ANA membership - page 6
I would like your input and opinions. What do you think about membership in the ANA? Advantages? Disadvantages?:confused:... Read More
Jan 7, '02<You find those posts and post them. If you do I will leave this bulletin board and appolgize.>
I have no intention of searching thru your tirades just to read your apology. Its not really that important. It doesnt matter to me if youre on this board or not. In fact, because you ARE here posting as you do, a lot of people have had the opportunity to clear up much of their misconceptions and misinformation about our national professional association and our national nurses union - so thank you.
If you want to re-read your own posts, go look under all the different threads where you discussed the Nurse Reinvestment Act - you know - the legislation you think is going to put agency and travel nurses out of business. You'll probably have to go thru many pages but Im sure you'll find all the ones where you talked about filling our ranks with welfare recipients, undesirable "targets" of the bill, etc. ( do you have any idea how many past & current nurses have already been on public assistance at one time or another??)
Youre so worried about that legislation because it will help to alleviate the shortage to come, & as a travel/agency nurse, you are looking out for your own interests.
But youre sounding like youre stomping your foot & having a tantrum because you cant have your way & get everybody to agree with your opinion.Last edit by -jt on Jan 7, '02
Jan 7, '02Jt you continue to stoop lower and lower.
I have been more than clear about my reason for my opposition to this legislation and it has nothing to do with my own self interest. It is about interests of all existing nurses who could pay the long term price for this legislation in more ways than one.
You have the nerve to again try and fabricate stuff that is not true in regards to something that I did not say about people on welfare.
You prove it then.
Jan 7, '02Wild, be a man..at LEAST admit what you DID say. It was easy to find at least one example of the derogatory remarks you made about welfare and the reinvestment act:
Originally posted by wildtime88
[B]Is this a possible CEO or AHA perspective on pending legislation?
If I were a CEO of a hospital, I would be encouraging everyone to write to his or her legislator. I would even provide the postage as well as pay them 5 or 10 dollars to send a postcard in support of the recruitment legislation. I would on the other hand be publicly against the legislation against mandatory OT, but privately I would be telling all my other counter parts to allow it to pass without major resistance.
Now why would I do such a thing. It is simple in the long run it will be beneficial to me in keeping costs down and ensure that my personal income to rise.
How exactly would that happen you ask. Simple, the recruitment legislation will provide me with brand new needed personnel that I can use to replace the nurses who are harassing me for more money and benefits. All I have to do is to continue to pay the same stagnated wages and benefits once it passes. As experienced nurses leave, I can put in my request for more nurses. I will be paying a fare wage when compared to the other hospitals even though it might be as much as 5 dollars less than the national average. In fact, me and my friends have already talked about again freezing salaries across the country as soon as this legislation passes. Many of us have been talking about how we will be able to use this same legislation to put the reigns on the unions we have to deal with. The legislation will provide a way to cut the bargaining power the unions and nurses in general have at this moment. We as employers only need to show that we are not blatantly abusing nurses. This way the government will pay for the replacements that we will need and put us on the needs list. As an extra bonus to us, they will even prioritize on the women who are on welfare or other forms of assistance. This will be a blessing. They will see the wages we offer as a blessing even if they are lower than today's current level, not to mention the low self esteem and other unresolved negative personality issues they will be coming to us with that will allow us to keep them in check.
Jan 7, '02Are they using smoke and mirrors on you too.. I think you were the CEO in last quoted post weren't you.... Tell me the truth you aren't a CEO are you????????
They just don't get it...
Jan 7, '02Nurse4kids,
I have said this when talking about some existing female nurses. This is a human condition that many people suffer from when they have to rely on someone else for support.
Nursing even has a diagnosis for it is called Hopelessness and Powerlessness. If you do not think that some if not a lot of the individuals will not be have esperienced the effects, then who is more likely to?
This is not what JT was insinuating to and we both know that. "several low comments about welfare lines and food stamps."
Yes I said this and if I was a CEO or CFO and wanted to keep pay to a bare minimum as well as keep control, then I would exploit this to my personal benefit. In fact, in many ways that has been exactly what they have been doing for years.
Do you know what happens when you suddenly get twice as much as you had before? You are grateful and happy even if it is only half of what you should be getting. Do you start sudenly start rocking the boat asking for more? The pay will be the same upon entering but progress can slow down or stagnate. Not just pay, but also movement toward fixing the basic working conditions. I have never said anything about restricting education or opportunities to anyone. I have said that we should pick our problems first so that we can improve the profession for those who could then enter it. And yes, I did say if we fixed the problems that we might not need this legislation in the first place.Last edit by wildtime88 on Jan 7, '02
Jan 8, '02Don,
Bobbi's going to try to find anything she can to discredit me. I'm sure you're aware she and I (the bloodluster) don't quite see eye-to-eye. Bobbi and wild probably meet somewhere in their distrust for our government. If Bobbi had read what I quoted by wildtime, instead of jumping the gun, she would have seen that he was giving us a hypothetical situation. Okay, enough of that..Bobbi has a niche' for turning a thread away from the topic and toward a pacifism/Bobbi argument. We don't want that here.
Okay, I see your point about the welfare receipients. Now, just suppose this: Suppose we get the mass exodus of welfare receipients into the nursing profession that you speak of. Enough to halt any progression of pay, etc. As long as the education requirements aren't lowered for these people, then we should turn out several thousand good nurses. These new nurses will now be CONTRIBUTING to society, not draining the economy. A decrease in welfare receipients would mean a better economy. A better economy would mean that our current pay might not look so bad. If our taxes aren't having to go to support welfare, then gas, groceries, etc wouldn't have to be taxed as high. So, we solve two problems with one solution.
Now, as for CEO's not having to address the problems of nursing, like nurse/patient ratio's, etc. Honey, the shortage is not COMING, it is HERE. The ratio's are hideous in some places and the CEO's have not addressed the problems now. At what point do you think a shortage will force them to address it? As long as there are people willing to sell the profession short for extra $$'s (ie; agency nursing, scabs), the CEO's do not have a problem. No, I'm not attacking agency nurses or scabs. If I didn't have a family, I'd be out there too taking my piece of the pie. But, my point is that with those options, CEO's will NEVER be forced to address the problems. The only way I forsee those problems being addressed is through legislation. Only then will CEO's be forced..only by law.
Jan 8, '02nurses right now are changing things. There is a lot that has just started to happen and we are getting their attention.
There is one thing to remember, legislation can be a double edge sword in that it can cut both ways. The CEOs are protected in that they can always say that the facilities are near collapse and site the need for this or that.
Look around on this board and see how nurses are being treated. Do you think that having a whole bunch more new nurses who are under financial and contractual obligation is going to strengthen us in the long run? We actually have a lot of bargaining power right now to change things from the inside out. Also do not forget that there is legislation to increase the limits on foriegn nurses as well. So not forget that when outsiders attempt to fix things that we might not like the way they do it. Check out the legislation that in Minn that has put limits on how much nurses can get paid who choose to work in LTCs. This pay might be directed at agency nurses, but do you think that the LTCs will now raise wages for regular staff? Look at the topic "Cleveland Clinic destroys wages" under this section of the board. If that works once, do you think that it will not be copied again? Do you think these employers in Cleveland are motivated to change things now?
I think you will understand this.
If I have a fire burning I can contol it in a way to achieve a result such as heat the house of to 80 degrees, then I can use everything available to quickly extinquish it. I could also just put it out anytime and hope that the house will warm up. If we fixed the underlying problems, then all nurse would start recruiting on their own and it would also be seen as good career choice as well.
Remember this legislation also targets the unemployed and High School grads as well. When I asked who would jump at a chance for an all expense paid education including child care and a little extra money on the side, then you saw the answer I got.
Many of us were looking for things to change around do to the power of the nursing shortage. No shortage means, no direct attention from our employers, and no real motivation to have to change things. If an existing nurse does not like the way things are then they will either have to deal with it or leave. Not a problem, the legislation will insure that another person will be paid to come in and take their place. There is no guarantees that the additional legislation will be passed or at least will not be changed when it is strongly opposed.
This is a going to be a big gamble and there is only one group that can actully suffer if it does not work. Nurses.
Jan 8, '02<I have been more than clear about my reason for my opposition to this legislation and it has nothing to do with my own self interest.>
Yet interestingly enough, when discussing this legislation (the Nurse Reinvestment Act) - which helps to fund new nursing students, funds nurses to become nursing educators, and funds the expansion of , and which, incidentally, already has been passed by both houses of Congress, you posted to another agency nurse:
"Here are few words of advice for you. Start looking for a regular staff nurse job and forget your dream of being an independent contractor. Before too long, there will be enough new nurses that you will not be needed to supplement staffing.
12-26-2001 05:45 PM"
I support this legislation & do not agree with you that funding new students to be able to enter nursing programs, funding expansion of nursing programs to be able to accept them, and funding nurses to become educators to teach them so they can begin graduating a few years from now will in anyway negatively impact the work we are also doing now to improve the workplace conditions of today.
Also, you have consistently specualted & complained that the bill, when passed into law, will flood the ranks with welfare recipients just looking for a free education and free child care & no real desire to be nurses. I do not agree that everybody & their cousin will jump at the chance to go to just because there is funding available, but who is to say that someone is wrong for choosing this career just because it might be a free education? Dont we all look at the cost of the education and the opportunity and economics of a career field when deciding on which one to go into? Why condemn someone for considering nursing when they find out they may be eligible for grants which make it an education they can afford?
And if they did choose nursing for these reasons, why not? There are many areas in nursing for them to find their niche. Do we say no one can be a nurse unless they are ONLY doing it for the love of sick people? Are we now to decide who is worthy enough to be allowed to be nurses and who isnt?
No matter what reason people have for going into the profession, they still have to be able to make the grade. Helping more people enter the profession when it was previously unattainable for them before this legislation is not going to destroy the profession or fill it with people who dont measure up.
I know of one RN who was kicked out of her dysfunctional home as a teenager, lived on the streets and sold her body for years to survive. At the age of 20, she got on the welfare rolls and was obligated to give back by obtaining job training while she was receiving public assistance. One option on the list was nursing school paid for by the city - and she took it.
She is one of those who probably never would have considered nursing as a career before being almost forced to, but she excelled in nursing school, passed licensure, is now a successful RN and turned her whole life around. Her first employer was so taken with her honesty in voluntarily revealing her past as a prostitute that she hired her at her first interview.
You have been complaining about the caliber of the students you say the legislation "targets" from the minority groups as it helps those who are disadvantaged & under-represented in the profession the most and you have equated that with meaning recruiting from the welfare rolls. Would this student be one of those welfare women that you have been objecting to?
Just because someone is on welfare or is not choosing nursing for someone elses idea of the "right" reasons is no reason to prevent them from having the opportunity to try. Nobody is handing them a license along with the funding. They still have to do the work to become nurses. The ones who shouldnt be nurses will not make it through.Last edit by -jt on Jan 8, '02
Jan 8, '02Case in point: Myself. I entered the profession because I was offered a "FREE" education. See, I was right the opposite from welfare; Parent's income too high for student aid, father unwilling to pay for college. Granted, he did eventually help fund my education, but many parent's don't. My point is that the ONLY reason I became a nurse was because of the free education. Not a calling, not because I wanted to help people, etc. BUT, I do love nursing and I'm a damn good nurse, so I do not think free education to recruit nurses is a bad idea.
Do you not realize that welfare recipients ALREADY have the options of free education and free childcare while receiving that education?? Transportaton to and from school provided. This bill will not cause anyone to jump into nursing because it's free; it will encourage those already looking at college, already interested in nursing, to become a nurse. I do not forsee foreign nurses jumping at this either. If a foreign nurse can come in and ease the pain of my fellow nurses who are working with unrealistic nurse/patient ratios, then I'm all for increasing the allowance for them also. If we can employ someone on unemployment, we will only help the economy. If we can recruit a kid out of high school, then we may be preventing a future welfare or unemployment recipient. Either way, we've recruited a new nurse. I know you'd like to make a killing off this shortage, and the only way for that to happen is for 1) The shortage to continue, allowing agency nursing to staff hospitals or 2)Have a mass demand for higher salary. I don't see the latter happening, wild. We weak, timid women just will never demand more money. We are just happy to be allowed to care for the sick<insert sarcasm>. Nursing will never unite and take a stand for one issue because there is no one answer.
For the limits Minnesota put on what agency nurses may be paid: I see this as helping nursing. If Minnesota CEO's can't pay agency nurses enough to bring them in, then the CEO's will be FORCED to look at the problems causing them to need agency nurses in the first place.
As for the gamble. I'd rather take a gamble toward change than to continue KNOWING there's no chance for change.
Wild, I know this legislation has the potential to hurt agency nursing, but I think for the whole of nursing it is good.
Jan 8, '02"You have been complaining about the caliber of the students you say the legislation "targets" from the minority groups"
JT, again you lie.
Do you lie about everything?Last edit by wildtime88 on Jan 8, '02
Jan 8, '02Oh yes of course. I supposedly lie in almost every discussion, according to you, so it just must be me lying again when I refer to the comments youve made regarding the ANA development of the Nurse Reinvestment Act & its passage thru both houses of Congress, now awaiting the Presidents expected signature.
Must just be me lying & not you objecting to the fact that financial help will be available to what the ANA has identified as "disadvantaged students and under-represented minority groups in the profession" (including men) - those that you have called "targets", "welfare mothers", "socially and economically challenged women", "with low self esteem and other negative personality problems they come with", "take a count of who is standing in WIC lines at the health clinic", "notice who is paying with food stamps at the grocery store", "do you really want your life to be in the hands of someone who doesnt want to be there?", etc, etc (do a search & read your own posts). Sounds like complaints to me & they imply that people receiving public assistance are undesirable as nursing students .
Even in this thread you state that these people will jump at the chance to be nurses just for the free money & not because they want to be nurses and infer that somehow they will not be good nurses of this. Its clear that you think disadvantged people are not worthy of being given assistance to afford a nursing education because they dont really want nursing, they just want free child care & college. That is a distasteful implication of their character and an assumption (again) on the caliber of nurse they would make. FYI, if they are on welfare, they can already go to nursing school (and any other school) for free & also receive free child care as well as a stipend for transportation, uniforms and supplies.
Nobody is going to go thru nursing school if they dont want to just because nursing schools grants are available. The funding in the bill is for people who arent on welfare & cant afford the education.
Everything about this legislation is a good thing.
First you want to stop fight against the legislation & complain about what you call "the targets" coming into the profession, then you complain that if we recruit now for the future, we somehow will not be able to make workplace improvements for today, then you complain about the ANA and grasp at straws to find fault with it & OPPOSE anything that will help alleviate the shortage of bedside nurses.
Why dont we call a spade a spade, be honest & just discuss the real issue for you? You dont want to see the nursing shortage disappear.