union vs. non union

luvRNs, BSN, MSN, RN · May 7, 2010

It does have pros and cons. The cons include:

1. good AND poor performers get treated exactly the same. Can be frustrating if you're really good at your job to watch someone who isn't.

2.difficulty getting rid of the poor performers above. This often puts an unfair burden on those who do their job.

3. organization is less responsive to change. In times of nursing shortage it can be tougher to recruit. In times of layoffs, the most senior STAY, even when they are the poor performers.

4. If you get thje wrong union in, it is EXTREMELY difficult to get them out. Have seen this in two hospitals.

That's my take. I'm sure ther are others who feel differently.

VMSR · May 7, 2010

@luvRNs

Your complaints are valid, but in reality, they do not have anything to do with the union. Union does not hire, or fire people. That is the management's job. I have worked in an union organized workplace, and this was always a complaint of the management: union will not let us fire this person. They are, of course, trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

My opinion is that the main task for the union is to negotiate good contracts. I agree that unions are often perceived as shielding bad workers, but that is the nature of their function. Besides, management will always try to emphasize union's missteps.

As far as I understand, nursing unions in California are the reason nurses over there are so well payed. Granted, not every union is going to be that good, but I think benefits mostly outweigh annoyances.

FLmomof5 · May 7, 2010

I wouldn't say that is why CA nurses are so well paid....I think it has a lot to do with cost of living!

When my brother left W. Hollywood, his ancient 2BR house was sold for $750K! That is obscene! I'd rather live where I am and have a smaller check! LOL!

Chico David, BSN, RN · May 8, 2010

It does have pros and cons. The cons include:
1. good AND poor performers get treated exactly the same. Can be frustrating if you're really good at your job to watch someone who isn't.
2.difficulty getting rid of the poor performers above. This often puts an unfair burden on those who do their job.
3. organization is less responsive to change. In times of nursing shortage it can be tougher to recruit. In times of layoffs, the most senior STAY, even when they are the poor performers.
4. If you get thje wrong union in, it is EXTREMELY difficult to get them out. Have seen this in two hospitals.
That's my take. I'm sure ther are others who feel differently.

A few thoughts:

1. This is not true - good and poor performers are both treated fairly - which does not mean exactly the same. it is true that most unions try to have step increases based on length of service rather than managers' subjective evaluations. But with or without a union, highly motivated, high performing people advance and lower performing people don't.

2. Any manager who says they can't get rid of a poorly performing nurse "because of the union" is really just saying they are too lazy to do their own job properly. A union contract gives a guarantee of due process before disciplinary action is taken. That means the following: A nurse who is not performing properly has to be informed how they are failing, told what expectations they need to meet and given a reasonable chance to improve. And all of that documented of course. If they still can't meet expectations, then appropriate action can be taken. Due process is an honered tradition in this country - would you want any less?

3. In times of shortage, it's way easier to recruit, since a union hospital has better pay and benefits. It is true that the most senior will be the last laid off. But without that protection, I think we can guarantee that the most senior (and therefore best paid) would nearly always be the first laid off.

4. I've been involved in several cases where nurses have successfully decertified one union and chosen another. One of my beefs with the labor movement though (the AFL-CIO that is) is that they try hard to prevent this from happening, which does give too much protection to unions that are doing a bad job.

Because a lot of the state nurses associations don't do collective bargaining, many nurses in those states were organized by default with non-nurse unions - Teamsters, laborers, teachers, steelworkers, service workers, etc. all represent some nurses. And do a much less effective job of it than the unions that represent nurses exclusively and are run by and for nurses. And because the AFL-CIO prohibits member unions from "raiding" each other, it is in fact hard to change.

Chico David, BSN, RN · May 8, 2010

I wouldn't say that is why CA nurses are so well paid....I think it has a lot to do with cost of living!
When my brother left W. Hollywood, his ancient 2BR house was sold for $750K! That is obscene! I'd rather live where I am and have a smaller check! LOL!

One counter point to this: up until about 2002, there was very high union density among nurses in SF Bay area, very low union density in the Los Angeles area. And even though the average cost of living was very similar - and very high - in both places, the salaries of nurses were very different, with SF area wages averaging $12-14 an hour higher than Los Angeles area wages. Not to mention other high value items like pensions and health benefits being very different. In the meantime, there has been a lot of organizing done in the LA area and the gap in compensation has closed considerably. It has not caught up with SF yet, because the union density is lower and they have been organized for less time, but it will get there in time.