CNA's Union-Busting in Ohio-An Open Letter

[HobbesRN]

Didn't we agree to

* Don't use this venue to trash CNA/NNOC

* Don't use this venue to insult, demean or belittle CNA/NNOC members

* Check facts before posting anything that has anything to do with CNA/NNOC.

So, CNA/NNOC isn't accountable for it's actions as an organization? That's not playing fair in open forum? But, SEIU is fair game?

This is supposed to be an open forum, but apparently only if it's forum for CNA/NNOC recruiting?

It's obvious that you don't want to face the reality of CNA's 'end justifies the means' 'no holds barred' philosophy. SEIU is not trying to recruit you or change your loyalties. As a Ohio CHP employee, we wanted to grow our SEIU membership among our fellow employees to enhance our bargaining position, much like CNA members try to do in California. The fact, reality, whatever, is that CNA disrupted that election process.

This thread was an open forum for that discussion--sorry if we stayed on track.

[HobbesRN]

Thank you for summing up what happened.

That election would have gone forward if it weren't for CNA's union busting.....

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

This is confusing.

Didn't the employer call off the election?

Why didn't the union work for the workers so they could have their election?

[kat nurse advocate]

Because the hospital chain requested the NLRB election of SEIU to represent it's employees. The hospital chain's reasoning has to do with the fact SEIU functions in "partnership" with the hospital chain, to promote profit. The correct name for this type of union representation is called "a company union". This type of union provides bargaining for wages and benefits (the management's). For service you may call a centralized complaint hot line, like the power company has. You will not need to worry about grievences, as SEIU partnership protects the management from grievences. Hope that answered your question.

[kat nurse advocate]

Previous message sent in response to question......."why were no employee cards signed?"

This is absolutely false, and utterly disingenuous. CNA continues to trash other unions with no regard for the truth. More disturbing, is the way the CNA uses the fear of sexual violence to unnerve workers who are considering joining the union, as part of their anti-union campaigns.

https://allnurses.com/forums/f323/cna-s-union-busting-ohio-open-letter-288194-13.html#post2738429

It occurs to me that CNA's communications folks are much like Karl Rove. The similarities don't end with the willingness to use the politics of fear (even the fear of rape) to win a short term victory against working-class people. As a more general tactic, CNA employs the Bush administration tactic of saying things that are outright false, and that a great many people know to be untrue - but just repeating the lies over and again until folks without first hand knowledge just don't know what to think...

Eventually that tactic catches up with a person. It'll catch up with the California Nurses Association too.

[HobbesRN]

Because the hospital chain requested the NLRB election of SEIU to represent it's employees. The hospital chain's reasoning has to do with the fact SEIU functions in "partnership" with the hospital chain, to promote profit. The correct name for this type of union representation is called "a company union". This type of union provides bargaining for wages and benefits (the management's). For service you may call a centralized complaint hot line, like the power company has. You will not need to worry about grievences, as SEIU partnership protects the management from grievences. Hope that answered your question.

You are SO misinformed....Can you quote some sources for those statements? I'm very curious...

That election was the culmination of 10 years of SEIU work to organize CHP employees. SEIU demanded that CHP recognize them as the bargaining agent for their employees. Rather than do that and because they are anti-union, CHP petitioned the NLRB to hold an election. There was to be no campaigning, card signing or intimidation--a free and fair election that is totally legal under labor law guidelines. CNA/NNOC disrupted that process by making it ugly.

You can read more about it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-hanson/just-work-united-_b_93779.html

A little research before you speculate on answers to questions, please?

[Miss Mab]

More disturbing, is the way the CNA uses the fear of sexual violence to unnerve workers who are considering joining the union, as part of their anti-union campaigns.

https://allnurses.com/forums/f323/cna-s-union-busting-ohio-open-letter-288194-13.html#post2738429

It occurs to me that CNA's communications folks are much like Karl Rove. The similarities don't end with the willingness to use the politics of fear (even the fear of rape) to win a short term victory against working-class people. .

Wow.

Again, my personal feelings notwithstanding, though do be assured this exercise has given me newfound respect for what I financially support through CNA union dues each month, I have to tell you after thoroughly reading all sides of this issue and applying a keen and initially impartial eye, I am highly concerned for the nurses of Ohio and for your now obvious lack of respect for them both as (predominantly)women and as professionals.

It seemed sketchy enough that SEIU pulled the election simply based on CNA involvement, practically broadcasting the idea that the RN's themselves were not to be trusted to make an independent decision but instead needed someone to "protect' them from their own flighty choices.

To now suggest that these intelligent RN's would somehow misinterpret forceful bargaining language instead as intimating sexual violence, including the threat of rape, greatly strains any possibility you still had at maintaining a semblance of respect for these workers you claim to support. From where is the mindset that leads one to believe this frankly insulting tactic could succeed?

Your now misogynistic cry is clear---"save them from themselves. save them from themselves." Why would any self respecting professional nurse in Ohio ever choose to allign with a faction that so plainly views them as weak and, apparently, feeble minded as well.

Geez, have the election already. Maybe I misjudge them as well. Somehow, though, I seriously doubt it....

You are misinterpreting what I sad; I would ask you to read the original post. The language the CNA used had an incredible violent undertone, and I just don't have any other explanation for it:

Let's take a look at a piece of their lit: https://allnurses.com/forums/f167/att...-s-287639.html

It's neither educational nor informative. It's jam-packed with innumerable lies and a VOTE NO message is repeated five times. But far more insidious is the tone. Look at the words that are used:

• illegal back room deal
  
• to silence RNs
  
• to force RNs
  
• to Force You
  
• to deny RNs a choice

In other literature they would say:

• gagging
  
• to deny you a choice
  
• determining among themselves the destiny of a workforce that is primarily women
  
• the chauvinism and arrogance of their behavior
  
• sleazy, back room deal
  
• to Force You
  

The reader will have to judge for herself. My own belief is that CNA sought to bring to mind the fear of sexual violence. They then repeated Vote "No" over and over.

CNA's language of sexual violence was reiterated and reinforced with mailed flyers, a phone banking operation, picketing & leafletting, sneaking into the hospitals, and every other alley CNA could find to communicate. They even used this website.

Miss Mab says:

To now suggest that these intelligent

RN

's would somehow misinterpret forceful bargaining language instead as intimating sexual violence (...)

Thee language the CNA used was not "forceful bargaining language".

The California Nurses Association employed shockingly violent language, indicating that the union was doing something "sleazy" and "illegal" in a "back room" to "gag" RNs and "Force" RNs to do something they would not "choose" to do.

If that's not the language of sexual violence I don't know what is.

Of course, the accusation, that I or anyone else would be a misogynist for pointing out the language used in CNA's anti-union drive - that's not only absurd (and against the policies of this website, evidently), it's also a red herring. We ought to talk about this language that CNA used. What's with the word "sleazy"? Why "gag" and "force"? Why call us "arrogant chauvinists"? If there's a real argument on the other side of this, don't call me names. Make your case.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

Sorry to see this thread going so far off tangent by Organize1199 a SEIU members remarks.

It is this type of rhetoric that only serves to divide us.