California Nurses Association and SEIU Neutrality Agreement ruled Illegal by the NLRB

[Sheri257]

"The often unreasonable wage and benefit packages the unions have demanded are one of the reasons our economy is having problems. Pension plans going bankrupt, companies unable to compete in the U.S. because of high wage and benefit packages negotiated years earlier."

Yeah ... this statement is even more bizarre when you consider this ...

http://www.stopunions.com/the_math.htm

First, this anti-union site still finds a net salary benefit with CNA's contract versus no union. Why that's such a bad thing is beyond me. Unions are supposed to get pay raises, and they're admitting better pay raises with CNA than without the union.

Why that makes CNA such a horrible organization is beyond me. I guess these people think pay raises for nurses are bad? I guess they actually like making less money?

Then, they say it's a small net benefit of $1447 a year, even after union dues. Ok. So ... if, in fact, the increase is small, how does that bankrupt the company?

Either way, the whole thing boggles the mind ...

Yep. CNA is really bad for getting those pay raises.

[Sheri257]

Tenet "caved" and agreed to these conditions because of all the media and political pressure the unions were instigating. It's amazing that Tenet has not been in the paper nearly as much after the "peace accord" as they were prior to the agreement. It makes tons of sense to me. They wanted to be able to conduct their business and buy and sell hospitals, the unions were making it hard for them to do that, so they signed.....

That doesn't make any sense. Tenet has always gotten a ton of bad press for numerous things and it never stopped them from doing anything in their best interest .... including multiple incidents of Medicaid and Medicare fraud, which has been going on, literally, for years despite numerous bad headlines.

And you're saying Tenet was suddenly worried about bad headlines from CNA? I seriously doubt that. Tenet always cared about money, period, no matter how much bad press they got.

The union agreement actually would have made it harder to sell the hospital. It's pretty obvious that it was undesirable since the new owners have made every effort to get rid of it.

And yes, I know an RN filed the original complaint but every hospital, as well as the unions, have their people file these things. But, if you notice from the company memo, the NRLB was communicating with the hospital on this. The memo doesn't mention communication with the RN who originally filed the complaint because, obviously, this was for the benefit of the hospital.

Tenet may have signed because they wanted to avoid more costly strikes and disputes with CNA, but to say they went out of their way to willingly and illegally help the union get into the facility is ridiculous.

[Sherwood]

Yeah ... this statement is even more bizarre when you consider this ...

http://www.stopunions.com/the_math.htm

First, this anti-union site still finds a net salary benefit with CNA's contract versus no union. Why that's such a bad thing is beyond me. Unions are supposed to get pay raises, and they're admitting better pay raises with CNA than without the union.

Why that makes CNA such a horrible organization is beyond me. I guess these people think pay raises for nurses are bad? I guess they actually like making less money?

Then, they say it's a small net benefit of $1447 a year, even after union dues. Ok. So ... if, in fact, the increase is small, how does that bankrupt the company?

Either way, the whole thing boggles the mind ...

Yep. CNA is really bad for getting those pay raises.

Let me be clear. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! It is also about ethics, politics and methods. It is about believing that nurses as individuals have the strength, the power, the voice and the ability to make a difference without unionizing. It is about fully educating yourself on all the facts.

The California Nurses Association is the NNOC, they are one and the same at least for now. The CNA/NNOC is a big business.They NEED money to grow. The CNA/NNOC supports a politcal party and political ideas that many do not agree with. Do you support the Labor Party platform? Do you believe that Ralph Nader should have ever been the President of the United States? Do you think that our economy can support the socialistic idealisms of this party.

I am looking at the big picture here. Not a selfish and myopic view of my own backyard. I work and have worked with a great bunch of Nurses. Strong, Smart, Outspoken and Dedicated. When I am out in the nursing community teaching, speaking or just networking It convinces me even more that we do not need to unionize. We need to encourage and support our young and new nurses and we need not to feed into the us versus them mentality that the union thrives on.

I do not and did not support anything that Tenet did. I am not in nursing management and never have been. I am a bedside nurse who believes in the power nurses hold in themselves much more than any union does.

[Sheri257]

It is about believing that nurses as individuals have the strength, the power, the voice and the ability to make a difference without unionizing.

What difference have nurses made without unionizing? Not much. Despite numerous attempts in other states, nobody has passed a ratio law except CNA.

And, by your own account, you didn't even get a better pay raise on your own compared with what CNA delivered.

Who cares what political party they support? The ratio law and CNA sponsored pay raises have made a huge difference in the daily lives of working nurses. And the ratio law improves working conditions even for non-union RN's.

What on earth is so horrible about that? I guess you think no ratio law and less pay is better ...

Sorry, but that's absurd.

[Sherwood]

What difference have nurses made without unionizing? Not much. Despite numerous attempts in other states, nobody has passed a ratio law except CNA.

And, by your own account, you didn't even get a better pay raise on your own compared with what CNA delivered.

Who cares what political party they support? The ratio law and CNA sponsored pay raises have made a huge difference in the daily lives of working nurses. And the ratio law improves working conditions even for non-union RN's.

What on earth is so horrible about that? I guess you think no ratio law and less pay is better ...

Sorry, but that's absurd.

Wow, I cannot believe you don't believe non-union nurses don't make a difference. We make a difference everyday. How selfish of you.

If you read my other posts. You will note that I do believe that ratios do improve patient care and working conditions for the nurse. I do not believe that the strict "at all times" policy insisted upon by the CNA is reasonable. I do not believe that the union security clause insisted upon by the unions is reasonable either. I believe in your right to choose, I do not believe that your choices should be forced upon me. If you want to give the CNA money go right ahead. If you want Ralph Nader to be the next president then stick a sign in your front yard right now.

I know the Nurses who filed the suits that lead to the decision made by the NLRB. I filed similar suits myself. At my hospital I lead the campaign to keep the CNA out and I have guided the other professionals in there efforts to keep the SEIU out. We do make a difference.

NLRB rules that the Neutrality Agreement between the CNA, SEIU and Tenet Healthcare was and is Illegal.

Sherwood

[Sheri257]

Wow, I cannot believe you don't believe non-union nurses don't make a difference. We make a difference everyday. How selfish of you.

That's a cheap shot and totally out of context. What I actually said was ....

"What difference have nurses made without unionizing? Not much. Despite numerous attempts in other states, nobody has passed a ratio law except CNA."

My point was that ratio law is the most significant nursing reform in recent history. Where have nurses accomplished the same on their own? In states with little or no effective union representation nurses are still struggling with heavy patient loads. You read about it on this board every day.

What have anti-union opponents really accomplished on behalf nurses? By your own account, you don't even save money on union dues because the better CNA sponsored pay raise would have covered that and then some (with an extra $1,447 per year on top of that).

Have anti-union RN's passed a ratio law that benefits all nurses? No. Have they defended the ratio law multiple times in court? No. Did they get a lift team bill through the legislature? No. The list goes on and on on what CNA has accomplished for nurses that nobody else has.

Other than constantly griping about union dues, which they don't want to pay, what have anti-union RN's accomplished as a group that even comes close to the ratio law? Not much. All they do is criticize and say the ratio law is good but it needs to be more "flexible."

As far as the "at all times" policy I can understand why that's necessary. You start making exceptions and it becomes a loophole that the hospitals can drive a truck through. It basically renders the ratios, and the law, meaningless.

As far as the freedom of choice argument, I can buy into that. But, as you are fond of pointing out, that's the law. If you don't like it, change it. I wouldn't be opposed to that either. But, until then, it doesn't mean that everything that unions do is bad either. Nothing's perfect.

You seem to be hung up on Nadar and the Labor Party but I'm not sure why you're so worried about it. Especially since the Republicans are in power. So CNA is left wing ... big deal. They got you a better pay raise and the ratio law. That's what counts.

[Sherwood]

Sounds like you are antiunion? The NLRB does not favor employees, especially not now. For me, being pronurse means being prounion. I really see this as an attack on our ability to be proactive collectively. The CNA and the SEIU are both fine organizations, I hope someday to belong to one of them. There is power in numbers, that is why all the hospitals belong to AHA. A CNA/SEIU link would be awesome! I think it is time to question the labor laws in this land. Quick, before our whole economy and health care system collapses! I'd encourage nurses to fight for better laws and representation rather than fight the people trying to help us.

The NLRB is not supposed to be pro or anti union or employee. They act according to labor law. When the original neutrality agreement between the SEIU and Tenet Healthcare was formed, The California Nurses Association was in an uproar! Crying foul in the press and on their website. The CNA stated that private agreements between employers and a union was illegal and unfair. The CNA was right. A spokesperson for the CNA even went as far as saying that the courts would eventually agree.

When the CNA got together with the SEIU saying we will let you have all non-RN's, you get the rest and then presented their own neutrality agreement to Tenet under threat of major picketing, disruption of boardroom meetings and the like. Tenet Health was already flooded with bad press and rightfully so. Tenets billing practices were wrong. Under this threat Tenet Corporate made the unwise decision to go along with this blackmail. Basically they opened there doors and left their employees unprotected. More mistakes were made at the local level because many managers did not know basic labor law. Some managers unknowingly violated employees rights during this period fueling the fire. The CNA stopped crying foul. They had their own illegal backdoor deal and all was right in their corner of the world.

Angry employees decided to stand up for their individual rights to speak out against the unions in a public forum since the neutrality agreements limited the rights of anti-union employees to speak out against the union in their own workplace. We took to the internet, creating websites such as http://www.stopunions.com and http://www.losgatosrocks. We received assistance from http://www.onevoice-ourvoice.com. Cedar-Sinai had their CNA vote overturned after an investigation proved threats of physical violence against anti-union employees.

The unions however were given meeting rooms, allowed into employee breakrooms and allowed to serve food and drinks to attract people to come and listen. The unions went as far as serving food based on the staffs enthicity, to further sweet talk the employees.

In the end the CNA was correct, the neutrality agreement was illegal and they will have to refund dues illegal seized from employees paychecks.

[Trublunurse]

Well, I had surgery this past week and although I do have several things I'd like to add I think I'd better wait till I'm not so doped up on painkillers before I try to articulate. I do think there have been some very sincere posts on this thread from both sides of the issue. Hope that this thread continues at least till I'm recooperated.

[Sherwood]

from the google queen...

"nlrb + nurses + tenet neutrality agreement with seiu and cna"

these articles are helpful in understanding neutrality agreement issues:

from nrskarenrn 05-25-2005

sherwood replies:

i am glad i read the entire post.

now if everyone did as you asked above and scrolled down 2/3 of the page, they would miss the first paragraph of your post."neutrality agreements pose significant labor law issues. in their various forms they may seek silence, cooperation, partnership and waiver of significant employer and employee rights. under such agreements, employees, caught in the middle, may not make informed decisions on unionism. because employees possess a right under section 7 of the national labor relations act (nlra or act) to refrain from union activity, an employer who formally agrees not to convey the downside of unionization to its employees could, arguably, be interfering with its employees' full exercise of their rights. further, a neutrality agreement, under some circumstances, could be deemed prohibited "unlawful assistance" to a union in violation of section 8(a)(2) of the nlra, since an employer who is construed to be soliciting employees to vote for a union could violate that proscription. another issue arises when the agreement is extended to newly-created or subsequently purchased facilities, and employees at those locations are deprived of the opportunity to exercise their own choice.

now i ask you, how many people know their rights under the labor laws? we had this entire mess thrown in our faces. very few take the time and effort to research the issues and present our findings to our fellow employees.

because of the neutrality agreement i had to make my case on the walkway leading to the entrance of the hospital, unit breakrooms, the cafeteria and the hallways away from patients and visitors. the union organizers who were not employees were given all this and meeting rooms reserved for them on all shifts. plus the pro union employees had the same access i had of course. i was not allowed to book a meeting room and i was given a copy of the policy and procedure manual stating that they were enforcing the rule that employees were only allowed in the facility when they were working, taking a class, attending a meeting or other work related business. interpretation? the union is allowed in anytime, i as an employee was out!

i also found out that many times organizers representing the cna or seiu were not nurses or professionals. just people hired to convince people to join the union.

[Sherwood]

Well, I had surgery this past week and although I do have several things I'd like to add I think I'd better wait till I'm not so doped up on painkillers before I try to articulate. I do think there have been some very sincere posts on this thread from both sides of the issue. Hope that this thread continues at least till I'm recooperated.

I am sure we will be here. My wishes to you for a speedy and pain free recovery.

Sherwood

[Nancy2]

That doesn't make any sense. Tenet has always gotten a ton of bad press for numerous things and it never stopped them from doing anything in their best interest .... including multiple incidents of Medicaid and Medicare fraud, which has been going on, literally, for years despite numerous bad headlines.

And you're saying Tenet was suddenly worried about bad headlines from CNA? I seriously doubt that. Tenet always cared about money, period, no matter how much bad press they got.

The union agreement actually would have made it harder to sell the hospital. It's pretty obvious that it was undesirable since the new owners have made every effort to get rid of it.

And yes, I know an RN filed the original complaint but every hospital, as well as the unions, have their people file these things. But, if you notice from the company memo, the NRLB was communicating with the hospital on this. The memo doesn't mention communication with the RN who originally filed the complaint because, obviously, this was for the benefit of the hospital.

Tenet may have signed because they wanted to avoid more costly strikes and disputes with CNA, but to say they went out of their way to willingly and illegally help the union get into the facility is ridiculous.

The NLRB says that signing the neutrality agreement, and the terms of said agreement are the "unlawful assistance". The NLRB always communicates with both the person filing the claim and the employer and the union. They all are kept abreast of the devleopments. It may all be rediculous to you, but to some of us it's very serious. :stone

[wjf00]

To the antiunion voices here, I offer my congratulations. You got the union out, you won. I trust you won't be complaining about ratios, layoffs, managers pay, lapses in patient care and corporate greed. After all, you will simply march into the CEO's office on your own, and make thing right for you and your patients. No doubt the powers that be in your institution will do the right thing at your urging.