because the nurse had to 'assess' the patient in an ongoing manner. ONLY RNs can assess by law). CNA fought to assure that was clear. If your employer is doing otherwise they are breaking the law.

The law states that the ratios are to be maintained at all times---meaning that when you go on break or lunch your patients must be covered by an RN who's nurse-to-patient number still abides by the ratios law. If your employer is doing otherwise they are breaking the law.

The ratios law also was made such that ancillary staff was not to be cut. Now, employers will try to get away with cutting, but that's why it's best for us nurses to unite so we can say to them as a group, "No you don't; you may not."

That's what we had to do at my hospital.

Employers will try to get by making the most profit. We have to stand guard making sure that they follow the law and do what is right for our patients.

We have the Ratios law here in California because of the foresight and hard work of the nurses of CNA. Patients get taken better care of because we don't have too many and are not spread too thin. And we benefit because we finally have time to do most of the things we know we should for our patients.

We had Title 22 with ratios of 1:2 or better in the ICU since the 1970s because of the foresight and hard work of the nurses of CNA back then.

If you are a California nurse, you benefit with some of the best wages and benefit packages in the nation because of the hard work of the California Nurses Association.

Those are just the facts.

[HM2Viking]

MNA is now working to get a ratio law passed to extend the protections won through bargaining to all nurses and their patients by law.

MNA fought to get a no mandatory OT law passed in order to protect patients from unsafe practice as a result of fatigued nurses.

[Ludlow]

Check out this article about Suzanne Gordon's latest book. She and co-authors in Australia chronicle the benefits that have come to California and Victoria, Australia since the implementation of ratio laws.

Patients are better off.

Nurses are more satisfied.

http://www.sentinelsource.com/main.a...ticleID=187374

[bittersweet symphony]

I did do my rsearch, nurse not RN, read this years amendment.

[herring_RN]

Originally Posted by bittersweet symphony

I did do my rsearch, nurse not RN, read this years amendment.

Is there a link to this years amendment?

The enabling legislation AB 394 includes:
“…(h) In case of conflict between this section and any provision or regulation defining the scope of nursing practice, the scope of practice provisions shall control……”

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_394_bill_19991010_chaptered.html


Title 22 licenses the hospital. Please see the third column that makes it clear that every patient must be assigned to a registered nurse:
http://www.rn.ca.gov/pdfs/regulations/npr-b-53.pdf

So for example in pediatrics where the maximum number of patients that may be assigned to a licensed nurse is four how can an RN assume responsibility for more than four patients?

Title 22 under the section with the ratios also states, “Licensed vocational nurses may constitute up to 50 percent of the licensed nurses assigned to patient care on any unit, except where registered nurses are required pursuant to the patient classification system or this section.”
So if as the RN you are certain that the acuity is low and know the competency of the individual LVN you may accept the assignment of responsibility for up to eight pediatric patients.
In my experience patients with low acuity are discharged and replaced by a newly admitted patient who is much sicker. You only have one license so I think it prudent to protest an unsafe assignment.

The same section states, “Nothing in this section shall prohibit a licensed nurse from assisting with specific tasks within the scope of his or her practice for a patient assigned to another nurse. “Assist” means that licensed nurses may provide patient care beyond their patient assignments if the tasks performed are specific and time-limited.”

How can complete responsibility for patient care including ongoing assessments be considered “specific and time limited”?

The law is not perfect but what we have is better than the regulations in any other state –to my knowledge.
And RNs are not accepting a double assignment without protest at any hospital I know of.

[Ludlow]

Originally Posted by bittersweet symphony

I did do my rsearch, nurse not RN, read this years amendment.

I would love to see that amendment. Where did you hear about it?

'Nurse not RN' was certainly the argument put forth by the hospital association and entities like SEIU, but it lost out in court to the logic that patients require ongoing assessments. Only RNs have the skills, knowledge, education, training and expertise to do ongoing assessments by law.