[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by mianders

The post made by Dolce was correct. Union dues do go to endorse canidates that a lot of people do not agree with. You can say showing up to meetings will change the status quo, but it has been my personal experience that it will not. Unions ALWAYS endorse Democrats. Unions and any other organization that have such a diverse population of members should not endorse one political canidate over another. Professionalism is not incompatible with union membership, but not voting Democrat is.

Not always true. In my former union MAPE. (mape.org) Candidates from both political parties were invited to seek endorsement by the Union. Republican candidates were endorsed on occasion for individual state legislative districts.

In any event Republican candidates tend to endorse proposals that are harmful to the interests of working families. (OT eligibility restiction, Kentucky River, restrictions on the right to collectively bargain to improve conditions.) Work for changes within the Republican Party that make it more palatable to the union.

As I said before if you don't like a particular candidate that is endorsed by your union there is no obligation to vote for that candidate. For that matter make the case to your union membership to endorse your candidate of choice.

In any event the purpose of the union is for members to collectively bargain for improved wages and working conditions. That does occasionally call for the union to actively protect the laws that protect those hard fought battles through political activism.

[HM2Viking]

Aren’t unions really for blue collar and other lower paid workers? Why would professionals want or need a union?
A Many professionals believe there is a basic antagonism between unionism and their profession. They have a picture of unions as adversarial - picking fights or imposing work rules that will limit employees as well as management.
Professionals are employees who have the same problems as other workers. Every high tech employee, for example, needs a decent wage, the guarantee of fair benefits, protection from unjust treatment, respect, recognition of skills, education, and expertise, whether they meet the legalistic definition of "professional" or not.

1

The reality is that professional employees are increasingly losing control of their work life. At non-union worksites management makes all the decisions concerning the wages, benefits, and working conditions for professional employees. This is generating conflict between employees concerned about the delivery of their professional services, and human resource managers who appear more concerned with the bottom line. These professional employees are turning increasingly to unions to protect their interests. Today, roughly two-thirds of all unionized white-collar employees are professionals. Their level of unionization exceeds that of the workforce as a whole. (Details about the white collar workforce can be found in the DPE’s publication "Current Statistics on White Collar Employees: 2000 Edition ".)

Q But isn’t it "unprofessional" to join a union?

A Academy Award winners Tom Hanks, Susan Sarandon and Kevin Spacey don’t think so. Neither do Grammy Award winners Tony Bennett and Carlos Santana. World renowned physicist Albert Einstein and the late Pulitzer Prize winning, Washington Post Cartoonist HerBlock were also prominent union members. These are just a handful of artists, scientists, journalists, educators and others who have been at the top of their profession and who have strongly supported their unions. Union-member professionals are also teachers, college professors, nurses, TV broadcasters, librarians in your local community.
Unions and their white-collar workers helps preserve professional integrity and respect on the job. An employee of a large corporation frequently loses professional autonomy in the corporate bureaucracy. The professional is not always free to offer independent judgments based solely on professional considerations. Indeed, without a proper contract and a union to police it, employees may be fired or penalized for offering a view that is at odds with their supervisors. Nothing could be less professional.
According to the US Department of Labor, over three million professional and technical employees are already participating in collective bargaining organizations. This constitutes approximately 50% of those professional employees eligible for union membership (i.e. neither managerial nor self-employed). Represented are such varied practitioners as musicians, doctors, nurses, actors, broadcasters, school teachers, college professors and engineers.

Q Ok, let’s talk specifics--what about bread and butter issues like wages and salaries. Is there any difference between working union versus non-union?

A Women and men who belong to unions bring home bigger paychecks than non-union workers. With union representation, workers earn 34 percent more than unrepresented workers, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. This "union advantage"—more money in union members’ paychecks—exists in almost every occupation, from service and factory workers to clerical and professional employees. Today’s unions mean even more for women and minorities. Union women earn 40 percent more than non-union women, African American union members earn 44 percent more and for Latino workers,

2

the "union advantage" is a whopping 53 percent! So it doesn’t cost to join a union , it actually pays and pays well!

Q How about benefits—are they any better?

A Union families have much better benefits:

•

Some 85 percent of union workers in large and medium-sized workplaces have employer-provided health care benefits, compared with only 74 percent of unrepresented workers.

•

If injury or illness keeps us off the job, nearly two-thirds of union workers (63 percent) have short-term disability benefits, compared with less than half (47 percent) of unrepresented workers.

• On pensions, union members are much more likely to enjoy secure retirement benefits. Nearly eight in 10 union workers—compared with about four in 10 non-union workers—have "defined-benefit" pension plans, which are federally insured and provide a guaranteed monthly benefit. And, because union members are better paid during our working years, we earn larger pensions—and have a better chance to save for retirement.

What about job security—do the unions make a difference here too?

A Besides protecting workers from arbitrary employer actions relating to discipline and dismissals, because unions make jobs better union members are more likely to stay at their jobs than non-union workers. That’s one reason why six out of every 10 union members have been with the same employer for 10 years or more—compared with only three of every 10 unrepresented workers. Better training, lower turnover and workers’ voice in decision-making about how work gets done also mean that unions increase productivity, according to most recent studies.

Q What can a union offer me on things like working conditions, hours of work, etc.?

A Union contracts often provide for fair and flexible working hours, better pay for overtime and work on evenings and weekends, more paid holidays, paid family and medical leave and employer help with child care and elder care. Besides your union contract, unions lobby for better laws and programs to help America’s working families. Unions were a major force behind passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act and are working hard for improved child care, elder care and other policies. With today’s unions, working people have a better chance to balance not only our family budgets—but our family schedules as well. At a time when balancing the demands of jobs and families is a challenge for most working Americans, today’s unions help working women and men gain some control over our lives.

Q As a professional, my training has taught be to be a problem solver. Does the collective bargaining process always have to be adversarial?

3

A No it doesn’t. However, in the "new economy" it is incumbent upon both sides—labor and management—to devise new ways to bargain. The emergence of new and innovative models of collective bargaining is already underway. The American economy is in the throes of dynamic change - from blue collar to white, from manufacturing to service, from low skill to high, from hands to brains. In the process, technological change is widening the scope of collective bargaining as professional employees increasingly are demanding a voice in the workplace and a say in their futures.
For example, recently seven national unions—all DPE affiliates—representing over 64,000 front-line care givers covered by more than 20 local unions bargained collectively with Kaiser Permanente, one of the nation’s largest health care providers. In a historic five-year agreement, their front line health care workers will have a greater voice in the crucial decisions affecting the quality of patient care at Kaiser facilities. In many other unionized workplaces, labor and management today are exploring numerous partnerships and innovative methods of collectively bargaining along with problem solving arrangements.

Q Won’t a union stifle individual achievement with things like raises and promotions determined solely by seniority?

A Salaries and promotions are bona fide subjects for collective bargaining. Without a union, management makes these decisions unilaterally, usually without any worker input. Through collective bargaining, management and union must agree on the mechanisms to be used, and that agreement is included in a legally binding contract. There are no preconditions. Employees, through their elected union representatives, may bargain for any viable system they believe best suits their profession and employment condition. For example, some union contracts provide not only for annual cost of living increase but as well for a pool of dollars for merit increases that work in combination to assure minimum equity while providing for recognition of individual achievement.
Seniority need not be the only criterion for promotion. A formal procedure could be devised which would include ratings by both supervisors and peers, credit for advanced education and training programs, and anything else that is deemed relevant by the professional group. A formal promotion and layoff procedure with rules known by all is preferable to no ground rules at all. But such a system can only be devised and implemented by a union and its members.

Q What guarantees do I have that my union leadership won’t commit me to follow rules with which I don’t agree?

A Union officers are elected by the grassroots membership of the union. Federal law requires that secret ballot procedures be used, and that elections for local officers be held at least every three years. Indeed, the right of the individual to affect policy in a union is far better protected by law and the constitution, rules and procedures of the union than in any other private organization.

4

http://www.dpeaflcio.org/pdf/Profess...%203-17-08.pdf

http://aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/professionals.cfm

http://www.dpeaflcio.org/faq.htm

Rgds....

[suanna]

Whatever your opinion of nursing unions I can respect your right to have it. I only ask if you are not willing to support a union don't even apply to a hospital that has a organized nursing department- we don't want you. Many nurses have put thier careers on the line to participate in a strike if called upon to do so. As a result working conditions, job rules, benifits, professional autonomy and opportunities for advancement may be very attractive at that hospital. If you accept the benifits won for the nurses through thier union you should also be willing to participate in a job action if called upon to do so to keep those benifits. If you are not willing to strike please work somewhere else. No one wants a strike. No one wins in a strike. But sometimes, as a last resort, it takes a strike to make your collective voice loud enough to be heard over the other voices competing for the hospitals budget. The membership must vote to authorize any strike, the membership must approve any contract.
As an individual member of some unions you can ask that the portion of your dues that are used for political action be witheld- better yet, get involved and make your opinion heard. The unions want to represent thier members- if what they are advocating isn't your voice- change thier focus- you are the union.

[diveRN]

Originally Posted by suanna

Whatever your opinion of nursing unions I can respect your right to have it. I only ask if you are not willing to support a union don't even apply to a hospital that has a organized nursing department- we don't want you. Many nurses have put thier careers on the line to participate in a strike if called upon to do so. As a result working conditions, job rules, benifits, professional autonomy and opportunities for advancement may be very attractive at that hospital. If you accept the benifits won for the nurses through thier union you should also be willing to participate in a job action if called upon to do so to keep those benifits. If you are not willing to strike please work somewhere else. No one wants a strike. No one wins in a strike. But sometimes, as a last resort, it takes a strike to make your collective voice loud enough to be heard over the other voices competing for the hospitals budget. The membership must vote to authorize any strike, the membership must approve any contract.
As an individual member of some unions you can ask that the portion of your dues that are used for political action be witheld- better yet, get involved and make your opinion heard. The unions want to represent thier members- if what they are advocating isn't your voice- change thier focus- you are the union.

See, this is part of the problem I have with unions. By nature, they are divisive. The whole, "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality is irritating. With all unions, it's always "us vs. them." For all the talk of solidarity and brotherhood, unions draw a formal dividing line within an organization.

As a result working conditions, job rules, benifits, professional autonomy and opportunities for advancement may be very attractive at that hospital.

Your whole, "don't tread on my turf" attitude is double talk. You claim that you're for unionization for the same reasons that you're telling other nurses not to work somewhere? So which is it? Shouldn't a nurse be able to go out and get the best deal they can? Isn't that what unions are about? Or is that only when union nurses are involved?

As for union involvement, I have no desire to go to meetings and listen to gripe sessions about how bad things are. If I want to do that, I'll turn on the news channel. As a union member, I have no individual voice, I have a collective voice. To effect change in a union, I would have to invest significant time and energy into selling my ideas and persuading others to my point of view. Why would I do that when I could spend the same (or less) amount of time finding a job environment that more closely suited my needs and desires?

While I believe in standing up for one's beliefs, I just don't agree with the angry/adversarial attitude that most unionites display.

[suanna]

Originally Posted by diveRN

See, this is part of the problem I have with unions. By nature, they are divisive. The whole, "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality is irritating. With all unions, it's always "us vs. them." For all the talk of solidarity and brotherhood, unions draw a formal dividing line within an organization.

Your whole, "don't tread on my turf" attitude is double talk. You claim that you're for unionization for the same reasons that you're telling other nurses not to work somewhere? So which is it? Shouldn't a nurse be able to go out and get the best deal they can? Isn't that what unions are about? Or is that only when union nurses are involved?

As for union involvement, I have no desire to go to meetings and listen to gripe sessions about how bad things are. If I want to do that, I'll turn on the news channel. As a union member, I have no individual voice, I have a collective voice. To effect change in a union, I would have to invest significant time and energy into selling my ideas and persuading others to my point of view. Why would I do that when I could spend the same (or less) amount of time finding a job environment that more closely suited my needs and desires?

While I believe in standing up for one's beliefs, I just don't agree with the angry/adversarial attitude that most unionites display.

I,m sorry- I just don't understand your point of view. All I am saying is that involves risk and effort to accomplish the gains a nursing union has made over years of negotiation. If you join the hospital knowing you will not support the memberships decision to strike, if it ever occurs, you are reaping the benifits of other nurses risks and effort without putting forth any effort of taking any risk yourself. That seems dishonest. The union is only as strong as the members behind it. If a bunch of nurses come into the hospital who are not willing to support a strike then it won't be long before all the gains will be reversed and all out sacrafice will be for nothing. As for investing significant time to selling others on your point of view vs working elswhere- that is what I'm saying-work elswhere if you don't want to contribute to the unions goals- just don't steal our gains then stab us in the back if a strike comes. In fact, you are increasing our risk. If the hospital knows there are a number of nurses that will cross from the outset then thay have no reason to offer thier best to us. The greatest tool we have is not a strike but the fear of a strike. If they don't fear us going out you have taken the tool we have used to get where we are, and made you want to work here to begin with!

[diveRN]

Originally Posted by suanna

I,m sorry- I just don't understand your point of view. All I am saying is that involves risk and effort to accomplish the gains a nursing union has made over years of negotiation. If you join the hospital knowing you will not support the memberships decision to strike, if it ever occurs, you are reaping the benifits of other nurses risks and effort without putting forth any effort of taking any risk yourself. That seems dishonest.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and pose some hypothetical questions. I appreciate your candor. However, if your union chooses to strike because they think you're being treated unfairly as a union member, why shouldn't I take advantage of the situation if it means more money for me, better benefits, better working hours, etc? Isn't that what you're doing to the company when you organize a union?

Can you tell me what the largest cost is that an employer pays in today's economy? Why do you want someone you've likely never met managing your retirement?

Originally Posted by suanna

The union is only as strong as the members behind it. If a bunch of nurses come into the hospital who are not willing to support a strike then it won't be long before all the gains will be reversed and all out sacrafice will be for nothing.

But if I gain from it, how are "all the gains" reversed? They may be reversed for the union, but not for me. Selfish? It's all a matter of perspective.

Originally Posted by suanna

As for investing significant time to selling others on your point of view vs working elswhere- that is what I'm saying-work elswhere if you don't want to contribute to the unions goals- just don't steal our gains then stab us in the back if a strike comes. In fact, you are increasing our risk. If the hospital knows there are a number of nurses that will cross from the outset then thay have no reason to offer thier best to us. The greatest tool we have is not a strike but the fear of a strike. If they don't fear us going out you have taken the tool we have used to get where we are, and made you want to work here to begin with!

As far as work is concerned, I put my profession in front of my job. This part may be hard to understand, but I can be a nurse anywhere. My livelihood isn't centered around my employer as yours seems to be around the union. I'm an RN first, an employee second.

If my employer treats me fairly and provides an appropriate wage, I reciprocate that with my loyalty and service. However, if my employer treats me poorly or seeks to undermine my earning potential compared to others in my profession then I would move on and seek employment elsewhere. It's their job and they can pay whatever they want and treat people as they please, but that doesn't mean I have to work there.

As for fearing a strike, do you really believe that? Invoking FEAR to get your way? See, this is a point of view that I don't understand. This sounds like a mob tactic to me.

There was a time and place for unions when there were few laws to protect workers and they were exploited in such a way that's detrimental to society at large. Today, there are ample labor laws to protect workers from exploitation. Today's unions are about nothing more than a money grab.

[Shaggyb2000]

Union ideas come from the great ideology of socialism. H2M has POSITIVE quotes about union's from Big Union websites. SHOCKING! They want everybody to be equal, but guess what? The only way to make everyone absolutely equal is to take everything from everyone so no one has any more than the next. And don't give me the tired rhetoric of "slave labor" and working class. America doesn't have a "working class" and "elites". America has employees and employers. No one has to work for any benefit except for his own. Unless you're in a union and have to do exactly what they want or risk intimidation which I know of personally by the NALC(National Association of Letter Carriers). And their talk and motivation sounds exactly like what the ANA promotes for nurses in hospitals and around the country.

[herring_RN]

Originally Posted by diveRN

No unions for me.

I believe if we're going to elevate how the public views RNs and the work we do, we need to be professionals and act like one. When was the last time you heard a doc whine about being treated unfairly, overwhelming paperwork, or having to see 40 patients in one day? I've heard them talk about it, but never whine.

Gallup Poll Names Nurses America's Most TRUSTED Profession for Nearly a Decade

According to an annual Gallup survey on honesty and ethics, eighty-three percent of Americans placed nurses in the number one position as the most trusted professionals for the ninth consecutive year.
Nurses have averaged an 81 percent 'very high' or 'high' rating for ethical and honesty standards since first appearing on the list in 1999.
The exception was 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, when firefighters held the top spot.

http://www.discovernursing.com/newsl...iew.aspx?id=64

http://mondaymorninginsight.com/inde...d_pharmacists/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...71/ai_64424160

[HM2Viking]

There was a time and place for unions when there were few laws to protect workers and they were exploited in such a way that's detrimental to society at large. Today, there are ample labor laws to protect workers from exploitation. Today's unions are about nothing more than a money grab.

I think you better take a little bit of time to read the Kentucky River Decisions which effecctively acts to strip OT eligibility from charge nurses.

BUSHCO has pushed back hard against the rights of workers to collectively bargain for improved wages and working conditions and attempted to restrict the potection of these laws. A few examples come to mind in no particular order:

A. Stripping TSA employees of collective bargaining rights and due process.
B. Attempted suspension of Davis-Bacon in the gulf states following Katrina.
C. Attempting to strip OT rights from workers (And advising employers how to cut pay for workers.)
D. Attempts to destroy SS.

The laws are only as good as those charged with enforcing them. Your belief that the law will protect you as an individual absent a strong labor movement that aggressively protects those laws is naive.

Professionalism and union membership are not mutually exclusive. If anything the unionized hospitals achieve higher quality care which by definition indicates a higher standard of care. For that matter the standard of societal achievement in areas such as education and health outcomes tends to be better in the states with a strong labor movement tradition.

[HM2Viking]

......