[HM2Viking]

America since Reagan is the land of opportunity only if you won the uterine lottery. See:


http://www.cbpp.org/12-14-07inc.htm

The point is that union workers earn an average of 20% more than nonunion workers. I think the record speaks for itself as to the failures of economic policy since Reagan.

[erdiane]

question please! I was told today, by fellow nurses that since AZ is a "right to work" state that unions here have no "teeth". We can be fired for "no reason". I was also told that a certain hospital "chain" told it's nurses in no uncertain terms that they would be fired for "talking to union members, talking about unions, distributing info about unions" "at the drop of a hat". Isn't this illegal? Even in a right to work state? I guess they can make up some sort of excuse to fire a nurse, but isn't it illegal to fire a nurse related to union organizing activities? One nurse opioned that the reason this chain is so big in AZ is because we ARE a "right to work" state, and therefore a very weak union state.

opinions please!!!!

[pickledpepperRN]

The Arizona law prohibits denying a person the right to work if the individual does not belong to a labor union.
http://www.nrtw.org/c/azrtwlaw.htm

The Federal National Labor Relations act states it is illegal to interfere with an employees right to join or assist a labor union:

...Sec. 7. [§ 157.] Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) [section 158(a)(3) of this title].
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title];
(2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 6 [section 156 of this title], an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay;
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization ...

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/legal/manuals/rules/act.pdf

It can be tricky because union activity must not interfere with work.
And an employer may not be honest about why the person was disciplined.
I do not think it is any different organizing with a union in Arizona than it is in California except that joining the union cannot be mandatory.

[ingelein]

There are two terms that I repeatedly hear misused, one is "right to work state" and the other is "at will state". I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, that a "right to work" state is merely a state in which , IF there is a union present in your workplace, you cannot be fired for refusing to join. Now the other term, "at will state" is a state in which one can be fired for any reason, having nothing what so ever to do with unions.

http://phoenix.about.com/cs/empl/a/righttowork.htm
http://jobsearchtech.about.com/gi/dy...4/150/269/ART/

[Jeffthenurse]

If you really want to see a couple of great unions that helped their constituients considerably, then take a look at the National Football League Players Association or the Major League (Baseball) Players Association. Those unions took salaries from an average of $40,000/year to over $1 Million/year, threw out the reserve clause in baseball, started free-agency in both leagues, gave the substitutes (bench-warmers) over $300,000/yr in salaries, initiated starting salaries of over $200,000/year ---, anything short of the aggressiveness and arrogance of the players in those unions will result in salaries of less than $100,000/yr, lousy working conditions, and the opportunity to be criminally charged if anything goes wrong with any of the patients in our care. If we don't do something aggressive, then we'll have to live with what we have now.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Jeffthenurse

If you really want to see a couple of great unions that helped their constituients considerably, then take a look at the National Football League Players Association or the Major League (Baseball) Players Association. Those unions took salaries from an average of $40,000/year to over $1 Million/year, threw out the reserve clause in baseball, started free-agency in both leagues, gave the substitutes (bench-warmers) over $300,000/yr in salaries, initiated starting salaries of over $200,000/year ---, anything short of the aggressiveness and arrogance of the players in those unions will result in salaries of less than $100,000/yr, lousy working conditions, and the opportunity to be criminally charged if anything goes wrong with any of the patients in our care. If we don't do something aggressive, then we'll have to live with what we have now.

No comparison to average unions. Neither the NFL nor MLB has competition; they are monopolies, one, a Congressionally protected monopoly.

In addition, taxpayers generally heavily subsidize their playing venues, leaving the owners free to invest in 'talent'.

Add in TV and franchise selling rights that make the owners millions - but only if they bring to bear 'million dollar talent', and you have a perfect storm for talent.

Indeed, just like movie stars, the fact that players are paid so much is part of the allure, part of the attraction. To the owners, paying for talent is a cost of doing business, not a function of unionization. besides, with a protected market and massive gov't subsidies, paying for players is much easier to do.

I would suggest that pro sports is not a very accurate analogy for everyday workplaces. Just as I would suggest that unions have very little to do with those salaries (except for the NFL - and then the unions have participated in LIMITING salaries with approval of a salary cap.)

~faith,
Timothy.

[Jeffthenurse]

You have some good points but what I wanted everyone to look at was what those players did-----they risked their careers for the opportunity to band together to make it better for everyone. I remember Curt Flood, centerfielder for the St Louis Cardinals, who really got the whole thing started when he filed a lawsuit against the baseball owners in order to get rid of the reserve clause, which he considered a form of slavery. He gave up a part of his career for that. Years before that, the organizers of the AFL-CIO risked getting beaten up in order to unionize and make it better for every working person. Remember the dangerous "sweatshops" in the garment industry where workers were at risk for dying in unsafe buildings? OSHA, building codes, L&I all came about because people came together to raise their voices and do something to change their condition. Sometimes it takes drastic action.

[HM2Viking]

Although it is true that only about 20 percent of American workers are in unions, that 20 percent sets the standards across the board in salaries, benefits and working conditions. If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is give out money out of the goodness of their hearts. Molly Ivins

[HM2Viking]

Another study that elucidates the union premium:

<H3>Unions and Upward Mobility for Low-Wage Workers

August 2007, John Schmitt, Margy Waller, Shawn Fremstad and Ben Zipperer

This report analyzes 15 of the lowest paying occupations in the United States and finds that unionized workers earn about 16% more than their non-unionized counterparts. Unionized workers in the same industries are also 25 percentage points more likely to have health insurance or a pension plan.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/public...rdMobility.pdf</H3>

[mobilsurgrn]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Although it is true that only about 20 percent of American workers are in unions, that 20 percent sets the standards across the board in salaries, benefits and working conditions. If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions.

So that 20% is obviously smarter than the other 80%..

Where's the data? Which union sets the standard for what I make?

Is there a study that shows that union nurses have better compensation (salary, benefits) after subtracting dues, than non union? Or research that shows that union nurses are more satisfied with their jobs than the overwhelming majority of non-union nurses? How about retention? Do union nurses stay in their jobs longer than non-union? Are union nurses better trained (meaning do they attend CE and attain certification at higher rates?)

If this were true unions could easily double their memberships in a few years. I think we would all agree that new members are the life blood (read DUES) of unions. What could a study like this cost, maybe $1-2 million? I think that may be a very liberal estimate.

So, if any of these notions were even possible, the CNA (AFL-CIO), UAN, NYSNA, and SEIU, who combined, collected over $100 million from nurses last year would be tripping over themselves to publish those studies, wouldn't they?