Decertification Petition Filed Against the California Nurses Association

Nurses Activism

Published

Nurses at Scripps Encinitas Hospital in San Diego County California have filed a petition to Decertify the California Nurses Association.

The California Nurses Association have made several unsuccessful attempts to strike at the hospital and have failed to garner enough support among staff nurses.

A copy of the petition is available from the National Labor Relations Board or download the petition now at http://www.stopunions.com

Specializes in Cardiac Critical Care, Trauma, Neuro..

I just learned from the NLRB that Nurses from St Vincent Medical Center in Los Angeles has filed a petition to decertify the California Nurses Association.

Specializes in Cardiac Critical Care, Trauma, Neuro..
I wish we did not need a union, however it is the less of two evils from my perspective.

Why do you believe that?

Criticize CNA all you want, but they, and they alone, got the ratio law passed.

Criticize CNA all you want, but they, and they alone, got the ratio law passed.

Oh yes........and they and they alone have very unreasonable expectations for implementing it "at all times" ..................

without exception...........totally unrealistic in the real world. The concept may be valid and the rationale totally great and for the right reasons...but

Where oh where are the busloads of nurses the CNA envisioned coming to our hospitals with happy nurses ready to care for a smaller number of patients? Come on.......where are they? And where are they when we have sick calls and nurses on vacation and family emergency leave...Where's that bus load of nurses then?

So rave on all you want.........the truth is........it's not realistic "at all times" and it puts patients in jeapordy who are waiting in ER waiting rooms to be seen. Many times, once seen and the need to admit is determined, they wait longer when there are no beds available due to staffing needs "upstairs." And what do we tell the patients in the waiting rooms and the paramedics lined up with stretchers filled with hurting, anxious patients..........Do we just say take a number.............it will be awhile...or do we say.....Go home. We can't take anymore. We all have our quota. You have to wait until someone goes home? I think I'll just start handing them the pone number of the CNA so they can give them a call and tell them how pleased they are with the longer waits.

Give me a break.............Whoever thinks and believes that nursing will always be exactly according to "the book" and "by the numbers" needs to really think about why they became a nurse in the first place. Nursing is NOT for sissies. It's real life problems in real life time and real life situations where the numbers don't always match up and you have to do the best you can when the s... hits the fan. The patients who come to us in need deserve the very best and yes, having fewer patients is the ideal.............but SOMETIMES things have to be more flexible than you would like.

I would respectfully point out that two California hospitals are currently in the process of pending decertification votes. Scripps Encinitas and St. Vincents. These nurses have had a change of heart and the fact that the CNA takes credit for the ratio law doesn't seem to stop these nurses from wanting to vote them OUT. So you see, many of us.........and I do mean many.......want to be seen as professionals and not the way the CNA has has been acting in public over the past year. They need to wake up and realize that nursing is about more than ratios.................it is about professionalism, integrity, respect, commitment, passion, skill, caring, concern, belief in something greater than yourself.............Nursing is truly a calling and right now we are seeing what happens when you disrespect that calling.

Nursing is for nurses..........not for union organizers who are not nurses.

Not for labor leaders who are not nurses. Not for politicians who can be bought with union dues.

:nurse:

Nursing is NOT for sissies. It's real life problems in real life time and real life situations where the numbers don't always match up and you have to do the best you can when the s... hits the fan. The patients who come to us in need deserve the very best and yes, having fewer patients is the ideal.............but SOMETIMES things have to be more flexible than you would like.

So if you go back to the days where people were assigned 8-10 patients or more (I personally know of cases where nurses had to juggle 18 patients), how does that help the patients? As JAMA pointed out in a landmark study, patient mortality increases 7 percent with each additional patient. How do the patients get "the very best" when mortality risk is increased at least 20 percent and, in many cases, much more than that?

And for those nurses who quit because they didn't want to risk their license with those kind of patient loads (where you are held liable since understaffing is not a justifiable defense under the law) does that make those nurses "sissies"? Do you really think the nursing shortage will end and patient care will improve if ratios become so "flexible" that they disappear all together? Heavy patient loads is a major reason that's been cited for the nursing shortage in many studies.

I agree that supply is a problem, but Schwarzenegger is not helping. His proposal to give nursing schools $90 million to produce more nurses is bogus because it's actually only $30 million and, even that isn't available to most nursing schools because they have to raise $2 for every $1 of state funds to get that money (hence Schwarzenegger's phantom $90 million figure). Most nursing schools can't come up with double the amount of matching funds so, the entire proposal is a meaningless gesture to look like he's helping with the shortage when, in fact, he is not.

As you may know, every school in the state has long lists of people waiting to become nurses. The supply is there, but the governor isn't really doing anything to actually increase enrollments and alleviate the shortage.

As far as the emergency rooms, ratios aren't the root of the problem, illegals are. Even the California Hospital Association has admitted that illegals are the major reason for the closures, not ratios. Besides, it's doubtful that many nurses would stick around if you suspended ratios in emergency rooms. They quit before and would, more than likely, quit again with heavy patient loads. I don't see how that would solve the problem.

Oh yes........and they and they alone have very unreasonable expectations for implementing it "at all times" ..................

without exception...........totally unrealistic in the real world.

Actually, there is some flexibility and exceptions, as evidenced by this DHS advisory on the ratio law. For instance, p. 6 talks about how flexibility for meal breaks may be requested with local district offices.

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/lnc/pubnotice/NTPR/R-37-01_FAQ2182004.pdf

:coollook:

I'd wait and see how the vote turns out before I'd jump to that conclusion. This is just a request for an election.

:rolleyes:

Well now there are 2 decerts going on in the same area. Interesting... Doesn't sound like everyone is as happy with CNA as some people are.

Both the nurses at Scripps Encinitas and now St Vincents are so unhappy that they are trying to vote them out!

I wish them the BEST! Which is obviously NOT CNA.

It does take a petition with the signatures of at least 30% of the bargaining unit for the NLRB to grant an election. Most people will collect more that is needed to add some cushion.

True. But they obviously didn't collect signatures from 50 percent of the nurses. If a majority was unhappy and had signed these petitions, you could have thrown out the union all together and wouldn't need to bother with an election at all.

Obviously the union opponents don't have a majority of votes ... at least not yet.

Thirty percent is not indicative of a groundswell of opposition. We obviously need to see what happens with these elections.

:coollook:

Specializes in Cardiac Critical Care, Trauma, Neuro..
True. But they obviously didn't collect signatures from 50 percent of the nurses. If a majority was unhappy and had signed these petitions, you could have thrown out the union all together and wouldn't need to bother with an election at all.

Obviously the union opponents don't have a majority of votes ... at least not yet.

Thirty percent is not indicative of a groundswell of opposition. We obviously need to see what happens with these elections.

:coollook:

If the CNA were aware of the "opposition" they would take every opportunity to make up unfounded "blocking charges" in an attempt to preempt or delay the inevitable. Harrasment of this sort is common among union supporters. Those opposed to the union must be careful about who they approach for a signature lest they tip off the union. You as a union member are well aware of this.

If the CNA were aware of the "opposition" they would take every opportunity to make up unfounded "blocking charges" in an attempt to preempt or delay the inevitable. Harrasment of this sort is common among union supporters. Those opposed to the union must be careful about who they approach for a signature lest they tip off the union. You as a union member are well aware of this.

This doesn't make any sense. The union is going to be tipped off no matter what ... be it petition or election. If you're gathering signatures why not go for the 50 percent and an immediate victory, bypassing the election all together? Why give CNA the opportunity to regroup if you already have the votes? Unless, of course, you don't have the votes, which is pretty obvious at this point.

With Scripps, CNA was voted in with 63 percent of the vote, and there was 91 percent turnout in that election. Even if you assume that CNA's support has waned since then, the opponents' inability to get signatures from 50 percent of the RN's demonstrates they still have some work to do before they get a majority.

Thirty seven percent of RN's voted against CNA in the original election, and thirty percent signed the decertification petition. No big difference there really. At this point, the opposition numbers are pretty much the same.

I'm not saying that the opponents won't win. Maybe they'll eventually get enough votes to prevail. But the petition itself is not much of an indicator until the actual elections are held.

:coollook:

This doesn't make any sense. The union is going to be tipped off no matter what ... be it petition or election. If you're gathering signatures why not go for the 50 percent and an immediate victory, bypassing the election all together? Why give CNA the opportunity to regroup if you already have the votes? Unless, of course, you don't have the votes, which is pretty obvious at this point.

With Scripps, CNA was voted in with 63 percent of the vote, and there was 91 percent turnout in that election. Even if you assume that CNA's support has waned since then, the opponents' inability to get signatures from 50 percent of the RN's demonstrates they still have some work to do before they get a majority.

Thirty seven percent of RN's voted against CNA in the original election, and thirty percent signed the decertification peitition. No big difference there really. At this point, the opposition numbers are pretty much the same.

I'm not saying that the opponents won't win. Maybe they'll eventually get enough votes to prevail. But the petition itself is not much of an indicator until the actual elections are held.

:coollook:

That is not entirely true. If the RNs gathering signatures obtain 50 percent or more the Administration would have the option of "withdrawing recognition" or having an NLRB decertification election. It is not a given that the signatures of 50 percent automatically bypasses the NLRB process. Just as having a Union gather signatures of more than 50 percent does not automatically bypass the process unless it is a public facility in California. The state of California regognizes card check elections thanks to Gray Davis.

The RNs may want an election to bypass any slander of the signatures not being valid etc.. that the unions usually sling. No one except the NLRB knows how many signatures were gathered. All we know is that it was at leaste 30%.

But you are right, the election will determine the answer to these questions soon enough. Scripps is scheduled for July 27 and 28.

Specializes in Cardiac Critical Care, Trauma, Neuro..
That is not entirely true. If the RNs gathering signatures obtain 50 percent or more the Administration would have the option of "withdrawing recognition" or having an NLRB decertification election. It is not a given that the signatures of 50 percent automatically bypasses the NLRB process. Just as having a Union gather signatures of more than 50 percent does not automatically bypass the process unless it is a public facility in California. The state of California regognizes card check elections thanks to Gray Davis.

The RNs may want an election to bypass any slander of the signatures not being valid etc.. that the unions usually sling. No one except the NLRB knows how many signatures were gathered. All we know is that it was at leaste 30%.

But you are right, the election will determine the answer to these questions soon enough. Scripps is scheduled for July 27 and 28.

Thanks for the clarification and the good points Nancy! It is hard to keep up sometimes.

So many nurses are becoming fed up with the way the CNA/NNOC is portraying us, I hope we can see many more threads such as these. It is such a great time to be a nurse!

That is not entirely true. If the RNs gathering signatures obtain 50 percent or more the Administration would have the option of "withdrawing recognition" or having an NLRB decertification election. It is not a given that the signatures of 50 percent automatically bypasses the NLRB process ...

Why Not? According to this anti-union website:

http://www.nrtw.org/d/decert.htm

"If 50% or more of the employees in a bargaining unit sign a petition that they no longer want to be represented by the union, the employer can withdraw recognition without an election if it wishes to do so."

If 50 percent of signatures are in the can, why would the employer go with an election since they could withdraw recognition already. Why provide any opportunity to change the outcome with an election?

The RNs may want an election to bypass any slander of the signatures not being valid etc..

Why would the opponents care what CNA would say or do since any protests would probably have to go to the NLRB, which is now anti-union and would, more than likely, rule against CNA anyway since they've ruled against CNA in other recent cases. The only logical explanation is that they don't actually have the 50 percent, at least at this point.

No one except the NLRB knows how many signatures were gathered. All we know is that it was at least 30%.

Huh ????? How could the opponents not know how many signatures they gathered? This doesn't make any sense either. Where are you guys getting this info because none of it is making any sense whatsoever ...

Oh well. If the election is held later this month, I guess we'll find out for sure then.

:coollook:

+ Add a Comment