What is wrong with unionizing? - page 3
All, It would seem that a union,with its power of cohesiveness to the issues,would be the only thing that a corporation would HAVE to listen to. The contract would HAVE to be honored. Forming... Read More
Jun 23, '02l have just tried to reread this - l am sorry about the typing of the mistakes - l need to figure out he( have tried bbut always seem to lose my posts) and also how to link into nwspaper articles etc. - again sorry Brian maybe it moght be useful to have section on how to access the basics in your loists of options
Jun 23, '02At my facility we have a strong union that includes RNs, PT/OT, and RTs. The ancillary staff have a separate union. We almost striked last June (put the strike vote in and scabs were brought in a week prior to the date-part of the old hospital was set up like a hotel!!!). This facility 3yrs. ago took back pay, holidays, sicktime,etc. so as "not to close down". This contract they wanted more; however, they were able to open a new open heart center within those 3 yrs.!!! Our union worked for us and claimed some of what we gave back!!I totally believe unions are there for the good of the employee. Another example, where a friend of mine worked at another small, non-unionized hospital and a union was formed, which she felt she was betraying the hopital if she joined. She was one of 12 that did not join. They were also told by the hospital that they would be heavily compensated if they did not join. She lost a lot!! Her wage went down while others went up and much more. She felt hurt by the administration and let down.
Jun 24, '02<what l am tryng to say here is that is you are not a union member you will have to pay a fee if the union negoiates a payrise or better condtions etc if you are NOT a member >
Its a service fee since whatever the union members win with their hard work in fighting for better wages, conditions, etc will be in a contract that covers all the nurses who work there - whether they are union members or not - they will still reap the benefit of the efforts of the union members. You dont have to be a member but youre going to be working under that contract anyway & enjoying its benefits, so you have to pay a service fee to the union for obtaining & maintaining it.
The service fee which is usually just about the same amount as the members dues. Youll be paying to be covered by the contract but if you arent a member, you have no say in what goes into the contract & no vote on it. What if you dont like the contract? Well, you gave up your right to have anything to say about that when you didnt become a member - but you'll still have to pay the service fee for it.
I dont understand people who would rather pay the service fee as non-members than join, be members, pay about the same AND have a say on & a vote in what the contract that they have to live under will be.
Jun 28, '02
Jun 28, '02anbody hear that JCAHO suddenly has new staffing standards that they are going to be assessing the hospitals for? If you did, do you think JCAHO came up with that all by itself in its infinite wisdom?? Not a chance.
Last year, my union, the national RN labor union - The United American Nurses of the American Nurses Assoc - passed a resolution to "educate its members and the public about the structure of JCAHO and the role JCAHO plays in setting patient care and workplace standards", and "to bring pressure to bear on JCAHO to expeditiously and aggressively fulfill its oversight responsibilities to improve the patient care and workplace environment, especially in regard to the threats posed by unsafe and inadequate staffing"
It then went into meetings with JCAHO to do exactly that. After all of that & more meetings with nurses throughout the year discussing the issue, this year JCAHO has implemented the staffing standards.
No surprise to us. It was a goal set by our union. Now -- accountability.Last edit by -jt on Jul 2, '02
Jul 2, '02when i worked in TX and had never heard of a union i took whatever i was offered and figured it was this way everywhere. no insurance, one week vacation, no retirement, no job protection etc. now since moving to nv--a right to work state-- and having worked with union protection and benefits for almost 12 yrs i would never want to be without it. i have alot of good benefits, retirement, and they cannot punish or fire me without reason. our union is for all employees including rn, lpn, cnas, housekeeping, ancillary, resp., therapists, dietary, techs, transporters, ....well, you get the idea.
Jul 2, '02I'm glad your local is looking out for the nurses.
Would you shed some light, if you care to, about the SEIU's apparent interference with the nurse patient ratio bill in California.
From our perspective, it would appear as if the SEIU is undermining it to get representation for its "other" members.
I don't want to put you on the spot over this. I certainly don't want to argue it, but that is the way it was percieved by me and I hope that is not a trend.
I realize your in Nevada but you may know why they seem to have done that and the real reasons behind it. I just wanted firsthand knowledge instead of hearsay.
Jul 2, '02I want to state very clearly that this is not a forum with which to attack your union's apparent policy, your affiliation or you personaly.
Just information from someone other than a talking head at the union's PR dept or someone who read an article that was derogatory. It may shed a little light on the truth.
Jul 2, '02hey peeps, sorry i'm not informed enough on the union to give an answer to your question. i've always paid my dues and have only recently become involved with the actual workings of the union. shame on me. maybe someone else could answer the question?????? i'm interested too. maybe they are trying to look out for lpns and cnas???don't know!
Jul 3, '02They are trying to represent ALL their members. The RN-only unions position is that the word "nurse" in the law should mean "RN". SEIU position is that it should mean ANY licensed nurse - LPN included - thereby safeguarding jobs for those members. Its looking out for the interests of LPNs while at the same time trying to address staffing ratios for the RNs. Since they are in "partnership" with the hospital, they have to walk a fine line to give the members a little & give the employer a little & not get either side too mad at them. Difficult to do when what you want to obtain for one group of members might be negatively impacting on another group of members. It looks like in this case, the union is choosing to appease its larger group of members - and thats not the RNs. An SEIU rep made a presentation on their staffing ratio proposals last week at the United American Nurses convention in Philadelphia a few days before the ANA convention. I went to the mike & asked her to clarify the ratios in her handout:
"So youre saying that the proposed staffing ratios you have here allow for no more than 5 pts for 1 NURSE & '1 NURSE' can be an RN or LPN?"
"So if theres 2 NURSES & 10 pts, the RN is assigned 5 & the LPN is assigned 5?"
"But the RN still has responsibility for the care of all 10 pts?"
"well thats what we RNs have now & thats been unacceptable"
(in fact, she turned her head towards the other side of the room to take the next question which was along the same lines)
again, not much of an answer.......
but the roomful of unionized state assoc staff RN delegates was buzzing - not too happily either. You might get more info from the RN-only unions in the states where SEIU has hospital "partnerships" - try anyplace with a Kaiser Hospital System.