California Nurses Association says no to Arnold - page 2

incensed by the governor's comments about kicking nurse's butts, his vetoing a lifting bill to protect nurses from back injuries, and his proposed initiatives in the special election on november 6,... Read More

  1. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://www.tracypress.com/local/2005-10-19-protest.php

    Activists protest governor at Spanos’ fundraising dinner
    Nick Juliano
    Tracy Press
    STOCKTON — Government workers gathered at a billionaire’s home to protest an appearance by Gov.
    Arnold Schwarzenegger and his proposals for next month’s special election….

    … “I’m a Republican and I’m voting no,” Christine Ross said over a cacophony of car horns sounding from supporters.
    Ross, a third-grade teacher at Great Valley Elementary School in Manteca, said Proposition 75 is redundant because teachers already can choose not to have their union dues support political causes..
    ---------------------------
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGOFFFDP21.DTL

    Shriver comes to husband's defense
    But California's first lady remains silent about his special election propositions…
  2. by   scampi710
    Quote from spacenurse
    It is a special election the Governor called. It is costing us taxpayers millions. I think it is unnecessary.

    http://www.calnurse.org/?Action=Content&id=1204

    WHY NURSES SAY VOTE NO ON NOVEMBER 8th

    1. This is an illegitimate election. Gov. Schwarzenegger says he is in office to listen to the "people" back in charge of government ...quot; but he has ignored the public which has overwhelmingly opposed this election as unneeded and unwanted. Polls have repeatedly shown the special election is opposed by 60% of Californians, a number that has not improved for the governor in months (most recently in the Public Policy Institute of California poll, September 28, 2005). Not one issue is of such urgency that it could not have waited until the next regular state election in June, 2006.

    2. The election is a colossal waste of resources, a cost of at least $45 million in taxpayer funds that will hit hard pressed county and local governments especially hard, plus potentially hundreds of millions more that will be squandered on the election campaign. At a time of fiscal problems in the state, the justification for one of Schwarzenegger's proposals, Schwarzenegger says the state can afford the special election but can not afford:

    - $48 million to provide 1.2 million elderly, blind and disabled who receive federal supplemental security income with $15 monthly cost-of-living increases for three months. He confiscated the federal money.

    - $3 million he vetoed to treat low-income men for prostate cancer.

    - $20 million for materials to help children learn English.

    - $9 million for state parks staffing and maintenance. (George Skelton, Capitol Journal, Los Angeles Times, August 15, 2005)

    3. The election is cynical and represents the corruption of our political process. Due to campaign finance laws, Schwarzenegger is able to raise unlimited funding for this election that he will not be able to raise in 2006, when he is facing re-election. The other key reason Schwarzenegger and his corporate donors want a special election is the expectation that turnout will be lower, and therefore the results can be more manipulated by an expensive advertising campaign with fewer people voting.

    4. None of the issues on the ballot address the real problems faced by everyday Californians, including an escalating healthcare crisis, declining standards of living, and increased corporate influence over our political process. People are not clamoring for more giveaways to drug companies, more political advantages to corporations, more attacks on teachers, more cutbacks in public support for our schools and healthcare programs, or mid-term partisan redistricting.

    Following is a summary of the eight propositions on the November 8 ballot: (click link to read further)
    :angryfire :angryfire I am so fed up with self serving, self aggrandizing politicians who care nothing for the hard earned money, with which we the taxpayers are levied I could scream.
    Time to get rid of Schwarzzeneger and everyone else like him. Terminate the terminator and power to the people.
    We have to stick together!!!!
  3. by   RE Agent
    I say yes to Arnold. He has given millions to upgrade education for California nurses. Arnold is doing everything to make California the best place for nurses to work, and wants to stop the nursing shortage. Believe what you want. Many of you are just going on word of mouth, and don't know the truth. Every time you nurses win you shoot yourselves in the foot. I don't believe you all want things to be better for you profession.
  4. by   scampi710
    Quote from re agent
    i say yes to arnold. he has given millions to upgrade education for california nurses. arnold is doing everything to make california the best place for nurses to work, and wants to stop the nursing shortage. believe what you want. many of you are just going on word of mouth, and don't know the truth. every time you nurses win you shoot yourselves in the foot. i don't believe you all want things to be better for you profession.
    :smiley_ab are you arnold? sounds just like him....telling us "...you nurses..." what is good for us when he doesn't have a clue, other than getting re-elected and/or trying to become president.:kiss
  5. by   caroladybelle
    Quote from RE Agent
    I say yes to Arnold. He has given millions to upgrade education for California nurses. Arnold is doing everything to make California the best place for nurses to work, and wants to stop the nursing shortage. Believe what you want. Many of you are just going on word of mouth, and don't know the truth. Every time you nurses win you shoot yourselves in the foot. I don't believe you all want things to be better for you profession.
    Arnold, is that you???????

    When does the movie come out, Arnold?
  6. by   worldtraveler
    Quote from brian
    incensed by the governor's comments about kicking nurse's butts, his vetoing a lifting bill to protect nurses from back injuries, and his proposed initiatives in the special election on november 6, california nurses are fighting back.
    governor arnold schwarzenegger vetoed a lifting bill that would have protected nurses from back injuries. then, he tried to reduce the nurse-to-patient ratio nurses say is critical to patient care. now, the governor has initiatives in the upcoming election that the cna says would prevent nurses from having a say in healthcare policy. "basically, he wants to shut our mouths," said helen lee, a cna representative.

    full story: california nurses association says no to arnold [mercury-register,ca]

    i saw that in the usa paper today! seems like "ahnold" also has irratated the firefighters(in calif.) as they showed a pic of him with a fireman who refused to shake hands with them! i hope this is lesson to voters everywhere not be influenced by the fact that he/she is a sex symbol or popular movie star. i wonder how he even lives with his wife maria shriver as her family(kennedys) are such strong supporters of workers rights and better working conditions. what an odd couple!
  7. by   Sheri257
    Quote from RE Agent
    I say yes to Arnold. He has given millions to upgrade education for California nurses.
    Actually, that deal isn't as good as it sounds. The schools have to come up with $2 for every $1 Arnold has proposed giving to nursing schools, and most nursing schools don't have that kind of money.

    So ... in reality ... most nursing schools won't be getting millions from Arnold.

    And I'm not getting this information second hand but directly from the head of my nursing program who has been trying to figure out a way to raise the matching funds but can't because our program doesn't have a lot of money lying around.

    Last edit by Sheri257 on Oct 30, '05
  8. by   PMHNP10
    Quote from RE Agent
    I say yes to Arnold. Arnold is doing everything to make California the best place for nurses to work, and wants to stop the nursing shortage. Believe what you want. Many of you are just going on word of mouth, and don't know the truth.
    Quote from brian
    Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a lifting bill that would have protected nurses from back injuries. Then, he tried to reduce the nurse-to-patient ratio nurses say is critical to patient care. Now, the governor has initiatives in the upcoming election that the CNA says would prevent nurses from having a say in healthcare policy. "Basically, he wants to shut our mouths," said Helen Lee, a CNA representative.
    This is "everything to make California the best place for nurses to work"? Make a statement like this, at least back it up with something. I mean, would you really like to justify how vetoing the lift team does anything good for nursing? Not like nurses need their back to work. This has to either be a troll comment, or sarcasm gone wrong, and based upon previous posts, I gotta lean towards the sarcasm gone wrong.
  9. by   mobilsurgrn
    I'm not a troll or an Arnold fan, I am a proud democrat and I seem to be in the minority, but it's not as simple as it seems.

    Ratios seem like a good idea- but most often when the government mandates very specific guidelines, the story doesn't end right. The independent Califnornia Healthcare Association (not be confused with the biased Calif. Hosp. Association) reported earlier this year that only 30% of hospitals were able to staff to the mandated ratios, for the most part in med surg units.

    I am skeptical becuase the research used to lobby the law was done by the CNA (union) boss, Rose DeMoro's husband, Robert, who is also on the union's payroll. Those who question the validity of the research are labeled 'patient haters' and such.

    Arnold hasn't helped because, well, he is Arnold. So, the debate over whether this is best for patients and caregivers has been colored by the fight between the socialist-minded union (self-admiited) and goofy in a governor's suit. I don't think the state will ever have enough RNs to meet the demand, so in that respect this is an unfunded mandate. The referendum election is a huge waste of time, money and energy. THe CNA could have created scholarships with its ad budget and sent at least 500 people to nursing school.

    Many hospitals have stepped up their recruiting abroad and if that is our best thinking, we are destined for failure.

    Prop 74 has also been politicised ad-nauseum. The only issue in 74 is whether public worker unions can use their member's funds for political campaigns without written approval from their members. IT DOES NOT LIMIT ANYONE OR ANYTHING. IT SIMPLY REQUIRES UNIONS TO ASK MEMBERS ONCE A YEAR BEFORE CONTRIBUTING TO CANDIDATES WITH WHOM THEY MAY HAVE AN OBJECTION.

    CNA is on an all-out nationwide campaign to organize nurses, push for government intervention into healthcare policy and to gain a one-party payor system. They are very open about this. I have worked in Canada, the UK and in Scandanavia. I don't want a one payor model. I don't like what's going on here but it's much better than any other system I have seen.
  10. by   Sheri257
    Quote from mobilsurgrn
    I am skeptical because the research used to lobby the law was done by the CNA (union) boss, Rose DeMoro's husband, Robert, who is also on the union's payroll. Those who question the validity of the research are labeled 'patient haters' and such.
    I don't know where you get the idea that CNA paid for all of the research regarding ratios. This link to the California health department is a 300 page report which summarizes numerous studies, with the vast majority of it funded by sources other than CNA.

    http://www.dhs.ca.gov/lnc/pubnotice/...OnEvidence.pdf.

    As far as the validity of ratios, to me it's just common sense. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that your patients get more individual attention and better care when you have less of them to juggle. Every RN I know who used to work med surg, tele, etc. routinely had eight patients, now they have five.

    If they want to suspend ratios then they'll have to find somebody else to do the job because I simply won't take anymore patients and put my license on the line. We'll see how they'll be able to staff their facilities without ratios because I'll quit, just like many RN's did in the days before the ratios were enacted.

    Last edit by Sheri257 on Nov 1, '05
  11. by   Sheri257
    Quote from mobilsurgrn
    I am skeptical because the research used to lobby the law was done by the CNA (union) boss, Rose DeMoro's husband, Robert, who is also on the union's payroll. Those who question the validity of the research are labeled 'patient haters' and such.
    I don't know where you get the idea that CNA paid for all of the research regarding ratios. This link to the California health department is a 300 page report which summarizes numerous studies, with the vast majority of it funded by sources other than CNA.

    http://www.dhs.ca.gov/lnc/pubnotice/...OnEvidence.pdf.

    As far as the validity of ratios, to me it's just common sense. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that your patients get more individual attention and better care when you have less of them to juggle. Every RN I know who used to work med surg, tele, etc. routinely had eight patients, now they have five.

    If they want to suspend ratios then they'll have to find somebody else to do the job because I simply won't take anymore patients and put my license on the line. We'll see how they'll be able to staff their facilities without ratios because I'll quit, just like many RN's did in the days before the ratios were enacted.

    :redlight:
    Last edit by Sheri257 on Nov 1, '05
  12. by   Sheri257
    Quote from mobilsurgrn
    Prop 74 has also been politicised ad-nauseum. The only issue in 74 is whether public worker unions can use their member's funds for political campaigns without written approval from their members. IT DOES NOT LIMIT ANYONE OR ANYTHING. IT SIMPLY REQUIRES UNIONS TO ASK MEMBERS ONCE A YEAR BEFORE CONTRIBUTING TO CANDIDATES WITH WHOM THEY MAY HAVE AN OBJECTION.
    BTW, you have your propositions mixed up ... it's Prop 75 that targets union political activity ... not 74, which deals with teacher tenure.

    What I don't understand is why we don't force corporations to get their shareholders to approve all of their donations to Schwarzenegger. If we're going to start regulating political activity, let's do it for everyone and all organizations, not just unions that happen to oppose the governor.

    :redlight:
    Last edit by Sheri257 on Nov 1, '05
  13. by   MMARN
    That's what happens when we let ourselves be fooled by popularity. I bet that many of those same nurses voted for Ahhnold for governor. Don't nurses already get mistreated, disrespected, and unappreciated enough??!! He has to twist the knife. That sucks. Hope the CNA wins!!:angryfire :angryfire :angryfire

close