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
In California the nurses' union got the ratio law passed, which benefits ALL nurses union or non-union. The union has also financed and hired lawyers in court to successfully defend the law in court multiple times.
Only 20 percent of the 300,000 RN's in this state are union, yet all non-union RN's benefit from the lower patient loads mandated by the law
So, unions don't always just represent themselves.
This is concerning since the CNA has just been voted in to take over for the Illinois nurses association here in Chicago. Everyone wants the CNA because they have made progress in CA with nurse to patient ratios. UIC and U of C are getting ready to vote out the INA and accept CNA. What else should we be concerned about with the CNA. We haven't heard bad things at all. Let me know so I can relay the message to other people and hospitals.
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 www.stopunions.com
What else should we be concerned about with the CNA. We haven't heard bad things at all. Let me know so I can relay the message to other people and hospitals.
I'd wait until the end of the month when the decertification election is actually held before I'd be "concerned." The union opponents are trying to make a big deal about this election but ... let's see if they actually have to votes. When this particular facility was first organized about one third of the RN's voted against the union. About the same number, a third, signed the decertification petition. No big difference there.
If the opponents do have the votes to throw out the union, then I'd be concerned. But if they don't have the votes then this is nothing more than the usual anti-union propaganda.
Cheerfuldoer, the unions ARE nurses working for the betterment of patients and nurses. Maybe you don't like them, but that doesn't change the fact that many nurses do and they have accomplished a LOT, especially in California where the ratios due mainly to CNA are in place for ALL nurses and patients in the state.
As for why nurses who work in a union shop have to belong to the union, I would think that would be fairly obvious: because no one in this life gets a free ride at the expense of others. You might not like the other choices you have, but you do have them.
This is concerning since the CNA has just been voted in to take over for the Illinois nurses association here in Chicago. Everyone wants the CNA because they have made progress in CA with nurse to patient ratios. UIC and U of C are getting ready to vote out the INA and accept CNA. What else should we be concerned about with the CNA. We haven't heard bad things at all. Let me know so I can relay the message to other people and hospitals.
If you want to develop a solid opinion you need to do more than just ask for hearsay from clearly biased individuals. Do your homework the old fashioned way.... research.
In California the nurses' union got the ratio law passed, which benefits ALL nurses union or non-union. The union has also financed and hired lawyers in court to successfully defend the law in court multiple times.
Only 20 percent of the 300,000 RN's in this state are union, yet all non-union RN's benefit from the lower patient loads mandated by the law
So, unions don't always just represent themselves.
Exactly. They also provide incentive to non-union hospitals to shape up. When my unionized hospital was the first in the area to increase nurse's salaries by a hefty sum after our first independently negotiated contract, all the non-union hospitals in the area had to follow suit within a few months just to keep up with the market. :thankya:
Exactly. They also provide incentive to non-union hospitals to shape up. When my unionized hospital was the first in the area to increase nurse's salaries by a hefty sum after our first independently negotiated contract, all the non-union hospitals in the area had to follow suit within a few months just to keep up with the market. :thankya:
Same in my area. Wages and benefits improved at all the non-union facilities after RN's at one facility joined CNA.
Nurses can join professional organizations that relate to their specialty. Operating room nurses have an organization, Critical-Care Nurses have the AACN.
I'm a member of Amer Assoc of Critical Care Nurses.
And as far as the supposedly great stuff that CNA has done in CA? How many billions did CNA fleece from nurses in CA before they helped to craft a law so unwieldy that all you can do is blame the Governator because it can't work?
In Texas - if a manager tries to make an unsafe assigment, by LAW, I can contest the assignment and force the hospital's peer review committee to review the decision. AND, just the act of requesting such a review at the time of the incident legally shifts responsibility for accepting an unsafe assignment from the nurse to the facility. When you basically say to management: "This is assignment is so unsafe that if you don't change it, you will be liable" - well management has to listen to that (and always have, every time I've seen it used). Look at the Texas BNE's (Bd of Nurse Examiners) 'Safe Harbor' rules.
My critical care ratio is almost always 2:1. Is it ever 3:1? Occasionally, not often. But we always start 2:1 and the unit is big enough that IF somebody has to pick up 3:1, then we can pick who has the lowest acuity and balance the load. This is why the California Law is too unwieldy to be effective: If you can't make exceptions for intrashift activity in the ratios, then how do you ever expect the rules to work?
But keep blaming the Governor because your union's great claim to fame, your ratio law, is a red herring.
And here in Texas, my salary has gone up 25% in the last 3 yrs, and I haven't had to share it with a union.
I can see no benefit from being in a union and way too many disadvantages.
I can see advantages to a collective voice, like AACN. BUT. There is a huge difference between somebody that speaks for me as a profession and somebody that wants to be my 'paycheck buddy'. No thanks, there.
All these things your union claims to have brought you: If you want the same things without extortion thugs on the deduction line of your payroll, then come to Texas.
California was the first to have the ratio of 2 or fewer patients per nurse at all times in critical care and neonatal ICY in 1976.
The law signed in 1999 placed restrictions on unlicensed assistive personnel working under the clinical supervision of a registered nurse.
We now have minimum ratios for every unit, so in med-surg, for example RNs had previously been assigned to as many as twenty four patients. It was so called because of a sick call or the flu season.
Many nurses quit.
Now with a maximum of five patients nurses are returning. From the time the law was signed until the most recent posting by the BRN we have more than forty-nine thousand more registered nurses with an active California license.
Since getting myself educated by CNA I no longer have to take three patients while in charge and be the one to take an in-house code.
I applaud Timothy for advocating for safe patient care using state laws.
That is what we are doing too. We are doing it collectively by the thousands.
I know in my hospitals telemetry unit the safe staffing ratio law has saved lives.
Specializes in Cardiac Critical Care, Trauma, Neuro..
I'm a member of Amer Assoc of Critical Care Nurses.
And as far as the supposedly great stuff that CNA has done in CA? How many billions did CNA fleece from nurses in CA before they helped to craft a law so unwieldy that all you can do is blame the Governator because it can't work?
In Texas - if a manager tries to make an unsafe assigment, by LAW, I can contest the assignment and force the hospital's peer review committee to review the decision. AND, just the act of requesting such a review at the time of the incident legally shifts responsibility for accepting an unsafe assignment from the nurse to the facility. When you basically say to management: "This is assignment is so unsafe that if you don't change it, you will be liable" - well management has to listen to that (and always have, every time I've seen it used). Look at the Texas BNE's (Bd of Nurse Examiners) 'Safe Harbor' rules.
My critical care ratio is almost always 2:1. Is it ever 3:1? Occasionally, not often. But we always start 2:1 and the unit is big enough that IF somebody has to pick up 3:1, then we can pick who has the lowest acuity and balance the load. This is why the California Law is too unwieldy to be effective: If you can't make exceptions for intrashift activity in the ratios, then how do you ever expect the rules to work?
But keep blaming the Governor because your union's great claim to fame, your ratio law, is a red herring.
And here in Texas, my salary has gone up 25% in the last 3 yrs, and I haven't had to share it with a union.
I can see no benefit from being in a union and way too many disadvantages.
I can see advantages to a collective voice, like AACN. BUT. There is a huge difference between somebody that speaks for me as a profession and somebody that wants to be my 'paycheck buddy'. No thanks, there.
All these things your union claims to have brought you: If you want the same things without extortion thugs on the deduction line of your payroll, then come to Texas.
~faith,
Timothy.
Another great point. There are already systems in place to highlight unsafe assignments, angry physicians and unsafe conditions. The problem I am seeing is that nurses are not using them. As Timothy points out, if you feel your assignment is unsafe, put the liability on the charge nurse, the nurse manager and the hospital by bringing it to there attention verbally and in writing. Many nurses are afraid to "rock the boat" but the bottom line is if you are right and you present your points in a professional manner, a positive result will occur.
The unions will tell you that they can provide this "service" for you at a premium price. Why pay for something that is free! Learn the rules and processes, learn to put together the right words. Enlist the help of coworkers. We are in this together.
Nurses accomplish miracles big and small for our patients everyday. It is time we do it for ourselves as well.
In Texas - if a manager tries to make an unsafe assigment, by LAW, I can contest the assignment and force the hospital's peer review committee to review the decision. AND, just the act of requesting such a review at the time of the incident legally shifts responsibility for accepting an unsafe assignment from the nurse to the facility. When you basically say to management: "This is assignment is so unsafe that if you don't change it, you will be liable" - well management has to listen to that (and always have, every time I've seen it used). Look at the Texas BNE's (Bd of Nurse Examiners) 'Safe Harbor' rules.
Ok ... I did. And I'm not sure why this is better than the ratio law. According to the BNE, you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to do what you've described.
"The length of this form is a result of the number of individuals necessarily involved in the process set out by the statute. The format is intended to encourage open discussion of potential problems at the time and place where they arise. If such discussions are ineffective, this form should be used by the nurse to initiate peer review. It is to be delivered, in sequence, to:
(1) the nurse supervisor or administrator who made the assignment or gave the directive in question;
(2) the nurse administrator;
(3) the peer review committee;
(4) the physician who reviews the medical reasonableness of any physician's order (if applicable);
(5) the nurse administrator who reviews the peer review findings or acts in response to them; and, finally to
(6) the nurse who initiated the request."
Seems like this could take a long time. What happens to the patients in the meantime? What good is there in identifying a dangerous assignment after the fact? A patient could die between the time it takes to fill out the form, notifying everyone involved, getting the peer review committee review it etc. Seems like that time would be better spent taking care of the patients.
The ratio law, at least, prevents this kind of situation from happening in the first place.
Is there a definition in Texas law regarding what constitutes unsafe staffing?
In any state other than California?
I know we cannot trust our hospital management. Their union, The California Healthcare Association (CHA) proposed a ratio of one RN and one LVN for twenty patients in telemetry, oncology, and medical/surgical units.
Their proposal for behavioral/mental health inpatient units was one RN to 24 patients assisted by either an LVN or psychiatric technician.
Sheri257
3,905 Posts
In California the nurses' union got the ratio law passed, which benefits ALL nurses union or non-union. The union has also financed and hired lawyers in court to successfully defend the law in court multiple times.
Only 20 percent of the 300,000 RN's in this state are union, yet all non-union RN's benefit from the lower patient loads mandated by the law
So, unions don't always just represent themselves.