[Chico David RN]

Since a couple of thoughtful participants in this thread have stated a desire for a deeper and perhaps cooler discussion, I decided I'll give it a try.

Trying to step back a bit to the underlying principles at work and away from the heat of particular events. It's clear, that every event looks very different from different angles.

There is a general prejudice in the labor movement against "raiding". There is a commonly held belief - or at least lip service to a belief - that once a given union has organized a group of workers, it is beyond the pale for another union to interfere in that relationship. It is also a fact that nearly every union in existance has raided at some time in their history. And, since we are all supposed to believe that raids are bad, every union that raids feels the need to justify it in various ways. Presumably, some of the justifications are more sincere than others, but that is also in the eye of the beholder.

There is an alternate belief here and there ( more people will say this privately than publicly): that prohibitions on raids serve the needs of unions as institutions, but not necessarily those of workers. This school of thought would say that workers are not property and that a group of workers who desire to leave their union for one that serves their needs better should be free to do so and that no-raid agreements limit their freedom to do so. I am not speaking here for either point of view - merely pointing out that both points of view exist.

The minority who don't think raids are so bad would tend to feel that the competition among unions would improve the breed in a sense - keep unions from becoming complacent, force them to better serve their members.

The majority, who feel that raids are bad, would say that raiding makes it impossible for unions to work together in the larger interest of workers and that the raiding takes up energy that should be used for the common good.

Each of these point of view has some value.

Now, cutting a little bit closer to home, where it is harder to be truly objective, but I'll try:
CNA and SEIU have philosophies that diverge on two main points, aside from any personality or numbers issues.
those points are basically:
1. RN vs all workers.
2. standards vs numbers.

I understand one point of view from the inside out and the other only as an observer, so it's hard to do equal justice to both, but let's see if I can try.

On the first point, CNA belives that, while all workers are valued and all workers should be in unions, the Registered Nurse has a unique role in the system and should speak with a unique voice. We are the only members of the team that are commanded, both by the traditions of our profession and by our nurse practice act (in California at least) to act as patient advocates. We also have a role in the public trust that is unique. Being able to speak with the undiluted voice of the registered nurse, unmixed with other points of view, gives us an authority that has served us and the public very well in a series of political fights. We have been able, in many places, to work in close concert with other unions, including SEIU's California locals, to organize other workers and to support each other. But by being separate, we can go the way that our professional duty demands, without some of the political considerations we would have if we represented many different job descriptions.

SEIU, on the other hand, believes in the strength of numbers and believes that having all the workers in a facility under the same union umbrella is the best way.

One could no doubt cite examples to support both viewpoints.

On standards, SEIU leaders have generally stated something like this point of view:
That union density - numbers - both within an area and within an industry are the key to strength. They have also stated that it is worth it to give up some traditional standards and ideals in order to achieve growth, with the hope/belief that once the growth/numbers have been achieved the strength that comes with the numbers will bring back some of what was sacrificed in the short term. This has taken the form, for example, of giving up various aspects of worker/union rights in exchange for organizing agreements with employers: the right to strike, the right to bargain over wage rates in at least one instance, the right to bargain for improved health benfits or retirement benefits in others. In some instances, partnerships are formed in which the union agrees to support the employer's legislative agenda or use its political power to help relieve regulatory "burdens" on the employer. What the union asks in return, is an easier path to organizing, leading to greater growth, ultimately, in theory, leading to greater union power, and eventually, in theory, to a better life for the workers. SEIU leaders, notably international president Andrew Stern, have stated that unions need to align their interest with that of employers, show employers how the union can "add value" and abandon the old model of the boss as the enemy of the worker.

CNA/NNOC, by contrast, tends to believe that standards, once surrendered, do not usually come back. While we have grown quite fast, we have generally done it without the need to sacrifice standards. In particular, we believe that the RN role as patient advocate and public advocate can never be sacrificed to make agreements in the name of growth. We have certainly made use of neutrality agreements with employers, but generally have won those agreements at the bargaining table, rather than giving up things we think are important to win them. We think that long term strength, and even long term growth, come from: winning good enough contracts to give employees a reason to organize, giving workers the greatest possible role and the truest possible union democracy, and aligning our interest with the interest of the public believing, as we do, that what is good for the patient and the public and what is good for the nurse are nearly always the same. CNA leaders believe that, while the interest of the employer and the interest of the worker can sometimes run together, they more often are different and a union - especially a union representing nurses - can never subordinate the nurses obligation to the patient to the interest of the employer.

that's my best effort for the moment. I am leaving for 3 week vacation out of the US in a couple days, so I won't be able to stick around for an extended exchange, which I rather regret. Not enough to stay home, though. Hopefully others will pick up the thread.

[lucretiamott]

Dear all,

If you have read anything about the woman whose birthday we celebrate tomorrow, she was a radical, a revolutionary, a bit of a trouble maker and above all an idealist who felt that it was her vocation in life to not only improve the lot of the sick, but open doors and windows to women who were not allowed to have a voice, let alone a position of authority and responsibility in English society. She fought many battles with doctors who viewed nurses as servants with no brains, government officials in the military and in public health who viewed dainty women like her like pests and lastly, her own family and a society who believed women should restrict their activities to the parlor when it came to political or religious thoughts. She wrote a small novel, "Cassandra" that would have scandalized British strait-laced society had it been published in her lifetime, intimating that Christ, upon returning for his second try, would come back as a women, fight for the poor and not be recognized as significant because he chose to return in the form of a woman whose significance in society has already been discussed. The best work so far about her, "The Making of A Radical Theologian" by British historian, Val Webb, is a testimony to her fighting spirit and her determination to change herself and better the lot of the common man in her day.

I am new to "allnurses" but I am not new to nursing. I have been an RN for 17 years and thing as an NP (13 years now) have gone from good, to bad to ugly when it comes to my practice in public health and health care in general. It is becomig more difficult to care for patients given our current system that asks for the cash, the credit card and insurance number first before we find out why our patients are sick. If you do manage to get through the door you will be billed, co-payed and deductibled to death. The system is currently on life-support supported by the largest, meanest and lastly, socio-pathic group of corporations, insurance companies and hospital chains, who like the oil companies gouge us to death, literally, to make money off our patient's pain and suffering and our naivete over our ethical duty to fight this system on behalf the woman who struggled to build for us.

I have read the comments about the need for "unity" for all nurses. But unity at the expense of what?? I have followed the arguments carefully, and as an SEIU nurse who has seen my local change from a small, fighting local into a large conglomerate who is currently, capitulating to the downtown interests, I yearn for a return to our days when we challenged vocally and militantly and won back our services with our patients at our side. Now, we sit and watch as 14 critical care PHN's are lost, our workman's comp clinic out-sourced, nursing home units closed and nurses re-assigned and credit card readers in my clinic and even in homeless clinics up and ready to go to charge my patients for the services I know many cannot afford. There has not be a mailer, a flyer
or a fax to organize or inform of planned rallies or efforts to fight this time. But there have been many flyers, mailers and pizza meeting to bash CNA/NNOC over the past few weeks. Mr. Stern's letter rings hollow, when there are many nurses like the 400 in Reno, who long for a change out of SEIU. The head of that local even intimated that the 400 who voted were ill-informed and plain stupid and didn't quite understand what they were signing even though the card clearly stated the obvious. SEIU-I is dumbing down the process itself. That is why there is a reform movement within SEIU-I, ltself to take back the locals and return member-driven priorities back to the local level.

In conclusion, the issues for the registered nurse in this debate, have gone beyond just what union will represent us in collective bargaining. It is fundamentally, about who will control our practice, our voice as advocates for our patients and who has the will, the spirit, the determination to fight a system that doesn't respect that practice nor our judgement. Unity is a comforting concept but unity at the expense of silencing the voice of the RN as a patient advocate or allowing that practice to be controlled by a system bent on placing us between good nursing judgement and our employers will to save or make money isn't ethical. As Florence would say, "All the results of good nursing, can be undone by one thing and one thing alone, petty management". She understood that concept even in the mid 1800's that management, in what ever form it took, would try and undermine that judgement when allowed too.

Therefore, I would invite, those who want unity above all to read the life and work, of the woman we celebrate tomorrow. She has been in the shadows of history far too long. She was a radical, a mystic, an innovator and a militant who fought long and hard to give us the profession we have today. In my opinion, she would relish the debate going on in nursing but in the end support those who would challenge the system itself, the thinkers and the visionaries who want to change our system before it radically, changes us.

I thank my colleagues at CNA/NNOC who speak for me and my patients.

[lucretiamott]

Dear all,

If you have read anything about the woman whose birthday we celebrate tomorrow, she was a radical, a revolutionary, a bit of a trouble maker and above all an idealist who felt that it was her vocation in life to not only improve the lot of the sick, but open doors and windows to women who were not allowed to have a voice, let alone a position of authority and responsibility in English society. She fought many battles with doctors who viewed nurses as servants with no brains, government officials in the military and in public health who viewed dainty women like her like pests and lastly, her own family and a society who believed women should restrict their activities to the parlor when it came to political or religious thoughts. She wrote a small novel, "Cassandra" that would have scandalized British strait-laced society had it been published in her lifetime, intimating that Christ, upon returning for his second try, would come back as a women, fight for the poor and not be recognized as significant because he chose to return in the form of a woman whose significance in society has already been discussed. The best work so far about her, "The Making of A Radical Theologian" by British historian, Val Webb, is a tehttp://allnurses.com/forums/images/smilies/added/cry.gifstimony to her fighting spirit and her determination to change herself and better the lot of the common man in her day.

I am new to "allnurses" but I am not new to nursing. I have been an RN for 17 years and thing as an NP (13 years now) have gone from good, to bad to ugly when it comes to my practice in public health and health care in general. It is becomig more difficult to care for patients given our current system that asks for the cash, the credit card and insurance number first before we find out why our patients are sick. If you do manage to get through the door you will be billed, co-payed and deductibled to death. The system is currently on life-support supported by the largest, meanest and lastly, socio-pathic group of corporations, insurance companies and hospital chains, who like the oil companies gouge us to death, literally, to make money off our patient's pain and suffering and our naivete over our ethical duty to fight this system on behalf the woman who struggled to build for us.

I have read the comments about the need for "unity" for all nurses. But unity at the expense of what?? I have followed the arguments carefully, and as an SEIU nurse who has seen my local change from a small, fighting local into a large conglomerate who is currently, capitulating to the downtown interests, I yearn for a return to our days when we challenged vocally and militantly and won back our services with our patients at our side. Now, we sit and watch as 14 critical care PHN's are lost, our workman's comp clinic out-sourced, nursing home units closed and nurses re-assigned and credit card readers in my clinic and even in homeless clinics up and ready to go to charge my patients for the services I know many cannot afford. There has not be a mailer, a flyer
or a fax to organize or inform of planned rallies or efforts to fight this time. But there have been many flyers, mailers and pizza meeting to bash CNA/NNOC over the past few weeks. Mr. Stern's letter rings hollow, when there are many nurses like the 400 in Reno, who long for a change out of SEIU. The head of that local even intimated that the 400 who voted were ill-informed and plain stupid and didn't quite understand what they were signing even though the card clearly stated the obvious. SEIU-I is dumbing down the process itself. That is why there is a reform movement within SEIU-I, ltself to take back the locals and return member-driven priorities back to the local level.

In conclusion, the issues for the registered nurse in this debate, have gone beyond just what union will represent us in collective bargaining. It is fundamentally, about who will control our practice, our voice as advocates for our patients and who has the will, the spirit, the determination to fight a system that doesn't respect that practice nor our judgement. Unity is a comforting concept but unity at the expense of silencing the voice of the RN as a patient advocate or allowing that practice to be controlled by a system bent on placing us between good nursing judgement and our employers will to save or make money isn't ethical. As Florence would say, "All the results of good nursing, can be undone by one thing and one thing alone, petty management". She understood that concept even in the mid 1800's that management, in what ever form it took, would try and undermine that judgement when allowed too.

Therefore, I would invite, those who want unity above all to read the life and work, of the woman we celebrate tomorrow. She has been in the shadows of history far too long. She was a radical, a mystic, an innovator and a militant who fought long and hard to give us the profession we have today. In my opinion, she would relish the debate going on in nursing but in the end support those who would challenge the system itself, the thinkers and the visionaries who want to change our system before it radically, changes us.

I thank my colleagues at CNA/NNOC who speak for me and my patients.

[bittersweet symphony]

After all of the years that NYSNA has been taking dues, and done nothing, like NO MANDATORY OVERTIME, like SAFE STAFFING, and has jumped on the band wagon with the CNA/NNOC people are starting to realize that it's all about the dues, it's all about the money. Lorraine Seidel and Roseann De Moro are not nursing leaders. Roseann is not a nurse, and she was a teamsters. Lorraine has not worked as a nurse since 1982, and she was a director for 1199 RN division and was termed. She then worked for the screen actors guild for 11 yrs. NYSNA disaffiliated from the UAN without the members vote. The members voted against it. St Rose, Las Vegas, did not win a majority of the vote to join the CNA. So history repeats itself, be careful dont sign anything and do your homework.

[RN1989]

I talked with a friend who is in a union. She did not have a choice NOT to join the union when she went to work for her facility. She had to pay money up front before she even got her first paycheck to "join" the union. They tried to collect dues from her even when she was not working/earning a salary due to being on a leave of absence. She rectified that problem after talking to her rep. Although there are specific incidents that she has not liked about the union, she feels that it has helped the overall working conditions of her facility.

Anywhere there is money involved there is greed and the temptation to bend standards and look the other way. All are steppingstones to outright illegal and unethical actions. I do think that unions could help more nurses. But the greed and dirty politics of it is what turns nursing into a common job and makes us look like we are not professionals.

[lucretiamott]

CNA/NNOC executive director Rose-Ann DeMoro, although, you are correct isn't an RN, neither is Mr. Andy Stern or past, executive director of SEIU 790, Josie Moonie. If I had to chose who I would want to hire to lead a profession of RN's as an executive director, the later two choices, given their current and past tract records , their late in the day and than stellar performance on protecting staff nursing ratios against our Govenator in 05 and their silence on single-payer, medicare for all program, then Rose-Ann wins hands down for me on issues that should be at the for-front of the debate on health care reform in this nation.

Executive Director Rose-Ann DeMoro has a proven tract record of not being afraid to stand up for CNA/NNOC beliefs that safe-staffing and a single-payer health care system would go along way in improving patient care and access to that care by patients shut out of this system. She has stood her ground with a grace and dignity that even her detractors must acknowledge on behalf of nurses who will continue to fight for these issues.

If Florence Nightingale were alive today, she would have hired Rose Ann in a heart-beat to help her organize her own struggles to improve the care practices of nurses and fight for better care for patients.
lucretiamott