ANA Loses Another Member

Stray-
You're not alone in your confusion about the issue. The structure of the ANA and state nursing associations (as professional and labor organizations) confuses many- nurses, employers and unionists included.

To try to understand it, a look at the history is helpful.
Try a document called "As Seat at the Table" at http://www.uannurse.org/who/historyB...50%20years.pdf

Here's my take- Many of the early nursing activists (as well as current ones) had ties to labor movement. At the outset of forming the ANA, nurses recognized that stature as a profession could not be attained without economic security, but were not sure if the proper approach was unionization.

One turning point was at the 1946 ANA convention. Trade unionists were waiting outside of the convention hall to sign up nurses into traditional unions. It was at this meeting that ANA passed an economic security resolution that included collective bargaining. ANA became certified as a labor union in 1949 and so began the establishment of unions within the state nurses association structure.

The unions of ANA were different than the traditional unions (for example they adopted a no strike clause) and many, including myself, believe that ANA only became a union to keep nurses out of traditional unions- not because the concept of unionism was something that was strongly embraced.

The controversy continues today and in a large part, is responsible for the events of late. Some nurses want to be in traditional unions, some desire a "multipurpose" professional association that includes collective bargaining, and some do not think nurses belong in unions at all. The point is, each state wants to make their own choices.

Since the publication of this story, ANA has issued a response. See:
http://www.nursingworld.org/Function...tementMNA.aspx

In effect, ANA is holding the state associations hostage- claiming none of them can leave unless two-thirds of the state's entire memebership vote to leave ANA. No one gets 2/3 of their membership to even particpate in a vote and ANA knows it. Shame on them! Their statement that their "relevance to the nursing profession remains unquestionable" is unconscionable.

In the late 90's, ANA began to look into an affiliation with the AFL-CIO because their state nurses associations were being raided by other unions (which was causing ANA to lose members). See, most of their membership was obtained by the state nurses associations organizing into their unions which mandated membership in ANA. Joining the AFL would mean raid protection for the states which in turn protected ANA.

The state nurses associations that did not have unions, did not want to be a part of the AFL. So a separate entity was created within the ANA- the national nurses union of the United American Nurses (UAN). States that had unions could join the UAN and the UAN, not ANA, affiliated with the AFL in 2001.

ANA seemed happy enough with this relationship by in 2001- "The ANA expresses its congratulations to the UAN and its appreciation to the AFL-CIO for recognizing the significant contribution that the UAN makes to nurses who choose collective bargaining," stated ANA President Mary E. Foley, MS, RN. "We look forward to our new partnership so we can advance issues of patient safety and advocacy. It's an historic step that is good for nurses, patients and quality health care."

As of July of this year, the ANA and UAN are no longer affiliated with eachother- neither organization seemed interested in continuing the relationship.

As a union nurse member of a state nurses association I find myself "trapped" through mandated membership in ANA. They do not support the staffing legislation that I support and my dues ($150/yr) is being used to sue another states nurses' union who just wants out of ANA. The only thing ANA seems to like about nurses in unions is the dues they generate for ANA.

I think the article was referring to PNA leaving ANA in 1993.

By the time of the split in 1998, there were few union members left in PNA- most had been lost to raids, right? I'm sure the raids were a big financial drain on the organization.

The pattern has been that after a state leaves ANA, another constituent nurses organization (with a slightly different name) is organized (or reorganized) minus the union component. Massachusetts, California and Pennsylvania all have them. And I don't think that's a bad thing- nurses can seek the best fit for themselves.

But, the current tactics employed by ANA to avoid losing more members are deplorable, IMO. They only divide us farther.

PLEASE ANA- LET UNION NURSES GO WHEN THEY WANT TO!!
You really don't want us anyway. I'm sure you can figure out a way to carry on without our dues $$.