Calif RN disagrees with CNA in many ways. Am I alone?

[Sheri257]

Surely you've heard my union story? The guys dressed up in suits like mafia-dons with big diamond rings on . . . . coming to a rural hospital in the mountains where folks wear Wranglers with Copenhagen circles on the back pocket?

Too funny. :)

steph

Oh yeah ... there are some real union thugs out there. I'm sure even CNA has a few ...

Although, just because hospital administrators tend to dress better, doesn't mean they don't have a little mafioso in them too.

[fergus51]

If California voters aren't offended then, I don't see why anyone else would have a problem, considering what CNA has accomplished.

I think it comes down to image for many people. Many people see unions as beneath them. They think that nursing is a profession and shouldn't form unions like plumbers and cops.

Steph, I have trouble believing people who claim they *69ed and got the CNA office, yet the phone records prove that to be untrue.

[Jenny99]

The California Nurses Association has a bad reputation and is getting much, much worse as the days go on. Their "teamster like tactics" are getting on the outragous side and if they continue on this track, I think the might find themselves on the short end of the stick pretty quick here.

CNA really has alot to learn in the legislative arena in California. Putting their "tigers foot forward" all the time is not benefical in the long run. You all watch and see.

Jenny99

[Nancy2]

I'm not trying to claim, by any means, that all CNA members are saints. I'm sure there are some who behave badly. Just as hospital administrators behave badly. When CNA organized a hospital in my area, the administrators did some really bad things, just as, I'm sure the union has done.

So yeah ... I think we can agree to meet in the middle on this one.

Humans can behave badly and nobody on either side is exempt from that.

I was just pointing out that, in this particular case, there wasn't any hard evidence. The board essentially said that the rumors about the phone calls may have tipped the balance in a very close election.

So, are you saying that sworn testimony by RNs working in that hospital is not what you would call "hard evidence". If you gave sworn testimony against your administration, would you want it to be considered "hard evidence" and then if that testimony was coroborated by 19 other RNs, what would you call that?

[pickledpepperRN]

ANYONE could have made the calls.

An ex, the "consultants", the other union involved, management, disgruntled subordinate, anyone.

Every time I am able to provide safe, effective, therapeutic, patient care. Each time i have the time to help patients and families understand what is going on, lend a listening ear, ensure no one dies alone on my watch I am glad for the CNA and our safe staffing ratios. The governor flaunted the law for the sake of his big money donors.

What did it take for women to get the vote?

[Sheri257]

So, are you saying that sworn testimony by RNs working in that hospital is not what you would call "hard evidence". If you gave sworn testimony against your administration, would you want it to be considered "hard evidence" and then if that testimony was coroborated by 19 other RNs, what would you call that?

Of course that's not "hard evidence." Just like it's not hard evidence when you claim you performed nursing care but didn't document it. Rule number one in nursing: If it's not documented, it doesn't exist in the eyes of the law. Same situation here.

19 RNs didn't receive the calls. I'd have to look at the record again but, if memory serves, there were only two, maybe three people who received the alleged calls.

What's the number one rule with legal issues in nursing? Document, document, document.

These RN's not only didn't document or record these calls. They couldn't even remember when the calls took place. They couldn't even remember which month the calls occurred, and changed their stories on which months they received these alleged calls.

That's also why the Labor Board records still state that these calls were "anonymous" because neither the source nor the dates in which these alleged calls occurred were proven.

[Sheri257]

I'd also like to add that I really don't have a problem with a new election being called in this case. The vote was so close that it's probably a good idea to call a new election since CNA didn't have a clear mandate.

Do I think some CNA members got out of hand? Probably.

Do I think the anti-union people exaggerated what happened to overturn the election?

Sure.

That's politics, and both sides are probably guilty, so to speak.

[Nancy2]

I'd also like to add that I really don't have a problem with a new election being called in this case. The vote was so close that it's probably a good idea to call a new election since CNA didn't have a clear mandate.

Do I think some CNA members got out of hand? Probably.

Do I think the anti-union people exaggerated what happened to overturn the election?

Sure.

That's politics, and both sides are probably guilty, so to speak.

I agree with you. A new election would have been great, but CNA withdrew the petition. Were they afraid they'd lose?

It seems like everytime they fear a loss, they just run away instead of "having a loss on their record". Then they told the nurses at Cedars that they were only postponing the vote and that they would not have to start at square one with card signing. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE NLRB SAYS

In order to file a new petition for an election, CNA would have to gather support from at least 30% of the RNs that work there, thus signature gathering, ie;card signing. Why would the organizers lie?

[Sheri257]

I agree with you. A new election would have been great, but CNA withdrew the petition. Were they afraid they'd lose?

It seems like everytime they fear a loss, they just run away instead of "having a loss on their record".

Or, maybe they simply had bigger fish to fry, like the Governator.

Since the vote was so close, and you've now got a Labor Board that's anti-union, it simply might be better to cut your losses and put your money and resources into other battles ...

Like defending the ratio law.

[Nancy2]

Or, maybe they simply had bigger fish to fry, like the Governator.

Since the vote was so close, and you've now got a Labor Board that's anti-union, it simply might be better to cut your losses and put your money and resources into other battles ...

Like defending the ratio law.

Maybe.... but it is a pattern. Monterey Park, St Joseph in Arizona, and a few others in the last couple of years that I can't recall right off. Sometimes they just miscalculate and lose anyway like at Western Medical Center Santa Ana. They lost that dispite the "peace accord"!!!

By the way, all Labor Board employees are UNION. They are government employees, it's amazing that management ever gets a ruling in their favor. Regardless of who is president. (And by the way I am NOT a manager.)

[Sheri257]

By the way, all Labor Board employees are UNION. They are government employees, it's amazing that management ever gets a ruling in their favor. Regardless of who is president. (And by the way I am NOT a manager.)

Are you saying that members of the National Relations Labor Board belong to a union, just because they're government employees?

I don't think so. The National Labor Relations Board is appointed by the President to serve five year terms. They're political appointees and, thanks to Bush, the board is now run by Republicans.

Not all government employees are union. And I've never heard of political appointees who serve in executive positions as being union.

[Nancy2]

Are you saying that members of the National Relations Labor Board belong to a union, just because they're government employees?

I don't think so. The National Labor Relations Board is appointed by the President to serve five year terms. They're political appointees and, thanks to Bush, the board is now run by Republicans.

Not all government employees are union. And I've never heard of political appointees who serve in executive positions as being union.

No! Not The Board members, the employees who work for the board. The board agents that review unfair labor practice charges, the agents that hold the elections and count the votes. The people who review objections to elections. Not the Washington DC board, they are the only people appointed by the President, and only two of the 5 were appointed by Bush.

Thank you for an opportunity to clear up that confusion.